All About Adolescent Literacy

All about adolescent literacy. Resources for parents and educators of kids in grades 4-12.
AddThis Social Bookmark Button
email this article Email  
Text Size: A A A  

A Theory of Adolescent Reading: A Simple View of a Complex Process

How do adolescents move from reading words to applying knowledge learned from a text? See the adolescent reading model and the Strategic Intervention Model (SIM) clearly illustrated.

Our research uses a conceptual model of adolescent reading based on a global view of the reading process. The framework for this view is captured, in part, by the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer, 1986; Hoover & Gough, 1990). At the core of the Simple View of Reading is the notion that while the act of reading is complex, proficient reading consists of two key components: word recognition and linguistic or language comprehension. The Word Recognition component encompasses efficient decoding, accurate sight-word recognition, fluent word reading and access to appropriate words in the reader's mental lexicon that provides semantic information at the word level. Thus, efficient word recognition allows the reader to quickly pronounce a word and triggers recognition of words acquired through language experiences (e.g., prior knowledge). Linguistic comprehension is defined as knowledge of facts and concepts, vocabulary, language and text structures, and verbal reasoning structures and strategies. Some researchers refer to linguistic comprehension as language comprehension since measures of language comprehension seem to capture that domain (e.g., Catts et al., 2005). The interaction of these two components results in reading comprehension.

The Simple View of Reading recognizes that these two overarching components are equally important and mutually inclusive. That is, both components are necessary for reading success. The interdependent nature of these key components increases as students move from the early to the later grades. For example, multiple regression studies have shown that by the time students are in the 5th and 6th grade, decoding accounts for up to 13% and linguistic comprehension for up to 35% of the variability among readers (Hoover & Gough, 1990). Further, the importance of these components shifts developmentally, which has implications for instruction. For example, word recognition accounted for 27% of the unique variance at the second grade but only 2% at the eighth grade (Catts, Hogan, & Adolf, 2005). In short, the Simple View of Reading provides a framework for thinking about reading and holds that instruction in either decoding or linguistic comprehension improves reading so long as neither component is nil (Hoover & Gough, 1990).

A closer look at word-level factors

Some reading theorists hold that if the learner cannot decode, he or she cannot comprehend text effectively and efficiently (Hoover & Gough, 1990; LeBerge & Samuels, 1974). For example, about 65% to 85% of the variance in reading comprehension is accounted for by word recognition and listening comprehension (Aaron, Joshi, & Williams, 1999; Hoover & Gough; 1990). Thus, word recognition plays a critical role in reading comprehension, and, therefore, requires attention beyond the assumption that students are proficient in recognizing words in text.

The word-level skills that seem to support comprehension include accuracy, rate, and prosody (National Reading Panel, 2000). Of those elements, reading rate seems most important; accuracy alone does not predict comprehension (Stahl & Hiebert, 2004; Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001). Thus, fluent reading of words matters a great deal in proficient reading, and there is a strong correlation between word recognition and comprehension (Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 1998; Catts et al., 2004; Stahl & Hiebert, 2004; Torgesen et al., 2001). In short, "comprehension is built on a foundation of words" (Stahl & Hiebert, 2004, p. 182).

Comprehension factors

Walter Kintsch's (1994) theory of reading, while complementing the language comprehension component of the Simple View, takes reading to a deeper level. In essence, Kintsch expands the domain of language comprehension to include deep processing of textual information and prior knowledge and adds depth to the Simple View of Reading framework by defining the importance and focus of reading comprehension strategies. Kintsch suggests that these cognitive and metacognitive strategies (executive processes) can and must be taught to struggling readers, especially when they encounter unfriendly texts (i.e., poorly written or difficult vocabulary), to help them compensate for lack of prior knowledge. In what he calls Construction Integration (CI), Kintsch (1998) emphasizes the bottom-up construction of incomplete propositions followed by an activation process that moves toward coherent understanding. Thus, a balance between basic reading skill and language comprehension strategy knowledge supports learning in general.

Kintsch's model draws a clear distinction between reading for understanding and learning from text. Reading for understanding allows the reader to answer typical comprehension questions such as those found at the end of reading selections. At this level of understanding, we are able to determine if the reader remembers and can retell what he or she just read. While helpful, retelling is limited to memory for text, however. In contrast, learning from text requires the reader to draw upon information from the text and use prior knowledge to make inferences (highlighting the critical role of prior knowledge in comprehension). This, in turn, allows the reader to use the information in new and novel situations. Learning of this type is much deeper, and is referred to as situational learning (Kintsch, 1994, 1998; Kintsch, E., 2005).

