27 minute read
Empowering Teachers to Reimagine Instruction that Builds Students’ Literacies
Massachusetts Reading Association Primer December 2021 vol. 49. No.2
Lisa M. O’Brien
Advertisement
Education Department, Winston School of Education and Social Policy, Merrimack College, North Andover, MA
Francisca A. Carocca
Fifth Grade Bilingual Teacher, Waltham Public Schools, Waltham, MA
Bianca Enos
Kindergarten Teacher, Haverhill Public Schools, Haverhill, NH
Christine M. Leighton
School of Education, Emmanuel College, Boston, MA
Emma Caffey
Second Grade Teacher, Mission Grammar School, Boston, MA
Ms. Nhan (pseudonym), a third grade, sheltered-English immersion [SEI] teacher in a northeastern urban school) participated in a semester-long professional development initiative, Reading and Writing Instruction for the 21st Century (RWIC), to learn about innovative and effective ways to support her students’ literacy development. As part of this work, Ms. Nhan reviewed the district-mandated curriculum and required text. She noted that lesson goals for the upcoming week included identifying the main idea and retelling key ideas from the informational text Face to Face With Wolves (Brandenburg & Brandenburg, 2018). Below is a text excerpt:
Wolf families are called packs. The pack consists of a mother and father, called the alpha pair, and their offspring. The alpha female and alpha male are the leaders of the pack. The pups usually stay with the pack for two or three years. When they are grown, one of them might become pack leader--or the alpha pair might drive them away. They then become lone wolves, who may someday join with the other lone wolves to mate and form new packs (p. 6).
As Ms. Nhan read the text and thought of her students, she wondered questions such as: How do I support my students while adhering to the curriculum? How do I help my students understand complex vocabulary (e.g., leader, pack, alpha) while they are also developing English? How do I help my students who struggle to read with fluency and understanding? How do I balance supporting access to digital and non-digital text with building foundational literacy skills?
Ms. Nhan’s questions highlight the diversity we see in today’s classrooms; students in today’s classroom are of varying cultural, linguistic, academic, and economic backgrounds. Her questions also remind us of the pressing need to support all students’ literacy development and the challenges teachers face in doing so. Although longstanding evidence indicates that one-size-fits-all approaches to instruction do not effectively support all students (e.g., Connor et al., 2011), the use of standardized curricula (i.e., mandated, narrow, and prescribed curriculum) is widespread (Sleeter, 2012). Moreover, in districts wherein standardized curricula are mandated, teachers often find themselves challenged to adapt or modify instruction for their particular classroom context without violating such mandates (e.g., Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Flores, 2007).
A northeastern, urban school district invited us (a northeastern college) to support teachers in implementing a recently adopted literacy curriculum. With RWIC, we set out to help teachers (1) deepen their understanding of evidence-based literacy instruction (with digital and non-digital, print-based text) and (2) act on that understanding to develop their students’ literacy abilities as they implemented the district-mandated curriculum.
Early on, however, it became clear that teachers were overwhelmed and frustrated by the curriculum. This feedback led us to focus on empowering teachers to “reimagine” their literacy curriculum and instruction. Specifically, we emphasized drawing strategically from the curriculum based on teachers’ growing expertise and understanding of their students as we concurrently supported a deeper understanding of evidence-based literacy instruction. In this article, our purpose is to describe (1) a “reimagined” approach to developing students’ literacies that emerged from our work with teachers and (2) how three teachers wove this approach into their classrooms.
Reimagining Development of Literacies
To thrive in the 21st century, students must be able to navigate myriad digital and non-digital texts. To do so requires that students develop literacies. That is, students must develop the skills and knowledge needed to understand, critically evaluate, and communicate with non-digital and digital text (Baker, 2020). Although there is overlap in the knowledge and skills that underlie literacy proficiency with non-digital and digital text (e.g., word recognition, vocabulary, comprehension), skillful reading of digital texts requires some unique skills and strategies, such as online comprehension strategies (Coiro, 2011) and understanding audience when composing non-digital and digital texts (Baker, 2020).
