UsinganEviHO_Lewis
ISSUES
&ANSWERS
At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro
R E L 20 07– N o. 0 03
Evidence-Based
Decisionmaking:
Assessing
Reading Across
The Curriculum
Inter ventions
U.S.
D e p a r t m e n t
o f
E d u c a t i o n
ISSUES
&
ANSWERS
R E L 2 0 0 7– N o . 0 0 3
At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro
Evidence-Based Decisionmaking:
Assessing Reading Across the
Curriculum Interventions
June 2007
Karla Lewis
Wendy McColskey
Kim Anderson
Treana Bowling
Kathleen Dufford-Melendez
Lucy Wynn
Prepared by SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro
U.S.
D e p a r t m e n t
o f
E d u c a t i o n
WA
ME
ND
MT
VT
MN
OR
ID
NH
WI
SD
WY
PA
IA
NE
NV
UT
CA
AZ
IL
CO
OH
IN
WV
KS
MO
OK
NM
TX
VA
KY
NC
TN
AR
SC
MS
AK
NY
MI
AL
GA
LA
At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro
FL
Issues & Answers is an ongoing series of reports from short-term Fast Response Projects conducted by the regional educational laboratories on current education issues of importance at local, state, and regional levels. Fast Response Project topics
change to reflect new issues, as identified through lab outreach and requests for assistance from policymakers and educators at state and local levels and from communities, businesses, parents, families, and youth. All Issues & Answers reports
meet Institute of Education Sciences standards for scientifically valid research.
June 2007
This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) under Contract ED-06-CO-0028 by Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast administered by SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The content
of the publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does
mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, it should be cited as:
Lewis, K., McColskey, W., Anderson, K., Bowling, T., Dufford-Melendez, K., and Wynn, L. (2007). Evidence-based decision­
making: assessing reading across the curriculum interventions (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 003). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
This report is available on the regional educational laboratory web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
iii
Summary
Evidence-Based Decisionmaking:
Assessing Reading Across the
Curriculum Interventions
When selecting reading across the curriculum interventions, educators should
consider the extent of the evidence base
on intervention effectiveness and the
fit with the school or district context,
whether they are purchasing a product
from vendors or developing it internally.
This report provides guidance in the
decision­making.
Many states, districts, schools, and educational support organizations have identified
improving adolescent literacy outcomes as a
pressing need. For example, the Georgia Department of Education incorporated Reading
Across the Curriculum Standards as part of its
2004 revisions to state performance standards.
These new standards represented a significant
challenge for content-area teachers. Georgia,
among other states, was interested in information on the kinds of professional development
interventions available to support teachers’
efforts to integrate these new expectations
about reading in the content areas into their
teaching. This report looks at what reading
across the curriculum interventions states and
districts might consider in their plans to improve reading outcomes at the secondary level.
Seven interventions were identified for review: ReadAbout, Reading in the Content
Areas, Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), CReating Independence through
Student-owned Strategies (CRISS), Reading
Apprenticeship, Literacy First, and Strategic
Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC). While not an exhaustive list
of the professional development interventions
available, these seven represent the types of
external support that schools might access. Of
the seven interventions, only Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction has had several quasi-experimental studies and an experimental study
conducted on its effectiveness. In addition, four
­interventions—ReadAbout, CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies,
Reading Apprenticeship, and Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum—are
currently the focus of federally funded studies
that will examine the interventions’ effectiveness through experimental studies.
A primary purpose of this report is to compare
these interventions in a way that is helpful to
decision­makers. One important dimension of
comparison is the extent of evidence of intervention effectiveness.
iv Summary
In addition, the report offers the following practical guidance to decisionmaking teams tasked
with finding ways to support content-area teachers in improving reading across the curriculum:
3. Consider structuring a comprehensive
planning process that goes beyond
selecting a professional development
intervention.
1. Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of
the changes desired and the local context.
Following a thoughtful evidence-based
decisionmaking process should enhance the
likelihood that a district or school reading
across the curriculum initiative will achieve
the desired outcomes.
2. Think about the selection of a professional
development intervention as part of an
evidence-based decisionmaking cycle.
June 2007
v
Table of contents
Summary iii
Overview 1
Section One: What the Southeast Region states are doing now 3
Working on reading across the curriculum standards 3
Providing professional development to support teachers 3
Using literacy coaches to help teachers 3
Evaluation of professional development initiatives is limited 4
Section Two: Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 5
Brief description of the seven interventions 5
Comparing interventions by expressed and measured teacher outcomes 8
What evidence is there on the effectiveness of interventions? 10
Section Three: Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 15
Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of the changes desired and
the local context 15
Consider the selection of a professional development intervention as part of a decisionmaking cycle 17
Consider structuring a comprehensive planning process that goes beyond selecting a professional development
intervention 19
Appendix A Methodology 25
Appendix B Southeastern state summary 30
Appendix C Southeastern state profiles 36
Appendix D Intervention abstracts 41
Appendix E Additional resources 55
References 58
Box 1 How the interventions were identified 2
Figure 1
The evidence-based decisionmaking cycle 16
Tables
1
Sample of state adolescent literacy activities 3
2
Summary of selected interventions and status of research on effectiveness 4
3
Main focus of five interventions 8
4
Methods used in assessing outcomes for teachers vary by intervention 9
5
Comparison of features mentioned in some research reviews on literacy 21
A1 Rationale for interventions not described 28
When selecting
reading across
the curriculum
interventions,
educators should
consider the extent
of the evidence base
on intervention
effectiveness and
the fit with the
school or district
context, whether
they are purchasing a
product from vendors
or developing it
internally. This report
provides guidance in
the decision­making.
Overview
Ensuring adequate ongoing literacy development for all students in the middle and
high school years is a more challenging task
than ensuring excellent reading education
in the primary grades for two reasons:
first, secondary school literacy skills are
more complex, more embedded in subject
matters, and more multiply determined;
second, adolescents are not as universally
motivated to read better or as interested
in school-based reading as kindergartners
(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 1).
1
Despite the critical role that literacy plays for
adolescents, national reading results from the
National Assessment of Educational Progress
show that the proportion of 12th graders scoring
at the proficient level or better declined from 40
percent in 1992 to about a third in 2002 (NCES,
2003). Many states, districts, schools, educational
support organizations, and foundations have
identified improving adolescent literacy outcomes
as a pressing need (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Bottoms, 2005; Kamil, 2003; Meltzer, 2001; National
Association of State Boards of Education, 2006).
Working across content areas with teachers at
the middle and high school level and with adolescents who are generally less motivated to read the
older they get (Kamil, 2003) makes this a difficult
challenge. The problem cannot be solved simply
by having all students take a reading course or
by ramping up the reading requirements in state
content-area tests.
The challenge requires a significant change in
expectations for how content-area teachers embed
reading materials, strategies, demands, assignments, and assessments into their courses. For
example, when the Georgia Department of Education incorporated standards on reading across the
curriculum as part of the 2004 revisions to the
Georgia Performance Standards, it sought information on professional development interventions
to support teachers’ efforts to integrate these new
expectations about reading into their teaching.
In response to such requests this report provides
information on state initiatives in adolescent
literacy and on external professional development or teacher support interventions designed
to help content-area teachers increase their focus
on reading. The report also describes the available
evaluation data on the interventions identified for
review.
Seven interventions were identified (see box 1
and appendix A for methodology) and compared
to provide a good understanding of their approach and evidence base. The evaluation results
are described in a way that should help educators
understand the limitations of certain evaluation
2
using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Box 1
How the interventions were
identified
Interventions were selected for analysis in a three-phase process. The first
phase involved gathering information
from Southeast Region state education
agency contacts and from documents
on their initiatives in adolescent
literacy. This information provides a
context for how the six states in the
region are beginning to address reading at the secondary level.
The second phase was a search for
professional development or teachersupport interventions designed to
help content-area teachers increase
their attention to reading. The
search for programs included lists
provided by other regional educational laboratories, content centers,
research centers and organizations,
Southeast Region state departments
of education, and federally funded
literacy projects. Information was
also obtained from the Education Resources Information Center, conferences, and knowledgeable researchers
and practitioners. The focus was on
well-articulated, readily available external interventions designed to help
content-area teachers improve their
students’ reading in that content area.
These included programs that:
•
Seemed to target all content-area
teachers.
•
Were aimed at improving teacher
instruction and assessment at
the classroom level (not aimed at
small groups of students).
•
Were relevant for 4th through
12th grade teachers.
•
Provided enough information to
determine their purpose, content,
audience, and desired outcomes.
methodologies in drawing conclusions about
program impact. Of the seven interventions,
only Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction
(CORI) had several quasi-experimental studies and an experimental study conducted on its
effectiveness. In addition, four interventions—
ReadAbout, CReating Independence through
Student-owned Strategies (CRISS), Reading Apprenticeship, and Strategic Instruction Model–
Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC)—are
currently the focus of federally funded studies
that will examine the interventions’ effectiveness
through experimental studies.
The report also provides guidance to decisionmaking teams engaged in finding ways to support
content-area teachers in improving reading across
the curriculum. In particular, practical guidance
is provided through three recommendations:
•
Were currently in use (not under
development).
•
Were available for purchase from
external vendors.
The following seven interventions
were identified: ReadAbout, Reading in the Content Areas, ConceptOriented Reading Instruction (CORI),
CReating Independence through
Student-owned Strategies (CRISS),
Reading Apprenticeship, Literacy
First, and Strategic Instruction
Model–Content Literacy Continuum
(SIM–CLC). This is not an exhaustive list, but it represents the types of
external support that schools in the
Southeast Region might access.
The third phase involved a search for
evaluation reports and studies on the
seven interventions so that the extent
of the evidence base on effectiveness
could be described.
1. Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of the
changes desired and the local context.
2. Think about the selection of a professional
development intervention as part of an
evidence-based decisionmaking cycle.
3. Consider structuring a comprehensive planning process that goes beyond selecting a
professional development intervention.
Following a thoughtful evidence-based decisionmaking process should enhance the likelihood
that a district or school reading across the curriculum initiative will achieve the desired outcomes.
What the Southeast Region states are doing now
Section one: What the Southeast
Region states are doing now
to school teams that must apply to participate.
After much experience providing professional
development at the elementary and middle school
levels, the state is expanding its literacy efforts to
professional development for high schools.
Although all six Southeast Region states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North
Carolina, and South Carolina) have some form
of adolescent literacy initiative under way, the
intensity of efforts in professional development for
content-area teachers varies. (Appendixes B and
C provide background information on the work
of each of the six state education departments.) A
sample set of state activities is briefly introduced
below as context (table 1).
Content Area Reading Professional Development
in Florida is an in-service program that qualifies
participants to serve as reading-­intervention teachers in their content areas. It will be available soon
to provide educators with a reading endorsement
(http://www.justreadflorida.com/endorsement/).
North Carolina provides several professional
development options related to adolescent literacy.
For example, LEARN NC provides online courses
for content-area teachers addressing contentarea reading comprehension in kindergarten
through eighth grade (http://www.learnnc.org and
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/profdev/online/).
Working on reading across the curriculum standards
Georgia began by creating new performance standards to ensure that literacy skills are expected of
students in all content areas. These standards are
expected to drive professional development planning
for teachers at the local level. Georgia first implemented its performance standards in 2004/05. Its
new Reading Across the Curriculum Standards have
been developed in science, social studies, math, and
language arts for all students in grades 6–12.
Using literacy coaches to help teachers
The Southeast Region state education agencies are
interested in literacy coaches as a way of helping
teachers improve their instruction in reading. The
North Carolina Governor’s Office recently funded
100 literacy coaches to work in the lowest performing middle schools. Florida requires districts to
include literacy coaches to work with content-area
teachers on improving reading skills as part of
their district plans. South Carolina uses regional
and district literacy coaches. These coaches
work in classrooms to provide support to South
Carolina Reading Initiative teachers, guide twice
Providing professional development to support teachers
A key assumption of most states is that contentarea teachers need support in making instructional
and assessment improvements to strengthen reading. The Alabama Reading Initiative is an ongoing
state-developed and -managed professional development program that offers an intensive two-week
workshop each summer. The training is provided
Table 1
Summary of state adolescent literacy activities
Initiative component
Alabama
3
Florida
Reading Across the Curriculum Standards
Georgia
Mississippi
North
Carolina
South
Carolina
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Professional development currently
offered for content-area teachers
✓
✓
Literacy coaches
✓
✓
Evaluation of professional development
✓
✓
✓
✓
4
using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
monthly discussion meetings, and participate in
monthly summer groups to better understand the
reading process. The regional literacy coaches provide ongoing support to district literacy coaches to
ensure that teachers can make the
connection between what they are
Some states are
learning and how they apply it in
conducting evaluations
the classroom. Although the use
of their professional
of literacy coaches is prevalent, the
development efforts
states are still trying to determine
to inform their
whether the coaches are an effecdecisionmaking
tive means of improving student
literacy.
the needs of their students. As part of an in-depth
study of the South Carolina Reading Initiative,
South Carolina collects data from participating teachers and coaches to monitor changes in
practice and discern how teachers are applying
information from professional development to
the classroom. The study also looks at changes
in students’ skills and strategies (South Carolina
Reading Initiative, 2003). Florida has research
under way through work with the RAND Corporation to study the impact of reading coaches on
student achievement.
Evaluation of professional development
initiatives is limited
Evaluation reports describing the implementation
or impact of professional development programs
or other kinds of support in adolescent literacy are
limited, because most states are in the planning
stages of improving reading instruction in content
areas. However, Alabama and South Carolina have
examined the impact of their professional development work on teachers and students. A report
on the Alabama Reading Initiative noted that the
initial delivery of the professional development
was “one size fits all” with content focused on the
elementary grades (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006).
Secondary teachers had to adapt the materials to
Table 2
Summary of selected interventions and status of research on effectiveness
Intervention
Grades
served
Status of research on effectiveness
Category 1: Supplementary materials
ReadAbout
3–8
Research in progress
Reading in the Content Areas
6–12
None yet
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
3–12
Completed
CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies (CRISS)
3–12
Research in progress
Reading Apprenticeship
6–12
Research in progress
Literacy First
6–12
None yet
Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC)
6–12
Research in progress
Category 2: Professional development programs
Category 3: Professional development as schoolwide effort
Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers
Section two: Identifying what
interventions are available
to support teachers
With the Southeast Region state departments of
education still exploring strategies and professional development approaches designed to improve reading outcomes at the secondary level and
with few evaluations of state programs available, it
is important that decisionmakers know about the
types of interventions available.
The main question addressed in this section is what
reading across the curriculum interventions might
be considered in plans to improve reading outcomes
at the secondary level. Seven interventions were
identified for review (see box 1 and appendixes A
and B) and organized by type (table 2).
Brief description of the seven interventions
Category 1: supplementary materials in support
of content-area reading skills. At the simplest
level of support content-area teachers may need
supplementary materials to provide instruction in
reading comprehension. These types of approaches
assume that teachers just need more materials. The
materials are organized and sequenced to bring
strategies identified by research into the classroom. They provide materials for teachers to use in
direct instruction of strategies along with reading
materials for students to practice.
1. ReadAbout, developed by Scholastic, Inc., is
intended for use in mixed-ability classrooms in
grades three to eight as a way of differentiating
reading instruction and giving students practice
in nonfiction texts. ReadAbout offers students
self-managed, online supplementary readings and
strategy instruction. Recommended for use for 20
minutes, three times a week, the program includes:
•
ReadAbout software.
•
Independent reading cards.
•
Teacher’s guide.
•
5
Two days of teacher training on the ReadAbout software and two half-day supplemental seminars on reading motivation and
writing strategies.
The strategies taught include 10 comprehension
skills and 7 strategies, vocabulary acquisition, and
writing. Students build their content-area knowledge with readings in science, social studies, and
life experiences. The software includes motivating
activities with immediate feedback, video segments, and continuous online assessment. Extra
support is provided for English language learners
and struggling readers.
2. Reading in the Content Area, developed by Globe
Fearon Publishers, is intended to build content
literacy through high-interest, real-life readings
for grades four to seven (Shanahan, 2005). The
materials can be used by any teacher as part of
regular instruction, not just in remedial situations.
The intervention includes:
•
A vocabulary handbook and workbooks on
reading strategies for four content areas (social studies, science,
mathematics, and
At the simplest level
English).
content-area teachers
•
Teacher’s guide for
each workbook and
a guide with tips for
helping students read
to learn.
•
Placement guide.
may need supplementary
materials to provide
instruction in reading
comprehension
The strategies taught include use of graphic organizers and study strategies for before, during, and
after reading; Cornell note-taking; outlining; survey, question, read, recite, review; and strategies
for dealing with content area vocabulary (Kinsella,
2000). It uses a direct-instruction strategy teaching model (introduce the strategy, model it, use a
think-aloud lesson plan, review the strategy, and
use workbook for guided practice).
6
using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Category 2: professional development course or program. Category 2 approaches assume that teachers
need professional development in helping students
become more effective readers in the content areas.
3. Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
was developed by University of Maryland College
Park researchers John Guthrie and Allan Wigfield
to increase the time students are engaged in reading. The objective is for students to be engaged in
reading 60 minutes daily. Therefore, the professional development associated with it works with
teachers to envision what a classroom of engaged
readers would look like. The classroom goals focus
on improved reading comprehension, writing, science (as the content area of emphasis), and student
motivation (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). Although
the program was developed for use by third and
fourth grade teachers, it is included here because
of its focus on components that are hypothesized
as critical for engaged reading in the classroom
and its expansion to 6th through 12th grade teachers (Guthrie et al., 2004). The professional development program helps teachers to:
•
Use practices to motivate students to read
independently.