Text comprehension holds that comprehension can have a text-base surface learning focus or it can be situational in focus with learning that is applicable to novel situations, and hence more useful. The challenge presented by this theory is that struggling readers who lack the word-level skills and prior knowledge necessary to make learning happen need specific strategies that account for these deficiencies, particularly when reading texts that are poorly written. Kintsch calls this gap between what the learner already knows and what is presented in text as the "learnability zone." If the learnability zone is beyond the reader's skills and knowledge, less than proficient reading results. Thus, word-level theory (e.g., Catts et al., 2004; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Torgesen et al., 2001; Stahl & Hiebert, 2004) and Kintsch's reading comprehension theory seem compatible and necessary for "deep" reading comprehension.

Further, these theories support interventions that teach students a series of rules or cognitive and metacognitive strategies to apply as they process text and learn from reading (Adams et al., 1998). Kintsch (1994) recognizes the importance of executive process in his situational model and describes the strategic action required on the part of the learner to learn from reading. Strategic readers use executive process to self monitor their reading success and deploy repair strategies when necessary (Hacker, 2004). These executive process, while complementary to the language comprehension component of the Simple View, move beyond background knowledge, syntax and semantics, vocabulary, and text structures and may be considered a separate and important theoretical element (Kamhi, 2005; Kintsch, 2004, Pressley, 2000; Pressley & Hilden, 2004).

A theory-based adolescent reading model

The reading interventions developed as part of the Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) target the key reading components and theory discussed above. We believe that a balanced combination of word-level, comprehension, and executive process theories should define the nature of adolescent reading interventions and the process of reading to learn.

The Adolescent Reading Model depicted in Figure 2 provides the conceptual framework that guides the design and implementation of reading interventions. This model recognizes and builds upon, in part, the significant body of reading research conducted on younger populations under the auspices of the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (e.g., Lyon, Alexander, & Yafee, 1997; McCardle & Chhabara, 2004). As a result of this work, a growing convergence of research findings has been outlined with regard to how to improve reading instruction for younger children, including those with disabilities (NICHD, 2000; Swanson & Hoskyn, 1999; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000). The Adolescent Reading Model is a framework for testing the generalizability of the findings for younger readers with an adolescent population and seeks to determine the unique power of specific components of reading for older learners.

An initial assumption underlying the model is that although most adolescents have acquired the foundational word recognition and decoding skills associated with early reading instruction depicted in the left portion of Figure 2 (i.e., phonemic awareness, decoding, sight word reading, and fluency) in materials written at the 3rd-grade level, some struggling readers still need intervention in this area. Thus, instruction for adolescents should include a "Bridging Strategy" that provides explicit instruction and scaffolded support to help struggling readers with word-level interventions that improve word recognition and fluency. At the same time, and in conjunction with word-level interventions, explicit instruction in language comprehension and reasoning (background knowledge, syntax, vocabulary) should be provided. This is depicted in the middle portion of Figure 2. Since the role of self-regulating or executive processes is considered a key component of language comprehension in Kintsch's situational learning model, we have included a third component in our reading theory (see the right side of Figure 2) that highlights this important element. Integration of cognitive and metacognitive strategies requires that the reader take strategic action and put forth effort to make meaning of the integration of text material and prior knowledge. Thus, reading is an active process requiring word level, language comprehension, and the conscious use of executive processes associated with reading for meaning and learning. The intended outcome of this balanced, interactive model is a significant increase in the reader's ability to integrate and fuse his or her understanding of text with prior knowledge and apply that new knowledge to novel learning situations (see the bottom portion of Figure 2).

Figure 2. Adolescent reading model

The SIM Reading Program (see Figure 3) are directly tied to the Adolescent Reading Model (Catts et al., 2004; Hoover & Gough, 1990; Kintsch, 1998; Stahl & Hiebert, 2004; Torgesen et al., 2001). At the heart of this program is reading instruction. The reading core (shown in the box on the left side of Figure 3) includes decoding, sight word reading, and fluency instruction. Instruction in these areas provides the reader access to accurate word recognition and increased reading accuracy, rate, and prosody. The other major component of the model is language comprehension instruction, which provides the reader with the skills, strategies, and executive processes necessary to integrate text information with prior knowledge, monitor understanding, and bring meaning to what is being read.

Figure 3. SIM reading program

Comprehension instruction also includes vocabulary instruction and instruction in the strategic processes involved in comprehending a variety of written text structures. As depicted in Figure 3, the interaction of the word-level reading and language comprehension instruction creates a synergistic or additive effect that results in learning outcomes that are greater than those that can be generated by either word-level reading or comprehension instruction alone.

Also, as depicted in Figure 3, reading instruction is surrounded by an environment that promotes and motivates learning. For example, personal reflection and goal setting and highly engaging literature are used to enhance student motivation. A final instructional element designed to increase motivation and engagement in learning is structuring classroom activities around the principles of positive classroom management techniques and cooperative learning experiences (Sprick, 2005).

