ISSUES & ANSWERS

At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro

U.S. Department of Education

Evidence-based 

decisionmaking: 

assessing 

reading across 

the curriculum 

interventions

REL 2007–No. 003
Evidence-based decisionmaking:

assessing reading across the 

curriculum interventions

June 2007

Prepared by

Karla Lewis

SERVE Center

Wendy McColskey

SERVE Center

Kim Anderson

SERVE Center

Treana Bowling

SERVE Center

Kathleen Dufford-Melendez

SERVE Center

Lucy Wynn

SERVE Center

ISSUES&ANSWERS REL 2007–No. 003

U.S. Department of Education

At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro
Issues & Answers is an ongoing series of reports from short-term Fast Response Projects conducted by the regional educational laboratories on current education issues of importance at local, state, and regional levels. Fast Response Project topics 

change to reflect new issues, as identified through lab outreach and requests for assistance from policymakers and educators at state and local levels and from communities, businesses, parents, families, and youth. All Issues & Answers reports 

meet Institute of Education Sciences standards for scientifically valid research. 

June 2007

This report was prepared for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) under Contract ED-06-CO-0028 by Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast administered by SERVE Center at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. The content 

of the publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of Education nor does 

mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

This report is in the public domain. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, it should be cited as: 

Lewis, K., McColskey, W., Anderson, K., Bowling, T., Dufford-Melendez, K., and Wynn, L. (2007). Evidence-based decisionmaking: assessing reading across the curriculum interventions (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007–No. 003). Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional 

Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

This report is available on the regional educational laboratory web site at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.

WA

OR

ID

MT

NV

CA

UT

AZ

WY

ND

SD

NE

KS

CO

NM

TX

OK AR

LA

MS AL GA

SC

NC

VA WV

KY

TN

PA

NY

FL

AK

MN

WI

IA

IL IN

MI

OH

VT

NH

ME

MO

At SERVE Center UNC, Greensboro
 iii

Summary

When selecting reading across the curriculum interventions, educators should 

consider the extent of the evidence base 

on intervention effectiveness and the 

fit with the school or district context, 

whether they are purchasing a product 

from vendors or developing it internally. 

This report provides guidance in the 

decisionmaking.

Many states, districts, schools, and educational support organizations have identified 

improving adolescent literacy outcomes as a 

pressing need. For example, the Georgia Department of Education incorporated Reading 

Across the Curriculum Standards as part of its 

2004 revisions to state performance standards. 

These new standards represented a significant 

challenge for content-area teachers. Georgia, 

among other states, was interested in information on the kinds of professional development 

interventions available to support teachers’ 

efforts to integrate these new expectations 

about reading in the content areas into their 

teaching. This report looks at what reading 

across the curriculum interventions states and 

districts might consider in their plans to improve reading outcomes at the secondary level.

Seven interventions were identified for review: ReadAbout, Reading in the Content 

Areas, Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), CReating Independence through 

Student-owned Strategies (CRISS), Reading 

Apprenticeship, Literacy First, and Strategic 

Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC). While not an exhaustive list 

of the professional development interventions 

available, these seven represent the types of 

external support that schools might access. Of 

the seven interventions, only Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction has had several quasi-experimental studies and an experimental study 

conducted on its effectiveness. In addition, four 

interventions—ReadAbout, CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies, 

Reading Apprenticeship, and Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum—are 

currently the focus of federally funded studies 

that will examine the interventions’ effectiveness through experimental studies.

A primary purpose of this report is to compare 

these interventions in a way that is helpful to 

decisionmakers. One important dimension of 

comparison is the extent of evidence of intervention effectiveness.

Evidence-based decisionmaking: 

assessing reading across the 

curriculum interventions
iv Summary

In addition, the report offers the following practical guidance to decisionmaking teams tasked 

with finding ways to support content-area teachers in improving reading across the curriculum:

1. Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of 

the changes desired and the local context. 

2. Think about the selection of a professional 

development intervention as part of an 

evidence-based decisionmaking cycle. 

3. Consider structuring a comprehensive 

planning process that goes beyond 

selecting a professional development 

intervention. 

Following a thoughtful evidence-based 

decisionmaking process should enhance the 

likelihood that a district or school reading 

across the curriculum initiative will achieve 

the desired outcomes.

June 2007
 v

Table of contents

Summary iii

What the Southeast Region states are doing now 3

Working on reading across the curriculum standards 3

Providing professional development to support teachers 3

Using literacy coaches to help teachers 3

Evaluation of professional development initiatives is limited 4

Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 4

Brief description of the seven interventions 5

Comparing interventions by expressed and measured teacher outcomes 8

What evidence is there on the effectiveness of interventions? 10

Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 14

Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of the changes desired and 

the local context 14

Consider the selection of a professional development intervention as part of a decisionmaking cycle 16

Consider structuring a comprehensive planning process that goes beyond selecting a professional development 

intervention 18

Appendix A Methodology 25

Appendix B Southeastern state summary 30

Appendix C Southeastern state profiles 36

Appendix D Intervention abstracts 41

Appendix E Additional resources 55

References 58

Box 1 How the interventions were identified 2

Figure 1 The evidence-based decisionmaking cycle 16

Tables

1 Sample of state adolescent literacy activities 3

2 Summary of selected interventions and status of research on effectiveness 4

3 Main focus of five interventions 8

4 Methods used in assessing outcomes for teachers vary by intervention 9

5 Comparison of features mentioned in some research reviews on literacy 21

A1 Rationale for interventions not described 28
1

When selecting 

reading across 

the curriculum 

interventions, 

educators should 

consider the 

extent of the 

evidence base 

on intervention 

effectiveness 

and the fit with 

the school or 

district context, 

whether they 

are purchasing 

a product from 

vendors or 

developing it 

internally. This 

report provides 

guidance in the 

decisionmaking.

Ensuring adequate ongoing literacy development for all students in the middle and 

high school years is a more challenging task 

than ensuring excellent reading education 

in the primary grades for two reasons: 

first, secondary school literacy skills are 

more complex, more embedded in subject 

matters, and more multiply determined; 

second, adolescents are not as universally 

motivated to read better or as interested 

in school-based reading as kindergartners 

(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 1).

Despite the critical role that literacy plays for 

adolescents, national reading results from the 

National Assessment of Educational Progress 

show that the proportion of 12th graders scoring 

at the proficient level or better declined from 40 

percent in 1992 to about a third in 2002 (NCES, 

2003). Many states, districts, schools, educational 

support organizations, and foundations have 

identified improving adolescent literacy outcomes 

as a pressing need (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Bottoms, 2005; Kamil, 2003; Meltzer, 2001; National 

Association of State Boards of Education, 2006). 

Working across content areas with teachers at 

the middle and high school level and with adolescents who are generally less motivated to read the 

older they get (Kamil, 2003) makes this a difficult 

challenge. The problem cannot be solved simply 

by having all students take a reading course or 

by ramping up the reading requirements in state 

content-area tests.

The challenge requires a significant change in 

expectations for how content-area teachers embed 

reading materials, strategies, demands, assignments, and assessments into their courses. For 

example, when the Georgia Department of Education incorporated standards on reading across the 

curriculum as part of the 2004 revisions to the 

Georgia Performance Standards, it sought information on professional development interventions 

to support teachers’ efforts to integrate these new 

expectations about reading into their teaching. 

In response to such requests this report provides 

information on state initiatives in adolescent 
2 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

literacy and on external professional development or teacher support interventions designed 

to help content-area teachers increase their focus 

on reading. The report also describes the available 

evaluation data on the interventions identified for 

review.

Seven interventions were identified (see box 1 

and appendix A for methodology) and compared 

to provide a good understanding of their approach and evidence base. The evaluation results 

are described in a way that should help educators 

understand the limitations of certain evaluation 

methodologies in drawing conclusions about 

program impact. Of the seven interventions, 

only Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction 

(CORI) had several quasi-experimental studies and an experimental study conducted on its 

effectiveness. In addition, four interventions—

ReadAbout, CReating Independence through 

Student-owned Strategies (CRISS), Reading Apprenticeship, and Strategic Instruction Model–

Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC)—are 

currently the focus of federally funded studies 

that will examine the interventions’ effectiveness 

through experimental studies.

The report also provides guidance to decisionmaking teams engaged in finding ways to support 

content-area teachers in improving reading across 

the curriculum. In particular, practical guidance 

is provided through three recommendations:

1. Consider professional development interventions in light of a clear understanding of the 

changes desired and the local context.

2. Think about the selection of a professional 

development intervention as part of an 

evidence-based decisionmaking cycle.

Box 1

How the interventions were 

identified

Interventions were selected for analysis in a three-phase process. The first 

phase involved gathering information 

from Southeast Region state education 

agency contacts and from documents 

on their initiatives in adolescent 

literacy. This information provides a 

context for how the six states in the 

region are beginning to address reading at the secondary level.

The second phase was a search for 

professional development or teachersupport interventions designed to 

help content-area teachers increase 

their attention to reading. The 

search for programs included lists 

provided by other regional educational laboratories, content centers, 

research centers and organizations, 

Southeast Region state departments 

of education, and federally funded 

literacy projects. Information was 

also obtained from the Education Resources Information Center, conferences, and knowledgeable researchers 

and practitioners. The focus was on 

well-articulated, readily available external interventions designed to help 

content-area teachers improve their 

students’ reading in that content area. 

These included programs that:

•	 Seemed to target all content-area 

teachers.

•	 Were aimed at improving teacher 

instruction and assessment at 

the classroom level (not aimed at 

small groups of students).

•	 Were relevant for 4th through 

12th grade teachers.

•	 Provided enough information to 

determine their purpose, content, 

audience, and desired outcomes.

•	 Were currently in use (not under 

development).

•	 Were available for purchase from 

external vendors.

The following seven interventions 

were identified: ReadAbout, Reading in the Content Areas, ConceptOriented Reading Instruction (CORI), 

CReating Independence through 

Student-owned Strategies (CRISS), 

Reading Apprenticeship, Literacy 

First, and Strategic Instruction 

Model–Content Literacy Continuum 

(SIM–CLC). This is not an exhaustive list, but it represents the types of 

external support that schools in the 

Southeast Region might access.

The third phase involved a search for 

evaluation reports and studies on the 

seven interventions so that the extent 

of the evidence base on effectiveness 

could be described.
What the Southeast Region states are doing now 3

3. Consider structuring a comprehensive planning process that goes beyond selecting a 

professional development intervention.

Following a thoughtful evidence-based decisionmaking process should enhance the likelihood 

that a district or school reading across the curriculum initiative will achieve the desired outcomes.

What the Southeast Region 

states are doing now

Although all six Southeast Region states (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North 

Carolina, and South Carolina) have some form 

of adolescent literacy initiative under way, the 

intensity of efforts in professional development for 

content-area teachers varies. (Appendixes B and 

C provide background information on the work 

of each of the six state education departments.) A 

sample set of state activities is briefly introduced 

below as context (table 1).

Working on reading across the curriculum standards

Georgia began by creating new performance standards to ensure that literacy skills are expected of 

students in all content areas. These standards are 

expected to drive professional development planning 

for teachers at the local level. Georgia first implemented its performance standards in 2004/05. Its 

new Reading Across the Curriculum Standards have 

been developed in science, social studies, math, and 

language arts for all students in grades 6–12.

Providing professional development to support teachers

A key assumption of most states is that contentarea teachers need support in making instructional 

and assessment improvements to strengthen reading. The Alabama Reading Initiative is an ongoing 

state-developed and -managed professional development program that offers an intensive two-week 

workshop each summer. The training is provided 

to school teams that must apply to participate. 

After much experience providing professional 

development at the elementary and middle school 

levels, the state is expanding its literacy efforts to 

professional development for high schools.

Content Area Reading Professional Development 

in Florida is an in-service program that qualifies 

participants to serve as reading-intervention teachers in their content areas. It will be available soon 

to provide educators with a reading endorsement 

(http://www.justreadflorida.com/endorsement/).

North Carolina provides several professional 

development options related to adolescent literacy. 

For example, LEARN NC provides online courses 

for content-area teachers addressing contentarea reading comprehension in kindergarten 

through eighth grade (http://www.learnnc.org and 

http://www.ncpublicschools.org/profdev/online/).

Using literacy coaches to help teachers

The Southeast Region state education agencies are 

interested in literacy coaches as a way of helping 

teachers improve their instruction in reading. The 

Table 1

Summary of state adolescent literacy activities

Initiative component Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi

North 

Carolina

South 

Carolina

Reading Across the Curriculum Standards ✓

Professional development currently 

offered for content-area teachers

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Literacy coaches ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Evaluation of professional development ✓ ✓ ✓
4 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

North Carolina Governor’s Office recently funded 

100 literacy coaches to work in the lowest performing middle schools. Florida requires districts to 

include literacy coaches to work with content-area 

teachers on improving reading 

skills as part of their district plans. 

South Carolina uses regional and 

district literacy coaches. These 

coaches work in classrooms to 

provide support to South Carolina 

Reading Initiative teachers, guide 

twice monthly discussion meetings, and participate in monthly 

summer groups to better understand the reading 

process. The regional literacy coaches provide ongoing support to district literacy coaches to ensure 

that teachers can make the connection between 

what they are learning and how they apply it in the 

classroom. Although the use of literacy coaches is 

prevalent, the states are still trying to determine 

whether the coaches are an effective means of 

improving student literacy.

Evaluation of professional development 

initiatives is limited

Evaluation reports describing the implementation 

or impact of professional development programs 

or other kinds of support in adolescent literacy are 

limited, because most states are in the planning 

stages of improving reading instruction in content 

areas. However, Alabama and South Carolina have 

examined the impact of their professional development work on teachers and students. A report 

on the Alabama Reading Initiative noted that the 

initial delivery of the professional development 

was “one size fits all” with content focused on the 

elementary grades (Bacevich & Salinger, 2006). 

Secondary teachers had to adapt the materials to 

the needs of their students. As part of an in-depth 

study of the South Carolina Reading Initiative, 

South Carolina collects data from participating teachers and coaches to monitor changes in 

practice and discern how teachers are applying 

information from professional development to 

the classroom. The study also looks at changes 

in students’ skills and strategies (South Carolina 

Reading Initiative, 2003). Florida has research 

under way through work with the RAND Corporation to study the impact of reading coaches on 

student achievement.

Identifying what interventions are

available to support teachers

With the Southeast Region state departments of 

education still exploring strategies and professional development approaches designed to improve reading outcomes at the secondary level and 

Table 2

Summary of selected interventions and status of research on effectiveness

Intervention

Grades 

served Status of research on effectiveness

Category 1: Supplementary materials

ReadAbout 3–8 Research in progress

Reading in the Content Areas 6–12 None yet

Category 2: Professional development programs

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) 3–12 Completed

CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies (CRISS) 3–12 Research in progress

Reading Apprenticeship 6–12 Research in progress

Category 3: Professional development as schoolwide effort

Literacy First 6–12 None yet

Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC) 6–12 Research in progress

Some states are 

conducting evaluations 

of their professional 

development efforts 

to inform their 

decisionmaking
 Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 5

with few evaluations of state programs available, it 

is important that decisionmakers know about the 

types of interventions available.

The main question addressed in this section is what 

reading across the curriculum interventions might 

be considered in plans to improve reading outcomes 

at the secondary level. Seven interventions were 

identified for review (see box 1 and appendixes A 

and B) and organized by type (table 2).

Brief description of the seven interventions

Category 1: supplementary materials in support 

of content-area reading skills. At the simplest 

level of support content-area teachers may need 

supplementary materials to provide instruction in 

reading comprehension. These types of approaches 

assume that teachers just need more materials. The 

materials are organized and sequenced to bring 

strategies identified by research into the classroom. They provide materials for teachers to use in 

direct instruction of strategies along with reading 

materials for students to practice.

1. ReadAbout, developed by Scholastic, Inc., is 

intended for use in mixed-ability classrooms in 

grades three to eight as a way of differentiating 

reading instruction and giving students practice 

in nonfiction texts. ReadAbout offers students 

self-managed, online supplementary readings and 

strategy instruction. Recommended for use for 20 

minutes, three times a week, the program includes:

•	 ReadAbout software.

•	 Independent reading cards.

•	 Teacher’s guide.

•	 Two days of teacher training on the ReadAbout software and two half-day supplemental seminars on reading motivation and 

writing strategies.

The strategies taught include 10 comprehension 

skills and 7 strategies, vocabulary acquisition, and 

writing. Students build their content-area knowledge with readings in science, social studies, and 

life experiences. The software includes motivating 

activities with immediate feedback, video segments, and continuous online assessment. Extra 

support is provided for English language learners 

and struggling readers.

2. Reading in the Content Area, developed by Globe 

Fearon Publishers, is intended to build content 

literacy through high-interest, real-life readings 

for grades four to seven (Shanahan, 2005). The 

materials can be used by any teacher as part of 

regular instruction, not just in remedial situations. 

The intervention includes:

•	 A vocabulary handbook and workbooks 

on reading strategies for four content areas 

(social studies, science, mathematics, and 

English).

•	 Teacher’s guide for each workbook and a guide 

with tips for helping students read to learn.

•	 Placement guide.

The strategies taught 

include use of graphic 

organizers and study 

strategies for before, 

during, and after reading; 

Cornell note-taking; outlining; survey, question, 

read, recite, review; and 

strategies for dealing with content area vocabulary (Kinsella, 2000). It uses a direct-instruction 

strategy teaching model (introduce the strategy, 

model it, use a think-aloud lesson plan, review the 

strategy, and use workbook for guided practice).

Category 2: professional development course or program. Category 2 approaches assume that teachers 

need professional development in helping students 

become more effective readers in the content areas.

3. Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) 

was developed by University of Maryland College 

At the simplest level 

content-area teachers 

may need supplementary 

materials to provide 

instruction in reading 

comprehension
6 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Park researchers John Guthrie and Allan Wigfield 

to increase the time students are engaged in reading. The objective is for students to be engaged in 

reading 60 minutes daily. Therefore, the professional development associated with it works with 

teachers to envision what a classroom of engaged 

readers would look like. The classroom goals focus 

on improved reading comprehension, writing, science (as the content area of emphasis), and student 

motivation (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). Although 

the program was developed for use by third and 

fourth grade teachers, it is included here because 

of its focus on components that are hypothesized 

as critical for engaged reading in the classroom 

and its expansion to 6th through 12th grade teachers (Guthrie et al., 2004). The professional development program helps teachers to:

•	 Use practices to motivate students to read 

independently.

•	 Teach cognitive strategies for reading 

comprehension.

•	 Provide a deep knowledge base in science as 

the source of content reading.

