EDR 621 Final Exam

Current Issues and Trends in Literacy

Winter 2013

Bridget Rieth

Question 1: Analyze the predominant theoretical framework(s) that your building/classroom uses. What theories does this framework primarily rely on? What evidence do you have that these are the theories that support that framework? You might consider the attributes of the literacy program, the literature that supports that program (found, usually, in the preface of the teachers manual), and compare that to the literature you have read this semester. In your analysis you will need to consider the historical context of the current framework. To do this, you will need to provide an historical overview of reading in the US and indicate what elements of your current framework come out of one or more literacy movements.

East Grand Rapids Public Schools uses the Benchmark Assessment System and The Continuum of Literacy Learning (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008) as assessment tool and framework for its elementary level literacy curriculum. At the beginning of each school year, all students in grades K-5 are assessed to determine their independent and instructional reading levels as defined by the A to Z Text Level Gradient (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008). Primary level and Reading Support teachers use additional tools as needed to collect further information such as the Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA), Michigan Literacy Progress Profile (MLPP), and the Slosson Oral Reading Test. Benchmark Assessment is conducted as deemed appropriate on an individual basis to recheck students at midyear points, with all students assessed again at the end of the school year to record progress. Throughout the instructional year teachers are expected to use observation and informal assessment through running records to monitor student growth. Students receiving intervention level support are assessed more frequently using running record based tools included in the Fountas and Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention program, which is the dominant intervention curriculum used in the district at the elementary level. Throughout the course of the school year, students are also currently tested once by the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) and in the fall, winter, and spring using the Northwest Evaluation Associations Measure of Academic Progress (MAP.) These last two standardized tests are analyzed and do have a place in the instructional decision making process in a broad sense, but it is the Benchmark Assessment System (BAS) that is given the highest credence and The Continuum of Literacy

Learning (CLL) that is a required part of teacher instructional planning. It is also these tools around which the bulk of elementary literacy professional development has revolved for the past 5 or 6 years. As such, it is the Fountas and Pinnell framework that this paper shall address. Curriculum planning, both long term and day to day, is expected to be based on the CLL, and the published district language arts curriculum is currently cross referenced with page numbers from The Continuum. Each grade level K-5 is delineated in the areas of reading, writing, speaking and listening, and language skills. As the guiding state and national curriculum is transitioning, the district document is also currently aligned with both Michigans Grade Level Content Expectations as well as the Common Core State Standards. Within The Continuum, the grade level literacy content is divided into the six areas of Interactive Read Aloud and Literature Discussion, Shared and Performance Reading, Writing About Reading , Writing, Oral, Visual, and Technological Communications, and Phonics, Spelling, and Word Study. A separate section lays out expectations for Guided Reading instruction, arranged and described at each reading level (A-Z), including suggested text types and instructional goals to notice, teach, and support. These goals are sorted into three areas of strategic thinking, i.e., thinking Within, Beyond, and About the text. A great deal of district time and resources have been spent developing an understanding of Guided Reading instruction, with ongoing professional development at the elementary level offered to support this area, as well as building specific establishment and funding of comprehensive book rooms to serve as text resources to the Guided Reading format. In an examination of the document Research Base for Guided Reading as an Instructional Approach (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010), one finds multiple theories of literacy in evidence. Guided reading is described as an instructional component within the four contexts for teaching reading (whole class instruction, small group heterogeneous instruction, small group homogenous instruction, and individual instruction.) At the outset of the publication, Fountas and Pinnell (2010) comment on the historical

framework for guided reading instruction, tracing small group instructional practice as far back as the 1800s, as educators became aware of the wide differences among students at the same grade levels (p. 2). This is in contrast to the suggestion of literacy historians such a Patrick Shannon who describe classroom practice of that time period as operating primarily from the behaviorist methodology of letter, sound, and spelling recognition, with full class oral presentation and recitation as the instructional method. Even the Progressive Education movement, which moved away from memorization and attempted to ground learning in a context relevant to the child, seems to have operated more in a full class setting as described by Shannon (Shannon, 2007). Fountas and Pinnell then move quickly to the criticism of the mentioned early small group instruction: As traditionally practiced, small-group reading instruction had some drawbacks, for example: the rigidity of groups that followed an unchanging sequence of core texts (Hiebert, 1983; Good & Marshall, 1984); less instruction in critical thinking provided to lower-progress groups (Allington, 1983); negative effects on confidence and self-esteem; and the use of many workbook pages as the materials market grew (Barr & Dreeben, 1991) (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010). Citing Guided Readings beginnings as the work of educators in New Zealand and Australia (Clay, 2001), they note that the goal of the new format was to avoid the drawbacks mentioned above. The remainder of the document explains the structure of Fountas and Pinnells version of guided reading as well as noting its place in the broader construct of a balanced literacy curriculum including interactive read aloud, phonics, spelling, and language instruction, book clubs, independent reading, and conferring. Organized as a list of eight important components of reading instruction, the balance of the Guided Reading document is meant to ground the Fountas and Pinnell methodology within literacy

research. The first component is illuminated here to describe the authors definition of reading, which suggests the theoretical understandings that underpin the framework: All teaching in guided reading lessons has the ultimate goal of teaching reading comprehension (Fountas & Pinnell, 2010). Asserting their understanding of reading comprehension as a complex process [that] can be taught only through the effective processingwith deep thinkingof connected and coherent texts (pg. 4), the authors cite three sources that inform this definition, linking all three to the 2009 NAEP Reading Assessment framework. The first of these documents is a report by the RAND Reading Study Group, which states that reading comprehension [is] the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language. It consists of three elements: the reader, the text, and the activity or purpose for reading (RAND, 2002). Within this statement, one can detect the influence of transactive literacy theorists who believe reading to be the process of making meaning from text, bringing together both text and reader in a transactive exchange. The last phrase the activity or purpose for reading connects also with the reader response stance that the reader brings not only schema to text processing, but also intent, which informs interpretation. The second document cited is a 2001 report, the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, defining reading as: The ability to understand and use those written forms required by society and/or valued by the individual. Young readers can construct meaning from a variety of texts. They read to learn, to participate in communities of readers, and for enjoyment (Campbell, Kelly, Mullis, Martin and Sainsbury, 2001). Here again we see the importance of reader engagement, with the added lens of the sociolinguist, anchoring reading in a social context, that which communities require, as well as the importance of

participation as a member of a literate community. This social context is evident also in the following and final citation, which prioritizes the individuals purpose for reading. The third definition listed by Fountas and Pinnell is from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development in its Programme for Student Assessment document of 2000 which states that reading is the understanding, using, and reflecting on written texts, in order to achieve ones goals, to develop ones knowledge and potential, and to participate in society (OECD, 2000). By highlighting this statement, the authors stress reader engagement in and manipulation of a text. Fountas and Pinnell go on to cite research by Pearson and Pressly, explaining that readers must attend to various aspects of the text in order to solve word and language structure when reading. This alludes to cognitive psychologys description of the semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cueing systems. Fountas and Pinnell maintain that in order to be successful, readers must be exposed to a variety of texts and, with teaching, be guided to use these processing systems effectively. The discussion of the first teaching component finishes with a suggestion that teachers must present, model, and support comprehension strategies within reading instruction to develop readers ability to engage in thinking processes including inferring, analyzing, synthesizing, and critiquing, again all grounded in transactive theories of reading that place reader contribution on equal footing with text/author input. The teaching and modeling of such strategies in a metacognitive environment also stems from cognitive psychologys understanding of reading as a function of multiple reader-centric processes that can be examined and developed. As such, Fountas and Pinnells Guided Reading framework follows the methodology of balanced literacy researchers Keene and Zimmermann (1997) who integrate transactive theory in metacognitive instructional techniques. Gauging successful reading using the Benchmark Assessment System includes Goodmans practice of examining what processes a reader can and does use, in order to identify areas of instruction through miscue analysis (Goodman, 1969).

The remaining eight components of guided reading instruction discussed in the document delineate points that continue to suggest that the authors theoretical basis aligns with transactive literacy theories. Text selection is left to the educator, with copious tools and guides in place to allow the teacher to match student proficiency levels and interests with the requirements of the curriculum. Stressing the necessity of ample practice with continuous authentic texts, guided reading in the Fountas and Pinnell framework is intended to be accomplished through the use of high quality, teacher selected literature of all types. Student background knowledge is mentioned as a factor in determining whether a text is easy or hard for groups or individual readers. Much of this can be viewed through a sociolinguistic lens, with each teacher and community able to select and use relevant texts for individual groups and students, rather than relying on a prescribed basal or bank of titles, preselected and ordered for scope and sequence. The intent of using high quality literature for literacy instruction stems from the whole language movement of psycholinguists such as Goodman (1996). Fountas and Pinnell also discuss the importance of vocabulary expansion, stressing vocabulary relevance within the text passage, rather than as an isolated element. Instruction happens within and around a text, building schema and offering the opportunity for social processing through discussion before, during, and after the reading. Similarly, in their discussion of the importance of phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, the authors intend that such teaching take place immediately after reading with those students who need it, to ground the skill work in reading intended for meaning making, rather than as an isolated set of skills. Overall, Fountas and Pinnells work seems to flow primarily from the transactive school of thought, with much methodology drawn from cognitive psychology and psycholinguistic research. When skill work is addressed, instructional techniques are expected to be grounded in a larger meaningmaking context. Texts are expected to be authentic and relevant. Considerations of reader schema and

engagement should inform instructional decisions. Multiple processes within the activity of reading are examined and analyzed with focus on reader growth as well as considerations of text attributes and complexity. While instruction at each grade level encompasses several general areas and many individual competencies, the teacher is given complete autonomy to choose when and how each point is addressed with readers, as needs arise. If used as a tool to select and guide instructional practices and to notice and respond to reader development, the Fountas and Pinnell curriculum would appear to have merit as a literacy framework. It is crucial, however that the district, and individual teachers use these tools to guide thoughtful instruction and balanced assessment to create a larger literacy experience for students, and avoid the pitfalls of focusing only on data gathering, or wielding the text gradient concept as a deterrent to encouraging student independence and choice, thereby reducing reader enjoyment and autonomy. If developing readers are viewed simply as representative of a given text level (ex. Jordan is a level N reader), and the framework is reduced to this component, an important opportunity is lost to meet students where they are as individual readers and facilitate their growth to the next stage of development. When the framework is used this way, the opportunity to grow real readers vanishes.

Question 2: If you could change the framework, what theories would you rely on to build a new framework? What evidence do you have from the literature you have read this semester that this is a better framework? If you do not think your framework should be changed, explain why.

The Fountas and Pinnell framework can serve well to address the task of building readers who bring as much to the text as the text offers to them. The curriculum, as described by the authors, is grounded in relevant transactive literacy theory. It is a flexible tool that can be applied in multiple contexts to serve a multitude of individual readers, classrooms, curricula, and communities. As such, it

can be used to emphasize meaning making and engagement in authentic, real world settings, which should be the goal for readers of all ages. The understanding of literacy as a broad range of experiences and transactions-listening to text, reading text together and individually, discussing text, analyzing text, responding to text, generating text, performing text-is a comprehensive and useful structure in which to give students experience in interactive ways to grow their competencies and prepare them to be independent, literate adults. However, there are a few potential dangers in the use of the Fountas and Pinnell curriculum. A criticism of either the intent or potential application of the text gradient tool for text choice is that it could eliminate choice on the part of the reader, with some educators limiting student access to independently selected texts that do not match the students current assessed reading level. There are several mentions of the importance of teacher selection of texts throughout the authors explanation, and as such, the authors intent could be interpreted to suggest this level of teacher control, although nowhere is it visibly articulated that students should not read texts above or below their current level, simply that experience with text within an instructional range is important for reading growth. Phonetic, semantic, and syntactic instructional goals are dispersed on a developmental continuum throughout grade levels, and the authors intent seems to be to integrate the teaching of these skills within the context of high quality literature experiences. This point is another that could be applied with greater or lesser success, depending on the teachers planning and the methods with which the district applies other word-based standards, for example spelling expectations. Professional development around skill level word study has sometimes ignored the practice of anchoring the discrete skill directly to full text sources, reducing it to decontextualized skill work with less likelihood of engagement and success.

New users of this framework may be overwhelmed by the comprehensive nature of The Continuum as well as the time consuming nature of the Benchmark Assessment System, and as such, training, mentoring, and support are important aspects of learning to use the framework as a thoughtful practitioner. One of the illusory appeals of a basal program is the ready-made aspect of a teachers manual, prescribed activities, and prepared texts. With both classroom and planning time in increasingly smaller supply, many in education have leaned on pre-packaged programs to reduce the perceived amount of work involved in the teaching of language arts. The appeal of these programs is illusory in the sense that it is an ineffective (at best) and damaging (at worst) way to teach literacy, stripping the teacher of agency and forcing the student through lock-step instruction that frequently disregards the individuals abilities, interests, and needs, and often serves as an effective method for disengaging readers. The open design of the Fountas and Pinnell continuum affords far better opportunity for teachers and schools to create effective literacy experiences that address and respond to these factors. The opportunity to choose both instructional goals and methods and to pair them with high quality, independently chosen texts is the true strength of this framework, when such autonomy is utilized effectively. In order to maximize this autonomous aspect, teachers need the opportunity to plan individually and together, to discuss and design instruction that meets their students needs. Ongoing professional collaboration that centers on teaching methods, differentiated instruction, location and acquisition of text materials, and other aspects of implementation will go a long way to support the successful use of the Fountas and Pinnell framework. Discussions should focus on flexibility and best practice, examining current research and methodology. Professional development must avoid the stance that the method being modeled or discussed is the one and only way to implement the framework within a classroom. Such an assumption, which has been observed in training situations by this writer, seems to undermine the intent of the authors, the goal of offering educated professionals a structure on which to build

informed, effective, responsive instruction. A tempting shortcut on the part of educators could be to look toward packaged products that eliminate much planning and preparing in guided reading, for example book sets that are matched with teaching strategies and activities for a particular reading level. There is no guarantee as to the depth of thought put into such products; a product may use excellent methods which stimulate deep discussion and rich experience, or it may be a weak example of the vast array of commercialized satellite merchandise that serves only the publishers bottom line, not the growth of student readers. Another possible hazard in using the Fountas and Pinnell framework comes in the form of overreliance on individual data pieces to assess, describe, and categorize learners. Misuse of Benchmark Assessment data and an over-emphasis on the text gradient tool has been referred to by some professionals as engaging in the alphabet race. This seems partly a result of the commercialization of the text-gradient system by Fountas and Pinnell and various publishers, and partly due to the social/political trend of quantifying learning in alphanumeric terms. In the name of educational reform, governing bodies in the U.S. have come to expect, and often mandate, universal assessment practices (United States Department of Education, 2009) which reduce learners and learning to a number, percentage, or other scaled score- easily computed, easily compared, easily criticized. The reality of learners and learning is far more complex than this, and while quantifiable tests have their place in a wide range of tools used to observe and understand learning, discrete data points should never serve as a single describing or deciding factor. The results of the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment should be used in conjunction with multiple observations and evaluations of a reader in order to paint a more complete picture and inform selection of instructional goals and methods within a larger information set.

A strength of The Continuum as instructional guide is that it allows teachers to select from an array of learning goals that span a wide range of literacy behaviors as well as providing depth of learning as goal areas are revisited and extended along grade levels. Paired with these goals are descriptions of types of text that serve well as instructional materials, noting the multiple types of texts students should experience to develop reading proficiencies. This is another area that can present practical challenges to schools and teachers, who are responsible for identifying and acquiring access to appropriate texts. While access to plentiful quality texts has always been an issue for schools, in this age of ever-increasing financial constraints, the problem grows exponentially. East Grand Rapids schools are fortunate to have several sources with which to acquire texts, ranging from successful fundraising in a community with expendable income, to district and community level commitment of funding specifically ear-marked to support this literacy curriculum. Each elementary building has an established and recently fortified bookroom, with PTA and district funds committed each school year to adding and maintaining materials. Building centered groups of teachers and administrators serve on a review and selection committee, working to identify high quality texts that integrate with building curriculum and goals. In sum, the framework currently in place in East Grand Rapids elementary schools is a reasonably solid instructional base when used as a tool by informed educators. Reduction of any program to a discrete element is an ineffectual practice, and care must be taken to balance instruction and assessment within the context of a complete literacy program, one that strives to build upon the complex processes a reader uses as well as bringing relevance to literacy events to provide significant experience and practice in growing readers.

Question 3: Imagine yourself in a leadership position. Explain to an audience of teachers and administrators the important elements that should form the foundation of a successful literacy program using the literature you have read in class this semester as well as other literature that you believe will support your position. You will need to think about theory and research. Think about the nature of literacy, what it means to read and know, the role that culture and home language plays, and the roles that cognitive processes play. Think, too, about how we build literate environments in school settings.

When establishing an effective literacy program in our school, we must closely examine what reading is and how students acquire the ability to do it. According to NCTE guidelines: Reading is a complex and purposeful sociocultural, cognitive, and linguistic process in which readers simultaneously use their knowledge of spoken and written language, their knowledge of the topic of the text, and their knowledge of their culture to construct meaning with text (NCTE, 2013). Constructing meaning with the text needs always to be the pivotal outcome, and as the guideline suggests, the process of making meaning from text is accomplished through and dependent on many factors. Making meaning with the text suggests that reading is a transaction between text and reader. Transactive literacy theorists focus on the interaction between the content of the text as intended by the author and the knowledge that the reader brings to his or her encounter with the text. That knowledge is multi-faceted and includes, as mentioned, cognitive processes, linguistic proficiencies/understandings, and sociocultural context. We need to take a closer look at each of these facets in order to create the foundations of a successful literacy program. Cognitive psychology presents an understanding of the mental functions at work when a reader encounters text. Readers use multiple knowledge bases to comprehend text including knowledge of topic, text structure, sentence structure, word meanings, and letter/sound correspondences. Stanovich, in his Interactive-Compensatory Model describes the processes used by the reader as nonlinear and

simultaneous in fashion, with one process compensating when another proves insufficient in text comprehension (Tracey & Morrow, 2006). For example, if a reader does not know the meaning of some of the words in the text, she might rely more on her understanding of the placement of the word within a sentence. In this case, the reader makes up for a lack of semantic information by using her syntactic knowledge of how sentences work. In another case, the reader may use phonetic cues to figure out a word when the context around it is unfamiliar. Readers use whatever cues are available to make meaning. The instructional implications of this theory compel us to address multiple aspects of text processing with equal priority when teaching developing readers. Our curriculum must include ongoing formative assessment of students abilities to apply phonemic skills, knowledge of syntax, topic schema, and an understanding of the structures of text and we must offer direct instruction and practice in each of these areas to meet the needs of individual readers. However, just as the employment of these skills is nonlinear, the acquisition and refinement of these abilities also varies from one reader to the next. Our program must have flexibility to respond to the needs of individual readers as each grows his or her abilities. In his psycholinguistic analysis of the process of reading, Goodman (1969) refers to the three basic sources of information that readers use as grapho-phonic, syntactic, and semantic. Our teaching must be fluid enough to monitor a students competencies in utilizing information from each of these sources, and respond with instruction and support where and when students show need. In the manner of Goodmans miscue analysis method (Goodman, 1969), we need tools, skills, and time to observe and analyze how and where readers are proficient, to determine the best next instruction. A strong literacy program will stay away from lock-step sequential lessons that privilege scope and sequence over students individual needs. Along with instruction in processing skills, our literacy program must include comprehension instruction. In the Handbook of Reading Research: Vol. III, Pressley asserts:

The case is very strong that teaching elementary, middle school, and high school students to use a repertoire of comprehension strategies increases their comprehension of text. Teachers should model and explain comprehension strategies, have their students practice using such strategies with teacher support, and let students know they are expected to continue using the strategies when reading on their own. Such teaching should occur across every school day, for as long as required to get all readers using the strategies independently -- which means including it in reading instruction for years (Pressley, 2000). Work by a multitude of literacy researchers since Pressleys article was published has confirmed the importance of comprehension strategy instruction at all grade levels. Our program should have a solid core of teaching that models and supports students in their development of these skills. Teacherresearchers such as Keene & Zimmerman (1997) or Harvey & Goudvis (2007) have designed instructional frameworks that incorporate such modeling and practice work into literacy instruction, through metacognitive techniques and habits. We will want to examine our curriculum carefully to be sure that like teaching is included. Just as our individual students will bring varied proficiencies to their learning, so will they bring individual experiences, understandings, and social context. As the NCTE guidelines state (2013), reading is also a sociolinguist process, with each child interpreting text through the lens of his or her past experience and cultural influence. Heaths work with divergent communities (Heath, 1983) demonstrated that not only do students bring varied schema sets to the classroom, but also structures for understanding what text is and how it is used. Our program must be several things in order to effectively utilize this social frame. We must have the ability to flexibly choose text materials that are relevant to our students, and the capacity to create learning activities that apply and extend their understandings of the uses of text in their lives. Authentic literary practice, i.e. reading and writing tasks

with real world validity, will generate deeper and more effective engagement in students as they see purpose and meaning in their work. As a school that frequently receives students from an array of global cultures, we must be prepared to flexibly supplement schema or context, as well as ascertain and appreciate individual students divergent understandings and experiences, especially in ways that affect literacy practices. Our framework must include the opportunity for reflective, responsive instruction design. One last consideration that will serve to increase the success of our literacy program is the inclusion of learner choice. Studies show that students who have the opportunity to choose within instruction, whether they are choosing texts, tasks, or both, have elevated motivation and as a result, they learn more (Cordova & Lepper, 1996). Having an adaptable menu of texts available which include an array of genres, topics, formats, and purpose, will go a long way to meet readers needs, both instructional and intrinsic. Our curriculum should provide students the chance to make choices regarding the texts they will read and the ways that they will interpret and apply the meanings that they make. To summarize, our districts literacy program should teach students to expect meaning from text, to utilize all available information when making that meaning, to expand comprehension through metacognitive practice, and to make selections for preference and purpose in their own literate lives.

References Allington, R. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal in reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556551. Barr, R, & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.) Handbook of Reading Research, Volume II. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Campbell, J. R., Kelly, D. L., Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., & Sainsbury, M. (2001). Framework and specifications for PIRLS assessment 2001. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College, Lynch School of Education, PIRLS International Study Center. Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in childrens literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cordova, D. I., & Lepper, M. R. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and the process of learning: Beneficial effects of contextualization, personalization, and choice. Journal of educational psychology, 88, 715730. East Grand Rapids Public Schools Language Arts Committee. (2012). K-12 English Language Arts Curriculum. Retrieved from East Grand Rapids Public Schools website: http://www.egrps.org/documents/Curriculum/K-12_ELA_CURRICULUM.pdf Fountas, I., Pinnell, G. (2008). The continuum of literacy learning, 3-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fountas, I., Pinnell, G. (2010). Research base for guided reading as an instructional approach. Retrieved from Heinemann and Scholastic websites: http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/guidedreading/research.htm Good, T. K., & Marshall, S. (1984). Do students learn more in heterogeneous or homogeneous groups? In P. L. Peterson, I. C. Wilkinson, & M. Hallinan, (Eds.). The social context of instruction. New York: Academic Press. Goodman, K. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9-30. Goodman, K. (1996). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007) Strategies that work teaching for understanding and engagement (2nd ed.). Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231255. Karolides, N. J. (1999). Theory and Practice: An Interview with Louise M. Rosenblatt. Language Arts, 77(2), 158-70. Keene, E. O., & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader's workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. National Assessment Governing Board. (September, 2008). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: NAGB.

National Council of Teachers of English, Commission on Reading. (1998-2013). On reading, learning to read, and effective reading instruction: an overview of what we know and how we know it. Retrieved from National Council of Teachers of English website:http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/positiononreading Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2000). Measuring student knowledge and skill: The PISA 2000 assessment of reading, mathematical, and scientific literacy. Retrieved from the OECD website at: http://www.oecd.org/edu/school/programmeforinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/measurin gstudentknowledgeandskillsthepisa2000assessmentofreadingmathematicalandscientificliteracypublications2000.htm Pearson, P. D., & Camperell, K. (1994). Comprehension of text structures. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed.) (545586). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M. (2001, September). Comprehension instruction: What makes sense now, what might make sense soon. Reading Online, 5(2). Retrieved at: http://www.readingonline.org/articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/handbook/pressley/index. html RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Shannon, P. (2007). Reading against democracy: The broken promises of reading instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Tracey, D., & Morrow, L. (2006). Lenses on reading. New York, NY: Guilford Press. United States Department of Education. (2009). Race to the top program executive summary. Retrieved from U.S.D.E. website at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf