1 / 35

EASTVIEW HIGH SCHOOL

Jims
Download Presentation

EASTVIEW HIGH SCHOOL

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. EASTVIEW HIGH SCHOOL’S ACADEMIC LITERACY 9 COURSE: A QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL CASE STUDY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A READING INTERVENTION PROGRAM AT A MINNEAPOLIS/ST. PAUL SUBURBAN HIGH SCHOOL Jennifer McCarty Plucker, Ed. D. Research Poster Presentation International Reading Association April 28th, 2010 Jennifer.plucker@gmail.com http://jmplucker.blogspot.com 1 Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker Say thanks: Before I begin, I’d like to say a quick thank you to my parents—Joe and Mary, my mother in law Fern, my husband Carl, children Andrew and Ainsley, friends Jessie and Meg, Thank You for supporting me not only today but throughout the past 3 years! And thank you Sonja—(Dr. Schmieder’s wife) for being here and putting up with the hours and hours Allen spent away from you and at the computer faithfully and carefully reviewing my work. Thank you especially to you committee members—Drs. Dave Lange, Randy Peterson , and Allen Schmieder for all your patience, support, and encouragement (especially this past month!). Say thanks: Before I begin, I’d like to say a quick thank you to my parents—Joe and Mary, my mother in law Fern, my husband Carl, children Andrew and Ainsley, friends Jessie and Meg, Thank You for supporting me not only today but throughout the past 3 years! And thank you Sonja—(Dr. Schmieder’s wife) for being here and putting up with the hours and hours Allen spent away from you and at the computer faithfully and carefully reviewing my work. Thank you especially to you committee members—Drs. Dave Lange, Randy Peterson , and Allen Schmieder for all your patience, support, and encouragement (especially this past month!).

    2. Executive Summary Research over the last 20 years has shown a clear connection between students’ literacy levels and academic achievement. As a result, this quasi-experimental case study of ninth graders at Eastview High School, in suburban Minneapolis- St. Paul sought to explore intervention necessary to narrow the gap between struggling readers and their peers. This study examined and compared the reading growth of students in a treatment program, a year-long Academic Literacy 9 Course taught in addition to their language arts classes, a control group of striving readers not enrolled in the treatment, and a sample from the school’s general ninth grade population. Additionally, an examination of the correlation between engagement and perceived self-efficacy and students’ reading growth was conducted. Compelling evidence indicates that striving adolescent readers who receive strategic, systematic, and individualized intervention accelerated their reading growth in one year at three times the mean growth rate of their peers. Furthermore, a moderate correlation existed between the perceived self-efficacy of students engaged in the program, and their reading growth. Replication of this study, customized to meet the needs of varied populations of striving readers, is recommended in order to add to the research field of adolescent literacy and contribute to the reading achievement of adolescents’ in all types of settings.   Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 2

    3. Problem Statement While Eastview High School HAS made adequate yearly progress in reading through NCLB regulations, Biancarosa & Snow (2004) point out “high-achieving schools have struggling readers and writers [and] in such environments struggling students may be more likely to be overlooked” (p.8). Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 3

    4. Purpose of the Study To illuminate the process, effectiveness, and student engagement in Eastview High School’s implementation of Academic Literacy 9, an intense year-long literacy intervention course for students reading in the 30th percentile or lower. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 4

    5. Research Questions 1. To what extent have students in Academic Literacy 9 improved their reading scores as measured by the MAP test in comparison to the control group and a sample of the ninth grade general population? 2. To what extent have students in Academic Literacy 9 improved their reading scores as measured by the DRA2 test? Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 5

    6. Definitions Struggling (Striving) Reader: A secondary striving reader in ISD196 is a student who scores at or below the 40th percentile nationally in reading on at least two, preferably three, standardized test(s) (ISD 196, 2006). ISD 196 chose striving over struggling for connotative purposes. This study will use them interchangeably. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 6

    7. Participants All are Eastview High School 9th graders Treatment Group (n=28): Academic Literacy 9 students 4 sections with approximately 7 students in each. (necessary to exclude students who started program mid year, or moved out of program mid year) Control Group (n=21): students identified as striving readers—not enrolled in treatment program. Sample from General Population of 9th grade (n=257): Students in regular 9th grade classes, excluding treatment and control group students and honors students. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 7

    8. Methodology, Data Collection, and Findings Organized by research questions 1.) Quasi-experiment with three groups 2.) Growth for Treatment Group Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 8 Quasi-experiment: a study that resembles an experiment except that random assignment played no role in determining which participants got which level of treatment. ... Quasi-experiment: a study that resembles an experiment except that random assignment played no role in determining which participants got which level of treatment. ...