Category 2 approaches
assume that teachers
need professional
development in helping
students become more
effective readers in
the content areas
• Teach cognitive strategies for
reading comprehension.
• Provide a deep knowledge base
in science as the source of content
reading.
Ten days of training are required
for teachers to learn about the strategies and plan
for implementation of the 12 weeks of science
materials. The curriculum guides include sample
daily plans, sample weekly plans, booklists for
student reading, and student worksheets for summarizing and portfolio use. Two books, Monitoring Reading Comprehension: Concept Oriented
Reading Instruction and Concept Oriented Reading
Instruction: Engaging Classrooms, Lifelong Learning, explain the practices and components and
help teachers plan integrated units of instruction
for creating engaged readers.
4. CReating Independence through Student-owned
Strategies (CRISS) dates back to 1979, when a small
group of Kalispell, Montana, teachers developed a
professional development program for secondary
teachers. The program was designed to provide
content-area teachers and their students with a
common vocabulary for strategies in reading to
learn. Professional development includes 12–18
hours of staff development that prepares teachers
in grades 4–12 to implement, in their respective
content areas, the strategies outlined in a teachers resource guide and a materials packet (Santa,
2004). Two teachers from each content area and
school-level and district-level administrators are
invited to the training. The strategies include:
•
Identifying the author’s craft and design.
•
Organizing information.
•
Developing memory.
•
Writing reports and taking essay tests.
•
Writing strategies.
•
Developing vocabulary.
•
Discussing strategies.
•
Evaluating students.
The strategies are intended as part of regular
course instruction when students are learning
content.
5. Reading Apprenticeship, developed by WestEd’s
Strategic Literacy Initiative, began in 1995 as
a support system for content-area teachers in
San Francisco. Reading Apprenticeship involves
a complex set of interrelated components that
together enable content-area teachers to engage
students as critical readers. The goal of the professional development is to help content-area teachers
Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers
develop more confident, engaged, and strategic
readers who can read to learn in their content
courses. The professional development program
uses case studies to encourage participants to
rethink their approach to teaching content. The
program assumes that there are specific ways of
reading and thinking in each discipline and that
teachers need to become experts in modeling these
processes for their students. It is articulated as an
“instructional framework” rather than an isolated
set of strategies for students to use. “In Reading
Apprenticeship classrooms teachers reconceptualize subject-area learning as an apprenticeship in
discipline-based practices of thinking, talking,
reading, and writing” (Schoenback, Braunger,
Greenleaf, & Litman, 2003, p. 134).
There are four dimensions of the instructional
framework that organize the work (Greenleaf,
Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001):
•
Social dimension, such as sharing book talk
and sharing reading processes.
•
Personal dimension, such as developing
reader fluency and stamina, assessing performance, and setting goals.
•
Cognitive dimension, such as monitoring
comprehension and using problem-solving
strategies.
•
Knowledge-building dimension, such as
vocabulary, knowledge of text structures, and
developing topic knowledge.
Overarching the four dimensions is an emphasis
on helping teachers implement “metacognitive conversations” in which students reflect on
their mental processes in reading and learning
and share their reading processes and strategies
(RAND Reading Study Group, 2002).
Category 3: professional development as a schoolwide effort. Two interventions are described
as structured support for schoolwide efforts to
rethink how literacy expectations are embedded
7
in content courses. As Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler (2005, p. 61) explain, “Positioning literacy
improvement efforts as a sidebar to other goals in
secondary education has lessened the importance
of secondary schools in preparing our children
to compete in society and has consistently and
systematically left millions of students behind.”
A schoolwide approach to literacy seeks to engage
every teacher in coordinated literacy improvement efforts.
Like the other interventions the two interventions in this category pay
attention to the use of
cognitive learning strategies, but unlike the others
they do it within the
context of a schoolwide,
multiyear goal of improving students’ literacy
skills across content areas.
Category 3 interventions
provide structured
support for schoolwide
efforts to rethink how
literacy expectations
are embedded in
content courses
6. Literacy First Middle and High School Content
Area Process, developed in 1998 at the Professional
Development Institute, is one of four Literacy First
models. The other three models address early
childhood, elementary and middle school, and
high school struggling readers. The goal of the
content-area process is to significantly increase
achievement of all students in every content-area
class and requires a commitment from the whole
school, demonstrated by a three-year strategic
reading plan.
Principals, literacy specialists, district administrators, and all content-area teachers participate in
professional development. The program for teachers is spread over five days during each school
year for three years. Principals, secondary literacy
specialists, and district administrators attend an
annual two-day Leadership Institute to develop
their instructional leadership skills. In addition, a
Literacy First consultant provides eight consulting
days a year for three years. Professional development includes:
8
using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
•
Lesson planning techniques.
were important to help all students learn. The
Content Literacy Continuum builds on the Strategic Instruction Model research and focuses on
literacy as a schoolwide effort.
•
Instructional strategies to engage students in
the content.
•
Instructional strategies to increase student
vocabulary.
•
Comprehension strategies customized to the
content areas.
•
Strategic reading and thinking tools.
•
Strategies to help students with metacognition.
Teachers in the content area receive a teachers
manual and three resource books that focus on
comprehension skills, strategic reading and thinking tools, metacognitive processes, and vocabulary
development.
7. Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy
Continuum (SIM–CLC), developed by the University of Kansas Center on Research and Learning,
aims to help secondary schools develop and implement a comprehensive literacy plan over three to
four years (Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler, 2005). Initially,
the researchers hoped to identify strategies that
would meet the needs of adolescents with disabilities and low-achieving students who struggled
with the challenges of reading in content-area
classes, but they believed that the same strategies
The program introduces teachers to a complex
array of strategies for use with a wide range of
students. It includes five levels: content mastery,
embedded strategy instruction, explicit strategy
instruction, intensive skill development, and
intensive clinical intervention. The levels are
explained in various manuals and on a CD-ROM.
The program is implemented over four phases,
beginning with planning and analysis of student
and school data. The intent is to support schools
over a sustained period in helping all students
learn critical content, regardless of their literacy
skills.
Comparing interventions by expressed
and measured teacher outcomes
Before selecting an approach to support contentarea teachers in improving reading across the curriculum, the decision­making team must be able to
articulate the key knowledge or skills that teachers
are supposed to gain from the professional development experiences. What does the intervention
program provider say about the aspects of teaching that will be improved? Will teachers learn
concrete practices that can be used immediately or
Table 3
Main focus of five interventions
Cognitive
strategies
Contentspecific
planning
Writing
Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction (CORI)
✓
✓
✓
CReating Independence through
Student-owned Strategies (CRISS)
✓
Literacy First
Intervention
Social
Student
interactions
engagement (discussions)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Reading Apprenticeship
✓
✓
✓
✓
Strategic Instruction Model–Content
Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC)
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Assessment
and metacognitive
strategies
✓
Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers
will they learn a framework and have to figure out
how to apply what they learned on their own?
incorporate new strategies, others recognize
the need to provide support for lesson and
unit planning to make content more accessible
and interesting to students.
Expressed intervention outcomes for teachers. This
section compares interventions in terms of their
expressed goals for participating teachers (table 3).
•
Cognitive strategies. All the interventions
focus on providing teachers with additional
instructional strategies in reading comprehension, vocabulary, and sometimes criticalthinking skills and fluency. The instructional
strategies are key to all these interventions,
but the form of the support differs (ranging
from resources used by individual teachers,
as in Reading in the Content Area, to phasing
in for an entire faculty over 3–4 years, as in
Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy
Continuum).
•
Approaches to content planning. ConceptOriented Reading Instruction, Literacy First,
and Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum focus on changing teachers’
approaches to planning in the content areas.
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction expects teachers to develop units in the content
area that embed the research-based cognitive
and motivational strategies they are taught.
Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy
Continuum spends 28–32 hours of workshop
time on content organization and planning
during the first two phases of implementation. Although some approaches assume that
teachers know their content and can readily
•
Motivation and engagement in reading.
Teachers are expected to learn motivation
strategies in ReadAbout (if they take the
supplemental seminar), Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction, and Reading Apprenticeship. Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction
and ReadAbout are explicit about teachers
learning motivational strategies. ReadAbout
offers optional half-day seminars that address motivation. Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction expects teachers to learn how to
promote engaged reading through hands-on
activities, student choice, interesting text,
and collaboration. Reading Apprenticeship
offers an instructional framework of four
dimensions for content teachers to consider
in planning instruction. One is the personal
dimension, which includes practices that lead
to increased confidence and engagement of
student readers.
Measured intervention outcomes for teachers.
Interventions that have a heavy focus on improving teacher practice should provide a way to
measure the growth in teacher practice over time
to see whether the desired growth occurs. Data
may come from classroom observations, teaching artifacts, teacher interviews or surveys (table
4), or interviews with students (asking them to
report on teachers’ use of strategies taught in the
Table 4
Methods used in assessing outcomes for teachers vary by intervention
Intervention
Self-report/
survey
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies (CRISS)
a. Journals, reflections, lesson plans, assignments, and student work.
Classroom
observation
Interviews
Artifactsa
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Reading Apprenticeship
Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC)
9
✓
10 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
professional development). Teachers’ self-reporting
of their use of practices is often not very reliable;
students may be better able to report on what their
teachers are doing.
Studies of Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (for example, Bulgren, Deshler,
Schumaker, & Lenz, 2000) have included classroom observers who used a checklist in examining teacher use of particular strategies (table 4).
Reading Apprenticeship reports have mentioned
collecting teacher journals, lesson plans, assignments, and student work in describing the extent
of teacher implementation of the four dimensions.
CReating Independence through Student-owned
Strategies reports have summarized
data from teacher self-report
Existing empirical
surveys that asked teachers about
research cannot inform
their use of specific instructional
teachers about how
strategies. Studies of Conceptoften to use a strategy
Oriented Reading Instruction have
or when to use it in
examined teacher implementation
a particular contentof lesson plans created during the
teaching application
professional development sessions and have observed in the
classrooms to assess teachers’ use of the cognitive
and motivational strategies learned in professional
development.
It is important for potential users to examine
the instruments available from the intervention
programs for assessing and providing feedback
to teachers on their implementation of desired
practices. Reviewing these instruments will help
in understanding what kind of teacher change
the intervention is focused on and how the school
might monitor classroom implementation.
What evidence is there on the effectiveness of interventions?
In choosing among interventions, evidence of
effectiveness is critically important. What levels of
evidence are available for the various interventions
examined here?
Some interventions build on prior empirical
research. A central aspect of all the interventions
reviewed is a focus on helping teachers across the
content area with cognitive strategies for teaching
adolescents to read more efficiently and effectively.
This is consistent with the Report of the National
Reading Panel (National Reading Panel, 2000)
that cites research studies on the positive effects of
cognitive strategies for increasing reading comprehension. Such strategies include questioning,
concept mapping, summarizing, and monitoring
comprehension.
Whether particular strategies or combinations of
strategies can be used to improve poor reading
performance has received considerable attention
from researchers. Much of the adolescent literacy
research since 1990 has focused on strategies to
improve the reading skills of adolescents who are
experiencing difficulty. For example, the Strategic
Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum
intervention emerged from 20 years of research at
the University of Kansas on strategy instruction
that works with students with disabilities. That
research showed that students can learn the steps
of a particular strategy, such as “paraphrasing,” at
a high level of proficiency.
However, the Florida Center for Reading Research
(2006, p. 8), which provides summaries of interventions, points out in a review of the Strategic
Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum
that the link between strategy use by students and
reading outcome measures is not fully established:
“studies reviewed found inconsistent results of the
impact of strategy use on reading comprehension
or found no differences in reading comprehension
between students who learned a strategy and those
who did not use a strategy.”
The implication of this research on special populations is that it is unclear which strategies in which
combinations are most effective for use across the
curriculum. Existing empirical research cannot
inform teachers about how often to use a strategy
or when to use it in a particular content-teaching
application. The Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum developers emphasize
that there is no single foolproof strategy. Rather,
Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers
their goal is to provide teachers with an array
of possible learning strategies to teach students,
with the understanding that teachers will need
flexibility in adapting the strategies to the needs
of different classrooms. Similarly, the CReating
Independence through Student-owned Strategies
program models an array of strategies, but it is up
to the teacher to choose among them.
Still other interventions add to the focus on cognitive strategies—a focus on strategies to improve
reading motivation and engagement. Guthrie et al.
(2004, p. 403) developed the Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction intervention to address this
component:
Relatively little investigation has been
conducted on how multiple strategies can
be combined in long-term comprehension
instruction within the classroom, and
more studies of this kind are needed. Even
fewer investigations have addressed issues
related to motivation in reading instruction. It is increasingly evident that the
acquisition of reading strategies and reading comprehension skills demands a large
amount of effort and motivation and that
outstanding teachers invest substantial
time and energy in supporting students’
motivation and engagement in reading.
They explain that motivated students may want to
understand a text more deeply and therefore take
the time to process the text more completely. Motivated students would tend to read more frequently
with a more engaged mindset and thus should
gain in reading proficiency.
Guthrie et al. (2004) conducted a study that
directly compared a combined-delivery model
for teachers (cognitive strategies plus motivation strategies—Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction)—with a single cognitive strategy-only
model and also with a traditionally instructed
group. The study found that the Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction students measured higher
than the other two groups on indicators of reading
11
comprehension, reading motivation, and reading
strategies. However, the study was conducted with
third graders, so it is not known whether the findings would generalize to secondary teachers.
Another intervention that focuses explicitly on
incorporating motivation
into work with teachers
Changes in reading
is Reading Apprenticeachievement after
ship, which proposes
program implementation
that content-area teachcan reflect the influence
ers organize classrooms
of many variables
around four overlapping
dimensions of students’
reading development (social, personal, cognitive,
and knowledge building). The personal dimension
is connected to motivation and is defined as the
things teachers do that help students develop a
reader identity, metacognition, reader fluency and
stamina, and reader confidence and range, as well
as assess performance and set goals.
Before and after data reported by developers is
a first basis for claims of effectiveness—but a
weak one. One of the most common approaches
developers use to describe the added value of
their interventions for teachers is to look at how
teachers or students change from before to after
the professional development. For example, the
two following interventions report before and after
data on students in their descriptive materials:
Reading Apprenticeship (RA):
In five studies conducted since 1997,
students whose teachers participated in
RA training have become more confident,
engaged, and strategic readers. In one
study, students in RA classrooms gained
two years’ reading proficiency in seven
months. In another study, students in RA
classrooms made significant gains in their
national reading percentile ranking. In
one urban district, English learners grew
as much as their fluent-English speaking
peers, and students initially scoring the
12 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
lowest quartiles made the most rapid gains
(http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/10).
Literacy First:
Principals in Literacy First schools in
Florida, North Carolina, and Washington
all report a significant increase in students
passing state or nationally normed assessment as a result of implementing the Content Area Process (http://www.literacyfirst.
com/content.asp).
Although these reports help potential users
understand the impacts they may experience from
using the intervention, they do not represent highquality information about effectiveness. Changes
in reading achievement after program implementation can reflect the influence of many variables.
Developers often report score increases at schools
they have worked with, but it is very difficult to
interpret these data as reflecting the impact of a
single intervention. Many interventions are likely
going on at the same time in most schools.
Another concern with statements such as that from Literacy
First is that it is difficult to know
how many schools they worked
with did not experience positive
increases. Typically, intervention developers will report the achievement data
from schools they worked with most intensively
(their success stories), which makes it difficult to
know whether it was just the unusual combination
of people in the school who took the ideas from
the intervention, adapted them, and made them
work—or whether it was really the intervention
that made the difference. Thus, developers who report having worked with schools that experienced
significant increases in achievement are providing
a beginning basis for their intervention’s claim of
effectiveness, but a very weak one.
Three interventions
report findings based
on quasi‑experimental
studies
A few quasi-experimental studies are available and
show mixed results. The next level of evidence an
intervention might explore is whether participants
in their program experienced more positive results
on desired outcomes than a comparison group
(identified for the evaluation because it was similar in make-up to participants in the intervention).
Three interventions report comparison data: ReadAbout, CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies, and Reading Apprenticeship.
Although having comparison data is important
and provides more information about outcomes
than before and after data with no comparison
group, finding existing groups that are equal to
the participant group on all dimensions is difficult. Thus, there are limitations to drawing solid
conclusions about intervention effectiveness from
quasi-experimental evaluation designs in which
participant results are compared with a selected
group of nonparticipants.
In contrast to quasi-experimental designs, true
experimental designs use random assignment of
potential participants to either the intervention
group or the control group. Random assignment
ensures that there are no preexisting differences
between the two groups (such as higher motivation in the intervention teacher group if teachers
volunteer). True experimental design provides
potential users with greater assurance that any
differences between the two groups are due to the
intervention and not to preexisting differences
between participants and nonparticipants.
Three interventions report findings based on
quasi-experimental studies:
•
ReadAbout. This intervention recently concluded a quasi-experimental study with fifth
grade students in New York. The results are
not yet available.
•
CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies. O’Neil and Associates
conducted an evaluation during the 2001/02
and 2002/03 school years in two large Utah
school districts using a pre-test and post-test
design with a comparison group. As mentioned, a general limitation of this design is
that teachers who choose or are selected to
Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers
participate in the intervention group may be
better, more motivated, or more experienced.
Thus, positive differences in their students’
outcomes compared with those of students of
a comparison group of teachers may reflect
this preexisting difference rather than the
impact of the intervention.
