1	Literacy Definition and Belief Statements Presented to Dr. R. Farrar In partial fulfillment for course RD651.001 Socio-psycholinguistics and Critical Literacy by Mary S. Fichera
2	Literacy Definition Part One The literacy journey often begins in a warm lap, listening to a story and taking in all the sensory pleasures of a reading event. It is searching with the eyes, scanning the up and down waves of print attempting to make sense of the letter chunks and junctures in between. Literacy is the kinesthetic testing with fingers, touching the words and feeling the smooth face of print. The page smells musty and sweet all at the same time. The sensory exploration of letters and words continues with the tongue tasting the dribbles of letters, rolling them around, bouncing them from side to side against the teeth and cheeks. The tongue pushes the sounds back down the throat, thus incorporating their existence into the body’s existence, giving the body life sustaining sustenance. As the body is nourished with letters, it wants to give something back in return. The mouth spills forth the sounds that coincide with the letter symbols. The ears hear the rushing sounds of words. The initial plunge is complete, communication between the reader and writer can now commence.
3	Literacy Definition Part Two The literary journey continues as the readers/explorers move past merely encoding and decoding written script; they venture beyond the surface to survey the depths below the superficial examination of words. The adventurers, though, are not unprepared. They bring with them the language of their birth and all the vivid memories of past communication, both private and public. The journey includes the metacognitive processes of comprehending and engaging the text, whether it is a story or expository writing. True literacy requires that the readers submerge themselves into the sometimes colorfully diverse and sometimes murky water of words, letting the print surround and engulf their minds, structuring meaning from what was unknown so it becomes the known. But like any exploratory challenge, reading comprehension is best performed in social groups where the melding of psycholinguistic and cognitive powers investigates the deep underlying meaning of what is said and not said to form a synthesis of interpretations.
4	References Cited Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2003). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Fox, M. (2001). Reading Magic: Why reading aloud to our children will change their lives forever. New York: Harcourt, Inc. Goodman, K. S. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional sociopsycholinguistic view. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (4^th ed., pp. 1093-1130). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Graves, D. H. (1997). Forward. In E. O. Keene & S. Zimmermann (Authors), Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop (p. x). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
5	References Cited Langer, J. A. (2004). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. In R. B. Ruddell, N. J. Unrau (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 1040-1082). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Pearson, P. D. & Stephens, D. (1994). Learning about literacy: A 30 year journey. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes reading (4^th ed., pp. 22-47). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1994). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (4^th ed., pp. 1058-1090). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
6	Learning and the Learner Learning should take place in an atmosphere conducive to taking risks. Students should feel comfortable adding their thoughts and insights to a discussion, whether it is a large group or small cohesive group format. Brock, C. H. (1997); Brozo, w. G. (2000); Keene, E. O. (2002)
7	Learning and the Learner Literacy learning begins as a young child with the first book and the real world literacy learning in stores with parents. These first experiences are real, meaningful, and authentic. Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2003); Fox, M. (2001); Harst, J. C., Burke, C. L., & Woodward, V. A. (1994)
8	Learning and the Learner Learners use prior knowledge when learning/reading new information. The wealth of knowledge or lack thereof students bring to the classroom can have a profound effect on how they perceive textual material. Typically the more prior knowledge students have about a subject matter or topic the more engaged they will be in the learning environment. Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2000); Anderson, B. V. & Barnitz, J. G. (1998); Pressley, M. (2000)
9	Learning and the Learner Learning from text is multidimensional. Learning environments should involve the various multidimensional ways students learn. Each student brings to the classroom his/her own set of obstacles to learning from a text, whether it is reading the words to understand the characters, or simply being interested in the subject matter or topic. Hu-Pei Au, K. (1998); Pinnell, G. S. (2002); Wade, S. E. & Moje, E. B. (2000)
10	Learning and the Learner Students learn by discussing and extending information gathered and shared within their classroom community. Students who participate in discussions led by their peers, or literature discussions, tend to be more advanced and thorough in their own oral presentations and better able to solve social conflicts than counterparts who participated in discussions led by a teacher. Learning within this social context adds meaning and engagement for students. Alexander, P. A. & Fox, E. (2004); Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (2004); Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000)
11	Teachers’ Roles Teachers should constantly update their pedagogical knowledge for personal, professional and pupil benefits. As professionals, teachers need to continuously educate themselves about the various and most recent teaching strategies, particularly as they relate to the immerging and vastly diverse sociocultural and multi-linguistic student populations. Fleischer, C. (2004); Flood, J. & Lapp. D. (2000); Gaffney, J. S., Anderson, R. C. (2000); Keene, E. O. & Zimmermann, S. (1997)
12	Teachers’ Roles Students need to be guided and challenged by teachers to interpret oral and written texts from a variety of genres. Teachers need to maintain a balance for both reading and writing textual information. Literary models and reading experiences improve students’ writing but direct instruction is still necessary to help students become better writers and readers. Skillfully merging direct reading and writing instruction can provide these experiences more efficiently and make time on learning more worthwhile. Langer, J. A. & Flihan, S. (2000); McTighe J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004); Wood, K. D. (2002)
13	Teachers’ Roles Teachers need to use a sociolinguistic approach to learning by engaging students in collaborative discussions to encourage active and prolonged motivation of a subject matter or topic. Teachers can help have a positive effect on learning outcomes by implementing instructional strategies such as supplemental text support through mediated action, communication through oral sharing or personal voice such as reading an essay, and internalization of educational tools so that students can make learning their own. Forman, E. A. & Cazden, C. B. (2004); Keene, E. O. & Zimmermann, S. (1997); Romano, T. (2004); Wilkinson, L. C. & Silliman, E. R. (2000).
