Assessing Academic Literacy:
The role of text in comprehending
written language
Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.
Florida Center for Reading
Research
Florida State University
1
What are the Issues?
• Academic literacy assumes grade-level
proficiency.
• On the 2007 Reading NAEP, 33% below
basic in G4; 26% below basic in G8.
• For minorities, the % below basic on the 2007
Reading NAEP are: 53% in G4 & 45% in G8
for Blacks; 50% in G4 and 42% in G8 for
Hispanics.
• NCLB requires that students at-risk for
reading disability receive intervention.
2
Goals for This Presentation
Explain relation of academic literacy to
academic language
Definitions of reading comprehension
Characteristics of text difficulty
Measuring text difficulty
Assessing academic literacy
3
Academic Language is at the Core
of Literacy Instruction
Word Meanings
Text
a. because it allows literate
people to discuss literary
products; previously
referred to as extended
discourse or
decontextualized language.
b. because contextual cues
and shared assumptions
are minimized by explicitly
encoding referents for
pronouns, actions, and
locations
4
13 higherSES children
(professional)
23 middle/lowerSES children
(working class)
6 welfare
children
Age of child in months
5
Hart & Risley, 1995
Estimated cumulative words addressed to child
Language Experience
Professional
Working-class
Welfare
Age of child in months
6
Hart & Risley, 1995
Quality Teacher Talk
(Snow et al., 2007)
• Rare words
• Ability to listen to
children and to extend
their comments
• Tendency to engage
children in cognitively
challenging talk
• Promotes emergent
literacy & vocabulary &
literacy success in
middle grades
7
Home & School
experiences: ages 3-6
Literacy
Print focus
Conversation
Extended
discourse
forms and
nonfamiliar
audiences
Skills developed: ages 3-6
Understanding
literacy
School performance
Kindergarten
and first
grade
reading
Print
Conversational
language
Decontextualized
language
Instruction and
Practice in reading
Reading
comprehension
In Grade 4
(Snow, 1991)
8
Table 3
%
98
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
Independent
Reading
Minutes Per Day
65.0
21.1
14.2
9.6
6.5
4.6
3.3
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.0
Words Read Per
Year
4,358,000
1,823,000
1,146,000
622,000
432,000
282,000
200,000
106,000
21,000
8,000
0
Variation in Amount of Independent Reading
9
(Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998, adapted from Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding,1988)
Is Literacy Enough?
(Snow et al., 2007)
For adolescents, oral language and literacy
skills need to be adequate, but also need:
• Caring adult(s) at home
• Caring adults at school who provide
guidance about how to meet goals (often
need smaller school)
• Minimal risk: Not many school transitions;
minimal family disturbances.
10
What is Reading Comprehension?
• “the process of simultaneously extracting
and constructing meaning through
interaction and involvement with written
language” (RAND, 2002, p. 11)
• “Reading is 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” (NAEP Framework,
11
2009)
Word recognition, vocabulary,
background knowledge, strategy
use, inference-making abilities,
motivation
Text structure, vocabulary, genre
discourse, motivating features,
print style and font
TEXT
READER
ACTIVITY
Environment,
cultural norms
Purpose, social relations,
school/classroom/peers/
families
A heuristic for thinking about reading comprehension (Sweet & Snow, 2003).
12
Understanding what
has been read; the
application to written
text of:
(a) nonlinguistic
(conceptual) knowledge
(b) general language
comprehension skills
(Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, &
Seidenberg, 2001)
13
The Reading
Pillar
Speed and ease of
reading with
comprehension
(NRC, 1998)
Skilled Reading
Fluency
Comprehension
Word Recognition
Conceptual
Knowledge/vocabulary
Strategic processing of
text
Decoding using alphabetic
principle
Print Awareness & Letter
Knowledge
Emergent Reading
Decoding using other cues
Sight Recognition
Motivation to Read
Oral Language including
14
What Makes a Text Difficult?