    9. Academic Literacy 9: Treatment Program Based on A Model Secondary (6-12) Plan for Reading Intervention and Development (MN Dept. of Ed, 2006). Belief Statements and Curriculum Frameworks Developed by ISD 196 team of Reading Specialists. Vision of Reading Teachers at EVHS Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 9 Introduce video. . .Introduce video. . .

    10. Systematic Strategic Reading Intervention: The Treatment (Academic Literacy 9) Theoretical Framework: Comprehension Strategy Theory “Zone of Proximal Development” Gradual Release of Responsibility Formative Assessment Engagement/Self-efficacy Theories Multi-Literacy and Digital Literacy Research Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 10 Comprehension strategy theory- licensed and expert teachers direct instruction small class sizes The problem is not illiteracy, but comprehension” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 10). The work of Jeanne Chall(1983; 1986) introduced the reading community to the notion that children learn to read in grades kindergarten through three, and then read to learn from grades three on up. In reality, as the demands of the content and the difficulty levels of the text as well as the vast amount of information the child must navigate as they make their way through each subject during school, the reader must be able to not only read the words on the page, but understand and attach meaning to those words. In order to do so, the reader must be able to construct meaning of difficult vocabulary, sift through the many details to determine what is most important, activate prior knowledge to attach new learning with previous learning, think critically, and do all of this while continuing through the text fluently.( Allington, 2006; Irvin, et al., 2007; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Zone of Proximal Development—individualized, customized instruction. . .scaffolding to support students through the process. I do, we do , you do Formative Assessment to determine zone. . .strengths, areas to improve, etc. Engagement/self-efficacy Dweck and Kohn—Performance vs. growth mindsets, meaningful feedback, Guthrie and Wigfield and Guthrie: choice, control, relevance, Obrien and Vacca— I can because I think I can “Students who struggle the most re-engaged and REDEFINED themselves as competent when engaged in activities they viewed as relevant using digital tools and popular media” ~ O’Brien, 2008 Research base: Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998: Guthrie, 2008; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002; Strickland & Alverman, 2004) Confidence building is KEY—students must see themselves as academic. . .successful. . .often Striving students sometimes view themselves as outsiders at EVHS—pull them IN Comprehension strategy theory- licensed and expert teachers direct instruction small class sizes The problem is not illiteracy, but comprehension” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 10). The work of Jeanne Chall(1983; 1986) introduced the reading community to the notion that children learn to read in grades kindergarten through three, and then read to learn from grades three on up. In reality, as the demands of the content and the difficulty levels of the text as well as the vast amount of information the child must navigate as they make their way through each subject during school, the reader must be able to not only read the words on the page, but understand and attach meaning to those words. In order to do so, the reader must be able to construct meaning of difficult vocabulary, sift through the many details to determine what is most important, activate prior knowledge to attach new learning with previous learning, think critically, and do all of this while continuing through the text fluently.( Allington, 2006; Irvin, et al., 2007; Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). Zone of Proximal Development—individualized, customized instruction. . .scaffolding to support students through the process. I do, we do , you do Formative Assessment to determine zone. . .strengths, areas to improve, etc. Engagement/self-efficacy Dweck and Kohn—Performance vs. growth mindsets, meaningful feedback, Guthrie and Wigfield and Guthrie: choice, control, relevance, Obrien and Vacca— I can because I think I can “Students who struggle the most re-engaged and REDEFINED themselves as competent when engaged in activities they viewed as relevant using digital tools and popular media” ~ O’Brien, 2008 Research base: Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998: Guthrie, 2008; Smith & Wilhelm, 2002; Strickland & Alverman, 2004) Confidence building is KEY—students must see themselves as academic. . .successful. . .often Striving students sometimes view themselves as outsiders at EVHS—pull them IN