Ten days of training are required 

for teachers to learn about the 

strategies and plan for implementation of the 12 weeks of science 

materials. The curriculum guides 

include sample daily plans, sample 

weekly plans, booklists for student 

reading, and student worksheets 

for summarizing and portfolio 

use. Two books, Monitoring Reading Comprehension: Concept Oriented Reading Instruction and 

Concept Oriented Reading Instruction: Engaging Classrooms, Lifelong Learning, explain the 

practices and components and help teachers 

plan integrated units of instruction for creating 

engaged readers.

4. CReating Independence through Student-owned 

Strategies (CRISS) dates back to 1979, when a small 

group of Kalispell, Montana, teachers developed a 

professional development program for secondary 

teachers. The program was designed to provide 

content-area teachers and their students with a 

common vocabulary for strategies in reading to 

learn. Professional development includes 12–18 

hours of staff development that prepares teachers 

in grades 4–12 to implement, in their respective 

content areas, the strategies outlined in a teachers resource guide and a materials packet (Santa, 

2004). Two teachers from each content area and 

school-level and district-level administrators are 

invited to the training. The strategies include:

•	 Identifying the author’s craft and design.

•	 Organizing information.

•	 Developing memory.

•	 Writing reports and taking essay tests.

•	 Writing strategies.

•	 Developing vocabulary.

•	 Discussing strategies.

•	 Evaluating students.

The strategies are intended as part of regular 

course instruction when students are learning 

content.

5. Reading Apprenticeship, developed by WestEd’s 

Strategic Literacy Initiative, began in 1995 as 

a support system for content-area teachers in 

San Francisco. Reading Apprenticeship involves 

a complex set of interrelated components that 

together enable content-area teachers to engage 

students as critical readers. The goal of the professional development is to help content-area teachers 

develop more confident, engaged, and strategic 

readers who can read to learn in their content 

courses. The professional development program 

uses case studies to encourage participants to 

rethink their approach to teaching content. The 

program assumes that there are specific ways of 

Category 2 approaches 

assume that teachers 

need professional 

development in helping 

students become more 

effective readers in 

the content areas
 Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 7

reading and thinking in each discipline and that 

teachers need to become experts in modeling these 

processes for their students. It is articulated as an 

“instructional framework” rather than an isolated 

set of strategies for students to use. “In Reading 

Apprenticeship classrooms teachers reconceptualize subject-area learning as an apprenticeship in 

discipline-based practices of thinking, talking, 

reading, and writing” (Schoenback, Braunger, 

Greenleaf, & Litman, 2003, p. 134).

There are four dimensions of the instructional 

framework that organize the work (Greenleaf, 

Schoenbach, Cziko, & Mueller, 2001):

•	 Social dimension, such as sharing book talk 

and sharing reading processes.

•	 Personal dimension, such as developing 

reader fluency and stamina, assessing performance, and setting goals.

•	 Cognitive dimension, such as monitoring 

comprehension and using problem-solving 

strategies.

•	 Knowledge-building dimension, such as 

vocabulary, knowledge of text structures, and 

developing topic knowledge.

Overarching the four dimensions is an emphasis 

on helping teachers implement “metacognitive conversations” in which students reflect on 

their mental processes in reading and learning 

and share their reading processes and strategies 

(RAND Reading Study Group, 2002).

Category 3: professional development as a schoolwide effort. Two interventions are described 

as structured support for schoolwide efforts to 

rethink how literacy expectations are embedded 

in content courses. As Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler (2005, p. 61) explain, “Positioning literacy 

improvement efforts as a sidebar to other goals in 

secondary education has lessened the importance 

of secondary schools in preparing our children 

to compete in society and has consistently and 

systematically left millions of students behind.” 

A schoolwide approach to literacy seeks to engage 

every teacher in coordinated literacy improvement efforts.

Like the other interventions the two interventions 

in this category pay attention to the use of cognitive learning strategies, but unlike the others they 

do it within the context of a schoolwide, multiyear 

goal of improving students’ literacy skills across 

content areas.

6. Literacy First Middle 

and High School Content 

Area Process, developed 

in 1998 at the Professional 

Development Institute, is 

one of four Literacy First 

models. The other three 

models address early 

childhood, elementary 

and middle school, and high school struggling 

readers. The goal of the content-area process is to 

significantly increase achievement of all students 

in every content-area class and requires a commitment from the whole school, demonstrated by a 

three-year strategic reading plan.

Principals, literacy specialists, district administrators, and all content-area teachers participate in 

professional development. The program for teachers is spread over five days during each school 

year for three years. Principals, secondary literacy 

specialists, and district administrators attend an 

annual two-day Leadership Institute to develop 

their instructional leadership skills. In addition, a 

Literacy First consultant provides eight consulting 

days a year for three years. Professional development includes:

•	 Lesson planning techniques.

•	 Instructional strategies to engage students in 

the content.

•	 Instructional strategies to increase student 

vocabulary.

Category 3 interventions 

provide structured 

support for schoolwide 

efforts to rethink how 

literacy expectations 

are embedded in 

content courses
8 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

•	 Comprehension strategies customized to the 

content areas.

•	 Strategic reading and thinking tools.

•	 Strategies to help students with metacognition.

Teachers in the content area receive a teachers 

manual and three resource books that focus on 

comprehension skills, strategic reading and thinking tools, metacognitive processes, and vocabulary 

development.

7. Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy 

Continuum (SIM–CLC), developed by the University of Kansas Center on Research and Learning, 

aims to help secondary schools develop and implement a comprehensive literacy plan over three to 

four years (Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler, 2005). Initially, 

the researchers hoped to identify strategies that 

would meet the needs of adolescents with disabilities and low-achieving students who struggled 

with the challenges of reading in content-area 

classes, but they believed that the same strategies were important to help all students learn. 

The Content Literacy Continuum builds on the 

Strategic Instruction Model research and focuses 

on literacy as a schoolwide effort.

The program introduces teachers to a complex 

array of strategies for use with a wide range of 

students. It includes five levels: content mastery, 

embedded strategy instruction, explicit strategy 

instruction, intensive skill development, and 

intensive clinical intervention. The levels are 

explained in various manuals and on a CD-ROM. 

The program is implemented over four phases, 

beginning with planning and analysis of student 

and school data. The intent is to support schools 

over a sustained period in helping all students 

learn critical content, regardless of their literacy 

skills.

Comparing interventions by expressed 

and measured teacher outcomes

Before selecting an approach to support contentarea teachers in improving reading across the curriculum, the decisionmaking team must be able to 

articulate the key knowledge or skills that teachers 

are supposed to gain from the professional development experiences. What does the intervention 

program provider say about the aspects of teaching that will be improved? Will teachers learn 

concrete practices that can be used immediately or 

will they learn a framework and have to figure out 

how to apply what they learned on their own?

Expressed intervention outcomes for teachers. This 

section compares interventions in terms of their 

expressed goals for participating teachers (table 3).

•	 Cognitive strategies. All the interventions 

focus on providing teachers with additional 

Table 3

Main focus of five interventions

Intervention

Cognitive 

strategies

Contentspecific 

planning Writing

Student 

engagement

Social 

interactions 

(discussions)

Assessment 

and metacognitive 

strategies

Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction (CORI)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

CReating Independence through 

Student-owned Strategies (CRISS)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Literacy First ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Reading Apprenticeship ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategic Instruction Model–Content 

Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC)

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
 Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 9

instructional strategies in reading comprehension, vocabulary, and sometimes criticalthinking skills and fluency. The instructional 

strategies are key to all these interventions, 

but the form of the support differs (ranging 

from resources used by individual teachers, 

as in Reading in the Content Area, to phasing 

in for an entire faculty over 3–4 years, as in 

Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy 

Continuum).

•	 Approaches to content planning. ConceptOriented Reading Instruction, Literacy First, 

and Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum focus on changing teachers’ 

approaches to planning in the content areas. 

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction expects teachers to develop units in the content 

area that embed the research-based cognitive 

and motivational strategies they are taught. 

Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy 

Continuum spends 28–32 hours of workshop 

time on content organization and planning 

during the first two phases of implementation. Although some approaches assume that 

teachers know their content and can readily 

incorporate new strategies, others recognize 

the need to provide support for lesson and 

unit planning to make content more accessible 

and interesting to students.

•	 Motivation and engagement in reading.

Teachers are expected to learn motivation 

strategies in ReadAbout (if they take the 

supplemental seminar), Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction, and Reading Apprenticeship. Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction 

and ReadAbout are explicit about teachers 

learning motivational strategies. ReadAbout 

offers optional half-day seminars that address motivation. Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction expects teachers to learn how to 

promote engaged reading through hands-on 

activities, student choice, interesting text, 

and collaboration. Reading Apprenticeship 

offers an instructional framework of four 

dimensions for content teachers to consider 

in planning instruction. One is the personal 

dimension, which includes practices that lead 

to increased confidence and engagement of 

student readers.

Measured intervention outcomes for teachers.

Interventions that have a heavy focus on improving teacher practice should provide a way to 

measure the growth in teacher practice over time 

to see whether the desired growth occurs. Data 

may come from classroom observations, teaching artifacts, teacher interviews or surveys (table 

4), or interviews with students (asking them to 

report on teachers’ use of strategies taught in the 

professional development). Teachers’ self-reporting 

of their use of practices is often not very reliable; 

students may be better able to report on what their 

teachers are doing.

Studies of Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (for example, Bulgren, Deshler, 

Schumaker, & Lenz, 2000) have included classroom observers who used a checklist in examining 

Table 4

Methods used in assessing outcomes for teachers vary by intervention

Intervention

Self-report/

survey

Classroom 

observation Interviews Artifactsa

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) ✓ ✓ ✓

CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies (CRISS) ✓

Reading Apprenticeship ✓ ✓ ✓

Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum (SIM–CLC) ✓ ✓ ✓

a. Journals, reflections, lesson plans, assignments, and student work.
10 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

teacher use of particular strategies (table 4). 

Reading Apprenticeship reports have mentioned 

collecting teacher journals, lesson plans, assignments, and student work in describing the extent 

of teacher implementation of the four dimensions. 

CReating Independence through Student-owned 

Strategies reports have summarized data from 

teacher self-report surveys that asked teachers 

about their use of specific instructional strategies. 

Studies of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction 

have examined teacher implementation of lesson 

plans created during the professional development 

sessions and have observed in the classrooms to assess teachers’ use of the cognitive and motivational 

strategies learned in professional development.

It is important for potential users to examine 

the instruments available from the intervention 

programs for assessing and providing feedback 

to teachers on their implementation of desired 

practices. Reviewing these instruments will help 

in understanding what kind of teacher change 

the intervention is focused on and how the school 

might monitor classroom implementation.

What evidence is there on the effectiveness of interventions?

In choosing among interventions, evidence of 

effectiveness is critically important. What levels of 

evidence are available for the various interventions 

examined here?

Some interventions build on prior 

empirical research. A central 

aspect of all the interventions 

reviewed is a focus on helping teachers across the content 

area with cognitive strategies for 

teaching adolescents to read more 

efficiently and effectively. This is 

consistent with the Report of the 

National Reading Panel (National 

Reading Panel, 2000) that cites research studies 

on the positive effects of cognitive strategies for 

increasing reading comprehension. Such strategies 

include questioning, concept mapping, summarizing, and monitoring comprehension. 

Whether particular strategies or combinations of 

strategies can be used to improve poor reading 

performance has received considerable attention 

from researchers. Much of the adolescent literacy 

research since 1990 has focused on strategies to 

improve the reading skills of adolescents who are 

experiencing difficulty. For example, the Strategic 

Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum 

intervention emerged from 20 years of research at 

the University of Kansas on strategy instruction 

that works with students with disabilities. That 

research showed that students can learn the steps 

of a particular strategy, such as “paraphrasing,” at 

a high level of proficiency.

However, the Florida Center for Reading Research 

(2006, p. 8), which provides summaries of interventions, points out in a review of the Strategic 

Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum 

that the link between strategy use by students and 

reading outcome measures is not fully established: 

“studies reviewed found inconsistent results of the 

impact of strategy use on reading comprehension 

or found no differences in reading comprehension 

between students who learned a strategy and those 

who did not use a strategy.”

The implication of this research on special populations is that it is unclear which strategies in which 

combinations are most effective for use across the 

curriculum. Existing empirical research cannot 

inform teachers about how often to use a strategy 

or when to use it in a particular content-teaching 

application. The Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum developers emphasize 

that there is no single foolproof strategy. Rather, 

their goal is to provide teachers with an array 

of possible learning strategies to teach students, 

with the understanding that teachers will need 

flexibility in adapting the strategies to the needs 

of different classrooms. Similarly, the CReating 

Independence through Student-owned Strategies 

program models an array of strategies, but it is up 

to the teacher to choose among them.

Still other interventions add to the focus on cognitive strategies—a focus on strategies to improve 

Existing empirical 

research cannot inform 

teachers about how 

often to use a strategy 

or when to use it in 

a particular contentteaching application
 Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 11

reading motivation and engagement. Guthrie et al. 

(2004, p. 403) developed the Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction intervention to address this 

component:

Relatively little investigation has been 

conducted on how multiple strategies can 

be combined in long-term comprehension 

instruction within the classroom, and 

more studies of this kind are needed. Even 

fewer investigations have addressed issues 

related to motivation in reading instruction. It is increasingly evident that the 

acquisition of reading strategies and reading comprehension skills demands a large 

amount of effort and motivation and that 

outstanding teachers invest substantial 

time and energy in supporting students’ 

motivation and engagement in reading.

They explain that motivated students may want to 

understand a text more deeply and therefore take 

the time to process the text more completely. Motivated students would tend to read more frequently 

with a more engaged mindset and thus should 

gain in reading proficiency.

Guthrie et al. (2004) conducted a study that 

directly compared a combined-delivery model 

for teachers (cognitive strategies plus motivation strategies—Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction)—with a single cognitive strategy-only 

model and also with a traditionally instructed 

group. The study found that the Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction students measured higher 

than the other two groups on indicators of reading 

comprehension, reading motivation, and reading 

strategies. However, the study was conducted with 

third graders, so it is not known whether the findings would generalize to secondary teachers.

Another intervention that focuses explicitly on 

incorporating motivation into work with teachers is Reading Apprenticeship, which proposes 

that content-area teachers organize classrooms 

around four overlapping dimensions of students’ 

reading development (social, personal, cognitive, 

and knowledge building). The personal dimension 

is connected to motivation and is defined as the 

things teachers do that help students develop a 

reader identity, metacognition, reader fluency and 

stamina, and reader confidence and range, as well 

as assess performance and set goals.

Before and after data 

reported by developers is 

a first basis for claims of 

effectiveness—but a weak 

one. One of the most 

common approaches 

developers use to describe 

the added value of their interventions for teachers 

is to look at how teachers or students change from 

before to after the professional development. For 

example, the two following interventions report 

before and after data on students in their descriptive materials:

Reading Apprenticeship (RA):

In five studies conducted since 1997, 

students whose teachers participated in 

RA training have become more confident, 

engaged, and strategic readers. In one 

study, students in RA classrooms gained 

two years’ reading proficiency in seven 

months. In another study, students in RA 

classrooms made significant gains in their 

national reading percentile ranking. In 

one urban district, English learners grew 

as much as their fluent-English speaking 

peers, and students initially scoring the 

lowest quartiles made the most rapid gains 

(http://www.wested.org/cs/we/view/serv/10).

Literacy First:

Principals in Literacy First schools in 

Florida, North Carolina, and Washington 

all report a significant increase in students 

passing state or nationally normed assessment as a result of implementing the Content Area Process (http://www.literacyfirst.

com/content.asp).

Changes in reading 

achievement after 

program implementation 

can reflect the influence 

of many variables
12 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Although these reports help potential users 

understand the impacts they may experience from 

using the intervention, they do not represent highquality information about effectiveness. Changes 

in reading achievement after program implementation can reflect the influence of many variables. 

Developers often report score increases at schools 

they have worked with, but it is very difficult to 

interpret these data as reflecting the impact of a 

single intervention. Many interventions are likely 

going on at the same time in most schools.

Another concern with statements such as that 

from Literacy First is that it is difficult to know 

how many schools they worked with did not 

experience positive increases. Typically, intervention developers will report the achievement data 

from schools they worked with most intensively 

(their success stories), which makes it difficult to 

know whether it was just the unusual combination 

of people in the school who took the ideas from 

the intervention, adapted them, and made them 

work—or whether it was really the intervention 

that made the difference. Thus, developers who 

report having worked with schools 

that experienced significant 

increases in achievement are providing a beginning basis for their 

intervention’s claim of effectiveness, but a very weak one.

A few quasi-experimental studies are available and 

show mixed results. The next level of evidence an 

intervention might explore is whether participants 

in their program experienced more positive results 

on desired outcomes than a comparison group 

(identified for the evaluation because it was similar in make-up to participants in the intervention). 

Three interventions report comparison data: ReadAbout, CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies, and Reading Apprenticeship. 

Although having comparison data is important 

and provides more information about outcomes 

than before and after data with no comparison 

group, finding existing groups that are equal to 

the participant group on all dimensions is difficult. Thus, there are limitations to drawing solid 

conclusions about intervention effectiveness from 

quasi-experimental evaluation designs in which 

participant results are compared with a selected 

group of nonparticipants.

In contrast to quasi-experimental designs, true 

experimental designs use random assignment of 

potential participants to either the intervention 

group or the control group. Random assignment 

ensures that there are no preexisting differences 

between the two groups (such as higher motivation in the intervention teacher group if teachers 

volunteer). True experimental design provides 

potential users with greater assurance that any 

differences between the two groups are due to the 

intervention and not to preexisting differences 

between participants and nonparticipants.

Three interventions report findings based on 

quasi-experimental studies:

•	 ReadAbout. This intervention recently concluded a quasi-experimental study with fifth 

grade students in New York. The results are 

not yet available.

•	 CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies. O’Neil and Associates 

conducted an evaluation during the 2001/02 

and 2002/03 school years in two large Utah 

school districts using a pre-test and post-test 

design with a comparison group. As mentioned, a general limitation of this design is 

that teachers who choose or are selected to 

participate in the intervention group may be 

better, more motivated, or more experienced. 

Thus, positive differences in their students’ 

outcomes compared with those of students of 

a comparison group of teachers may reflect 

this preexisting difference rather than the 

impact of the intervention.

The outcome measure, a free-recall assessment developed by the program, was used 

following student reading of a particular 

content-area selection. Free-recall assessment 

is a fairly narrow measure of what students 

Three interventions 

report findings based 

on quasi-experimental 

studies
 Identifying what interventions are available to support teachers 13

should be gaining from the multiple strategies 

teachers learn from participating in CReating 

Independence through Student-owned Strategies. The finding that students of programtrained teachers did better on this measure of 

free recall does not necessarily mean that they 

understood the selection any better. No correlational data between this measure and standardized measures of reading comprehension 

were found; thus, the relation between this 

program-developed measure and typical reading achievement measures is not clear.