The outcome measure, a free-recall assessment developed by the program, was used
following student reading of a particular
content-area selection. Free-recall assessment
is a fairly narrow measure of what students
should be gaining from the multiple strategies
teachers learn from participating in CReating
Independence through Student-owned Strategies. The finding that students of programtrained teachers did better on this measure of
free recall does not necessarily mean that they
understood the selection any better. No correlational data between this measure and standardized measures of reading comprehension
were found; thus, the relation between this
program-developed measure and typical reading achievement measures is not clear.
•
Reading Apprenticeship. WestEd analyzed
student data from implementation of a ninth
grade Academic Literacy course for below
grade-level students that incorporates the
four dimensions of the Reading Apprenticeship instructional framework. Significant
differences were reported between Reading
Apprenticeship students’ fall to spring gains
compared with the performance of the nationally normed group for the standardized test
(Degrees of Reading Power test). This kind of
comparison of intervention student results
with results for a nationally normed group is
fairly weak because the comparison group is
not selected for its similarity to the participant
group. Nothing is known about how alike or
different the characteristics of the comparison
group are to those of the participating group.
No reports of studies could be found that used
comparison groups to examine how content-
13
area teachers who go through Reading Apprenticeship training but are not implementing the
ninth grade Academic Literacy Course change
their practice compared with a comparison
group of similar teachers or how their students
compare on student achievement measures.
Only one true experimental study with random
assignment is available, but others are under way.
Rigorously designed experiments that use random
assignment of teachers or schools to the intervention or a control group and then examine differences between the groups in measured outcomes
are time consuming and challenging to conduct.
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction has conducted the most extensive set of experimental and
quasi-experimental studies. Because the development of this intervention emerges from an ongoing
research program at the University of Maryland, research on the intervention builds on prior research
on the relationship between reading motivation and
reading achievement (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000;
Guthrie et al., 2006).
The question addressed by Guthrie and colleagues is whether an intervention that teaches
teachers research-based cognitive strategies and
student motivation and
engagement strategies
Several of the
will improve student
interventions are
outcomes. In a series of
currently the focus
quasi-experimental and
of federally funded
experimental studies,
studies that will address
they examined whether
the intervention’s
teachers trained in
effectiveness through
both the cognitive and
experimental studies
motivational strategies
(Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction group)
got better results than either comparison teachers who received no training or teachers trained
in the use of cognitive strategies alone.
•
A study using random assignment of schools
to two training conditions found that Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction-trained
third grade teachers surpassed teachers
14 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
trained in strategy instruction only in student
performance on reading comprehension,
reading motivation, and reading strategy
measures (Guthrie et al., 2004).
•
•
Using a quasi-experimental design, ConceptOriented Reading Instruction teachers surpassed comparison group teachers in student
performance on reading comprehension and
reading strategy use (Guthrie et al., 1998).
Using a quasi-experimental design ConceptOriented Reading Instruction teachers surpassed comparison group teachers in student
performance on reading motivation (Guthrie,
2004).
Although several of these studies are quasi-experimental, they are included in this section because
the studies as a whole constitute a well-developed
research program with both
quasi-experimental studies and
Decision­making to
true experimental studies (with
improve reading across
random assignment). Ideally, an
the curriculum should
intervention that claims to be
consider professional
scientifically based should have
development
replicable findings across variinterventions in light of
ous methodologies. Guthrie and
a clear understanding
colleagues have conducted both
of the changes desired
rigorous quasi-experimental and
and the local context
experimental studies that show
that Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction has a significant impact on student
outcomes. Their published research provides
enough information to examine and critique the
designs and replicate the evaluation designs in
various settings, grade levels, and content areas to
continue to explore effectiveness.
Several of the interventions are currently the focus
of federally funded studies that will address the
intervention’s effectiveness through experimental
studies:
•
The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute
of Education Sciences is studying the effectiveness of four reading comprehension
programs. ReadAbout and ­CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies are
two of the four programs that were randomly
assigned to fifth grade classrooms in nine
districts across the country (U.S. Department
of Education, 2006).
•
An experimental study on CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies
is being planned by the Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory. The study will focus
on ninth graders, and schools will be randomly assigned to participate or not.
•
WestEd received an award from the U.S.
Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences in 2005 to study the efficacy of
Reading Apprenticeship in high school history
and science teaching.
•
Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum is also proposed for an
experimental study of its effectiveness, to be
conducted by the regional educational laboratory system. In addition, it is being studied by
Brown University and RMC Research Corporation through a U.S. Department of Education Striving Readers Grant.
Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum
section three: Making Decisions
About Interventions To Improve
Literacy Across the Curriculum
This section provides practical guidance for
decision­making to improve reading across the
curriculum. It considers professional development
interventions in light of a clear understanding of
the changes desired and the local context. It suggests thinking about the selection of a professional
development intervention as part of a decisionmaking cycle. And it recommends structuring a
comprehensive planning process that goes beyond
selecting a professional development intervention.
Consider professional development interventions
in light of a clear understanding of the
changes desired and the local context
Interventions designed to provide support to teachers can have impacts at two levels: teacher practices
and student outcomes. The decisionmaking team
needs to articulate its own desired outcomes in
order to choose a professional development intervention that aligns with its goals and to be able to
follow up on whether teachers and students change
in the desired ways. For example, the following scenarios for desired outcomes are very different and
lead to consideration of different interventions.
Scenario 1. Goal : to find supplemental material to
use with students. Content-area teachers at a school
have expressed concern that they do not have the
curriculum materials to embed more reading
comprehension into the content-area instruction in
their courses, as required by the state’s new reading
across the curriculum standards. State reading
achievement scores at the school are very high, so
increasing reading achievement is not the primary
focus. Rather, the decisionmaking team, curriculum director, and literacy coach are focused on finding the best supplementary materials for teachers to
use to increase students’ opportunities and success
in reading to learn in the content area. Thus, the
primary desired outcomes are that teachers will be
able to use the supplementary materials and that
students will find them helpful and engaging.
15
Since the investment in
Someone in the school
teachers’ time and effort
will need to monitor
is modest, the decisionthe use of strategies
making team may decide
after the professional
to have a few teachers
development to
pilot various published
determine whether
materials and then
follow-up is needed
compare them on dimensions that matter to them,
such as ease of use, student responsiveness, and
student-engaged reading time.
Scenario 2. Goal: to support content-area teachers
in embedding cognitive and motivational strategies
into instruction. A school improvement team is
looking for a professional development experience
for teachers across the content areas to help them
teach students cognitive strategies for improving
reading comprehension. The school wants to help
teachers teach students more explicitly how to
organize and process information when students
read their assignments.
One thing decisionmakers may need to think
about before sending a team of teachers to learn
new strategies is how to support teachers in
incorporating the strategies into their lesson plans
and how to continue to enable teacher discussions
about the impact of the strategies on students’
reading assignments. The desired outcome is that
teachers return from the professional development
with concrete strategies for their content-area
teaching to support deeper student reading and
understanding in the content-area reading assignments. Someone in the school will need to be
assigned to monitor the use of strategies after the
professional development to determine whether
follow-up is needed.
Consider finding out more about:
•
CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies—2–4 days with local
observation.
•
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction—5 days
in summer, 5 days during the year, with 4–6
16 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
•
months for planning and implementation of
a unit.
•
Provide more frequent opportunities for supported reading experiences.
Reading Apprenticeship—up to 8 days.
•
Give regular and explicit coaching in discipline-based strategic-thinking processes.
•
Foster a collaborative, inquiry-oriented classroom environment.
•
Support and model metacognitive conversation with students.
Scenario 3. Goal: to engage in systematic longterm school change around the teaching of literacy
across content areas. A school improvement team
is thinking about a multiyear, schoolwide literacy
across the curriculum initiative to change how
teachers think about literacy so that all students
become more confident, engaged, and strategic
readers. The team understands that achieving
this comprehensive goal will take involvement
by all teachers over time in reflecting on their
current lesson and unit planning, with a new
understanding of how students become literate
in course content. The desired outcomes are that
teachers will:
For this broad vision of content-area teaching
to emerge, school-based expertise will need to
be developed to support teachers as they experiment with ways of moving toward the vision. An
ongoing relationship with the external provider
may also be critical to keep the school focused
over several years. Monitoring teachers’ progress
and student motivation and engagement in reading will be important. A secondary goal for the
Figure 1
The evidence-based decisionmaking cycle
1. Use data to
identify need
Reflect
Reflect
2. Examine studies
and research
Reflect
7. Evaluate
outcomes
3. Use professional
wisdom
Revise and
improve
Reflect
6. Monitor and
assess implementation
Reflect
4. Consider
contextual constraints
Reflect
Reflect
5. Make the best choice
based on information
Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum
planning team may be to reduce the amount of
pull-out reading remediation that is needed.
Consider finding out more about:
•
Literacy First, which is staged over three years
(used primarily for Title I schools to “accelerate reading achievement”).
•
Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy
Continuum, which is staged over 3–4 years.
Consider the selection of a professional development
intervention as part of a decisionmaking cycle
The Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education has defined evidence‑based
decisionmaking as routinely seeking out the
best available information on prior research and
evaluation findings before adopting programs
or practices that demand extensive material or
human resources (including funding and teacher
time) and affect significant numbers of students
(Whitehurst, 2004).
17
1. Use data to identify need, assess the current situation, and know what level of change is expected. The
seven interventions (and any others under consideration) represent different levels of expectations
for teacher change. For example, the supplementary
materials, such as Reading in the Content Areas,
represent the least amount of expected change for
teachers, whereas Strategic Instruction Model–
Content Literacy Continuum requires significant
work by teachers in content organization. Reading
Apprenticeship and Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction both support a fairly complex instructional framework that incorporates many features
into instruction that research has shown to be
related to increased engagement and motivation
to read. Decisionmakers may want to think
Research cannot
about how to pilot various
inform teachers about
interventions with small
which strategies to use
groups of teachers to build
with which reading
internal expertise and
assignments or how
help to decide about the
much repetition in
kind of teacher change
strategy instruction
envisioned.
is needed
This report should help school and district
decisionmakers faced with deciding how best to
provide support to content-area teachers at the
middle and high school level in ratcheting up their
focus on reading in the content area. This review
of seven interventions is designed to help secondary school teachers improve reading outcomes
across the curriculum through changes in instruction and assessment. The decisionmaking cycle
illustrated in figure 1 shows how various inputs
or sources of information can be used in selecting
and implementing an intervention. The figure is a
way of describing what evidence-based decisionmaking might look like in action.
Following a thoughtful decisionmaking process
about interventions as outlined below should
enhance the likelihood that a district or school
reading across the curriculum initiative will result
in the desired outcomes.
Some of the instruments
available from the various
interventions might be useful for conducting an
initial needs assessment. For example, student
motivation surveys such as those used in the
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction research
could be useful for understanding where students
in the school are at baseline and for convincing
teachers of the need to work toward more engaged
reading by students.
2. Examine studies and research. All the interventions examined focus on assisting teachers
with cognitive strategies to help students process
information from texts (such as paraphrasing,
word identification, and summarizing). This focus
reflects the finding of a number of research studies that reading comprehension improves when
such strategies are used with struggling readers in small groups. However, it is important to
understand that this strategy instruction approach
has generally not been researched in classrooms
18 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
of students with mixed abilities. Also, research
cannot inform teachers about which strategies to
use with which reading assignments or how much
repetition in strategy instruction is needed. So,
much remains to be discussed and monitored by
the implementing teachers.
The question raised by the Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction research is
central in thinking about desired
The reading across the
teacher changes to improve readcurriculum initiative may
ing outcomes: does the addition
need to start small—in
of research-based motivation
one school with a few
strategies (using content goals in
teachers developing a
reading instruction, promoting
better understanding
student-to-student collaborative
of the need
learning about texts, and so on)
lead to increased student engagement in reading (which is hypothesized to lead
to greater reading comprehension)? Guthrie’s
research provides evidence (at the upper elementary level) that adding motivation strategies to
cognitive strategies is more powerful than using
cognitive strategies alone.
3. Use professional wisdom. Professional wisdom
means that decisionmakers apply information
about what has been learned from experiences
with teacher change or what others are learning
about the use of interventions. In a report from the
Center for Evaluation and Assessment at the University of Iowa on interviews with 54 high school
teachers who had attended a range of professional
development offerings for improving reading
outcomes, the authors conclude:
Nearly all the teachers interviewed believed
their school’s efforts to incorporate reading
had been overall worthwhile and effective.
They described how students’ confidence,
motivation, and ability with readingrelated tasks had improved. Additionally,
most teachers felt that low-performers, especially, benefited from the strategies. Some
teachers felt that the strategies were not
beneficial for high-performers, and some
teachers felt that the reading programs were
leading to a narrowed educational focus.
(Stevenson & Waltman, 2006, p. 1)
This is an example of the kinds of information and
food for thought in planning that can be gained
from talking to teachers and others about their experiences with an intervention. The report stresses
that the majority of teachers interviewed lamented
the lack of time for continuing application,
implementation, and discussions of the strategies
learned. This is a common reaction of teachers to
professional development experiences and should
be taken seriously in planning.
4. Consider contextual constraints. Elements of
the school or district context that need to be considered when selecting professional development
include leadership, funding, teacher attitudes
and understanding of the need for change relative to students’ reading outcomes, and available
internal expertise for facilitating a new vision for
instruction in the content areas. Teachers may be
overwhelmed with other professional development requirements. Thus, the reading across the
curriculum initiative may need to start small—in
one school with a few teachers developing a better
understanding of the need through interventions
such as CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies and ReadAbout. Another school
may be responding to a districtwide strategic plan
that expects significant, schoolwide attention to
improving reading motivation and outcomes, with
all teachers expected to be involved over time.
5. Make the best choice based on information. As
noted, the evidence base for most interventions
is weak. Except for Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction (studied only at the upper elementary
level), no well-designed experimental studies with
random assignment could be found that clearly
describe a treatment group that experienced
superior outcomes to those of a control group.
CReating Independence through Student-owned
Strategies reports data on significant differences
between participating and nonparticipating
teachers on a measure of students’ free recall. But
because this is a program-developed measure, it
Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum
is not clear what significance the measure has for
students’ overall reading comprehension. Thus, in
terms of evaluation findings, the evidence base is
not yet a significant help in decisionmaking. Before and after data presented by program developers in schools with which they have worked cannot
be given much weight.
6. Monitor and assess implementation (and adjust
professional development as needed). Decisionmakers should consider how to monitor instructional changes that are expected to result from the
professional development experience. Monitoring
may be part of the role of a literacy coach, curriculum coordinator, or other teacher leader. Teachers
will need time to plan, implement, and discuss
what worked and what did not with their peers.
Student feedback may also be helpful to gain additional perspectives.
7. Evaluate outcomes (and adjust or plan new
professional development as needed). In addition to
tracking student progress on measures of reading
comprehension and possible strategy use, Guthrie’s work argues for tracking measures related to
student engagement in reading (attitudes toward
reading assignments, difficulties experienced,
interest in texts assigned, amount of choice in
reading selections offered, and so on). Overall, it
will be important to evaluate both teacher and
student outcomes.
Consider structuring a comprehensive
planning process that goes beyond selecting
a professional development intervention
A potential weakness in this process of improving literacy across the curriculum is that selecting
a professional development intervention could
become the end rather than the means. The
professional development selected may be written into a school or district improvement plan as
the strategy for the year, without an individual or
team accepting ownership for the bigger goal of
improving reading in the content areas. That is,
once the teachers participate in the professional
19
development selected, the school assumes that the
goal has been accomplished.
Planning an initiative to improve complex student
outcomes such as reading to learn involves more
than picking a program or vendor. Ownership
of the initiative should lie with those invested in
achieving better outcomes for students.
The selection of a program implies some front-end
and back-end work. On the front end the planning
team should:
•
Develop a common understanding of the end
goals of the initiative for student competencies
as readers.
•
Know where the district or school’s students
stand as readers.
•
Understand what is reported in the literature
as effective practices in reading across the
curriculum.
•
Know where content
teachers stand in
their beliefs, knowledge, and skills with
these practices.
On the back end the planning team should:
A potential weakness
is that selecting
a professional
development
intervention could
become the end rather
than the means
•
Be able to explain
the logic for the selection of the professional
development approach.
•
Think through the details—timelines, incentives, support needed from school leaders
and participants, and other implementation
considerations.
•
Prepare to monitor both teacher response to
and implementation of practices in the professional development intervention.
20 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
•
Monitor student reactions and any improvements in reading.
•
Adapt the support provided to teachers as
needed based on data.
For both teachers
and students it is
important to understand
expectations for
students in reading
Below is a possible set of seven
planning steps, described in
the context of a reading across
the curriculum planning effort
(Comprehensive School Reform
Quality Center, 2005; Hassel, Hassel, Arkin, Kowal, & Steiner, 2006; Schwartzbeck,
2002; Walter, 2004):
1. Identify a planning committee with good representation across stakeholders. The purpose of a
planning committee is to ensure that the initiative
is owned by those closest to the need. During planning it is critical that stakeholders provide input
into decisionmaking. A school may choose to have
a wide range of role types as part of the initial
planning. Sometimes, external facilitators can
be helpful in ensuring open and honest discussions about data, needs, resources, and potential
problems in implementation. Including someone
with research or evaluation expertise can help the
group engage in discussions of published research
and think about how impact will be assessed.
2. Clearly articulate expectations for students in
literacy, understand the focus of reading assessments available for students, and describe students’
strengths and weaknesses as readers. For both
teachers and students it is important to understand expectations for students in reading. The
standards-based movement, as reflected in the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, is built on the assumption that educators and students know what
is expected of them. The Georgia Department of
Education included Reading across the Curriculum Standards in its revised curriculum standards
to make it clear to teachers and students that the
state had expectations in this area. Districts and
school teams will need to discuss and process
these kinds of standards as a first step toward
planning instruction.