15
Components of Reading Comprehension (Perfetti, 1999)
Comprehension Processes
General Knowledge
Inferences
Situation Model
Text Representation
Parser
Meaning and Form Selection
Word
Representation
Identification
Word
Orthographic
Units
Visual Input
Phonological
Units
Linguistic System
Phonology
Syntax
Morphology
Lexicon
Meaning
Morphology
Syntax
Orthography
Mapping to
phonology
16
Vocabulary Demands in 6 G1 Basals (Foorman et al., 2004)
Table 4
Representation of Oral and Written Vocabulary in Program (Types)
A
B
C1
C2
D
E
LWV
Levels
2
4
6
8
10
12
13
16
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
Freq.
%
889
609
104
47
18
25
9
9
(51.99)
(35.61)
(6.08)
(2.75)
(1.05)
(1.46)
(.53)
(.53)
897
575
107
35
24
41
11
17
(52.55)
(33.68)
(6.27)
(2.05)
(1.41)
(2.40)
(.64)
(1.00)
891
592
113
33
16
23
14
8
(52.72)
(35.03)
(6.69)
(1.95)
(.95)
(1.36)
(.83)
(.47)
1101
785
197
64
28
45
15
14
(48.96)
(34.90)
(8.76)
(2.85)
(1.24)
(2.00)
(.67)
(.62)
196
102
2
1
1
2
(64.47)
(33.55)
(.66)
(.33)
(.33)
(.66)
Total
1710
SF1
1707
1690
2249
304
Freq.
586
375
53
17
8
10
6
2
%
(55.44)
(35.48)
(5.01)
(1.61)
(.76)
(.95)
(.57)
(.19)
1057
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
53.24
(10.29)
52.64
(10.83)
53.78
(9.72)
51.91
(10.06)
61.42
(9.12)
55.38
(10.10)
Note. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981).
SFI = Standard Frequency Index Zeno et al., 1995).
17
Relation of Frequency in Corpus to
Grade 1 Frequency in Zeno et al. (1995)
18
Some “rare” (G1 Basal) and “not-sorare” (elementary literature) Words
WORD
LWV Level
Basal f/100
Lit. f/1,000,000
craft
6
.001684892
4.952
due
6
.002813969
11.638
elk
6
.002813969
7.429
exhausted
6
.002813969
7.429
fifth
8
.002813969
23.029
fins
8
.002813969
5.448
flung
6
.002813969
13.371
gathering
6
.002813969
16.343
generally
6
.002813969
11.886
greatly
8
.002813969
12.133
hooks
12
.002813969
5.200
hops
12
.002813969
5.200
horned
6
.002813969
5.200
household
6
.002813969
10.648
illness
6
.001684892
5.695
jersey
6
.002813969
10.648
kingdom
6
.002813969
20.800
layer
6
.002813969
25.257
leash
8
.001684892
11.390
least
6
.002813969
139.904
lights
13
.002813969
97.314
19
Representation of Opportunity
Words Across Basals
Number of Programs
LWV Level
Total
Total
1
2
3
4
6
87
33
9
0
129
8
14
12
4
2
32
10
11
2
3
0
16
12
22
2
5
0
29
13
3
1
0
1
5
16
4
1
0
0
5
141
51
21
3
216
20
Opportunity Words in Grade 1 Basals
ad
creak
glossary
perch
sped
brilliant
timid
flahing
plankton
amuse
creamy
gown
phrase
spoiled
celebrated
typical
foal
ticking
arch
create
granite
poetry
squad
coral
vacuum
fro
attract
crib
grief
poisonous
squire
draws
vegetation
gracious
backwards
determination gust
porcupine
sturdy
dune
yourselves
handles
blues
device
haze
potter
survive
elegant
alas
hatching
blur
display
holly
pox
swap
fins
bog
heather
boar
doe
horned
prey
swoop
gerbil
brute
hooks
boast
dose
illness
prickly
tattered
gruff
cam
hops
bony
driftwood
item
pueblo
thankful
hermit
cove
mantis
breed
elk
jumper
pulp
ties
heron
dialogue
mats
bronze
establish
kicks
radar
towering
huff
flora
maze
burrow
exhausted
leapt
relate
turquoise
lance
framework minded
career
fangs
lent
relay
twinkle
polar
guinea
rio
cement
fearless
listener
resist
veterinarian promises
hangs
senora
chops
fig
llama
rhinoceros
wag
ramp
hemisphere slanted
chowder
flapped
magnificent rhythm
walrus
reed
lulu
sneaking
clam
fled
marine
rover
wee
reef
ping
stacks
clippers
foil
mercury
rum
whaling
returns
squid
swish
clumsy
frisky
meter
sculpture
whew
ribbons
stripes
tad
cocoon
furthermore
mi
seller
whoa
rushes
taps
taro
con
gallery
mobile
shack
wraps
scurry
blasted
taut
conservation
galley
mold
shaken
wrestle
si
boa
twinkling
construction
garlic
outdoor
shrug
yelp
stated
buster
amazon
contented
genius
overcome
slimy
zoom
stirring
chameleon digs
craft
gigantic
packet
sow
thud
chi
splitting
21
Conclusions on Vocabulary
• Publishers need to provide teachers with
cumulative vocabulary lists
• These need to be made available
