The Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat
y
r
a
m
i
Pr
Reading
d
E
A
g
r
e
p
a
P
n
o
i
s
s
u
c
s
i
D
f
B
CH
Contents
1INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Purpose of This Discussion Paper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
1.3 Methods/Approach Used . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2 FINDINGS – WHAT WE LEARNED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 System Level Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 School Level Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3 Classroom Level Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.1 Turning to the Research: The Four Resources Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3.2 Conditions That Support the Four Families of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.3.3 Code Breaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3.4 Meaning Maker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.5 Text User . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.3.6 Text Critic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3 CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.1 Evolving View: Four Families of Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2 Comparison of Good and Poor Readers in Grade 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3 Metacognitive Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.4 Phonological Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.5 Arc of Inquiry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
i
1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
From 2002–03 to 2005–06 steady gains were made in primary reading in
Ontario, as measured by the Education Quality and Accountability Office
(EQAO) assessments. The percentage of students achieving at the provincial
standard increased from 54 percent to 64 percent. However, from 2006–07
to 2009–10 the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the provincial
standard remained unchanged.
In recognition of the complexity of reading instruction as both an art and
a science, the Ministry of Education responded to the plateau in primary
reading in a number of different ways:
2
l
Since 2006, schools with large percentages of students achieving well below
the provincial standard have been supported through the Ontario Focused
Intervention Partnership (OFIP). With this support the number of very low
achieving schools has decreased from 250 schools out of approximately 4000
in 2006 to 126 schools in 2010.
l
In September 2009 the ministry invited a group of university researchers
and educators to provide advice to ministry personnel about evidence-based
practices for strengthening reading skills in the primary years.
l
During the 2009–10 school year, the Student Work Study Teacher (SWST)
initiative was established to take a closer look at students whose reading
achievement was at level 2 and who were likely to progress to level 3 only
with the aid of supports tailored to their individual needs. The SWSTs focused
on examining student work and uncovering student thinking in order to
better understand the teaching practices that would be effective in supporting
learners and bringing about improved student achievement. During the
2010–11 school year the SWSTs focused on student work and student
thinking in primary reading and junior mathematics, and a small number
of SWSTs studied the performance and thinking of students whose work
showed evidence of progressing from level 3 to level 4.
l
Since 2006, the webcasts listed in the chart below have been developed to
illustrate effective instruction and pedagogy.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Webcast
Segments Relevant to Primary Reading
Precision Teaching in the Primary Classroom
Guided Reading and Guided Reading Debrief
Word Study in Action
Word Sorts and Multiple Meanings,
Engagement Through Word Study and
Understanding Word Structure
Developing Inquiring Minds
Teachers Demonstrate Effective Feedback,
Preparing for Shared Writing, The Student’s
Perspective
Critical Literacy
What Are Critical Literacies?, Deconstructing
Texts, Accountable Talk, Texts of all Types
(multimedia ), Assessment and Instruction
(Think Alouds/Groupings), Loaded Language
(Shared Reading ), Reading/Writing Connection
Differentiated Instruction: Continuing
the Conversation
Think Aloud: A Powerful Thinking Strategy,
General Process of Reading
Effective Instruction in Reading
Comprehension
Reading Comprehension Strategies –
visualizing, predicting questioning
Instructional Strategies – Modelled, Shared
and Guided Reading, Reciprocal Teaching
Kindergarten Matters: Building Blocks
for Learning
All segments
Kindergarten Matters: Planned, Purposeful
and Playful Talk
All segments
Precision Teaching in the Primary Classroom
All segments
Today’s Learner for Tomorrow’s World
Fostering Independent Learning
l
The following multimedia resources and monographs have been produced
to support school- and system-based professional learning focused on
strengthening reading instruction:
– Primary Assessment: Lessons Learned from Kindergarten/Grade 1
Collaborative Inquiry
– Reading Fluency
– Grand Conversations in Primary Classrooms
– Critical Literacy
– Integrated Learning in the Classroom
– Integrated Curriculum - What Works? Research into Practice
– Let’s Talk about Listening
– Bolstering Resilience in Students: Teachers as Protective Factors,
What Works? Research into Practice
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
3
– Thinking about Thinking: Setting the Stage for Independent Reading (K–2)
– Word Study Instruction
A student who can’t read on grade level
by 3rd grade is four times less likely to
graduate by age 19 than a child who
does read proficiently by that time.
Hernandez, 2010
l
Kindergarten to Grade 4 literacy leaders from all English-language school
districts have received direct support through web conferences and
face-to-face sessions focused on improved classroom instruction.
l
The Early Primary Collaborative Initiative (EPCI) examined the effects of
teaching practice on student learning, finding that approaches that make
thinking and learning “visible” are most effective.
l
In early 2011, leadership teams from all English-language boards participating
in Schools in the Middle (SIM) sessions were engaged in focused learning
conversations about how to improve primary reading.
The initiatives and interventions listed above, along with the work of district
school boards, schools, and teachers, have made a significant impact on teaching
and learning. That said, we need to continue our focus on primary reading.
In the fall of 2010, the Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat established a Primary
Reading Working Group. The group’s mandate was to draw on both professional
practice in Ontario and current research to probe more deeply into the factors
that contribute to system, school, and classroom successes and challenges related
to primary reading, and make recommendations for next steps. This discussion
paper outlines the group’s findings.
1.2 The Purpose of This Discussion Paper
The main purpose of this discussion paper is to promote professional inquiry
into primary reading and to:
l
outline perspectives on effective primary reading instruction and pedagogy
put forward by Ontario educators and supported by current research;
l
suggest possible action steps, for implementation starting in winter 2011,
to bring about improvements in primary reading achievement;
l
continue to strengthen and focus the supports provided for students in
Kindergarten and the primary grades within comprehensive literacy programs.
This paper is intended to be used by districts, schools, primary divisions, and
grade teams, in concert with other key resources, such as the School Effectiveness
Framework, to take stock and promote inquiry and reflection about current
practice. Questions that may be useful in supporting such an inquiry process
include the following:
l
4
On the basis of what student work is telling us, which elements of quality
reading instruction might need to be introduced, bolstered, or refined?
What specific evidence supports this finding? How will these elements
be strengthened or refined? If no particular elements need to be addressed,
what are the next steps to further improvement?
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
l
If an element needs to be added, refined, or used more consistently across
classrooms, then discussion might revolve around the following:
Do we understand this element of reading at a deep level?
Which students need this instruction?
What pedagogy will best support student learning?
What evidence will demonstrate that student learning has improved?
1.3 Methods and Approaches Used
The members of the Primary Reading Working Group met on a regular basis over
a six-month period to gather and compile insights and lessons learned about
primary reading. We functioned as a small professional learning team engaged
in collaborative inquiry and drew on the expertise not only of our members but
also of educators across the province. In addition, we relied heavily on current
research evidence identified in a modest literature review and also on the research
foundations that underpin the K–12 School Effectiveness Framework (SEF), as
outlined in the document by the same name (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2010).
Specifically, we sought advice and input from the following:
l
representatives from EQAO
l
teams from five English-language and two French-language districts that had
significant improvement in achievement in primary reading over a two-year
period. Collectively, the focus groups included supervisory officers, School
Effectiveness Leads, consultants, teachers, literacy coaches, and a speech and
language pathologist.
l
the primary division in an elementary school with a large Grade 3 cohort
that made significant gains in primary reading, moving from 76% of students
achieving at the provincial standard to 85%.
l
the team leader responsible for New Zealand’s Literacy, Design and Operational
Policy
In addition, we learned from the following:
l
the report of the Student Work Study Initiative
l
the report of the Ontario Focused Intervention Partnership
l
the report of the Early Primary Collaborative
l
the report of the Literacy Leaders Provincial Collaborative Inquiry
lthe
l
K–12 School Effectiveness Framework
a review of current research on primary reading
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
5
Although our focus as a working group was on primary reading, we also needed
to keep in mind the context within which primary reading is embedded –
the instructional core. The prism diagram below, taken from the K–12 School
Effectiveness Framework, provides a visual representation of the instructional core.
It illustrates that primary reading instruction and pedagogy do not exist in
isolation but are influenced by provincial direction, district priorities, and
school improvement efforts acting together in support of classroom instruction.
Premier/Minister
Director/SOs
CORE
PRIORITIES
Principal/Teachers
INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERSHIP IN
GOVERNMENT
District
Leadership
Policy,
Supports and
Pressures
Trustees/Local
Community
BIP
INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERSHIP IN
SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Teacher
Programs and
Practices
SIP
INSTRUCTIONAL
LEADERSHIP IN
THE SCHOOL
Parents/School
Community
SEF
INSTRUCTIONAL
TASK
INSTRUCTIONAL CORE:
LEADERSHIP IN
THE CLASSROOM
Student
Curriculum
Although each component within the prism – the province, the district, and
the school – makes valuable and essential contributions to effective reading
instruction, this report takes the view that the quality of the instructional core
as a whole determines the quality of student learning and achievement. The
individuals and groups with whom the working group consulted, along with
the literature it reviewed, encompassed the perspectives of representatives of
all the components of the prism.
The document K–12 School Effectiveness Framework (SEF) is a support to the
school and classroom components of the prism. The SEF provides indicators and
samples of evidence that can be used to create an environment for both teaching
and learning that effectively supports student achievement and well-being. Use
of the SEF therefore can have a powerful influence on the instructional core.
6
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
FINDINGS – WHAT WE LEARNED
2.1 SYSTEM-LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
System leaders consulted by the Working Group emphasized the importance of
building a collective sense of purpose and a focus on early reading to establish a
common understanding of what literacy learning means and how it is supported
and developed within schools. Board-wide alignment and consistency in messaging
about literacy learning from Kindergarten to Grade 3 was seen as critical. In many
cases extensive professional learning focusing on reading instruction was needed,
for both teachers and principals .
At the system level, leaders indicated that the District Review Process outlined
in the K–12 School Effectiveness Framework (SEF) is used to inform resource
allocation and points to the professional learning supports that are needed.
Data from effective OFIP schools also suggests that implementing cycles of
self-assessment and reflection, as outlined in the SEF, is key to improvement
planning and successful intervention.
Districts provide the time and space for educators to engage in job-embedded
professional learning, collaborative inquiry, and reflection on practice. These
collaborative learning cultures, characterized by continuous inquiry and
improvement, must foster “de-privatized practice” because nothing will
put instruction in the spotlight as well as teachers observing other teachers
(Marzano & Waters, p. 63).
Districts that have seen improvement in reading typically form networks of
teachers, principals, and supervisory officers that learn from and with one
another. Student learning is the focus as teams discuss, analyze, reflect on
student thinking, generate next steps, and gain a clearer understanding of
quality work.
Network and learning team conversations often focus on topics such as:
l
connections between curriculum expectations, learning goals, and success
criteria;
l
the role of assessment “for”, “as”, and “of” learning;
l
development of rich tasks and prompts that reflect curricular expectations,
promote critical and creative thinking, and make that thinking visible.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
2
Establishing Alignment and Coherence
We created a Board Strategic Improvement
Plan after seeking input from teachers and
principals and focused on job embedded
professional learning. We analyzed data,
developed the plan, and presented the
plan to the principals in order to ensure
that our direction was understood.
Principals presented the plan to staff
and School Councils, and collaboratively
developed the School Improvement Plans
to align with the Board plan. We revisit
the plan at principals’ meetings and
provide data on progress throughout the
year. This provides opportunities to continue
to message the foci in the plan and ensure
all are supporting the plan.
Jack McMaster, Director of Education,
Keewatin-Patricia DSB
Carol Hron, Superintendent of Education,
Keewatin-Patricia DSB
Professional development that is likely to
have the biggest impact has a reciprocal
relationship between the time you spend
with your colleagues in classrooms trying
to solve instructional problems and then
reflective time outside of classrooms
trying to think about what you are going
to try next....you have to have the structure
that allows people to get together.
Elmore, cited in Fullan, 2006
7
These conversations enable teachers to support students in integrating and
interpreting texts, drawing conclusions, and making evaluations independently.
This is the third year ALCDSB has placed emphasis on the Emergent Writer/Reader in
Kindergarten and Grade 1. Each year, professional knowledge and understanding gets closer
to the student desk with artefacts of student learning – writing samples and observations of
reading behaviour. System-wide, individual student PM Benchmark information is collected in the
fall and at year end from Sr. Kindergarten to Grade 3. At each elementary school, the Tracking
Board provides Professional Learning Communities with monthly reading record updates to inform
instructional and resource decisions for their primary students.
Reading Record information from four intervals during the 2010–2011 academic year is
supporting further teacher inquiry regarding text levels, and how students at the Emergent
stage progress with guided instruction to independently access and communicate understanding
of increasingly complex texts.
