Summary of the

Second Adolescent Literacy Workshop:

Practice Models for Adolescent Literacy Success

Baltimore, Maryland

May 20, 2002

The Baltimore workshop was the second of two designed for the purpose of
developing specific recommendations for research on adolescent literacy.
Together these workshops draw on the knowledge and experiences of
researchers and practitioners who work with adolescents and their
reading challenges. The March workshop brought together primarily
researchers, but also some practitioners, to review and summarize the
knowledge base and gaps relevant to adolescent literacy and to develop a
research agenda. The May workshop brought together primarily
practitioners to present models in practice that address issues of
adolescent literacy and to seek commentary from the individuals
attending the workshop.

The workshop was jointly sponsored by government and private sector
entities: the National Institute of Child health and Human Development,
the American Federation of Teachers, the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association, the International Reading
Association, the National Education Association, the National Institute
for Literacy, and four Offices of the U.S. Department of Education:
Vocational and Adult Education, Educational Research and Improvement,
Elementary and Secondary Education, and Special Education and
Rehabilitation Services.

The first part of this summary presents a background discussion of the
rationale for the workshop, highlights from the welcoming remarks, key
issues from a review synthesizing the recent research on how reading
develops during adolescence and the kinds of literacy instruction that
can best meet the various needs of adolescents, and comments from
meeting participants during the discussion period. The second part
presents synopses of four reading models being implemented in various
parts of the country, with distinct instructional approaches. During the
meeting a discussion period followed the presentation of each model. A
synthesis of the comments made during all four discussion periods is
presented at the end of this summary because they are applicable to all
models.

**Rationale for the Workshop:** **Research Needs in Adolescent
Literacy**

Significant advances have been made in understanding the abilities young
children must acquire to develop beginning reading skills and the
conditions under which they are most effectively taught, but very little
evidence is available on how these abilities are best acquired and
taught during adolescence. Specifically, it is well known that in
learning to read, kindergarten and elementary school-age children must
develop adequate alphabetic reading skills (including phonemic awareness
and phonics abilities) and the ability to apply these word-reading
skills fluently to both decoding and text-reading activities, and they
must develop background knowledge, vocabulary, and reading-comprehension
strategies to facilitate their understanding of what they read. It is
also known that age and experience bring certain influences to the
process of learning to read and write, particularly if basic reading
skills are not developed prior to grade 3. However, we do not know to
what extent what is known about beginning reading instruction applies to
older students who fail to acquire the building blocks of reading.

First, it has been frequently stated that learning to read may be more
difficult after age 9. However, the factors that might explain this
decreased learning ability are not well understood. Do older students
make little progress even when provided intensive, explicit, and
systematic instruction in the building blocks of reading that they have
not yet acquired? If so, does this failure to progress reflect a
biologically based critical period for the acquisition of
reading-related abilities prior to age 9? Does protracted failure in
learning to read in kindergarten and elementary school lead to declines
in self-esteem, increases in negative peer interactions, and other
emotional factors that reduce motivation? Are the necessary quality,
duration, and intensity of reading instruction simply not available in
the upper-elementary, middle, and high school years? Or are combinations
of these and other factors responsible for this apparent resistance to
reading intervention by middle and high school students?

Second, it is not well understood which specific reading abilities are
most predictive of difficulties in learning to read in adolescence. Do
the relationships among phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency,
vocabulary, and reading comprehension that predict age-appropriate
reading development from kindergarten through grade 3 apply to older
students? For example, while it is known that phonemic awareness, letter
and number naming, and print awareness predict word-reading skills in
beginning readers, longitudinal studies indicate that older disabled
readers\' literacy limitations are better predicted by fluency and
naming tasks. Is it the case that adolescents who have difficulties
learning to read have mastered a threshold amount of word-reading skills
but are unable to negotiate the demands of content-area reading because
of limitations in rate, background knowledge, and vocabulary knowledge?
Or could it be that they require sustained interventions over time that
are not available to them?

Third, it is not well understood how adolescents can be motivated to
learn to read, particularly when they have endured many years of
failure. Thus, there is little information for middle and high school
teachers about how best to present reading concepts and have students
practice them in the environments typical to classrooms at these levels.
Even if it were known which reading abilities are most critical for
reading mastery during adolescence, research has not documented the most
effective approaches to teaching those abilities.

###### Welcoming Remarks

In welcoming remarks to the workshop participants, Deputy Assistant
Secretary Hans Meeder, of the Office of Vocational and Adult Education,
U.S. Department of Education, explained the context for the conference
and invited the participants\' input. He emphasized the importance of
treating adolescent literacy as a critical component of efforts to close
the achievement gap and ensure academic excellence for all students. Mr.
Meeder cited a number of [NCES]{.mark} statistics demonstrating the
gravity of the national trend in low literacy levels among adolescents.
Currently, 23% (about 800,000) of 17-year-olds are reading below basic
levels and are unable to search for basic information. Another 1.4
million drop out of school between grades 9 and 12. Achievement varies
among ethnicities and economic classes, with a large difference between
whites and Latinos and African Americans. Of students entering college,
25% need remedial reading.

The implications of these low literacy levels among adolescents are
serious. Forty million adults read at a low level and 90 million at a
level not adequate to today\'s needs. Employers have difficulty finding
employees with adequate skills. In fact, a recent study of manufacturing
companies in the United States found that more that 50% of companies
find their workers lacking in basic math, written language, and
comprehension skills. As a result, businesses and the national economy
suffer.

Mr. Meeder's comments highlighted the Department of Education's
imperative to identify and disseminate information on research-based
practice, and he recognized the significance of the workshop series as a
first step in determining what works in literacy instruction at the
secondary level. Indeed, long-term research in this area will be
critical to building a knowledge base on the literacy needs of
adolescents; however, the urgency of the issue also demands immediate
action. Action is needed in the form of changes in policy and practice
that will ensure that every student becomes a successful reader---a
reader prepared for continued education and the workplace of the 21^st^
century.