The SIM Reading Program is designed to result in enhanced outcomes. Specifically, students learn the reading skills that enable them to succeed in challenging courses, to become proficient on state AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress) measures and graduate from high school, and to enroll and succeed in future education and training situations.



Click the "References" link above to hide these references.

Adams, G.L., & Engelmann, S. (1996). Research on direct instruction: 25 years beyond DISTAR. Seattle, WA: Educational Achievement Systems.

Alfassi, M. (1998). Reading for meaning: The efficacy of reciprocal teaching in fostering reading comprehension in high school students in remedial reading classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.

Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive School Reform and Achievement: A Meta- Analysis. Review of Educational Research 73(2), 125-230.

Brownell, M.T., Mellard, D.F., & Deshler, D.D. (1993). Differences in the learning and transfer performance between students with learning disabilities and other lowachieving students on problem-solving tasks. Learning Disability Quarterly, 16(23), 138-156.

Bulgren, J., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1997). Use of a recall enhancement routine and strategies in inclusive secondary classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12(4), 198-208.

Bulgren, J.A., Deshler, D.D., Schumaker, J.B., & Lenz, B.K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 426-441.

Bulgren, J.A., Schumaker, J.B., & Deshler, D.D. (1988). Effectiveness of a concept teaching routine in enhancing the performance of LD students in secondary-level mainstream classes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 3-17.

Bulgren, J. A., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B.K., & Marquis, J. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356-371.

Campbell, M. L. (1984). Corrective Reading program evaluated with secondary students in San Diego. ADI News, 7, 15–17.

Campbell, F. A., & Ramey, C. T. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for African- American students at middle adolescents: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32(4), 743-772.

Catts, H., Adlof, S., & Ellis-Weismer, S. (in press). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the Simple View of Reading. Journal of Speech-Language- Hearing Research.

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142- 1157.

Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P., & Adlof, S.M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cuban, L. (1993). How teacher taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 1890-1990. New York: Teachers College Press.

Curtis, M.B. (2002). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Boston: Lesley College, The Center for Special Education.

Deshler, D. D. (2002). Response to "Is 'learning disabilities' just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label." In R. Bradley & L. Danielson (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. 763-771. ( Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., & Ehren, B. J. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(2), 96-108.

Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Woodruff, S. K. (2004). Improving literacy skills of at risk adolescents: A schoolwide response. In D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4-12 ). 86-106. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ellis, E.S., Deshler, D.D., Lenz, B.K., Schumaker, J.B., & Clark, F.L. (1991). An instruction model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(6), 1-24.

Elmore, R.F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.

Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first century. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Fullan, M. (1993). Changing forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. New York: The Falmer Press.

MacGinitie W. H., , R. K., Maria, K., & Dreyer, L. G. (2000). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests, fourth edition. Itasica, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L.S., Williams, J.P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71(2), 279-230.

Gersten, R., & Keating, T. (1987). Long-term benefits from Direct Instruction. Educational Leadership, 44, 28–31.

Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6-10.

Greene, J. (1996). LANGUAGE! Effects of an individualized structured language curriculum for middle and high school students. Annals of Dyslexia, 46, 97-121.

Greene, J. F. (1998). Another chance: Help for older students with limited literacy. American Educator, 1-6.

Greene, J. F., & Winters, M. (2005). The effect of school choice on public high school graduation rates. Education Working Paper. New York: Manhattan Institute for Public Policy.

Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 30-39.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Scaffolding for motivation and engagement in reading. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K.C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Conceptoriented reading instruction (pp. 55-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hasselbring, T.S. with the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1996). Looking at technology in context: A framework for understanding technology and education research. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), The Handbook of Educational Psychology, (pp. 807-840). NY: Simon & Schuster MacMillan.

Hasselbring, T.S. & Bottge, B.A. (2000). Planning and Implementing a Technology Program in Inclusive Settings. In J. Lindsley (Ed.) Technology in Special Education. Austin, TX: Pro.Ed.

Hock, M. F., & Deshler, D. D. (2003). Adolescent literacy: Ensuring that no child is left behind. Principal Leadership, 13(4), 55-61.

Hock, M. F., Deshler, D. D., Marquis, J., & Brasseur, I. (2005). Reading component skills of adolescents attending urban schools. Lawrence: The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.

Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127- 160.

Kansas State Department of Education. (2005). Report card 2004-2005.

Kamhi, A.G. (2005). Finding beauty in the ugly facts about reading comprehension. In H. W. Catts & A. G. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 201-212). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in Language Disorders, 25, 51- 64.

Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory, and learning. American Psychologist, 49(4), 294-303.

Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Knight, J. (1998). Do schools have learning disabilities? Focus on Exceptional Children, 30 (9), 1-14.

LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.

