This
summary of research has been compiled to demonstrate the effectiveness
of professional development for teachers provided by the Foundation
for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning.
The
research in this report used various designs, including random
assignment and quasi-experimental, and various sources of data.These included:
publicly
reported accountability measures,
self-studies
conducted by participating schools and districts,
results
of student testing required as part of the training, and
focus studies
requested by the Foundation and conducted by participating schools.
The
material provided for review includes a summary report that provides
an overview of the project and an analysis of the research.A compendium of supporting documentation is also available
upon request.
Introduction
The
Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning was organized
by Stanley L. Swartz, Rebecca E. Shook, and Adria F. Klein in
response to requests by the public schools to provide high quality
professional development for teachers. Both Dr. Swartz and Dr.
Klein are professors in the College of Education at California
State University, San Bernardino and trainers for the Foundation.
Ms. Shook was a staff developer for the public schools and is
now a trainer for the Foundation. Dr. Swartz serves as the director
of the project. The Foundation has trained more than 17,000 teachers
in 1167 participating schools since its inception in 1994.
The
Foundation for Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning provides
professional development designed to help teachers improve classroom
practices with a particular emphasis on the teaching of reading
and writing. Research-based teaching methodologies that implement
the findings of the Report of the National Reading Panel (2001)
are organized into a framework for classroom instruction. Comprehensive
Early Literacy Learning (CELL) (PreKindergarten-Grade 3) training
emphasizes that the instructional focus in the primary grades
is to teach reading and writing. Extended Literacy Learning (ExLL)
(Grades 3-8) training focuses on reading and writing in the content
areas while recognizing instruction in the intermediate grades
still includes intensive support for reading and writing development.
Second Chance at Literacy Learning (Grades 6-12) training supports
secondary English, content area, reading and special education
teachers with both a classroom best practices model and small
group intervention.
The
programs are designed to help teachers meet the needs and strengths
of each individual student. The model stresses and encourages
active participation from each student regardless of his or her
current level of literacy acquisition. High progress students
are encouraged to continue their rapid growth while low progress
students are guided through the process with continuous support
and an opportunity to accelerate their learning. The opportunity
to try new learning in a risk-free environment and practice new
strategies throughout the day is encouraged. Teachers are trained
to use a gradual decline of teacher support and a gradual increase
in student independence based on demonstrated student capability.
This reduction of teacher support is based on observations of
individual student growth and understanding the process of literacy.
The students’ use of a variety of problem-solving strategies
is supported through good teacher decision-making about ways to
assist each student toward the goal of independence.
The
elements of the instructional frameworks are designed to help
each student and the whole class move together toward that goal.
The frameworks have been designed to structure classrooms that
use literacy activities throughout the day of every school day
and emphasizes instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary and text comprehension. Other curricular areas are
delivered using literacy activities as the method of instruction.
The frameworks include oral language, phonology, higher-order
thinking skills, reading and writing activities, and test-taking
strategies. The individual frameworks are aligned with adjustments
made for higher grade levels and different student needs.
CELL,
ExLL, and Second Chance have been developed with the strong belief
that improved classroom instruction and increased student achievement
are best achieved by providing more support and professional development
for teachers. Helping teachers become more effective in their
work is the primary goal. The training programs are based on a
high level of confidence in the ability of teachers to become
more powerful in their teaching, given appropriate training and
long term support.
Program
Design
Comprehensive
Early Literacy Learning, Extended Literacy Learning and Second
Chance share a number of components that have been found important
to their success and essential to effective implementation.
Use teaching
methods supported by scientific research
CELL,
ExLL and Second Chance are comprehensive reading and writing
training that combine skills development with literature and
language rich activities. The teaching methods that are the
focus of the professional development were selected because
they are both recognized as best practices and have support
in the research literature. These teaching methods also meet
the areas of instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and text comprehension recommended by the National
Reading Panel.
Focus on the
professional development of teachers
Teachers
and their classroom practices are the focus of the professional
development provided by the Foundation. No specific classroom
materials are recommended or required, rather the training helps
teachers use whatever instructional materials they have and
organize their teaching for maximum result. High quality teaching
materials from a wide variety of sources are used during the
training. Professional books, including three specifically designed
to support the frameworks, and an extensive list of professional
readings are provided during training. Recommendations for students’
literature books and texts for shared and guided reading are
available. The effective use of other materials, such as basal
reading series, is also included in the training.
Support school
reform and school restructuring
Schools
who participate in these programs have identified the need to
change how they teach children to read and write. The professional
development supports the change process for individual teachers
and for school faculties.
Support continued
literacy learning in the content areas
Teachers
are encouraged to consider literacy as how to teach, rather
than what to teach. Teachers are trained to use literacy best
practices as the primary teaching method regardless of the content
area.
Increase the
emphasis on reading and writing in the curriculum
Massive
opportunities to read and write are needed throughout the curriculum.
Without minimizing the importance of other content areas, literacy
learning is established as the highest priority.
Align teaching
methods within and across grade levels
Teaching
faculties are trained to align their teaching practices and
coordinate their work at all grade levels. Achievement gains
are enhanced when transition from grade to grade is accompanied
by teachers who use the same teaching methods. Classroom instruction,
early intervention, and special education are also aligned.