In addition to states’ work on reading across the
curriculum standards, others are also doing development work in this area. A project led by P. David
Pearson, a reading researcher and dean of the College of Education at the University of California at
Berkeley, identifies this step as the starting point
for refocusing instructional efforts on reading
comprehension across the curriculum. Pearson
(2006) describes the process this way:
“So how do you design a reading comprehension curriculum? You need. . .
•
A framework for determining what
we should expect of students at what
points along the way in their school
careers.
•
Some clear and compelling illustrations of what it would mean to meet
these expectations.
•
A set of instructional routines that we
can count on to help students meet
those expectations.
•
Some assessment tools to help us as
teachers and our students determine:
how well we are meeting those expectations and what we could do to make
things better.
The New Standards Project at the National Center
on Education and the Economy is working on
intermediate grade standards that accomplish
the first two items. The goal for developing these
standards is to present a “thoughtful vision of
comprehension reflecting 30 years of cognitive and
instructional research and to present compelling
performances of students that demonstrate what
it means to meet the expectations we hold for students in grades 4 and 5” (Pearson, 2006). Although
these standards are developed for elementary
school grades, the developers are attempting to
build the comprehension curriculum on the findings of prominent cognitive psychologists, and the
findings may therefore be instructive for states,
Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum
districts, and schools trying to infuse clearer expectations for reading across the curriculum into
middle and high school.
to reflect on the extent
Understanding
to which state, district,
students’ strengths and
school, and classroom
weaknesses as readers
assessments currently
in content areas is
focus on reading in
important background
content areas and thus
information for planning
provide baseline data.
Understanding students’
strengths and weaknesses as readers in content areas is important
background information for planning.
Another effort that should inform state and
district initiatives for standards in reading across
the curriculum is that of the National Assessment
Governing Board of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress. The governing board has
developed a new reading framework (American
Institutes for Research, 2005; Kamil, 2006) to
guide item development for 2009 and beyond. This
new framework for assessing reading achievement defines reading as an active and complex
process that involves understanding written text,
developing and interpreting meaning, and using
meaning, as appropriate, to type of text, purpose,
and situation (American Institutes for Research,
2005, p. iv). The new reading framework includes
a new vocabulary component, use of both literary
and informational types of texts, and three cognitive targets: locate/recall, integrate/interpret, and
critique/evaluate.
3. Develop an understanding of the ways researchers and practitioners describe “effective” adolescent
literacy practices and compare those with current
conditions. A planning team needs to understand
what researchers are concluding about strategies
that may improve adolescent literacy outcomes.
There is some agreement among researchers on
the features of effective literacy programs for
adolescents, as a comparison of the features mentioned in some recent research reviews indicates
(table 5).
In addition to reflecting on standards for reading across the curriculum, it is also important
Table 5
Comparison of features mentioned in some research reviews on literacy
National
Institute of
Child Health
and Human
Development,
2000
RAND Reading
Study Report,
2002
(focus on
comprehension
only)
Kamil, 2003
Biancarosa &
Snow, 2004
Phelps, 2005
Direct, explicit instruction in reading
comprehension
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Involvement of academic content
areas
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Key components of a
literacy program
Motivation and self-directed learning
Text-based collaborative learning
✓
Diverse texts
✓
✓
Writing
Technology
✓
Assessments (ongoing, formative, and
summative)
✓
Strategic tutoring
21
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
22 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
The research suggests that school- or district-improvement teams need to think about the quality
of teachers’ practices in the school relative to:
•
Direct instruction, modeling, and practice in
reading comprehension strategies.
•
Structuring of content area instruction and
reading assignments to make them more accessible to students.
•
Selection of texts for students to read in a way
that builds motivation and persistence.
•
Structuring of group work and rigorous peer
discussions to reinforce the notion of reading
for a purpose and to encourage a classroom
social environment that values reading to
learn.
•
Use and availability of diverse texts.
•
Use of writing to extend and reinforce reading.
•
Use of technology to reinforce skills and keep
students motivated.
•
Use of appropriate formative and summative
assessments that reinforce goals for reading.
•
Use of tutoring as needed to assist individual
students.
Despite increasing use of
literacy coaches there is
little research confirming
a relationship between
coaching and improved
student achievement
Professional development for
teachers should inform them
about this larger set of practices,
even if the professional development focuses on a narrower set as
a starting point.
4. Compare programs available from vendors in
terms of local conditions and needs. The underlying assumption of the planning initiative is that
teachers will need some structured support to
make reading a reality across the curriculum.
Often, schools or districts look to external professional development programs or support materials
for this purpose. Understanding what researchers are concluding about effective practices can
inform a review of the interventions that planning
teams are considering.
Done well, evidence-based decision­making
requires a tremendous amount of staff time in
searching out available interventions and understanding what they are and how developers have
studied or evaluated effectiveness. District and
school planning teams will need to consider the
evaluation studies completed on these programs
and what they say about program effectiveness.
However, making an evidence-based decision
does not necessarily mean that a district or school
team should automatically choose the intervention that has the most convincing studies on
effectiveness. Contextual factors, such as cost, fit
of intervention with school context and teachers’
expressed interests, and other factors may be more
important. For example, an intervention may be
too narrowly focused or too prescriptive for the
experience and knowledge level of the teachers in
the school. In addition, a school or district may not
have the resources (budgetary, literacy expertise)
needed to implement some interventions. A school
or district with extensive internal expertise might
pick a more loosely developed approach, knowing
that it can develop, adapt, and evaluate as it moves
forward.
One caveat is to beware of a natural attraction
toward the simplest or easiest approach to teacher
change, a “just give the teachers something they
can take back and use” philosophy. It is important for a planning group to ask: even though a
particular intervention might fit the resources
and context, is it going to make a difference in
student outcomes? The possible payoffs for more
difficult and challenging interventions should be
considered.
5. Consider the pros and cons of different approaches to teacher support. It makes sense to start
a review with an understanding of the interventions that are available for purchase, because
Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum
developing a high-quality professional development program is very time intensive. Having done
that, a school or district may decide that none is a
good fit. Some districts or schools have extensive
internal expertise in reading or have invested in
literacy coaches over the years and so may decide
to develop their own training or coaching program
for content-area teachers. For example, several
states and districts are considering funding literacy coaches so that they can deliver what teachers need on a more individualized basis, providing
feedback and coaching in more effective practices
in real classroom settings. The International
Reading Association (2006) suggests that literacy
coaches are a popular means to support struggling
students and to help content-area teachers assist
their students to become better readers.
Despite increasing use of literacy coaches as a
strategy for improving instruction, however,
there is little research confirming a relationship
between coaching and improved student achievement. In a review of research on instructional
coaching Burney, Corcoran, & Lesnick (2003)
found very few studies linking coaching to measurable improvements in student achievement.
They report that support for coaching models is
based on the intrinsic appeal of the idea rather
than evidence (p. 6). In addition, there are some
anecdotal reports that coaches can be ineffective
if their roles are not clearly specified (Neufeld &
Roper, 2003). It is also likely that the quality of
coaching is correlated with the skills and knowledge of the coach.
Professional learning teams and teacher study
groups are another popular avenue for building
teacher capacity to implement improved instruction. In districts or schools where teachers have an
interest or extensive experience in forming teacher
study or learning teams, teacher group processes
may be considered as a vehicle for structuring
teacher exploration and learning toward improving reading across the curriculum. Conclusive
research on the effectiveness of this approach
is not yet available, however (Manouchehri,
2001; Spraker, 2003). One hypothesis about this
23
approach is that it empowers teachers, but followthrough in the classroom may be difficult to
ascertain.
All three approaches—a relationship with an external provider, literacy coaches, and teacher study
groups—may be considered. Based on evidence,
collective professional wisdom, and contextual
constraints, the planning team can decide on the
best approach to support teachers. During this
stage, it is important to
share information with
Schools, districts, and
teachers and decisionstates should choose
makers. All stakeholders
based on what approach
should have the opportubest fits their context
nity to provide input and
using an evidencediscuss the challenges of
based decisionmaking
each approach.
model to ensure that
high quality information
informs their decisions
School and district leaders can also affect the
quality of implementation of an initiative to
support teacher change. Leadership is crucial to
ensure teachers are held accountable for continuous movement toward the desired goal.
6. Develop a plan to monitor teacher implementation and student progress. The better articulated
the plan, the more likely it is that the implementation will go smoothly. Selecting an external
intervention is not itself the objective, nor is it a
release from responsibility for taking ownership
of the vision for change. Schools should guard
against professional development becoming the
goal rather than a means to the end of a more
explicit focus on reading across the curriculum.
Interim goals need to be defined as well, so that
if the selected strategies or interventions do not
work, they can be adjusted more strategically.
7. Plan how to evaluate implementation and
impact. Educators are continuously looking
for ways to improve the achievement of their
students. For a reading across the curriculum
initiative to have staying power, resources
should be provided for evaluating the quality
of implementation, tracking progress on key
indicators, and looking at student outcomes in
greater depth than is provided for on most state
tests. Whatever approach is selected (external
provider, internal literacy coach, teacher study
groups, or other), it will be necessary to look
at what happens with instruction in the classroom and whether students make progress in
developing the reading motivation, persistence,
and strategies needed for success in the content
areas. Evaluating the initiative should be part of
a continuous process of decisionmaking about
strategies to achieve the goal of reading across
the curriculum.
Many interventions claim to address literacy
across the curriculum, but schools, districts, and
states should choose based on what approach
best fits their context using an evidence-based
decisionmaking model to ensure that high quality information informs their decisions. Doing
so should enhance the likelihood that a reading
across the curriculum initiative will achieve the
desired outcomes.
Appendix A
Appendix A Methodology
The analysis for this report had three phases. The
first phase involved a protocol to gather information from state education agency contacts and
documents on adolescent literacy. The second
phase involved a search for professional development or teacher support interventions designed
to help content-area teachers increase their focus
on reading. The third phase involved a search for
evaluation reports and studies on the seven interventions identified to summarize the extent of the
evidence base on effectiveness.
Questions addressed
The study set out to address three sets of questions:
1. Inventory of state initiatives to set the regional
context: What are state departments across
the Southeast Region doing to address the
issue of improving adolescent literacy through
a focus on reading across the curriculum?
2. Description of available interventions (curricular or professional development interventions
available to help secondary teachers): What
interventions are being used or proposed for
use in the Southeast Region states? Nationally, are additional interventions referenced in
published research? Are there similar characteristics across interventions? How and in
what ways do they differ?
3. Description of the evidence available on
interventions: What kinds of data have been
reported on the interventions’ effectiveness?
25
development, evaluation, and funding for adolescent literacy initiatives. Information on each
state’s initiatives was gathered from the state
education agencies and supplemented with
information from the Internet and state publications. Follow-up conversations were conducted
with key state agency personnel to clarify and
expand on information. Individual state profiles
and a cross-state table were drafted to summarize information gathered in the protocols. The
profiles and tables were reviewed by state agencies
for accuracy.
Phase two: A search for existing curriculum and
professional development interventions on reading
across the curriculum. The Education Resources
Information Center database and lists provided by
other regional educational laboratories, content
centers, research centers and organizations, reading organizations, Southeastern state departments
of education, and federally funded literacy projects
were searched to identify available interventions.
REL staff attended relevant conferences and used
personal communications with researchers and
practitioners. Each REL staff member who assisted
with the intervention search process followed the
same protocol. The summary tables asked for:
•
Name of intervention.
•
Web site information.
•
Audience.
•
Whether the intervention addressed reading
across the curriculum.
•
The focus of the intervention.
•
A brief summary.
Approach used
Phase one: A summary of state initiatives (such as
standards, relevant policies, and planned professional development) under way in the Southeast
Region on improving adolescent literacy through
a cross-curricular focus. The information-gathering protocol focused on policy, professional
Once the relevant interventions were identified,
interventions that did not address the guiding
questions were screened. For example, many
interventions focused on helping “struggling
readers,” which was not the focus. Finally, the list
26 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
was narrowed to seven interventions available to
support secondary school content teachers.
•
On what content areas does the initiative
focus?
Phase three: Description of the effectiveness evidence available on the seven interventions. Evidence of effectiveness of the seven identified interventions was sought on the developers’ web sites,
the U.S. Department of Education web site, and in
educational journals, other regional educational
laboratories, content centers, and research centers.
Abstracts were developed for each intervention
(see appendix D).
•
Are there standards (for example, Georgia
Reading Across the Curriculum Standards
6–12)?
•
Are professional development timelines and
types provided? What kinds? For whom? Over
what time period?
•
What curriculum materials are provided?
•
Are assessments being used?
•
Are there teacher certification/requirements
for courses?
•
Is there funding? Do they have external funding (such as Carnegie, Striving Readers)?
•
Has there been a state-sponsored adolescent
literacy conference? If yes, when, audience,
number in attendance, overall goals? If not,
what plans do you have in the future for a
conference?
Phase I: Information-gathering protocol
for state education agency context
Background on state focus on adolescent literacy
■■
Does your state have an adolescent literacy focus?
•
If not, describe what efforts are taking
place concerning literacy in general; what is
your state’s implicit approach to adolescent
literacy?
•
If so, what was the impetus (for example,
achievement scores, state board of education,
legislators, local education agencies) for the
state-wide initiative on adolescent literacy?
■■
Components of state initiative
■■
■■
Describe your state’s implicit or explicit approach
to adolescent literacy.
Items you may want to include:
•
Is the initiative mandated?
•
Is there a timeline?
•
Who has taken the leadership role (such as
state, district, or local education agencies)? Is
there a commission or planning committee?
If so, who are the members (representatives,
teachers, institutions of higher education,
parents)?
Do any local education agencies have a literacy
initiative? How many? Have any of these education
agencies received state or federal recognition for
their adolescent literacy initiatives? If yes, briefly
describe.
Approach to identification/selection of
interventions to increase teachers’ competence
across the curriculum in adolescent literacy
■■
Is the state planning on recommending specific
interventions? If yes, what is the status? If no, why?
■■
What interventions have they discussed? Please
list.
Documents needed
■■
State initiative.
Appendix A
■■
List of interventions being considered by state education agencies.
■■ Funding information.
■■
■■
■■
State approved local education agency initiatives
and interventions.
•
National Council of Teachers of English.
•
International Reading Association.
27
■■
Identify relevant documents.
■■
Compile documents into a folder for each
intervention.
■■
Complete summary table items for each potential
intervention.
Sources of information.
Any other information that would give us a complete picture of what is happening.
Initial list of interventions
■■ Sample professional development materials.
■■
Below is a list of the interventions we originally
identified but that were not included in the final
analysis (table A1). The reasons for exclusion are
checked. There are many interventions developed
for use with struggling readers. These were not
included as our focus was on support for contentarea teachers across the curriculum.
Data that may be used/collected already on the
initiative (if it exists).
REL-Southeast policy analysts provide answers to questions
in a detailed brief using the aforementioned questions as a
reporting template.
Phase II: Guidelines for intervention search process
■■
Conduct structured search of appropriate databases and search engines. Primary search terms
and keywords will include: adolescent literacy,
middle school literacy, literacy across the curriculum, reading across the curriculum, high school
literacy, and others.
Phase III: Guidelines for intervention evidence
of effectiveness search process
■■
Conduct search of appropriate organizations and
educational databases for reports on each intervention using:
•
Intervention developer’s web site.
•
U.S. Department of Education–Institute of
Education Sciences.
•
Wilson Web (through University of North
Carolina, Greensboro Library).
•
Regional Educational Laboratories.
•
ERIC.
•
Research centers.
•
FirstSearch.
•
Comprehensive centers.
•
JSTOR.
•
Content centers.
•
Psychology Index.
•
Florida Center for Reading Research.
•
•
Alliance for Excellence in Education.
U.S. Department of Education –Institute of
Education Sciences.
•
National Middle School Association.
•
Regional Educational Laboratories.
28 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
•
Research centers.
•
Comprehensive centers.
•
Content centers.
•
Florida Center for Reading Research.
■■
Identify relevant developer documents, studies,
and reports.
■■
Compile studies and reports into a folder on each
of the seven interventions.
■■
Draft intervention abstract including summary
about research available.
Table A1
Rationale for interventions not described
Name
Academy of Reading
Did not
address
reading across
the curriculum
(content-area
reading)
✓
Accelerated
Literacy Learning
Accelerated Reader
Did not
address
students in
grades 4–12
Primarily
addressed
struggling
readers
Not aimed
at improving
teacher
instruction and
assessment at
the classroom
level
✓
✓
✓
✓
✓
Amp Reading
System
✓
✓
✓
Collaborative
Strategic Reading
Comprehension Plus
In early
stages of
development
✓
America’s Choice
Ramp-Up to Literacy
Carbo Reading
Styles Program
Part of CSR
model
Not enough
information
to determine
their purpose,
content,
audience,
desired
outcomes as
of 8/18/06
✓
✓
✓
✓
CREST
✓
Essential Learning
✓
✓
Exemplar Center for
Reading Instruction
✓
Failure Free Reading
✓
✓
Fast Forward
Language Software
✓
✓
Fast Track Reading
✓
✓
Great Leaps Reading
✓
HOSTS Link
Language Arts
✓
Kaleidoscope
✓
Language! (3rd
Edition)
✓
Lexia Reading S.O.S.
✓
Lindamood-Bell
Learning Processes
✓
✓
Appendix A
Table A1 (continued)
Rationale for interventions not described
Name
Did not
address
reading across
the curriculum
(content-area
reading)
Did not
address
students in
grades 4–12
Primarily
addressed
struggling
readers
My Reading Coach
✓
Plato Software/
Intermediate
Reading Skills
✓
REACH System
✓
✓
✓
Read XL
✓
✓
✓
Reading is Fame
✓
Reading Plus
✓
REWARDS (Reading
Excellence: Word
Attack and Rate
Development
Strategies)
✓
Second Chance at
Literacy Learning
✓
Skills Handbooks
✓
Soar to Success
✓
Spalding Writing
Road to Reading
✓
Spell Read P.A.T.