Lenz, B.K., & Bulgren, J.A. (1995). Promoting learning in content classes. In P. T. Cegelka & W. H. Berdine (Eds.), Effective instruction for students with learning disabilities (pp. 385-417). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D.; with Kissam, B. R. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence- based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2001). Qualitative Reading Inventory-3. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

Levy, F., & Murnane, R. J. (2004). The new division of labor: How computers are creating the next job market. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lyon, G.R., Alexander, D., & Yaffee, S. 1997. Progress and promise in research in learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8, 1-6.

Lysynchuk, L. M., Pressley, M., & Vye, N. J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-484.

McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. New York: Brookes.

Moje, E. B., Ciechanowski, K. M., Kramer, K., Ellis, L., Carrillo, R., & Collazo, T. Working toward third space in content area literacy: An examination of everyday funds of knowledge and discourse. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 38-70.

National Academies. (2006). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter future. Washington, DC: National Academies.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2004). The nation's report card: Reading 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES). (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: Author.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Fluency. In Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175.

Palincsar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1988). Instruction for self-regulated reading. In L. B. Resnick & L. E. Klopher (Eds.), Toward the thinking curriculum: Current cognitive research (pp. 19-39). Alexander, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Partnership for Reading (2002, May). Adolescent literacy: Research informing practice. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, U.S. Department of Education.

Pressley, M. (2000). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn of the century status report. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Researchbased best practices. New York: Guilford.

Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (vol. III, pp. 545-561. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.

Pressley, M., & Block, C. (2002). Summing up: What reading comprehension could be. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based practices. 383-392. New York: Guilford.

Pressley, M., & Fingeret, L. (2006). Fluency. In M. Pressley, Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Pressley, M. & Hilden, K. (2004). Toward more ambitious comprehension instruction. In E.R. Silliman & L.C. Wilkerson (Eds.), Language and literacy learning in schools (pp. 151-174), New York: Guilford Press.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1995). Direct instruction. In L. Anderson (Ed.), International encyclopedia of teaching and teacher education ( 2nd ed., pp. 143-148). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Scholastic. (2005). The compendium of Read 180 research: 1999-2004. New York: Scholastic Books.

Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2006). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D. D. Deshler & J. B. Schumaker (Eds.), Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education. New York: Corwin Press.

Smith, S., Rissman, L., & Grek, M. (2004). Evaluation of Read 180. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Center for Reading Research.

Snow, C. E. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R &D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Science and Technology Policy Institute. RAND Education.

Snow, C.E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap:What do we know and where do we need to go from here? (Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting Report). New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Sprick, R. (2005). ACHIEVE: Creating positive classroom environments in secondary schools. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Stahl, S. A., & Hiebert, E. H. (2004). The "word factors": A problem for reading comprehension assessment. Paris, Scott G. ; Stahl,

Steven A. (Eds). Children's reading comprehension and assessment. (pp. 161-186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Ybasco, F. C., Borders, T. F., Babyak, M. A., & Higgins, R. L. (1996). Development and validation of the State Hope Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2, 321-335.

Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Freeman, D.J. (1984). Relation between early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 668-677.

Strickland, D. S., & Alvermann, D. E. (2004). Bridging the literacy achievement gap grades 4-12. New York: Teachers College Press.

Swanson, C. B. (2004). High school graduation, completion, and dropout indicators. from Http://

Swanson, H.L., & Deshler, D.D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with disabilities: Converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124- 135.

Swanson, H.L., & Hoskyn, M. (1998). Experimental intervention research on students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 277-321.

Tannock, S. (2001). The literacies of youth workers and youth workplaces. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(2), p. 140- 143.

Taylor, B. M., & Frye, B. J. (1992). Comprehension strategy instruction in the intermediate grades. Reading Research and Instruction, 21(1), 39-48.

Thorne, M. T. (1978). "Payment for Reading." The use of the corrective reading scheme with junior maladjusted boys. Remedial Education, 13, 87–89.

Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. (2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, fluency, and the brain (pp. 334–355). Parkton, MD: York Press.

Torgesen, J., Wagner, R., & Rashotte, C. (1999). Test of Word Reading Efficiency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Touchstone Applied Science Associates (2004). Degrees of Reading Power. Brewster, NY: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.

Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D.J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99-114.

Witkin, M. (1994). A defence of using pop media in the middle-school classroom. English Journal, January 1994, p. 30-33

Westera, J. & Moore, D. W. (1995). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension in a New Zealand high school. Psychology in the Schools, 32, 3, pp. 225-232.

Wiederholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray oral reading tests: Fourth edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Wiederholt, J.L. & Bryant, B.R. (l982). Gray Oral Reading Tests--III. Austin, TX: Pro- Ed.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420- 432.

Wilkinson, G. S. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test, 3rd ed. Wilmington, DE: Jastak, Inc.

Woodcock, R. W. (1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.

Deshler, D.D. and Hock, M.F. (2006). Shaping Literacy Achievement. Guilford Press: New York. Reprinted with permission.

Post a new comment