Support English
language learners
The
programs have been designed to support English language learners.
Participating schools report that the frameworks have been effective
with various instructional models. Student book lists are available
in both English and Spanish.
Facilitate
inclusion of special needs students
Special
education teachers are included in all phases of the training.
Using the same teaching methods from the frameworks facilitates
the inclusion of special needs students in regular classrooms.
Students are supported in their learning by this cooperation
between special and regular education.
Use a capacity-building
model
The
training model provides intensive professional development with
follow-up. Training for a School-Based Planning Team of teachers
and administrators and training for a school-based Literacy
Coordinator are both year-long. Follow-up support for the three
to five year implementation is provided through on-site training,
class visits, and monthly professional meetings. A capacity-building
model that ensures long-term support is used. The School-Based
Planning Team and the school-based Literacy Coordinator both
help establish a system of support that continues year after
year. Long-term support is provided through continuing professional
development opportunities during periodic training updates and
at the West Coast Literacy Conference and regional literacy
conferences.
Use student
data to inform teaching
Diagnostic
information is collected to inform instruction. Teachers are
trained in various assessment procedures to improve their observation
of students to better inform instruction.
Measure success
by student performance
Intensive
staff development and ongoing support should be a condition
of teacher accountability. Standardized test measures are used
to track both individual student and class achievement.
Training
Model
To
ensure schoolwide support, a School-Based Planning team participates
in a year-long series of planning activities and framework training
sessions. The School-Based Planning Team is composed of the
school principal, a reading specialist, a special education
teacher, and a representative group of teachers.
The
teachers from each team receive initial training in the elements
of the framework and begin implementation of the framework immediately
after the first session. They receive feedback regarding their
efforts at each subsequent session. This format allows a school
to begin partial implementation and develop a resource for observation,
demonstration, and support of the project.
The
Literacy Coordinator is the school-based staff developer who
supports the implementation of the frameworks. This individual
has no supervisory responsibility, but rather serves as a coach
and mentor to colleagues on the instructional team. There is
a separate and distinct training for Literacy Coordinators because
of the varied needs of primary, intermediate and secondary teachers.
The
Literacy Coordinator-in-training participates in five full-week
trainings throughout the traditional school year. This training
consists of observations in classrooms, group meetings to reflect
on the teaching and learning observed, and seminars that combine
theory and practice. Throught the year, the Literacy Coordinator-in-training
teaches a half-day in a classroom using the elements of the
framework and attends biweekly guided meetings. In addition
to teaching a half-day in their own classrooms, the Literacy
Coordinators support the continued learning of the School-Based
Planning Team by observing in classrooms half days and conducting
informational sessions with the rest of the instructional team.
Literacy
Coordinators also receive leadership training that focuses on
peer coaching and the construction of the staff development
model. One of the major strengths of the model is the effectiveness
of peer coaching.
Research
Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning,
Extended Literacy Learning and Second Chance are all research-based programs.
This research is reflected in both the selection of training components as
well as the collection of data from participating schools. The Foundation
uses accountability
measures prescribed by various states
as the primary source of data to demonstrate the efficacy of professional
development. Data generated by participating schools are compared in various
ways to data from schools that are not part of the CELL, ExLL, and Second
Chance training programs. Participants also assist in the collection of data
that are used to document program success and individual student gains. It
is a primary focus of the research to analyze and report data generated by
individual participating schools and districts.
The primary goal of Comprehensive Early
Literacy Learning, Extended Literacy Learning and Second Chance
is to increase the achievement of students by providing high quality professional
development for teachers. The impact
of this professional development on various research questions
is measured. These include the impact of professional development on:
• literacy
achievement,
• achievement
in content areas and on content standards,
• treatment
effect,
• implementation
of instruction recommended by the National Reading Panel,
• special
needs students,
• English
language learners,
• Native
American students, and
• the
use of different professional development models.
Literacy Achievement
To increase school accountability for
student achievement, California implemented an Academic Performance
Index (API) to measure school success. Academic Performance Index data for
California elementary schools were analyzed for the 2000-2001 school year.
Table 1 shows that schools with full CELL implementation (team training and
a Literacy Coordinator) in Grades K-3 and full CELL and ExLL implementation
in Grades 4-6 posted a higher rate of goal attainment than other schools.
Schools were given an additional five percent achievement target gain on the
Stanford Achievement Test (Ninth Edition) for the 2001 testing cycle. Table
2 is a summary of all California elementary schools and their success in meeting
their goal. Fifty-two percent of California elementary schools met or exceeded
their goals, 70 percent of CELL schools and 76 percent of schools implementing
both CELL and ExLL met or exceeded their goal.
Utah uses a criterion-referenced test
to monitor the progress of disadvantaged and low performing schools. Table
3 summarizes the CELL data (Grades 1-3) and Table 4 summarizes the ExLL data
(Grades 4-6). The number of students who scored in the lowest quartile declined
significantly from the baseline year of 1998 over the two year period of implementation.
Table 5 is achievement growth for a Native American
school in rural Montana. The measures show percentage of students at grade
level before and after training in both second and third grades on reading
and word list measures. This school is completing its second year of implementation.