There is an abundance of evidence-based frameworks and approaches targeting different aspects related to the development of literacies. However, identifying which approaches to draw from and how different approaches can be woven together to fully address the development of literacies can be a daunting task. In turn, many teachers turn to resources that vary widely in efficacy, such as Pinterest and Teachers Pay Teachers (Opfer et al., 2016). As such, we identified and tied together five evidence-based approaches into a single framework—Integrated Literacies Framework (ILF)—focused on building students’ literacies. These included Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction ([CORI] Guthrie et al. 2007), flexible grouping (Paratore, 2000), close reading (e.g., Fisher & Frey 2012), scaffolded repeated readings (Kuhn et al., 2006), and leveraging multimodal
text sets (O’Brien et al., 2018). Across RWIC, we worked with teachers to understand how to use this framework to guide their implementation of the district curriculum.
In the following sections, we first discuss the five approaches and their importance to developing students’ literacies. Then, we describe ILF. Finally, we share how teachers who participated in RWIC were empowered to act on their growing knowledge—i.e., the various ways three teachers brought this work into their classrooms.
Evidence-Based Approaches
Concept-oriented reading instruction. Grounded in the evidence of strong links between reading engagement and reading achievement (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000), CORI is an approach that joins instructional practices that foster reading motivation and engagement and comprehension strategy instruction (Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012). Guthrie and his colleagues explain that fostering reading engagement is important because engaged readers are motivated to read and pursue knowledge and are strategic and persistent when working through challenges when reading. Both persisting with challenging reading tasks and building knowledge are key to developing reading competency.
CORI instruction includes a cluster of practices that, when well-integrated, enhances students’ reading motivation, engagement, and comprehension outcomes (for a review, see Guthrie et al., 2007). These practices include supporting relevance, using thematic units, collaborating with peers, and providing student choice. Teachers create interest and motivation by making learning relevant. For example, teachers may help students connect curricular content with their lived experiences or provide an authentic purpose for engaging in a unit of study. To support learning goals, teachers create thematic units through three key practices: (a) framing a unit of study with a knowledge goal (i.e., a key content theme or concept such as How do animals adapt to meet their needs and survive?), (b) students read a collection of topically related texts that provide a context for developing reading proficiency (e.g., comprehension strategies) and support
learning about the knowledge goal, and (c) students communicate new understandings (e.g., composing a written report). To support learning as a social practice, teachers strategically draw from a repertoire of collaborative practices. These can take many forms, including whole group teacher and student discussion, partner discussion (e.g., turn and talks, paired readings), and structured small group discussion (e.g., jigsaw, literature circles, idea circles). Finally, to share control of learning with students, teachers provide students choices in various ways such as choice of texts, response format, sequence of activities, or partners.
Flexible grouping. Flexible grouping is a powerful way to provide all students targeted instruction and equitable opportunities for learning (Hoffman, 2002). One flexible grouping model, developed by Paratore (2000), is particularly useful as it affords students access to complex text while also building foundational skills such as word recognition and fluency. Paratore’s flexible grouping model comprises three types of reading events: Community Reading, Just Right Reading, and On-Your-Own Reading. The goal of Community Reading is to support students’ acquisition of grade-level vocabulary, concepts, and language structures and build community. To do so, the teacher mediates all students’ access to complex, curriculum-driven, grade-appropriate text using explicit teaching, such as explanation, demonstration, guided practice, and independent practice (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). To meet students’ varying needs, the teacher also uses a combination of grouping structures (e.g., whole group, small group). A Community Reading lesson begins with whole group instruction focused on what all students need to access a text. This often includes activating and building background knowledge, pre-teaching important vocabulary, reading aloud the text while explaining and demonstrating key skills and strategies. Next, students work in needs-based groups. Students who need substantial support to access the text work in a small group with the teacher while she employs various strategies (e.g., echo read, choral read, vocabulary instruction) to support text access and understanding. Other students read the text with a partner or independently, often completing a graphic organizer to scaffold their understanding. Finally, the teacher meets with students in a whole-class format to
discuss, summarize, and co-construct a deeper understanding of the text, focal skills, and strategies, or to facilitate the structured small-group discussion (e.g., literature circles).
