how develoura knowledge influenced these students' … CQ. The Influence of Embedded Word-Study. Instruction, Social Context, and Motivation of Children's Independent Reading and Writing:

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 400 522 CS 012 632

AUTHOR Anderson, Emily; And OthersTITLE The Influence of Embedded Word-Study Instruction,

Social Context, and Motivation of Children'sIndependent Reading and Writing: A Case Study of 3First-Graders. Reading Research Report No. 65.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 96

CONTRACT 117A20007

NOTE 40p.

PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Beginning Reading; Case Studies; *Classroom

Environment; *Decoding (Reading); Grade 1; HolisticApproach; *Instructional Effectiveness; LowAchievement; Primary Education; Qualitative Research;Reading Research; Social Influences; Spelling;Writing Research

IDENTIFIERS *Embedding (Grammar); Word Knowledge

ABSTRACTA qualitative study followed slow-progress students

as they engaged in embedded word studies in thP;r classroom-basedliteracy activities. Issues addressed were: (1) the ways embeddedword studies promoted slower-progress students' word knowledge; (2)

how develoura knowledge influenced these students' reading andwriting attempts; and (3) effects of the social context on beginningreaders' strategies and motivation to gain word knowledge.Participants included a Caucasian male, an African-American male, anAfrican-American female, and their teacher in an eastern UnitedStates public school. Open and axial coding was performed on fieldnotes (including interviews), running records, and students' writingsamples to find recurring patterns. Instruction successfully promotedthe case-study students' individual progress. Social context was ameans to enhance students' involvement that increased strategy use.Findings support the view that word studies can be embedded within aholistic literacy setting in ways that result in gains in spellingand decoding competence. (Contains 40 references and 9 figures ofdata.) (Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

QS'

CQ

The Influence of Embedded Word-StudyInstruction, Social Context,and Motivation of Children'sIndependent Reading and Writing:A Case Study of 3 First-GradersEmily AndersonJohn F. O'FlahavanJohn T. GuthrieUniversity of Maryland College Park

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

G(This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 65

Summer 1996

2BEST COPY MAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

The Influence of Embedded Word-Study Instruction,Social Context, and Motivation on Children's

Independent Reading and Writing:A Case Study of 3 First-Graders

Emily AndersonJohn F. O'Flahavan

John T. GuthrieUniversity of Maryland College Park

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 65Fall 1996

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

3

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle, Assistant DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public InstructionCarl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Barbara McCombsMid-Continent Regional Educational Laboratory (MCREL)Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Peter WinogradUniversity of Kentucky

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. Rich

University of Georgia

Text FormatterAngela R. Wilson

University of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: [email protected]

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Univer-sity of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appears inseveral formats. Research Reports communicate theresults of original research or synthesize the findings ofseveral lines of inquiry. They are written primarily forresearchers studying various areas of reading andreading instruction. The Perspective Series presents awide range of publications, from calls for research andcommentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AlmasiUniversity of Buffalo-SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Marna BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartoliElizabethtown College

Eurydice BauerUniversity of Georgia

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeAmherst College

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Fenice BoydUniversity of Georgia

Karen BromleyBinghamton University

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Marcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-San

Bernardino

Mark DressmanNew Mexico State University

Ann DuffyUniversity of Georgia

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Gay IveyUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public Schools

Lawrenceville, Georgia

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa McFallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Amber T. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College-CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

7

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Bettie St. PierreUniversity of Georgia

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartUniversity of Wyoming

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allan WigfieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Hallic YoppCalifornia State University

About the Authors

Emily Anderson is a doctoral student in thedepartment of Human Development at the Univer-sity of Maryland College Park, where she is spe-cializing in Educational Psychology. She is aformer elementary school teacher, and for the pasteight years has been a private reading tutor tostudents of all ages. She received her M.Ed. fromthe University of Utah. She works as a graduateresearch assistant at the National Reading Re-search Center and continues to tutor childrenprivately. Emily's research interests are literacydevelopment, environments for learning, andmotivation.

John T. Guthrie is a Professor of Human Devel-opment at the University of Maryland CollegePark, and Co-Director of the National ReadingResearch Center (NRRC). The Center conductsstudies of reading, writing, science and historylearning, assessment and professional develop-ment. Prior to this position, Dr. Guthrie headedthe University of Maryland's Center for Educa-tional Research and Development. Dr. Guthriewas formerly the Director of Research for theInternational Reading Association 1974-1984. Hereceived his Ph.D. from the University of Illinoisin Educational Psychology. In 1992, the NationalReading Conference awarded him the OscarCausey Award for outstanding contributions toreading research. He is a Fellow in the AmericanPsychological Association, AmericanPsychologi-cal Society, the National Council of Research inEnglish, and was elected to the Reading Hall ofFame in 1994. Dr. Guthrie's interests are literacydevelopment and environments for learning.

John F. O'Flahavan is an Associate Professor inthe Department of Curriculum and Instruction,College of Education, University of Maryland,College Park, and a Principal Investigator in theNational Reading Research Center. Presently, heteaches undergraduate and graduate courses inreading/language arts and conducts research incomprehensive, school-wide literacy programs,with emphasis on early literacy instruction.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 65

Fall 1996

The Influence of Embedded Word-Study Instruction,Social Context, and Motivation on Children's

Independent Reading and Writing:A Case Study of 3 First-Graders

Emily AndersonJohn F. O'Flahavan

John T. GuthrieUniversity of Maryland College Park

Abstract. This study followed slow-progressstudents as they engaged in embedded word studiesin their classroom-based literacy activities. Thequestions asked were: (a) In what ways do embed-ded word studies promote slower-progress students'word knowledge?; (b) How is developing wordknowledge influencing these students' reading andwriting attempts?; and (c) What effect does thesocial context have on beginning readers' strategiesand motivation to gain word knowledge? Partici-pants included a Caucasian male, an African-Ameri-can male and female, and their teacher in an easternUnited States public school. A qualitative approach(Strauss & Corbin, 1990) was employed in thisstudy. Open and axial coding was performed onfield notes (including interviews), running records,and students' writing samples to find recurringpatterns. Instruction successfully promoted the case-study students' individual progress. Social contextwas a means to enhance students' involvement thatincreased strategy use. Instructional implications are

discussed.

1

Most educators agree that a deep and thor-ough knowledge of English orthography en-ables fluent word decoding during reading andaccurate spelling during writing. Word recog-nition is the strongest predictor of higher levelreading comprehension (Perfetti, 1985) andfluent word recognition is dependent on knowl-edge of orthographic patterns (Bear, Inver-nizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 1996; Juel,Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Liberman, Shank-weiler, Fischer, & Carter, 1974; Mann, 1984).However, literacy professionals cannot reachconsensus on the best methods for promotingword knowledge. Some argue for a formal spell-ing program to run parallel with reading andwriting instruction (e.g., Henderson, 1990).Others argue that phonics instruction shouldanchor early reading instruction (e.g., Adams,1990). Some make the case that word-levelinstruction can coexist in holistic language artsinstruction (e.g, Freppon & Dahl, 1991;

9

2 Anderson, O'Flahavan, & Guthrie

O'Flahavan & Blassberg, 1992; Sawyer, 1988;Wilde, 1992).

This renewal of the Great Debate in earlyliteracy education (Chall, 1967) coincides witha new perspective on the role of word knowl-edge in literacy. In the past, literacy educatorsassumed that word recognition and word pro-duction were two distinct skills (e.g., Frith,1980), because the errors that children madewhile reading and spelling were distinct, lead-ing to the conclusion that there were two pos-sible cognitive sources for recognition andproduction. However, recent evidence suggeststhat children draw from a centralized source ofword knowledge, and that differences in recog-nition and production errors may be due to thedifferent cognitive demands involved whilereading and writing. In general, researchersnow contend that word production (or spelling)is a far more sophisticated task than wordrecognition (e.g., Bear et al., 1996; Gill,1992).