✓
✓
✓
Success for All
Middle School/
Reading Edge
✓
SuccessMaker
Enterprise
✓
Supported Literacy
✓
✓
Talent Development
High School
✓
Talent Development
Middle School
✓
Thinking Reader
✓
Voyager Passport
E, F., G
✓
Wilson Reading
System
In early
stages of
development
✓
✓
Read Naturally
Reading for
Knowledge
Part of CSR
model
✓
Read 180
Read for Real
Not aimed
at improving
teacher
instruction and
assessment at
the classroom
level
Not enough
information
to determine
their purpose,
content,
audience,
desired
outcomes as
of 8/18/06
✓
✓
29
30 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Appendix B Southeastern state summary
Approach
Alabama
Florida
Literacy initiatives/ plans
• The Alabama Reading Initiative
(ARI) is not a program, but
an ongoing professional
development opportunity for
all school faculty. It began in
1998 and was voluntary; now
all K–3 schools have to become
ARI schools by 2006. The goal is
100% literacy.
• It was initiated by the Alabama
State Board of Education
(ALSBE) and Alabama
Department of Education
(ALDOE), with support from the
A+ Foundation, which funded
the initiative for the first two
years.
• For 2006, ARI received $56
million dollars in funding; $53.5
went back to ARI schools.
• Florida has a K–12 focus on
literacy through Just Read,
Florida! The goal of this initiative
is for all students in Florida to
be able to read at grade level or
higher by 2012.
• The Florida Department
of Education (FLDOE) took
the lead in recommending
legislation to the Florida
Legislature, which adopted
the language in its mandated
policies.
• Funding for reading is a
permanent priority and was
funded in the amount of $111.8
million for the 2006–2007
school year.
• Almost 25% of the ARI schools
cover grades 4–12.
• ARI/ A-PAL (Project for
Adolescent Literacy) is a pilot
secondary ARI program.
• ARI/A-PAL focuses on reading
across the curriculum.
• There are three main groups
working to provide adolescent
literacy leadership through
a strategic five-year plan: (a)
educators to recommend a plan
to (b) a group of legislators,
superintendents, and (c)
representatives from different
administrative associations.
• The planning stage is funded by
the NGA/Carnegie Corporation
and its $50,000 Reading to
Achieve grant.
• ARI is aligned with state
standards and is set up to
support them.
• The standards, approved in
1996, were written in seven
subject areas, each divided into
four separate grade clusters
(PreK–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12).
• The state standards are the
basis for state assessments
at each grade from 3–10 in
language arts and mathematics
(www.firn.edu/doe/curric/
prek12/frame2.htm).
Does the state have a literacy plan or initiative?
Who initiated it?
Is there funding?
Middle school/high school
(6–12) initiatives/ plans
If the state has a recent initiative or plan, is there a
middle school/high school component? Or, does
the state have a separate middle school/high school
initiative? Is there any funding?
Does the state have a literacy across the curriculum/
literacy in the content area initiative?
Standards
How do the state standards in the content areas reflect
literacy expectations?
Appendix B
31
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
• During the 2004–05
school year, Georgia
began implementing its
new standards-based
curriculum, the Georgia
Performance Standards
(GPS).
• An important innovation
within the GPS is the
incorporation of Reading
Across the Curriculum
standards.
• Mississippi has goals for
all readers and the four
goals were laid out in the
1997 Mississippi Reading
Initiative, Every Child a
Reader.
• To support this initiative,
in 1998 the Mississippi
Legislature created a
Reading Sufficiency
Program of Instruction.
This law requires every
school district to establish
and implement a program
for reading reform.
• The South Carolina Reading
• North Carolina ‘s “Strategic
Initiative (SCRI) was created
Plan for Reading Literacy”
after Governor Jim Hodges’
will be presented to the
Institute of Reading held
North Carolina State Board of
the South Carolina Reading
Education (NCSBE) in March
Summit in 1999. SCRI began
2007. The plan includes six
its work with K–5 schools.
priority action steps.
• The SCRI model was
• The effort was initiated by
developed by SC in
the NCSBE.
collaboration with the
• The state received a National
National Council of Teachers
Governors Association
of English (NCTE).
(NGA)/Carnegie Corporation
• The General Assembly has
grant of $50,000 to write
allocated a total of $4.3
their plan.
million for the initiative,
and participating schools
receive up to $50,000 from
the Governor’s Institute on
Reading.
• The North Carolina plan will
• Adolescent literacy is
• Georgia added Reading
require a 3-hour literacy
also a focus of the 2006
Across the Curriculum
credit in a topic from an
legislation that established
Standards as a component
approved list for teachers in
an Office of Dropout
of all the Georgia
grades 9–12.
Prevention within the
Performance Standards for
Mississippi Department of • The North Carolina plan
grades 4–12.
includes steps to creating
Education.
literacy strategies in each
• Mississippi received a
content area.
Reading to Achieve grant
funded by the NGA/
Carnegie Corporation
to assist the state in
developing literacy plans
and policies to improve
adolescent literacy
achievement.
• Georgia’s Reading Across
the Curriculum standards
are a component of all of
the Georgia Performance
Standards for all students
grades 6–12 in science,
social studies, math, and
language arts.
• Mississippi Language
Arts Framework 2006
standards, and other
curriculum frameworks,
contain literacy objectives.
• As part of the “Strategic
Plan for Reading Literacy,”
if the plan is implemented,
the standards will included
“digital and literacy skills
for the 21st Century and to
ensure that all students are
college and work ready.”
• Revisions will also align
English and Math standards
to the American Diploma
Project benchmarks and 21st
Century Skills.
South Carolina
• During the 2003–04 school
year SCRI began working
with middle schools, utilizing
$1.3 million in funding.
• In addition, the General
Assembly allocated $1
million to expand the
reading initiative into high
schools for the 2006–07
school year.
• SCRI is a voluntary program
and the participating
districts received $50,000
from the Governor’s Institute
of Reading.
• High-need districts
were given priority for
participation in the middle
and high school initiative.
• SCRI is intended to be a
literacy across the curriculum
program.
• SCRI works to implement
the English/Language Arts
(ELA) standards through
the use of best practices in
literacy, which are explicitly
addressed in the Proposed
ELA Standards for 2007 draft
document.
(continued)
32 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Appendix B (continued)
Southeastern State Summary
Approach
Alabama
Florida
Professional development for middle school/high
school teachers
• ARI professional development
aims to empower teachers with
the content knowledge, skills,
and strategies necessary to be
successful with all students,
especially those that challenge
them the most—struggling
readers.
• ARI involves two- week
workshops over the summer
and follow-up sessions
throughout the school year.
• Teachers receive ongoing
support from literacy coaches.
• Content area Reading
Professional Development
(CAR-PD) provides educators
with an 150 hour in-service
program, which makes them
eligible to serve as a reading
-intervention teacher in their
content areas. However,
teachers who are teaching
academic reading courses still
need the reading endorsement
and/or K–12 reading
certification.
• CAR-PD PLUS will be available
soon to provide the reading
endorsement.
• Each district’s Comprehensive
Research-based Reading Plan
must include PD for teaching
reading in the content areas,
with an emphasis on technical
and informational text.
Does the state have professional development in
adolescent literacy? If so, what kind?
To what extent is the state planning for or providing
professional development for content area teachers?
Literacy Coaches
• There are three secondary
school regional coaches that
What are some ways in which states are building teacher
work with ARI high schools.
capacity (e.g., literacy coaches, online courses, statedeveloped programs, etc.)?
• District plans must include
high-quality reading coaches
along with PD for teachers on
teaching reading in the content
areas, and supplemental
materials.
• The Florida Literacy and
Reading Excellence Center
(FLaRE) at the University of
Central Florida provides sitebased support for principals,
reading coaches, and teachers
at the lowest performing
middle and high schools in the
state.
Appendix B
33
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
• Georgia training on the
GPS began during the
2004–05 school year. GA
is using a train-the-trainer
model, with district and
school representatives
receiving state training
and then redelivering it at
the building level.
N/A
• LEARN NC is hosting the
Adolescent Literacy Project,
which includes four online
courses. It uses a train-thetrainer model.
• The NC plan will require
a 3-hour literacy credit in
a topic from an approved
list for teachers in grades
9–12; K–8 already have this
requirement.
• The SCRI-MG and the
High School Initiative is an
intensive four-year, staffdevelopment plan that is
designed to improve reading
skills and strategies for
all adolescents across the
curriculum. Literacy coaches
provide both individual and
group professional coaches
to teachers.
• Georgia is currently in
the formative stages
of crafting a statewide
literacy plan.
N/A
• The North Carolina plan
includes having literacy/
reading coaches in the
middle schools. In addition,
the plan mentions an
expansion of coaches to
all elementary and middle
schools by 2013. The plan
includes a study of the
effectiveness of coaches in
high schools.
• Coming from an initiative
sponsored by Governor Mike
Easley, the state is already
funding 100 literacy coaches
for the lowest performing
middle schools in the state.
• District/School literacy
coaches work in classrooms
to provide support to SCRIMG teachers and also guide
twice- monthly discussion
meetings.
• All coaches participate in
summer study and monthly
study throughout the year.
• Regional literacy coaches
provide ongoing support to
district literacy coaches.
(continued)
34 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Appendix B (continued)
Southeastern State Summary
Approach
Alabama
Florida
Middle school/high school struggling readers
• ARI is intended to help teachers
learn strategies to assist
struggling students.
• In middle and high schools,
struggling readers are required
to have one intervention class,
either reading or a content area
subject taught by a teacher
who has received a reading
endorsement.
Does the state have initiatives for struggling adolescent
readers and , if so, where are they located?
Research and evaluation
Are there any significant studies underway with regard
to literacy initiatives?
Web site
• The RAND Corporation
• An AIR report on the ARI was
is to study the impact of
commissioned by the Carnegie
reading coaches on student
Corporation of New York.
achievement; Florida is one of
• Bacevich, A., & Salinger, T.
the study sites.
(2006, June). Lessons and
• The Columbia Group will
recommendations from the
conduct a cost analysis
Alabama Reading Initiative:
of reading coaches in the
Sustaining focus on secondary
classroom.
reading. Washington, DC:
American Institutes for Research
(AIR).
ALSDE Reading Initiative
Publications
http://www.alsde.edu/
html/sections/documents.
asp?section=50&
footer=sections
AIR Report
http://www.air.org/publications/
documents/AIR%20Popular%20
Report_final.pdf
FLDOE
http://www.fldoe.org
Endorsement
http://www.justreadflorida.com/
endorsement/
FLaRE
http://flare.ucf.edu
Appendix B
35
Georgia
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
• Georgia maintains a
remedial education
program for students
in grades 6–12 with
identified academic
deficiencies.
• The program operates
at the system level, and
offers individualized
instruction to eligible
students using several
scheduling models.
• The program is housed
at the state level in the
Department of Curriculum
and instruction.
Information is available
at http://public.doe.
k12.ga.us/ci_services.
aspx?PageReq=
CIServRemedial
• The new dropout
prevention legislation
mandates that the Office
of Dropout Prevention
build in a focus on
adolescent literacy.
• If implemented, the North
Carolina plan includes an
analysis of the need to
provide extra assistance to
struggling middle and high
school readers.
• SCRI is focused on providing
teachers with skills/resources
so that they can ensure that
all students develop strong
skills.
• As a part of this, South
Carolina has developed a
remediation plan focused
on ensuring that students in
grades 3–8 acquire the skills
they need to be successful.
Information is available at
http://ed.sc.gov/agency/
offices/sq/AcademicPlans/
index.html
• Researchers have
undertaken an in-depth
study of SCRI. It is focused on
changes in the beliefs and
practices of teachers and
on changes in the skills and
strategies of students; it also
examines the relationship
between SCRI and students
test scores on standardized
tests.
• South Carolina also collects
data from participating
teachers and coaches to
assess changes in practice
and outlook. Interim reports
are available at http://www.
ncte.org/profdev/onsite/
readinit/groups/110385.htm
• Georgia is working
with SERVE on this
Fast Response Brief on
adolescent literacy across
the curriculum, to guide
planning for further SEA
support to local systems
and schools in this area.
GADOE
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/
ci_services.aspx?PageReq=
CIServEnglish
MS DOE/Reading Curriculum
http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/
ACAD/ID/LAER/goals.html
NCDPI Literacy Proposal
http://www.ncpublicschools.
org/sbe_meetings/0608/0608_
hsp/hsp/0608hsp06.pdf
NCTE
http://www.ncte.org/profdev/
onsite/readinit/groups/110385.
htm
http://www.ncte.org/profdev/
onsite/readinit/groups/
sc/110387.htm
SC Dept of Ed
http://ed.sc.gov/
36 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Appendix C Southeastern state profiles
The ARI was originally supported by the A+
Foundation of Montgomery, which provided the
initial funding and assisted in recruiting partners
for the first two years of the initiative. As the
promise of the program became evident, Governor
Don Siegelman proposed state-wide expansion of
the program. Funding for the initiative has grown
from $1.5 million in 1998 to $56 million allocated
in 2006 by the Alabama legislature.
The six southeastern states served by the RELSoutheast are currently attending to the need
to improve adolescent literacy outcomes. The
approaches are varied, but a commonality is that
all assume that content area teachers will need
support in embedding literacy development more
systematically into their curriculum. The work of
the six states is described below.
Although the initiative was conceived as a K–12
program, initial training and materials were
created as “one size fits all,” with a focus on
K–3. Teachers and reading coaches in secondary
programs adapted materials to meet their needs
and had some positive experiences in applying
materials to their contexts (Bacevich & Salinger,
2006). However, while some staff support and professional development is available at the secondary
level, schools have experienced difficulty in maintaining ARI programs because of funding limitations. As a result of these limitations, state officials
determined that Alabama schools are best served
by full implementation of ARI in all K–3 schools
rather than partial implementation in some K–12
schools. Therefore, implementation in middle
and high schools has been delayed. All Alabama
schools with K–3 programs were required to be
ARI schools by 2006. To move toward implementation in middle and high schools, a state sponsored adolescent literacy conference was held in
June 2006, and Alabama has recently developed
and introduced A-PAL, a reading initiative targeted at adolescent readers that will build on ARI,
offering more support for reading in the content
areas. A-PAL will be piloted at a limited number of
Alabama schools beginning in 2006/07.
Alabama
In the past, Alabama schools have faced a continuing struggle with low literacy achievement among
students, as evidenced by National Assessment
of Education Progress (NAEP) scores and other
indicators. In November 1996, in an effort to address this issue, the Alabama State Department of
Education, in concert with other educational organizations, brought together a panel of business and
education leaders. This group met for a two-week
working session to envision a statewide plan to
ensure 100 percent literacy among Alabama school
children. This was the beginning of the Alabama
Reading Initiative (ARI).
Implemented in 1998, the ARI is a statewide,
ongoing professional development program. The
initiative is collaborative in that it values innovation
in implementation at the local level. Through highquality professional development based on the support of reading specialists, an intensive two-week
workshop each summer, and involvement with a
professional community composed of peers, administrators, and university-level mentors, it is hoped
that ARI participants will acquire the knowledge,
skills, and strategies to support successful literacy
learning for all students across the curriculum, with
a special emphasis on struggling students. Evaluation of this state initiative in professional development is ongoing, and considerable information
is offered at http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/
documents.asp?section=50&footer=sections, where
Alabama has published the Executive Summary of
the Evaluation Report 2005, Years 7 and 8.
Contact: Katherine Mitchell, Assistant State Superintendent of Education for Reading, Alabama
Department of Education, [email protected],
(334) 353-1570
Florida
Florida developed a multipronged approach to
support adolescent literacy learning as a part of
Appendix C
37
legislation called Just Read, Florida! (JRF). With
its goal that all students be able to read at grade
level, the effort is funded by law through the
Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), a lineitem in the state budget for the Florida Literacy
and Reading Excellence Center (FLaRE). The state
also received a Reading to Achieve grant from the
National Governors Association.
and teachers. It is hoped that the combined
professional development, along with online logs
submitted by reading coaches, will encourage and
improve the opportunities for individual growth
among teachers and students. The Carnegie Foundation asked the RAND Corporation to study the
impact of reading coaches on student achievement
and Florida is one of the study sites.
Districts write a K–12 Comprehensive Researchbased Reading Plan, which is then approved by the
JRF Office at the state department. The plan must
focus on struggling readers and provide reading coaches. Students scoring a Level 1 or Level
2 on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test
(FCAT) must have an intervention plan, which is
required by the A++ Plan to include at least one
intervention class, either reading or subject area,
taught by teachers who have a reading endorsement. Professional development is available
through Content Area Reading Professional Development (CAR-PD), and once completed, teachers are eligible to serve as reading intervention
teachers in their subject area (academic reading
teachers still need certification or endorsement).
Summer institutes are available for principals and
literacy coaches.
Contact: Evan Lefsky, Executive Director, Just
Read, Florida!, Florida Department of Education,
[email protected], (850) 245-0503
The CAR-PD consists of 150 in-service hours for
content-area teachers. Sixty hours are completed
through the Florida Online Reading Professional
Development (FOR-PD), a course focused on
the basics of reading. Thirty hours are part of a
practicum. Finally, 60 hours are obtained through
a face-to-face academy to be offered spring/summer 2007. The academy is intended to be a trainthe-trainer model where literacy coaches or other
interested district educators receive training and,
in turn, train content teachers in their districts.
