Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
Assessing Academic Literacy: The role of text in comprehending
written language
Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.
Florida Center for Reading Research
Florida State University
2
What are the Issues?
• Academic literacy assumes grade-level proficiency.
• On the 2007 Reading NAEP, 33% below basic in G4; 26% below basic in G8.
• For minorities, the % below basic on the 2007 Reading NAEP are: 53% in G4 & 45% in G8 for Blacks; 50% in G4 and 42% in G8 for Hispanics.
• NCLB requires that students at-risk for reading disability receive intervention.
3
Goals for This Presentation
Explain relation of academic literacy to academic language
Definitions of reading comprehensionCharacteristics of text difficultyMeasuring text difficultyAssessing academic literacy
4
Academic Language is at the Core of Literacy Instruction
Word Meanings
Text
a. because it allows literate people to discuss literary products; previously referred to as extended discourse or decontextualized language.
b. because contextual cues and shared assumptions are minimized by explicitly encoding referents for pronouns, actions, and locations
5
13 higher- SES children(professional)
23 middle/lower- SES children(working class)
6 welfare 6 welfare childrenchildren
Age of child in monthsAge of child in months
Cu
mu
lati
ve V
ocab
ula
ry w
ord
sC
um
ula
t ive V
ocab
ula
r y w
ord
s
Hart & Risley, 1995
6
Esti
mate
d c
um
ula
tive w
ord
s a
dd
ressed
to c
hild
Age of child in months
Language ExperienceLanguage Experience
Professional
Working-class
Welfare
Hart & Risley, 1995
7
Quality Teacher Talk(Snow et al., 2007)
• Rare words • Ability to listen to
children and to extend their comments
• Tendency to engage children in cognitively challenging talk
• Promotes emergent literacy & vocabulary & literacy success in middle grades
8
Home & Schoolexperiences: ages 3-6 Skills developed: ages 3-6 School performance
Literacy
Print focus
Understandingliteracy
Kindergartenand first gradereading
Conversation
Extendeddiscourseforms andnonfamiliaraudiences
Conversationallanguage
Decontextualizedlanguage
Instruction andPractice in reading
Reading comprehensionIn Grade 4
(Snow, 1991)
9
Table 3
Variation in Amount of Independent Reading
% Independent Reading
Minutes Per Day
Words Read Per
Year 98 65.0 4,358,000 90 21.1 1,823,000 80 14.2 1,146,000 70 9.6 622,000 60 6.5 432,000 50 4.6 282,000 40 3.3 200,000 30 1.3 106,000 20 0.7 21,000 10 0.1 8,000
2 0.0 0
(Cunningham & Stanovich, 1998, adapted from Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding,1988)
10
Is Literacy Enough? (Snow et al., 2007)
For adolescents, oral language and literacy skills need to be adequate, but also need:
• Caring adult(s) at home
• Caring adults at school who provide guidance about how to meet goals (often need smaller school)
• Minimal risk: Not many school transitions; minimal family disturbances.
11
What is Reading Comprehension?
• “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND, 2002, p. 11)
• “Reading is an active and complex process that involves– Understanding written text– Developing and interpreting meaning; and– Using meaning as appropriate to type of text,
purpose, and situation” (NAEP Framework, 2009)
12
TEXT
ACTIVITY
READER
A heuristic for thinking about reading comprehension (Sweet & Snow, 2003).
Word recognition, vocabulary,background knowledge, strategyuse, inference-making abilities,motivation
Text structure, vocabulary, genrediscourse, motivating features,print style and font
Purpose, social relations,school/classroom/peers/families
Environment, cultural norms
13
Understanding what has been read; the application to written text of:(a) nonlinguistic(conceptual) knowledge (b) general language comprehension skills(Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, &
Seidenberg, 2001)
14
Emergent ReadingEmergent Reading
Word RecognitionWord Recognition
ComprehensionComprehension
FluencyFluency
Skilled ReadingSkilled ReadingThe Reading The Reading PillarPillar
Print Awareness & Letter Knowledge
Motivation to Read
Oral Language including
Phonological Awareness
Decoding using alphabetic principle
Decoding using other cues
Sight Recognition
Conceptual Knowledge/vocabulary
Strategic processing of text
Speed and ease of reading with
comprehension
(NRC, 1998)
15
What Makes a Text Difficult?
16
Components of Reading Comprehension (Perfetti, 1999)
Comprehension ProcessesIn
fere
nces
Situation Model
Text Representation
Parser
General Knowledge
Linguistic System Phonology Syntax Morphology
Meaning and Form Selection
WordRepresentation
OrthographicUnits
PhonologicalUnits
Visual Input
Word Identification
Lexicon Meaning Morphology Syntax
OrthographyMapping tophonology
17
Table 4 Representation of Oral and Written Vocabulary in Program (Types) A B C1 C2 D E
LWV Levels
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
2 889 (51.99) 897 (52.55) 891 (52.72) 1101 (48.96) 196 (64.47) 586 (55.44) 4 609 (35.61) 575 (33.68) 592 (35.03) 785 (34.90) 102 (33.55) 375 (35.48) 6 104 (6.08) 107 (6.27) 113 (6.69) 197 (8.76) 2 (.66) 53 (5.01) 8 47 (2.75) 35 (2.05) 33 (1.95) 64 (2.85) 1 (.33) 17 (1.61)
10 18 (1.05) 24 (1.41) 16 (.95) 28 (1.24) 1 (.33) 8 (.76) 12 25 (1.46) 41 (2.40) 23 (1.36) 45 (2.00) 2 (.66) 10 (.95) 13 9 (.53) 11 (.64) 14 (.83) 15 (.67) 6 (.57) 16 9 (.53) 17 (1.00) 8 (.47) 14 (.62) 2 (.19)
Total
1710
1707
1690
2249
304
1057
Mean
SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
SF1 53.24 (10.29) 52.64 (10.83) 53.78 (9.72) 51.91 (10.06) 61.42 (9.12) 55.38 (10.10)
Note. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary (Dale & O’Rourke, 1981). SFI = Standard Frequency Index Zeno et al., 1995).
Vocabulary Demands in 6 G1 Basals (Foorman et al., 2004)
18
Relation of Frequency in Corpus to Grade 1 Frequency in Zeno et al. (1995)
19
Some “rare” (G1 Basal) and “not-so-rare” (elementary literature) Words
WORD LWV Level Basal f/100 Lit. f/1,000,000
craft 6 .001684892 4.952
due 6 .002813969 11.638
elk 6 .002813969 7.429
exhausted 6 .002813969 7.429
fifth 8 .002813969 23.029
fins 8 .002813969 5.448
flung 6 .002813969 13.371
gathering 6 .002813969 16.343
generally 6 .002813969 11.886
greatly 8 .002813969 12.133
hooks 12 .002813969 5.200
hops 12 .002813969 5.200
horned 6 .002813969 5.200
household 6 .002813969 10.648
illness 6 .001684892 5.695
jersey 6 .002813969 10.648
kingdom 6 .002813969 20.800
layer 6 .002813969 25.257
leash 8 .001684892 11.390
least 6 .002813969 139.904
lights 13 .002813969 97.314
20
Representation of Opportunity Words Across Basals
Number of Programs
LWV Level 1 2 3 4
Total
6 87 33 9 0 129
8 14 12 4 2 32
10 11 2 3 0 16
12 22 2 5 0 29
13 3 1 0 1 5
16 4 1 0 0 5
Total 141 51 21 3 216
21
Opportunity Words in Grade 1 Basalsad creak glossary perch sped brilliant timid flahing plankton
amuse creamy gown phrase spoiled celebrated typical foal ticking
arch create granite poetry squad coral vacuum fro
attract crib grief poisonous squire draws vegetation gracious
backwards determination gust porcupine sturdy dune yourselves handles
blues device haze potter survive elegant alas hatching
blur display holly pox swap fins bog heather
boar doe horned prey swoop gerbil brute hooks
boast dose illness prickly tattered gruff cam hops
bony driftwood item pueblo thankful hermit cove mantis
breed elk jumper pulp ties heron dialogue mats
bronze establish kicks radar towering huff flora maze
burrow exhausted leapt relate turquoise lance framework minded
career fangs lent relay twinkle polar guinea rio
cement fearless listener resist veterinarian promises hangs senora
chops fig llama rhinoceros wag ramp hemisphere slanted
chowder flapped magnificent rhythm walrus reed lulu sneaking
clam fled marine rover wee reef ping stacks
clippers foil mercury rum whaling returns squid swish
clumsy frisky meter sculpture whew ribbons stripes tad
cocoon furthermore mi seller whoa rushes taps taro
con gallery mobile shack wraps scurry blasted taut
conservation galley mold shaken wrestle si boa twinkling
construction garlic outdoor shrug yelp stated buster amazon
contented genius overcome slimy zoom stirring chameleon digs
craft gigantic packet sow thud chi splitting
22
Conclusions on Vocabulary
• Publishers need to provide teachers with cumulative vocabulary lists
• These need to be made available electronically to textbook adopters and should include information on:– Frequency in text and lesson number– Separate entry for each definition used– Derivational forms– Printed word frequency in other relevant
corpora
23
Conclusions on Vocabulary
• Instruction needs to target oral language development from pre-school through high school
• Printed word frequency and age of acquisition are useful tools for guiding selection of lexical entries to be taught
• Assessment of vocabulary for the purpose of Reading First should focus on the link between assessment and instruction
24
Summary and Conclusions• Programs differ substantially in the
composition of their print materials for Grade 1 students
• Length of texts, grammatical complexity, numbers of unique and total words, repetition of words, coverage of important vocabulary
• Differences exist in the decodability of types and tokens– Generally there is greater decodability for tokens
than types, – most programs show improvements for types later
in the year
25
Summary and ConclusionsPrograms vary in the approach they take to
achieve decodability and in the degree to which materials can be expected to yield accuracy in reading.
- Vary in phonic elements taught
- Vary in opportunity to practice words containing these elements
- Within 6-week blocks, 70% of words are singletons in 4 of the 6 basals
- Vary in reliance on holistically-taught words
26
Implications for fluency• “…for dysfluent readers, the texts that are
read and reread for fluency practice need to have sufficiently high percentages of words within…the word zone fluency curriculum and low percentages of rare words, especialy multisyllabic ones” ( p. 18)
• “Repetition of core words makes science text ideal for fluency practice in the primary grades” (p. 11)
Hiebert (2007)
27
Word Zone Fluency CurriculumHigh-Freq Words Phonics/Syllable Morphological
A 300 most freq accuracy rate of 40% in first grade in Seymour et al., 2003).
Short/long vowels Simple, inflected endings (ed, ing, s, es,’s)
B 500 most freq Short & long & r-controlled vowels
C 1,000 most freq All monosyllabic
D 1,000 most freq 2-syllable compound words with at least 1 root from 1,000 most frequent words
Prefixes: un, a
Suffixes: er, est,
ly, y (doubling)
E 2,500 most freq
F 5,000 most freq
28
Jabberwocky (Lewis Carroll, 1872)
‘Twas brillig, and the slithy tovesDid gyre and gimble in the wabe:All mimsy were the borogoves,And the mome raths outgrabe.
“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!”
And four more stanzas From Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There
29
Discussion
You know how to pronounce the words in Jabberwocky; some are real English words.
1. Which ones are real English words?
2. What is the distinction between those that are actual English words and those that aren’t?
3. Do the two paragraphs differ in these distinctions?
30
Alice’s reaction
“It seems very pretty,” she said when she had finished it, but it’s rather hard to understand!” (You see she didn’t like to confess, even to herself, that she couldn’t make it out at all.) “Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas—only I don’t exactly know what they are! However, somebody killed something: that’s clear at any rate—”
31
NAEP 2009 Reading Framework
Characteristics of text difficulty:
• Vocabulary reported out separately
• Subscales for literary & informational text
• Grade-level standards for text type
32
2009 NAEP FrameworkLiterary Text
● Fiction● Literary Nonfiction● Poetry
Informational Text● Exposition ● Argumentation and Persuasive Text● Procedural Text and Documents
Cognitive Targets Distinguished by Text Type
Locate/Recall Integrate/Interpret Critique/Evaluate
33
Advanced G4 students at the Advanced level should be able to:
Interpret figurative languageMake complex inferencesIdentify point of viewEvaluate character motivationDescribe thematic connections across literary texts.
G4 students at Advanced level should be able to:
Make complex inferencesEvaluate the coherence of a textExplain author’s point of viewCompare ideas across texts
Proficient G4 students at the Proficient level should be able to:
Infer character motivationInterpret mood or toneExplain themeIdentify similarities across textsIdentify elements of author’s crafts
G4 students at Proficient level should be able to:
Identify author’s implicitly stated purposeSummarize major ideasFind evidence in support of an argumentDistinguish between fact and opinionDraw conclusions
Basic G4 students at the Basic level should be able to:
Locate textually explicit information, such as plot, setting, and characterMake simple inferencesIdentify supporting detailsDescribe character’s motivationDescribe the problemIdentify mood
G4 students at the Basic level should be able to:
Find the topic sentence or main ideaIdentify supporting detailsIdentify author’s explicitly stated purposeMake simple inferences
AchievementLevel
Literary Informational
Achievement Levels for Grade 4 NAEP Reading
34
2009 NAEP FrameworkEnglish Mathematics History Science
text type
literary informational or technical, symbolic, diagrams
expository, argumentative, persuasive
Informational or technical, diagrams
text
structure
plot, setting, characterization, point of view, verse, rhyme
sequence, cause and effect, problem and solution, supporting ideas and evidence, graphical features
sequence, cause and effect, problem and solution, author’s perspective supporting ideas and evidence, contrasting viewpoints, graphical features
sequence, cause and effect, problem and solution, supporting ideas and evidence, graphical features
author’s craft
diction, dialogue, symbolism, imagery, irony, figurative language
rhetorical structure, examples, logical arguments
figurative language, rhetorical structure, examples, emotional appeal
rhetorical structure, examples, logical arguments
35
36
What Does Mean to be Proficient?
• W score cutpoints on NAEP and state tests communicate grade-level proficiency or benchmark performance.
• State curriculum standards need to be aligned with benchmarks/proficiency levels.
• Are states’ proficiency levels comparable to NAEP’s?
37
% Proficient on State vs NAEP Reading 2005
State 4-state 4-NAEP DIFF 8-state 4-NAEP DIFF
ME 53 35 -18 44 38 - 6
MO 35 33 - 2 33 31 - 2
WY 47 34 -13 39 36 - 3
TX 79 29 -50 83 26 -57
GA 87 26 -61 83 25 -58
NC 84 29 -55 89 27 -62
[Porter, 2007]
38
Most state testing systems do not assess college and work readiness
• 26 states require students to pass an exam before they graduate high school.*
• Yet most states have testing systems that do not measure college and work readiness.**
*Source: Center on Education Policy, State High School Exit Exams: States Try Harder, But Gaps Persist, August 2005.**Source: Achieve Survey/Research, 2006.
39
Graduation exams in 26 states establish the performance “floor”
Figure reads: Alaska has a mandatory exit exam in 2005 and is withholding diplomas from students based on exam performance. Arizona is phasing in a mandatory exit exam and plans to begin withholding diplomas based on this exam in 2006. Connecticut does not have an exit exam, nor is it scheduled to implement one.
Source: Center on Education Policy, based on information collected from state departments of education, July 2005.
40
How challenging are state exit exams?
• Achieve conducted a study of graduation exams in six states to determine how high a bar the tests set for students.
• The results show that these tests tend to measure only 8th, 9th or 10th grade content, rather than the skills students needs to succeed in college and the workplace.
41
The tests Achieve analyzed
StateGrade Given Reading Writing Math
First Graduating Class Facing Requirement
Florida 10th • • 2003
Maryland End of course • • • 2009
Massachusetts 10th • • • 2003
New Jersey 11th • • • 2003
Ohio 10th • • 2007
Texas 11th • • • 2004
Source: Achieve, Inc., Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? A Closer Look at State High School Exit Exams, 2004.
42
Students can pass state English tests with skills ACT expects of 8th & 9th graders
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
FL
MD
MA
NJ
OH
TX
ACT EXPLORE (8th/9th)
ACT PLAN (10th)
ACT (11th/12th)
Source: Achieve, Inc., Do Graduation Tests Measure Up? A Closer Look at State High School Exit Exams, 2004.