Jody DiRocco, Director of Education
Algonquin Lakeshore Catholic District School Board
Enhanced reading proficiency rests largely
on the capacity of classroom teachers to
provide expert, exemplary reading instruction – instruction that cannot be packaged
or regurgitated from a common script
because it is responsive to children’s needs.
Allington, 2002
…incoherence between the regular and
the supplemental instructional program
can weaken students’ overall learning.
Bryk et al., 2010 (p. 51)
Parental aspirations and expectations for
children’s educational achievement has the
strongest relationship with achievement
(.80), according to John Hattie (2010).
He goes on to say that “parents need to
hold high aspirations and expectations for
their children, and schools need to work in
partnership with parents to make their
expectations appropriately high and
challenging and then work in partnership
with children and the home to realize, and
even surpass, these expectations” (p. 70).
8
2.2 SCHOOL-LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
A recurring message from those we consulted is the importance of professional
learning communities (PLCs), in which educators work collaboratively to
build a school-wide approach as they align curriculum and select assessment
practices that support student learning. Teams develop a shared understanding
of curriculum expectations as they deconstruct and cluster expectations
to develop common understandings of the process of learning to read from
Kindergarten to Grade 3. These teams engage in focused conversations that
draw on both qualitative and quantitative data.
In schools that have seen improvement in reading, the progress of every student is
closely monitored by the primary division team (Junior Kindergarten to Grade 3),
and strategic interventions are designed, implemented, and monitored to support
continued student learning that leads to independent practice. Instruction and
interventions offered across instructional settings and contexts is responsive to
student needs and is coherent and mutually reinforcing. Interventions augment
effective classroom practice.
In these schools, goals and expected levels for reading achievement are clearly
stated and communicated to all. Entire school communities are involved
in bringing students to high levels of achievement. Positive home–school
relationships are fostered to support student learning. Human and other resources
are allocated in a way that supports identified student needs, and professional
learning opportunities are available to improve reading instruction and pedagogy.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
A small-scale New Zealand study (Timperley, Wiseman, & Fung, 2003) indicates that it is critically
important that teachers not only gather and analyze student achievement data but also discuss
it openly and constructively as a professional learning community. This research suggests that
teachers in schools where students achieve at higher levels talk regularly about their students’
achievement data. A continuing questioning of current practices is the main strategy for promoting
teacher learning.
Backus, 2000, cited in Allington & Cunningham, 2002
2.3 CLASSROOM-LEVEL CONSIDERATIONS
Teachers with whom we consulted consistently mentioned that the focus of
their instruction was determined by their ongoing assessments of every student
in their class. Individual and small-group instruction allowed them to focus on
the skills that their assessments indicated were most in need of support.
This section of the discussion paper covers the discrete cognitive foundations
that research has found to be essential to reading acquisition. Although skills
may be taught in isolation, they must always be applied in real reading contexts.
2.3.1 Looking to the Research: The Four Resources Model
(Four Families of Practice)
The working group has organized this section of the report around the four
resources model (see Appendix 4.1), developed by Luke and Freebody (1990),
because it is a model that is used widely across Ontario. The model describes
the four ways in which readers make meaning from texts, and so can be used
to discuss the four areas that teachers must consider for effective reading
instruction. It posits the following four families of practice:
l
Code user (coding competence) – i.e., practices that relate to decoding text
l
Meaning maker (semantic competence) – i.e., practices that relate to making
meaning from text
l
Text user (pragmatic competence) – i.e., practices that relate to pragmatics,
or the purpose, audience, and context of a text
l
Text analyzer (critical competence) – i.e., practices that relate to critical
interpretation of text
The premise of the model is that all four families of practice must be present
in exemplary reading instruction. Although a number of elements within each
family of practice are listed separately, proficient readers integrate all four practices
simultaneously, and learning tasks need to integrate the four families of practice in
meaningful ways across all subject areas. (For more information about the four
families of practices, see the webcast entitled Dr. Allan Luke: The New Literacies,
at www.curriculum.org.)
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
9
Teachers need an extensive and continually
developing knowledge of the learners they
teach – knowing each learner as a person,
knowing each learner’s pathway of progress,
and knowing about the characteristics
of literacy learners in general at different
points in their development.
New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2006
We know from decades of research that
humans learn best when concepts are
– introduced a few at a time
– important to the learner
– taught in depth
– taught over a period of time
– applied in a variety of texts and contexts.
Keene, 2008
2.3.2 C
onditions That Support All Four Families of Practice
and Promote Reading Achievement
Effective reading instruction is based on assessment and the development of a
profile of strengths and next steps for learning for each individual student in the
class. Once the starting points are known, individual and small-group instruction
is used to support each child’s individual literacy development. These strategies
are followed in the primary classrooms in the boards and schools that provided
input for this paper. In these boards and schools teaching is seen as a series of
deliberate acts and deliberate facilitation of student learning. The SWSTs who
contributed to research for this paper found that ongoing, incremental, and
timely assessment moves led to continual refinement and improvement of
both student work and student thinking.
According to research, “There is no single method or single combination of
methods that can successfully teach all children to read. Therefore, teachers
must have a strong knowledge of multiple methods for teaching reading and
a strong knowledge of the children in their care so they can create the appropriate
balance of methods needed for the children they teach” (International Reading
Association, 1999). Teachers need to know the learner, respond to the learner,
implement focused lessons, and reflect on both the teaching and the learning
that has occurred.
Pressley (2006), in his study of effective instruction, states that “the best
teachers were highly aware both of their practices and of the purposes driving
those practices. There was nothing haphazard about literacy instruction in
these classes.”
Districts that are seeing gains in reading achievement in the primary grades
report that they are using the following strategies.
A running record is an observational tool
to collect data on “learners at work” and
emphasizes that the process (especially for
emergent readers) is as important as the
final product.
Clay, 2000
10
Systematic assessment of student progress using ongoing running records.
The analysis of the running record and the use of this knowledge to inform
instruction are an important part of professional learning.
Careful selection of texts plays a major role in assisting students to learn at
optimal rates. Selections based on students’ interests, prior knowledge, and
competencies spur their development by building upon their strengths.
Teachers create small groups for text discussions and instruction based on:
l
observed reading behaviours;
l
student instructional needs, determined by the observed reading behaviours;
l
student interests;
l
level of difficulty of the text.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Teaching through the gradual release of responsibility. In this approach the
teacher first explains how to use a strategy and then gives students more and
more independence in practising and applying the strategy over time. Teaching
approaches that demonstrate the gradual release of responsibility include modelled,
shared, guided, independent practice and application to new learning (see text
in box). Effective instruction incorporates these approaches across all curricular
areas. (For more information, see the following webcast Quality Teaching: It’s
Intentional – segment “Jeffrey Wilhelm: Gradual Release of Responsibility” and
the webcast entitled and Kindergarten Matters: Planned, Purposeful, Playful Talk.)