The CAR-PD training was created by FLaRE and
designed for vocabulary development and comprehension skill development in the higher levels. It is
not intended to build decoding or fluency skills.
In addition, FLaRE provides site-based support for
the lowest performing middle and high schools.
The center works with principals, reading coaches,
Georgia
Georgia’s attention to adolescent literacy emerged
as a result of the Georgia Performance Standards,
which were presented to the state in 2004/05. An
important change from the previous state standards was the integration of Reading across the
Curriculum standards, which represent a move
toward developing a statewide literacy plan.
The Reading across the Curriculum standards are
embedded in the content area standards for grades
6–12 in science, social studies, mathematics, and
language arts, providing a reading standards
component in each content area. They emphasize
such skills as reading in content areas, enhancing
students’ ability to read and understand contentspecific material, developing appropriate vocabulary, and discussing and evaluating material. An
important component of these standards is the 25book requirement, which requires each student to
read a minimum of 25 books, or their equivalent,
per year across curriculum areas. Content-area
teachers are supposed to incorporate the Reading
across the Curriculum standards in their classroom practice.
Georgia used a train-the-trainer model to introduce the new Georgia Performance Standards
in 2004/05, with district and school representatives receiving training from the state Department of Education and, in turn, providing it
to all teachers at school sites. Currently, the
state Department of Education is developing a
38 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
statewide literacy plan to ensure that teachers
have the support they need in teaching to these
new Reading across the Curriculum standards.
The plan is expected to offer direction to local
education agencies on a comprehensive set of
plan components. Already, a limited number of
middle schools fund literacy coaches through
Title I funds, and some have Learn and Serve
grants that incorporate literacy training. These
changes represent a significant movement toward
providing an effective literacy curriculum for all
Georgia middle and high school students.
In an effort to provide useful resources and support for secondary content teachers, for whom
these new standards may represent a significant
challenge, the Georgia state school superintendent
asked REL-Southeast to help answer the question, What literacy across the curriculum support
interventions might the Georgia Department of
Education consider as part of a research-based,
comprehensive plan to improve secondary literacy
and student achievement? The results of this brief
will be used to support the state’s work in this
area.
Contact: Lisa Copeland, Director, Reading and
Middle Schools, Georgia Department of Education, [email protected]
Mississippi
Mississippi identified goals for all readers in its
1997 Mississippi Reading Initiative and also developed the Mississippi Reading Reform Model in
1997. The model includes four basic components:
•
•
•
Well-designed early literacy interventions to
ensure reading readiness.
Prescriptive direct instruction utilizing the
essential elements of reading instruction and
based upon results of appropriate, valid, and
reliable assessments.
Extended instructional opportunities for
children.
•
High-quality professional development to
improve reading instructional practices of
Mississippi teachers, administrators, and support staff.
The state has long had K–3 reading initiatives,
including the Barksdale Reading Institute, created
from a $100 million gift given to the University of
Mississippi Foundation from Jim and the late Sally
Barksdale; Reading Sufficiency, a comprehensive
effort to improve the teaching and learning of reading and language arts in Mississippi’s classrooms
through the support of rigorous reading standards
for students; and Reading First, which provides assistance to states and districts to establish researchbased reading programs for K–3 students. The
state now appears to also be focusing on struggling
readers from 4th grade through high school. More
specifically, through high school redesign work
and the new Office of Dropout Prevention, the state
plans to address the needs of adolescent readers. In
addition, like Florida and North Carolina, Mississippi received a National Governors Association
Reading to Achieve grant funded by the Carnegie
Corporation of New York and is developing a more
comprehensive policy and plan to improve adolescent literacy achievement.
The National Governors Association Reading to
Achieve grant will provide funding for the establishment of a state literacy task force that will be
responsible for accomplishing the following broad
goals (Mississippi Department of Education press
release, Feb. 16, 2006):
•
Develop a detailed report describing current
reading performance.
•
Increase public understanding of and support
for a literacy focus in Mississippi.
•
Build on Mississippi’s existing literacy plan
with particular emphasis paid to literacy
achievement in grades 4–12.
•
Make specific research-based recommendations
leading to student gains in reading performance.
Appendix C
•
Develop a plan for changing classroom instruction based on scientific reading research.
Contact: Robin Miles, Bureau Director, Reading,
Early Childhood, and Language Arts, Mississippi
Department of Education, [email protected],
(601) 359-3778
North Carolina
Like Florida and Mississippi, North Carolina received a National Governors Association Reading
to Achieve grant funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and used the funds to develop
a K–12 plan. Concerned with dropping National
Assessment of Educational Progress scores, North
Carolina formed a committee of stakeholders
to develop a six-priority action-step plan, the
“Strategic Plan for Reading Literacy,” which will
be presented to the State Board in March 2007. The
six priority action steps are:
•
Amend the curriculum revision process to
include literacy strategies in each content area
and a focus on digital reading.
•
Develop student assessment processes that
provide for open-ended and performance
assessments.
•
Provide opportunities for leadership development for principals and central office staff.
•
Enhance preparation and professional development for elementary, middle, and high
school teachers.
•
Analyze the need for policy revision and
development.
•
Develop benchmarks at the school level for
each grade and subgroup.
The original literacy plan covered only grades
K–8; but the current plan is for K–12. The plan
also includes two new strategies that will directly
affect adolescent readers—one aimed at teacher
39
skills and knowledge of reading instruction and
the other at struggling readers. The first policy
will require all grade 9–12 teachers to get threehour credits in literacy as part of their licensure
renewal. The second strategy under consideration
is the revisitation of the Personalized Education
Plans.
At this time the plan has not been presented to
the State Board for approval, but other actions
are being taken to improve adolescent literacy.
Already in place are four online courses in reading
in the content areas which have been developed
by LEARN NC (http://www.learnnc.org/courses/)
to support teachers. In addition, the Office of the
Governor has also funded 100 literacy coaches
to be provided to the lowest- performing middle
schools.
Contact: Louise Burner, English Language Arts
Consultant, North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, [email protected], (919) 8073300
South Carolina
In 1999, then Governor Jim Hodges created the
Governor’s Institute of Reading (GIR), a partnership of businesses, community organizations, and
education organizations to focus on early reading.
In December 1999 the GIR sponsored the South
Carolina Reading Summit. As a result of this Summit, input from the GIR Task Force and a review of
best practices, the South Carolina Reading Initiative (SCRI) came into being and was announced
in 2000. The SCRI began with K–5 but has since
broadened its scope, initiating work with middle
schools during the 2003/04 school year and, more
recently, with high schools.
SCRI is a voluntary program funded through the
General Assembly, which allocated $1.3 million to
allow the program to expand into middle schools
and an additional $1 million in 2006/07 for expansion into high schools. Participating schools may
receive up to $50,000 dollars from the GIR to
support implementation of the initiative’s seven
40 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
goals. To participate, schools submit an implementation plan. Because the initiatives have not been
fully funded, a competitive grant process is used
in some instances to determine which schools will
receive funds. However, high need districts are
given priority.
The SCRI-MG (middle grades) and the High
School Initiative is an intensive four-year, staffdevelopment plan designed to improve reading
skills and strategies for adolescents across the
curriculum by providing support and resources to
teachers. District and school literacy coaches work
in classrooms four days each week to provide support to participating teachers, as well as leading
SCRI teams in twice-monthly meetings to consider
research and practice. Coaches continue to develop
their own skills as they work with regional literacy
coaches, faculty from the University of South
Carolina (USC), state department staff, and the
National Council of Teachers of English to build
a common knowledge base by participating in
summer institutes and monthly study throughout
the year. The training was initially developed as
a collaborative effort of the University of South
Carolina, South Carolina Department of Education, and the National Council of Teachers of
English. Training continues, with USC faculty,
regional literacy coaches, visiting instructors from
other South Carolina institutions, and national
consultants serving as instructors.
South Carolina is evaluating the effects of the
SCRI. The SCRI research team has collected data
for a three-part study using a variety of criterionreferenced tests in addition to state standardized
tests such as the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test. Data are also being collected related to
changes in teacher practices and attitudes.
Contact: Allison Norwood (SCRI-HS), Office
of Curriculum and Standards, South Carolina
Department of Education, [email protected],
(803) 734-2469
Caroline Savage (SCRI-MG), Office of Curriculum
and Standards, South Carolina Department of
Education, [email protected], (803) 734-4770
Appendix D
41
Appendix D Intervention Abstracts
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
Type of intervention
This program consists of teaching teachers to use multiple cognitive strategies for activating
background knowledge, questioning, searching for information, summarizing, organizing
information graphically, and structuring stories. These strategies are combined with the multiple
motivational practices of using content goals in reading instruction, providing hands-on activities,
affording students choices, using interesting texts, and promoting collaboration among school staff
in reading instruction. The content area of major focus for the research has been science.
Developer
John Guthrie & Allan Wigfield, University of Maryland
Contact information
John Guthrie & Allan Wigfield
(301) 314-8448—General Information
[email protected] or [email protected]
Brief description
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction incorporates reading strategy instruction, student
engagement strategies, and science inquiry activities in interesting and unique ways for students.
The goals of CORI are to increase students’ reading comprehension, motivation to read, and science
knowledge. The CORI program equips participating teachers with the skills to accomplish these
classroom goals through interactive, professional development workshops and established CORI
guidelines.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
Teachers learn instructional and motivational strategies that can be used to increase students’
reading comprehension, engagement in instruction, science knowledge, and motivation to read.
Expected outcomes for
students
Students learn numerous reading strategies including how to use background knowledge to inform
their reading, form questions about text material, search for information, summarize accurately,
organize their new-found knowledge, and monitor their own comprehension of text. Students’
written language skills are also targeted for overall improvement.
Grade range
Research on CORI was originally conducted with students in 3rd–5th grades, but CORI has also been
adapted for students in 6th–12th grades.
Reading level range
Varied
Materials provided
• CORI Facilitator Guide
• CORI Teacher Guides
• CORI Books—Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction & ConceptOriented Reading Instruction: Engaging Classrooms, Lifelong Learners
• Videos/DVDs
User requirements
4–6 months of planning by 1–3 full-time staff members, 5 days of teacher professional
development, and funds to purchase books, manipulatives and portfolios necessary for instruction.
Time commitment
• Professional development for instructors in the CORI model requires a minimum of 10 days in
the summer to give instructors an opportunity to adapt existing materials to the curriculum
framework.
• Each CORI teacher receives a minimum of 5 days of professional development in the summer and
5 days of coaching during the fall.
Cost structure
(as of 3/20/07)
• Several independent trainers are available for the 10-day training course.
• A trainer charges approximately $10,000 for the introductory course.
• Books for a room of about 20 students can cost approximately $2,400 for the initial investment.
R&D summary
• This program was first developed in 1992 in Maryland as a collaboration between Louise
Bennett, an elementary school science teacher, and John Guthrie, a reading and literacy
researcher.
• Bennett and Guthrie designed CORI to teach students strategies used by skilled readers, increase
student engagement in reading and science, and help students develop science inquiry skills.
• Numerous quasi-experimental studies on the CORI model have been conducted.
• The researchers of CORI have received funds from the U.S. Department of Education and the
National Science Foundation to examine the impact of CORI on student achievement.
42 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
Results of R&D
• Using random assignment of schools, the authors reported that CORI-trained teachers surpassed
teachers trained in Strategy Instruction Only in their students’ performance on reading
comprehension, reading motivation and reading strategy measures (Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa,
Perenchevich, Taboada, Davis, Scafiddi & Tonks, 2004).
• Using a quasi-experimental design, CORI-trained teachers surpassed comparison teachers in
their students’ performance on reading comprehension and reading strategy use (Guthrie,
Anderson, Alao & Rinehart, 1999; Guthrie, Van Meter, Hancock, Alao, Anderson & McCann, 1998).
• Using a quasi-experimental design, CORI teachers surpassed comparison teachers in their
students’ performance on reading motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield & VonSecker, 2000; Wigfield,
Guthrie, Tonks & Perencevich, 2004).
References
Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 1–30.
Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary School Journal,
99(4), 343–366.
Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an
engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (in press). Reading
motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary
Educational Psychology.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark to fire:
Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading Research and
Instruction, 45 (2), 91–118.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., McCann, A., Anderson, E., & Alao, S. (1998). Does ConceptOriented Reading Instruction increase strategy-use and conceptual learning from text? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261–278.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T.,
& Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through ConceptOriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 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. Journal of
Educational Research, 99, 232–245.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K.C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension:
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and
strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.
Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in learning: An
observational study of elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research,
100, 3–20.
Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation,
amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and
Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading:
Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299–309.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and
breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.
States used in
Maryland, Iowa, North Carolina, and Utah
Web site
http://www.cori.umd.edu/
Appendix D
43
CRISS (CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies)
Type of intervention
Professional development course designed to help teachers incorporate additional instructional
strategies for reading and writing into their regular content instruction.
Developer
Carol Santa and her colleagues in the Kalispell, Montana, School District.
Contact information
Lynn Havens, Project CRISS Director
(406) 758-6440—General Information
[email protected]
Brief description
This program began in 1979 and was originally developed as a secondary program (Content
Reading in Secondary Schools). In addition, it received federal validation and funding through the
National Diffusion Network of the U.S. Department of Education.
The purpose is to provide students with reading, writing, and study skill strategies that will help
them better organize, understand, and retain information. The CRISS strategies can be incorporated
into any existing curriculum and content area.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
Teachers learn instructional strategies and assessment techniques to enhance student progress in
reading, writing, and in content subjects.
Expected outcomes for
students
Students acquire skills to set their own learning goals and use strategies that work best for them.
They acquire learning strategies, including meta-cognitive approaches and monitoring of their own
learning, to enhance academic progress.
Other expected outcomes
(administrative,
organizational, curriculum)
Strategies are designed to be adapted and implemented across the curriculum.
Grade range
3–12
Reading level range
Varied
Materials provided
3rd Edition of CRISS Teacher Training Manual (for Level I Training).
User requirements
• Local facilitator needed to coordinate the program and periodically observe classes and arrange
follow-up sessions 3–6 months after the final training session.
Time commitment
• Level I Training/ Teachers—12–18 contact hours.
• Level II Training/ Certified District Trainer—28 contact hours.
Cost structure
• Level I Training/ Teachers—$45.00/55.00 per person.
• Level II Training/ Certified District Trainer—$200.00 per person.
• A variety of instructional materials are available ranging in price from $10 for 10 student
overviews of CRISS strategies to $550 for a complete set of classroom materials.
R&D summary
The developers list the following evaluations:
• 1985—National Validation study, Horsfall & Santa (1985).
• 1993–1994—Validation study (4th, 6th, 8th and 11th grades), Horsfall & Santa (1994).
• 2001–2003—Comparison study, 4th, 7th and High School Students in Utah, O’Neil and Associates
(2004).
• 2003–2004—Study in 2 High Schools in Las Vegas, Santa and Vick (2004).
• Overall, several pre-post-test evaluations with comparison groups are reported using a Free
Recall Assessment as the outcome measure.
• Currently, the REL-Northwest is planning an evaluation of the program using an experimental
design.
(The O’Neil and Associates (2004) and Santa & Vick (2004) reports were mentioned on the developers web
site, but we have been unable to obtain a copy.)
44 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
CRISS (CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies)
Results of R&D
The O’Neil and Associates (2004) evaluation findings as reported by the developer were that
randomly selected students from a school with teachers trained in CRISS scored better on the Free
Recall Assessment (created by the developer) than randomly selected students in schools where the
teachers had not been trained in CRISS.
In their review of the research on this intervention, the Florida Center for Reading Research points
out some of the potential problems with the research conducted to date, “Although in some
classrooms, students with CRISS trained teachers showed significantly stronger performance at
the posttest, it is questionable whether the differential gains can be attributed to CRISS for two
reasons. First, as schools were not randomly assigned to receive CRISS training, pre-existing school
differences may have influenced the results. Second, the repeated measures ANOVA procedures
used to analyze the data were not able to correct for pretest differences between groups of
students (FCRR, 2004, p. 3).”
References
Horsfall, S., & Santa, C. (1985). Project CRISS: Validation report for the Joint Review and Dissemination
Panel.
Horsfall, S., & Santa, C. (1994). Project CRISS: Validation report for the Program Effectiveness Panel.
Santa, C. (1995). Project CRISS: Evidence of effectiveness in Spokane, Washington, and Aurora, Colorado.
Technical Report.
Santa, C., & O’ Neil, R. (2004). Project CRISS: Evidence of effectiveness, constructive accountability:
Creating a culture for progress. Utah Association of Curriculum Development, 15, 21–32.
Santa, C., & Vick, L. (2004). Project CRISS evidence of effectiveness in Las Vegas Schools. Technical
Report.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). National assessment of Title I
Interim Report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
States used in
Over 43 states (Canada and Norway as well) (based on information from their web site)
Web site
http://www.projectcriss.com
Appendix D
45
Literacy First—Middle/High School Content Area Process
Type of intervention
Literacy First is a comprehensive reform process which aims to accelerate reading achievement
through four distinct programs for students in grades PreK to 12th through professional
development and onsite coaching and consulting.
Developer
Bill Blokker, President
Professional Development Institute, Inc.