Adolescent Literacy---State of the Science

Areview of the recent literature on a topic is a first essential step in
describing the foundation of research and in identifying research gaps.
Mary Beth Curtis, Ph.D., director of the Center for Special Education at
Lesley University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, synthesized the recent
research on adolescent reading regarding the kinds of literacy
instruction that can best meet the various needs of adolescents and how
reading develops during adolescence, including for those who experience
reading difficulty. (Note to reader: This summary highlights only a few
observations in the review. For the complete review, please refer to
url: <http://216.26.160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.asp>.) In reviewing the
published research literature, her goal was threefold:

-   to present a framework for characterizing the questions researchers
    have asked about adolescent reading,

-   to determine the extent to which those questions have been answered,
    and

-   to suggest some questions that have yet to be considered.

Her review is based on a search of the ERIC and PsycINFO databases from
1990 to the present for articles related to the reading of students in
grades 6-12 which identified 155 research or technical reports and
empirical studies.

Dr. Curtis assessed the studies according to the following factors as
primary: print, language, cognition, or situation. \"Print \" refers to
the processes and knowledge involved in identifying words on a page;
\"language,\" the knowledge and processes involved in putting words
together to convey meaning; \"cognition,\" the processes and knowledge
involved in being aware of and able to make judgments about a text\'s
message; \"situation,\" the factors that influence engagement in the act
of reading. The studies were further classified on the basis of whether
the major purpose was (a) to describe how the factor was related to
adolescent literacy, or (b) to evaluate the impact of instruction on the
factor on adolescents\' reading achievement (Table 1).

### Table 1. Type and Number of Articles Reviewed

**from ERIC and PsycINFO, 1990-2002**

+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| ### Primary Factor    | ### Number of         | ### Number of       |
|                       |                       |                     |
| ### in Article        | ### Descriptive       | ### Impact          |
|                       |                       |                     |
|                       | ### Articles          | ### Articles        |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Print                 | 17                    | 16                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Language              | 23                    | 16                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Cognition             | 24                    | 26                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Situation             | 26                    | 7                   |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+
| Total                 | 90                    | 65                  |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+---------------------+

Table 2 indicates the number of articles that focused on specific
aspects of each of the four primary factors.

#### Table 2. Articles on Aspects of the Primary Factors of Literacy

+------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------+
| ### Primary Factor     | ### Aspect                    | ### Number  |
|                        |                               | of Articles |
+------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------+
| Print                  | Decoding Accuracy             | 20          |
|                        |                               |             |
|                        | Fluency                       | 13          |
+------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------+
| Language               | Meaning Vocabulary            | 12          |
|                        |                               |             |
|                        | Sentence & Discourse          | 27          |
|                        |                               |             |
|                        | Processing                    |             |
+------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------+
| Cognition              | Content Knowledge             | 14          |
|                        |                               |             |
|                        | Strategic Knowledge           | 23          |
|                        |                               |             |
|                        | Ways of Knowing               | 13          |
+------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------+
| Situation              | Motivation                    | 7           |
|                        |                               |             |
|                        | Context                       | 26          |
+------------------------+-------------------------------+-------------+

The studies varied in their methodological rigor. Among the studies on
the impact of instruction, more studies used a clinical approach than a
purely experimental one, with randomized assignment and use of control
groups rare. Among the descriptive studies, validity and/or reliability
of the measures on which conclusions were based were not always
addressed.

### Print Studies

Studies related to recognizing the printed representations of spoken
words addressed two different aspects of adolescents\' abilities:
accuracy and fluency. Accuracy in recognizing words refers to the
ability to convert printed words into their spoken language equivalents.
Fluency involves word identification that is both automatic (i.e.,
occurring effortlessly, without use of conscious processing capacity)
and characterized by appropriate phrasing, intonation, and stress.
Longitudinal and contrastive studies indicate that accuracy and fluency
are related to reading difficulties, but few studies have been concerned
with understanding typical development of these aspects.

Evaluations of programs focusing on knowledge and application of
symbol-sound relationships demonstrate that significant improvements can
result in adolescents\' performance on standardized reading tests.
Program effectiveness will likely depend on how well instruction matches
what students are missing (e.g., ability to analyze sounds, knowledge of
phonics rules or syllable types, strategies for applying what is known).
Research looking at this possibility is yet to be done. Apart from
providing students with specific interventions at the word level,
allowing them to have the opportunity to preview texts (either silently
or via listening) has been found to improve their oral reading accuracy.

Fluency probably continues to develop through adolescence, especially as
teens\' familiarity with and knowledge about words grow. Research
suggests that the reading rates of middle school and high school poor
readers can be improved via instruction that emphasizes reading
practice. What is not evident from this work is who benefits the most
from these kinds of interventions, and how much improvement in reading
rate is sufficient to improve comprehension. When fluency instruction
has been shown to improve comprehension, gains appear to occur in the
efficiency of processing at the sentence level. The value of other
aspects of fluency instruction for adolescents, such as prosodic
modeling or techniques to increase rate of access to word meanings, has
yet to be investigated.

### Language

Two aspects of adolescents\' language abilities related to reading are
word meaning and sentence and discourse processing. Various elements of
vocabulary growth continue to occur throughout middle school and high
school, and by middle school, learners seem to have developed attitudes
and beliefs about vocabulary learning that can affect (positively or
negatively) further vocabulary growth. Moreover, among less skilled
readers (especially low-income students), growth in knowledge of word
meanings appears to begin to decelerate at around grade 6. Differences
in vocabulary knowledge have been linked to differences in the ability
to figure out the meanings of words from context and to recall synonyms.
Adolescents\' willingness and ability to resolve unknown
vocabulary\--through strategies such as use of context for monolingual
readers and cognate awareness for bilingual readers---appear to be
related to reading success. Encouraging students to actively process new
word meanings, along with providing them with opportunities to apply and
use new vocabulary knowledge, seem to be key features of successful
programs

By grade 6, sentence and discourse factors contribute more to the
comprehension performance of typically developing readers than do word
factors. As students grow older, discourse factors begin to take on a
more significant role than sentence factors, particularly on tasks
requiring inferential processing. Social class differences have also
been identified in adolescents\' language use. Whereas working class
teens tend to operate in a social, affective, and dialogic world,
upper-middle-class teens tend to operate in an information-based,
knowledge-oriented, and argumentative world. A number of studies suggest
that teaching students how to take notes and to summarize can improve
their overall comprehension performance, especially among adolescents
with reading difficulties. Narrative approaches to instruction in
sentence and discourse processing have also been recognized as useful in
assisting students who are having reading difficulties.