electronically to textbook adopters and
should include information on:
– Frequency in text and lesson number
– Separate entry for each definition used
– Derivational forms
– Printed word frequency in other relevant
corpora
22
Conclusions on Vocabulary
• Instruction needs to target oral language
development from pre-school through high
school
• Printed word frequency and age of
acquisition are useful tools for guiding
selection of lexical entries to be taught
• Assessment of vocabulary for the purpose
of Reading First should focus on the link
between assessment and instruction
23
Summary and Conclusions
• Programs differ substantially in the
composition of their print materials for Grade
1 students
• Length of texts, grammatical complexity,
numbers of unique and total words, repetition
of words, coverage of important vocabulary
• Differences exist in the decodability of types
and tokens
– Generally there is greater decodability for tokens
than types,
– most programs show improvements for types later
in the year
24
Summary and Conclusions
Programs vary in the approach they take to
achieve decodability and in the degree to
which materials can be expected to yield
accuracy in reading.
- Vary in phonic elements taught
- Vary in opportunity to practice words
containing these elements
- Within 6-week blocks, 70% of words are
singletons in 4 of the 6 basals
- Vary in reliance on holistically-taught words
25
Implications for fluency
• “…for dysfluent readers, the texts that are
read and reread for fluency practice need
to have sufficiently high percentages of
words within…the word zone fluency
curriculum and low percentages of rare
words, especialy multisyllabic ones” ( p.
18)
• “Repetition of core words makes science
text ideal for fluency practice in the
primary grades” (p. 11)
Hiebert (2007)
26
Word Zone Fluency Curriculum
High-Freq Words Phonics/Syllable
Morphological
A
300 most freq
accuracy rate of 40%
in first grade in
Seymour et al., 2003).
Short/long vowels
Simple, inflected endings
(ed, ing, s, es,’s)
B
500 most freq
Short & long & rcontrolled vowels
C
1,000 most freq
All monosyllabic
D
1,000 most freq
2-syllable compound
words with at least 1
root from 1,000 most
frequent words
E
2,500 most freq
F
5,000 most freq
Prefixes: un, a
Suffixes: er, est,
ly, y (doubling)
27
Jabberwocky (Lewis Carroll, 1872)
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”
28
And four more stanzas From Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There
Discussion
You know how to pronounce the words in
Jabberwocky; some are real English words.
1. Which ones are real English words?
2. What is the distinction between those that
are actual English words and those that
aren’t?
3. Do the two paragraphs differ in these
distinctions?
29
Alice’s reaction
“It seems very pretty,” she said when she
had finished it, but it’s rather hard to
understand!” (You see she didn’t like to
confess, even to herself, that she couldn’t
make it out at all.) “Somehow it seems to
fill my head with ideas—only I don’t
exactly know what they are! However,
somebody killed something: that’s clear at
any rate—”
30
NAEP 2009 Reading Framework
Characteristics of text difficulty:
• Vocabulary reported out separately
• Subscales for literary & informational
text
• Grade-level standards for text type
31
2009 NAEP Framework
Literary Text
● Fiction
● Literary Nonfiction
● Poetry
Informational Text
● Exposition
● Argumentation and Persuasive
Text
● Procedural Text and Documents
Cognitive Targets Distinguished by Text Type
Locate/Recall
Integrate/Interpret
Critique/Evaluate
32
Achievement Levels for Grade 4 NAEP Reading
Achievement
Level
Advanced
Proficient
Basic
Literary
Informational
G4 students at the Advanced level should be able to:
G4 students at Advanced level should be able to:
Interpret figurative language
Make complex inferences
Identify point of view
Evaluate character motivation
Describe thematic connections across literary texts.
