The Family Learning Company
Research Papers
The research upon which all Family Learning Company
products are based.
Family Learning
The 6 Components of Literacy
Promoting English Learners’ Literacy Development in English
Formative vs. Summative Assessment
Student-Controlled Learning vs. Algorithms
Peer Learning vs. 1:1 ComputingEntertainment vs. Education
Accelerating Vocabulary Development

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jonbower@comcast.net.

By Jonathan A. Bower

Family Learning
Human beings are social learners. In a meta-analysis of studies investigating instructional practices thatenhanced motivation for, and engagement in, reading, Guthrie and Humenick identified “opportunities to1collaborate with other students in discussion and assignment groups to achieve their learning goals. ” In
her seminal three year study of learning in families, Denny Taylor concluded that children are motivated2
to learn to read to participate in their family unit, not to access knowledge in the wider world.
Family learning is an approach to intergenerational learning. It acknowledges the family and its culture as
the foundation of learning for the child. Family literacy recognizes the parent as the child's first teacher.
According to Ruth Nickse’s early descriptions of family literacy programs, intergenerational and family
3
programs retain adult students longer, enhancing adult outcomes. And of course, parental literacy
predicts the literacy achievement of their children.
Family learning is powerful. For example, children who participated in the High/Scope family learning
program at ages 4 – 8 grew up to have fewer criminal arrests, higher earnings, more accumulated wealth4and stronger marriages than those who didn't.
The motivation to attend family literacy programs is high, as participants come to these programs to
improve life for their families, not solely themselves. Participants want to increase their educational levels
5and learn job skills, but they also want to be more effective parents. There is also a synergy that exists in
6family literacy programs that is not found in programs that work with children or adults separately.
7

The research shows a wide range of measured benefits for all participants in family learning programs :• Children's achievement in school improves• Children's general knowledge, including that measured by intelligence tests, improves• Children's oral language development accelerates• Children's phonemic awareness and decoding ability improves• Children's reading vocabulary improves• Children's comprehension improves.
• Children's writing improves• Children's math and science achievement improve• Children's social skills, self-esteem, and attitudes toward school improve• Children are healthier• Children's motivation to read increases
Measured benefits for parents in family learning programs:• Parents persist in family literacy programs longer than in other adult literacy programs• Parents' attitudes about education improve• Parents' reading achievement increases.
• Parents' writing ability improves• Parents' math and science knowledge increases.
• Parents' knowledge about parenting options and child development increases• Parents' social awareness and self-advocacy increases• Parents enhance their employment status or job satisfaction• Parents and other family members become more involved in schools.
Measured benefits for families from family learning programs:• Families become emotionally closer which creates a more supportive home environment• Families read more and engage in more literate behaviors at home1

Guthrie, JT, Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. NM Humenick,The voice of evidence in reading research, 2004
Taylor, D., Family literacy : young children learning to read and write. Heinemann, Portsmouth, NH ©1998.
3
Nickse, Ruth S., Family Literacy Programs: Ideas for Action. Adult Literacy, Volume: 1 issue: 5, page(s): 9-28, February 1, 1990.
4
William Raspberry, The Denver Post, July 25, 1993
5
Ibid.
6
Anderson, Jean E., Families Learning Together in Colorado: A Report on Family Literacy. Colorado State Dept. of Education, Denver. Officeof Adult Education, 1994.
7
Padak, N & Rasinski, T, Family Literacy Programs: Who Benefits? Ohio Literacy Resource Center, Kent State Univ., 2003.
2