Contact information
Literacy First Process
3109 150th Place SE
Mill Creek, WA 98012
(425) 745-3029
Brief description
Literacy First Middle/High School Content Area Process is a professional- development and
change process that consists of the following: an analysis of the school’s current reading program
infrastructure and culture in comparison to research-based best practices; development of
a customized three-year strategic plan; plan implementation through intensive professional
development (28 days); systematic, explicit onsite coaching and consulting (24 days); and
monitoring and support of the plan.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
With respect to the Middle School/High School Content Area Process, teachers are expected to
learn to help students better understand the content information taught in their classrooms. A
small cadre of teachers will become secondary reading specialists. These teachers will teach in the
Intensive Reading classes.
Expected outcomes for
students
Though the intervention includes processes for grades PreK to 12th, the goal of the Literacy First
Middle School/High School Content Area Process is to significantly increase achievement of ALL
students in all content-area classes, provided they are reading no more than two grades below
level.
Other expected outcomes
(administrative, organizational,
curriculum)
As part of the intervention, Literacy First monitors the support of the program from school and
district administrators and holds the leadership team and teachers accountable for effective
implementation of the strategic plan.
Grade range
6–12
Reading level range
Varied
Materials provided
Teachers in the content area receive a teacher’s manual and three resource books, all of which
focus on comprehension skills, strategic reading/thinking tools, metacognitive processes, and
vocabulary development.
User requirements
Commitment from the school principal to be an integral part of the change process and
implementation is needed.
Time commitment
The intervention entails a three-year process to include reading program analysis, 15 days of
professional development, 24 days of onsite coaching and consulting, and unlimited email and
phone consultation.
Cost structure
Dependent on the number of schools that participate and what they choose to include as the
program customizes their plan to meet the needs of the individual schools.
R&D summary
The Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation contracted with the Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory (SEDL) to conduct an independent evaluation of the impact of the
Literacy First Process in 29 schools in Oklahoma. SEDL compared the 29 Literacy First schools to 29
non-Literacy First schools with similar demographics. On the nationally normed assessment used
in the state, the Literacy First schools increased an average of 9 percentage points on 3rd-grade
reading scores compared to a 1 percent increase in comparable schools. During the same time
period, the average increase of reading achievement in all Oklahoma schools was 3 percentage
points (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2003). (This report was mentioned on the
developer’s web site, but we have been unable to obtain a copy.)
Results of R&D
In their review of the research on this intervention, the Florida Center for Reading Research
noted: “Literacy First cites preliminary data (including surveys, interviews, and observations) that
indicated changes in teachers’ knowledge and classroom implementation of explicit teaching
directed at the students’ instructional level. Presently, Literacy First is designing a study to collect
more evidence about its impact on cultural change and school reform (FCRR, 2004, p. 2).”
46 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Literacy First—Middle/High School Content Area Process
Program research references
(n.d.) Literacy First Comprehensive Reading Reform Process. Mill Creek, WA: Professional Development
Institute.
Florida Center for Reading Research (2004, November). Literacy first comprehensive reading reform
process. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Available online:http://ww.fcrr.org
States used in
Nationwide K–12, 18 states and over 400 schools. See the Literacy First web site for specific details
on states involved. Specific school districts with names for references may be contacted from the
web site.
Web site
http://www.literacyfirst.com
Appendix D
47
ReadAbout
Type of intervention
A computer-based program meant to complement a core-reading program. This supplemental
intervention program is designed to help students develop reading comprehension and
vocabulary skills.
Developer
Scholastic, Inc.
Contact information
Scholastic, Inc.
Worldwide Headquarters and Editorial Office
557 Broadway
New York, New York 10012
1-877-234-READ—General Information
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/readabout/contact/customer_service.asp
Brief description
ReadAbout is a self-managed reading program that uses technology to personalize literacy and
vocabulary instruction. It is designed to help upper elementary students learn to read nonfiction.
ReadAbout complements the core reading program; it uses nonfiction content, plus skills
instruction, and reinforcement strategies tailored to the interests and reading level of individual
students.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
Teacher outcomes for those who take part in the introductory training include an ability to use
ReadAbout’s software to monitor students’ reading progress and to use the reports of students’
progress to continue differentiating instruction offline.
Teachers who take part in the Scholastic Red online training are expected to learn additional
reading instruction strategies for improving student reading comprehension.
Expected outcomes for
students
Students are expected to learn vocabulary and expository text structures, to develop graphic
organizers and background knowledge, and to practice writing in response to text.
Grade range
3–8
Reading level range
Varied
Materials provided
• ReadAbout software and software manuals.
• Teacher guide, topic planners, and organizer.
• Worksheets and answer sheets.
User requirements
• Computers for student and teacher use.
• A printer for printing reports.
• Teachers available to participate in a 2-day introductory workshop.
Time commitment
• 20 minutes, 3 days a week for each student using the program.
• 2 days of training on how to use ReadAbout software is provided for teachers for each package
of the ReadAbout program purchased.
Cost structure
(as of 10/11/06)
• The 100 license plan (three classrooms) includes ReadAbout software and materials for 3
classrooms as well as a 2-day training for 3 teachers on how to use the ReadAbout program
costs $11,000.
• The 100 license plan plus a Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) program to determine students’
reading level costs $12,000.
• The 100 license plan plus Scholastic Red, an online reading instruction course for teachers,
costs $12,350.
• The 100 license plan plus both SRI and Scholastic Red costs $13,600.
• 360 licenses plan (12 classrooms/school level) includes ReadAbout software and materials for
12 classrooms as well as a 2-day training course for 13 teachers on how to use the ReadAbout
program costs $23,000.
• The 360 license plan plus a SRI program to determine students’ reading level costs $27,500.
• The 360 license plan plus Scholastic Red, an online reading instruction course for teachers
costs $34,875.
• The 360 license plan plus both SRI and Scholastic Red costs $30,375.
R&D summary
The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences is studying the effectiveness
of reading comprehension programs, and ReadAbout is one of four programs that were randomly
assigned to 5th grade classrooms in nine districts across the country (U.S. Department of
Education, 2006).
Results of R&D
No results from the USDOE IES study have been reported
48 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
ReadAbout
References
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). National assessment of Title I
Interim Report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
States used in
Not provided, but appears to be used in localities throughout the U.S.
Web site
http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/ReadAbout/index.htm
Appendix D
49
Reading in the Content Areas
Type of intervention
This program teaches students reading strategies to guide them in comprehending text material
in the subject areas of language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics.
Developer
Globe Fearon
Contact information
Lydia Rainer
Sales Representative (Washington, DC)
(877)-421-0808
Globe Fearon
Dr. Kate Kinsella (Program Consultant)
1–(800)-858-9500
fax: (877)-260-2530
Brief description
The program uses the KWL Plus (Know, Want to Know, Learned), Predict and Confirm, Concept
Building, and Cornell Note-taking strategies to increase students’ ability to gain subject-area
knowledge in language arts, social studies, science and mathematics, literacy comprehension
(e.g., understanding of main topics in text material, organizational skills, study skills, and
confidence in reading). Teachers take on the role of reading coaches, providing modeling of
strategies, and encourage and support students’ efforts.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
Not explicitly stated in program materials but implied teacher outcomes include improved
instructional methods, reading skill-assessment procedures, and methods for motivating students
and reducing students’ anxiety about academic performance.
Expected outcomes for
students
Students will:
• Gain confidence to work with diverse text material.
• Increase skills to use various cognitive strategies for the purpose of increasing their academic
achievement.
• Increase literacy comprehension by using the structures and features of text (e.g., topic
sentences and transitional expressions).
• Gain skills to organize text material.
• Increase skills in using prediction and confirmation strategies to enhance reading comprehension.
• Gain skills in logical and critical thinking.
• Acquire note-taking strategies to enhance retention of information.
• Enhance their vocabulary.
Other expected outcomes
(administrative, organizational,
curriculum)
None specified
Grade range
Middle and High School (grades 6–12)
Reading level range
4–7
Materials provided
• Student edition, comprising four progressively more challenging volumes.
• Teachers Resource Manual, which provides guidance on strategy instruction, lesson plans/
models, graphic illustrations, and helpful links on the Internet.
• Placement Guide for placement of students at the correct program level.
• Tips for Helping Students Read to Learn provides motivational tips, tips to enhance students’
self-sufficiency, and guidance on assessment of student performance.
User requirements
None specified
Time commitment
Not specified
Cost structure
$189.90 for all above-mentioned materials plus 8-10% of the total for shipping and handling of
materials.
R&D summary
Program materials, developer web site, and literature search did not reveal any research studies
supporting the program. However, the program description clearly demonstrates that it is based,
at least in part, on the large body of research literature on effective literacy programs (e.g., use of
strategy instruction).
Results of R&D
Program research references
States used in
Not Specified
Web site
http://www.globefearon.com
50 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Reading Apprenticeship
Type of intervention
Professional development program focused on enabling teachers to build their understanding of
the complexities of reading .
Developer
WestEd’s Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI)
Ruth Schoenbach, Director of SLI
Cynthia Greenleaf, Associate Director of SLI
Contact information
Jana Bouc, Program Coordinator of SLI
300 Lakeside Drive, 25th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612-3534
Tel: (510) 302-4245
Fax: (510) 302-4354
Email: [email protected]
Brief description
Initiated in 1995, Reading Apprenticeship is a professional development program that was
originally designed and implemented through a cross school network of inter-disciplinary
site-based teams involving over 300 middle and high school content-area teachers in the San
Francisco Bay area. In contrast to conceptualizing literacy as a collection of basic skills, the
program’s instructional framework is based on the dual notions of literacy as a complex
cognitive and social process and of teaching as cognitive apprenticeship—i.e., the teacher
serves as the “master” reader to his or her student apprentice readers. The framework consists
of four integrated dimensions of classroom life that teachers and students explore together: social,
personal, cognitive, and knowledge-building. The program features a guided and structured
inquiry process, built around “literacy learning cases” that teachers engage with. Accordingly, in a
Reading Apprenticeship classroom, the curriculum expands to include how teachers and students
read and why they read in the ways they do, as well as what they read in subject-area classes. A
course for 9th graders, Academic Literacy, has also been developed.
Participation options include:
• Site-based teacher professional development—from a one-time, one-day training, to a threetime 7-day training—conducted by SLI staff and consultants.
• National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship: A training-of-trainers program offered by SLI
to schools and districts around the country. Team members are required to have leadership
experience in literacy, subject-area curriculum and instruction, and professional development.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
• Teachers create a classroom environment that is student-centered rather than teacher-directed
and that is characterized by high student engagement and self direction.
• Instructional practices evidence increased collaboration between and among teachers,
including across subject-area divisions, and students.
• Teachers and students develop an increased sense of accountability for student learning.
Expected outcomes for
students
•
•
•
•
Other expected outcomes
None specified
Grade range
Middle and high school
Reading level range
Varies
Materials provided
• Participants in the site-based teacher training receive a copy of the SLI’s book, Reading for
Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms as well as
comprehensive course materials.
• Teams participating in the National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship receive copies of the
SLI’s book, Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School
Classrooms and a comprehensive set of materials for conducting RA professional development
in local education agencies and schools. This includes student and classroom case-study
videos and video facilitators’ guides; a binder filled with over 400 pages of readings and
reproducible resource materials; and membership in an active online discussion group with
access to online updated resource file downloads.
Students’ engagement, fluency, and competency in reading increases.
Student academic performance increases.
Students gain a greater sense of ownership and control of their reading practices.
Students have greater motivation to read and understand the power of literacy to shape their
lives.
Appendix D
51
Reading Apprenticeship
User requirements
Organizations sponsoring site-based training provide the meeting rooms, audio/visual needs, and
refreshments for participants.
Time commitment
• Site-based teacher training, the specification of which depends on program design. (See cost
structure and options below.)
• National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship: 8 days of professional development.
Cost structure
(as of Oct. 2006)
Site-based professional development: Pricing is based on sessions for up to 40 participants. SLI
provides two facilitators and covers all of their travel and lodging expenses. Costs are also based
on the number of training days and the number of trips that consultants make to a location:
Training Days & Trips
1-day, 1 trip: $ 7,500
2-day, 1 trip: $15,000
3-day, 1 trip: $20,000
4-day, 1 trip: $26,000
5-day, 2 trips: $32,000
5-day, 3 trips: $39,000
7-day, 2 trips: $42,000
7-day, 3 trips: $50,000
National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship: $4,000/participant plus travel.
R&D summary
• From 1997–2000, SLI researches examined the impact of RA on teachers’ classroom practice
related to reading in their content areas.
• During 1999–2002, studies collected data on student reading growth in Bay Area and Los
Angeles high schools. Student performance was measured using the Degrees of Reading
Power (DRP) standardized test of reading comprehension.
• There have also been several case studies of high implementation RA classrooms (2001–2003).
Student performance was measured using the DRP.
• From 2001–2004, case studies were conducted on schools implementing RA as a school-wide
initiative.
• In 2005, the Institute of Education Sciences awarded WestEd a grant to conduct an
experimental test of the effectiveness of Reading Apprenticeship entitled “A Randomized
Control Study of the Efficacy of Reading Apprenticeship Professional Development for High
School History and Science Teaching and Learning” (full abstract is available at: http://ies.
ed.gov/ncer/projects/tq_reading/fy05_wested_abstract.asp).
• Overall, numerous implementation and impact studies have been conducted on RA. They have
consistently reported pre-post data using state or other commercially available assessments.
Results of R&D
Teacher outcomes related to participation in Reading Apprenticeship have been the subject of
investigation (e.g., WestEd 2004d). Results described included increases in teachers’ knowledge
about reading instruction, pedagogic content knowledge, and approaches to appraising students’
literacy skills and instructional needs as well as teacher acquisition of the repertoires of effective
instructional practices, teaching roles, and provision of learning opportunities for students
consistent with the RA framework.
Student outcomes resulting from teacher participation, including their attitudes toward and
achievement in reading, have also been a focus of investigation (e.g., Greenleaf, Schoenbach,
Cziko, & Mueller, 2001; WestEd 2004b).
52 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Reading Apprenticeship
Program research references
Greenleaf, C. L., Mueller, F. L., & Cziko, C. (1997). Impact of the Pilot Academic Literacy Course on
ninth grade students’ reading development: Academic year 1996–1997. A Report to the Stuart
Foundation. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers
to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.
WestEd. (2004a). 2001–2004 Increasing student achievement through school-wide Reading
Apprenticeship. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
WestEd. (2004b). 1996–1999 9th Grade Academic Literacy Course Studies. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
WestEd. (2004c). 1999–2002 Studies of student reading growth in diverse professional development
networks. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
WestEd. (2004d). 1997–2000 A study of teacher learning and student reading outcomes in an SLI
professional development network. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
States used in
National scope
Web site
http://www.wested.org/cs/sli/print/docs/sli/home.htm
Appendix D
53
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)–Content Literacy Continuum (CLC)
Type of intervention
CLC is a 3–4-year school-improvement process that focuses on helping secondary schools
develop and sustain comprehensive and integrated literacy programs.
Developer
University of Kansas Center on Research and Learning
Contact information
The Strategic Learning Center
3910 California Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98116
(206) 760-7650
[email protected]
www.smarttogether.org
Brief description
The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) is a 3–4-year schoolimprovement process focused on helping secondary schools develop and sustain comprehensive
and integrated literacy programs. The goal is to create a school-wide approach to improving
literacy for all students in secondary schools so that they can meet higher standards. The process
to implement the framework is led by a SIM team that works with administrators, teachers, and
staff to develop and implement a standards-based plan to improve literacy and content area
learning tied to student performance on state assessments. The model uses a variety of strategies,
some focused on helping teachers and others on helping students.
Components of the SIM Content Literacy Continuum:
• Content Mastery.
• Embedded Strategy Instruction.
• Explicit Strategy Instruction.
• Intensive Skill Development.
• Intensive Clinical Intervention.
Expected outcomes for
teachers
• Think about, adopt, and present critical content in a learner-friendly fashion.
• Use Content Enhancement Routines to promote content mastery.
• Differentiate instruction.
Expected outcomes for
students
• Learn the skills and strategies needed to learn content.
• Learn critical content regardless of literacy level.
• Value the process of learning how to learn.
Other expected outcomes
(administrative, organizational,
curriculum)
• Schools will develop intensive and coordinated instructional experiences for students who
have difficulty reading and those with serious reading deficiencies.
• Support personnel and teachers will learn how to provide intensive instruction and strategic
tutoring.
• Reading specialists and special education teachers will learn skills and strategies to teacher
students with disabilities.
• Speech-language pathologists learn strategies to assist students.
Grade range
6–12
Reading level range
Varied
Materials provided
•
•
•
•
•
•
Guidebooks
Success Guides
Manuals
Notebooks
Learning Strategy Curriculum Manuals
CD-ROM
User requirements
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Commit to the 3–4-year process.
Share achievement data with SIM Literacy Specialists.
Identify a site literacy coordinator.
Align goals associated with SIM Content Literacy activities with school- improvement plans.
Provide logistical resources and time for teachers.
Develop appropriate courses and course supports.
Participate in peer evaluations.
Support teachers by providing professional development group time.
Keep SIM Implementation Team informed of evaluation activities and other school initiatives.
Time commitment
• Minimum 3–4-year process
54 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)–Content Literacy Continuum (CLC)
Cost structure
• N/A
R&D summary
• Components of SIM, or more precisely, specific “routines” embedded in the elaborate SIM
framework (e.g., Bulgren et al., 2000; Bulgren, Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Marquis, 2002) have
been subject to research over the past 25 years. With some exceptions (e.g., Mothus & Lapadat,
n.d.; Perez & Hughes, 2005), SIM-related research and evaluation has been undertaken by the
program developers.
• Most SIM research has focused on demonstrating the relevance of SIM to students with
learning disabilities.
• To date, there has been no study of the efficacy of the SIM–CLC intervention as a whole.
However, the National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) is collaborating with the Office
of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) in sponsoring a rigorous evaluation of supplemental
literacy interventions targeting 9th graders and has contracted with MDRC and American
Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct the study, which will contrast two programs selected by
a panel of reading experts through a competitive process: SIM and the Reading Apprenticeship
program developed by WestEd. Schools participating in the evaluation will be randomly
assigned to one of the two programs. The final report is expected in 2009. For more description
and study contacts go to:
http://www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/commu/slc/enhanced.htm
Results of R&D
The FCRR review of SIM (January 2006) reported that research encompassing five separate SIM
strategies demonstrated that students were able to learn the steps at a high level of proficiency
and were able to implement the steps correctly. However, the FCRR notes that research on
how strategy acquisition and utilization impacts reading outcome measures, such as reading
comprehension, is less highly developed.
Program research references
Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, K. B. (2000). The use and effectiveness
of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92(3), 426–441.
Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, K. B., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2002). The use and
effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356–371.
Mothus, T. G., & Lapadat, J. C. (n.d.). A strategy intervention to increase the reading comprehension of
junior high school students with reading disabilities. Unpublished Manuscript. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED490965)
Perez, R., & Hughes, E. (2005). Strategies for Academic Success (SAS) end-of-year report. El Paso, TX: El
Paso Independent School District.
Woodruff, S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The effects of an intensive reading intervention
on the decoding skills of high school students with learning deficits. Research report #15.
Lawrence, KS: Institute for Academic Access.
(Note: See the SIM Research Report at www.fcrr.org for additional research citations for SIM)
States used in
Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
Web site
http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/index.html
http://www.smarttogether.org
Appendix E
Appendix E Additional resources
Alliance for Excellent Education
www.all4ed.org
The Alliance for Excellent Education is a policy, research, and advocacy organization dedicated to the
support of students in low-performing high schools.
In an effort to improve adolescent literacy, the alliance hosts events and develops products focused on
this topic. Framework for an Excellent Education is
a project initiated by the Alliance to support adolescent literacy improvement by building on Reading
First. Their contact for adolescent literacy is Rafael
Heller, Senior Policy Analyst, who can be reached at
(202) 828-0828 or at [email protected]
55
to Regional Comprehensive Centers in reading,
mathematics, science, special education, and
English-language learners. The Florida Center for
Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) leads the reading
strand, which is divided into four categories—K–3,
4–12, special education, and English-language
learners. The 4–12 section contains resources
helpful to administrators, policymakers, and
educators.
A substantial list of PowerPoint presentations covering topics such as selection of, planning for, and
challenges of adolescent literacy programs; skills,
knowledge requirements, and instruction; reading
standards and assessments; and English-language
learners issues are included in the 4–12 section.
A DVD is available for a nominal fee that includes
details and information from the Adolescent Literacy Workshop held in Boston in 2006.
American Institute of Research (AIR)
www.air.org
At the request of the Carnegie Corporation of New
York, the American Institute of Research (AIR)
conducted a descriptive study of the Alabama
Reading Initiative (ARI) based on interviews with
those involved in ARI including students, teachers, and administrators at the school and state
level, university faculty, and other stakeholders. It
documents the struggles and challenges involved
in implementing a plan intended to touch every
student and teacher in Alabama and offers lessons
and recommendations derived as the ARI was
implemented. The report also describes the positive outcomes of the program, for both teachers
and students, that are expected to result in “steady
progress” in academics among students. The report can be accessed at www.Air.org/publications/
documents/ARI%20Popular%20Report_final.pdf
Center on Instruction
www.centeroninstruction.org
The Center on Instruction is a partnership of five
organizations providing resources and expertise
The web site also includes links to the Vaughn
Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at the
University of Texas at Austin (www.texasreading.
org) and the Florida Center for Reading Research
(www.fcrr.org).
Institute of Education Sciences
www.ies.ed.gov
The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the
section within the U.S. Department of Education
charged with supporting rigorous research in
education and providing information on evaluation and statistics to educators. IES comprises four
units: the National Center for Education Research
(NCER), the National Center for Education
Statistics (NCES), the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE),
and the National Center for Special Education
Research (NCSER). Within this framework IES
supports research on several adolescent literacyrelated initiatives through competitive grants
and the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL)
system. Through the competitive grant process,
IES supports Interventions for Struggling Adolescent and Adult Readers and Writers, an NCER
56 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
program that funds projects examining strategies
to improve basic reading and writing skills for
individuals whose insufficient skills impede their
success. IES also supports several ongoing adolescent literacy research projects through the REL
system (http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/).
Group on Middle and Secondary Literacy emphasized the need for schools and districts to implement practices that researchers have identified as
likely to improve adolescent reading achievement.
NASBE laid out recommendations for states interested in improving adolescent literacy, including
the need for research to guide practice:
Learning Points Associates
•
Set state literacy goals and standards, ensuring alignment with curricula and assessments
and raising literacy expectations across the
curriculum for all students in all grades.
•
Ensure that teachers have the preparation and
professional development to provide effective,
content-based literacy instruction.
•
Strategically use data to identify student
needs, design cohesive policies, and evaluate
the quality of implementation and impact.
•
Require the development of district and
school literacy plans that infuse researchbased literacy support strategies in all content
areas.
•
Provide districts and schools with funding,
support, and resources.
•
Provide state guidance and oversight to ensure strong implementation of comprehensive
quality literacy programs.
www.learningpt.org
Learning Points Associates is a nonprofit, educational organization providing resources and
technical assistance on various issues in education. Whereas, this study focuses on a review
of professional development and other support
for content-area teachers in improving reading
outcomes for their classes as a whole, Learning
Points has produced a document that provides
information on programs for use with struggling
adolescent readers.
1. The Adolescent Literacy Intervention Programs: Chart and Program Review Guide discusses program characteristics for struggling
adolescent readers and includes a chart and
review guide to help schools choose programs
for students.
2. Adolescent Literacy Web site. This web site is
a collection of resources, tools, and information on adolescent literacy and is intended to
help educators and policymakers gather and
apply knowledge to help all students succeed.
The site provides an overview of proposed
and authorized legislation, components of
successful programs, instructional leadership
resources, and additional web sites focusing
on adolescent literacy.
National Association of State Boards of Education
www.nasbe.org/
In Reading at Risk: The State of Response to the
Crisis in Adolescent Literacy the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Study
National Governors Association
www.nga.org
The National Governors Association (NGA) is a
bipartisan organization of the nation’s governors
that “promotes visionary state leadership, shares
best practices, and speaks with a unified voice on
national policy.” The NGA has developed Reading
to Achieve: State Policies to Support Adolescent Literacy, a program dedicated to helping policymakers
raise adolescent literacy achievement in their states.
The project is supported by the Carnegie Corporation and has provided funding to eight states to help
Appendix E
them develop state plans centered on adolescent
literacy. These plans incorporate recommendations
from Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s Guide to
Adolescent Literacy, an NGA publication that identifies strategies to improve adolescent literacy.
Striving Readers
57
comprehensive reading initiatives or expansion
of existing initiatives that improve the quality of
literacy instruction across the curriculum; provides intensive literacy interventions to struggling
readers; and help build a strong, scientific research
base for identifying and replicating strategies
that improve adolescent literacy skills. Initiatives
include three key components:
www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/index.html
Striving Readers is a discretionary grant authorized as part of the 2005 Fiscal Year Appropriations Act under the Title I demonstration
authority. Eligible Title I local education agencies
serving students in grades 6–12 may apply, or
state education agencies may apply on behalf of an
eligible local agency. The program supports new
1. Supplemental literacy interventions targeted
to students who are reading significantly
below grade level.
2. Cross-disciplinary strategies for improving
student literacy.
3. Strong experimental evaluation components.
58 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
References
American Institutes for Research. (2005). Reading
framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress (Pre-publication ed.). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board.
Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/frameworks/
writing-fw-draft-0508.doc.
Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & McNurlen, B. (2001).
The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking
and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.
Bacevich, A., & Salinger, T. (2006). Lessons and recommendations from the Alabama Reading Initiative:
Sustaining focus on secondary reading. Prepared for
the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington,
DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from
http://www.air.org/publications/documents/ARI%20
Popular%20Report_final.pdf.
Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G. (2005). Reading to achieve:
A governor’s guide to adolescent literacy. Washington,
DC: National Governors Association, Center for Best
Practices.
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A
vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation
of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Bottoms, G. (2005). Why we need an across-the-curriculum
emphasis on literacy. In Literacy across the curriculum:
Setting and implementing goals for grades six through
12. Site Development Guide #12. Atlanta, GA: Southern
Regional Education Board.
Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K.
(2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classroom. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 92(3), 426–441.
Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D.
D., & Marquis, J. B. (2002). The use and effectiveness
of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content
classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2),
356–371.
Burney, D., Corcoran, T. B., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Instructional coaching: A review of research. Philadelphia,
PA: The Learning Partnership Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
Clark, A., Anderson, R., 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.
Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2005). Moving forward: A guide for implementing comprehensive
school reform and improvement strategies. Washington,
DC: American Institutes for Research, CSRQ Center.
Retrieved from http://www.csrq.org/documents/
MovingForwardGuideFinal11-09-05.pdf.
Davis, D., Spraker, J., & Kushman, J. (2004). Improving adolescent reading: Findings from research. Portland, OR:
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2006, June). ReadAbout. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://
www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/ReadAboutfinalnew.
pdf.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2004, November).
Literacy First comprehensive reading reform process.
Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.
fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/Literacy_First.pdf.
Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on
marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and
policy implications. Review of Educational Research,
76(2), 209–248.
Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L.
(2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic
literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.
Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999).
Influences of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction
on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The
Elementary School Journal, 99(4), 343–366.
References
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S.,
Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does ConceptOriented Reading Instruction increase strategy use and
conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(2), 261–278.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and
motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal,
P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C.,
Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S.
(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.
Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232–245.
Guthrie, J. T, Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of
integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in
reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.
Hassel E. A., Hassel, B. C., Arkin, M. D., Kowal, J. M., &
Steiner, L. M. (2006). School restructuring under No
Child Left Behind: What works when? A guide for
education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Point
Associates, The Center for Comprehensive School
Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.
centerforcsri.org/files/RestructuringGuide.pdf.
International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for
middle and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE.
Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/reports/coaching.html.
Kamil, M. L. (2006, July). NAEP reading framework 2009
and beyond. Paper presented at the University of
California, Berkeley 2nd Annual Summer Institute in
Reading, San Francisco, CA.
Kamil, M. L. (2003, November). Adolescents and literacy:
Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance
for Excellent Education.
59
Kinsella, K. (2000). Reading in the content areas strategies for
reading success: Tips for helping students read to learn.
Parsippany, NJ: Globe Fearon (Pearson Learning Group).
Lenz, B. K., Ehren, B. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). The
content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 60–63.
MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford.
Manouchehri, A. (2001). Collegial interaction and reflective
practice. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 86–97.
Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting adolescent literacy across
the content areas. Perspectives on policy and practice.
Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.
Meltzer, J., Smith, N. C., & Clark, H. (2002). Adolescent
literacy resources: Linking research and practice. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown University.
National Association of State Boards of Education. (2006).
Reading at risk: The state response to the crisis in adolescent literacy (rev. ed.). Report of the NASBE Study
Group on Middle and High School Literacy. Alexandria, VA: Author.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel.
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: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
National Institute for Literacy. (n.d.). Facts and statistics: Reading facts. Retrieved November, 2006, from
http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/reading_facts.html.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National
Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington,
DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development.
60 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for
staff development (rev. ed.). Oxford, OH: National Staff
Development Council.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for
developing instructional capacity—Promises and practicalities. Prepared for the Aspen Institute Program
on Education and the Annenberg Institute for School
Reform. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters. Retrieved
from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/images/
coaching.pdf.
Pearson, D. (2006, July). A new framework for teaching
comprehension in the upper elementary grades. Paper
presented at the North Region Summer Conference of
America’s Choice in Saratoga Springs, NY. Retrieved
from http://scienceandliteracy.org/Presentations/
High%20Expectations.ppt.
Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
South Carolina Reading Initiative. (2003). Field initiated
studies. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/
files/profdev/onsite/RI/SC_Brief.pdf.
Shake, M. C., & Bintz, W. (2001). Investigating current
problems and practices in teaching reading across the
curriculum at the middle school and high school levels:
Executive summary. Retrieved November 2006 from
http://www.kentuckyliteracy.org/middle_school.pdf.
Shanahan, C. (2005). Adolescent literacy intervention
programs: Chart and program review guide. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from
http://www.learningpt.org.
Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation’s report
card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). U.S. Department
of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy
and the achievement gap: What do we know and where
do we go from here? Report from Carnegie Corporation
of New York, Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting.
New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
Phelps, S. (2005). Ten years of research on adolescent
literacy, 1994–2004: A review. Naperville, IL: Learning
Point Associates.
Spraker, J. (2003). Teacher teaming in relation to student
performance: Findings from the literature. Portland,
OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a RAND program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Stevenson, E., & Waltman, K. (2006). Reading across the
curriculum: An investigation of the implementation
and impact in secondary schools (I-ARP Report #001).
Iowa City: University of Iowa, Center for Evaluation
and ­Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.education.
uiowa.edu/cea/RecentFindings.htm.
Santa, C. M. (2004). Project CRISSSM: A history of reliable,
replicable research. Retrieved from http://projectcriss.
com/prc/pdf_research/7-ReplicableResearch.pdf.
Schoenbach, R., Braunger, J., Greenleaf, C., & Litman, C.
(2003). Apprenticing adolescents to reading in subjectarea classrooms. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 133–138.
Schoenbach, R, Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L.
(2000). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2002). Choosing a model and types
of models: How to find what works for your school.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2006). National assessment of Title I interim
report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003).
The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2002 (NCES
2003-524). Washington, DC: Author.
Walker, K. (n.d.). Research brief: Literacy across the high
school curriculum. The Principals’ Partnership,
sponsored by Union Pacific Foundation. Retrieved
References
November 16, 2006, from http://principalspartnership.
com/literacyacross.pdf.
Walter, K. E. (2004). Making good choices: Sustainable
school improvement. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org.
Whitehurst, G. J. (2004). Making education evidence-based:
Premises, principles, pragmatics, and politics. Paper
presented at the Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
61
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K.
C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain
specificity and instructional influences. Journal of
Educational Research, 97(6), 299–309.
Wilkinson, I. (2006). ‘Thenken talk’: A design for discussion to promote high-level comprehension of text. Paper
presented at the University of California, Berkeley, 2nd
Annual Summer Institute in Reading, San Francisco,
CA.
62 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention
The SERVE Center at the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro, under the leadership of
Dr. Ludwig “Ludy” van Broekhuizen, is a university based research, development, dissemination,
evaluation, and technical assistance center. Its
mission is to support and promote teaching and
learning excellence in the Pre-kindergarten to
Grade 12 education community. SERVE Center
operates solely on sponsored research funding; the
majority of its approximately $11 million annual
budget coming from federal sources.
At the core of SERVE Center’s diverse portfolio is
the operation of the Regional Educational Laboratory (REL). This five-year contract with IES totals
nearly $40 million from March 2006 to March
2011. Funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the
REL-Southeast is one of ten regional organizations
that conduct research and provide research-based
information and services to all 50 states and territories. These Laboratories form a nationwide
education research network, building a bank of
research information and resources shared nationally and disseminated regionally. Currently SERVE
Center is engaged in three large-scale randomized controlled trials focusing on the effectiveness of interventions seeking to improve teaching
and learning in mathematics and science, early
vocabulary development, and English language
learners.
In addition to the Lab, SERVE Center is involved
in a broad spectrum of research, programs,
and activities that strengthen the relevance and
usefulness of its work with schools, districts,
and states. Through contracts and subcontracts
SERVE Center administers the National Center
for Homeless Education, conducts numerous large
and small evaluation projects, provides technical
assistance to Smaller Learning Communities and
to USED funded 21st Century Community Learning Program grantees, implements and maintains
a migrant education Even Start program, provides
technical assistance to the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction in implementing the No
Child Left Behind Act through the Comprehensive
Center, and conducts an experimental research
study examining high school reform through the
National Center for Education Research.
The SERVE Center Evaluation staff has established
a solid reputation in providing evaluation services
and technical assistance to school districts, state
education agencies, and community organizations.
Both quantitative and qualitative approaches are
used as appropriate. Current projects underway
include the evaluations of Guilford County’s
Mission Possible, a multi-year effort to attract the
most qualified administrators and teachers to the
most high needs schools; the 21st Century Community Learning Centers in Alamance County,
Atlanta, and other southeastern region locations;
and Teaching American History in Georgia.
For almost two decades SERVE operated the
Southeast Eisenhower Regional Consortium for
Mathematics and Science Education, the Southeast
Initiatives Regional Technology in Education Consortium (SEIR*TEC), and administered a subcontract for the Region IV Comprehensive Center.
ISSUES
&ANSWERS
At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro
Evidence-Based Decisionmaking:
Assessing Reading Across the
Curriculum Interventions
This publication provides a concise summary
of seven interventions that have been used in
various contexts:
1. ReadAbout
R E L 20 07– N o. 0 03
A pdf of the document is also available on-line:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
For more information please contact:
REL [email protected] or
1-800-755-3277
2. Reading in the Content Areas
3. Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)
4. CReating Independence through StudentOwned Strategies (CRISS)
5. Reading Apprenticeship
6. Literacy First
7. Strategic Instruction Model-Content Literacy
Continuum (SIM-CLC)
Included in the summary is the evidence base
on each intervention (research base and impact)
and practical guidance for framing the decisionmaking process.
5900 Summit Avenue
Browns Summit, NC 27214
1-800-755-3277
Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement