Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:44:46.111Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Building a School-wide Model for Preventing Reading Difficulties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

David J. Chard ,
Sharon Vaughn ,
Brenda-Jean Tyler  and
Kris Sloan
David J. Chard*
Affiliation:
University of Oregon
Sharon Vaughn
Affiliation:
The University of Texas, Austin
Brenda-Jean Tyler
Affiliation:
The University of Texas, Austin
Kris Sloan
Affiliation:
The University of Texas, Austin
*
Address for: David Chard, College of Education, 1211 University of Oregon, EUGENE OR 97403 USA. E-mail: dchard@oregon.uoregon.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined a yearlong collaboration between researchers and school personnel (general education teachers of grades K-3 and special education teachers) focused on implementing a school-based model for preventing reading difficulties. The purpose was to provide opportunities for teachers to reflect on their current reading instruction and to consider ways to alter or extend it. Teachers were introduced to practices to enhance phonological awareness and the alphabetic principle, fluency, comprehension, and student progress monitoring through four interconnected professional development components: (a) presentations by experts on each of three reading related topics, (b) ongoing bimonthly teacher study teams, (c) teacher examination and analysis of student progress data, and (d) in-class support for implementing instructional enhancements. Findings revealed changes in: (a) teachers’ perceptions and understanding of reading practices, particularly the importance of ongoing student progress monitoring; and (b) student gains in reading.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , January 2000 , pp. 32 - 46
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Carnine, D. (1997). Instructional design in mathematics for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Educational Research, 69, 368–372.Google Scholar
Chard, D., & Osborn, J. (1999). Phonics and word recognition instruction in early reading programs: Guidelines for accessibility. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 14(2), 107–117.Google Scholar
Chard, D., Simmons, D., & Kameenui, E. (1998). Word recognition: Research bases. In Simmons, D. & Kameenui, E. (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: The bases and the basics (pp. 141–168). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clinton, W. J. (February 4, 1997). State of the union address. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Donahue, P., Voelkl, K., Campbell, J., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). National Assessment of Educational Progress: 1998 reading report card for the nation and the states. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
Englert, C., & Tarrant, K. (1995). Creating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 325–336, 353.Google Scholar
Farnhamm-Diggory, S. (1986). Introduction to the third edition. In Spalding, R. B. & Spalding, W. T. (Eds.), The Writing Road to Reading. New York: Quill/William Morrow.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L., & Deno, S. (1981). The relationship between curriculum-based mastery measures and standardized achievement tests in reading (Technical Report No. 57). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L., Tindal, G., Shinn, M., Fuchs, D., Deno, S., & Germann, G. (1983). Technical adequacy of basal readers’ mastery tests: Ginn 720 series (Technical Report No. 122). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of instructional practices. Journal of Learning Dissabilities, 33(5), 445–457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improving special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466–476.Google Scholar
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. (1992). Curriculum-based oral reading fluency norms for students in grades 2 through 5. Teaching Exceptional Children, 24(3), 41–44.Google Scholar
Huberman, A., & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, R. (1992). Assessment for the primary prevention of early academic problems: Utility of curriculum-based measurement prereading texts. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.Google Scholar
Kaminski, R., & Good, R. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215–227.Google Scholar
Lehman, B. (1997). Poetry, pedagogy and publishing: An interview with Bernice E. Cullinan. Journal of Children’s Literature, 23(2), 68–74.Google Scholar
Little, J. (ed.). (1990). Teachers as colleagues. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Mclntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.Google Scholar
NSW Board of Studies. (1997). English K-6 Literacy Interim Support Document. Sydney, NSW: Author.Google Scholar
O’Connor, R., & Jenkins, J. (1999). The prediction of reading disabilities in kindergarten and first grade. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 159–197.Google Scholar
O’Connor, R. (1999). Teachers learning Ladders to Literacy. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 203–214.Google Scholar
O’Connor, R., Notari-Syverson, N. & Vadasy, P. (1998). Ladders to literacy: A kindergarten activity book. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19(7), 10–18.Google Scholar
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1988). Assessment in special and remedial education (4th ed.). Princeton, NJ: Houghton.Google Scholar
Slavin, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Spalding, R., & Spalding, W. (1990). The writing road to reading: The Spalding method of phonics for teaching speech; writing, & reading (4th ed.). New York: Riggs Institute.Google Scholar
Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
Tindal, G., Marston, D., & Deno, S. (1983). The reliability of direct and repeated measurement (Research Report No. 109). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., Moody, S., & Schumm, J. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–226.Google Scholar
Woodcock, R. (1988). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find in school. Reading Research Quarterly 34, 12–27.Google Scholar