Table 6 shows Fall and Spring Observation Survey mean
scores and grade equivalents in text reading
for students in grades K-2 at a fully implemented CELL school. Kindergarten
students began the year as non-readers and reached a level equivalent to
mid-first grade by the Spring testing. Achievement of first-graders increased
from upper Kindergarten to beginning second, and second graders began the
year just below grade level and scored high fourth grade in the Spring testing.
These randomly selected students received no intervention or support services
other than effective classroom teaching using the CELL framework.
Table 7 measures the impact of CELL training on writing
and overall achievement in a Kentucky school district. Column one of this
table shows the difference between reading and writing scores in the Title
I and Non-Title I schools. The lower difference in the CELL schools is notable.
Columns two and three show greater writing achievement and total achievement
for the CELL trained schools.
A CELL and ExLL demonstration school in Nevada
measured writing proficiency using the state accountability
measure. Table 8 shows percentage growth of proficiency in writing for fourth
graders to be greater in both 2001 and 2002 for this school compared to other
schools in the district.
Achievement in Content Areas and on
Content Standards
Overall achievement including data on achievement in
the content areas and on performance standards
was also analyzed. Table 9 is a longitudinal study of student achievement
in two Title I schools over a five year period. A steady trajectory of growth
is seen from the 1994 baseline of no training
to the second year of full implementation in 1998 with scores in the average
range. This growth was seen in reading and language arts as well as in mathematics.
Second Chance data for a two year period are reported
in Tables 10 and 11. Table 10 reports the API growth
targets and growth on the SAT-9 for middle schools that trained a Literacy
Coordinator. All three schools exceeded their target for both years. Table
11 shows the same comparison for six schools who had School-Based Planning
Team training. Only one school failed to reach the target. This failure was
attributed to partial participation by team members. Five schools exceeded
their target growth by a considerable margin.
The increase in the percentage of students reaching
proficient and advanced levels on the California Language Arts Standards in
a district with full CELL and ExLL implementation is reported in Table 12.
Significant improvement was found over two years of testing.
Treatment Effect
One of the expected standards of scientific
research is that results can be attributed to the treatment, in this case
professional development. Tables 13 -15 demonstrate this effect. Table 13
compares achievement in Grades 1-4 on the California Achievement Test (CAT-5)
over a four year period. Schools who had full CELL implementation showed increases
of 10, 10, and 11 normal curve equivalents in reading
comprehension. Schools with partial implementation of CELL showed increases
of 2, 6, and 5. Schools that participated in a district modification of the
CELL model had normal curve equivalent schools of -2, 1, 3, and 5. These data
are a strong indication that program replication is affected by altering standards,
procedures, or training.
Table 14 summarizes the API growth for
CELL and ExLL schools and comparison schools during 2002. These schools
are all from the Los Angeles Unified School District and are matched by
initial scores on the Academic Performance Index. CELL and ExLL schools
posted fifteen percent higher growth on this measure.
Table 15 also matches schools by initial
API scores to make a comparison for two years of growth. The two CELL and
ExLL schools outperformed the comparison schools by a significant
margin.
Table 16 reports a study completed where half of the
staff participated in training and the other half served as a control group
who received no training. Significant increases in text reading scores
where reported in each grade level for students of teachers who participated
in training compared to those who received no training.
Students were randomly assigned to treatment
where teachers were trained or not in CELL. Table 17 reports results
from a test that includes subtests included in the Report of the National
Reading Panel. All subtests scores were higher and the overall reading and
writing subtests were significant for the treatment group.
National Reading Panel
The National Reading Panel identified five areas of
instruction that research demonstrates are critical for teaching reading.
These findings were operationalized in the No Child Left Behind Act and
in Reading First. Literacy Coordinators were asked to rate the impact of
training on teacher behaviors. The impact of training in CELL and ExLL on
teacher behavior on each of the areas was measured and is reported in Table
18. Teaching in these five areas of instruction before training and after
training showed a significant increase for this
large sample of teachers.
Special Needs Learners
The impact of professional development
for students with special needs was examined in three studies.
Though not required, many schools that have selected CELL as a professional
development program also participate in the Reading Recovery (Clay, 1979)
program. Though Reading Recovery, by design, is an intervention and not
expected to impact the cohort, many districts track these data. Table 19
shows standardized test data for first-graders over a four-year period in
mathematics, reading, and total battery. The
three years of data during Reading Recovery participation yielded scores
in the 22-31 national percentile range. Year-end scores following the first
year of CELL implementation showed a dramatic increase in all three areas
to the 44-50 percentile range. The achievement increase was also seen in
mathematics. These data help support the primary importance of reading and
writing instruction in the elementary grades. It also suggests that even
a powerful intervention like Reading Recovery improves with the support
of effective classroom teaching.
Table 20 also has data that compare Reading Recovery
implementation and CELL implementation. In addition, it compares CELL
implementation at the School-Based Planning Team level and the Literacy
Coordinator level. The benefits of full CELL implementation are demonstrated
in this study as well as the benefits of a school-based staff developer
.
It is hoped that powerful instruction and access
to good first teaching for all students will impact the need for remedial
reading and special education services. Table 21 reports special education
referrals over a three year period. Non-Title I schools without Reading
Recovery or CELL support showed an increase in percentage of referral
from 2.6 to 3.7. Title I schools supported by Reading Recovery showed
a referral reduction from 3.0 to 2.8 percent. The demonstration school
supported by Reading Recovery and CELL showed a significant reduction
in referrals to special education from 3.2 to 1.5. These data confirm
both the effective combination of a comprehensive program of reading
and writing instruction with a powerful
early intervention and the cost effectiveness of school-wide training in CELL.
Table 22 summarizes the increase in overall reading
scores for students with learning disabilities. These students
received instruction in both regular and special education classes that
used the CELL framework of instruction.
English Language Learners
Reading achievement was measured for English language
learners in three immersion models. Scores for first-graders in CELL
trained schools are compared to those from schools that received no
training in Table 23. Students from CELL schools outperformed the other
schools in all three models by 14, 9, and 10 percent.
A full CELL and ExLL implementation district measured
the percentage of growth for English language
learners. The increase of percent of proficiency measured by the Spanish
Assessment of Basic Education is reported in Table 24. Numbers of students
scoring at or above the 75th and 50st percentile both
increased significantly.
Native American Students
CELL and ExLL have provided professional development
for schools primarily serving Native American students in Montana and
Wyoming. Title I required data are reported for St. Labre (Montana)
Elementary School in Table 25. Tables 25 and 26 show reading, language
and mathematics scores for two Wyoming Native American schools. Strong
gains on national percentiles were made over three years of testing
for both schools.
Table 27 shows the increase of students who met
the proficient critera in reading, language arts, social studies, and
science between 2001 and 2002 testing in a Montana Native American school.
All scores showed significant gains.
Table 28 shows achievement scores over four years for a Wyoming Native
American school. Increases were posted for the first three years
and declined in year four when the program was discontinued.
Comparison of Professional Development
Models
Various models of professional development are
available. Studies to compare CELL and ExLL where teacher practice
is the focus to models that are scripted were conducted. Table 29
compares achievement scores for schools participating in CELL and
Success for All from one district where both options were available.
Overall achievement increases were greater for CELL schools in both
second and third grade.
Tables 30 and 31 compare the SAT-9 scores
in three Title I schools in a California district. Schools were in
comparable implementation stages of CELL and ExLL, Reading Mastery
(Engelman et al., 1998), Success for All (Slavin et al., 1993). CELL
and ExLL posted higher scores in all categories measured (reading,
language arts, spelling, and math).
Many school districts have opted to use basal reading series that
are highly prescriptive as an alternative
to providing professional development to teachers. Table 32 compares
achievement scores in schools that provided CELL and ExLL professional
development for teachers in addition to using the Open Court basal
reading series. CELL schools outperformed on all measures.
Table 33 shows average API growth scores for
ten schools in California. Five schools were involved in the
Results program developed by the California Reading and Literature
Project and five were involved in the CELL program. CELL schools increased
and Results decreased on 2002 results.
Summary
Data available on the efficacy
of CELL, ExLL, and Second Chance meet the generally accepted standard for scientific research. The elements of
the frameworks are best practices and their
effectiveness reported in peer
reviewed research journals. Data are independently collected. The primary sources of data are accountability measures
administered by various states. Studies were also conducted that compared
programs in matched groups and in one study, random assignment to treatment groups. The impact of CELL and ExLL training
on the areas of instruction recommended by the No Child Left Behind
Act was measured.
These studies demonstrate that CELL, ExLL
and Second Chance are effective programs of professional
development that directly impact student achievement. The most important
data are those that show good achievement gains in literacy. Schools
who have committed to training a Literacy Coordinator show greater gains
than those who received only the School-Based Planning Team training.
Both level of implementation and adherence to the model are seen as
important variables. The impact on special
education was also measured. The savings that would result in the reduced
referral to special education would, by itself, cover the cost of all
CELL and ExLL training. This is a powerful measure of cost effectiveness.
Professional development for teachers
was found to be more important than the use of a particular instructional
model. CELL was also found to be an effective way to support English
language
learners and Native American students.
This research provides strong support for the
relationship between professional development for teachers in the
literacy frameworks and gains in student achievement. Even a highly
prescriptive reading program measured higher gains with the support
of professional development for teachers.
External Reviews
In addition to the studies conducted
by CELL, ExLL and Second Chance schools, numerous external reviews have
been conducted. Evaluations have been independent and used data provided
by
participating schools.
The Nevada Legislative Bureau of Educational Accountability
and Program Evaluation reviewed data from CELL and ExLL schools in the
state to evaluate its continued effectiveness on increasing the academic achievement of low performing students.
Based on this evaluation CELL and ExLL were included on the List of
Effective Remedial Programs as a program of curricular reform recommended
to schools in Nevada.
A large scale study of the impact of CELL and ExLL
on reading achievement was completed by the Program Evaluation and Research
Branch of the Los Angeles Unified School District (2000). The conclusion
that both programs were effective was based on overall increases in
achievement as well as the comparison of data from schools that received
CELL and ExLL training compared to schools that received no training.
CELL and ExLL are both listed as effective
programs by the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory
and the National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform. An independent
panel of judges evaluated CELL and ExLL on criteria that included evidence
of effectiveness in improving student academic achievement, extent of
replication, implementation provided to schools, and
comprehensiveness. CELL and ExLL
participation has been funded by the Comprehensive School Reform Program
and Reading First. Both of these initiatives by the U.S. Department
of Education require that approved programs be research-based and proven
effective. Independent panels judged CELL and ExLL to have met these
criteria.
References
Adams, M. (1990).
Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Adams, M. (1998). Phonemic awareness in young children. Baltimore,
MA: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Anderson, R.C. (1996). Research foundations to support wide reading.
In Creany, V. (Ed.), Promoting reading in developing
countries, (pp. 44-77). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Andrews, S.E. (1998). Using inclusion literature to promote positive
attitudes toward disabilities. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
41(6), (pp. 420-426).
Barrentine, S.J. (1996). Engaging with reading through interactive
read-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 50(1), (pp. 36-43).
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996).
Words their way. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental Reading Assessment.Glenview, IL:
Celebration Press.
Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., Hamilton, R.L., & Kucan, L. (1998, Spring).
Getting at the meaning. American Educator, 22(1),
(pp. 66-85).
Beck, I., McKeown, M.G., & Ormanson, R.C. (1997). The effects
and uses of diverse vocabulary instructional techniques. In McKeown,
M.G. & Curtis, M.E. (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition,
(pp. 147-163). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bissex, G. (1980). GNYS at work: A child learns to write and read.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Blau, S. (1998, February). Toward the separation of school and state.
Language Arts, 75(2), (pp. 132-136).
Blum, I.H., & Koskinen, P.S. (1991, Summer). Repeated reading:
A strategy for enhancing fluency and fostering expertise.
Theory Into Practice, 30, (pp. 195-200).
Brady, S., & Moats, L.C. (1997). Informed instruction for reading
success: Foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore, MD: Orton
Dyslexia Society.
Brown, H., & Cambourne, B. (1990) The ‘What’, ‘How’
and ‘Why’ of the retelling procedure. Read and retell:
A strategy for the whole-language/natural learning classroom. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Bruner, J.S. (1983). Child’s talk: Learning to use language.
London: W.W. Norton.
Button, K., Johnson, M.J., & Furgerson, P. (1996). Interactive
writing in a primary classroom. The Reading Teacher, 49(6),
(pp. 446-454).
California Department of Education. (2003). Academic Performance Index.
Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Education. (1998). English Language Arts
Content Standards for California Public Schools.
Sacramento, CA.
Cassady, J.K. (1998). Wordless books: No-risk tools for inclusive
middle-grade classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,
41(6), (pp. 428-432).
Cazden, C.B. (1992). Whole language plus, essays on literacy in the
United States and New Zealand. New York: Teachers College Press.
Chomsky, C. (1976). After decoding: What? Language Arts, 53(3), (pp.
288-96, 314).
Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure.
Harvard Educational Review, 42(1), (pp. 1-33).
Clark, M.M. (1976). Young fluent readers: What can they teach us?
London: Heinemann.
Clark, C.H. (1995). Teaching students about reading: A fluency example.
Reading Horizons, 35(3), (pp. 250-266).
Clay, M.M. (1975). What did I write? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1991a). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control.
Auckland, NZ: Heinemann.
Clay, M.M. (1991b, December). Introducing a new storybook to young
readers. The Reading Teacher, 45, (pp. 264-273).
Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cohen, D. (1968). The effects of literature on vocabulary and reading
achievement. Elementary English, 45, (pp. 209-213, 217).
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1998, Spring). What reading
does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1), (pp. 8-15).
Cunningham, P. (1990, October). The names test: A quick assessment
of decoding ability. The Reading Teacher, 44(2),
(pp. 124-129).
Curriculum Associates, Inc. (1999). Brigance Diagnostic Comprehensive
Inventory of Basic Skills. North Billerica, MA.
DeFord, D. (2001). Dominie Reading & Writing Assessment Portfolio.
Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Dowhower, S.L. (1991, Summer). Speaking of prosody: Fluency’s
unattended bedfellow. Theory Into Practice, 30, (pp. 165-175).
Duffelmeyer, F.A., & Black, J. L. (1996, October). The names test:
A domain-specific validation study. The Reading Teacher, 50(2), (pp.
148-150).
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Dyson, A.H. (1982). Reading, writing and language: Young children
solve the written language puzzle. Language Arts, 59, (pp. 829-839)
Dyson, A.H. (1988). Negotiating among multiple worlds: The space/time
dimensions of young children’s composing. Research in the Teaching
of English, 22(4), (pp. 355-390).
Ehri, L.C. (1998). The development of spelling knowledge and its role
in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Reading
Disabilities, 22(6), (pp. 356-365).
Fabo, C. (1998). Helping adults learn. Thrust for Educational Leadership,
27(7), (pp. 13-14).
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fletcher, J., & Lyon, R. (1998) Reading: A research-based approach.
In W. Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in America’s classrooms.
Palo Alto, CA: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C.,
& Metha, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read:
Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, (pp. 1-15).
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B., &
Fletcher, J.M. (1997). The case for early reading intervention. In
B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition: Implications
for intervention and dyslexia. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Fry, E. (1998). An open letter to United States President Clinton.
The Reading Teacher, 51(5), (pp. 366-370).
Fry, E. (1997). Comprehensive phonics charts. Phonics charts. California:
Laguna Beach Educational Books.
Gilliam, F., Peña, S., & Mountain, L. (1980, January).
The Fry graph applied to Spanish readability. The Reading Teacher,
(pp. 426-430).
Goodman, Y. (1984). The development of initial literacy. In H. Goelman,
A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Greene, J.F. (1998, Spring/Summer). Another chance. American Educator,
22(1), (pp. 74-79).
Green, J.L., & Harker, J.O. (1982). Reading to children: A communicative
process. In J.A. Langer & M.T. Smith-Burke (Eds.). Reader meets
author/Bridging the gap: A psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspective,
(pp. 196-221). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Harcourt Education Measurement. (1998). Stanford Achievement Test,
Ninth Edition, Form T. San Antonio, TX.
Harste, J.E., Woodward, V.A., & Burke, C.L. (1984). Language stories
and literacy lessons. (pp. 49-76). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hasbrouck, J.E., & Tindal, G. (1992, Spring). Curriculum-based
oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching
Exceptional Children, 24, (pp. 41-44).
Heald-Taylor, B.G. (1998, February). Three paradigms of spelling instruction
in grades 3 to 6. The Reading Teacher, 51(5), (pp. 404-413).
Henk, W.A., & Melnick, S.A. (1995, March). The Reader Self-Perception
Scale (RSPS): A new tool for measuring how children feel about themselves
as readers. The Reading Teacher, 48(6), (pp. 470-483).
Henry, M.K. (1988). Beyond phonics: Integrated decoding and spelling
instruction based on word origin and structure. Annals of Dyslexia,
38, (pp. 258-275).
Hiebert, E.H. (1988, November). The role of literacy experiences in
early childhood programs. Elementary School Journal, 89, (pp. 161-171).
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney, Australia:
Ashton Scholastic.
Huck, C., Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. (1994). Children’s literature
in the elementary school. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark.
Invernizzi, M.A., Abouzeid, M.P., & Bloodgood, J.W. (1997, March).
Integrated word study: spelling, grammar, and meaning in the language
arts classroom. Language Arts, 74, (pp. 185-192).
Iowa Testing Program: University of Iowa. (1994). Iowa Test of Basic
Skills, Forms K & L. Iowa City, IA.
Johns, J. (2001). Basic reading inventory: Pre-primer through grade
twelve & early literacy assessment. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt
Publishing Company.
Jones, H.J., Coombs, W.T., & McKinney, C.W. (1994). A themed literature
unit versus a textbook: A comparison of the effects on content acquisition
and attitudes in elementary social studies. Reading Research and Instruction,
34(2), (pp. 85-96).
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study
of 54 children from first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 80(4), (pp. 437-447).
Kirk, S., Kirk, W., & Minskoff, E. (1985). Phonic remedial reading
lessons. Novata, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Kane, K., & Klein, A. (1995) Wonder world on stage: Interpretation
and performance. Bothel, WA: Wright Group Publishing.
Kentucky Department of Education. (1996). Kentucky Core Content for
Assessment.Frankfort, KY.
Klein, A.F. (1997). Advanced directed writing activities. Redlands,
CA: Foundation for California Early Literacy Learning.
Klein, A.F. (1996). Directed writing activities. Redlands, CA: Foundation
for California Early Literacy Learning.
Klein, A.F. (1988). Readers’ theatre. Issues in Education. Oklahoma
City: McGraw Hill.
Klein, A.F. (1993). Readers’ theatre: Language and literature
for all children. Proceedings: Literacy for the new millennium.
Melbourne: Australian Reading Association (pp. 89-107).
Klein, A.F. (1990) Teacher and student centered procedures for developing
of readers’ theatre scripts with prose and poetry. Reading:
The blending of theory and practice. Bakersfield, CA: California State
University (pp.14-19).
Klein, A.F. (1981). Test-taking strategies for the middle grades.
Redlands, CA: Foundation for California Early Literacy Learning.
Lee, N., & Neal, J.C. (1993). Reading rescue: Intervention for
a student "at promise." Journal of Reading, 36(4), (pp.
276-282).
Liberman, I., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman A. (Eds.) (1989). Phonology
and reading disability: Solving the reading puzzle.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Lowe, K., & Walters, J. (1991). The unsuccessful reader: Negotiating
new perceptions. The Literacy Agenda. (pp. 114-136). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Lowery, L. (1998, November). How new science curriculums reflect brain
research. Educational Leadership, 56(3), (pp. 26-30).
Lyon, G.R., & Moats, L.C. (1997, November/December). Critical
conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention
research. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, (pp. 578-588).
Lyons, C.A., Pinnell, G.S., & Deford, D.E. (1993). Partners in
learning: Teachers and children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Martinez, M., & Roser, N. (1985, April). Read it again: The value
of repeated readings during storytime. The Reading Teacher, 38, (pp.
782-786).
McCarrier, A., Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. (2000). Interactive
writing: How language and literacy come together. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
McGraw-Hill. (1995). Comprehensive Achievement Tests, Fifth Edition.New
York, NY.
McGraw-Hill. (1989). Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Fourth Edition.
New York, NY.
McGraw-Hill. (2002). Spanish Assessment of Basic Education, Second
Edition. New York, NY.
McKenzie, J. (1986). Journeys into literacy. Huddersfield, England:
Schofield and Sims.
McPike, E. (1995, Summer). Learning to read: Schooling’s first
mission. American Educator, (pp. 3-6).
Metzger, M. (1998, November). Teaching reading: Beyond the plot. Phi
Delta Kappan. 80(3), (pp. 240-246, 256).
Miller, T. (1998, February). The place of picture books in middle-level
classrooms. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41(5), (pp.
376-381).
Moats, L.C. (1998). Reading, spelling, and writing disabilities in
the middle grades. In B. Wong (Ed.), Learning About Learning Disabilities.
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Moats, L.C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge
of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia:
An interdisciplinary journal of the Orton Dyslexia Society, 44, (pp.
81).
Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996, February). A case study
of middle school reading disability. The Reading Teacher, 49(5), (pp.
368-376).
Nathan, R.G., & Stanovich, K.E. (1991, Summer). The causes and
consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory Into Practice,
30, (pp. 176-184).
National Center on Education and the Economy. (1999) Reading and Writing
Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards for Kindergarten through
Third Grade.
Ninio, A. (1980). Picture-book reading in mother-infant dyads belonging
to two subgroups in Israel. Child Development, 51, (pp. 587-590).
Pappas, C.C., & Brown, E. (1987, May). Learning to read by reading:
Learning how to extend the functional potential of language. Research
in the Teaching of English, 21, (pp. 160-184).
Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole, J.A., & Duffy, G.G. (1992).
Developing expertise in reading comprehension. In Samuels, S.J., &
Farstrup, A.E. (Eds.), What Research Says to the Teachers, (pp. 145-199).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Perfetti, C. (1995). Cognitive research can inform reading education.
Journal of Research in Reading, 18, (pp. 106-115).
Pinnell, G.S., & McCarrier, A. (1994). Interactive writing: A
transition tool for assisting children in learning to read and write.
In E. Hiebert & B. Taylor (Eds.). Getting reading right from the
start: Effective early literacy interventions. Needham Heights, MA:
Allyn & Bacon.
Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An
Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on
Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Reports of the
Subgroups (2001). Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An
Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literacy on Reading
and its Implications for Reading Instruction (2001). Washington, DC:
National Institutes of Health.
Routman, R. (1991). Invitations. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Rowe, D.W. (1987). Literacy learning as an intertextual process. National
Reading Conference Yearbook, 36, (pp. 101-112).
Samuels, S.J. (1997, February). The method of repeated readings. The
Reading Teacher, 50(5), (pp. 376-384).
Samuels, S.J., Schermer, N., & Reinking, D. (1992). Reading fluency:
Techniques for making decoding automatic. In S. Samuels and A. Farstrup
(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction, (pp. 124-144).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schickendanz, J. (1978). "Please read that story again!"
Exploring relationships between story reading and learning to read.
Young Children, 33(5), (pp. 48-56).
Shanklin, N.L., & Rhodes, L.K. (1989, March). Comprehension instruction
as sharing and extending. The Reading Teacher, 42, (pp. 496-500).
Shaywitz, S.E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 275(5), (pp.
98-104).
Shook, R.E., Klein, A.F., & Swartz, S.L. (1998). Building blocks
of beginning literacy. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Showers, B., Joyce, B., Scanlon, M., & Schnaubelt, C. (1998, March).
A second chance to learn to read. Educational Leadership, 55(6), (pp.
27-30).
Snow, C.E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the
preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53(2), (pp. 165-189).
Stahl, S.A., & Shiel, T.G. (1992). Teaching meaning vocabulary:
Productive approaches for poor readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly:
Overcoming Learning Disabilities, 8, (pp. 223-241).
Stanovich, K.E. (1993, December). Romance and reality. The Reading
Teacher, 47(4), (pp. 280-290).
Sulzby, E. (1985). Children’s emergent reading of favorite storybooks:
A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(4), (pp. 458-481).
Swartz, S.L., Klein, A.F., & Shook, R.E. (2001). Interactive writing
and interactive editing. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S.L., Klein, A.F., & Shook, R.E. (2002). Readings in literacy
learning in the intermediate grades. Oceanside, CA: University Associates
Press.
Swartz, S.L., Shook, R.E., & Klein, A.F. (2003). Guided reading
and literacy centers. Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press.
Swartz, S.L., Shook, R.E., & Klein, A.F. (2002). Readings in literacy
learning in the primary grades. Oceanside, CA: University
Associates Press.
Swartz, S.L., Shook, R.E., & Klein, A.F. (2002). Shared reading.
Carlsbad, CA: Dominie Press
Tangel, D., & Blachman, B. (1995, June). Effect of phoneme awareness
instruction on the invented spellings of first grade children: A one-year
follow-up. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, (pp. 153-185).
Taylor, D. (1993). From the child’s point of view. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Teale, W.H., & Sulzby, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing
and reading, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Tierney, R.J. (1998, February). Literacy assessment reform: Shifting
beliefs, principled possibilities, and emerging practices. The Reading
Teacher, 51(5), (pp. 374-390).
Tomlinson, C.A., & Kalbfleisch, M.L. (1998, November). Teach me,
teach my brain: A call for differentiated classrooms.
Educational Leadership, 56(3), (pp. 52-55).
Torgesen, J.K. (1998, Spring/Summer). Catch them before the fall.
American Educator, 22(1), (pp. 32-39).
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., & Rashotte, C.A. (1997). Approaches
to the prevention and remediation of phonologically-based disabilities.
In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia:
Implications for early intervention, (pp. 287-304) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Triplett, C.F., & Stahl, S.A. (1998, Summer). Words, words, words.
Word sorts: Maximizing student input in word study.
Illinois Reading Council Journal, 26(3), (pp. 84-87).
Utah State Office of Education. (1985). Core Criterion-Referenced
Tests. Salt Lake City, UT.
Weir, C. (1998, March). Using embedded questions to jumpstart metacognition
in middle school remedial readers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 41(6), (pp. 458-467).
Wells, C. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and
using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wells, C.G. (1985). Preschool literacy-related activities and success
in school. In D. Olson, N. Torrance, & A. Hildyard (Eds.), Literacy,
language, and learning: The nature and consequences of literacy, (pp.
229-255). Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Wolfe, P. (1998, November). Revisiting effective teaching. Educational
Leadership, 56(3), (pp. 61-64).
Wong, S.D., Groth, L.A., & O’Flahavan, J.D. (1994). Characterizing
teacher-student interaction in Reading Recovery lessons.
Universities of Georgia and Maryland, National Reading Research Center
Reading Research Report.
Zutell, J. (1996, October). The directed spelling thinking activity
(DSTA): Providing an effective balance in word study instruction.
The Reading Teacher, 50(2), (pp. 98-108).
Appendices
Table 1
2001 Academic Performance Index scores from all California Schools.
Scores were separated using the following criteria: Full CELL and
ExLL impelementation, Full CELL Impelementation, and all other schools
in California.
Table 2
2002 data stating whether schools in California met or exceeded their
Academic Performance Index goal. Scores were separated using the following
criteria: Full CELL and ExLL impelementation, Full CELL Impelementation,
and all other schools in California.
Table 3
Utah State Criterion-Referenced Test scores for 4 fully implemented
CELL schools in Utah.
Table 4
Utah State Criterion-Referenced Test scores for 4 fully implemented
ExLL schools in Utah.
Table 5
Brigance Diagnostic - Oral Skills Section scores for a school in Montana.
Table 6
Fall and Spring Observation Survey scores for 4 case study children.
Table 7
Kentucky Core Content Test scores for one Kentucky school district.
Table 8
Iowa Test of Basic Skills test for one school in Nevada.
Table 9
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for two schools in
Wyoming
Table 10
Academic Performance Index scores for three schools within a California
school district.
Table 11
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for six California
Middle Schools with Second Chance at Literacy Learning training.
Table 12
Three years of Language Arts Test scores from a California district.
Table 13
California Achievement Test scores from 10 schools in a California
district.
Table 14
2002 Acadmeic Performance Index scores for one district in California
with fully implemented CELL schools compared to non participatory
schools.
Table 15
Two years of Acadmeic Performance Index scores for three comparison
schools within a California district.
Table 16
Year end Observation Survey schools for students in a Wyoming school.
Table 17
Dominie Reading and Writing Assessment Portfolio scores for control
group and experimental group students.
Table 18
Likert Implementation survey results.
Table 19
4 years of California Test of Basic Skills scores on Reading Recovery,
CELL and Reading Recovery + CELL schools.
Table 20
September, January and May Observation Survey results for schools
at different phases of implementation.
Table 21
Special Education referrals over three years for a California school.
Table 22
Developmental Reading Assessment scores for 3rd grade special education
students.
Table 23
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for a California
school district with different ELL immersion models.
Table 24
Spanish Assessment of Basic Education scores for a California school
district.
Table 25
Three years of TerraNova Achievement Test results for one Wyoming
school.
Table 26
Three years of TerraNova Achievement Test results for one Wyoming
school.
Table 27
Iowa Test of Basic Skills results for a Montana school.
Table 28
Four years of TerraNova Achievement Test results for one Wyoming school.
Table 29
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for a California
district with different implementation models.
Table 30
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for a California
district with different implementation models.
Table 31
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for a California
district with different implementation models.
Table 32
Stanford Achievement Test - Ninth Edition scores for CELL and non-CELL
schools within a California school district.
Table 33
Academic Performance Index scores for schools within a California
school district using different implementation models.
Foundation
For Comprehensive Early Literacy Learning •7231 Boulder Ave. #809•
Highland • CA• 92346
phone 909.862.0351 • fax 909.862.0351
. 