Modelled Practice
– teacher models, explains, demonstrates, thinks aloud
Shared Practice
– teacher explicitly teaches, and teacher and student practise
strategy together; the student gradually assumes more and
more responsibility for the strategy
Guided Practice
– students practise the strategy with coaching from the teacher
Independent Practice
– students apply the strategy on their own and receive feedback
Student Application
– students apply their learning to a new genre or format, a more
difficult text, or a new situation
Oral language instruction. “Research indicates that the level of oral language skill
is highly predictive of reading development and warrants aggressive intervention to
prevent reading failure” (Catts, Fey, & Tomblin, 2004). It is essential to develop
oral language explicitly through focused, purposeful instruction. Oral language
instruction should be threaded throughout the day. It is essential that teachers
have a method of assessing oral language proficiency, as students demonstrating
the most delay in their oral language development will have difficulty comprehending classroom talk beyond the most basic instructions. A classroom environment
rich in poetry, songs, wordplay, drama, books, language games, and lively
purposeful talk builds students’ appreciation and awareness of language, and also
builds the foundation for explicit instruction in the sound structure (phonology)
of the English language. Many teams engaged in the Kindergarten/Grade 1
inquiry reported that they intentionally designed opportunities for oral language
development, including using open-ended questioning techniques (e.g., allowing
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Proficiency in oral language provides
children with a vital tool for thought.
Without fluent and structured oral
language, children will find it very difficult
to think abstractly and symbolically. Bruner, 1983
11
time for students to respond); purposefully planning the classroom environment
(e.g., carefully selecting materials at learning centres); building vocabulary across
the curriculum; providing personalized, on-the-spot descriptive feedback; and
engaging with students in assessment as learning to inform their instruction
techniques.
A continuing focus on oral language development throughout the school years
remains essential in supporting students as they learn to read, understand,
and think about text across all curriculum areas. (For information on research
regarding the importance of oral language, see Appendix 4.2 and also see
“Janice Greenberg: The Importance of Talk”, from the webcast entitled Quality
Teaching: It’s Intentional.)
When “materials only” and “materials
plus adult scaffolding” interventions
were compared, children engaged in
significantly more literacy-related play
when adults were present.
Morrow & Rand, 1991; Vukelich 1991
Accountable talk. Students learn best when “accountable talk” (problem-posing,
problem-solving talk related to curricular topics) is encouraged, modelled and
supported throughout the school day. In a classroom where accountable talk is
encouraged, teachers and students discuss ideas, concepts, hypotheses, strategies,
and responses with each other. Neuman and Roskos (1997) suggest that in
Junior and Senior Kindergarten, learning centres provide support for literacy
learning and accountable talk through:
l
the presence of people who share expertise and provide assistance;
l
feedback from others;
l
access to literacy tools and related supplies;
l
multiple options for activity;
l
problem-solving situations.
Metacognitive development, strategy use, and self-regulation by students.
Metacognitive development can be described as the conscious development of
one’s metacognitive abilities, such as moving to greater knowledge, awareness,
and control of one’s learning; selecting learning strategies; monitoring the progress
of learning; correcting errors; analyzing the effectiveness of strategies; and changing
learning behaviours and strategies when necessary (Ridley et al., 1992). Students
are explicitly taught to monitor their learning, the quality of their work, and their
time on task. They are also taught strategies that good readers use, and how to fix
problems that they encounter as they are reading (for more information on strategies
and strategy instruction, see Appendix 4.3). Learners who have developed their
metacognitive abilities have the following advantages (Wenden, 1998):
12
l
They are more strategic in their learning.
l
Their rate of progress in learning, as well as the quality and speed of their
cognitive engagement, are higher.
l
They are more confident in their ability to learn.
l
They do not hesitate to obtain help from peers, teachers, or family when needed.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
l
They provide accurate assessments of why they are successful learners.
l
They think clearly about their errors when failure occurs during an activity.
l
Their tactics match the learning task, and they make adjustments to reflect
changing circumstances.
l
They perceive themselves as continual learners and can successfully cope
with new situations.
Extensive time spent reading. Studies have shown that devoting classroom
time to reading is an important aspect of literacy learning. Students in effective
classrooms “did more guided reading, more independent reading, more social
studies and science reading than students in less-effective classrooms” (Allington,
2002). “Explicitly setting expectations for students engaged in independent
reading and follow-up to ensure that the expectations were met illustrates
a dimension of task design that can increase the efficacy of silent reading”
(Hiebert & Martin, 2009). When children read a lot throughout the day, they
need a rich supply of books that they can read successfully, that is, where they
read with a high level of accuracy, fluency and comprehension at their independent
reading level (Hiebert, 2009). “It is the high accuracy, fluent, and easily comprehended reading that provides the opportunities to integrate complex skills and
strategies into an automatic, independent reading process” (Allington, 2002).
Allington and Cunnington (2002) recommend that classrooms have access to
five hundred books or more. These books should be circulated among classrooms,
using school library and book room resources, so that new choices are available
to students on a regular basis.
Substantive, challenging tasks that involve student choice. Such tasks
motivate and engage students and deepen student thinking. SWSTs reported
that when students were given rich tasks that were relevant or connected to
the students’ prior experience, they were more engaged and able to demonstrate
their thinking and learning more successfully. Inquiry teams in Kindergarten
and Grade 1 classrooms indicated that student choice of activities increases
engagement in learning, quality of work, and the quantity and quality of
peer interactions.
“Task predicts performance.” Since the
work that students are being asked to do
exactly predicts the performance we get
on external measures our plans should
address the calibre of tasks students
are being given in order to improve the
quality and reduce the variability from class
to class.
Elmore, 2009
Finding ways to motivate students to engage in literacy activities. The
following strategies have been documented by Pressley (2006, p. 399) as being
effective in engaging students. Those with an asterisk were also reported as
important by SWSTs. Effective teachers:
l
scaffold learning*
l
encourage autonomy and give choices*
l
connect with students personally*
l
support appropriate risk taking
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
13
l
encourage students to be curious
l
ensure that students know the learning goals and understand the tasks they
are given*
l
provide feedback*
l
consistently model interest and enthusiasm
l
make home–school connections
l
conduct opportunistic mini-lessons
l
provide challenging, but not overwhelming, content and tasks
l
favour depth over breadth
l
ensure the classroom is rich in good literature
l
provide concrete examples when covering abstract concepts
l
model thinking and problem-solving
l
send the message that school work is important and deserves intense attention
l
express confidence that students are equal to high academic demands
The following sections of this discussion paper outline the elements of an effective
reading program based on each of the components of the four resources model.
Effective teachers have a sophisticated understanding of each of these elements
and understand the crucial role of assessment for learning in strategically selecting
the next steps for each learner. All of the elements described below are important,
tend to develop congruently, and serve to reinforce each other. If it is necessary
to teach these elements to some learners in isolation, it must be immediately
apparent how the elements fit into and support reading comprehension.
2.3.3 Code User
Phonological awareness involves the
auditory and oral manipulation of sounds.
A student’s level of phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten is one of
the strongest predictors of future reading
success, in grade one and beyond.
Adams et al., 1998
14
Code users decode print to identify words and sentences. The development of
phonological awareness (which includes phonemic awareness; see Appendix 4.4)
underpins the development of the ability to encode and decode print, which
in turn is essential for literacy development. Many students require explicit
instruction to acquire these skills. There is ample evidence that phonological
awareness training is beneficial for beginning readers starting as early as age four
(for example, see Bradley & Bryant, 1985; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991).
Approaches to teaching phonological awareness that have been documented
as being effective generally include activities that are age appropriate and highly
engaging. For example, effective instruction for four-year-olds involves rhyming
activities, whereas Senior Kindergarten and Grade 1 instruction includes blending
and segmenting of words into onset and rime, ultimately advancing to blending,
segmenting, and deleting phonemes. As students participate in the daily activities
of Kindergarten, their knowledge of phonological awareness can be observed and
assessed and programming decisions can be made.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Systematic phonics instruction and the application of phonics knowledge
during reading of connected text are vital in helping students develop a rich repertoire
of word recognition strategies (Taylor, Pearson, Clark & Walpole, 2000). This
instruction should be personalized for students who require this instruction.
Giving students daily opportunities to write is one of the best ways to support
them in learning about letter–sound relationships.
Children who are destined to be poor
readers in fourth grade almost invariably
have difficulties in kindergarten and first
grade with critical phonological skills.
Torgesen, 2004
Emergent readers and writers need to acquire the following concepts about print:
l
Print contains a message.
l
Text is written and read from left to right with a return sweep to the left for
the next line.
l
There is a one-to-one match between each spoken and written word.
l
Sentences start with capital letters and end with full stops.
l
Print on the left-hand page is read before print on the right-hand page.
l
The print on the book’s cover and title page gives the title and other details,
and the cover picture generally suggests what the book is about.
l
Illustrations convey meaning and relate to the text on the page.
2.3.4 Meaning Maker
Meaning makers read to understand. They integrate knowledge from the
illustrations; visual features such as graphs, labels, or headings; their own
background knowledge; and so on. They think beyond what is explicitly stated
in the text to what is implied. They look for clues provided by the author or
illustrator that lead to understanding the text at a different level of comprehension.
In schools that have an effective reading program, the following practices support
meaning making.
Language and word study is integrated throughout the day and focuses
on high-leverage, all-purpose words. Beck, McKeown & Kucan (2002) suggest
the following criteria for identifying words to teach:
l
Importance and utility- words that appear frequently across a variety of domains
l
Instructional potential – words that can be worked with in a variety of ways
so that students can build rich representations of them and of their connections
to other words and concepts
l
It takes up to 12 encounters with a word
to reliably learn it; therefore, children need
multiple exposures to academic language
and vocabulary (across the domains of
speaking, listening, reading and writing).
White & Kim, 2009
Words for which students understand the general concept but provide precision
and specificity in describing the concept.
Research has found that increasing student vocabulary has a strong effect on
reading ability. “Vocabulary knowledge has been identified as the most important
indicator of oral language proficiency, which is particularly important for the
comprehension of both spoken and written language” (White & Kim, 2009).
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
15
“High-quality lessons include many opportunities for student vocabulary
development” (Pressley, 2006). Language and word study must be continuously
and explicitly taught across all subject areas.
In this context, a strategy is an intentional
mental action during reading that improves
comprehension. It is a deliberate effort
by the reader to better understand or
remember what is being read. A strategy
is not a rote task such as completing
a worksheet.
Strategies to enhance comprehension are modelled and guided in order
to support independent use and application by students. Student use of these
strategies is monitored by the students themselves and by the teacher. Some
examples of reading strategies are as follows:
l
Set a purpose for reading.
l
Activate relevant background knowledge.
l
Read texts aloud in order to provide opportunities for critical thinking and
substantive conversations.
l
Promote a robust vocabulary and discuss unknown words.
l
Promote rereading for different purposes and to build fluency.
l
Construct/compose and deconstruct texts using labels, graphic organizers,
and so on.
l
Interact with texts – retell, dramatize, question the text.
l
Reinforce comprehension skills – activating prior knowledge, predicting,
questioning, visualizing, monitoring, clarifying, drawing inferences,
summarizing, synthesizing, and evaluating.
l
Respond to and reflect on texts.
2.3.5 Text User
Benefits of Small-Group Work
– Small groups are lifelike.
– Small groups generate energy for
challenging work.
– In small groups we are smarter.
– In small groups, diversity is an asset.
– Small groups make engaged, interactive
learning possible.
– Small groups allow us to differentiate
instruction.
– Employers increasingly require smallgroup skills.
– Well-structured small-group work
enhances student achievement.
Harvey & Daniels, 2009
16
Text users read with an understanding of purpose and audience. They need
an understanding of genre in order to approach a text appropriately. More
sophisticated text users expect, for example, to read fictional narratives for
an understanding of character and plot development, and, most importantly,
for enjoyment. They understand that factual texts focus on information and
often contain specific text features to help the reader understand the ideas more
clearly. It is for text users that the reciprocal nature of reading and writing are
most clearly seen. As a reader, the learner interacts with words, grammatical
structures, and other language patterns in order to construct meaning and
understand the ideas in the text. As a writer, the learner starts with ideas and
represents these in grammatical structures and other language patterns in an
appropriate text form. Learners need to know that both reading and writing are
purposeful and express meaning; they share the same functions and use the same
print conventions and language features. Thus, writing is neither secondary to
reading nor something to be taught separately from reading.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
To support the development of students as text users, students should be exposed
to texts of all types – menus, plays, brochures, flyers, surveys, graphs, narrative
non-fiction, newspapers, letters, recipes, novels, picture books, memos, multimedia
and electronic documents, and so on.