14	Teachers Roles Teachers need to use thoughtful and explicit instruction, particularly when introducing new concepts. Leaving out pertinent information can lead to confusion or incorrect responses on the part of the learner. Direct teaching of comprehension strategies that students may use not only across the curriculum but also during their free-reading time consistently supports students toward in-depth understanding of all reading material. Brooks, J. G. (2004); Joyce, B., Hrycauk, M., & Calhoun, E. (2001); Readence, J. E., Moore, D. W., & Rickelman, R. J. (2000); Reutzel, D. R., Camperell, K., & Smith, J. A. (2002)
15	Teachers’ Roles Teachers should aim to create classrooms where meaning is socially constructed by both the teachers and the students. Teachers and students bring to the classroom their own sets of personal experiences, beliefs and knowledge about the various subject matters and together read, discuss, and write about the knowledge further generated as a literal group. Bean, T. W. (2000); Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, J. M. (1994); Dewey, J. (1916)
16	Curriculum Literature-based instructional methodology where both the reader and the text construct meaning should be a driving force across the curriculum. Literature-based instruction spotlights the social interaction of adult/teacher to child/student and student to student reading experiences. Students who are guided through before, during, and after reading activities which also involve the teacher demonstrate better comprehension and understanding of story structure. Bintz, W. P. (1993); Morrow, L. M. & Gambrell, L. B. (2000); Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N. J. (2004)
17	Curriculum Curriculum should involve integrated instruction where language and literacy are viewed as tools with which students can make sense of school. Integrated instruction addresses the three needs in educational practices that concern the development for authenticity, meaningfulness, and efficiency. Curriculums that involve integrated instruction not only promote learning across the various subject matters but also encourages home-school connections. Gavelek, J. R., Raphael, T. E., Biondo, S. M., & Wang, D. (2000); Kintsch, W. (2004); Langer, J. A. (2004)
18	Curriculum Content area reading strategies need to be incorporated throughout the curriculum. Many strategies now include more multi-modal approaches of not only reading but also discussion and writing. The goal of employing various instructional strategies is to assist the reader/learner in gaining the skills necessary to comprehend and respond appropriately to the content presented. Applebee, A. N. (2003); Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2003); Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000); Readence, J. E., Moore, D. W. & Rickelman, R. J. (2000)
19	Curriculum Literature should be introduced into content area classrooms as a means of encouraging students’ engagement and interest in the subject areas. Students who are engaged in what they are reading tend to create connections between prior knowledge and new information. Incorporating literature into a content area may encourage interactive discussions between the teachers and students, thus creating meaning through sociocultural interaction. Many, J. E. (2004); Menon, S. & Hiebert, E. H. (2005); Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1994)
20	Curriculum Writing should be included in every part of the curriculum. Writing across the curriculum should also include both transactional or high stakes writing and expressive or low stakes writing. Students and teachers communicating through the reading and writing process engage in authentic dialogic exchanges where meaning is made through a socio-psycholinguistic transaction. Discussing students’ writing assignments presents to the students a chance to witness how valuable their writing is to both the teacher and to the daily life of the class. Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2003); Hefflin, B. R. & Hartman, D. K. (2002); Martinez, M. & Roser, N. L. (2003); Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2000)
21	Assessment and Evaluation On demand literacy assessment should include both reading and writing across an array of selected genre. While the influences of the assessment battery should not necessarily drive the curriculum, curriculum should be aligned such that students have the opportunity to experience and actively engage in multiple reading and writing selections, both fiction and non-fiction. One should not be neglected to cover the content of another, both are needed in a well-rounded educational program. Pressley, M. (2002); Shepard, L. A. (2004); Valencia, S. W. & Wixson, K. K. (2000)
22	Assessment and Evaluation It is essential that students are assessed on their knowledge of the grade level English Language Arts frameworks. All involved with their education need to know how far they have come, where they are, and how far they need to go. While an educational evaluation should show where students are functioning in the frameworks, assessments should not be a life altering experience but a demonstration of the strengths and weaknesses of the curriculum so educators can make improvements. Hoffman, J. V., Paris, S., Salas, R., Patterson, E., and Assaf, L. (2003); Juel, C. & Minden-Cupp, C. (2004); Laturnau, J. (2003); Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005)
23	Assessment and Evaluation Understanding how reading impacts test demands can help teachers plan curriculum and instruction that will enhance students’ performances not only on the tests but also as part of their academic life in the classroom. Ascertaining where students are weak in their literary comprehension can help with curriculum planning, enabling teachers to incorporate reading and writing lessons as part of the regular curriculum but not in place of the curriculum. Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2003); Gillet, J. W., Temple, C., & Crawford, A. N. (2004); Saddler, B. & Andrade H. (2004).
