Orwell Award Announcement SusanOhanian.Org Home


Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through Third Grade

Susan Notes:

First, I posted this in Outrage of the Day. Then I moved it to Research because it is critical for teachers to know the research and figure out which of it counts for her students. The authors of this "IES Practice Guide" admit that there is "minimal evidence" for two of the five strategies for reading comprehension that they recommend but nonetheless insist on the importance of these strategies:

  • Guide students through focused, high-quality discussion on the meaning of text.

  • Select texts purposefully to support comprehension development.


  • The authors insist that Teachers should select texts that are compelling enough to spark a discussion. You will see lots of emphasis on discussing those books that "support comprehension development." I wrote a section in my book on building vocabulary on the importance of riddle books.

    Funny thing: My goal was for my third graders, students grouped together as the worst readers in that grade, to choose their own books. And we struggled mightily to reach that goal. Lots of tears--theirs and mine. First of all, those kids had spent years doing phonics worksheets and looking at phony phonics "stories." But they'd never read a book. Not one. Once they did become readers, some books swept through the group: Everybody wanted to read Beatrix Potter, Amelia Bedelia, Rotten Ralph, and Nate the Great, to mention a few. But Jenny was the only child who read Wind in the Willows. Nobody but Dougie zeroed in on Encyclopedia Brown, and nobody loved Jack Prelutsky as much as Chris (who wrote Prelutsky 20 fan letters--and got a reply).

    We never had in-depth discussions about the books. . . because the kids were always busy choosing another book to read.

    I saw the goal of reading as more reading, not talking about reading. I leave text deconstruction to English majors. Maybe I shouldn't admit this but I don't think the word "setting" ever passed my lips.

    On the standardized test at the end of the year, those third grade readers made phenomenal gains in reading comprehension, shooting above grade level. They also made impressive gains in spelling (even though their actual spelling remained lousy) and grammar (even though I did not teach grammar). They remained below grade level in phonetic analysis.

    What? I didn't teach grammar?!! Call the certification police. We were too busy writing. I exchanged daily notes with the children, the single best pedagogical principle I ever put into practice. They also wrote short daily "connections" to a story we read together. So they had the experience of "writing like" Jack Prelutsky or Jack Gantos or Arnold Lobel. I typed up these connections every day and the homework was always "Read this aloud to an adult." Parents gave this homework RAVE REVIEWS. . . to the degree that the custodian told me the father of one boy read one very very funny homework of the kids' collected writings aloud at the local bar, saying he hadn't realized his son could be so clever.

    With all due respect to these US Department of Education functionaries, when Dad reads his kid's homework aloud at the local bar, you know you're doing something right.

    The children's homework response to Rita Golden Gelman's More Spaghetti I Say won a Scholastic Grand Prize for involving parents. Our prize was 100 books and Scholastic wanted me to order a package deal. I said, "No way! Send me half a dozen catalogs. We are going to choose these books one at a time." I told the children to choose 2 books each for themselves and 60 for the classroom library. No book critic or U. S. Department of Education researcher-for-hire could have made such carefully reasoned and appropriate selections.

    Arne Duncan, put that in your anaphoric relationship and sit on it.

    I will acknowledge that this U. S. Department of Education publication contains some ideas a teacher might want to consider, but I find the overall thrust troubling. For your information, I provide the bibliography of the works cited.

    Think about who's in the bibliography.

    Think about who's missing.

    Ask yourself why there are so many unpublished works here. Of what use are unavailable citations to a teacher? Is the US Department of Education planning to make copies of unpublished dissertations?

    To help you think about what's going on here, I've put in a few hot links--with the reminder that those who don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it. And as these hot links show, we are already repeating Reading First, both literally and figuratively.

    Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through Third Grade

    IES Practice Guide


    This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences under Contract ED-07-CO-0062 by the What Works Clearinghouse, which is operated by Mathematica Policy Research.

    This contract is listed as MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH, INC.
    6/28/2007--6/30/2012
    $43,694,844.00
    IES
    What Works Clearninghouse Competition (Note the interesting typo: Clearing/Cleaning/Learning: Take your pick)

    Mathematica Pollicy Research, Inc current projects include:
  • New Approaches to Teacher Certification: American Board for Certification of Teacher Excellence [Look at their board of directors)

  • Evaluating the Effectiveness of Charter School Management Organizations


  • The Effects of Charter School Laws and Programs on Student Outcomes: A Study Across Multiple States

  • A National Study of Early Elementary Math Curricula


  • And lots lots more.

    Here's one of special interest to the subject at hand:
    National Study of the Effectiveness of Reading Comprehension Interventions

    This five-year, scientifically based study focuses on four reading comprehension curricula aimed at fifth graders. Mathematica's subcontractors for the study include RMC Research Corporation, RG Research Group, the Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at the University of Texas at Austin, and the University of Utah. The research team collected data through classroom observations, teacher surveys, and school records abstraction, as well as by administering standardized tests to students. Data analyses address critical questions on the effectiveness of reading comprehension curricula. Ultimately, the study findings could substantially influence reading instruction policy and practice.


    This Disclaimer is fascinating. Arne is trying to cover his a**, trying to avoid Reading First illegalities, which is hyper-hypocritical when you look at the people involved.

    Disclaimer
    The opinions and positions expressed in this practice guide are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the opinions and positions of the Institute of Education Sciences or the U.S. Department of Education. This practice guide should be reviewed and applied according to the specific needs of the educators and education agency using it, and with full realization that it represents the judgments of the review panel regarding what constitutes sensible practice, based on the research that was available at the time of publication. This practice guide should be used as a tool to assist in decision making rather than as a "cookbook." Any references within the document to specific education products are illustrative and do not imply endorsement of these products to the exclusion of other products that are not referenced.
    U.S. Department of Education
    Arne Duncan
    Secretary

    The citation should be: Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade:
    A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
    Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.


    September 2010
    Panel

    Timothy Shanahan
    (Chair)
    University of Illinois at Chicago

    Does he really think kids shouldn't read?
  • Exchange between Shanahan and concerned teacher

  • New ERIC steering committee and content experts

  • author of Macmillan/Mcgraw-Hill reading program
    (Prof. Cynthia Shanahan of UIC is involved in a 2010 $19,256,585 grant to the University of Illinois at Chicago, Reading for Understanding Across Grades 6 through 12: Evidence-Based Argumentation for Disciplinary Learning)

  • http://www.shanahanonliteracy.com
  • Literacy First.com



  • Kim Callison, Anne Arundel County Public Schools

    Christine Carriere, Chicago Public Schools

    Nell K. Duke, Michigan State University

    P. David Pearson, University of California--Berkeley

  • McGraw-Hill webinar series

  • Power Point on Common Core

  • Common Core Validation Committee

  • Christopher Schatschneider, the Florida State University and Florida Center for Reading Research (Listed among "key personnel" for a 2010 $20,000,000 grant to Florida State University, Examining Effective Intervention Targets, Longitudinal Intensity, and Scaling Factors for Pre-K to 5th Grade Student Comprehension

    Joseph Torgesen, the Florida State University and Florida Center for Reading Research

  • Orange spends millions on disputed phonics tool

  • Targeting Kindergartners

  • Reading First Power Point



  • Bibliography

    American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education.(1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association Publications.

    American Psychological Association. (2002) Criteria for practice guideline development and evaluation. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1048--1051.

    Baumann, J. F. (1986). Teaching third grade students to comprehend anaphoric relationships: The application of a direct instruction model. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(1), 70--90.

    Baumann, J. F., & Bergeron, B. S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's literature: Effects on first graders' comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(4), 407--437.

    Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with Questioning the Author: A fresh and expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic, Inc.

    Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects on comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(4), 462--481.

    Bitter, C., O'Day, J., Gubbins, P., & Socias, M. (2009). What works to improve student literacy achievement? An examination of instructional practices in a balanced literacy approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 17--44.

    Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. White Plains, NY: Longman.

    Bramlett, R. K. (1994). Implementing cooperative learning: A field study evaluating issues for school-based consultants. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 67--84.

    Brennan, A. D. H. (1982). Children's story recall as an effect of structural variation of text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

    Brown, R., & Coy-Ogan, L. (1993). The evolution of transactional strategies instruction in one teacher's classroom. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 221--233.

    Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1995). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with previously low-achieving, second-grade readers (Reading Research Report no. 33). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.

    Butler, T. W. (2007). Vocabulary and comprehension with students in primary grades: A comparison of instructional strategies. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(6), 3783.

    Center, Y., Freeman, L., Robertson, G., & Outhred, L. (1999). The effect of visual imagery training on the reading and listening comprehension of low listening comprehenders in Year 2. Journal of Research in Reading, 22(3),
    241--256.

    Cervetti, G. M., Pearson, P. D., & Jaynes, C. (2001). Discourse conventions: Helping students learn to talk about text. Unpublished paper, University of California--Berkeley.

    Clark, A-M., Anderson, R. C., Kuo, L., Kim, I., Archodidou, A., & Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 181--198.

    Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence,autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology, 23, 43--77.

    Dandeles, D. J. (1996). A comparative investigation of reciprocal teaching and teacher directed strategies designed to enhance social skills. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(12), 4702.

    Davis, Z. T. (1994). Effects of prereading story mapping on elementary readers' comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87(6), 353--360.

    Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts in first grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202--224.

    Duke, N. K., Martineau, J. A., Frank, K. A., & Bennett-Armistead, V. S. (2009). The impact of including more informational text in first grade classrooms. Unpublished.

    Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205--242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Eldredge, J. L. (1990). Increasing the performance of poor readers in the third
    grade with a group-assisted strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84(2), 69--77.

    Ezell, H. K., Kohler, F. W., Jarzynka, M., & Strain, P. S. (1992). Use of peer assisted procedures to teach QAR reading comprehension strategies to third-grade children. Education and Treatment of Children, 15(3), 205--227.

    Finn, J. D. (1989). Withdrawing from school. Review of Educational Research, 59, 117--142.

    Finn, J. D. (1993). School engagement & students at risk. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

    Finn, J., Pannozzo, G., & Voelkl, K. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn behavior and achievement among fourth graders. Elementary School Journal, 95, 421--454.

    Fizzano, W. J., Jr. (2000). The impact of story drama on the reading comprehension, oral language complexity, and the attitudes of third graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(11), 3908.

    Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 343--366.

    Guthrie, J. T., & McCann, A. D. (1998). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (2nd ed., pp. 128--148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., et al. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403--423.

    Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M.,
    Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa,
    P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232--245.

    Halladay, J. L. (2008). Difficult texts and the students who choose them: The role of text difficulty in second graders' text choices and independent reading experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

    Hambrick, D. Z., & Engle, R. W. (2002). Effects of domain knowledge, working memory capacity, and age on cognitive performance: An investigation of the knowledge-is-power hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology, 44(4),339--387.

    Hansen, J. (1981). The effects of inference training and practice on young children's reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(3), 391--417.

    Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Hoffman, J. V., Sailors, M., Duffy, G. R., & Beretvas, S. N. (2004). The effective elementary classroom literacy environment: Examining the validity of the TEX-IN3 observation system. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(3), 303--334.

    Januik, D. M., & Shanahan, T. (1988). Applying adult literacy practices in primary grade instruction. The Reading Teacher, 41(9),880--886.

    Jones, M. P. (1987). Effects of the reciprocal teaching method on third graders' decoding and comprehension abilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.

    Kamberelis, G. (1999). Genre development and learning: Children writing stories, science reports, and poems. Research in the Teaching of English, 33, 403--460.

    Keehn, S. (2003). The effect of instruction and practice through Readers Theatre on young readers' oral reading fluency. Reading Research and Instruction, 42(4), 40--61.

    Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition through Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 738--747.

    Knapp, J. L. (2006). Increasing reading comprehension using the Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) strategy. Unpublished master's thesis, Graceland University, Cedar Rapids, IA.

    Langer, J. A. (1984). Children's sense of genre: A study of performance on parallel reading and writing tasks (Report No. NIE-G-820025). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.

    Linnenbrink, L. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and learning in the classroom. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 119--137.

    Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K., Clancy Menchetti, J., Santi, K., Nicholas, K., Robinson, C., et al. (2003). A comparison of teacher-directed versus peer-assisted instruction to struggling first-grade readers. The Elementary School Journal, 103(5), 459--479.

    McGee, A., & Johnson, H. (2003). The effect of inference training on skilled and less skilled comprehenders. Educational Psychology, 23(1), 49--59.

    McIntyre, E. (2007). Story discussion in the
    primary grades: Balancing authenticity and
    explicit teaching. The Reading Teacher,
    60(7), 610--620.

    McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., &
    Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71(4), 445--463.

    Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B.
    (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized
    and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom
    and in civic life. Studies in Philosophy
    and Education, 27(4), 283--297.

    Morgan, A., Wilcox, B. R., & Eldredge, J. L.
    (2000). Effect of difficulty levels on
    second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 113--119.

    Morrow, L. M. (1984). Reading stories to young children: Effects of story structure and traditional questioning strategies on comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16(4), 273--288.

    Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories:
    A strategy for improving young children's
    comprehension, concept of story structure, and oral language complexity. The Elementary School
    Journal, 85(5), 646--661.

    Morrow, L. M. (1996). Motivating reading
    and writing in diverse classrooms: Social and physical contexts in a literature-based program (NCTE Research Report no. 28). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

    Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., & Smith, J. K.
    (1995). The effect of a literature-based
    program integrated into literacy and science instruction on achievement, use, and attitudes toward literacy and science (Reading Research Report no. 37). College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center.

    Morrow, L. M., Rand, M. K., & Young, J. (1997).
    Differences between social and literacy
    behaviors of first, second, and third graders
    in social cooperative literacy settings.
    New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.

    National Assessment Governing Board. (2008).
    Reading framework for the 2009 National
    Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington,
    DC: U.S. Department of Education.

    National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel: A scientific synthesis of early literacy development and implications for intervention. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.

    National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching
    children to read: An evidence-based assessment
    of the scientific research literature
    on reading and its implications for reading
    instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
    Washington, DC: National Institute of Child
    Health and Human Development.

    Newmann, F. M., Wehlage, G. G., & Lamborn,
    S. D. (1992). The significance and sources
    of student engagement. In F. M. Newmann
    (Ed.), Student engagement and achievement
    in American secondary schools (pp. 11--39).
    New York: Teachers College Press.

    Palincsar, A. S. (1986). Reciprocal teaching.
    In A. S. Palincsar, D. S. Ogle, B. F. Jones, &
    E. G. Carr (Eds.), Teaching reading as thinking.
    Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional
    Educational Laboratory.

    Paris, A. H., & Paris, S. G. (2007). Teaching narrative comprehension strategies to first graders. Cognition and Instruction, 25(1), 1--44.
    Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y.
    (1984). Informed strategies for learning: A program to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(6), 1239 --1252.

    Park, Y. (2008). Patterns in and predictors of
    elementary students' reading performance:
    Evidence from the data of the Progress in
    International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS).
    Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
    State University, East Lansing.

    Pearson, P. D., & Camparell, K. (1981). Comprehension of text structures. In J. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching (4th ed., pp. 27--54). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension (Technical Report no. 297). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In M. J. Snowling & C. Hulme (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227--247). Oxford: Blackwell.