Integrating literacy across the curriculum allows students to engage in relevant
learning, explore a variety of texts, and explore a rich cultural context through
which they can connect their literacy learning to their lives. Research has shown
that “literacy development thrives when it is integrated into content area instruction,
and content mastery improves as students become better readers” (International
Reading Association, 2007). “Instruction that situates conceptual understandings
or knowledge as the ends of instruction and that positions reading, writing and
discourse as tools to achieve these ends creates the kind of ‘need to know’ that can
motivate engaged reading and propel literacy development ahead” (Hiebert, 2009).
2.3.6 Text Analyzer
Text analyzers evaluate texts to determine the author’s purpose and the conscious
decisions the author has made to include or exclude certain information. They
consider the point of view that is evident in the text, as well as social and cultural
fairness or bias. Text analyzers also consider how well the author achieved his
or her purpose for writing and how the author might have written in a different
way to be more effective.
Higher-order thinking, or critical thinking, among students needs to be
encouraged through rich questions, prompts, and tasks. One way to scaffold
inquiry and lead students to higher-order thinking is illustrated in the arc of
inquiry (see Appendix 4.5). Opportunities should be provided for students to
engage in a critical discussion of a wide variety of texts, including television
programs, movies, web pages, advertising, music, gestures, oral texts, and other
means of expression. Critical thinking is the process of thinking about ideas or
situations in order to understand them fully, identify their implications, make
a judgement, and/or guide decision making. Students use critical thinking skills
when they assess, analyze, and/or evaluate the impact of something and when
they form an opinion about something and support their opinion with a rationale.
Critical literacy is the capacity for a particular type of critical thinking that involves
looking beyond the literal meaning of a text to determine what is present and
what is missing, in order to analyze and evaluate the text’s complete meaning
and the author’s intent (The Full-Day Early Learning – Kindergarten Program,
Draft Version, 2010, pp. 45–46).
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
The classrooms with outstanding teachers
were filled with the message that students
can and will learn. These teachers were
determined that their students would
develop as readers and writers.
Literacy instruction was exceptionally well
balanced with respect to the elements
of whole language – reading of outstanding
literature, writing – and the explicit teaching
of skills. Reading, writing and skills instruction were very well integrated in these
classrooms. The skills lessons were filled
with reminders about how the skills related
to children’s reading and writing. Moreover,
the children had many opportunities to use
the skills as they read and wrote.
Pressley, 2006, p. 252
(For more information about pragmatic
practices (text users) see the LNS
monograph Critical Literacy: A Lens
for Learning, August 2009 posted at
www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/
inspire/)
For students to become critical thinkers, teachers must not only encourage
such behaviour in the classroom but also
model critical thinking themselves. Good
educators engage in intentional teaching
that is “planful [sic], thoughtful, and
purposeful” and that uses “their knowledge,
judgment, and expertise to organize
learning experiences.”
Epstein, 2008
17
3
CONSIDERATIONS FOR
MOVING FORWARD
Based on its research, the Working Group is making the following suggestions
for consideration by districts, schools, primary divisions, and grade teams.
1. Identify a key leader in each district, and establish regular contact among
these leaders to monitor the implementation of effective reading strategies
and to give input into implementation supports that may be required.
2. Support School Effectiveness Leads in sustaining the focus on primary
reading and in monitoring reading achievement in the primary division.
3. Share the learning from studies related to primary reading, including the
work of the Student Work Study Teachers and collaborative inquiries into
reading instruction and pedagogy, through webcasts and publications.
4. Ensure that professional learning opportunities support teachers in Kindergarten
and primary classrooms in their understanding of and ability to act upon
observed reading behaviours among students.
5. Reinforce the message that taking and analyzing running records/records of
reading behaviour is an ongoing assessment for learning practice.
6. Using the lens of this paper, review kindergarten to grade 3 local data and
instructional practices related to reading. Ask questions and determine action
steps based on the findings. For example:
– How are we assessing oral language development?
– How does assessment for learning inform instruction and meet the needs
of individual learners?
– How can we determine whether we are delivering instruction that responds
to student needs?
– How can we determine whether our students are reading proficiently
enough to draw conclusions, interpret texts, and make evaluations?
– Who are the partners that have a role in improving primary reading?
18
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
– Do our interventions enhance the effectiveness of classroom practice?
– How many high-quality books in good condition are available in our
classrooms, book rooms, and school libraries?
– In what ways are we engaging parents in and encouraging them to support
Kindergarten and primary division students?
7. Provide opportunities for Kindergarten to Grade 3 teachers to participate in
networks to study effective reading instruction and pedagogy. Challenge beliefs
and practices that are not supported by research and classroom evidence.
8. Ensure that reading behaviours and expected levels of achievement for students
in Senior Kindergarten to Grade 3 are clearly understood.
9. Monitor reading achievement to support students in meeting content and
performance standards and apply early intervention strategies as needed.
Successful Kindergarten to Grade 3 teams seek out exemplary
practices in which reading is inextricably tied to writing, viewing,
and representing and in which none of the necessary elements of
reading, as enumerated in this discussion paper, stand on their
own but are woven together in ways that meet individual student
needs. Teams then decide how to engage the other teachers in
their divisions or network to spread the learning.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
19
4
APPENDICES
Four Roles of the Literate Learner
4.1 Evolving View: Four Families of Practice
Evolving View: Four Families of Practice
Meaning Maker
Code User
Uses prior knowledge and personal and/or world
experiences to construct and communicate meaning
when reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing and
representing. The literate learner is a “text participant,”
forming and communicating his/her own interpretation
in light of his/her own knowledge and point of view.
Recognizes and uses the features and structures of
written, visual and multi-modal texts, including the
alphabet, sounds in words, phonemic awareness,
phonics, spelling, conventions, sentence structure, text
organization, and graphics, as well as other visual and
non-visual cues to break the “code” of texts.
Text User
The Literate Learner
Understands that purpose and audience help to
determine the way text is constructed: form, format,
medium, structure, tone, the degree of formality, and
sequence of components. The literate learner uses
this knowledge and a variety of thinking processes
to read, listen and view, as well as to write, speak
and represent ideas.
Literacy is an active phenomenon, deeply
linked to personal and cultural identity. Its
power lies not in an ability to read and write
but rather in an individual’s capacity to put
those skills (reading and writing) to work in
shaping the course of his or her life.
Text Analyzer
Understands that texts are not neutral; that they
represent particular views, beliefs, values and
perspectives to serve different interests; that other
views and perspectives may be missing; that the
design and messages of texts can be interpreted,
critiqued, challenged and alternatives considered.
The literate learner decides what to think now,
considers possibilities and when to take action.
Adapted from Literacy for Learning: The Report of the Expert Panel on Literacy in Grades 4 to 6 in
Ontario (Ontario Ministry of Education, 2004), page 9. Based on Freebody and Luke’s “four resources
model” (1990).
Paulo Freire (quoted in The Importance of
the A in LiterAcy, 2008)
20
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Appendix 4.2 Comparison of Good and Poor Readers
in Grade 2
Comparison of Good and Poor Readers in Grade Two
gical
Phonolo s
es
n
re
a
Aw
in
Deficits
en
rt
a
rg
e
Kind
ve
Recepti
e
g
a
u
g
Lan
in
s
it
c
fi
e
D
arten
Kinderg
ive
Express
e
g
a
Langu
in
s
it
c
Defi
arten
Kinderg
Percentage of Students
60
Phonologica
Awarness
Deficits in
Kindergarte
50
40
30
aders
Poor Re
57%
aders
Poor Re
56%
aders
Poor Re
54%
Receptive
Language
Deficits in
Kindergarten
20
10
0
Expressive
Language
Deficits in
Kindergarten
ders
ders
Good Rea
17%
ders
Good Rea
12%
Good Rea
12%
Kim Mitton SLP YRDSB
Longtitudinal Investigation by Catts, Fey, Zhang, & Tomblin (1999)
Catts, Fey, Zhang, and Tomblin (1999) examined the affects of phonological
processing and oral language abilities on reading levels and reading disabilities
in young children. Two approaches were taken in the study. In the first approach,
604 participants with a mean age of 7.9 years were divided into good and poor
readers on the basis of reading performance in Grade 2. The two reading groups
were then compared in terms of the level of phonological processing and other
language abilities they had displayed in Kindergarten.
In the second approach, multiple regression was employed to investigate the
relative contributions of phonological processing and oral language abilities
in predicting Grade 2 reading achievement across reading groups. Results
indicated that over 70 percent of poor readers had a history of language deficits
in Kindergarten. Most of these children had problems with both phonological
processing and oral language. Regression analyses further indicated that oral
language and phonological processing abilities each accounted for unique
variance in reading achievement.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
21
Appendix 4.3 Metacognitive Strategies
Metacognitive strategy
What does the student do?
What does the teacher do?
Organize and plan
Plan how to accomplish the task:
• Help students develop an appreciation
for what learning tasks might demand,
as well as an awareness of the particular
knowledge and strategies the students
can bring to these tasks.
• List steps for how they will solve a problem.
• Identify the data they are lacking.
• Describe plans for finding or producing
the missing data.
• Select the most appropriate strategies
and sequence them so they will be used
at the appropriate time.
• Ensure students are clear on learning
goals and how they will be evaluated.
• Teach and model goal setting.
• Co-construct success criteria with students.
• Provide exemplars to support student
learning.
• Ask: What can you do to get started?
What is your plan of action? What criteria
are you using to make your choices?
Manage personal learning
• Determine how he or she learns best.
• Arrange conditions that help him or her
to learn.
• Seek opportunities for practice.
• Focus attention on the task.
Monitor
While working on a task:
• Check progress on the task.
• Check comprehension.
• Engage in learning conversations and
peer assessments to explain and question
his or her own thinking.
• Redirect the normal frustration that occurs
when concepts are confusing or do not
immediately lead into further learning.
• Provide opportunities for students
to learn about their personal interests
and strengths.
• Support learning with constructive,
descriptive feedback.
• Use interviews, conferences, and learning conversations to support students’
achievement of the learning goals.
• Use anchor charts or criteria charts,
rubrics, and/or exemplars to give students
a sense of what quality work looks like.
• Give feedback at critical checkpoints to
enable students to monitor their learning.
• Use exemplars to support students in
developing their self-assessment skills.
• Help students learn how to ask selfmonitoring questions as they are learning.
• Teach students how to become intentional
learners by helping them manage uncertainty, redirect their efforts productively,
and persevere when they are frustrated.
• Ask: While you were reading, what was
going on inside your head to monitor
your understanding of the story?
22
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Metacognitive strategy
What does the student do?
What does the teacher do?
Evaluate
After completing a task:
• Teach and model self-assessment skills.
• Assess how well he or she completed
the task.
• Encourage a reflective stance towards
learning that helps students assess and
direct their own emerging understandings.
• Assess how well he or she applied the
chosen strategies.
• Decide how effective the strategies were
in helping to accomplish the task.
• Use the results of self-evaluation to set
new learning goals.
• Use proper cognitive terminology to describe mental processes. For example,
“I have a theory that…, I’m conducting
an experiment…, my strategy was…”
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
• Encourage students to recognize other
contexts in which a particular strategy can
be used (i.e., transfer and generalization
of learning).
• Ask: When you are communicating with
others, what indicators are you aware
of in yourself and others that signal you
are being understood? As you talked to
yourself about this problem, what new
insights were generated?
23
Appendix 4.4 Phonological Awareness
ALL A
AW
CA
WA
GIIC
AR
O
OG
REEN
L
L
O
O
NEE
N
N
O
O
SSSS
H
H
PP
P
N
HO
EMIC AWARENE
SS
Continuum of Development
Rhyme
Joy of
Language
Words to
Syllables
Syllables to
Onsets and
Rimes
Sentences
to Words
Kim Mitton SLP YRDSB
Phonemes
and
Graphemes
Onsets and
Rimes to
Phonemes
Kim Mitton SLP YRDSB
* Phonemic awareness is the ability to notice, think about, and work with the individual sounds
(phonemes) in spoken words.
Phonological awareness includes identifying and manipulating larger parts of spoken language, such
as words, syllables, and onsets and rimes – as well as phonemes. It also encompasses awareness of
other aspects of sound, such as rhyming, alliteration, and intonation.
Pressley writes, “My hunch is that the reason teachers do not concern themselves
with developing phonemic awareness is because they do not know how to
develop it in children. This surmise is based, in part, on the many questions
I receive from the teachers about what phonemic awareness is and how it can
be developed in children. There is also a growing data base that teachers lack
understanding of phonemic awareness as well as knowledge of how to promote
many other beginning reading competencies, with some teachers not aware at
all that they are deficient in understanding what should be taught and how to
teach it” (Pressley, 2006, p. 118).
24
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Appendix 4.5 Arc of Inquiry
Students begin to interpret
established information and
ideas, evaluate merits, and
discern patterns in the data.
Arc of Inquiry
Critical
Literacy
Students take a critical look
at the accrued research,
premises, and ideas around
their topic(s).
Interpretive
Exploration
Articulate New
Understandings
Students have developed their
own data and understandings.
They are full participants in the
discipline’s community of
practice. They communicate their
unique knowledge in writing or
by creating a product or social
action of some kind.
Students learn
what is currently
known about
topics.
Factual
Comprehension
Applicative
Understanding
The arc of inquiry. The trajectory takes students from factual comprehension, to
applicative literacy. This kind of teaching makes what we do matter – to ourselves,
our students, and our world.
Wilhelm, Jeffrey. (2007) Engaging Readers and Writers With Inquiry New York, NY: Scholastic p. 113
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
25
5
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonemic awareness
in young children: A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Allington, Richard L. (2002). The Six Ts of Effective Elementary Literacy Instruction.
Retrieved November 16, 2011, from the Reading Rockets website:
www.readingrockets.org/article/96?theme=print.
Allington, Richard L., & Cunningham, Patricia M. (2002). Schools that work where
all children read and write. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Barbanell, Patricia. (2008). The Importance of the A in LiterAcy. Educator’s Voice,
Volume 1, 30-35.
Beck, Isabel L., McKeown, Margaret G., & Kucan, Linda. (2002). Bringing words
to life: Robust Vocabulary Instruction. New York, New York: The Guilford Press.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1985). Rhyme and reason in reading and spelling.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Bruner, Jerome. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language. New York: Norton.
Bryk, A., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010).
Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach
phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(3),
451–455.
Catts, H., Fey, M., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J.B. (1999). Language basis of reading
and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal study. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 3, 331-361.
Clay, Marie. (2000). Running records for classroom teachers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heineman.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. (2009). Key factors to support literacy
success in school-aged populations: A literature review. Canadian Education Statistics
Council.
Elmore, Richard. (2009). Instructional rounds in education: A network approach to
improving teaching and learning. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.
Epstein, A. S. An early start on thinking. (February 2008). Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
26
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
Expert Panel on Literacy in Grades 4 to 6 in Ontario. (2004). Literacy for learning:
The report of the Expert Panel on Literacy in Grades 4 to 6 in Ontario. Toronto, ON:
Ontario Ministry of Education.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). Literacies programs: Debates and demands in
cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(3), 7–16.
Fullan, Michael. (2006). Turn around leadership. San Francisco, CA: Josey-Bass.
Harvey, S. & Daniels, H. (2009). Inquiry circles in action. Portsmouth, N.H.:
Heineman.
Hattie, John. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating
to achievement. New York: Routledge.
Hernandez, Donald J. (2010). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills
and poverty influence high school graduation. Posted by the Annie E. Casey
Foundation. http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/Education/Other/
DoubleJeopardyHowThirdGradeReadingSkillsandPovery/
DoubleJeopardyReport040511FINAL.pdf
Hiebert, E. H. (Ed.). (2009). Reading more, reading better. New York: The Guilford
Press.
International Reading Association. (January 1999). Using multiple methods of
beginning reading instruction: A position statement of the International Reading
Association.
International Reading Association. (2007). Making every moment count:
Maximizing quality instructional time.
Keene, Ellin Oliver. (2008). To understand: New horizons in reading comprehension.
Portsmouth, N.H.: Heineman.
Marzano, Robert J., & Waters, Timothy. (2009). District leadership that works:
Striking the right balance.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Moats, L. (1999). Teaching IS rocket science: What expert teachers of reading
should know and be able to do. American Federation of Teachers.
http://www.aft.org/pdfs/teachers/rocketscience0304.pdf
Morrow, L. M. (1990). Preparing the classroom environment to promote literacy
during play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 537–554.
Morrow, L. M.., & Rand, M. (1991). Promoting literacy during play by designing
early childhood classroom environments. The Reading Teacher, 44, 396–402.
Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of
participation for young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 10–32.
Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2010). The K-12 School Effectiveness Framework:
A support for school improvement and student success. Toronto: Author.
Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2010). In Conversation: Student Engagement –
A Leadership Priority. Toronto: Author.
Ontario. Ministry of Education. (2010–11). The full-day early learning –
Kindergarten program. Toronto: Author.
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
27
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that WORKS: The case for balanced teaching.
New York: The Guilford Press.
Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained
reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading.” The Journal of Educational
Research, 102(1), 37-50.
Ridley, D. S., Schutz, P. A., Glanz, R. S., & Weinstein, C. E. (1992). Self-regulated
learning: The interactive influence of metacognitive awareness and goal-setting.
Journal of Experimental Education, 60(4), 293–306.
Roskos, K. A., Tabors, P. O., & Lenhart, L. A. (2005). Oral language and early
literacy in preschool: Talking, reading, and writing. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Routman, R. (2003). Reading essentials: The specifics you need to teach reading well.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J., Francis, D. J., Carlson, C. D., & Foorman, B. R.
(2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading skills: A longitudinal comparative
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 265–282.
Sloat, Elizabeth A., Beswick, Joan F., & Willms, J. Douglas. (2007, March). Using
early literacy monitoring to prevent reading failure. Phi Delta Kappan, 523–529.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties
in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools
and accomplished teachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in
low-income schools. The Elementary School Journal, 101(2), 121-165.
Timperley, H. S., Wiseman, J., & Fung, I. (2003). The sustainability of professional
development in literacy. Part two: School-based factors associated with high student
achievement. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004, Fall). Preventing early reading failure – and its devastating
downward spiral. American Educator, 28(3), 6–19, 45–47.
Vukelich, C. (1991). Materials and modeling: Promoting literacy during play. In
J. Christie (Ed.), Play and early literacy development (pp. 215–231). Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press.
Wenden, A. L. (1998). Metacognitive knowledge and language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 19, 515–537.
White, Clarie E., & Kim, James S. (2009). Putting the pieces of the puzzle together:
How systematic vocabulary instruction and expanded learning time can address the
literacy gap. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/05/elt_language_
development.html
Wilhelm, Jeffrey. (2007). Engaging readers and writers with inquiry. New York:
Scholastic.
Wren, Sebastian. (2001). The cognitive foundations of learning to read:
A framework. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Austin, TX.
28
Primary Reading Discussion Paper
ISBN 978-1-4435-9448-6
© Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2012