24	Assessment and Evaluation A broad range of assessment tools is needed to capture important learning goals and processes and to more directly connect assessment to ongoing instruction. This means collecting data on observations, interviews, reflective journals, projects, demonstrations, collections of students’ work, and students’ self-evaluation, and it means that teachers must engage in systematic analysis of the available evidence. Applebee, A. N. (2000); Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000); Young, J. P., Mathews, S. R., Kietzmann, A. M., & Westerfield, T. (2000)
25	Assessment and Evaluation Assessment should be informative and insightfully tied to learning steps. Students and teachers need to look to assessment as a source for guidance and help instead of an occasion for meting out rewards and punishments. Having students self-correct by providing feedback in the way of strategic questioning may lead to more promising results than merely stating to students the rightness or wrongness of answers. Calfee, R. C. (2000); Garcia, G. E. (1994); Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004)
26	References Cited Alexander, P. A. & Fox, E. (2004). A historical perspective on reading research and practice. In R. B. Ruddell, N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 33-68). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Alexander, P. A. & Jetton, T. L. (2000). Learning from text: A multidimensional and developmental perspective. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 285-310). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Green, C., & Wisenbaker, J. M. (2004). Adolescents’ perceptions and negotiations of literacy practices in after-school read and talk clubs. In R. B. Ruddell, N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 870-913). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Anderson, B. V. & Barnitz, J. G. (1998). Cross-cultural schemata and reading comprehension instruction. In M. F. Opitz (Ed.), Literary instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A collection of articles and commentaries (pp. 95-101). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Applebee, A. N. (2000). Alternative models of writing development. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspective on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 90-110). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Applebee, A. N. (2003). Balancing the curriculum in the English language arts: Exploring the components of effective teaching and learning. In Handbook of Research on teaching the English language arts (2^nd ed., pp. 676-684). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
27	References Cited Bean, T. W. (2000). Reading in the content areas: Social constructivist dimensions. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 629- 644). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Bintz, W. P. (1993). Resistant readers in secondary education: Some insights and implications. Journal of Reading, 36:8, 604-615. Brock, C. H. (1997). Exploring the use of book club with second-language learners in mainstream classrooms. In S. I. McMahon, T. E. Raphael, V. J. Goatley, & L. S. Pardo (Eds.), The book club connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk (pp. 141-158). New York: Teachers College Press. Brooks, J. G. (2004). To see beyond the lesson. Educational leadership, 62(1), 8-12. Brozo, W. G. (2000). Hiding out in secondary classrooms: coping strategies of unsuccessful readers. In D. W. Moore, D. E. Alvermann, & K. A. Hinchmann (Eds.), Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of teaching strategies (pp. 51-56). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Calfee, R. C. (2000). Writing Portfolios: Activity, Assessment, Authenticity. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 278-304). Newark, Delaware: Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). Instructional approaches and teaching procedures. In K. Spangenberg-Urbschat & R. Pritchard (Eds.), Kids come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 82-107). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
28	References Cited Cunningham, P. M. & Allington, R. L. (2003). Classrooms that work: They can all read and write (3^rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York, NY: The Free Press. Fleischer, C. (2004). Professional development for teacher-writers. Educational leadership, 62(2), 24-28. Flood, J. & Lapp, D. (2000). Cognitive processes, curriculum resources and the missing links: Management and grouping. In R. Indrisano & J. Squire (Eds.) Perspectives on writing: Research, theory and practice (pp. 233-250). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Forman, E. A. & Cazden, C. B. (2004). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In R. B. Ruddell, N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 163-186). Newark, Delaware; International Reading Association. Fox, M. (2001). Reading Magic: Why reading aloud to our children will change their lives forever. New York: Harcourt, Inc.
29	References Cited Gaffney, J. S. & Anderson, R. C. (2000). Trends in reading research in the United States: Changing intellectual currents over three decades. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 53-74). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Garcia, G. E. (1994). Assessing the literacy development of second-language students: A focus on authentic assessment. In Spangenberg-Urbschat, K. & Pritchard, R. (Eds.), Kid come in all languages: Reading instruction for ESL students (pp. 180-205). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Gavelek, J. R., Raphael, T. E., Biondo, S. M., & Wang, D. (2000). Integrated literacy instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 587-607). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Gillet, J. W., Temple, C., & Crawford, A. N. (2004). Understanding reading problems: Assessment and instruction (6^th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Guthrie, J. T. & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 403- 422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
30	References Cited Harste, J. C., Burke, C. L., & Woodward, V. A. (1994). Children’s language and world: Initial encounters with print. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and processes of reading (4^th ed., pp. 48-69). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. Portland, Maine: Stenhouse Publishers. Hefflin, B. R. & Hartman, D. K. (2004). Using writing to improve comprehension: A review of the writing-to-read research. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 199- 228). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hoffman, J. V., Paris, S., Salas, R., Patterson, E., & Assaf, L. (2003). High-stakes assessment in the language arts: The piper plays, the players dance, but who pays the price? In Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2^nd ed., pp. 619-630). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Hu-Pei Au, K. (1998). Using the experience-text-relationship method with minority children. In M. F. Opitz (Ed.), Literacy instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A collection of articles and commentaries (pp. 102-104). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Joyce, B., Hrycauk, M., & Calhoun, E. (2001). A second chance for struggling readers. Educational Leadership, Mar. 42-46. Juel, C. & Minden-Cupp, C. (2004). Learning to read: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 313-359). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
31	References Cited Keene, E. O. (2002). From good to memorable: Characteristics of highly effective comprehension teaching. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 80-105). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Keene, E. O. & Zimmermann, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 1270-1328). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Langer, J. A. (2004). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 1040- 1082). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Langer, J. A. & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and reading relationships: Constructive tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research theory and practice (pp. 112-139). Newark Delaware: international Reading Association.
32	References Cited Laturnau, J. (2003). Standards-based instruction for English language learners. In G. G. Garcia (Ed.), English learners: Reaching the highest level of English literacy (pp. 286-306). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Many, J. E. (2004). The effect of reader stance on students’ personal understanding of literature. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 914-928). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Martinez, M. & Roser, N. L. (2003). Children’s responses to literature. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire, & J. M. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2^nd ed., pp. 799-813). Mahwah, NJ; Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. McTighe, J., Seif, E., & Wiggins, G. (2004). You can teach for meaning. Educational Leadership, 62, 26-30. Menon, S. & Hiebert, E. H. (2005). A comparison of first graders’ reading with little books or literature-based basal anthologies. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 12-38). Morrow, L. M. & Gambrell, L. B. (2000). Literature-based reading instruction. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 563-586). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Pinnell, G. S. (2002). The guided reading lesson: Explaining, supporting, and prompting for comprehension. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory and classroom practice (pp. 106-134). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33	References Cited Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 545-562). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Pressley, M. (2002). Improving comprehension instruction: A path for the future. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 385-399). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Readence, J. E., Moore, D. W., & Rickelman, R. J. (2000). Prereading activities for content area reading and learning, (3^rd ed.). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Romano, T. (2004). The power of voice. Educational leadership, 62(2), 20-23. Rosenblatt, L. M. (2004). The transactional theory of reading and writing. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 1363-1398). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Reutzel, D. R., Camperell, K., & Smith, J. A. (2002). Hitting the wall: Helping struggling readers comprehend. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 321-353). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34	References Cited Ruddell, R. B. & Unrau, N. J. (2004). The role of responsive teaching in focusing reader intention and developing reader motivation. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 954-978). Newark, Delaware: International Read Association. Saddler, B. & Andrade, H. (2004). The writing rubric. Educational leadership, 62(2), 48-52. Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1994). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.124-154). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Shepard, L. A. (2004). The role of assessment in a learning culture. In R. B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5^th ed., pp. 1614-1635). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40-68. Vacca, R. T. & Vacca, J. L. (2000). Writing across the curriculum. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Perspectives on writing: Research, theory, and practice (pp. 214-232). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
35	References Cited Valencia, S. W. & Wixson, K. K. (2000). Policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P, D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 909-935). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Wade, S. & Moje, E. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L. Kamil, R. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 525-543). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Wilkinson, L. C. & Silliman, E. R. (2000). Classroom language and literacy learning. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 3 (pp. 337- 360). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers. Wood, K. D. (2002). Differentiating reading and writing lessons to promote content learning. In C. C. Block, L. B. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Improving comprehension instruction: Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice (pp. 155-180). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Young, J. P., Mathews, S. R, Kietzmann, & Westerfield, T. (2000). Getting disenchanted adolescents to participate in school literacy activities: Portfolio conferences. In D. W. Moore, D. E. Alvermann, & Hinchman, K. A. (Eds.), Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of teaching strategies (pp. 302- 316). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.