### Cognition

Three elements of cognition are content knowledge, knowledge and
regulation of strategies for text-processing, and knowledge about
processes of knowing and learning. Early difficulty with reading has
been shown to be associated with lower verbal ability and declarative
knowledge in high school. Moreover, declarative knowledge and exposure
to print appear to be significant predictors of high school students\'
comprehension. Research clearly demonstrates that the secondary school
subject matter learning of all students can be improved by teachers\'
use of advance organizers. Adolescence is recognized as a time of marked
growth in knowledge about sophisticated and elaborate problem-solving
strategies as well as the ability to consider the hypothetical along
with the real; yet, even among proficient high school readers, the
ability to integrate and use information from multiple sources of
written information can be lacking. It remains to be established,
however, whether that ability to integrate stems more from a lack of
opportunity to learn than it does from either reading or cognitive
development.

A reciprocal, predictive relationship seems to exist between strategy
use and motivation, such that intrinsic motivation seems to predict
strategy use, and strategy use increases motivation. Emotional
involvement with issues has also been shown to make it more difficult
for teens to critically analyze positions related to those issues.
Higher order strategic processing is responsive to instruction,
particularly when the instruction is direct and long-term, includes
modeling of the strategy, provides frequent and informed practice of
strategy use, and emphasizes when and where the strategy can be used.

Adolescents\' identities as literacy learners (e.g., what they learn,
what practices they use to learn, their interest in and willingness to
participate in reading instruction)

seem to shape their construction of meaning from text; moreover, their
identities can also be affected as they interact with texts and use text
as a way to make sense of their lives.

The mechanisms whereby ways of knowing develop in adolescents and the
role of literacy in these changes remain unclear. For instance, does
reading provide learners with a reservoir of knowledge and experiences
that shape the ways in which they respond? Are certain approaches to
teaching reading (e.g., inquiry-based approaches) more effective than
others in this regard?

### Situation

Research concerned with motivation looked at the attitudes, interests,
and desires of adolescents and their influence on reading and reading
achievement. Research concerned with context consisted of studies
related to the influence of teachers, schools, and families on
adolescents\' reading development. National studies such as
[NAEP]{.mark} confirm that time spent reading is positively correlated
with reading ability and with students\' engagement in reading.

Social goal pursuit (rather than intrinsic value in reading) predicts
effort in English class at the 6th and 8th grade levels. By high school,
teens have greater belief in personal control over learning outcomes
than younger children do. Quality and diversity of reading materials
also seem to affect motivation to read, but opportunities for student
decision-making and choice in terms of reading tasks and materials are
frequently fewer in secondary schools than at the elementary level.

Discrepancies also seem to exist between the kinds of content area
reading instruction that middle and high school students say they would
like to receive (e.g., cooperative learning groups, study guides) and
what they say they get (e.g., being required to write summaries and
answer questions). Studies also show that presence of reading materials
in the home as well as family discussions about school experiences and
educational plans are related to adolescents\' level of skill in
comprehension.

### Comments

Much of the adolescent literacy research conducted since 1990 has been
concerned with understanding and improving the reading skills of teens
who are experiencing difficulty. Such a focus is understandable,
particularly given that as many as 40% of 13-year-olds seem to have
difficulty interrelating ideas and making generalizations, while as many
as 60% of 17-year-olds are unable to understand complicated literary and
informational passages. However, an approach of viewing adolescent
literacy primarily through the lens of struggling readers can be
problematic for many reasons: it can encourage research that recommends
overly simplistic solutions based on single factors; it can make it
difficult to separate the causes of success in reading from the
consequences; it can be difficult to recognize factors that function as
mediators; and it can impede understanding of what is needed to raise
literacy levels overall.

To make the review of literature manageable for the purpose of this
workshop, the focus was on reading alone, excluding literature related
to other aspects of adolescents\' literacy development such as writing.
The search was conducted by hand within only two databases, and the
reliability of the categories was not established. The results of work
appearing in books, reports, and dissertations were not included, and
the narrow timeframe made the review susceptible to the influence of
educational trends, such as inclusion. Nevertheless, it is a beginning
in the process of identifying what is missing and in formulating a
theory of development of literacy in adolescents.

#### Discussion

-   One challenge is transfer of interventions---how to get into the
    classroom what is known to work, and what will be found in the
    future to work. Most classrooms do not have reading specialists.
    Some universities are doing a better job of giving more information
    to education students about the reading process and effective
    reading instruction, but the information does not seem to be
    integrated with teaching student teachers how to use the
    information. Perhaps there is some way to work more in conjunction
    with high schools to see how the information can be used.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Research on motivation is sparse because it is difficult to measure
    and we have assumed it is the child\'s issue when it may be the
    teacher\'s issue. There are at least 30-50 important studies
    reported in motivation theory journals, so it is necessary to think
    across disciplines to find what we are looking for. The studies tend
    to move away from intrinsic to extrinsic motivation. Schools
    perpetuate this by trying to meet goals. However, what drives
    improvement in comprehension is intrinsic motivation.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is necessary to develop a theory of what drives students to do
    something such as read.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The research on language minority students has tended to focus on
    what distinguishes the successful students from the other students.
    Success is characterized by the ability to draw across the languages
    and see the commonalties, for example, using cognates. The other
    students saw the languages as separate, different.

Introduction to the Research Priorities and Practice Models

Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., M.P.H., associate chief of the Child Development
and Behavior Branch of the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, expressed the themes that most individuals can become
proficient readers, that reading instruction can be improved, and that
failure can be prevented. Understanding how to achieve these outcomes
will depend on more basic research on what is happening in reading
development during adolescence and why. The development of curricula
must be based on scientific principles that establish how well and under
what conditions they work for which groups.

In the research priorities document from the first workshop,
participants proposed that viewing literacy as a developmental process
that continues and changes through middle and high school be the
overarching principle of a research plan. They recommended structuring
research studies in four major domains: learner characteristics,
learning environments, dimensions of literacy, and teachers and
instruction. Across all domains there should be three elements:
assessment and measurement, intervention (including overall
instruction---the kinds of instruction that should continue throughout
adolescence), and sociocultural issues (where the gap is not closing).

Dr. McCardle explained the format of the current workshop. Four practice
models would be presented, then respondents with various philosophies
would comment constructively on the models to suggest how they could be
advanced and how research on these and similar models could be conducted
to move the field forward. Also, if there are proven interventions, how
can they be scaled up to a model that can be implemented more broadly?
She emphasized that the four models presented are examples that are
being presented to demonstrate a process of examination, brainstorming,
improvement, and research regarding effectiveness. She indicated that
the workshop cosponsors hope that this process will be adopted by model
developers, implementers, and researchers. Dr. McCardle voiced the hope
that adoption of such a process will lead to even more robust and useful
models as well as to more cross-discipline collaborations that will
increase both the researcher pool and the information on effective
practices for adolescent literacy instruction and intervention.

The Corrective Reading Model

*Corrective Reading*, an accelerated reading intervention developed by
SRA/McGraw-Hill and published in 1973, was designed specifically for
older nonreading or struggling readers. Catherine Bardo, M.S., director
of secondary curriculum in the Sacramento City Unified School District,
described the implementation of the program in four middle schools (two
of which were K-8 schools), three high schools, and two elementary
schools (grade 6 only). The program in Sacramento is called The Goethe
Model.

### The School Population

The Charles M. Goethe Middle School in Sacramento City, a high-need
school, was selected for testing the effects of the comprehensive direct
instruction model and for developing the training models and systems
that were necessary to implement the model on a school-wide basis. For
years Goethe Middle School had had the reputation of being the poorest
performing school in one of the poorest performing districts in
California: 48% of Goethe's 7^th^ and 8^th^ grade students read at or
below the 4^th^ grade level. The average percentile score in reading was
the 8^th^ percentile for a 7^th^ grader and the 6^th^ percentile for an
8^th^ grader.

The common risk factors associated with school failure were present at
Goethe, for example, poverty and English as a second language. The
student population was very diverse culturally; the three largest
population groups (African American, Hispanic, and Hmong) were fairly
equally represented and prone to racial conflict, resulting in frequent
gang fights. Goethe Middle School faced all the most serious problems
that middle schools serving large numbers of at-risk students face
across the nation.

### Instructional Approach of the Model

*Corrective Reading* uses explicit instruction, connected and decodable
text, and a systematic corrections procedure to teach phonemic awareness
and blending, accuracy and fluency, general comprehension skills of
cause and effect, making inferences, finding main ideas, sequencing
events, and seeing humor. Comprehension skills are also developed
through direct instruction that builds on background knowledge,
vocabulary, and thinking strategies that enable students to understand
expository text. The questions model for students how good readers think
about their reading and introduce \"big ideas,\" which are underlying
concepts or principles that serve as keys to understanding. Reasoning,
analytic skills, and writing are supported by content-rich texts,
introduction to research skills, persuasive and expository writing,
critiques, and inductive reasoning and inquiry.

In Sacramento, the course is offered during a daily, 50-minute class
period as a supplement to students' regular language arts/English
classes. The class replaces the students\' free elective period. Lessons
are scripted to support pacing, the use of examples, uniform wording,
and positive reinforcement. Students have multiple opportunities to
practice and master a skill until the end of a program level through
teacher-directed work and independent student application. The
difficulty of the practice examples increases gradually and steadily.
Students can see their own progress through \"reading checkouts\" and by
keeping error data.

**Professional Development**

The staff consists of *Corrective Reading* teachers, *Corrective
Reading* coaches, and site administrators. Professional development is
provided for all three groups. Since 1998, 1,000 teachers have been
trained in the program.

An important element of the Goethe Model is the coaching that is
provided to each reading teacher. Experienced reading teachers apply and
interview for the coaching positions. Each reading coach is required to
complete an 18-hour coaches practicum. Each morning the participants
learn aspects of the coaching model, and in the afternoon the trainees
work alongside an expert coach in the *Corrective* *Reading* classrooms
at Goethe Middle School. The day ends with feedback sessions and
role-play for the next day. After initial training, follow-up sessions
are held in partnership with the Sacramento County Office of Education,
and monthly meetings are held to provide support for the site coaches.
In addition to the site coaches, the district funds one lead coach for
*Corrective Reading.* One goal of the training is to ensure fidelity in
the implementation of the *Corrective Reading* model.

**Assessments and Progress Monitoring**

The program conducts pre- and post-placement testing of all students
using the Multi-Level Academic Survey Test, and progress monitoring for
80% mastery. In Sacramento, Stanford Achievement Test Series, Ninth
Edition (SAT 9) results are used for school- and district-wide reporting
and progress monitoring purposes.

The Goethe Model includes a monitoring component to record student
progress and to check for mastery. Teachers submit monthly reports that
are processed by the secondary curriculum office. The final monthly
report is sent to the site reading coach and principal. Sites use the
information to determine individual student needs. Some sites have
intervention teams that review student mastery and make recommendations
for support. Three forms are used: teacher monthly report (to collect
data), teacher report 2A (to report class mastery), class report 2A
(individual mastery).

**Evaluation**

The *Corrective Reading* program is a direct instruction program that
has over 30 years of data indicating that it can be used to accelerate
the reading acquisition of older students with reading problems. These
studies generally show that when implemented consistently (at least 4
days a week) by well-trained teachers, the growth rate in reading
increases to two or three grade equivalents in one year, making it
possible for many students to catch up in 1 year of instruction (see
Grossen, 2002, for a review of the research). This pattern of results
has been found with remedial readers in England, Australia, and North
America; students with limited English; noncategorical implementations
with special ed and regular ed struggling readers; and in special
education classes.