Although text comprehension is also important with Just Right Reading, a key purpose of this reading event is to build students’ word recognition and fluency. To do so, students meet with the teacher in small needs-based groups, reading text at their instructional level (i.e., texts students can read with at least 90% word reading accuracy). For students whose instructional level is “below-grade-level,” the teacher may have the group read a central book, engage students in a targeted word study activity, and reread a text to build fluency. For students whose instructional level is “on” or “above-gradelevel,” the teacher may provide students with comprehension or decoding strategies or may challenge them with texts that stretch beyond their reading level.
Finally, On-Your-Own reading is a student-driven time of day during which students independently read any book of their choice. This reading event is meant to provide students with motivation and choice in their reading endeavors. In order to ensure that students are engaged and benefiting from their independent reading, it is vital that teachers provide students with reading material that suits their interests and reading levels, structured and predictable independent reading time, and interventions when motivation or comprehension support is required (Kelley, Clausen-Grace, 2009-2010).
Close reading. Close reading is an instructional routine wherein students critically examine a text while also developing the habits of skilled readers (i.e., stamina and persistence) as they interact with short, complex text (Fisher & Frey 2012). This is generally accomplished through repeated readings with each reading affording students the opportunity to deepen their understanding. With each reading, guiding questions are used to support extended, collaborative discussion and co-construction of deep understanding. Questions progress from literal (i.e., What does the text say?), to structural (i.e., How does the text work?) to inferential (i.e., What does the text mean?) focused questions (Fisher & Frey, 2015). In this process, text annotation (i.e., reading and marking
up a text to note elements such as key ideas and confusions) is also used to support critical analysis of the text.
Fisher and Frey (2015) explain that although close reading is a useful way to help students develop comprehension proficiency and deeper understanding, they acknowledge that it is not a complete literacy instructional framework. Rather, close reading is intended to be part of a more comprehensive evidence-based literacy instructional framework, in which students apply what they learn (e.g., word recognition, fluency) as they close read. Because of this, as Snow and O’Connor (2016) tell us, it is important that students are provided instruction that allows them to be successful with close reading. For example, to critically examine text, students must hold sufficient background knowledge so that they can evaluate the trustworthiness of texts closely read. As such, building text-relevant background knowledge must be part of students’ instructional experiences. Without instruction that builds such knowledge, students may assume that all texts read are the only legitimate evidence sources.
Scaffolded repeated readings. Developing reading fluency is key in building students’ reading proficiency as doing so enables students to devote their cognitive resources to meaning construction as opposed to decoding text (Kuhn, 2006). Although fluency instruction is a mainstay in many classrooms, the focus is limited--addressing a partial representation of fluency (i.e., accuracy and automaticity) and is framed as the end of instruction rather than a skill that, in part, enables comprehension (Kuhn, 2018). Scaffolded repeated readings are grounded in the Kuhn et al. (2010) definition of reading fluency:
Fluency combines accuracy, automaticity, and oral reading prosody, which taken together, facilitate the reader’s construction of meaning. It is demonstrated during oral reading through ease of word recognition, appropriate pacing, phrasing, and intonation. It is a factor in both oral and silent reading that can limit or support comprehension (p. 240).
In addition to attending to the full construct of fluency, repeated exposure to words across multiple contexts is a key way to build students’ fluency. The use of scaffolded repeated readings in which students assume increasing control of their reading and fluency is an effective way to build all components of reading fluency (e.g., Kuhn et al. 2006). Scaffolded repeated reading practices fall along a continuum from teacher read-alouds, echo reading, choral reading, partner reading, to independent reading. With each successive reading, students progress along the continuum while the teacher also supports comprehension. For example, the first reading of a text may be a read-aloud, followed by echo reading, and then choral reading. By following this continuum of rereading, with teacher guidance for deeper understanding, students are provided scaffolding that fades to support their developing fluency while also building comprehension. Importantly, Kuhn (2018) tells us that fluency instruction alone is not a complete literacy program. Instead, fluency instruction should be part of reading development with the ultimate goal of acquiring knowledge from a wide variety of texts.
Leveraging multimodal text sets. Rapid technological advances have led to a major shift in the primary format for reading, from non-digital to digital texts (Campano et al., 2020). For example, by age 6, 85% of children use technology in some way (Erikson Institute, 2016), and by age 11, 53% of children own a smartphone (Rideout & Robb, 2019). As such, scholars argue that views of technology must shift from a distant to an integral part of children’s school experiences (e.g., Marsh, 2005). Doing so represents one important way to connect students’ literacy practices inside and outside the school (e.g., Hutchinson & Henry, 2010). Yet, in many classrooms, non-digital forms of literacy are more highly valued and recognized (Aberg & Aferfeldt, 2017).
Thus, it is important for teachers to broaden their view of literacy beyond the printed text (e.g., Jewitt, 2008; Kress & Van Leeuwen, 2001) and weave digital texts in their literacy instruction. One way to do so is to meaningfully leverage multimodal text sets. As O’Brien et al. (2018) explain, “incorporating multimodal text sets—sets of topicallycoherent texts (digital and non-digital) that convey information through multiple modes
(e.g., print, sound, images, animation)—into the instructional context in meaningful and authentic ways affords students opportunities for home, school, and social connections and responds to 21st-century learning needs” (p. 124). Teachers who meaningfully leverage multimodal text sets assemble high-quality, topically coherent digital and non-digital texts that are used during literacy instruction. This instruction emphasizes the acquisition of the integrated literacies skills and strategies (e.g., decoding images and words, comprehension strategies such as locating information and summarizing, understanding the audience when composing a digital and non-digital text) that allow students to build knowledge and communicate.
The Integrated Literacies Framework
As we worked with teachers to develop ILF, we were guided by questions such as: What aspects of the curriculum will help my students build required skills and knowledge? What aspects do I need to modify or add? or What instructional routines are essential (e.g., grouping practices, explicit teaching)? With such questions in mind, we drew from the aforementioned approaches to construct ILF.
As with CORI, a knowledge goal frames a unit of study and topically related text sets were assembled to provide a context for learning about the knowledge goal and developing literacy skills. To incorporate digital text, ILF encouraged multimodal text sets. Skills needed to access texts (digital and non-digital) and learn about the knowledge goal were identified. Based on Paratore’s (2000) flexible grouping model, ILF comprised three types of reading events: Community Reading, Just Right Reading, and On-YourOwn Reading. Because teachers felt confident with self-selected, independent reading, in RWIC we only focused on Community Reading and Just Right Reading. Aspects of Close Reading, Scaffolded Repeated Reading, and CORI were embedded within these two types of reading events as described below.
Both Community Reading and Just Right Reading comprised three segments. During Get Ready to Read, teachers targeted what was essential to help all students read
the focal text (e.g., activate background knowledge, pre-teach important vocabulary). In Guide Reading and Discuss, teachers provided targeted instruction to support fluency and understanding. Finally, during Reflect, Connect, and Extend, teachers guided students in recalling and deepening understanding.
Although Community Reading and Just Right Reading included the same segments, the focus of each reading event varied. As Paratore (2000) explains, Community Reading focused on supporting access to complex text to support equitable opportunities to build knowledge. Close Reading and Scaffolded Repeated Reading were strategically embedded within Community Reading reading events to support the needs of students with differing learning profiles. During Get Ready to Read, the teacher provided wholeclass instruction that all students needed (e.g., activating background knowledge, preteaching important vocabulary, reading aloud the text to teach a comprehension strategy, or reading for the gist--a close reading practice). A concept map portraying key concepts related to the knowledge goal was introduced to provide a context for documenting students’ growing understanding across the unit. Digital texts such as videos or images were often incorporated to make learning relevant and build background knowledge.
Next, during Guide and Discuss, to support fluency, students reread the text in small needsbased groups—with the teacher, partners, or individually; however, scaffolded repeated readings and guiding questions were strategically used to support fluent reading. For example, students who needed a lot of support might have worked with the teacher to echo read and then choral read a text while working on a graphic organizer; at the same time, students who needed some support might have had a partner read while working on a graphic organizer and then independently read to add any new information to the graphic organizer. Finally, during Reflect, Connect, and Extend, the teacher supported summarizing and connecting what students learned to prior learning and/or the world through practices such as whole group discussion, partner discussion (e.g. “turn and talk”), adding onto the concept map, composing a response with digital (e.g., blog post, Flipgrid video) or non-digital text (e.g., written response). The collaborative nature of a
Community Reading event aligns with CORI’s concept of collaboration. See Figure 1 for an example of a concept map and see Figure 2 for an example of a Community Reading lesson plan for a fifth-grade classroom.