    11. Systematic Strategic Reading Intervention: The Treatment (Academic Literacy 9) Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker Principles of Curriculum Design: Comfortable Reading Spaces with Teen Appeal Book Flood Time to Read and Write Students Engaged with Technology Self-Reflection and Goal Setting 11

    12. Instrumentation Measures of Academic Progress test from Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA, 2003) Pretest—Spring of 2008; Posttest—Spring of 2009 Computerized Adaptive Reading Assessment Untimed, approximately 50 minute test Customized based on pre-test MAP score Gives RIT score (typically ranging between 180—250 for 9th grader) Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 12

    13. Research Question #1 To what extent have students in Academic Literacy 9 improved their reading scores as measured by the MAP test in comparison to the control group and a sample of the ninth grade general population? Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 13

    14. Quasi-Experimental Design MAP RIT Score, National Percentile Rank, and Growth (Posttest minus the Pretest score) Variance of Analysis (ANOVA) to determine if statistically significant difference in means (averages) exist between groups. Post hoc analysis (Scheffe) to determine which means are significantly different from which other means Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 14 ANOVA— simply tell us –yes there is a difference somewhere in these three groups. Scheffe will tell us where exactly those differences exist. ANOVA— simply tell us –yes there is a difference somewhere in these three groups. Scheffe will tell us where exactly those differences exist.

    15. Mean Comparisons: MAP RIT Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 15 Discuss why—control and al9 similar populations of students all id’d striving readers, adolescent reading growth is slow. . .research has shown can’t catch up in one year (Allington, 2009) Practical significance—gap between AL9 and Gen9 is narrower than between Control group and Gen9 Discuss why—control and al9 similar populations of students all id’d striving readers, adolescent reading growth is slow. . .research has shown can’t catch up in one year (Allington, 2009) Practical significance—gap between AL9 and Gen9 is narrower than between Control group and Gen9

    16. Mean Comparisons: National Percentile Ranks Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 16 NPR—important b/c it is what we use to id students. Based on national norms—50% means right smack in the middle compared to students across the nation. . .important to note that general population is skewed to the left w/ mean 71.9% (50th percentile RIT=223) Practical significance—40th percentile no longer id’d as striving reader. . . NPR—important b/c it is what we use to id students. Based on national norms—50% means right smack in the middle compared to students across the nation. . .important to note that general population is skewed to the left w/ mean 71.9% (50th percentile RIT=223) Practical significance—40th percentile no longer id’d as striving reader. . .

    17. Mean Comparisons: One Year’s Growth Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 17 Discuss why—control and al9 similar populations of students all id’d striving readers, adolescent reading growth is slow. . .research has shown can’t catch up in one year (Allington, 2009) Practical significance—gap between AL9 and Gen9 is narrower than between Control group and Gen9 Important implication—in order to narrow reading gap must accelerate reading growth (Allington). Important note: In 8th grade, Con had negative growth (went backwards); AL9 remained flat (no digression or growth); and general population made approx 4 point gain. . . Discuss why—control and al9 similar populations of students all id’d striving readers, adolescent reading growth is slow. . .research has shown can’t catch up in one year (Allington, 2009) Practical significance—gap between AL9 and Gen9 is narrower than between Control group and Gen9 Important implication—in order to narrow reading gap must accelerate reading growth (Allington). Important note: In 8th grade, Con had negative growth (went backwards); AL9 remained flat (no digression or growth); and general population made approx 4 point gain. . .

    18. Research Question #2 To what extent have students in Academic Literacy 9 improved their reading scores as measured by the DRA2 test? Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 18

    19. Instrumentation Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA2) (Beaver & Carter, 2006). One-on-One Reading Assessment Engagement (series of questions about reading experiences, reading goals, and plans for obtaining goals Fluency (oral reading assessment) Comprehension (during, and post reading activities). Scored with a standardized rubric Pearson Trains Reading Specialists to Use the Assessment. Pretest—September, 2008 Posttest—April, 2009 Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 19 Define engagement, fluency, and comprehension. . .Define engagement, fluency, and comprehension. . .