Consequently, there is a flurry of class-room-based research focused on reversing thetradition of insulating word study from realreading and writing contexts and embeddingthe study of words in the natural language andliteracy practices of the classroom (e.g., Cun-ningham, 1995; Mills, O'Keefe, & Stephens,1992; O'Flahavan & Blassberg, 1992; Uhry &Shepherd, 1993; Wilde, 1992). While someapproaches are more embedded than others,many of these approaches sample words fromactual reading and writing experiences, uselearning activities that involve students inconstructing their understandings of how spell-ing works (e.g., generating and sorting wordfamilies; hunting for words), depend on a print

rich environment (e.g., word wall), and assessstudents' word knowledge continuously (e.g.,looking at students' invented spellings).

Although strategy development and thor-ough word knowledge are cognitive processes,they are also influenced by social and motiva-tional factors. Some people believe a collabora-tive context supports strategy learning anddevelopment. For example, Paris and col-leagues argue that constructing meaning pro-motes motivation by assisting children inmaking sense of their learning the task inwhich they engage and the strategies theyemploy (Paris & Byrnes, and colleagues;Turner & Paris, 1995). Not only do interactiveliteracy activities teach children the societalfunction and conventions of reading, theseactivities also link reading with fun and satis-faction, which increases children's desires toinvolve themselves in literacy tasks (Morrow,1993; Tea le, 1982).

Social contexts also support motivation forliteracy activities. Guthrie, Mc Gough, Bennett,& Rice (1996) define motivations for readingas internalized reasons for reading that activatethinking that enables students to perform avariety of tasks and participate in social con-texts. Social interaction is motivating in manyways. Peer comments and suggestions canspark students' interests. Students' confidenceand self-efficacy may increase by watchingtheir peers (Schunk, 1989). Cooperative learn-ing research has shown that working withothers promotes student engagement in workand group awareness (Slavin, 1987). Collabo-ration can increase both effort and persistence.More challenging tasks are more intrinsicallymotivating for students (Hooper, 1994). Situa-

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 65

10

Word Study, Social Context, and Motivation 3

tions that encourage productive social interac-tion yield choices for students to become moreconfident and competent readers and writers(Turner & Paris, 1995).

Social contexts are a means to supportliteracy activities. Social impact and rewardscreate the push or the motivation for students tospend the time that is necessary for them tolearn to read and write. The more feedback andencouragement they receive from peers andteachers, the more persistently children con-tinue to imitate the literate behaviors of theirrole models (Bear et al., 1996). Social interac-tion is motivating in many ways. Peer com-ments and suggestions can spark students'interests. Students' confidence and self-efficacymay increase by interacting with their peers(Schunk, 1989). Situations that encourageproductive social interaction yield choices forstudents to become more confident and compe-tent readers and writers (Turner & Paris,1995). Students' involvement in learning in-cludes both cognition and motivation, operatingtogether, not separate from one another (Pintrich& Schrauben, 1992).

We need to learn more about how studentsmarshall their developing word knowledge asthey read and write independently in an embed-ded word-study environment. The purpose ofthe study was to examine the intersection ofsocial context, strategy use, and motivation inearly literacy to better understand the effectthese factors have on slower-progress readersand writers. This study followed three slow-progress first-graders as they engaged in em-bedded word studies in the context of theirclassroom-based reading and writing activitiesover a period of 4 months.. The questions guid

ing the investigation were: (a) In what ways doembedded word studies promote slower-prog-ress students' word knowledge?; (b) How isdeveloping word knowledge influencing thesestudents' word recognition and word produc-tion attempts?; and (c) What effect does thesocial context have on beginning readers'strategies and motivation to gain word knowl-edge?

Method

This research was conducted in the contextof a larger collaborative research and devel-opment project between Arlington PublicSchools, Virginia, and the National ReadingResearch Center, University of Maryland. Themission of the continuing project is to decreasethe dependence on reduced-ratio literacy inter-ventions (e.g., Reading Recovery®; Chapter Iservices) by transforming regular classroominstruction. A qualitative approach (Strauss &Corbin, 1990) was employed in this study todocument how 3 case-study students acquiredword knowledge and applied this knowledge toindependent reading and writing activities.

Participants

The teacher. Maria is an intelligent, ener-getic teacher who has taught kindergarten andfirst grade for 7 years. Maria's first-grade classwas an ethnically, linguistically, and economi-cally diverse group of students. She added tothis diversity with her Filipino heritage. Infor-mal interviews revealed that Maria believes theclassroom should be a community in whichstudents have access to as many resources aspossible to help them learn. When asked howshe accomplished this goal, she explained that



she taught her students to have tolerance andrespect for each other as people by allowingeach student to share his/her native culture andheritage with the class. Maria said, "Once thestudents felt like they were all on equal ground,they could trust and help each other to learn."Maria said she also encouraged them to shareideas and ask advice from their peers; shetaught them how to be resources, and how toget help from others, not just from her. Hermain goal at the beginning of the year was tocreate a classroom environment where it wasokay to take risks and make mistakes; sheexplained this to her students and told them"that's how we learn."

The case-study students. Before the studybegan, 3 students were chosen to participate inthe study: a Caucasian male, Peter; an African-American male, Ben; and an African-Amerianfemale, Tania.1 The students were chosenbased on: (a) progress along a scale of spellingknowledge as determined by a DevelopmentalSpelling Analysis (Ganske, 1993); (b) level ofreading progress as determined by teacherranking and from the teacher's continuousrunning record assessment; and (c) exclusionfrom supplemental services, such as ReadingRecovery® or ESOL.

Maria took running records of her studentson a regular basis. They were usually takenduring the free-choice time, after she finishedher guided reading groups. Her running recordswere always taken on the second exposure to atext. The bulk of her reading materials hadbeen leveled following the procedures set forthby Peterson (1991). Each month, she recorded

'Pseudonyms that preserve ethnic heritage and genderare used for the case-study students.

the highest, latest reading-level of each studentin her room.

Current research on word knowledge sug-gests that a child's developing word produc-tion, or invented spelling, lags behind otherforms of word knowledge, such as vocabularyand word recognition (e.g., Bear et al., 1996;Gill, 1992). For example, Bear et al. (1996)contend that certain kinds of spelling errors atspecific stages of orthographic knowledgereflect a progressive discrimination of wordelements, which then determines how wordsare read and written. Consequently, in thisstudy, we elected to assess student's spellingdevelopment as an indicator of students' wordknowledge.

Henderson (1990) formulated six stages ofspelling development. These stages are descrip-tive of students' spelling behavior and the basicspelling strategies they use in each stage. Theyare: preliterate (e.g., alphabet-like and text-like attempts at script), early letter name (e.g. ,

syllabic writingP for STOP), middle and lateletter name (e.g., reliance on letter names torepresent phonemesPET for PETE), within-word patterns (e.g., errors related to lowervowel variantsBATE for BAKE), syllablejuncture (e.g., errors at syllable boundariesBAKEING for BAKING), and derivationalconstancy (e.g., errors related to derivationsCOMPUTISHUN for COMPETITION). SeeBear et al. (1996) for more a detailed descrip-tion of these stages.

Ganske (1993) developed and validated aqualitative inventory useful in determining astudent's progress along these six stages. Thisinventory was administered to all of Maria'sstudents in October 1994 and again in June


12


1995. The words were then scored according tothe Bear et al. (1996) scale (see Figure 1),which illustrates the pre-post view of the case-study students' spelling development over time.

Examination of these data, combined withteacher ranking and a list of students whoreceived supplemental services, resulted in theselection of the case-study students (n = 3). InOctober 1994, these 3 students were the slowest-progress readers and spellers in a class of 18students, and did not receive supplementalservices. Seven other students (n=7), who alsodid not receive supplemental services exhibitedhigher independent reading levels and moreadvanced progress in spelling. Four students(n=2) who received second-language servicesin English (ESOL) read and spelled at slightlyhigher levels. Two students (n=2) who re-ceived special education support and twostudents (n=2) who received Reading Recov-ery® instruction read at a much lower indepen-dent level; however, these students' spellingprogress was equivalent to the case-studystudents.