By Jonathan A. Bower

Developing the 6 Components of Literacy
Twenty years ago, the U.S. government commissioned a project to definitively recommend thebest approach to teaching literacy. Only one third of the students in American schools werelearning to read proficiently, and their lack of literacy was preventing their further education. In
1998, the U.S. National Research Council released Preventing Reading Difficulties in YoungChildren1 defining instructional solutions to the problem. In 2000, the Report of the National
Reading Panel2 was published describing which methods of teaching reading are proven to workby rigorous scientific studies. Both reports concluded that while reading as much as possible,
students should be explicitly taught skills in six areas:
1. Phonemic Awareness – an understanding of the sounds in their language and how they
form words,
2. Decoding – the ability to figure out unfamiliar words, and to learn to read them automatically,
3. Vocabulary – knowledge of an adequate number of words to understand text passages,
4. Fluency – the ability to read quickly and without conscious attention,
5. Comprehension – the ability to understand the direct meaning of text, and also its
implications and intention, and finally the ability to perform analysis on text and6. Writing – the ability to express their feelings, thoughts and understanding in various
forms of written expression.
Ideally, learners should master phonemic awareness by the end of Kindergarten and decoding
by the end of 3rd grade3 while actually reading for pleasure and for knowledge. Then, learners
read material of interest to them4 while being taught to improve their vocabulary, fluency andcomprehension abilities until they can easily read, understand and analyze any text. From thetime they can hold a pencil, students also learn to share their perspectives, understanding andideas in writing.
This approach stands in contrast with “whole language” approaches to reading instruction which
exclusively emphasize the reading of important content and focus on using context clues todiscern the meaning of text. This approach has been thoroughly debunked by data showingthat explicit instruction in phonics combined with text-based language activities (reading)
generates significantly faster progress in reading than the whole language approach5.
Unfortunately today, it is still true that only 36% of students in American schools ever become
proficient readers by the time they enter high school6. The vast majority lack adequate
phonemic awareness and decoding skills, which prevents them from mastering higher level
reading skills7. Few continue to build their reading vocabularies so that they can take on more
complex, interesting text. They do not become fluent readers, and they do not learn to fullycomprehend text so that they can write about it.
The solution is clear: provide developing readers of all ages with explicit instruction and plentyof practice in the six components of literacy while providing access to interesting content, until
they have become proficient readers and writers. High quality literacy software provides thepractice to complement teacher instruction so that students learn to mastery.
1

2

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000), Washington, D.C.
3
Joseph K. Torgesen. (2005) Preventing Early Reading Failure.
4

Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J. Francis, D. J, Rivera, M. O., Lesaux, N. (2007). Academic
literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

5

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., and Yurecko, M. (May 8, 2003). Teaching Children to Read: The fragile link between science and federal education
policy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(15).
6
National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). 2013 Reading Assessment Report Card.
7
Joseph K. Torgesen. (2005) Preventing Early Reading Failure.

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jonbower@comcast.net.

By Jane Montes, PhD& Jonathan A. Bower

Promoting English Learners’ Literacy Development in English
English Learners (ELs) each bring their own, varied cultural and linguistic literacy development experiences to literacy acquisition in English. As explained in the 2006 report Developing Literacy in Second-Language Learners1, ELs take a more unique route than their English speaking peers to developing literacy in English, even though their reading instruction comprises the same research-based
components: phonemic awareness, phonics/decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension
along with writing skills development. Successful literacy instruction for ELs results when ELs build
upon their prior knowledge, capitalize on opportunities for cross-linguistic transfer, and receive academic language and literacy instruction that is comprehensible.
Building on ELs’ existing phonological awareness to develop phonemic awareness is equally important to their literacy development as it is for native English-speaking students. It is essential, however, to recognize that the ELs’ development of phonemic awareness is largely influenced by theirnative language proficiency and their phonemic awareness of the sounds in their native language.2
Given the interactive nature of the components of literacy, ELs benefit most when all six skills aretaken into consideration simultaneously, rather than learning them in isolation. For example, Helman
discussed the importance of phonics in learning to read and also recommended eight instructionalguidelines to support ELs’ acquisition of the written code: 1) Work with students at their developmental level; 2) Build on students’ home language and literacy skills; 3) Follow a systematic sequence ofliteracy instruction; 4) Make phonics instruction clear and explicit; 5) Use active learning strategies toteach and practice skills; 6) Integrate vocabulary study into phonics instruction; 7) Connect phonics
instruction to meaningful texts; 8) Check for understanding and use frequent informal assessments.3
Flink Bilingual Literacy implements these recommendations to offer ELs appropriate second language
literacy learning opportunities in English with meaningful practice in all six skill areas. Specifically,
Flink Bilingual Literacy provides:● Explicit phonics practice in Spanish and English using a language-specific scope and sequence
for each language to ensure complete mastery of phonemic awareness and decoding skills,● Explicit vocabulary development built on a curated list of over 1,200 high frequency vocabulary
words essential for developing social and academic literacy,● Over 120 grade-leveled eBooks in both Spanish and English with audio support for guided reading practice, tools to measure fluency, and activities supporting the development of reading
comprehension via the framework Strategies That Work4: making connections, visualizing, inferring, determining importance, and synthesizing, and● Structured opportunities to write that provide a scaffold from mechanics activities to free writing.
Daniel and Cowan5 discussed the many language learning benefits of technology as an instructional
tool for ELs. Among those benefits, the Flink Bilingual Literacy supplemental program offers ELs
software-based practice that includes: the opportunity for ELs to interact with their second language
numerous times while developing control over a text through the processing of auditory and visual
input; and, regular opportunities for oral language development in the form of collaboration with peers
on interactive tasks that are meaningful and result in language learning. In these many ways, Flink
Bilingual Literacy promotes both reading comprehension and writing skills for ELs.
1