    20. DRA2 Comparison of Means Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 20 Scores: Engagement Fall: 3.4 Spring Engagement: 5.3 Fall Fluency: 9.9 Spring Fluency: 12.3 Fall Comprehension: 13 Spring Comprehension: 17.2 Fall Total: 26 Spring Total: 34.9 Goal is to get students out of instructional zone and into independent 6/8; 12/16 Fluency; 18/24 Comprehension Formative Assessment: Conferencing. . . Scores: Engagement Fall: 3.4 Spring Engagement: 5.3 Fall Fluency: 9.9 Spring Fluency: 12.3 Fall Comprehension: 13 Spring Comprehension: 17.2 Fall Total: 26 Spring Total: 34.9 Goal is to get students out of instructional zone and into independent 6/8; 12/16 Fluency; 18/24 Comprehension Formative Assessment: Conferencing. . .

    21. Research Q1 and Q2 Conclusions Adolescent Striving Readers need a Double Dose of Literacy Instruction One Year of Strategic Intervention is not Enough for Most Striving Readers Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 21

    22. Opportunities for Further Research Isolate Variables to Closely Examine Factors Leading to Accelerated Growth in Reading. What role does the teacher play? Gender? SES? Ethnicity? Is policy necessary to keep intervention programming in place? What (or how strong of a) role do students’ barriers play in hindering reading growth? Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 22 In other words, what specifically w/in the treatment program was most effective?In other words, what specifically w/in the treatment program was most effective?

    23. Opportunities for Further Research Consider Multi-Literacies’ Role in Adolescent Engagement Determine if and how SpEd and ELL Programs can Partner with General Education Reading Intervention Programming Consider furthering the field of Mindset Research and Appreciative Inquiry Research? Consider the Voices of the Students’ Themselves Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 23

    24. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 24 Deliver Conclusion here. . .Deliver Conclusion here. . .

    25. References ACT. (2009). Explore: ACT’s college readiness test for 8th and 9th graders. ACT, Inc. Retrieved July 20, 2009 from http://www.act.org/explore/   Afflerbach, P. (2007). Understanding and using reading assessment K-12. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  Alliance for Excellent Education. (2007, April). Congress moves forward with budget plan for increases for education programs. Straight A’s: Public education policy and progress, 7(7). Retrieved July 27, 2009 from http://www.all4ed.org/publication_material/straight_as/7/7/  Allington, R. L. (2000). What really matters for struggling readers. New York: University Press.  Allington, R.L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: designing research-based programs. 2nd ed. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc. Allington, R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention: Research-based designs. Boston: Pearson Learning, Inc.  Alvermann, D.E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. National Reading Conference Literacy Research Review. White paper. Retrieved July 11, 2008 from http://www.nrconline.org/publications/alverwhite2.pdf  Alvermann, D. E., & Eakle, A. J. (2007). Challenging literacy theories and practices from the outside. In Lewis, J. & Moorman, G. (Eds.), Adolescent literacy instruction: Policies and promising practices (pp. 64-81). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  Antsey, M. & Bull, G. (2006). Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies. Kengsington Gardens, SA, Australia: Australian Literacy Educators’ Association.  Atwell, N. (2007). The reading zone: How to help kids become skilled, passionate, habitual, critical readers. New York: Scholastic, Inc.  Bandura, A. (1977) Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review. 84(2) 191-215.  Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in Friedman, H. [Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).   Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 25

    26. References cont. Beaver, J. & Carter, M. (2006). Developmental reading assessment 4-8. 2nd ed. Parsippany, NJ: Celebration Press: Pearson Learning Group.  Beers, K. (2007). The measure of our success. In K. Beers, R. Probst, and L. Rief (Eds.) Adolescent literacy: Turning promise into practice. (pp. 1-14). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  Beers, K. (2009, March). The genteel unteaching of America’s youth. An NCTE report. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved July 20, 2009 from www.ncte.org/library/NCTEFiles/Press/Beers.pdf  Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.  Bintz, W. (1993, May). Resistant readers in secondary education: Some insights and implications. Journal of Reading; 36(8), 604-15.  Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education (5)1. 7-73. Bracey, G. W.  (2007). The Proficiency Illusion. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(4), 316-317.  Retrieved March 2, 2009, from Research Library Core database. (Document ID: 1396226431).  Bremer, C. D., Vaughn, S., Clapper, A. T., & Kim, A. (2002). Collaborative strategic reading (CSR): Improving secondary students’ reading comprehension skills. Research to practice brief, 1(2), Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=424. Brenner, D., Pearson, P. D., & Rief, L. (2007). Thinking through assessment. In Beers, K., Probst, R. & Rief, L. (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Turning promise into practice (pp. 257-272). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.   Brozo, W., Shiel, G. & Topping, K. (2007). Engagement in reading: Lessons learned from three PISA countries. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. (51)4: 304-315. Bryant, M. (2004). The portable dissertation advisor. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.  Boyne, J. (2006). The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. New York: Random House.  Catrow, D. (2005). We the kids: The preamble to the constitution of the United States. New York: Dial Books for Young Readers.   Dr. Jennifer McCrty Plucker 26