Figure 1: Concept Map for a Fifth Grade Classroom
Figure 2: Community Reading Lesson Plan for a Fifth Grade Classroom
Just Right Reading in ILF also provides opportunities for learning related to the knowledge goal as students read text with content related to the knowledge goal. However, Just Right Reading emphasizes building word recognition and fluency. To do so, the texts students read differ; students read a text they can read with at least 85% accuracy. We encouraged 85% word reading accuracy (instead of 90% accuracy that is widely used) based on findings showing that students who struggle make accelerated growth with effective instruction when reading text they can read with at least 85% accuracy (e.g., Kuhn et al., 2006; Morgan et al., 2000). To support word recognition, in Get Ready to Read, the teacher set the purpose for reading as learning about the knowledge goal and developing word recognition. Many teachers encouraged students to make a prediction related to the knowledge goal (e.g., What do you think we will discover about new technologies in the text?). To support phonics knowledge, the teacher guided students with a brief word study activity (e.g., word sort, making words) that targeted their particular word recognition needs. In Guide and Discuss, the teacher coached word recognition as students whisper read the text. The teacher also posed questions that helped students think about the knowledge goal (e.g., What does __ tell us about __?). Finally, During Connect, Reflect, and Extend, the teacher briefly guided students in recapping and connecting to prior reading or life experiences. The teacher might have decided to reteach or reinforce some aspect of word recognition that she noticed students would benefit from as they read. See Figure 3 for an example of a Just Right Reading lesson plan for a fifth-grade classroom.
Figure 3: Just Right Reading Lesson Plan for a Fifth Grade Classroom
Empowering Teachers
To help teachers decide how to draw from ILF as they implemented the districtmandated curriculum, we reviewed the curricular structure and goals, resources, and lesson plans. The curriculum included a collection of units for grade level, with each unit, focused on two to three guiding questions representing big ideas in the unit (e.g., What are human rights? What lessons can we learn about human rights through literature and life? How can we tell powerful stories about people’s experiences?). Each unit comprised text sets intended for the whole class with lessons to support the acquisition of literacy skills (e.g., identifying the main idea, making inferences, using context clues to determine the meaning of words) and learning related to the guiding question. Individual 60-minute lessons included three primary segments with numerous activities within each segment. During the Opening lesson segment, homework was reviewed and discussed in small groups. The Work Time lesson segment generally focused on 3-4 types of tasks. These included reviewing and discussing the group work norms (i.e., procedures and rules for working in groups.) and reading a complex text two to three times (e.g., once for the “gist,” once to practice several literacy skills, and once for vocabulary instruction). During
this time, the teacher circulated to assess workgroup norms and provide support. The final lesson segment, Closing and Assessment, focused on students sharing and recapping their understanding. The teacher also explained the procedures for that day’s homework. Lessons were very detailed, focused on telling students what to do and what teachers should “look for” in students’ responses and work. Absent were teaching actions focused on explaining, demonstrating, and guiding students in acquiring the focal literacy skills and strategies like explicit teaching. Moreover, at the time of RWIC, the curriculum did not provide any lessons that directly supported word recognition development for students. For example, a lesson focused on identifying the main idea and summary writing opened with directing students to discuss the aforementioned goals in small groups. Next, students were “cold called” (i.e., directing a student to respond or share their thinking as opposed to inviting the student to volunteer a response) and directed to explain what the following words mean: determine, main idea, identifying, supporting details, summarizing while the teacher listens for particular responses (e.g., identifying means to find out). Then, students were instructed to read to find the main idea. The lesson continued in a similar fashion and ended with cold calling students to share their summaries. At the start of RWIC, teachers’ reported feeling pressure to complete every task in the lessons while maintaining the districts’ pacing calendar but were unable to do so. As such, they often would spend 2-3 days on a single lesson in order to fully teach the lesson and address students’ needs.
As previously mentioned, ILF emerged from helping teachers implement evidencebased literacy instruction while also adhering to the mandated curriculum. This included making informed instructional decisions--that is, drawing from an understanding of evidence-based literacy practice and their students to strategically select elements of curriculum and add key teaching actions (e.g., explicit instruction) and instructional content (e.g., word study) that were not part of the curriculum. Below we share how lessons evolved for three teachers: Diane, Lieke, and Marrisa, as they participated in RWIC. This includes lesson plans they crafted as well as our direct observations of instruction they provided during their final week of RWIC. Specifically, we describe shifts in teachers’ use
of grouping practices, scaffolded repeated reading, digital texts, explicit instruction (e.g., explain, demonstrate, guide), and practices that promote student engagement.
Diane. Initially, Diane planned lessons that provided some guidance to students and included the use of tools to scaffold their learning, although these tools were nondigital. Her initial plan did not include other key aspects of explicit instruction (e.g., explain, demonstrate) or scaffolded repeated reading, engagement, and grouping practices. In her final lesson plan, she continued to guide but also included demonstration as part of the process. Moreover, she grouped students based on needs to provide more targeted instruction, and this included use of scaffolded repeated reading practices, digital texts (e.g., video), and practices that promote student engagement. Also notable is that Diane revised the ILF planning template to create her own (e.g., revised “Instructional Decisions” to “Instructional Choices,” added “What videos will be helpful?” [See Figure 4]). In our observations of Diane’s teaching, we observed many of the practices she included in her plan, as well as some that were not in the plan (e.g., explaining paired with demonstration). However, some elements of ILF were not well-integrated into the district curriculum (e.g., The curriculum focus of finding facts was separate from fluency scaffolds--i.e., scaffolded repeated readings.) and at times, slow pacing led to student distraction.
Lieke. Lieke, a third-grade SEI teacher (previously described as Ms. Nahn) closely worked with Diane, as they generally co-planned. Her first plan included some explanation but no other aspects of explicit instruction, which is consistent with the district curriculum. Moreover, she included the use of non-digital scaffolding tools but did not make use of scaffolded repeated reading practices. Unlike Diane, however, she also included an engagement practice. Similar to Diane, with her final plan, she included more features of explicit instruction (i.e., demonstrate and guide) and grouped students by need using scaffolded repeated reading practices. She also revised the ILF planning template in the same way Diane did. In addition, as with Leike, we observed many of the practices she included in her plan as well as some that were not in the plan (e.g., use of video to support vocabulary learning and discussion, engagement practices). Finally, also similar to Diane, scaffolded repeated readings were not well-integrated into the district curriculum.
Marissa. Marissa, a fourth-grade inclusion teacher, also demonstrated some shifts in her instruction. Teaching actions for her first plan were primarily focused on providing guidance. She tended to keep students together as a whole class, providing guidance to help all students progress at the same pace. However, in her final lesson plan, she expanded to include all elements of explicit teaching, scaffolding tools including the use of digital texts, and use of grouping and engagement practices. Marissa’s shifts suggest she moved away from a one-size-fits-all approach as evidenced by her use of guided whole-class instruction to more targeted instruction as evidenced by her use of grouping practices and other aspects of explicit instruction (e.g., explain, demonstrate).
Concluding Thoughts
Collectively, the ways teachers’ lessons evolved suggest that ILF (paired with participation in RWIC) empowered teachers to modify the district curriculum in ways that better aligned with evidence-based instruction. Although the ways in which each teacher drew from ILF varied, there were some important changes in teaching practices across teachers. First, all teachers wove digital texts into their curriculum--this represents
an important shift as the use of digital texts is a key way towards building students’ literacies. Moreover, all moved towards more targeted, needs-based instruction. Given the pervasiveness and ineffectiveness of one-size-fits-all approaches, this again is an important shift. As Baker (2020) reminds us, excellent teaching does not ignore but rather attends to the “magnificent variability” of students. Notably, two teachers “picked up” ILF and adapted the planning template for their classrooms, suggesting further that teachers became empowered to make the template their own. While the ways teachers’ instruction evolved is encouraging and suggests ILF holds promise in helping teachers build their students’ literacies, some teachers’ difficulty weaving ILF into their curriculum underscores the complex nature of building teacher knowledge. That said, we hope that ILF provides teachers and literacy coaches with useful tools as they move towards addressing the full range of literacies students need to develop in this 21st century.