•	 Reading Apprenticeship. WestEd analyzed 

student data from implementation of a ninth 

grade Academic Literacy course for below 

grade-level students that incorporates the 

four dimensions of the Reading Apprenticeship instructional framework. Significant 

differences were reported between Reading 

Apprenticeship students’ fall to spring gains 

compared with the performance of the nationally normed group for the standardized test 

(Degrees of Reading Power test). This kind of 

comparison of intervention student results 

with results for a nationally normed group is 

fairly weak because the comparison group is 

not selected for its similarity to the participant 

group. Nothing is known about how alike or 

different the characteristics of the comparison 

group are to those of the participating group.

No reports of studies could be found that used 

comparison groups to examine how contentarea teachers who go through Reading Apprenticeship training but are not implementing the 

ninth grade Academic Literacy Course change 

their practice compared with a comparison 

group of similar teachers or how their students 

compare on student achievement measures.

Only one true experimental study with random 

assignment is available, but others are under way.

Rigorously designed experiments that use random 

assignment of teachers or schools to the intervention or a control group and then examine differences between the groups in measured outcomes 

are time consuming and challenging to conduct. 

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction has conducted the most extensive set of experimental and 

quasi-experimental studies. Because the development of this intervention emerges from an ongoing 

research program at the University of Maryland, research on the intervention builds on prior research 

on the relationship between reading motivation and 

reading achievement (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; 

Guthrie et al., 2006).

The question addressed by Guthrie and colleagues 

is whether an intervention that teaches teachers 

research-based cognitive strategies and student 

motivation and engagement strategies will improve student outcomes. In a series of quasi-experimental and experimental studies, they examined 

whether teachers trained in both the cognitive and 

motivational strategies (Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction group) got better results than either 

comparison teachers who received no training or 

teachers trained in the use of cognitive strategies 

alone.

•	 A study using random assignment of schools 

to two training conditions found that Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction-trained 

third grade teachers surpassed teachers 

trained in strategy instruction only in student 

performance on reading comprehension, 

reading motivation, and reading strategy 

measures (Guthrie et al., 2004).

•	 Using a quasi-experimental design, ConceptOriented Reading Instruction teachers surpassed comparison group teachers in student 

performance on reading comprehension and 

reading strategy use 

(Guthrie et al., 1998).

•	 Using a quasiexperimental design 

Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction 

teachers surpassed 

comparison group 

teachers in student 

Several of the 

interventions are 

currently the focus 

of federally funded 

studies that will address 

the intervention’s 

effectiveness through 

experimental studies
14 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

performance on reading motivation (Guthrie, 

2004).

Although several of these studies are quasi-experimental, they are included in this section because 

the studies as a whole constitute a well-developed 

research program with both quasi-experimental 

studies and true experimental studies (with 

random assignment). Ideally, an intervention 

that claims to be scientifically based should have 

replicable findings across various methodologies. 

Guthrie and colleagues have conducted both rigorous quasi-experimental and experimental studies 

that show that Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction has a significant impact on student outcomes. 

Their published research provides enough information to examine and critique the designs and 

replicate the evaluation designs in various settings, grade levels, and content areas to continue 

to explore effectiveness.

Several of the interventions are 

currently the focus of federally 

funded studies that will address 

the intervention’s effectiveness 

through experimental studies:

•	The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education 

Sciences is studying the effectiveness of four reading comprehension programs. ReadAbout and 

CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies are two of the four programs 

that were randomly assigned to fifth grade 

classrooms in nine districts across the country (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).

•	 An experimental study on CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies 

is being planned by the Northwest Regional 

Educational Laboratory. The study will focus 

on ninth graders, and schools will be randomly assigned to participate or not.

•	 WestEd received an award from the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education 

Sciences in 2005 to study the efficacy of Reading Apprenticeship in high school history and 

science teaching.

•	 Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy Continuum is also proposed for an 

experimental study of its effectiveness, to be 

conducted by the regional educational laboratory system. In addition, it is being studied by 

Brown University and RMC Research Corporation through a U.S. Department of Education Striving Readers Grant.

Making decisions about interventions to 

improve literacy across the curriculum

This section provides practical guidance for 

decisionmaking to improve reading across the 

curriculum. It considers professional development 

interventions in light of a clear understanding of 

the changes desired and the local context. It suggests thinking about the selection of a professional 

development intervention as part of a decisionmaking cycle. And it recommends structuring a 

comprehensive planning process that goes beyond 

selecting a professional development intervention.

Consider professional development interventions 

in light of a clear understanding of the 

changes desired and the local context

Interventions designed to provide support to teachers can have impacts at two levels: teacher practices 

and student outcomes. The decisionmaking team 

needs to articulate its own desired outcomes in 

order to choose a professional development intervention that aligns with its goals and to be able to 

follow up on whether teachers and students change 

in the desired ways. For example, the following scenarios for desired outcomes are very different and 

lead to consideration of different interventions.

Scenario 1. Goal : to find supplemental material to 

use with students. Content-area teachers at a school 

have expressed concern that they do not have the 

curriculum materials to embed more reading 

Decisionmaking to 

improve reading across 

the curriculum should 

consider professional 

development 

interventions in light of 

a clear understanding 

of the changes desired 

and the local context
 Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 15

comprehension into the content-area instruction in 

their courses, as required by the state’s new reading 

across the curriculum standards. State reading 

achievement scores at the school are very high, so 

increasing reading achievement is not the primary 

focus. Rather, the decisionmaking team, curriculum director, and literacy coach are focused on finding the best supplementary materials for teachers to 

use to increase students’ opportunities and success 

in reading to learn in the content area. Thus, the 

primary desired outcomes are that teachers will be 

able to use the supplementary materials and that 

students will find them helpful and engaging.

Since the investment in teachers’ time and effort 

is modest, the decisionmaking team may decide 

to have a few teachers pilot various published 

materials and then compare them on dimensions 

that matter to them, such as ease of use, student 

responsiveness, and student-engaged reading time.

Scenario 2. Goal: to support content-area teachers 

in embedding cognitive and motivational strategies 

into instruction. A school improvement team is 

looking for a professional development experience 

for teachers across the content areas to help them 

teach students cognitive strategies for improving 

reading comprehension. The school wants to help 

teachers teach students more explicitly how to 

organize and process information when students 

read their assignments.

One thing decisionmakers may need to think 

about before sending a team of teachers to learn 

new strategies is how to support teachers in 

incorporating the strategies into their lesson plans 

and how to continue to enable teacher discussions 

about the impact of the strategies on students’ 

reading assignments. The desired outcome is that 

teachers return from the professional development 

with concrete strategies for their content-area 

teaching to support deeper student reading and 

understanding in the content-area reading assignments. Someone in the school will need to be 

assigned to monitor the use of strategies after the 

professional development to determine whether 

follow-up is needed.

Consider finding out 

more about:

•	 CReating Independence through 

Student-owned Strategies—2–4 days with 

local observation.

•	 Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction—5 days 

in summer, 5 days during the year, with 4–6 

months for planning and implementation of 

a unit.

•	 Reading Apprenticeship—up to 8 days.

Scenario 3. Goal: to engage in systematic longterm school change around the teaching of literacy 

across content areas. A school improvement team 

is thinking about a multiyear, schoolwide literacy 

across the curriculum initiative to change how 

teachers think about literacy so that all students 

become more confident, engaged, and strategic 

readers. The team understands that achieving 

this comprehensive goal will take involvement 

by all teachers over time in reflecting on their 

current lesson and unit planning, with a new 

understanding of how students become literate 

in course content. The desired outcomes are that 

teachers will:

•	 Provide more frequent opportunities for supported reading experiences.

•	 Give regular and explicit coaching in discipline-based strategic-thinking processes.

•	 Foster a collaborative, inquiry-oriented classroom environment.

•	 Support and model metacognitive conversation with students.

For this broad vision of content-area teaching 

to emerge, school-based expertise will need to 

be developed to support teachers as they experiment with ways of moving toward the vision. An 

Someone in the school 

will need to monitor 

the use of strategies 

after the professional 

development to 

determine whether 

follow-up is needed
16 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

ongoing relationship with the external provider 

may also be critical to keep the school focused 

over several years. Monitoring teachers’ progress 

and student motivation and engagement in reading will be important. A secondary goal for the 

planning team may be to reduce the amount of 

pull-out reading remediation that is needed.

Consider finding out more about:

•	 Literacy First, which is staged over three years 

(used primarily for Title I schools to “accelerate reading achievement”).

•	 Strategic Instruction Model–Content Literacy 

Continuum, which is staged over 3–4 years.

Consider the selection of a professional development 

intervention as part of a decisionmaking cycle

The Institute of Education Sciences of the U.S. Department of Education has defined evidence-based 

decisionmaking as routinely seeking out the 

best available information on prior research and 

evaluation findings before adopting programs 

or practices that demand extensive material or 

human resources (including funding and teacher 

time) and affect significant numbers of students 

(Whitehurst, 2004).

This report should help school and district 

decisionmakers faced with deciding how best to 

provide support to content-area teachers at the 

middle and high school level in ratcheting up their 

focus on reading in the content area. This review 

of seven interventions is designed to help secondary school teachers improve reading outcomes 

across the curriculum through changes in instruction and assessment. The decisionmaking cycle 

illustrated in figure 1 shows how various inputs 

or sources of information can be used in selecting 

and implementing an intervention. The figure is a 

way of describing what evidence-based decisionmaking might look like in action.

4. Consider

contextual constraints

3. Use professional

wisdom

5. Make the best choice

based on information

1. Use data to

identify need

2. Examine studies

and research

6. Monitor and

assess implementation

7. Evaluate

outcomes

Revise and

improve

Reflect

Reflect Reflect

Reflect Reflect

Reflect Reflect

Figure 1

The evidence-based decisionmaking cycle
 Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 17

Following a thoughtful decisionmaking process 

about interventions as outlined below should 

enhance the likelihood that a district or school 

reading across the curriculum initiative will result 

in the desired outcomes.

1. Use data to identify need, assess the current situation, and know what level of change is expected. The 

seven interventions (and any others under consideration) represent different levels of expectations 

for teacher change. For example, the supplementary 

materials, such as Reading in the Content Areas, 

represent the least amount of expected change for 

teachers, whereas Strategic Instruction Model–

Content Literacy Continuum requires significant 

work by teachers in content organization. Reading 

Apprenticeship and Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction both support a fairly complex instructional framework that incorporates many features 

into instruction that research has shown to be 

related to increased engagement and motivation to 

read. Decisionmakers may want to think about how 

to pilot various interventions with small groups 

of teachers to build internal expertise and help to 

decide about the kind of teacher change envisioned.

Some of the instruments available from the various interventions might be useful for conducting 

an initial needs assessment. For example, student 

motivation surveys such as those used in the 

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction research 

could be useful for understanding where students 

in the school are at baseline and for convincing 

teachers of the need to work toward more engaged 

reading by students.

2. Examine studies and research. All the interventions examined focus on assisting teachers 

with cognitive strategies to help students process 

information from texts (such as paraphrasing, 

word identification, and summarizing). This focus 

reflects the finding of a number of research studies that reading comprehension improves when 

such strategies are used with struggling readers in small groups. However, it is important to 

understand that this strategy instruction approach 

has generally not been researched in classrooms 

of students with mixed abilities. Also, research 

cannot inform teachers about which strategies to 

use with which reading assignments or how much 

repetition in strategy instruction is needed. So, 

much remains to be discussed and monitored by 

the implementing teachers.

The question raised by the Concept-Oriented 

Reading Instruction research is central in thinking about desired teacher changes to improve 

reading outcomes: does the addition of researchbased motivation strategies (using content goals in 

reading instruction, promoting student-to-student 

collaborative learning about texts, and so on) 

lead to increased student engagement in reading 

(which is hypothesized 

to lead to greater reading 

comprehension)? Guthrie’s research provides 

evidence (at the upper elementary level) that adding motivation strategies 

to cognitive strategies is 

more powerful than using 

cognitive strategies alone.

3. Use professional wisdom. Professional wisdom 

means that decisionmakers apply information 

about what has been learned from experiences 

with teacher change or what others are learning 

about the use of interventions. In a report from the 

Center for Evaluation and Assessment at the University of Iowa on interviews with 54 high school 

teachers who had attended a range of professional 

development offerings for improving reading 

outcomes, the authors conclude:

Nearly all the teachers interviewed believed 

their school’s efforts to incorporate reading 

had been overall worthwhile and effective. 

They described how students’ confidence, 

motivation, and ability with readingrelated tasks had improved. Additionally, 

most teachers felt that low-performers, especially, benefited from the strategies. Some 

teachers felt that the strategies were not 

beneficial for high-performers, and some 

Research cannot 

inform teachers about 

which strategies to use 

with which reading 

assignments or how 

much repetition in 

strategy instruction 

is needed
18 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

teachers felt that the reading programs were 

leading to a narrowed educational focus. 

(Stevenson & Waltman, 2006, p. 1)

This is an example of the kinds of information 

and food for thought in planning that can be 

gained from talking to teachers and others about 

their experiences with an intervention. The report 

stresses that the majority of teachers interviewed lamented the lack 

of time for continuing application, 

implementation, and discussions 

of the strategies learned. This 

is a common reaction of teachers to professional development 

experiences and should be taken 

seriously in planning.

4. Consider contextual constraints. Elements of 

the school or district context that need to be considered when selecting professional development 

include leadership, funding, teacher attitudes 

and understanding of the need for change relative to students’ reading outcomes, and available 

internal expertise for facilitating a new vision for 

instruction in the content areas. Teachers may be 

overwhelmed with other professional development requirements. Thus, the reading across the 

curriculum initiative may need to start small—in 

one school with a few teachers developing a better 

understanding of the need through interventions 

such as CReating Independence through Studentowned Strategies and ReadAbout. Another school 

may be responding to a districtwide strategic plan 

that expects significant, schoolwide attention to 

improving reading motivation and outcomes, with 

all teachers expected to be involved over time.

5. Make the best choice based on information. As 

noted, the evidence base for most interventions 

is weak. Except for Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction (studied only at the upper elementary 

level), no well-designed experimental studies with 

random assignment could be found that clearly 

describe a treatment group that experienced 

superior outcomes to those of a control group. 

CReating Independence through Student-owned 

Strategies reports data on significant differences 

between participating and nonparticipating 

teachers on a measure of students’ free recall. But 

because this is a program-developed measure, it 

is not clear what significance the measure has for 

students’ overall reading comprehension. Thus, in 

terms of evaluation findings, the evidence base is 

not yet a significant help in decisionmaking. Before and after data presented by program developers in schools with which they have worked cannot 

be given much weight.

6. Monitor and assess implementation (and adjust 

professional development as needed). Decisionmakers should consider how to monitor instructional changes that are expected to result from the 

professional development experience. Monitoring 

may be part of the role of a literacy coach, curriculum coordinator, or other teacher leader. Teachers 

will need time to plan, implement, and discuss 

what worked and what did not with their peers. 

Student feedback may also be helpful to gain additional perspectives.

7. Evaluate outcomes (and adjust or plan new 

professional development as needed). In addition to 

tracking student progress on measures of reading 

comprehension and possible strategy use, Guthrie’s work argues for tracking measures related to 

student engagement in reading (attitudes toward 

reading assignments, difficulties experienced, 

interest in texts assigned, amount of choice in 

reading selections offered, and so on). Overall, it 

will be important to evaluate both teacher and 

student outcomes.

Consider structuring a comprehensive 

planning process that goes beyond selecting 

a professional development intervention

A potential weakness in this process of improving literacy across the curriculum is that selecting 

a professional development intervention could 

become the end rather than the means. The 

professional development selected may be written into a school or district improvement plan as 

the strategy for the year, without an individual or 

The reading across the 

curriculum initiative may 

need to start small—in 

one school with a few 

teachers developing a 

better understanding 

of the need
 Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 19

team accepting ownership for the bigger goal of 

improving reading in the content areas. That is, 

once the teachers participate in the professional 

development selected, the school assumes that the 

goal has been accomplished.

Planning an initiative to improve complex student 

outcomes such as reading to learn involves more 

than picking a program or vendor. Ownership 

of the initiative should lie with those invested in 

achieving better outcomes for students.

The selection of a program implies some front-end 

and back-end work. On the front end the planning 

team should:

•	 Develop a common understanding of the end 

goals of the initiative for student competencies 

as readers.

•	 Know where the district or school’s students 

stand as readers.

•	 Understand what is reported in the literature 

as effective practices in reading across the 

curriculum.

•	 Know where content teachers stand in their 

beliefs, knowledge, and skills with these 

practices.

On the back end the planning team should:

•	 Be able to explain the logic for the selection of 

the professional development approach.

•	 Think through the details—timelines, incentives, support needed from school leaders 

and participants, and other implementation 

considerations.

•	 Prepare to monitor both teacher response to 

and implementation of practices in the professional development intervention.

•	 Monitor student reactions and any improvements in reading.

•	 Adapt the support provided to teachers as 

needed based on data.

Below is a possible set of seven planning steps, 

described in the context of a reading across the 

curriculum planning effort (Comprehensive 

School Reform Quality Center, 2005; Hassel, Hassel, Arkin, Kowal, & Steiner, 2006; Schwartzbeck, 

2002; Walter, 2004):

1. Identify a planning committee with good representation across stakeholders. The purpose of a 

planning committee is to ensure that the initiative 

is owned by those closest to the need. During planning it is critical that stakeholders provide input 

into decisionmaking. A school may choose to have 

a wide range of role types as part of the initial 

planning. Sometimes, external facilitators can 

be helpful in ensuring open and honest discussions about data, needs, resources, and potential 

problems in implementation. Including someone 

with research or evaluation expertise can help the 

group engage in discussions of published research 

and think about how impact will be assessed.

2. Clearly articulate 

expectations for students 

in literacy, understand 

the focus of reading assessments available for 

students, and describe 

students’ strengths and 

weaknesses as readers.

For both teachers and 

students it is important to understand expectations for students in reading. The standards-based 

movement, as reflected in the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001, is built on the assumption that 

educators and students know what is expected 

of them. The Georgia Department of Education 

included Reading across the Curriculum Standards in its revised curriculum standards to make 

it clear to teachers and students that the state had 

expectations in this area. Districts and school 

teams will need to discuss and process these 

kinds of standards as a first step toward planning 

instruction.

A potential weakness 

is that selecting 

a professional 

development 

intervention could 

become the end rather 

than the means
20 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

In addition to states’ work on reading across the 

curriculum standards, others are also doing development work in this area. A project led by P. David 

Pearson, a reading researcher and dean of the College of Education at the University 

of California at Berkeley, identifies 

this step as the starting point for 

refocusing instructional efforts 

on reading comprehension across 

the curriculum. Pearson (2006) 

describes the process this way:

“So how do you design a reading comprehension curriculum? You need. . .