    27. References continued Chall, J.S. (1983) Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.  Chall, J. S. (1996) Learning to read: The great debate. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2000). Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures. Melbourne, Vic, Australia: Macmillan.  Colleges cope with rising demand for remedial courses. (2008, December). American Teacher, 93(4), 7. Retrieved March 1, 2009, from Education Module database. (Document ID: 1609220261).  Chappuis, S., Stiggins, R. J., Arter, J. & Chappuis, J. (2004). Assessment for learning: An action guide for school leaders. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute.  Creswell, J. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.  Daniels, H. & Zemelman, S. (2004) Subjects matter: Every teacher’s guide to content-area reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.  Degrees of reading power program handbook: J & K test forms (2000). Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.  Denti, L. (2004). Introduction: Pointing the way: Teaching reading to struggling readers at the secondary level. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 20, 109- 112.  Develeopmental Reading Assessment 2 (2009). K-8 technical manual: Developmental Reading Assessment second edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.  Dudley, A. (2005, Spring). Rethinking reading fluency for struggling adolescent readers. Beyond Behavior, 16-22. Retrieved December 15, 2008 from www.ccbd.net/documents/bb/Spring2005pp16-22.pdf.  Eastview High School (EVHS) webpage. (2008). Retrieved 29 January 2009 from http://www.district196.org/evhs/ Eastview High School (2006). Eighth grade OLSAT-8 scores compiled with ninth grade fall Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) scores. Unpublished data compiled for ninth grade reader study. October 13, 2006.  Eisner, E. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered. New York: Teachers College Press. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 27

    28. References cont. Ferraro, J., Klund, S., Hexum-Platzer, S., Houck, B. & Vortman-Smith, J. (2006). A model secondary (6-12) plan for reading intervention and development. Roseville, MN: Minnesota Department of Education and Quality Teaching Network: Reading (QTN: R). Retrieved from www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/e3/fa.pdf –  Friedman, T.L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the Twenty-first Century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.  Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for responsiveness to intervention. School Psychology Review 35(4): 621-627. Retrieved from Proquest database. Funston, K.L. (2007, February). Participatory evaluation as a professional development tool: Constructing a district-wide secondary literacy initiative. Ed. D. Dissertation, Argosy University Twin Cities. Gall, J.P., Gall, M.D., & Borg, W.R. (2003). Educational research: An introduction (7th ed.) New York: Pearson Education, Inc.  Gallagher, K. (2003) Reading Reasons. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishing. Gallaher, K. (2006). Teaching adolescent writers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.  Gallagher, K. (2009). Readicide: How schools are killing reading and what you can do about it. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.  Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E., & Airasian, P. (2006). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and applications. (8th ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.  Graves, M. F. (2004). Theories and Consructs that have made a significant difference in adolescent literacy—but have the potential to produce still more positive benefits. In Jetton, T. & Dole, J.A. (Eds.) Adolescent Literacy Research and Practice. (pp. 433-451). New York: Guilford Press. Graves, M. F. and Graves, B. B. (2002). Scaffolding reading experiences: Designs for student success, 2nd Ed. (2003). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.  Graves, M. F., & Liang, L. A. (2003). On-line resources for fostering understanding and higher-level thinking in senior high school students. In Schallert, D. L., Fairbanks, C. M., Worthy, J., Maloch, B., & Hoffman, J. V. (Eds.), 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference Yearbook (pp. 204-215). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 28

    29. References Cont. Grow, Gerald O. (1996). Serving the strategic reader: Reader response theory and its implications for the teaching of writing, an expanded version of a paper presented to the Qualitative Division of the Association for Educators in Journalism and Mass Communication. Atlanta, August, 1994. Available on-line at: <http://www.longleaf.net/ggrow>. Original paper available as Eric Documentation Reproduction Service No. ED 406 644. Guthrie, J.T. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in literacy. The Reading Teacher, 49: 432-445. Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Engaging adolescents in reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Guthrie, J.T., Anderson, E, Aloa, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of concept- oriented reading instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 343-366. Guthrie, J.T, & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In Kamil, M.L., Mosenthal, P., Pearson, P. D., & Barr, R. (Eds.), Handbook of reading research. (Vol. 3. pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hall, L. (2008). Understanding youth who struggle with middle school reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 52(4), 353-355. Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000) Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2007) Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding and engagement (2nd ed). Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Harris, T. & Hodges, R. (Eds.) (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hayes-Jacobs, H. (2006). Active literacy across the curriculum. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education, Inc. Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education. Hock, M. & Deschler, D. (November 2003). Don’t forget the adolescents. Principal leadership, 50-56. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 29

    30. References cont. Huberman, A.M,, & Miles, M.B. (2002). The qualitative researcher's companion: Classic and contemporary readings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Independent School District 196 (ISD 196), (2006, December) Unpublished minutes from Struggling Reader subcommittee. Independent School District 196 (ISD 196), (n.d.) District 196 policy and procedures. Retrieved July 28, 2009 from http://www.district196.org/District/SchoolBoard/PRPs.cfm#100 Irvin, J., Buehl, D. Klemp, R. (2007). Reading and the high school student: Strategies to enhance literacy. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Isaac, S. & Michael, W. (1982). Handbook in research and evaluation: For education and the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) San Diego, CA: EdITS Publishers. Ivey, G. (2009). Building adolescent interventions at the local level. Unpublished presentation at International Reading Association National convention in Minneapolis, MN., May 10, 2009. Ivey, G. & Fisher, D. (2006). Creating literacy-rich schools for adolescents. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Jackson, Y. & Cooper, E.J. (2007). Building academic success with underachieving adolescents. In Beers,K. Probst,R., & Rief, L. (Eds.), Adolescent literacy: Turning promise into practice (pp. 243-256). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kirsch, I. (2001). The international adult literacy survey: Understanding what was measured. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1998). Using Collaborative Strategic Reading. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(6), 32-37. Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and English acquisition through Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 738-747. Klockers, A.J. & Sax, G. (1986). Multiple comparisons. Series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences. A Sage University paper. Newberry, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 30

    31. References cont. Kohn, A. (1999) Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A's, praise, and other bribes. 2nd ed. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. NY: HarperCollins Books.  Laird, J. Kienzl, G., DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2007, June) Dropout rates in the United States: 2005: Compendium report. U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved December 30, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007059.  Lewis, J. (1993) The effects of a precollege reading course on the academic self-esteem of urban college students. Inquiries in Literacy Learning and Instruction. College Reading Association Yearbook, pp. 47-55. as used in Lewis & Moorman, Eds. (2007). Academic literacy: Principles and learning opportunities for adolescent readers. Adolescent Literacy Instruction: Policies and Promising Practices. International Reading Association.  Liang, L.A. & Dole, J. A. (2006). Help with teaching reading comprehension: Comprehension instructional frameworks. The Reading Teacher 59(8): 742-753. doi: 10.1598/RT.59.8.2  Marzano, R. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., & Graetz, J. (2003). Reading comprehension instruction for secondary students: Challenges for struggling students and teachers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 26, 103-116.  McCarty Plucker, J. (2006). Ninth grade readers: A descriptive study of the reading levels of freshmen at a large suburban high school. Unpublished paper for R7031 Quantitative Research, Argosy University, Eagan, MN.  Merriam Webster Online (2009). Definition of engagement. Merriam Webster, Inc. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/engagement Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), (2006, August). MCA-II test specifications for reading & mathematics. Roseville, MN.  Minnesota Department of Education (MDE), (2008). Academic standards: Language arts. Retrieved July 24, 2009 from http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/Academic_Excellence/Academic_Standards/Language_Arts/index.html  Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes. (2009). Minnesota administrative rules: Teachers of reading Rule 8710.4725. Retrieved July 8, 2009 from https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/rules/?id=8710.4725.   Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 31

    32. References cont. Moje, E. B. (2000). Bringing kids' stories into sight: Ideas for getting and keeping students in our sights. In All the Stories That We Have (pp. 46-63). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  Moje, E. B. (2002, Spring). Re-framing adolescent literacy reearch for new times: Studying youth as a resource. Reading Research and Instruction 41(3): 211-228. Retrieved June 20, 2009 from http://www-personal.umich.edu/~moje/publicationsJournal.html.  Moje, E. B., Dillon, D. R., & O’Brien, D. G. (2000). Re-examining the roles of the learner, the text, and the context in secondary literacy. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 165-180.  Moore, D., Bean, T., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position statement for the commission on adolescent literacy of the international reading association. International Reading Association, Inc.  Myers, J. & Beach, R. (2004). Constructing critical literacy practices through technology tools and inquiry. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 4(3), 257-268. Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org/vol4/iss3/languagearts/article1.cfm  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (1999). Nation’s report card: Reading 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved June 4, 2001 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=1999500.  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (2007). Nation’s report card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved December 29, 2008 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007496  National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), (2008). Nation’s report card: Reading 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved March 2, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/reading/  New America Foundation (2005). Federal Education Budget Project. Rosemount-Apple Valley-Eagan funding, demographic, and achievement data. Retrieved March 1, 2009 from http://www.newamerica.net/education_budget_project/districts/rosemount_apple_valley_eagan#districtform-3  New London Group (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 60-92. Retrieved July 15, 2009 from http://wwwstatic.kern.org/filer/blogWrite44ManilaWebsite/paul/articles/A_Pedagogy_of_Multiliteracies_Designing_Social_Futures.htm   Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 32

    33. References cont. Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), (2003). Technical manual: For use with Measures of Academic Progress and Achievement Level Tests. Lake Oswego, OR: NWEA.  Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA), (2004). Assessments: Measures of academic progress (MAP). Lake Oswego, OR. Retrieved January 19, 2009 from http://www.nwea.org/assessments/.  O’Brien, D. G. (2006). “Struggling” adolescents’ engagement in multimediating: Countering the institutional construction of incompetence. In Alvermann, D.E., Hinchman, K.A., Moore, D.W., Phelps, S.F., & Waff, D.R. (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents’ lives (pp. 29-45). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.  O’Brien, D. G. (2008, August 13). Engaging struggling adolescent readers: Research on improving achievement while boosting perceptions of competence. PowerPoint lecture presented at the annual Minnesota Council of Reading Research conference. University of Minnesota campus.  Otis, A. & Lennon, R. (2003). OLSAT: Otis-Lennon school ability test. Eighth edition. Technical manual. Harcourt Educational Measurement.  Parris, S. R., & Block, C. C. (2007, April). The expertise of adolescent literacy teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 50(7): 582-596.  Patton, M. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. (3rd Ed).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.  Pearson, P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317-344. Pellegrino, J. Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.  Pink, D. (2005). A whole new mind: Moving from the information age to the conceptual age. New York: Riverhead/Penguin.  Pressley, M. & Hogan, K. (1997). Scaffolding Student Learning: Instructional Approaches and Issues. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.  Rasinski, T. (2000). Speed does matter in reading. The Reading Teacher, 54 (2), 146-151.  Rasinski, T. (2006). Reading fluency instruction: Moving beyond accuracy, automaticity, and prosody. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 704-706. doi: 10 1598/RT.59.7.10   Readence, J., Bean, T., & Baldwin R. S. (2004). Content area literacy: An integrated approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Corporation.   Rosenblatt, L. (1975). Literature as exploration. New York: Appleton Century. (Original work published in 1938)   Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.   Rothenberg, S. S., & Watts, S. M. (1997). Students with learning difficulties meet Shakespeare: Using a scaffolded reading experience. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 532-539.   Salinger, T. (2007). Setting the agenda for adolescent literacy. In Lewis, J. and Moorman, G. (Eds.) Adolescent literacy instruction: Policies and promising practices (pp. 3-19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.   Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B, & Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176. Retrieved from EbscoHost database.   Singleton, G. E. & Linton, C. (2005). Courageous conversations about race. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.   Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008, July/August/September). Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4   Snow, C. & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we know and where do we go from here? Carnegie Corporation of New York Adolesecent Literacy Funders meeting report.   Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.   Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. Journal of special education, 28, 259-274.   Stiggens, R.J., Arter, J.A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.   Taylor, R. & Collins, V.D. (2003). Literacy leadership for grades 5-12. TIES (2009). I-Cue Administration. Ties Educational Collaborative. St. Paul, MN. Retrieved through password protected site: https://adminn00406a.ties.k12.mn.us/toas/apps/tsis_login_secure_admin. asp?   Tough, P. (2006, November 26). What it takes to make a student. The New York Times. Retrieved 28 November 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26tough.html   Townsend, J. (1998). Caught or taught: Infection or subjections? Struggling readers in secondary schools still need that little bit extra. Support for Learning. 13(3), 129-133.   Trueman, T. (2000). Stuck in Neutral. New York: HarperCollins.   U.S. Department of Education (2002). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 200: PL 107-110. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html   Vacca, R. (2006, February). They can because they think they can: Instruction that lifts struggling readers’ sense of self-efficacy prepares them to face even difficult texts. Educational Leadership. ASCD.   Von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In Watzlawick, P. (Ed.), The intended reality. 17-40. New York: Norton   Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Cole, M. John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman, E. Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.   Wilhelm, J. (1997). You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.   Wilhelm, J. & Smith, M.W. (2006). Going with the flow: Engaging boys (and girls) in their literacy learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann   Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 33

    34. References cont. Readence, J., Bean, T., & Baldwin R. S. (2004). Content area literacy: An integrated approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Corporation.  Rosenblatt, L. (1975). Literature as exploration. New York: Appleton Century. (Original work published in 1938)  Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois Press.  Rothenberg, S. S., & Watts, S. M. (1997). Students with learning difficulties meet Shakespeare: Using a scaffolded reading experience. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 532-539.  Salinger, T. (2007). Setting the agenda for adolescent literacy. In Lewis, J. and Moorman, G. (Eds.) Adolescent literacy instruction: Policies and promising practices (pp. 3-19). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  Shernoff, D.J., Csikszentmihalyi, M., Schneider, B, & Shernoff, E.S. (2003). Student engagement in high school classrooms from the perspective of flow theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 18, 158-176. Retrieved from EbscoHost database.  Singleton, G. E. & Linton, C. (2005). Courageous conversations about race. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.  Slavin, R.E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008, July/August/September). Effective Reading Programs for Middle and High Schools: A Best-Evidence Synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(3), 290–322. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.4   Snow, C. & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: What do we know and where do we go from here? Carnegie Corporation of New York Adolesecent Literacy Funders meeting report.  Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.  Stanovich, K. E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. Journal of special education, 28, 259-274.  Stiggens, R.J., Arter, J.A., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2006). Classroom assessment for student learning. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Services.   Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 34

    35. References cont. Taylor, R. & Collins, V.D. (2003). Literacy leadership for grades 5-12. TIES (2009). I-Cue Administration. Ties Educational Collaborative. St. Paul, MN. Retrieved through password protected site: https://adminn00406a.ties.k12.mn.us/toas/apps/tsis_login_secure_admin.asp?  Tough, P. (2006, November 26). What it takes to make a student. The New York Times. Retrieved 28 November 2006 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26tough.html  Townsend, J. (1998). Caught or taught: Infection or subjections? Struggling readers in secondary schools still need that little bit extra. Support for Learning. 13(3), 129-133.  Trueman, T. (2000). Stuck in Neutral. New York: HarperCollins.  U.S. Department of Education (2002). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2000: PL 107-110. Retrieved January 29, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html  Vacca, R. (2006, February). They can because they think they can: Instruction that lifts struggling readers’ sense of self-efficacy prepares them to face even difficult texts. Educational Leadership. ASCD.  Von Glaserfeld, E. (1984). An introduction to radical constructivism. In Watzlawick, P. (Ed.), The intended reality. 17-40. New York: Norton  Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (Cole, M. John-Steiner, V., Scribner, S., Souberman, E. Eds.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.  Wilhelm, J. (1997). You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.  Wilhelm, J. & Smith, M.W. (2006). Going with the flow: Engaging boys (and girls) in their literacy learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann  Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100. Dr. Jennifer McCarty Plucker 35

More Related