43
% Students Proficient on FCAT(Level 3 and above)
Grade 2001 2006 Difference
3 57 75 18
4 53 66 13
5 52 67 15
6 52 64 12
7 47 62 15
8 43 46 3
9 28 40 12
10 37 32 -5
44
Is 10th Grade FCAT Too Hard?
• The St. Petersburg Times article (4/15/07) concluded correctly that the 10th Grade FCAT is harder than the 10th grade NRT.
• Conclusion based on fact that Level 3 (proficient) performance is 56th %ile nationally at Gr 7; 80th %ile at Gr 10
• Or “Why wait until high school to implement world class standards?”
45
Abs
olut
e le
vel o
f re
adin
g pr
ofic
ienc
y
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Absolute level of reading proficiency nationally
Grade level standard on the FCAT
46
Passage Length in WordsGrade FCAT range FCAT average NAEP range NAEP average
3 100-700 350
4 100-900 400 200-800
5 200-900 450
6 200-1000 500
7 300-1100 600
8 300-1100 700 400-1000
9 300-1400 800
10 300-1700 900 500-1500 (12) 1000 (12)
47
% of Passage Types
Grade FCAT Literary Texts
FCAT Informa-tional Texts
NAEP Literary Texts
NAEP Informa-tional Texts
3 60% 40%
4 50% 50% 50% 50%
5 50% 50%
6 50% 50%
7 40% 60%
8 40% 60% 45% 55%
9 30% 70%
10 30% 70% 30% (12) 70% (12)
48
FCAT Test Design
• Cognitive Complexity (Webb’s Depth of Knowledge)
• Content Categories for Reading
- Words & phrases in context
- Main idea, plot, & author’s purpose
- Comparison; cause/effect
- Reference & Research – locate, organize, interpret, synthesize, & evaluate information
49
To Make Proficiency Standards Meaningful and Fair
• Agree on target for proficiency (e.g., college readiness)
• Align elementary, middle, and high school targets
• Align curriculum standards
• Evaluate dimensionality of tests and prepare instruction accordingly
• Equate state tests with NAEP to guarantee comparability and equity
50
From Barbara Tuckman’s The Zimmerman Telegram…
The first message of the morning watch plopped out of the pneumatic tube into a wire basket with no more premonitory rattle than usual. The duty officer at the British Navel Intelligence twisted open the cartridge and examined the German wireless intercept it contained without noting anything of unusual significance. When a glance showed him that the message was in non-navel code, he sent it in to the Political Section in the inner room and thought no more about it. The date was January 17, 1917, past the halfway mark of a war that had already ground through thirty months of reckless carnage and no gain.
51
What Makes This Text Difficult?
• Consider the text type and structure
• Consider prior knowledge
• Consider the vocabulary
• Consider the discourse features—linguistic markers for coherence, coreference, deixis
• Other factors?
52
Instructional Considerations• Text Type/Structure
– persuasive text • anti-war sentiment, “thirty months of reckless carnage and no gain”• indictment of war bureaucracy
– narrative structure
– historical non-fiction
• Prior Knowledge – World War I
• text references: war, 1917, British, German, duty officer
– early 20th century communications• text references: telegram, pneumatic tube, wire basket, wireless intercept
– Zimmerman telegram• text references: German wireless, non-naval code
53
54
Instructional Considerations (continued)
• Vocabulary – academic language
• examined, significance, “ground through”
– generative words• premonitory, carnage, intercept
– Tier 3 vocabulary (military domain)• “morning watch,” non-naval code, German wireless, pneumatic tube
• Linguistic Markers (Coherence Relations)– pronouns
• duty officer = he, him
– co-references • German wireless intercept = the message
– deixis• “in the inner room”
– chronology • “When a glance showed him that the message was in non-navel code,…”
55
Instructional Delivery
• Model strategies (activating background knowledge, questioning, searching for information, summarizing, organizing graphically, identifying story structure (e.g., Guthrie et al., 2004; Brown, Pressley et al., 1996)
• Keep the focus on the meaning of the text through high quality discussion.
• Model “thinking like an historian” (e.g., sourcing) to provide a purpose for reading (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004).
56
Measuring Text Difficulty
• Teacher judgment
• Readability: Tuchman passage ranges from 8.4 on Dale-Chall to 13.3 on the Flesch-Kincaid & Fry; 13.5 on Lexiles.
• Latent semantic analysis
• Natural language processing (e.g., McNamara, 2001)
• Text equating to control passage difficulty
57
Limitations of readability
• Circular use
• Capture surface features only
• Measurement error on specialized text
- Primary grade text
- Poetry
- Technical documents (e.g., train schedules; tax forms)
58
How Do We Assess Academic Literacy?
59
Discussion of Academic Literacy Assessment
• What are the important knowledge and skills to assess in K-3?
• What are the important knowledge and skills to assess in 4-12?
• What kind of text should be used?
• What kind of outcome measures should be used?
60
Converging Evidence
Valid and reliable predictors of risk for reading difficulty are:
Print concepts (early K) Letter name knowledge (early K) Phonological awareness and letter sounds (K-1) Rapid naming of letters (end of K to early G1) Word recognition (G1 and beyond) Vocabulary
(Fletcher et al., 2002; Scarsborough, 1998; Torgesen, 2002)
61
Assessing written language• Use various formats to assess:
--multiple choice--cloze--maze--question/answer--constructed response--retelling--sentence verification
• Report achievement in language proficiency levels to chart ELLs progress (Francis, 2008)
62
New PK-12 Florida Reading Assessment System
• Instructionally useful; free to FL schools in 2009-2010• Includes vocabulary and comprehension • Computer administered in grades 3-12• Screening, progress monitoring, & diagnostic assessments;
data available in the Progress Monitoring & Reporting Network (PMRN)
• Screen is empirically linked to the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT) or outcome measure
• Targeted diagnostic inventories administered to students not meeting expectations are linked to Florida standards and provide information for guiding instruction
• Reading comprehension & oral reading fluency passages are equated for difficulty to allow for accurate progress monitoring
• Instructional level passages provided
63
New Reading Assessments
• PK: print knowledge, phonological awareness, vocabulary, math (linked to K screening)
• K-2: phonemic awareness, letter knowledge, decoding, encoding, fluency, vocabulary, listening or reading comp.
• 3-12: adaptive complex & low level reading comp., fluency, word analysis, skill assessment
• K-12: Informal reading inventories• Lexile scores in grades 3-12 allow matching students to
text and access to online libraries• Identifies risk of reading difficulties and reading
disabilities
64
New Reading Assessments
66
References• Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.E. (2004). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high
school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.
• Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18-37.
• Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Davidson, K., Harm, M., & Griffin, J. (2004). Variability in text features in six grade 1 basal reading programs. Scientific Studies in Reading, 8(2), 167-197.
• Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K.C., Tabada, A., Davis, M.H., Scafiddi, N.T., & Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented
Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423.• Hiebert, E.H. (2007). A fluency curriculum and the texts that support it. In P. Schwanenflugel & M. Kuhn
(Eds.), Creating a literacy curriculum: Fluency instruction. New York: Guilford Press.• National Assessment Governing Board (in press). 2009 NAEP Reading Framework. Washington, D.C.:
Author. Retrieved March 26, 2007 from http://www.naepreading.org/. • National Research Council (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Committee on the
Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Commission on Behavioral and Social Science and Education. In C.E. Snow, M.S. Burns, and P. Griffin (Eds.). Washington, DC: Nat’l Academy Press
• Perfetti, C.A. (1991). Representation and awareness in the acquisition of reading competence. In L. Rieben & C. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: basic research and its implications (pp. 33-44). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Porter, A. (2007). NCLB lessons learned: Implications for reauthorization. In A. Gamoran (Ed.), Will “No Child Left Behind “ help close the poverty gap? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
• RAND Reading Study Group (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a R&D program in reading comprehension. Arlington, VA: RAND.
• Snow, E., Porche, M., Tabors, P., & Harris, S. (2007). Is literary enough? Baltimore, MD: Brookes.• Snowling, M.J., & Hulme, C. (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. NY: Blackwell.• Sweet, A.P., & Snow, C.E. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. NY: The Guilford Press.• Zeno, S.M., Ivens, S.H., Millard, R.T., Duvvuri, R. (1995). The educator’s word frequency guide. NY:
Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.