Make complex inferences
Evaluate the coherence of a text
Explain author’s point of view
Compare ideas across texts
G4 students at the Proficient level should be able to:
G4 students at Proficient level should be able to:
Infer character motivation
Interpret mood or tone
Explain theme
Identify similarities across texts
Identify elements of author’s crafts
Identify author’s implicitly stated purpose
Summarize major ideas
Find evidence in support of an argument
Distinguish between fact and opinion
Draw conclusions
G4 students at the Basic level should be able to:
G4 students at the Basic level should be able to:
Locate textually explicit information, such as plot, setting,
and character
Make simple inferences
Identify supporting details
Describe character’s motivation
Describe the problem
Identify mood
Find the topic sentence or main idea
Identify supporting details
Identify author’s explicitly stated purpose
Make simple inferences
33
2009 NAEP Framework
English
author’s
craft
History
Science
literary
informational or
technical, symbolic,
diagrams
expository,
argumentative,
persuasive
Informational or
technical, diagrams
plot, setting,
characterization,
point of view,
verse, rhyme
sequence, cause
and effect, problem
and solution,
supporting ideas
and evidence,
graphical features
sequence, cause
and effect, problem
and solution,
author’s
perspective
supporting ideas
and evidence,
contrasting
viewpoints,
graphical features
sequence, cause
and effect, problem
and solution,
supporting ideas
and evidence,
graphical features
diction, dialogue,
symbolism,
imagery, irony,
figurative
language
rhetorical structure,
examples, logical
arguments
figurative language,
rhetorical structure,
examples,
emotional appeal
rhetorical structure,
examples, logical
arguments
text type
text
structure
Mathematics
34
35
What Does Mean to be Proficient?
• W score cutpoints on NAEP and state tests
communicate grade-level proficiency or
benchmark performance.
• State curriculum standards need to be
aligned with benchmarks/proficiency levels.
• Are states’ proficiency levels comparable to
NAEP’s?
36
% Proficient on State vs NAEP Reading 2005
State 4-state 4-NAEP DIFF 8-state 4-NAEP DIFF
ME
53
35
-18
44
38
-6
MO
35
33
-2
33
31
-2
WY
47
34
-13
39
36
-3
TX
79
29
-50
83
26
-57
GA
87
26
-61
83
25
-58
NC
84
29
-55
89
27
-62
[Porter, 2007]
37
Most state testing systems do not
assess college and work readiness
• 26 states require students to pass an
exam before they graduate high
school.*
• Yet most states have testing systems
that do not measure college and work
readiness.**
*Source: Center on Education Policy, State High School Exit Exams: States Try Harder, But Gaps Persist, August 2005.
**Source: Achieve Survey/Research, 2006.
38
Graduation exams in 26 states
establish the performance “floor”
Figure reads: Alaska has a mandatory exit exam in 2005 and is withholding diplomas
from students based on exam performance. Arizona is phasing in a mandatory exit exam
and plans to begin withholding diplomas based on this exam in 2006. Connecticut does not
have an exit exam, nor is it scheduled to implement one.
Source: Center on Education Policy, based on information collected from state departments of education, July 2005.
39
How challenging are state exit exams?
• Achieve conducted a study of graduation
exams in six states to determine how high
a bar the tests set for students.
• The results show that these tests tend to
measure only 8th, 9th or 10th grade
content, rather than the skills students
needs to succeed in college and the
workplace.
40
The tests Achieve analyzed
State
Florida
Grade
Given
Reading
10th
•
End of
course
•
Massachusetts
10th
New Jersey
Writing
Math
First
Graduating
Class Facing
Requirement
•
2003
•
•
2009
•
•
•
2003
11th
•
•
•
2003
Ohio
10th
•
•
2007
Texas
11th
•
•
2004
Maryland
•
Source: Achieve, Inc., Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? A Closer Look at State High School Exit Exams, 2004.
41
Students can pass state English tests with
skills ACT expects of 8th & 9th graders
ACT EXPLORE
(8th/9th)
0
1
2
3
ACT PLAN
(10th)
4
ACT
(11th/12th)
5
6
FL
MD
MA
NJ
OH
TX
Source: Achieve, Inc., Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? A Closer Look at State High School Exit Exams, 2004.
42
% Students Proficient on FCAT
(Level 3 and above)
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2001
57
53
52
52
47
43
28
37
2006
75
66
67
64
62
46
40
32
Difference
18
13
15
12
15
3
12
-5
43
Is 10th Grade FCAT Too Hard?
• The St. Petersburg Times article (4/15/07)
concluded correctly that the 10th Grade
FCAT is harder than the 10th grade NRT.
• Conclusion based on fact that Level 3
(proficient) performance is 56th %ile
nationally at Gr 7; 80th %ile at Gr 10
• Or “Why wait until high school to
implement world class standards?”
44
Absolute level of reading proficiency
Absolute level of reading proficiency
nationally
10
9
Grade level standard on the
FCAT
8
7
6
5
4
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
45
Passage Length in Words
Grade
FCAT range
FCAT average
3
100-700
350
4
100-900
400
5
200-900
450
6
200-1000
500
7
300-1100
600
8
300-1100
700
9
300-1400
800
10
300-1700
900
NAEP range
NAEP average
200-800
400-1000
500-1500 (12)
1000 (12)
46
% of Passage Types
Grade
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
FCAT Literary
Texts
60%
50%
50%
50%
40%
40%
30%
30%
FCAT Informational Texts
40%
50%
50%
50%
60%
60%
70%
70%
NAEP Literary
Texts
NAEP Informational Texts
50%
50%
45%
55%
30% (12) 70% (12)
47
FCAT Test Design
• Cognitive Complexity (Webb’s Depth of
Knowledge)
• Content Categories for Reading
- Words & phrases in context
- Main idea, plot, & author’s purpose
- Comparison; cause/effect
- Reference & Research – locate, organize,
interpret, synthesize, & evaluate information
48
To Make Proficiency Standards
Meaningful and Fair
• Agree on target for proficiency (e.g.,
college readiness)
• Align elementary, middle, and high school
targets
• Align curriculum standards
• Evaluate dimensionality of tests and
prepare instruction accordingly
• Equate state tests with NAEP to guarantee
comparability and equity
49
From Barbara Tuckman’s The Zimmerman Telegram…
The first message of the morning watch plopped out of
the pneumatic tube into a wire basket with no more
premonitory rattle than usual. The duty officer at the
British Navel Intelligence twisted open the cartridge and
examined the German wireless intercept it contained
without noting anything of unusual significance. When a
glance showed him that the message was in non-navel
code, he sent it in to the Political Section in the inner
room and thought no more about it. The date was
January 17, 1917, past the halfway mark of a war that
had already ground through thirty months of reckless
carnage and no gain.
50
What Makes This Text Difficult?
•
•
•
•
Consider the text type and structure
Consider prior knowledge
Consider the vocabulary
Consider the discourse features—linguistic
markers for coherence, coreference, deixis
• Other factors?
51
Instructional Considerations
• Text Type/Structure
– persuasive text
• anti-war sentiment, “thirty months of reckless carnage and no gain”
• indictment of war bureaucracy
– narrative structure
– historical non-fiction
• Prior Knowledge
– World War I
• text references: war, 1917, British, German, duty officer
– early 20th century communications
• text references: telegram, pneumatic tube, wire basket, wireless intercept
– Zimmerman telegram
• text references: German wireless, non-naval code
52
53
Instructional Considerations
(continued)
• Vocabulary
– academic language
• examined, significance, “ground through”
– generative words
• premonitory, carnage, intercept
– Tier 3 vocabulary (military domain)
• “morning watch,” non-naval code, German wireless, pneumatic tube
• Linguistic Markers (Coherence Relations)
– pronouns
• duty officer = he, him
– co-references
• German wireless intercept = the message
– deixis
• “in the inner room”
– chronology
• “When a glance showed him that the message was in non-navel code,…”
54
Instructional Delivery
• Model strategies (activating background
knowledge, questioning, searching for
information, summarizing, organizing
graphically, identifying story structure (e.g.,
Guthrie et al., 2004; Brown, Pressley et al., 1996)
• Keep the focus on the meaning of the text
through high quality discussion.
• Model “thinking like an historian” (e.g.,
sourcing) to provide a purpose for reading
(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).
55
Measuring Text Difficulty
• Teacher judgment
• Readability: Tuchman passage ranges from
8.4 on Dale-Chall to 13.3 on the FleschKincaid & Fry; 13.5 on Lexiles.
• Latent semantic analysis
• Natural language processing (e.g.,
McNamara, 2001)
• Text equating to control passage difficulty
56
Limitations of readability
• Circular use
• Capture surface features only
• Measurement error on specialized text
- Primary grade text
- Poetry
- Technical documents (e.g., train
schedules; tax forms)
57
How Do We Assess Academic
Literacy?
58
Discussion of Academic Literacy
Assessment
• What are the important knowledge and
skills to assess in K-3?
• What are the important knowledge and
skills to assess in 4-12?
• What kind of text should be used?
• What kind of outcome measures should be
used?
59
Converging Evidence
Valid and reliable predictors of risk for
reading difficulty are:






Print concepts (early K)
Letter name knowledge (early K)
Phonological awareness and letter sounds (K-1)
Rapid naming of letters (end of K to early G1)
Word recognition (G1 and beyond)
Vocabulary
(Fletcher et al., 2002; Scarsborough, 1998; Torgesen, 2002)
60
Assessing written language
• Use various formats to assess:
--multiple choice
--cloze
--maze
--question/answer
--constructed response
--retelling
--sentence verification
• Report achievement in language proficiency
levels to chart ELLs progress (Francis, 2008)
61
New PK-12 Florida Reading
Assessment System
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Instructionally useful; free to FL schools in 2009-2010
Includes vocabulary and comprehension
Computer administered in grades 3-12
Screening, progress monitoring, & diagnostic assessments;
data available in the Progress Monitoring & Reporting
Network (PMRN)
Screen is empirically linked to the Florida Comprehensive
Assessment Test (FCAT) or outcome measure
Targeted diagnostic inventories administered to students not
meeting expectations are linked to Florida standards and
provide information for guiding instruction
Reading comprehension & oral reading fluency passages
are equated for difficulty to allow for accurate progress
monitoring
Instructional level passages provided
62
New Reading Assessments
• PK: print knowledge, phonological awareness,
vocabulary, math (linked to K screening)
• K-2: phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, decoding,
encoding, fluency, vocabulary, listening or reading comp.
• 3-12: adaptive complex & low level reading comp.,
fluency, word analysis, skill assessment
• K-12: Informal reading inventories
• Lexile scores in grades 3-12 allow matching students to
text and access to online libraries
• Identifies risk of reading difficulties and reading
disabilities
63
New Reading Assessments
64
Thank you!
[email protected]
www.fcrr.org
65
References
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional
strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88,
18-37.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Davidson, K., Harm, M., & Griffin, J. (2004). Variability in text features in six
grade 1 basal reading programs. Scientific Studies in Reading, 8(2), 167-197.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K.C., Tabada, 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.
Hiebert, E.H. (2007). A fluency curriculum and the texts that support it. In P. Schwanenflugel & M. Kuhn
(Eds.), Creating a literacy curriculum: Fluency instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
National Assessment Governing Board (in press). 2009 NAEP Reading Framework. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from http://www.naepreading.org/.
National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Committee on the
Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Commission on Behavioral and Social Science
and Education. In C.E. Snow, M.S. Burns, and P. Griffin (Eds.). Washington, DC: Nat’l Academy Press
Perfetti, C.A. (1991). Representation and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence. In L. Rieben &
C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: basic research and its implications (pp. 33-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Porter, A. (2007). NCLB lessons learned: Implications for reauthorization. In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Will “No Child
Left Behind “ help close the poverty gap? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading
comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
Snow, E., Porche, M., Tabors, P., & Harris, S. (2007). Is literary enough? Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Snowling, M.J., & Hulme, C. (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. NY: Blackwell.
Sweet, A.P., & Snow, C.E. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. NY: The Guilford Press.
Zeno, S.M., Ivens, S.H., Millard, R.T., Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. NY:
66
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.
Descargar

Psyc 6356 Clinical Assessment I