•	 A framework for determining what 

we should expect of students at what 

points along the way in their school 

careers.

•	 Some clear and compelling illustrations of what it would mean to meet 

these expectations.

•	 A set of instructional routines that we 

can count on to help students meet 

those expectations.

•	 Some assessment tools to help us as 

teachers and our students determine: 

how well we are meeting those expectations and what we could do to make 

things better.

The New Standards Project at the National Center 

on Education and the Economy is working on 

intermediate grade standards that accomplish 

the first two items. The goal for developing these 

standards is to present a “thoughtful vision of 

comprehension reflecting 30 years of cognitive 

and instructional research and to present compelling performances of students that demonstrate 

what it means to meet the expectations we hold for 

students in grades 4 and 5” (Pearson, 2006). Although these standards are developed for elementary school grades, the developers are attempting 

to build the comprehension curriculum on the 

findings of prominent cognitive psychologists, and 

the findings may therefore be instructive for states, 

districts, and schools trying to infuse clearer expectations for reading across the curriculum into 

middle and high school.

Another effort that should inform state and 

district initiatives for standards in reading across 

the curriculum is that of the National Assessment 

Governing Board of the National Assessment of 

Educational Progress. The governing board has 

developed a new reading framework (American 

Institutes for Research, 2005; Kamil, 2006) to 

guide item development for 2009 and beyond. This 

new framework for assessing reading achievement defines reading as an active and complex 

process that involves understanding written text, 

developing and interpreting meaning, and using 

meaning, as appropriate, to type of text, purpose, 

and situation (American Institutes for Research, 

2005, p. iv). The new reading framework includes 

a new vocabulary component, use of both literary 

and informational types of texts, and three cognitive targets: locate/recall, integrate/interpret, and 

critique/evaluate.

In addition to reflecting on standards for reading across the curriculum, it is also important 

to reflect on the extent to which state, district, 

school, and classroom assessments currently 

focus on reading in content areas and thus 

provide baseline data. Understanding students’ 

strengths and weaknesses as readers in content 

areas is important background information for 

planning.

3. Develop an understanding of the ways researchers and practitioners describe “effective” adolescent 

literacy practices and compare those with current 

conditions. A planning team needs to understand 

what researchers are concluding about strategies 

that may improve adolescent literacy outcomes. 

There is some agreement among researchers on 

the features of effective literacy programs for 

adolescents, as a comparison of the features mentioned in some recent research reviews indicates 

(table 5).

For both teachers 

and students it is 

important to understand 

expectations for 

students in reading
 Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 21

The research suggests that school- or district-improvement teams need to think about the quality 

of teachers’ practices in the school relative to:

•	 Direct instruction, modeling, and practice in 

reading comprehension strategies.

•	 Structuring of content area instruction and 

reading assignments to make them more accessible to students.

•	 Selection of texts for students to read in a way 

that builds motivation and persistence.

•	 Structuring of group work and rigorous peer 

discussions to reinforce the notion of reading 

for a purpose and to encourage a classroom 

social environment that values reading to 

learn.

•	 Use and availability of diverse texts.

•	 Use of writing to extend and reinforce reading.

•	 Use of technology to reinforce skills and keep 

students motivated.

•	 Use of appropriate formative and summative 

assessments that reinforce goals for reading.

•	 Use of tutoring as needed to assist individual 

students.

Professional development for teachers should 

inform them about this 

larger set of practices, 

even if the professional 

development focuses on a 

narrower set as a starting 

point.

4. Compare programs available from vendors in 

terms of local conditions and needs. The underlying assumption of the planning initiative is that 

teachers will need some structured support to 

make reading a reality across the curriculum. 

Often, schools or districts look to external professional development programs or support materials 

for this purpose. Understanding what researchers are concluding about effective practices can 

inform a review of the interventions that planning 

teams are considering.

Table 5

Comparison of features mentioned in some research reviews on literacy

Key components of a 

literacy program

National 

Institute of 

Child Health 

and Human 

Development, 

2000

RAND Reading 

Study Report, 

2002 

(focus on 

comprehension 

only) Kamil, 2003

Biancarosa & 

Snow, 2004 Phelps, 2005

Direct, explicit instruction in reading 

comprehension

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Involvement of academic content 

areas

✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Motivation and self-directed learning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Text-based collaborative learning ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Diverse texts ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Writing ✓ ✓ ✓

Technology ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓

Assessments (ongoing, formative, and 

summative)

✓ ✓ ✓

Strategic tutoring ✓ ✓

Understanding 

students’ strengths and 

weaknesses as readers 

in content areas is 

important background 

information for planning
22 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Done well, evidence-based decisionmaking 

requires a tremendous amount of staff time in 

searching out available interventions and understanding what they are and how developers have 

studied or evaluated effectiveness. District and 

school planning teams will need to consider the 

evaluation studies completed on these programs 

and what they say about program effectiveness.

However, making an evidence-based decision 

does not necessarily mean that a district or school 

team should automatically choose the intervention that has the most convincing studies on 

effectiveness. Contextual factors, such as cost, fit 

of intervention with school context and teachers’ 

expressed interests, and other factors may be more 

important. For example, an intervention may be 

too narrowly focused or too prescriptive for the 

experience and knowledge level of the teachers in 

the school. In addition, a school or district may not 

have the resources (budgetary, literacy expertise) 

needed to implement some interventions. A school 

or district with extensive internal expertise might 

pick a more loosely developed approach, knowing 

that it can develop, adapt, and evaluate as it moves 

forward.

One caveat is to beware of a natural attraction 

toward the simplest or easiest approach to teacher 

change, a “just give the teachers something they 

can take back and use” philosophy. It is important 

for a planning group to ask: even 

though a particular intervention might fit the resources and 

context, is it going to make a difference in student outcomes? The 

possible payoffs for more difficult 

and challenging interventions 

should be considered.

5. Consider the pros and cons of different approaches to teacher support. It makes sense to start 

a review with an understanding of the interventions that are available for purchase, because 

developing a high-quality professional development program is very time intensive. Having done 

that, a school or district may decide that none is a 

good fit. Some districts or schools have extensive 

internal expertise in reading or have invested in 

literacy coaches over the years and so may decide 

to develop their own training or coaching program 

for content-area teachers. For example, several 

states and districts are considering funding literacy coaches so that they can deliver what teachers need on a more individualized basis, providing 

feedback and coaching in more effective practices 

in real classroom settings. The International 

Reading Association (2006) suggests that literacy 

coaches are a popular means to support struggling 

students and to help content-area teachers assist 

their students to become better readers.

Despite increasing use of literacy coaches as a 

strategy for improving instruction, however, 

there is little research confirming a relationship 

between coaching and improved student achievement. In a review of research on instructional 

coaching Burney, Corcoran, & Lesnick (2003) 

found very few studies linking coaching to measurable improvements in student achievement. 

They report that support for coaching models is 

based on the intrinsic appeal of the idea rather 

than evidence (p. 6). In addition, there are some 

anecdotal reports that coaches can be ineffective 

if their roles are not clearly specified (Neufeld & 

Roper, 2003). It is also likely that the quality of 

coaching is correlated with the skills and knowledge of the coach.

Professional learning teams and teacher study 

groups are another popular avenue for building 

teacher capacity to implement improved instruction. In districts or schools where teachers have an 

interest or extensive experience in forming teacher 

study or learning teams, teacher group processes 

may be considered as a vehicle for structuring 

teacher exploration and learning toward improving reading across the curriculum. Conclusive 

research on the effectiveness of this approach is 

not yet available, however (Manouchehri, 2001; 

Spraker, 2003). One hypothesis about this approach is that it empowers teachers, but followthrough in the classroom may be difficult to 

ascertain.

Despite increasing use of 

literacy coaches there is 

little research confirming 

a relationship between 

coaching and improved 

student achievement
 Making decisions about interventions to improve literacy across the curriculum 23

All three approaches—a relationship with an external provider, literacy coaches, and teacher study 

groups—may be considered. Based on evidence, 

collective professional wisdom, and contextual 

constraints, the planning team can decide on the 

best approach to support teachers. During this 

stage, it is important to share information with 

teachers and decisionmakers. All stakeholders 

should have the opportunity to provide input and 

discuss the challenges of each approach.

School and district leaders can also affect the quality of implementation of an initiative to support 

teacher change. Leadership is crucial to ensure 

teachers are held accountable for continuous 

movement toward the desired goal.

6. Develop a plan to monitor teacher implementation and student progress. The better articulated 

the plan, the more likely it is that the implementation will go smoothly. Selecting an external 

intervention is not itself the objective, nor is it a 

release from responsibility for taking ownership 

of the vision for change. Schools should guard 

against professional development becoming the 

goal rather than a means to the end of a more 

explicit focus on reading across the curriculum. 

Interim goals need to be defined as well, so that 

if the selected strategies or interventions do not 

work, they can be adjusted more strategically.

7. Plan how to evaluate implementation and 

impact. Educators are continuously looking 

for ways to improve the achievement of their 

students. For a reading across the curriculum 

initiative to have staying power, resources 

should be provided for evaluating the quality 

of implementation, tracking progress on key 

indicators, and looking at student outcomes in 

greater depth than is provided for on most state 

tests. Whatever approach is selected (external 

provider, internal literacy coach, teacher study 

groups, or other), it will be necessary to look 

at what happens with instruction in the classroom and whether students make progress in 

developing the reading 

motivation, persistence, 

and strategies needed for 

success in the content 

areas. Evaluating the 

initiative should be part 

of a continuous process 

of decisionmaking about 

strategies to achieve the 

goal of reading across 

the curriculum.

Many interventions claim to address literacy 

across the curriculum, but schools, districts, and 

states should choose based on what approach 

best fits their context using an evidence-based 

decisionmaking model to ensure that high quality information informs their decisions. Doing 

so should enhance the likelihood that a reading 

across the curriculum initiative will achieve the 

desired outcomes.

Schools, districts, and 

states should choose 

based on what approach 

best fits their context 

using an evidencebased decisionmaking 

model to ensure that 

high quality information 

informs their decisions

 Appendix A 25

Appendix A 

Methodology

The analysis for this report had three phases. The 

first phase involved a protocol to gather information from state education agency contacts and 

documents on adolescent literacy. The second 

phase involved a search for professional development or teacher support interventions designed 

to help content-area teachers increase their focus 

on reading. The third phase involved a search for 

evaluation reports and studies on the seven interventions identified to summarize the extent of the 

evidence base on effectiveness.

Questions addressed

The study set out to address three sets of questions:

1. Inventory of state initiatives to set the regional 

context: What are state departments across 

the Southeast Region doing to address the 

issue of improving adolescent literacy through 

a focus on reading across the curriculum?

2. Description of available interventions (curricular or professional development interventions 

available to help secondary teachers): What 

interventions are being used or proposed for 

use in the Southeast Region states? Nationally, are additional interventions referenced in 

published research? Are there similar characteristics across interventions? How and in 

what ways do they differ?

3. Description of the evidence available on 

interventions: What kinds of data have been 

reported on the interventions’ effectiveness?

Approach used

Phase one: A summary of state initiatives (such as 

standards, relevant policies, and planned professional development) under way in the Southeast 

Region on improving adolescent literacy through 

a cross-curricular focus. The information-gathering protocol focused on policy, professional 

development, evaluation, and funding for adolescent literacy initiatives. Information on each 

state’s initiatives was gathered from the state 

education agencies and supplemented with 

information from the Internet and state publications. Follow-up conversations were conducted 

with key state agency personnel to clarify and 

expand on information. Individual state profiles 

and a cross-state table were drafted to summarize information gathered in the protocols. The 

profiles and tables were reviewed by state agencies 

for accuracy.

Phase two: A search for existing curriculum and 

professional development interventions on reading 

across the curriculum. The Education Resources 

Information Center database and lists provided by 

other regional educational laboratories, content 

centers, research centers and organizations, reading organizations, Southeastern state departments 

of education, and federally funded literacy projects 

were searched to identify available interventions.

REL staff attended relevant conferences and used 

personal communications with researchers and 

practitioners. Each REL staff member who assisted 

with the intervention search process followed the 

same protocol. The summary tables asked for:

•	 Name of intervention.

•	 Web site information.

•	 Audience.

•	 Whether the intervention addressed reading 

across the curriculum.

•	 The focus of the intervention.

•	 A brief summary.

Once the relevant interventions were identified, 

interventions that did not address the guiding 

questions were screened. For example, many 

interventions focused on helping “struggling 

readers,” which was not the focus. Finally, the list 
26 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

was narrowed to seven interventions available to 

support secondary school content teachers.

Phase three: Description of the effectiveness evidence available on the seven interventions. Evidence of effectiveness of the seven identified interventions was sought on the developers’ web sites, 

the U.S. Department of Education web site, and in 

educational journals, other regional educational 

laboratories, content centers, and research centers. 

Abstracts were developed for each intervention 

(see appendix D).

Phase I: Information-gathering protocol 

for state education agency context

Background on state focus on adolescent literacy

■ Does your state have an adolescent literacy focus?

•	 If not, describe what efforts are taking 

place concerning literacy in general; what is 

your state’s implicit approach to adolescent 

literacy?

•	 If so, what was the impetus (for example, 

achievement scores, state board of education, 

legislators, local education agencies) for the 

state-wide initiative on adolescent literacy?

Components of state initiative

■ Describe your state’s implicit or explicit approach 

to adolescent literacy.

■ Items you may want to include:

•	 Is the initiative mandated?

•	 Is there a timeline?

•	 Who has taken the leadership role (such as 

state, district, or local education agencies)? Is 

there a commission or planning committee? 

If so, who are the members (representatives, 

teachers, institutions of higher education, 

parents)?

•	 On what content areas does the initiative 

focus?

•	 Are there standards (for example, Georgia 

Reading Across the Curriculum Standards 

6–12)?

•	 Are professional development timelines and 

types provided? What kinds? For whom? Over 

what time period?

•	 What curriculum materials are provided?

•	 Are assessments being used?

•	 Are there teacher certification/requirements 

for courses?

•	 Is there funding? Do they have external funding (such as Carnegie, Striving Readers)?

•	 Has there been a state-sponsored adolescent 

literacy conference? If yes, when, audience, 

number in attendance, overall goals? If not, 

what plans do you have in the future for a 

conference?

■ Do any local education agencies have a literacy 

initiative? How many? Have any of these education 

agencies received state or federal recognition for 

their adolescent literacy initiatives? If yes, briefly 

describe.

Approach to identification/selection of 

interventions to increase teachers’ competence 

across the curriculum in adolescent literacy

■ Is the state planning on recommending specific 

interventions? If yes, what is the status? If no, why?

■ What interventions have they discussed? Please 

list.

Documents needed

■ State initiative.
 Appendix A 27

■ List of interventions being considered by state education agencies.

■ Funding information.

■ State approved local education agency initiatives 

and interventions.

■ Sources of information.

■ Any other information that would give us a complete picture of what is happening.

■ Sample professional development materials.

■ Data that may be used/collected already on the 

initiative (if it exists).

REL-Southeast policy analysts provide answers to questions 

in a detailed brief using the aforementioned questions as a 

reporting template.

Phase II: Guidelines for intervention search process

■ Conduct structured search of appropriate databases and search engines. Primary search terms 

and keywords will include: adolescent literacy, 

middle school literacy, literacy across the curriculum, reading across the curriculum, high school 

literacy, and others.

•	 U.S. Department of Education–Institute of 

Education Sciences.

•	 Regional Education Laboratories.

•	 Research centers.

•	 Comprehensive centers.

•	 Content centers.

•	 Florida Center for Reading Research.

•	 Alliance for Excellence in Education.

•	 National Middle School Association.

•	 National Council of Teachers of English.

•	 International Reading Association.

■ Identify relevant documents.

■ Compile documents into a folder for each 

intervention.

■ Complete summary table items for each potential 

intervention.

Initial list of interventions

Below is a list of the interventions we originally 

identified but that were not included in the final 

analysis (table A1). The reasons for exclusion are 

checked. There are many interventions developed 

for use with struggling readers. These were not 

included as our focus was on support for contentarea teachers across the curriculum.

Phase III: Guidelines for intervention evidence 

of effectiveness search process

■ Conduct search of appropriate organizations and 

educational databases for reports on each intervention using:

•	 Intervention developer’s web site.

•	 Wilson Web (through University of North 

Carolina, Greensboro Library).

•	 ERIC.

•	 FirstSearch.

•	 JSTOR.

•	 Psychology Index.

•	 U.S. Department of Education –Institute of 

Education Sciences.

•	 Regional Education Laboratories.
28 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

•	 Research centers.

•	 Comprehensive centers.

•	 Content centers.

•	 Florida Center for Reading Research.

■ Identify relevant developer documents, studies, 

and reports.

■ Compile studies and reports into a folder on each 

of the seven interventions.

■ Draft intervention abstract including summary 

about research available.

Table A1

Rationale for interventions not described

Name

Did not 

address 

reading across 

the curriculum 

(content-area 

reading)

Did not 

address 

students in 

grades 4–12

Primarily 

addressed 

struggling 

readers

Not aimed 

at improving 

teacher 

instruction and 

assessment at 

the classroom 

level

Part of CSR

model

In early 

stages of 

development

Not enough 

information 

to determine 

their purpose, 

content, 

audience, 

desired 

outcomes as 

of 8/18/06

Academy of Reading ✓ ✓

Accelerated 

Literacy Learning

✓ ✓ ✓

Accelerated Reader ✓

America’s Choice 

Ramp-Up to Literacy

✓

Amp Reading 

System

✓

Carbo Reading 

Styles Program

✓ ✓

Collaborative 

Strategic Reading

✓

Comprehension Plus ✓ ✓ ✓

CREST ✓

Essential Learning ✓ ✓

Exemplar Center for 

Reading Instruction

✓

Failure Free Reading ✓ ✓

Fast Forward 

Language Software

✓ ✓

Fast Track Reading ✓ ✓

Great Leaps Reading ✓

HOSTS Link 

Language Arts

✓

Kaleidoscope ✓

Language! (3rd 

Edition)

✓

Lexia Reading S.O.S. ✓ ✓

Lindamood-Bell 

Learning Processes

✓
 Appendix A 29

Name

Did not 

address 

reading across 

the curriculum 

(content-area 

reading)

Did not 

address 

students in 

grades 4–12

Primarily 

addressed 

struggling 

readers

Not aimed 

at improving 

teacher 

instruction and 

assessment at 

the classroom 

level

Part of CSR

model

In early 

stages of 

development

Not enough 

information 

to determine 

their purpose, 

content, 

audience, 

desired 

outcomes as 

of 8/18/06

My Reading Coach ✓

Plato Software/ 

Intermediate 

Reading Skills

✓

REACH System ✓ ✓

Read 180 ✓

Read for Real ✓ ✓

Read Naturally ✓

Read XL ✓

Reading for 

Knowledge

✓ ✓

Reading is Fame ✓

Reading Plus ✓

REWARDS (Reading 

Excellence: Word 

Attack and Rate 

Development 

Strategies)

✓

Second Chance at 

Literacy Learning

✓

Skills Handbooks ✓

Soar to Success ✓

Spalding Writing 

Road to Reading

✓

Spell Read P.A.T. ✓ ✓ ✓

Success for All 

Middle School/

Reading Edge

✓

SuccessMaker 

Enterprise

✓ ✓

Supported Literacy ✓

Talent Development 

High School

✓

Talent Development 

Middle School

✓

Thinking Reader ✓

Voyager Passport 

E, F., G

✓

Wilson Reading 

System

✓ ✓

Table A1 (continued)

Rationale for interventions not described
30 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Appendix B 

Southeastern state summary

Approach Alabama Florida 

Literacy initiatives/ plans

Does the state have a literacy plan or initiative?

Who initiated it?

Is there funding?

•	 The Alabama Reading Initiative 

(ARI) is not a program, but 

an ongoing professional 

development opportunity for 

all school faculty. It began in 

1998 and was voluntary; now 

all K–3 schools have to become 

ARI schools by 2006. The goal is 

100% literacy.

•	 It was initiated by the Alabama 

State Board of Education 

(ALSBE) and Alabama 

Department of Education 

(ALDOE), with support from the 

A+ Foundation, which funded 

the initiative for the first two 

years.

•	 For 2006, ARI received $56 

million dollars in funding; $53.5 

went back to ARI schools.

•	 Florida has a K–12 focus on 

literacy through Just Read, 

Florida! The goal of this initiative 

is for all students in Florida to 

be able to read at grade level or 

higher by 2012.

•	 The Florida Department 

of Education (FLDOE) took 

the lead in recommending 

legislation to the Florida 

Legislature, which adopted 

the language in its mandated 

policies.

•	 Funding for reading is a 

permanent priority and was 

funded in the amount of $111.8 

million for the 2006–2007 

school year.

Middle school/high school

(6–12) initiatives/ plans

If the state has a recent initiative or plan, is there a 

middle school/high school component? Or, does 

the state have a separate middle school/high school 

initiative? Is there any funding?

Does the state have a literacy across the curriculum/ 

literacy in the content area initiative?

•	 Almost 25% of the ARI schools 

cover grades 4–12.

•	 ARI/ A-PAL (Project for 

Adolescent Literacy) is a pilot 

secondary ARI program.

•	 ARI/A-PAL focuses on reading 

across the curriculum.

•	 There are three main groups 

working to provide adolescent 

literacy leadership through 

a strategic five-year plan: (a) 

educators to recommend a plan 

to (b) a group of legislators, 

superintendents, and (c) 

representatives from different 

administrative associations.

•	 The planning stage is funded by 

the NGA/Carnegie Corporation 

and its $50,000 Reading to 

Achieve grant.

Standards

How do the state standards in the content areas reflect 

literacy expectations?

•	 ARI is aligned with state 

standards and is set up to 

support them.

•	 The standards, approved in 

1996, were written in seven 

subject areas, each divided into 

four separate grade clusters 

(PreK–2, 3–5, 6–8, and 9–12).

•	 The state standards are the 

basis for state assessments 

at each grade from 3–10 in 

language arts and mathematics 

(www.firn.edu/doe/curric/

prek12/frame2.htm).
 Appendix B 31

Georgia Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina

•	 During the 2004–05 

school year, Georgia 

began implementing its 

new standards-based 

curriculum, the Georgia 

Performance Standards 

(GPS).

•	 An important innovation 

within the GPS is the 

incorporation of Reading 

Across the Curriculum 

standards.

•	 Mississippi has goals for 

all readers and the four 

goals were laid out in the 

1997 Mississippi Reading 

Initiative, Every Child a 

Reader.

•	 To support this initiative, 

in 1998 the Mississippi 

Legislature created a 

Reading Sufficiency 

Program of Instruction. 

This law requires every 

school district to establish 

and implement a program 

for reading reform.

•	 North Carolina ‘s “Strategic 

Plan for Reading Literacy” 

will be presented to the 

North Carolina State Board of 

Education (NCSBE) in March 

2007. The plan includes six 

priority action steps.

•	 The effort was initiated by 

the NCSBE.

•	 The state received a National 

Governors Association 

(NGA)/Carnegie Corporation 

grant of $50,000 to write 

their plan.

•	 The South Carolina Reading 

Initiative (SCRI) was created 

after Governor Jim Hodges’ 

Institute of Reading held 

the South Carolina Reading 

Summit in 1999. SCRI began 

its work with K–5 schools.

•	 The SCRI model was 

developed by SC in 

collaboration with the 

National Council of Teachers 

of English (NCTE).

•	 The General Assembly has 

allocated a total of $4.3 

million for the initiative, 

and participating schools 

receive up to $50,000 from 

the Governor’s Institute on 

Reading.

•	 Georgia added Reading 

Across the Curriculum 

Standards as a component 

of all the Georgia 

Performance Standards for 

grades 4–12.

•	 Adolescent literacy is 

also a focus of the 2006 

legislation that established 

an Office of Dropout 

Prevention within the 

Mississippi Department of 

Education.

•	 Mississippi received a 

Reading to Achieve grant 

funded by the NGA/

Carnegie Corporation 

to assist the state in 

developing literacy plans 

and policies to improve 

adolescent literacy 

achievement.

•	 The North Carolina plan will 

require a 3-hour literacy 

credit in a topic from an 

approved list for teachers in 

grades 9–12.

•	 The North Carolina plan 

includes steps to creating 

literacy strategies in each 

content area.

•	 During the 2003–04 school 

year SCRI began working 

with middle schools, utilizing 

$1.3 million in funding.

•	 In addition, the General 

Assembly allocated $1 

million to expand the 

reading initiative into high 

schools for the 2006–07 

school year.

•	 SCRI is a voluntary program 

and the participating 

districts received $50,000 

from the Governor’s Institute 

of Reading.

•	 High-need districts 

were given priority for 

participation in the middle 

and high school initiative.

•	 SCRI is intended to be a 

literacy across the curriculum 

program.

•	 Georgia’s Reading Across 

the Curriculum standards 

are a component of all of 

the Georgia Performance 

Standards for all students 

grades 6–12 in science, 

social studies, math, and 

language arts.

•	 Mississippi Language 

Arts Framework 2006 

standards, and other 

curriculum frameworks, 

contain literacy objectives.

•	 As part of the “Strategic 

Plan for Reading Literacy,” 

if the plan is implemented, 

the standards will included 

“digital and literacy skills 

for the 21st Century and to 

ensure that all students are 

college and work ready.”

•	 Revisions will also align 

English and Math standards 

to the American Diploma 

Project benchmarks and 21st 

Century Skills.

•	 SCRI works to implement 

the English/Language Arts 

(ELA) standards through 

the use of best practices in 

literacy, which are explicitly 

addressed in the Proposed 

ELA Standards for 2007 draft 

document.

(continued)
32 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Appendix B (continued)

Southeastern State Summary

Approach Alabama Florida 

Professional development for middle school/high 

school teachers

Does the state have professional development in 

adolescent literacy? If so, what kind?

To what extent is the state planning for or providing 

professional development for content area teachers?

•	 ARI professional development 

aims to empower teachers with 

the content knowledge, skills, 

and strategies necessary to be 

successful with all students, 

especially those that challenge 

them the most—struggling 

readers.

•	 ARI involves two- week 

workshops over the summer 

and follow-up sessions 

throughout the school year.

•	 Teachers receive ongoing 

support from literacy coaches.

•	 Content area Reading 

Professional Development 

(CAR-PD) provides educators 

with an 150 hour in-service 

program, which makes them 

eligible to serve as a reading 

-intervention teacher in their 

content areas. However, 

teachers who are teaching 

academic reading courses still 

need the reading endorsement 

and/or K–12 reading 

certification.

•	 CAR-PD PLUS will be available 

soon to provide the reading 

endorsement.

•	 Each district’s Comprehensive 

Research-based Reading Plan 

must include PD for teaching 

reading in the content areas, 

with an emphasis on technical 

and informational text.

Literacy Coaches

What are some ways in which states are building teacher 

capacity (e.g., literacy coaches, online courses, statedeveloped programs, etc.)?

•	 There are three secondary 

school regional coaches that 

work with ARI high schools.

•	 District plans must include 

high-quality reading coaches 

along with PD for teachers on 

teaching reading in the content 

areas, and supplemental 

materials.

•	 The Florida Literacy and 

Reading Excellence Center 

(FLaRE) at the University of 

Central Florida provides sitebased support for principals, 

reading coaches, and teachers 

at the lowest performing 

middle and high schools in the 

state.
 Appendix B 33

Georgia Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina

•	 Georgia training on the 

GPS began during the 

2004–05 school year. GA

is using a train-the-trainer 

model, with district and 

school representatives 

receiving state training 

and then redelivering it at 

the building level.

N/A •	 LEARN NC is hosting the 

Adolescent Literacy Project, 

which includes four online 

courses. It uses a train-thetrainer model.

•	 The NC plan will require 

a 3-hour literacy credit in 

a topic from an approved 

list for teachers in grades 

9–12; K–8 already have this 

requirement.

•	 The SCRI-MG and the 

High School Initiative is an 

intensive four-year, staffdevelopment plan that is 

designed to improve reading 

skills and strategies for 

all adolescents across the 

curriculum. Literacy coaches 

provide both individual and 

group professional coaches 

to teachers.

•	 Georgia is currently in 

the formative stages 

of crafting a statewide 

literacy plan.

N/A •	 The North Carolina plan 

includes having literacy/

reading coaches in the 

middle schools. In addition, 

the plan mentions an 

expansion of coaches to 

all elementary and middle 

schools by 2013. The plan 

includes a study of the 

effectiveness of coaches in 

high schools.

•	 Coming from an initiative 

sponsored by Governor Mike 

Easley, the state is already 

funding 100 literacy coaches 

for the lowest performing 

middle schools in the state.

•	 District/School literacy 

coaches work in classrooms 

to provide support to SCRIMG teachers and also guide 

twice- monthly discussion 

meetings.

•	 All coaches participate in 

summer study and monthly 

study throughout the year.

•	 Regional literacy coaches 

provide ongoing support to 

district literacy coaches.

(continued)
34 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Appendix B (continued)

Southeastern State Summary

Approach Alabama Florida 

Middle school/high school struggling readers

Does the state have initiatives for struggling adolescent 

readers and , if so, where are they located?

•	 ARI is intended to help teachers 

learn strategies to assist 

struggling students.

•	 In middle and high schools, 

struggling readers are required 

to have one intervention class, 

either reading or a content area 

subject taught by a teacher 

who has received a reading 

endorsement.

Research and evaluation

Are there any significant studies underway with regard 

to literacy initiatives?

•	 An AIR report on the ARI was 

commissioned by the Carnegie 

Corporation of New York.

•	 Bacevich, A., & Salinger, T. 

(2006, June). Lessons and 

recommendations from the 

Alabama Reading Initiative: 

Sustaining focus on secondary 

reading. Washington, DC: 

American Institutes for Research 

(AIR).

•	 The RAND Corporation 

is to study the impact of 

reading coaches on student 

achievement; Florida is one of 

the study sites.

•	 The Columbia Group will 

conduct a cost analysis 

of reading coaches in the 

classroom.

Web site ALSDE Reading Initiative 

Publications

http://www.alsde.edu/

html/sections/documents.

asp?section=50&

footer=sections

AIR Report

http://www.air.org/publications/

documents/AIR%20Popular%20

Report_final.pdf

FLDOE

http://www.fldoe.org

Endorsement 

http://www.justreadflorida.com/

endorsement/

FLaRE 

http://flare.ucf.edu
 Appendix B 35

Georgia Mississippi North Carolina South Carolina

•	 Georgia maintains a 

remedial education 

program for students 

in grades 6–12 with 

identified academic 

deficiencies.

•	 The program operates 

at the system level, and 

offers individualized 

instruction to eligible 

students using several 

scheduling models.

•	 The program is housed 

at the state level in the 

Department of Curriculum 

and instruction. 

Information is available 

at http://public.doe.

k12.ga.us/ci_services.

aspx?PageReq=

CIServRemedial

•	 The new dropout 

prevention legislation 

mandates that the Office 

of Dropout Prevention 

build in a focus on 

adolescent literacy.

•	 If implemented, the North 

Carolina plan includes an 

analysis of the need to 

provide extra assistance to 

struggling middle and high 

school readers.

•	 SCRI is focused on providing 

teachers with skills/resources 

so that they can ensure that 

all students develop strong 

skills.

•	 As a part of this, South 

Carolina has developed a 

remediation plan focused 

on ensuring that students in 

grades 3–8 acquire the skills 

they need to be successful. 

Information is available at 

http://ed.sc.gov/agency/

offices/sq/AcademicPlans/

index.html

•	 Georgia is working 

with SERVE on this 

Fast Response Brief on 

adolescent literacy across 

the curriculum, to guide 

planning for further SEA

support to local systems 

and schools in this area.

•	 Researchers have 

undertaken an in-depth 

study of SCRI. It is focused on 

changes in the beliefs and 

practices of teachers and 

on changes in the skills and 

strategies of students; it also 

examines the relationship 

between SCRI and students 

test scores on standardized 

tests.

•	 South Carolina also collects 

data from participating 

teachers and coaches to 

assess changes in practice 

and outlook. Interim reports 

are available at http://www.

ncte.org/profdev/onsite/

readinit/groups/110385.htm

GADOE

http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/

ci_services.aspx?PageReq=

CIServEnglish

MS DOE/Reading Curriculum 

http://www.mde.k12.ms.us/

ACAD/ID/LAER/goals.html

NCDPI Literacy Proposal 

http://www.ncpublicschools.

org/sbe_meetings/0608/0608_

hsp/hsp/0608hsp06.pdf

NCTE

http://www.ncte.org/profdev/

onsite/readinit/groups/110385.

htm

http://www.ncte.org/profdev/

onsite/readinit/groups/

sc/110387.htm

SC Dept of Ed

http://ed.sc.gov/
36 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Appendix C 

Southeastern state profiles

The six southeastern states served by the RELSoutheast are currently attending to the need 

to improve adolescent literacy outcomes. The 

approaches are varied, but a commonality is that 

all assume that content area teachers will need 

support in embedding literacy development more 

systematically into their curriculum. The work of 

the six states is described below. 

Alabama

In the past, Alabama schools have faced a continuing struggle with low literacy achievement among 

students, as evidenced by National Assessment 

of Education Progress (NAEP) scores and other 

indicators. In November 1996, in an effort to address this issue, the Alabama State Department of 

Education, in concert with other educational organizations, brought together a panel of business and 

education leaders. This group met for a two-week 

working session to envision a statewide plan to 

ensure 100 percent literacy among Alabama school 

children. This was the beginning of the Alabama 

Reading Initiative (ARI).

Implemented in 1998, the ARI is a statewide, 

ongoing professional development program. The 

initiative is collaborative in that it values innovation 

in implementation at the local level. Through highquality professional development based on the support of reading specialists, an intensive two-week 

workshop each summer, and involvement with a 

professional community composed of peers, administrators, and university-level mentors, it is hoped 

that ARI participants will acquire the knowledge, 

skills, and strategies to support successful literacy 

learning for all students across the curriculum, with 

a special emphasis on struggling students. Evaluation of this state initiative in professional development is ongoing, and considerable information 

is offered at http://www.alsde.edu/html/sections/

documents.asp?section=50&footer=sections, where 

Alabama has published the Executive Summary of 

the Evaluation Report 2005, Years 7 and 8.

The ARI was originally supported by the A+ 

Foundation of Montgomery, which provided the 

initial funding and assisted in recruiting partners 

for the first two years of the initiative. As the 

promise of the program became evident, Governor 

Don Siegelman proposed state-wide expansion of 

the program. Funding for the initiative has grown 

from $1.5 million in 1998 to $56 million allocated 

in 2006 by the Alabama legislature.

Although the initiative was conceived as a K–12 

program, initial training and materials were 

created as “one size fits all,” with a focus on 

K–3. Teachers and reading coaches in secondary 

programs adapted materials to meet their needs 

and had some positive experiences in applying 

materials to their contexts (Bacevich & Salinger, 

2006). However, while some staff support and professional development is available at the secondary 

level, schools have experienced difficulty in maintaining ARI programs because of funding limitations. As a result of these limitations, state officials 

determined that Alabama schools are best served 

by full implementation of ARI in all K–3 schools 

rather than partial implementation in some K–12 

schools. Therefore, implementation in middle 

and high schools has been delayed. All Alabama 

schools with K–3 programs were required to be 

ARI schools by 2006. To move toward implementation in middle and high schools, a state sponsored adolescent literacy conference was held in 

June 2006, and Alabama has recently developed 

and introduced A-PAL, a reading initiative targeted at adolescent readers that will build on ARI, 

offering more support for reading in the content 

areas. A-PAL will be piloted at a limited number of 

Alabama schools beginning in 2006/07.

Contact: Katherine Mitchell, Assistant State Superintendent of Education for Reading, Alabama 

Department of Education, kmitchll@alsde.edu, 

(334) 353-1570

Florida

Florida developed a multipronged approach to 

support adolescent literacy learning as a part of 
 Appendix C 37

legislation called Just Read, Florida! (JRF). With 

its goal that all students be able to read at grade 

level, the effort is funded by law through the 

Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP), a lineitem in the state budget for the Florida Literacy 

and Reading Excellence Center (FLaRE). The state 

also received a Reading to Achieve grant from the 

National Governors Association.

Districts write a K–12 Comprehensive Researchbased Reading Plan, which is then approved by the 

JRF Office at the state department. The plan must 

focus on struggling readers and provide reading coaches. Students scoring a Level 1 or Level 

2 on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test 

(FCAT) must have an intervention plan, which is 

required by the A++ Plan to include at least one 

intervention class, either reading or subject area, 

taught by teachers who have a reading endorsement. Professional development is available 

through Content Area Reading Professional Development (CAR-PD), and once completed, teachers are eligible to serve as reading intervention 

teachers in their subject area (academic reading 

teachers still need certification or endorsement). 

Summer institutes are available for principals and 

literacy coaches.

The CAR-PD consists of 150 in-service hours for 

content-area teachers. Sixty hours are completed 

through the Florida Online Reading Professional 

Development (FOR-PD), a course focused on 

the basics of reading. Thirty hours are part of a 

practicum. Finally, 60 hours are obtained through 

a face-to-face academy to be offered spring/summer 2007. The academy is intended to be a trainthe-trainer model where literacy coaches or other 

interested district educators receive training and, 

in turn, train content teachers in their districts. 

The CAR-PD training was created by FLaRE and 

designed for vocabulary development and comprehension skill development in the higher levels. It is 

not intended to build decoding or fluency skills.

In addition, FLaRE provides site-based support for 

the lowest performing middle and high schools. 

The center works with principals, reading coaches, 

and teachers. It is hoped that the combined 

professional development, along with online logs 

submitted by reading coaches, will encourage and 

improve the opportunities for individual growth 

among teachers and students. The Carnegie Foundation asked the RAND Corporation to study the 

impact of reading coaches on student achievement 

and Florida is one of the study sites.

Contact: Evan Lefsky, Executive Director, Just 

Read, Florida!, Florida Department of Education, 

Evan.Lefsky@fldoe.org, (850) 245-0503

Georgia

Georgia’s attention to adolescent literacy emerged 

as a result of the Georgia Performance Standards, 

which were presented to the state in 2004/05. An 

important change from the previous state standards was the integration of Reading across the 

Curriculum standards, which represent a move 

toward developing a statewide literacy plan.

The Reading across the Curriculum standards are 

embedded in the content area standards for grades 

6–12 in science, social studies, mathematics, and 

language arts, providing a reading standards 

component in each content area. They emphasize 

such skills as reading in content areas, enhancing 

students’ ability to read and understand contentspecific material, developing appropriate vocabulary, and discussing and evaluating material. An 

important component of these standards is the 25-

book requirement, which requires each student to 

read a minimum of 25 books, or their equivalent, 

per year across curriculum areas. Content-area 

teachers are supposed to incorporate the Reading 

across the Curriculum standards in their classroom practice.

Georgia used a train-the-trainer model to introduce the new Georgia Performance Standards 

in 2004/05, with district and school representatives receiving training from the state Department of Education and, in turn, providing it 

to all teachers at school sites. Currently, the 

state Department of Education is developing a 
38 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

statewide literacy plan to ensure that teachers 

have the support they need in teaching to these 

new Reading across the Curriculum standards. 

The plan is expected to offer direction to local 

education agencies on a comprehensive set of 

plan components. Already, a limited number of 

middle schools fund literacy coaches through 

Title I funds, and some have Learn and Serve 

grants that incorporate literacy training. These 

changes represent a significant movement toward 

providing an effective literacy curriculum for all 

Georgia middle and high school students.

In an effort to provide useful resources and support for secondary content teachers, for whom 

these new standards may represent a significant 

challenge, the Georgia state school superintendent 

asked REL-Southeast to help answer the question, What literacy across the curriculum support 

interventions might the Georgia Department of 

Education consider as part of a research-based, 

comprehensive plan to improve secondary literacy 

and student achievement? The results of this brief 

will be used to support the state’s work in this 

area.

Contact: Lisa Copeland, Director, Reading and 

Middle Schools, Georgia Department of Education, lcopeland@doe.k12.ga.us

Mississippi

Mississippi identified goals for all readers in its 

1997 Mississippi Reading Initiative and also developed the Mississippi Reading Reform Model in 

1997. The model includes four basic components:

•	 Well-designed early literacy interventions to 

ensure reading readiness.

•	 Prescriptive direct instruction utilizing the 

essential elements of reading instruction and 

based upon results of appropriate, valid, and 

reliable assessments.

•	 Extended instructional opportunities for 

children.

•	 High-quality professional development to 

improve reading instructional practices of 

Mississippi teachers, administrators, and support staff.

The state has long had K–3 reading initiatives, 

including the Barksdale Reading Institute, created 

from a $100 million gift given to the University of 

Mississippi Foundation from Jim and the late Sally 

Barksdale; Reading Sufficiency, a comprehensive 

effort to improve the teaching and learning of reading and language arts in Mississippi’s classrooms 

through the support of rigorous reading standards 

for students; and Reading First, which provides assistance to states and districts to establish researchbased reading programs for K–3 students. The 

state now appears to also be focusing on struggling 

readers from 4th grade through high school. More 

specifically, through high school redesign work 

and the new Office of Dropout Prevention, the state 

plans to address the needs of adolescent readers. In 

addition, like Florida and North Carolina, Mississippi received a National Governors Association 

Reading to Achieve grant funded by the Carnegie 

Corporation of New York and is developing a more 

comprehensive policy and plan to improve adolescent literacy achievement.

The National Governors Association Reading to 

Achieve grant will provide funding for the establishment of a state literacy task force that will be 

responsible for accomplishing the following broad 

goals (Mississippi Department of Education press 

release, Feb. 16, 2006):

•	 Develop a detailed report describing current 

reading performance.

•	 Increase public understanding of and support 

for a literacy focus in Mississippi.

•	 Build on Mississippi’s existing literacy plan 

with particular emphasis paid to literacy 

achievement in grades 4–12.

•	 Make specific research-based recommendations 

leading to student gains in reading performance.
 Appendix C 39

•	 Develop a plan for changing classroom instruction based on scientific reading research.

Contact: Robin Miles, Bureau Director, Reading, 

Early Childhood, and Language Arts, Mississippi 

Department of Education, rmiles@mde.k12.ms.us, 

(601) 359-3778

North Carolina

Like Florida and Mississippi, North Carolina received a National Governors Association Reading 

to Achieve grant funded by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and used the funds to develop 

a K–12 plan. Concerned with dropping National 

Assessment of Educational Progress scores, North 

Carolina formed a committee of stakeholders 

to develop a six-priority action-step plan, the 

“Strategic Plan for Reading Literacy,” which will 

be presented to the State Board in March 2007. The 

six priority action steps are:

•	 Amend the curriculum revision process to 

include literacy strategies in each content area 

and a focus on digital reading.

•	 Develop student assessment processes that 

provide for open-ended and performance 

assessments.

•	 Provide opportunities for leadership development for principals and central office staff.

•	 Enhance preparation and professional development for elementary, middle, and high 

school teachers.

•	 Analyze the need for policy revision and 

development.

•	 Develop benchmarks at the school level for 

each grade and subgroup.

The original literacy plan covered only grades 

K–8; but the current plan is for K–12. The plan 

also includes two new strategies that will directly 

affect adolescent readers—one aimed at teacher 

skills and knowledge of reading instruction and 

the other at struggling readers. The first policy 

will require all grade 9–12 teachers to get threehour credits in literacy as part of their licensure 

renewal. The second strategy under consideration 

is the revisitation of the Personalized Education 

Plans.

At this time the plan has not been presented to 

the State Board for approval, but other actions 

are being taken to improve adolescent literacy. 

Already in place are four online courses in reading 

in the content areas which have been developed 

by LEARN NC (http://www.learnnc.org/courses/) 

to support teachers. In addition, the Office of the 

Governor has also funded 100 literacy coaches 

to be provided to the lowest- performing middle 

schools.

Contact: Louise Burner, English Language Arts 

Consultant, North Carolina Department of Public 

Instruction, lburner@dpi.state.nc.us, (919) 807-

3300

South Carolina

In 1999, then Governor Jim Hodges created the 

Governor’s Institute of Reading (GIR), a partnership of businesses, community organizations, and 

education organizations to focus on early reading. 

In December 1999 the GIR sponsored the South 

Carolina Reading Summit. As a result of this Summit, input from the GIR Task Force and a review of 

best practices, the South Carolina Reading Initiative (SCRI) came into being and was announced 

in 2000. The SCRI began with K–5 but has since 

broadened its scope, initiating work with middle 

schools during the 2003/04 school year and, more 

recently, with high schools.

SCRI is a voluntary program funded through the 

General Assembly, which allocated $1.3 million to 

allow the program to expand into middle schools 

and an additional $1 million in 2006/07 for expansion into high schools. Participating schools may 

receive up to $50,000 dollars from the GIR to 

support implementation of the initiative’s seven 
40 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

goals. To participate, schools submit an implementation plan. Because the initiatives have not been 

fully funded, a competitive grant process is used 

in some instances to determine which schools will 

receive funds. However, high need districts are 

given priority.

The SCRI-MG (middle grades) and the High 

School Initiative is an intensive four-year, staffdevelopment plan designed to improve reading 

skills and strategies for adolescents across the 

curriculum by providing support and resources to 

teachers. District and school literacy coaches work 

in classrooms four days each week to provide support to participating teachers, as well as leading 

SCRI teams in twice-monthly meetings to consider 

research and practice. Coaches continue to develop 

their own skills as they work with regional literacy 

coaches, faculty from the University of South 

Carolina (USC), state department staff, and the 

National Council of Teachers of English to build 

a common knowledge base by participating in 

summer institutes and monthly study throughout 

the year. The training was initially developed as 

a collaborative effort of the University of South 

Carolina, South Carolina Department of Education, and the National Council of Teachers of 

English. Training continues, with USC faculty, 

regional literacy coaches, visiting instructors from 

other South Carolina institutions, and national 

consultants serving as instructors.

South Carolina is evaluating the effects of the 

SCRI. The SCRI research team has collected data 

for a three-part study using a variety of criterionreferenced tests in addition to state standardized 

tests such as the Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test. Data are also being collected related to 

changes in teacher practices and attitudes.

Contact: Allison Norwood (SCRI-HS), Office 

of Curriculum and Standards, South Carolina 

Department of Education, anorwood@ed.sc.gov, 

(803) 734-2469

Caroline Savage (SCRI-MG), Office of Curriculum 

and Standards, South Carolina Department of 

Education, csavage@ed.sc.gov, (803) 734-4770
 Appendix D 41

Appendix D 

Intervention Abstracts

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)

Type of intervention This program consists of teaching teachers to use multiple cognitive strategies for activating 

background knowledge, questioning, searching for information, summarizing, organizing 

information graphically, and structuring stories. These strategies are combined with the multiple 

motivational practices of using content goals in reading instruction, providing hands-on activities, 

affording students choices, using interesting texts, and promoting collaboration among school staff 

in reading instruction. The content area of major focus for the research has been science.

Developer John Guthrie & Allan Wigfield, University of Maryland

Contact information John Guthrie & Allan Wigfield

(301) 314-8448—General Information

jguthrie@umd.edu or awigfiel@umd.edu

Brief description Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction incorporates reading strategy instruction, student 

engagement strategies, and science inquiry activities in interesting and unique ways for students. 

The goals of CORI are to increase students’ reading comprehension, motivation to read, and science 

knowledge. The CORI program equips participating teachers with the skills to accomplish these 

classroom goals through interactive, professional development workshops and established CORI

guidelines.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

Teachers learn instructional and motivational strategies that can be used to increase students’ 

reading comprehension, engagement in instruction, science knowledge, and motivation to read.

Expected outcomes for 

students

Students learn numerous reading strategies including how to use background knowledge to inform 

their reading, form questions about text material, search for information, summarize accurately, 

organize their new-found knowledge, and monitor their own comprehension of text. Students’ 

written language skills are also targeted for overall improvement.

Grade range Research on CORI was originally conducted with students in 3rd–5th grades, but CORI has also been 

adapted for students in 6th–12th grades.

Reading level range Varied

Materials provided •	 CORI Facilitator Guide

•	 CORI Teacher Guides

•	 CORI Books—Motivating Reading Comprehension: Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction & ConceptOriented Reading Instruction: Engaging Classrooms, Lifelong Learners

•	 Videos/DVDs

User requirements 4–6 months of planning by 1–3 full-time staff members, 5 days of teacher professional 

development, and funds to purchase books, manipulatives and portfolios necessary for instruction.

Time commitment •	 Professional development for instructors in the CORI model requires a minimum of 10 days in 

the summer to give instructors an opportunity to adapt existing materials to the curriculum 

framework.

•	 Each CORI teacher receives a minimum of 5 days of professional development in the summer and 

5 days of coaching during the fall.

Cost structure

(as of 3/20/07)

•	 Several independent trainers are available for the 10-day training course.

•	 A trainer charges approximately $10,000 for the introductory course.

•	 Books for a room of about 20 students can cost approximately $2,400 for the initial investment.

R&D summary •	 This program was first developed in 1992 in Maryland as a collaboration between Louise 

Bennett, an elementary school science teacher, and John Guthrie, a reading and literacy 

researcher.

•	 Bennett and Guthrie designed CORI to teach students strategies used by skilled readers, increase 

student engagement in reading and science, and help students develop science inquiry skills.

•	 Numerous quasi-experimental studies on the CORI model have been conducted.

•	 The researchers of CORI have received funds from the U.S. Department of Education and the 

National Science Foundation to examine the impact of CORI on student achievement.
42 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI)

Results of R&D •	 Using random assignment of schools, the authors reported that CORI-trained teachers surpassed 

teachers trained in Strategy Instruction Only in their students’ performance on reading 

comprehension, reading motivation and reading strategy measures (Guthrie, Wigfield, Barbosa, 

Perenchevich, Taboada, Davis, Scafiddi & Tonks, 2004).

•	 Using a quasi-experimental design, CORI-trained teachers surpassed comparison teachers in 

their students’ performance on reading comprehension and reading strategy use (Guthrie, 

Anderson, Alao & Rinehart, 1999; Guthrie, Van Meter, Hancock, Alao, Anderson & McCann, 1998).

•	 Using a quasi-experimental design, CORI teachers surpassed comparison teachers in their 

students’ performance on reading motivation (Guthrie, Wigfield & VonSecker, 2000; Wigfield, 

Guthrie, Tonks & Perencevich, 2004).

References Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 1–30.

Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). Influences of Concept-Oriented Reading 

Instruction on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The Elementary School Journal, 

99(4), 343–366.

Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through an 

engagement model of classroom practice. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 59–85.

Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E. (in press). Reading 

motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary 

Educational Psychology.

Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., & Perencevich, K. C. (2006). From spark to fire: 

Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading Research and 

Instruction, 45 (2), 91–118.

Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., McCann, A., Anderson, E., & Alao, S. (1998). Does ConceptOriented Reading Instruction increase strategy-use and conceptual learning from text? Journal 

of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 261–278.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., Scafiddi, N. T., 

& Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through ConceptOriented Reading Instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 403–423.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). 

Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. Journal of 

Educational Research, 99, 232–245.

Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & Perencevich, K.C. (Eds.). (2004). Motivating reading comprehension: 

Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on motivation and 

strategy use in reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 331–341.

Lutz, S. L., Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in learning: An 

observational study of elementary school reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 

100, 3–20.

Wang, J. H., & Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, 

amount of reading, and past reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and 

Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 162–186.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: 

Domain specificity and instructional influences. Journal of Educational Research, 97, 299–309.

Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the amount and 

breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.

States used in Maryland, Iowa, North Carolina, and Utah

Web site http://www.cori.umd.edu/
 Appendix D 43

CRISS (CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies)

Type of intervention Professional development course designed to help teachers incorporate additional instructional 

strategies for reading and writing into their regular content instruction.

Developer Carol Santa and her colleagues in the Kalispell, Montana, School District.

Contact information Lynn Havens, Project CRISS Director

(406) 758-6440—General Information

info@projectcriss.com

Brief description This program began in 1979 and was originally developed as a secondary program (Content 

Reading in Secondary Schools). In addition, it received federal validation and funding through the 

National Diffusion Network of the U.S. Department of Education.

The purpose is to provide students with reading, writing, and study skill strategies that will help 

them better organize, understand, and retain information. The CRISS strategies can be incorporated 

into any existing curriculum and content area.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

Teachers learn instructional strategies and assessment techniques to enhance student progress in 

reading, writing, and in content subjects.

Expected outcomes for 

students

Students acquire skills to set their own learning goals and use strategies that work best for them. 

They acquire learning strategies, including meta-cognitive approaches and monitoring of their own 

learning, to enhance academic progress.

Other expected outcomes

(administrative, 

organizational, curriculum)

Strategies are designed to be adapted and implemented across the curriculum.

Grade range 3–12

Reading level range Varied

Materials provided 3rd Edition of CRISS Teacher Training Manual (for Level I Training).

User requirements •	 Local facilitator needed to coordinate the program and periodically observe classes and arrange 

follow-up sessions 3–6 months after the final training session.

Time commitment •	 Level I Training/ Teachers—12–18 contact hours.

•	 Level II Training/ Certified District Trainer—28 contact hours.

Cost structure •	 Level I Training/ Teachers—$45.00/55.00 per person.

•	 Level II Training/ Certified District Trainer—$200.00 per person.

•	 A variety of instructional materials are available ranging in price from $10 for 10 student 

overviews of CRISS strategies to $550 for a complete set of classroom materials.

R&D summary The developers list the following evaluations:

•	 1985—National Validation study, Horsfall & Santa (1985).

•	 1993–1994—Validation study (4th, 6th, 8th and 11th grades), Horsfall & Santa (1994).

•	 2001–2003—Comparison study, 4th, 7th and High School Students in Utah, O’Neil and Associates 

(2004).

•	 2003–2004—Study in 2 High Schools in Las Vegas, Santa and Vick (2004).

•	 Overall, several pre-post-test evaluations with comparison groups are reported using a Free 

Recall Assessment as the outcome measure.

•	 Currently, the REL-Northwest is planning an evaluation of the program using an experimental 

design.

(The O’Neil and Associates (2004) and Santa & Vick (2004) reports were mentioned on the developers 

website, but we have been unable to obtain a copy.)
44 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

CRISS (CReating Independence through Student-owned Strategies)

Results of R&D The O’Neil and Associates (2004) evaluation findings as reported by the developer were that 

randomly selected students from a school with teachers trained in CRISS scored better on the Free 

Recall Assessment (created by the developer) than randomly selected students in schools where the 

teachers had not been trained in CRISS.

In their review of the research on this intervention, the Florida Center for Reading Research points 

out some of the potential problems with the research conducted to date, “Although in some 

classrooms, students with CRISS trained teachers showed significantly stronger performance at 

the posttest, it is questionable whether the differential gains can be attributed to CRISS for two 

reasons. First, as schools were not randomly assigned to receive CRISS training, pre-existing school 

differences may have influenced the results. Second, the repeated measures ANOVA procedures 

used to analyze the data were not able to correct for pretest differences between groups of 

students (FCRR, 2004, p. 3).”

References Horsfall, S., & Santa, C. (1985). Project CRISS: Validation report for the Joint Review and Dissemination 

Panel.

Horsfall, S., & Santa, C. (1994). Project CRISS: Validation report for the Program Effectiveness Panel.

Santa, C. (1995). Project CRISS: Evidence of effectiveness in Spokane, Washington, and Aurora, Colorado.

Technical Report.

Santa, C., & O’ Neil, R. (2004). Project CRISS: Evidence of effectiveness, constructive accountability: 

Creating a culture for progress. Utah Association of Curriculum Development, 15, 21–32.

 Santa, C., & Vick, L. (2004). Project CRISS evidence of effectiveness in Las Vegas Schools. Technical 

Report.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). National assessment of Title I 

Interim Report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

States used in Over 43 states (Canada and Norway as well) (based on information from their web site)

Web site http://www.projectcriss.com
 Appendix D 45

Literacy First—Middle/High School Content Area Process

Type of intervention Literacy First is a comprehensive reform process which aims to accelerate reading achievement 

through four distinct programs for students in grades PreK to 12th through professional 

development and onsite coaching and consulting.

Developer Bill Blokker, President

Professional Development Institute, Inc.

Contact information Literacy First Process

3109 150th Place SE

Mill Creek, WA 98012

(425) 745-3029

Brief description Literacy First Middle/High School Content Area Process is a professional- development and 

change process that consists of the following: an analysis of the school’s current reading program 

infrastructure and culture in comparison to research-based best practices; development of 

a customized three-year strategic plan; plan implementation through intensive professional 

development (28 days); systematic, explicit onsite coaching and consulting (24 days); and 

monitoring and support of the plan.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

With respect to the Middle School/High School Content Area Process, teachers are expected to 

learn to help students better understand the content information taught in their classrooms. A

small cadre of teachers will become secondary reading specialists. These teachers will teach in the 

Intensive Reading classes.

Expected outcomes for 

students

Though the intervention includes processes for grades PreK to 12th, the goal of the Literacy First 

Middle School/High School Content Area Process is to significantly increase achievement of ALL

students in all content-area classes, provided they are reading no more than two grades below 

level.

Other expected outcomes

(administrative, organizational, 

curriculum)

As part of the intervention, Literacy First monitors the support of the program from school and 

district administrators and holds the leadership team and teachers accountable for effective 

implementation of the strategic plan.

Grade range 6–12

Reading level range Varied

Materials provided Teachers in the content area receive a teacher’s manual and three resource books, all of which 

focus on comprehension skills, strategic reading/thinking tools, metacognitive processes, and 

vocabulary development.

User requirements Commitment from the school principal to be an integral part of the change process and 

implementation is needed.

Time commitment The intervention entails a three-year process to include reading program analysis, 15 days of 

professional development, 24 days of onsite coaching and consulting, and unlimited email and 

phone consultation.

Cost structure Dependent on the number of schools that participate and what they choose to include as the 

program customizes their plan to meet the needs of the individual schools.

R&D summary The Oklahoma Commission for Teacher Preparation contracted with the Southwest Educational 

Development Laboratory (SEDL) to conduct an independent evaluation of the impact of the 

Literacy First Process in 29 schools in Oklahoma. SEDL compared the 29 Literacy First schools to 29 

non-Literacy First schools with similar demographics. On the nationally normed assessment used 

in the state, the Literacy First schools increased an average of 9 percentage points on 3rd-grade 

reading scores compared to a 1 percent increase in comparable schools. During the same time 

period, the average increase of reading achievement in all Oklahoma schools was 3 percentage 

points (Southwest Educational Development Laboratory, 2003). (This report was mentioned on the 

developer’s website, but we have been unable to obtain a copy.)

Results of R&D In their review of the research on this intervention, the Florida Center for Reading Research 

noted: “Literacy First cites preliminary data (including surveys, interviews, and observations) that 

indicated changes in teachers’ knowledge and classroom implementation of explicit teaching 

directed at the students’ instructional level. Presently, Literacy First is designing a study to collect 

more evidence about its impact on cultural change and school reform (FCRR, 2004, p. 2).”
46 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Literacy First—Middle/High School Content Area Process

Program research references (n.d.) Literacy First Comprehensive Reading Reform Process. Mill Creek, WA: Professional Development 

Institute.

Florida Center for Reading Research (2004, November). Literacy first comprehensive reading reform 

process. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Available online:http://ww.fcrr.org

States used in Nationwide K–12, 18 states and over 400 schools. See the Literacy First web site for specific details 

on states involved. Specific school districts with names for references may be contacted from the 

website.

Web site http://www.literacyfirst.com
 Appendix D 47

 ReadAbout

Type of intervention A computer-based program meant to complement a core-reading program. This supplemental 

intervention program is designed to help students develop reading comprehension and 

vocabulary skills.

Developer Scholastic, Inc.

Contact information Scholastic, Inc.

Worldwide Headquarters and Editorial Office

557 Broadway

New York, New York 10012

1-877-234-READ—General Information

http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/readabout/contact/customer_service.asp

Brief description ReadAbout is a self-managed reading program that uses technology to personalize literacy and 

vocabulary instruction. It is designed to help upper elementary students learn to read nonfiction. 

ReadAbout complements the core reading program; it uses nonfiction content, plus skills 

instruction, and reinforcement strategies tailored to the interests and reading level of individual 

students.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

Teacher outcomes for those who take part in the introductory training include an ability to use 

ReadAbout’s software to monitor students’ reading progress and to use the reports of students’ 

progress to continue differentiating instruction offline.

Teachers who take part in the Scholastic Red online training are expected to learn additional 

reading instruction strategies for improving student reading comprehension.

Expected outcomes for 

students

Students are expected to learn vocabulary and expository text structures, to develop graphic 

organizers and background knowledge, and to practice writing in response to text.

Grade range 3–8

Reading level range Varied

Materials provided •	 ReadAbout software and software manuals.

•	 Teacher guide, topic planners, and organizer.

•	 Worksheets and answer sheets.

User requirements •	 Computers for student and teacher use.

•	 A printer for printing reports.

•	 Teachers available to participate in a 2-day introductory workshop.

Time commitment •	 20 minutes, 3 days a week for each student using the program.

•	 2 days of training on how to use ReadAbout software is provided for teachers for each package 

of the ReadAbout program purchased.

Cost structure

(as of 10/11/06)

•	 The 100 license plan (three classrooms) includes ReadAbout software and materials for 3 

classrooms as well as a 2-day training for 3 teachers on how to use the ReadAbout program 

costs $11,000.

•	 The 100 license plan plus a Scholastic Reading Inventory (SRI) program to determine students’ 

reading level costs $12,000.

•	 The 100 license plan plus Scholastic Red, an online reading instruction course for teachers, 

costs $12,350.

•	 The 100 license plan plus both SRI and Scholastic Red costs $13,600.

•	 360 licenses plan (12 classrooms/school level) includes ReadAbout software and materials for 

12 classrooms as well as a 2-day training course for 13 teachers on how to use the ReadAbout 

program costs $23,000.

•	 The 360 license plan plus a SRI program to determine students’ reading level costs $27,500.

•	 The 360 license plan plus Scholastic Red, an online reading instruction course for teachers 

costs $34,875.

•	 The 360 license plan plus both SRI and Scholastic Red costs $30,375.

R&D summary The U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences is studying the effectiveness 

of reading comprehension programs, and ReadAbout is one of four programs that were randomly 

assigned to 5th grade classrooms in nine districts across the country (U.S. Department of 

Education, 2006).

Results of R&D No results from the USDOE IES study have been reported
48 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

 ReadAbout

References U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (2006). National assessment of Title I 

Interim Report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

States used in Not provided, but appears to be used in localities throughout the U.S.

Web site http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/ReadAbout/index.htm
 Appendix D 49

Reading in the Content Areas

Type of intervention This program teaches students reading strategies to guide them in comprehending text material 

in the subject areas of language arts, social studies, science, and mathematics.

Developer Globe Fearon

Contact information Lydia Rainer

Sales Representative (Washington, DC)

(877)-421-0808

Globe Fearon

Dr. Kate Kinsella (Program Consultant)

1–(800)-858-9500

fax: (877)-260-2530

Brief description The program uses the KWL Plus (Know, Want to Know, Learned), Predict and Confirm, Concept 

Building, and Cornell Note-taking strategies to increase students’ ability to gain subject-area 

knowledge in language arts, social studies, science and mathematics, literacy comprehension 

(e.g., understanding of main topics in text material, organizational skills, study skills, and 

confidence in reading). Teachers take on the role of reading coaches, providing modeling of 

strategies, and encourage and support students’ efforts.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

Not explicitly stated in program materials but implied teacher outcomes include improved 

instructional methods, reading skill-assessment procedures, and methods for motivating students 

and reducing students’ anxiety about academic performance.

Expected outcomes for 

students

Students will:

•	 Gain confidence to work with diverse text material.

•	 Increase skills to use various cognitive strategies for the purpose of increasing their academic 

achievement.

•	 Increase literacy comprehension by using the structures and features of text (e.g., topic 

sentences and transitional expressions).

•	 Gain skills to organize text material.

•	 Increase skills in using prediction and confirmation strategies to enhance reading comprehension.

•	 Gain skills in logical and critical thinking.

•	 Acquire note-taking strategies to enhance retention of information.

•	 Enhance their vocabulary.

Other expected outcomes

(administrative, organizational, 

curriculum)

None specified

Grade range Middle and High School (grades 6–12)

Reading level range 4–7

Materials provided •	 Student edition, comprising four progressively more challenging volumes.

•	 Teachers Resource Manual, which provides guidance on strategy instruction, lesson plans/

models, graphic illustrations, and helpful links on the Internet.

•	 Placement Guide for placement of students at the correct program level.

•	 Tips for Helping Students Read to Learn provides motivational tips, tips to enhance students’ 

self-sufficiency, and guidance on assessment of student performance.

User requirements None specified

Time commitment Not specified

Cost structure $189.90 for all above-mentioned materials plus 8-10% of the total for shipping and handling of 

materials.

R&D summary Program materials, developer website, and literature search did not reveal any research studies 

supporting the program. However, the program description clearly demonstrates that it is based, 

at least in part, on the large body of research literature on effective literacy programs (e.g., use of 

strategy instruction).

Results of R&D

Program research references

States used in Not Specified

Web site http://www.globefearon.com
50 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Reading Apprenticeship

Type of intervention Professional development program focused on enabling teachers to build their understanding of 

the complexities of reading .

Developer WestEd’s Strategic Literacy Initiative (SLI)

Ruth Schoenbach, Director of SLI

Cynthia Greenleaf, Associate Director of SLI

Contact information Jana Bouc, Program Coordinator of SLI

300 Lakeside Drive, 25th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612-3534

Tel: (510) 302-4245

Fax: (510) 302-4354

Email: jbouc@wested.org

Brief description Initiated in 1995, Reading Apprenticeship is a professional development program that was 

originally designed and implemented through a cross school network of inter-disciplinary 

site-based teams involving over 300 middle and high school content-area teachers in the San 

Francisco Bay area. In contrast to conceptualizing literacy as a collection of basic skills, the 

program’s instructional framework is based on the dual notions of literacy as a complex 

cognitive and social process and of teaching as cognitive apprenticeship—i.e., the teacher 

serves as the “master” reader to his or her student apprentice readers. The framework consists 

of four integrated dimensions of classroom life that teachers and students explore together: social, 

personal, cognitive, and knowledge-building. The program features a guided and structured 

inquiry process, built around “literacy learning cases” that teachers engage with. Accordingly, in a 

Reading Apprenticeship classroom, the curriculum expands to include how teachers and students 

read and why they read in the ways they do, as well as what they read in subject-area classes. A

course for 9th graders, Academic Literacy, has also been developed.

Participation options include:

•	 Site-based teacher professional development—from a one-time, one-day training, to a threetime 7-day training—conducted by SLI staff and consultants.

•	 National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship: A training-of-trainers program offered by SLI

to schools and districts around the country. Team members are required to have leadership 

experience in literacy, subject-area curriculum and instruction, and professional development.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

•	 Teachers create a classroom environment that is student-centered rather than teacher-directed 

and that is characterized by high student engagement and self direction.

•	 Instructional practices evidence increased collaboration between and among teachers, 

including across subject-area divisions, and students.

•	 Teachers and students develop an increased sense of accountability for student learning.

Expected outcomes for 

students

•	 Students’ engagement, fluency, and competency in reading increases.

•	 Student academic performance increases.

•	 Students gain a greater sense of ownership and control of their reading practices.

•	 Students have greater motivation to read and understand the power of literacy to shape their 

lives.

Other expected outcomes None specified

Grade range Middle and high school

Reading level range Varies

Materials provided •	 Participants in the site-based teacher training receive a copy of the SLI’s book, Reading for 

Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms as well as 

comprehensive course materials.

•	 Teams participating in the National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship receive copies of the 

SLI’s book, Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School 

Classrooms and a comprehensive set of materials for conducting RA professional development 

in local education agencies and schools. This includes student and classroom case-study 

videos and video facilitators’ guides; a binder filled with over 400 pages of readings and 

reproducible resource materials; and membership in an active online discussion group with 

access to online updated resource file downloads.
 Appendix D 51

Reading Apprenticeship

User requirements Organizations sponsoring site-based training provide the meeting rooms, audio/visual needs, and 

refreshments for participants.

Time commitment •	 Site-based teacher training, the specification of which depends on program design. (See cost 

structure and options below.)

•	 National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship: 8 days of professional development.

Cost structure

(as of Oct. 2006)

Site-based professional development: Pricing is based on sessions for up to 40 participants. SLI

provides two facilitators and covers all of their travel and lodging expenses. Costs are also based 

on the number of training days and the number of trips that consultants make to a location:

Training Days & Trips

1-day, 1 trip: $ 7,500

2-day, 1 trip: $15,000

3-day, 1 trip: $20,000

4-day, 1 trip: $26,000

5-day, 2 trips: $32,000

5-day, 3 trips: $39,000

7-day, 2 trips: $42,000

7-day, 3 trips: $50,000

National Institute in Reading Apprenticeship: $4,000/participant plus travel.

R&D summary •	 From 1997–2000, SLI researches examined the impact of RA on teachers’ classroom practice 

related to reading in their content areas.

•	 During 1999–2002, studies collected data on student reading growth in Bay Area and Los 

Angeles high schools. Student performance was measured using the Degrees of Reading 

Power (DRP) standardized test of reading comprehension.

•	 There have also been several case studies of high implementation RA classrooms (2001–2003). 

Student performance was measured using the DRP.

•	 From 2001–2004, case studies were conducted on schools implementing RA as a school-wide 

initiative.

•	 In 2005, the Institute of Education Sciences awarded WestEd a grant to conduct an 

experimental test of the effectiveness of Reading Apprenticeship entitled “A Randomized 

Control Study of the Efficacy of Reading Apprenticeship Professional Development for High 

School History and Science Teaching and Learning” (full abstract is available at: http://ies.

ed.gov/ncer/projects/tq_reading/fy05_wested_abstract.asp).

•	 Overall, numerous implementation and impact studies have been conducted on RA. They have 

consistently reported pre-post data using state or other commercially available assessments.

Results of R&D Teacher outcomes related to participation in Reading Apprenticeship have been the subject of 

investigation (e.g., WestEd 2004d). Results described included increases in teachers’ knowledge 

about reading instruction, pedagogic content knowledge, and approaches to appraising students’ 

literacy skills and instructional needs as well as teacher acquisition of the repertoires of effective 

instructional practices, teaching roles, and provision of learning opportunities for students 

consistent with the RA framework.

Student outcomes resulting from teacher participation, including their attitudes toward and 

achievement in reading, have also been a focus of investigation (e.g., Greenleaf, Schoenbach, 

Cziko, & Mueller, 2001; WestEd 2004b).
52 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Reading Apprenticeship

Program research references Greenleaf, C. L., Mueller, F. L., & Cziko, C. (1997). Impact of the Pilot Academic Literacy Course on 

ninth grade students’ reading development: Academic year 1996–1997. A Report to the Stuart 

Foundation. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. (2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers 

to academic literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.

WestEd. (2004a). 2001–2004 Increasing student achievement through school-wide Reading 

Apprenticeship. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

WestEd. (2004b). 1996–1999 9th Grade Academic Literacy Course Studies. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

WestEd. (2004c). 1999–2002 Studies of student reading growth in diverse professional development 

networks. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

WestEd. (2004d). 1997–2000 A study of teacher learning and student reading outcomes in an SLI 

professional development network. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.

States used in National scope

Web site http://www.wested.org/cs/sli/print/docs/sli/home.htm
 Appendix D 53

Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)–Content Literacy Continuum (CLC)

Type of intervention CLC is a 3–4-year school-improvement process that focuses on helping secondary schools 

develop and sustain comprehensive and integrated literacy programs.

Developer University of Kansas Center on Research and Learning

Contact information The Strategic Learning Center

 3910 California Ave SW

Seattle, WA 98116

(206) 760-7650

slc@smarttogether.org

www.smarttogether.org

Brief description The Strategic Instruction Model (SIM) Content Literacy Continuum (CLC) is a 3–4-year schoolimprovement process focused on helping secondary schools develop and sustain comprehensive 

and integrated literacy programs. The goal is to create a school-wide approach to improving 

literacy for all students in secondary schools so that they can meet higher standards. The process 

to implement the framework is led by a SIM team that works with administrators, teachers, and 

staff to develop and implement a standards-based plan to improve literacy and content area 

learning tied to student performance on state assessments. The model uses a variety of strategies, 

some focused on helping teachers and others on helping students.

Components of the SIM Content Literacy Continuum:

•	 Content Mastery.

•	 Embedded Strategy Instruction.

•	 Explicit Strategy Instruction.

•	 Intensive Skill Development.

•	 Intensive Clinical Intervention.

Expected outcomes for 

teachers

•	 Think about, adopt, and present critical content in a learner-friendly fashion.

•	 Use Content Enhancement Routines to promote content mastery.

•	 Differentiate instruction.

Expected outcomes for 

students

•	 Learn the skills and strategies needed to learn content.

•	 Learn critical content regardless of literacy level.

•	 Value the process of learning how to learn.

Other expected outcomes

(administrative, organizational, 

curriculum)

•	 Schools will develop intensive and coordinated instructional experiences for students who 

have difficulty reading and those with serious reading deficiencies.

•	 Support personnel and teachers will learn how to provide intensive instruction and strategic 

tutoring.

•	 Reading specialists and special education teachers will learn skills and strategies to teacher 

students with disabilities.

•	 Speech-language pathologists learn strategies to assist students.

Grade range 6–12

Reading level range Varied

Materials provided •	 Guidebooks

•	 Success Guides

•	 Manuals

•	 Notebooks

•	 Learning Strategy Curriculum Manuals

•	 CD-ROM

User requirements •	 Commit to the 3–4-year process.

•	 Share achievement data with SIM Literacy Specialists.

•	 Identify a site literacy coordinator.

•	 Align goals associated with SIM Content Literacy activities with school- improvement plans.

•	 Provide logistical resources and time for teachers.

•	 Develop appropriate courses and course supports.

•	 Participate in peer evaluations.

•	 Support teachers by providing professional development group time.

•	 Keep SIM Implementation Team informed of evaluation activities and other school initiatives.

Time commitment •	 Minimum 3–4-year process
54 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

Strategic Instruction Model (SIM)–Content Literacy Continuum (CLC)

Cost structure •	 N/A

R&D summary •	 Components of SIM, or more precisely, specific “routines” embedded in the elaborate SIM

framework (e.g., Bulgren et al., 2000; Bulgren, Lenz, Schumaker, Deshler, & Marquis, 2002) have 

been subject to research over the past 25 years. With some exceptions (e.g., Mothus & Lapadat, 

n.d.; Perez & Hughes, 2005), SIM-related research and evaluation has been undertaken by the 

program developers.

•	 Most SIM research has focused on demonstrating the relevance of SIM to students with 

learning disabilities.

•	 To date, there has been no study of the efficacy of the SIM–CLC intervention as a whole. 

However, the National Center for Education Evaluation (NCEE) is collaborating with the Office 

of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE) in sponsoring a rigorous evaluation of supplemental 

literacy interventions targeting 9th graders and has contracted with MDRC and American 

Institutes for Research (AIR) to conduct the study, which will contrast two programs selected by 

a panel of reading experts through a competitive process: SIM and the Reading Apprenticeship 

program developed by WestEd. Schools participating in the evaluation will be randomly 

assigned to one of the two programs. The final report is expected in 2009. For more description 

and study contacts go to:

http://www.aacps.org/aacps/boe/commu/slc/enhanced.htm

Results of R&D The FCRR review of SIM (January 2006) reported that research encompassing five separate SIM

strategies demonstrated that students were able to learn the steps at a high level of proficiency 

and were able to implement the steps correctly. However, the FCRR notes that research on 

how strategy acquisition and utilization impacts reading outcome measures, such as reading 

comprehension, is less highly developed.

Program research references Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, K. B. (2000). The use and effectiveness 

of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 92(3), 426–441.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, K. B., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2002). The use and 

effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356–371.

Mothus, T. G., & Lapadat, J. C. (n.d.). A strategy intervention to increase the reading comprehension of 

junior high school students with reading disabilities. Unpublished Manuscript. (ERIC Document 

Reproduction Service No. ED490965)

Perez, R., & Hughes, E. (2005). Strategies for Academic Success (SAS) end-of-year report. El Paso, TX: El 

Paso Independent School District.

Woodruff, S., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002). The effects of an intensive reading intervention 

on the decoding skills of high school students with learning deficits. Research report #15.

Lawrence, KS: Institute for Academic Access.

(Note: See the SIM Research Report at www.fcrr.org for additional research citations for SIM)

States used in Connecticut, Florida, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Wyoming.

Web site http://www.ku-crl.org/sim/index.html

http://www.smarttogether.org
 Appendix E 55

Appendix E

Additional resources

Alliance for Excellent Education

www.all4ed.org

The Alliance for Excellent Education is a policy, research, and advocacy organization dedicated to the 

support of students in low-performing high schools. 

In an effort to improve adolescent literacy, the alliance hosts events and develops products focused on 

this topic. Framework for an Excellent Education is 

a project initiated by the Alliance to support adolescent literacy improvement by building on Reading 

First. Their contact for adolescent literacy is Rafael 

Heller, Senior Policy Analyst, who can be reached at 

(202) 828-0828 or at rheller@all4ed.org.

American Institute of Research (AIR)

www.air.org

At the request of the Carnegie Corporation of New 

York, the American Institute of Research (AIR) 

conducted a descriptive study of the Alabama 

Reading Initiative (ARI) based on interviews with 

those involved in ARI including students, teachers, and administrators at the school and state 

level, university faculty, and other stakeholders. It 

documents the struggles and challenges involved 

in implementing a plan intended to touch every 

student and teacher in Alabama and offers lessons 

and recommendations derived as the ARI was 

implemented. The report also describes the positive outcomes of the program, for both teachers 

and students, that are expected to result in “steady 

progress” in academics among students. The report can be accessed at www.Air.org/publications/

documents/ARI%20Popular%20Report_final.pdf

Center on Instruction

www.centeroninstruction.org

The Center on Instruction is a partnership of five 

organizations providing resources and expertise 

to Regional Comprehensive Centers in reading, 

mathematics, science, special education, and 

English-language learners. The Florida Center for 

Reading Research (www.fcrr.org) leads the reading 

strand, which is divided into four categories—K–3, 

4–12, special education, and English-language 

learners. The 4–12 section contains resources 

helpful to administrators, policymakers, and 

educators.

A substantial list of PowerPoint presentations covering topics such as selection of, planning for, and 

challenges of adolescent literacy programs; skills, 

knowledge requirements, and instruction; reading 

standards and assessments; and English-language 

learners issues are included in the 4–12 section. 

A DVD is available for a nominal fee that includes 

details and information from the Adolescent Literacy Workshop held in Boston in 2006.

The web site also includes links to the Vaughn 

Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts at the 

University of Texas at Austin (www.texasreading.

org) and the Florida Center for Reading Research 

(www.fcrr.org ).

Institute of Education Sciences

http://ies.ed.gov

The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is the 

section within the U.S. Department of Education 

charged with supporting rigorous research in 

education and providing information on evaluation and statistics to educators. IES comprises four 

units: the National Center for Education Research 

(NCER), the National Center for Education 

Statistics (NCES), the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), 

and the National Center for Special Education 

Research (NCSER). Within this framework IES 

supports research on several adolescent literacyrelated initiatives through competitive grants and 

the regional education laboratory (REL) system. 

Through the competitive grant process, IES supports Interventions for Struggling Adolescent and 

Adult Readers and Writers, an NCER program that 
56 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

funds projects examining strategies to improve 

basic reading and writing skills for individuals 

whose insufficient skills impede their success. IES 

also supports several ongoing adolescent literacy 

research projects through the REL system (http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/).

Learning Points Associates

www.learningpt.org

Learning Points Associates is a nonprofit, educational organization providing resources and 

technical assistance on various issues in education. Whereas, this study focuses on a review 

of professional development and other support 

for content-area teachers in improving reading 

outcomes for their classes as a whole, Learning 

Points has produced a document that provides 

information on programs for use with struggling 

adolescent readers.

1. The Adolescent Literacy Intervention Programs: Chart and Program Review Guide discusses program characteristics for struggling 

adolescent readers and includes a chart and 

review guide to help schools choose programs 

for students.

2. Adolescent Literacy Web site. This web site is 

a collection of resources, tools, and information on adolescent literacy and is intended to 

help educators and policymakers gather and 

apply knowledge to help all students succeed. 

The site provides an overview of proposed 

and authorized legislation, components of 

successful programs, instructional leadership 

resources, and additional web sites focusing 

on adolescent literacy.

National Association of State Boards of Education

http://www.nasbe.org/

In Reading at Risk: The State of Response to the 

Crisis in Adolescent Literacy the National Association of State Boards of Education (NASBE) Study 

Group on Middle and Secondary Literacy emphasized the need for schools and districts to implement practices that researchers have identified as 

likely to improve adolescent reading achievement. 

NASBE laid out recommendations for states interested in improving adolescent literacy, including 

the need for research to guide practice:

•	 Set state literacy goals and standards, ensuring alignment with curricula and assessments 

and raising literacy expectations across the 

curriculum for all students in all grades.

•	 Ensure that teachers have the preparation and 

professional development to provide effective, 

content-based literacy instruction.

•	 Strategically use data to identify student 

needs, design cohesive policies, and evaluate 

the quality of implementation and impact.

•	 Require the development of district and 

school literacy plans that infuse researchbased literacy support strategies in all content 

areas.

•	 Provide districts and schools with funding, 

support, and resources.

•	 Provide state guidance and oversight to ensure strong implementation of comprehensive 

quality literacy programs.

National Governors Association

www.nga.org

The National Governors Association (NGA) is a 

bipartisan organization of the nation’s governors 

that “promotes visionary state leadership, shares 

best practices, and speaks with a unified voice on 

national policy.” The NGA has developed Reading 

to Achieve: State Policies to Support Adolescent Literacy, a program dedicated to helping policymakers 

raise adolescent literacy achievement in their states. 

The project is supported by the Carnegie Corporation and has provided funding to eight states to help 
 Appendix E 57

them develop state plans centered on adolescent 

literacy. These plans incorporate recommendations 

from Reading to Achieve: A Governor’s Guide to 

Adolescent Literacy, an NGA publication that identifies strategies to improve adolescent literacy.

Striving Readers

www.ed.gov/programs/strivingreaders/index.html

Striving Readers is a discretionary grant authorized as part of the 2005 Fiscal Year Appropriations Act under the Title I demonstration 

authority. Eligible Title I local education agencies 

serving students in grades 6–12 may apply, or 

state education agencies may apply on behalf of an 

eligible local agency. The program supports new 

comprehensive reading initiatives or expansion 

of existing initiatives that improve the quality of 

literacy instruction across the curriculum; provides intensive literacy interventions to struggling 

readers; and help build a strong, scientific research 

base for identifying and replicating strategies 

that improve adolescent literacy skills. Initiatives 

include three key components:

1. Supplemental literacy interventions targeted 

to students who are reading significantly 

below grade level.

2. Cross-disciplinary strategies for improving 

student literacy.

3. Strong experimental evaluation components.
58 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

References

American Institutes for Research. (2005). Reading 

framework for the 2009 national assessment of educational progress (Pre-publication ed.). Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. 

Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/frameworks/

writing-fw-draft-0508.doc.

Anderson, R. C., Nguyen-Jahiel, K., & McNurlen, B. (2001). 

The snowball phenomenon: Spread of ways of talking 

and ways of thinking across groups of children. Cognition and Instruction, 19(1), 1–46.

Bacevich, A., & Salinger, T. (2006). Lessons and recommendations from the Alabama Reading Initiative: 

Sustaining focus on secondary reading. Prepared for 

the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, 

DC: American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from 

http://www.air.org/publications/documents/ARI%20

Popular%20Report_final.pdf.

Berman, I., & Biancarosa, G. (2005). Reading to achieve: A 

Governor’s Guide to adolescent literacy. Washington, 

DC: National Governors Association, Center for Best 

Practices.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—A 

vision for action and research in middle and high 

school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation 

of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent 

Education.

Bottoms, G. (2005). Why we need an across-the-curriculum 

emphasis on literacy. In Literacy across the curriculum: 

Setting and implementing goals for grades six through 

12. Site Development Guide #12. Atlanta, GA: Southern 

Regional Board.

Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. 

(2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classroom. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 92(3), 426–441.

Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. 

D., & Marquis, J. B. (2002). The use and effectiveness 

of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content 

classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 

356–371.

Burney, D., Corcoran, T. B., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Instructional coaching: A review of research. Philadelphia, 

PA : The Learning Partnership Consortium for Policy 

Research in Education.

Clark, A., Anderson, R., Kuo, L., Kim, I., Archodidou, A., & 

Nguyen-Jahiel, K. (2003). Collaborative reasoning: Expanding ways for children to talk and think in school. 

Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 181–198.

Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2005). Moving forward: A guide for implementing comprehensive 

school reform and improvement strategies. Washington, 

DC: American Institutes for Research, CSRQ Center. 

Retrieved from http://www.csrq.org/documents/

MovingForwardGuideFinal11-09-05.pdf.

Davis, D., Spraker, J., & Kushman, J. (2004). Improving 

adolescent reading: Findings from research. Portland, 

OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2006, June). ReadAbout. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://

www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/ReadAboutfinalnew.

pdf.

Florida Center for Reading Research. (2004, November). 

Literacy First comprehensive reading reform process. 

Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.

fcrr.org/FCRRReports/PDF/Literacy_First.pdf.

Franzak, J. K. (2006). Zoom: A review of the literature on 

marginalized adolescent readers, literacy theory, and 

policy implications. Review of Educational Research, 

76(2), 209–248.

Greenleaf, C. L., Schoenbach, R., Cziko, C., & Mueller, F. L. 

(2001). Apprenticing adolescent readers to academic 

literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 71(1), 79–129.

Guthrie, J. T., Anderson, E., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. (1999). 

Influences of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction 

on strategy use and conceptual learning from text. The 

Elementary School Journal 99(4), 343–366.
 References 59

Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G. R., Alao, S., 

Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998). Does ConceptOriented Reading Instruction increase strategy use and 

conceptual learning from text? Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 90(2), 261–278.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and 

motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, 

P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading 

research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K.C., 

Taboada, A., Davis, M.H., Scafiddi, N. T., & Tonks, S. 

(2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction. 

Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403–423.

Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N. M., Perencevich, K. 

C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. (2006). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. 

Journal of Educational Research, 99(4), 232–245.

Guthrie, J. T, Wigfield, A., & VonSecker, C. (2000). Effects of 

integrated instruction on motivation and strategy use in 

reading. Journal of Educational Psychology 92(2), 331–341.

Hassel E. A., Hassel, B. C., Arkin, M. D., Kowal, J. M., & 

Steiner, L. M. (2006). School restructuring under No 

Child Left Behind: What works when? A guide for 

education leaders. Washington, DC: Learning Point 

Associates, The Center for Comprehensive School 

Reform and Improvement. Retrieved from http://www.

centerforcsri.org/files/RestructuringGuide.pdf.

 International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for 

middle and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE. 

Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/reports/coaching.html

Kamil, M. L. (2006, July). NAEP reading framework 2009 

and beyond. Paper presented at the University of 

California, Berkeley 2nd Annual Summer Institute in 

Reading, San Francisco, CA.

Kamil, M. L. (2003, November). Adolescents and literacy: 

Reading for the 21st century. Washington, DC: Alliance 

for Excellent Education.

Kinsella, K. (2000). Reading in the content areas strategies for 

reading success: Tips for helping students read to learn.

Parsippany, NJ: Globe Fearon (Pearson Learning Group).

Lenz, B. K., Ehren, B. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). The 

content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. 

Teaching Exceptional Children, 37(6), 60–63.

MacArthur, C., Graham, S., & Fitzgerald, J. (2006). Handbook of writing research. New York: Guilford.

Manouchehri, A. (2001). Collegial interaction and reflective 

practice. Action in Teacher Education, 22(4), 86–97.

Meltzer, J. (2001). Supporting adolescent literacy across 

the content areas. Perspectives on policy and practice. 

Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory at Brown University.

Meltzer, J., Smith, N. C., & Clark, H. (2002). Adolescent 

literacy resources: Linking research and practice. Providence, RI: Northeast and Islands Regional Educational 

Laboratory at Brown University.

National Association of State Boards of Education. (2006). 

Reading at risk; The state response to the crisis in adolescent literacy (rev. ed.). Report of the NASBE Study 

Group on Middle and High School Literacy. Alexandria, VA: Author.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. 

Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and 

its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government 

Printing Office.

National Institute for Literacy. (n.d.). Facts and statistics: Reading facts. Retrieved November, 2006, from 

http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/facts/reading_facts.html.

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National 

Reading Panel: Teaching children to read. Washington, 

DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development.
60 using evidence-based decisionmaking in selecting a reading across the curriculum intervention

National Staff Development Council. (2001). Standards for 

staff development (rev. ed.). Oxford, OH: National Staff 

Development Council.

Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for 

developing instructional capacity—Promises and practicalities. Prepared for the Aspen Institute Program 

on Education and the Annenberg Institute for School 

Reform. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters. Retrieved 

from http://www.annenberginstitute.org/images/

coaching.pdf.

Pearson, D. (2006, July). A new framework for teaching 

comprehension in the upper elementary grades. Paper 

presented at the North Region Summer Conference of 

America’s Choice in Saratoga Springs, NY. Retrieved 

from http://scienceandliteracy.org/Presentations/

High%20Expectations.ppt.

Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation’s report 

card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). U.S. Department 

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Phelps, S. (2005). Ten years of research on adolescent 

literacy, 1994–2004: A review. Naperville, IL: Learning 

Point Associates.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a RAND program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Santa, C. M. (2004). Project CRISSSM: A history of reliable, 

replicable research. Retrieved from http://projectcriss.

com/prc/pdf_research/7-ReplicableResearch.pdf.

Schoenbach, R., Braunger, J., Greenleaf, C., & Litman, C. 

(2003). Apprenticing adolescents to reading in subjectarea classrooms. Phi Delta Kappa, 82(2), 133–138.

Schoenbach, R, Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. 

(2000). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San 

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Schwartzbeck, T. D. (2002). Choosing a model and types 

of models: How to find what works for your school.

Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.

South Carolina Reading Initiative. (2003). Field Initiated 

Studies. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/

files/profdev/onsite/RI/SC_Brief.pdf.

Shake, M. C., & Bintz, W. (2001). Investigating current 

problems and practices in teaching reading across the 

curriculum at the middle school and high school levels: 

Executive summary. Retrieved November 2006 from 

http://www.kentuckyliteracy.org/middle_school.pdf.

Shanahan, C. (2005). Adolescent literacy intervention 

programs: Chart and program review guide. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates. Retrieved from 

http://www.learningpt.org.

Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003). Adolescent literacy 

and the achievement gap: What do we know and where 

do we go from here? Report from Carnegie Corporation 

of New York, Adolescent Literacy Funders Meeting. 

New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York.

Spraker, J. (2003). Teacher teaming in relation to student 

performance: Findings from the literature. Portland, 

OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.

Stevenson, E., & Waltman, K. (2006). Reading across the 

curriculum: An investigation of the implementation 

and impact in secondary schools (I-ARP Report #001). 

Iowa City: University of Iowa, Center for Evaluation 

and Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.education.

uiowa.edu/cea/RecentFindings.htm

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2006). National assessment of Title I Interim 

Report: Executive summary. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). 

The nation’s report card: Reading highlights 2002 (NCES 

2003-524). Washington, DC: Author.

Walker, K. (n.d.). Research brief: Literacy across the high 

school curriculum. The Principals’ Partnership, 

sponsored by Union Pacific Foundation. Retrieved 
 References 61

November 16, 2006, from http://principalspartnership.

com/literacyacross.pdf.

Walter, K. E. (2004). Making good choices: Sustainable 

school improvement. Naperville, IL: Learning Point Associates, North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved from http://www.learningpt.org.

Whitehurst, G. J. (2004). Making education evidence-based: 

Premises, principles, pragmatics, and politics. Paper 

presented at the Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.

Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Tonks, S., & Perencevich, K. 

C. (2004). Children’s motivation for reading: Domain 

specificity and instructional influences. Journal of 

Educational Research, 97(6), 299–309.

Wilkinson, I. (2006). ‘Thenken talk’: A design for discussion to promote high-level comprehension of text. Paper 

presented at the University of California, Berkeley, 2nd 

Annual Summer Institute in Reading, San Francisco, 

CA.