The Classroom Context

Maria employed a variety of materials in herliteracy program including the following: envi-ronmental print, such as posters, pictures,books, and visual aids. All of these were abun-dant in number and accessible to the students.Everything in her room was a resource for thestudents. Maria kept a teaching log from whichher daily instructional decisions were make,based on her observations of the students'reading and writing attempts. She responded tostudents' developmental needs by introducing

appropriate word patterns in her instruction.For example, a word wall covered the entiresouth wall of the room (approximately 20' x8'). Words were assembled in alphabeticalorder and there were dozens of manipulativeword cards on the wall, and on charts, thatdepicted various word patterns (e.g., five waysto spell the "long e" sound). The word wasused to accomplish different goals, namely todevelop and gain familiarity with key wordpatterns. It was used as an archive for students'reading and writing activities (Wagstaff, 1994).Maria encouraged the students throughout theday to use these environmental resources asthey read and wrote independently.

Other resources that were available includeda listening center complete with headphones,tape recorders and books; and an invitingreading corner stocked full of books of manykinds, and on many different reading levels,and with soft cushions for sitting and reading.At times, there were colorful student picturesfrom art class on the wall, plants and seedsgrowing in the window sill, and a pet snake ina cage. These items displayed in the classroomwere used as props and tools for students togenerate writing and other word-study activi-ties. The pet snake, for example, served as acatalyst for live observation and independentwriting (see Figure 2).

Embedded Word Study

Maria strived to embed word-study activitieswithin the natural language and literature ofher classroom. These activities were taught insmall-group or whole-class contexts, dependingon the developmental needs of the students.


13


8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00

t 4.00

3.00

200

1.00

0.00

Progress in Spelling: Average Progress Through Developmental StagesBy Group and Time

Oc -94

Time

--0--ESOL Ss (n=4)12 RESOURCE Ss (n =2)

6TARGET Ss (n=3)X-- RDG RECOVERY Ss (n=2))k OTHER Ss (n=7)

0CLASS AVERAGE (N=18)

Jun-95

15-Point Spelling-By-Stage Assessment

Late Derivational Constancy 15

Middle Derivational Constancy 14

Beginning Derivational Constancy 13

Late Syllable Juncture 12

Middle Syllable Juncture 11

Early Syllable Juncture 10

Late Within-Word Pattern 9

Middle Within-Word Pattern 8

Beginning Within-Word Pattern 7

Late Letter Name 6

Middle Letter Name 5

Early Letter Name 4

Early Letter Name 3

Early Letter Name 2

Preliterate 1

Figure I. Spelling Progress: Average progress through developmental stages by group and time.


14BEST COPY AVAILABLE

0

0

0


book stand

Books

Washed

ti

I

1111111F

c=-.)

deskO

backcha'

Figure 2. Floor plan of Maria's first grade classroom.


15


Maria assessed the needs of her students byevaluating their word recognition to individualdifferences (e.g., preliterate vs. within-wordspellers). She would occasionally group herstudents for differentiated word-study activi-ties. If she observed that students had troubleproducing certain features (e.g., initial conso-nants, blends, vowel patterns) or certain wordpattern or word chunks (e.g., ack, a_e, ay),she would introduce them in the next word-study activity.

For example, to introduce consonant blendsbr, gr, and tr, Maria used the book The ThreeBilly Goat's Gruff. In a shared reading with theclass, she read the book and had the studentsfind all the words that were spelled with theseblends. The students then generated some fromtheir own memory, and Maria wrote the wordson chart paper. The students were then sent tohunt for other examples of the "r blends."Eventually, these examples were placed onmanipulative word cards to be used for otherrelated activities such as picture and word sortswhere students had to distinguish the sound ofthe blends from one another. Eventually, thestudents constructed an "archive" of the fea-tures with selected examples and posted thearchive in a place in the classroom that wasaccessible during any reading and writingactivity (see Figure 3).

Daily Schedule

Typically, literacy instruction in Maria'sclass began at 9:10 a.m. with a shared readingof a book or a "morning message" she hadwritten to the class on a dry-erase board. Themorning message informed students of the

day's activities. Maria used the opportunity toreinforce previously taught patterns or printconventions by deleting or manipulating thosefeatures in the message and asking individualstudents to provide the missing patterns by"sharing the pen" with her. The words focusedon specific word patterns (e.g., words with the"long e" sound) and reinforced writing-processconcepts (e.g., parts of a letter). Studentsgenerated words from the morning message toadd to the word wall.

At 9:30 a.m., students engaged in "freeflow centers." These centers gave studentsopportunities to engage in word study, writing,and other literacy activities at the appropriatedevelopmental level, or reinforced a science,social studies, or health theme. Maria intro-duced the new activities offered for that dayand explained how to do the given assign-ments. Each table featured a reading or writingactivity that incorporated the previous day'sword-study topic (e.g., picture sorts withblends br, gr, and tr). New activities featureda new word-study activity the class had talkedabout or learned in the morning message. Forexample, one table may have a picture- orword-sort activity. One table may have writingjournals on it for children to write on theirown. The students had freedom of choice withthe centers, but they were required to monitorthemselves to make sure they finished the workrequired for each table. Students were allowedto read at the reading corner (alone or with abuddy), listen to books on tape, and followalong with the book. Word-study activitiescame from the natural language of the class-room and through a variety of activities such asthese. All activities were designed to givestudents success.


16

17

AN

EM

BE

DD

ED

WO

RD

ST

UD

Y S

YST

EM

:Fl

ow C

hart

Con

tinuo

usA

sses

smen

tof

Stu

dent

s' W

ord

Kno

wle

dge

Sele

ctin

g Fe

atur

es f

rom

Sou

rces

Publ

ishe

d T

exts

Wri

ting

Inst

ruct

iona

l con

vers

atio

nsE

nvir

onm

enta

l pri

nt

Con

stru

ctin

gA

rchi

ves

Cyc

les

of D

evel

opm

enta

llyA

ppro

pria

te W

ord

Stud

y

Key

wor

ds

Hun

ting

Sort

ing

Gen

erat

ing

Rei

nfor

cing

Aa

Bb

Cc

Dd

Xx

Aum

itorr

izE

DW

OR

DW

AL

L

Xy

Zz

Wor

d B

ank

Wor

d St

udy

Not

eboo

k

Pers

onal

Dic

tiona

ry

J. F

. CY

Flah

avan

Nat

iona

l Rea

ding

Res

earc

h C

ente

r19

95

18.

10 Anderson, 0 'Flahavan, & Guthrie

At 9:50 a.m., with the class involved atcenters, Maria worked with a guided readinggroup (4-6 students) in a corner of the room.Small-group instruction focused on strategiesfor reading within the context of authenticliterature. Maria modeled and scaffolded thestudents' developing concepts about the formsand functions of literacy. In this context, stu-dents discussed the text and the strategies byinteracting with Maria and each other. Thereading group lasted for approximately 30 min.

Afternoon instruction integrated all subjectareas and literacy activities into thematic units.Writer's workshop was also an afternoonactivity that incorporated these themes. Often,Maria modeled how to write and edit a storywith the students' input and ideas (e.g., "MyTrip to Jamaica"). She modeled and scaffoldedstudents as they practiced writing indepen-dently and editing with peers (see Figure 4).

Field Observations

The case-study students were observedweekly for a total of 4 months. They wereobserved in four social contexts: guided read-ing group, teacher-facilitated discussion andreading with 4 to 6 students who were readingat roughly the same reading level; buddy orpaired reading, 2 students reading a booktogether during the regular reading time;independent reading, a student reading inde-pendently; and independent writing, a studentwriting independent of peer or teacher assis-tance.

Observations were conducted weekly. Eachvisit ranged from 2-6 hr. Each day, the focuswas on 1 student. This student was observed in

as many key situations as possible. For exam-ple, if Maria met with the case-study students'reading group that day, one person was chosento be the focal point. Later that morning,observations were conducted on the samestudent in a buddy-reading or an independentwriting situation. There were days when thesame student was observed in three differentcontexts and other days when a student wasobserved in only one context.