    Pressley, M., Burkell, J., Cariglia-Bull, T., Lysynchuk, L., McGoldrick, J. A., Shneider, B., et al. (1990). Cognitive strategy instruction that really improves children's academic performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

    Pressley, M., Dolezal, S. E., Raphael, L. M.,
    Mohan, L., Roehrig, A. D., & Bogner, K.
    (2003). Motivating primary-grade students.
    New York: Guilford Press.

    Reutzel, D. R., Hollingsworth, P. M., & Eldredge,J. L. (1994). Oral reading instruction: The impact on student reading development. Reading Research Quarterly, 29(1), 40--62.

    Reutzel, D. R., Smith, J. A., & Fawson, P. C.
    (2005). An evaluation of two approaches for teaching reading comprehension strategies in the primary years using science information texts. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
    20, 276--305.

    Reznitskaya, A., Anderson, R. C., McNurlen,
    B., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., Archodidou, A., &
    Kim, S. (2001). Influence of oral discussion
    on written argument. Discourse Processes,
    32(2--3), 155--175.

    Rosenblatt, M. L. (2004). Examining the efficacy of combined reading interventions: A group application of skill-based and performance-based interventions. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(06A), 120--2140.

    Sarasti, I. A. (2007). The effects of reciprocal teaching comprehension monitoring
    strategy on 3rd grade students' reading comprehension. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.

    Schneider, W., Körkel, J., & Weiner, F. E. (1989). Domain-specific knowledge and memory
    performance: A comparison of high- and
    low-aptitude children. Journal of Educational
    Psychology, 81(3), 306--312.

    Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement
    across the school year. Journal of Educational
    Psychology, 85, 571--581.

    Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning:
    Theory, research, & practice. Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994).Individual differences in achievement goals among young
    children. Child Development, 65, 1723--1743.

    Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding:
    Toward an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

    Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.).
    (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
    young children. Washington, DC: National
    Academies Press.

    Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995a).
    Effects of a cooperative learning approach in reading and writing on academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Elementary School Journal, 95(3), 241--262.

    Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995b).
    The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students' achievement, attitudes and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321--351.

    Sticht, T. G., Beck, L. J., Hauke, R. N., Kleiman, G. M., & James, J. H. (1974). Auding and reading: A developmental model. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization.
    Swan, E. A. (2003). Concept-Oriented Reading
    Instruction: Engaging classrooms, lifelong
    learners. New York: Guilford Press.

    Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools an accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary- grade reading instruction in low income schools. Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121--166.

    Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3--28.

    Tompkins, G. E. (2009). 50 literacy strategies: Step by step (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

    Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410--441.

    Vaughn, S., Chard, D. J., Bryant, D. P., Coleman, M., Tyler, B. J., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2000). Fluency and comprehension
    interventions for third-grade students. Remedial and Special Education, 21(6), 325--335.

    Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. S. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3--32.

    Wiencek, J., & O'Flahavan, J. F. (1994). From teacher-led to peer discussions about literature: Suggestions for making the shift. Language Arts, 71(7), 488--498.

    Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., DeSisto, L. A., & DeCani, J. S. (2005). Expository text comprehension in the primary grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538--550.

    Williams, J. P., Nubla-Kung, A. M., Pollini, S., Stafford, K. B., Garcia, A., & Snyder, A. E. (2007). Teaching cause-effect text structure through social studies content to at-risk second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(2), 111--120.

    Williams, J. P., Staggord, K. B., Lauer, K. D., Hall, K. M., & Pollini, S. (2009). Embedding reading comprehension training in content area instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(1), 1-20.

    Williamson, R. A. W. (1989). The effect of reciprocal teaching on student performance gains in third-grade basal reading instruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 50(10A), 81--3147.

    Wolf, M. K., Crosson, A. C., & Resnick, L. B. (2006). Accountable talk in reading comprehension instruction (CSE Technical Report 670). University of California--Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

    — U. S. Department of Education
    Teacher Practice Guide
    2011-09-01
    http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf


    INDEX OF RESEARCH THAT COUNTS


    FAIR USE NOTICE
    This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.