The comprehensive school-wide direct instruction model was implemented
at Goethe Middle School in Sacramento where students were performing
well below grade level. (The average rate of learning was about 1/2
grade equivalent in 1 year.) The median scores in both reading and
mathematics improved by 2 grade levels, indicating that the rate of
progress for these students had generally quadrupled. Goethe Middle
School made the largest gains on the SAT 9 for a low-achieving school in
California, and Goethe Middle School achieved the 5^th^ largest gains
overall in California in reading, gaining 14 percentile points.

Since implementing the program in 1998, the number of English learners
at Goethe Middle School scoring in the bottom quartile on the SAT 9 has
been reduced by 18%. This reduction was greater than for other schools
in the district or the state. Similarly, the number of English learners
scoring at grade-level increased 8% (other schools in the district and
the state, 3%). (Note: A report of the evaluation by Bonnie Grossen is
in press in *Reading and Writing Quarterly.*)

### Planning for Implementation

Turning a low-performing school around, where student and teacher
frustrations have evolved into large-scale disruptive and nonproductive
behaviors, requires more than simply new teaching tools. The necessary
additional factors for success imply rather drastic changes from the way
professional development has generally occurred in the past. Successful
implementation requires not only the curricular materials, but also
adequate program-specific training, in-class coaching, and progress
monitoring. The instructional programs and the factors of success
identified in this research project have been collated in the newly
published *REACH System.*

Grossen, B. The REACH system. Blacklick, OH: Science Research
Associates.SRA, 2002.

**The *LANGUAGE!* Model**

L*ANGUAGE!* is a comprehensive literacy intervention curriculum for
grades 4-12 used in general education for students reading below
grade-level, and in programs for special education, Title I, English
language learners, resource, and inclusion. The curriculum was
introduced in 1994-1995 in a pilot study with 45 adjudicated minority
students, ages 13 to 17, who were compared to a nontreatment control
group in the same correctional program. Nancy Eberhardt, M.A., editorial
director and national trainer for Sopris West Educational Services,
Longmont, Colorado, presented a description of the program.

**The School Population**

The curriculum is designed for students who are (a) performing at or
below the 30^th^ percentile on nationally standardized, norm-referenced
tests (e.g., the SAT-9); or (b) performing 2 or more years behind
grade-level placement. Such delays are due to difficulties resulting
from learning English as a second language, language-based learning
disabilities, and \"curriculum casualties.\" *LANGUAGE!* has been
implemented and evaluated in the Sacramento City Unified School
District; Middle School Division; Vera O'Leary Junior High School, Twin
Falls, Idaho, grades 7-9; Elk Grove Unified School District, Sacramento
County, grades 7-9; Los Angeles County Office of Education, grades 7-12;
Idaho Falls School District #91, grades 3-6; and the San Diego County
Office of Education, grades 4-12.

**Instructional Approach of the Model**

The curriculum is a comprehensive, integrated literacy approach,
systematically and explicitly teaching phonological, phonemic awareness,
vocabulary, fluency, and text comprehension skills. *LANGUAGE!* is
organized into three levels. Each level, containing 18 units,
corresponds to approximately 1 year of study. Students work in groups
and based on mastery performance level in the curriculum receive daily
direct instruction in reading, spelling, writing and English/language
arts skills.

Level 1, which focuses on the establishment of the alphabetic level of
English, features phonemic awareness, phoneme-grapheme correspondences,
decoding, encoding, accuracy and fluency in passage reading, vocabulary,
comprehension, wide supplementary reading, introduction to form and
function in grammar, and abundant writing and editing. Students learn
how to read and spell words in the English language systematically and
to use those words for the other literary skills in the level.

Level 2 expands on three strands: syllabication, morphology (Latin
roots, prefixes, and suffixes), and Masterpiece Sentences (mastery of
syntax for composition, reading comprehension, and listening
comprehension). Level 2 also builds on Level 1 composition skills,
emphasizing narrative and expository writing, and grammar strands. Among
various other requirements, expository writing emphasizes reading and
paraphrasing science and social studies text for report writing.

Level 3 incorporates two new strands: Greek morphology (Greek-combining
forms that make up much scientific and technical English vocabulary) and
literature. Literature is included throughout Levels 1 and 2, but it is
not taught as a subject until students have mastered fundamental
literacy skills. Literary concepts such as universal theme, narrative
style, tone, point of view, plot, and character development are taught
in Level 3. In addition to required mastery of vocabulary, English
grammar, and usage in Level 3, students continue to be involved in wide
supplementary reading and writing.

The curriculum provides all core materials needed, plus supplemental
materials. to reinforce specific content and skills. Wide supplementary
reading of literature and content material is an integral part of the
curriculum. Selection of materials is facilitated through DRP-Booklink,
a software program that uses a readability value to match students'
reading ability with the readability level of the materials.

Fundamental to the curriculum is the instructional progression that
underlies each lesson. Daily instruction systematically teaches students
the structure of the language from sound to text. Beginning with phoneme
awareness (i.e., the awareness of the speech sounds in words), students
learn to link the correct letter or letter combinations to the speech
sounds. Those letter/sound associations become the building blocks for
words to read and spell. The instructional sequence addresses the
meaning behind each word, including multiple meanings, idiomatic
meanings, and meaning that is derived from word parts such as roots,
prefixes, and suffixes. This vocabulary is then applied to text reading
and writing. Through the *LANGUAGE!* curriculum materials, which include
materials for teachers and students, each of 54 study units contains
integrated, interwoven reading and language arts strands. The
integration of strands builds in immediate application and
reinforcement; progress depends on understanding and applying the
concepts in a unit of study. Each unit is sequential and
cumulative---spiraling back to reteach and include previous concepts.
Throughout *LANGUAGE!* fluency of performance in letter/sound
associations, word-reading, text reading, and letter writing is
emphasized.

**Professional Development**

There are multiple levels of professional development: (1) teacher
training (6 days) to prepare teachers for immediate implementation of
the curriculum, (2) training of trainers to build local capacity to
train teachers in a district new to the curriculum, (3) clinics for
coaches to provide in-class demonstration lessons, mini-workshops, and
general support (Some districts provide certified coaches with
unscheduled time for working in classrooms with beginning *LANGUAGE!*
teachers.), (4) focused follow-up training to problem-solve and enhance
implementation, and (5) administrative overviews and workshops to help
decision makers understand the curriculum and to support its
implementation.

**Assessments and Progress Monitoring**

There are three components to the assessment process in *LANGUAGE!:*
placement, ongoing (formative), and summative. A placement test
determines where a student needs to start in the sequence of units. The
placement test comprises three brief measures: encoding (spelling),
decoding (word identification), and grammar (knowledge and use of
English sentences). Teachers learn how to give the placement test and
use the results in the training. Student Mastery Books, the formative
component of the assessment system, are used to document students'
individual achievement and to motivate further progress. Summative
tests, used at the end of six units of instruction, provide further
documentation of student learning. For initial identification of
students for intervention and to measure progress, schools may use
standardized test scores. Ongoing formative and summative tests ensure
mastery of the curriculum at a student's independent level.

In the Student Mastery Books, student performance is measured by
criterion-based assessment, which is built into the curriculum. At least
80% mastery is required for advancement to the next unit. Because each
unit is sequential and cumulative---spiraling back to reteach and
include previous concepts, and dependent upon prior mastery---the 80%
level proves an appropriate determinant of mastery. Structure for
individual education programs and 504 plans is also built into the
curriculum. Students who successfully complete Level 2 by the end of the
5th grade are returned to the conventional reading/language arts
classroom for the 6th grade. All other students should complete Level 3
before returning to the regular English classroom, whether they finish
Level 3 at the end of grade 6 or grade 8. Completion of Level 3 ensures
that older students are ready to perform independently in the regular
English classroom.

To tailor supplementary and independent reading materials to student
reading ability, Degrees of Reading Power, a sophisticated readability
formula, has been used to establish a readability rating for each unit.
Using the unit's readability rating and DRP-Booklink, which accesses
15,000 titles, teachers print lists of books students can select and
read. Titles are from classic literature and from 15 other interest
categories including adventure, sports, science fiction, history,
biography, science, friends and relationships, and mystery.

**Evaluation**

Significant and positive results have been obtained with *LANGUAGE!* in
a number of settings to date. The junior high and high school subjects
have included nonreaders, second-language learners, special education
students, and other poor readers. For most grade levels on most reading
measures, the observed growth in relative standing suggests that these
students can move toward normalizing their reading skills, even though
for years they had made no growth in relative standing and could have
fallen further behind their peers without an appropriate intervention.
(Fletcher et al., 1994; Torgesen et al., 2001)

A pilot study funded by the National Center for Learning Disabilities,
which involved adjudicated middle and high schools students with limited
literacy, documented gains of 3 years in reading, comprehension,
composition, and spelling during an average 22 weeks participation in
the program. (Greene, 1996)

In another study, program effectiveness was evaluated with 345
7^th^-9^th^ grade students in 11 schools in the Elk Grove School
District during the 1999-2000 school year. The students were English
language learners, special education, or general education students
scoring in the bottom quartile on the Stanford Achievement Test. After 1
school year of instruction, students made statistically significant
gains on SAT-9 Tests of Reading and Total Language (5.4 and 9.3 points,
respectively) and on the GORT-3 comprehension scale (27 percentile
points for 7^th^ and 8^th^ graders and 18 percentile points for 9^th^
graders). (Moats, 2001)

During the 1998-1999 school year, three schools in the Sacramento City
Unified School District were chosen for *LANGUAGE!* implementation based
on the evidence that a majority (83%) of the students were performing
below the 25^th^ percentile in reading on the SAT-9; 43% of the students
were classified as English language learners; 89% were on free or
reduced lunch. Students (n=552) made statistically significant gains at
all grades (6, 7, 8, and 10) on the Multilevel Academic Survey Test, a
test of silent reading comprehension. For virtually all grades and
sub-tests, students made significant gains on the Woodcock-Johnson Tests
of Achievement basic reading sub-tests.

Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., et al. (1994).
Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and
low achievement definitions. *Journal of Educational Psychology, 86*,
6-23.

Greene, J. F. (1996). Effects of an individualized structured language
curriculum. *Annals of Dyslexia,* *46*, 97-121.

[Moats 2001]{.mark}

Torgesen, J.K., Alexander, A.W., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Voeller,
K., Conway, T., & Rose, E. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for
children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term
outcomes from two instructional approaches. *Journal of Learning
Disabilities*, *34*, 33--58.

**Planning for Implementation**

To help schools plan for implementation, the program provides a
comprehensive long-range plan (5 years) both electronically and in hard
copy. The trainer or another expert works with district administrators
to adapt this plan to the needs of the district. A critical element of
implementation is appropriate training. An overview of the program is
provided to administrators, as are follow-ups for administrators. For
school and district leaders who are directly responsible for
implementing and overseeing the curriculum, attendance at a complete
training is recommended.

The Strategic Reading Course Model

S*trategic Reading* is an instructional component of the Talent
Development High Schools (TDHS) model---a comprehensive school reform
initiative designed to assist students in making successful transitions
to standards-based courses. Alta Shaw, M.S., TDHS director of
instruction at the Center for Social Organization of Schools of the
Johns Hopkins University, described the model as it has been implemented
in Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other districts.

**The School Population**

The course is designed for 9^th^-grade students whose reading level is
2+ years below their expected level. The average student entering many
large nonselective high schools is reading almost 4 years behind
grade-level, between the 5^th-^ and 6^th-^ grade levels. Many students
for whom this model is appropriate have problems with fluency and
comprehension, but not decoding, phonics, and word attack skills. Almost
all new high school students can blend sounds to form words and will
recognize a significant set of common vocabulary words, but they do not
read with ease and automaticity; therefore, they are unable to
comprehend near- or at-grade-level texts.

**Instructional Approach of the Model**

Ninth-grade students are given a "double dose" of English, in two
18-week terms of 90-minute daily extended-period classes. The first term
is *Strategic Reading* using high-interest, low-readability materials
with a focus on fluency and comprehension skills, particularly related
to reading informational texts.. The second term is the district's own
English I syllabus, with supplementary materials for cooperative
learning teams to continue the focus on fluency and comprehension.

There are four complementary learning activities in a typical *Strategic
Reading* daily lesson. (1) The reading showcase: the teacher models the
comprehension strategies of a mature reader, by "reading aloud and
thinking aloud" to the class, commenting on what's going through her
mind as she mentally interacts with the author. (2) The mini-lesson: the
teacher instructs the class in a specific strategy (such as skimming
subheadings and captions before reading an informational text), in
elements of the writer\'s craft (such as the use of symbolism in
literature), in word patterns in the context of reading (such as
prefixes and suffixes), and in social skills for working in cooperative
teams discussing reading. (3) Student team literature: students work in
pairs or small teams to read together selected high-interest novels,
poetry, and plays, and to discuss comprehension questions provided in
guides. (4) Self-selected reading and writing centers: each student can
choose items to read independently, do various writing activities, or
listen to an audiotape accompanying a book.

**Professional Development**

*Strategic Reading* teachers attend a 3-day workshop for intensive
initial professional development. Each component of the *Strategic
Reading* course is shown in a simulated classroom where participants
play the role of student and then of teacher.

Expert in-class peer coaches are the backbone of the teacher support
systems for the teachers. Each coach is an outstanding teacher from the
local district who has become expert in the *Strategic Reading*
components and works full time coaching teachers in two local high
schools. The coaches model-teach or co-teach lessons, make sure all
materials are available, discuss strengths and weaknesses of lesson
delivery, and otherwise troubleshoot in a collegial relationship. The
coaches\' work with teachers is strictly confidential and never
contributes to formal or informal evaluations, so that a level of trust
is established to support each teacher's efforts. In addition,
university specialists conduct short refresher workshops at each school
throughout the term. Coaches report to supervisors at the university and
confer about program improvement and individual effectiveness.

**Assessment and Progress Monitoring**

Using the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, incoming high school freshmen
are pre-tested to determine a grade equivalent in reading. Students who
score at the 7th grade level or below are selected as candidates for
*Strategic Reading.* During the daily 20-minute self-selected reading
and writing element of the course, teachers conduct individual student
interviews and informal reading inventories. Student writing samples are
solicited, and teachers share feedback during conferences with students.

Additionally, teachers observe students regularly while they read to
determine whether they effectively use skills and strategies. Anecdotal
records are kept in an individual literacy folder that follows students
throughout their participation in "double dose" courses, grades 9-12.
All test data, including unit assessments and semester finals, are kept
in the *Strategic Reading* literacy folders.

**Evaluation**

Students in the *Strategic Reading* course and double-dose intervention
in Baltimore and Philadelphia have shown significantly greater gains in
comprehension and vocabulary sections of standardized reading tests than
students in control groups receiving only the school\'s usual English 1
curriculum. Results for the 1999-2000 school year show that in a
Baltimore school, the experimental group made average gains of 1.9
years, compared to control group gains of only 1 year. Similarly, during
the first semester of the 2000-2001 school year, 51% of the students
gained more than 5 months in reading ability, with 34% gaining more than
1 year in reading ability. (*JHU*, 2001)

The most recent results come from Franklin High School in Philadelphia,
a high-poverty, neighborhood high school. The following table shows the
first-semester results for all classes combined. Only students who were
enrolled in the school for both the pre-course Gates-MacGinitie test in
September and the post-course test in January are included.

**Fall 2001-Winter 2002 Gains** **Over 4 Months**

**on Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test**

(Average net gain in grade equivalents (ge): 9 months)

  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
  \% of students gaining \> 1.0 ge                         40%

  \% of students gaining \> 0.5 ge                         62%

  \% of students with no change or loss                    23%

  Total number of students tested: 146                     
  -------------------------------------------------------- --------------

The results indicate that a typical student gained nearly a year's worth
of reading ability in a 4-month period. Four out of 10 students gained
more than a year, some substantially more. Almost two-thirds of students
had catch-up gains, improving their reading ability by at least 5 months
over a 4-month period. About a quarter of the students showed no gain.
Overall, greater gains were made on the reading comprehension sub-test,
than on the vocabulary sub-test. For reading comprehension median
performance rose from a 5.3 grade equivalent to a 6.5 grade equivalent,
while for vocabulary it rose from 5.3 to 5.9.

**Planning for Implementation**

Interested schools and districts are provided multiple opportunities to
explore the possibilities of TDHS as a reform model. Schools enter into
a planning year designed collaboratively by TDHS staff and district
personnel. During this pre-implementation stage curricular components
such as *Strategic Reading* are highlighted in interactive workshops
conducted by TDHS coaches and trainers. Training environments are
arranged to include teacher gallery walks that feature *Strategic
Reading* materials and videotapes of actual lessons. During this last
stage of pre-implementation TDHS facilitators and coaches consult with
prospective teachers.

During the implementation of *Strategic Reading*, a curriculum coach is
assigned to assist teachers through modeled lessons, co-teaching, and
feedback in a non-evaluative manner. Ongoing staff development is
available during the entire school year. When possible, TDHS/Johns
Hopkins University coordinates with other local universities to enable
teachers to receive graduate credit and to encourage state and local
systems to provide professional certification hours.

[*JHU*, 2001]{.mark}

The Strategic Instruction Model

The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning (KU-CRL) has
conducted research for nearly 25 years to develop ways to help students
meet the literacy demands of life. The resulting *Strategic Instruction
Model*, or *SIM*, strives to help teachers make decisions about what is
of greatest importance in their content area, what can be taught to
students to help them learn, and how to teach them well. Keith Lenz,
Ph.D., senior research scientist at KU-CRL presented the essential
elements of the model.

**The School Population**

The program was originally designed for use in secondary resource rooms
and special education classrooms but has gradually been expanded to
create a school-wide approach to improving adolescent literacy in
secondary schools. As a result, the model has been increasingly adopted
by general education teachers for use in core curriculum content area
classes as well as classes designed to emphasize the development of
reading, writing, and other literacy areas. In addition to individual
studies on various components of the model, formal evaluations related
to school-based implementation have been conducted in Tuskegon,
Michigan; Modesto, California; and Topeka, Kansas.

**Instructional Approach of the Model**

*SIM* encompasses two kinds of evidence-based interventions:

1.  Teacher-focused interventions (Content Enhancement Routines) are
    directed at how teachers think about, adapt, and present their
    critical content in a "learner-friendly" fashion. These
    interventions are designed for use during group instruction in core
    curriculum classes.

2.  Student-focused interventions (Learning Strategies Curriculum) are
    designed to provide the skills and strategies students need to learn
    and apply the content. These interventions are designed for use in
    core curriculum classes and in classes targeting reading, writing,
    and other study strategies.

The framework for the model is a five-component continuum of action:

1.  Ensure mastery of critical content. All students learn critical
    content required in the core curriculum regardless of literacy
    level. Teachers compensate for limited literacy levels by using
    explicit teaching routines, adaptations, and technology to promote
    content mastery.

2.  Weave shared strategies across classes. Teachers embed selected
    learning strategies in core curriculum courses through direct
    explanation, modeling, and required application in content
    assignments.

3.  Support mastery of shared strategies for targeted strategies.
    Students who have difficulty mastering the strategies presented in
    courses by content teachers are provided more instruction in the
    strategies through specialized, more intensive instruction delivered
    by support personnel.

4.  Develop more intensive course options for those who need it.
    Students learn literacy skills and strategies through specialized,
    direct, and intensive instruction in listening, speaking, reading,
    and writing through carefully designed and delivered courses.

5.  Develop more intensive clinical options for those who need it.
    Students with underlying language disorders learn the linguistic,
    metalinguistic, and metacognitive underpinnings they need to acquire
    content literacy skills and strategies.

The following are a few of the key learning strategies supporting
reading: the Word Identification Strategy, which emphasizes decoding and
word attack skills; the Paraphrasing Strategy, which supports the
identification of main ideas and inferences in text, in addition to
summarization skills; the Self-Questioning Strategy, which focuses on
reading for information and the student\'s self-regulation of
comprehension; and the Visual Imagery Strategy, which reinforces
conceptual and story structure understanding, in addition to recall of
prose material. Vocabulary is reinforced with key word mnemonics and the
use of prior knowledge. Teachers are also given a set of content
enhancement strategies to activate students' background knowledge and to
build motivation.

**Professional Development**

A national network of over 1,200 certified *SIM* trainers conducts
teacher training. Training in the Learning Strategies Curriculum and
Content Enhancement Routines is planned around a self-assessment
performed by the school staff and a planning meeting with a *SIM*
trainer. Success with *SIM* is contingent on ongoing staff development
and support that must be maintained over a multi-year school improvement
effort. Trainers meet with as many as 25 teachers for 3-6 hours per
strategy. Teachers practice the strategy in their classrooms and
participate in scheduled debriefing and problem-solving strategies.
There are over 40 different program components in *SIM* that schools can
incorporate as they construct a staff development program tailored to
meet a school's adolescent literacy improvement goals.

**Assessment and Progress Monitoring**

Each learning strategy intervention has a teachers manual that includes
procedures for using curriculum-based measures to assess student
progress and to provide feedback to guide instruction. Schools may use a
variety of assessments to diagnose student reading difficulty, and to
monitor progress and measure achievement; however, tests that have been
used frequently by the model developer for evaluation purposes are the
Woodcock Johnson Reading Mastery Test, Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test,
the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Comprehension Test, and the Slosson
Diagnostic Screening for Reading.

**Evaluation**

As one of many evaluations, in 1997, in an inner-city high school, *SIM*
instruction was made available to all incoming 9^th^ graders scoring 2
years below grade-level on the Slosson Diagnostic Reading Test. Students
received intensive daily instruction in the Word Identification Strategy
(decoding) until mastery was achieved. Significant gains were found
among African American and Latino boys, and students with learning
disabilities. All had mean gains of about three grade levels in 3-8
weeks, whereas students in the comparison group---matched by
ability-level, gender, and ethnicity---made either small or no gains on
average.

**Planning for Implementation**

Effective instructional environments for promoting adolescent literacy
consist of at least four factors: (1) clarifying the roles and
expectations of teachers, (2) supporting collaboration among general
education teachers and support staff and across teachers, (3) creating
an environment that strongly values literacy and strategic approaches to
learning, and (4) a site-based professional development model that
supports, refines, and sustains high-quality implementation acro
school-wide.

**Discussion of the Four Models**

The comments made during the discussion periods following the
presentations of each model were similar and are summarized here in a
categorical manner rather than as applicable to each model. The comments
suggest that there are three major categories of questions that should
be asked about any model.

First, what elements should be considered to be essential in a model for
purposes of this assessment? The following should be considered: the
nature and curricular components of the program; the nature of the
teaching approach and techniques; time allocation and frequency of the
intervention; materials used; necessary school infrastructure---support
of administration, coaches; professional development components; student
assessment tools and criteria---content-based measurement, functional
measurement, standardized testing; evaluation methods---randomized
design, comparison groups, sample size, data collection methods,
generalizability, short-term vs. long-term outcomes; challenges to
adopting and sustaining the program---planning, liaisons with university
teacher preparation programs, funding, ongoing training, mainstreaming,
cultural setting.

Second, to build a research agenda on models of instruction and
education for adolescent readers, it is valuable to begin by asking what
is the theoretical knowledge of psychological functioning that underlies
the specific practice model and how does that theory affect design and
outcomes. Alternative theoretical perspectives are the following:

1.  Behaviorist paradigm---bottom-up processing

2.  Schema theory---top-down, knowledge-driven processing

3.  Interactive model---cognitive science, novice-to-expert progression

4.  Self-regulation perspective---comprehensive merger of cognitive,
    knowledge, motivational, and social factors in learning and reading

5.  Cultural participation perspective---learning as the acquisition of
    competence and beliefs in social participation.

Third, what are the elements needed for a theory-based, empirically
justifiable knowledge base for instruction in adolescent literacy? The
following elements were suggested:

1.  Theory of the processes of reading

2.  Theory of the development of the reading process

3.  Theory of how instruction influences reading processes, especially
    corrective reading

4.  Theory of how people learn to provide the instruction

5.  Measures of process, development, instruction, learning to instruct

6.  Instructional frameworks---transferable, sustainable, scalable

7.  Experimental tests of instructional alternatives at all levels of
    theory.