Observations were recorded in field notes,with the emphasis on classroom setting, thespecific social context, the name of the storythe student was reading, dialogue of as manypeople in the group as possible, and runningrecords of each student's reading. After theobservation ended, photocopies were made ofthe actual text from the book the students read.Running records and notes about the story thatwere taken during the observation were trans-ferred directly to these photocopies. Studentsrotated as the focal point of observations sothey did not always know when they werewatched.

Student Interviews

Semi-structured interviews were conductedwith each student following guided reading andindependent writing sessions. Interviews fol-lowing these two contexts allowed for thegathering of additional information on students'motivations and perceptions of the group andindividual contexts:

How do you feel about what you justread (wrote)? Why?Why did you stop?What would have happened if you hadnot been reading (writing)?


19

20

Mar

ia's

Wee

k8:

10-

8:30

8:30

-9:0

09:

03.9

:15

9:15

-10:

0010

:00-

10:0

510

:05-

10:1

510

:15.

10:4

010

:404

1:00

11:0

0-11

:15

MC

heck

Ope

ning

Cal

enda

r

Mo

Mes

sageIn

ning

Sha

red

Rea

ding

Rea

ding

Min

i Les

sen

Boo

kw

asB

ox

Fre

e F

low

Cen

ters

Gui

ded

Rea

ding

Gro

ups

orR

eade

r's C

ircle

s(2

-4 g

roup

Sid

ay)

Obs

erva

tion

and

Eva

luat

ion

Cle

anU

p

Cla

ssS

harin

g

Wor

d W

all

Less

on

Gen

erat

esp

ellin

g w

ords

spel

ling

task

s(c

oop.

gro

ups)

Rea

dA

loud

orA

utho

r'sC

hair

TF

ollo

wS

hare

d R

eadi

ng w

ithU

p A

ctiv

ityB

ook

BM

W{

Writ

er's

Wor

ksho

pM

ini L

esso

nW

riter

's W

orks

hop

W

Sha

red

Rea

ding

Rea

ding

Min

i Les

son

Boo

kB

ee.

Inte

ract

ive

Writ

ing

Mod

elle

d W

ritin

g

&ci

f fire

r ifc

ri de

one

-lim

e a.

wee

k- ik

at Is

jusf

oher

e I s

o.si

dLdo

it.)

Fol

low

Up

Writ

ing

Exp

erie

nce

RS

hare

d R

eadi

ng w

ithF

ollo

w U

p A

ctiv

ity

Boo

kB

oxes

Cla

ssS

harin

g

Writ

er's

rksh

opM

W'm

lo L

esso

nW

rkee

s W

orks

hop

FB

oxes

Sha

red

Rea

ding

Rea

ding

Min

i Les

son

Boo

k

1v

Spe

lling

Rev

iew

Spe

lling

Wor

k/T

est

1

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

Atr

) LE

Com

pone

ntF

unct

ion

Sha

red

Rea

ding

Tea

ch:

prin

t con

vent

ions

.st

ory

stru

ctur

e el

emen

ts.

orga

niza

tion

of In

to..

(web

s, Is

is, e

tc.)

char

t mak

ing,

voca

b. b

idin

g, e

tc.

repr

oduc

tion

of te

xt,

Sha

red

Rea

ding

Inno

vatio

ns o

f ten

Fog

ow U

pm

ath,

sci

ence

, SS

conc

octio

n/gr

aph,

etc

.

child

ren

read

Boo

k B

oxes

inde

pend

ently

,ev

entu

ally

togg

ing

book

s re

ad a

nd a

bilit

yto

rea

d a

tens

(H

,JR

,C)

chO

rls c

hoic

e w

ithin

Fre

e R

ow C

ente

rs

Gui

ded

Rea

ding

Em

its-

wor

ksho

p se

es,

(see

bel

ow)

edte

ache

r di

rect

edin

stru

ctio

n -

spec

ific

leac

hing

poi

nts

allo

w s

tude

nts

to h

elp

teac

h an

d co

ach

Rea

der's

Circ

leot

her

stud

ents

tosu

cces

s in

rea

ding

.te

achi

ng p

oint

s ba

sed

on n

eeds

on

the

spot

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

est

oppl

e of

a s

tude

nt

Obs

erva

lian/

Eva

l.G

orin

g:R

eade

r's C

ircle

Ope

ning

betw

een

grou

psas

a lo

llow

up

to a

gro

upan

ecdo

tal n

otes

iden

tify

speW

ng w

ords

&W

ord

Wag

Les

sons

pan.

ns lo

t stu

dy a

l wee

k8

Tas

ksco

rn. r

einf

orce

men

t or

test

on F

riday

focu

sed

whi

ny p

aint

.W

der's

Wor

ksho

pte

ns, m

otiv

atin

g.M

08 L

esso

nus

e ite

ralo

re a

s en

open

erch

ildre

n w

rite

with

use

of

peer

s, w

ord

wal

l, di

ct...

etc

Wm

ees

Wor

ksho

pte

ache

r as

sist

s, a

ndco

nfer

ence

s

21

22

11:1

5-11

:50

11:5

0-12

:00

12:0

0-12

:30

12:3

0-1:

00

1:00

-2:0

02:

00-2

:30

2:30

-40

ivi

Lunc

h/R

eces

s

rest

room

s

Spe

cial

sB

uddy

Rea

ding

Boo

ks H

orne

chec

k ou

t

poss

ible

Rea

d A

loud

Mat

h T

heir

Way

Les

son

with

Fol

low

Up

or

Fre

e F

low

Mat

h C

ente

rs

Unt

t Stu

dy T

ine

/-45

51:1

,14

(sci

ence

. Soc

ial S

tudi

esan

d H

ealth

Cen

ters

or

ivit

Act

ies)

Rea

d

Pre

pare

go h

ome

Alo

ud to

T

DE

AR

tine

Boo

ks H

ome

chec

k ou

t

poss

ible

Rea

d A

loud

1/

WB

uddy

Rea

ding

Boo

ks H

ome

chec

k ou

t

poss

ible

Rea

d A

loud

Mat

h Le

sson

Uni

t Stu

dy T

ime

Less

ons

(Sci

ence

, Soc

ial S

tudi

esan

d H

eath

Cen

ters

or

Act

iviti

es)

R

DE

AR

lim

e

Boo

ks H

ome

chec

k ou

t

poss

ible

Rea

d A

loud

Mat

h Le

sson

Uri =

ny T

ime

(Sci

ence

. Soc

ial S

tudi

esan

d H

ealth

Cen

ters

or

Act

iviti

aS)

F

1!(

11

Bud

dy R

eadi

ng

Boo

ks H

ome

chec

k ou

t

poss

ible

Rea

d A

loud

Mat

h T

heir

Way

Les

son

with

Fol

low

Up

or

Fre

e F

low

Mat

h C

ente

rs

itU

nit

udy

Tim

eLC

AS

(Sci

ence

.eSS

Soc

ial S

tudi

esan

d H

eath

Cen

ters

or

Adi

rit e

s)

r

BE

ST C

OPY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

Com

pone

ntF

unct

ion

Bud

dy R

owin

g

Boo

ks H

ome

chec

k ou

t

Rea

d A

loud

DE

AR

tim

e

Mat

h T

heir

Way

Less

ons

&C

ente

rs

Uni

t Stu

dy T

ime

chbi

ren

bidd

y re

ad.

(20

min

.) a

nd s

hare

wha

t the

y di

d w

ith a

tart

(5-

10 m

in.)

child

ren

chos

e bo

oks

deity

enric

hmen

t. ex

posu

reto

gen

res.

enj

oym

ent

Dro

p E

very

thin

g an

d R

ead

Lite

ratu

re b

ased

mat

hin

stru

ctio

n; h

ands

-on

mat

h ce

nter

s

inte

giat

ed u

nit l

esso

nsan

d lit

erat

ure

wov

en In

toac

tiviti

es a

nd te

amin

gce

nter

s, h

eld

uips

and

spec

ial p

roje

cts.