August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the national literacy panel on
languageminority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
2
Herrera, S.G., Perez, D.R., & Escamilla, K. (2010). Teaching reading to English language learners: Differentiated literacies. Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
3
Helman, L. (2016). Literacy development with English learners: Research-based instruction in grades K-6 (2nd ed.) p.179. New
York: The
Guildford Press.
4
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse.
5
Daniel, M. C., & Cowan, J. E. (2012). Exploring teachers’ use of technology in classrooms of bilingual students. GIST Educationand Learning
Research Journal, 6, 97-110.

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com.

By Jonathan A. Bower

Formative vs. Summative Assessment
When most people think about assessment, they think about tests: medium stakes tests thatmeasure learning at the end of a course module or the end of a course, or high stakes tests at
the end of a schooling experience. While these tests provide valuable information about whether
learning has taken place, they do not provide much information to students or teachers about
why, and none about how to achieve mastery of the target skill or content.
Formative assessment provides the data that learners and teachers need. Formative assessment is a not a test; rather, it is a conversation between learners and teachers (including peers)
about learning goals and what it will take to achieve them. It comes in the form of formative
feedback from learners to each other, from teachers to learners and from learners to theirteachers as they go through the learning process together. According to John Hattie, “the mostpowerful single moderator that enhances achievement is feedback.”1 In their review of 196 studies describing nearly 7,000 effects on learning, Hattie and Timperley reported that formative
feedback had an average effect size of 0.79 – an effect greater than student prior cognitive ability, socioeconomic background, and reduced class size2.
Note that learners and teachers are grouped together when we discuss formative assessment.
Rather than having teachers test students, in formative assessment they work together toachieve an understanding of where they are in the learning process, where they need to go toachieve their mutual goal, and what needs to be done next to move forward. For larger goals,
students present evidence of their mastery to their teachers, accumulating small points of data
into a complete story.
While it is possible to use test results as the basis of formative feedback, there are plenty ofother forms of data that can be used such as: written feedback on papers, audience feedback
about presentations and performances, and, the feedback provided by software to learners. In
fact, instructional support software is the ultimate source of formative feedback because it provides endless real-time feedback at exactly the moment of learning. As Hattie says, “The simplest prescription for improving education must be ‘dollops of feedback’ -- providing information
how and why the child understands and misunderstands, and what directions the student musttake to improve.”3 “Feedback designed to improve learning is more effective when it is focusedon the task, and provides the learner with suggestions, hints, or cues, rather than offered in theform of praise or comments about performance.”4 Well-designed educational software provides
just such hints and cues, while leaving it up to the learner to complete every task.
As we have discussed in the paper, Entertainment vs. Education, frequently viewing formal reports about their progress toward learning goals is also highly motivating to students. They receive acknowledgement of their achievements of mastery, feedback on their progress toward
their goals, and an understanding of the scope of the task they are engaged in. So long as they
can measure their progress, and experience control over the learning process, students willcontinue to make the effort to learn.
In summary, the direct feedback provided by well-designed software learning activities, and thereports it provides to students, provide valuable formative feedback; enhancing summative test
results.
1

John Hattie, Influences on student learning, 1999
Hattie & Timperley, 2007, p. 83
3
Op.Cit. Hattie, 1999
4
Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996
2

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com.

By Jonathan A. Bower

Personalizing Learning with Student Control vs. Algorithms
In general, the large amount of research on the subject of student agency shows that “the degree to which students learn how to control their own learning … is highly related to outcomes.1”
Furthermore, for computer-aided instruction, “when the student is in ‘control’ over his or her
learning … then the effects were greater than when the teacher was in ‘control’ over these dimensions of learning.2” Students who feel that they are in control of their learning are more highly motivated to do the often difficult work of acquiring a new skill like reading. Studies by Kanevsky & Keighley on student engagement show that, “Five interdependent features … distinguished boring from learning experiences: control, choice, challenge, complexity and caring
teachers. The extent to which these five C's were present determined the extent of students’
engagement and productivity.3”
Student-controlled software gives students control through choice. Students choose their own
challenges across a range of complexity; for example in reading, evolving from simple alphabet
activities to the application of complex analysis to text. The key item that software cannot provide is a caring teacher. That’s where peer learning comes in4: students can share a screen withpeers, who usually care about their co-learners, and with caring parents who certainly do. In thisway, student-controlled software provides truly engaging and effective learning experiences.
And what about algorithms? Computer-assisted instruction is one of the many interventions
studied by researcher John Hattie who found that:• normal mental development and exposure to a teacher for a year generates an averagelearning gain of 0.375, while• the use of computer-assisted instruction also shows a gain of exactly 0.37 per year.
Students who use algorithmically-controlled software see no benefit above students who don’t!
We shouldn’t be surprised. The algorithms used are rarely sophisticated enough to account forthe different learning pathways of real students. As Richard Culatta says, “a model where astudent is simply clicking through digital content at their own pace does not meet the criteria for
personalized learning.”6 Even “Individualized Instruction” programs based on student-response
algorithms do not provide a truly personalized learning experience, and as shown by Hattie’s
analysis if the research, do not contribute in a meaningful way to learning.
Flink Learning implements all of this best practice research by putting students in charge of theirown learning in order to maximize learning outcomes. Flink Learning products are studentcontrolled. This means that students choose not only when and where they use them, but also,
what learning activities they perform, or build ̶ without limitations. They are free to choose anylevel, any activity, and to repeat activities as they wish/need. They use information about theirperformance on each activity, and about what they need to accomplish, to decide whether torepeat it, move on to a more difficult one, or to do something else entirely. The result is both
long-term engagement and accelerated learning.
1

Hattie, John. Visible Learning: a Synthesis of Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, 2009, P. 48.
Ibid. P. 225.
3
Lannie Kanevsky & Tacey Keighley. To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and thehonor in underachievement, Roeper Review, Volume 26, 2003 - Issue 1, P. 20-28
4
See Peer Learning is Better than 1-1 Computing by Jonathan Bower
5
That is, an effect size of 0.37 from the school experience over one year. Effect sizes ranged from -0.3 to
1.44.
6Tweet: Richard Culatta,CEO, International Society for Technology in Education2

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com.

By Jonathan A. Bower

Peer Learning is Better than 1:1 Computing
Since the advent of computer-assisted instruction on mainframe computers, educators haveassumed that learners should use computers on their own. More recently, hardware vendors
have certainly encouraged the notion that schools need one device for every student. Softwaredevelopers have simplified their lives by assuming that their programs will be used by one
person at a time. Yet, research shows that just as they do in classroom settings, learners learn
faster and more easily when they work together at least some of the time. For this reason, Flink
Learning offers its Team programs which encourage learners to work together, and with adults,
increasing both engagement and outcomes.
Why is peer learning more effective? Because at their core, human beings are social learners.
In a meta-analysis of studies investigating instructional practices that enhanced motivation for,and engagement in, reading, Guthrie and Humenick identified four instructional practices withsignificant effect sizes including “opportunities to collaborate with other students in discussion
and assignment groups to achieve their learning goals.1” During its research phase from 2000
until 2010, The Writers Express found that students improved their writing faster in response topeer feedback along with teacher feedback than from teacher feedback alone2. The National
Mathematics Advisory Panel sites 31 studies in its 2008 report indicating that various forms ofpeer learning accelerate the learning of mathematics, eight of which studied peer learning withcomputer software.3 The computer science department of Brandeis University created a webbased computer program for skills development (mathematics, geography, and spelling) andfound that when they applied a scoring algorithm that rewarded students for the improvement of
their peers, the entire group learned significantly faster together.4
Aren’t computer-based learning programs effective when used 1:1? Not really. Computerassisted instruction is one of the interventions studied by researcher John Hattie5 who foundthat:• Normal mental development and exposure to a teacher for a year generates an averagelearning gain of 0.376, and• The use of computer-assisted instruction also shows a gain of exactly 0.37 per year.
Students who use algorithmically-controlled software 1:1 see no benefit over students
who don’t!
How does peer learning with software actually work? Flink’s eBook activities provide an
excellent example. Learners work in pairs with one reading out loud and the other listening andcorrecting/ assisting their peer when they make a mistake or get stuck. The reader gets afluency score based on how quickly they finished the book. Both learners work together toanswer a set of comprehension questions, some of which require an analytical conversation
between the learners to answer. In this fashion, readers can take on more complex text as
requested by the Common Core state standards, gain fluency without the presence of an adultto guide them, and learn from the type of analytical conversation shown to maximize
engagement in reading by Guthrie and Humenick.
1

Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. JT Guthrie, NM Humenick,The voice of evidence in reading research, 2004
2
Deborah Reck, former CEO of the Writers’ Express & CAO Language Arts for Amplify Learning
3

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Foundations for Success: The Final Report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel, U.S.
Department of Education: Washington, DC, 2008
4
Unpublished, Jordan Pollack, 20075
http://visible-learning.org/2016/04/hattie-ranking-backup-of-138-effects/
6
That is, an effect size of 0.37 from the school experience over one year. Effect sizes of various interventions ranged from -0.3 to 1.44.

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com.

By Jonathan A. Bower

Entertainment vs. Education
Americans, and many others around the world, live in a highly stimulating entertainment environment. Television, video games, phone apps and a myriad of web sites offer highly engaging
entertainment experiences at any time, in just about any place. In order to compete for attention,
many educators and education software developers argue that learning experiences need to begiven the style, pace and scoring systems of games, to be “gamified,” in order to engage learners and provide effective learning experiences. Yet, research contradicts their assumption.
Humans are natural learners. The brain secretes Dopamine in its reward centers in response toa successful learning experience demonstrated by performance1. First graders successfully
reading new words and golfers who learn to hit straighter down the fairway both experience realpleasure from their achievements. They do not need animated figures to congratulate them, rapid-fire editing to keep them involved or good scores to tell them they succeeded. Performing alearned skill generated the pleasure by itself.
Even more important to learning, the gamification of learning activities actually reduces learning;
reducing the value and the pleasure that learners receive from their use. Research by Michelle
Donnelly in 20062 found that students who heard stories read out loud were 2.5 times more likely to remember their content than students who experienced them in animated interactive applications. Writing about the study, Iain Thomson noted that “pupils who use interactive software
cannot remember the stories they have just experienced because they are distracted by cartoons and sound effects.”3 Similarly, Hongpaisanwiwat and Lewis reported in 2003 that animated characters had zero or negative impact on recall depending on whether a human or animatronic voice was used4. Many other studies5 have shown the same: the more multimedia effects
are included in learning activities, the less learning takes place due to both time wasted and distraction from the learning task.
Effective instructional software implements this research by limiting animation to answers moving into position for selection by learners, and by limiting sound effects to direct positive andneutral (for errors) feedback. Students choose the backgrounds they prefer from complex
themes or simple colors depending on their ability to concentrate and their propensity for boredom. Learners focus on the content; tracking their progress through reports. Teachers can also
access these reports to provide additional feedback and direction to learners, but the primaryvalue is in informing students directly6. That is probably the only area where gamification is appropriate for learning: more learning takes place when students receive direct feedback on theirperformance than if they receive it from a third party.
In sum, well designed educational software activities provide engagement through learning rather than through entertainment, effectively motivating students to succeed.
1

The Compass of Pleasure: How Our Brains Make Fatty Foods, Orgasm, Exercise, Marijuana, Generosity, Vodka, Learning, and Gambling Feel So
Good.
David J. Linden Penguin, Apr 14, 2011

2
3
4

Education 3 to 13
Iain Thomson, vnunet.com 10 Jan 2006

Attentional Effect of Animated Character. Human-computer Interaction, INTERACT ’03: IFIP TC13 International Conference. Cholyeun Hongpaisanwiwat & Michael
Lewis (2003)
5

Christensen & Gerber (1990), Boyce & Assad (1990), Tversky, Morrison & Betrancourt (2002), Rieber, Baylor, Ryu & Shen
(2003), Large,
Beheshti, Breuleux & Renaud (2003), De Jong & Bus (2004), Lowe, R.K. (2004), Sung-il Kim (2007)
6
Hattie, John. Visible Learning: a Synthesis of Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, 2009, Pgs. 48 & 225

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com.

By Jonathan A. Bower

Accelerating Vocabulary Development with Software
According to Baumann, Kame‘enui, & Ash, students' vocabulary knowledge correlates strongly
to their reading comprehension and overall academic success1. Robert Marzano’s research has
shown that direct vocabulary instruction on words related to content that will be on a test increases performance on that test from the 50th percentile to the 83rd.2 However, Horst, Cobb &Meara found that a minimum of 8-12 exposures must occur for retention with normal students ofany new concept or word3. Although teaching can make a real difference in vocabulary learning,
the explicit teaching of vocabulary is not enough: a dedicated teacher can only teach perhaps
300-400 words per year4. The solution to providing enough exposures to new words to master acomplete academic vocabulary is comprehensive, well-designed software.
Comprehensive Content
The vocabulary content for Flink software for Grades K-2 is based on high frequency words for
those grade levels. The vocabulary list includes all of the words in three standard lists of highfrequency words: Dolch, Fry 1,000 and EDL. Grade 3 and above words are drawn from a number of standard spelling and vocabulary approaches, plus any books included in the program.
Pedagogy
The Vocabulary words are organized into wordlists, containing from six words (for Kindergarten
students) to twenty words (for third grade students). Since high frequency words do not follow
any content-related pattern, we organize them randomly and do the same with Grade 3 words
for the sake of consistency.
For each wordlist, students are provided with 5-12 different educational activities starting withsimple flash cards and image matching at the Kindergarten level, and increasing in sophistication and difficulty as the levels rise. Each activity provides students with different practice withthe words in the lists. The last activity is named “Show Words You Have Learned.” This activity
functions as an assessment.
Flink software therefore delivers all of Robert Marzano’s six steps for vocabulary development5:
1. On the computer students see and hear words in context and with definitions,
2. Students define words and give examples of their use on computer-generated worksheets,
3. Students draw a picture of words when that is possible,
4. Students extend their knowledge of the word through various activities,
5. Students are constantly encouraged to discuss word meaning during the activities, and
6. Students play multiple games using the words they are learning for additional exposures.
Flink software products help students learn a complete academic vocabulary to support proficient reading and writing.
1

Baumann, J., Kame’enui, E., & Ash, G. (2003). Research on vocabulary instruction: Voltaire redux. J. Flood, D.
Lapp, J. Squire, & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 752785). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2
Marzano, Robert J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement: Research on
what works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
3
Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Meara, P. (1998). Beyond A Clockwork Orange: Acquiring second language vocabulary
through reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 207–223.
4
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Different ways for different goals, but keep your eye on the higher verbal
goals. In R. K. Wagner, A. E. Muse, & K. R. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading
comprehension (pp. 182–204). New York: Guilford.
5
Op. Cit. Marzano (2004)

For more information, contact Jon Bower at 508-641-4035 or at jon@flinklearning.com