References
Aberg, E. S. & Akerfeldt, A. (2017). Design and recognition of multimodal texts: Selection of digital tools and modes on the basis of social materials and premises. Journal of Computers in Education, 4(3), 283-306. Baker, E. A. (2020, December). Wag the dog: A digital literacies narrative. [Presidential address]. Literacy Research Association. https://www.literacyresearchassociation.org/past-conferences Coiro, J. (2011). Predicting reading comprehension on the Internet: Contributions of offline reading skills, online reading skills, and prior knowledge. Journal of literacy research, 43(4), 352-392. Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., ... & Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics× instruction interactions on third graders’ reading comprehension by differentiating literacy instruction. Reading research quarterly, 46(3), 189-221. Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability. Urban Education, 42, 512-535. Erikson Institute. (2016). Technology and young children in the digital age: A report from the Erikson Institute. Retrieved 1/26/20 from https://www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/EriksonInstitute-Technology-and-Young-Children-Survey.pdf Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2012). Close Reading in Elementary Schools. The Reading Teacher, 66(3), 179-188. DOI:10.1002/TRTR.01117. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Improve reading with complex texts. Kappan Magazine, 96(5). Flores, M. T. (2007). Navigating contradictory communities of practice in learning to teach for social justice. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 38(4), 380-404. Guthrie, J. T., McRae, A., & Klauda, S., L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42 (4), 237250.
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). Hoffman, J., (2002). Flexible Grouping Strategies in the Multiage Classroom. Theory Into Practice, Winter, 2002, Vol. 41, No. 1, 47-52. Hutchison, A., & Henry, L. ( 2010 ). Internet use and online reading among middle-grade students at risk of dropping out of school. Middle Grades Research Journal, 5 ( 2 ). Jewitt, C. (2008). Multimodality and literacy in school classrooms. Review of Research in Education, 32, 241–267. Kelley, M. J., Clausen-Grace, N. (2009-2010). Facilitating engagement by differentiating independent reading. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 313–318 Kress, G. , & Van Leeuwen , T. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. Oxford University Press. Kuhn, M. R., (2005). A Comparative Study of Small Group Fluency Instruction. Reading Psychology, 26: 127-146. Kuhn, M. R., Rasinski, T., Young, C., (2018). Best Practices in Fluency Instruction. Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, 272-288. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45 (2), 230-251. Marsh, J. (2005). Digikids: Young children, popular culture and media. Critical Issues in Early Childhood Education, 181-196. Morgan, A., Wilcox, B. R., & Eldredge, J. L. (2000). Effect of difficulty levels on second-grade delayed readers using dyad reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 94(2), 113-119. O’Brien, L. M., Salinas, A., Reinhart, K. & Paratore. J. R., (2018). Preservice Teachers’ Use of Technology and Multimodal Text Sets in Teaching Reading: Lessons Learned from a Design-Based Study. In E. Ortlieb, E. H. Cheek, & P. Semingson (Eds.) Best Practices in Teaching Digital Literacies, pp. 123136. Emerald Publishing. Opfer, V. D., Kaufman, J. H., & Thompson, L. E. (2016). Implementation of K–12 state standards for mathematics and English language arts and literacy. RAND. Paratore, J. R., (2000). Grouping for Instruction in Literacy: What We’ve Learned About What Works and What Doesn’t. The California Reader, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp. 2-10. Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, G. (1983). The gradual release of responsibility model of instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8(3), 112-123. Rideout, V., and Robb, M. B. (2019). The Common Sense census: Media use by tweens and teens, 2019. CommonSense Media. Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562-584. Snow, C. & O’Connor, C. (2016). Close Reading and Far-Reaching Classroom Discussion: Fostering a Vital Connection. Journal of Education, 196(1), 1-8.