Cd1

01IIL

S

Big

Boo

k C

ante

rP

oetr

ylC

han

Can

ter

Poc

ket C

han

Cen

ter

Writ

ing

Cen

ter

List

enin

g C

ente

rA

BC

Cen

ter

Ove

rhea

d P

roje

ctio

n C

ente

rU

nit C

ente

r (in

tegr

ated

wor

k)Li

brar

y C

ante

rS

patti

ng C

ente

r/ta

sks

Fol

low

up

Tab

leto

r fo

llow

up

activ

e's

horn

rea

ding

gro

upLe

arni

ng G

ames

Cen

ter

Chi

ldre

n w

ill e

vent

ually

he

able

to c

hoos

e th

ece

nter

s th

at th

ey w

ould

like

to d

o fo

r th

e m

orni

ngpe

riod.

The

y w

ill h

are

a w

eekl

y gr

id th

at w

illsh

ow m

e th

e co

mer

s th

ey w

orke

d at

eac

h da

y.T

hey

will

be

limite

d to

two

or th

ree

visi

ts to

cert

ain

cent

ers.

Som

e ch

ildre

n w

ill b

e as

sign

edto

cer

tain

cen

ters

(bo

rn r

eadi

ng g

roup

)to

dofo

llow

up

activ

ities

.

23


What did you do when you came to aword you couldn't read (or couldn'tspell)?What else?How did you feel while you were read-ing (writing)?

Extensive field notes were made during theseinterviews.

Students' Literacy Products

Each week, students' journal writing fromthe previous week was gathered and photo-copied. Any additional writings students didthe day they were observed, including the textof the books they were reading, were alsophotocopied. All of the materials were dated sothe developmental progress of each studentcould be monitored over the course of thestudy.

Data Analysis

The analytic approach that was employedproceeded in five steps. First, open and axialcoding was performed using the field notes(including interviews), running records, andstudents' writing samples and recorded ontocards to find recurring themes, concepts,categories, and properties (Strauss & Corbin,1990). Techniques of questioning, comparingand contrasting concepts, categories, andproperties found within the data records al-lowed data to remain open for continued in-spection. Second, a chart was made whichrecorded the coding of these patterns focusingon (a) strategy use and word knowledge evi-dence, and (b) developmental cognitive pro-

cesses for word recognition and word produc-tion, within the various social contexts. Third,these general strategies were analyzed furtherand transferred to a new database, in which thethree social contexts were maintained andcross-referenced with Frith's (1985) stages ofreading development. Fourth, students' spell-ings were analyzed and cross-referenced withHenderson's (1990) stages of spelling develop-ment, including date of entry. Last, motivationinformation was gleaned from the interviewresponses and students' other responses fromother contexts, taken from the field notes.Motivations were categorized based on acoding rubric describing intrinsic and extrinsicmotivations (see Table 3 in Guthrie, Ng, Mc-Calm, Van Meter, & Alao, 1995). Each moti-vation was given a high, moderate, or lowranking for strength, based on the number oftimes the motivation was expressed (e.g., 7-10responses, 4-6 responses, 1-3 responses,respectively). With the use of these charts,analysis of patterns and themes became in-creasingly more apparent.

Findings

Generally speaking, Maria's approach toembedded word-study successfully promotedthe case-study students' individual progress tothe point at which the students' word knowl-edge, independent reading, and independentwriting behaviors approximated progress madeby students who did not receive supplementalservices and exceeded progress made by stu-dents who did receive such services. All stu-dents in the class progressed, as would beexpected, but the amount of progress is not the


24


primary focus of this investigation. We concen-trate our efforts on describing the instructionalmethods, the social contexts, and the social andmotivational dynamics of the classroom. Thefindings are presented below.

In What Ways Do Embedded Word-StudiesPromote Slow-Progress Students'Word Knowledge?

Figure 1 depicts the case-study students'spelling development in relation to the devel-opmental trends exhibited by the other studentsin Maria's class. As the chart indicates, every-one in the class made progress during the year,including the 3 case-study students. In October1994, when Maria administered Ganske's(1993) screening inventory, the beginningdevelopmental spelling level, on average, wasbetween levels 2 and 3, which is the early lettername stage. The entire class began in the samedevelopmental spelling stage, but were atdifferent places in that stage. The case-studystudents were entering the letter name phase(level 2) of their development. The case-studystudents began on the same developmentalspelling level as the 2 Resource and the 2Reading Recovery® students. The 4 ESOLstudents began at a slightly higher place, atlevel 3, still early letter name spellers. The 7OTHER students began slightly higher thanlevel 3, but were not beyond the early lettername spelling stage. At the end of the year, theclass average was just exiting the late lettername stage (level 6) and ready to enter thewithin-word pattern stage (level 7) of develop-ment. The 3 case-study students exceeded theclass average and ended in the middle of the

within-word pattern stage (level 8). The 7OTHER students also exceeded the class aver-age by finishing slightly below level 7, whichis the within-word pattern stage. The 4 ESOLstudents finished below the class average,between the middle and late letter name stage.The 2 Resource students also finished belowthe class average, between the early and lateletter name stage (slightly above level 4) andthe 2 Reading Recovery® students finished atthe early letter name stage (level 4). Thesecomparisons simply serve as descriptions of theprogress of the class members and serve asbackground information for the case studystudents. For this investigation, we focus onthe case-study students.

The teacher's determination to embed herword studies had a direct influence on the case-study students' knowledge of instructed wordfeatures. For example, all 3 students' abilitiesto produce instructed features, improved con-sistently over time. Peter and Ben, however,increased more than Tania., By the end of thestudy period (June), all 3 case-studies hadexcelled the level of the class average. Ben andPeter both increased to a middle within-wordpattern stage (level 8); Tania increased to abeginning within-word pattern stage (level 7).Again, these levels of development are descrip-tions of students' progress.

How did Maria's word study practicesinfluence the case-study students' develop-ment? Several instructional themes are note-worthy. First, decisions were made aboutwhich word patterns and features to introducebased on the needs of the students. The teach-er's log suggests that the teacher made herinstructional decisions about what word pattern


25


to feature next in her instruction based on herobservations of the case students' reading andwriting attempts, her understanding of howword knowledge develops (e.g., Bear, et al.,1996) and her inclination to sample words forstudy from a variety of sources in the class-room (e . g . , books, transactions, thematicstudies). For example, Maria taught her lettername spellers consonant blends and digraphs ina gradual way by introducing "tr" and "th"with words that began with "t" alone. Thestudents were able to hunt for words with thesesubtle changes in sound (e.g., "tr" and "th"),which extended their previous knowledge aboutwords beginning with "t." The students sortedpictures according to the sounds they heardwhen they said the picture on the picture card(e.g., the number 3, a truck, a top, a thimble).Students were able to build upon their priorknowledge of "t" words by adding consonantblends and digraphs. This contributed to ahighly responsive environment for developingstudents' knowledge of words that appears tosimultaneously influence the students' wordrecognition and production competence (e.g.,Gill, 1992). Teacher and peer support, as wellas strategy instruction allow children to in-crease word knowledge and use this knowledgein daily assignments and activities, whichallows for students' success.

Second, word-study activities showed stu-dents differences in features and patterns ofwords that they read and wrote on a dailybasis, based on students' current level of devel-opment. There was exposure to many kinds ofword patterns and features at many differentdevelopmental levels, which also promotedgrowth. A word-study activity built around the

"th" pattern was an archive the Maria and thatstudents made, which archived words with"th" at the beginning, in the middle, or at theend of the word (e.g., this, other, with). Thestudents in the class thought up words that hadthe /th/ sound and verified where the "th"pattern came in the word. These words werewritten on a big chart in the shape of a tonguebecause Maria called these words "tonguesticker-outers," based on the formation of thetongue when saying the sound /th/. This ar-chive was then available to the class as a re-source.

Third, word studies heightened engagementfor these students because the word studieswere taken directly from a familiar piece ofliterature that the students were reading. Theywere engaged in word-study activities becauseif they knew their ABCs, they recognizedfamiliar letters and words from the literature(e.g., the word_ cat from the book Cat in theHat [Geisel, 1957]). The students gainedsuccess early by participating in word-studyactivities with word patterns in which theycould build from their prior knowledge.

Last, word studies were taken from thenatural language and literature in the class-room. Word-study activities were taught andreinforced within the context they were usedand needed. Students saw how word study wasdirectly applied to their reading and writing.Embedding the word study made the transitionof information more natural. When studentssaw words in their social studies and sciencelessons (e.g., snake, chicken, plant), theyrecognized the familiar word patterns and wereable to use these words in their writing, ratherthan the words being a stumbling block. For


26


ra_ b q[15(-(:_

C Q1 1

-07,_ \\.... J- 5 -f\ a

IIn

1 , i --f\Vffc(YV---(-'f\-

--P, CIV TICS CYr 0\ t--

i

Figure 5. Sample of Peter's use of word patterns in an independent writing context.

example, Peter was writing a story about ateacher and a plant. Peter wrote, "There was ateacher and she beet up a plant . . ." He spelled"beet" by rhyming it with "sweet" and spelledplant by writing down "pl" and then "ant." Pe-ter's knowledge of word patterns allowed him tospell plant instead of being stuck (see Figure 5).

How Is This Developing Word KnowledgeInfluencing These Students' WordRecognition?

Figure 6 depicts individual progress in read-ing over time according to the running recordlevels. As the chart indicates, everyone in the


27


Continuous Assessment of Individual Progress:Average Growth in Reading Recovery Levels By Group and Time

ESOL Ss (n=4)

G RESOURCE Ss (n=2)8TARGET Ss (n=3)--X RDG RECOVERY Ss (n=2)--NEOTHER Ss (n=7)

CLASS AVERAGE (N=18)BENCHMARK (L17)

RR Level BasalB-2 Rdness3-4 PP1

5-6 PP27-8 PP3

9-12 1-1

13-17 1-2

18-21 222-24 3

25-27 4

Figure 6. Reading Progress: Average growth in Reading Recovery levels by group and time.


28


class made progress during the year, includingthe 3 case-study students. The class averagebegan at Reading Recovery® level 3, which iswhere the case-study students began. As indi-cated on the chart, the 4 ESOL students and the7 OTHER students began at a slightly higherreading level (level 4). The 2 Resource and the2 Reading Recovery® students began at thelowest reading level (level 1) compared to therest of the class. Everyone in the class pro-gressed substantially during the year. TheBenchmark level for the end of first grade islevel 17; all of the students, with the exceptionof the 2 Reading Recovery® and the 2 Resourcestudents, exceeded this level. At the end of theyear, the class average was at level 20; theESOL students were on level 18; the 3 case-study students and the OTHER 7 students wereat level 24. Again, these numbers are used asa way to describe the class progress and serveas background information for the case-studystudents.

Several instructional themes emerged duringthe study that help to explain all of the stu-dents' progress, including the 3 case-studystudents. First, the word-study activities helpedthese children with their word recognitionbecause the students were repeatedly exposedto different features in words. This exposureand redundancy allowed words and their pat-terns to be recognized in texts read in sharedreading and guided reading groups, buddy andindependent reading time, and word-studyactivities. The reinforcement activities gave thestudents practice recognizing these features andword patterns. This exposure also increasedthese students' vocabulary. For example, in thebook The Napping House (Wood & Wood,

1984), students were exposed to differentsynonyms for sleeping (e.g., napping, dozing,snoring, dreaming), which increased theirvocabulary. With this book, students were alsoable to recognize the "ing" pattern and long-evowel patterns (e.g., "ee" in sleep, and "ea" indream).

Second, strategy development is importantin early literacy to increase word knowledgeand understanding. The ability to read wordsstems from a child's language acquisition.Letters, words, and sentences are three con-nections between text and the beginning read-er's knowledge of language. At the word level,text is both recognized and produced with theuse of strategies (Ehri, 1994). Strategy instruc-tion helped these students have more controlover their own learning. When students weretaught to be resourceful, they were able tosolve problems in reading (e.g., decoding anunknown word, monitoring comprehension).For example, in a guided reading group, Taniawas reading from the book, The Bag of Smiles(Cowley & Webb, 1993). The other students inthe group were following along as Tania readaloud. She read, "Once, there was a king whowas very unhappy. He was so unhappy that he`hurted' to see other people happy." She im-mediately recognized that the word "hurted"did not make sense. She said, "Hey wait, thatdoesn't make sense." She reread the sentence,stopping to decode the unknown word. She puther finger over the "d" and read "hate," thenread "hated." She reread the sentence again,"He was so unhappy that he 'hated' to seeother people happy. That makes sense," shetold the group; then she continued reading.


29


Third, strategy instruction also extendedacross domains, so when students learned to bestrategic with their reading, they could also beresourceful and strategic with their writing(e.g., getting out of their seat to find a word onthe word wall). Tania was writing from aphotograph of members of her class from theirrecent trip to the zoo. To spell her friends'names in her writing and illustration, she wentto the word wall, found the name, brought theword card back, wrote the name, and thenreturned the name card back to its place on theword wall. She did this for each name (seeFigure 7). Increased word knowledge allowedthe students to become more aware of com-monalities between words. When students cameto a word they did not know but recognized thepattern, they were able to read the word byanalogy (e.g., map, lap, cap), which increasedtheir word knowledge by building on theirprevious knowledge of the familiar word pat-tern. When Peter and Tania were buddy read-ing Fred is OK, by Lynne Forman (1984),Tania got stuck on the name Hank. She said toPeter, "I'm stuck." Peter's clue was makingthe sound /h/. "Does it rhyme with anything?"Tania looked at the name and hesitantly said,"H-H-ank? Oh, like thank."

Fourth, social contexts were a means tosupport literacy activities. Social impact andrewards such as a student getting clues frompeers when s/he was stuck on a word (e.g.,Hank), recognition when the unknown wordwas figured out from the clues given (e.g., theword rhymes with thank), and having a strat-egy reinforced by the teacher when it was usedcorrectly (e.g., "I like the way Ben reread thesentence when a word didn't make sense to

him, and then figured out what word did makesense") all help create the push or the motiva-tion for students to spend the time that isnecessary for them to learn to read and write.

An example of how the social context sup-ported these strategies was in the guided readinggroup. This context was a highly supportiveplace for students to practice their skills inword recognition with the support of a teacherand peers. One way support was evident waswhen a student had trouble decoding a word ormaking sense of a sentence. Maria taught themto say "I'm stuck" so the other students couldoffer clues (not answers) to the solution. Forexample, Ben was reading in a guided readinggroup from the book The Story Game, bySteven Kroll (1990); he got stuck on the word"stuck." He read the sentence, "So I ran to hishouse and there were Jimmy and Piggy [Peggy]and Lee and a big tyrannosaurus [he got thisword!] struck on the stairs. Wait, struck on thestairs? That doesn't make sense." Peter said,"/st/ not /str/." Ben reread the sentence andreplaced stuck with struck. He justified to thegroup that this word made sense "because youcan't get struck on stairs but you can get stuckon stairs [laughter]." The justification of whya substituted word did not make sense in thesentence was a way to verify and boost Ben'sword knowledge confidence.

Fourth, motivational factors also increasedfor the guided group context, as reported instudent interviews. For example, Peter reportedin an interview following a guided readinggroup that he likes to read in a group "becauseI get more clues." He went on to explain,"When I read by myself and I get stuck, I'mstuck; I have to figure it out by myself. When


30


Figure 7. Sample of Tania's writing in an independent writing context.

I'm in the group, everyone helps me and it iseasy to get the right word." Reading levelsimproved consistently for the 3 students, al-though Tania's progress was more dramatic. InTania's early reading observations, although

she was bordering a pre-alphabetic level ofreading (referred to as the novice alphabeticstage by Ehri, 1994), she relied on logographicprinciples to some degree, while the boys didnot (e.g., she read barn instead of bunny, silly


31


instead of special, but she did not check forcomprehension). Her reading level improvedfrom this level to an orthographic level by theend of the study (e.g., if she misread a word,she checked for comprehension, reread the sen-tence, and figured out the word. An examplewas when she read "turned" for "turtle,"which did not make sense, so she reread thesentence, and decoded "turtle" before sheproceeded).

How Is This Developing Word KnowledgeInfluencing These Students' WordProduction?

The data collected during this study suggeststhat Maria's word studies had an impact on thestudents' progress as writers. The exposurestudents received from hunting and sortingwords, and distilling patterns, and the redun-dancy provided during reading activities helpedstudents improve their word production efforts.The word studies allowed students to learn howto take words apart, separating root wordsfrom blends, suffixes and prefixes (e.g., rip,trip, jump, jumping, jumped) and onsets fromrhymes (e.g., bl-ack). When students were ableto see how words work, they were able toproduce written text in more efficient ways.For example, Peter wrote, "My pikcher is amouse. my mouse is running. he is running forcheese." He was able to get the correct soundrepresentations in the word picture by breakingthe word into parts as he wrote. He also re-membered how to spell running from a previ-ous word study on "ing" and "ed" endings toroot words (see Figure 8).

What Effect Does The Social Context HaveOn Beginning Readers' Strategies andMotivation To Gain Word Knowledge?

Several patterns emerged that illustratedhow strategy use for word recognition andword production was influenced by both moti-vation and social context. First, when thesocial milieu shifted from a paired to a guidedgroup context, meaning a "more social" con-text, not only were more strategies utilized,they were more frequent as well. All 3 studentsutilized 5-8 different strategies in the pairedcontext but they all utilized 13-15 differentstrategies in the guided group context. Inaddition, the proportion of orthographic princi-ples (e.g., chunks word to decode, self-cor-rects, replaces unknown word with graphicallysimilar word) increased for the guided groupreading context. In short, the students wereusing more strategies as well as higher orderstrategies within a guided group context.

Second, the case-study students' strategieslearned in the guided reading contexts weretransferred to independent writing. There wasalso an increased proportion of higher orderstrategies utilized, like the ones in guidedreading. An example of this was when Ben wasdoing an independent writing activity with thepet snake in the cage. He got stuck on the word"bowl." He wrote down the first letter "b" andthen remembered he saw the word bowl on themorning message board earlier that day. Hegot out of his seat, went across the room to themessage board, and read the board until hefound the word bowl. He said the lettersb-o-w-1, b-o-w-1, and then ran back to his desk


32


, ..

la

# 4

-

cf(cl--t_s ID- r(u-\ta_(___5

e\: L s- -I- u_ gi . ,,_-_........-_-_...._,,:.

.,., ..... t.g 21

. ,

al,, _Z.

. *f ;,zeiro-....-.

r, .I

1, \ .'"- -

!

--

------- ...

-----'

.

h-

Figure 8. Sample of Peter's writing in an independent writing context.


33


: .4

. , .

....-

. . . . . ...., - ...

.

--. , n - .

*-;.-.-.-

_______,__n_ a__ es S' .ti_n_

.-LJ_Q

..-

"ic p LC.to 10:b. 0 WI p..

_;r7.-.

-....

.-- ----- -

. ______ ________ ______ _...---

.-,_ 't...:- .../7: . l

Ill'A

=.t.

Figure 9. Sample of Ben's writing in an independent writing context.

and wrote down the word on his paper. He alsosounded out the word "fish" and worked withit on his paper until it "looked" acceptable tohim. He said, "F-i-s-h, fish, yeah, that looksright" (see Figure 9).

Third, when the social context shifted frompairs to group, the students also had different

patterns in motivational factors, as reported instudent interviews. Not only were there differ-ent motivations among the students, the amountof motivations also varied. In the pairs context,Ben reported various motivational factors

(e.g., involvement motivation, social motiva-tion, humor motivation, and task completion


nod 1


motivation). These motivations remained thesame in the group context except the socialmotivation in the pairs changed to a compe-tence motivation in the group context. Peter'smotivational factors in the pairs includedsimilar motivations to those of Ben's (e.g.,involvement motivation, social motivation, andhumor motivation). In the group context, thesemotivations remained constant and an addi-tional motivation (e.g., recognition motivation)was expressed. For Peter and Ben, underconditions of increased involvement (e.g.,moving from pairs to group contexts), both hadincreased strategy use and an increased propor-tion of orthographic strategies. This was truefor both word recognition and word produc-tion.

Tania's profile was different than Ben's andPeter's. Tania's motivations were fewer thanthe boys' for the pairs context (e.g., theseincluded only involvement motivation andsocial motivation), although these motivationswere also reported by the boys. The amount ofmotivations for pairs, however, increased forTania in the group context (e.g., involvementmotivation, social motivation, task completionmotivation, and competence motivation).Involvement motivations increased in strengthwhen all 3 students moved from a pair to agroup context. The enhancement of engage-ment from pairs to group context was due tostrategy use, motivation, and social context.This pattern was true for all 3 case-studystudents.

Fourth, when the students moved fromguided reading to independent writing (e.g.,writing was a new task), Peter and Ben had anincrease in competence motivation, involve-

ment motivation, and strategy use. Peter andBen also used a large variety of motivationsand strategies for reading and writing. Theyboth showed self-expression motivation byillustrating their writing, but their social moti-vation remained at a low level. For Ben, whosemotivations included involvement motivation,social motivation, competence motivation, andhumor motivation in the group context, thenumber of his motivations increased in theindependent context, adding utility motivationand compliance motivation. Involvementmotivation and competence motivation in-creased in strength from the group to theindependent context. Peter's motivations in thegroup context increased in the independentcontext with the addition of two differentmotivations: self-expression and task comple-tion. When Peter moved from the group to theindividual context, his involvement motivationincreased.

In addition, moving from guided to inde-pendent contexts, Tania showed a decrease ininvolvement motivation; but social motivation,competence motivation, and task completionmotivation were all maintained. Tania's highinvolvement in the group reading contextdeclined when moved to an independent con-text. There was also a variety of motivationsworking in the independent context, but allwere at a low level of strength. When Taniamoved from a group to an independent context,her motivations remained constant in a group.context to an independent context; but in theindependent context, Tania was more distract-able (e.g., meaning a negative motivation wasreported with a low strength). There was anunderlying theme that involvement was the


35


influence of increased strategies not the socialcontext. The social context was a means,however, to induce this involvement reportedby the 3 case-study students.

Limitations To This Study

The purpose of this study was to learn howthese 3 case-study students increased theirabilities to read and write in the different socialcontexts and instructional settings in theirclassroom. The fact that there was progresswas not surprising, but it was not the primaryfocus of this investigation. We examined theinstructional methods of the teacher to betterunderstand her methods and the conditions inwhich she exposed and taught word knowledgeto her students. The intent of the authors wasneither to predict growth learning over timenor to compare the case-study students to theirpeers, although this provides backgroundinformation for the 3 case-study students. Wedid not test statistically for growth (pre-post)and do not have evidence to claim that the 3case-study students are not typical. We chose todescribe the contexts and instructional methodsin which these 3 students learned.

It is not clear why the 3 case-study studentsappeared to exceed the class average in readingand everyone in the class in spelling develop-ment. Perhaps it was the fact that these 3students were grouped together, according totheir developmental levels, and Maria adjustedher instruction to meet their developmentalneeds. Another reason could be that they werethe focus of our investigation, which may havecaused Maria to attend more to these threestudents, monitoring and responding to their

developmental needs more consciously. We didnot collect data on the amount of time thatMaria spent with the other students in theclass, so we cannot make the claim that shespent more time with the 3 case-study students.Another reason may be that these 3 studentswere more receptive to Maria's instructionbecause they were not receiving supplementalservices and were motivated by other indepen-dent students in the class to become betterreaders and writers. We do believe, however,that the unique instructional methods Mariaemployed, the exposure to text and environ-mental print the students received within aholistic context, the group dynamic in theclassroom, and the variety of social contexts inwhich students participated, in concert, con-tributed to the 3 case-study students' successand motivation in their reading and writingattempts.

Conclusion

Language is the foundation on which liter-acy is built. The ability to read words stemsfrom a child's language acquisition. Letters,words, and sentences are three connectionsbetween text and the beginning reader's knowl-edge of language. If becoming literate is asocial process, the roots of motivation forliterate activity are deeply embedded in thesociocultural contexts of literacy learning andthe interactive transfer processes occurring inthose particular contexts (Oldfather, 1994).Social interaction is motivating in many ways.Peer comments and suggestions can sparkstudents' interests. Students' confidence andself-efficacy may increase by interacting with



their peers (Schunk, 1989). Situations thatencourage productive social interaction yieldchoices for students to become more confidentand competent readers and writers (Turner &Paris, 1995). Students' involvement in learningincludes both cognition and motivation, operat-ing together, not separate from one another(Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992).

This study bolsters the view that wordstudies can be embedded within a holisticliteracy setting in ways that result in gains inspelling and decoding competence (e.g., Gill,1992). Furthermore, it provides a descriptionof how students appropriated word-studyinstruction and employed it in independentreading and writing activities. "If students areto be motivated readers and writers, we mustgive them the tools and the reasons to read andwrite and allow them to discover the many pathsto literacy" (Turner & Paris, 1995, p. 670).

Author Note. The work reported herein waspartly funded by the National Reading ResearchCenter of the University of Georgia and Universityof Maryland (NRRC), the Wright Group, and RigbyBooks. The Wright Group and Rigby Books madegenerous donations of materials to the project. Thefindings and opinions expressed here do not neces-sarily reflect the position or policies of the NRRC,the Office of Educational Research and Improve-ment, the U.S. Department of Education, RigbyBooks, or the Wright Group.

We thank the classroom teacher, MariaGrabowsky, for her willingness to actively partici-pate in this study. Her insights and time wereinvaluable and appreciated.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cam-bridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., &Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way: Wordstudy for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling in-struction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.

Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great de-bate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cowley, J., & Webb, P. (1993). The bag ofsmiles. Bothell, WA: The Wright Group.

Cunningham, P. (1995). Phonics they use (2nded.). New York: HarperCollins.

Ehri, L. (1994). Development of the ability toread words: An update. In Theoretical modelsand processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323-358).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Forman, L. (1984). Fred is OK. In Ginn & Com-pany Basal, Birds fly, bears don't (pp. 62-69).Lexington, MA: Ginn & Company.

Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Learningabout phonics in a whole language classroom.Language Arts, 68, 190-197.

Frith, U. (1980). Unexpected spelling problems.In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling(pp. 495-515). New York: Academic Press.

Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of develop-mental dyslexia. In K. E. Patterson, J. C. Mar-shall, & M. Colheart (Eds.), Surface Dyslexia:Neuropsychological and cognitive studies ofphonological reading (pp. 301-330). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Ganske, K. (1993). Developmental spelling analy-sis. Barboursville, VA: Ganske.

Geisel, T. (1957). The cat in the hat. New York:Random House, Inc.

Gill, J. T. (1992). The relationship between wordrecognition and spelling. In S. Templeton & D.Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographicknowledge and the foundations of literacy (pp.79-104). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J. T., McGough, K., Bennett, L., & Rice,M. E. (1996). Concept-oriented reading in-struction: An integrated curriculum to develop


37


motivations and strategies for reading. In L.Baker, P. Afflerbach, & D. Reinking (Eds.),Developing engaged readers in school and homecommunities (pp. 165-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erl-baum.

Guthrie, J. T., Ng, M., McCann, A., Van Meter,P., & Alao, S. (1995). How do classroomcharacteristics influence intrinsic motivations forliteracy? (Reading Research Report No. 56)Athens, GA: NRRC, Universities of Georgiaand Maryland College Park.

Henderson, E. H. (1990). Teaching spelling.Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Hooper, M. L. (1994). The effects of high andlow level cognitive and literacy language artstasks on motivation and learning in multiability,multicultural classrooms: Developmental stud-ies. Learning and Instruction, 4(3), 233-251.

Juel, C., Griffith, P., & Gough, P. (1986). Acqui-sition of literacy: A longitudinal study of childrenin first and second grade. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 78, 243-255.

Kroll, S. (1990). The story game. New York: Scho-lastic.

Liberman, I. Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F. W.,& Carter, B. (1974). Reading and the aware-ness of linguistic segments. Journal of Experi-mental Child Psychology, 18, 201-212.

Mann, V. A. (1986). Phonological awareness: Therole of reading experience. Cognition, 24,56-92.

Mills, H., O'Keefe, T., & Stephens, D. (1992).

Looking closely: Exploring the role of phonics inone whole language classroom. Urbana, IL:National Council of Teachers of English.

Morrow, L. M. (1993). Literacy development inthe early years (2nd ed.). Needham Heights,MA: Allyn and Bacon.

O'Flahavan, J. F., & Blassberg, R. (1992).Toward an embedded model of spelling instruc-

tion for emergent literates. Language Arts, 69,409 -417.

Oldfather, P. (1994). When students do not feelmotivated for literacy learning: How a respon-sive classroom culture helps (Reading ResearchReport No. 8.) Athens, GA: NRRC, Universi-ties of Georgia and Maryland College Park.

Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The con-structivist approach to self-regulation. In B. J.Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Studentmotivation, cognition, and learning: Essays inhonor of Wilbert J. McKeachie (pp. 169-200).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York:Oxford University Press.

Peterson, B. (1991). Selecting books for beginningreaders. In D. DeFord, C.A. Lyons, & G. S.Pinnell (Eds.), Bridges to Literacy: Learningfrom Reading Recovery (pp. 119-138). Ports-mouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Stu-dents' motivational beliefs and their cognitiveengagement in classroom academic tasks. In

D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Studentperceptions in the classroom (pp. 149-183).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sawyer, D. J. (1988). Studies of the effects ofteaching auditory segmenting skills within thereading program. In R. L. Masland & M. W.Masland (Eds.), Prevention of reading failure.(pp. ). Parkton, MD: York Press.

Schunk, D. H. (1989). Social cognitive theory andself-regulated learning. In B. J. Zimmerman &D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learningand academic achievement (pp. 83-110). NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning:Where behavioral and humanistic approaches toclassroom motivation meet. Elementary SchoolJournal, 88, 29-37.


3$


Stevens, J. (1987). The three billy goats' gruff. SanDiego, CA: Harcourt Brace & Company.

Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics ofqualitative research: Grounded theory proce-dures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA:SAGE Publications, Inc.

Tea le, W. (1982). Toward a theory of how child-ren learn to read and write naturally. LanguageArts, 59, 555-570.

Turner, J., & Paris, S. G. (1995). How literacytasks influence children's motivation for literacy.The Reading Teacher, 48, 662-673.

Uhry, J. K., & Shepherd, M. J. (1993). Segmen-tation/spelling instruction as part of a first-gradereading program: Effects on several measuresof reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,218-233.

Wagstaff, J. M. (1994). Phonics that work: Newstrategies for the reading/writing classroom.New York: Scholastic.

Wilde, S. (1992). You kan red this! Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann.

Wood, D. & Wood, A. (1984). The NappingHouse. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace &Company.


38

ACNationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-712532161 M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

40

(9/92)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

_NOTICE

REPRODUCTION BASIS

ERIC

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

Documents

how develoura knowledge influenced these students' … CQ. The Influence of Embedded Word-Study. Instruction, Social Context, and Motivation of Children's Independent Reading and Writing: