Advanced Literacy Practices - FR - Ortlieb, Evan PDF

ADVANCED LITERACY
PRACTICES: FROM THE CLINIC

TO THE CLASSROOM
LITERACY RESEARCH, PRACTICE
AND EVALUATION
Series Editors: Evan Ortlieb and Earl H. Cheek, Jr
Previous Volume:
Volume 1: Utilizing Informative Assessments towards
Effective Literacy Instruction
LITERACY RESEARCH, PRACTICE AND EVALUATION
VOLUME 2
ADVANCED LITERACY
PRACTICES: FROM
THE CLINIC TO THE
CLASSROOM
EDITED BY
EVAN ORTLIEB
Monash University, Victoria, Australia
EARL H. CHEEK, JR
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
United Kingdom – North America – Japan

India – Malaysia – China
Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2013
Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Reprints and permission service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any
form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise
without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting
restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA
by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those
of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of
its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’
suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-78190-503-6
ISSN: 2048-0458 (Series)
CONTENTS
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS ix
INTRODUCTION xiii
PART 1: FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS
A HISTORICAL VIEW OF STUDENT LEARNING AND

TEACHER DEVELOPMENT IN READING CLINICS
B. P. Laster 3
CREATING A UNIVERSITY-BASED LITERACY

CENTER
Debra Coffey, Daphne Hubbard, Marie Holbein and 21
Stacy Delacruz
DESIGNING AN OFF-CAMPUS LITERACY CLINIC

Tammy Ryan 43
COACHING FOR SUCCESS: UCF ENRICHMENT

PROGRAMS IN LITERACY
Michelle Kelley and Taylar Wenzel 63
CREATING AN OPTIMAL LEARNING

ENVIRONMENT FOR STRUGGLING READERS
Rose Marie Codling 87
PART 2: READING AND WRITING ELEMENTS
VOCABULARY/COMPREHENSION-BASED MODELS
OF READING CLINICS
Evan Ortlieb, Wolfram Verlaan and Earl H. Cheek, Jr. 117
v
vi CONTENTS
WHEN KIDS CAN’T READ, WHAT A FOCUS ON

FLUENCY CAN DO: THE READING CLINIC
EXPERIENCE AT KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
Belinda Zimmerman, Timothy Rasinski and 137
Maria Melewski
BUILDING WRITING COMMUNITIES AND

PARTNERING WITH FAMILIES: MULTIPLE
PERSPECTIVES FROM A WRITING PRACTICUM
Cheryl Dozier and Julie Smit 161
PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS TO TEACH

READING: A PRE-STUDENT TEACHING
PRACTICUM
Mary Anne Prater, Nari Carter and JoAnn Munk 181
TRANSFER AND TRANSFORMATION OF

KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES FROM LITERACY
CLINIC TO COMMUNITY
Stephanie L. McAndrews and Shadrack G. Msengi 197
PREPARING PRESERVICE TEACHERS

TO DIFFERENTIATE INSTRUCTION FOR
LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS
IN URBAN CLASSROOMS
Patricia Paugh and Mary Brady 219
PART 3: TECHNOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
TAKING TECHNOLOGY FROM CLINIC TO

CLASSROOM
Lee Ann Tysseling and B. P. Laster 245
PROVIDING A ‘‘POCKET TUTOR’’: ENHANCING

METACOGNITION THROUGH PODCASTED
COMPREHENSION PROMPTS
Erica Bowers, Ula Manzo, Ann Tarantine and 265
Melissa Base
Contents vii
INNOVATIVE PRACTICES IN THE READING CLINIC:

HELPING ‘‘DIGITAL NATIVES’’ INCORPORATE
21ST CENTURY TECHNOLOGIES
Joan A. Rhodes 283
SUPPORTING STRUGGLING READERS AND

LITERACY CLINICIANS THROUGH REFLECTIVE
VIDEO PEDAGOGY
Lynn E. Shanahan, Mary B. McVee, Jennifer A. 303
Schiller, Elizabeth A. Tynan, Rosa L. D’Abate,
Caroline M. Flury-Kashmanian, Tyler W. Rinker,
Ashlee A. Ebert and H. Emily Hayden
PART 4: COMPLEMENTARY ELEMENTS
THE GRADUAL INCREASE OF RESPONSIBILITY

MODEL: MENTORING FOR IMPROVED
INTERVENTION
Vicki Collet 327
PEER CONFERENCING: ADDING A

COLLABORATIVE COMPONENT TO GRADUATE
AND UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITY READING
CLINICS
Sherrye Dee Garrett and Lucinda Marie Juarez 353
KEEPING LEARNERS AT THE CENTER

OF TEACHING
Cheryl Dozier and Theresa Deeney 367
INNOVATIVE PRACTICES: DEVELOPING

EFFECTIVE COLLABORATION AND PARTNERSHIPS
WITHIN SCHOOL-BASED READING CLINICS
Tammy Milby 387
LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Melissa Base California State University, Fullerton,

CA, USA
Erica Bowers California State University, Fullerton,
CA, USA
Mary Brady University of Massachusetts, Boston,
MA, USA
Nari Carter Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT, USA
Earl H. Cheek, Jr. Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
LA, USA
Rose Marie Codling University of Maryland, College Park,
MD, USA
Debra Coffey Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw,
GA, USA
Vicki Collet University of Arkansas, Fayetteville,
AR, USA
Rosa L. D’Abate University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Stacy Delacruz Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw,
GA, USA
Theresa Deeney University of Rhode Island, Kingston,
RI, USA
Cheryl Dozier University at Albany, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Ashlee A. Ebert University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
ix
x LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS
Caroline M. Flury- University at Buffalo, State University of

Kashmanian New York, NY, USA
Sherrye Dee Garrett Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi,
TX, USA
H. Emily Hayden University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Marie Holbein Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw,
GA, USA
Daphne Hubbard Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw,
GA, USA
Lucinda Marie Juarez Texas A&M University, Corpus Christi,
TX, USA
Michelle Kelley University of Central Florida, Orlando,
FL, USA
B. P. Laster Towson University, Towson, MD, USA
Ula Manzo California State University, Fullerton,
CA, USA
Stephanie L. Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,
McAndrews Edwardsville, IL, USA
Mary B. McVee University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Maria Melewski Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
Tammy Milby University of Richmond, Richmond,
VA, USA
Shadrack G. Msengi Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,
Edwardsville, IL, USA
JoAnn Munk Brigham Young University, Provo,
UT, USA
Evan Ortlieb Monash University, Victoria, Australia
Patricia Paugh University of Massachusetts, Boston,
MA, USA
List of Contributors xi
Mary Anne Prater Brigham Young University, Provo,

UT, USA
Timothy Rasinski Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
Joan A. Rhodes Virginia Commonwealth University,
Richmond, VA, USA
Tyler W. Rinker University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Tammy Ryan Jacksonville University, Jacksonville,
FL, USA
Jennifer A. Schiller University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Lynn E. Shanahan University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Julie Smit University at Albany, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Ann Tarantine California State University, Fullerton,
CA, USA
Elizabeth A. Tynan University at Buffalo, State University of
New York, NY, USA
Lee Ann Tysseling Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA
Wolfram Verlaan University of Alabama, Huntsville,
AL, USA
Taylar Wenzel University of Central Florida, Orlando,
Florida, USA
Belinda Zimmerman Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA
INTRODUCTION
As the second volume in the book series, Literacy Research, Practice and
Evaluation, this text was envisioned to disseminate salient information
about literacy clinics. From historical perspectives to cutting-edge practices,
this compilation fills a void in existing literature as it relates to best clinical
practices. Advancing the mission of literacy clinics requires their relevancy
to be widely recognized by literacy professionals; this volume serves to
springboard clinical practices back into the limelight.
Volume II – Advanced Literacy Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom
has been scripted to inform literacy professionals about the multitude of
benefits and services provided by thoughtfully designed literacy clinics,
functioning to serve youth experiencing difficulties in reading and writing,
teacher education programs, universities, and nearby communities. This
text includes four sections: (1) foundational elements of literacy clinics,
(2) reading and writing elements, (3) technological elements, and (4) com-
plementary elements, inclusive of attention devoted to subgroups of the
population. By addressing concerns from the conception of the literacy clinic
to the day-to-day ongoings of clinic operations, readers garner complete
perspectives on how to create and/or improve their clinic and in turn, provide
efficient, real-world teaching and learning experiences.
Particular focus is bestowed to various reading and writing components.
The varied foci of literacy clinics highlight that there are numerous ways to
promote literacy in clinical settings; all have the common goal of improving
literacy skills and abilities for transfer to school experiences and beyond.
Techniques that can be applied in multiple settings (clinic, classroom, or
home) and utilized independently are highlighted throughout the volume.
With current shifts toward common learning standards and new literacies,
it is timely to focus on the many literacy proficiencies of students (print,
digital, interdisciplinary) as they serve as the backbone to efficiently learn,
communicate, apply, and create knowledge. Various assessment practices
are also mentioned to provide readers with information on how to improve
upon current abilities and levels of literacy proficiency, track progress over
time, and provide evaluation feedback to families.
Diverse student populations require that teachers establish rapport and
explore their students’ unique characteristics, including their interests,
xiii
xiv INTRODUCTION
motivations, likes, dislikes, communication styles, and background knowl-

edge. Attention is given to both elementary and adolescent students as well as
urban, multilingual, and those with learning disabilities in various chapters.
Clinical literacy practices are often structured yet flexible, aimed at
addressing the individual student’s needs, not necessarily the curricular
framework. As a result, immediate progress is feasible with a team approach
of reading improvement, as the clinic director scaffolds the learning of the
teachers, and the teachers scaffold the learning of their students (all the
while the clinic director learns too!). Advanced Literacy Practices: From the
Clinic to the Classroom provides a fresh examination of current issues and
trends salient to those interested in assorted issues around literacy clinics.
Evan Ortlieb
Editor
PART 1
FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS
A HISTORICAL VIEW OF STUDENT
LEARNING AND TEACHER
DEVELOPMENT IN READING
CLINICS
B. P. Laster
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This historical perspective highlights the evolution of reading

clinics (also called literacy labs, centers, etc.) from medical-type clinics
to instructional powerhouses for struggling readers. Of particular interest,
also, is the development of teacher expertise while participating in reading
clinics, particularly in the areas of reflection, a critical view of
assessments, and using assessment to inform instruction. Furthermore,
this chapter traces the history of research that has come out of reading
clinics.
Design/Methodology/Approach – A brief history of reading clinics since
the 1920s is followed by a deep examination of some of the themes that
have shaped more recent reading clinics and research that has emerged
from the clinics: assessment, mandates, teacher reflection, and twenty-
first Century Literacies.
Advanced Literacy Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom

Literacy Research, Practice and Evaluation, Volume 2, 3–20
Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002004
3
4 B. P. LASTER
Practical implications – This chapter offers key information for

stakeholders who are designing, establishing, or refining a reading clinic,
either university-based or K-12 school-based.
Social implications – Struggling readers and writers deserve and need
experiences that help them acquire literacy skills, including reading and
writing for twenty-first century purposes. Teachers need support as
they navigate mandates from educational policy-makers, enhance
their skills as literacy leaders and literacy coaches, and reflect on
best practices.
Keywords: Reading clinics; literacy research; struggling readers
A busload of middle schoolers and their parents tentatively stepped off of the bus at the
university. Most had never been out of their urban neighborhood; they were coming to
the university to attend the reading clinic, and they were excited, hesitant, and curious.
The adults who greeted them (mostly classroom teachers enrolled in a graduate degree
program to become reading specialists) had many goals for these students who struggled
with reading or writing. Yet, as it turned out, the teachers had as much to learn from
the children and their parents as the children and parents had to learn from the
teachers.
Since Dr. Grace Fernald at UCLA established the first continuing reading
clinic in 1921, reading clinics, whether based in universities, in schools, or on
virtual platforms, have always been sites of intensive assistance to struggling
readers. The reading clinic has evolved to become a site drawn from the
community or communities rather than being separate from them. It is a
place that is free from mandated assessments, adopted curricula, or a
specific set of materials. A reading clinic is a place for active, reflective
learning for all participants. In many instances, current engagement with
less-than-proficient readers is a secondary purpose of reading clinics, as a
focus on concentrated teacher development is the principal objective. In
clinic, teachers learn targeted approaches to assisting students (Freppon,
1999) that have an impact on countless students beyond the reading clinic. A
third goal of many reading clinics has been to provide bountiful laboratories
for literacy research.
This chapter will provide a brief historical picture of all three of these
strands. Of particular interest is the last purpose: the importance of reading
clinics as centers for research about teacher learning and about literacy
learners’ development. As I will present a historical perspective of research
A Historical View of Student Learning and Teacher Development 5
in reading clinics, I will give illustrations from a variety of research studies

of how that research has had both an immediate impact on the students in
clinic, wider dissemination to other students, and longer term influence on
the teachers (and the future students of those teachers).
A CLINIC BY ANY OTHER NAME . . .
A note is in order about terminology. A ‘‘reading clinic’’ by any other name

may be a variation on the theme or exactly the same entity of which we are
speaking. Some have recently chosen the term ‘‘literacy center’’ since
‘‘clinic’’ sounds so medically oriented. Or, others argue that we should stay
with ‘‘clinic’’ as it is a place to focus on reading competencies and help boost
students’ abilities, much like a soccer clinic or basketball clinic aims to
advance skills. Is ‘‘literacy clinic’’ more appropriate since most practitioners
focus on oral language, writing, and viewing, as well as reading?
For example, the University of Virginia’s McGuffey Reading Center was
established in 1946. The Cappi Wadley Center for Reading and Technology
opened at Northeastern State University, Oklahoma, in 2011. The Donald
D. Durrell Reading and Writing Clinic is at Boston University. The
University of Albany (SUNY) has the Literacy Lab. The reading clinic has
had many names both in the past and currently. For the sake of brevity, we
will use the generic term ‘‘reading clinic’’ to describe a site for focused
assessment and intensive instruction in reading and writing, usually one-on-
one or in small group, that is based either at a university or as an extra-
curricular activity at a school or community organization (Fig. 1).
READING CLINICS: STANDING THE TEST OF TIME
Early reading clinics were led by some of the pioneer researchers in the field
of literacy. At the University of Chicago were William S. Gray and Helen
M. Robinson; Iowa State University’s reading clinic was run by Samuel
Orton; and Johns Hopkins University had a clinic led by Mary Dougherty
(Laster, 2000). There was a proliferation of reading clinics during the 1960s
and 1970s. The Educational Development Laboratories, Inc. published a
directory of reading clinics in 1960; according to Kolson and Kaluger (1963)
that contained a list of 234 clinics that served more than just one public or
private school. Since reading clinics had multiple titles – Reading Institute,
6 B. P. LASTER
Joan Rankin-Erickson, Guy Trainin & Kathleen Wilson

1980 University of Illinois–Chicago Eugene Cramer
1985 University of Cincinnati Victoria Purcell Gates

1958 Northern Illinois University Eugene B. Grant
1968 Towson University Dr. Joseph P.Gutkoska
2008 New Mexico State University Koomi Kim

1953 University of Pittsburgh Donald Cleland
1972 National Louis University Bob Hillerich

1945 University of Chicago William S, Gray
1966 Califomia State University – Fullerton
1994 Texas A&M University Daniel Pearce

1946 University of Virginia Ullin W. LeaveII
1937 New York University Stella Center
1956 University of Georgia lra E. Aaron
2006 Georgia State University–Atlanta

1966 Harvard University Jeanne Chall
2004 University of Nebraska-Lincoln

1939 Rowan University Marion Little
1907 Northeastern State University
1932 Western Michigan University

1921 UCLA Grace Fernald
Joyce Many & Lori Elliot

Harrell E. Garrison
Hazel Miller Croy

Homer J.Carter
1900 2012
1920–1950 1950–1950 1960–1970 1980–2010

Beginnings: Special Peel off of Trending with “What’s Hot”
The Medical Reading Special
Model Teachers Education
1985–2012
as a
Teachers as Reflective Practitioners
separate
discipline
1990–Present
Social Contexts of Literacy Learning
2000–Present
Reading Specialists as Literacy Coaches
2000–Present
Disentangling from the Mandates
2005–Present
Infusing 21st century literacies
Fig. 1. Timeline of Reading Clinics.
Reading Laboratory, Reading Center, etc. – it was hard to track them

down, so it may well be that this was only a fragment of the total number of
clinics. In 1984, Bates reported on her survey of 242 reading clinics that they
were challenged to maintain the status quo because of lack of administrative
support. Bader and Wiesendanger’s (1986) survey of reading clinics reported
on 151, and Irwin and Lynch-Brown (1988) discuss 163 clinics that were part
of their survey. By the time of Zalud’s (1993) study, he could find only 145
reading clinics. Although the number of reading clinics diminished during
the late 1980s and into the 1990s because of financial constraints and
unsympathetic administrators (Michel & Dougherty, 1999), there has been a
resurgence of interest in clinics and the establishment of multiple new sites
during the last decade (Ortlieb, 2012). Because funding was a major
challenge to reading clinics in the latter part of the twentieth century, some
were placed in school sites. A 1997 survey found that 71% were still based at
a university, 5% were at a school site only, and 24% were at both university
and school sites (Teale & Hester, 1997).
Through the many versions of reading clinics across the decades, one
consistent purpose has been to provide a refuge and a source of help for
struggling readers. As we look at the history of reading clinics, we see an
evolution of the missions and visions of the reading clinic for these children
or adolescents. Furthermore, the missions/visions of clinics involve other
essential stakeholders: teachers, literacy specialists or coaches, and
caregivers/parents/extended family.
In the 1920s, the first university-based reading clinic opened at UCLA.
The focus was on remedial readers. The skeletal template of reading clinic
that Dr. Fernald set up there has persisted for more than 90 years. By
offering an exemplary practicum for aspiring reading teachers or reading
specialists while providing direct service to students, the reading clinic has
become a place where new techniques and research emerges. Furthermore, it
was, also, the site for the development of the Fernald Technique (Fernald,
1943), which is a whole word memory technique for word recognition.
Research within reading clinics continues to provide leadership in theory
and policy, assessment and instruction, and other components and contexts
of literacy instruction.
BEGINNINGS: FROM ‘‘DUMB OR LAZY’’ TO

A MEDICAL MODEL
Early reading clinics were a step forward from a time when students who did
not progress were labeled as dumb or lazy. So, as reading clinics took on the
essence of medical clinics, they tried to solve the puzzle of readers who had
deficits and tried to ‘‘cure’’ them. A variety of theories of why some students
struggle with reading dominated the decades of 1920–1960 and the flavor of
those discussions permeated the walls of the reading clinics. Orton (1928, as
cited in McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008) popularized the idea that lack of
cerebral dominance is the cause of reading delay. Delacato (1959) built on the
notion that neurological problems are the basis for reading problems and had
children crawling, throwing balls, etc. In the 1940s, much attention was given
to the idea that visual problems are the primary cause of reading difficulties
(McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008). Except for a very small minority of
readers, research demonstrated, though, that visual correction or vision
therapy does not ameliorate their challenges. Emotional disturbance was
proposed as a cause of reading failure. Others later explained that emotional
distress is sometimes the result of reading problems rather than a cause
8 B. P. LASTER
(McCormick & Braithwaite, 2008). Since the 1950s, though, more and more
practitioners, theorists, and researchers have articulated that there are multiple
causes of children’s delay in becoming proficient readers. In fact, it is now
widely accepted that the causes of delayed reading may vary from child to
child. Furthermore, many practitioners note the progression of reading
proficiency in stages of development (Kucer, 2009).
SPECIAL STUDENTS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION
The establishment of special education as a separate discipline had a major

impact on the entire field of reading education and on the reading clinic
(Zigmond & Kloo, 2012). By 1968, the Federal government had provided
impetus and funds to train more than 30,000 special education teachers
(U.S. Department of Education, 2012). As special educators became distinct
from general education teachers and reading specialists, their divergent
practica resulted in separate silos of professional practice (Lipson &
Wixson, 2010). The separation between special educators and general
educators leaves us now with the challenge of bridging different
philosophies of language and literacy (e.g., ‘‘bottom up’’ vs. ‘‘top down’’
understandings of the reading process). Sometimes, special educators and
teachers of reading use distinct language (e.g. ‘‘progress monitoring’’ vs.
‘‘ongoing assessment’’) as well as pedagogies.
With the movement toward Response to Intervention (RTI) established
by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) law, there
is some movement toward some conjoining of special education and general
education (NJCLD, 2005). As the communication between these divergent
teacher education paths starts to converge, the reading clinic can again
become a useful site of collaboration across professional practice. The clinic
is an ideal place for teacher development in the areas of appropriate
assessment, responsive teaching, differentiating instruction, and collabora-
tion among multiple stakeholders (IRA, 2010).
TRENDING WITH ‘‘WHAT’S HOT’’

The reading clinics shifted from a stance that looked to ‘‘curing’’ what was
wrong with particular students to a focus on what is the most effective
instruction to advance all readers who struggle. Johns (1992), in fact, wrote
about how the reading clinic’s new focus was as a ‘‘wellness center.’’ From
the 1990s onward, the clinics were more in the main flow of research, theory,
and praxis in literacy. Big waves of change in the field of literacy, or in the
philosophy of education generally, moved through reading clinics. When
there was a swing in the main discussions of the field of literacy or
educational contexts in general, ripples circulated into reading clinics.
Several examples of this are given below.
Dr. Jack Cassidy, former director of several reading clinics (Cassidy &
Hanes, 1992), has for multiple years published annual list of trends in
literacy education (1999, December/2000, January). This yearly list is a
metaphor for how reading clinics are both affected by the political,
economic, and research forces in the larger society and how the reading
clinic – as a site of research and practice – influences the larger world of
literacy education.
For example, the texts used for literacy instruction are tangible reminders
of how reading clinics have both responded to and influenced the field of
literacy instruction. The artifacts found in reading clinic book or resource
rooms exemplified the current research and beliefs of literacy professionals.
Many clinic directors spent the 1980s and the early 1990s cleaning out
reading clinic closets filled with tachistoscopes, controlled readers, and
commercial skills-based kits – which assisted teachers looking at word level,
sentence level, and skill level processes of reading. In dramatic contrast,
Carr, who was clinic director at Central Missouri University, summarized
how authentic children’s literature was the mainstay of instruction at her
clinic (Carr, 2003). Freppon also pointed out that many clinics, such as the
University of Cincinnati’s Literacy Center, provide a literature-based
approach (Freppon, 1999).
Basal readers were – early on – focused on skill development and
controlled vocabulary; later they were anthologies of literature (Pearson,
2000). Some years, non-fiction has gotten more focus in literacy instruction,
other years digital texts are ‘‘what’s hot.’’ Not surprisingly, the book closets
or resource rooms of the reading clinics have changed along with the times.
Many now contain leveled readers, themed text sets of trade books, and
IPads, as reading clinic directors forage into the field to find a variety of
texts and approaches that reflect the latest best practices.
The conversations during the 1980s and 1990s about how best to teach
beginning reading in clinic and classroom offer another example. Dr. Jeanne
Chall, who directed the Harvard Reading Laboratory from 1966 until 1991,
supported the teaching of phonics in explicit and systematic ways for
beginning readers. Clymer’s (1963) article about the limitations of phonics
generalizations turned the focus of clinics toward the work of Goodman
10 B. P. LASTER
(1965). Goodman coined the term ‘‘miscues’’ to describe deviations from the
text; miscues clarify for the teacher how readers make sense of the text.
Many reading clinics began to use miscue analysis as a central method of
assessing students’ reading processes. On the other hand, Chall (1967)
continued to promote the explicit teaching of phonic generalizations and
this had an impact on some clinics. In most cases, the reading clinics –
crucibles of experience – were a moderating force as the controversy raged
about how best to teach beginning reading. Considering the clinic as a
laboratory to observe close examination of student progress, the reading
clinic gives teachers and researchers a chance to experiment with multiple
variables, each of which, or a combination of which, may create positive
learning impacts for students.
THEMES ACROSS TIME
We now turn to four major themes, which have influenced reading clinics
during the last two decades and continue to dominate. These themes have
had important consequences for struggling readers in their classrooms and
communities, as well as in the clinics: (1) literacy assessment that informs
instruction, (2) the impact of mandates, (3) teacher reflection, and (4)
twenty-first century literacies.
FOCUS ON ASSESSMENTS
Reading clinics have been a laboratory to bring clarity to issues of

assessment. Using multiple assessments to inform reading instruction –
assessments that provide information about many different aspects of
reading, writing, motivation, attitude, and self-efficacy – drove the clinics in
the last half of the 1990s and throughout the next decade. Earlier leveled
passages laid the foundation for many other informal reading inventories,
which grew out of the work in clinics. Among others, Dr. Jerry Johns’s Basic
Reading Inventory (2010) and the various editions of Leslie and Caldwell’s
Qualitative Reading Inventory (2001) became widely used and are still
popular (Garrett, Pearce, Salazar, & Pate, 2007). The University of Nevada
at Reno’s Center of Literacy and Learning was one of the sites for the
development of Words Their Way (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnson,
1996, 2000, 2004, 2008), including many assessments for spelling. Cobb and
Allen (2000) created a Volunteer Tutor Instructional Practices Checklist
(which is used to document a tutor’s growth over time and to provide useful
feedback to a tutor) when they worked together at the reading clinic at the
University of North Texas.
Over several years, a group of reading clinic directors examined what
teachers learned in reading clinic that they transferred to their classrooms.
They collaborated to develop a national electronic survey in 2005 and an
interview protocol in 2006 to examine the issue of transfer of practice from
the reading clinic to literacy professionals’ roles in schools. The team of
researchers developed the survey questions focused on teacher practices
after they left reading clinic in the areas of assessment, instruction, coaching,
and leadership (Freppon et al., 2007). The request for respondents went out
to 500 practicing reading teachers/reading specialists/educators across 10
different sites. The subjects who completed the survey (n=150) spanned 10
sites (NY-2 sites, RI, MD, TX, NM, IL, UT, OK-2 sites). Because of the
nature of the survey, all participants were able to answer anonymously, and
even the e-mail solicitations for participants did not come from the directors
of their local program. One of the key findings of this research was that
teachers did transfer from clinic to classroom techniques for assessing
learners’ strengths and needs that were critical and purposeful; they used
assessments to inform their day-to-day instruction.
READING CLINIC AS A REFUGE: THE IMPACT OF

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL MANDATES
Since 2000 the reading clinic has become an oasis in a desert shielded away
from high stakes testing and mandated curricula legislated by politicians
(Cobb, Sargent, & Chitamba, 2012). For parents/guardians who bring their
children or adolescents to reading clinic, they find professionals who are
discussing the specific strengths and needs of their child.
For teachers, the reading clinic is a place where they can learn, practice,
and grow in their competencies as practitioners also away from the pressures
of mandated assessments, pay-for-performance, and high stakes observa-
tions by administrators. McCormick and Braithwaite (2008) state that one
of the purposes of clinical education is to help teachers be aware of
immoderate swings that have plagued literacy education and prompt
teachers to seek ‘‘research, rather than fads, as their guide’’ (p. 158). In
reading clinic, teachers choose assessments based on the profile of the
literacy learner (Carr, 2003; Deeney et al., 2011). They choose instruction
12 B. P. LASTER
based on specific assessment results, including the interests of the learner.

This is in contrast to what most teachers must do in their classrooms/
schools.
Political and business interests, a call for accountability, and minimalist
research have driven many of the changes in schools during the last 15 years
(Allington, 2012; Altwerger, 2005). The reading clinic is a refuge from these
forces, although it often has to confront the pressures that teachers face in
their schools. For example, a parent/guardian might say, ‘‘But will he pass
the state-mandated test?’’ A teacher who is a clinician in reading clinic might
say, ‘‘Well, I could use a DIBELS test with my client because that is what we
do at my school.’’ Usually, the supervisor in reading clinic will suggest
student-specific assessments (Deeney, 2008). The development of teachers as
literacy leaders in an age of accountability (Coburn, Pearson, & Woulfin,
2011) has forced clinics to address issues within a wider context.
Sometimes, struggling readers come to reading clinic to ‘‘fix’’ what is
askew in the school district. In a review of the needs of the elementary-aged
clients at the Towson University Reading Clinic, 35% needed assistance
with comprehension in 1995. Yet, in 2000, 68% had a primary need in the
area of comprehension. This is likely the result of an emphasis on discrete
skills and a shift away from comprehension-focused instruction in the
surrounding school districts (Wilson, Wiltz, & Lang, 2005). The increased
push toward seeing reading as reading words and reading them quickly
overshadowed the focus on reading for meaning (Table 1).
Table 1. Major Needs of Students Who Came to Towson

Reading Clinic.
Component Fall Fall Fall Fall
1995 2000 2005 2010
Number of students N=17 N=26 N=16 N=25

Confidence/Self-esteem 0% 7.69% 0% 0%
Motivation 5.88% 0% 12.5% 0%
Word recognition, decoding, and 52.94% 61.54% 56.25% 40%
phonics
Fluency 11.76% 3.85% 43.75% 24%
Comprehension 35.29% 65.38% 56.25% 96%
Research strategies 17.65% 0% 0% 0%
Writing 5.88% 15.38% 0% 28%
Handwriting 0% 3.85% 0% 0%
REFLECTIVE PRACTITIONERS
The goal of exceptional professional development of teachers as literacy

coaches, collegial mentors, and appropriately sensitive educators has cycled
through reading clinics. The teachers who participated in reading clinic
during the 1990s and beyond were encouraged to be reflective practitioners
(Miller & Grant, 1995). Supervisors in reading clinics promoted and helped
sustain the professional development of teachers as they coached the
teachers to use reflection as they planned instruction, made adjustments as
they taught, and looked back at their teaching segments (Dozier, 2006). One
strand of research, known as the Teacher Learning Instrument, asked
teachers to transcribe a segment of their lesson before they reflected
(Rosemary, Freppon, & Kunnican-Welsch, 2002). Close examination of
teacher talk continues to be a focus of research coming out of reading clinics
(2010). Sometimes video recording assisted with the conversations that
occurred as teachers examined their own practice during reflections (Laster,
2011).
Reflection by teachers (‘‘clinicians’’) and by clinic directors themselves
was addressed by Kibby and Barr, clinic directors at University at Buffalo
and University of Chicago, respectively (1999). Blachowicz et al. (1999)
found, from their research, that clinicians reveal four types of reflection:
technical, practical, conceptual, and critical. Even earlier, Miller and
Grant (1995) described cycles of reflection in their reading clinic at the
University of Maryland and stressed that reflection must not occur only
after the act of teaching, but also during the processes of planning and
during teaching.
Hill (2000), at the reading clinic at the University of Houston-Clear Lake,
examined the critical incidents that teachers identify and reflect upon that
changed them from being teacher-centered to being child-centered.
y through careful analysis of data from both informal and formal assessments which
inform teaching strategies; from standardized assessments to use of retellings, think
alouds, running records or miscue analysis; and from multiple choice assessments to
elaborate, thoughtful, and research rubrics y through careful analysis of videotaping
and transcriptions, tutors can develop constructive means for instruction and measures
for further assessment where they can chart and examine shifts, changes, and progress.
Where the clinic was once an isolated tutoring situation, we now draw on many
resources at the university, within the community, and include the parents in the entire
instructional process (Hill, 2000, p. 1).
Going deeper into the topic of reflection, Laster, Hill, and Freppon
(1997) looked at the critical incidents (Tripp, 1993) that change the
14 B. P. LASTER
thinking and/or practice of teachers at three clinic sites. Critical incidents

are not dramatic incidents but the interpretation placed on the event when
reflecting upon it. In reading clinic, teachers have time to carefully examine
their own practice, consider changes in their pedagogy, their attitudes, and
their perspectives toward their students, the families of their students, and
their colleagues. Teaching demonstrations followed by extensive peer
feedback help teachers unpack their practices and extend their expertise
(Dozier, 2006; Rosemary et al., 2002). Furthermore, Dunston (2007)
described key elements of clinic that advance teachers and teaching.
Specifically, she observed how moving teachers beyond their comfort zones
and encouraging teachers to self-evaluate and reflect are essential elements
of reading clinic.
INFUSING TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY LITERACIES
Students’ multimodal literacy practices are currently valued as powerful in

non-school settings (Alvermann & Hagood, 2000; Lewis & Fabos, 2005),
but print-based texts continue to dominate classroom instruction because of
a lack of understanding of and training in the advantages of technology and
because of the reality of high stakes testing-driven curricula (Alvermann,
2008; Alvermann, Huddleston, & Hagood, 2004). However, the reading
clinic can still function as the intersection between young people’s everyday
and school-based literacies.
The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE)’s (2008) definition
of twenty-first century literacies states that students must be able to use
technology and possess related competencies such as the ability to create,
critique, and analyze multi-media texts. In line with these goals, subsequent
chapters in this book give many suggestions for infusing technology into
literacy instruction in productive ways – ways that give the most agency to
the learner. Whether text-based or digital, the goal should continue to be
assisting students to be critical literacy learners. Readers who struggle, in
fact, need acceleration for full, active participation in the twenty-first
century in these crucial skills:
communication;
critical evaluation of information;
flexibility/adaptability to changes in the technological and social
environment;
the creation and production of texts using multiple modes;

critical thinking;
problem-solving/decision-making;
responsibility; and
the ability to maintain and leverage interpersonal/social relationships
(NCTE, 2008).
Although the national survey described above in the section on

assessment provided windows into literacy professionals’ thinking and the
range of ways they ‘‘took up’’ practices from the literacy lab/reading clinic
(Freppon et al., 2007), the limited nature of the survey (i.e., Likert items and
open-ended questions) did not allow for further exploration into current
practices. Thus, we designed an interview protocol, and conducted and
transcribed interviews of clinic graduates from 11 sites (n=28). Interview
questions were designed to further our understanding of the topical areas we
identified in the electronic survey – assessment, instruction, leadership, and
coaching. We also asked interviewees to identify and discuss three self-
selected artifacts that exemplify their practice. Furthermore, we found that
the survey data revealed that federal, state, and district mandates had an
overarching effect, and so we prompted our interviewees to talk more about
them. Finally, we wanted to explore how reading teachers/specialists
integrate technology, so we added two questions on that topic. This second
research project involved systematic face-to-face interviews of graduates of
reading clinics and followed this sequence: At each site we had graduates
who were novices and veterans, had a range of roles in the schools from
classroom teacher to literacy coach, and served elementary or secondary or
special school populations. In the end, we included a vast range of voices.
We visited schools to interact with the respondents in their own classrooms
and to see first-hand what artifacts of their jobs, as reading teachers/reading
specialists/literacy coaches, were prized.
This more recent study provides some evidence about the prevalence of
technology used in reading clinics/literacy labs, and adds to the knowledge
base concerning technology integration (Dubert & Laster, 2011). One
interviewee said, ‘‘I use technology as a tool not the tool.’’ This sums up
the critical stance that she learned in reading clinic where she was
challenged through questioning, contesting, evaluating, improving, and
building upon previous ideas concerning assessments, new instructional
materials including technology, and pedagogy. This teacher knows that the
breadth of possible instructional approaches is always expanding (Deeney
et al., 2011).
16 B. P. LASTER
LOOKING AHEAD
Cambourne (2009) provides a broad and supportive theoretical under-

pinning for much of the work in reading clinics when he says that the theory
of natural learning is aligned with these three assumptions: Meaning is an
internal cognitive construction; making sense of the world is essential for the
individual and society; and the human mind is capable of constructing
meaning using a variety of language (and symbolic) systems. Freire and
other critical theorists have long noted that literacy has the potential to
empower and liberate but also to dominate and repress citizens of a given
society (Freire, 1985). This stance resonates with many directors of reading
clinics; yet, they also take a pragmatic approach that results in the presence
of a range of models of the reading process. In fact, flexible, pragmatic
models of assessment and instruction within a frame of natural learning and
critical literacy seem to be the norm in reading clinics during the second
decade of the twenty-first century. A spotlight on struggling readers
continues as a central focus of reading clinics.
There is growing concern that unless we transform our literacy priorities
and practices, this generation of students will be ill-equipped with the critical
reasoning and high-level competencies needed for full, participatory, critical
citizenship in the global community. Lack of instructional attention to
development of critical literacy skills is often most apparent with students in
urban systems (Morrell, 2008), such as we find in the Metropolitan
Baltimore region and who attend Towson Reading Clinic.
A safe space for teachers to develop their approaches to literacy teaching
is an equally important purpose for reading clinics. We should continue to
advance the research looking into the best practices of reflective teaching
and teacher development. The reading clinic is also an ideal laboratory to
explore the challenges of the role of literacy coach.
Furthermore, as discussed throughout this chapter, the 90+ years of
reading clinics has provided a rich laboratory for research and praxis
concerning literacy assessment, effective instruction, and contextual issues.
The use of different print genres and technology has become a significant
center of attention. Clinics are responsive to legislated mandates and, as
such they have become testing grounds for new approaches. Specifically,
instead of a deficit model, reading clinics have moved from a medical model
to an RTI (Response to Intervention) approach that assumes differentiated
instruction (IRA, 2010; Lipson & Wixson, 2010).
Reading clinics have expanded and contracted and are, in some cases,
now becoming virtual. Earlier, Michel and Dougherty (1999) viewed the
future of reading clinics with optimism. More than a decade later, we

assume the same stance, as we observe more reading clinics being
established, their service to struggling readers continuing, and their offerings
of research results gifted to the field of education. We call, though, for more
support for research in clinical settings that examines the links between
teacher learning and student learning and that explores the social/cultural
contexts of literacy learning including digital environments. It is important,
also, to continue the research in reading clinics that has a lens that is wide
enough to capture intergenerational literacy in families from diverse
backgrounds. The future of literacy education will be brighter with answers
to the questions necessarily raised by investigating those topics central to
reading clinics.
The adults who greeted the busload of middle schoolers reflected back on the semester at the
university reading clinic. Looking over the in-depth case reports, it was clear that the
students were more poised about spending time out of their urban neighborhood; they knew
their way around the university campus and considered it a possible venue for future studies.
Most importantly, the students had made great gains as readers and writers, as evidenced in
the thick case reports written about each student. The teachers, also, had learned much
from the children and their dedicated parents, and their own reflections. The teachers had
learned how to use powerful assessments, utilize a variety of instructional pathways, and
change their pedagogy according to the strengths and needs of their students. Back in their
own classrooms they could do the same for their future students.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2012). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research based
programs. Boston, MA. Pearson Education.
Altwerger, B. (Ed.). (2005). Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves kids behind.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom
practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19.
Alvermann, D. E., & Hagood, M. C. (2000). Critical media literacy: Research, theory, and
practice in ‘‘new times.’’ The Journal of Educational Research, 93(3), 193–205.
Alvermann, D. E., Huddleston, A., & Hagood, M. C. (2004). What could professional wrestling
and school literacy practices possibly have in common? Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 47(1), 532–540.
Bader, L. A., & Wiesedanger, K. D. (1986, March). University-based reading clinics: Practices
and procedures. The Reading Teacher, 39, 698–703.
Bates, G. W. (1984). Profile of university-based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey. Journal
of Reading, 27, 524–529.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnson, F. (1996, 2000, 2004, 2008). Words their
way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary and spelling instruction. Englewood, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
18 B. P. LASTER
Blachowicz, C., Fisher, P., McAvoy, E., Owens, E., Anderson, S., Ivy, S., & Harper, K. (1999).
Reading specialist reflect: The value of one-to-one experiences in clinical training. In
P. Mosenthal & D. Evensen (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new
age of literacy (pp. 101–131). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational
goals. Cognitive domain. New York, NY: McKay.
Cambourne, B. (2009). Revisiting the concept of ‘‘natural learning.’’ In J. V. Hoffman &
Y. M. Goodman (Eds.), Changing literacies for changing times: An historical perspective
on the future of reading research, public policy, and classroom practices (pp. 125–145).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Carr, K. C. (2003). Today’s reading clinic: How relevant is the graduate reading practicum? The
Reading Teacher, 57, 256–268.
Cassidy, J. (1999, December/2000, January). What’s hot, what’s not in literacy. Reading Today,
1–28.
Cassidy, J., & Hanes, M. L. (1992). Rethinking the college-based reading clinic: Past traditions
and new alternatives. In N. D. Padak, T. B. Rasinki & J. Logan (Eds.), Yearbook of the
College Reading Association (pp. 51–56). Newark, DE: College Reading Associaton.
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Clymer, T. (1963). Some current reading research at the University of Minnesota. Journal of
Teacher Education, 14(3), 334–336.
Cobb, J., & Allen, J. (November, 2000). Social interactions of highly effective non-educator tutors
using the coaching model with teachers working with pre-service tutors.Scottsdale, AZ:
National Reading Conference.
Cobb, J., Sargent, S., & Patchen, D. (2012). Navigating mandates: Teachers face ‘‘troubled
seas’’. Language and Literacy, 14(3), 1–20.
Coburn, C. E., Pearson, P. D., & Woulfin, S. (2011). Reading policy in the era of accountability.
In M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. IV, pp. 561–593). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cook, V. (2004). Accomodating brocolli in the cemetary: Or why can’t anybody spell?. New York,
NY: Touchstone Books.
Deeney, T. (2008). Coordinating supplemental reading instruction. Intervention in School and
Clinic, 43(4), 218–225.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Smit, J., Davis, S., Laster, B., Applegate, M., y Milby, T. (2011). Clinic
experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters in clinical teacher
preparation 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association Oak Creek, WI: Literacy
Research Association
Delacato, C. H. (1959). The treatment and prevention of reading problems: The neuro-
psychological approach. Springfield, IL: Thomas.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful
change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Dubert, L. A., & Laster, B. (2011). Technology in practice: Educators trained in reading clinic/
literacy labs. Journal of Reading Education, 36(2), 23–29.
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and a university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50, 328–336. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.50.5.1
Fernald, G. M. (1943). Remedial techniques in basic school subjects. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power, and liberation. South Hadley, MA:
Bergin & Garvey.
Freppon, P. (1999). From reading clinic to literacy center: A perspective on development and
issues in reading specialists’ education. In P. Mosenthal & D. Evensen (Eds.),
Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy (pp. 197–211).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Freppon, P., Laster, B., Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Cobb, J., Sargent, S., y Patchen, C. (2007).
From clinic to mandates: The praxis of teaching reading after reading clinic/literacy lab.
Austin, TX: National Reading Conference.
Garrett, S. D., Pearce, D. L., Salazar, L. P., & Pate, R. S. (2007). University-based reading
clinics: Where are we now? College Reading Association Yearbook, 28, 198–212.
Goodman, K. S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English,
42, 639–643.
Hill, M.H. (2000, December). Critical incidents that cause the shift from teacher-centeredness to
student-centeredness. Scottsdale, AZ: National Reading Conference.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. 108–466 (IDEA) (2004).
Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/
International Reading Association. (2010). Response to Intervention: Guiding principles for
educators from the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
Irvin, J. L., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1988, February). A national survey of U.S. university reading
clinics: Clientele, functions, and tests. Journal of Reading, 31, 436–442.
Johns, J. L. (1992, October). From traditional reading clinics to wellness center. DeKalb, IL:
Northern Illinois University.
Johns, J. L. (2010). Basic reading inventory (10th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall-Hunt.
Kibby, M. W., & Barr, R. (1999). The education of reading clinicians. In D. Evensen &
P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy
(pp. 3–40). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Kolson, C. J., & Kaluger, G. (1963). Clinical aspects of remedial reading. Springfield, IL:
Charles C. Thomas Publisher.
Kucer, S. B. (2009). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing in
school settings (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Laster, B. (2000, November). 50+ years of research from reading clinics. Scottsdale, AZ:
National Reading Conference.
Laster, B. (2011). Accessible methodologies across 15 clinical sites: Linking reading clinics/literacy
labs and teacher practice. Jacksonville, FL: Literacy Research Association Conference.
Laster, B., Hill, M., & Freppon, P. (1997, December). Changing professional practice: What
teacher learn from critical incidents in reading clinic/practicum about assessment,
instruction, collegiality, and family literacy. Scottsdale, AZ: National Reading Conference.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2001). Qualitative reading inventory-5. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
Lewis, C., & Fabos, B. (2005). Instant messaging, literacies, and social identities. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40(4), 470–501.
Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (2010). Successful approaches to RTI: Collaborative practices for
improving K-12 literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Marzano, R. J. (2002). A Comparison of selected methods of scoring classroom assessments.
Applied Measurement in Education, 15(3), 249–268.
McCormick, S., & Braithwaite, J. (2008). Fifty years of remedial and clinical reading in the
United States: A historical overview. In M. J. Fresch (Ed.), An essential history of current
reading practices (pp. 157–185). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
20 B. P. LASTER
Michel, P., & Dougherty, C. (1999). Reading clinic: Past, present, and future. In D. H. Evensen
& P. B. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of
literacy (pp. 365–384). Stanford, CT: Jai Press.
Miller, K. P., & Grant, R. A. (1995). From clinic to classroom: Becoming a reflective
practitioner. Literacy Issues and Practices, 12, 46–52.
Morrell, E. (2008). Critical literacy and urban youth: Pedagogies of access, dissent, and liberation.
New York, NY: Routledge.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and
learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/about/partners/njcld/
Ortlieb, E. (2012). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal
of Language Teaching and Research, 3(3), 395–400.
Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading in the 20th century. In T. Good (Ed.), American education:
Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Yearbook of the national society for the study of
education (pp. 152–208). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rosemary, C.A., Freppon, P., & Kunnican-Welsch, K.; with Grogan, P., Feist-Willis, J.,
Zimmerman, B., Camp bell, L., Cobb, J., Hill, M., Walker, B., Ward, M. (2002).
Improving literacy teaching through structured collaborative inquiry in classroom and
university clinical settings. In D. Schaller, C. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch, &
J. Hoffman (Eds), 51st Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 368–382). Oak
Creek, WI: National Reading Conference.
Teale, W. H., & Hester, J. (1997). The status of reading clinics in the United States: A pilot study.
Chicago, IL: University of Illinois at Chicago.
Tobin, K. (1987). The role of wait time in higher cognitive level learning. Review of Educational
Research, 57(1), 69–95.
Tripp, D. (1993). Critical incidents in teaching: Developing professional judgment. New York,
NY: Routledge.
U.S. Department of Education (2012). Twenty-five years of progress in educating children with
disabilities through IDEA. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/leg/idea/
history.html
Wilson, G. P., Wiltz, N. W., & Lang, D. (2005). The impact of reading mastery on children’s
reading strategies. In B. Altwerger (Ed.), Reading for profit: How the bottom line leaves
kids behind (pp. 172–183). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Zalud, G.B. (1993). A national survey of university reading clinics. In Research, issues, and
practices: Annual curriculum and instruction research symposium conference proceedings.
Vermillion, SD: South Dakota University. ED363607.
Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2012). The role of the special educator: A balancing act. In
R. M. Bean & A. S. Dagen (Eds.), Best practices of literacy leaders: Keys to school
improvement (pp. 86–102). New York, NY: Guilford.
CREATING A UNIVERSITY-BASED
LITERACY CENTER
Debra Coffey, Daphne Hubbard,

Marie Holbein and Stacy Delacruz
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter provides the reader with an overview of the

process involved in creating a Literacy Center to help students to rise
above challenges and flourish academically. It focuses on instructional
planning that brings the curriculum to life for P-12 students and
emphasizes their strengths and interests.
Methodology/Approach – The authors describe the process of creating a
Literacy Center that focuses on students’ strengths and enhances student
achievement. They communicate the factors involved in (1) initiating the
planning process, (2) designing a policy manual, (3) creating instruc-
tional frameworks, and (4) enhancing literacy development through
support from home.
Practical implications – This chapter includes a detailed overview of the
creation of a Literacy Center, a process that could be replicated by the
educators who read the chapter. This description provides educators with
insights that could facilitate the planning process and provide ideas for
lesson planning and curriculum development in a Literacy Center.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002005
21
22 DEBRA COFFEY ET AL.
Social implications – The chapter suggests how faculty could work

together to create a Literacy Center to enhance student achievement in
the community. This could potentially help P-12 students in many
locations to acquire the skills and strategies they need in order to turn
challenges into strengths. This will help Literacy Centers to provide
effective, research-based literacy instruction and promote outstanding
literacy leadership in our schools.
Keywords: Individualized instruction; policy manual; interest

inventories; Common Core State Standards; formal assessment;
informal assessment
Reading is a powerful tool for successful achievement. Classroom teachers

often identify the needs of students and want to differentiate instruction
more creatively to help them become successful readers. Instructional time
frames and an array of expectations often limit their opportunities to meet
students’ needs and match students’ interests with engaging literature.
Literacy Centers provide unique opportunities for teachers to focus on one-
on-one instruction and meet students’ needs with meaningful curriculum
opportunities that promote higher levels of achievement (Houge, Geir, &
Peyton, 2008).
The literature on social interaction and discourse reinforces the power of
learning through collaboration and communication (Vygotsky, 1962). Teacher
talk and dialogue during informal assessment can impact the interpretation of
student performance during informal assessment (Holbein & Harkins, 2010).
Parents are key stakeholders and are participants in their children’s learning.
Teachers advocate for students, work across grade levels, work with special
education teachers, and learn to reflect on their own practice. A new vision
shared between P-12 partners and university teacher preparation programs
places children at the center and teachers as observers, instructors, and
instructional leaders (Carr, 2003; Dunston, 2007; Johnson, 2006).
A major shift has occurred over the past three decades with respect to the
philosophy and purpose for Literacy Centers. Contemporary nomenclature
reflects the change. Educators refer more frequently to facilitating children’s
literacy acquisition rather than teaching reading. The medical model of
years past focused on deficits of struggling readers (Carr, 2003; Dunston,
2007). The changing perspective from fixing readers to supporting them in
their leaning has profound implications for what educators do and how they
do it both in the P-12 classroom and in graduate and undergraduate teacher
education programs. Pre-Service and In-Service teachers often acquire and
Creating a University-Based Literacy Center 23
hone their instructional skills through undergraduate and graduate

programs where their classroom learning is augmented through authentic
experiences working with children in university-based Literacy Centers.
A review of the literature suggests a number of varying models for
Literacy Centers ranging from summer practicums to more extensive labo-
ratory experiences linked to formal coursework (Carr, 2003; Dunston, 2007;
Johnson, 2006). While those models vary in structure and delivery, they all
hold to common elements: assessment, instruction, communication, and
collaboration.
Proper intake is critical to meaningful and strategically focused
intervention. Parent interviews and applications are generally directed
toward collecting information related to student health and physical
factors, achievement history, developmental status, personal preferences,
and family histories (Carr, 2003; Rosner & Cooper, 1982). Diagnostic
measures often include informal inventories, phonemic awareness assess-
ments, and student interest inventories. Instruction more effectively occurs
in authentic ways through emersion in literature-based models where
comprehension and word recognition skills are taught through the
language arts. Emerging literature suggests promising learning support
from strategic innovations, such as assistive technologies (McKenna &
Walpole, 2007). The research literature resounds with the benefits of
collaborative support during various designs for individualized instruction
(Houge et al., 2008).
THE PLANNING PROCESS
Initial meetings: Two years ago an Institution of Higher Education in the

Southeast embarked on a journey to develop a Literacy Center. As the
Dean of the College initiated meetings, interest in the endeavor was
widespread throughout the teacher education preparation faculty. A group
composed of approximately 25 faculty and administrators from various
disciplines met for two years researching, exploring, deliberating, and
speaking with P-12 partners to establish a clear purpose and vision for a
Literacy Center.
Teamwork: The vision for the Literacy Center evolved slowly and
eventually led to the consolidation of a small group of faculty whose
expertise was in language and literacy. The group melded into a smaller
strategic committee whose primary objective was to create the proposal for
the Literacy Center (Strieker et al., 2010). Over the next year, the
committee’s solidarity and diligent work led to the design of the Center’s
infrastructure. Collaboration was hallmark among the stakeholders. The
state’s approved reading endorsement standards were infused into language/
literacy courses taught by faculty in three departments. Extensive meetings
were held to align the priorities of various programs in each department
with the Literacy Center schedule.
These variations and diverging agendas did not deter the groups’ mission.
The Literacy Committee was committed to respecting the autonomy of
programs within each department while finding common ground and
purpose. Communication and collaboration among faculty subsequently
yielded fruitful results. Challenging issues were negotiated: Curriculum
objectives were uniform and accreditation assessments were strategically
embedded into the courses aligned with the Literacy Center’s structure. All
the while, the committee’s attention was primarily, appropriately, and
essentially directed to the needs of students who would eventually seek
learning support from the Literacy Center.
DESIGNING A LITERACY CENTER

POLICY MANUAL
The Leadership and Planning Team started working on the policy manual
after the Center was officially approved and the infrastructure was
established in 2010. The mission, vision, and goals identified by the
committee formed the guiding framework for the policy manual. The Center
for Literacy and Learning was designed to ‘‘serve as a collaborative model
for preparing practicing teachers to effectively assist P-12 learners in the
improvement of their literacy through the use of research-based practices’’
(Strieker, Coffey, Delacruz, Holbein, & Eaton, 2011, p. 3).
The mission of the Center for Literacy and Learning states that ‘‘The
Center promotes the acquisition and use of literacy strategies, fosters
independent learning, and motivates learners to value all forms of literacy
and lifelong learning.’’ The guiding policy of the Center ‘‘focuses on meeting
the needs of diverse populations and learners with special needs by
providing service to the community at large and to the education
community from both P-12 schools and the university setting’’ (p. 3).
As the Center Director, Associate Dean, and Leadership and Planning
Team began drafting the manual, Action Plans (Strieker, Coffey, Harrington,
Heckert, Hubbard, & Robbins, 2011) became the focus of each biweekly
planning meeting. These Action Plans featured goals that focused on the vision
and mission of the Center. They provided the critical intersection for the
strategic plan in the original proposal, the manual, and program evaluation.
These Action Plans, which revolved around teacher preparation, research, and
service, included columns for (1) critical questions, (2) decision-makers, (3)
actions and member(s) responsible, (4) projected timelines, and (5) outcomes.
The first goal was to open the Literacy Center in an age-appropriate space
that was well supervised. Critical questions were generated by the
Leadership and Planning Team:
1. What are the procedures for enrolling new students?
2. What procedures will be used for parent orientation and participation?
3. How will the advisory board be established?
The second goal was to develop a cadre of practicing teachers, enrolled in

the reading endorsement, to teach P-12 students in the Center of Literacy
and Learning. Two critical questions for this goal included:
1. Which students will work in the Center?

2. Which faculty will teach the courses in the endorsement program?
The third goal of the plan focused on the establishment of a governance
system to guide daily operations and foster communication among all
parties. In this process the Action Plan was a management tool that bridged
planning, operations, and evaluation. The Center Director and the
Leadership and Planning Team created systems using five critical questions:
1. How will attendance be taken in the Center for teachers and P-12
students?
2. How will assessments be checked out of the Center?
3. What will be the procedures for leveling and circulating books and other
materials?
4. How will fees be collected through the university online account?
5. Who will be the constant contact for information?
The fourth goal of the Center was to develop a system for recruiting P-12
students to attend the Center when it opened in 2011. The Center Director
spoke at the Annual Conference on Literature for Children and Young
Adults to announce opportunities in the Center. This message was
reinforced with flyers and a Facebook page to utilize social media. Over
1000 flyers were distributed to area school districts and schools. Members of
the Leadership and Planning Team visited with principals in area schools
and leaders of various community organizations to share opportunities in

the Center.
The fifth goal of the Center was to assure that the university students who
worked with the P-12 students demonstrated competencies consistent with
the Center’s program evaluation and unit NCATE requirements. The
questions, which aligned with goal five, emphasized motivation, data
collection, and storage of information.
The sixth goal was to design and implement research procedures and an
evaluation model of P-12 students’ learning that was consistent with the
vision and mission of the Center. The Leadership and Planning Team chose
common assessments and the research methodology for the Center. Then
the Center Director developed an Individualized Student Reading Plan
(Strieker, 2011) and a template for progress reports, which were shared with
parents.
As they discussed the Action Plans, the team wrote sections of the policy
manual collaboratively. The Leadership and Planning Team decided to
begin the manual with the mission, policy, and goals for the Center. Faculty
members took lead roles in writing sections of the policy manual that
focused on (1) information for parents and caregivers, (2) cognitive coaching
and comprehensive staff development, (3) the budget and a description of
the Center faculty, (4) faculty workshops, and (5) the summer program.
The table of contents for the policy manual began to emerge during
bimonthly meetings with a series of revisions. The initial section of the
policy manual included the mission statement and policy goals. The vision
and mission statements presented ways the Center would enhance the
literacy development and achievement of P-12 students while serving the
community. This section was followed by a written policy for a safe and
comfortable learning environment that informed parents and caregivers
about the facility, the organizational structure, the budgetary process, and
personnel who would be working in the Center.
The policy manual emphasized the teacher development opportunities in
the Center. The Leadership and Planning Team determined that graduate
students in reading endorsement programs would work in the Center, and
the syllabi for those courses aligned with the expectations for the Center.
Literacy research efforts and goals were highlighted in the manual.
This section was divided into six program evaluation areas that included
(1) teacher development, (2) student achievement, (3) summer programs,
(4) customer satisfaction, (5) personnel, and (6) operations.
The final sections of the manual included the appendices with student
service information. Forms for the Center, the budget outline, and
information regarding reading endorsement courses associated with field

experiences in the Literacy Center were highlighted in the final sections.
PLANNING THE SPACE FOR THE LITERACY

CENTER
Once the policy manual was complete, it was time to design the space for the
Center and select resources. The Center Director worked along with a faculty
member in the Elementary and Early Childhood and Education Department
to order furniture that would be student-friendly. After consultation, chairs
and tables, bookcases, a technology cart, cabinets, and white boards were
purchased for the Center. We titled, leveled, organized, and created a circu-
lation system for 2000 titles of literature for children and young adults.
Members of the Leadership and Planning Team strategically planned the
facility in relation to the developmental needs of the P-12 students, the
current assessment of the literature, and emerging digital literacy.
INSTRUCTIONAL PLANNING
The original outline and focus of the individualized student literacy plans for
one-on-one instruction in the Literacy Center were designed in the summer of
2011. The original Individualized Student Reading Plan (Strieker, 2011) was
very fluid and addressed the following research-based reading, writing, and
motivation strategies and components: (1) the dimensions of reading,
(2) student reading levels, (3) word study, (4) reading strategies, (5) engaging
texts, (6) reading broadly at the independent level, (7) writing, (8) motivational
strategies, (9) social interaction/group work, and (10) ongoing assessment and
progress monitoring (Houge et al., 2008).
The original plan gave graduate students an overview of instructional
components that was readily accessible during the sessions. This planning
template was strongly grounded in the role of reading engagement and
motivation on reading outcomes and other research-based diagnostic,
reading, and writing strategies (Graves, Juel, Graves, & Dewitz, 2011;
Wigfield et al., 2008). Graduate students engaged in extensive reflection after
each session of individualized instruction. This helped them to enhance their
lesson planning and meet individual needs more readily. See Appendix A to
review the original Individualized Student Reading Plan.
As the work progressed in the Literacy Center and graduate students

progressed in the reading endorsement, the reading faculty determined that
the graduate students should plan the one-on-one sessions more intention-
ally by closely examining the Georgia Performance Standards and the
Common Core State Standards relative to individualized instruction to
support what the P-12 students were learning in their respective grades. To
help graduate students fulfill this purpose, reading faculty provided a guided
reading template with additional scaffolding for the reading process as they
encouraged graduate students to create individualized instructional plans
that were more structured, intentional, and rigorous. The Individualized
Student Literacy Plan (Hubbard, 2011) featured these research-based
components and connections with the research literature:
Individualized Student Literacy Plan
Research-Based Components Research Connections

Selecting interesting engaging texts Wigfield et al., 2008
based on tutee preferences
Determining a specific outcome for Gunning, 2010; Walker, 2012
each tutoring session
Addressing motivation levels Gambrell and Marinak, 2009
Scaffolding instruction in a guided Fountas and Pinnell, 1996; Graves
reading workshop model et al., 2011
Opportunities for word work/ Johnston, Bear, and Invernizzi, 2006;
vocabulary building Marzano and Pickering, 2005
Comprehension instruction Graves et al., 2011; Harvey and
through guided questioning and Goudvis, 2000; Ruddell, 2006
the use of graphic organizers
Interesting and engaging writing Cunningham and Cunningham,
prompts 2010; McCarrier, Pinnell, and
Fountas, 2000
Suggesting plans for home and Graves et al., 2011; Trelease, 2006
family support
Planning for ongoing assessment Gunning, 2010; Walker, 2012
and progress monitoring
Reflecting and planning next steps Graves et al., 2011; Houge et al., 2008
See Appendix B to review a completed sample of the Individualized

Student Literacy Plan using the guided reading template for lesson planning
in the Literacy Center.
STANDARDS
In preparing the individualized student literacy plans, teachers in reading

endorsement classes considered many factors while planning for each session
of individualized instruction. To support what the P-12 students were doing
in their respective grade levels in school, the reading faculty determined that
it would be beneficial for the teachers in the Literacy Center to review the
Georgia Performance Standards and the Common Core State Standards in
language arts and reading for each student’s grade level. By addressing
grade level standards within each individualized session, the teacher could
support and enhance what the student was learning in school. By addressing
the standards in each session, the teachers were also able to familiarize
themselves with the more rigorous Common Core State Standards and
prepare to implement those effectively in their own personal classrooms
(Graves et al., 2011).
FORMAL AND INFORMAL ASSESSMENTS
Another factor to consider in preparing the Individualized Student Literacy

Plans was the data provided on formal and informal assessments. Students
were administered the Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (GORT-4) (Wiederholt &
Bryant, 2001) or the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (GMRT) (MacGinitie,
MacGinitie, Maria, Dryer, & Hughes, 2002), depending on their grade
levels. Teachers administered the Qualitative Reading Inventory-5 (QRI-5)
(Leslie & Caldwell, 2011) to determine students’ instructional, independent,
and frustration reading levels, so appropriate texts could be secured
for each session. Other informal assessments, such as interest inventories,
surveys, and interviews, were completed by teachers, parents, and students
to determine motivation to read, beliefs about teaching reading, and
literacy practices in the home. To add to the data for the individualized
instruction, whenever possible, the reading faculty in the Literacy Center
collected information from students’ current classroom teachers and
obtained school assessment data to further inform and individualize the
instructional process.
TEXTS, OUTCOMES, SKILL FOCUS, AND

MOTIVATION
Before planning the actual content of instructional sessions, teachers

carefully considered the texts, the desired outcome, the skill focus, the
students’ motivation levels, and strategies to increase motivation. According
to the research, selecting the right text is highly motivational during reading
instruction (Guthrie & Wigfield, 1997). Initially, the teachers selected high-
interest, recreational literature at the students’ instructional level to begin
the instructional process and to provide a context to address ways to
improve phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension instruction (Ambruster, Lehr, & Osborn, 2001). As the P-12
students’ needs changed, the teachers were encouraged to increase rigor and
broaden their use of a variety of texts that included different genres of
recreational literature as well as expository and informational texts.
It was important to establish specific outcomes for each session of
individualized instruction. The teachers considered the standards, the
students’ data from formal and informal assessments, skills, and strategies.
It was important to lay the groundwork to specifically and methodically
address the data and the students’ needs on a session-by-session basis. To
keep each session focused, the teachers determined an outcome for each
session. An outcome was defined as what the teachers wanted the student to
know and be able to do at the end of the session. Standards are broad and
encompassing, and students’ needs may be vast as well. Establishing an
outcome helped each teacher to stay focused and to plan a session to
specifically meet this desired outcome (Gunning, 2010; Walker, 2012).
To keep motivation and motivational strategies in the fore of planning for
each session, the teachers were asked to consider the motivation levels of
their students and articulate specific strategies to increase motivation within
the session. According to Guthrie and Wigfield (1997), motivation is defined
in terms of an individual’s beliefs, values, needs, and goals. According to
Pitcher et al. (2007), ‘‘y the closer that literacy activities and tasks match
these values, needs, and goals, the greater the likelihood that students will
expend effort and sustain interest in them’’ (p. 378).
To inspire motivation, it was important for teachers to know their
students’ interests and activities the students enjoyed outside of school.
Then they found literature, games, and technology that addressed P-12
students’ individual interests. Extrinsic rewards were not used in the instruc-
tional sessions to increase or sustain motivation; however, a genuine and
heartfelt interest and one-on-one time with teachers certainly helped create
and sustain students’ motivation to move forward and improve reading

levels. Additionally, the incorporation of engaging vocabulary, reading, and
writing strategies throughout each instructional session enhanced motiva-
tion (Gambrell & Marinak, 2009; Wigfield et al., 2008).
BEFORE THE LESSON: WORD WORK/

VOCABULARY
The first phase of the actual session consisted of word work or vocabulary
instruction using a specific and engaging strategy. The teachers listed a
specific vocabulary strategy, the words and terms that would be covered,
and the procedures for carrying out this phase of the lesson. The procedures
for lessons were written by the teachers and included enough detail for
anyone to teach the lesson. The reading faculty stressed that vocabulary
instruction and word work should be reinforced throughout the lesson and
not taught in isolation (Johnston et al., 2006; Marzano, & Pickering, 2005).
DURING THE LESSON: GUIDED READING WITH A

GRAPHIC ORGANIZER
During the lesson, the teachers specifically stated a pre-reading strategy that
would promote interest in the text, and they listed the procedures for this
strategy. To prepare for the actual reading of the text, the teachers created
four chunks of texts and pre-determined stopping points to ask comprehen-
sion questions at every level of comprehension for each chunk. Then they
designed the procedure for recording information on a graphic organizer.
The teachers determined what graphic organizer would be appropriate and
useful for the stated outcome and the skill focus determined in the planning
phase for each session. In an authentic guided reading session, the students
do all of the reading aloud while the teachers listen, prompt, or record
miscues.
During the sessions for individualized instruction in the Literacy Center,
this was not always possible. Many times the teachers and the P-12 students
would take turns reading aloud, which gave the teachers opportunities to
model what good readers do (Florida Council on Reading Research, 2012;
Fountas & Pinnell, 1996, 2001; Graves et al., 2011; Harvey & Goudvis,
2000; International Reading Association, 2002; Ruddell, 2006).
AFTER THE LESSON: WRITING OR

ILLUSTRATING
Due to the varying ages and literacy abilities of the tutees, the teachers used
an engaging writing strategy and prompt or allowed the students to
illustrate some aspect of the reading after the lesson. The teachers were
encouraged by the reading faculty to be very creative and engaging when
selecting a writing strategy and prompt. Summarization in any subject is
valid and necessary; however, it is often overused and boring to students.
Thus, the teachers were asked to reflect on their own motivation to write
and determine what affected their levels of motivation before determining a
writing strategy and prompt. In determining an appropriate and engaging
writing prompt and strategy for each session, the teachers were encouraged
to ask themselves, ‘‘Would I want to complete this writing activity?’’
In workshops and peer editing during class sessions, the teachers were
often surprised that their writing strategies and prompts were not engaging,
nor would they want to personally complete the writing activity or be
inspired to grade them. This realization led the teachers to think critically
and to conduct research to discover compelling and motivational writing
strategies to incorporate after the lesson in each tutoring session. The
writing strategy and prompt were also designed to informally measure and
assess the outcome of the lesson, thus allowing the teacher and student to
come full circle in the individualized instructional process (Cunningham &
Cunningham, 2010; Graves et al., 2011; McCarrier et al., 2000).
HOME/PARENT/FAMILY SUPPORT, ASSESSMENTS,

REFLECTION
In projecting to the end of the session, the teachers needed to pre-determine

what advice or support for parents and students would be useful in
sustaining motivation, skill improvement, and the focus of the session until
the next session. The teachers were encouraged to infuse technology,
websites for games and further skill enforcement, and sustained silent
reading for pleasure on a daily basis for 15–20 minutes as part of the home/
parent/family support component that is vital to improving the literacy
abilities of all students. The teachers were also charged with planning the
next formal or informal assessment as a form of progress monitoring. They
reflected on the lesson and planned the next steps for the next session
(Graves et al., 2011; Gunning, 2010; Houge et al., 2008; Trelease, 2006;
Walker, 2012).
CONCLUSION
The development of the Literacy Center was a comprehensive and time

intensive process. It involved the input and commitment from many
stakeholders within the college community who were well aware of the
potential for meeting the learning needs of children in the community
and the possibilities for enhancing the teacher preparation program.
The early phases focused on establishing long- and short-terms goals
followed by developing a framework within clearly established policies and
procedures.
The goal setting phase moved to the implementation phase where the
focus was on (1) acquiring proper space conducive to communication and
learning; (2) structuring effective instructional learning strategies linked to
state standards; (3) selecting assessments that included a broad range of
solidly established formal and informal measures; and (4) establishing a
powerful home connection.
The promises of new initiatives are sometimes accompanied by challenges.
Although the Individualized Student Literacy Plan template seemed
laborious and daunting to the teachers at first, they quickly and eagerly
saw the value in its intentionality and rigor. It was very telling to see how the
plans for individualized instruction developed and increased in quality over
the course of the semester. The reading faculty will continue to refine the
Individualized Student Literacy Plan template as areas of need or
improvement are noted. After the first year of operation, the data from
pre-testing and post-testing the tutees indicates that gains were made in
student reading levels and in motivation. We will continue to refine our
methodology and delivery of individualized reading instruction in the
Literacy Center.
The Literacy Center faculty and staff are committed to providing the
most effective, research-based literacy instruction and promoting out-
standing literacy leadership in our schools. In the final analysis, the measure
of success will be in the collective success stories of students whose literacy
needs are met and whose learning is enriched.
REFERENCES
Ambruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks
for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: Partnership for Reading.
Carr, K. C. (2003). Today’s reading clinic: How relevant is the graduate reading practicum. The
Reading Teacher, 57(3), 256–268.
Cunningham, P. M., & Cunningham, J. W. (2010). What really matters in writing: Research-
based practices across the elementary curriculum. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Dunston, P. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5), 328–336.
Florida Council on Reading Research. (2012). Glossary of reading terms. Retrieved from http://
www.fcrr.org/curriculum/glossary/glossaryOfReading.pdf
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers grades 3–6: Teaching
comprehension, genre, and content literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guiding reading: Good first teaching for all children.
Gambrell, L., Marinak, B. (2009).Reading motivation: What the research says. Retrieved from
http://www.readingrockets.org/article/29624/
Graves, M. F., Juel, C., Graves, B., & Dewitz, P. (2011). Teaching reading in the 21st century:
Motivating all learners (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Gunning, T. G. (2010). Assessing and correcting reading and writing difficulties (4th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (1997). Reading engagement: Motivating readers through
integrated instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension to enhance
understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Holbein, M., & Harkins, D. M. (2010). An investigation of teacher talk during the
administration of an informal reading inventory. Association of Literacy Educators and
Researchers Yearbook, 31, 237–249.
Houge, T. T., Geir, C., & Peyton, D. (2008). Targeting adolescents’ literacy skills using one-to-
one instruction with research-based practices. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy,
51(8), 640–650. doi: 10.1598/JAAL.51.8.3
Hubbard, D. (2011). Individualized student literacy plan. Unpublished student programming
Template. Kennesaw State University, Kennesaw, GA.
International Reading Association. (2002). Evidence-based reading instruction: Putting the
National Reading Panel Report into practice. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Johnston, F., Bear, D. R., & Invernizzi, M. (2006). Words their way: Word sorts for derivational
relations spellers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Johnson, M. (2006). Preparing reading specialists to become competent travelers in urban
settings. Urban Education, 41(4), 402–426.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. S. (2011). Qualitative reading inventory-5 (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., Maria, K., Dryer, L. G., & Hughes, K. E. (2002). Gates
MacGinitie reading test (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Riverside Publishing.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary teacher’s manual.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
McCarrier, A., Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. (2000). Interactive writing: How language and
literacy come together, K-2. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging
potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 140–145.
Pitcher, S. M., Albright, L. K., DeLaney, C. J., Walker, N., Seunarinesingh, K., Mogge, S., y
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Assessing adolescents’ motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent
and Adult Literacy, 50(5), 378–396.
Rosner, S. L., & Cooper, F. H. (1982). The Temple University Reading Clinic. Journal of
Reading Disabilities, 15(5), 294–298.
Ruddell, R. B. (2006). Teaching children to read and write: Becoming an effective literacy teacher
(4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Strieker, T. (2011). Individualized Student Reading Plan. Unpublished student programming
Template. Kennesaw, GA: Kennesaw State University.
Strieker, T., Coffey, D., Delacruz, S., Holbein, M., & Eaton, A. (2011). Opening new doors:
Center for Literacy and Learning policy manual. Kennesaw, GA: Bagwell College of
Education, Kennesaw State University.
Strieker, T., Coffey, D., Harrington, D., Heckert, J., Hubbard, D., & Robbins, D. (2011).
Action plans. Archives of the Center for Literacy and Learning. Kennesaw, GA:
Kennesaw State University.
Strieker, T., Wallace, F., Coffey, D., Delacruz, S., Holbein, M., & Eaton, A. (2010). Proposal
for the Center for Literacy and Learning. Bagwell College of Education, Kennesaw State
University (Approved, June 2010).
Trelease, J. (2006). The read-aloud handbook (6th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin Books.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Walker, B. J. (2012). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment
(7th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Weiderholt, J. L., & Bryant, B. R. (2001). Gray Oral Reading Test-4 (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson.
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J. T., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Klauda, S. L., McCrae, A., &
Barbosa, P. (2008). Role of reading engagement in mediating effects of reading
comprehension instruction on reading outcomes. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 432–435.
doi: 10.1002/pits.20307
APPENDIX A
Individualized Student Reading Plan
Date: _________________________
Student Name:__________________Teacher Name:__________________
Student Goal(s):________________________________________________
Dimension of Reading
Reading Levels: Independent ____ Instructional ____ Frustration ______
Word Study
Reading Strategy
Text
Read Broadly at Independent Level
Writing
Motivational Strategies
Social Interaction/Group Work
Assessments (Attach)
Performance Monitoring of Reading

Performance Monitoring of Written Work
Source: Strieker (2011).

APPENDIX B
Individualized Student
Literacy Plan
KSU Candidate: Mr. H
Student Grade Level: 5
Student Reading Level: 3
Georgia Performance Standard(s)
ELA5R1: The student demonstrates comprehension and shows evidence of

a warranted and responsible explanation of a variety of literary and
informational texts.
SS5H5: The student will explain how the Great Depression and New Deal
affected the lives of millions of Americans.
Source: Retrieved from https://www.georgiastandards.org/Standards/Pages/

BrowseStandards/BrowseGPS.aspx
Common Core Standard(s)
RL.5.5: Explain how a series of chapters, scenes, or stanzas fits together to

provide the overall structure of a particular story, drama, or poem.
RL.5.2: Determine a theme of a story, drama, or poem from details in the

text, including how characters in a story or drama respond to challenges or
how the speaker in a poem reflects upon a topic; summarize the text.
Source: Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/in-the-states/georgia-

adopts-common-core-state-standards/
Text(s): Out of the Dust by Karen Hesse
Materials Needed: blank paper, novel, colored pencils
Date of Last Formal Assessment: 10/2011
Date of Last Informal Assessment: 12/2011
Student Goals and Outcome: The student will determine the characters and
setting of a given text.
Skill Focus: Comprehension, summarizing, elements of a novel or short

story
Level of Motivation: Good
Strategy to Increase Motivation: YA Lit/WebQuest

Lesson Outline Procedures for Teaching
Before the Lesson Word Work/Vocabulary

Name of Strategy: Acrostic Poem for the word Setting
Procedures:
1. Label a blank piece of paper with the word setting listed
vertically.
2. Brainstorm and record adjectives that describe the word
setting for each letter in the word setting.
3. Review all the elements of short story or novel: plot,
setting, theme, characters, and point of view.
During the Lesson Guided Reading with Key Word Search
Preview the text and create Name of Strategy: Skim/Scan Text
motivation to read. Procedures:
1. After skimming and scanning the layout of the text, how
does this book look similar or different from other novels
you have read?
2. What do you think the title of the book means?
First Phase Read Chunk 1: Page 3
Student reads text orally. 1. Literal Question: What time of year was the narrator
Teacher stops the reading at born? What is the narrator’s name?
strategic points to ask 2. Interpretive Question: Why does the narrator make this
questions to monitor statement?
comprehension at each level
of comprehension. Student ‘‘Red’s the color I’ve stayed ever since.’’
and teacher complete a
graphic organizer following 3. Applied Question: What would you say to people if you
each chunk to reinforce a had been born at home on a wooden floor?
specific skill. 4. Creative Question: How would your family describe you?
5. As you read each stanza, write down three interesting or
challenging words on sticky notes to add to the word wall.
Second Phase Read Chunk 2: Page 4, Stanza 1
Student reads text orally. 1. Literal Question: What does the narrator look like?
Teacher stops the reading at 2. Interpretive Question: How does her father feel about
strategic points to ask her?
questions to monitor 3. Applied Question: What skills would you need in order to
comprehension at each level know how to drive a tractor and work on a farm?
of comprehension. Student 4. Creative Question: If you lived on a farm far removed
and teacher complete a from people, what would you want to have there with you
graphic organizer following to have fun?
each chunk to reinforce a 5. As you read each stanza, write down three interesting or
specific skill. challenging words on sticky notes to add to the word wall.
Appendix B. (Continued )
Third Phase Read Chunk 3: Page 4, Stanza 2

Student reads text orally. 1. Literal Question: How many characters are in the story so
Teacher stops the reading at far, and who are they?
strategic points to ask 2. Interpretive Question: Can you explain this quote?
questions to monitor
comprehension at each level ‘‘There is not much family to speak of.’’
of comprehension. Student
and teacher complete a 3. Applied Question: How many relatives do you have living
graphic organizer following close to you? Do you have family to speak of?
each chunk to reinforce a 4. Creative Question: How would you stay busy on a farm if
specific skill. you were the only child?
Fourth Phase Read Chunk 4: Page 5
Student reads text orally. 1. Literal Question: How old is the narrator?
Teacher stops the reading at 2. Interpretive Question: How do you know her father
strategic points to ask wants a boy? What does ‘‘mean as a rattler’’ mean? What
questions to monitor state do you think she lives in?
comprehension at each level 3. Applied Question: How did you feel when you knew your
of comprehension. Student mom or another relative was expecting a baby? How did
and teacher complete a your family prepare for it?
graphic organizer following 4. Creative Question: If you were born like the narrator on a
each chunk to reinforce a wooden floor, what would you do to make sure your little
specific skill. brother or sister had a better situation for being brought
into the world?
After the Lesson Writing or Illustrating
Student writes or illustrates in Name of Strategy: Character and Setting Sketch
response to the text. Writing Prompt: In your mind, what does this character/
narrator look like, and what are her personality traits.
Procedures:
1. Draw a picture of the character.
2. Surround the character sketch with adjectives that
summarize the character and the setting based on the text
and your own inferences.
Home/Parent/Family Support What can the family and student do at home to support the
student’s reading goals?
1. WebQuest: http://outofthedustwebquest.blogspot.com/
2. 15–20 minutes daily of sustained silent reading for
pleasure at home. Discuss the book.
3. Conduct research on the Dust Bowl.
Appendix B. (Continued )
Assessments Ongoing Performance Monitoring of Reading and Writing

1. Informal reading assessment scheduled for late January.
2. Informal writing assessment scheduled for late January.
Reflection Following the What went well?
Lesson What would you do differently?
Did you meet your outcome?
What are the next steps?
What data supports your next steps?
To be written following the lesson.
DESIGNING AN OFF-CAMPUS
LITERACY CLINIC
Tammy Ryan
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The chapter describes how teacher preparation programs can

design effective off-campus clinical programs. Information provided is
applicable to clinical practicums, capstone experiences, and to individual
course assignments at the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Methodology/Approach – The author describes the foundational
components involved in designing a high-quality off-campus clinical-
based program. These components include selecting and building a
partnership with an off-campus site, using forms, fees, space, and
materials, engaging families, aligning assignments to course content,
grading, supervision, and acquiring funding.
Practical implications – In addition to the foundational components
involved in designing an effective off-campus clinic, the chapters describes
a university-based model that uses two different off-campus clinical-based
experiences that support community-based programs and local area
schools.
Social implications – The chapter addresses the need for teacher pre-
paration programs to build partnerships with off-campus community-based

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002006
43
44 TAMMY RYAN
programs to better prepare teachers to meet the literacy demands of all

students, particularly students living and learning in urban communities.
Keywords: Designing reading clinics; off-campus reading clinics;

community-based programs; teacher preparation programs; pre-
service teacher training
The education of teachers in the United States needs to be turned upside down. To
prepare effective teachers for 21st century classrooms, teacher education must shift away
from a norm which emphasizes academic preparation and course work loosely linked to
school-based experiences. Rather, it must move to programs that are fully grounded in
clinical practice and interwoven with academic content and professional courses
(National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education, 2010, p. ii).
This statement included as part of the executive summary report of the

Blue Ribbon Panel on Clinical Preparation and Partnerships for Improved
Student Learning (NCATE, 2010) clearly articulates the need for teacher
education programs to design high-quality clinical-based programs to better
prepare prospective teachers to face the challenges involved in educating
today’s children to learn, work, and contribute to society. By redesigning
programs with high-quality clinical practices, prospective teachers are more
capable to meet the literacy demands of all students, particularly students
living and learning in urban communities. With today’s classrooms
increasingly pulsating with varying degrees of racial, cultural, linguistic,
and socioeconomic backgrounds, it is essential that prospective teachers
receive, through supervised clinical experiences, extensive opportunities to
work with K-8 students in real situations. When doing so, prospective
teachers more deeply connect to educational theory, pedagogical practices,
and sociopolitical factors affecting the academic, linguistic, and social-
emotional development of all students.
What constitutes a clinical practice, in general, is not well-defined in the
literature (NCATE, 2010) and experiences vary greatly among teacher
preparation programs (IRA, 2003; Levine, 2006; Roskos, Vukelich, &
Risko, 2001). Yet, clinical practices are conducted in reading clinics on and
off college and university campuses, in district schools, in professional
development schools, and during student teaching. Clinical experiences
range from lightly supervised course assignments completed in classroom
settings to lab-based simulated case studies to extensive clinical practicums
(NCATE, 2010). These experiences occur in undergraduate four to five year
initial teacher preparation programs, in graduate programs, and in reading
Designing an Off-Campus Literacy Clinic 45
endorsement certification areas, with most occurring at the graduate level

(Barnes et al., 2008; Bevans, 2004; Bosse, 2006).
High-quality clinical practices offered off-campus carefully integrate course
content, pedagogy, and assignments to train prospective teachers to become
skilled practitioners in the areas of theory and pedagogical knowledge. When
trained to critically examine the relationships between diversity, curriculum
materials, programs, and policy affecting teaching and learning (International
Reading Association, 2003), prospective teachers develop essential attributes
of highly effective teachers to bring positive change to K-12 student’s academic
futures (National Research Council, 2010).
Specifically, well-designed reading clinics offered off-campus in urban or
rural schools and in community-based programs provide robust opportunities
for prospective teachers to experience through real-life situations the academic
struggles, motivational challenges, and societal constraints affecting teaching
and learning. Such settings provide unique experiences for prospective teachers
to grapple with the complexities involved in educating diverse populations of
students (Rogers, Marshall, & Tyson, 2006). For instance, when working with
K-8 students in urban settings, prospective teachers learn to negotiate ‘‘issues
of cultural diversity and social justice’’ (p. 202) affecting language and literacy
development. At the same time, these teachers learn to critically examine any
personal biases and abilities to work in high-needs schools. Further, these
experiences expose any disjunctures between socioeconomic conditions,
between discourse patterns, and between in-school and out of school literacy
practices affecting K-8 student’s academic success.
Research clearly indicates that teacher preparation programs designed
with high-quality clinical practices produce more graduates with higher
levels of confidence and graduates who transition more successfully into the
teaching profession (IRA, 2003). Research also indicates that students who
receive instruction from teachers trained with quality clinical experiences
show higher achievement gains than students working with less trained or
prepared teachers (NRC, 2010; Risko et al., 2008). Notably, findings show
that quality clinical practices increase new teacher retention rates (Smith &
Ingersoll, 2004).
Currently, there is an increase in off-campus clinical practices in teacher
preparation programs, mostly because on-campus clinics lack administra-
tion support, space to conduct sessions, funding (Bevans, 2004; Bosse,
2006), and a shortage of tenured-track faculty to teach courses and supervise
clinical practices (Zeichner, 2010). For example, in 1984, 67% of the 242
institutions surveyed across the United States reported having on-campus
reading clinics, and 23% reported having off-campus sites in local area
46 TAMMY RYAN
schools (Bates, 1984). Twenty-two years later in a similar study, 44% of the
32 institutions surveyed reported having on-campus reading clinics, 31%
reported having off-campus clinics, and 25% reported having both on- and
off-campus clinics (Bosse, 2006). Similarly, of the 25 institutions surveyed in
Ohio, 40% offered on-campus clinics and 60% offered off-campus clinics
(Bevans, 2004).
Off-campus clinical-based programs benefit teacher education programs
and the community. These clinics support and provide important services to
local area schools and community-based programs. With accountability
issues looming, many after-school community-based programs offer acti-
vities that support the school district’s curricular requirements. Such
activities often include test-taking preparation, grade-level reading and math
reviews, and extensive homework support. A few of these programs even
apply for and receive funding through Supplemental Educational Services to
offer tutoring services to children attending schools not making annual
yearly progress after three consecutive years (Bosse, 2006). Importantly, off-
campus clinics conducted in such settings provide unique support to a
community-based program, to the literacy experiences of K-8 students, while
providing invaluable experiences to prospective teachers to wrestle with the
many complexities affecting teaching and learning.
This chapter describes how teacher preparation programs design effective
off-campus clinical programs. Information provided is applicable to clinical
practicums, capstone experiences, and to individual course assignments at
the undergraduate and graduate levels. The chapter begins with a discussion
on the foundational components involved in designing a high-quality off-
campus clinical-based program. The chapter then moves to describe a
university-based model that uses an off-campus clinical-based experience
before offering a discussion and conclusion.
FOUNDATIONAL COMPONENTS INVOLVED IN

DESIGNING AN OFF-CAMPUS CLINIC
This section details information on the foundational components needed to

design high-quality off-campus clinical program. These components include
(1) selecting and building a partnership with an off-campus site, (2) using
forms, fees, space, and materials, (3) engaging families, (4) aligning
assignments to course content, grading, and supervision, and (5) acquiring
funding.
Selecting and Building a Partnership with an Off-Campus Site
Public, private, or charter schools, religious affiliations, public libraries, and

organizations such as YMCA, Big Brothers Big Sisters, and Boys and Girls
Clubs are excellent locations to establish off-campus clinical partnerships.
Internet searchers, word-of-mouth, door-to-door solicitation, phone calls, and
distribution of flyers or brochures are effective ways to locate potential sites in
a community. In fact, university faculty members responsible for conducting
clinical practices should also consider less obvious options such as after-school
programs tucked quietly away in residential apartment complexes located near
the university. These complexes often offer safe havens and after-school
activities to support children’s literacy development.
Before pursuing an off-campus site, however, a clinical director needs to
carefully consider the mission of the university, program goals, state
requirements, and course assignments. Further, the clinical director needs to
consider the number of tutors available, times a clinic can operate at a site (e.g.,
before, during, or after-school hours), any weekend options, if the clinic will
offer services one semester, across the school year, or during the summer
months, the distance a site is from the university, and any transportation issues
prospective teachers might face getting to and from the site. Careful analysis of
these specific conditions and establishing goals and criteria (Zeichner &
McDonald, 2011) are necessary considerations to locate potential matches.
For instance, if a program focuses on early childhood theory and pedagogical
approaches, a clinical director might seek a partnership with a local area
preschool. If a program focuses on elementary education, a clinical director
might expand a search to include after-school programs conducted in local
area elementary schools and in community-based programs, such as Girl
Scouts, Boy Scouts, and daycare centers. Likewise, a program that focuses on
adolescent readers might seek a partnership with a middle school, or even
juvenile center or alternative school.
Once a corpus of potential partnerships is determined, a clinical director
then needs to meet with potential after-school program directors to
introduce the university program and to share the requirements of the
clinical experience. During this meeting, it is important that the after-school
program director specifies the number and grade-levels of children available
for tutoring services, any special needs of children, types of struggling
readers, location where services can be conducted at the site, days and times
services can be offered, and length of a session to avoid any interference
with agency requirements. Also, the after-school program director needs to
acknowledge if materials, computers, and storage spaces are available for
48 TAMMY RYAN
prospective teachers to use when working with children. Accordingly, the

program director should provide information on the program’s goals and
mission, schedule, types of activities offered to children, and any types of
parental involvement. Careful consideration of these key ingredients ensures
a more positive and productive working relationship between the university
and the after-school program. Further, these ingredients develop important
elements of trust (Noel, 2011) necessary for building an effective working
relationship with a community-based program.
For example, an initial meeting held between a university reading director
and after-school program director revealed that 99% of the children
attending the program were African American, attended one of the lowest
performing schools in the district, lived in a zip code associated with low
income, high crime, and high teenage pregnancy birth rates. Thirty-seven
percent of the children spoke a language other than English, 65% lived with
a female guardian only, and 51% dropped out of school before starting their
junior year. Knowing such contextual factors allows a clinical director to
personalize clinical experiences to better meet the needs of the clinical
program and the needs of the children receiving tutoring services from the
prospective teachers.
Once a partnership is established, a clinical director needs to observe at
the site two to three times before prospective teachers begin offering
tutoring services. In doing so, the clinical director can further align clinical
experiences to the community-based program’s inside and outside building
routines, behavior management system, disposition of staff to children, and
interaction between staff, director, children, and parents. Understanding
these conditions and using them to structure class discussions enable a
clinical director to better support prospective teachers’ learning experiences
while ensuring that the clinical practice supports the routines and
procedures of the after-school community-based program.
University programs that offer tutoring services off-campus typically
provide services to K-6 students (Bevans, 2004). Sessions conducted on- and
off-campus are usually held Monday through Thursday, offered once or
twice a week for 60–90 minutes, last approximately 10–12 weeks (Bosse,
2006), and are designed for 11–20 children a semester (Bevans, 2004).
Forms, Fees, Space, and Materials
Off-campus clinical directors prepare and provide family members with

various forms. These forms include but are not limited to applications,
contracts, interest sheets, contact information, and consent forms. Forms

are made available in both English and Spanish. Consent forms should
include permission statements to audio and videotape sessions and spaces to
write in names of tutor and tutee, location of sessions, days, times, and
length of sessions. To conduct research and to publish findings, most
universities require an approved Institution Review Board Human Subjects
application. Interest sheets include questions pertaining to a child’s interests,
behavior, reading, writing, and learning strengths and needs. Guardians sign
forms and return by a specific date to the clinic director before students
receive services at the site.
Additionally, many community-based programs require prospective tea-
chers to complete and receive clearance on specific agency background checks,
applications, or consent forms before working with children at the site. These
requirements are separate from any university or school district requirements.
Similar to on-campus clinical-based practices, many universities require a
fee or deposit for tutoring services. While some universities offer services for
free, others charge fees that range from $5 to over $100 (Barnes et al., 2008;
Deeney et al., 2005) Fees support the clinical-based program by encouraging
students to attend sessions and to return all materials owned by the
university or off-campus site. Returnable deposits range from $5 to $50, and
money is returned in full or partially to students who attended a set number
of sessions and who return all materials. For example, a university program
might require a $40 fee for services offered during a semester. Students who
attended all sessions and returned all materials will receive $20 at the end the
semester. The remaining $20 is used to replace paper, pencils, and other
supplies consumed during the semester. Likewise, many university clinics
offer fee waivers or scholarships to students who qualify for free or reduced
lunch (Bevans, 2004). Clinics conducting off-campus sites in local area
schools typically do not require fees or deposits, and universities receiving
departmental funds often do not charge a tutoring fee (Barnes et al., 2008).
Prospective teachers conducting clinical experiences in community-based
settings, like in a boys and girls club, hold sessions where space is available
and quiet. Because space is most often limited inside buildings, prospective
teachers creatively find places outside the buildings to work with students
such as on picnic tables, on empty basketball courts, or on blankets spread
on the ground. When programs utilize space inside a building, the noise level
is often too distracting for prospective teachers to conduct successful
teaching and learning activities with the students. Also, most after-school
programs willingly share any available books, materials, computers, tables,
chairs, and rooms with prospective teachers.
50 TAMMY RYAN
Off-campus clinics held in school settings conduct tutoring sessions in

classrooms, the library, cafeteria, hallways, or outside on picnic tables. These
schools most often provide prospective teachers with grade-level materials
and books, use of any computers, and storage space to house materials
between sessions.
When materials are needed to conduct sessions, retail stores such as
Dollar General or Good Will stores offer inexpensive options for
prospective teachers to purchase pencils, crayons, markers, paper, glue,
books, manipulatives, and games. Likewise, online sites such as http://
www.ReadingTutors.com offer leveled reading materials, reading assess-
ments, and various reading activities matched to student’s interests and
needs for prospective teachers to use when designing lessons.
Engaging Families
Like most on-campus clinical practices, off-campus clinics provide family

members with some type of brochure, pamphlet, or packet that overviews
the clinical experience, including instructional tips, to encourage reading at
home (Barnes et al., 2008; Bevans, 2004). Some clinical practices offer a
before session orientation to familiarize family members with session
formats and to assist family members with the completion of forms. Often
prospective teachers engage family members in various literacy nights
during the semester and offer family members celebrations at the end of a
session (Medcalf, Bessette, & Gibbs, 2009).
To enhance home school connections, many universities require, as part of
course requirements, some form of weekly communication with family
members. For instance, some prospective teachers create newsletters that
include work samples, photographs of children engaged in literacy events,
highlights of session accomplishments, dates for upcoming events, or instru-
ctional tips. Such newsletters are printed as handouts. Others are e-mailed or
posted on websites or blogs. Often when a session ends, prospective teachers
provide family members or classroom teachers with some type of report that
overviews tutoring outcomes, provides assessment results, and offers sugges-
tions for future reading instruction.
Of the universities Barnes et al. (2008) surveyed, 34% reported offering
family members activities four times during the semester, while 66%
reported offering activities two or fewer times a semester. Likewise, 3% of
the universities reported offering family members weekly updates either
electronically or through hard-copy newsletters, and 8% provided family

members with end-of-term conferences.
The benefits of offering opportunities for prospective teachers to engage
with family members in various events across a semester not only enhance K-8
student’s learning experiences but also enrich prospective teachers’ abilities to
effectively communicate with family members (Deeney et al., 2010). For
instance, through repeated collaborations with family members, prospective
teachers acquire important skills to articulate assessment results and learning
outcomes in parent-friendly terms. Further, conducting sessions in the context
of urban or rural settings thrusts prospective teachers into real-life situations
to deeply experience and reflect on ways home language, culture, and context
influence effective teaching and learning.
Designing clinical practices in urban off-campus sites, in particular,
increases prospective teachers’ effectiveness in teaching low-income,
minority, and diverse populations of students (Catapano & Huisman,
2010). For instance, after working one semester in an off-campus clinic
located in an after-school community-based program, a prospective teacher
stated on a course evaluation, ‘‘Taking account of student’s background
and home experiences can be helpful in understanding how students learn. If
you build a relationship and a supportive environment with the family a
student is more likely to succeed.’’
Aligning Assignments to Course Content, Grading, and Supervising
High-quality, clinical-based practices provide prospective teachers with

important experiences to use various qualitative and quantitative reading
assessments (Irvin & Lynch-Brown, 1988) to monitor student learning and
to measure instructional effectiveness. In the process, prospective teachers
learn important habits of instructional routines to administer, analyze, and
use results to plan lessons matched to students’ identified needs. Through
these important instructional cycles, prospective teachers develop skill in
using screening, diagnostic, monitoring, and outcome assessments to design
effective lessons in the areas of decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension that affect student outcomes (Jensen & Tuten, 2007).
Most clinical practices offer prospective teachers training in using informal
reading inventories, running records, word lists, spelling inventories, writing
samples, and miscue analysis to measure student progress (Barnes et al.,
2008). Barnes et al. (2008) reported that 78% of the clinics surveyed used
various informal assessments such as think alouds, running records, and
52 TAMMY RYAN
interest inventories, while 71% used informal reading inventories. Addition-

ally, Barnes et al. (2008) reported that 45% of the universities used
professional development experiences to assist in bridging mandates to
effective instruction practices.
Off-campus clinical assignments align to course content, to university degree
requirements, and to the particular needs of the community-based program.
These weighted assignments include but are not limited to reflections on course
readings, class participation, online posts, classroom observations, writing and
implementing lesson plans, administering and analyzing various assessments,
debriefings with course instructor, case study reports, and reflections (Deeney
et al., 2005). Assignments receiving the most weight include written lesson
plans, administration and evaluation of assessments, and written clinical
reports. Other assignments include group projects, observation of student
work, and class presentations. Assignments receiving the least weight include
tests and exams (Barnes et al., 2008). Other chapters in this volume offer
specific information on instructional elements used in clinical-based practices
in the areas of reading, writing, and technology.
Lastly, supervision of clinical practices on- and off-campus typically falls
to the responsibility of the clinical director with 68% of these directors being
full-time, tenured-track faculty. Bevans (2004) reported that clinical
directors observe sessions 84% of the time while graduate assistants observe
sessions 16% of the time. Nearly 50% of the institutions reported that the
role of a clinical director also included answering phones, returning phone
messages, and collecting and reporting fees. However, a majority of the
universities reported using graduate students, undergraduate students, or
community volunteers to complete such clerical duties.
Clearly, well-designed off-campus clinical practices offer prospective
teachers important opportunities to demonstrate skill in instructional
decision-making based on assessment results. Such experiences deeply
influence prospective teachers’ abilities to use assessments, practice
pedagogical approaches, test theory, and critically evaluate key issues
affecting teaching and learning such as policy mandates and curricular
decisions.
Acquiring Funding
Off-campus clinical-based programs benefit from funding acquired through

grants, donations, or university departmental funds. Such funding is used to
replenish and update materials used with K-8 students.
Often, universities offer tenure-track faculty members opportunities to

apply for university sponsored grants. These grants focus on scholarship
interests and include budget lines that can be used to purchase materials for
a clinic. For example, a clinical director applied for and received a $2500
grant and used the funds to purchase flip cameras. During tutoring sessions
conducted off-campus, half the prospective teachers used the cameras to
videotape lessons taught to K-8 students and to analyze videos for lesson
strengths and weaknesses. While doing so, the course instructor was able to
compare the effects of videotaped reflections on prospective teacher’s
progress in delivering high-quality reading lessons compared to prospective
teachers not completing videotaped reflections and completing handwritten
reflections only.
Other funding options include applying for corporation grants. For
example, Dollar Store, Verizon, State Farm, Smart Technologies, and
Hewlett Packard offer grants that support higher education initiatives.
Information about these grants is available on the Internet. In addition,
some universities receive grants from Supplemental Educational Services to
offer tutoring services to children attending low performing schools. Using
Internet searches will help to locate additional grant options.
Lastly, clinical directors and prospective teachers should try innovative
approaches to solicit for items on campus. For example, placing empty
boxes in campus offices or buildings to collect pencils, crayons, or children’s
books or using large water-cooler containers to collect coins are a few
creative ways clinics replenish supplies.
UNIVERSITY-BASED MODEL
Jacksonville University, a small, private, liberal arts campus, offers an
off-campus clinical-based experience as part of its Master’s in Elementary
Education degree program and reading endorsement certification
requirements.
Prospective teachers complete the clinical experience during a reading
methods course. The course is offered during the sophomore year and
focuses on the foundations of reading instruction and application of
research-based instructional practices in the areas of oral language, phono-
logical awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Pros-
pective teachers register for the course, which is taught on-campus twice a
week and once a week at the off-campus site located three miles from
campus. The course is the first course in a sequence of four courses that lead
54 TAMMY RYAN
to the reading endorsement certification. These courses include reading

methods, reading assessment, differentiating instruction, and student teach-
ing. The purpose of the clinical experience is to enhance prospective teacher’s
connections to, growing understandings about, and immediate application of
course content to a supervised practice. Across the semester, students work
with a small group of K-8 students at a community-based center to practice
instructional approaches discussed in class and read about in assigned course
readings. Fifteen minutes before the session starts at the site, the course
instructor meets with the prospective teachers to review the purpose and
focus of the day’s session and to overview its significance to teaching and
learning. The instructor also discusses management techniques, answers any
questions, and responds to concerns.
While the prospective teachers work with K-8 students, the course
instructor rotates among the groups to observe instructional techniques,
complete informal observation forms, offer support, and videotape various
lesson components that demonstrate the week’s instructional focus. These
short videos captured with an iPad are immediately e-mailed to individual
prospective teachers for review at home. Prospective teachers are responsible
for analyzing the videos for instructional strengths and weaknesses and for
sharing results in class.
After the session, the instructor debriefs with the prospective teachers to
share lesson outcomes and to answer questions. Students then return to their
cars to write reflections to document session outcomes following an
assignment template. During this time, the instructor selects a few individual
prospective teachers to meet with to further guide their growing under-
standings about and use of effective instructional practices.
These weekly clinical sessions are carefully crafted to provide prospective
teachers with important opportunities to teach particular reading skills or
strategies while immediately transferring course content to practice.
Through repeated practice, prospective teachers deepen their understand-
ings about the reading components and how each component supports
reading development. Prospective teachers also develop important instruc-
tional skill to integrate the reading components. Weekly, prospective
teachers plan and implement lessons with K-8 children that include a fiction
or non-fiction read aloud and an extension activity. Lesson plans are written
before implementing the lesson and a detailed reflection is completed after
the lesson.
Twice a week, the class meets on campus. The class starts with a discussion
on how the clinical experience relates to teaching and learning. Building on
this knowledge combined with course content, the course instructor then
provides a visual presentation to extend learning to new topics. Prospective

teachers also discuss assigned readings, analyze instructional videos, and
complete hands-on activities for future use with K-8 children at the
community-based program.
In addition to on-campus class sessions and off-campus clinical experi-
ences, prospective teachers complete 15 hours of fieldwork in a local area
school. These unsupervised assignments completed in a classroom setting
engage the prospective teachers in conducting read aloud lessons to a small
group or whole group of K-5 students, in observing, and in documenting
classroom instruction. Specifically, the assignments are designed to support
prospective teachers in making important connections between theory and
practice. Through the rigorous combination of on-campus class sessions, off-
campus clinical experiences, and field placement assignments, prospective
teachers begin to develop key attributes of highly qualified teachers in the
area of reading instruction.
This partnership between the university and the off-campus community-
based program formed because the university closed the on-campus reading
clinic in order to make room for a new degree program and to use the space
for faculty offices. However, before closing, the reading clinic struggled with
funding cuts, sharing space with other departmental programs, off-putting
support from administration, and simply trying to obtain parking passes for
clients.
To continue offering a clinical-based model as part of the reading
endorsement program, the clinical director took immediate action to
locate an off-campus site. After a quick Internet search, the director
located a community-based program near the university that offered
after-school activities to local area boys and girls. The clinical director
stopped by the program to introduce the reading program and to
announce that prospective teachers were available to tutor children twice
a week at the site. Because the program was located in a low-income
section of the city, it received little attention or support from outside
agencies. The program eagerly accepted the invitation to partner with the
university to enhance the services it provided to K-8 students. Many of
the students enrolled in the program struggled with reading and writing,
earned failing grades on report cards, lacked motivation, and needed
boosts in self-confidence.
Importantly, each semester before working with students at the site, a
prospective teacher pays $10 to complete the agency’s required back-
ground check and fingerprint check. The prospective teachers also
purchase pencils, crayons, and paper for extension activities and checkout
56 TAMMY RYAN
books from the local or university library to design read aloud lessons
aligned to weekly reading component topics. In addition, many of the
prospective teachers purchase other materials at retail stores to creatively
engage K-8 students in literacy activities that involve art and movement.
Similar to Ranke and McDermott’s (2009) study, the prospective teachers
need to move instruction beyond scripted text to hands-on experiences to
engage students. For example, one prospective teacher purchased
sidewalk chalk to engage students in drawing story responses on the
basketball court. Another prospective teacher purchased a beach ball and
wrote ‘‘who, when, what, why, and where’’ on the ball’s colored stripes
to scaffold student’s comprehension development. Students tossed the
ball to one another and answered the question their right thumb
touched. Yet another prospective teacher purchased balls and had
students bounce the balls on alphabet letters written in chalk on the
sidewalk to spell words. Because the site had limited space, students
stored books, games, dry erase boards, and other materials in car trunks
between sessions.
These off-campus clinical-based experiences provide unique opportu-
nities for prospective teachers to practice pedagogical approaches and to
evaluate various instructional techniques used to motivate and enhance
struggling reader’s literacy development. During the process, prospective
teachers learn to design and implement lessons that integrate the reading
components to foster listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities.
Consequently, in class, discussion are in-depth, vibrant, and purposeful as
prospective teachers demonstrate stronger connections to course material
because they filter learning through the eyes of the K-8 students they build
relationships with across the semester. For example, a prospective teacher
stated on the course evaluation, ‘‘Vocabulary is more effective when
taught through real experiences and not through drills.’’ Another student
commented, ‘‘When I was interested and motivated, students fed off my
energy.’’ Yet another student stated, ‘‘I learned that self-esteem is key in
helping students with reading. I learned that students become easily
discouraged and need tremendous amounts of encouragement and
support.’’
CONCLUSION
Clearly, the goal of any teacher education program is to prepare highly

qualified teachers of reading to successfully meet the literacy needs of all
students, particularly students living and learning in urban, low-socio-

economic, and rural communities. Well-designed off-campus clinics provide
rich opportunities to deepen prospective teacher’s knowledge about theory
and research-based pedagogical practices while supporting a community to
enhance the literacy development of K-8 students.
With many on-campus clinics facing budget cuts, elimination of space for
other university programs, and closings, designing reading clinics off-
campus in after-school community-based programs provide important
options for teacher preparation programs. Partnerships with after-school
community-based programs support a clinic as they share available
resources such as classroom space, books, grade-level materials, and
computers to enhance the teaching learning experience. Further, these
partnerships enhance an off-campus clinic experience because prospective
teachers work where K-8 students are most familiar and where they reside
after-school. However, the success of any off-campus clinical program
requires flexibility to adjust to obstacles and difficulties.
For example, while attendance rates pose limited problems when tutoring
sessions are designed in community-based programs where students reside
after-school, K-8 students often miss a session or two during a semester.
When students are absent, prospective teachers often become discouraged
because they missed an opportunity to apply a purposefully designed lesson
align to course content. Yet, these occasions become rich opportunities to
further extend prospective teachers’ understandings about effective reading
instruction as they observe colleagues’ instructional practices. For instance,
prospective teachers can observe and take important notes on colleagues’
uses of instructional approaches, progress monitoring practices, and
behavior management techniques. After the session, prospective teachers
collaborate with colleagues to share observational notes and ask questions
before submitting the notes to the clinical director. These unexpected
experiences become important collaborative exchanges that further deepen
prospective teachers’ understandings of teaching and learning. As Roskos
et al. (2000) reported, time to reflect on tutoring sessions provides important
opportunities for prospective teachers to seek advice from colleagues and to
analyze positive and negative effects of important instructional decisions.
Similar to on-campus clinical experiences, a second obstacle involves the
challenge of K-8 students retaining information between session. When K-8
students attend one session a week, they often face difficulties retrieving
from memory skills and topics focused on during previous sessions. To
overcome this obstacle and to build-on previous instruction, prospective
teachers can design lessons that produce written products. These products
58 TAMMY RYAN
are stored on portable bulletin boards, placed in notebooks, or displayed in

a special tutoring area in the community-based agency. For instance, one
community-based program allowed prospective teachers to use trifold
display boards to showcase student work. The boards were placed in high-
traffic areas in the community-based setting and referred to between
sessions; tutored students shared content on the boards with non-
tutored students. The boards easily become important instructional tools
to assist students in retaining information between sessions. Additionally to
assist students in retaining material, prospective teachers can use flip
cameras or iPads to capture student engagements in videos or photographs.
During the next session, these photographs or videos became warm-up
activities to stimulate discussions about previous learned topics before
moving on to new topics.
Lastly, a third obstacle involves the lack of materials being returned to
sessions. One solution involves using online resources such as http://
www.ReadingTutors.com. Prospective teachers can print multiple copies of
reading materials. Then, teachers send one copy home with the tutee to
share with family members and friends. A second copy is stored in a special
tutoring notebook at the community-based site for the student to review
during the week, and a third copy is stored in the prospective teacher’s
tutoring notebook.
As a final point, future research should explore the use of digital
technologies and digital literacies on clinical-based tutoring outcomes.
While reading literature encourages the use of digital literacies to better meet
the needs of today’s tech savvy students (Ortlieb, 2012; Ryan, 2012), limited
research is available to report the effects of digital instruction on prospective
teachers’ clinical practices and on student learning. For instance, research
might investigate the ways prospective teachers incorporate an iPad,
Internet videos, and various Web 2.0 tools into tutoring sessions to develop
student’s domain vocabulary or ways students incorporate instructed
vocabulary in blogs or wikis.
Additionally, research might explore the use of videoconferencing as a
way to design off-campus clinical-based programs with community-based
programs. With virtual schools and blended learning experiences increasing
as instructional options, research should investigate ways teacher prepara-
tion programs might use videoconferencing, Skype, or webcams to offer
virtual, off-campus clinical-based programs. As many community-based
programs receive funding to purchase computers and interactive white-
boards, virtual learning partnerships with community-based agencies might
provide important options for teacher preparation programs to design and
use clinical experiences to further enhance prospective teacher’s skills to

learn and work with today’s tech savvy twenty-first century students.
Likewise, research might investigate ways videoconferencing can include
family members in tutoring sessions. Sessions might focus on ways parents
can incorporate important instructional techniques at home to enhance K-8
students’ reading development. During a session, a prospective teacher
demonstrates and guides practice between a parent and child. For example,
a session might focus on a fluency instructional approach that a parent
can use at home to increase a student’s words read per minute or an
instructional practice that focuses on text discussions to enhance reading
comprehension.
In closing, well-designed off-campus clinical-based programs provide
intense, supportive, and structured real-time teaching experiences that
immerse prospective teachers in the complexities of teaching. These
experiences deepen prospective teachers’ understandings on how beliefs,
culture, discourse patterns, curricular decisions, materials, and socio-
economic conditions influence successful teaching and learning. Through
well-designed off-campus clinics, teacher preparation programs strongly
support a national goal ‘‘to prepare teachers with the values, knowledge,
practical skills, and reflective orientation required for their success’’ (IRA,
2007, p. 23). As one prospective teacher summarized on a course evaluation:
Working off-campus with children better prepared me to become an effective teacher
because I got to see first-hand learning and experience diversity. It made me really think
about what I needed to do to help students and to pace lessons that fit their interests and
needs. Doing small things and showing them you care is very important; starting with
things they know is important; and it is important to show them you care and that you
want them to succeed.
REFERENCES
Barnes, C., Deeney, T., Dubert, L., Freepon, P., Gurvitz, D., Laster, B., y Patchen, C.
(2008, December). Reading clinics and reading labs: The state of the art 2008. Alternative
session presented at the 58th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference,
Orlando, FL, USA.
Bates, G. W. (1984). Profiles of university-based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey.
Journal of Reading, 27, 524–529.
Bevans, J. G. (2004). A study to determine the status and features of reading clinics that serve
elementary students in teacher education institutions in the state of Ohio. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 65(07), 535A(UMI. No. 3141758).
Bosse, S. (2006). The role of the university reading clinic in reading instruction, practice, and
theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, (UMI. No 3221686).
60 TAMMY RYAN
Catapano, S., & Huisman, S. (2010). Preparing teachers for urban schools: Evaluation of a
community-based model. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 7(1), 80–90.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Angell, V., Barnes, C., Carter, C., y Freppon, P. (2005,
December). A national look at teacher preparation in reading clinics/literacy labs.
Alternative session presented at the 55th annual meeting of the National Reading
Conference, Miami, FL, USA.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., Dubert, L., y Swanson, M. (2010,
December). Transfer and transformation: What reading clinic/literacy lab graduates’
current practices and contexts mean for clinic/lab instruction. Alternative session
presented at the 60th annual meeting of the Literacy Research Association (formerly
National Reading Conference), Fort Worth, TX, USA.
International Reading Association. (2003). Prepared to make a difference: An executive
summary of the National Commission on Excellence in Elementary Teacher Preparation
for Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
International Reading Association. (2007). Teaching reading well: A synthesis of the
International Reading Association’s research on teacher preparation for reading
instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Irvin, J. L., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1988). A national survey of U.S university reading clinics:
Clientele, functions, and tests. Journal of Reading, 31(5), 436–442.
Jensen, D. A., & Tuten, J. A. (2007). From reading clinic to reading community. Reading
Horizons Journal, 47(4), 295–313.
Levine, A. (2006). Education school teachers. New York, NY: The Education Schools Project.
Medcalf, N., Bessette, K., & Gibbs, D. (2009). Everybody wins: A school-higher education
partnership for reading improvements. In J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.),
Literacy tutoring that works (pp. 96–107). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education. (2010). Transforming teacher
education through clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers.
Washington, DC: National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education.
National Research Council. (2010). Preparing teachers: Building evidence for sound policy.
Washington, DC: National Research Council.
Noel, J. (2011). School-community-based urban teacher education as a voice for the
community. In A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.), Breaking the mold of preservice
and inservice teacher education: Innovative and successful practices for the 21st century
(pp. 189–198). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
of Language, Teaching, and Research, 3(3), 395–400.
Ranke, N., & McDermott, M. (2009). Teaching and learning about literacy through arts
infusion: Successes, challenges, and lessons learned in an after-school program. In
J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.), Literacy tutoring that works (pp. 108–118).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Risko, V., Roller, C., Bean, R., Collins Block, C., Anders, P., & Flood, J. (2008). A critical
analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research Quarterly, 43,
252–288.
Rogers, T., Marshall, E., & Tyson, C. (2006). Dialogic narratives of literacy, teaching, and
schooling: Preparing literacy teachers for diverse settings. Reading Research Quarterly,
41, 202–2004.
Roskos, K., Boehlem, S., & Walker, B. J. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversation:
The influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic.
The Elementary School Journal, 100, 229–253.
Roskos, K., Vukelich, C., & Risko, V. J. (2001). Reflection and learning to teach reading: A
critical review of literacy and general education studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 39,
595–635.
Ryan, T. (2012). Digital teachers reshaping literacy experiences. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 48(2),
92–94.
Smith, T. M., & Ingersoll, R. M. (2004). What are the effects of induction and mentoring on
beginning teacher turnover? American Educational Research Journal, 41(3), 681–714.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field placement
experiences in college- and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 61(1–2), 89–99.
Zeichner, K., & McDonald, M. (2011). Practice-based teaching and community field
experiences for prospective teachers. In A. Cohan & A. Honigsfeld (Eds.), Breaking
the mold of preservice and inservice teacher education: Innovative and successful practices
for the 21st century. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
COACHING FOR SUCCESS:
UCF ENRICHMENT PROGRAMS
IN LITERACY
Michelle Kelley and Taylar Wenzel
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The chapter provides the reader with an overview of the UCF
Enrichment Programs in Literacy that includes a year-round reading
clinic with undergraduate and graduate students serving as clinicians and
a summer Digital Storytelling Camp. The focus of the chapter is on the
development and evolution of these programs, with an emphasis on the
role of coaching in the clinic process.
Methodology/approach – The authors describe how they used Bean’s
Levels of Coaching Complexity (2004), adapting it to their clinical setting,
to meet the current high demand for reading coaches in schools, and to
strengthen their reading program courses and practicum experiences.
Practical implications – In addition to providing a comprehensive
overview of the UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy, this chapter
includes the nuts and bolts of how the authors ‘‘coach for success’’ in the
reading clinic. This involves coaching for success during data collection, in
the analysis and decision-making process, in the delivery of tutoring, and
beyond the clinic setting. Along with the tutoring process, specific

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002007
63
64 MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
teaching tools (including student samples) and photographs are shared in

order to allow for replication by educators who read this chapter.
Social implications – This chapter suggests how reading programs in
colleges of education can reexamine their existing field experiences to
develop a more deliberate model intended to (1) extend clinician skills in
reading assessment, diagnosis, and instructional delivery; (2) promote
self-reflection and collaborative professional learning; and (3) provide
mentoring experiences that can be replicated in school and district
settings by graduate student clinicians as they acquire new leadership
roles and responsibilities. This chapter proposes programs that offer
consistent, affordable instructional support in literacy for children and
families in the surrounding community.
Keywords: Reading clinic; reading assessment; diagnosis; tutoring;

coaching
A good coach will make his players see what they can be rather than what they are.
Ara Parasheghia, Former Football Player and College Coach
Coaching is used in a variety of settings and takes many forms, but more
than likely the term coaching conjures up the image of an athletic coach.
Most of us can make connections to this concept. Coaches utilize a variety
of approaches including motivational talks, seminars, workshops, clinics,
and supervised practice in order to train an individual or group of people to
do a specific task and/or achieve a particular goal. Critical to successful
coaching is the process of monitoring and providing feedback. Applying this
to education would seem to be a natural fit, yet the reality is it can be
problematic because not all teachers are equipped with the knowledge and
skills to serve as a coach.
The International Reading Association (2006) purports that literacy
coaching that is (1) grounded in theory and reflection, (2) based on student
needs, and (3) ongoing and intensive can yield improvement in students’
reading skills. Not surprisingly then, the demand for literacy coaches
in recent years has dramatically increased. Without specific guidelines
for the selection and training of coaches, the faculty at the University of
Central Florida (UCF) have redesigned specifically the graduate practicum
experience to meet the needs of schools and prepare teachers for the role of
a reading coach. So what knowledge and skills are required of a reading
coach and how can we embed these in our preparation programs?
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy 65
According to Toll (2005), successful literacy coaches must be knowledge-

able in
adult learner characteristics

coaching processes
effective (literacy) teaching
literacy acquisition
reading assessment.
Beyond possessing a particular skill set, what does a reading coach

do on a daily basis? Recent analyses reveal that there are distinct roles
for a reading coach that are separate from those of a reading specialist
(IRA, 2004). The International Reading Association (in press) descri-
bes this role as follows: (1) instruction, (2) assessment, and (3) teacher
support. Furthermore, literacy coaches provide teachers with additional
abetment needed to successfully implement various programs or practices
(Nowak, 2003).
Bean (2004) has suggested that there are specific coaching activities in
which reading coaches engage and that these activities vary in intensity. She
has delineated these into three levels. At Level 1, a literacy coach informally
develops relationships among teachers by participating in conferences
and workshops with teachers, leading study groups, and developing
curriculum. At Level 2, the coach intensifies his/her involvement more
formally with teachers by coplanning lessons, analyzing student data, and
providing professional development. Level 3, the most formal, occurs when
the reading coach models lessons, visits and observes classroom instruction,
and provides feedback to teachers. So how do we at higher institutions
prepare reading coaches for these varying roles and experiences? This chapter
seeks to describe how we have taken on this challenge and provides other
institutions with support in enhancing or developing their own reading clinic
using a coaching model.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE UCF ENRICHMENT

PROGRAMS IN LITERACY
Like most reading programs, the UCF’s Masters in Reading includes
significant course work in reading assessment and instruction with a
culminating practicum. Prior to 2009, the practicum was held at local public
school sites in conjunction with summer school offerings. The elimination
of public summer school programming in 2009 caused us to pilot an

on-campus clinic, enabling our UCF students to have necessary field
experiences related to their graduate practicum and addressing the need for
summer instruction for struggling K-8 students. Building on 2009 outcomes,
we refined the 2010 summer clinic to include more direct coordination
of graduate course work that continued to provide a needed service to the
community. Simultaneously, undergraduate program revision left many
undergraduate students displaced because they had failed to follow the
suggested course sequence. To get these students back on track, they were
assigned to work with a graduate student. The graduate students served as
their mentors throughout the clinic, engaging in data analysis, coplanning
lessons, and delivering intervention with their mentee, all of which framed
the origin of our coaching approach.
Because of the overwhelming success of the summer clinic (especially the
addition of undergraduates as clinicians), in the spring 2011 semester, the
clinic was expanded to involve undergraduate students who collaboratively
executed assessment instruments taught in their course with school-age
students. Thus, we now offer a multifaceted reading clinic year-round, with
undergraduate and graduate student clinicians.
Concurrently, our community partners requested that we offer something
different from a reading clinic. They wanted a program that was not
diagnostic in nature, but one that would be for all students, not just
struggling readers. Of particular interest was tapping into students’ natural
disposition toward technology and promoting motivational literacy experi-
ences throughout the summer months. In the summer of 2011, we launched
a Digital Storytelling Camp designed to enhance student motivation to read
and write through the use of technology. The camp was and continues to be
offered weekly in the morning, although students have the option to spend
the entire day with us, attending the reading clinic in the afternoon. In the
camp, students learn about the writing process, using reading and writing
to ultimately create a storyboard. The final project is created by students
on the computer using Microsoft PowerPoint, Windows Movie Maker, and
a kid-friendly digital storytelling website called www.littlebirdtales.com.
Additional information about the Digital Storytelling Camp, including
examples of digital stories created by former student participants, can be
found at the program website: http://education.ucf.edu/litinitiative/program.
cfm. The addition of the Digital Storytelling Camp was met with great
accolades from participants as noted from this parent’s written comment,
‘‘She has learned to enjoy writing. Every day she has come home wanting to
write a story. This is a big change from before;’’ therefore, we expanded upon
this program the following summer and have continued offering it since.
Presently, the UCF Literacy Enrichment Programs include a year-round

reading clinic and the Digital Storytelling Camp (summer only). In the fall
and spring semesters, undergraduate clinicians staff the clinic under our
supervision. This clinic runs for 10 weeks each semester, with each weekly
session offered on our local school districts’ early release days. The summer
clinic runs in the afternoon for three weeks, and is operated by graduate
clinicians who also serve as assistants at our morning Digital Storytelling
Camp.
COACHING FOR SUCCESS: HOW WE COACH

FOR SUCCESS
As we moved to an on-campus clinic and in response to the increasing
demand for reading coaches, we adjusted our curriculum and our way of
work in the clinic to further reflect that of coaches. Using a professional
learning community model, we planned for interactions where assessment
and teaching practices would be shared more deliberately by collaborating
and reflecting on connections between class and clinic. In our core graduate
classes, we infused more content related to coaching. We strengthened our
focus on leadership and professional development as it relates to reading and
writing. We also developed tools to model the coaching process with both
our undergraduate and graduate students serving as clinicians in the reading
clinic. We adapted Bean’s Levels of Coaching Complexity for Reading
Coaches (2004) to include clinical supervision (see Table 1: Supervising
Clinicians: Levels of Coaching Complexity as Applied to Clinical Settings).
We wanted to model what our clinicians would be doing back at their school
sites, thus it was crucial to provide them with an opportunity and context to
engage in student-centered professional discourse and self-reflection similar
to what teachers would experience in a professional learning community. We
also aligned the International Reading Association’s Standards for Reading
Professionals (2010) to this matrix, emphasizing Standard 2 – Curriculum &
Instruction, Standard 3 – Assessment & Evaluation, and Standard 6 –
Professional Learning & Leadership.
COACHING THROUGHOUT THE DATA

COLLECTION PROCESS
Once I administered the Running Record, I was able to uncover what difficulties he had
specifically in decoding and word recognition.
–Pre-Service Teacher Reflection
Table 1. Supervising Clinicians: Bean’s Levels of Coaching Complexity

Applied to Clinical Settings. Source: Adapted from Bean (2004).
Level 1: Informal Level 2: More Formal Level 3: Formal
Create an environment that Hold data conferences with Observe clinicians working
promotes conversations and clinicians to analyze student with students (both
encourages self-reflection work, interpret assessment assessment and instruction).
(focus is on goal setting data, and determine IRA Standard 2, 3.2, 3.3
based on clinician needs) – instructional focus for clinic
Self-Assessment of – Data Conference Sheet
Proficiency in Reading IRA Standard 3.2, 3.3
Diagnosis (adapted from
Shearer & Homan, 1996).
IRA Standard 6.1
Develop and deliver course Provide suggestions for Have clinicians self-reflect on
content based on clinician instruction and feedback observation, meet with
needs and course objectives on lessons (lessons and clinician to debrief on
(this includes providing resources). Tutoring Form observation, and provide
materials and resources). IRA Standard 2, 3.3 feedback – Observation
IRA Standard 2, 3.1 Form IRA Standard 6.1
Provide a forum (the clinic) Provide professional Have clinicians give Family
for clinicians to apply development to clinicians Literacy Workshop during
knowledge of teaching and based on student needs (this clinic. IRA Standard 6.1, 6.2
assessing reading and may include lesson study).
writing under supervision
and scaffolding. IRA
Standard 2, 3
Assist clinicians with Assist with parent
assessment (this includes communication of student
selection and needs and instructional
implementation of decisions – Parent Update
assessments) – Diagnostic and Parent Summary IRA
Toolkit IRA Standard Standard 3.3, 3.4
3.1, 3.2
Facilitate and encourage Scaffold technical writing of
collaboration of content for case study report. IRA
Family Literacy Workshop Standard 3.4
– Family Literacy Workshop
Assignment IRA Standard
6.1, 6.2
Provide a forum (course) for
clinicians to deliver Family
Literacy Workshop to
receive feedback – Family
Literacy Workshop
Assignment IRA Standard
6.1, 6.2
At the beginning of the semester, we administer the Self-Assessment of

Proficiency in Reading Diagnosis, adapted from Shearer and Homan (1996),
to each of our students who will serve as reading clinicians. This assessment
serves dual purposes by (1) informing us of our students’ prior knowledge of
reading assessment that is used to guide subsequent instruction and (2)
laying the foundation for student goal setting by exposing areas in which
they need additional instruction and support in order to assess children and
diagnose reading difficulties. This assessment is also readministered to the
student clinicians at the end of the semester to aid in their reflection on
personal growth from the clinic experience and to provide data for us on the
effectiveness of teaching and learning outcomes from the clinic and
corequisite course work.
In the corequisite course, we introduce a wide variety of informal reading
assessments that build on the clinicians’ knowledge from prerequisite courses
in order to identify strengths and needs in the following areas: motiva-
tion, comprehension, vocabulary, phonics, phonemic awareness, spelling,
fluency, emergent reading skills (concepts of print, letter identification, letter
sounds, etc.), and other observations of reading processes and behaviors.
The clinicians become competent in administering and interpreting each
assessment through a variety of methods, including video observation, role
play, comparison of assessments, and even experiential approaches with
children. In this process, they are required to create a Diagnostic Tool Kit
(Table 2: Diagnostic Toolkit Rubric), in which they keep master copies of
each assessment, group assignments according to assessment areas, and notes
about the protocol for administration. Further, the clinicians are charged
with using their developing knowledge about reading assessments in order to
identify additional assessments to include in their Diagnostic Tool Kit (see
Fig. 1). Ultimately, they write rationales for each assessment area to justify
the need for assessing that area and to explain their included assessment
choices. While these tool kits will be valuable resources for clinicians during
and after the reading clinic, we explain that this resource may also be useful
in the coaching process in the future when the clinicians are in leadership
roles and working to increase the knowledge and skill of their colleagues.
Because our clinic serves a wide range of children from grades K-8, we have
implemented a differentiated approach to data collection in which each
clinician is supported to select the appropriate assessments to administer to
their assigned child. Guidance in assessment selection is provided in class and
individually as needed, and all students are given a data conference form to
use as a template to record assessment selection and student strengths and
needs for each. Unless a rationale is provided, each clinician is expected to
Table 2. RED 6845 Evaluation of a Reading Diagnostic Kit

Self-Assessment Rubric.
Criteria for Evaluation My Self- Instructor

Evaluation Evaluation
I included an annotated table of contents and

section dividers for each section of the
Diagnostic Kit. At least 8 sections per
assignment description (15 pts.)
For each section of the Diagnostic Kit there is a

brief (and accurate) overview of the area being
assessed and the identification of at least 2
appropriate assessments for that area (28 pts.)
The quality of the assessments for each section of

the Diagnostic Kit demonstrates knowledge of
assessment (e.g., for the fluency assessment
section you would not place the Concepts
About Print tool) (14 pts.)
The tests included are neat, easy to read, and

complete (14 pts.)
I included clear and complete directions for each

test (14 pts.)
I included a complete reference section

identifying all resources in the kit (10 pts.)
The Diagnostic Kit is housed in a sturdy

container and labeled (5 pts.)
Total Score:
select an assessment for each area of reading indicated on the data conference
Form (Table 3: RED 6846 Reading Practicum Data Conference Sheet: Using
Assessment to Inform Instruction). The data collection process begins on a
designated date before the first reading clinic session on which parents bring
the participating clinic students to campus for assessment. While each
clinician will primarily refer to their Diagnostic Tool Kit for assessment
selection, we do provide additional assessments and access to informal
reading inventories in the reading clinic office, to which clinicians have full
access and use. Throughout the data collection process, we observe, circulate,
and debrief with students to ensure that they are completing their data
conference form and beginning to develop an authentic literacy profile.
Fig. 1. Reading Diagnostic Tool Kit Table of Contents.
Each of the described processes in the coaching of the data collection process
reflects elements of Level 1 from Bean’s Levels of Coaching Complexity. Thus,
in this informal coaching approach, clinicians are provided with a setting for
reading assessment, in which they can apply course content and meet course
goals, engage in conversations with peers and instructors to extend their
learning, and reflect on their own knowledge of reading assessment.
COACHING THROUGHOUT THE DATA ANALYSIS

AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS
This course has changed my view on how to differentiate instruction. Before this
course I understood the need to differentiate, but through this course I have come to
understand how to differentiate effectively. This can only be done through assessment,
72
Table 3. RED 6846 Reading Practicum Data Conference Sheet: Using Assessment to Inform Instruction
(completed).
Student’s Name: Tom Student’s Age/Grade: 9/Grade 4 Gender: M
Area Assessed/Tool Used Results Student’s Strengths Student’s Needs
Motivation: interests Wide range of interests: sports, Least favorite thing is spelling and/or
Personal interest survey anything science, Legos, etc. writing because doesn’t feel confident
Motivation: attitude Likes to receive books as gifts, Does not like to read aloud or answer
Elementary reading attitude start a new book, and read on a questions about reading for fear of
Survey variety of nonfiction topics messing up or being laughed at by
classmates. Needs to build confidence!
Standardized test Chronological age: 9 years, Average on oral vocabulary While vocabulary is average for age, based
5 months on the PPVT, his growth from last year
Peabody picture vocabulary Stanine 6 and 61st percentile. Age is only 7 months. He needs to do more
test (PPVT) (tests oral equivalent 9 years, 11 months. wide reading. He tends to only read on
vocabulary) Last year, also received stanine of specific nonfiction subjects. Needs to be
6, 66 percentile, and age exposed to other vocabulary
equivalence of 9 years,
4 months)
Comprehension: Reading Grade 1 Can successfully read Grade 2 (level) should be used for
Level QRI, DRA, or other Fluency – independent independently and comprehend instruction due to comprehension
Comprehension – independent first grade passages questions, retelling, fluency, and
predictions
Qualitative reading Grade 2 Grade 2 passages are the level that Shows frustration on implicit questions
inventory (QRI) Fluency – instructional is best (answers that are implied or inferred).
Comprehension – instructional Needs to work on inferences
Retelling – 45% Needs to improve fluency
Correct predictions – 66%
Grade 3
Fluency – instructional
Comprehension – instructional
MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
Retelling – 55%
Correct predictions – 83%
Fluency Word reading fluency Level 3.9 Feeling more confident and Often misses words completely or
(grade 3, 9th month) 54 WCPM learning from errors made the completely substitutes other words,
Easy curriculum based Passage reading fluency Level 4.1 day before which changes meaning of the passage.
measurement (easy (Grade 4, 1st month) 74 Sometimes, skips whole lines of text and
CBM) WCPM does not realize he has not read it
Words correct per minute
(WCPM)
Spelling Spelling stage: Within word Independent-level features: Frustration-level features:
pattern – middle
10/25 Power score Initial and final consonants, short Other vowels, inflected endings, syllable
40/62 Feature points vowels, digraphs, blends, junctures, unaccented final syllables,
Elementary spelling Total 50/87 common long vowels harder suffixes, bases and roots
inventory
Phonemic awareness/phonics Scored nearly perfect on basic Knows words that follow basic Observed behavior – having trouble with
Phonics survey (letter/ phonics/letter recognition/ phonetic words and have one multiple syllable words, chunking and
sound recognition) sounds short or one long vowel recognizing common prefixes and
suffixes
Observations of reading Relates information to prior Inserts or deletes words when reading and
Observation checklist of knowledge and commonly has trouble decoding longer words.
student’s expository shares what else he knows on Commonly loses place while reading. If
reading subject reading. He reads every asked for name of text feature, cannot
bit of page, including captions recall, but can point to it if name is given
and titles
Book preference test Opens books, reads front cover, Only chose nonfiction text and graphic
flips through books and reads novels to read. Each chapter book he
parts and checks out different judged solely by its cover and never read
Coaching for Success: UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy
text features the back of the book

Text feature assessment Print features (title, heading/ Correctly identifies: Trouble identifying: heading/subheading,
subheading, bold print, italics, italics, pronunciation guide, sidebar,
caption, pronunciation guide, cross section/cutaway, and labeled
bullets, sidebar) diagram
Identifies 4/8, knows purpose 5/8, Title, bold print, caption, bullets, Cannot explain purpose of:bold print,
applies 6/8 photograph, drawing, inset, pronunciation guide, bullets, labeled
diagram, map, graph, timeline, diagram, chart/table, and index
chart/table, table of contents,
73
index, glossary
Organizational features (table of Correctly explains purpose of:
contents, index, glossary)
74
Table 3. (Continued )
Student’s Name: Tom Student’s Age/Grade: 9/Grade 4 Gender: M
Area Assessed/Tool Used Results Student’s Strengths Student’s Needs
Identifies 3/3, knows purpose 2/3, Title, heading/subheading, italics, Cannot apply knowledge when reading:
applies 2/3 caption, sidebar, photograph, pronunciation guide, bullets,
drawing, inset, cross section/ photograph, labeled diagram, chart/
cutaway, diagram, map, graph, table, and index
timeline, table of contents,
glossary
Graphic features (photograph, Can correctly apply when reading:
drawing, inset, cross section/ Identifies 8/10, knows purpose 8/
cutaway, diagram, labeled 10, applies 7/10
Title, heading/subheading, diagram, map, graph, time line,
bold print, italics, chart/table)
caption, sidebar, table of
contents, glossary,
drawing, inset, cross
section/cutaway,
diagram, map, graph,
and time line
Possible Focus for Future Instruction (based on data): He needs lots of word work on vowel combinations (oi, ea, ee, oo) and blends so that he
can feel confident while reading. He overly relies on sight words and needs to work on word families. He has a hard time knowing how to
sound out words and would benefit from lessons on chunking words and breaking words into syllables or manageable parts. He needs a lot of
help on spelling and sentence construction. He could benefit by working to have better tracking skills because he commonly deletes or adds
words when reading and loses his place or skips a whole line and doesn’t realize he has skipped a line. He could also benefit from a lesson on
book choice so that he is not picking out books that are too hard and giving up, or the same genre of books over and over. He needs more help
on fluency and can benefit from reading into a microphone and taping his readings and then listening to them as well as reading out loud at
home or doing repeated readings with poetry. In addition, he needs to practice making inferences and retelling to improve on his
comprehension.
MICHELLE KELLEY AND TAYLAR WENZEL
because it is assessment which drives instruction and informs the teacher about what
skills a student lacks
–Pre-Service Teacher Reflection
To coach students in the data analysis process, we designate data

conference meeting times with each clinician so that they can present their
data conference forms, demonstrate their comprehensive knowledge of the
child that they are working with, and share their perceived focus areas
for instruction. To support clinicians in these processes needed to create
individual instructional plans for each child, we use a specific data con-
ference protocol. This element of the reading clinic is one example of more
formal coaching practices, as represented in Level 2 of Bean’s Coaching
Complexity Model. In preparation for the data conference, we discuss with
the clinicians that the expected presentation of student data is very similar to
what they might expect in their school buildings, and is actually a process
that they may be leading once in the coaching role at their school site. Thus,
clinicians learn that the analysis and presentation of student assessment
data are not only a reading clinic requirement but also a necessary skill
for a successful educator and reading coach in today’s schools. At each
designated data conference, we begin by giving the clinician an opportunity
to present their assessment selections, results, and interpretations. In
addition to the data conference form, each clinician brings all of the raw
assessment data so that we can review their assessment results and accuracy
of administration if necessary. Through selective questioning and probing,
we help to ensure that the assessment data collected is accurate, valid, and
reliable. In this process, it is sometimes necessary for clinicians to administer
additional assessments after the conference and meet with us again before
moving forward. Thus, while we use specific protocol in the data conference
process, the outcome for each clinician is truly differentiated based on their
case. As we coach the clinicians in triangulating their data, they determine
the most critical area for instructional focus and target 2–3 instructional
goals, which will frame their tutoring emphasis in the clinic.
COACHING THE TUTORING DELIVERY PROCESS

I used different types of texts that appealed to his interests, including cartoons from
newspapers, informational texts pertaining to his favorite animal, and books with
humorous plots and characters. I was eager each session to see whether or not he enjoyed
what I had planned, and then reflecting on it for my next session as to whether or not
I should do something similar.
– Pre-Service Teacher Reflection
In the corequisite and prerequisite courses to the practicum, we empha-

size and encourage clinicians to carefully consider students’ motivational
profiles when selecting tutoring materials and making decisions about
instructional delivery (Fig. 2). This includes supporting clinicians to consider
grade level/age expectations and knowledge of grade level benchmarks
as indicated in Florida’s Next Generation Sunshine State Standards and
the Common Core State Standards as they develop lessons. To further
facilitate their tutoring, we have accumulated a variety of materials and
resources that are available to clinicians so they are able to differentiate
their instruction (see Fig. 5). These materials range from magnetic letters
and whiteboards to premade lessons and reader theater scripts. When
clinicians arrive to tutor, they are greeted by a message board (see Fig. 3)
posted in a central area, which allows us to communicate important
information. We monitor undergraduate students’ instructional decisions
Fig. 2. Clinic Resources: Trade Books.

Fig. 3. Clinic Resources: Big Books and Leveled Readers.
Fig. 4. Clinic Observation Devices.
and provide them with specific feedback via a tutoring form they complete
per session (Fig. 4). In contrast, our graduate students complete a weekly
report using their expertise to develop an effective lesson format for their
students based on assessment data and motivational factors.
The clinic is housed in the UCF Teaching Academy where we have access
to classroom space and lounge areas for tutoring (see Fig. 5). Additionally,
we have three individual clinic rooms that have mirrored glass and video
cameras, which allow us to observe tutoring sessions without causing any
distractions from our presence (since they are unable to see us). Television
monitors via video feed allow us to choose our viewing method (through the
mirrored window or on TV) and let us listen in on the tutoring session. At
this point in the coaching process, our involvement becomes more formal,
aligned with Level 3 of Bean’s Coaching Complexity Model. To assist us in
the observation process and to model a true coaching experience, we have
developed an observational protocol (Table 4). Prior to observing students,
we have them identify what they want us to pay attention to, and whether
they are assessing or delivering instruction. During the lesson we take
related notes and after the lesson they are asked to self-reflect on the
Fig. 5. Daily Clinician Message Board.

Table 4. RED 6846 Observation Form (completed).

Graduate Student ________________________ Date ___________________
Observation (check one): _____ Assessment
X Instruction
Goal of session: I want to improve the overall delivery of a lesson on making connections to a text
when reading, specifically I want them to go deeper with their connections.
What went really well What I would do differently
Students were engaged in the book because Choose a book on their independent
they were interested in the topic reading level so we can focus on the
strategy instead of decoding
Students understood the lesson content. We Connect their connections to higher level
continued to practice after the observation questions. Ex- Asking, why does it make
and it became easier for them you think of that? Why is that connection
important to under standing the text?
Model my own connections to the text to
show them how to go deeper
Overall: What I have learned about teaching and/or assessing readingy. I have learned you must
remember the purpose of the lesson when choosing a text to use. One of my students spent so
much time decoding it was nearly impossible for him to make connections while reading.
Normally for guided reading I would use an instructional text but to teach them the strategy I
needed to have them in an easier text. Text level must be considered. I have also learned I need to
spend more time questioning and probing my students to encourage a deeper connection rather
than being satisfied with a surface connection. I also need to model my use of the strategy so they
can see how I use it. My own connections were weak and could have been better explained. I will
continue to use this strategy with my clinical students.
Dr. Kelley’s reflections: Excellent job stating the learning goal and I thought your examples were
helpful. I do believe that you could have asked them what they knew already about making
connections (accessing their background knowledge to build upon). I agree with your analysis,
the text was too difficult and decoding efforts interfered with their ability to make meaningful
connections. I would’ve asked them, ‘‘How does that connection help you to remember the text
or understand the text better?’’ to get them to go deeper.
observation, highlighting what went well and what they might do differently
if given the opportunity. Additionally, they are asked to contextualize their
experience to what they have learned about assessing and teaching reading.
When they have completed their self-reflection, they meet with us, sharing
their thoughts and learning. We add our observations, including providing
positive and constructive feedback.
Table 5. Week 1 Parent Update.

This week y. We worked on improving oral fluency in two ways: word reading with a high
frequency word list and by reading several passages on his reading level. We are reading the
same passages/word list each day this week and graphing our scores each day. He is so excited
to see his improvement!
While working on vocabulary development, we have been practicing our homophones (words
that sound the same, but are spelled differently) and remembering which one to use at specific
times. We have also been working with the spelling of words he has found difficult,
specifically the Long-A sound spelled with ‘‘ay,’’ ‘‘ey,’’ and ‘‘ei,’’ and working with words that
have the sounds ‘‘ow’’ and ‘‘ou.’’
As we practice comprehension skills, we are reading a new novel called Wall Ball, which is a
part of The Super Sluggers series by Kevin Markey. Before reading, we set a purpose for
reading and discuss our predictions each day. During reading, we have been stopping
periodically to write down questions we might have thought while we read and place them on
a sticky note. This helps to stay focus and encourage understanding and deep thinking. After
reading, we have been deciding on the most important events to retell in a summary. When he
comes to a word he does not know or recognize, we use one of several strategies. We either
break the word apart, skip the word and go back and try to see if we can name it using the
context clues (other words in the sentence), or we try to use our word knowledge to sound out
the word. We have also been evaluating nonfiction text structure and features using science
books on mummies, hurricanes, and Jackie Robinson.
Next week we willy. Continue to work on word reading fluency and passage reading fluency
with a new set of high-frequency words and a new passage that we will track all week long.
We will also be working on prosody, which is reading using proper expression and
remembering to stop at a period and pause at a comma, by working on a reader’s theater
play. We will continue to read Wall Ball, as well as nonfiction books too and specifically work
on making connections while we read.
Suggestions for the weekendy. He will bring home his chapter book Wall Ball and read
chapters 4&5 either independently or aloud to you. He will have a few sticky notes with him
to practice writing down questions as he is reading. We will use those questions and discuss
them on Monday. If he has a question about a word, please encourage him to use a strategy
we have been learning such as:
Break a word apart.
Sound the word out.
Skip the word and then go back and try to figure it out using context clues.
Replace the word with a likely synonym.
When he is finished reading, ask him some specific questions. As a guide, here are some
questions that you may use:
What is the problem in the story?
How are they working to solve the problem?
What are some character traits of the main character?
Can you summarize what has happened in the story so far?
What do you predict will happen next?
If you should have any questions, please feel free to contact me at _______________. Have a
wonderful and safe weekend! Mrs. Vaughn
Because the summer clinic is completed over a three-week period, the

graduate clinicians are also required to complete a weekly update to parents.
This allows us to monitor the tutoring process and provide clinicians with
further feedback (Table 5) including suggestions related to their next steps,
Fig. 6. Developing Readers Tutoring Form (completed).

Fig. 6. (Continued)
which may include feeding them a specific strategy or resource to assist them
in the tutoring process. Additionally, we may recommend further assess-
ment based on preliminary findings or inconsistent student performance
during instruction.
COACHING BEYOND THE CLINIC

Ms. Jessica has been WONDERFUL! I have already found Isabella using some newly
introduced tactics, i.e. text coding. Isabella is learning not only to read books but to
question herself as she reads to make sure she understands what she has read. Parent
Recognizing the significant role parent(s) play in the literacy process, we

have emphasized the relationship between the clinician and parent
throughout the practicum. In addition to the weekly updates we described
earlier, all clinicians are required to complete an end of practicum summary
and conference with their students’ parent(s) (see Fig. 6). At this point, the
clinicians serve as coaches to the parents. During the conference, the
clinician explains what they have been doing during the tutoring sessions,
shares pre-post assessment data, and provides the parent(s) with concrete
activities and suggestions to support their child at home (see Fig. 7).
At the graduate level, to further support families, we have recently added
the development of a Family Literacy Workshop. This assignment is
completed in the spring prerequisite course prior to the practicum and then
tweaked during the practicum as a center activity that engages on the last
day of the clinic. During this culminating celebration, students and their
families rotate from center to center in order to learn easy, fun ways they
Fig. 7. Tutor and Students.

Fig. 8. Parent Summary At-Home Take-Away Materials.
can continue literacy learning at home, based on the selected activities

planned and delivered by the clinicians (Fig. 7 and 8).
CONCLUSION
After only three years of development, we now consider the student
requirements in the UCF Enrichment Programs in Literacy to be one of the
most powerful instructional and experiential components of our graduate
and undergraduate reading education curricula. By serving as clinicians, our
students have authentic teaching opportunities in a supported environment
where they can engage in problem solving with faculty, peers, and children’s
families.
Beyond a standard field experience, student clinicians receive feedback
and coaching in a unique setting and through a deliberate model that has
proven to extend their skills in reading assessment, diagnosis, and
instructional delivery for three consecutive years based on the postadminis-
tration of the Self-Assessment of Proficiency in Reading Diagnosis. The clinic
experience also promotes self-reflection and collaborative professional

learning and provides mentoring experiences that can be replicated in
school and district settings by graduate student clinicians as they acquire
new leadership roles and responsibilities. Simultaneously, the programs
offer consistent, affordable instructional support in literacy for children and
families in the community, a service that appears to be invaluable gauging
by how quickly enrollment reaches capacity each semester.
An emerging component of the reading clinic, piloted in Summer 2012,
involves the development of an on-site database to record the pre- and
postassessment data of participating students in the reading clinic.
Diagnostic and progress monitoring data stored in this portal can be
accessed by clinicians and supervising faculty, and may be used for a variety
of purposes, including (1) to provide a record of reading assessment results
for children enrolled in the clinic across multiple sessions in order to inform
the data collection needs at the beginning of a given clinic term and 2) to aid
in the evaluation of instructional effectiveness at the student level, which
provides an additional indicator for program evaluation and offers
increased quantitative data that can be presented to funding sources in
the future to potentially expand clinic offerings.
As faculty, the literacy programs further offer us an opportunity for
professional development and self-reflection, as we continuously examine
the efforts from our early successes and make refinements to future
iterations of the clinic and camp offerings. We remain eager and dedicated
to intensify our coaching model across each level of coaching complexity as
we prepare high-quality literacy educators and reading coaches who are
already having a significant impact on student achievement.
REFERENCES
Bean, R. M. (2004). Promoting effective literacy instruction: The challenge for literacy coaches.
The California Reader, 37(3), 58–63.
International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle and high school literacy
coaches. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (IRA).
International Reading Association (in press). An update: Roles and responsibilities of reading
specialists/literacy coaches. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (IRA).
International Reading Association (IRA). (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading
coach in the United States (Position statement). Retrieved from http://www.reading.org/
downloads/positions/ps1065_reading_coach.pdf. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association (IRA).
Nowak, R. (2003). The discourse of literacy coaching: Teacher-coach interactions during a

summer school practicum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Shearer, A. P., & Homan, S. P. (1996). Self-assessment of proficiency in reading diagnosis.
Toll, C. A. (2005). The literacy coach’s survival guide: Essential questions and practical answers.
CREATING AN OPTIMAL
LEARNING ENVIRONMENT FOR
STRUGGLING READERS
Rose Marie Codling
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter describes a university-based reading clinic for

struggling readers. Created over 40 years ago, this reading clinic
continually evolves as it is founded on well-grounded theory and the
most current research. The purpose of the chapter is to explain this
foundation and how it has informed the structure and day-to-day
operations of a successful clinic program.
Methodology/approach – The reading clinic described in this chapter is
based largely on the theoretical premises of self-determination theory.
This theory has been widely researched in a variety of fields and contexts,
including educational settings. Self-determination theory research and
reading research, conducted from a multitude of perspectives, provide
support for appropriate practices designed to create a motivating
classroom environment.
Practical implications – The ideas presented in this chapter show how
research and theory can be successfully applied to classroom settings. The
author describes various ways in which the theory and research have led to

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002008
87
88 ROSE MARIE CODLING
specific, practical decisions in the reading clinic setting. Broadening the

use of these practices to regular classroom contexts is also discussed.
Social implications – Despite research that has established how teachers
can create a meaningful, motivating classroom environment, unsound
practices continue to be used in classrooms everywhere. If, as most
educators claim, we want students to become independent thinkers who
are able to contribute meaningfully to society, then we need to seriously
examine the controlling, performance-oriented, competitive practices that
are typical in many classrooms today. We must move toward creating
classrooms where the focus is on learning and where children enjoy
ownership of the learning process. This chapter describes a program for
struggling readers that operates from this stance.
Keywords: Reading motivation; struggling readers
Luke is a kinetic learner who excels at all things physical, and normally summer is a
series of soccer, basketball and swimming camps and trips y. Initially he was upset
about the news [that he would be attending the reading clinic] but knows he needs to be a
better reader, and now we get to the point of my note: I’m just amazed at how much he
likes it! I can’t say that he has been converted instantly to a consumer of thick novels, but
he has left the program almost every day talking about a new trick or technique he can
use to enhance his reading. The program appears to have been targeted perfectly to his
individual level, his issues, and his subject matter interests. I’m so relieved that he has
enjoyed it, and I think we both know that he will be much more prepared for sixth grade
than he would have been otherwise. (Post-program parent letter)
Mr. Wallace’s letter echoes what I often hear from parents of children in
our reading clinic. Parents are doing everything they can to help. Children
are frustrated and reluctant to attend ‘‘summer’’ school, which seems like a
punishment. These are children who work diligently and put much effort
into their work, but who are, in the end, only minimally successful and they
don’t understand why.
While their academic difficulties may be obvious, affective factors that are
not always as visible are powerful influences. Whether teachers explicitly tell
them that they are not trying, other children tease them for stumbling over
words, or parents subtly imply their disappointment, struggling readers get
messages about themselves that they internalize. Even if teachers do not pick
up on the subtle ways in which they are not quite ‘‘getting it,’’ these students
quietly suffer, believing that they are not as smart as their classmates.
Creating an Optimal Learning Environment for Struggling Readers 89
Because the affective domain is so salient for struggling readers, any

instructional environment must help them to feel better about themselves
and encourage them to take risks that will enable them to become better,
more motivated readers. The University of Maryland Reading Clinic is such
an environment and I have been fortunate to see energetic, bright struggling
readers such as Luke thrive there and begin to read for pleasure. This is an
exciting outcome given that research has established the importance of wide
reading (Anderson, Wilson, & Fielding, 1988; Cunningham & Stanovich,
2003; Taylor, Frye, & Maruyama, 1990) and the positive influence of
intrinsic motivation on time spent reading and reading comprehension
(Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, & Cox, 1999; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). These
findings provide a strong rationale for an environment that promotes
intrinsic motivation for reading as a high priority within the context of a
strong instructional program.
Despite the findings linking reading achievement, reading amount, and
intrinsic motivation, there is little evidence that research in the area of
reading motivation has had any widespread impact on classroom practices
(Fawson & Moore, 1999; Hoffman, Huff, Patterson, & Nietfeld, 2009). I
continually go into classroom settings where I observe teachers rely heavily
on external rewards, encourage competition among students, and provide
few opportunities for students to read. Some teachers say that children are
not motivated, that they are lazy, or that they do not care. But talk with
children about their reading and you find that many of them do indeed like
to read and read outside of school for pleasure. In some instances, teachers
genuinely want to provide relevant, motivating reading experiences, but
their hands are tied by external, politically motivated influences. Whatever
the cause, I propose that typical classroom environments are not structured
in such a way that reading motivation is evident or facilitated.
Luke’s experience in our reading clinic is not unusual. In fact, it is what
we plan for and what we expect for every child. I begin this chapter by
describing the theory and research base that undergird the University of
Maryland Reading Clinic program. I then focus on reading motivation
research within this larger context and describe the practical applications of
the theory and research findings to our program.
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
Self-determination theory (SDT) provides a solid foundation for the

University of Maryland Reading Clinic. The theory has been tested over
more than three decades and has evolved to explain much about human
behavior. Self-determination (SD) can be described as a state in which an
individual operates from a stance of awareness, reflection, and control (Deci
& Ryan, 2000). Self-determined individuals are confident and have a strong
inner sense of themselves. They possess a level of control over their own lives
that enables them to make decisions and act in ways that are in accord with
their personal values. This state engenders in the individual a sense of
satisfaction and fulfillment that leads to well-being. In studies across a
variety of domains and cultures, SD has been associated with general well-
being, challenge-seeking, adaptability, persistence, and creativity (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2006; Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008; Vallerand,
Pelletier, & Koestner, 2008). When SD is undermined or thwarted, the result
can be dysfunction and maladaptive behavior. These findings extend to
children and to educational settings, highlighting the value of applying SDT
to school environments.
A fundamental assumption of SDT is that humans are innately inclined to
strive for well-being. The theory posits that we naturally attempt to integrate
our life experiences in ways that help us to grow emotionally and
psychologically and to develop a strong sense of ourselves. A strong sense of
self enables us to act confidently and competently in accord with our own
knowledge, beliefs, and values. This strong inner core then enables us to
continuously integrate new experiences as we face challenges and strive toward
our potential. Critically important, the theory also holds that individuals
operate within a social context that greatly influences actions. It is the constant
interplay between the innate human striving for well-being and factors in the
environment that determines whether or not an individual will become self-
determined. The following discussion highlights aspects of SDT that have
direct applicability to school contexts. Of particular importance are (1) the
external regulation of behavior, (2) basic psychological needs, (3) influences on
intrinsic motivation, and (4) teachers’ autonomy support.
Regulation of Behavior by External Means
Once thought of as a dichotomy, researchers have demonstrated that

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are complex, interactive constructs (Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Research also finds that people have many motivations for their
actions and that externally oriented motivations can vary in terms of the
control they exert (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). A subtheory of SDT,
Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), posits that extrinsic and intrinsic

motivations are more appropriately placed on a continuum. At one end of
the continuum is amotivation, which SD theorists consider the absence of
motivation. At the opposite end of the continuum is intrinsic motivation, the
type of internal motivation that is based on deeply held personal interests.
Between the extremes of amotivation and intrinsic motivation, one finds
varying forms of external influence.
External regulation is the most controlling form of motivation. In this
category, an individual is unwilling to engage in a task except for the
promise of some external reward. (‘‘I will read for exactly 15 minutes after
school because I can’t go out to play until I do.’’) These behaviors are
devoid of SD as they are completely regulated by separate, external
pressure. Introjected regulation, also a form of extrinsic motivation, is less
controlling but still not self-determined because the individual feels
pressured to act. (‘‘I will read for 15 minutes after school because my
teacher will be disappointed in me if I don’t.’’) With this type of motivation,
individuals act in order to avoid feelings that affect their inner sense of
themselves. Not engaging in the desired behavior might mean looking stupid
or being shamed.
The third point on the autonomy continuum is identified regulation. In
this context, the individual begins to recognize that the targeted task will
lead to some end result that has value. (‘‘I will read this book on electricity
because it has information that I need to write my science report.’’) The
individual engages in the uninteresting task acknowledging that it is
instrumental to some other end. The next point, integrated regulation, is the
most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation. Within this category fall
behaviors that an individual recognizes as important and personally
beneficial making engagement volitional. (‘‘I will read this book about
video games because playing video games is my hobby.’’) The difference
between identified and integrated regulation is that when integrated the
individual fully endorses the activity as important and valuable. Even so,
when integrated, engagement occurs for instrumental reasons, which is what
distinguishes it from intrinsic motivation. Intrinsically motivated behavior is
done strictly as a result of interest in the task itself. (‘‘I love to read and I will
read this book right now even if it makes me late for school!’’)
With the exception of amotivation, each form of regulation will result in
motivated action. However, external and introjected motivations are not
self-determined because they are viewed as controlling. Identified and
integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation are seen as amenable to the
individual’s control, making them self-determined.
Central to this discussion is the SDT concept of internalization.

Internalization is a process whereby individuals, influenced by supports in
the social environment, recognize the value or importance of an activity that
they do not find inherently interesting. The movement to identifying or
integrating an extrinsic motivation enables individuals to endorse the
behavior so that they can feel comfortable engaging in it. Even though not
intrinsically motivated, the individual is able to reconcile the behavior to his/
her own personal values (Koestner & Losier, 2002).
As an example, a teacher determines that limited knowledge of high
frequency sight words is slowing students down as they read aloud. The
teacher could reward students with stickers for studying words on cards.
Alternatively, she could explain that rapid identification of sight words will
make them stronger readers so that they can read the Harry Potter books
they aspire to read. According to SDT, internalization is more likely to
occur with the second approach. While students may not be intrinsically
motivated to practice sight words, the second approach would help them to
see the value in the practice so that they might be more willing to engage.
Factors in the social environment that influence internalization take many
forms. This influence could be encouragement from a parent to persist even
though the homework is challenging or a reminder from the teacher to use a
strategy that has been taught. Additionally, research shows that when a task
has been acknowledged by others in the social environment as tedious or
difficult, individuals will feel more autonomous. Similarly, when the
rationale for a task is understood, individuals are more likely to identify
or integrate an external regulation. This type of supportive interaction and
encouragement facilitates the process of internalization. There will always
be activities that are necessary but that students may not find interesting.
The process of internalization is instrumental in these instances when
students are not intrinsically motivated for important tasks.
Basic Needs
The second relevant subtheory of SDT is basic needs theory. SDT asserts that
there exist in human beings three universal, psychological needs – autonomy,
competence, and relatedness – and that these needs are essential to the
development of SD. A social context that supports these needs facilitates SD.
Autonomy
The first need, autonomy, refers to individuals’ perceptions that their actions
are within their own control. Sometimes an autonomous person chooses
actions strictly for personally valuable, intrinsic reasons, but in any culture
or social situation, an individual’s actions will be influenced by external
factors as well. A tenth grader might prefer to watch TV, but she instead
opts to read with the family in order to provide a positive role model for her
younger sister. This scenario shows how an individual may participate in
activities for reasons that are externally oriented, yet still feel autonomous.
To be autonomous does not mean being oblivious to external factors while
pursuing personal satisfaction. Autonomy means being able to endorse
one’s own actions whether their source is externally- or internally-derived
(Ryan & Deci, 2006).
Competence
The second universal psychological need identified in SDT is competence.
Individuals must possess the skills and knowledge necessary for success, but
they must also perceive themselves to be capable. Perceptions of their own
competence will determine whether individuals will even attempt a task. A
strong sense of self-competence also enables an individual to manage novel
or challenging situations. A long line of research supports the conclusion
that perceptions of competence exert powerful influence on an individual’s
motivation (Schunk & Pajares, 2009).
Relatedness
Relatedness is the need to have social relationships that are perceived as
nurturing and supportive. When the environment supports relatedness,
individuals develop trust and feel safe to take risks. Relatedness is
particularly important with regard to the internalization process. It is
through the example, enthusiasm, or encouragement of trusted significant
others in the environment that individuals begin to identify and integrate
external regulations.
Taken together, the three needs provide a particularly useful framework for
examining a classroom environment. An environment that supports indivi-
duals’ basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness is one that will
facilitate internalization and intrinsic motivation. Conversely, if the environ-
ment does not support these needs, the development of SD will be derailed.
Influences on Intrinsic Motivation
Over the last 40 years, many studies have explored factors that influence
motivation. The subtheory of SDT called Cognitive Evaluation Theory
(CET), explains how intrinsic motivation is influenced by individuals’

perceptions of their own autonomy and competence. Research has found
that when individuals enjoy agency around their own decisions and
behavior, intrinsic motivation is enhanced. Similarly, intrinsic motivation
increases when individuals feel capable and self-confident. The influence of
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation is closely associated with
autonomy and competence perceptions and has particular relevance to the
present discussion. That is, CET predicts that extrinsic rewards will be
detrimental to intrinsic motivation if they are viewed as controlling and
threaten autonomy, whereas they may be received more positively if they
affirm an individual’s perceptions of competence.
Despite a substantial amount of study, the wisdom of using tangible
external rewards and incentives continues to be contentiously debated
(Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a; Deci, Koestner,
& Ryan, 1999b; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996; Lepper, Henderlong, &
Gingras, 1999; Ryan & Deci, 1996). This conversation is of critical
importance given the widespread use of external inducements designed to
influence children in schools (Fawson & Moore,1999; Hoffman et al., 2009).
Cameron and Pierce (1994) concluded from a meta-analysis of 96 studies
that external rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Deci et al.
(1999b) criticized the Cameron and Pierce meta-analysis, citing methodo-
logical flaws that obscured several significant findings. For example,
Cameron and Pierce claimed that there were no negative effects of rewards
on intrinsic motivation. When Deci, Koestner, and Ryan conducted a more
fine-tuned analysis, separating expected and unexpected rewards into
different categories, the findings indicated that there was indeed an
undermining effect on intrinsic motivation for expected tangible rewards.
Particularly damaging were rewards that were contingent on performance
and not received by all subjects. Whereas Cameron and Pierce reported that
verbal rewards enhanced intrinsic motivation, the Deci et al. (1999b)
procedure of separating verbal rewards into controlling versus informa-
tional demonstrated a significant undermining effect for controlling
feedback.
These findings have special significance when considering teachers’ practices
related to intrinsic motivation and the use of external inducements. Fawson
and Moore (1999) found that among their sample, 100% of principals
reported having an incentive plan in place in their school, while 95% of
teachers reported the same. Hoffman et al. (2009) reported that, of the teachers
they surveyed, 100% reported using rewards in the classroom. As many as
91% reported using tangible rewards at least monthly and 100% used written
or verbal praise on a weekly basis. The widespread use of incentives in schools

shows why it is imperative for researchers and teachers to consider the impact
of external influences on students’ autonomy and competence.
Teachers’ Autonomy Support
Studies have shown that autonomy-supportive teachers use fewer tangible,

external incentives to encourage behavior and have been observed to create
learning- versus performance-oriented classrooms (Reeve & Jang, 2006;
Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004). This research has identified teacher
practices that promote SD. Autonomy-supportive teachers (1) nurture and
capitalize on children’s intrinsic motivation and interests, (2) encourage
students with feedback that provides information to help students be reflective
and take ownership of their learning, (3) acknowledge students’ negative
reactions or resistance, and (4) provide explanations that help students to
identify with the behavior at least to some extent. Becoming autonomy-
supportive requires teachers to carefully consider the students’ perspective. It
may require a new way of thinking about how to interact with students.
To summarize, SDT provides a foundation that is highly appropriate for
educational settings. First, OIT tells us that the more controlling external
regulations are perceived to be the less autonomous the individual feels.
Through a process termed internalization, however, behaviors emanating
from external origins may be viewed as valuable, which enables the
individual to identify with them enough to engage willingly. Second, basic
needs theory provides a useful framework for critiquing the social
environment to see if it facilitates SD by meeting individuals’ needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Third, CET provides insights
about what influences intrinsic motivation, including the use of rewards and
praise in classroom settings. Finally, teachers can learn to create an
autonomy-supportive environment that will facilitate their students’ SD.
The foundation of SDT merges well with reading motivation research to
guide decisions about classroom contexts.
READING MOTIVATION
Literature on reading motivation was scant until the mid 1990s, but a robust
body of research now provides helpful insights about motivation related
specifically to reading. Much of this work coincides with SDT research and
many of the findings are compatible with the tenets of SDT. For example,
reading researchers have established that individuals have many motivations
for reading and that these motivations take many forms (Guthrie et al.,
2007; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997). These researchers have identified intrin-
sically oriented motivations such as curiosity, interest, self-efficacy, prefer-
ence for challenge, social factors, and knowledge seeking. They have also
identified extrinsically oriented motivations such as public recognition,
competition, reward, and compliance.
Several studies have confirmed the positive influence of intrinsic
motivation on reading achievement. Turner (1995) found that among first
graders, open tasks (authentic, moderately challenging tasks that provided
meaningful opportunities to apply strategies) were associated with higher
motivation demonstrated by increased engagement, strategy use, and
persistence when faced with challenge. Similarly, Gambrell, Palmer,
Codling, and Mazzoni (1996) established that elementary students’ reading
motivation was influenced by opportunities for challenge and choice. The
social nature of reading was a constant theme in this study. Additionally,
when children who were identified by their teachers as unmotivated were
asked by researchers about what they like to read, they often gave detailed
descriptions of things they were reading outside of school. Meece and Miller
(1999) found that when third- and fifth-grade teachers focused on increasing
social interaction and providing choices and challenging tasks, the
classroom became learning-oriented versus performance oriented.
Concept Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI) is an example of how
research findings on motivation and reading have been effectively applied to
classroom settings. CORI integrates science and literacy instruction through
conceptual themes and is characterized by instructional support (explicit
reading strategy instruction and hands-on activities) and motivation support
(opportunities for self-directed learning and social interaction). A range of
CORI studies has consistently found high correlations between intrinsic
motivation and reading amount, curiosity, comprehension, reading engage-
ment, strategy learning, and strategy use (Guthrie et al., 1996; Guthrie,
Wigfield, & VonSecker, 2000; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Many recent studies have confirmed and extended our understanding of the
positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and reading achievement,
and despite differing philosophical orientations of reading researchers, many
of their findings are consistent with the findings of SDT (Becker, McElvany, &
Kortenbruck, 2010; Logan, Medford, & Hughes, 2011; Mason, Meadan,
Hedin, & Cramer, 2012; Paige, 2011; Park, 2011). Reading motivation
research, notably conducted in authentic classrooms, confirms the feasibility of
applying SDT in elementary classroom settings. That is, reading motivation

research supports the assertion that a context that supports autonomy,
competence, and relatedness will facilitate intrinsic motivation.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND READING CLINIC
Based on the excellent explanatory power of SDT and the research on intrinsic
motivation and reading, we have a strong foundation for creating a
productive, motivating literacy program in our reading clinic. The next
section highlights aspects of our program that are founded on this theory and
research base.
The University of Maryland Reading Clinic is the practicum for master’s
degree candidates pursuing reading specialist certification. Our program
consists of 33 credits in reading and related areas. Most of our candidates
are part-time students and full-time classroom teachers and they take one
course at a time. Once they complete the prerequisites, the final clinic
sequence involves a fall semester course on advanced diagnostic assessment
followed by the spring semester course on advanced instructional practices.
Candidates are then prepared for the reading clinic that takes place in the
summer. The clinic is a 6-week teaching experience and is the equivalent of 6
credit hours. Children attend the program three mornings per week. This
leaves afternoons for the teachers to reflect together on the day and plan
subsequent lessons. We also have whole group seminars where candidates
present individual student cases for discussion.
During the 6-week summer clinic, teachers coteach groups of 12 children.
The overarching goal of our program is to help students become more
strategic, motivated, and reflective (Lipson & Wixson, 2008). This means
that we focus on both the cognitive aspects of their literacy difficulties and
the motivation issues that accompany them. Our instructional program is
designed around students’ individual needs, which are identified during a
diagnostic screening. We provide explicit instruction in research-based
literacy strategies and students learn about the utility of strategies as we
facilitate their independent application to authentic reading contexts.
Carefully assessing students’ reading levels to ensure that they have access
to appropriate materials, we create an environment that is designed to
optimize their learning.
Each aspect of the program is carefully considered to determine how it
meets students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When it
comes to instruction, for example, SDT would suggest that instructional
tasks are designed to include meaningful, interesting topics, supporting

autonomy. Competence support would be ensured by instruction that is
explicit and based on individual needs. Finally, a lesson environment that
has a learning orientation in which students support each other and learn
from each other would be supportive of students’ need for relatedness.
Examining each aspect of the program from this framework ensures that the
students’ needs will be explicitly addressed.
The following section describes five major aspects of our program. These
include developing and maintaining relationships; access, interest, and
choice in the clinic environment; our reading motivation plan; explicit
instruction; and assessment.
Developing and Maintaining Relationships
Interviews with students during the diagnostic screening provide teachers

with an opportunity to become acquainted with students. The teachers share
information about themselves and learn about students’ school experiences,
leisure activities, and interests. These interests become a starting place for
planning the instructional program.
In the clinic, the students’ input is important in creating the environment.
We want them to realize that this is a learning environment and that they
have a certain level of control over what happens here.
It began as a language experience lesson. Miss Diane said, ‘‘Let’s talk about what kind of
classroom you want to have.’’ As children shared ideas, Diane recorded them on chart
paper. ‘‘Let’s read it together to be sure it’s what you meant to say. y OK, grab a
marker and come on up and sign your name.’’ ‘‘Why are we signing it?’’ Wesley asked.
She responded, ‘‘Because you own it! This is your classroom and this document tells
what you want it to be. You are the authors. It’s yours! You own it!’’As they all willingly
went up to sign, the faces seemed to say, ‘‘Well, this is not what I’m used to, but y OK!’’
(Supervisor’s notes from lesson observation)
We convey to students that their feelings and beliefs matter. They quickly
begin to feel comfortable, knowing that this setting is highly supportive and
accepting.
Jonathan is 10. His older brothers did not attend the clinic because they have no
problems with reading. They call him retarded. When they have conversations at home,
Jonathan doesn’t always understand what they are talking about. So the next day he
comes to the clinic where he feels safe to ask what words mean.
What is cannibalism?
That’s when people eat each other.
Huh?
In some places people eat other people.
Oh! y and that’s bad, right? (Teacher observation notes)
In our reading clinic, there is an atmosphere of respect that is absolutely

devoid of sarcasm, impatience, or ridicule. It is generally easy for teachers to
assimilate into this setting but we are explicit about this expectation with the
students. It is made clear that calling out words when someone else stumbles,
deriding someone for reading at a lower level, or showing impatience while
another student painstakingly applies a new reading strategy are unacceptable
behaviors. We emphasize that this is a learning environment where mistakes
are expected and accepted. Students quickly realize that this is a safe place.
They begin to trust each other.
Overall I think all of the students have gained a sense of confidence that they never had
before. They are taking more chances and supporting each other when they are
struggling. Hearing students say, ‘‘keep going, you can do it’’, is such a nice reminder of
what a positive environment we are in and have created. (Clinic teacher final reflection)
In order to build a supportive environment around literacy, we incorporate

opportunities for positive social interaction throughout the day. We plan
specific times to discuss what we are reading. For example, read-aloud is highly
interactive. Teachers and students talk about the read-aloud before, during,
and after the reading, sharing personal responses. Students are encouraged to
make personal connections or to question unfamiliar circumstances or
information. We try to make multiple copies of read-aloud books available
in the classroom library to encourage rereading and discussion with peers.
Students may read with a buddy during sustained silent reading time and we
encourage students to chat after silent reading to share what they have read.
The classroom library often contains book reviews on which students include
their name so that peers can ask questions or chat about the book. These
practices help to build a social setting that supports relatedness.
Access, Interest, and Choice in the Clinic Environment
Incorporated into all aspects of the day are research-supported practices

related to access, interest, and choice. We find these concepts to be
inextricably connected.
Access
Reading materials used in the clinic include print sources of all kinds,
including books, magazines, newspapers, and the internet. A variety of
genres is always available in the classroom and we make sure to have a wide
range of interesting narrative and informational text that will appeal to
diverse students. We have a large collection of commercial instructional
texts that are used for guided reading and strategy instruction that we make
available after lessons.
We provide books with a wide range of difficulty levels to ensure not just
physical access, but meaningful engagement as well. We find that in their
regular classrooms, our students seldom (sometimes never) have materials in
their hands that they can actually read on their own. From the time they
started formal schooling, they have always been faced with materials that
are just too difficult. The result of this is that students have not experienced
productive free reading time. We address this issue by carefully assessing
students’ reading levels so that we can provide them with appropriate
materials. As we teach students how to choose books for free reading, we
are cautious about popular strategies that identify books as too hard, too
easy and just right. We prefer to have students think about books as
providing a fruitful independent reading experience. This means they should
achieve 99% accuracy and good comprehension without any assistance. We
don’t consider that ‘‘too easy.’’ Rather, we are seeking their independent
reading level. When students gain access to appropriate books, we observe
perceptions of competence soar as they realize that they can read and that
they can get better.
Interest
We know that interest has a positive effect on reading achievement and
reading motivation and so we try to ensure access to materials that will
interest students. Interest is often described as situational (initial fleeting
engagement) and individual (a stable, maintained disposition) (Hidi &
Renninger, 2006). Situational interest is easily sparked by novelty or
curiosity but it is not necessarily long-lasting. Teachers continually attempt
to spark situational interest by sharing their own reading, reading aloud,
and introducing good books. We are encouraged by research finding that in
a supportive environment, repeated positive short-term experiences transi-
tioned into more stable, longer term interest or motivation (Guay, Megeau,
& Vallerand, 2003; Guthrie et al., 2007; Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield, Tonks, &
Perencevich, 2006; Hidi & Renninger, 2006).
We sometimes find that students do not have expressed reading interests.

They have never had a chance to develop interests because they have never
been readers. In those cases, we make suggestions and make a wide range of
topics available. We encourage students to read anything. Some of the
materials students are surprised to find in the clinic library and especially
enjoy are graphic novels, newspapers and magazines. We model for older
students the joy of reading a picture book with a riveting story or one that is
a piece of artwork in its illustration. We model reading for interest,
enjoyment and practice without judgment about others’ selections. Making
fun of another’s reading selection is unacceptable.
Choice
Choice is often associated with autonomy as it is presumed that when
autonomous, individuals are always free to make their own personal
decisions. A natural implication would be to increase choices in order to
enhance autonomy. It is true that there is wide support that choice enhances
intrinsic motivation, but all choices are not created equal and having choices
does not necessarily mean one is autonomous (Guthrie et al., 2007; Katz &
Assor, 2006; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2006;
Stefanou, Perencevich, DiCintio, & Turner, 2004). One can be autonomous
without any choices or nonautonomous when faced with several mean-
ingless choices. Assor, Kaplan, and Roth (2002) supported this notion
finding that personal relevance may be more important than choice in
motivation.
In our reading clinic, children are free to choose the materials they wish to
read during independent reading times. However, we find that students
often do not know how to select an appropriate book. We explicitly teach
them a strategy for selecting books and provide guided practice until
students are picking appropriate books. Teachers may place books used
during guided reading lessons into bins for quick access to books for
rereading. We find that many students enjoy rereading these books because
the first reading affords them an extra level of support. For children who do
not know what they like to read, teachers might label a large plastic bag with
each child’s name and place suggested books inside. At instruction times,
when teachers need more control over the difficulty level of the materials,
they may offer the students a choice of three different books for the lesson.
Again, the choices reflect students’ personal interests as much as possible
but if students respond negatively to the choices, teachers acknowledge and
note the child’s perspective for subsequent lessons. Choice extends to
learning activities as well. Opportunities for choice are never random or
haphazard but are carefully crafted by the teacher and informed by the
teacher’s goals.
In sum then, we consider the important concepts of access, interest, and
choice together in planning reading opportunities. This ensures that
students will read varied materials that will be both interesting and
appropriate and they will have opportunities to be meaningfully engaged
with the materials.
Reading Motivation Plan
Our motivation plan is based on the simple assumption that children must
read. They must read to get better at reading, to gain knowledge and to
learn to think. The self-determined reader knows this. The self-determined
reader reads. We are explicit in discussing this idea with students. We
encourage them to think of things at which they excel and consider how
practice has made them better. We model good reading habits constantly.
We want them to recognize the importance and pleasure of reading so that
they will begin to internalize the motivation to read.
There is considerable evidence that expected tangible extrinsic rewards will
undermine intrinsic motivation for interesting activities. Additionally, verbal
feedback that is affirming and informational enhances students’ intrinsic
motivation (Deci et al., 1999b). Therefore, a hallmark of our reading clinic is a
motivation plan that is consistent with these findings, excites students, and
facilitates their motivation to read. The plan is an example of how theory and
research can meaningfully inform practice. Each aspect of the plan has been
carefully thought-out to ensure that it is research-based and that it supports
students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. We shun the use
of tangible external inducements to encourage reading and we use positive,
informational verbal feedback freely to encourage reading, strategy applica-
tion, and persistence.
Each summer begins with teachers brainstorming a theme that unifies the
classes. We determine five theme-related levels through which all students
will progress. The levels reflect a natural increasing progression from Level 1
to Level 5. For example, for the camp theme, the levels were camper,
counsellor-in-training, junior counsellor, counsellor, and reading ranger.
When students arrive on the first day, the teachers enthusiastically describe
the theme to the students and distribute reading logs in folders that are
returned each Monday. The teachers model for students how to fill out the
reading log. Students record the number of minutes they read each day and
when the logs are collected, the total number of minutes for the class is
calculated by a teacher. The teacher announces to students that they have
met the class goal and all students move to the next level. On the last day of
the program, students return their final log and move to the highest level of
the theme. On that day, we have a celebration where students receive a
certificate of congratulations for their summer reading and they are invited
to select two new books that they may take home and keep.
Our expectation, based on SDT, is that the students’ motivation at first
may be nonautonomous. As we expound on the enjoyment and value of
reading and we continually model this through read-aloud and our own
personal reading, SDT predicts that students will begin to internalize the
motivation to read because they see the value in reading. We hope that
through successful, pleasurable reading experiences, their motivation will
become integrated or intrinsic. Three points about the motivation plan
deserve explication:
1. The number of minutes for the goal is discussed and determined by the
class when the plan is introduced. We strive to determine the goal
collaboratively so that it is more intrinsically oriented. We ensure that the
goal is not competitive or contingent on performance. Flexibility and
student input are paramount. The students discuss all the activities that
consume their time and offer each other ideas for finding time to read.
They agree on a number that seems reasonable for a class goal, which
usually works out to be approximately 20 minutes per day for each child.
2. Reading logs are kept private. In this way, students are never singled out
or chastised for not contributing to the class goal. There are many
reasons why students do not read, most of which are out of our control.
When we identify students who are not recording minutes on their log or
not returning it, we have individual conversations with them. Through-
out the program, we reiterate the importance of reading practice. We
encourage these students to reflect on why they aren’t reading, what they
could do differently, and what we could do to support them in their home
reading. We also use positive verbal feedback in the group setting to
specifically point out instances where students’ reading practice is
strengthening their reading or helping them use reading strategies. This
dialogue is designed to help all readers, but especially the nonreaders,
begin to internalize the motivation to practice reading. We might send
another log home or send books home that we know the student can
manage. These small steps often pay off simply because there are no
books at home or no adult home in the evenings to help with hard words.
3. On occasion, a group will not quite meet the goal. This generally happens
when one or two students aren’t returning a log. Since the students
seldom ask about the exact number of minutes read by the class, we can
sometimes report to them this way: ‘‘Wow, you did some serious reading
this week. Everybody move to the next level!’’ We leave out the fact that
the numbers fell short. Some will object to this tactic, arguing that
students should not benefit when they do not put forth effort or that
students should understand the connection between their effort and
eventual outcomes. While it is true that we want students to be
responsible and accountable, we have a clear rationale for this practice.
Our goal is to encourage the students to read. We do everything we can
to facilitate that end, but there are certain factors over which we have no
control. There is no point in letting the group ‘‘fail’’ particularly when
most of them are reading more than they typically do, which is what we
want. In the end, we are especially pleased to give nonreaders two new
books because they are usually the ones who need them most. We have
accomplished what we set out to do. We have encouraged all the children
to read more and we have given new books to every child, increasing the
chances that all students will internalize the motivation to read.
This simple plan for encouraging reading is consistent with SDT. It

supports autonomy in several ways. The plan is goal-oriented and
appropriately challenging. Children select their own books and they
monitor and record their own reading. Personal relevance and choice are
characteristic. Most important is that there are no tangible, extrinsic
rewards promised and teachers’ active involvement and positive feedback
enthusiastically encourage students to read. The program supports
competence by providing opportunities to apply taught strategies with
appropriate level materials, strengthening students’ reading skill. Related-
ness is supported at first through the discussion that determines the class
goal and throughout the program in opportunities to share their reading
with others in varied, nonthreatening ways. All students are thrilled with
surprise books at the end of the program.
Explicit Instruction
She was definitely able to decode some words and she read every night and she kept
a positive attitude throughout the whole thing. And she’d say, ‘‘Look mom, I can
read.’’ And she was learning some decoding strategies, but she also learned some
self-confidence. She was having some problems and kept saying she was dumb and I
really think it helped her self-esteem and confidence. (Post-program parent interview)
We know how important a sense of competence is to students’ motivation

and their ultimate achievement (Eliot, McGregor, & Thrash, 2002). In our
clinic, we believe that the best way to support students’ sense of competence
is to make them competent through a strong instructional program. The
clinic day is highly structured and planned by the teachers with clear,
focused objectives. Learning activities are presented in such a way that
students see them as meaningful, valuable, and relevant. These character-
istics of learning activities make them more likely to be sanctioned by
students, supporting autonomy.
In keeping with the research on reading strategy instruction, we rely
heavily on explicit instruction of reading strategies and the gradual release
of responsibility model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). We focus on a small
number of strategies that are determined by the needs identified during the
diagnostic screening. Our students respond positively and quickly to explicit
instruction. For many of our students, it seems that their regular classroom
instruction stops short of the explicitness they need. Our instruction includes
extensive teacher modeling through think-alouds. We locate passages for
modeling, guided practice, and independent practice. The passages must be
short, well-written, and conducive to the strategy. Quite often, we write our
own passages that can be tailored both to the strategy and to the students’
interests. We emphasize the conditional aspect of reading strategies so that
students can make decisions independently about how and when to apply
them. Fig. 1. shows Eric’s response to a journal prompt asking How will this
strategy help you?
Opportunities for authentic reading are integrated into the day to ensure
the application of reading strategies that are being taught. For example,
sustained silent reading (SSR) is a standard part of each day. Teachers also
ensure that students are reading connected text during teacher-guided
instructional blocks. Reading strategy lessons are integrated with
Fig. 1. Eric’s Response to the Journal Prompt How Will This Strategy Help You?
opportunities to apply reading strategies to connected text. As much as

possible, materials used during lessons have been selected by the teacher
based on students’ interests. This supports students’ sense of competence as
they can sometimes rely on their prior knowledge to be the classroom
‘‘expert.’’
We consider the use of challenge within the context of instruction.
Much research supports the premise that challenge can be motivating.
This research and our own experience highlight the importance of
appropriate challenge. We know from this research that reasonable
challenge facilitates perceptions of competence, which will lead to a
positive cycle of challenge-seeking (Katz & Assor, 2006; Turner, Thorpe, &
Meyer, 1998).
In our reading clinic, reasonable challenge is accompanied by strong
instructional support. We carefully assess students’ reading levels so that we
can provide them with appropriately challenging materials and instruction
around those materials is carefully scaffolded.
So many of them have all these ideas and they can tell you a story, but if you ask them to
write it, they just lock up. So we taught them some strategies for that. Just sitting with
them one-on-one when they were writing was the most helpful, to help them get their
ideas in an organized form on paper. So we did two large writing assignments that lasted
a week y and I think that giving them a bigger assignment, they felt a huge sense of
accomplishment at the end when they get it done. (Clinic teacher post-program
interview)
Some may equate challenge with competition. However, within the

context of SDT and the literacy classroom, it is clear that the concept of
competition is contrary to a learning environment. In a learning
environment, winning and losing are nonissues. Mistakes are natural. They
are expected and accepted. Indeed it could be argued that if mistakes are not
being made, learning is not happening.
y unfortunately the way they have the school classroom set up he loses so much y the
minute he walks into that classroom. It’s all about who is better, smarter, whatever, and
it’s so much more competition. And he doesn’t feel good about himself. y and so [in the
reading clinic] he feels as though he is smart, he knows something, he is confident,
and y I think the program is important for doing that for him. (Post-program parent
interview)
Competition is inconsistent with the environment that SDT supports.

Research indicates that competitive environments engender a performance
orientation as individuals compare themselves to others and frequently
work for externally originated motivations. This thwarts autonomy.
Additionally, perceptions of competence may be undermined in an

environment that is not learning-focused but about performing well.
Perhaps most harmful, competition undermines relatedness as it pits
students against each other. Children cannot learn to trust and take risks
in an environment where their performance is compared to others, where
they risk losing, or where they could never be the winner no matter how
hard they tried. The very nature of competition means that there will always
be losers. There is no place for competition in a strong, learning-oriented
instructional environment. Explicit instruction and appropriate challenge
are the keys to this environment.
Assessment
In our view, the purpose of assessment is to inform subsequent instruction.

As such, assessment in our reading clinic is individual and ongoing. We do
not use standardized assessments. We frequently use Running Records and
various informal assessments of sight words or fluency. Teachers primarily
rely on a system of anecdotal note-taking. They record notes using a system
that encourages much reflection on their instruction and students’ responses
to it. Collaboration is central to the assessment system. Since we use a
coteaching model, there are many opportunities for dialogue about
individual students. Additionally, during seminars, teachers discuss assess-
ment results of individual cases. The ability to collaborate in this way is rare
for teachers and it is this feature of our program that master’s candidates
report as most beneficial.
An essential element in our assessment system is that students are an
integral part of their own assessment. This can be challenging at first as most
students are not accustomed to participating in their learning in this way.
Every lesson closure includes opportunities for students to reflect on what
was learned, how a taught strategy might help them, and when they might
use the strategy. Fig. 2. is an example of one such written closure exercise.
Some closure exercises are conducted through oral discussion. At the end of
the day, children reflect together regarding what was accomplished, how
they fared, and how they might progress. Sometimes these reflections are
discussed and other times, teachers have students reflect in their journals, as
seen in Fig. 3. We find that involvement in one’s own assessment enhances
ownership and enables students to become more aware of themselves as
learners. By the end of the program students are much more comfortable
about self-assessment.
Fig. 2. Typical Written Closure Example, Written by Students and Discussed at the
End of Each Lesson.
Fig. 3. Example of Jamal’s End of Day Journal Reflection.
CONCLUSION
A few years ago when I was trying to wade through the motivation literature
in order to write a coherent dissertation, I heard Edward Deci say,
‘‘Teachers often ask how they can motivate their students to read but that’s
the wrong question. If intrinsic motivation comes from within, then the
more appropriate question is: How do I create an environment in which
children will become motivated?’’ This seemingly simple remark set me on a
new path that has become my mantra as a teacher educator and reading
clinic director. A large body of research on intrinsic motivation and reading
supports the tenets of SDT and this work provides an excellent foundation
for reading clinic and classroom settings where students’ academic and
motivation issues can be addressed in concert. We have learned from this
body of work that self-determined individuals exhibit a wide range of
positive and productive behaviors. We have learned as well that an
environment that supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness facil-
itates intrinsic and integrated forms of motivation.
The autonomy continuum provides an effective lens for thinking about
reading motivations. Particularly helpful is the concept of internalization
that provides a mechanism for the development of autonomous forms of
motivation. In the case of reading, it is especially encouraging to know that
through modeling of literacy behaviors, explanations about the utility and
instrumental value of reading strategies, and encouraging ownership of
learning, teachers can help students internalize the motivation to read. The
autonomy continuum also explains how extrinsic rewards, shame, and
threats of punishment are counter-productive. These controlling practices
take away any opportunity for SD. Further, these practices send powerful
messages to children that coercion is necessary because reading and learning
are inherently unnatural or unpleasant.
This chapter has outlined ways in which intrinsic motivation can be both
evident and facilitated in a reading clinic setting. But what about regular
classroom contexts? Is it possible to create an environment in a regular
classroom that supports autonomy, competence, and relatedness? I contend
that it is, though the challenges, particularly with older students, may seem
insurmountable.
Consider that most students have been immersed in a system where they
have never been the architects of their own learning. Even if they wanted to
come on board, they would not know how. Consequently, the teacher must
be the architect of the environment in his or her own classroom to enable
students to become self-determined. Most important in creating an
autonomy-supportive classroom, teachers must consider learning activities
and materials from the students’ perspectives. Guiding questions might
include: Is this an authentic task that students will find relevant to their
lives? Will this task or material be meaningful to my students? How might
students be more involved in creating their learning experiences? On the first
day of fifth grade, for instance, instead of having the classroom rules posted
along with the penalty for breaking the rules, perhaps the teacher guides a
discussion about appropriate behavior and the students produce the rules
themselves. The teacher then subtly entices the students to consider the
notion that when expectations are clear, there should be no need for
penalties. It goes without saying that this will be challenging in some

settings. This idea will also be challenged by some teachers as ‘‘impossible in
my school.’’ This is an understandable response considering that the notion
of being in control of their own learning will be completely foreign to most
students. Even in our reading clinic, we see evidence of this and it takes time
for some students to acclimate to the setting.
While teachers may not have complete autonomy themselves, there are
many ways that they might make classroom modifications that will facilitate
students’ SD. Every thoughtful decision about instructional tasks or
materials can move students one step closer to SD. These decisions will
evolve from a particular way of thinking that says, ‘‘I believe that my
classroom is a learning environment. It should be a place where my students
feel confident and safe to risk learning. I strive to make learning activities
and materials supportive of students’ autonomy, competence and related-
ness. I have created a space in which my students can become motivated and
self-determined.’’ With this mindset, and using the findings on autonomy-
supportive teaching practices (Reeve & Jang, 2006; Reeve et al., 2004),
teachers can evaluate what is happening in their classrooms currently and
gradually make changes that can shift the classroom trajectory toward the
enhancement of SD.
Our clinic teachers are fortunate to have the autonomy to make decisions
and choose materials that are best suited to the students’ needs. This careful
individualization of instruction is a hallmark of our program. It has
contributed to helping us develop a strong and respected clinical program,
but we continually consider ways to improve. For example, we often look at
new research with an eye toward considering its applicability to our
program. We are especially interested in research on meeting the academic
and motivation needs of students with diverse backgrounds. We are also
cognizant of the research on new literacies and we reflect on ways that
technology and internet resources can be effectively and appropriately
integrated into instruction. A path we wish to pursue is to follow some of
our students into their regular school year to explore whether or not and
how our program carries over for them.
Every student may not be intrinsically motivated to read, just as every
student is not intrinsically motivated to play soccer. But every child can
begin to internalize the motivation to read and engage more fully,
recognizing the personal value of reading and the value of becoming a
proficient reader. This disposition, coupled with an excellent instructional
program, will ensure the development of capable, motivated, self-
determined learners in classroom and reading clinic settings.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C., Wilson, P. T., & Fielding, L. G. (1988). Growth in reading and how children
spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 285–303.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’ engage-
ment in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261–278.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and extrinsic reading
motivation as predictors of reading literacy: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 773–785.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363–423.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (2003). Reading matters: How reading engagement
influences cognition. In J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. R. Squire & J. Jensen (Eds.), Handbook of
research on teaching the English language arts (2nd ed., pp. 666–675). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999a). The undermining effect is a reality after all-
Extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce,
and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999). Psychological
Bulletin, 125, 692–700.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999b). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627–668.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in
education: Reconsidered once again. Review of Educational Research, 71, 1–27.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?
American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.
Eliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). The need for competence. In E. L. Deci
& R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 361–387). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Fawson, P. C., & Moore, S. A. (1999). Reading incentive programs: Beliefs and practices.
Reading Psychology, 20, 325–340.
Gambrell, L. B., Palmer, B. M., Codling, R. M., & Mazzoni, S. A. (1996). Assessing motivation
to read. The Reading Teacher, 49, 518–533.
Guay, F., Mageau, G. A., & Vallerand, R. J. (2003). On the hierarchical structure of self-
determined motivation: A test of top-down, bottom-up, reciprocal, and horizontal
effects. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 992–1004.
Guthrie, J. T., Hoa, A. L. W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S. M., Humenick, N. M., & Littles, E.
(2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary
years. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 282–313.
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, 91–117.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., y
Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and
strategies during concept-oriented reading instraction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31,

306–332.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J. L., & Cox, K. E. (1999). Motivational and cognitive
predictors of text comprehension and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3,
231–256.
Guthrie, J. R., Wigfield, A., & Von Secker, C. (2000). Effects of integrated instruction on
motivation and strategy use in reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 99,
232–245.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational
Psychologist, 41, 111–127.
Hoffman, K. F., Huff, J. D., Patterson, A. S., & Nietfeld, J. L. (2009). Elementary teachers’ use
and perception of rewards in the classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25,
843–849.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2006). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational
Psychology Review, 19, 429–442.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being highly motivated:
A closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation. In E. L. Deci &
R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 101–122). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest
with extrinsic rewards: A test of the ‘‘overjustification’’ hypothesis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
Lepper, M. R., Henderlong, J., & Gingras, I. (1999). Understanding the effects of extrinsic
rewards on intrinsic motivation–Uses and abuses of meta-analysis: Comment on Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan (1999). Psychological Bulletin, 125, 669–676.
Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (2008). Assessment and instruction of reading and writing
difficulties: An interactive. Boston: Pearson.
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of intrinsic motivation for high
and low ability readers’ reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21, 124–128.
Mason, L. H., Meadan, H., Hedin, L. R., & Cramer, A. M. (2012). Avoiding the struggle:
Instruction that supports students’ motivation in reading and writing about content
material. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 28, 70–96.
Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals
for reading and writing: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 3, 207–229.
Paige, D. D. (2011). Engaging struggling adolescent readers through situational interest: A
model proposing the relationships among extrinsic motivation, oral reading proficiency,
comprehension, and academic achievement. Reading Psychology, 32, 395–425.
Park, Y. (2011). How motivational constructs interact to predict elementary students’ reading
performance: Examples from attitude and self-concept in reading. Learning and
Individual Differences, 21, 347–358.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic
motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 270–300.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a
learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209–218.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement
by increasing teachers’ autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 147–169.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce’s
claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 33–38.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does
psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557–
1585.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies, 9, 139–170.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2009). Self-efficacy theory. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),
Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 35–54). New York, NY: Routledge.
Stefanou, C. R., Perencevich, K. C., DiCintio, M., & Turner, J. C. (2004). Supporting
autonomy in the classroom: Ways teachers encourage student decision making and
ownership. Educational Psychologist, 39, 97–110.
Taylor, B. M., Frye, B., & Maruyama, J. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth.
American Educational Research Journal, 27, 351–362.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for
literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K., & Meyer, D. K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and
negative affect: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90, 758–771.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination
theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 257–262.
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. (1997). Relations of children’s motivation for reading to the
amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 420–432.
PART 2
READING AND WRITING
ELEMENTS
VOCABULARY/COMPREHENSION-
BASED MODELS OF READING
CLINICS
Evan Ortlieb, Wolfram Verlaan and

Earl H. Cheek, Jr.
ABSTRACT
Purpose – To provide educators with an overview of strategies that can be

incorporated into clinical settings that foster vocabulary and comprehen-
sion development.
Design/methodology/approach – The chapter highlights underlying
themes of reading failure, benefits of large vocabularies and comprehen-
sion skills, and components for remediation/instruction.
Findings – Content provides detailed information on designing clinics that
prepare students to meet the vocabulary and comprehension demands of
reading in the 21st century.
Research limitations/implications – The chapter highlights the most
reliable and practical reading strategies that are fundamental to every
reader’s advancement.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002009
117
118 EVAN ORTLIEB ET AL.
Practical implications – This chapter serves as a resource for all clinical

instructors, providing a wealth of ideas for incorporation into their clinics
and classrooms.
Originality/value of paper – This compilation of vocabulary and
comprehension strategies works in tandem to produce highly skilled
readers who can in turn learn independently.
Keywords: Vocabulary; comprehension; reading; clinic; classroom
Every child, and adult for that matter, has room for reading improvement.
Sometimes, alternative instructional programs are needed to ensure
expeditious academic progress. Classroom instruction does not always
reach every child’s needs and as a result, clinical instructional frameworks
are geared toward the development of student abilities, rather than the
bolstering of content knowledge. As common core curriculums expand into
classrooms nationwide, clinical instruction’s aim to support reading skills
that have not already been mastered within classroom instruction becomes
increasingly important.
Readers flourish when provided with learning environments that are
conducive to developing vocabulary and comprehension competencies. For
instance, difficult vocabulary presents a host of challenges to youth not only
in determining a word’s meaning but also in comprehending the sentence or
text in which it appears. Take the example below:
Jerry erroneously marked ‘true’ on the quiz as he was absent the day prior to the
examination.
A student reading this would not only have to know the meaning of the
word ‘‘erroneously’’ but must also use its meaning to understand the rest of
the sentence. Without other reading skills like context clues, syntactical
knowledge, and inferencing abilities (e.g., Jerry’s absence caused him to miss
the review/material for the quiz), many fourth graders would struggle to
fully understand the sentence. Using a vocabulary and comprehension based
literacy clinic model, reading skills can be augmented through a ‘‘mastery
and then move on’’ approach, where students gain a variety of both word
attack and comprehension strategies with the goal of transferring these
abilities to a full range of subject areas.
For students who struggled to understand the event(s) that led up to
Jerry’s ‘‘error,’’ clinical instructors could facilitate a lesson on looking for
Vocabulary/Comprehension-Based Models of Reading Clinics 119
known word parts. Addressing specific areas for improvement using a

greatest-to-least-needs approach is how clinical operations excel in leading
children to successful literacy experiences. There are no manuals that
provide all the requisites for reading success; it is highly individualized,
interactive, and ever changing (Ortlieb, 2012a). Yet, like driver’s education
or ballet class, having a knowledgeable mentor ready and eager to provide
attuned assistance toward literacy growth is essential to fostering success
that will transfer to a classroom setting. Clinical literacy instructors play,
pause, rewind, play again, and repeat their instructional sequences as
students develop and refine their literacy skills and strategies. The controlled
setting of a reading clinic serves to minimize the distractions often inherent
in a regular classroom environment, thereby allowing for the maximizing of
student gains.
Many learning theories are framed around notions that we learn more
proficiently with the help of others, especially those who can scaffold us
in timely and efficient ways. Despite being in the age of electronic library
catalogues, Facebook, Google, and YouTube, having someone who can
guide learning in novel ways promotes engagement, interest, under-
standing, and meaningfulness. Clinic models that focus on vocabulary
and comprehension, the fundamentals of reading, are necessary if
students are to meet and surpass grade-level expectations and curricular
requirements.
UNDERLYING THEMES OF READING FAILURE
There is a large range in the individual reading abilities of students as they

begin school, and many students will have difficulty with acquiring reading
proficiency. Unfortunately, a student’s reading development is often
influenced by his or her socioeconomic status (SES) (NCES, 2011). Indeed,
even before students reach school-age, their home environment will have
played a significant role in the quantity and quality of vocabulary to which
they are exposed, which may also have an impact on their future reading
acquisition (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Hart & Risley, 1995). As
discussed in Hart and Risley’s research, by the age of three, many students
coming from low SES home environments may have as little as 1/3 the
vocabulary of students coming from middle to upper SES home environ-
ments. Among the factors implicated in contributing to this gap are (a) a
higher rate of single parent families in lower SES environments, (b) a larger
number of children per family in lower SES environments, and (c) a lower
education level of parents in lower SES environments. These factors often

result in limiting both the quality and the quantity of the verbal exchanges
that take place between parents and children in lower SES environments.
For example, a single parent with several children may not be able to read to
his or her children with the same frequency as a two-parent family with
fewer children. Indeed, the most recent data from the Program for
International Student Assessment (PISA) included survey results that
indicated a high correlation between the scores of 15-year-old students and
the frequency with which they were read to during preschool years (OECD,
2010). In addition, lower SES households will often have less disposable
income to spend on items such as books and magazines, thus reducing
opportunities for print exposure that has been shown to have a positive
effect on reading acquisition and development (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1998). Consequently, many children coming from lower SES environments
will be at risk of having neither the language development nor the oral
vocabulary as their peers who come from middle to upper SES environ-
ments.
In addition to having an effect on vocabulary knowledge at the start of
school, the quality and quantity of the language to which children are
exposed at an early age also affects later reading acquisition and
comprehension development. One of the reasons for this is that struggling
readers often receive classroom interventions that tend to emphasize skill
development over practice with authentic texts, which results in struggling
readers having less opportunity to develop contextual reading skills than
proficient readers (Hiebert, 1983; Thurlow, Gaden, Ysseldyke, & Algozzine,
1984; Vauhn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). Because intervention efforts for
struggling readers often limit their interaction with actual text, it has been
theorized that over time the cumulative results of what have been termed
‘‘Matthew Effects’’ (so-named for the observation in the Gospel of Matthew
that the ‘‘rich get richer and the poor get poorer’’) cause struggling readers
to fall further and further behind their more proficient peers (Stanovich,
1986). Moreover, struggling readers also face motivational issues that can be
caused by not having had sufficient exposure to reading materials containing
high interest subject matter. This lack of motivation or engagement with
reading materials can affect the development and acquisition of vocabulary
knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and comprehension ability (Guthrie,
2004). With sufficient research on the underlying causes of reading difficulty,
the remainder of this chapter will focus on the benefits of increasing
students’ vocabulary and comprehension skills and how to achieve these
goals in clinical settings.
LARGE VOCABULARY BENEFITS
The act of reading is often referred to as ‘‘making meaning from text,’’ and
although some struggling readers may have difficulty with decoding, it is
typically their struggles with ‘‘meaning-making,’’ or comprehension, that
will require significant intervention. Although perhaps it borders on the
tautological to say that ‘‘one needs to know the meaning of the words one is
reading to know the meaning of what one is reading,’’ there is a significant
correlation between vocabulary knowledge and comprehension ability
(Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Baumann, 2005). To this end, clinical efforts
targeting vocabulary acquisition can play a vital role in overall comprehen-
sion development.
It has been estimated that children learn between 2000 and 3000 words a
year (Beck & McKeown, 1991), with most of these words acquired outside
of explicit instruction. It has been tempting to assume that because many of
these words are acquired naturally, vocabulary instruction is not that
important. These 2000 to 3000 words per year is an estimated average,
however, and although some students certainly acquire that many words per
year or more, it is largely due to intensive exposure to written language via
reading and spoken language in their homes. Nagy and Scott (2000) note:
Students who need help most in the area of vocabulary – those whose home experience
has not given them a substantial foundation in the vocabulary of literate and academic
English – need to acquire words at a pace even faster than that of their peers, but by no
means do they always find this process easy or automatic. (p. 280)
Because some students will enter school with a more limited vocabulary
than that of their peers, these students will benefit from instruction focusing
on vocabulary development.
Acquiring vocabulary knowledge is important for several reasons. First,
students who enter school with a limited vocabulary will not only have more
difficulty acquiring decoding skills, they will also have more difficulty with
comprehension, which can lead to frustration with reading and a lack of
engagement with reading materials. Because wide reading is arguably the
most effective means of increasing vocabulary knowledge, students who are
frustrated or disengaged from reading will likely not acquire words at a rate
necessary for later academic success. Second, vocabulary knowledge leads to
greater vocabulary knowledge because many words in the English language
share root words and/or word parts with other words. This means that a
word is often changed into another part of speech with a similar meaning by
changing or adding a prefix or suffix (e.g., the verb multiply is changed to a
noun by modifying the ending of the word so that it becomes multiplication).

Because many words in English are modified according to predictable
patterns, knowing a particular word allows children to learn or guess the
meanings of a new word that shares its word parts with the word they
already know. Consequently, the more words that a child knows, the easier
it is for that child to ascertain the meaning of new words that contain the
word parts with which the child is already familiar. Third, the larger an
individual’s vocabulary, the easier it will be for that individual to
comprehend a wider range of text, because our ability to comprehend
reading material is dependent to a large degree on our background
knowledge of the subject matter about which we are reading. This
background knowledge of the world around us, or schema, is largely
constructed through language; in other words, our knowledge of a topic is
often related to the range of our vocabulary about that topic. For example,
the average person probably knows the word knee and the names of some of
the parts of the knee such as the kneecap, specific ligaments, and so forth.
This knowledge may allow a layperson to read medical advice from a
popular periodical or the Internet. An orthopedic surgeon, however, will
know not only the names of all the parts of the knee as well as the muscles,
blood vessels, and nerves that surround it but also how those parts are
interrelated along with the vocabulary used to specifically describe those
interrelationships. Thus, s/he will be able to read and understand much
more complex text than a layperson, such as highly technical research
articles published in medical journals and so forth. Thus, the richer one’s
vocabulary knowledge, the easier it becomes to comprehend wider varieties
of text, which becomes especially important when students begin to make
the transition from the ‘‘learning-to-read’’ stage to the ‘‘reading-to-learn’’
stage.
VOCABULARY COMPONENTS FOR REMEDIATION/

INSTRUCTION
Vocabulary knowledge is one of the key components of reading

comprehension, so clinical efforts directed at improving reading ability
should include an instructional component addressing vocabulary acquisi-
tion. Although there has been a significant amount of research into both the
processes of vocabulary acquisition and effective instructional methods
(e.g., Anderson & Nagy, 1991; Baumann & Kameenui, 1991; Beck &
McKeown, 1991; Nagy & Scott, 2000), it is not clear to what extent
classroom teachers have embraced the need for vocabulary instruction. In
addition, research-based methods for delivering vocabulary instruction are
often not fully utilized in the classroom because, according to Manzo,
Manzo, and Thomas (2009): ‘‘For new and experienced teachers alike, it is
more comfortable to teach in the traditional manner they most likely
experienced as students than it is to acquire a more strategy-based
interactive/intervention teaching style’’ (p. 31). Moreover, research into
vocabulary instruction has made it clear that traditional vocabulary
instruction based on memorizing word lists and definitions is not as
effective as more interactive approaches, especially for struggling readers. In
summarizing an extensive analysis of instructional methodologies, Blacho-
witz and Fisher (2000) recommend that four guidelines should be used to
develop vocabulary instruction:
1. Students should be active in developing their understanding of words and
ways to learn them.
2. Students should personalize word learning.
3. Students should be immersed in words.
4. Students should build on multiple sources of information to learn words
through repeated exposures (p. 504).
It is important, then, that clinical/classroom instruction incorporates
these guiding principles, and we provide some suggestions for their
application. The first principle is largely related to motivating students and
getting them interested in vocabulary words. It is useful, therefore, to
mention six evidence-based guidelines that Brozo and Flynt (2008) suggest
are important for developing motivation (it should be noted that these
guidelines apply not only to vocabulary instruction but also to instruction in
general):
1. Elevating self-efficacy
2. Engendering interest in new learning
3. Connecting outside with inside school literacies
4. Making an abundance of interesting texts available
5. Expanding choices and options
6. Structuring collaboration for motivation.
One method of helping develop student interest in words is to introduce
puns and other jokes that rely on wordplay – as students enter late
elementary and middle school, they begin to appreciate word-based humor,
and this can be motivational for helping create an interest in new
vocabulary. In addition, using a (print-based, online, or even visual)

dictionary or a thesaurus wisely can increase interest and curiosity in word
meanings (Bromley, 2007). Moreover, many students are not very skilled at
using a dictionary or thesaurus, and instruction and guidance in this area
can help foster a sense of self-efficacy as well as personal responsibility in
arriving at word meanings.
Although motivating students who have had a history of reading failure
may be one of the more difficult challenges an educator faces, structuring
vocabulary instruction to allow students to personalize word learning can
assist in this effort. Having students make a personal connection with the
words being learned can increase not only motivation but also the likelihood
that students will assimilate the words into their vocabulary. Instructional
techniques that encourage students in making a personal connection with
words they are learning often involve having students create a mental image,
verbal connection, physical movement, and so forth for the word being
learned. This kind of learning is not new, and instruction in using mental
imagery to recall information dates back at least as far as the ancient
Greeks. One specific instructional method that employs a type of mental
imagery to facilitate recall of information is known as the keyword method.
The keyword method consists of using a word that one already knows to
create an image that is in some way connected verbally, visually, and/or
conceptually to the word being learned. For example, a student might use
the word speed to make a connection with the word expedient. Allowing
students to create their own mental images fosters a sense of ownership for
the word, and research studies suggest that the keyword method is effective
in assisting struggling readers with vocabulary acquisition (Condus,
Marshall, & Miller, 1986). In addition, this technique may also be effective
in helping students develop schema for interrelated topics and ideas
(Pressley, Levin, & McDaniel, 1987). Assigning students to bring in a word
they noticed at home or that they find interesting is another way to help
students build personal connections with words. Having students share
these words with the class and adding them to a word wall can also help to
build a sense of community that can be motivational for many students.
This sense of community plays an important role in the third guideline for
vocabulary instruction: immersion. Immersion approaches are typically
used to accomplish directed vocabulary goals such as learning a set of
specific words. Although word walls (which can also be created online) are
often an attempt to build an immersive vocabulary environment, it requires
effort and vigilance on the part of teacher to keep the classroom word wall
an active and vital component in classroom instruction, instead of a word’s
final resting place. Immersion approaches such as the word wall can be
especially effective if the wider community of the school also participates
(Brett, Rothlein, & Hurley, 1996). The object of this approach is to immerse
the students in an environment where they are surrounded by conditions
created to foster vocabulary development of the words targeted for learning.
It requires considerable planning but has numerous benefits. The object
words are introduced in high frequency into the students’ surroundings with
all of the teachers, administrators, and even the cafeteria staff making an
effort to use the words so that they become a part of the students’ total
school experience (Manzo, Manzo, & Thomas, 2006). In their article titled,
Rationale for Systematic Vocabulary Development: Antidote for State
Mandates, Manzo, Manzo, and Thomas present the following goals for
this type of immersion:
Object words are introduced into the very air that children breathe, with
the expectation that this will do the following things:
Increase the frequency of appearance of otherwise low-frequency terms;
Raise the probability that a student will get a fuller picture of the scope
and contexts influencing a word’s often variable meanings;
Minimize the social–emotional downside and heighten the semantic
sentiments that some words seem to conjure; and
Generally raise word consciousness and induce playful self-teaching, the
sometimes overlooked object of all intentional and incidental instruction
(p. 617).
The authors also suggest that this type of concerted effort on the part of
the adults in the school sends a message to the students that vocabulary is
important and valued, and this spirit of cooperation in building a shared
lexicon creates ties that bind the school community together.
Increasing the number of exposures to words in multiple contexts will aid
in each student’s development of his or her personal lexicon. The number of
exposures required to acquire and/or retain a word is estimated to range
from 5 (Saragi, Nation, & Meister, 1978) to as many as 40 (Beck, Perfetti, &
McKeown, 1982), depending on word complexity and the level of word
knowledge required for mastery. Words in the English language often have
multiple meanings that are contextually dependent, and the more exposures
one has to a word being used in its various contexts, the more likely it is that
the word will become part of one’s vocabulary.
Additionally, the role of oral language in assimilating new vocabulary
should not be underestimated since vocabulary acquisition is linked to the
number and types of words that we hear in our environment (Hart & Risley,
1995). Hearing and speaking the words that we learn reinforces our
understanding of them and the contexts in which they are used, which
provides a basis for the reading and writing that a student will do later on.
Having students hear a word in context before beginning to analyze it helps
to activate prior knowledge of the word that the student may possess. Many
students already recognize a word orally before they can decode it in a text,
especially if it has an irregular spelling. Reading aloud to students is
something that every teacher should do, and speaking to students in a
challenging vocabulary is a way to prepare their brains to assimilate new
words (Hahn, 2002). One of the best preparations a student can have for
standardized tests such as the SAT is to hear great literature read aloud
(Trelease, 2001). Audio recordings of literature being read by professional
readers are an excellent resource and many are available at the public library
for no cost (Verlaan & Ortlieb, 2012).
Almost 70% of the most frequently used words have multiple meanings,
so a context for the word is often necessary in beginning to comprehend how
it is being used. Here a dictionary can be helpful in exploring the various
meanings for frequently used words, but the assignment should entail
exploration, not drudgery. Teachers can use a wide variety of both fiction
and nonfiction texts to show how context gives clues to a word’s meaning,
which can serve to complement and deepen dictionary exploration.
Vocabulary maps are also an effective strategy in that they activate learning
at several levels of the brain. First, the student writes the word in the center
of the page, dividing the rest of the page into three or four sections. In one
section, the student writes the definition of the word; in another, the student
writes the original sentence in which the word appeared; in a third section,
the student draws a picture representing the word (which can be difficult
with more abstract words because students will have to access their
knowledge of symbols); and in the fourth section, the student draws a
picture representing the opposite of or a nondefinition of the word. It is
important to plan written and oral activities in which students have multiple
opportunities to make use of the words on their vocabulary maps. Hearing
new words in combination with studying various contexts in which a word
may appear aid in reinforcing the meaning of new words.
Because nearly 80% of the words that a student will encounter as they
read are comprised of just 2000 word families (Carroll, Davies, & Richman,
1971), with different words created by adding or removing prefixes and
suffixes, a systematic study of prefixes, suffixes, and roots can be very
helpful in maximizing the effects of multiple exposures to words and word
families (Ortlieb, 2012b). This is especially true if one concentrates on the
most frequently occurring roots and the prefixes and suffixes that have the
least variance in their meaning (Bromley, 2002). In addition, the meanings
of over half of the polysyllabic words in the English language can be
determined by analyzing word parts if students have been given practice in
doing this (Nagy & Scott, 2000). Students should be given explicit
instruction for a short time in the meanings of the more frequently
occurring roots so that they can associate the root with its denotation. Also,
textbooks and vocabulary workbooks often provide examples that show
words created from combinations of roots with prefixes and suffixes. If a
teacher is not using an explicit vocabulary instructional text, such as a
vocabulary workbook, lists of roots and their meanings are available on the
Internet and can be printed, reproduced, and distributed to one’s students.
Many strategies can be employed to reinforce root meanings throughout
the year, but if a teacher is planning on using an explicit instructional text,
such as a vocabulary workbook, the teacher should preview the words that
are going to be learned for either a grading period or even a semester to
identify the most commonly occurring root words and/or the roots of those
words the teacher knows will give students the most difficulty, that is, low
frequency words typically found on standardized tests such as the SAT or in
the more difficult literature. Students can then create a ‘‘root wall,’’ either by
itself or in addition to the standard word wall, and keep a record of this
word wall and/or these more difficult roots in a vocabulary notebook.
Students place new words they find words in their vocabulary study or in
their reading underneath the word wall and/or the appropriate root in their
notebooks. Students can also explain how any prefixes and suffixes attached
to the root give it a particular meaning, and write sample sentences (either
their own or those written by others) that contain the new word they have
found in the section of the vocabulary notebook that contains the root. In
addition, students can find a common synonym that they already know for
the word being learned, and copy it next to the word in their notebooks.
When instructing students to find synonyms, teachers should be careful to
direct students to find those that are meaningful to the individual student;
thus, a student with a more developed vocabulary may have a different
synonym than a student whose vocabulary is less developed. In this manner,
the student’s existing schema is activated and it is more likely that the new
word will be remembered later (Rupley, Logan, & Nichols, 1999).
Although there are a great number and variety of quality instructional
texts specifically addressing vocabulary acquisition, educators are encour-
aged to adapt instructional methods to the needs of the individual students
with whom they are working. Using Blachowicz and Fisher’s four
instructional guidelines to inform the design of a vocabulary program will

improve one’s likelihood of success. And although vocabulary instruction
should be an important component of clinical practice, it should not become
overly compartmentalized or become an end in itself, because the ultimate
goal of any reading program is not simply to create lists of word meanings
and usages but to improve comprehension. In the following section, we
address important components of clinical programs designed to improve
comprehension.
COMPREHENSION COMPONENTS FOR

REMEDIATION/INSTRUCTION
Over the last 40 years, reading comprehension has been one of the most
researched areas in the field of reading/literacy studies. It has become widely
accepted that readers make meaning from text by actively enlisting cognitive
processes that facilitate comprehension. These cognitive processes have
come to be viewed as strategies that proficient readers use to comprehend
text. Although these strategies are typically second nature for proficient
readers, struggling readers often do not effectively employ any of these
strategies, thereby causing them difficulty with one or more aspects of the
comprehension process. The good news is that through explicit instruction
and practice, these strategies can be acquired by readers who may not have
been actively employing them. In their review of the research, Duke and
Pearson (2002) recommend that comprehension instruction include devel-
opment of the following six strategies: (a) prediction, (b) think-aloud,
(c) text structure, (d) visual representations of text, (e) summarization, and
(f) questions/questioning. These strategies can be easily modified and crafted
to fit the reading ability level of students in grades K-8 and beyond. An
overview of each strategy and its place within clinical practice follows.
Prediction is often associated with both prereading and during-reading
activities. Before reading begins, prediction activities typically entail either
providing or enhancing background knowledge about the subject matter,
which helps to engage a reader’s schema. The more background knowledge
a reader has about the reading material, the easier it tends to be to
comprehend what is being discussed in the text (Anderson & Pearson, 1984).
Prereading activities frequently include asking students to make predictions
such as (a) what does the title and/or introduction suggest about the topic?,
(b) how might this topic relate to students’ own lives or experiences?,
(c) what information do they believe the reading material may give them?,
and (d) how might studying this topic be useful? Having students answer
these questions explicitly before a reading assignment provides modeling for
what good readers do, and frequent repetition of this type of questioning
also helps to make it more habitual, with the goal of having it eventually
become second nature. Another activity characterized as employing
prediction (and which can be helpful for both motivating and increasing
the interest of reluctant readers) is the Anticipation-Reaction (A/R) Guide
(Duffelmeyer, 1994; Herbert, 1978). This guide usually takes the form of a
set of multilevel questions (factual, inferential, and/or application-oriented)
or statements about the reading material. These questions or statements are
presented to the students before reading, often to highlight prevailing views
or ideas about the subject matter. The goal of these guides is to help set a
purpose for reading by stimulating student curiosity about the subject.
Prediction is also employed during the reading act, and this during-reading
aspect of prediction is addressed in the following section.
Comprehension is an active process requiring the reader to continuously
engage with the text. Many struggling readers, however, are usually not
accustomed to enlisting a sufficient number of those cognitive functions
while they are reading to allow for successful comprehension. Think-alouds
are strategies designed to model for struggling readers the meta-cognitive
activities (thinking about thinking) that are part of the comprehension
process. Usually modeled first by the clinician, think-alouds often will
encompass several of the specific strategies that are part of the comprehen-
sion process, such as prediction, questioning, and reflection. A think-aloud
is carried out just like it sounds – while clinicians read a piece of text aloud
for the class, they periodically stop to verbally model the questions,
predictions, and visualizations that they are form while they read. As with
the use of explicit prereading questions, the goal of frequent modeling of
think-alouds is to have these metacognitive activities become a natural part
of the student’s reading process. Not only have teacher-led think-alouds
been demonstrated to have a positive impact with struggling readers, think-
alouds have also been shown to benefit comprehension when students are
asked to engage in them, by improving important aspects of the
comprehension process such as summarization (Silven & Vauras, 1992).
Another element that contributes to improved comprehension is under-
standing text structure. Text structure refers to the predictable patterns
found in texts of a particular genre. Familiarity with these patterns has been
shown to facilitate parts of the comprehension process such as recall
(Bartlett, 1932). For instance, beginning readers are often first exposed to
narrative texts with predictable structures including a protagonist, some

type of conflict or problem, rising action, climax, and resolution. Because
identifying and placing different elements of a narrative text into these
structural categories is a common assignment, students tend to become quite
familiar with narrative text structure, whether in picture books, oral
language, or trade/chapter books.
Starting in late elementary school, however, students begin to encounter
expository text almost exclusively in their textbooks, and they are usually
not as familiar with the type of text structure employed in expository texts.
Expository texts – texts with which many students often struggle – are
typically designed to categorize information in a manner that promotes a
logical assimilation of the content being discussed. Such organization of
content area text material (e.g., sections divided by major headings and
further subdivided into minor headings) is nearly ubiquitous. Although the
logic of headings with sections and subsections may appear obvious to an
adult, it may not be obvious to students how, why, or even that the material
is organized. As with narrative text structures, specific instruction in the
organizational structure of content area texts and material can help students
with their comprehension of expository texts. Although the research is
somewhat mixed as to the extent to which this helps all students (Duke &
Pearson, 2002), there is enough evidence to indicate that some specific
instruction in text structure should be included in comprehension curricula,
especially in content area subjects that deal almost exclusively with
expository text.
As readers and listeners, we create images in our mind to make sense of
the language we read or hear. Additionally, our ability to comprehend a
piece of text is related to our ability to create a meaningful image of what
that text represents. For example, if we hear the words ‘‘the cat ran up a
tree,’’ we would likely form some image in our mind of a cat moving up a
tree. Our knowledge of the meaning of these words allows us to form the
corresponding image in our mind. If these words were spoken to us in a
language with which we were not familiar, they would be meaningless to us
and no image would be formed because we would not know the language
well enough to create a visual representation of what we heard. Instructing
students in how to create visual representations of the subject matter can be
a valuable method for enhancing their comprehension of the material
(Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987). These visual representations
include not only assignments for which students use structured devices (such
as graphic organizers) adapted to particular content but also assignments
for which students create their own drawings or other visual representations
of important elements of a text. For example, students might be asked to

create drawings of a scene from a story, an historical event, a scientific
phenomenon, or a math problem. Having students create visual representa-
tions of what they read can contribute to both an increased mastery of the
subject matter and an improvement in overall comprehension ability. In
addition, assignments in which students are asked to create a visual
representation of what they are studying can also serve as a diagnostic tool
to help clinicians identify where students may be struggling so that targeted
planning and instruction can be refined and implemented.
Another important element to include in a comprehension curriculum is
instruction in summarization. Indeed, the ability to summarize something
effectively is itself considered a measure of comprehension, hence the
inclusion of this skill on many standardized tests (questions testing this skill
often take the form of: ‘‘Which of the following answer choices best
summarizes the passage?’’). It is difficult for many students to summarize
what they have read or heard without explicit instruction. Although
summarization is an important indicator of comprehension, it is important
not to confuse assigning summarization with instruction in summarization.
McNeil and Donant (1982) developed the following rule-based sequence as
a means of instructing summarization:
Rule 1: Delete unnecessary material.
Rule 2: Delete redundant material.
Rule 3: Compose a word to replace a list of items.
Rule 4: Compose a word to replace individual parts of an action.
Rule 5: Select a topic sentence.
Rule 6: Invent a topic sentence if one is not available.
Students will, of course, need instruction and practice in each of these
steps in order to successfully apply these rules. Another summarization
strategy known as GIST (Cunningham, 1982) asks students to summarize a
piece of text using a maximum of 15 words. Instruction in this strategy
includes not only the use of larger and larger pieces of text but also
scaffolding the strategy by gradually transitioning it from a whole-group
activity to an assignment for each student. Both the rule-based and the
GIST strategy have been demonstrated to be effective in improving elements
of comprehension (Bean & Steenwyk, 1984).
Questions/questioning can arguably be considered the lynchpin of the
comprehension process. One of the characteristics of good readers is that
they monitor their own comprehension by constantly asking themselves
(though not out loud or with formed words) ‘‘Am I understanding what I
am reading?’’ Almost every aspect of reading comprehension is driven by

some type of question or questioning activity that evaluates either the
reading process or reading product. Questions generated to evaluate the
reading process might include, ‘‘Did I understand what I just read?,’’ ‘‘What
is the meaning of that word?,’’ whereas questions generated to evaluate the
reading product, might include ‘‘What was the theme of the story?,’’ ‘‘What
is the main idea of the third paragraph?,’’ and so forth. When good readers
no longer answer these questions in the affirmative, they employ
correctional strategies that may include looking up a problematic
vocabulary word, re-reading all or part of the text with which they are
having difficulty, or reducing the speed at which they are reading (Beers,
2003). Struggling readers, however, not only do not often use or know how
to effectively implement correctional strategies, but they also seem to be less
aware that they are no longer comprehending what they are reading because
they do not always engage in self-questioning. Although asking students
questions about what they have read is a common instructional practice,
research suggests that encouraging and instructing students in how to
generate their own questions to a text can improve their comprehension by
helping them monitor their own comprehension as they read (Rosenshine,
Meister, & Chapman, 1996). In addition to fostering increased engagement
with the material, asking students to generate their own questions also
promotes increased attention on the part of struggling readers – students
pay more attention both to what they are and are not understanding when
they are asked to generate meaningful questions to what they have read.
Perhaps even more important, the types of questions that students generate
can serve as a diagnostic tool by affording the educator an insight into
students’ levels of comprehension and where in the material their
comprehension breaks down. Analyzing the questions a student has
generated can provide a clinician guidance as to the types of intervention
and/or scaffolding from which a struggling reader might benefit.
Comprehension curricula that incorporate these six strategies will likely
be more successful than those that do not. Although it is certainly
appropriate and necessary to target instruction toward a specific strategy,
these strategies should not be taught in isolation – the more they are
integrated into a complete comprehension curriculum, the greater the
likelihood of success. In addition, teaching students to use these strategies in
combination can be even more effective than when they are taught to use
only one of them at a time (Block, Gambrell, & Pressley, 2002). Moreover,
these comprehension strategies should be introduced at as early an age as
possible and are even appropriate for students who have not yet mastered
decoding by introducing and practicing these strategies during the reading

and discussing of text (Pearson & Fielding, 1983).
CONCLUSION
The escalation in the amount, variation, and complexity of text concomitant

with grade-level progression can present reading challenges for many
students at some point(s) in their lives. The medical models of reading clinics
used for decades often attempted to focus on a treatment for specific
symptoms of reading difficulties. However, clinical models that include a
focus on strategies that transfer from one setting to another rather than
those that primarily attempt to address a specific problem are better
equipped to help students tackle the demands placed on them throughout
their educational careers. Moreover, models of clinical practice that
integrate vocabulary and comprehension strategy instruction into interven-
tion programs stand a much better chance of helping students realize lasting
improvement in their reading abilities. Even as adults and reading
professionals, when we encounter new words, we utilize strategies we
learned in school or reading clinics such as analyzing word parts,
determining the etymology of a word, or using context to determine the
meaning of a word in its surroundings. For instance, we might see the term
‘‘osteopathic’’ as it is commonly referred to when discussing a medical
condition. In trying to determine the meaning of this term, our schema
might include information about the roots and suffix of which this word is
comprised and the context in which it is used to allow us to determine that it
might have something to do with a bone ailment. When learners are given
meaningful strategy instruction, they are more likely to draw from that
knowledge and transfer it to different contexts when needed – true learning
persists while symptomatic fixes have no longevity.
Reading clinical programs are an effective means to improve the skills and
abilities of students of all ages, but only if they are structured in ways that
promote active engagement, practice opportunities, research-based learning,
and motivation for literacy empowerment. Using proven methods directed
toward students’ needs and derived from assessment data in areas such as
vocabulary and comprehension will ultimately lead students to have more
successful experiences in every subject area. Regardless of the level of
education offered at a particular college or university, reading clinics should
no longer be viewed as either a luxury item or only for schools that can
afford/accommodate them. Reading clinics, because of their focus on
meeting individual student needs, allow for varied instruction to accomplish

the goal of reading improvement. Long-term impacts are desired from every
educator, yet time restrictions frequently allow for just a nominal number of
hours to be spent with children on an individual basis. It is in clinical
settings, however, that both preservice and practicing teachers can develop
and refine their teaching practices by experiencing what works in a clinical
environment while students receive the individual attention that they need.
As educational funding becomes reevaluated in coming years, there seems
like no better time for stressing the benefits of clinical experience to teacher
education programs. Although there is considerable research supporting
best practices in reading instruction as illustrated by the number of ideas
presented in this chapter regarding vocabulary and comprehension
development, the successful operation of a reading clinic requires significant
time, attention, and supervision. The greatest challenge lies in preparing
preservice and practicing teachers engaged in a clinical course while also
targeting their students’ reading abilities. Although much effort is required
to successfully accomplish both these goals, the benefits to both the
educators and the students certainly outweigh the costs. And this is
continuously confirmed by many capable clinicians and reading profes-
sionals in the field.
REFERENCES
Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. Guthrie (Ed.),
Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77–117). Newark, DE: International
Anderson, R. C., & Nagy, W. E. (1991). Word meanings. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 690–
724). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading
comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil & P. Mosenthal (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 255–291). New York: Longman.
Armbruster, B., Anderson, T., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization
instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22,
331–346.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Baumann, J. F. (2005). Vocabulary-comprehension relationships. In B. Maloch, J. V. Hoffman,
D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks & J. Worthy (Eds.), Fifty-fourth yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 117–131). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading
Conference.
Baumann, J. F., & Kameenui, E. J. (1991). Research on vocabulary instruction: Ode to

Voltaire. In J. Flood, J. J. Lapp & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching
the English Language Arts (pp. 604–632). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr,
M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.
II, pp. 789–814). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary
instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 74(4), 506–521.
Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction
on sixth graders’ summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16,
297–306.
Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read what teachers can do: A guide for teachers 6–12.
Blachowicz, C. L., & Fisher, P. J. (2000). Vocabulary instruction. In M. L. Kamil,
P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research
(Vol. III, pp. 503–523). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Block, C., Gambrell, L. B., & Pressley, M. (Eds.). (2002). Improving comprehension instruction:
Rethinking research, theory, and classroom practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Brett, A., Rothlein, L., & Hurley, M. (1996). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories
and explanations of target words. The Elementary School Journal, 96, 415–422.
Bromley, K. (2002). Stretching students’ vocabulary, grades 3–8. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Bromley, K. (2007). Nine things every teacher should know about words and vocabulary
instruction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(7), 528–537.
Brozo, W., & Flynt, E. (2008). Motivating students to read in the content classroom: Six
evidence-based principles. The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 172–174.
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richman, H. (1971). Word frequency book. New York, NY:
Houghton Mifflin.
Chall, J., Jacobs, V., & Baldwin, L. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor children fall behind.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Condus, M. M., Marshall, K. J., & Miller, S. R. (1986). Effects of the keyword mnemonic
strategy on vocabulary acquisition and maintenance by learning disabled children.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(10), 609–613.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). The impact of print exposure on word
recognition. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp.
235–262). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cunningham, J. (1982). Generating interactions between schemata and text. In J. A. Niles &
L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction (pp. 42–47).
Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Duffelmeyer, F. (1994). Effective anticipation guide statements for learning from expository
prose. Journal of Reading, 37, 452–455.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension.
In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Guthrie, J. T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1),
1–28.
Hahn, M. L. (2002). Reconsidering read-aloud. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experiences of young
American children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
Herbert, H. (1978). Teaching reading in the content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 18, 231–255.
Manzo, A., Manzo, U., & Thomas, M. (2006). Rationale for systematic vocabulary development:
Antidote for state mandates. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 49(7), 610–619.
Manzo, U., Manzo, A., & Thomas, M. (2009). Content area literacy: A framework for reading-
based instruction (. 5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
McNeil, J., & Donant, L. (1982). Summarization strategy for improving reading comprehen-
sion. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction
(pp. 215–219). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 269–284).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Center for Educational Statistics (2011). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011.
Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 results: Executive summary, Retrieved from. http://www.oecd.org/
dataoecd/34/60/46619703.pdf
Ortlieb, E. (2012a). The effects of using Greek and Latin word parts in the second grade within
a struggling school district. The Reading Professor, 34(1), 29–32.
Ortlieb, E. (2012b). The past, present, and future of reading diagnosis and remediation. Journal
Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1983). Instructional implications of listening comprehension
research (Read. Ed. Rep. No. 39). Urbana, IL: Center for the Study of Reading,
University of Illinois.
Pressley, M., Levin, J. R., & McDaniel, M. A. (1987). Remembering versus inferring what a
word means: Mnemonic and contextual approaches. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis
(Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 107–127). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1996). Teaching students to generate questions: A
review of the intervention studies. Review of Educational Research, 66, 181–221.
Rupley, W. H., Logan, J. W., & Nichols, W. D. (1999). Vocabulary instruction in a balanced
reading program. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 336–346.
Saragi, T., Nation, I. S. P., & Meister, G. F. (1978). Vocabulary learning and reading. System,
6, 72–78.
Silven, M., & Vauras, M. (1992). Improving reading through thinking aloud. Learning and
Instruction, 2, 69–88.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences
in the acquisition of reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 278–303.
Thurlow, M., Gaden, J., Ysseldyke, J., & Algozzine, R. (1984). Student reading during reading class:
The lost activity in reading instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 77(5), 267–272.
Trelease, J. (2001). The read-aloud handbook (5th ed.). New York, NY: Penguin.
Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in
the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225.
Verlaan, W., & Ortlieb, E. (2012). Reading while listening: Improving struggling adolescent
readers’ comprehension through the use of digital-audio recordings. What’s Hot in
Literacy Yearbook, 1, 30–36.
WHEN KIDS CAN’T READ, WHAT A
FOCUS ON FLUENCY CAN DO: THE
READING CLINIC EXPERIENCE AT
KENT STATE UNIVERSITY
Belinda Zimmerman, Timothy Rasinski and

Maria Melewski
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter profiles a summer reading clinic that utilizes
graduate students (clinicians) to provide diagnostic literacy intervention
for students in grades one through six who struggle with reading and
writing. The chapter asserts that struggling readers can become successful
when instruction is designed around research-based principles of teaching
and learning. A description is provided of the instructional routine
employed at the clinic that focuses on fluency and has been shown to assist
students in making significant improvements in their literacy progress.
Methodology/approach – The authors describe how teachers and
intervention specialists work together to provide an effective intervention
to the students that emphasizes a specific guided oral fluency routine
known as the Fluency Development Lesson (FDL). Each step in the FDL
is explained. Prior to instruction, clinicians administered an informal

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002010
137
138 BELINDA ZIMMERMAN ET AL.
reading inventory to gain baseline data about the students in the areas of
word recognition, fluency, and comprehension and to subsequently inform
instruction. During the fifth and final week of the program, posttests were
administered. T-Tests indicated that students made significant progress
(p o.001) from pretest to posttest in all areas measured.
Limitations – The authors acknowledge that the study is small in scale,
the intervention period was limited, and the results may have been
influenced by outside factors beyond their control.
Research implications – The study’s primary purpose was to improve the
reading outcomes of the students involved. The reading clinic setting is
ideal for further FDL research including its impact on older students and
the incorporation of digital texts on student performance. Additionally,
readers of the chapter are encouraged to apply the methods and processes
to their own classrooms.
Originality/value – This chapter shows how a summer reading clinic
strives to apply research-based, common sense factors that matter most in
teaching struggling students to read in intervention and classroom
settings. Some of the factors such as the importance of instructional
routine, time-on-task, text selection, targeted teaching, and instructional
talk are considered key to the successful implementation of the FDL and
the clinical experience.
Keywords: Reading clinic; struggling readers; intervention;

instructional routine; fluency
School has not always come easily for Andy Bauer. Following first grade,
Andy was recommended for retention because he was significantly behind
his peers in reading achievement. His parents and teachers hoped that Andy
would overcome his reading difficulties and achieve grade level status.
Instead, Andy slipped further behind and became increasingly frustrated.
Andy’s parents then decided to seek additional help for their son.
The Bauer’s turned to a reading clinic, where clinicians – all certified
teachers seeking a master’s degree in reading specialization – provide
diagnostic guided instruction for students in grades one through six who
struggle with reading and writing. Andy cried when he found out that he
had to attend ‘‘summer school.’’ Recently, when he was asked about his
initial reaction, Andy said, ‘‘Well, that was when I didn’t know what it was
When Kids Can’t Read, What a Focus on Fluency Can Do 139
all about. I thought it was going to be like summer school – you know, real
boring with lots of papers and homework. I mean, I guess I didn’t know that
it was like a really fun reading camp.’’ What a contrast the fearful, pre-
reading clinic Andy was from the smiling boy who five weeks later
performed poetry, jokes, and starred in a reader’s theater performance
during the final day of the program.
In Andy’s case, pre- and post-assessments showed that he made progress
in several key areas of literacy development: word recognition (percentage
of words read accurately on grade level text), fluency (words correct per
minute), and comprehension. Equally important, according to his parents,
Andy acquired a more positive attitude about reading than they had
previously observed. At the end of the program, Andy reflected on his own
progress and stated, ‘‘I know how to read better and I even sound like a
good reader now!’’
In this chapter, we argue that struggling readers can become successful
when instruction is designed around principles of research-based teaching
and learning. We describe a summer reading clinic that employs an
instructional routine that focuses on fluency, targeting proficient expressive
reading, repeated interactions with authentic texts, and reading perfor-
mance. The data we report suggest that students who have engaged in this
instructional routine make significant improvements in their reading.
FLUENCY DEFINED
In recent years, considerable focus has been given to the study of fluency, a
departure from the time when Allington (1983) described fluency as a
neglected aspect of the reading curriculum. Advances in our understanding
of the most effective ways to teach reading were consolidated in the work of
the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) that identified five instructional
factors associated with reading success: phonemic awareness, phonics or
decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Of the five, the findings
concerning the importance of fluency instruction attracted the most
unexpected attention (Applegate, Applegate, & Modla, 2009).
Fluency is a developmental process that bridges word recognition and
reading comprehension (Applegate et al., 2009; Pikulski, 2006). When
readers are fluent, they read effortlessly and with good expression. The
accurate reading of connected text marks fluency, where the reader
maintains a conversational rate and appropriate prosody (Torgesen &
Hudson, 2006). In turn, comprehension is enhanced because the reader’s
attention is focused on what the text means rather than decoding the words
on the page (Samuels, 2002).
Early research into fluency focused primarily on automaticity, concerning
itself with a reader’s ability to internalize word learning so well that it occurs
almost spontaneously (Cattell, 1886). LaBerge and Samuels (1974)
developed a theoretical framework to explain automaticity in reading,
suggesting that reading fluency is based on a reader’s ability to master
foundational subskills (e.g., letter–sound relationships, letter patterns in
words, and the meaning of connected text). They argued that until readers
were able to master these foundational skills to a point of automaticity, they
would be unable to advance to more complex levels of text processing
(comprehension) or benefit fully from comprehension instruction (Will-
ingham, 2007). Wolf and Katzir-Cohen (2001) suggest that fluent readers
were more likely than their nonfluent peers to gain meaning from the printed
word. In this way, the links between fluency and comprehension were
established. The construct implies that as readers gain fluency, they are more
able to attend to the meaning a passage imparts due to the availability of
additional attentional resources. Simply put, once they have gained
automaticity, the reader’s cognitive resources are free to access the meaning
a written text holds.
Prosody or expression in reading is the other component of fluency
(Schreiber, 1987, 1991). Fluency in oral reading is marked by expressive
reading. In order to read with expression, readers have to monitor the
intended meaning of the author and then embed expression into the voice to
reflect that meaning. Large-scale studies have found that elementary readers
who read orally with good expression tend to have good comprehension
when reading silently (Daane, Campbell, Grigg, Goodman, & Oranje, 2005;
Pinnell, Pikulski, Wixson, Campbell, Gough, & Beatty, 1995). Conversely,
students who read orally with poor expression tend to manifest poor
comprehension in their silent reading.
Recent research reports concerning fluency have shown that fluency is a
contributor to reading comprehension and achievement in reading (Miller &
Schwanenflugel, 2006; Rasinski & Hoffman, 2003; Walczyk & Griffith-
Ross, 2007). Additional large-scale studies have demonstrated that fluency
serves as a powerful predictor of comprehension and that a large percentage
of students have not achieved minimally acceptable levels of fluency (Daane
et al., 2005; Pinnell et al., 1995). Similarly, Duke, Pressley, and Hilden
(2004) suggest that difficulties in acquiring reading fluency are a major cause
of reading comprehension problems for struggling readers. Because of
fluency’s importance in reading acquisition and because many elementary
students who struggle in reading manifest difficulties in reading fluency, we

have made fluency development a primary goal in our reading clinic.
THE READING CLINIC
The clinic embraces the notion that reading is an important, attainable, and
meaningful skill. Students are recommended to the clinic by their classroom
teacher, intervention specialist, or by their parents. A student may be
referred to the clinic for a variety of reasons. Typically, this includes
students who perform poorly on local and state mandated tests of reading
achievement, have poor comprehension, and lack fluency (automaticity and
prosody) when reading. Additionally, students typically exhibit low levels of
word recognition accuracy. On average, students who attend the clinic
perform well below grade level expectations in all three areas of reading
proficiency – word recognition accuracy, fluency, and comprehension
(Zimmerman & Rasinski, 2012).
The clinic is designed to utilize research-based assessments to inform the
instruction of each student and to provide appropriate intervention. The
intervention offered to the students follows an apprenticeship model
emphasizing guided oral fluency routines through participation and practice
in structured literacy activities (Dorn, French, & Jones, 1998). Secondary
goals of the clinic are to enhance the self-efficacy of each student and
increase motivation to read. Research confirms that self-efficacy and
motivation are instrumental factors in becoming a successful reader
(Marinak & Gambrell, 2010). Not surprising, many struggling readers
believe they lack the ability to succeed resulting in reading avoidance and a
tendency to give up quickly when challenges emerge. At the clinic, self-
efficacy and motivation are enhanced by immersing students in a wide range
of reading materials based on interest and choice, allowing students to
achieve success with such materials. Also, the clinic strives to create a safe,
trusting learning environment in which academic risk taking is encouraged
and positive support and feedback are provided to the students.
A visitor to the reading clinic would observe students reading in a variety
of situations. The clinic is held in public school classrooms that have been
transformed into print rich, child-centered environments by the clinicians.
Students are surrounded by anchor charts, books, magazines, and other
materials designed to be at students’ instructional and interest levels.
Teachers work together to design lessons that challenge students to read,
either individually or with a partner, in ways that encourage fluency and

comprehension. The clinic employs a pedagogical approach that focuses on
repeated and assisted readings of engaging texts.
Fluency is enhanced as students continually read, hear, and interact with
the text in a variety of purposeful instructional contexts (Kuhn & Stahl,
2003; Therrien, 2004; Therrien & Kubina, 2006). Students may be observed
in active exploration of a topic where they are provided with multiple
opportunities for reading diverse texts including picture and chapter books,
poetry, song lyrics, magazine articles, and student-authored poems and
stories. With guidance from the teachers, students make choices based on
their interests, strengths, and needs. Utilizing a wide range of reading
resources allows teachers to differentiate instruction since all students have
the opportunity to engage with texts that are of interest to them and at an
appropriate level of difficulty.
Since fluency is a major concern for nearly all of the students enrolled in
the reading program, fluency building is at the heart of the instruction that
occurs at the clinic. The Fluency Development Lesson (FDL), a guided oral
reading routine (Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994) serves as the
core lesson for the reading clinic. Since fluency is considered a foundational
reading skill, the FDL is appropriate for students in the primary grades.
However, it may also be appropriate for students beyond the primary grades
who still struggle with fluency. The FDL is a daily lesson using different and
relatively brief (50–250 words) text each day, appropriate for the
developmental level and interest of the students. The primary goal of the
lesson is for students to achieve fluency with the daily text by the end of each
instructional period. We believe that many struggling readers rarely achieve
fluency with the assigned texts they encounter in a typical reading
curriculum. Further, they have limited opportunities to experience the
success in reading a text fluently that their more advanced classmates
experience regularly. As a result, they fail to develop in fluency and
comprehension in a timely way that further exacerbates the widening gap
between the struggling and successful readers (Stanovich, 1986). The self-
efficacy that is key to reading progress often fails to develop when students
do not achieve demonstrable success in their reading.
The focus of the FDL is iterative practice (see Fig. 1). Text is fluently read
by the teacher and students on a daily basis. Students participate in reading
the text silently and orally in a group, with a partner, and on their own.
They contribute to discussions concerning meaning of the passage as well as
how aspects of fluent reading (i.e., prosody) contribute to the development
and conveyance of meaning. Students eventually have opportunities to
Fig. 1. The Fluency Development Lesson (FDL): An Overview.
The FDL employs short reading passages (poems, story segments, or

other texts) that students read and reread over a short period of time.
The format for the lesson is:
1. Students read a familiar passage from the previous lesson to the

teacher or a fellow student for accuracy and fluency.
2. The teacher introduces a new short text and reads it to the students
two or three times while the students follow along or listen to the
teacher’s reading. Text can be a poem, segment from a basal
passage, or literature book, etc.
3. The teacher and students discuss the nature and content of the
passage.
4. Teacher and students read the passage chorally several times.
Antiphonal reading and other variations are used to create variety
and maintain engagement.
5. The teacher organizes student pairs. Each student practices the
passage three times while his or her partner listens and provides
support and encouragement.
6. Individuals and groups of students perform their reading for the
class or other audience.
7. The students and their teacher choose 3 or 4 words from the text to
add to the word bank and/or word wall.
8. Students engage in word study activities (e.g., word sorts with word
bank words, word walls, flash card practice, defining words, and
word games)
9. The students take a copy of the passage home to practice with
parents and other family members.
10. Students return to school and read the passage to the teacher or a
partner who checks for fluency and accuracy.
perform or present their readings in order to feel the sense of success and
achievement that comes from practice. In this way, students engage in
repeated readings of a designated text for an authentic purpose –
performance. Although engaging in the FDL process often results in an
improved reading rate for struggling readers, reading fast or increasing the
speed of reading is not a focus of the FDL.
Students may also respond to the text in written form, usually creating a
response that connects what they have read with their own experiences,
further reinforcing comprehension. The selected passage and any written
work are sent home for additional practice each day to provide a linkage
between the clinical program experiences and home practice. The next day
the passage is reread and reviewed before a new passage is presented. A full
FDL lesson includes the following:
1. Modeling. The teacher expressively reads a short text (e.g., poem, nursery
rhyme, song, and story segment) aloud to the students. This phrased,
fluent oral reading provides a strong model of what quality reading
sounds like. It also serves as an entertaining and nonthreatening way to
introduce new text and hone students’ listening skills while encouraging
visualization of text meaning.
2. Share text. The text is distributed to the students and a second round of
multiple prosodic readings led by the teacher follows. Students may
follow along silently or chime in using a soft voice.
3. Choral reading. The passage is read chorally several times. Antiphonal
reading (members read different selected or assigned parts) and other
variations are used to create variety and maintain engagement (e.g.,
students may read in their deepest or highest voices, loud or whisper
voices, happy, scared, or surprised voices).
4. Discussion. The teacher and students discuss the nature and content of
the passage (e.g., make predictions and/or inferences, draw conclusions,
create visualizations, identify relevant text-to-self, text-to-text, and text-
to-world connections) as well as the quality of the teacher’s oral reading.
The teacher may wonder aloud to make a teaching point such as, ‘‘Did
you notice how I used plenty of expression when I read to show
excitement since this poem has several exclamation points?’’ or ‘‘Did you
notice how I slowed down and deepened my voice on this part? I was
trying to use my voice to create a feeling of suspense here.’’
5. Paired reading. The students work in pairs or trios. Each student
practices the passage two or three times while his or her partner listens
and provides support and encouragement. The students learn from the
modeling of the teachers how to offer positive feedback when partners
improve.
6. Perform. Individuals or groups of students perform their reading for the
class or other audiences. Particular attention is given to expression, word
accuracy, and fluency. Students may also perform by recording their
readings and sharing the recorded renderings at home with their families
and friends.
7. Word work and word study. Depending on age or stage of reading

development, the students and the teacher then choose 2–5 interesting
words from the text to add to individual student word banks, journals,
and/or the classroom word wall. Teachers encourage students to select
words that are interesting, fun to say, challenging, mysterious, or have a
particular orthographic structure that can be used for further analyses
and instruction. Students then engage in 5–10 minutes of word study
activities using the selected word bank words. Examples include word
sorts, word wall practice, arranging the word cards in alphabetical order,
sentence building, and other forms of written expression. The teachers
will also create game-like activities such as word searches, word puzzles,
or word ladders for their students as a pleasurable way to extend student
practice with the words. In this way, students build word recognition,
automaticity, vocabulary understanding, and a better sense of how words
work in the English language while having fun at the same time.
The clinic seeks to situate the FDL and, in effect, all literacy learning within
a model for high quality principled instruction. Key principles that guide our
clinical model are drawn from several of Schmoker’s (2006) ‘‘unfortunate
realities’’ (p.17) of instruction today and Allington’s (2002) principles of
‘‘effective reading instruction’’ (p. 740) as a framework for thinking about
how the clinic instructors work with students throughout the program. These
‘‘unfortunate realities’’ include kids are not reading and writing enough,
students’ needs do not determine the curriculum, and teachers do not have
opportunities to work in teams (Schmoker, 2006). Additionally, Allington’s
research and principles are foundational to the framework employed at the
reading clinic. Using data from a long-term study of first- and fourth-grade
teachers in six states, Allington (2002) identified several research-based,
common sense factors that matter most in teaching students to read in
classroom and intervention settings. Several of these factors such as the
importance of time, text, teaching, and talk are also considered key to the
successful implementation of the FDL and the clinic program experience.
SCHMOKER’S UNFORTUNATE REALITIES

(2006, PP. 17–18)
Kids Are Not Reading and Writing Enough
Lower achieving students are reading far less than their high-achieving peers
(Allington, 2006). In fact, students are reading only a fraction of what they
need to become literate, think critically, and grow intellectually (Allington,

2002; Gallagher, 2003; Gaskins, 1988). Allington (2002) observed that the
highest achieving classrooms devote about 70% of the school day to reading
or writing. As such, he recommends that classrooms should spend 60
minutes on reading and 40 minutes per day on writing. A defining principle
of any exemplary reading intervention effort is the inclusion of ‘‘enormous
quantities of actual reading and writing’’ (Allington & Baker, 1999, p. 307).
Although the clinic does not occur in a typical classroom setting, we strive
for a similar ratio. It is our standard and goal for the teachers to structure
the learning to ensure that the bulk of the instructional time is spent on
authentic reading and writing experiences. The reading time-on-task of the
FDL is representative of this precept. We strive to create an ongoing
awareness that becoming a skilled reader and writer necessitates a great deal
of practice. Thus, our students are immersed in reading and writing from the
start to the finish time of each daily session.
Student Needs Do Not Determine the Curriculum
Assessment results are used to determine the children’s literacy needs and to
inform instruction in the clinic. As a result of previous and current
coursework and their own teaching experiences, the teachers develop a
repertoire of strategies to meet the needs of the learners. As we described
earlier, the FDL is the curriculum cornerstone of the reading instruction
provided at the clinic. We believe that this emphasis on fluency instruction is
crucial since effective fluency instructional methods have great potential to
positively impact all aspects of a student’s reading development (Mathison,
Allington, & Solic, 2006; Rasinski, 2010).
Teachers Do Not Have Opportunities to Work in Teams
Generally, teachers work in teams of four adults and eight to twelve

students. They meet regularly to prepare lessons, plan themed instruction,
and discuss and interpret assessments, observations, and reflections. The
clinic’s mission embraces Surowiecki’s (2004) assertion that ‘‘A successful
face-to-face team is more than just collectively intelligent. It makes everyone
work harder, think smarter, and reach better conclusions than what they
would have on their own’’ (p. 176). Having the teachers work in teams
allows them a safe space to explore, follow up, and refine lessons as they
‘‘pool their practical knowledge’’ and ‘‘share the best of what they already
know’’ along with their new learnings (Schmoker, 2006, p. 109). The
development of internal expertise that occurs as a result of the meetings and
team teaching may be the most influential form of professional development
available since learning from one another has been found to be how teachers
learn best (Rosenholtz, 1991). Similarly, Allington (2002) has found that
teachers tend to credit other exemplary colleagues for providing the support
and guidance needed for them to make improvements in their teaching.
The FDL is the core lesson in our reading clinic. Teachers are expected
to implement it daily. The lesson is not intended to be implemented in a
prescriptive manner. Teachers need to make decisions about text choice,
instructional focus, word study activities, and so on. In the collaborative
environment of our reading clinic, teachers have the opportunity to share
their own plans and implementations of the FDL with their colleagues.
Through this collaborative process, FDL implementation becomes more
nuanced and more effective in meeting the needs of students.
ALLINGTON’S PRINCIPLES OF EFFECTIVE

READING INSTRUCTION (2002, PP. 740–747)
Time
Time refers to the actual amount of minutes the children are meaningfully
engaged in reading and writing. In too many instances, Allington (2002)
observed that children spent only about 10–15 minutes of a 90-minute
literacy block on reading and writing. At the clinic, teachers are aware
that to achieve reading proficiency, the students must be given opportunities
to read extensively. Hence, close attention is paid to time-on-task and
teachers are assisted in adjusting their plans to achieve a healthy balance of
reading and writing throughout each lesson. When followed with fidelity,
the 30–45 minute FDL requires that the students are meaningfully and
actively engaged in reading and writing virtually every minute of the lesson
process.
Texts
Rather than utilizing traditional basal series and other packaged curriculum
materials, exemplary teachers are aware that the highest achieving students
have access to plenty of ‘‘easy texts’’ that they are able to read ‘‘accurately,
fluently, and with strong comprehension’’ when engaged in independent
reading tasks (Allington, 2002, p. 743). With this in mind, the teachers
make sure they have a vast supply of books on hand that the children
can truly read. There are many tubs of books that the teachers may sign out,
the teachers make good use of their local libraries, and they also return
to their own classrooms to borrow books to use at the clinic. For the
implementation of the FDL, reading materials are carefully selected by the
teachers who take into account type of text, text difficulty, and interests
of the students. The use of high-quality children’s literature, poetry, and
informational texts is encouraged and teachers are asked to refrain from the
use of decodable texts since too often the meaning and story structure of
these books are sacrificed in order to overemphasize targeted phonetic
elements.
Teach
The emphasis here is on active teaching, which is characterized by routinely

modeling and demonstrating the effective strategies used by good readers.
It is crucial that the teachers employ reflective practice during the modeling
to give the students ‘‘insider access’’ to the invisible thinking and the
cognitive language structures needed to successfully engage in the assign-
ment. This type of modeling is at the forefront of all FDL lessons and is
integral to the process. When the teachers are planning for their modeling in
each lesson, it is instructive for the teachers to ask themselves this question,
‘‘What is the most clear, concise, and memorable demonstration I could
show the students that they could apply right away and would give them a
way into this particular text or task?’’ The teachers are observed purpose-
fully shifting away from the less effective practice of ‘‘assign and assess’’
in favor of the ‘‘watch me demonstrate’’ (Allington, 2002, p. 743) stance
utilized by exemplary teachers.
Talk
Each step in the FDL process is laced with talk between the teachers and
students. Here, talk refers to the highly personalized, purposeful, instruc-
tional conversations that exemplary teachers use to guide and problem
solve with their students. In the clinic, conversations between teachers and
students occur on a regular basis and are considered integral to providing

quality instruction. Moreover, the teachers try to pose open-ended questions
that have more than one right answer and afford the students with
opportunities to explore and analyze their thinking whenever possible. It is
through this dialogue that teachers are able to realize students’ interests and
ideas while also ascertaining their current levels of understanding (Wells &
Chang-Wells, 1992). This is a departure from the more interrogational kinds
of questioning practices that are often associated with less effective teaching
(Cazden, 1988).
To the aforementioned lists of factors associated with the success of the
clinic, three other focal areas have been added that are integral to the clinical
program for struggling readers.
Focus on High Expectations for Students
It is crucial that all educators understand that the expectations of teachers

and other role models are powerful shapers of student learning and
achievement. Cambourne (1988) contends that students achieve what they
are expected to achieve and fail if they are expected to fail. Thus, struggling
learners are more likely to thrive if teachers believe that all students can
learn, hold high expectations for their achievement, and work alongside
them with research-based approaches to position them for success.
In an early orientation, teachers are given the message that all students can
learn to read. Success lies in good teaching. Additionally, students need
authentic and challenging materials and tasks in which they find success.
Moreover, the clinic emphasizes instruction that is focused on the individual
needs of the students, and places a high priority on holding high expectations
for the students. Communication with families is integral, as engaged parents
or caregivers can support student learning. When students believe they can be
successful in reading they are much more likely to find success.
Focus on Family Involvement
Students’ progress in reading is dependent to a large extent on the support

that they get from their family members (Rasinski, Padak, & Stevenson,
2012). A concerted effort is made to involve parents. The program begins
with an informational presentation to parents and caregivers who are
informed that their children will be bringing materials home every night to
be read together. Teachers are required to provide parents with a brief text
from the day’s FDL activities that they give to parents to provide a positive
home-school connection. Teachers update parents daily as to their children’s
progress when they pick them up at the end of each session. The final day at
the clinic is a Reading Festival in which the students perform for parents
and other family members scripts, poems, songs, and other texts that they
have been rehearsing during the FDL throughout the program.
Focus on the Affective Dimensions of Reading
Children who struggle in reading often dislike reading as well (Pressley,

2002; Worthy, 2000). The clinic places a high degree of emphasis on
developing students’ love of reading. Students read authentic and engaging
materials. They respond to their readings in ways that are enjoyable, often
game-like, and creative. Rather than the traditional craft-based projects
used as literature extensions in many classrooms, the emphasis for all
the materials employed at the clinic is to provide intensive literature rich
reading experiences. In the FDL process, students are repeatedly exposed to
reading texts that highlight fluency and comprehension. In this way, the
affective aspects of the clinic experience are braided to the academic
expectations.
RESEARCH QUESTION
Indeed, research has suggested that as students gain fluency they become
better readers (Heilman, Blair, & Rupley, 2002; Kuhn & Stahl, 2000;
NICHD, 2000; Pikulski & Chard, 2005; Pressley, Gaskins, & Fingeret,
2006). What is less well understood is how gains in reading can be linked to
authentic fluency instruction and how fluency development can be assured
as a result of classroom reading instruction. The remainder of this chapter
highlights one such study that focused on the usefulness of the FDL, an
instructional intervention based on key principles of reading and reading
instruction, as a method to enhance student growth in reading. With student
reading growth as a primary focus, this study sought to answer the following
research question:
To what extent do students exhibit gains in fluency and overall reading
proficiency as a result of core instruction utilizing the FDL?
METHOD
Instructional activities at the program are underscored by an initial

assessment of each student’s readiness and reading level. Thirty-six students
were enrolled in the program including 5 first graders, 10 second graders, 15
third graders and 6 fourth graders. The program also serves fifth and sixth
graders. However, an insufficient number of fifth and sixth grade students
completed the program assessments during the time of the study. Eleven
graduate students (already certified, practicing classroom teachers) working
on their master’s degree in reading served as teachers during the program.
The teachers were responsible for daily lessons including the FDL for a
period of 19, 90-minute sessions over five weeks. Each teacher worked with
two to four students during each clinic session that began at 9:30 AM and
ended at 11:00 AM, Monday through Thursday. Teaching procedures were
monitored for fidelity to the FDL format.
ASSESSMENT/DATA COLLECTION
The data we collected and our analyses reflect the diagnostic data and
analyses that usually occur in a reading clinic setting. As is typical in a
reading clinic, a reading inventory (Rasinski & Padak, 2005), based on
curriculum-based measurement principles (Deno, 1985) was employed to
quickly determine the literacy strengths and needs of each student and to
establish baseline performance for students in word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension. Students were asked to orally read grade level passages
(grade level defined as their most recent grade level completed). Next,
students provided a retelling of what they had read in order to assess their
comprehension of text. Retellings are assessed by the teacher using a six-
point retelling rubric (Fig. 2).
DATA ANALYSIS
Means for student performance by grade level for word recognition, fluency,
and comprehension are reported in Tables 1–3, respectively. T-Tests indicate
that students made significant progress (p o .001) from pretest to post-test
in each of these dimensions.
In word recognition we found that students at every grade level made
substantial gains in their ability to read words in context (Table 1). Students’
Fig. 2. Comprehension Rubric (Rasinski & Padak, 2005).
1. No recall or minimal recall of only a fact of two from the passage.

2. Recall of a number of unrelated facts of varied importance.
3. Recall of the main idea of the passage with a few supporting
details.
4. Recall of the main idea along with a fairly robust set of supporting
details, although not necessarily organized logically or sequentially
as presented in the passage.
5. Recall is a comprehensive summary of the passage, presented in a
logical order and/or with a robust set of details and that includes a
statement of main idea.
6. Recall is a comprehensive summary of the passage, presented in a
logical order and/or with a robust set of details and that includes a
statement of main idea. Student also makes reasonable connec-
tions beyond the text such as to his/her own personal life or
another text.
Table 1. Mean Student Performance in Word Recognition (Percentage

of Words Read Correctly) on Grade Level Passages.
Grade Level Pretest Posttest Gain
1 77 92 +15
2 95 97 +2
3 87 93 +6
4 92 97 +4
Table 2. Mean Student Performance in Reading Fluency (Words

Correct Per Minute) on Grade Level Passages.
Grade Level Pretest Posttest Gain Weekly Average Gain in Reading Rate
1 35 49 +14 2.8
2 61 73 +12 2.4
3 69 82 +13 2.6
4 77 108 +31 6.2
Table 3. Mean Student Performance in Reading Comprehension

(Retelling) on Grade Level Passages.
Grade Level Pretest Posttest Gain
1 3.9 5.7 +1.8

2 3.6 4.4 +0.8
3 3.3 4.7 +1.4
4 3.0 4.2 +1.2
Table 4. Weekly Reading Rate Improvement Goals for Struggling

Readers.
Grade Level Realistic Ambitious
1 2.0 3.0
2 1.5 2.0
3 1.0 2.0
4 0.5 0.8
performance at every grade level was, on average, near or above

instructional grade level (95% accuracy) for word recognition on grade
level passages.
Relatedly, students showed similar significant gains in reading fluency. On
average, students at every grade level began the clinic reading at or below
the spring norm for fluency (Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2006). We measured
fluency (word recognition automaticity) by examining each student’s
reading rate (Rasinski & Padak, 2005). It is important to note that not
once during the entire clinic experience were students asked or even
encouraged to read fast. Nevertheless, students demonstrated substantial
gains (Table 4). Based on their study of student growth using Curriculum-
Based Measurement, Fuchs, Fuchs, Hamlett, Walz, and Germann (1993)
developed a set of realistic and ambitious gains in reading rate for students
experiencing difficulty in reading (see Table 4). Weekly reading rate gains
made by students in our reading clinic exceeded the realistic goals in grade
one and the ambitious goals in grades two, three, and four.
Comprehension was measured by having the teacher rate each student’s
oral retelling of their reading and then rating the retelling using a retelling
rubric (Rasinski & Padak, 2005), with 1 being a lowest score (minimal recall)
and 6 being the highest (comprehensive and elaborated recall) (see Fig. 2).
Students’ performance demonstrated substantial gains across all grade levels

in their ability to retell information from grade level passages.
DISCUSSION
Admittedly in literacy education there remain unresolved issues and points

of conflict concerning what curriculum materials, pedagogical approaches,
or reading programs are ‘‘the best.’’ In spite of the debates and lingering
questions, there is strong agreement from the research community that we
now have enough knowledge to make dramatic improvements in literacy
achievement (Allington & Johnston, 2001; Allington, 2002; Marzano, 2003;
NICHD, 2000; Pressley, 2002; Schmoker, 2006). Instruction at the reading
clinic capitalizes on this finding. This information affords the teachers with
an immense opportunity to make positive, significant gains in the literacy
achievement of students.
The reading clinic framework is congruent with Glickman’s (2002)
assertion that the key to effective instruction need not be a mystery, and that
in fact the essential components of quality practices are widely known by the
research community. Our reading clinic is committed to understanding and
implementing those practices most critical to the attainment of higher levels
of literacy and the critical thinking that ultimately mark reading success.
The principled reading clinic framework in general, and more specifically the
FDL, may be characterized as examples of these successful practices since
they effectively apply the research-based principles regarding the importance
of modeling, time on task, repeated readings, short engaging text, specific
feedback, and the development of motivation and self efficacy as paths
toward reading success.
We recognize that this study is small in scale, the intervention period was
limited, and that the reported results may have been influenced by factors
outside of our control. Balanced against these limitations, however, is the
fact that the study took place in an actual clinical situation where the
primary purpose is not research but solid instruction to improve the reading
outcomes of students. Not only do we work to improve the achievement of
students who attend the reading clinic, our goal is for our teachers to apply
what they have gained through their work in the reading clinic to their own
classrooms.
The reading clinic setting provides us with an ideal setting to continue
our research into the FDL. In the clinic we have the opportunity to
work exclusively with students who struggle in reading. Moreover, the
opportunities for intense observation of students and teachers allow us

to study the more nuanced instructional variables that may not be possible
in larger scale studies. Future research into the FDL may include its impact
on older students, identification of the ideal group size for instruction,
types of texts used for the FDL, and the role of technology and impact of
digital texts on the student performance.
IMPLICATIONS FOR CLASSROOM INSTRUCTION
The principles underlying the clinic and the use of a focused instructional
method for FDL offer important implications for literacy learning in the
regular classroom as well as intervention programs such as Title I. The
research suggests several areas where teachers might employ these ideas in
classroom settings. First, exposure to text in an iterative manner matters
(Kuhn, & Stahl, 2000; Rasinski, 2010; Samuels, 1979; Topping, 2006). Often
classroom instruction fails to provide students adequate initial exposure to
text. When students are not provided deep experiences with the text prior to
employing the words or ideas within the text in new ways, they can be placed
at a disadvantage. This disadvantage is exacerbated when fluency and
comprehension are compromised. By providing students multiple experi-
ences with the text before they are asked to work with it independently,
success can be fostered as learning is scaffolded.
After strong initial experiences, students must be offered opportunities to
make sense of the text in ways that are authentic to them. By identifying new
and interesting words, writing about the text or performing readings of the
text, students can inhabit language in ways previously unknown to them.
This close reading facilitates learning as students become more familiar and
proficient with words in context. Comprehension is also enhanced as fluency
grows. Fluency and comprehension are developed in concert with one other,
and growth in one improves growth in the other. Teachers can assure that
this occurs in their classrooms by regularly engaging in authentic and direct
instruction in fluency using methods such as the FDL and including student
performances of short, manageable passages of text. Furthermore, when
students read aloud texts that are provided by the teacher as well as texts of
their own writing in response to those texts, they begin to develop a
familiarly with text as an extension of their own experiences. In other words,
students can began to see that reading matters because it is part of who they
are and what they do.
Fluency is an important part of reading success. When activities stress

fluency in context rather than in isolation and reading for meaning rather
than reading for speed, students are able to employ fluency as a tool to
increase comprehension. In this way, understanding, rather than speed,
becomes the teaching objective and fluency serves as one instrument (along
with vocabulary, word recognition and the like) for successfully accessing
text.
The importance of using texts as a tool for performance fosters fluency.
Repeated readings work best when students have an authentic reason for
reading a text multiple times. This means using texts that lend themselves to
meaningful performance. As such, the FDL stresses group and individual
repeated readings for the purpose of performance. As students ‘‘rehearse’’
by saying the words aloud with a focus on prosody and expression, they are
provided practice that increases their comfort with language and in turn,
enhances their progress and confidence. Additionally, teachers may find
ways for students to share their newly developed fluency abilities with
interested and enthusiastic audiences.
It is important to note that the FDL is not just a clinical practice. Rather,
it is an instructional routine that includes steps any teacher can employ and
modify, in any reading context, to meet the fluency, word recognition, and
comprehension needs of students. The FDL’s predictable and consistent
structure allows teaching time to be maximized. Teachers may successfully
employ the FDL routine with narrative, informational, or poetic texts
during the language arts block or as part of subject-specific reading in the
content areas. When new ideas or vocabulary are introduced outside of the
context of formal reading instruction, students’ comprehension and
vocabulary growth will follow. The FDL model provides teachers with a
relatively brief and focused protocol for introducing new ideas and terms as
well as improving fluency. The FDL also provides formative feedback to
teachers and students in terms of growth and areas of need. The intervention
provided by the FDL enhances other guided reading strategies in ways that
reinforce student learning.
CHILDREN’S SUCCESS IS OUR SUCCESS

At the clinic, it is acknowledged that ‘‘the great progress [on effective
literacy instruction] to date gives good reason to believe that even greater
progress can be made by researchers who are informed by what has been
discovered so far’’ (Pressley, 2002, p. 342). That said, as educators
committed to student learning and guided by research, the most current

understandings on how to provide high-quality literacy instruction to
struggling readers must prevail. By contributing to the research base,
studying practice, extending understandings, and refining conceptual
thinking, expert exemplary reading instruction is provided not only for the
children in the clinic, but for the future students whose educational
pathways and lives the teachers will touch.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36, 556–561.
Allington, R. L. (2002). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of
studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 740–747.
Allington, R. L. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
programs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Allington, R. L., & Baker, K. (1999). Best practices in literary instruction for children with
special needs. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, S. B. Neuman & M. Pressley (Eds.),
Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 292–310). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. H. (2001). What do we know about effective fourth-grade
teachers and their classrooms? In C. Roller (Ed.), Learning to teach reading: Setting the
research agenda (pp. 150–165). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Applegate, M. D., Applegate, A. J., & Modla, V. B. (2009). ‘‘She’s my best reader; she just can’t
comprehend’’: Studying the relationship between fluency and comprehension. The
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the
classroom. Auckland: Ashton Scholastic, Ltd.
Cazden, C. B. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Daane, M. C., Campbell, J. R., Grigg, W. S., Goodman, M. J., & Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-
grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of oral reading (NCES
2006–469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of education sciences, national center
for education statistics. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional
Children, 52, 219–232.
Dorn, L. J., French, C., & Jones, T. (1998). Apprenticeship in literacy: Transitions across reading
and writing. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Duke, N. K., Pressley, M., & Hilden, K. (2004). Difficulties in reading comprehension. In
C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and
literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 501–520). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation
of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22,
27–48.
Gallagher, K. (2003). Reading reasons: Motivational mini-lessons for middle and high school.
Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Gaskins, R. W. (1988). The missing ingredients: Time on task, direct instruction, and writing.
The Reading Teacher, 41(8), 750–755.
Glickman, C. (2002). Leadership for learning: How to help teachers succeed. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool
for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.
Heilman, A. W., Blair, T. R., & Rupley, W. H. (2002). Principles and practices of teaching
reading (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2000). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
CIERA Report #2-008. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading
Achievement.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 3–21.
LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in
reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293–323.
Marinak, B. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2010). Reading motivation: Exploring the elementary
gender gap. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(2), 129–141.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mathison, D. V., Allington, R. L., & Solic, K. L. (2006). Hijacking fluency and instructionally
informative assessments. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency
instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 106–119). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Miller, J., & Schwanenflugel, P. (2006). Prosody of syntactically complex sentences in the oral
reading of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(4), 839–853.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (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.
Pikulski, J. J. (2006). Fluency: A developmental and language perspective. In S. J. Samuels & A.
E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 70–93).
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and reading
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58, 510–519.
Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. (1995).
Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.
Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York,
NY: The Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., & Fingeret, L. (2006). Instruction and development of reading
fluency in struggling readers. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has
to say about fluency instruction (pp. 47–69). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Rasinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Scholastic.
Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Theory and research into practice: Oral reading in the
school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 510–522.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). The effects of fluency
development instruction on urban second grade readers. Journal of Educational
Research, 87, 158–164.
Rasinski, T. V., & Padak, N. D. (2005). Three minute reading assessments: Word recognition,
fluency, and comprehension for grades 1–4. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Rasinski, T. V., Padak, N. D., & Stevenson, B. (2012). Teaching fluency (and decoding) through
fast start: An early childhood parental involvement program. In T. Rasinski,
C. Blachowicz & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices
(pp. 231–242). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teacher’s workplace: The social organization of schools. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 32, 403–408.
Samuels, S. J. (2002). Reading fluency: Its development and assessment. In A. E. Farstrup &
S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed.,
pp. 166–183). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching
and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-
ment.
Schreiber, P. A. (1987). Prosody and structure in children’s syntactic processing. In R. Horowitz
& S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 243–270). New
York, NY: Academic Press.
Schreiber, P. A. (1991). Understanding prosody’s role in reading acquisition. Theory into
Practice, 30, 158–164.
Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of indivi-
dual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4),
360–407.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading: A
meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 252–261.
Therrien, W. J., & Kubina, R. M. (2006). Developing reading fluency with repeated reading.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 41, 156–160.
Topping, K. J. (2006). Paired reading: Impact of a tutoring method on reading accuracy,
comprehension, and fluency. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency
Instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 173–191). New York, NY: The Guilford
Press.
Torgesen, J. K., & Hudson, R. F. (2006). Reading fluency: Critical issues for struggling readers.
In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency
instruction (pp. 130–158). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Walczyk, J., & Griffith-Ross, D. (2007). How important is reading skill fluency for
comprehension? The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 560–569.
Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers
of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Willingham, D. (2007). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies.
American Educator, 30, 39–50.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 5, 211–239.
Worthy, J. (2000). Teachers’ and students’ suggestion for motivating middle-school students to
read. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), Forty-ninth yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 441–445). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Zimmerman, B. S., & Rasinski, T. V. (2012). The fluency development lesson: A model of
authentic and effective fluency instruction. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz & K. Lems
(Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 172–184). New York, NY:
The Guilford Press.
BUILDING WRITING
COMMUNITIES AND
PARTNERING WITH FAMILIES:
MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
FROM A WRITING
PRACTICUM
Cheryl Dozier and Julie Smit
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter outlines a six-week graduate level writing
practicum that fosters collaboration among teachers, elementary school
writers, and families.
Design – Through the voices of teachers, students, and families, the
authors describe a newly developed writing practicum where teachers
engage in the writing process to build communities of writers and develop
partnerships with families.
Practical implications – Teacher educators can use the practices
presented in this chapter as a springboard to create their own school-
based writing practicum.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002011
161
162 CHERYL DOZIER AND JULIE SMIT
Originality/value – This approach to teacher education values commu-

nities of writers and family partnerships to build on student writers’
strengths and interests.
Keywords: Teacher preparation; writing communities; family

partnerships
As Daniel, a second grader, walked upstairs to meet his writing teachers, he could not
wait to tell them about the arrival of his new baby sister, Laila. From the first night of
the practicum, Daniel’s teachers learned how important this new baby was to him. They
were surprised, when five days after giving birth, Daniel’s mom brought Laila to the
practicum site. ‘‘Of course I had to bring her in to visit. Daniel wanted me to introduce
her to his tutors.’’ When the teachers met Laila, they exclaimed, ‘‘Daniel, Laila looks just
like you described her in your writing.’’ That afternoon Daniel shared his writing with
his mom and baby Laila.
INTRODUCTION
‘‘I never really understood how to teach writing. I just kept faking it, hoping
my cooperating teachers [during student teaching] didn’t notice.’’ Instruc-
tors in a master’s degree program for literacy specialists routinely heard
comments similar to this during the capstone practicum course. When asked
what they would like to focus on during final course seminars, graduate
students routinely responded they wanted to learn how to confer with
children, how to inspire children to write, and how to support children’s
writing development. Among graduate students, there was widespread
reluctance and nervousness to teach writing. As a result, program faculty at
the University at Albany created a new writing practicum as part of a larger
redesign of our master’s degree programs. In this newly created practicum,
we sought to create writing experiences that were ‘‘carefully coordinated
with coursework and carefully mentored’’ to prepare responsive teachers
who ‘‘successfully enact complex teaching practices’’ (Zeichner, 2010, p. 95).
Throughout the redesign process, we remained mindful that many graduate
students enroll in the writing course early in their master’s program, with
little teaching experience. In this chapter, we outline the design of this
practicum experience.
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families 163
DESIGNING THE WRITING PRACTICUM
The six-week practicum was embedded in a required master’s level writing

course for students enrolled in the university’s literacy specialist and
childhood degree master’s programs. The writing course, which met once a
week for a full semester (4:15 – 7:05 p.m.), focused on the theory and
practice of teaching writing from birth to grade six. Initial course sessions
were held at the university. Half way through the semester, we moved the
class to the six-week practicum location in a local elementary school.
As part of the practicum, teachers engaged in a 45-minute writer’s
workshop with children. Writer’s workshop included a mini-lesson, time for
sustained writing, writing conferences, and share time. For the writer’s
workshop, we drew from experts and practitioners in the field (Anderson,
2000; Atwell, 1998; Bomer, 2010; Calkins, 2003; Fletcher, 1996; Graves,
1994; Routman, 2005). Instructors observed each writing group weekly. A
30-minute debriefing and planning session followed the writer’s workshop.
Instructors held conferences with graduate students focusing on the
productive interactions during the lesson, uncertainties that arose, and
goals for future teaching. A 90-minute seminar followed the planning and
debriefing time. During the seminar, teachers engaged in and reflected on
the following: teaching, student, and family celebrations from each evening’s
work, conversations around research, collaborative problem solving of
teaching dilemmas, and the range of ways graduate students/teachers
engaged with families as part of writer’s workshop.
To design this new practicum, we first asked: What kinds of relevant,
meaningful, and purposeful writing experiences can we organize for children
to engage in during a six-night workshop practicum? We put children’s
experiences first, believing if we created engaging, purposeful writing events
for children, the teaching experience would be productive and powerful for
graduate students. We then considered: How do we structure and scaffold
these practicum experiences for novice teachers to become responsive
writing teachers?
With these considerations in mind, we created two primary goals for the
newly designed six-week practicum: to create communities of writers and to
partner with families. Just as we wanted writing teachers to be clear with
their goals and purposes, as teacher educators, we, too, needed to be clear
about our goals and purposes for responsive literacy teaching (see Table 1).
In creating these goals, we seek to understand and optimize the
consequences of our practices (Dozier, Johnston, & Rogers, 2006).
Ultimately, we wanted teachers to transfer practices to their six-credit
Table 1. Parallel Goals for the Writing Practicum.

Teacher Preparation Teacher Goals Student Goals Family Goals
Goals
Build and engage in Engage as writers Engage as writers Meet with

communities of across a range of Experience a range teacher and
writers genres of interesting and student after
Provide supervised Grow as responsive engaging writing each writing
practicum writing teachers opportunities across session
experience where Partner with families genres Share insights,
teachers engage in Transfer responsive Share writing with feel welcomed
responsive literacy teaching to other families as part of the
teaching with contexts writing
children and families community
Support transfer of Engage as
responsive teaching writers
master’s degree capstone practicum course and to school contexts

(Bransford & Schwartz, 1999).
PLANNING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

We met with the principal and teachers of the school where we held our
capstone practicum course to discover if they were interested in extending
our current university–school partnership with an additional after-school
writing practicum. The opportunity for extra support for their students
excited the principal and teachers. We emphasized to parents that the after-
school practicum was an opportunity for students who loved to write and
for those who wanted additional writing support.
We coordinated the practicum with the school district calendar. The
small city school, located in upstate New York, has 398 pre-K through
fifth-grade students. Approximately 73% of students are eligible for free
or reduced price meals. Students stayed after school with a district aide
(paid for by the school district) and were given a snack, completed their
homework, or played outside until the small group lessons started. There
were no fees for participating. Thirty-one first through fifth-grade
children, five African Americans, one Latina, and twenty-five Caucasians
participated.
BUILDING COMMUNITIES OF WRITERS
In this new writing practicum, we, as teacher educators, took to heart the
investment of graduate students, elementary students, and their families in
building writing communities in which all members’ position themselves as
meaning makers and inquirers. As teacher educators, we wanted our
responsiveness to foster responsive teaching (Dozier et al., 2006; Dozier &
Rutten, 2005/2006). We applied Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development
(ZPD) not only to support young learners but novice teachers as well. Our job
was to find the ZPD for teachers (Warford, 2011) just as the teacher’s job was to
find the ZPD for writers. To build our community of writers, we invited families
to write and to respond to their children’s work. Through this multilayered
approach, our graduate students experienced ‘‘families, children, and teachers
as makers of collaborative meaning’’ (Kroeger & Lash, 2011, p. 269).
GRADUATE STUDENTS AS WRITERS
From the first night of class, graduate students wrote in their writer’s
notebook (Fletcher, 1996). As part of this writing process, graduate students
brainstormed with partners and small groups. Graduate students con-
structed writing time lines that reflected their writing histories; wrote about
a school memory that changed them; wrote a short piece revealing
something their colleagues did not know about them; listed their needs as
writers before, during, and after writing; and reflected on their teaching.
After writing, graduate students shared their writing pieces with one
another. As teacher educators, we wrote side by side in our writer’s
notebooks. As writers, we all experienced celebrations and frustrations.
Graduate students noticed and named beautiful language in each other’s
writing pieces (Bomer, 2010). Graduate students also reflected on the
processes involved – what worked for them as writers, what did not, and
which genres they preferred (Dozier, 2006). As teacher educators, we created
this intentional structure to scaffold writing events for graduate students in
the same manner we wanted them to scaffold for their young writers.
PREPARING TO WRITE WITH CHILDREN AND

FAMILIES
Teachers worked collaboratively in groups of three to plan lessons for three

to four elementary students. The collaborative lesson planning created a
reason for dialogue, negotiation, and perspective taking with colleagues and
course instructors (Samaras, 2000). Through these conversations, teachers
noticed and named their practices (Dozier et al., 2006). The three-person
team structure allowed teachers to rely on each other and draw from each
other’s expertise.
Preparing Lessons
As teacher educators, we structured writing events each week to carefully

scaffold lessons. We first modeled a mini-lesson with possible mentor texts.
After the lesson, we analyzed instructional language and discussed ways to
engage writers. We then gave time in class for teachers to plan and tailor
their mini-lesson for their group of young writers. Lesson plans included
specific language/prompts for brainstorming, mentor texts, and craft
features. We offered specific prompts to guide teachers, ‘‘What will your
opening line be? What will you say next? How will you explain this craft
feature?’’ To help teachers imagine the logic of the learners and develop
lesson plans from this lens, we asked, ‘‘What do you imagine your learners
will say when you ask [this question]? How are you focusing on/building on
what you know about your writers?’’ This scaffolding led to a further focus
on language choices related to learners’ needs.
Lesson Structure
During each session, one teacher taught a mini-lesson. The teacher

introduced the writing with a mentor text and gave children time to
brainstorm. Children leaned in intently as the teacher shared mentor texts
and giggled while they brainstormed. During the mini-lesson, the second
teacher recorded the teacher’s instructional language and the third teacher
recorded children’s responses to the lesson.
After the mini-lesson, teachers and students gathered their materials and
began to write. Teachers and students wrote side by side. We insisted teachers
write side by side with the children so the children could see writers in action.
As the teachers and children wrote, they conferred with one another and talked
about craft features and ways to extend their writing (Anderson, 2000).
Following the sustained writing time and individual writing conferences,
students returned to share their writing with their small group. During this
time, teachers and students identified specific features of the writing they
enjoyed. When family members came to pick up their children, they listened
to their young writers. Families often added details and shared their
insights. Writing and sharing together built writing communities.
CHILDREN’S WRITING
On the first night of the practicum, students wrote What stories do your hands
tell? (Graves & Kittle, 2005). This writing event helped teachers learn about
their students. Students wrote of eating ice cream, throwing baseballs, digging
for worms, finger painting, and pinky promises. During the second session,
tutors used Wendy Ewald’s book (2002), The Best Part of Me, as a mentor
text. The young writers and teachers photographed and wrote about their best
features. Teachers took several photos so children and their families could
choose which one they preferred for their final bound book. Daniel’s photo
choice was a view from the top of his head, ‘‘I love my hair because it is my
third favorite color.’’ Manayah chose to include her eyes only in her
photograph and wrote, ‘‘The best of part of me is my eyes. My eyes are brown.
My eyes are beautiful.’’ On the third night, students wrote Where I’m From
poems using George Ella Lyon’s poem (2001) as a mentor text. To write their
poems students drew from their family foods, special places, family stories,
and family moments. Anthony wrote, ‘‘I am from family dinners on Friday
nights and special foods and plates on holidays. I am from a house with one
dog and thirteen finches. I am from a family that has green grass in their back
yard and takes me to the George Street Park.’’ Eric wrote, ‘‘I am from a baby
cousin who is so cute and screams with excitement when she sees me.’’
Angelica wrote, ‘‘I am from the soft and soothing sound of my backyard, and
the fireplace that smokes on a summer night.’’ Students wrote Someday pieces
on the fourth night based on Eileen Spinelli’s book Someday (2007) to
consider how they would contribute to their communities and the world.
Students wrote about their plans to become police officers, veterinarians, rock
stars, storm chasers, karate professionals, doctors, teachers, and animal
activists. On the fifth night, students wrote a Dedication, created an About the
Author page, and revised earlier writing pieces. Children carefully chose
photos, fonts, colors, and text layouts for their final bound books. They then
rehearsed the writing piece they chose to present to their families. On the sixth
night, families joined us to celebrate their writers in the cafeteria (see Table 2).
168
Table 2. Six-Week Writing Practicum.
Night Writing Event Materials/Mentor Texts Purpose Audience
1 These are the Hands by Resource notes for These To come to know writer’s interests, Child, tutor, and family
Donald Graves and are the Hands generate possible writing topics,
Penny Kittle Paper build relationships with writers
Writing materials
2 The Best Part of Me Copy of mentor text, To celebrate and write about each Child, tutor, family,
by Wendy Ewald, The Best Part of Me learner’s unique qualities other students
photo essay Cameras To select a photograph that
Photo paper represents ‘‘the best part of me’’
Writing materials
Internet resources, (examples
of children’s The Best Part of Me
writing, interactive photo essays)
3 Where I Am From www.georgeellalyon.com To celebrate families Child, tutor, family,
by George Ella Lyon Downloaded materials from and family traditions extended family
Internet To encourage families to write members
Scaffolds for writers (i.e., items and extend student’s writing
from home, family names, through conversations
traditions, family sayings,
family foods)
4 Someday by Copy of mentor text Someday by To envision possibilities for Child, tutor, family
Eileen Spinelli Eileen Spinelli future: How will I contribute
Scaffolds for writers (now/In to the world?
the Future template)
CHERYL DOZIER AND JULIE SMIT
5 Dedication Page Mentor texts (texts with examples To create a Dedication and Classmates, teachers,
About the of dedication pages and About the Author Page for family members,
Author Page About the Author pages suited their bound books extended family
to learners’ interests). members, principals,
Camera-photograph children and their tutors
families
6 Family Presentation Night: Each child chooses one piece of writing to share during the celebration. Students rehearse during Week 5
and right before the presentation (with a microphone). Tutors introduce each child. After the presentations, everyone shares food
brought in by the tutors. Tutors sit with families and children and share their final bound books with family members. For 30
children, the presentation generally lasts 1 hour.
Building Writing Communities and Partnering with Families
169
GRADUATE STUDENTS REFLECT ON BUILDING

COMMUNITIES OF WRITERS
Graduate students found that writing in class each night changed them as
writers and as teachers. For Elizabeth, writing in class ‘‘rekindled my love of
writing and words.’’ Laurie ‘‘remembered my love for writing and
rediscovered the writer in me.’’ Kristine noted that teaching elementary
students allowed her to grow as a writer and a writing teacher, ‘‘When we talk
about seeing the beauty and brilliance in our students’ writing, I begin to see it
in my own. I have a new level of understanding and confidence.’’ While
students shared their nervousness on the first night of class that they would be
writing each evening and then writing side by side with children, in the end,
Beth echoed the comments of many, ‘‘I am part of a writing community.’’
When teachers and students wrote together, they listened carefully,
learned from one another, and celebrated each other’s writing. In doing so,
teachers became more responsive to students and their families. In writing
with her young students, Jessie noted, ‘‘I have come to understand that
writers are going to have good days and bad days and to honor this.’’
Teachers noticed that children engaged more intensively when they were
interested or saw relevance in their writing. Mike wrote, ‘‘The child has to
see relevance. When he’s interested and feels his writing has meaning and
purpose, he writes a lot more, as well as more detail. [He writes more when
he] connects his writing to families and his favorite things.’’
As graduate students reflected on their teaching, they noted the
importance of their language choices. Sasha wrote, ‘‘Certain prompts are
more effective than others. Prompts help generate ideas.’’ Teachers found
that naming their students as writers (Johnston, 2004) was especially
helpful. They also noticed writers engaged more willingly when prompts
were specific, ‘‘As a reader, I can tell how much you love your
grandmother.’’ This, in turn, influenced future teaching. Maria commented,
‘‘I now feel confident to use thoughtful and motivating language and
recognize the doors that open with one tweak of a word.’’
In her reflection, Jane noted the importance of the time spent engaging
with families to build community, ‘‘It was great to learn so much from the
families. They have a lot of great input and were able to give us insight into
our student’s lives.’’ Similarly, Chelsea learned, I used the child’s writing as
a lead into the conversation [with her mother]ybecause it enabled the
conversation to get more in depth as the weeks went on. In her final
reflective essay, Diana wrote about the importance of partnering with
families, ‘‘The families shared that they really appreciated the fact that we
shared their children’s work with them after each workshop session. They
also mentioned that they appreciated the fact that we asked for their
additional input.’’ Tina commented on the impact collaboration had on
families, ‘‘The families shared how much they enjoyed hearing about their
students work afterwards. One family said they discussed everything over
dinner afterwards. Another family mentioned their child is excited every
Tuesday morning to come to school so she can write with us afterwards.’’
CHILDREN AND FAMILIES SHARE THEIR

IMPRESSIONS
After the final presentation, families participated in a family survey.

Families rated their own experience, as well as their child’s experiences with
the writer’s workshop practicum. In the survey responses, 96% of the
families found the experience valuable, while 91% of the children found the
experience valuable. Elementary students said they enjoyed, ‘‘writing
stories,’’ ‘‘writing about what I want to be and meeting new people,’’ and
‘‘writing my own book.’’ Brandon noted the difference in the writing he
engaged in as part of the practicum, ‘‘I don’t do this much work in school
because she [teacher] doesn’t ask me what I want to be when I grow up. I am
going to ask her to do this because this was fun.’’ Students also appreciated
the one-on-one attention of the writing conferences. Several highlighted ‘‘the
tutors’’ as their favorite aspect of the experience. One student, Pete,
dedicated his book to ‘‘The best tutors in the world.’’ When asked what they
enjoyed most about the writing practicum, several students talked about the
collaborative aspects of the practicum, ‘‘I loved sharing my life and writing
about it’’ and ‘‘Working with friends.’’
Growing as Writers
Family members identified a range of ways their children grew within the
writing communities. One family noted the ‘‘confidence he gained and self
expression.’’ Another highlighted the child’s increased ‘‘creativity and
willingness to expand.’’ One family mentioned their child ‘‘learned how to
express his ideas in writing.’’ Another commented, ‘‘My child is able to read
and write very well. He has had a great improvement.’’ Several families said
their children now ‘‘wrote more’’ at home and in school. One dad remarked
that the practicum ‘‘challenged my son to use his mind.’’ Another mom,
sharing that her daughter was often tentative in school, noted, ‘‘She really
enjoyed the help she was given with putting her thoughts to words.’’
PARTNERING WITH FAMILIES
Family involvement supports children’s engagement and achievement in

educational settings (Daniel, 2011; Elish-Piper et al., 2012; Grace, Jethro, &
Aina, 2012; Hornby & Lafaele, 2011). In this newly designed writing
practicum, we wanted graduate students to view parents as having
‘‘knowledge and power with experiences and perspectives to offer rather
than [as] an individual to be coached or changed’’ (Kroeger & Lash, 2011, p.
270). We emphasized positive communication and learning from families.
Establishing positive communication between the school and the home provides an
important foundation for sharing knowledge and insights about individual students. In
this way, teachers and parents become a team with the common goal of supporting
students’ achievement and helping them feel known and valued. (Kyle, McIntyre, Miller,
& Moore, 2002, p. 23)
As teacher educators, we also asked teachers to be mindful of how they

represented learners during their interactions with families. Our emphasis on
positive communication and careful representations fostered trust with
families.
Communicating
While partnering with families was our goal as teacher educators, this was a
tentative space for teachers initially. Teachers worried they would not know
what to say to families or families would react to them negatively. We
instructed teachers to only share positives from the writing sessions when
they met with families. We did not want teachers to orient conversations
around discipline matters.
Teachers communicated with families each evening when family members
picked up the children. To start the conversations, teachers and children
shared the students’ writing from that evening. Families listened and often
added ideas for the writing pieces. This led to learning more from families as
they shared children’s interests, hobbies, and traditions. Teachers
incorporated these insights into future lessons. In doing so, teachers built
trust with families.
Representing Learners
When teachers planned lessons and interacted with families, we asked them
to consider how they were representing learners and to consider whether
their representations invited trust or pushed families away. For all
interactions, we asked teachers to focus on thoughtfulness, specificity, and
intentionality of language choices.
Given our intensive focus on how we represent learners, we were surprised
and disappointed when teachers wrote initial introductions of the children for
family presentation night. Teachers had worked with the writers for several
sessions, had talked with families each evening, and had numerous writing
samples in front of them. We expected their introductions would be specific
and focused on the children as writers. However, initial introductions were
general and tended to be judgmental, ‘‘She’s sweet. She’s nice. He’s so
intelligent. She’s shy. He’s a talker.’’ Our intensive work noticing and naming
had not transferred. When we learned this, we spent more time focusing on
how to represent learners and move beyond judging them. We asked teachers
to include three points to introduce their students. First, teachers identified
student interests. Second, teachers specifically named a feature students used
as writers. Third, teachers named the writing piece each child would read that
evening. Using these three points, teachers included Jaquan’s interest in
Power Rangers, Emily’s fascination with Justin Bieber, Brandon’s love of
snakes, Kayla’s attention to details, Maria’s love of descriptive words, and
Brian’s intriguing leads. These new introductions assured families we knew
their children, their children’s interests, and their children as writers.
Graduate Students Reflect on Partnering with Families
In their reflective writing and during class seminars, graduate students

articulated how uncomfortable they were to engage with families initially.
Several had experienced difficult exchanges with families during their
student teaching placements and were especially uncomfortable. At the end
of the six weeks, Ariana shared, ‘‘I learned that engaging with families isn’t
as scary as I thought it was. The families are extremely interested in what
their students can do and want to hear the best.’’
When some families came to pick up their children, they had to rush to
sports practices or rush home to make dinner. This was unnerving for some of
the teachers, given our insistence that they communicate with families. Rather
than blame families for their busy lives, we helped teachers find ways families
preferred to communicate (i.e., emails and phone calls). Other family
members listened to the teachers, yet were quiet. This, too, was daunting for
some teachers. Jessica commented, ‘‘It is just as important to reach out to
families that are quiet because they need to know that we care. I have come a
long way to reach out to families that are not so comfortable talking with
me.’’ As Lisa noted, ‘‘It is our responsibility to listen and learn from families.’’
Graduate students came to see the importance of careful representation of
learners. Marta saw the impact of her specific celebrations with families,
‘‘Families LOVE to hear the positive and strong points about their child. It
really makes all the difference!’’ Laura commented on how attention to
detail mattered for families, ‘‘Ethan’s mother and Pete’s father thanked me
specifically for double-checking on how to correctly spell family members
names for the dedication pages in the final bound books. They both told me
they appreciated the fact that we cared enough to follow through with such
detail.’’
Over the course of the practicum experience, teachers came to realize how
much trust families placed in them, how much the families wanted to talk
about their children, and how honored families were to participate in the
program. Elisa captured the perspectives of her colleagues regarding the
importance of partnering with families, ‘‘We need to connect with families
and be accessible. I think because we made ourselves available to interact
with them after each session, we included them and welcomed them into
their child’s school life. We need to make these bridges with parents – it will
benefit our teaching and influence our lessons and interactions with the
child. I think parents want to know that we care and it is part of our job to
show them that we do. I like that we make a face-to-face connection with
parents – it’s a lot different than just a letter home or a phone call. I also
like that we accepted all family members – grandparents, stepparents, etc.
I think it is important to reach out to all children’s support systems.’’
Family Impressions
At the conclusion of each session when the teachers walked down with the
children to the school entrance, teachers invited children to read their
writing to their families. As families listened to their children’s writing pieces,

family members often smiled, gave positive feedback, and suggested new
ideas. This process, with 31 children and teachers clustered around their
family members, facilitated conversations, sharing, and input for future
writing. One mom said, ‘‘I enjoyed her [daughter’s] excitement each week
when showing me what they had worked on.’’ One mom remarked that each
week, ‘‘She [her daughter] came home excited to share what she did in class.’’
Families valued our efforts to communicate with them. Family presenta-
tion night was filled with ‘‘Thank yous’’, hugs, and excitement. At the
celebration, Melissa’s mom noted, ‘‘I enjoyed that the teachers were very
nice and went out of their way to meet me.’’ When asked for
recommendations, one family commented, ‘‘Keep on doing them [writing
sessions]. You and this workshop are creating blossoming writers.’’
TRANSFER
We wanted teachers to imagine possibilities for creating writing commu-

nities and partnering with families. Each night we asked specifically what
would transfer from their coursework and practicum experience to current
or future educational contexts (Dozier & Rutten, 2005/2006). Graduate
students currently in school settings shared several ways they transferred
their understandings from the course. Mark shared instructional practices
he tried in his sixth-grade classroom including offering choice for writers,
conferring one on one with students, and providing more time to write. As a
long-term substitute teacher, Karina incorporated several mentor texts and
lessons into her classroom. She created a PowerPoint of children’s writing
based on Eileen Spinelli’s Someday (2007) for a family presentation night at
the end of the year.
The focus on sharing and celebrations transferred for Stacy who
noted, ‘‘Special moments or awesome triumphs should be shared.’’
Teachers who did not yet have classrooms envisioned possibilities to
partner with families. Claire wrote, ‘‘I will walk out with students and
talk to parents as they pick their children up.’’ Nell reflected, ‘‘This
practicum experience has helped me to think about engaging with
families in a more powerful way. I have learned not to be as shy and to
speak up because some families may feel intimidated.’’ Our emphasis in
the course on transfer promoted internalization and deeper integration
of learning experiences into future professional identities (Samaras, 2000;
Warford, 2011).
CONSIDERATIONS FOR TEACHER EDUCATORS
The time intensive nature of practicum experiences in a teacher preparation

program cannot be ignored. As teacher educators, we responded to graduate
students’ written work, to their teaching, to children, to families, to
administrators, to school contexts (whose room can you tutor in? whose
room is off limits?), and to after-school program coordinators. After this
inaugural practicum course, we identified several challenges we navigated to
meet the needs of all participants.
Some graduate students found it overwhelming and unnerving to be
observed each week. They constantly asked, ‘‘How did I do?’’ and focused
exclusively on their grades. We emphasized that during practicum they
needed to focus primarily on the learners they were teaching. In this way,
we helped graduate students see their dual roles – graduate student and
teacher – dual roles they would once again experience in the capstone
practicum course.
For some elementary students, consistent attendance was an issue.
Therefore, we recruited additional elementary students to ensure that each
group had multiple participants. When new children joined the already
established small groups, teachers had to be flexible and quickly learn about
the new students. Some teachers handled these changes with more ease than
others. For those who found inviting new children into the tutorial difficult,
we joined the session and modeled ways they could adapt and readjust their
plans to welcome new members.
When teachers experienced difficult teaching moments during the
practicum experience, we intervened and joined lessons or writing
conferences. In this way, we provided models for responsive teaching.
When students in one group wanted to write on topics the teachers found
unacceptable, we needed to intervene as well. We started by asking about
audience and purpose, ‘‘Who are you writing this piece for? How will your
[mom] feel when she reads this? Do you think your baby brother will
understand your writing?’’ In situations when students did not ‘‘do’’ what
the teachers wanted (i.e., took too long to become engaged, did not
participate in brainstorming, finished quickly, and did not want to revise),
some teachers became frustrated and had a hard time seeing anything
positive in the student’s writing. When this happened, we guided teachers to
see interesting language and the beauty in the children’s writing, even if the
interaction was difficult.
While graduate students read extensively about conferring (Anderson,
2000; Routman, 2005), they initially found it difficult to receive writing
pieces and then talk with writers in honest, genuine, and purposeful ways.
While most tutors could analyze writing pieces and find the hidden gems
in the writing (Bomer, 2010), conferences remained harder. Initial
conferences involved more sharing, ‘‘Read what you’ve written and I’ll
read what I’ve written.’’ Therefore, in future seminars, we asked teachers
to look through writing pieces and rehearse possible language for
conferences with one another. This rehearsal space gave teachers additional
practice and helped teachers become more fluent as they conferred with
young writers. Finding ways to help teachers gain confidence and
competence as they confer remains a work in progress for us.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
In the redesign of our master’s literacy programs, we responded to graduate

students expressed need for improving their teaching of writing by
developing a writing practicum. Structures in this new practicum provided
numerous opportunities for teachers to teach responsively. Given that our
graduate students had little teaching experience we carefully supervised and
structured our practicum to support authentic, purposeful, engaging, and
intentional teaching and learning. To fulfill our goal to build communities of
writers, we ensured that everyone engaged in writing events. To fulfill our
goal to partner with and gain the trust of families, we ensured that teachers
communicated with families and represented learners in positive and
productive ways. In this way, we guided graduate students to ‘‘develop a
vision of what it means to be a professional’’ (Bransford, Derry, Berliner, &
Hammerness, 2005, p. 76). Therefore, we were delighted when instructors
shared that our graduate students transferred understandings from the
writing practicum to their capstone practicum course. Instructors noticed
our graduate students had more confidence during writing events and when
they engaged with families. As we further refine the course, we will focus on
adding additional schools, apprenticing new instructors, and continuing to
research our partnerships with families. As Sarah said, ‘‘Writing matters.
The relationships formed around writing matter – to us, to the students, to
their families.’’ We agree.
As families streamed into the cafeteria for our inaugural writing workshop family
presentation night, the cafeteria filled with the happy conversations of grandmas,
grandpas, cousins, and neighbors. Families clapped, cheered, and laughed as each child
read a writing selection. After the final applause, we all moved to two large tables filled
with food to celebrate the children’s work. As teachers and families ate together, the
children shared their bound books with their families. In all, 138 people packed into the
school cafeteria on the Tuesday night before Thanksgiving to listen to 31 children read
their writing.
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. (2000). How’s it going? A practical guide to conferring with student writers.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning (2nd
ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bomer, K. (2010). Hidden gems: Naming and teaching from the brilliance in every student’s
writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bransford, J. D., Derry, S., Berliner, D., & Hammerness, K. (2005). Theories of learning and
their roles in teaching. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing
teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 40–87).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D. L. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with
multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Calkins, L. (2003). Units of study for primary writing: A yearlong curriculum grades K-2.
Daniel, G. (2011). Family-school partnerships: Towards sustainable pedagogical practice. Asia-
Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 39(2), 165–176.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006). Critical literacy/critical teaching: Tools for
preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Dozier, C., & Rutten, I. (2005/2006). Responsive teaching toward responsive teachers:
Mediating transfer though intentionality, enactment, and articulation. Journal of
Literacy Research, 37, 459–492.
Elish-Piper, L., Almburg, A. T., Di Domenico, P., Henry, M. P., Morley, S., & Sokolinski, S.
(2012). Parent involvement in reading. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 40(3), 55–60.
Ewald, W. (2002). The best part of me: Children talk about their bodies in pictures and words.
New York, NY: Little Brown Books for Young Readers.
Fletcher, R. (1996). A writer’s notebook. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Grace, A. M., Jethro, O., & Aina, F. F. (2012). Roles of parents on the academic performance
of pupils in elementary schools. International Journal of Academic Research in Business &
Social Sciences, 2(1), 196–201.
Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Porthsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Graves, D., & Kittle, P. (2005). My quick writes for inside writing. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Hornby, G., & Lafaele, R. (2011). Barriers to parental involvement in education: An
explanatory model. Educational Review, 63(1), 37–52.
Johnston, P. (2004). Choice words. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thorough
method of inquiry in home-school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),
268–277.
Kyle, D. W., McIntyre, E., Miller, K., & Moore, G. (2002). Reaching out: A K-8 resource for
connecting with families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lyon, G. E. (2001). Where I’m From. In B. Bigelow, B. Harvey & S. Karp (Eds.), Rethinking
our classrooms: Teaching for equity and justice (Vol. 2, pp. 6–10). Milwaukee, WI:
Rethinking Schools Ltd.
Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Samaras, A. P. (2000). When is a practicum productive? A study of learning to plan. Action in
Spinelli, E. (2007). Someday. New York, NY: Dial.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258.
Zeichner, K. (2010). Rethinking the connections between campus courses and field experiences
in college and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 89(11),
89–99.
PREPARING SPECIAL
EDUCATORS TO TEACH
READING: A PRE-STUDENT
TEACHING PRACTICUM
Mary Anne Prater, Nari Carter and

JoAnn Munk
ABSTRACT
Purpose – To share a model of preparing special educators to teach
reading to students with mild-to-moderate disabilities.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors describe a specific model
for preparing special educators to teach reading.
Findings – Data are provided regarding the effectiveness of this model of
special education teacher preparation based on performance of students
with disabilities who participated in the program.
Research limitations/implications – This research was done as a program
evaluation and may have validity and generalizability limitations.
Practical implications – Other institutions of higher education may gain
insight on how a similar preservice teacher preparation program could be
developed and implemented at their institution.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002012
181
182 MARY ANNE PRATER ET AL.
Originality/value – The school/university partnership described is

extremely unique and effective in preparing future special educators to
teach reading to students with disabilities.
Keywords: Students with disabilities; special education; teacher

preparation; reading
Martha, a teacher-in-training attending the local university, has chosen to

be a special educator because she struggled to learn to read as a child. An
exceptional teacher recognized her difficulties and got Martha the help she
needed. Martha always wanted to give back by becoming a teacher who
helped other children. Ivan, also a teacher candidate who is preparing to
become a special educator, knows he has a knack for working with special
needs students. He was a peer-tutor in high school, tutoring students with
intellectual disabilities who needed extra one-on-one practice with their
reading and writing skills. He loved the experience and decided to make it
his career. A third teacher candidate, Suzanne, was also motivated to
become a special educator because of previous experience. Her younger
brother, Sammy, has autism. Suzanne and her family saw Sammy grow as
he learned skills at school that he practiced at home. Suzanne wanted to
have this influence on others in similar circumstances by becoming a special
educator.
Individuals choose to become special educators for a variety of reasons.
The overarching motivation is to help children and adolescents who struggle
to learn; and a large percentage of these students have difficulty with
reading. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics, in
2011, 33% of all students in grades four and 24% in grade eight, scored
below the basic level in reading (NCES, 2011). Even larger percentages of
students with disabilities have difficulty in this area. In 2011, fourth- and
eighth-grade students with disabilities’ scored statistically significantly lower
on the National Reading Assessment than students who were classified as
not having disabilities (NCES, 2011). Given that students with learning
disabilities are identified as such because of their difficulties academically, it
is not surprising that 80% of students with learning disabilities struggle with
reading (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001); however, students with
other disabilities, such as behavior disorders, also have pronounced
problems in reading (McDaniel, Duchaine, & Joviette, 2010).
Improving reading outcomes among students, and particularly those
with disabilities, requires teacher preparation in scientifically based reading
research (Smart & Reschly, 2007). A considerable amount of research
Preparing Special Educators to Teach Reading 183
indicates that explicit, systematic instruction in foundational skills (e.g.,

phonemic awareness and phonics), as well as higher level reading skills (e.g.,
fluency and comprehension), improves reading achievement among students
with disabilities and at-risk, struggling readers (Foorman & Torgeson, 2001;
Gersten et al., 2001; Jitendra et al., 2004; Swanson, 2000, 2001; Torgeson et
al., 2001; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, &
Ciullo, 2010). Explicit instruction is a structured, systematic method for
teaching academic skills that focuses on critical content and sequences skills
in a logical order. Explicit lessons include clear statements of lesson
objectives, review of prerequisite skills, step-by-step demonstrations of new
skills, guided and supported practice, high rates of student response,
affirmative and corrective feedback, and distributed and cumulative practice
(Archer & Hughes, 2011; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004).
Several published curriculum feature explicit instruction, including
Reading Mastery (Englemann & Bruner, 2008), which is designed to teach
phonological awareness, sound-letter correspondence, decoding, and
fluency. Reading Mastery has been studied extensively. As one example,
Gunn, Biglan, Smolkowski, and Ary (2000) explored the impact of this
curriculum as supplemental instruction for low readers in the early
elementary grades. They found that the students’ reading skills improved
as compared to those who did not receive such instruction, regardless of the
children’s ethnic background, gender, or grade. A meta-analysis examining
the effectiveness of earlier versions of the curriculum found that in 14 of the
21 studies (67%), Reading Mastery was more effective than other
curriculum. Other reading programs were favored in three investigations
(14%) with no statistically significant difference discovered in four studies
(19%) (Schieffer, Marchand-Martella, Martella, Simonsen, & Waldron-
Soler, 2002).
Preparing special education teachers to use research-validated approaches
to improve reading outcomes for students with disabilities requires a focus
on elements of effective reading instruction; and preparation for addressing
students’ with disabilities instructional needs. Like general educators,
special education teachers need to acquire content-specific knowledge
(e.g., knowledge of reading skills and processes) (Salinger, 2010), and obtain
skills necessary for applying knowledge in classroom settings (Leko,
Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012). However, special education teachers
must also be prepared to apply discipline-specific knowledge while teaching
reading. That is, they must apply knowledge of evidence-based intervention
strategies such as intense, explicit instruction to address the specific
problems that students with disabilities experience learning to read
(Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). Special educators, therefore,

need a well-integrated knowledge base that spans content-area knowledge
and disciplinary preparation.
High-quality teacher preparation programs blend theory with discipline-
specific knowledge, content knowledge, and practice by integrating
supervised field experiences with coursework (Boe & Shin, 2007; Brownell,
Ross, Colon, & McCallum, 2005). Research has shown that well-designed
coursework coupled with structured practicum experiences enables teacher
candidates to increase content knowledge regarding how to teach reading, as
well as their ability to promote student reading achievement (Speak-
Swerling, 2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004).
Arguably the best way for teacher candidates to prepare for the
profession is to practice teaching in an environment that is designed to
meet both the needs of the candidate and the needs of the students. In a
review of school/university special education partnerships across the
country, Prater and Sileo (2002) discovered that although the collaborative
nature of partnerships varied, the trend was to enter into formal partner-
ships when dealing with student teaching and much less formal procedures
for pre-student teaching practicum. For example, the university and school
district may sign legal documents supporting the student teaching
experience; whereas, pre-student practicum more likely involve university
faculty contacting individual teachers to make such arrangements. Both
experiences, however, take place in already existing classrooms. When
candidates enter schools to practice teaching, they are provided an
opportunity to learn in a ‘‘real-world’’ setting, but at the same time,
uncontrolled aspects of a typical school day (e.g., interruptions and other
teacher responsibilities) interfere with the candidate’s opportunity to solely
practice teaching.
Special education faculty at Brigham Young University (BYU) and the
local school district administers desired to create a pre-student teaching
practicum experience that fulfilled the needs of teacher candidates, mentor
teachers, and students with disabilities. The two parties worked collabora-
tively to construct a controlled and rich (a) mentoring environment in which
licensed teachers were unencumbered with noninstructional duties (to the
degree possible) so they could shape teacher candidates’ teaching skills, (b)
teaching environment providing candidates the opportunity to maximize
their time practice teaching, and (c) learning environment for students with
disabilities who need additional academic support. The best time of year for
providing this experience was during the summer months. Teacher
candidates in both the severe and the mild-to-moderate disabilities
preparation programs participate, although in this chapter we focus only on

the mild-to-moderate preparation.
READING PRACTICUM EXPERIENCE
The summer practicum collaboration between the school districts and the
BYU special education program has existed for decades. But in 1999
the summer program was restructured to provide teacher candidates the
opportunity to explicitly teach reading, math, writing, and social skill
instruction. The practicum lasts six weeks and is held five days a week,
except for holidays (i.e., July 4th). District students attend for three hours a
day, with the teacher candidates in attendance four and one-half hours each
day. Although participating students attend many different schools
throughout the district during the school year, the summer program is held
in only one elementary school in each of the districts. Family members take
responsibility for driving the children to and from school each day. This is
not a special education extended school year (ESY) requirement for students
so the schools are not responsible for providing transportation.
School District Responsibilities
Given the collaborative nature of the summer practicum, both the school
districts and the BYU faculty share responsibility for carrying out the
necessary steps. The school districts identify students for participation.
Using guidelines agreed to by both parties, the districts send invitations to
the students’ parents well in advance of the school year ending. Students
who are invited to participate must (a) have an individualized education
program (IEP) which guarantees that he or she has an identified disability,
(b) be between grades 1 and 5, (c) be recommended by their special
education teacher, and (d) have no major behavior difficulties. The last
criterion was included to ensure that the teacher candidates would have
sufficient opportunities to teach reading and not be encumbered with
dealing with major behavior problems. The districts require parents pay a
nominal fee ($10 per child) that is spent on ice cream, pizza and other
‘‘treats’’ provided to students throughout the practicum. The district
believes that the small financial requirement ensures that the parents are
serious about their child’s enrollment. Over time the demand for the summer
program has increased and currently the districts keep waiting lists.
Unfortunately, the number of district students served is constrained by the

number of teacher candidates enrolled in the university’s program.
The school districts also take responsibility for communicating to parents
when and where the accepted students will be assessed prior to enrolling in
the summer program. Typically, one afternoon/evening is designated for
each district. The teacher candidates assess each student in reading and
math skills. For reading, the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS) Benchmark and Program Monitoring Materials (Good &
Kaminski, 2002) is administered in order to determine the students’ current
levels for grouping, as well as to practice what is considered exemplary
practice in special education instruction.
The districts also take responsibility for hiring administrative staff to be
on-site during the course of the summer practicum. This may include district
and/or building-level administrators. They are responsible for the physical
building, for providing needed supplies, and for handling any student
problems typical of their responsibilities during the school year.
University Responsibilities
One of the major responsibilities of the BYU faculty is to ensure that the
teacher candidates are prepared for the summer practicum experience.
Teacher candidates complete 37 credit hours of coursework that is directly
related to the summer practicum prior to the summer term, six credits of
that are literacy courses and two credits of summer practicum preparation
(see Tables 1 and 2). Prior to implementation of the summer practicum,
teacher candidates assess the district students for grouping purposes.
University faculty organizes this event.
The BYU special education program provides one faculty member to oversee
the practicum, two site coordinators (one for each school), and a university
supervisor who assists with teacher candidate evaluation. The university also
identifies and trains eight or nine special education licensed teachers who
supervise and mentor the teacher candidates. A Utah State Office of Education
grant has provided the financial resources to pay the mentor teachers for this
summer work. Curriculum materials (e.g., teacher manuals and student books)
are provided by the university to ensure continuity across the districts and
consistency with what has been taught in the reading courses. Except for the
curriculum materials, the district pays for all supplies used by the district
students (e.g., paper and pencils), while the university or the teacher candidates
pay for supplies consumed by the teacher candidates (e.g., training materials).
Table 1. Coursework That Directly Supports the Reading Portion of

Summer Practicum.
Number Abbreviated Name Description
425 Foundations in Provides a comprehensive overview of oral language

Language Arts development, language disorders, language and
learning, language and thought, language and culture,
listening comprehension, and the foundation skills for
reading and writing.
430 Teaching Reading Prepares teacher candidates to teach beginning and
remedial reading by using explicit instructional
methods, namely Reading Mastery. Also addresses
formative evaluation procedures, such as DIBELS.
452 Effective Teaching Focuses on designing and implementing teaching
Strategies strategies and instructional planning to meet the
educational needs of students with mild-to-moderate
disabilities.
466 Summer Practicum Introduces the requirements for the summer practicum
Preparation by reviewing effective teaching strategies, classroom
management techniques, and assessment procedures.
a
Other supporting coursework for the summer practicum includes:
403: Introduction to Special Education
410: Applied Behavior Analysis
420: Assessment
440: Secondary Curriculum
442: Behavioral Strategies
460: Collaboration
462: Teaching Math
480: Multicultural Issues
397/487: Integrating Technology
Before the practicum commences, mentor teachers participate in six hours

of training over the course of two or three days. This has been pared down
from the original 30 hours offered in 1999. Much less training is now
possible due to the mentor teachers’ previous summer practicum experience
either as a mentor teacher or as a teacher candidate. During training, BYU
faculty review content that candidates have been taught, roles and
responsibilities of all personnel, any procedural changes since last year,
and so forth. The training helps ensure continuity between coursework and
the summer practicum experience and consistency across sites and
classrooms. Faculty and mentor teachers also review the results of the
previous year’s teacher candidate and parent survey results and discuss how
to respond to any programmatic concerns.
188
Table 2. All Courses and Practicum Completed by Special Education Teacher Candidates.
Year Fall Winter Spring Summer
Semester Semester Term Term
Soph- 403: Introduction to Special

omore Education (3)
425: Foundations in Language
Arts (3)
Junior 410: Applied Behavior 430: Teaching Reading (3) 462: Teaching Math (3) 466: Summer
Analysis (3) 440: Secondary Curriculum (2) 466: Summer Practicum Practicum (6)
420: Assessment (3) 442: Behavioral Strategies (3) Preparation (2) 470: Legal Issues (3)
452: Effective Teaching
Strategies (3)
460: Collaboration (3) 446: Secondary Practicum (1)
397: Integrating 480: Multicultural Issues (3)
Technology (1) 497: Integrating Technology (1)
Senior 486: Student Teaching (12)
490: Capstone Seminar (1)
OR
496: Internship (6) 496: Internship (6)
490: Capstone Seminar (1)
Note: Semesters = 16 weeks; Terms = 8 weeks; Credit hours are in parentheses.

MARY ANNE PRATER ET AL.
Teacher Candidates’ Preparation
Before enrolling in the summer practicum, teacher candidates complete 37

semester credit hours of coursework in special education across three semesters
and one term (which is equivalent to one-half semester). Although only one of
the 37 credits is an actual practicum experience (in a secondary school), almost
all of the courses require some type of fieldwork usually in the form of course
assignments. For example, the introduction to special education course
requires teacher candidates work with students with disabilities in preselected
schools for a minimum of 12 hours during the semester.
Two three-credit courses devoted to literacy instruction are required. The
first course provides an overview of language development and disorders, as
well as the foundation skills for reading and writing. Teacher candidates are
introduced to DIBELS in the first course. The second course focuses on
teacher candidates learning explicit methods for teaching basic reading skills
(i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehen-
sion). Teacher candidates demonstrate their ability to teach these reading
skills, as well as writing skills, and the use of progress monitoring data to
make instructional decisions (see Table 1).
Structure, Curriculum, and Assessment at the Practicum Sites
Each practicum site uses four classrooms; and assigned to each classroom
are one mentor teacher, three teacher candidates, and 15–24 students with
mild-to-moderate disabilities. Each teacher candidate is responsible for
teaching one-third of the students (5–8 students). Also in each school is one
site coordinator and one or more district representatives (see Fig. 1). In
recent years, the number of teacher candidates has equaled 24–26.
On a typical day, students are instructed in reading for 45 minutes, math
45 minutes, writing 35 minutes, spelling/penmanship alternating days 10
minutes, social skills 15 minutes, and art/music/physical education rotations
25 minutes each day. The teacher candidates are responsible for their small
group of students’ instruction with the exception of social skills and art/
music/physical education. Social skill instruction takes place in larger
groups allowing one or two of the other teacher candidates in the same
classroom to engage in DIBELS progress monitoring assessments with
individual students. Art/music/physical education is also held in larger
groups with the candidates rotating instructional responsibility. Those not
teaching provide instructional support to those who are.
University
Department Chair
Special Education Program

Coordinator
Summer Practicum
Coordinator
School District University School District

Site Coordinator Site Coordinator
Representative(s) Supervisor Representative(s)
4 - 5 Mentor 4 - 5 Mentor
Teachers Teachers
12 - 13 Teacher 12 - 13 Teacher
Candidates Candidates
60 - 90 Students 60 - 90 Students
Fig. 1. Summer Practicum Organizational Chart.
For reading instruction, the summer practicum personnel selected the

Reading Mastery curriculum, primarily because it adheres to the explicit
instruction model needed by students with disabilities. Although this is a
scripted curriculum, candidates are responsible for writing daily lesson
rationales and objectives that they submit to their mentor teachers. They are
also required to collect data daily on each student’s performance on
achieving the lesson objective. In addition, candidates collect weekly
progress monitoring data on each student using DIBELS progress
monitoring materials.
OUTCOMES
Teacher Candidates Outcomes
Although the teacher candidates teach from the very first day of practicum,
each mentor teacher is responsible for modeling instruction and shaping
their three teacher candidates’ teaching. When the mentor teacher believes
the candidate is close to reaching mastery of 80% as measured by the

observation form, the candidate is formally observed by the site
coordinator, university supervisor, or summer practicum coordinator. The
observation form used is the Language Arts Rating Scale, adapted from
Project Targeting Instructional Effectiveness in Reading project in
Washington State (copies are available from the authors). This scale was
selected given the connection to the Reading Mastery curriculum. The scale
lists 20 different observation factors broken into five elements: (a) lesson
preparation (e.g., materials are organized and distributed and managed well
throughout the lesson), (b) overall lesson delivery (e.g., specific immediate,
positive academic feedback is dispersed throughout the lesson), (c) lesson
elements (e.g., vocabulary procedures are implemented accurately), (d)
corrections (e.g., proper correction procedures and accurate modeling occur
before moving forward in lesson), and (e) progress and assessment (e.g.,
collect and record appropriate data on student mastery of instructional
objective). Each of the 20 items is evaluated on a scale from one to three.
Not every element is appropriate for each grade level. Thus, the 80%
mastery level is determined by the candidates’ performance score divided by
the total number of points possible.
Candidates are also formally assessed teaching writing and math. They
must reach mastery in each content area and are given a total opportunity of
six observations across the three areas to do so. Approximately 300 teacher
candidates have participated in summer practicum since 1999 and over 97%
have passed at the mastery level.
During the 2011 summer practicum, teacher candidates represented both
postbaccalaureate students who were completing licensure in special
education without obtaining a degree (n=9) and undergraduate students
(n= 17). Only 2 of the total 26 were male and 4 were nonwhite. All but one
completed the practicum at the mastery level (96%). The student who did
not pass successfully repeated the practicum the following year.
Students with Disabilities Outcomes
The BYU summer practicum, like most teacher preparation programs, has
improved over time. One of those improvements has been consistency in the
collection of student outcome data. When the Reading Mastery curriculum
was adopted, the placement tests were used as pre-post measures of the
effectiveness of the six-week experience. When students were assessed before
practicum for grouping purposes, these scores provided a general idea of
Average Reading Fluency Score

140
119
120
100
80
58.1
60
40
20
0
Pre-test Post-test
Words Correct per Minute
Fig. 2. Summer Practicum Pre- and Posttest Reading Scores 2011.
their skills and level. Then, on the first day of practicum, the students were
again assessed using the Reading Mastery placement test. This served two
functions: first, to assign the appropriate reading level and curriculum to
each student, and second, to provide pretest data. The placement test was
then administered the last day of the practicum that provided the posttest
data. To simplify the data collection procedures, only the fluency portion of
the placement test was administered.
During 2011, 145 students with disabilities were enrolled in the summer
practicum. Students had completed first through fifth grades. The results of
the pre- and posttest scores are presented in Fig. 2. The ANOVA test
indicated a significant difference (F[3.1] = 1,24.56; p-value o .0001) in
students’ pre- and posttest scores. The difference was significant when
accounting for factors such as teacher candidates and the students. On
average, students’ reading fluency improved by 60.9 correct words per
minutes. At the beginning of the practicum, students read on average 58.1
correct words per minute; six weeks later, at the end of the summer
practicum students averaged 119 correct words per minute.
Although systematic data have not been collected on student satisfaction,
anecdotal comments indicate they generally enjoyed working with the
teacher candidates and having a place to go during the summer to associate
with other children. They seemed to particularly like the oral comprehension
portion of the lessons where they verbalized what they read and linked it to
daily life. For example, recently one group read a story about forest fires at
the same time that fires were burning in the local mountains. The students
linked what was occurring close to their home to the printed text.
Parent Satisfaction Outcomes
Parents were surveyed regarding their satisfaction with the program.

Written responses indicated that they were highly satisfied. Representative
positive comments follow:
My daughter has benefited so much from this program. Thank you. I have seen her
improve this summer compared to last year when she declined so much it took all year to
recover. The fact that it is essentially free is a huge bonus.
This program has been amazing for my child. Not only has she been able to maintain
skills through the summer, but she has made exciting progress as well. The teachers
created strong connections with my child in a short period of time. She speaks adoringly
of them! Both my child and I will be sorry to see it end.
I think this is a wonderful program that I wish was available to more students. I had
several friends who said they wished their child could have attended. Your activities are
awesome and really helped my child to like school better and have a much better attitude
in general.
A few parents also indicated concerns, the major concern being

transportation. The school districts cover a large suburban area and parents
sometimes felt frustrated with having to transport their children daily.
I don’t like that it is so far away. We live in y and it was quite the trip every day. Wish
next time it will be closer.
Driving to and from became very difficult for me. I was hoping that the carpool list
would have worked out for me.
The other concern raised was lack of communication between the teacher
candidates and the parents.
I do wish there was more communication home so I would know what she was working
on i.e. level of reading and what math so I could continue at home.
When I ask my son what he has done I typically get very short answers so for me weekly
or biweekly communication with the teacher would be nice so that I can help reinforce
what he is learning at home.
Based on this feedback, a communication system with the parents has

been developed for future implementation.
LIMITATIONS
Several limitations can be reported. First, these data were collected to

evaluate the efficacy of the summer practicum program. Thus, no control
group was used as a comparison. In addition, the measures used were not
standardized; and only fluency or number of words read per minute was
measured. Also, the teacher candidates assessed the students they were
teaching that may have biased the results. Currently only one year of
data has been collected and analyzed limiting the generalizability of the
results.
CONCLUSION
Within this chapter we provided a description of a summer practicum

experience required of teacher candidates preparing to become mild-to-
moderate disabilities special educators. The practicum meets the criteria of
embedding well-designed coursework alongside structured practicum
experiences to increase teacher candidates’ knowledge about how to teach
reading, as well as promote student reading achievement (Spearl-Swerling,
2009; Spear-Swerling & Brucker, 2004). It also meets the criteria of teaching
about and providing experience with scientifically based reading methods
(Smart & Reschley, 2007). The summer practicum program also goes
beyond what is typically accomplished in university/school partnerships
(Prater & Sileo, 2002) by providing a controlled, but rich men-
toring, teaching, and learning environment during a pre-student teaching
practicum.
Data collected thus far demonstrate that the BYU summer program was
effective in improving reading abilities of elementary-aged students with
mild-to-moderate disabilities in a relatively short amount of time (six
weeks). In addition, teacher candidates completed the practicum at high
rates of success. Anecdotal and survey data indicate that students generally
enjoyed and parents valued this experience. Mentor teachers also benefitted
from the practicum by providing opportunities to hone their own teaching
and mentoring skills.
Although data support the efficacy of this program, additional pre-
posttest data could be collected (e.g., reading comprehension and reading
errors). Also, student satisfaction could be collected more directly.
Importantly, additional research should examine the impact of the program
on both the students’ and candidates’ future performance. How well teacher
candidates perform during student teaching and beyond, as well as how well
students retain their reading skills remain unanswered.
Plans for immediately improving future practicum experiences include the
use of videotaping to help shape teacher candidates’ instructional skills and
using a communication tool between the parents and the teacher candidates.
In addition, teacher candidates will be required to use the DIBELS data that
have been collected weekly to evaluate the progress of the student and based
on these data, candidates will implement appropriate instructional changes.
Data on student and teacher candidate progress, as well as parent
satisfaction will continue to be collected and will help shape and improve
the summer practicum program.
REFERENCES
Archer, A., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New
York, NY: Guilford Press.
Boe, E. E., & Shin, S. (2007). Does teacher preparation matter for beginning teachers in either
special or general education? Journal of Special Education, 41, 158–170.
Brownell, M. T., Ross, D. D., Colon, E. P., & McCallum, C. L. (2005). Critical features of
special education teacher preparation: A comparison with general teacher education.
Journal of Special Education, 38, 242–252.
Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. (2010). Special education
teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model.
Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377.
Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (2008). Reading mastery. Columbus, OH: SRA.
Foorman, B. R., & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group
instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 16, 203–213.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension
strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of
Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills
(DIBELS) (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational
Achievement.
Gunn, B., Biglan, A., Smolkowski, K., & Ary, D. (2000). The efficacy of supplemental
instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary
school. The Journal of Special Education, 34(2), 90–103.
Jitendra, A. K., Edwards, L. L., Starosta, K., Sacks, G., Jacobson, L. A., & Choutka, C. M.
(2004). Early reading instruction for children with reading difficulties: Meeting the needs
of diverse learners. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 421–439.
Leko, M. M., Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., & Murphy, K. (2012). Promoting special
education preservice teacher expertise. Focus on Exceptional Children, 44(7), 1–16.
McDaniel, S. C., Duchaine, E. L., & Jolivette, K. (2010). Struggling readers with emotional and
behavioral disorders and their teachers: Perceptions of corrective reading. Education and
Treatment of Children, 33(4), 585–599.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/
coe/tables/table-rd2-1.asp
Prater, M. A., & Sileo, T. W. (2002). School-university partnerships in special education field
experiences: A national descriptive study. Remedial and Special Education, 23(6),
325–335.
Salinger, T., Mueller, L., Song, M., Jin, Y., Zmach, C., Toplitz, M.y Partridgem, M. (2010).
Study of teacher preparation in early reading instruction. National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance (ED512150),Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Education.
Schieffer, C., Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Simonsen, F. L., & Waldron-Soler,
K. M. (2002). An analysis of the Reading Mastery program: Effective components and
research review. Journal of Direct Instruction, 2(2), 87–119.
Smart, S. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). TQ research and policy brief: Barriers to the preparation
of highly qualified teachers in reading. Washington, D.C.: National Comprehensive
Center for Teacher Quality.
Spear-Swerling, L. (2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and
struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431–443.
Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading
and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(2), 332–364.
Swanson, H. L. (2000). Searching for the best cognitive model for instructing students with
learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Educational and Children
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning
disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34(2), 4–14.
Torgeson, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., &
Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading
disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention
research: Findings from research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 67(1), 99–114.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2004). Reading: Effective instructional activities for
elementary students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., & Ciullo, S. (2010). Reading interventions for struggling
readers in the upper elementary grades: A synthesis of 20 years of research. Reading and
Writing, 23(8), 889–912.
TRANSFER AND
TRANSFORMATION OF
KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICES
FROM LITERACY CLINIC TO
COMMUNITY
Stephanie L. McAndrews and Shadrack G. Msengi
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter describes the structure and environment of the

Cougar Literacy Clinic, the theoretical framework, and the transferred
and transformed knowledge and practices that support the constituents as
a community of learners.
Theoretical perspective/methodology – Our research embraces theories
of transfer and transformation, self-extending systems, intersubjectivity,
social constructivism, social learning, and social cultural that helps to
explain how children, families, teachers, other educators, administrators,
professors, and community members learn and benefit through mutual
interactions, as they find ways to help each other become better thinkers
and decision makers. The data were categorized into four types of
practices from the clinical experience that have transferred to and

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002013
197
198 STEPHANIE L. MCANDREWS AND SHADRACK G. MSENGI
transformed the school and community. These categories of practices

include assessment, instruction, coaching and consultation, and family–
school–community literacy connections. The data analysis and inter-
pretation demonstrate the importance of having a shared understanding
regarding literacy development, learning, and teaching that enhances each
member’s intellectual and academic growth.
Practical implications – Our Cougar Literacy Clinic innovations, built on
beliefs of shared understanding, can be a model for both existing and
newly established clinics that are striving to transform the thinking of
each member involved. During assessment practices, each of the
constituents will learn to make informed decisions on the selection of
assessments and analysis of assessment data, confidently identify their
own and others strengths and needs, and provide constructive feedback. In
the areas of instruction, reciprocal coaching, and family–school–
community literacy connections, each of the constituents will learn to
focus on strengths and prior knowledge, scaffold learning, and pose and
respond to questions.
Keywords: Literacy assessment; instructional literacy practices;

coaching; transfer; transformation; collaborative learning
INTRODUCTION
What does it mean to develop a community of learners within the context of a
literacy clinic? The Cougar Literacy Clinic at Southern Illinois University
Edwardsville was established to meet the literacy learning, teaching, and
research needs of constituents namely children, families, teachers, other
educators, administrators, professors, and community members. The clinic
consists of three courses that are part of the graduate literacy program leading
to K-12 Reading Specialist Certification and approved by the International
Reading Association (IRA). Our literacy clinic includes multiple innovative
practices for assessment; instruction; coaching and consultation; and family,
school, and community literacy connections. The data collected from surveys,
interviews, observations, and debriefing analyses, conferences and discussions
from the children, family members, teachers, and professors indicated that
these practices have been transferred from the clinic to transform the school
Transfer and Transformation of Knowledge and Practices 199
and community. These data were collected before, during, and after
participation in the clinic from spring 2009 to spring 2012. Our clinic
emphasizes cognitive, social, cultural, linguistic, psychological and academic
development of children, teachers, and other constituents. In our program, the
term literacy is defined as the ability to competently read, write, speak, listen,
view, and visually represent, and apply ideas in life’s experiences. This chapter
describes the structure and environment of the Cougar Literacy Clinic, the
theoretical framework, and the transferred and transformed knowledge and
practices that support the constituents as a community of learners.
THE STRUCTURE OF THE COUGAR LITERACY

CLINIC
Teachers in the graduate literacy program take four foundational literacy

courses prior to the three-semester clinical practicum. After the clinical
courses, they take four literacy research and leadership courses. Upon
completion of the on-campus program, teachers earn their master’s or post
masters degree in literacy and their reading specialist certification. The
teachers in the literacy clinic, under professors’ supervision, provide literacy
assessment and tutoring services to children in grades K-12 who have
reading and writing difficulties. Families and school personnel from the
surrounding communities refer them to the clinic and complete the
application forms. The children are selected by the literacy program
director on a first come first serve basis. One clinic course is for elementary
aged children and the other is for the middle and high school children.
During the first semester, teachers learn to select, administer, and analyze
a variety of literacy assessments. After reviewing the selected child’s
background information, the teacher selects and administers individualized
assessments during three, two-hour sessions. In collaboration with their
peers and support from the professor, the teacher analyzes the qualitative
and quantitative data and writes an initial literacy development report. This
report of the student’s strengths and needs along with examples from the
assessments are shared with the family and child during the first hour-long
family conference. During each of the subsequent two semesters, teachers
plan 13 lessons, tutor children an hour and a half once a week, hold weekly
conferences with the families, and participate in weekly hour and a half peer
coaching in consultation with the literacy professor. They write an
additional literacy development report containing assessment data and an

evaluation of objectives and strategies taught. Finally, they participate in the
celebration of the children’s literacy learning and share the literacy
development reports with the family and the child at the end of each
semester. Even though the child may have tutoring more than one semester,
each teacher works with an elementary aged child during a one-semester
class and a middle/high school aged child during the other semester class.
THE COUGAR LITERACY CLINIC ENVIRONMENT
The Cougar Literacy Clinic provides a nurturing physical, intellectual, and

social environment that greatly supports and increases bidirectional learning
among the constituents. The clinic is located on the university campus and
on the first floor of one building. It includes a library with diverse, current,
and historical collection of over 13,000 children’s fiction and nonfiction
books and media, professional books, assessments, instructional materials,
and family resources. Within the library, there is a reception and family area
for people to use resources and interact with others. There are 13 state of the
art individual clinic rooms, eight of which have in-ceiling video cameras
connected to an observation room. Two rooms have a one-way mirror for
peer, family, class, and professor observation and there is an additional
classroom space with an interactive white board and wireless Internet
connection. The social environment in the clinic encourages collaboration
among constituents to support learning, share ideas, and pose and respond
to questions. The focus for collaboration is to build on each other’s
strengths and provide specific constructive feedback for intellectual growth.
This nurturing environment enhances the transfer of learning to new
settings.
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Shared understanding, social interaction, and collaboration among children,

families, teachers, other educators, administrators, professors, and commu-
nity members have been identified by our clinical data as crucial with respect
to each member’s intellectual and academic growth. Based on this
knowledge, theories regarding transfer and transformation (Mezirow,
2000), self-extending systems (Clay, 1991; Dozier, 2006; Lyons, Pinnell, &
DeFord, 1993), intersubjectivity (Tharp, Estrada, Dalton, & Yamauchi,
2000), social constructivist (Vygotsky, 1978), social learning (Bandura,

1977), and social cultural (Brofenbrenner, 1979) help to explain how the
constituents learn and benefit through mutual interactions, as they find
ways to help each other become better thinkers and decision makers. The
clinic supports individuals, in collaboration with others, to construct their
own knowledge about literacy, learning, teaching, and research through
in-depth discussions and innovative practices within the Cougar Literacy
Clinic. The constituents apply this knowledge as change agents in multiple
communities.
TRANSFER AND TRANSFORMATION OF LEARNING

The goal of our literacy clinic is to enable the constituents (teachers, children,
families, educators, professors, and community members) to transfer and
transform learning from the clinical experience to the schools and
communities. The transfer of learning is using the knowledge and practices
acquired from the literacy clinic and applying it to new contexts such as in the
schools and community. Transfer theory is envisioned as the structuring of
learning on a ‘‘trajectory’’ toward ‘‘expertise’’ and ‘‘preparation of future
learning’’ (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999, p. 68). Teachers transfer instructional
practices and theoretical foundations from clinic context to classrooms
(Applegate et al., 2010; Deeney et al., 2005; Deeney et al., 2011; Lyons &
Beaver, 1995; Roskos & Freppon, 1997; Roskos & Rosemary, 2001). This
transfer of learning also occurs between the other constituents such as
children, family members, educators, professors, and community members.
Transformative theory is ‘‘the process by which we transform our
understanding and how we learn to negotiate and act on our own purposes,
values, feelings, and meanings rather than those we have uncritically
assimilated from others’’ (Mezirow, 2000, p. 8). According to transformative
theory, adults learn to make informed decisions through reflection by
identifying, assessing, and evaluating alternative sources of information.
Transformation represents a new way of thinking as well as a new way of
acting. The data collected from the clinic indicate that each of the
constituents has transformed their ways of thinking and learning as a result
of participating in the clinic. The teachers and professors have transformed
the knowledge and practices in the school and community in making critical
decisions for assessment and instruction to help children become better
thinkers, readers, and writers. Children and family members have learned
new strategies and skills for enhancing children’s literacy development so
that children can become independent thinkers, readers, and writers. This
transformation of knowledge occurs when the constituents learn from each
other and value having mutual decision making and a shared understanding
of the literacy process, learning, and teaching, through a shared theoretical
perspective and instructional dialogue.
SELF-EXTENDING SYSTEMS
One of the ways in which learning is transformed from the clinic to the
schools and community is through developing a self-extending system.
Originally coined by Clay (1991), during the Reading Recovery program,
children use their theories of the world and of oral and written language to
solve problems during reading and writing and develop a self-extending
system of literacy expertise. These theories become an interactive system of
strategies, which enables the child to monitor, cross-check, and problem
solve during their own reading (and writing) and extend the potential of the
child engaging in more difficult activities (Clay, 1991). During clinic,
teachers encourage and support this metacognitive processing in the
children they teach. Just as we support children in constructing their own
learning, teachers can support others to ‘‘acquire reasoning skills that enable
them to construct a self-generating system for making powerful decisions’’
(DeFord, Lyons, Pinnell, 1991, p. 170). According to Dozier (2006), within a
learning community, these self-extending systems are generative whereby
‘‘coaches and teachers collaboratively engage in problem-posing and
problem-solving and seek ways to promote sustained learning for teachers
and students’’ (p. 67). As a result, ‘‘coaches and teachers will notice shifts
over time as teachers transfer their understandings flexibly and competently
into new contexts’’ (Dozier, 2006, p. 67). One of the purposes of our literacy
clinic is to build a learning community that is a self-extending system,
thereby providing opportunities for the constituents to inquire collabora-
tively, to construct shared meaning, and to make decisions regarding
literacy practices (assessment, instruction, family, coaching and consulta-
tion, and school and community literacy connections).
INTERSUBJECTIVITY THEORY
Intersubjectivity is a shared interpretation and understanding between and

among people (Tharp et al., 2000). Joint productive activities with shared word
meanings, concepts, motivations, beliefs, and expectations between people

help create common context of literacy experience (Tharp et al., 2000).
Research has revealed a deep tie among language, thinking, value, and culture,
which are best fostered through meaningful use and through purposeful
conversation (Tharp et al., 2000). For example, after viewing a child who had
difficulties reading and comprehending a passage, teachers discuss the child’s
strengths and needs and arrive at a shared understanding of how to support
the child’s literacy development. During this joint productive activity,
participants use language to establish the purposes and meanings of the
activity by using common cognitive strategies and problem solving. ‘‘These
common meanings, values, and discourse become the binding structure of life
and culture of every community including schools’’ (Tharp et al., 2000, p. 59).
Also, Matusov (2001) posits that intersubjectivity is ‘‘useful for analyzing
problems emerging when the instructor and the students with traditional
educational backgrounds try to develop a teaching design of a classroom
functioning as a community of learners’’ (p. 384). In our clinic, we analyze
issues presented by professors and literacy specialist candidates in developing
communities of learners in the schools and at home.
SOCIAL CONSTRUCTIVIST THEORY
Vygotsky’s theory of social constructivism espouses the belief that children

learn as a result of social interaction with others, and development depends
on sign systems, which include culture, language, writing, and counting
systems. An influential concept within social constructivism is the Zone of
Proximal Development, which is the distance between the actual develop-
ment level, as determined by independent problem solving, and the level of
potential development, as determined through problem solving under adult
guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Vygotsky, 1978, p.
86). Another key idea is scaffolding that refers to the assistance that adult
and more competent peers provide during learning episodes. Vygotsky’s
theory suggests cognitive development occurs when people experience the
use of higher mental functioning in social situations before they can
internalize such functioning and independently use it (Tracey & Morrow,
2012). For example, teachers use data from assessments and previous
lessons to help children make connections to background knowledge and
scaffold their new learning. The Cougar Literacy Clinic data supports the
social constructivist theory that individuals have learned more efficiently
through the collaboration with others.
SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY
In social learning theory, people learn more from observing others than they
do from the consequences of experiencing things themselves (Bandura,
1977). According to Bandura (1977), humans are capable of observational
learning; without it, each learner would have to experience everything him/
herself in order to learn. Instead learners observe others – their success,
failures, efforts, and style. For example, in the clinic teachers observe other
teachers lessons either directly or through video recording. During and after
the viewing of the lesson, peers discuss the teacher’s actions and children’s
responses, provide feedback, and give specific suggestions. In this manner,
as a community of learners, peers vicariously experience the teaching and
learning interactions between teachers and children with diverse learning
needs, rather than just their own teaching. In addition, during paired
lessons, children interactively learn as they collaboratively work to
accomplish literacy activities.
SOCIOAL CULTURAL THEORY

Social cultural theory emphasizes the role of social, cultural and linguistic
factors, which contribute to learning. According to Brofenbrenner (1979),
three spheres of influence affect human development. The innermost level of
influence is the child’s immediate environment such as their home or school.
The second level of influence is the interaction between the child’s home and
school life. The third level of influence on a child is the parents’ work
situations. These influences are important factors in the child’s development.
For example, in the clinic we asked the families and child to share
information about their home environment, culture, language, work, and
interests. The teachers use this information to make decisions about
language use, material selection, and lesson design to align with the
children’s interests and needs. For example, we had one child who was from
Germany and spoke German at home and English at school. The teacher
researched similarities and differences between the German and English
languages. The child wrote stories about his cultural experiences living in
Germany.
Since the social constructivist, social learning, and socioal cultural
theories are embedded within the transfer and transformation theories, this
chapter focuses on the latter theories. By understanding and applying these
theories, the child, teachers, family members, educators and professors, in
collaboration with others, were able to transfer the learning from the clinic
and use this learning to transform the thinking and current practices at
home, school, and in the community.
TRANSFERRED AND TRANSFORMED PRACTICES
After analyzing survey, interview, observation, and discussion data from

our graduates and families, we have identified four categories of practices
from the clinical experience that have transferred to and transformed the
school and community. These categories include assessment; instruction;
coaching and consultation; and family–school–community literacy connec-
tions, these are described in subsequent sections.
ASSESSMENT
During the clinical experience, the teachers learn to evaluate a variety of

formal and informal assessments, understand their purposes, select and
administer appropriate assessments, and then analyze and report data.
There are three purposes for using assessments: assessment for learning
(diagnostic and formative), assessment as learning (self-assessment), and
assessment of learning (summative) (Cooper, 2006; McAndrews, 2008b).
After identifying the purpose of assessments, teachers are able to evaluate,
select, and administer a variety of formal and informal assessments for
language development, vocabulary development, phonological and phone-
mic awareness, phonics, word identification, emergent text concepts, oral
reading and fluency, narrative and expository text comprehension, and
writing composition. Teachers also learn affective assessments such as
attitude and interest surveys, and literacy process interviews. Many of the
assessments were developed by McAndrews (2008a) and Leslie and Caldwell
(2010). Additional assessments are shared or developed by teachers from
their teaching experience or research. For individual children, the teachers
select appropriate assessments based on the case history derived from
information provided by the families and children’s schools and the tutor’s
knowledge of children’s literacy development. Each assessment session is
video recorded to facilitate the subsequent analysis as they revisit the
students’ responses.
In collaboration with their peers and support from professors, teachers
analyze the qualitative and quantitative data to identify children’s strengths
and needs through patterns of responses within and between assessments

from multiple sources. The analysis includes the children’s language
development in terms of the form (phonology, morphology and syntax),
content (semantics, vocabulary, and use of content and function words), and
use (pragmatics, levels of formality, and register). They examine the child’s
ability to use oral reading strategies and integrate the cueing systems
(graphophonic, syntactic, and semantic) and the ability to read fluently with
phrasing, expression, conversational pace, and comprehension. They
analyze the child’s ability to identify elements of text structure (expository,
narrative and persuasive) and evaluate the child’s ability to retell texts, pose,
and respond to implicit and explicit questions. They examine their ability to
use metacognitive strategies (predicting, making inferences, connecting
background knowledge, monitoring, analyzing, synthesizing, comparing,
and contrasting, summarizing, evaluating) for comprehension. Teachers
then examine children’s writing compositions and revising for ideas and
details, organization, voice, sentence fluency, and word choice. They also
determine their ability to use and edit for conventions such as grammar,
punctuation, capitalization, and spelling. Teachers identify the children’s
ability to spell specific phonetic elements in context and identified their
spelling stages (alphabetic, within word pattern, syllables and affixes, and
derivational relations) in spelling inventories developed by Bear, Invernizzi,
Templeton, and Johnston (2012). Teachers analyze data from multiple
sources to gain a better understanding of the child’s language, reading, and
writing development.
These in-depth analyses lead to the writing of a literacy development
report. This report contains the following sections: demographics and
background information of the child; description of assessments adminis-
tered; assessment results and analysis; summary of strengths and needs for
language, reading and writing; and recommendations for families and
schools. These reports are written, revised, and edited by the teachers in
consultation with peers and professors.
At the end of each semester, teachers meet to conduct mock family, child,
and teacher conferences with their peers for feedback. During the mock
conference, the teacher describes each assessment and data analysis, and
then point out specific examples of strengths and needs from each of the
assessments administered. The other people listen, share what they learned,
provide constructive feedback, and pose and respond to questions. The
teachers hold the conference with the child, family members, and invite
school personnel to explain and share the report and review the assessments.
The child shares their own identified strengths and needs, goals for learning,
and interests. Teachers then explain recommendations of strategies and

activities for families and school personnel to support the child’s literacy
growth. The conference participants are encouraged to share additional
information and ask questions.
Through this conference and reciprocal exchange of information, each
participant is transformed and empowered as they learn the purpose of each
assessment, the patterns of the data that demonstrate the child’s literacy
growth and specific strengths and needs, and how these data are and can be
used to assist the child’s literacy development in the clinic, home, school,
and community.
INSTRUCTION
In planning literacy lessons, it is necessary for teachers to understand

diagnostic teaching, which is defined as ‘‘the process of using instruction and
assessment at the same time to identify the instructional adjustments that
facilitate all readers (and writers) to become independent learners’’ (Walker,
2012, p. 5). In diagnostic teaching, which is supported by constructivist
theory (Walker, 2012), teachers focus on the active process of children
constructing their own knowledge. Teachers collaboratively enhance their
critical decision making when analyzing assessment data and planning
instruction (McAndrews, 2009). They plan, implement, and debrief
individual and paired lessons that integrate the literacy processes (reading,
writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing) and content
area disciplines (science, math, social science, literature, visual arts,
performing arts, and physical education). These lesson plans take into
consideration the child’s cognitive, social, cultural, psychological, and
linguistic development. The lesson plans contain the following sections:
objectives with Common Core Standards (Common Core State Standard
Initiative, 2012); materials; procedures; strategies and evaluation for oral
reading and fluency, language and vocabulary, comprehension, writing
composition, phonics and spelling; modifications, adaptations, and exten-
sions; technology; closure with student’s reflection; evidence of student work;
family communication; and teacher’s self-reflection of teaching and learning.
Teachers first identify and sequence the objectives to align with the
assessment data or previous instruction. The objectives are written in
behavioral terms and included four components: rationale for learning,
student behavior, assessment with conditions, and evaluation criteria.
Teachers select instructional strategies from course materials and school and
peer resources that align with the initial objectives. The teacher and child
select materials that aligned with objectives, reading, or writing levels and
the child’s interest. During instruction, teachers explain and model
strategies, and provide guided and independent practice. Children learn
how to monitor their reading and writing through metacognitive processes,
then apply strategies to enhance reading comprehension and writing
composition. The teacher and the child evaluate the child’s learning and
the teaching based on the objective criteria. After each tutoring session, the
child shares their learning with the family members and the teacher
reinforces the learning and literacy strategies with the family.
According to the observational and interview data of our graduates,
teachers transferred this knowledge of instruction when they identified
specific objectives, selected appropriate strategies and materials from a
variety of resources, and supported children in developing a self-extending
system in their schools. They transformed other teachers’ and educators’
instructional practices when they collaborated to plan, implement, and
evaluate lessons, based on children’s individual strengths and needs.
COACHING AND CONSULTATION

In our clinic, we prepare teachers to be literacy coaches and leaders who are
reflective practitioners in their schools, districts, and communities. As per
the Standards for Reading Professionals (International Reading Association,
2010) reading specialists/literacy coaches responsibilities may include
teaching, coaching, and leading school reading programs. They ‘‘may also
serve as a resource in reading and writing for educational support personnel,
administrators, teachers and the community; provide professional devel-
opmenty; work collaboratively with other professionals; and serve as
advocates for studentsy’’ (International Reading Association, 2010, p. 49).
According to Dozier (2006), teachers and coaches inquire, share, and work
collaboratively as they engage in ‘‘joint productive activities,’’ which extends
their thinking and learning (p. 34). In this process, they gain trust and
improve their ongoing relationships between and among themselves. During
literacy coaching, it is important to understand the influence of past
experience, input and choice, and the need for reflection and inquiry
(McKenna & Walpole, 2008).
Reciprocal coaching and consultation between educators focuses on the
strengths and needs of each adult as they learn from each other to arrive at a
shared understanding. MacKeracher (2004) as cited in McKenna & Walpole
(2008) describes adult learning as a cycle: (1) the learner participates in

experiences and activities that result in the intake of information; (2) the
learner makes sense of the experience by giving it meaning and value; (3) the
learner uses meanings in problem solving, decision making, and other
cognitive processes to develop plans; (4) the learner acts on plans and tests
choices; (5) responses from others and observations by the learners provide
feedback as new information for learners, and then learner begins the cycle
again. In our clinic, we provide collaborative activities, which help to
develop coaching abilities in our teachers. Peers and groups work together
to share practices; plan, teach, and debrief lessons; and engage in and
facilitate professional development and leadership activities to enhance their
own and other’s thinking and instruction.
SHARED LITERACY PRACTICES
During the literacy program, teachers coach each other in using a variety of
literacy practices. They each develop a resource notebook containing
strategies, materials, assessments, and technologies for each of the literacy
processes such as language development, vocabulary, phonics and word
identification, oral reading, comprehension, study skills, and writing
composition. These resources come from professional books, professional
journals, web resources, libraries, previous teaching and learning experi-
ences, other professionals, and self-created resources. During each course,
teachers and professors present and share these practices, which include the
purpose, procedures, specific children’s examples, and adaptations. Tea-
chers share their resources in the notebooks in several ways. For example,
when a colleague wanted support on vocabulary instruction, the pair
discussed several strategies and selected the ‘‘Concept of Definition’’
(Schwartz & Raphael, 1985 as cited in McAndrews, 2008a) strategy to
identify word meanings on the basis of categories, properties, and illustrations
that aligned with the teacher’s instructional objective and children’s needs.
Another example was when a teacher’s school literacy committee identified a
need for improving instruction in writing, the teacher researched and
selected appropriate assessments and resources from the resource notebook
and other sources, and explained and modeled several of them for their
school faculty. The faculty then selected and applied the practices.
Afterward the faculty met to discuss their effectiveness and adaptations.
Teachers also shared strategies from their resource notebook with families
and other educators during phone and face-to-face conferences, family
nights, and through paper and online newsletters and handouts. Families
and teachers supported their children in using these practices at home and at
school. From presentations and lessons shared, professors also gained
knowledge of additional instructional practices and their effectiveness. This
allowed them to expand their repertoire of strategies, materials, assessments,
and technologies. This process of sharing practices transformed and
empowered teachers, families, and professors to make informed decisions
regarding using these practices in their schools and communities.
PLAN, TEACH, AND DEBRIEF LESSONS

During clinic, teachers planned, taught, and debriefed individual and paired
lessons. The lessons were not only designed to meet the needs of the children
being tutored and their families but also to expand the teachers’
understanding of instruction and repertoire of strategies and materials.
The discussion and debriefing of the lesson and teaching materials with
another person actually transforms how each individual thinks (Cobb, 1988;
Vygotsky, 1978). As they discuss with peers, teachers clarify ideas, make
connections to prior learning, negotiate meaning, resolve cognitive conflicts,
develop new skills, and construct new knowledge, whereby learning becomes
the biproduct of that interaction (King, 1997). During planning, teaching,
and debriefing, teachers coached each other by examining data from
multiple sources including the assessments; reports; lesson plans; child, self,
and peer reflections; anecdotal records; children’s work samples; discourse
analysis from video, observations and debriefing; professor’s feedback and
family communication. Using the lesson plan format, the teachers
collaboratively brainstormed the selection of appropriate objectives,
strategies, and materials. Teachers also discussed the use of specific
language to scaffold children’s learning and metacognitive strategies. Paired
planned lessons, for two children, served as a beneficial tool for teachers as
well as children, to collaborate and learn from each other. During tutoring,
one of the teachers taught one lesson, while the other observed, took notes,
wrote a reflection, and vice-versa. At the end of each lesson, the child shared
what they learned from the lesson and explained the homework to their
family members. The teacher then reinforced what the child shred and
supplemented any additional information. After the lesson, the teacher and
peers debriefed the tutoring session to share ideas, develop and refine the
next lesson plan. Each lesson plan with reflection was also submitted to the
professor for feedback.
During instruction, lessons are also observed and/or video recorded.

Video serves as a ‘‘catalyst for reflection and critical dialogue’’ (Hartford &
MacRuairc, 2008, p. 1890). Video based instruction can capture the
‘‘complexities’’ of classrooms (Kurz, Llama, & Savenye, 2004, p. 68) and
represent a versatile medium for deconstructing practice (Newhouse, Lane,
& Brown, 2007), which may provide a window for examining the many
subtleness of classroom teaching (Brophy, 2004).In the clinic, the teachers
and professors use the video as a device to observe teaching, model
instruction, provide constructive feedback, and debrief the lessons. During
the debriefing they analyze discourse, pose questions, problem solve, notice
and name specific teacher and child behaviors using academic vocabulary,
and provide specific feedback to enhance instruction. Professors also use
archived videos to provide teachers with examples of instruction. Teachers
view, analyze, and discuss the videos to identify effective and ineffective
instructional practices, and problem solve alternatives. In addition, the child
and their families used the video or observation information to identify the
child’s strengths and needs, and learn about strategies to use at home or at
school. With permission from families, videos are also used as instructional
tools at professional conferences and teacher in-services to identify and
model effective instructional practices. According to the teacher surveys, the
video reflection and debriefing was beneficial in not only identifying areas
for improvement but also reaffirming teachers’ ability to make informed
decisions regarding their knowledge of literacy practices and development.
Initially the process of collaborative planning, teaching, and debriefing
lessons occur in the clinic, however, this reflective process serves as a model
to support and coach colleagues and transform the professional develop-
ment and instruction of teachers and other professionals in the schools and
community.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING AND LEADERSHIP
The role of the reading specialist/literacy coach is not only to enhance the
literacy development of children but also to demonstrate and facilitate
professional learning and leadership in schools and communities (Interna-
tional Reading Association, 2010). Based on Guskey’s (2000) definition,
professional development includes those processes and activities designed to
enhance the professional knowledge, skills, and attitudes of educators, so
that they might, in turn, improve the learning of students. The knowledge
about reading improves when teachers and professionals participate in
intensive, extended programs of professional development in reading and

writing (Brady et al., 2009).
In our clinic, teachers are constantly engaged in and facilitate their own
and others professional development through activities such as professional
reading, action research, literacy leadership teams, conferences, and
organizations. Our teachers participate in book clubs and study groups.
For example, one teacher was concerned about her ability to conduct
writing lessons. She read articles and books on writing and started a book
club with teachers at her school using, Marvelous Minilessons for Teaching
Intermediate Writing, Grades 4–6 (Rog, 2011).
Teachers use action research to study a real concern in a real school or
classroom to reflect and improve the quality of action and instruction
(Hensen, 1996; Schumuck, 1997). As they prepare to become literacy
leaders, each teacher in our literacy clinic identifies their own concerns in
their school environment and designs a year-long action research project to
address the identified concern. In the process, they determine a concern,
conduct a literature review, plan the methodology, collect and analyze data,
discuss and reflect on the results and their learning. They conclude and
provide recommendations for future implementation and study. For
example, one teacher researched teaching kindergarten literacy skills in the
science content, while another researched strategies to support reading
comprehension at the high school level. Our teachers engaged in reflective
inquiry, considered theories, knowledge and beliefs; and designed,
implemented, and evaluated their action research.
Our teachers also participate in and facilitate literacy leadership teams in
their schools and develop yearly goals. One teacher developed a school
needs survey and then worked with her colleagues to develop a school-wide
writing curriculum with assessments. Another teacher worked with her
grade 3–5 school to implement reading comprehension strategies. Her
school piloted and adopted The Comprehension Toolkit (Harvey & Goudvis,
2005) that included instruction to monitor comprehension, activate and
connect, ask questions, infer meaning, determine importance, and summar-
ize and synthesize.
Our teachers participate in and facilitate presentations at their schools
and at professional organizations. For example, one teacher demonstrated
how to use smart boards to teach phonics and word recognition in context.
Another teacher, presented at the Illinois Reading Council Annual
Conference on how to conduct writing conferences with primary grade
children. We have five graduates who hold offices in local and state literacy
organizations.
Our graduates became change agents who advocated for organizational

and instructional changes that promoted effective literacy instruction at the
school, district and state level.
FAMILY, SCHOOL, AND COMMUNITY LITERACY

CONNECTIONS
Family, school, and community literacy connections are vital for supporting
children’s literacy development that reflects children’s background and
interests. Family literacy is a complex concept. According to Morrow
(2012), it ‘‘encompasses the ways families, children and extended family
members use literacy at school and in their community’’ (p. 418). Drawing
from Morrow’s (2012) descriptions of family literacy, family literacy may be
initiated by a family member, school personnel, or community member; it
involves family literacy activities that reflect the ethnic, racial, or cultural
heritage of the families involved; and it involves families participating in
home and school communication, family–teacher conferences, classroom
literacy activities, school-wide family literacy programs, literacy workshops
and community literacy programs. Frequent and positive school-to-home
communication (in the form of phone calls, progress reports, conferences,
personal notes, newsletters, and home visits) helps parents feel more self-
confident, more comfortable with the school, and more likely to become
involved (Epstein, 1994). Epstein (1994) also explains that parents are more
likely to participate in schools if they receive information from teachers
about classroom activities, the progress of their children, and how to work
with their children at home. Data from Msengi’s (2007) study indicates
educators should consider multiple sources of information in order to assist
the child’s reading efforts. ‘‘A better level of sharing needs to be encouraged
between family members, the child, and the child’s teacher regarding their
respective expectations and goals concerning the child’s reading effort and
achievement’’ (Msengi, 2007). Epstein (1994) points out that the involve-
ment of families in schools leads to overlapping spheres of influence between
the home, school, and community. Thinking of the school as an extended
family can help to create a positive school climate, increase their
understanding, and respect for student and family diversity, creating a
more caring school climate (Epstein, 1994).
In our clinic, teachers and families collaborate to support home and
school literacy connections through regular communication, conferences,
and providing resources. First, the family and teachers from the child’s
school learn about the Cougar Literacy Clinic from references, fliers, or the
university website. Then if interested, they complete the literacy clinic
application forms. These forms provide background information regarding
the child’s physical, social/behavioral, academic, cognitive, and language
development, as well as culture, interests and attitude.
Professors meet with teachers to discuss the family forms and how to
conduct family conferences such as being sure to include the child’s
strengths prior to the child’s needs and providing specific suggestions and
strategies. The teachers contact the family to introduce themselves and to
gain clarification and additional information in the application forms, if
needed. This baseline data provides the information for selection of the
initial assessments.
Ongoing family conferences are vital tools used for regular communica-
tion between teachers, children, family members, professors, and other
educators. They meet before and after assessment, and after every tutoring
session. Following the initial assessment, the tutor, child, and family hold a
conference to discuss the initial assessment results and potential instruc-
tional objectives based on the child’s strengths and needs. The child and
family share learning goals and interests, which helps the teacher to plan
lessons. Then, the teachers provide information about the structure of the
tutoring sessions and respond to any questions that the child or family had.
After each tutoring session, the teacher, child, and family hold a
conference to help make connections between what the child did at home,
at school, and in the clinic. First, the child shares the reading and writing
strategies used and learned during tutoring while the teacher supplemented
success stories about the child’s learning and areas of need with suggested
strategies. Next, the child and teacher explain the homework related to the
lesson’s objectives. Finally, the family share the child’s successes and
concerns at home and school.
At the end of each semester, the teachers meet with their peers and
professors to analyze data and write the literacy development report. The
family, child and teacher meet to celebrate the child’s literacy development
and review the literacy development report. During the celebration of
learning, the child orally reads his/her writing published in the newspaper.
The teacher and child share the literacy development report with the families
and school personnel. The literacy report contains background knowledge,
pre- and post-literacy assessment results and analysis, evaluation of
objectives and strategies taught, and suggestions of strategies for family
and teachers to enhance the child’s literacy development. In addition, the
family share orally and complete a survey about the overall observation of
the benefits and suggestions regarding the future development of the clinic.
The professors and teachers provide the families with demonstrations,
handouts, articles, websites, and books of suggestions and strategies to use
when encouraging and supporting reading at home and at school. Children,
family, and community members can also check out books and materials
from the clinic library. Families often share information about their child,
family, and school. They regularly ask and respond to questions. During
this bidirectional communication, each participant gains knowledge about
ways of communicating especially as related to instruction, literacy
development, areas of the child’s strengths and needs, and interests. This
shared understanding of the child’s development enables teachers, families
and educators to better support the child in their literacy growth.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The major focus of this chapter was to explain how our literacy clinic
supported the transfer and transformation of knowledge and practice from
the clinical experiences to schools and communities. Our clinical practices
are based not only on theories of self-extending systems, intersubjectivity,
social constructivist, social learning, and socioal cultural but also on
theories of transfer and transformation. We explained how the synergy
between the child, family, teacher, educators, and professors, reflectively
transformed each other’s thinking and learning as they strived to achieve
shared goals. The data from our research has unveiled several elements of
transformation with implications for newly or already established clinics.
Each of the constituents became transformed individuals when they
changed their thinking and perspectives as a result of collaborating with
others. They transformed their thinking about the areas of assessment;
instruction; coaching and consultation; and family, school, and community
connections. First, in the area of assessment, each of the constituents have
learned to confidently identify their own and others strengths and needs, and
provide constructive feedback. Teachers, other educators, and professors
learned to make informed decisions on the section of assessments and
analysis of assessment data. While, in the area of instruction, each of the
constituents have learned to focus on strengths, pose and respond to
thoughtful implicit and explicit questions, and select appropriate materials
and literacy activities. Children learned to monitor their learning and use
reading and writing strategies for authentic purposes. Teachers, other
professionals, and professors became experienced in making informed

decisions about instruction and design lessons that reflected the diverse
strengths and needs of children and adults. Next, in the area of coaching and
consultation, teachers, educators, and professors learned to develop a
community of learners. They supported their own and other’s learning by
participating and conducting professional development. They modeled
effective instructional practices and provided and received resources.
Through these experiences they reflected on and adapted their current
thinking and instructional practices. Lastly, for developing family, school and
community connections, all constituents engaged in bidirectional commu-
nication, supported each other’s learning, and shared their ideas, values,
cultural beliefs, and resources. Families were regularly invited to share their
child’s achievements and concerns, and to participate in ongoing conferences.
Based on these collaborative clinical practices and experiences, the
thinking of each child, teacher, family member, educator, and professor has
been changed and transformed as they gained a shared understanding
regarding literacy development, learning, and teaching. As a community of
learners, our work and thinking continues to evolve as we interact with
others to discover new ideas and practices to further enhance the experience
in the Cougar Literacy Clinic. To further transform our clinic, we are
planning to create a website for the reading clinic providing information and
resources to families, develop an archive of teaching videos of effective
literacy practices, and an archive of coaching videos to support teachers’
self-study, reflection, and professional development.
REFERENCES
Applegate, M., Deeney, T., Dubert, L., Laster, B., Cobb, J., Dozier, C., y Swanson, M.
(2010, December). Transfer and transformation: What reading clinic/literacy lab
graduates’ current practices and contexts mean for clinic/lab instruction. Paper
presented at Literacy Research Association/National Reading Conference, Ft.
Worth, TX.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for
phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Low, E., et al. (2009).
Firstgrade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts:
Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding
teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 425–455.
multipleimplications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in
Education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–101). Washington DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Brofenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Expereiments by nature and
design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. In D. Tracey D. & L. Morrow (Eds.)
(2012). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Brophy, J. (2004). Using video in teacher education. San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics
education. Educational Psychologist, 2, 87–103. Mathematical Sciences Education Board
(MSEB) and National Research Council.
Common Core State Standards Initiative (2012). Common core states standards. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org
Cooper, D. (2006). Talk about assessment: Strategies and tools to improve learning. Toronto:
Thomson Nelson.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Angell, V., Barnes, C., Carter, C., y Freppon, P.
(2005, December). A national look at teacher preparation in reading clinic/literacy labs.
Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., Gauty-Porter, D., y Milby, T.,
(2011). Clinic experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters in
clinical teacher preparation 60th Yearbook of the Literacy Research Association. Chicago,
IL: Literacy Research Association, Inc.
DeFord, D. E., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (1991). Bridges to literacy learning from reading
recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching: Tools for creating and sustaining purposeful
change. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Epstein, J. L. (1994). Theory to practice: School and family partnerships lead to school
improvement and student success. In C. Fagnano & B. Werber (Eds.), School, family,
and community interactions: A view from the firing lines. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Guskey, I. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Hartford, J., & MacRuairc, G. (2008). Engaging student teachers in meaningful reflective
practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1884–1892.
Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A (2005). The comprehension toolkit. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hensen, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on
teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 53–66). New York, NY: Macmillan.
International Reading Association. (2010). Standards for reading professionals. Newark, DE:
International Reading Association (2010).
King, A. (1997). Ask to think-tel why: A model of transactive peer tutoring for scaffolding
higher level complex learning. Educational Psychology, 32(4), 221–235.
Kurz, T. L., Llama, G., & Savenye, W. (2004). Issues and challenges of creating video cases to
be used with preservice teachers. TechTrends, 49(4), 67–73.
Leslie, L., & Caldwell, J. (2010). Qualitative reading inventory-5. New York, NY: Addison
Wesley Longman.
Lyons, C. A., & Beaver, J. (1995). Reducing retention and learning disability placement through
reading recovery: An educationally sound, cost-effective choice. In R. L. Allington &
S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy instruction in America’s
elementary schools (pp. 61–77). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & DeFord, D. E. (1993). Partners in learning. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a community of
learners classroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 1, 383–402.
McAndrews, S. L. (2008a). Diagnostic literacy assessments and instructional strategies: Literacy
specialist’s resource. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
McAndrews, S. L. (2008b, December). Critical decision making: Literacy assessment for, as,
and of learning. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Orlando, FL.
McAndrews, S. L. (2009, February). Enhancing critical decision making in literacy assessment
and instruction. Paper presented at the International Reading Association Annual
Conference, Phoenix, AZ.
McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2008). The literacy coaching challenge. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Morrow, L. (2012). Literacy development in the early years: Helping children read and write (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.
Msengi, S. G. (2007). Family, child, and family perceptions of African American
adultassistance to young readers. The School Community Journal, 17(1), 33–60.
Newhouse, C. P., Lane, J., & Brown, C. (2007). Reflecting on teaching practices using digital
video representation in teacher education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education,
32(3), 1–12.
Rog, L. (2011). Marvelous minilessons for teaching intermediate writing, Grades 4–6. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Roskos, K., & Freppon, P. (1997). Moving beyond recitation: Descriptive observations of
teachers developing instructional conversations in the reading clinic setting. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the national Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.
Roskos, K., & Rosemary, C. (2001). Teacher learning instrument (TLI). Unpublished
manuscript. John Carroll University.
Schumuck, R. A. (1997). Practical action research for change. Arlington Heights, IL: IRI/
Skylight Training and Publishing, Inc.
Tharp, R., Estrada, P., Dolton, S., & Yamauchi, L. (2000). Teaching transformed: Achieving
excellence, fairness, inclusion, and harmony. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Tracey, D., & Morrow, L. (2012). Lenses on reading: An introduction to theories and models
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Walker, B. (2012). Diagnostic teaching of reading: Techniques for instruction and assessment (7th
ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
PREPARING PRESERVICE
TEACHERS TO DIFFERENTIATE
INSTRUCTION FOR
LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE
STUDENTS IN URBAN
CLASSROOMS
Patricia Paugh and Mary Brady
ABSTRACT
Purpose – To provide educators with an overview of issues and strategies
important for preparing preservice teachers to plan instruction, engage
students, and assess learning in culturally and linguistically diverse
classrooms.
Design/methodology/approach – The chapter reviews sociocultural,
sociolinguistic, and cognitive literature that informs differentiated
instruction for linguistic diversity. It then offers a case study example
of a preservice student teaching seminar where this knowledge was put
into practice.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002014
219
220 PATRICIA PAUGH AND MARY BRADY
Findings – Content provides detailed information about the design of a

preservice seminar that included the role of a nationally piloted per-
formance assessment. It demonstrates how preparing the assessment
portfolio provided a vehicle for a structured and useful focus on diversity
within the seminar.
Research limitations/implications – The chapter highlights literature
that is specifically useful for preservice teachers and their instructors who
are seeking to address the specific needs of English Language Learners
and the culturally diverse population of students found in U.S. classrooms.
This is important to those who seek to expand this attention to diversity
within general teacher education practices.
Practical implications – This chapter serves as a resource for all clinical
instructors, providing ideas for incorporation into their clinics and
classrooms.
Originality/value of paper – Culturally responsive teaching and a specific
focus on teaching English Language Arts for linguistically diverse
students are infused in clinical teacher education practices rather than
as ‘‘add-on’’ practices.
Keywords: English Language Learners; culturally responsive teaching;

preservice performance assessment; differentiated instruction
Preservice teacher education programs are challenged to prepare candidates to

support an increasingly diverse population of students within today’s literacy
classrooms. This is especially urgent in high-poverty communities where a lack
of such preparation contributes to low teacher retention (Moore Johnson,
2004). This chapter responds to the call for specific attention to cultural and
linguistic diversity as a priority, rather than an ‘‘add on’’ for preservice
preparation. It explores the question, ‘‘In what ways can US teacher educators
prepare preservice candidates to teach diverse learners in the complex political
and social settings that make up urban literacy classrooms?’’ The authors, two
university teacher education faculty members, in literacy and special education
respectively, offer theoretical and practical insights about preparing preservice
candidates to teach English Language Arts in these classrooms. They frame
the discussion using the experience of working with six preservice teachers in
the practicum seminar.
Preparing Preservice Teachers to Differentiate Instruction 221
RATIONALE FOR REFOCUSING ATTENTION TO

DIVERSITY WITHIN CLASSROOM TEACHING
For these preservice candidates, the social and political context of their teacher
education experience requires learning to adapt instruction to a range of
learners. The ‘‘urban mission’’ of their university nurtures a goal of academic
success embedded in respect for differences across perspectives, values, and
cultures. The teacher education programs at this public university place a
majority of student teaching candidates in local public schools in a nearby
high-need urban district. As evidenced by intractable achievement gaps
between dominant and nondominant cultural groups, students in poorer
districts such as this are not being well served (Artiles, Kozleski, Trent, Osher,
& Ortiz, 2010; Heyman & Vigil, 2008). Teachers need focused scaffolds during
their preservice preparation specifically intended to develop confident and
successful literacy educators who remain teaching in urban classrooms where
they are most needed (Darling-Hammond, Wei, & Johnson, 2009).
National and state educational reforms continue to reshape teachers’ work
especially in high-need schools. At the national level, the 2004 reorganization
of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) changed the
identification process for students with learning disabilities from a ‘‘dis-
crepancy’’ model (i.e., defining learning disability by gaps between tested
intelligence and achievement) to a model known as Response to Intervention
(RTI). RTI refocuses attention on meeting the instructional needs of
struggling students quickly and within the mainstream classroom through
ongoing assessment and differentiation of instruction. It is now necessary that
mainstream teachers differentiate instruction for all students. As cultural and
linguistic difference is often conflated with learning disabilities, it is important
that preservice teachers have tools they need to understand their students’
abilities (e.g., the cultural and linguistic resources they bring to the classroom)
while also knowing how to respond instructionally to those who struggle. This
is especially needed to serve those who are currently English Language
Learners (ELLs) (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzalez, 2008). This was a
critical expectation for these six candidates due to state-level legislation passed
in 2002 eliminating bilingual education. The result has been placement of large
numbers of ELLs in classrooms where teachers have not been prepared to
address their content and language learning needs (Nieto, 2009).
All of these reform efforts and realities affect the role of classroom
teachers. Therefore, quality preservice education necessitates that candi-
dates are able to focus on the local context as they
differentiate instruction in classrooms that simultaneously supports their

students’ linguistic and content development;
engage in dynamic assessment to determine instructional practices for all
students within a learning environment, especially those who are
struggling;
and, recognize and fully utilize the resources within the local and school
community including families and specialist supports.
Involvement in a national pilot of a preservice performance assessment

focused on teaching English Language Arts provided an opportunity to
better understand and respond to the needs of these candidates as they
transferred their learning from courses and the seminar itself to teaching of
first- and second-grade urban students.
‘‘CONTEXT COUNTS’’: MAINSTREAM LITERACY

CLASSROOMS IN URBAN SCHOOLS
The federally mandated meta-analysis of research on the teaching of reading

conducted by the National Reading Panel (NRP) and published in 2000
ushered in the age of No Child Left Behind in the United States. The NRP
analyzed experimental and quasi-experimental research on learning to read and
consolidated knowledge for teaching reading into five ‘‘pillars’’: phonemic
awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension that have been
extensively adopted as guidelines for the teaching of reading (National Institute
of Child Health and Development, 2000). This definition of ‘‘what counts as
reading’’ has been both welcomed and highly critiqued within the educational
establishment. For many, these findings have ‘‘solved the reading wars’’ (Snow,
Burns, & Griffin, 1998) by offering solid guidance for understanding effective
reading and linking this process to clear instruction. For others, distorted
applications of this research have ‘‘unbalanced’’ reading instruction in several
ways: (1) through narrow use of prescriptive curriculum programs (McGill-
Franzen, 2005); (2) through the erasure of practices complementary to basic
reading skill instruction such as attention to student engagement, inclusion of
culturally relevant instruction, and development of students’ metacognition
about ‘‘how language works’’ (Cummins, 2007); and (3) by the misuse of
assessments that have not been validated on special populations such as ELLs
(Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Many of the critiques above are especially
relevant in high-poverty urban school districts where prescriptive curriculum is
more prevalent and the student population is more culturally, linguistically, and
ethnically diverse. In an age where student learning is the central focus for
analyzing the success or failure of instruction, the paradigm of ‘‘best practices’’
or ‘‘what works’’ must be tempered to include a focus on the students within the
context of their community, schools, and classrooms. As Klingner and
Edwards argue, finding instruction that ‘‘works’’ needs to include ‘‘what works,
with whom, by whom, and in what context?’’ (p. 108).
To meet the challenge of preparing candidates for context-based, student-
driven instruction, both authors utilized the opportunity to participate,
along with the candidates, in a national pilot of the Elementary English
Language Arts portion of the Teacher Performance Assessment (TPA), a
multiple measure assessment of preservice teaching focused on student
learning (edTPA, 2012). TPA provided an opportunity to explore how
candidates made meaning of their emergent instructional practices at an
important transition point between their course completion and their first
experiences as licensure candidates taking responsibility for teaching in early
elementary classrooms.
ROLE OF THE TPA PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

IN UNDERSTANDING AND SUPPORTING THE
PRACTICUM SEMINAR AS A TRANSITION POINT
The TPA is a multiple measure assessment currently undergoing a national
pilot for preservice teacher credentialing purposes. Its development evolved
from the Performance Assessment for California Teachers (PACT). The
PACT was developed by a consortium of California universities and adopted
as a valid and reliable instrument for use in that state (Pecheone & Chung,
2006). The TPA requires teacher candidates to assemble a structured portfolio
around four performance tasks that reflect the teaching process: planning,
instruction, assessment, and academic language. The tasks, intended to
represent a capstone practicum experience, document learning in a 3–5 lesson
‘‘learning segment’’ in a single subject area. Throughout, the focus is to
connect their teaching to students’ learning. Candidates are asked to plan and
reflect on their teaching of a set of lessons differentiated to meet needs of all
learners in the classroom. A component of the planning task is a ‘‘Context for
Learning’’ form that requires gathering information such as language
background, interests, and/or identified special education needs for all
students in the class, and information on school conditions that might impact
teaching of the lessons. The lesson planning process requires both content and
language objectives with specific attention to academic language. Candidates
are asked to assemble and reflect upon evidence of students’ learning including
a video segment of their teaching, student work samples, and other unit or
lesson specific assessment instruments. Written responses are integrated into
all tasks and scored using a series of rubrics. The assessment is designed to be
scored by outside evaluators, although in the case framed here, it was scored
by two readers at the university in partial fulfillment of the portfolio
requirement for graduation from the university master’s degree program.
PACT/TPA is described in the literature as providing a reflective view of the
complex act of teaching that is not adequately measured by incidental
classroom observational visits or standardized tests of teacher knowledge
(Chung, 2008; Milanowski, Heneman, & Kimball, 2011). The literature
illuminates unique features of the PACT/TPA that differ from traditional
forms of preservice assessment. The first is an ‘‘educative’’ design focus
(Pecheone, 2012) based on social learning theories such as reflection in action,
situated learning theories, and apprentice-based learning (Chung, 2008).
Another feature is the focus on the complex language demands needed for
teaching the content, an issue especially necessary for the teaching of ELLs
(Bunch, Aguirre, & Tellez, 2009). The political implications of the TPA as a
nationally adopted, standardized assessment system for preservice teachers
remain controversial (see Cochran-Smith, Piazza, & Power, in press). Useful to
this program, however, was its theoretical framing of teacher learning that
centered the practicum as a learning site where local, state, and national issues
pertinent to an urban context were integrally related to each candidate’s
practice. The following section explores how two major theoretical frame-
works can inform candidates in developing and enacting English Language
Arts pedagogy directly focused on the students taught in their practicum
classrooms.
SUPPORTIVE FRAMEWORKS FOR

DIFFERENTIATING ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
INSTRUCTION
A supportive framework for preservice teachers to effectively differentiate
instruction for the specific configuration of students within their local
classrooms requires addressing the problem of ‘‘complexity’’ at both macro
and micro levels (Artiles et al., 2010). What this means is attending to the
differentiation focus suggested by federal and state policies but understanding

how to render them productive for all students in the local contexts of practice.
For example, the founding goal of the IDEA legislation is to protect the civil
rights of students with special educational needs. Artiles et al. (2010) question
whether these goals are being realized for the range of culturally and
linguistically diverse (CLD) students in local classrooms. The current iteration
of this legislation, RTI holds as its central tenet the focus on differentiated
instruction in mainstream classrooms. Preparing classroom teachers in an
‘‘English-only’’ state prompts closer attention to the specific learning needs of
ELLs as a case for differentiation (Lucas, Villegas, & Freedson-Gonzales,
2008). Santamaria (2009) offers a unique opportunity to consider the
overlapping intentions of both Differentiated Instruction and Culturally
Responsive Teaching (CRT), two theoretical frames that are rarely included
as complementary within the educational discourse.
Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated instruction is a philosophical orientation that recognizes that

student differences and the educational responses to them are socially
constructed phenomenon (Santamaria, 2009). Thus, it is the main thrust of
the RTI model. Here the goal is to shift the orientation from the student’s
individual capacity as a learner to a focus on the interactions between the
student and the learning environment. The affordances of RTI’s three-tiered
model for struggling students is the immediate attention given to their
academic achievement within their current classroom (Tier 1); as opposed to
the formerly lengthy process of identification and ‘‘diagnosis’’ that often
leaves learners’ unaccommodated for too long (i.e., ‘‘waiting to fail’’), RTI
provides universal screening, immediate interventions with research-based
instructional practices, and ongoing progress monitoring that aligns closely
with regular classroom instruction. Teachers who are familiar with such
practices are able to adjust the classroom instruction to meet a greater range
of students’ needs. As result, there is a more accurate and finely tuned
process for assigning intensive small group and individual interventions at
Tiers 2 and 3 to those who truly need this attention (Gersten & Dimino,
2008). Differentiated instruction as described by Tomlinson (2003 as cited in
Santamaria, 2009) can be envisioned across the following areas:
Content: All students should have access to the content, all key concepts
and generalizations must be clear, and adjustments to instruction must be
made to account for student diversity;
Process: Critical and creative thinking must be emphasized and managed,

and flexible opportunities for student interactions and engagement must
be provided;
Product: Expectations and requirements must be adjusted appropriately.
Critiques that address the affordances and constraints of differentiating

instruction within RTI point out that cultural and linguistic diversity are not
adequately addressed in this model. Santamaria and others suggest that
theoretical models, specifically sociocultural and sociolinguistic theories
focused on cultural and linguistic diversity, can productively inform this
process.
Culturally Responsive Teaching
While differentiated instruction addresses student diversity, its central focus

is on academic differences in the cognitive domain (Tomlinson, 2003). Peda-
gogical models that look to the integration of the academic with attention to
culture and language require theoretical models that expand outside the
cognitive domains. CRT is socioculturally centered, that is, it is a way of
teaching that uses cultural references to impart knowledge, skills, and atti-
tudes (Ladson-Billings, 1995). This expanded perspective (Ballantyne,
Sanderman, & Levy, 2008; DeJong & Harper, 2005; Esparza-Brown &
Doolittle, 2008; Klingner & Edwards, 2006) addresses current problems
within institutional schooling that lead to the achievement gaps described
earlier including:
Issues of cultural differences within classroom participation structures:
This includes understanding students who are not acculturated to public
participation in classroom routines, or students whose expectations about
interacting do not match US classroom cultures that expect competition
or collaboration.
Issues of cultural difference related to student background: This includes
families who associate literacy practices with school success and as a result
misunderstand messages sent home from school to work with their
children, or students who are unfamiliar with US conceptions of race or
ethnicity and may be confused with how nondominant groups may be
positioned within society.
Mismatches such as these between teachers’ and students’ cultural
expectations often produce attitudes that further marginalize the latter.
The rich literature on CRT offers guidelines for addressing cultural

diversity in the classroom. Richards, Brown, and Forde (2007) summarize
this literature across three dimensions: institutional, personal, and instruc-
tional. The latter two dimensions provide guidelines especially useful in the
clinical preparation of preservice teachers. On a personal level, beliefs and
cultural assumptions held by teachers may interfere with cross-cultural
communication. Exploring personal history with students to welcome a
greater range of perspectives within the classroom is recommended. On the
instructional dimension several techniques are suggested to engage students.
These include acknowledging cultural and linguistic differences as well as
similarities; validating students’ cultural identities in classroom practices
and materials; educating students about the world around them, promoting
equity and respect among students of diverse cultures and languages within
the classroom; assessing students’ ability and achievement using instruments
validated on students like them; fostering positive relationships among
school, families, and community; motivating students to actively participate
in their learning; holding high expectations for all students to strive for
excellence; and assisting students in becoming socially and politically
conscious.
Such practices reshape curriculum across an additive rather than a
subtractive or deficit view of difference. In addition, when differentiating
instruction in linguistically diverse classrooms, culturally responsive
curriculum requires guidelines that are specifically related to language. This
is a priority for ELLs who are learning academic content (Esparza-Brown &
Doolittle, 2008).
Linguistically Responsive Pedagogy for English

Language Arts
Preservice teachers can expect that they will be responsible for teaching
ELLs (Lucas & Villegas, 2008). This expectation is certain for the candidates
who are placed in urban schools. Yet, as of 2008, only one in six preservice
teacher education programs required ELL-oriented content (Ballantyne
et al., 2008). Thus, the preservice experience must begin to build specific
knowledge about ELLs and provide specific guidelines attending to their
needs within the mainstream classroom. This knowledge spans both
attitudes and beliefs about ELLs as well as knowledge about the roles of
both first and second language and academic success.
ATTITUDES AND BELIEFS ABOUT ENGLISH

LANGUAGE LEARNERS
In accordance with tenets of CRT, it is important to avoid stereotypes that

consider ELLs to be a homogeneous group. Therefore, including a student’s
life and language history as part of the formative assessment and
instructional planning is fundamental. Teachers who do not understand
how a student’s first language (L1) relates to English (L2) can fall into a
‘‘deficit’’ thinking trap where limited English is equated with limited
cognition. The consequences of such expectations are instruction that is
unnecessarily narrow in focus or at lower levels of cognitive complexity
(DeJong & Harper, 2005; Klingner & Edwards, 2006). It is helpful for
teachers to recognize bilingual strategies such as code-switching are
beneficial and helpful in promoting L2 English development. Linguistically
responsive teachers understand that L1 skills benefit English learning and
that use of L1 does not indicate language delay or language confusion.
In the classroom, depending upon ‘‘research-based’’ instructional
practices is only beneficial if the validity of those practices for ELLs is
examined. For example, ‘‘best practices’’ often assume that all students in a
classroom possess a strong foundation in oral English and/or an intrinsic
understanding of its grammar and discourse practices that is not the case for
ELLs (DeJong & Harper, 2005).The use of assessments that are valid for the
population represented ensures that resulting interventions are not overly
narrow in focus or result in misdirection of ELLs into inappropriate special
educational programs (Artiles et al., 2010; Esparza-Brown, & Doolittle,
2008; Meskill, 2005; Santamaria, 2009).
KNOWLEDGE ABOUT LANGUAGE IS VITAL FOR

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CONTENT
INSTRUCTION
Prioritized in guidelines for ‘‘how’’ to teach English Language Arts as a

content area in linguistically diverse classrooms is explicit attention to the
structures and functions of English in relationship to those of students’
primary languages. Thus, it is important that teachers know the primary
languages and literacy levels in those languages for all their students. DeJong
and Harper (2005)1 provide a concise summary of key differences important to
reading and writing development for ELLs. These understandings are helpful
for responding to linguistic difference when considering the ‘‘five pillars’’

practices offered by the NRP. Briefly, as noted above, many classroom reading
programs assume a depth and breadth of vocabulary and structural
understandings about English that ELLs do not possess. Thus, ELLs may
need more time developing background and content understandings. Scaffold-
ing reading discussions helps these students develop both oral and literacy
skills in English. Second, ELLs’ native languages may differ substantially in
grammatical structures affecting word structure, word order in sentences and
phrases, as well as full-text organization structures. Issues affecting ELLs’
academic English development may include differences between L1 and L2 in
use of tense, plural forms, or larger topic-centered text organizational struc-
tures (e.g., typical English paragraphs lead with a topic sentence followed by
supportive details). This affects the underlying cuing systems that these readers
rely on. Linguistically responsive teaching is (1) explicit in these areas for both
reading and writing, (2) willing to value and connect L1 and English as a central
part of the classroom instructional process, and (3) aware that ELLs whose
oral English proficiency may appear well developed still need explicit teaching
of academic forms of English necessary in school.
REVIEWING A PRESERVICE SEMINAR WITH A

FOCUS ON DIFFERENTIATING LITERACY
INSTRUCTION IN URBAN ELEMENTARY
CLASSROOMS
Six preservice teachers who participated in a practicum seminar during the

spring of 2012 offer a mini-case study of ‘‘how’’ candidates can be best
supported as they differentiate English Language Arts instruction in urban
classrooms.2 All identified English as their primary language. The age
range of the candidates spanned mid-50s (1), early 40s (2), and mid to late
20s (3). Four identified ethnically as non-Hispanic White, one as African
American, and one as Iranian American. The candidates were required to
complete the TPA performance assessment by analyzing a ‘‘learning
segment’’ in the English Language Arts in either a first- or second-grade
classroom placement in an urban school. The essential literacy goals for
each of the segments spanned both reading and writing. Topics included
author’s purpose, biography as a genre, differentiating fact from opinion,
writing a persuasive letter, finding details for describing characters and
events, distinguishing fantasy and reality, and writing ‘‘how to’’
(procedural texts). While their coursework had included study of practical

and philosophical aspects of the frameworks for differentiating instruction
described above, it was in the seminar that they were expected to act on
that learning.
WORKING ‘‘BACKWARDS’’ FROM TEACHER

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT (TPA) ‘‘TOWARD’’
ORGANIZING CLASSROOMS THAT IDENTIFY AND
MEET NEEDS OF DIVERSE LEARNERS
Their performances, assessed through the TPA, required that they take on
positions of responsibility for their students’ learning. The TPA framework
anchored their focus on differentiation. The TPA served to mediate the
structure of the semester-long seminar. Before planning their lessons,
candidates completed the Context for Learning Form, by collecting learning
profiles for all students in their classrooms. This process necessitated confer-
encing with the classroom teacher and other specialists in the school, a
recommendation prominent in the literature on differentiation for ELLs. In
the following section, the authors will outline two specific seminar activities
designed to then scaffold candidates in preparing, teaching and later reflecting
on this differentiation during their ELA ‘‘learning segments.’’ First, Mary
Brady will share her lesson planning strategies that incorporated both
Principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) and the Sheltered
Instruction Observation Protocol model (SIOP). Next, Pat Paugh will share
highlights from a workshop on academic language where she extended notions
of academic language begun with SIOP to help candidates analyze the
language demands of the content.
EMBEDDING UDL AND SIOP AS ‘‘HOW’’ TO

DIFFERENTIATE INSTRUCTION
In creating the seminar, the cautions expressed by Santamaria (2009) were

fore grounded, ‘‘What differentiation academicians fail to do, is provide
practitioners with specific guidelines and strategies on how to differentiate
instruction for ELL and CLD learners to support their academic success’’
(p. 222). One important purpose of the practicum seminar and
observations of teaching was, then, to present specific frameworks to

guide planning in instruction. The SIOP and UDL provided scaffolds for
acting on the theoretical understandings shared above.
First, SIOP model provides an intervention designed to teach subject
area curriculum to students learning English as an additional language.
Developed from a valid observation tool, it offers specific techniques for
teachers to make content learning accessible to ELLs while simultaneously
developing their second language skills. Its goal is to make the content
comprehensible across all language domains (speaking, listening, reading,
and writing). It combines pedagogical strategies such as cooperative
learning and reading comprehension instruction with features specifically
designed for ELLs. The flexible set of techniques allow for different
teaching styles while always keeping the lesson focus on academic literacy.
SIOP techniques span: preparation that includes language and content
objectives, integration of processes, scaffolding (building background,
comprehensible input), application (explicit instructional strategies),
continual opportunities for interactions in flexible groupings, multiple
opportunities for practice and application, lesson delivery, appropriate
feedback for review, and assessment (Short, Echevarria, & Richards-
Tutor, 2011).
Second, UDL offers a lens through which the candidates revisited the
SIOP differentiation planned for ELLs to ensure that the needs of
students with identified special education needs are also addressed. UDL
is a set of principles for curriculum development and lesson planning that
gives all individuals equal opportunities to learn. Principle #1: Providing
multiple means of representation includes options for perception, for
language, mathematical expressions and symbols, and for comprehension.
Principle #2: Providing multiple means of action and expression includes
options for physical action, for expression and communication, and for
executive functions (e.g., planning and goal setting). Principle #3:
Providing multiple means of engagement includes options for recruiting
interest, for sustaining efforts and persistence, and for self-regulation (e.g.,
high self-expectations and reflectivity) (Hall, Strangman, & Meyer, 2009).
Developed by Center for Applied Special Technologies (CAST) to reduce
barriers to learning for students with disabilities, UDL design invites the
use of technology tools and other instructional strategies that expand
access to a lesson’s content.3 UDL provided candidates with the above
principles and accompanying guidelines that invite multiple ways to create
more inclusive lessons.
GUIDING LESSON PLANNING, TEACHING,

ASSESSING AND REVISING WITHIN THE
PRACTICUM
In the seminar, the lesson plan template required consideration of both

SIOP features and the principles of UDL. The candidates described,
analyzed, and reflected using these two frameworks and their perceived
impact upon student learning throughout their TPA assessment process
described and illustrated in Fig. 1.
Candidates began the practicum seminar by learning about the students
they would be teaching. Through the Context for Learning and the Planning
Commentary TPA tasks, candidates gathered information about the context
of their school and classroom, the staffing, required curriculum materials,
special programs, and connections to the community. They also obtained
assessment data identifying the performance of the group as a whole and of
each child and were asked to analyze class trends and individual needs of
learners who are identified as ELLs and/or with Special Needs. With
Fig. 1. Practicum Lesson Planning Process.

quantitative and qualitative data, they were able to prepare to ‘‘teach

students rather than teach lessons.’’ The initial assessment provided access
to a depth of understanding about what individual and groups of students
knew and could perform, and the unique ways in which they best learned.
They were then asked to differentiate their lesson plans drawing on the
overlapping but also unique guidelines and suggestions provided by the
SIOP techniques and UDL principles. After the later workshop on
Academic Language they also were asked to include the forms, functions,
and vocabulary students would need to learn to access the essential content
of the planned lesson sequence.
Given that the SIOP contained the most explicit framework, applying the
SIOP features to the lessons planned was the initial stage of the seminar.
After candidates had identified and aligned the curriculum standards,
objectives, and assessments, they submitted explicit ways they would embed
language supports into each of the 24 specific features of a lesson, clustered
under the SIOP headings of Preparation, Integration of Processes,
Scaffolding, Applications, Grouping Options, and Assessment. Students
submitted their planned SIOP features in advance of teaching the lesson
and received detailed feedback, most often in the form of clarifying
questions from the practicum instructor, with the expectation that revisions
would be resubmitted. This submit, feedback, revision cycle continued until
the candidate was able to clearly articulate how each SIOP feature was used
to scaffold potential barriers in the lesson that might occur due to the
student’s level of English language proficiency. For example, when
addressing the SIOP feature of promoting engagement, Milli, preparing her
lesson on fact and opinion, wrote, ‘‘Students prior knowledge is activated so
they are a part of the discussion and comprehend what is being discussed.’’
The practicum instructor replied, ‘‘Add a specific example so that this
statement relates to a particular lesson.’’ In retrospect candidates
commented that the UDL and SIOP frameworks along with the feedback
cycle in the middle of their student teaching experience pushed their
understandings. It prevented defaulting to the type of comment exemplified
by Milli who simply reiterated a requirement rather than specifically thinking
through the intended plan. Roberta noted, ‘‘I got back on track because I had
someone else looking at it [my lesson]’’ and Clare reflected, ‘‘...it was so
important to get feedback and stay focusedywhile you are in the middle of it
[student teaching] you forget because you are trying so hard.’’ In reviewing
the lesson plans, Mary Brady, the instructor observed that the frameworks
provided through the UDL principles and SIOP features also structured her
own continuing feedback. For example, she noticed that some candidates
initially suggested the use of small groups, but instead, after revising, could
elaborate ‘‘how’’ they were using grouping strategies to support the ELLs’
understanding of the lesson’s language requirements.
Both SIOP and UDL consider assessment as a major component of
differentiation. UDL instructs candidates to design multiple ways to show
student learning, and SIOP guides candidates to ensure fair assessment of
ELLs individually or within a group, using written or oral modes of
expression. But neither model offers differentiated formative assessments
throughout the lesson that gather data on learning of content and language
objectives. To ensure that the candidates could recall and monitor what they
intended to teach throughout the lesson, the practicum instructor built in an
expectation for collecting formative data to determine the level of support
needed for students to demonstrate what they knew and could perform.
Often this took the form of checklists listing what the candidate intended for
students to learn throughout a unit of study. Candidates frequently used
these checklists during small group or independent practice observing
students while they worked. Paula found this helped her focus on each
student’s learning, especially since the cooperating teacher in her placement
did not have a system for tracking the learning of each child:
I made my own graphyI have a big chart for each child and what their scores are. [My
cooperating teacher] doesn’t have that so I made up my own chart and took bits and
pieces that she gave me just to show where the kids were.
UNPACKING ACADEMIC LANGUAGE IN THE

CONTENT AREAS
In his arguments for expanding what counts as literacy instruction in the
post-NCLB era of school reforms, Cummins (2007) stresses the need to
prioritize metacognition or an awareness of how people learn and how
language works. For ELLs, who may operate within multiple cultural and
linguistic contexts, ‘‘making language visible’’ provides cues about the
power codes connected to language use and expands their repertoires of
linguistic choices (DeJong & Harper, 2005; Schleppegrell, 2004). Two tasks
of the TPA prompted candidates to (1) reflect on evidence of academic
language in their teaching video or by analyzing student work samples and
(2) describe how they scaffolded their students’ awareness of academic
language. In response, the seminar provided a workshop overview to help
candidates revisit their personal awareness about academic language and
identify areas where they needed further support. The workshop was
designed to connect candidates with the focus of the TPA that paralleled
many of the recommendations found in the literature on linguistic diversity.
It asked candidates to attend to the language of instruction that is the
language teachers use to engage students in learning the content and the
language of the discipline that includes vocabulary as well as the forms and
functions associated with learning concepts in the disciplines of particular
subject areas (see Fig. 2).
The SIOP lesson planning process had already addressed how to shelter
the language of instruction; therefore, this later workshop extended the
analysis directly to the disciplinary language found in classroom texts.
Vocabulary instruction, the first dimension, was more familiar from
candidates’ reading methods courses. Therefore, the workshop quickly
reviewed three areas important to vocabulary instruction: high frequency
words, selection-critical (technical) terminology, and multi-meaning words
(those whose everyday meanings differ from more content specific uses –
e.g., ‘‘conflict’’ has both an everyday meaning of ‘‘struggle’’ but a specific
connotation in narrative structure). The bulk of the workshop then
introduced the general forms and functions of language commonly used
in schooling such as narrative, recount, description, explanation, procedure,
Fig. 2. Structure of Academic Language Workshop.

and argument (Derewianka, 1990) as well as a brief overview of the specific

grammatical features of these in relation to content disciplines (e.g.,
language of science that emphasizes objectivity and procedures, language of
history that emphasizes past events and the temporal relationships between
them, and the language of mathematics that emphasizes articulation of
precise relationships and procedures involving numbers (DeJong & Harper,
2005 citing Schleppegrell, 2004)).
The workshop began with a review of the six commonly used academic
genres summarized by Derewianka (mentioned above) and discussion of the
purposes for which they might be used. This only taps the surface of more
intricate linguistic theory that connects the grammatical and structural
features of texts with the contexts in which they are used (see Schleppegrell,
2004). However, for the elementary level candidates, who had little
experience with metalinguistic teaching, this entry point for connecting
language and content fit within their zones of proximal development. Both
Roberta and Clare noticed that the concept of general forms connected
closely with their grade level reading curriculum focus on procedural and
persuasive texts. The workshop shared two concrete examples of reading
and writing instruction from the third-grade classroom of a frequent
cooperating teacher, Ms. Mary Moran. Ms. Moran follows Derewianka
and others. She analyzes the functions of grammar and structure with her
students as they read as a class. With Ms. Moran’s consent, Pat Paugh
utilized artifacts from routine ‘‘On the Rug’’ book discussions. During
these discussions, Moran and her students look in depth at how grammar
and text organization features create language demands. Students look at
features of how texts are structured (e.g., introduction, sequence of events,
conclusion, captions, glossaries, indexes, charts, and graphs), what cohesive
devices are used (e.g., connectives that show time or location), how the
language creates specific relationships between author and reader (e.g.,
imperatives in a procedure that position author as an ‘‘expert’’), and how
parts of speech such as nouns, noun groups, verbs, adjectives work within
clauses to create meaning (e.g., past tense verbs used for recounting an
experience while present tense ‘‘timeless’’ verbs are used in a science
explanation).
Ms. Moran’s work was chosen as it represents integration of purposeful
thematic study with language awareness where meaning is first then followed
by explicit study of grammar and its functions (DeJong & Harper, 2005),
rather than grammar study that is disconnected from language in use.
Candidates later noted that a classroom video and several writing charts
created by Moran and her students for a plant and garden unit were
especially helpful. When asked to use information from garden journals to

create a writing project, some of Moran’s students chose either to ‘‘recount’’
their experience for second-grade friends while others chose to write
‘‘procedures’’ for teaching friends how to plant seeds or create compost. The
environmental print charting the language structures and grammar for each
genre or purpose evolved from useful learning tools for Moran’s students to
an extended set of scaffolds for the preservice candidates in the seminar
workshop. Clare reflected in a focus group,
[The teacher education program] needs to do a lot more with [academic language]
because I had not an idea about what it meantyso the day you came in and did the
charts I remember I wrote down notes and copied the chartsy[I said to myself] I didn’t
know any of this and I was an English major!
The two vignettes shared by the authors in this section provide a quick
view of how the TPA mediated and the practicum seminars responded to the
complex demands placed on urban student teachers. In this chapter’s final
section, candidates’ feedback is reviewed to reflect on the theoretical and
practical frameworks shared above and connect these to the candidates’
ability to enact responsive academically effective ELA instruction.
IMPLICATIONS AND DISCUSSION
In creating productive integration of theory and practice within the

preservice practicum, a performance assessment that focused the candidates
directly on the success of all students in their mainstream classes and asked
them to monitor their own learning along with that of their students was
productive. It provided feedback that was not previously available to either
the candidates or the teacher education faculty. Limited space allows just a
few of the many insights gained in the three vital areas listed earlier:
differentiation, assessment, and cultural connections.
Differentiation
Candidates’ lesson sequences varied in consistency in fulfilling the intended

process of planning for both content and language goals and using
formative assessment for ‘‘next steps.’’ When asked, candidates noted a
tension between formative teaching and preset paced curriculum expected at
their schools. Sandra’s experience was echoed by three others,
I did a fantasy and reality lesson because that’s what fell in the [commercial] curriculum
and then the grammar skill which isn’t necessarily [part of] the full lesson but that you
were supposed to doy It was a little bit of a conflict because the way she [cooperating
teacher] teaches is just kind of [what] she has to follow in the book.
Roberta, however, offered a solution,
We followed the [commercial curriculum] but there was flexibilityywe knew they were
going to have an assessment on ‘‘how to’’ and it came at the end of unit twoy . I was
allowed to take what they needed to be assessed on and I had an idea of how I wanted to
break it up and teach ityit was a clear goalyand I was able to change it [to fit].
Not only do preservice teachers need to negotiate their teaching at the

practicum site but also they will need this skill as novices in many urban
schools. They will also need to be confident enough in their grasp of ELA
content to fit curriculum to the students and not vice versa. Realizing this,
next steps for the practicum and for the ELA methods courses are to
provide more guided experiences for aligning curriculum to specific contexts
and negotiating its use.
Assessment
Engaging in focused and formative assessment resulted in ‘‘surprises’’ and

improved teaching for two candidates. Jenni’s assessment indicated that
after teaching a carefully planned lesson ‘‘ALL the students had
difficultiesythey all needed more exposure which is what I reflected on
and why the lesson was tweaked at the beginning [for] the next time.’’
Clare’s assessment on the other hand, found competencies beyond what was
reported on one of her students’ Individual Educational Plans (IEP).
I have a student with a behavior plan andyliterally instructions were to keep him in the
class so that’s what I expected him to doyjust stay in the classyI didn’t even expect
him to write to be honestybut he responded to the [lesson plans]yso much of his
behavior was because the IEP says to keep him in the classroomyyou’re realizing yes
but I have a job [to teach him]yso I had to combine the IEP goal with my teaching goal.
Cultural Connections
Candidates reflected on expanded understandings about linguistically

diverse students. Deeper understandings led to raised expectations for
Sandra who realized:
You are setting up so that they [ELLs] can learn without you standing next to them
translating everythingyyou are [focusing on] setting it up for your students to learn, not
[focusing] on how you are teaching, if you see what I mean.
On the other hand, despite asking candidates to investigate family/

community/cultural assets in planning, the TPA prompts and the practicum
activities did not elicit the depth of cultural attention recommended within
the CRT frameworks we explored. Therefore, the addition of further
guidelines and cycle of feedback on CRT is warranted.
In conclusion, expectations that candidates demonstrate effective teaching
for diverse learners that is academically, culturally, and linguistically
responsive led to deeper and more attentive professional growth during
the practicum. However, the authors argue that their practicum and the
performance assessment could provide greater visibility for CRT in the
lesson planning as well as an additional structured guidance in helping
candidates draw on their knowledge of ELA content and feel confident in
using their own knowledge to adjust the school-based curriculum when
needed. This includes revisions to the entire program. Beginning with our
2012–2013 academic year, we’ve begun a ‘‘backwards design’’ process that
includes collaborative attention by all faculty to the preservice syllabi using
the TPA as the first step for extension and reform. Content faculty, special
education faculty, ESL experienced faculty, and elementary supervisors will
be instrumental in this process.
NOTES
1. See for a helpful and concise summary of specific knowledge about language
important for reading and writing development of ELLs.
2. Candidates’ consents were obtained through an approved IRB process.
Pseudonyms have been used to protect confidentiality.
3. Examples and Resources to guide UDL implementation as well as a listing of
the Research Evidence are offered at http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguide
lines
REFERENCES
Artiles, A., Kozleski, E., Trent, S., Osher, D., & Ortiz, A. (2010). Justifying and explaining
disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional
Children, 76(3), 279–299.
Ballantyn, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & Levy, J. (2008). Educating english language learners:
Building teacher capacity. Washington, D.C.: National Clearninghouse for English
Language Acquisition.
Bunch, G., Aguirre, J., & Tellez, K. (2009). Beyond the scores: Using candidate responses on
high stakes performance assessment to inform teacher preparation for English Language
Learners. Issues in Teacher Education, 18(1), 103–128.
Chung, R. (2008). Beyond assessment: Performance assessments in teacher education. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 35(1), 7–28.
Cochran-Smith, M., Piazza, P., & Power, C. (in press). The politics of accountability: Assessing
teacher education in the U.S. The Educational Forum.
Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor: Realigning reading instruction for low-income
students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564–
572.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., & Johnson, C. M. (2009). Teacher preparation and teacher
learning: A changing policy landscape. In Gary Sykes (Ed.), The handbook of education
policy research (pp. 613–636). Washington DC: American Education Research
Association.
DeJong, E., & Harper, C. (2005). Preparing mainstream teachers for English-language learners:
Is being a good teacher good enough? Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(2), 101–124.
Derewianka, B. (1990). Exploring how texts work. Newtown, Australia: Primary English
Teaching Association.
edTPA. (2012). General information: How is edTPA constructed and used? Retrieved from http://
edtpa.aacte.org/faq#17
Esparza-Brown, J., & Doolittle, J. (2008). A cultural, linguistic, and ecological framework for
Response to Intervention with English Language Learners. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 40(5), 66–72.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. (2008). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education
for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1),
99–108.
Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. (2009). Differentiated instruction and implications for
UDL implementation. Effective Classroom Practices Report. National Center for
Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarc
hive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl/
Heyman, E., & Vigil, P. (2008). Creating change in the large urban public schools of the United
States. Forum on Public Policy. Retrieved from http://www.forumonpublicpolicy.com/
summer08papers/archivesummer08/heyman.pdf
Klingner, J., & Edwards, P. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention
models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). But that’s just good teaching! The case for culturally relevant
pedagogy. Theory into Practice, 34(3), 159–165.
Lucas, T., Villegas, A. M., & Freedson-Gonzalez, M. (2008). Linguistically responsive teacher
education: Preparing classroom teachers to teach English Language Learners. Journal of
McGill Franzen, A. (2005). In the press to scale up what’s the risk? Reading Research Quarterly,
40(3), 366–370.
Meskill, C. (2005). Infusing English language learner issues throughout professional educator
curricula: The Training All Teachers project. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 739–756.
Milanowski, A., Heneman, H., & Kimball, S. (2011). Teaching assessment for teacher human
capital management: Learning from the current state of the art. Working Paper No. 2011
-2. University of Wisconsin Madison. Retrieved from http://www.wisc.edu/publications/
workingPapers/papers.php
Moore Johnson, S. (2004). Finders and Keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Nieto, D. (2009). A brief history of bilingual education in the United States. Perspectives in
Urban Education, 61(1), 61–72.
Pecheone, R. (2012). Teacher performance assessment consortium (TPAC). Presentation to
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. July 9, 2012.
Malden, MA.
Pecheone, R., & Chung, R. (2006). Evidence in teacher education: The performance assessment
for California teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 22–36.
Richards, H., Brown, A., & Forde, T. (2007). Addressing diversity in schools: Culturally
responsive pedagogy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39(3), 64–68.
Santamaria, L. (2009). Culturally responsive differentiated instruction: Narrowing the gaps
between best pedagogical practices benefitting all learners. Teachers College Record,
111(1), 214–247.
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Short, D., Echevarria, J., & Richards-Tutor, J. (2011). Research on academic literacy
development in sheltered instruction classrooms. Language Teaching Research, 15(3),
363–380.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strategies and
tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
PART 3
TECHNOLOGICAL ELEMENTS
TAKING TECHNOLOGY FROM
CLINIC TO CLASSROOM
Lee Ann Tysseling and B. P. Laster
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter explores how teachers and learners can use
technology in powerful and agentive ways for literacy development. It
presents information about communication technologies (ICTs) that can
be used to develop student literacy skills in each of the major areas of
literacy learning: emergent to beginning literacy, fluency, vocabulary,
comprehension, and writing. It also addresses how assistive technologies
fit within a literacy development program.
Design/methodology/approach – A brief overview of the breadth of
technologies available for instructional uses and the pedagogical perspec-
tive used is followed with specific ideas for free or inexpensive technologies
that can be used to address literacy development. Additionally, websites for
professional reviews of software are included to help readers learn about
emerging technologies and software applications as they become available.
Practical implications – Specific ideas for instruction that addresses
student literacy development while integrating 21st-century technology
are included. Teachers and teacher educators will find immediately

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002015
245
246 LEE ANN TYSSELING AND B. P. LASTER
useful, practical ideas for boosting literacy learning with technologies

matched to specific literacy needs such as sight words, fluency, and
comprehension.
Social implications – Struggling readers and writers deserve and need
experiences that help them acquire technology skills. Too often these
students are excluded from technology activities because they are
participating in intervention instruction or do not finish seatwork and
have no available ‘‘free’’ or ‘‘choice’’ time. Technology can be a
powerfully motivating tool for literacy instruction. It can also provide
engaging practice, targeted specifically at the learning needs and
developmental stage of the literacy learner. Most importantly, struggling
readers and writers need exposure to the academic possibilities of
technology.
Keywords: New literacies; phonics; vocabulary; fluency; writing;

comprehension
In this chapter, we explore the possibilities of how technology can be used to

support and transform literacy development. The theoretical basis of
literacy development, already covered in other chapters of this book, is
infused here with technologies that can support or motivate learners. We
do not suggest ‘‘adding on’’ technologies, rather merging or replacing
familiar strategies and instructional routines with technologies that offer
increased efficiency, improved motivation or attention, and a basis for
effective work in the 21st century. A brief overview of how technologies are
changing teaching and learning of literacy skills and strategies will help
anchor the technology-based practices that we recommend following the
overview.
A wide range of information and communication technologies (ICTs) are
changing the literacy lives of readers and writers (Greenleaf & Hinchman,
2009; Leu et al., 2009). The Internet, computers, tablets (e.g., iPads),
smartphones, ebooks, and text-to-speech programs are just a few examples
of the ICTs that can support students with a range of aptitudes and attitudes
to participate actively in learning communities, whether in the traditional
classroom, the reading clinic, or their neighborhoods. New technologies
offer the promise of innovative ways to help learners develop skills,
strategies, and independence in reading and writing in the classroom, while
making connections to the new literacies in which students engage outside of
Taking Technology from Clinic to Classroom 247
school (Alvermann, 2008; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011). The digital universe
is also creating literacies that readers and writers must master to be fully
functioning in the 21st century (NCTE, 2008).
PEDAGOGICAL CHOICES
The technology challenges of 21st century have changed ‘‘the focus of the
conversation about the digital divide from questions of technological access
to those of opportunities to participate and to develop the cultural
competencies and social skills needed for full involvement’’ in a
participatory culture (Jenkins, 2006, p. 4). While more students in the
United States have access to computers and the Internet than ever before,
the primary concern of the second digital divide revolves around unequal
access to the kinds of cultural and social capital that are increasingly needed.
The second digital divide refers to whether a person uses technology in
active or transformative ways (Lohnes Watulak, Laster, Liu, & LERN,
2011). Clinics, labs, and schools have an opportunity to play a central role in
ameliorating this second digital divide.
There is great variation in how teachers of reading and writing permeate
their teaching with technology, according to the self-reports of teachers who
graduated from reading clinics/literacy labs from across the United States
(Dubert & Laster, 2011). Some use technology regularly with careful
selection to match the learner needs and curricular goals with an aim to
support students in mastering the complexities of the literacy process. Other
teachers do not always have the skills to integrate technology into their
teaching (Fullan, 2001) or to integrate it in ways that powerfully impact
student literacy learning (Lohnes Watulak et al., 2011). We should consider
how teachers perceive and use instructional technology. In the recommen-
dations that we make below, we encourage student-directed, agentive uses of
technology in clinics and classrooms. We describe how teachers use
technology in a continuum of teacher-centered to student-centered ways,
with the hope that the emerging wave is one of students as agents of their
own learning.
Many reading clinics/literacy labs have assimilated technology to enhance
instruction for struggling readers as technologies have evolved. Because of
the rapidity of change, we all must take a deictic stance toward its
instructional uses (Leu, 2000). In this chapter, we share specific, accessible,
and affordable ways that learning with technology can enhance the
development of struggling literacy learners, knowing that new uses will be

discovered an hour or a day after we finalize this chapter. Our emphasis is
on suggesting general practices rather than specific ICTs. Throughout this
chapter, we include websites that will provide regular updates about
emerging ICTs.
Selecting Software and Technology for Reading Development
Selecting Software and Technology for Reading Development

There is a dazzling array of software (or ‘‘apps,’’ compressed forms of
software for use on a tablet) available claiming to be the answer to every
teacher’s need. Word of mouth or district purchasing decisions (frequently
guided by sales representatives) often steer teachers in selection of software,
but it is helpful to also check the reviews of software available that are
unbiased and completed by experts. Three such sites are Common Sense
Media, Apps for Children with Special Needs, and the Technology in
Literacy Education wiki (www.commonsensemedia.org, http://a4cwsn.com,
and http://tilesig.wikispaces.com). The first author of this chapter also keeps
a running list of recommended sites in her delicious account (www.
delicious.com/BSULee).
All resources should be reviewed with a critical eye. Too often purchasing
decisions about publishers’ digital series are made at the district level
without input from literacy specialists. Consequently, teachers complain
about being required to use digital programs that do not fit their students’
needs. Literacy teachers should demand appointments to district technology
committees that make purchasing decisions. We are excited about the
possibilities that ICTs offer, but are wary of their limitations.
Finding Appropriate Technology for Specific Students
In the rest of this chapter, we discuss digital resources in a variety of literacy

areas. We assume that in-depth assessment of students’ individual needs will
be a guide for the selection of appropriate instruction. We have grouped the
resources into these areas: Emergent to Beginning, Fluency, Vocabulary,
Comprehension, Writing, and Assistive Technologies. There is, however,
overlap among most categories. As explained in the introduction, all these
technologies are congruent with existing theories and research in each of the
literacy development areas.
EMERGENT TO BEGINNING LITERACY SKILLS
Children who are in the process of acquiring decoding skills can benefit from
practice using technology. Phonemic awareness, phonics skills, and an initial
stock of sight words (words instantaneously recognized) are presented in a
wide array of software. We will begin with a general warning: The quality
and educational value of software for beginning literacy skills is very uneven
and sometimes limited. Because it is relatively easy to build software and
apps for this literacy need, many are constructed without a robust
understanding of instructional principles for beginning literacy. Also, we
cannot offer a comprehensive review of available software. Instead, we will
highlight examples of software that can serve as models for evaluation of
future software releases.
Drill and Practice – Phonics and Sight Words
Most teachers are aware of Starfall (www.starfall.com) and Reading A–Z

(www.readinga-z.com). Starfall is a free site that includes instruction in
basic graphophonic relationships and provides decodable ebooks and games
to reinforce these early skills. Reading A–Z is a comprehensive ‘‘core
reading’’ website with a subscription fee. Many teachers and schools find
this an easy way to match readers with appropriate text supported by
lesson plans and worksheets for student practice. Both provide many
opportunities for work on phonics, sight vocabulary development, and
extended practice with decodable text (Reading A–Z extends beyond
beginning reading levels). However, using these resources requires careful
teacher selection and planning. As with all materials, careful matching to
student needs is essential. In fact, it is our suggestion that Reading A–Z be
used as a supplement rather than a core reading program. This resource can
be used for student independent work after specific instruction and/or
guiding reading practice within the context of many other texts and genre.
There are also numerous apps available for drill and practice of phonics
and sight words (a few that have been well reviewed include Word Wall
(http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/word-wall-hd/id430272237?mt=8), Sight
Word Hangman (http://www.sightwordshangman.com/), Wild Word
Garden (http://games.yahoo.com/brain-games/wild-word-garden/), and Bob

Books (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bob-books-1-reading-magic-hd/
id405995002?mt=8). We have found YouTube a great way to preview
software/apps. In most cases, the YouTube samples show actual ‘‘play’’
with the software, saving the purchaser considerable money.
Many teachers are finding Spelling City (www.spellingcity.com) to be a
very useful site. It includes a deep reserve of word lists, games, and articles
about spelling and vocabulary. Teachers can set up their own spelling or
vocabulary lists or use existing lists and games; they can also add a link to
their classroom website or blog. Students can access the lists, practice
activities, and games in the classroom or at home. One concern is that the
publisher devised new categories of words. For example, they created
‘‘Capitonyms,’’ that seem to be multiple meanings of words that change
because of a capital letter (e.g., mercury and Mercury). We do not think that
complicating vocabulary learning in this way is helpful.
Computer-based practice (skill and drill) can be useful for independent
practice or as recommendations for parents to use at home. Teachers will be
wise to have a ready list of games with educational value for children, and
their families. Games can also be motivating within the classroom for an
individual or a small group. The game and video format can entice students
who are resistant to reading or have a fear of failure. However, teachers also
need to be aware that the time will be best used if they carefully match
software to individual students. It is also advisable to carefully introduce the
game/activity to students so that they get the most value from their engaged
time. Many struggling readers will miss the central skill practice intended
without guidance and instruction (Olson & Wise, 2006). We also have
concerns about the overuse of such skill-and-drill software. As Henry (2007)
found, too often struggling readers are assigned to such rote activities;
missing the exciting, creative, and agentive opportunities that their more
able classmates have afforded which can lead to powerful mastery of literacy
(and of technology).
Self-Publishing and Digital Language Experience Approach
The Language Experience Approach (LEA) has been a reliable teaching

method for many years (Allen, 1968; Freire, 2000). Access to digital cameras
and a wide range of word processing/bookmaking software has made the
LEA easier to implement and more engaging for learners (Labbo & Ryan,
2010). Teachers have quickly learned to use technologies such as interactive

whiteboards or word processing programs displayed via projectors routed
through computers to take some of the labor out of traditional approaches
to LEA lessons. Digital photos taken on a class field trip or photos uploaded
from a parent’s digital camera or cell phone can be quickly incorporated
into shared writing, morning message, or LEA stories that can subsequently
serve as the basis of reading lessons or practice.
Although LEA has been an important component of literacy education
for decades, its cousin ‘‘Digital Storytelling’’ has only recently gained steady
acceptance as a powerful instructional activity (Labbo & Ryan, 2010). Both
forms are student-generated, yet LEA is aimed at beginning readers of any
age (adolescent or adults learning to read) and requires a teacher or scribe to
write down what the student is saying. Digital storytelling, on the other
hand, is ideal for more fluent readers and is more fully described below
under Writing.
A Vignette
Here is an illustration of how LEA has come into the digital age. Recently,
Martin (a pseudonym), a six-year-old in one of our reading clinics,
overcame significant resistance to reading through LEA based on his
favorite action hero: Spiderman. This young man, mature beyond the
typical 1st grader in interests, frequently refused to read the guided reading
level A–D books that were in his instructional reading level. He was
sometimes willing to read nonfiction books at that level, but much preferred
spelling and writing activities to ‘‘eyes on the page.’’ We began attempting to
use his passion for Spiderman to increase the amount of time he was willing
to read connected text. Marvel Comics (www.marvelcomics.com) has a
create-your-own comic page in the website. We used this to create a comic
with blank speech bubbles for which Martin was to ‘‘write’’ text. He dictated
the content of the speech bubbles to his teacher who recorded Martin’s text
on sticky notes. Once all the speech bubbles were drafted, Martin reviewed
them and dictated appropriate revisions. The teacher then carefully printed
the text into the comic strip. This became Martin’s reading material for
several sessions. It is possible to allow students to work within the Marvel
Comics website itself to create their own comics, but to save time, we created
the comic. We also found it somewhat limited in characters and settings, so
for our second lesson, the teacher used a collection of Spiderman images
collected from a variety of websites. The teacher did not arrange them in a
story sequence, rather just printed a large number of images with Spiderman
and Martin’s favorite villain. Martin then composed a story, selected images
he wanted to use to illustrate the text, and combined all into his own original
Spiderman reader. Many of the elementary school-aged boys in our
classrooms have frightening familiarity with and passionate interests in
video games (including games that are rated well above their age), television,
movie, and comic book/graphic novel characters and plots. For our
emergent readers, whatever their age, allowing them to use these images and
plots in a LEA lesson may feel unfamiliar and even somewhat inappropriate
to teachers, but with the approval of the parents, the modification can make
a huge difference in their motivation and reading development. An
alternative to photos of real places and events is to use building blocks,
toys, or claymation to create a narrative based on students’ playtime
interests (see Stormtroopers365 project http://www.flickr.com/photos/
st3f4n/sets/72157616350171741/for ideas to start such a project).
LEA Goes Global
ICTs are rapidly making it possible for emergent readers/writers to publish

their work to an international audience. RealeWriter (www.realewriter.com)
is part of a nonprofit effort ‘‘dedicated to creating world-wide book
abundance through leveraging technology’’ (Unite for Literacy, 2012). The
software allows beginning readers to compose their own digital language
experience books and upload them to the RealeLibrary. Books can be
shared internationally through inexpensive technologies, including cell
phones. The RealeWriter is free software that allows children/families to
compose and print a book based on their own life experiences. The
company, Unite for Literacy, also hopes to begin offering translation
services so that stories can be translated into languages and shared around
the world. The rapid spread of cell phones, especially smartphones, makes
this a particularly promising approach to getting reading materials into the
hands of emergent readers around the world (Zickuhr & Smith, 2012).
A free website that provides illustrations and allows children to compose
their own stories is StoryBird (www.storybird.com). Like other storybook
creation software, for example, Storybook Weaver, it provides graphics that
writers select and organize to support their composition of narratives. Like
language experience stories these can become the ‘‘textbook’’ for literacy
lessons. StoryBird has the advantage of being able to share the stories online
with other family members, as well as a generally wider selection of graphics
including work by artists from around the world. An additional advantage
is that authors get feedback from readers. Authors return to the StoryBird
site regularly to see the most recent reviews. We have been surprised by how
quickly reviews are made and with the kindness of the comments by the
reviewers. This site allows teachers to create classroom accounts so
that students do not need email addresses to create and share their own
stories.
FLUENCY
There have been many commercial software programs released that are
designed to improve reading fluency. Most are based on repeated reading of
short texts. These can be used effectively but have two weak points: they
rarely take into account student choice of reading material and they offer
limited opportunities for agency or engagement. We suggest other digital
resources that can be used the address issues of fluency.
Ebooks can be used effectively for fluency development. In selecting an
ebook, we look for the following characteristics: Professional quality of oral
reading of the text, the option to turn off the oral reading, the option to
have single words pronounced, and convenient opportunities to reread the
book with or without the audio available. An additional desirable feature is
the ability to record the reader’s speech, a feature available in Scholastic’s
Wiggle Works series. A site that we have found to be particularly well-
designed is TumbleBooks. The basic subscription for an entire school is quite
reasonable and many public libraries have subscribed to the service.
TumbleBooks includes professional readings of a wide variety of books as
well as activities to accompany them. Some TumbleBooks also have a ‘‘word
helper,’’ that offers online help with highlighted words. This assistance takes
the form of pronunciation and a little word analysis work. However,
younger readers would need to have some guidance in how to utilize the
word analysis support. Readers do have the option to turn off the narration
and read the book on their own. There are also books available in Spanish,
French, Chinese, and Russian. TumbleBooks also offers a dual language
format in which the reader can see/hear both the English and an alternative
language edition of the book. Most libraries offer a wide selection of
audio books in audio tape, CD, and digital formats. Learning Ally (www.
learningally.org) a subscription service ($99 per year for parents and
students) provides opportunities for readers to hear professionally narrated
text that models fluent reading. We will also discuss the uses of audio books
for comprehension development later in this chapter.
Beyond listening to models of fluent reading, there are several techno-

logies that can be used to provide contexts for fluency practice. Using digital
audio or video recorders offers unlimited opportunities for fluency practice.
Teachers may choose relatively simple approaches to having students
practice a text selection and record it or become as elaborate as YouTube
videos or videos posted on a class website. Tablet computers and digital
audio recorders make it easy to create a video-recording of a student’s
reading and play it back immediately for review. Most readers are motivated
by listening to themselves read aloud or watching a video production. These
also provide opportunities for learning skills that connect to digital venues
that students may see as motivating and offering connections to their lives as
digital citizens. The Extreme Reading website Tarasiuck (2010) contains
wonderful examples of student interpretations of original poetry and video
book reports (http://newlits.wikispaces.com/Extreme+Reading+in+the+
Middle+Grades).
VoiceThread (www.voicethread.com) provides an opportunity to share
fluency practice with classmates and family members. Teachers can post a
piece of leveled text on VoiceThread for a small group of readers. Each
student in the group adds an oral reading of the passage on the
VoiceThread page. Teachers can keep the oral readings hidden or students
may listen to each other’s reading of the passage. A second option is to
have a student post a text and their reading of it on the page and then
have classmates, teachers, and family members add their responses to the
oral reading on the VoiceThread page. Comments may be added to
VoiceThread pages in text, recorded voice, recorded video, and even by
phoning in a response. VoiceThread offers many examples of ways to use
their service on their home page. VoiceThread also extends the opportunity
for the Great Poetry Race (Pitcher, 2009), an engaging activity for fluency
practice, to go digital. Grandparents a continent away can listen and
respond to their grandchild using the VoiceThread platform. Another
option to traverse distances is the use of Skype (or similar options) to have
students practice reading poems for fluency in real time. Similarly, using
Skype for a group of people across distances to do some collaborative
oral reading with Readers’ Theatre would be another way to advance
fluency.
One of the disadvantages of some of the current published oral reading
fluency programs is that students can become discouraged, bored, and
resistant. We hope that the examples above demonstrate how fluency
practice can be revitalized. Adding these digital approaches also helps
address some of the 21st century skills our students need (NCTE, 2008).
VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
In addition to needing to master a large set of sight words, all readers, but
especially readers and writers who struggle, must build their vocabulary
knowledge (Graves, 2008; Snow, Lawrence, & White, 2009; Stahl & Nagy,
2006). Of particular importance for students is grasping the meaning of
words necessary for understanding content area materials and abstract
ideas. Technology is a blessing for those students who have to accelerate
their vocabulary knowledge. There is a wide array of online reference
resources to assist them; increasingly, there are embedded pronunciations
and definitions in ebooks and other digital texts too.
Online Reference Resources
Almost all online references provide adequate definitions and audio

pronunciations. Each has features that serve the purpose of individual
learners. The resources that we highlight are of particular value because
each in its own way encourages learners to explore word meanings in self-
directive, agentive ways. This is in contrast to instructional time that
requests students to only record and memorize definitions of words.
Additionally, each of these helps provide additional contexts through
images or rich examples of vocabulary words used in a variety of contexts,
which is essential to increased retention and future usage of words.
Although www.dictionary.com is the most frequently used online reference,
there are many better choices. For very beginning readers and English
language learners, the Visual Merriam Webster dictionary is particularly
helpful (http://visual.merriam-webster.com/). This dictionary helps beginning
readers by basing vocabulary development on attractive illustrations with
simple definitions linked to labels becoming in essence an illustrated word wall
built for a specific topic. Learners quickly develop an important set of
vocabulary words for subjects such as road transportation (e.g., cars, bridges,
tunnels, road signs, buses, and engines). Students can look up individual
words or complete categories and explore each subject in more detail using
hotlinks. A similar resource, http://www.infovisual.info/, is slightly more
efficient but is designed for older learners. The drawings are a bit less elaborate
and engaging and more ‘‘explicit’’ than those in the Visual Merriam Webster.
Thinkmap’s Visual Thesaurus (www.visualthesaurus.com) is a subscription
service but worth the small annual fee. It places words in a dynamic
semantic network and provides easy links to other reference sources
including encyclopedias and images. Although there are other free websites
that place words in semantic networks, none of the others move and grow
the way that Visual Thesaurus does. Students will click on words and links
for long periods of time, increasing their understanding of the fit of a target
vocabulary word in their semantic network of known vocabulary words as
well as exploring new connections. Students often explore an individual
word for 10–15 minutes. This amount of focused attention on the meaning
of a word is hard to replicate with other reference resources. A second
advantage to Visual Thesaurus is that users may add Spanish, French,
German, Dutch, and Italian words to the word map.
Wordnik (www.wordnik.com) offers a smorgasbord of information to help
learners understand words in many ways. These include definitions from
a number of online dictionaries; etymologies; text examples from contem-
porary media; Flicker images (an online photography sharing site); elaborate
lists of related words, including synonyms, equivalents, antonyms, and words
typically used in the same context; tweets; and sound effects. School firewalls
may block the Twitter feed. Teachers should warn families and students that
the Twitter feed sometimes contains offensive words or references. However,
the other resources provided make the site one that is most valuable to
learners. Older students appreciate seeing the examples of words being used in
contemporary media. The images are a particularly interesting resource, as
they are pulled into the Wordnik site by the tags that photographers have
added to the images they post on Flicker. However, not all the tags actually
result in words that help elaborate the meaning of a word. For example, if you
are looking up the word pinnacle in Wordnik, typically the feed will include
photos of parks that include the name pinnacle and images shot with a
pinnacle lens on a camera. An excellent activity is to have students sort the
images by those that help them understand the meaning of the word that they
are looking up and those that are nonexamples.
Embedded Dictionaries
Dictionaries that are embedded are proving to be particularly attractive to

readers. Ebook readers typically include a ‘‘look up’’ function through
which readers can quickly get a dictionary definition for words as they
appear in text. Larson (2010) found that young readers use this feature
frequently. Teachers should model quick look-up options that are available
while reading text online regularly so that students are reminded of their
availability. Many of the news websites, such as Time for Kids, Scholastic
News or The New York Times Learning Network, target younger readers and
adolescents and include easy access to online dictionaries. With all online
reading it is easy to right-click on a word to access definitions. Teachers may
also choose to use these features in combination with Vocabulary Self-
Collection Strategy (Ruddell & Shearer, 2002) or other word study routines.
Games
There are numerous games that provide extended practice with vocabulary
words; teachers can use these for reinforcement and motivation. There are
also games that promote word consciousness. Teachers are advised to
evaluate the games for the support they offer learners and use them in
conjunction with deeper instruction in vocabulary. We recommend that you
select games with the following characteristics: help features that scaffold
struggling readers, feedback on errors that provide instruction, and
automatic spaced repetition so that missed words are reviewed. A few that
contain the features described above include MissionUS (a vocabulary
emphasis game based on the Revolutionary War, www.mission-us.org),
Vocabulary.com (www.vocabulary.com), Freerice (www.freerice.org), Roo-
tonym (www.merriam-webster.com/game/uclick/rootonym.htm), a wide
range of games at www.vocabulary.co.il, and Words with Friends
(www.wordswithfriends.com/).
COMPREHENSION DEVELOPMENT
It is important to provide engaging opportunities with digital texts for
struggling readers. As Leu et al. (2009) have noted, struggling readers are
the least likely to be provided with opportunities for interesting online work.
Too often they end up assigned to drill and practice activities in brief,
uninteresting texts. Comprehension development for struggling readers
requires more than quizzes and points. Our recommendations are that
teachers look to digital resources to support the instruction they provide for
comprehension development and find materials that will advance their
curricular objectives and motivate students. Even though there are many
intriguing opportunities provided by the Internet that typically motivate and
engage struggling readers, teachers need to play an active role in instruction
and scaffolding their use.
WebQuests, Internet Research Projects, and ePals (www.epals.com)
provide opportunities for struggling readers to practice the real life skills
they need currently and in their futures. ePals is a free site that allows
teachers to find Internet projects involving collaboration with students in

other classrooms around the world. Teachers may initiate projects that fit
their curriculum or they may join an existing project. Struggling readers will
find the international collaboration very motivating both from the
standpoint of giving them a purpose for reading and writing and for having
an authentic audience for their work. Within the frameworks of WebQuests,
Internet research projects, and ePals, teachers have the opportunities to
teach lessons on the essential Internet comprehension skills of (1) identifying
important questions, (2) locating information, (3) critically evaluating
information, (4) synthesizing information, and (5) communicating informa-
tion (Leu et al., 2009). WebQuests are similar to the ePals activities or
Internet inquiry, but are more carefully structured by teachers. There are
many sites available with prepared WebQuestions including http://webquest.
org and http://ozline.com/strategies/webquests (WebQuests designed by Tom
March). Teachers may adjust the prepackaged WebQuests to fit their
students. It is also possible for teachers to design their own WebQuests
focused on the reading comprehension skills they know their students are
ready to develop such as visualization, comparing points of view on a topic,
or sequencing events.
When working with struggling readers, recorded books can be used to help
focus attention on comprehension, text structure, literary analysis, and other
aspects of literary appreciation. They offer struggling readers opportunities to
participate in activities with their same age peers. However, teachers cannot
use audio books in place of ‘‘eyes on’’ for struggling readers. In addition to
audio books that have been read by professionals, it is also possible to use
either text-to-speech functions within your computer system or pay for the
Kurzweil text-to-speech program, http://www.kurzweiledu.com/default.html.
A step further, but more expensive, are digitally supported books
designed for reading interventions, such as myON Reader (Capstone Press)
or ThinkingReader by Tom Snyder Productions. Many of these are of very
high quality and have a promising track record but at a price that many
schools cannot afford. Teachers should use their professional judgment to
match these resources with struggling readers.
In a category of its own, Google LitTrips (http://www.googlelittrips.org)
provides wonderful support for readers as they move through popular
classic literary titles and the opportunity for teachers and children to create
their own LitTrip. Devised by Jerome Bruner, LitTrips combine Google
Earth with teacher or student-created background information, vocabulary
support, graphics, and other resources/guides/questions to help scaffold the
reading of books. By combining a LitTrip with guided small group reading,
teachers are extending the student’s understanding of the book as well as

map reading, navigation, and Internet skills that will be useful for other
tasks in their future.
Finally, we like to remind teachers that there are many free resources of
accessible or leveled reading materials available online. Time for Kids
(http://www.timeforkids.com/), Sports Illustrated for Kids (http://www.
sikids.com), the National Geographic website section for children (http://
kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/) are examples of Internet sites where
teachers, children, and their families can find reading materials appropriate
for many struggling readers. Elfrieda Hiebert’s Text Project, http://
textproject.org/ includes Summer ReadsTM for third, fourth, and fifth
grade readers. This portion of the site includes short reading passages
supported with comprehension and vocabulary activities designed for
students to use over the summer to counteract the summer slump. Teachers
can provide students with suggested online reading sites at the end of the
school year. Some teachers even set up blogs or wikis to encourage students
to ‘‘discuss’’ their summer readings. BookAdventure (www.bookadventure.
com) is a reading motivation resource designed to encourage students to
read outside of school. Although the texts are not provided, the site does
include quizzes and prizes for reading popular children’s books.
The links between comprehension and writing become glaringly obvious
when looking at students doing video remixing or mash-up. The idea of
taping existing published materials and putting them together in novel ways
is a fruitful platform for students’ close reading of texts and creative writing.
Machinima, an example of remix, is using a set of established characters and
put them together in new ways to create a new plot line, a political
commentary, or creative expression (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011).
WRITING
We now turn to the use of writing to support the development of literacy

skills, as well as motivation and engagement. We have found that there are
many digital resources that provide motivating and engaging opportunities
for struggling readers. The opportunities to take their learning public
motivates them to read carefully, synthesize readings (intertextual compre-
hension, Hartman, 1995), and connect their learning to real world venues.
Some of these resources also lighten the teachers’ burden when it comes to
responding to student writing.
Creative Writing
Fanfiction websites offer multiple opportunities for literary analysis,

comprehension, reading development, and peer feedback. There are many
fan fiction sites including several focused on popular series or authors such
as; Harry Potter (e.g., Mugglenet, www.fanfiction.mugglenet.com), Diary Of
A Wimpy Kid, and Cornelia Funke. The largest fan fiction site is http://
www.fanfic.net. The disadvantage of this site is that it is relatively open,
requires an e-mail address, and includes writing for all levels of maturity and
interests. The advantage is that it provides an opportunity for your students
who are fans of particular television shows or video games to use these
interests to generate writing, analyze characters, and play with plot. Another
attractive feature of several of these sites is that students receive feedback
from other readers about their work. For example StoryBird (see above) is a
free web site designed for writers of all ages and includes beautiful artwork
by a variety of emerging artists. It is designed to be child friendly and is
carefully monitored. Authors receive quick feedback on their posted books.
And emphasis is placed on positive yet constructive feedback to authors.
Teachers who used Storybook Weaver recognize the concept immediately.
In our own practice, although we do have hesitations about how a preset
group graphics and scenery may confine writing, we have seen struggling
readers use the scaffolds to produce much more extensive and well-
developed writing than they ever could without such support.
Report Writing
For reporting the results of research projects digital platforms like

PowerPoint, Prezi, and Animoto are motivating for struggling readers and
writers and provide experience with presentation software that many adults
use for a variety of purposes. The daughter of one of our friends actually put
together a PowerPoint presentation to convince her mother that she should
be able to go to Venezuela for the summer with the family of a friend. We
also have seen first, third, and fourth graders effectively use Animoto as a
platform for reporting the results of research projects. In using any of these,
teachers find that it is important to teach research skills and require students
to complete note-taking and organization before they begin building their
PowerPoint, Prezi, or Animoto presentation. Students can get distracted by
selecting fonts and illustrations if teachers do not require that they build the
content first. Doing so offers valuable opportunities to teach main idea,
supported details, well crafted conclusions, and the strong links between
comprehension, thinking, and writing.
Digital Storytelling
Like digital LEA, Digital storytelling also exemplifies the strong connection
between reading and writing with student-created texts. Both approaches
encourage divergent thinking and are highly motivating. We use the term
Digital storytelling to mean student-generated stories from many different
digital components, including video, audio, and multiple texts. It is ideal for
older students who can independently navigate many sites and multiple
ICTs. Use of iMovie or Windows Movie Maker are intuitive for many
students; teachers just have to step back and guide students. Here are a few
suggestions: (1) Provide lots of room for creativity but at the beginning ask
students to write a one paragraph description of their project along with a
schedule for completing the project. Teachers should hold students
accountable by having them submit segments every week or two weeks.
Some students will need more supervision than others. (2) As a motivator,
explain that their finished projects will be shown to the class (or to the entire
school or even the whole community). (3) Encourage collaboration among
students so that they can be leaders or improve their weaker skills in
technology or in storytelling. (4) Have students think of what makes a movie
so effective (or so poorly done). (5) When they get stuck, help them focus on
the story that they are telling. The Center for Digital Storytelling
(www.storycenter.org) is a helpful site. Examples of digital storytelling can
be found also at these sites:
http://digitalstorytelling.coe.uh.edu/places.html
http://mcli.maricopa.edu/storytelling/examples
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGIES
Assistive technologies, those for students with severe reading difficulties,
have been used effectively in clinics and classrooms. For example, students
with limited speech ability benefit from augmentative communication:
electronic and nonelectronic devices – such as special keyboards that they
can point to or use – that provide a means for expressive and receptive
communication. Students with vision limitations use magnifiers, Braille and
speech output devices, or large print monitors. Assistive technologies have
been used in reading clinics (McKenna & Walpole, 2007) so that reading
teachers learn the potential of these technologies.
BEYOND INSTRUCTION
Results of interviews with graduates of reading clinics in 2008 (Dubert &

Laster, 2011) indicated that teachers of reading also use technology for
administrative and assessment purposes. Teachers of the 21st century rely
heavily on such modalities as word processing, spreadsheets for analyzing
student data, software for matching books to readers, and/or text
readability estimates. Teachers also report that they frequently access
websites for lesson ideas or materials. We were surprised to learn that many
teachers also relied on reading incentive software, such as Accelerated
Reader and hardware/software for assessment purposes. In 2008, teachers
relied heavily on PalmPilots to record the results of DIBELS assessments
with software developed by The Wireless Generation. It is likely that these
same teachers are now using the new platforms supported by this software
for administration of AIMS web, the Texas Primary Reading Inventory
(TPRI), and other assessments. It is likely that we will observe more and
more use of technology for assessment.
CONCLUSION
The use of technology for enhancing student literacy proficiencies (Coiro &
Dobler, 2007; Dalton & Strangman, 2006; Squire, 2008) is very promising.
In the reconfigured landscape of struggling readers, particularly the
perspective of students’ identities related to literacy (Kucan & Palincsar,
2011), digital literacies can be instrumental in advancing literacy learners
who have been less-than-successful. We agree with the National Council of
Teachers of English’s (NCTE) definition of 21st century literacies (2008)
which states that students must develop competence with the tools of
technology and create, analyze, and evaluate multimedia texts in order to be
successful readers and writers in the 21st century. The ability to move
among different texts, contexts and technologies, is a necessary skill for
success in our society, which is ‘‘based increasingly on the effective use of
information and communication’’ (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, & Cammack, 2004,
p. 1581).
REFERENCES
Allen, R. V. (1968). How a language experience program works. In E. C. Vilscek (Ed.), A decade
of innovations: Approaches to beginning reading (pp. 1–8). Newark, NJ: International
Alvermann, D. E. (2008). Why bother theorizing adolescents’ online literacies for classroom
practice and research? Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 8–19.
Coiro, J., & Dobler, E. (2007). Exploring the online reading comprehension strategies used by
sixth grade skilled readers to search for and locate information on the internet. Reading
Dalton, B., & Strangman, N. (2006). Improving struggling readers’ comprehension through
scaffolded hypertexts and other computer-based literacy programs. In M. C. McKenna,
L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer & D. Reinking (Eds.), International handbook of literacy and
technology (Vol. II, pp. 75–92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dubert, L. A., & Laster, B. P. (2011). Technology in practice: Educators trained inreading
clinic/literacy labs. Journal of Reading Education, 36(2), 23–29.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Graves, M. F. (2008). Instruction on individual words: One size does not fit all. In
A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about vocabulary
instruction (pp. 56–79). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Greenleaf, C. L., & Hinchman, K. (2009). Reimagining our inexperienced adolescent readers:
From struggling, striving, marginalized, and reluctant to thriving. Journal of Adolescent
& Adult Literacy, 53(1), 4–13.
Hartman, D. K. (1995). Eight readers reading: The intertextual links of proficient readers
reading multiple passages. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 520–561.
Henry, L.A. (2007). Exploring new literacies pedagogy and online reading comprehension among
middle school students and teachers: Issues of social equity or social exclusion? (University
of Connecticut). ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Retrieved from http://search.pro
quest.com/docview/304864619?accountid=9649.(304864619)
Jenkins, H. (2006). Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the
21st century. Retrieved from http://digitallearning.macfound.org/
Kucan, L., & Palincsar, A. (2011). Locating struggling readers in a reconfigured landscape. In
M. L. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B. Moje & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. IV, pp. 341–358). New York, NY: Routledge.
Labbo, L. D., & Ryan, T (2010). Traversing the ‘‘literacies’’ landscape: A semiotic perspective
on early literacy acquisition and digital literacies instruction. In E. A. Baker (Ed.), The
new literacies: Multiple perspectives on research and practice (pp. 88–105). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and classroomlearning
(3rd ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book reading andresponse. The
Leu, D. J. (2000). Literacy and technology: Deictic consequences for literacy educationin an
information age. In M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 743–770). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leu, D. J., Jr., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Toward a theory of new
literacies emerging from the Internet and other information and communication
technolgies. In R. B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of
reading (5th ed., pp. 1568–1611). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Leu, D. J., McVerry, J. G., O’Bryne, W. I., Zawilinski, L., Castek, J., & Hartman, D. K. (2009).
The new literacies of online reading comprehension and the irony of nochild left behind:
Students who require our assistance the most, actually receiveit the least. In
L. M. Morrow, R. Rueda & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook ofresearch on literacy and
diversity (pp. 173–194). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lohnes Watulak, S., Laster, B. P., Liu, X., & LERN. (2011, December). Technology stalled:
Exploring the new digital divide in one urban school. Journal of Language and Literacy
Education, 7(2), 1–21. Retrieved from http://www.coe.uga.edu/jolle/2011_2/watulak_
laster_liu.pdf
McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2007). Assistive technology in the reading clinic: Its emerging
potential. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 140–145.
National Council of Teachers of English. (2008). The NCTE definition of 21st century literacies.
Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/21stcentdefinition
Olson, B., & Wise, R. K. (2006). Computer-based remediation for reading and related
phonological disabilities. In M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, R. D. Kieffer & D. Reinking
(Eds.), International handbook of literacy and technology (Vol. II, pp. 57–74). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Pitcher, S. M. (2009). The great poetry race. The Reading Teacher, 62(7), 613–616.
Ruddell, M., & Shearer, B. A. (2002). ‘‘Extraordinary,’’ ‘‘Tremendous,’’ ‘‘Exhilarating,’’
‘‘Magnificent’’: Middle school at-risk students become avid word learners with the
vocabulary self-collection strategy (VSS). Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 45(5),
352–363.
Snow, C. E., Lawrence, J. F., & White, C. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language
among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness,
2(4), 325–344.
Squire, K. (2008). Video-game literacy: A literacy of expertise. In J. Coiro, M. Knobel,
C. Lankshear & D. J. Leu (Eds.), The handbook of research on new literacies (pp. 635–
669). New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates/Taylor & Francis Group.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006). Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Tarasiuk, T. J. (2010). Combining traditional and contemporary texts: Moving my English class
to the computer lab. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(7), 543–552.
Unite for Literacy. (2012). Retrieved from http://uniteforliteracy.com/
Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2012, April 13). Digital differences. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/Digital-differences.aspx
PROVIDING A ‘‘POCKET TUTOR’’:
ENHANCING METACOGNITION
THROUGH PODCASTED
COMPREHENSION PROMPTS
Erica Bowers, Ula Manzo, Ann Tarantine and

Melissa Base
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The purpose of the chapter is to provide the reader with an

overview of the ‘‘Pocket Tutor’’ project. This project created and
implemented read-aloud enhanced podcasts into a University Reading
Clinic. The authors provide suggestions for creating, implementing, and
modifying the project.
Methodology/approach – The chapter is organized from rationale to
creation to implementation. The chapter then makes recommendations for
future projects.
Practical implications – The chapter demonstrates how a University
Reading Clinic implemented read-aloud enhanced podcasts. These are
inexpensive to create and host on free websites for families to access.
Originality/value of paper – As many struggling readers need motivation
to read independently outside of school, the Pocket Tutor project provides

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002016
265
266 ERICA BOWERS ET AL.
a viable resource for engaging these readers. Not only are they listening to
text at their instructional level, they are also being provided with
metacognitive comprehension prompts.
Keywords: Podcasts; read aloud; think aloud; metacognition;

technology; struggling reader
INTRODUCTION
Fifth-grader Casey’s mom has just picked him up from school. His mom
hands him an iPod, earphones, and a book. He turns on the iPod, navigates
to the right section, flips open the book, and reads along with a recording of
the chapter. Fourth-grader Mary is sitting at the family’s kitchen table,
while her mom is getting dinner ready. Mary is reading a book, following
along as she listens to a recording of the chapter on an iPod. The books that
Casey and Mary are reading were selected for them based on their particular
interests, and are estimated to be at their instructional level – third-grade
level for both Casey and Mary. Importantly, the read-alouds that they are
listening to are not simply read-alouds. These read-alouds are embedded
with prompts to construct and respond to the meaning of the text. The
books and iPods were loaned to the children by the University Reading
Clinic, where they both attend tutorial sessions once a week.
The teachers in our University Reading Clinic have often lamented that
the one and a half hours they have with their struggling readers each week is
just not enough. They comment that between meetings their struggling
readers have sometimes forgotten what they worked on the session before
and that they have to spend valuable time revisiting the previous week’s
intervention lesson. However, by taking advantage of new technologies we
have been able to bridge this gap through the creation of a ‘‘Pocket Tutor.’’
A Pocket Tutor is an iPod ‘‘loaded’’ with podcasts of tutorial read-alouds,
in which a tutor models, in think-aloud style, essential comprehension
prompts: strategies for constructing the meaning of instructional-level text.
Research has shown that students’ comprehension is vastly improved if the
process of metacognition is made transparent (Duffy, Roehler, &
Herrmann, 1988). Unlike reading independent-level text, reading at the
instructional level requires the reader to actively engage with the text before,
during, and after reading (Fisher, Lapp, & Frey, 2011; Manzo & Casale,
1985; Manzo & Manzo, 1990; Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). This active
Providing a ‘‘Pocket Tutor’’ 267
engagement is driven by intentional and flexible use of strategies such as

schema activation, metacognition, fix-up strategies, and schema reconstruc-
tion (Dole, Duffy, Roehler, & Pearson, 1991; Kucan & Beck, 1997; Pressley,
2002; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005).
However, for most students, these strategies are not learned indepen-
dently. Therefore, it is essential that teachers model a range of strategies to
help students become strategic readers. Gambrell (2007) stated that
‘‘teachers who are effective reading mentors support students in developing
strategic reading behaviors that help them become proficient and
independent readers who read for pleasure’’ (p. 1). Research findings from
Garner & Krause’s (1982) landmark study comparing metacognitive
knowledge of good and poor readers confirmed that stronger readers
demonstrated more knowledge and control of reading than poor readers.
The stronger readers proceeded automatically with the comprehension
process until they encountered a challenge, at which time they employed
metacognitive skills to resolve the challenge. Our goal with the Pocket Tutor
project was to provide struggling readers with an engaging form of
technology that models how a skilled reader navigates instructional-level
text through the use of comprehension prompts, in the hope that struggling
readers eventually would internalize these strategies and use these when
reading other difficult materials.
Manzo, Manzo, and Thomas (2009) proposed that teachers develop a few
general phrases to use when modeling comprehension processes (or thinking
aloud) with students. At kindergarten through third-grade level, the
prompts included schema activation, comprehension monitoring, and
comprehension fix-up (i.e., using pictures and context clues, stopping to
go back, rereading, and asking questions). For older students in grades 4–
12, teachers can add prompts for visualization, and synthesizing,
summarizing, or paraphrasing a larger block of text. The teacher then uses
those generic comprehension prompts frequently, in read-alouds, with the
goal of having the student internalize and use them independently.
The Pocket Tutor Comprehension Prompts are somewhere in between
think-aloud prompts that are specific to the contents of the text at-hand and
more general prompts that ask for application of a particular type of
strategy. For example, in a narrative description of two children observing
movement within a cocoon, a specific prompt might be, ‘‘What do you think
the children will see next?’’ A general prompt might be, ‘‘What can we
predict will happen next?’’A Pocket Tutor Comprehension Prompt might
be, ‘‘So now I know there’s something inside the cocoon.’’ The phrase, ‘‘So
now I knowy’’ is a Prompt for synthesizing and paraphrasing. When the
phrase is completed, it is specific to the material just read – whether a

paragraph, a page, or a chapter. Thus, the Pocket Tutor Comprehension
Prompts are specific enough to be text-connected, but general enough to be
applicable to most text encountered (at a particular difficulty level).
In addition to strategy instruction, students also benefit from participat-
ing in stimulating tasks. Guthrie et al. (1996) concluded that when students
are motivated to read they are more likely to employ active strategies while
reading, and when they acquire effective strategies for reading they are more
likely to be motivated to read. However, coaxing struggling readers to
engage with text in the classroom is challenging enough; getting them to
read at home is an even greater challenge as technology competes for their
time and attention (Levy & Marsh, 2011). Our hope was that the iPod
technology would be a significant motivator for the children to willingly
engage with the read-alouds at home. This is supported by Considine,
Horton, and Moorman (2009) who stated that ‘‘today’s ‘millennial
generation’ youngsters seem to have boundless interest and curiosity about
emerging technologies’’ (p. 473). In addition, Lenhart, Madden, and Hitlin
(2005) surveyed 1,100 teens and found that today’s children are ‘‘technology
rich and enveloped by a wired world’’ (p. ii).
For these reasons, teachers must tap into their students’ digital ‘‘funds of
knowledge’’ to enrich literacy instruction. Levy (2009) found that digital
media allowed children to ‘‘develop not only general understandings about
how texts work, but allowed them to interact with print as part of the social
semiotic structure of multi-modal text use’’ (p. 89). Thus, educators are
increasingly calling for the incorporation of media literacy practices into the
literacy education curricula (Considine et al., 2009). Therefore, we
hypothesized that the best way to motivate struggling students to practice
reading comprehension at home was through a marriage of audio recordings
with an embedded think-aloud model and ‘‘cool’’ technology using iPods;
and the ‘‘Pocket Tutor’’ project was born.
THE PROJECT
The Pocket Tutor project provided children participating in a University

Reading Clinic, which is located in a large and diverse urban area of Southern
California, with iPods to use for nine weeks during the semester. The children
who participate in the clinic are generally one or more years below grade level
in reading and writing; which is determined based on a battery of assessments
that include an informal reading inventory and parent and teacher interviews.
The project was implemented for three semesters from spring 2011 to spring
2012. When children first received their iPod, it was preloaded with a
comprehension prompt enhanced read-aloud of the first chapter or short
section of a book that was selected for them based on their instructional
reading level, general interests, and the readability level of the text. The
children were encouraged to use the iPod to listen to the read-aloud several
times throughout the week. When the children returned to the clinic for their
next session, a new ‘‘episode’’ read-aloud of the book was added. Each week
the graduate students who were providing the clinic intervention asked the
children to respond to journal prompts regarding their previous podcast
episode. At the end of the semester, the children were postassessed on their
reading level and think-aloud ability.
Participants
A total of 13 children (8 males and 5 females) ranging in grade from 3rd to

10th and varied instructional levels (2nd–6th) participated; some children
participated more than one semester (see Table 1). For the purpose of the
Pocket Tutor project, students whose instructional reading level was at least
at the second-grade level and who were found to be below grade level in
comprehension were selected to participate in the project.
Selecting the Books
Books were selected based on topic, readability level and the instructional
reading levels of the students. All books were fictional chapter books. To verify
the readability of the books, the Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level readability test
(Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chissom, 1975) and the Fry (1990) Read-
ability formula were used (see Table 2). The readability levels of passages from
the beginning, middle, and end of the books were found and averaged. During
the first sessions with the students, the University Reading Clinic tutors
conducted an interest inventory and an informal reading inventory in order to
match students to high interest texts at their instructional level.
Constructing the Comprehension Prompts
At each developmental level, there are certain strategies that are important.
For example, at earlier levels it is important to prompt oneself to attend to
270
Table 1. Student Information.

Student Male or Spring 2011 Grade/ Fall 2011 Grade/ Spring 2012 Grade/
Female Instructional Instructional Instructional
Reading Level Reading Level Reading Level
Spring 2011 Fall 2011 Spring 2012
Albert M Y 3rd/2nd N ————— N ————

Sophia F Y 4th/3rd N ————— N ————
Ryan M Y 5th/2nd N ————— Y 6th/2nd
Erick M Y 4th/3rd Y 5th/4th N ————
Maria F Y 5th/3rd Y 6th/4th N ————
Emanuel M Y 5th/3rd Y 6th/4th N ————
Kerri F N ———— Y 7th/5th N ————
Billy M N ———— Y 5th/3rd N ————
Casey M N ———— Y 5th/4th N ————
Mary F N ———— Y 3rd/3rd N ————
Rita F N ———— N ———— Y 4th/4th
Ronald M N ———— N ———— Y 10th/6th
Doug M N ———— N ———— Y 5th/3rd
Note. Students have been given pseudonyms.

ERICA BOWERS ET AL.
Table 2. Podcast Information and Readability of Books Used.
Book Title, Author Chapters Per Number of Episodes Total Minutes of Flesch–Kincaid Fry Readability
Book/Pages Per Book Recording Grade Level Average
Providing a ‘‘Pocket Tutor’’
Average
The Magic Finger, 8/64 8 57 3.2 2nd/3rd

Roald Dahl
Basketball (or 16/166 8 228 4.6 4th
Something Like It),
Nora Raleigh Baskin
The Phantom of the 27/112 8 112 2.6 2nd
Subway, Geronimo
Stilton
They Came from 9/96 8 102 4.5 3rd
Centerfield, Dan
Gutman
The Chocolate Touch, 12/96 12 104 4.0 5th
Patrick Catling
271
the pictures, and use these to aid in the construction of meaning. Later, it is
important to prompt oneself to attend to the more complex language
structures, and sometimes reread when the written language is different
from typical spoken language, and also to attend to vocabulary that might
be unfamiliar, and to visualize while reading. At all levels with struggling
readers, it is also important to use prompts that sustain engagement and
motivation to read. A useful prompt to include at the beginning of an
episode is, ‘‘I think you’ll like it!’’ and after each pause to synthesize, in a
positive tone of voice and add, ‘‘Going on!’’ The strategies targeted with the
Pocket Tutor Comprehension Prompts are schema activation, clarifying
vocabulary, comprehension monitoring, comprehension fix-up, visualiza-
tion, synthesis, paraphrasing, and summarization. The tutor repeatedly
models the prompts using the same phrases, so that students may remember
and internalize them. Here is a sample from the story, Basketball (or
Something Like It):
(0 min to 2:30 min)

This is Dr. Manzo reading with you, and the book is, Basketball (or Something Like it)
(content set/purpose setting).
I think you might like this! (engagement/motivation)
We’ll read to page 8. (content set)
[NOTE: Each podcast begins with the previous 3 prompts]
On the very first page there’s an introduction. This part is called, ‘‘Perfect.’’ That must mean
y something good! (comprehension monitoring)
Maybe y something about basketball is perfect? (comprehension monitoring)
Let’s Read! (engagement/motivation)
(Dr. Manzo reads the text aloud)
(Stops and prompts) So I know y this may be about a boy who likes basketball – it makes
him feel good, and it sounds like he’s pretty good at it. The next part is called, ‘‘The North
Bridge Forum, Sports page B1. North Bridge Basketball Team Makes it to Semifinals.’’
That must mean that this is from the sports page of a newspaper. Maybey the boy in this
story goes to this high school. (comprehension monitoring/synthesis/prediction)
Let’s Read. (engagement/motivation)
(Dr. Manzo continues to read the text aloud)
(Stops and prompts) Wait (Dr. Manzo repeats a line from the text) ‘‘surprised all of the
basketball pundits by making it to the semifinals’’ yso pundits must be people who know
about this stuff. (clarifying vocabulary)
(Stops and prompts) Wait, that word seed (Dr. Manzo repeats a line from the text) ‘‘state
top seed Colby High and the sixteenth seeded Panthers’’ y so, seed must mean how good
they are? (clarifying vocabulary)
(Stops and prompts) Wait, prevail (Dr. Manzo repeats a line from the text) ‘‘they felt
confident that they would prevail’’ yso that must mean win. (clarifying vocabulary)
(2:31-4:10 omitted; 4:11 min – 5:03 min)

(Stops and prompts) Wait, what’s that (Dr. Manzo repeats a line from the text), ‘‘these kids
have been working toward this moment since long before they ever got to high school.’’ So I
know y If North Bridge wins the semifinals they will play for the state championship.AND,
the story we’re going to read may not be about what happens next it may be about how the
North Bridge team GOT to this point. That must mean the story is starting way before that
high school quarter finals game AND maybe that really good player is Hank.
(comprehension monitoring/paraphrasing/synthesis)
Going on! (engagement/motivation)
(Stops and prompts) This part is called y Sixth Grade, and on the next page, this part is
called, ‘‘The Clinics’’ and ‘‘Hank.’’ That must mean y The story is starting way before that
high school game, and, maybe y that really good player is Hank. (comprehension
monitoring/paraphrasing/synthesis)
Going on! (engagement/motivation)
(Stops and prompts) I can picture that y The kid in pj’s standing at the sink listening to his
parents, who are downstairs, talking about him. (visualization)
The podcast continues from 5:04 minutes to 18:00 minutes. If you would
like to listen to this entire podcast, you can do so online at http://
ebowers.podomatic.com/
Recording the Podcasts
Once a book was selected, it was divided into sections according to the
number of weeks the students would be attending the University Reading
Clinic, which in most cases resulted in sections of one to two chapters. The
Pocket Tutor project was allotted nine weeks of the twelve-week regular
semester intervention sessions. Each section of each book was recorded
using GarageBandt (only available on Apple Macintosh computers;
Audacityt could be used as an alternate program) and saved as an MP3
(.mp3) file on the researchers personal computer.
Four of the five books used in the project have 8 podcasts (The Chocolate
Touch has 12) and they range in playing length from an average of 7 minutes
to 28 minutes. The pocket tutor strategically modeled the Pocket Tutor
Comprehension Prompts by thinking aloud before, during, and after the
reading (see Table 3 for prompt language) when creating the podcasts. The
recorded read-alouds with incorporated comprehension prompts were
intended to heighten the reader’s engagement and demonstrate intentional
and flexible use of level-appropriate strategies for actively constructing
meaning from print (Manzo et al., 2009).
274
Table 3. Pocket Tutor Comprehension Prompts.
Purpose Comprehension Prompt 2–3 4–5 6
Content set ‘‘This is _____ reading with you, and we’re reading O O O
_____’’
Engagement ‘‘I think you’ll like it!’’ O O O
Attention to pictures ‘‘There’s a picture here [describe]’’ O O O
Attention to difficult ‘‘What was that? [re-read] That must be _________’’ O O O
vocabulary
Attention to difficult syntax ‘‘What was that? [re-read, emphasizing enunciation O O O
to clarify meaning]’’
Continuous comprehension [at logical sections – each ½ page to 1 ½ page] ‘‘So O O O
monitoring now I knowy [clarifying information based on
new knowledge]’’
Focus on translation ‘‘So now I know [translation – put in own words]’’ O O O
Focus on characters by ‘‘So now I know [character wants/thinks/feels/is O O O
name going to/etc.]’’
Focus on plot essentials ‘‘So now I know [what has happened/might O O O
happen/etc.]’’
Focus on basic inference ‘‘So now I know [between the lines inferences]’’ O O O
End of section ‘‘So now I know [short summary]; what I don’t know O O O
comprehension review is [short prediction, phrased as a question]’’
and prediction
Note. Asterisk indicates readability level of text.

ERICA BOWERS ET AL.
Uploading the Podcasts
The MP3 files were then submitted to iTunes by a graduate student who
used her personal iTunes account. Because the participants were in the
University Reading Clinic weekly, the podcasts were loaded onto the iPods
by the graduate student to avoid placing this task on the parents. However,
the podcasts could also be made available online and updated weekly or the
entire podcast could be made available at once and the students could read
at their own pace. In addition podcasts may be published as an iTunes RSS
feed, to which parents and/or students may subscribe through their own
iTunes account using their personal iPod.
Role of the Podcasts in the Tutorial Sessions
We intentionally did not encourage the University Reading Clinic tutors to

incorporate the contents of the read-aloud books into their instruction. The
role of the read-aloud was meant to be similar to that of Sustained Silent
Reading – increasing the amount of time a student spends in engaged
reading, thereby increasing the student’s familiarity with the vocabulary, the
language patterns, and the informational content of instructional-level
materials – making the act of reading more comfortable and enjoyable. The
difference, of course, is that in Sustained Silent Reading students are
intended to be reading independent-level materials.
Monitoring Students’ Progress and Attaining Feedback

during the Project
We did, however, ask the University Reading Clinic tutors to write down the
responses their students gave each week to the Pocket Tutor journal
prompts to monitor the participants’ progress and to generate feedback.
Initially, the journal included basic questions about the use of the iPod and
podcast – how many times, where, and when they listened to the podcast,
what they liked/disliked, and what problems they encountered. As the
project developed, we revised the journals to include information about the
embedded comprehension prompts and to produce more substantial
feedback. The journal questions were revised two times, at the beginning
of each of the following semesters. The revised questions encouraged the
students to develop metacognition about the comprehension prompts. For
example, they were asked why they thought the tutor stopped to think-aloud
during the story, how the tutor’s thoughts helped them understand the
story, and if they started using the phrases that were repeatedly mentioned
by the tutor (see appendix for a sample journal).
WHAT WE LEARNED
Implementing the Pocket Tutor project has been both challenging and
rewarding. Over the past three semesters, we have gained substantial
knowledge about creating a podcast, copyright rules, and text selection.
Below, we highlight a few of the hurdles we overcame while developing our
project.
Technology, the Potential, and the Challenge
Advances in technology have created enormous opportunity for creating

literacy interventions; however, there were many technological roadblocks
that we overcame while implementing the Pocket Tutor project. We had
purposely selected the Apple iPod to use for our audio recordings due to
what we felt was its ‘‘coolness’’ factor; but many of the obstacles we
encountered were due to Apple’s proprietary software. To protect recording
artists, Apple has ensured that each iPod can only sync with a set number of
computers. As the iPods for the project were loaned to different students
each semester, who listened to different recordings, it became difficult to
figure out how to allow the families to easily upload the podcasts
themselves. Therefore, we chose to upload the podcasts for our participants
each week when they returned to the University Reading Clinic. However, it
is possible to provide the MP3 recordings to the families so that they can
manually upload them to the borrowed iPod.
Copyright/Fair Use Issues
In addition to the challenge of syncing the loaned iPods, another path we

navigated was the policy on copyright and fair use. As the project involved
reading popular trade books out loud and making the recordings available
online, we wanted to ensure that only those students who were also provided
with a copy of the book were able to listen to the podcasts. This was a
second reason for uploading the podcasts ourselves each week. It ensured
that the recording was only shared with a child that had a text. Another way
to maintain copyright would be to only provide those students who are
provided a book with a link to the MP3 recording.
Matching Readers to Text
The first semester we implemented the Pocket Tutor project, we were

experimenting with different types of books and lengths of podcasts. We
were essentially creating podcasts to equal the number of sessions that our
students would be able to participate. For example, during the first semester
of project implementation, we had matched two boys with a text we had
perceived to be high interest. However, we noticed that around the third
session of use they were losing interest as they were responding to the weekly
journal with ‘‘I forgot to read’’ or ‘‘the iPod didn’t work.’’
After reviewing the length of time of each podcast (average 28 minutes),
we realized that when read-aloud prompts were coupled with a lengthy
chapter it affected the engagement of these reluctant readers and that we
needed to factor in length of podcast to maintain interest. By the third
semester, we more proficiently matched students to text and length of
podcast. We considered the age of the student and the length of each
chapter, knowing that the recording length would be longer as we were also
embedding comprehension prompts.
CONCLUSION
Teachers have often lamented that the neediest students do the least amount
of reading at home. In addition, struggling readers need the comprehension
process to be made apparent to them if they are to increase their capacity for
constructing meaning from text. The theory of mental modeling (Manzo &
Manzo, 2002) proposes that (1) in instructional-level reading, the successful
reader uses strategy phrases (often questions) and fix-up strategies
intentionally and flexibly in order to reconstruct the author’s meanings;
that (2) these strategy phrases can be taught by demonstration in ‘‘read-
alouds’’ accompanied by ‘‘thinking aloud’’; and that (3) students’ repeated
experiences with teacher modeling of strategy phrases leads to their
internalization of the strategies for use when attempting to read instruc-

tional-level materials on their own (Duffy et al.,1988).
However, just sending students home with a read-aloud of a book may
not be motivating enough. Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) established the
theory of reading engagement which states that (a) Engagement in reading
refers to interaction with text that is simultaneously motivated and strategic,
(b) engaged reading correlates with achievement in reading comprehension,
(c) engaged reading and its constituents (motivation and cognitive
strategies) can be increased by instructional practices directed toward them,
and (d) an instructional framework that merges motivational and cognitive
strategy support in reading will increase engaged reading and reading
comprehension.
The goal of the Pocket Tutor project was to marry these two concepts,
mental modeling and reading engagement through the use of new
technology in the hopes of motivating students to practice their reading
comprehension skills at home between intervention sessions at the
University Reading Clinic. Our experiences in creating and providing the
prompted read-alouds, along with our weekly observations and the simple
weekly ‘‘journals’’ collected by the tutors confirmed that we realized this
goal. The prompted read-alouds were simple to create and, though the
process of making these available to students involved a steep learning
curve, we were able to begin the project with a basic knowledge and by the
third semester had streamlined production and created easily accessible
iTunes podcasts. Even the most reluctant readers did, with few weekly
exceptions, read/listen to the weekly book selections. All children completed
their books by the end of the semester.
An additional point in favor of the Pocket Tutor approach is that while it
is generally understood that ‘‘outside reading’’ should be at a student’s
independent level, when working with struggling readers it can be
challenging to find materials at their independent level that will not be
perceived by them as ‘‘babyish.’’ This can be as true of a third-grade student
given a kindergarten or first-grade level book as it is of an eighth-grade
student given a fifth or sixth-grade book. Children in the Pocket Tutor
project went home each week with an ‘‘outside reading’’ book that was at
their instructional level, and returned each week (again, with a few weekly
exceptions) having read/listened to the weekly section and having under-
stood it, at least at a basic level.
The extent to which the children in the project would successfully make
inferences and applications based on their basic understanding of the book
sections was not investigated in this project. Also not directly investigated
was the extent to which the children may have begun to internalize the
comprehension prompts and to use these when reading other materials.
These questions could be incorporated into next levels of investigation.
Additionally, it would be important to learn the effectiveness of prompted
read-alouds of nonfiction material.
For now, the children who participated in the clinic for the past three
semesters spent more time outside the ‘‘classroom’’ engaged in successful
instructional-level reading. As one student said in response to the journal
question, ‘‘Is it better, the same, or not as good as reading a book by
yourself?’’ Casey (grade 5, 11/3/2011) said, ‘‘I think it is better because it
stops and makes me understand what I’m reading.’’
REFERENCES
Considine, D., Horton, J., & Moorman, G. (2009). Teaching and reading the millennial
generation through media literacy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(6),
471–481.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the
new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research,
61(2), 239–264.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Herrmann, B. A. (1988). Modeling mental processes helps poor
readers become strategic readers. The Reading Teacher, 41(8), 762–767.
Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2011). Comprehension: The cooperation of many forces. In
D. Lapp & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts
(3rd ed., pp. 258–263). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Fry, E. (1990). A readability formula for short passages. Journal of Reading, 33(8), 594–597.
Gambrell, L. (2007). Promoting pleasure reading: The role of models, mentors, and motivators.
Reading Today, 25(1), 16.
Garner, R., & Krauss, K. (1982). Good and poor comprehender differences in knowing and
regulating reading behaviors. Educational Research Quarterly, 6, 5–12.
Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., y
Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changesin motivations and
strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly,
31(3), 306–332.
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. III,
pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new
readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease
Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN:
Naval Technical Training, U.S. Naval Air Station, Memphis, TN.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry,
instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271–299.
Lenhart, A., Madden, M., & Hitlin, P. (2005). Teens and technology: Youth are leading the
transition to a fully wired and mobile nation. Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media/Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Teens_
Tech_July2005web.pdf.pdf
Levy, R. (2009). You have to understand words y but not read them’: Young children
becoming readers in a digital age. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(1), 75–91.
Levy, R., & Marsh, J. (2011). Literacy and ICT in the early years. In D. Lapp & D. Fisher
(Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 168–174).
New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Manzo, A., & Casale, U. (1985). Listen-read-discuss: A content reading heuristic. Journal of
Reading, 28(8), 732–734.
Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (1990). Content area reading: A heuristic approach. Columbus,
OH: Charles Merrill.
Manzo, A. V., & Manzo, U. C. (2002). Mental modeling. In B. Guzzetti (Ed.), Literacy in
America: An encyclopedia of history, theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 344–345). Santa
Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio.
Manzo, A. V., Manzo, U. C., & Thomas, M. M. (2009). Content area literacy: Strategic
teaching for strategic learning (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report.
In C. C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research based best
practices (pp. 11–27). New York, NY: Guilford.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively
responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Effects of explicit reading strategies instruction and
peer tutoring on second and fifth graders’ reading comprehension and self-efficacy
perceptions. The Journal of Experimental Education, 74(4), 291–329.
APPENDIX: POCKET TUTOR PROJECT JOURNAL
1. Why do you think the reader is stopping and thinking out loud during
the story?
2. How have the reader’s pauses and thoughts helped you understand the
story?
3. Does the reader say something that you have begun to say, too? If you
are, why have you decided to use it?
4. Do you remember anything, besides certain phrases, that the reader
pointed out to you (such as descriptions or pictures)? If you do, give an
example (or examples).
1. How many times did you listen to the story? Why did you read the story
(Did you want to read it yourself or were you asked to by your parents or
other adults)?
2. Where and when did you listen to it?
3. What are some things you like about using it and what are some
problems (if any) you have with using it?
INNOVATIVE PRACTICES IN THE
READING CLINIC: HELPING
‘‘DIGITAL NATIVES’’
INCORPORATE 21ST CENTURY
TECHNOLOGIES
Joan A. Rhodes
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The chapter provides the reader with an overview of the impact
technology has on literacy education and makes a case for utilizing the
technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework for
incorporating instructional technology in the reading clinic. The focus
then shifts to how instructional technologies can be utilized to enhance
literacy learning during a one-on-one tutoring program.
Methodology/approach – The author describes the changing nature of
literacy instruction and the need for 21st century skills for teacher
candidates and the students they serve. Pedagogical possibilities and
instructional expectations are shared through discussion of the technology
activities used by teaching candidates participating in school-based
reading clinics.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002017
283
284 JOAN A. RHODES
Practical implications – In addition to descriptions of how teacher

candidates utilized technology within their reading clinic instruction, the
author notes affordances and challenges of integrating technology in one-
on-one instructional settings. Instructional uses of eReaders, laptops, and
iPads for literacy learning are noted in the chapter for possible replication
in other reading clinic programs. Future directions for additional research
are included.
Social implications – The chapter suggests how the university reading
clinic can provide opportunities for teacher candidates to work
collaboratively with students to incorporate technology into literacy
learning activities. Working with technology in a tutoring environment
serves as a foundation for incorporating digital literacy instruction in
teacher candidates’ future classrooms and ensuring that students have the
21st century skills necessary for college and employment.
Keywords: Reading clinic; digital literacy; tutoring; instructional

technology; technological pedagogical content knowledge framework;
teacher candidates
INTRODUCTION
Look around any classroom, practice field, or shopping mall and you will
find evidence of the profound impact information communication
technologies have on modern society. Today’s students are engaged in
multiple forms of literacy learning in both formal and informal environ-
ments. In fact, Rosen (2010) reports that preteens, teens, and young adults
are consuming media upward of a nearly impossible, 20 hours a day.
Clearly, smartphones, eReaders, iPads, and the other myriad of technology
tools available to students are changing the nature of reading and study.
Adults, including faculty, have also experienced changes in the ways they
gather and process information in both their work and personal lives. The
reported gap between the levels of technology expertise of persons born after
1980, digital natives, and those born before this time period, the digital
immigrants, presents a challenging situation for educators (Prensky, 2001).
Recent AARP survey results (2010) indicate that 60% of persons over the
age of 50 either, do not use the Internet (17%), feel uncomfortable using it
(22%), or feel only somewhat comfortable working online (21%). Further,
only 4% of the over 50 population reported owning a smartphone and only
Innovative Practices in the Reading Clinic 285
2% owned an iPad (Koppen, 2010). Zickhur and Madden (2012) reported

similar results where the contrast in Internet adoption between adults ages
50–64 (77%) and adults ages 18–29 (97%) was significant. With the
proportion of teachers ages 50 and older in the K-12 teaching workforce
standing at 31% (Feistritzer, 2011), these statistics suggest that many
educators in the public schools may need support in incorporating
technology into their classroom instruction.
One way of assisting public schools in meeting the changing demand for tech
savvy educators is to ensure that new college graduates have the technology and
pedagogical skills necessary to infuse technology in the literacy classroom.
Faculty working toward this goal can utilize the technological pedagogical
content knowledge (TPACK) framework as a means of organizing instruction
to provide teacher candidates with the skills necessary for successful technology
integration (Graham, 2011). The TPACK framework represents the relation-
ship between and among the domains of pedagogy, content, and technology
knowledge and is useful for providing candidates with an interconnected
approach for integrating technology in the literacy classroom. Unlike
traditional technology training, courses designed using TPACK situate
technology instruction within pedagogical and content knowledge (Baran,
Chuang, & Thompson, 2011). Although some researchers (Archambault &
Barnett, 2010; Graham 2011) suggest that the framework needs further
clarification to define each of the relevant domains, its use recognizes the
interrelationships between pedagogy, technology, and content experienced in
authentic learning environments.
Faculty who provide experiences utilizing technology should ensure that
their instruction addresses the TPACK domains as well as curriculum
standards. National and state standards focused on the development of 21st
century workplace skills and technology use have formalized instructional
objectives related to information communication technology for those
working in public school classrooms. The Common Core State Standards
adopted within the United States in 2010 indicate that students should be
able to use technology and digital media to enhance their reading and
writing, use online searching to acquire information, and become familiar
with the strengths and limitations of technology tools. Further, the
standards indicate that students should be able to select and use the
appropriate medium for their communication goals (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers, 2011). The International Society for Technology in Education
developed the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) to help
define the skills and knowledge students, teachers, and administrators need
286 JOAN A. RHODES
for effective learning in a digital society (ISTE, 2011a). The NETS-T,

standards for educators (ISTE, 2011b) and the International Reading
Association’s Standards for Reading Professionals: A Reference for the
Preparation of Educators in the United States (2010) both indicate that
teachers need to use a wide range of digital and online resources and provide
activities that encourage reading, writing, and creating products in digital
environments. For these reasons, many university education programs are
incorporating instructional technology learning activities into their courses.
One challenge presented by embedding technology into this changing
instructional environment is that research shows preservice educators are
not consistently utilizing digital media within their university preparation
programs (Carter, Smith, & Rhodes, 2011; Roscorla, 2010). Fortunately, the
momentum at both the national and state levels to include technology and
media literacy skills in curriculum standards provides an impetus for
university educators to refocus instruction to meet the demands of 21st
century literacy skills. Reading clinics provide faculty members with an
environment to embed technology into a practical field-based experience.
The clinic setting also allows opportunities to observe teaching candidates as
they develop integrated technology lessons using the TPACK conceptual
framework. The use of digital media can support educators in the reading
clinic by providing opportunities for students to develop information and
media literacy expertise, practice reading, speaking, and writing skills and
collaborate on projects with others from around the world.
Faculty in teacher preparation programs must ensure that teacher
candidates are prepared to meet a younger, more technologically
experienced student population at their own level. Twenty-first century
educators need preparation to help students transfer the technology skills
they use in daily life to new educational purposes. There is clear recognition
that to be successful in college and life in a technological society, students,
and teacher candidates must be both information literate – able to find,
locate, and use information (Henderson & Scheffler, 2004) and media
literate – able to access, analyze, evaluate, and create media information
(Hobbs, 2010; Walkosz, Jolls, & Sund, 2008)
DEFINING INFORMATION AND MEDIA LITERACIES

As teacher candidates prepare for instruction with students in the K-12
language arts classroom, they must consider the expanding definition of
literacy. No longer does literacy’s general definition as the ‘‘minimal ability to
read and write in a designated language, as well as a mindset or way of thinking

about the use of reading and writing in everyday life’’ (Venezky, 1995, p. 142)
fit the broadening manner in which technology has influenced communica-
tion. One view of modern literacy includes consideration of the overwhelming
amount of information encountered on a daily basis. Information literate
students need to be able to locate and evaluate information to enhance
personal learning and expand investigations. Students must use information
to accomplish specific goals while demonstrating awareness of the social and
ethical issues that surround information use (Association of College and
Research Libraries, 2000). However, information literacy is not enough when
we consider the need to capture the variety of ways students use digital
environments for creative self-expression and entertainment. These types of
activities require students to be cognizant of how media affects their lives.
Media literacy instruction encourages students to reflect critically on the
media messages they encounter in popular culture (ReadWriteThink.org, n.d.).
Instruction in media literacy begins in early grades with awareness activities and
later moves to the more complex activities of media analysis and production
(Media Literacy Clearinghouse, 2011). Hobbs (2010) describes five media
literacy components necessary to participate in a media- and information-rich
society. Literate citizens must possess the ability to
Make responsible choices and access information by locating and sharing materials
and comprehending information and ideas
Analyze messages in a variety of forms by identifying the author, purpose, and point of
view, and evaluating the quality and credibility of the content
Create content in a variety of forms, making use of language, images, sound, and new
digital tools and technologies
Reflect on one’s own conduct and communication behavior by applying social
responsibility and ethical principles
Take social action by working individually and collaboratively to share knowledge and
solve problems in the family, workplace and community, and by participating as a
member of a community (Hobbs, 2010, pp. vi–vii).
Many teachers will need to move out of their comfort zones to tackle these
five components. Domine (2011) suggested that educators widen their focus
and increase their technological proficiency, moving away from viewing them-
selves of consumers of information to one of creators who share information.
THE ‘‘DIGITAL NATIVE’’ TEACHER CANDIDATE
Leading authorities in technology education have suggested that current

teacher candidates belong to the generation of digital natives, a group that
288 JOAN A. RHODES
because of growing up in a technology-infused world is hard-wired for

multitasking and adapting to all things digital (Prensky, 2001). These future
educators should have the technological proficiency to integrate informa-
tional and media literacy into their classroom instruction. However, recent
research and first-hand experience in university classrooms suggest that
digital ‘‘nativeness’’ may not apply in all situations nor with all technologies.
In an exploratory study of 160 university students’ use of digital
technologies, Margaryan, Littlejohn, and Vogt (2011) found that students
use a limited range of mostly well-established technologies. They also found
no evidence to support claims that university students were adopting
radically different learning styles. If all contemporary teacher candidates are
like the students in Margaryan et al.’s study who favored passive,
conventional, and linear teaching and learning styles, how will they develop
the skills necessary for teaching with technology as well as the pedagogical
knowledge needed for incorporating technology into their lessons?
Vavra and Spencer (2011) suggest that teachers need to take advantage of
opportunities for exploring text sources and multimedia resources in digital
environments as well as use the production tools available in their schools.
When utilizing technology with students, Prensky (2010) proposes that the
educator’s role shift toward acting as a facilitator of knowledge acquisition
using a guide-on-the-side partnering model versus a more traditional sage-on-
a-stage model. Educators would should supply overarching guiding questions
and then coach students using the available resources. The reading clinic,
where candidates are able to work one-on-one with students, is a perfect
setting for experimentation with this type of facilitated instructional model.
INCORPORATING TECHNOLOGY ACTIVITIES IN

THE CLINIC
Every academic year, teacher candidates participate in semester-long

reading clinic practicum experiences where they design remediation lessons
focused on the needs of individual learners in order to improve reading and
writing performance. In the past, lessons have primarily focused on using
paper-based curriculum materials and methods, but increasingly university
faculty are asking candidates to integrate technology into their lessons
(Staples, Pugach, & Himes, 2005). Faculty anticipate that incorporating
digital technologies in the reading clinic will provide a structured and
supportive environment where teacher candidates are able to experiment
with technology tools and pedagogy while enhancing their tutees’ 21st
century literacy skills.
The remainder of this chapter focuses on instructional activities used by
teaching candidates participating in school-based reading clinics. The
activities are a sampling of ways technology can support instruction in
tutorial settings, which tend to work more easily in clinics where candidates
utilize instructional materials specifically selected or designed for individual
students’ needs rather than those who require prescribed curriculum
activities. The flexibility afforded in this model allows and encourages
candidates to test different types of materials and instructional methods.
Although lessons can vary significantly among course participants, all
candidates should be expected to provide instruction that meets the learning
standards outlined by the relevant policymaking bodies and that supports
the classroom teachers’ expectations. This type of clinic environment offers
unique opportunities for students to test Prensky’s facilitation model for
technology integration within a realistic teaching context.
Using eReaders (Kindles)
Pilot programs incorporating the use of Kindles with students in grades K-

12 are becoming commonplace (Barack, 2011). Even politicians have
suggested that the use of digital textbooks available on eReaders or laptops
is an affordable means of providing open source instructional materials
(Lewin, 2009). The rise of eBook use in America is an indication of a shift in
reading trends from paper-based texts to digital materials. In a Pew Internet
& the American Life Project report, 43% of Americans age 16 and older say
they have either read an eBook in the past year or have read other content
such as magazines, journals, and news articles in digital format on an eBook
reader, tablet computer, regular computer, or cell phone (Rainie, Zickuhr,
Purcel, Madden, & Brenne, 2012). The ease of use and inexpensive access to
literary works make eReaders a viable option for reading clinic classrooms.
One of the most important aspects of a reading clinic tutoring experience
is being able to tailor instruction to meet individual learners’ needs in an
environment where relative strengths are recognized and research-proven
teaching strategies are utilized (Ortlieb, Grandstaff-Beckers, & Cheek,
2012). The use of Kindles and other eReading devices support clinicians as
they differentiate instruction and improve student learning. One school-
based reading clinic had 5 Kindle eReaders available for use during the
semester to rotate between 15 candidate–student pairs as needed. The
290 JOAN A. RHODES
candidates and instructor determined that they would use the eReaders to
assist students who were having difficulty comprehending text or showed
evidence of weak vocabulary knowledge. The small class size made sharing
devices relatively simple with students collaboratively determining a
schedule for use among their partner groups.
The Kindle eReaders offered a number of features to aid students with
comprehending and retaining information. The Kindle provided a text-to-
speech feature that allowed students to hear a story read orally while
tracking print, offering additional support to those whose comprehension
was impacted by nonfluent reading. Additionally, students increased and
decreased font size to improve the ease of reading. As practical experience
shows, students are often intimidated by reading materials printed in smaller
font sizes. Candidates found that some students would willingly tackle texts
that were more challenging when they simply increased the font size of the
reading material. Another feature that was extremely helpful for increasing
student comprehension was using the device dictionary to immediately
identify and study word meanings. One candidate working with a fifth-grade
English language learner (ELL) was quite surprised when her tutee started
using the pronunciation key in the dictionary to support her oral reading
performance. This unplanned discovery became a favorite strategy in this
candidate–student pair.
The Kindle also had a number of components related to studying in
digital text environments. Students highlighted information and took notes
while reading. Through the school’s WIFI connection, students also referred
to the Kindle’s Popular Highlights feature to determine what other readers
selected as interesting passages within a text (Amazon, 2004–2011). This
feature allowed readers to compare what they believed were important
aspects of a story with the ideas of members from the broader community.
This comparison resulted in interesting conversation between tutors and
students focusing on higher-level comprehension skills required when
reading deeply to analyze texts.
From an instructor’s point of view, introducing the Kindles to the teacher
candidates offered some challenge. The candidates, all digital natives
according to Prensky’s definition, were unfamiliar with using the Kindle
tool. Some students had experience with more advanced devices and were
frustrated by the lack of a touch screen on the available Kindles. However,
the majority of candidates reported that they could not afford an eReader
and wished they had more time for ‘‘playing’’ with the device to increase
their own comfort level before using it with their tutees. This slight
uncertainty allowed for the natural movement of teacher candidates into a
position of mutual learner, a process rooted in sociocultural theory in which

all participants learn from and alongside one another (Martin, 2008). Tutors
actively provided scaffolding and coaching for their tutees as they worked
together. Students were energized by the introduction of the eReaders to the
tutoring sessions and in general were motivated to read from the devices.
However, the candidates primarily utilized reading material selected by the
course instructor rather than asking for content that related to their tutees’
interests. Across the course of the semester, candidates became more
familiar with using an eReader in their instruction, but continued to prefer
using mobile devices and laptops.
Using Laptops
As early as 1997, studies noted the positive effect of laptop use on student
writing performance. In an independent analysis of the Microsoft–Toshiba
partnership, Anytime Anywhere Learning Project, teachers reported that
students created more rough drafts and focused on content rather than
mechanics when using laptops for writing (Rockman et al., 1997). A more
recent investigation (Gulek & Demirtas, 2005) showed that sixth- and
eighth-grade students participating in a laptop immersion program exceeded
district and school mean scores on the school district’s writing performance
assessment when they worked with laptops. The use of laptops increased
students’ opportunities for composing, revising, and publishing written
work in Grimes and Warschauer’s (2008) study of elementary and middle
school students. Additionally, using word processing allowed for efficient
feedback from teachers as well as an increase in writing for authentic
purposes in a variety of formats and genres.
Teacher candidates participating in a reading clinic housed in an elementary
school with a large ELL population developed lessons to capitalize on the
positive results of previous studies in the areas of composing, revision, and
publication using their personal laptops during reading clinic lessons.
Although all teacher candidates were required to purchase laptops as part of
enrollment in the university, any who wished to borrow a laptop from the
university technology office for the clinical experience were allowed to do so.
The candidates had freedom to select software programs to encourage writing
during their tutoring sessions or utilize those introduced by the instructor
during the lecture portion of the course. Candidates were encouraged to
consider developing an eBook retelling using Rhodes and Milby’s (2007)
model as a foundation for their work.
292 JOAN A. RHODES
One popular use of the laptop during writing was related to brainstorming
prior to composition. Teacher candidates asked their students to create mind
maps using the Inspiration software program to serve as a basis of their daily
writing projects. More advanced students used images, text, and hyperlinks to
prepare their maps. The use of images for planning was particularly helpful for
the ELLs who needed to review English vocabulary items.
Fortunately, the school was willing to allow the teacher candidates to use
their Internet connection for students to conduct searches for information
for writing projects. Candidates could take advantage of these activities and
offer instruction on the information/media literacy skills of accessing and
evaluating. The one-on-one instructional environment of reading clinics are
highly suitable for observing student Internet search behaviors and ensuring
students can express how they determine the credibility of an Internet site.
Students were expected to develop a piece of writing at each tutoring session.
Depending on their developmental level and writing expertise, students created
between one sentence and several paragraphs during the writing portion of the
clinical session. Following drafting, candidates focused on teaching students to
use the spelling and grammar check features of the word processing program.
Some students were not accustomed to writing for real audiences so publishing
and printing for their classmates and teachers became a prized opportunity. A
favorite writing project to share with others was made using Comic Creator
from ReadWriteThink.org (IRA/NCTE, 2012). This web-based program
allowed students to review story sequence while discussing the role of speech
bubbles in cartoon strips. Students found the ability to create and retell short
stories using images and dialogue particularly motivating. Composing on
laptops appeared to be one of the most beneficial uses of technology during
tutoring sessions. Overall, use of the laptops for enhancing the writing portion
of the clinic experience was viewed as successful even though some candidates
were somewhat anxious about allowing children to use their highly valued
computer hardware.
Using Mobile Technologies
Surprisingly, teaching candidates were not as protective of their mobile

smartphones as their laptops, lending them readily to youngsters as the need
arose. The Pew Internet & American Life Project reported that 46% of adults
owned a smartphone in February 2012, representing an 11% gain in users
within a period of nine months (Smith, 2012). Furthermore, 70% of adults ages
18–29, the ages of most college students who participate in preservice reading
clinics, owned a smartphone. Initially, the faculty supervisor of the school-based

reading clinic was unaware of the level of access candidates had to mobile
phones and therefore intended to incorporate only laptops and eReaders into
the reading clinic activities. However, the teaching candidates began to bring in
their own devices for use with their students. This trend, Bring Your Own
Device (BYOD), has been evident in business settings for some time (Thomson,
2012) and is now beginning to be seen in educational settings as well. Cisco
Systems, Inc. (2010) conducted an international study of 2600 people in 13
countries to gauge employee expectations regarding access to work information.
Findings indicate that 66% of the workforce expects anywhere, anytime access
to workplace information and those with remote access spent up to an
additional three hours a day working, further blurring the division between
personal and work life. The 2012 Horizon Report lists BYOD as one of its
trends for adoption within a year, stating that schools are now rethinking bans
on mobile devices in favor of BYOD programs (New Media Consortium, 2012).
The reading clinic environment was an ideal setting for exploring BYOD
instructional approaches. The flexibility offered in an individual tutoring
model allowed candidates to use their mobile devices to enhance lessons
based on student need. Although, very few candidates had access to iPads or
tablet devices, almost all were able to utilize mobile phones. Candidates
primarily used smartphones for finding information needed during their
discussions and reading with students, for game play, and in the case of one
student as a reward for working hard during the tutoring session. Discussion
around new phone applications (apps) for instruction became a regular
topic during informal conversations prior to class. These informal
discussions will become a permanent feature of future reading clinic courses.
Susan Tancock (2012), who presented at a recent IRA Technology in
Literacy Education-Special Interest Group (TILE-SIG), provided an excel-
lent model for evaluating applications for use in the reading clinic. She
suggested that students evaluate apps using a format that includes reviewing
the curriculum connection, authenticity, types of feedback provided, and
differentiation capabilities among several others. She described her process
as one where reading clinic participants evaluated a specific number of apps
and then all shared their scoring with the total group of teacher candidates.
This formalized approach provided practice in looking at applications with a
critical eye while developing a listing for classmates to use with their tutees.
McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy, and Tate (2012) found tutorial
instruction using an iPad very beneficial to Josh, a remedial reader
participating in reading clinic sessions. Initially, Josh’s tutor planned to
use the iPad as a reward for maintaining focus during tutoring sessions.
294 JOAN A. RHODES
School officials hoped that the self-paced, individualized format might also
be beneficial for Josh. Upon completion of the program, the researchers
noted that several iPad features seemed to influence his significant literacy
improvement. The integration of multimodalities (visual, kinesthetic) when
working on the touch screen, the ability to record and listen to his own voice
during reading, and the use of a stylus for maintaining control were factors
that contributed to his growth.
iPads are particularly useful for assisting students in developing multi-
media projects in tutoring sessions. Teaching candidates in reading clinics
can assist students in taking digital images related to stories they have read
or as brainstorming for writing. Candidates then email the pictures to
themselves for use in developing eBooks and Power Point presentations.
This type of multimedia exploration allows students to meet the require-
ments of media literacy standards as they engage in activities that ask them
to think critically about how and why they use particular images, music, and
text to represent their learning. The inclusion of mobile devices owned either
by the university or teacher candidates improved students’ written
compositions and reading fluency and encouraged the partnering methods
suggested by Prensky (2010) as students and tutors collaboratively created,
reread, and shared multimedia presentations.
CHALLENGES AND BENEFITS OF INCORPORATING

TECHNOLOGY IN READING CLINICS
As with all instructional adaptations, embedding a variety of technology into

the reading clinic has both challenges and benefits. Issues surrounding access
to technology and the digital divide are prevalent and must be addressed in
planning sessions between the school system and the university instructor.
Attewell (2001) indicated two types of digital divides separate the ‘‘haves’’
from the ‘‘have nots.’’ Initially, educators need to consider digital equity in
terms of student access to technology and secondly, in terms of student use of
technology for educational purposes. DeBell and Chapman (2003) noted
several inequities in access to technology for students ages 5–17. They found
that students without disabilities, those living outside urban areas and those
residing in two-parent households were more likely to use the Internet and
computers. Furthermore, 52% of youngsters from families living in poverty
access the Internet only at school, compared to 26% of those from families with
incomes above the poverty line. Becker (2006) in a study of digital equity across
40 states found that African-American students and those living in rural areas
had less access to educational technology. The value of incorporating technology

into one-on-one instructional settings is evident. Reading clinic directors who
plan to incorporate technology must be aware of these issues to ensure that
teacher candidates understand the need to review basic computing skills with
their tutees. From a practical standpoint, directors should also consider the level
of Internet access prior to establishing a partnering relationship if they intend to
fully integrate technology activities within the reading clinic. Faculty leaders need
to understand which websites and types of software programs are acceptable to
the school system. Appropriate educational videos, images, and social
networking sites that have instructional value can be blocked by the school
system’s Internet security system. By collaboratively preplanning for technology
integration in the reading clinic, faculty can mitigate many potential problems
prior to providing instructional sessions.
Another challenge faced by faculty leading reading clinics can be the
technological inexperience of their own teaching candidates. In a study of
graduate students pursuing reading specialists’ degrees, Balajthy, Reuber,
and Robinson (2001) found that student clinicians were willing to use
technology and recognized its potential for learning, but may have
inadvertently limited its benefits because of less than optimal planning. The
clinicians frequently did not provide clear literacy objectives or target their
instruction directly to students’ needs when using computers. Instead, they
frequently used their time with computers for exploration and play. The
clinicians spent little time evaluating software programs so their selections
for instruction were random and less purposeful. The challenges found by
Balajthy et al. appear to be typical as teaching candidates begin to develop
skill in using technology with students. The ‘‘play’’ observed in this study
may be an essential part of learning. However, reading clinic directors may
want to provide opportunities outside of the tutoring sessions so candidates
familiarize themselves with technology tools and software and feel confident
in their ability to use technology to meet real literacy objectives.
Two final challenges related to the integration of technology in the reading
clinic are time and money. The number of competencies to be covered in the
typical reading clinic course is extensive. Faculty need to consider which
technology applications are critical for the students they are serving. Providing
practice time with technologies require universities to purchase hardware in a
sufficient quantity so that all candidates have an opportunity to learn how to
use a device prior to providing instruction with the tool. Funding for
additional devices and flexibility in allowing candidates to use tools outside of
the normal classroom sessions are essential for students to have enough time to
implement pedagogical changes within their tutoring.
296 JOAN A. RHODES
The need for teaching candidates to develop technological and pedagogical

skills for working in learning environments focused on increasing 21st century
literacy skills outweighs each of the potential challenges. The ability of teacher
candidates to gear lessons to one individual student offers many benefits when
attempting to incorporate technology. One of the most apparent advantages is
the ability of candidates to experiment with the idea of working as a guide-on-
the side. In some cases, the candidates were learning how to use a technology
device a few days before they introduced an activity to their tutee. Although
somewhat nervous about using some of the technology tools, the candidates
began to develop essential skills for learning collaboratively with their tutee.
Candidates felt some relief at being able to support their students without
having to be ‘‘the master of all knowledge’’ in the tutorial setting.
The use of technology as a motivator was also very apparent in the
candidate–student interactions in the reading clinic setting. Balajthy et al.
(2001) reported that their clinicians found the use of a computer to be
motivational. Several of the candidates working with ELLs in the clinic
described above were surprised by their tutees’ interest in using the keyboards
on the laptop. Because the students had limited experience with working on a
laptop, they were willing to write more if they were able to practice on the
keyboard. Other candidates used mobile devices and eReaders as a reward for
attentive behavior during lessons. This allowed the candidate to work on
another literacy objective while the student felt successful. Students in reading
clinics reported being excited about using technology and felt ‘‘special’’
because they were able to work with a device they perceived as fun during a
pull-out remediation program.
Most importantly, candidates in reading clinics found gains in student
performance when incorporating technology into their instructional activities.
The candidates were able to increase students’ comprehension of text and
enhance their digital study skills by utilizing features of the Kindle eReader.
Writing performance was enhanced through the use of laptops and students
learned to locate information on mobile phones. The use of iPads offered
opportunities for increasing student awareness of essential media literacy skills
as they created products for real audiences. Overall, students were motivated
to participate in skill development activities because of the use of technology
tools in their reading clinic experiences.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Technology integration using digital text in the university reading clinic is in

the early stages of development. While students’ and candidates’ enthusiasm
for using digital technologies within their sessions was encouraging, further
research is needed to determine how this motivation and learning can be
extended beyond clinic activities. While some attempts at sharing student
products from the clinic within classrooms were successful, organizing for the
systematic sharing of student work and furthering collaborative planning with
classroom educators around digital literacy instruction would be beneficial.
Additionally, further study is needed to determine in which portions of the
tutoring session students gain the most from utilizing instructional technol-
ogies. Seeking ways to maximize learning through technology integration is
essential, particularly for programs with limited contact hours. Candidates’
attitudes toward the use of digital technologies and their understanding of
TPACK itself offer opportunities for further exploration as university
educators continue to provide learning environments where the use of
instructional technology is expected.
CONCLUSION
In ‘‘Transforming American Education: Learning Powered by Technology,’’

the U.S. Department of Education’s technology plan, educators are
reminded that 21st century competencies of critical thinking, multimedia
communication, problem-solving, and working collaboratively are applic-
able for developing expert learners in all fields (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010). Teacher candidates must have classroom experiences that
provide opportunities to develop the technological skills necessary for
meeting these objectives as well as the pedogogical expertise to offer
instruction in information and media literacies. By integrating technology
activities into the supervised, one-on-one environment of a reading clinic,
teacher candidates can explore the affordances of a variety of devices,
software, and instructional strategies under the capable supervision of an
expert literacy instructor. Faculty who provide opportunities and time for
teaching candidates to explore the use of technology tools and create
instructional settings that encourage candidates to take on the role of a
coach and guide make a significant contribution to the profession.
REFERENCES
Amazon. com, Inc. (2004-2011).Kindle user’s guide. Retrieved from http://kindle.s3.amazo
naws.com/KindleUser%27sGuide.pdf
298 JOAN A. RHODES
Archambault, L. M., & Barnett, J. H. (2010). Revisiting technological pedagogical content

knowledge: Exploring the TPACK framework. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1656–
1662. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03601315
10002010
Association of College and Research Libraries. (2000). Information literacy: Competency
standards for higher education. Chicago, IL: American Library Association.
Attewell, P. (2001, July). Comment: The first and second digital divides. Sociology of Education,
74(3), 252–259. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/view/00380407/di020079/02p01
21f/0
Balajthy, E., Reuber, K., & Robinson, C. (2001, October). Teachers’ use of technology in a
reading clinic. Reading Online, 5(3). Retrieved from. http://www.readingonline.org/
articles/art_index.asp?HREF=balajthy/index.html
Barack, L. (2011, March). The kindles are coming: eReaders and tablets are springing up in
schools–and librarians are leading the way. School Library Journal. Retrieved from
http://www.libraryjournal.com/slj/home/889110-312/the_kindles__are_coming.html.csp
Baran, E., Chuang, H., & Thompson, A. (2011). TPACK: An emerging research and
development tool for teacher educators. The Turkish online Journal of Educational
Technology, 10(4), 370–377. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy.library.
vcu.edu/ehost/detail?sid=ea2c78f5-ab63-4bc0-aa80-5f7f5c162615%40sessionmgr104&
vid=1&hid=107&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLHVybCxjb29raWUsdWlkJnNpd
GU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl
Becker, J. D. (2006). Digital equity in education: A multilevel examination of differences in and
relationships between computer access, computer use and state-level technology policies.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15(3), 1–38. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/
epaa/v15n3/
Carter, T. J., Smith, F. G., & Rhodes, J. A. (2011, February). As learners move into the open:
Obstacles to overcome, strategies for success, and potential for participatory learning.
Poster session presented at EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative (ELI) 2011 Annual
Meeting. Washington, DC.
Cisco Systems, Inc. (2010). The Cisco connected world report: Employee expectations, demands
and behavior accessing networks, applications, and information, anywhere, anytime, and
with any device. Retrieved from http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2010/ekits/ccwr_
final.pdf
DeBell, M., & Chapman, C. (2003). Computer and internet use by children and adolescents in
2001 (NCES 2004–014). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/vol_5/
5_4/2_1.asp
Domine, V. (2011). The coming of age of media literacy. Journal of Media Literacy Education,
3(1), 8–10. Retrieved from http://www.jmle.org/index.php/JMLE/article/view/170/117
Feistritzer, C. E. (2011). Profile of teachers in the U.S. 2011. Washington, D.C.: National Center
for Education Information. Retrieved from http://www.ncei.com/Profile_Teachers_
US_2011.pdf
Gulek, J. C., & Demirtas, H. (2005, January). Learning with technology: The impact of laptop
use on student achievement. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 3(2).
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360131511000911
Graham, C. R. (2011). Theoretical considerations for understanding technological pedagogical
content knowledge. Computers & Education, 57(3), 1953–1960. Retrieved from. http://
www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/laptops_jecr.pdf
Grimes, D., & Warschauer, M. (2008). Learning with laptops: A multi-method case study.
Journal of Educational Computing Research, 38(3), 305–332. Retrieved from http://
www.gse.uci.edu/person/warschauer_m/docs/laptops-jecr.pdf
Henderson, M. V., & Scheffler, A. J. (2004). New literacies, standards, and teacher education.
Education, 124(2), 390–395.
Hobbs, R. (2010). Digital and media literacy: A plan of action. Retrieved from The Knight
Commission on the Information Needs of Communities in a Democracy. Retrieved from
http://www.knightcomm.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Digital_and_Media_Literacy_
A_Plan_of_Action.pdf
International Reading Association. Professional Standards and Ethics Committee. (2010).
Standards for reading professionals: A reference for the preparation of educators in the
United States. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Retrieved from http://
www.reading.org/General/CurrentResearch/Standards/ProfessionalStandards2010/
ProfessionalStandards2010_Introduction.aspx
International Society for Technology in Education. (2011a). NETS-S. Retrieved from http://
www.iste.org/standards/nets-for-students.aspx
International Society for Technology in Education. (2011b). NETS-T. Retrieved from http://
www.iste.org/Libraries/PDFs/NETS-T_Standards.sflb.ashx
IRA/NCTE. (2012). Comic creator. Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/files/
resources/interactives/comic/
Koppen, J. (2010). Social media and technology use among adults 50+. Washington, DC:
AARP. Retrieved from http://assets.aarp.org/rgcenter/general/socmedia.pdf
Lewin, T. (2009, August). In a digital future, textbooks are history. The New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/09/education/09textbook.html?
pagewante&s=1&_r=3%20&sq=Moving%20to%20a%20Digital%20Future,where%
20textbooks%20are%20History&st=cse&scp=1
Martin, F. (2008). Mutual learning: The impact of a study visit course on UK
teachers’ knowledge and understanding of global partnerships. Critical Literacy:
Theories and Practice, 2(1), 60–75. Retrieved from http://criticalliteracy.freehostia.
com/index.php
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2011). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science and technical subjects. Washington, D.C.: National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School
Officers. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20S
tandards.pdf
Margaryan, A., Littlejohn, A., & Vogt, G. (2011, February). Are digital natives a myth or
reality? University students’ use of digital technologies. Computers & Education, 56(2),
429–440. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S03601315
10002563
Media Literacy Clearinghouse. (2011). State standards which include elements of media literacy.
Retrieved from http://www.frankwbaker.com/state_lit.htm
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A breakthrough for Josh: How
use of an iPad facilitated reading improvement. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice
to Improve Learning, 56(3), 20–28. doi: 10.1007/s11528-012-0572-6.
New Media Consortium. (2012). The horizon report: 2012 higher education edition. Retrieved
from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/HR2012.pdf
300 JOAN A. RHODES
Ortlieb, E., Grandstaff-Beckers, G., & Cheek, E. H. (2012). Fostering reading excellence at
every level of school through reading clinics. The Clearing House: A Journal of
Educational Strategies and Ideas, 85(1), 1–6. doi: 10.1080/00098655.2011.601356.
Prensky, M. (2010). Teaching digital natives: Partnering for real learning. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin.
Prensky, M. (October 2001). Digital Natives Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon
(NCB University Press). 9(5). Retrieved from http://www.marcprensky.com/
writing/Prensky%20-%20Digital%20Natives,%20Digital%20Immigrants%20-%20
Part1.pdf
Rainie, L., Zickuhr, K., Purcell, K., Madden, M., & Brenne, J. (2012). The rise of e-reading.
Pew Internet & American Life Project. Retrieved from http://libraries.pewinternet.org/
2012/04/04/the-rise-of-e-reading
ReadWriteThink.org (n.d.) Magazine redux: An exercise in critical literacy. IRA/NCTE
Retrieved from http://www.readwritethink.org/lessons/lesson_view.asp?id=214
Rhodes, J. A., & Milby, T. M. (2007). Teacher-created electronic books: Integrating technology
to support readers with disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 61(3), 255–259.
Rockman et al. (1997). Report of a laptop program pilot: A project for anytime anywhere learning
by Microsoft Corporation: Notebooks for schools by Toshiba America information
systems. San Fransisco: ROCKMAN ET AL. Retrieved from http://www.microsoft.
com/education/downloads/aal/resrch_1.rtf
Rosen, L. D. (2010). Rewired: Understanding the igeneration and the way they learn. New York:
NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Roscorla, T. (2010). 10 steps to strengthening digital and media literacy. CONVERGE.
Retrieved from http://www.convergemag.com/policy/10-Steps-to-Strengthen-Digital-
and-Media-Literacy.html
Staples, A., Pugach, M. C., & Himes, D. J. (2005). Reform in teacher education as a scaffold for
technology integration. In S. Rhine & M. Bailey (Eds.), Integrated Technologies,
Innovative Learning: Insights from the PT3 program (Vol. II, pp. 106–117). Pacific
University Libraries at CommonKnowledge. Retrieved from http://commons.pacificu.
edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1002&context=mono
Smith, A. (2012, February). 46% of American adults are smartphone owners. Pew Internet &
American Life Project. Retrieved from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/
2012/Smartphone%20ownership%202012.pdf
Tancock, S. (2012, April). Using iPads in a corrective reading course. Roundtable presented at
the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, Technology in Literacy
Education Special Interest Group: Chicago: IL.
Thomson, G. (2012, February). BYOD: Enabling the chaos. Network Security, 2012(2), 5–8.
Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com.proxy.library.vcu.edu/science/article/pii/
S1353485812700132
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Technology. (2010). Transforming
American education: Learning powered by technology. Retrieved from http://
www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010
Vavra, S. A., & Spencer, S. L. (2011). The cold, hard cash of truth about literacy in the twenty-
first century. In S. A. Vavra & S. L. Spencer (Eds.), CLASH! Superheroic yet sensible
strategies for teaching the new literacies despite the status quo (pp. 3–20). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Venezky, R. L. (1995). Literacy. In T. L. Harris & R. E. Hodges (Eds.), The literacy dictionary:
The vocabulary of reading and writing (p. 142). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Walkosz, B. J., Jolls, T., & Sund, M. A. (May, 2008). Global/local: Media literacy for the global
village. Paper submitted for the International Media Literacy Research Forum, London:
England. Retrieved from http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/33_globallocal.pdf
Zickhur, K., & Madden, M. (2012). Older adults and internet use. Pew Internet & American Life
Project. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2012/
PIP_Older_adults_and_internet_use.pdf
SUPPORTING STRUGGLING
READERS AND LITERACY
CLINICIANS THROUGH
REFLECTIVE VIDEO PEDAGOGY
Lynn E. Shanahan, Mary B. McVee, Jennifer A. Schiller,

Elizabeth A. Tynan, Rosa L. D’Abate,
Caroline M. Flury-Kashmanian, Tyler W. Rinker,
Ashlee A. Ebert and H. Emily Hayden
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter provides the reader with an overview of a

reflective video pedagogy for use within a literacy center or within
professional development contexts. The conceptual overview is followed
by two-case examples that reveal how literacy centers can serve as rich,
productive research sites for the use and study of reflective video
pedagogy.
Methodology/approach – The authors describe their ongoing work to
develop and integrate a reflective video pedagogy within a literacy center
during a 15-week practicum for literacy-specialists-in-training. The
reflective video pedagogy is not only used by the clinicians who work

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002018
303
304 LYNN E. SHANAHAN ET AL.
with struggling readers twice a week, but it is also used by the researchers
at the literacy center who study the reflective video pedagogy through the
same video the clinicians use.
Practical implications – Literacy centers are dynamic sites where
children, families, pre/in-service teachers, and teacher educators work
together around literacy development. Reflective video pedagogies can be
used to closely examine learning and teaching for adult students (i.e.,
clinicians) and for youth (i.e., children in elementary, middle, and high
school) and also for parents who want their children to find success with
literacy.
Research implications – In recent years ‘‘scaling up’’ and ‘‘scientific
research’’ have come to dominate much of the literacy research landscape.
While we see the value and necessity of large-scale experimental studies,
we also posit that literacy centers have a unique role to play. Given that
resources are scarce, literacy scholars must maximize the affordances of
literacy centers as rich, productive research sites for the use and study of a
reflective video pedagogy.
Keywords: Video pedagogy; reflection; literacy center; video analysis;

struggling readers; teacher development
Some might argue that in a digital age the reading clinic is passé; indeed
some debate about the role of clinics has surfaced before (Evensen &
Mosenthal, 1999). However, the 21st-century literacy center or literacy clinic
can offer important opportunities for children, teachers, and researchers,
particularly when we make use of effective digital tools for instruction and
research (McKenna, Reinking, Labbo, & Kieffer,1999). In this chapter, we
elaborate upon a framework for a reflective video pedagogy for use within a
reading clinic or within professional development contexts when working
with teachers in the field.
We posit that rapid changes in technologies such as digital video and new
software afford opportunities for literacy teacher educators to maximize
these tools to further facilitate teacher reflection on situated practices within
learning communities.1 While digital technologies are relatively recent, the
stance learners must take up is one articulated long ago by John Dewey
(1910). For Dewey, reflection is more than simply the recall or revisiting of
past events. ‘‘Reflective thought’’ is an ‘‘active, persistent, and careful
Supporting Struggling Readers and Literacy Clinicians 305
consideration of any belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the

grounds that support it, and the further conclusions to which it tends’’
(Dewey, 1910, p. 9). This process of exploration is not based on the certainty
of one’s knowledge or beliefs, but is grounded in processes of doubt,
hesitation, and questioning that drive an active investigation of genuine
questions or problems. As with any scientific endeavor, facts are gathered,
evidence is weighed, and conclusions are drawn that corroborate or refute
particular beliefs or avenues of action.
In our work with clinicians we have developed the following definition of
reflection: a goal-directed process that moves teachers to identify a situation,
process, or experience that is puzzling, interesting, celebratory, or otherwise
intriguing and view it through multiple lenses. Developing particular skill
sets or dispositions is necessary for reflection, but a particular set of skills or
dispositions is not sufficient to become a reflective practitioner. Reflective
teachers strive to gain strategic knowledge of a situation in order to develop
and explore questions, recognize, or acknowledge complexity of situations,
processes or experiences, and make adaptations to their actions, beliefs,
positions, and classroom and pedagogical practices. Reflection is inter-
pretive in that individuals bring their knowledge and experiences to the
situation. Reflection is self-directed and collaborative in nature.
While a full review of the scholarship related to learning and reflection is
not possible within this chapter, we acknowledge that our definition of
reflection is also influenced by other scholars (e.g., Jay & Johnson, 2002;
Schön, 1983; Shulman & Shulman, 2004).
In our literacy clinic, reflection is now multifaceted. Graduate students
referred to as ‘‘clinicians’’ who are working toward certification and a
master’s degree as literacy specialists use reflective thought to assist their
diagnostic assessment and teaching of children. Prior to developing the
video pedagogy presented in this chapter, the reflective process was
facilitated through group discussions of journal articles related to literacy
practices and clinicians’ engaged in independent video self-analysis.
Reflecting in this manner was problematic for several reasons: (a) many
of the individual reflections were written on a descriptive level, and these
clinicians seldom reflected at critical levels until they discussed their
reflections with their mentor; (b) clinicians did not see enough concrete
examples of practice; and (c) independent video self-analysis did not create a
shared discussion context. Therefore, we introduced video study group
(VSG) reflection into the reflective process so that clinicians’ could: (a)
analyze a teaching event from multiple points of view (e.g., Boling, 2004),
(b) develop different perspectives of literacies practices, (c) consider
advantages and disadvantages of various practices in different contexts with

different students (Copeland & Decker, 1996), (d) engage in a collaborative
video discussion around concrete examples, and (e) learn a framework for
reflection that leads to critical levels of reflection. Reflective practice serves
as an overarching goal and activity within our community of practice as
teacher educators and clinicians use digital video in teaching or learning to
engage in a reflective video pedagogy. Researchers, who do not have an
instructional role in the clinic, use reflective video pedagogy to examine the
teaching and learning in the clinic and in professional development
opportunities with teachers in area school districts. For questions to
consider around reflection and video study groups, see Appendix.
CENTER FOR LITERACY AND READING

INSTRUCTION: DIAGNOSTIC TEACHING MODEL
In the Center for Literacy and Reading Instruction (CLaRI), instructional

decisions regarding struggling readers are situated in Kibby’s (1995)
description of diagnostic decision making. Kibby conceptualizes diagnosis
as an interpretive problem-solving process and as a continuous means to
improvement, not an end-product. In particular, reading diagnosis is ‘‘a
process of gaining a thorough knowledge of a person’s reading performance,
strategies, skills, and instructional needs through accurate observations for
the purposes of modifying instruction’’ (Kibby, 1995, p. 2). The diagnostic
decision-making model provides an organizational scheme for (a) gathering
information; (b) assessing, evaluating, and interpreting information; (c)
identifying strengths and areas of development; (d) determining influencing
factors; (e) evaluating appropriateness of instructional materials and
conditions; and (f) determining instructional goals, techniques, and materials
that will advance the reader. Clinicians do not follow this model in a step-by-
step process; instead they use their diagnostic knowledge, pedagogical skills,
and reflection to adjust their decisions based on student performance.
Clinicians’ instructional adjustments are an integral part of the diagnostic
decision-making process and are supported by clinicians’ reflections. Walker
(2000) describes the importance of reflection to diagnostic teaching as:
Central to effective diagnostic teaching is the teacher who reflects on teaching before,
during, and after the reading event. She checks the instructional decisions she makes
with her personal assumptions about reading and cross-checks her plans with the
student’s learning. As she is teaching, she analyzes how she modifies instruction and the
language she uses to mediate learning. (34).
In CLaRI, clinicians’ reflections emanate from an interactive view of

reading where they consider reading to be an interaction between what the
reader brings to the text, the text itself, and the situational context.
VIDEO PEDAGOGY
Clinicians use video as a pedagogical tool for reflection in two different

contexts. In one context, the clinicians view video clips from previous
semesters’ clinic sessions in group seminars where they have the opportunity to
collectively discuss and reflect on the teaching and learning situations of others
not in the seminar. The 50-minute group meeting time is referred to as their
VSG. In VSG, discussion is collaborative with peers as the instructor facilitates
the conversation. The second context for video reflection occurs as clinicians
engage in individual self-analysis using the video streaming of their lessons
outside of the seminar time. The individual self-analysis is shared with the
instructor through writing or at other times the written reflection and video
streaming may be used in a debriefing context. Using video in both contexts
weekly provides a rich experience to facilitate clinicians’ learning.
The Purpose of Video Study Group
In recent decades, the use of VSG has become an integral part of

professional development and teacher education. Within our video
pedagogy, we suppose that reflective discussions occurring around video
provide a context to build one’s knowledge base (Pea & Lindgren, 2008),
facilitate one’s understanding of teaching practices (Baker & Wedman,
2000), and provide an opportunity to hear and view from multiple
perspectives (Schrader et al., 2003). Viewing from multiple perspectives
affords clinicians the chance to contemplate both the advantages and
disadvantages of practices in varied contexts with learners of different
abilities. Reflecting on instructional practices in different contexts facilitates
clinicians’ understandings of the complexities in teaching (Sanny, Teale, &
Person, 2008). Knowing that diagnostic teaching requires teachers to engage
in complex interpretive problem-solving and reflection, we use VSG as a
context to develop clinician’s knowledge, skills, and instructional strategies
so they can extend their understanding of diagnostic teaching.
Engaging in VSG analysis, provides clinicians with an opportunity to
develop an inquiry community where they create supportive professional
relationships. Collegial relationships are critical to developing strong

professional relationships that ‘‘support the transfer of tacit, non-routine,
and complex knowledgey’’ (Daly, 2010, p. 4) that is critical to diagnostic
decision making. Relationships and collegial support are often the main
determinants of change, retention, increased professionalism, and engage-
ment levels (Daly, 2010). Hence, group interaction, particularly discussion,
is a critical component of the VSG.
Video Study Group Pedagogy
During VSG, the clinicians view an instructor-selected five to eight minute

video clip from a previous semester. Topics typically change based on the
clinicians’ needs. It is important to note that the video clips being viewed
whole class do not include the current clinicians. The use of video cases
creates a safer environment for a group critique. One benefit of maintaining
a large database of instructional practices is the availability of multiple cases
on varied topics.
Before the first video viewing, the instructor provides clinicians with a
lesson plan of the instructional clip and a Video Viewing Guide. To
contextualize the lesson, clinicians review the lesson plan prior to watching
the video clip and read the prompts from the Video Viewing Guide. After
this, to prepare for the subsequent VSG discussion, the video clip is shown a
second time during that the clinicians respond to several analysis questions
on the viewing guide. The questions on the Video Viewing Guide change as
the purpose for viewing changes. For example, if clinic instructors noticed
that a review of procedural steps would be helpful, a first question might ask
the clinicians to focus on the pedagogical steps demonstrated in the lesson.
Then, the clinicians could be asked to identify procedural steps taken by the
teacher. Clinicians are also encouraged to consider an interactive view of
reading where they reflect upon a reader’s performance during the lesson,
the teacher’s instruction, and the materials and appropriateness of text.
Clinicians use this time to bring their own authentic questions to the table.
Finally, all discussions end with the clinicians determining what pedagogical
adjustments they recommend for an upcoming lesson.
Self-Analysis in the Video Study Group
The second context used for video analysis is an independent self-analysis.

Video self-analysis is also part of the clinicians’ knowledge-building activity
(Pea & Lindgren, 2008) serving as a tool to mediate their learning. A benefit
of video self-analysis is that the clinicians have the ability to pause, analyze,
and replay video as they reflect on their practice (Kinzer, Cammack, Labbo,
Teale, & Sanny, 2006) and then share their reflections in writing with their
instructor.
Whether reflecting through video in a group discussion or individually in
writing, it is essential to develop a typology of reflective practice to facilitate
the reflective process. Our typology of reflection is rooted in Jay and
Johnson’s (2002) three dimensions of reflection (i.e., descriptive, compara-
tive, and critical). Together, our definition and the typology of reflective
practice assist the teacher educators and clinicians by setting clear
expectations of pedagogical practices program wide.
Two times a week for 75 minutes the clinicians work in clinical pairs, two
clinicians teaching one struggling reader, with the goal of providing high-
quality instruction. Each week the clinicians reflect on their own practices
related to the struggling reader. Through the typology for the written
reflection, clinicians are expected to determine the focus of their reflection,
what Schön (1983) calls ‘‘setting the problem.’’ Clinicians collaboratively set
their goals with their instructors. Next, they reflect in writing on all three
dimensions (Jay & Johnson, 2002). At the descriptive dimension, the
clinicians briefly describe the part of their lesson associated with their
reflective goal. The second reflection level, the comparative dimension, takes
into account alternative perspectives and research. Clinicians ask: ‘‘What
are alternative views of what is happening? How can I improve what is not
working? If there is a goal, what are some other ways of accomplishing it?’’
(Jay & Johnson, 2002, p. 77). Lastly, the third reflection level, critical
dimension, leads the clinicians to create a plan of action by establishing new
instructional ideas and recognizing sound instructional ideas. Specifically,
clinicians consider: (1) What you would do differently if you were to teach
this lesson again and why? (2) What would you keep the same if you were to
teach this lesson again and why? The goal is for the clinicians to become
facile in their reflective abilities by internalizing and applying these three
reflection dimensions to teaching situations in and outside of the clinic.
Within the clinic, we observed that before the implementation of a clear
definition and typology of reflective practice, the clinicians’ reflections rarely
provided detail beyond the descriptive level, in part, because they needed us
as teacher educators to clarify the construct of reflection. When we
introduced the definition and the typology of reflection, the clinicians
developed a deeper understanding of the reflective process related to
diagnostic decision making.
Reflecting on Video Use: A View from Teacher Educators
As instructors we found using the video pedagogy to be an excellent tool to

support clinicians in meeting the needs of struggling readers. Clinicians’ use
of video, the definition, and typology of reflection for self-analysis provided
more in-depth and higher quality reflections. During self-analysis, clinicians
focused on their goal for self-improvement. Through these high-quality
reflections, clinicians adjusted elements of their instruction and in turn
delivered more effective instruction to assist struggling readers.
Video cases allowed clinicians the opportunity to ask their own authentic
questions and to coconstruct knowledge through their interactions with
others (Vygotsky, 1978). This practice enriched the discussions and allowed
clinicians the chance to express concerns. The discussion portions of the
seminars developed a stronger community of practice than the previous
pedagogic practice of discussing articles in seminars.
Further, through video self-analysis, the clinicians were privy to
observational information that they may not have been aware of in their
own teaching. Our clinic instructors valued having the ability to watch
lessons in real time so they could debrief with the clinicians directly after
they taught, bringing video segments in as a tool to mediate clinicians’
understanding and provide concrete examples to support instructors’
comments during post lesson debriefing. Ultimately, the video helped us
as instructors to gauge clinicians’ rate of improvement. For example, if
proficiency was demonstrated in the area of improvement, clinicians chose a
new goal with which to work.
Reflecting on Video Use: A View from the Clinicians
The clinicians described the use of digital video for reflection as one that
provided them with a more authentic experience, because they could see
student engagement and participation, facial expressions, pacing, and
clinicians’ pedagogical moves in response to the student understanding.
They also valued having the opportunity to analyze a lesson for aspects they
thought were effective and discuss areas they thought needed adaptation.
Andrew stated that, ‘‘Using the video study group we were able to get a
complete feel for the lesson and the effectiveness of that particular lesson.’’
Other clinicians claimed that reflective VSG discussions were beneficial
because it was helpful to view peers in similar situations to the one they were
in and video showed them various teaching methods in action. The
clinicians also indicated that although they valued reading journal articles,
reading transcripts of classroom practice fell short of providing them with
the practical ideas gleaned from video. They suggested that video and
journal articles be used in tandem where the readings supplement the video.
In addition, clinicians asked that we be mindful of balancing the time used
for collaborative reflection with their lesson preparation.
Our video pedagogy also informed the research conducted through
CLaRI both in the clinic, serving students in kindergarten through grade 12
and in schools serving students in entering grades 1 through 6. Video
analysis provides researchers with an opportunity to use the same video used
by the clinicians and instructors to engage in a microanalysis of teaching and
learning from multiple perspectives. This type of fine-grained analysis is
beyond the scope of what the instructor in the clinic seminar can engage in
while teaching. However, findings from this research provide us, as teacher
educators, with an opportunity to inform, reflect upon, and adjust our own
pedagogical practices.
VIDEO PEDAGOGY AND REFLECTION THROUGH

EXAMINATION OF PRACTICE: WHAT LITERACY
EDUCATORS CAN LEARN THROUGH VIDEO-BASED
RESEARCH
In this section, we present case examples derived from the interaction of two
university clinicians, Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green, and Andy, a first-grade
student. Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green were both certified teachers in their early
20s, had limited experience in teaching, and were pursuing master’s degrees
as literacy specialists, which also led to state certification as a literacy
teacher. As such, Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green were representative of the
majority of clinicians at the university. Andy was also representative of the
children attending the clinic.
We have limited our examples here to one child and one clinical pair for
several reasons. First, we sought to enact some of the reflective stances
articulated by Dewey (1910) and revisited at the opening of this chapter
through the analysis of teaching sessions captured on digital video. Rather
than looking at something unusual, we chose to look at the commonplace,
that is, at activities and patterns of behavior that are part of the everyday
interactions of clinicians and children. As Dewey observed, one of the
challenges we face as educators is that we often separate everyday activity
from abstract thought to such a degree that abstract thought is ‘‘aloof’’ and
‘‘remote’’ and thus compartmentalized (p. 51). One of our goals is to keep
the examples grounded in the everyday activity. Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green
were identified as a clinical pair who worked well together and engaged in
many effective practices of literacy instruction. Andy, while identified as a
struggling reader, did not have unusual or extraordinary characteristics that
defined his case. As teacher educators and researchers, we wondered what
we might learn by delving more deeply into a study of our video archives – a
luxury that does not exist during a regular 15-week session when faculty
instructors must balance many tasks to support, guide, and encourage
children (and often parents), and clinicians. What might we learn, we
wondered, by looking at a clinical pair and struggling reader that are typical
for our population? What additional insights, challenges, or rewards would
we encounter?
Below, after providing a more detailed portrait of Andy, we look at the
interactions between Andy, Ms. Baxter, and Ms. Green.
Andy’s Diagnostic Profile
Andy was a first-grade student who came to the center with his mother who
had been told by the school that Andy had achieved unsatisfactory progress
in reading in Kindergarten. Similar to other students who attend the clinic,
when considering his age and developmental level, Andy had not fully
appropriated the skills of a reader. Often these readers are referred to as
struggling learners (Brown, 2010; Walker, 2005). Walker describes the
behavior of readers who struggle as follows:
Even when teachers ask some struggling readers a direct question, they do not respond.
Without thinking the students read words and don’t construct meaning. Or, if these
struggling readers must respond to a question about text, they say, ‘‘I don’t know.’’
These readers have learned that if they refuse to respond, someone else will answer.
Other students do revise their understanding, but less frequently than their active peers.
Struggling readers often rely on their predictions and ignore contradictory information.
(Walker, 2005, p. 688)
During his diagnostic assessment for admission to the literacy center,

Andy displayed many of the attributes that Walker (2005) identifies. As
noted by the clinicians:
Andy correctly answered 1.5 out of 8.0 (19%) comprehension questions. His correct
responses were from text-based questions, demonstrating his ability to recall information
stated explicitly in the text. Andy was asked a critical-response question, ‘‘Was Mom
being fair to Sue?’’ to which he responded, ‘‘I don’t know.’’ Andy was subsequently
asked an inference-based questiony. Andy’s responses to inferential and critical-
response questions demonstrate that correctly answering these types of questions are
areas which would accelerate his development. (CLaRI diagnostic report, 2009)
The diagnostic report also described how decoding both sight words and
phonetic reading of unknown words were noted to be an area of devel-
opment for Andy as was his ability to demonstrate comprehension for what
he read or was read to him.
Based on data from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (4th ed.) and
Critical Reading Inventory, Andy was almost two standard deviations above
his peers in verbal ability; nevertheless he scored as an emergent reader.
Results from Directed Reading Activity and informal phonological assess-
ments indicated that Andy would benefit from further instruction in word
recognition, particularly in moving beyond identifying the initial and final
consonant sound of one-syllable words toward recognition of the medial
vowel sound. Another important observation, noted by clinicians in his
diagnostic report was: ‘‘Andy wants very badly to please his teachers, to the
point of telling them what he thinks they want to hear rather than risking
disappointing them.’’
PATTERNS OF ACQUISITION AND PARTICIPATION

IN TALK BETWEEN NOVICE LITERACY
SPECIALISTS AND A STRUGGLING READER
This case study examines talk in tutoring sessions with Andy using an
interactional discourse framework. Many scholars have shown that teachers
often follow a typical Initiate–Respond–Evaluate sequence (Cazden, 1988/
2001; Wells, 1993) in classroom settings. Additionally, Graesser, Person, and
Magliano (1995) have indicated that one-to-one instruction is often comprised
of a five-step script or dialogue frame. These frameworks suggest that the
teachers play a critical role in scaffolding talk and assisting learners – although
the process of scaffolding is often more complex than described (McVee &
Pearson, 2003). Given these considerations, we asked: How did Andy and his
teachers interact during sessions? What did this interaction suggest each
wanted to accomplish? What underlying metaphors of learning were enacted
by Andy and his teachers? Examination of the talk between Andy and his
teachers showed that Andy’s teachers relied heavily on verbal scaffolds to
support and direct Andy’s interactions with text. His teachers did their best to
demonstrate what Noddings (2003) calls ‘‘an ethic of care’’ (p. xiv) attempting
to, reach out to Andy, and guide his learning. As a co-interlocutor, Andy was
typically eager to please, responding where prompted.
Scaffolding or Hinting
Two ways the clinicians’ prompt is through scaffolding or hinting. Hinting is

described as ‘‘the prompting of a student to recollect information presumed
to be known to him or her, or the prompting of a student to make an
inference needed to solve a problem or answer a question, or both’’ (Hume,
Michael, Rovick, & Evens, 1996, p. 23). Scaffolding is defined as a ‘‘process
that enables a child novice to solve a problem, carry out a task or achieve a
goal that would be beyond his unassisted efforts’’ (Wood, Bruner & Ross,
1976, p. 90). Where as scaffolding allows the student the ability to decrease
his cognitive load in order to complete a task, hinting conveys to the student
the information he needs to connect with knowledge he already possesses
(Hume et al., 1996). In the analysis of this case study data, the distinction is
very important, and the teachers’ demonstrated behaviors as well as the
student’s provide evidence that confusion exists between scaffolding and
hinting behavior.
In one tutoring interaction, the clinicians’ intent was to have Andy read
the book, Pop, a text that presents many opportunities for Andy to practice
the CVC pattern. Prior to reading the book, Andy participated in word sort
using CVC words in the book. This was intended as a strategy to scaffold his
learning. The excerpt below picks up as the word sort is wrapping up.
Descriptive behaviors are indicated in brackets.
Ms. Green: All these wordsy[sweeps her hand across word sort as Andy continues to
glue] do you want to take a guess where we are going to find them? [picks up book as she
speaks]
Andy: There [referring to the book she is holding]
Ms. Green: Yeah, in this handy-dandy little book [shakes book to emphasize ‘‘handy-
dandy’’]. So, while I was making you work really hard, what you were actually doing was
practicing, and you didn’t even know. [Andy continues to glue, Ms. Baxter is heard in
the background, acknowledging agreement with Ms. Green. Ms. Green’s voice is very
lyrical during this last statement]. OK.
In this segment Ms. Green gives Andy a hint by picking up the book and
then asking her question. Andy probably does not really need a hint at this
point as it is obvious by the props and close proximity what Ms. Green is
indicating. By contrast, the word sort that Andy just completed was a
scaffolding activity for reading the book; although it probably was not
necessary given the repetitive nature of the book Pop and its limited words
per page. However, it is clear that Ms. Green and Ms. Baxter have planned a
lesson that they felt would ensure that Andy read successfully. A close
analysis of this and other episodes reveal that this scaffolding actually over-
relies on a particular strategy – that of hinting – even in cases where Andy
clearly knew the answer. In their enthusiasm to help Andy, the clinicians
also overscaffolded Andy’s reading (e.g., helping with short CVC words
Andy could already read independently).
Acquisition Metaphors for Reading/Learning
Part of the challenge faced by the clinicians was that they adopted a
metaphor toward reading/learning that focused on acquisition. The
acquisition metaphor presumes that knowledge originates with the teacher,
and flows from teacher to student. This contrasts with a view or metaphor of
learning that is transactional (Dewey & Bentley, 1949) in which ‘‘knowledge
is situated in the transaction between the world and individual’’ (McVee,
Dunsmore, & Gavelek, 2005, pp. 555–556). In other words, knowledge does
not reside in the teacher alone, but in what the teacher and student bring to
their interactions and in the transactions occurring between teacher-student
in particular contexts. For his part, Andy aims to please, and his responses
coupled with the clinicians’ responses convey a second predominant
metaphor toward reading/learning as participation. While participation is
essential to learning, close scrutiny of the interactions between Ms. Baxter,
Ms. Green, and Andy each take up particular ‘‘rights, duties, and
obligations’’ (McVee, 2011, p. 5) that position them in set ways. It is the
clinicians’ place to ask questions, direct activities, and offer feedback,
particularly affirmation. In contrast, it was Andy’s duty to respond and
participates to much so that he appears to respond in certain ways just to
please his teachers. The participation metaphor indicates that one values
and can follow the norms and patterns of language in a particular
community (Sfard, 1998), which is important. But at the same time these
two metaphors, that of acquisition and participation, created tensions
around Andy’s potential learning and reading growth.
In weekly reflections written after reviewing video of their teaching, the
clinicians were often aware of their mismatch in planning and instruction
but struggled to shift talk and activities away from an acquisition based
model. They expressed their desire to help Andy, but at the same time
emphasized their concerns about getting through all the material they had
planned, a struggle for many novice teachers. ‘‘Seventy-five minutes sounds
like a lot of time in theory, however, it goes quickly when you have a lot to
cover in a tutoring session! I found that it was interesting to watch myself
make subtle instructional changes to the lesson plan meanwhile knowing all
of the things swirling through my head – time always being one of
them.’’ Their struggle with pacing and timing of lessons was, in part, due to
the tension created around knowledge as acquisition and knowledge as
participation. The clinicians wanted Andy to participate, and Andy wanted
to participate and please his teachers, but the clinicians also wanted to cover
material and give Andy the information he needed.
As teacher educators and mentors, we must balance the objective of
completing tasks with an emphasis that learning is a process, clearly
emphasizing that the quality of the learning is more important than staying
to the script or covering all aspects of a planned lesson. These findings
remind us that we must support and encourage clinicians’ consideration of
their own metaphors of teaching and learning, particularly in light of the
stances toward reflection fostered by a pedagogy of video reflection and of
the diagnostic model of decision making.
As noted, we noticed a proliferation of feedback from Ms. Baxter and
Ms. Green to Andy across all lessons. This is indicative of their heartfelt
desire to help Andy and create a positive environment and learning
experience related to reading. We wondered about the type and frequency of
this feedback in the tutoring process as presented in the next section.
FEEDBACK AND ENGAGEMENT IN A CLINICAL

LITERACY INTERVENTION
Hattie (1992) has observed that ‘‘[t]he most powerful single modification
that enhances achievement is feedback. The simplest prescription for
improving education must be ‘dollops of feedback’’’ (p. 9). To be sure this is
a provocative statement, but as we considered Andy’s interactions with his
teachers and specifically their feedback to him, we wondered: What types of
oral feedback did Andy’s teachers provide, and how does feedback support
Andy’s literacy learning? What behaviors indicated that Andy was engaged/
disengaged in the literacy learning process? How did the instructor’s use of
feedback relate to the student’s level of engagement?
Because of its power, feedback is a double-edged sword. It can scaffold

and guide a child’s literacy development, but also potentially damage or
hinder growth. This is a particular concern for struggling readers who are
more likely to display increased emotional sensitivity to the feedback they
receive than their peers (Phinney, 1988). While feedback is very much a part
of everyday life both inside and outside the classroom, not all feedback is
equally beneficial as ‘‘[i]n fact, some forms of feedback might be working
against learning’’ (Marzano, 2006, p. 5). If we think of our own experience
as literacy learners, we can likely find evidence of this where a teacher’s
careful praise both supported our learning, but at the same time challenged
us to keep learning. Concomitantly, we may recall how a dismissive wave of
the hand, facial expression, and voice tone gave even greater weight to a
teacher’s words, leaving us disengaged or even confused.
When we consider ourselves as learners, some feedback may be either clearly
positive or negative, but most feedback ranges along a continuum. Tunstall
and Gipps (1996), for example, have categorized feedback as more or less
negative and positive, more or less teacher and student driven, and more or less
general or explicit around improvement and achievement. Their framework
for describing feedback particular to their field has also been applied to literacy
intervention (Knight, 2003). Tunstall and Gipps’s (1996) typologies provide
educators with a categorization system that can be used to provide formative
measurements to the practitioner on feedback practices around rewarding,
approving, disapproving, specifying attainment, specifying improvement, and
construction. Such analysis can, in turn, be used to assist the practitioner in
instituting informed changes geared to improve feedback to students.
Improving feedback has the potential to increase student understanding,
leading to overall growth and progress in literacy development.
Due to space constraints we will limit the scope of our examples in this
chapter to verbal feedback. At the same time, we recognize that many
reading scholars have argued for a view of literacy as embodied practice
(McVee et al., 2005) and as multimodal practice (Miller & McVee, 2012). In
particular, scholars are beginning to attend to embodied interactions around
literacy and reading strategies (Shanahan, Flury-Kashmanian, & Roof,
2012).
Over-Reliance on Nonspecific Approval or Praise
After initial analysis across beginning, middle, and ending lessons in

tutoring, we identified four segments of talk (approximately 53
total minutes) as a representative sample. We found that 62% of the

feedback given by the clinicians was that of approving – feedback typically
characterized as very short, low level forms of non-specific encouragement
(e.g., ‘‘good job’’). Initially, this did not strike us as unusual, particularly for
readers who are struggling and may have emotional responses to reading.
Such feedback takes little time to deliver; mean delivery time was 1.8
seconds for approving feedback whereas specifying improvement had a
mean of 7.76 seconds. Given the length of time it takes to deliver other types
of feedback such as specifying improvement, we anticipated that more
complex feedback forms would dominate the total time taken for feedback
delivery while other concise forms of feedback might be more frequent. This
is, in fact, was the case. Specifying improvement required a total of 7.375
minutes whereas approving feedback required a total of 6.325 minutes.
However, what was striking to us was that these totals differed only by one
minute. It became clear that the overall total of approving feedback
(n=141) also became interruptive within the lessons. More importantly,
there appeared to be a relationship between these types of feedback and
Andy’s level of engagement in activities.
In video from session three, for example, Ms. Green devoted 81% of
her feedback to approving, and such feedback was used more frequently
than in any other session. The episode was coded for positive and
negative engagement indicators using kinesthetic, verbal, and persistence
markers. Andy was observably disengaged from the lesson nearly 5% of
the time. In looking at the types of feedback that came before a break in
engagement, we saw that praise quite frequently preceded the break, a
result we found surprising. In session 22 we saw the opposite picture. In
this video, approving feedback was used only 10 times as compared with
81 times in session three. Twenty-six percent of the feedback was devoted
to approving, but there was also an increased level of engagement with
Andy engaged 98.3% of the time. We cannot say whether the level of
engagement was significant overall to Andy’s growth and progress, but
there was clearly a contrast between sessions involving many interrup-
tions from approving feedback and sessions where praise was less
frequent but more targeted. Additional evidence to support feedback that
is higher level (e.g., specifying improvement) resulted in increased
engagement could also be seen in how frequently Andy disrupted the
teacher’s feedback with his attempt to restart the learning activity. Andy
demonstrated a proclivity to disrupt or break into this kind of feedback
and move back to the activity (e.g., by beginning to read before the
teacher had finished the comment).
The Power of Less Frequent, Sincere Praise
A specific incident in video 22 showed the power of less frequent, more

sincere praise for accomplishing a difficult task beyond the learner’s current
level of development:
Ms. Baxter: Can you give me a high-five? I’m sorry to interrupt your reading, but you
know why I’m so excited?
Andy: I read, um, the word and went back to the beginning.
Ms. Baxter: At first you said ‘‘in my’’ and then you said ‘‘oh, no’’ and you went back to
the beginning of the sentence. So excited. Ok, sorry to interrupt, Go ahead.
Ms. Baxter’s praise was specific; defining what Andy did that was helpful
without using a vague term such as ‘‘good.’’ The praise was worthy because
Andy had just employed a strategy that was also a learning objective.
Andy’s facial expression and posture indicated he appeared very happy
during and after the incident, having pleased Ms. Blue as well as
having accomplished a task that was difficult for him. Weiner (1972) states
that if students feel that hard work will yield a payout, regardless of ability,
luck, or task difficulty they will likely to be motivated to complete a task.
This notion of constructing meaning as a means of motivating and
increasing engagement was seen again in the same video selection:
Andy: Was I my[16 seconds elapse as Andy attempts to determine the word ever]yever
mad!
Ms. Baxter: How’d you figure that word [ever] out?
Andy: I sounded it out.
Ms. Baxter: Oh, you sounded it out? What do you think that means? ‘‘Was I ever mad!?’’
What do you think that means?
In this instance, Ms. Baxter allowed Andy to struggle and she resisted
providing immediate support. Andy used a strategy and accelerated beyond
his current level of development and make a small stretch forward. Though
Ms. Baxter did not directly praise him, Andy was noticeably pleased and
appeared to be highly engaged. Across the video we examined, there was a
tendency for higher levels of feedback (e.g., specifying attainment, specifying
improvement, and constructing achievement) to consistently precede
periods of engagement.
As noted in the previous section, Ms. Baxter and Ms. Green were very
concerned about Andy and wanted him to achieve success. Toward this end,
they continually praised Andy’s work. However, at times this praise actually
appeared to hinder the lesson by continually interrupting the flow of reading or
other interactions. Additionally, Andy did not always respond favorably to the
constant barrage of positive comments. In contrast, targeted, sincere praise
that was specific to the task at hand, while less frequent in occurrence, seemed
more powerful in application. Andy responded with higher levels of engage-
ment. Here we see that teachers, and the educators or coaches who guide them,
must carefully consider not only the type of feedback given and how targeted
it is. Ultimately, this could hold forth the potential of more dramatically
impacting student achievement. In addition, these studies are concentrated
around talk as interaction. We believe the cases above indicate the vast
richness of data, in particular video data that exists in many clinical settings.
CONCLUSION
In recent years, ‘‘scaling up’’ and ‘‘scientific research’’ have come to dominate
much of the literacy research landscape. While we see the value and necessity
of large-scale experimental studies, we also posit that literacy centers have a
unique role to play. Literacy centers are dynamic sites where children,
families, pre/in-service teachers, and teacher educators work together around
literacy development (see questions to consider in Appendix). Video
pedagogies can be used to closely examine learning and teaching for adult
students (i.e., teachers seeking literacy knowledge or coaching experience)
and for youth (children in elementary, middle, and high school) and also for
parents who want their children to find success with literacy. Literacy centers
have a long-standing history and plurality of strengths that should be
capitalized upon. Given that resources are scarce, literacy scholars must
maximize the affordances of literacy clinics and centers as rich, productive
research sites for the use and study of reflective video pedagogy.
NOTE
1. While recording clinic sessions is a long-standing tradition at CLaRI, new
advances in digital technologies have greatly increased possibilities for video capture,
streaming, and archival, and analysis. For more on how we developed our digital
technologies to support a reflective video pedagogy see http://www.clari.buffalo.edu.
REFERENCES
Baker, E., & Wedman, J. (2000). Lessons learned while using case-based instruction with
preservice literacy teachers. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National
Reading Conference yearbook 49 (pp. 122–136). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference
Boling, E. (2004). Preparing novices for teaching literacy in diverse classrooms: Using written,
video, and hypermedia cases to prepare literacy teachers. In J. Worthy, B. Maloch,
J. Hoffman, D. Schallert, & C. Fairbanks (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook,
53 (pp. 130–145). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
Brown, T. B. H. (2010). Learning to read: The unofficial scripts of succeeders and strugglers.
The Reading Teacher, 64(4), 261–271.
Cazden, C. B. (1988/2001). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching and learning.
Copeland, W. D., & Decker, D. L. (1996). Video cases and the development of meaning making
in preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 12, 467–481.
Daly, A. J. (2010). Mapping the terrain: Social network theory and educational change. In A. J.
Daly, Social network theory and educational change (pp. 1–16). Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Education Press.
Dewey, J. (1910). The American association for the advancement of science as subject-matter
and as method. Science, 31(787), 121–127.
Dewey, J., & Bentley, A. F. (1949). Knowing and the known. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Evensen, D. H., & Mosenthal, P. B. (Eds.). (1999). Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in
a new age of literacy (Vol. 6). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Graesser, A. C., Person, N. K., & Magliano, J. P. (1995). Collaborative dialogic patterns in
naturalistic one-on-one tutoring. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 359–387.
Hattie, J. (1992). Self-concept. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Hume, G., Michael, J., Rovick, A., & Evens, M. (1996). Hinting as a tactic in one-on-one
tutoring. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 5(1), 23–47.
Jay, J. K., & Johnson, K. L. (2002). Capturing complexity: A typology of reflective practice for
teacher education. Teaching and teacher education, 18(1), 73–85.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: a diagnostic decision-
making model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kinzer, C., Cammack, D., Labbor, L., Teale, W., & Sanny, R. (2006). The need to
(re)conceptualize preservice teacher development and the role of technology in that
development. In M. McKenna, L. Labbo, R. Kieffer & D. Reinking (Eds.), International
handbook of literacy and technology (pp. 211–233). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Knight, J. (2003). Scientific literacy: Clear as mud. Nature, 423(6938), 376–378.
Marzano, R. J., & Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. (2006).
Classroom assessment & grading that work. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision
and Curriculum Development.
McKenna, M. C., Reinking, D., Labbo, L. D., & Kieffer, R. D. (1999). The electronic
transformation of literacy and its implications for the struggling reader. Reading &
Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 15(2), 111–126.
McVee, M. B. (2011). Positioning theory and sociocultural perspectives: Affordances for
educational researchers. In C. H. Brock, J. A. Glazier & M. B. McVee (Eds.),
Sociocultural positioning in literacy: Exploring culture, discourse, narrative, and power in
diverse educational contexts (pp. 1–22). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
McVee, M. B., Dunsmore, K., & Gavelek, J. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of
Educational Research, 75(4), 531–566.
McVee, M., & Pearson, P. D. (2003). Talking the talk: A close examination of teacher-student
discourse around written artifacts. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 8(1), 47–71.
Miller, S. M., & McVee, M. B. (2012). Multimodal composing in classrooms: Learning and
teaching for the digital world. New York, NY: Routledge.
Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics & moral education. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Pea, R., & Lindgren, R. (2008). Video collaboratories for research and education: An analysis
of collaboration design patterns. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 1(4),
235–247.
Phinney, M. Y. (1988). Reading with the troubled reader. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sanny, R., Teale, W., & Person, C. (2008). Using multimedia anchored instruction cases in
literacy methods courses: Lessons learned from pre-service teachers. Journal of Literacy
& Technology, 9(1), 2–35.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Schrader, R. G., Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C., Ataya, R., Teale, W., Labbo, L., & Cammack, D.
(2003). Using Internet delivered video cases to support pre-service teachers’ undermining
of effective early literacy instruction: An exploratory study. Instructional Science, 31,
317–340.
Sfard, A. (1998). On two metaphors for learning and the dangers of choosing just one.
Educational Researcher, 27(2), 4–13.
Shanahan, L. E., Flury-Kashmanian, C. M., & Roof, L. (2012, November). Using gesture and
artifacts to scaffold reading strategy instruction: Considerations on the role of
embodiment. A paper presented at the Literacy Research Association Conference, San
Diego, CA.
Shulman, L. S., & Schulman, J. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting perspective.
Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Tochon, F. V. (1999). Video study groups for education, professional development, and change.
Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.
Tunstall, P., & Gipps, C. (1996). How does your teacher help you to make your work better?
Children’s understanding of formative assessment. The Curriculum Journal, 7(2), 185–
203.
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Walker, B. J. (2000). Diagnostic teaching of reading (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
Walker, B. J. (2005). Thinking aloud: Struggling readers often require more than a model. The
Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution theory, achievement motivation, and the educational process.
Review of Educational Research, 42(2), 203–215.
Wells, G. (1993). Reevaluating the IRF sequence: A proposal for the articulation of theories of
activity and discourse for the analysis of teaching and learning in the classroom.
Linguistics and education, 5(1), 1–37.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.
APPENDIX: DISCUSSION OR FURTHER

EXPLORATION
1. What purpose does reflection serve in your school, clinic, center, or

program?
2. Do you have a model of reflective practice in place in your educational
context? If so, what is it? If not, what do you think should define such a
model?
3. What purpose does video serve in your educational context or should it
serve? What goals do you hope to accomplish through the use of video?
4. What components of the CLaRI model of video pedagogy and reflection
seem compatible with your goals and educational context? Why? Which
do not seem a good fit? Why? How might you adapt these for a better fit
with your educational context?
5. What affordances does a reflective video pedagogy potentially contribute
to teacher educators? To clinicians or teachers? To researchers?
6. Consider the case studies of clinicians interacting with a struggling
reader. What lessons might these case studies offer to clinicians or
teachers? To teacher educators? To researchers?
7. Reading clinics or literacy centers are sometimes viewed as antiquated or
even irrelevant. Given that clinics and centers are often viewed this way,
how might a reflective video pedagogy help counter this argument? In
what ways might reading clinics or literacy centers contribute to the
overall issues or concerns facing struggling readers, teachers, and teacher
educators?
8. Extension: If your school or educational community is considering how
to implement models of video reflection, read and discuss Video Study
Groups by Francois Tochon (1999).
PART 4
COMPLEMENTARY ELEMENTS
THE GRADUAL INCREASE OF
RESPONSIBILITY MODEL:
MENTORING FOR IMPROVED
INTERVENTION
Vicki Collet
ABSTRACT
Purpose – To provide a model for mentoring teachers through the process

of improving instruction and intervention.
Design/methodology/approach – The chapter describes the Gradual
Increase of Responsibility model for coaching, an adaptation of Pearson
and Gallagher’s (1983) Gradual Release of Responsibility model that can
be used by coaches as they support teachers in a clinic or school setting.
Findings – Content describes stages of the coaching model that provide
less scaffolding as teachers gain confidence and competence. These stages
include modeling, recommending, questioning, affirming, and praising.
Research limitations/implications – The Gradual Increase of Responsi-
bility (GIR) model provides a process that coaches can follow to support
instructional improvement. GIR requires that coaches have instructional
expertise; it provides them with a guide for their work with teachers to
incorporate effective practices.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002019
327
328 VICKI COLLET
Practical implications – The GIR model can be applied by coaches in both

clinical and school settings, with teachers who instruct students at both
elementary and secondary levels.
Originality/value of paper – This chapter provides examples for each
stage of the GIR process, clearing indicating how coaches can guide
teachers to take on increased responsibility for strong, intentional
instruction and intervention.
Keywords: Coaching; mentoring; clinic; reading; intervention;

instruction
INTRODUCTION: THE ROLE OF READING CLINICS

AS A SUPPORT FOR STRUGGLING READERS
For both teachers and students, scaffolding in the context of use is necessary
for effective learning to take place. Learners benefit when they are supported
in the process of changing their practices. In an effort to provide support to
both teachers and students, many universities in the United States provide a
clinical experience as part of graduate literacy programs. Clinics serve as a
vehicle for developing teachers’ dispositions toward instruction while
concurrently offering support to struggling readers.
University reading clinics support struggling readers by assessing and
addressing each student’s unique needs as a reader. Typically, an intensive
diagnostic process is followed by one-on-one or small group instruction
providing targeted intervention in the context of authentic opportunities to
read and write. Graduate students are the teachers who provide this
instruction, mentored by more experienced coaches, who may be advanced
graduate students or university faculty.
Clinical settings offer teachers the opportunity for targeted guidance and
encourage nuanced instructional judgments by situating teacher learning
within the real work of teaching (Dunston, 2007; Kibby & Barr, 1999;
Roskos, Boehlen, & Walker, 2000). In clinics, coaches provide feedback as
teachers appropriate a repertoire of strategies and deepen their under-
standing of literacy acquisition. Teachers and their coaches reflect on and
dialogue together about instruction that they have participated in or
observed. This mediational dialogue encourages teachers to analyze their
instructional decisions, the thought processes behind the decisions, and the
The Gradual Increase of Responsibility Model 329
epistemology behind those thought processes. As teachers become more

cognizant of the thinking behind their own actions and those of other
teachers, opportunities for growth emerge. Support provided in situ, as
teachers implement new practices, allows for dialogue about questions and
concerns as they arise and encourages teachers to think about their own
practice. Coaching can guide teachers through the metacognitive processes
they must access to flexibly and appropriately adapt what they are learning
to differing contexts. Thus, reading clinics not only provide direct support to
struggling readers but also prepare educators to effectively provide such
support in other settings.
This chapter describes a model for mentoring teachers through this
instructional change process. The Gradual Increase of Responsibility (GIR)
model (Collet, 2008) is an adaptation of Pearson and Gallagher’s (1983)
Gradual Release of Responsibility (GRR) model that can be used in both
the clinic and the school setting. The GIR model grew from analysis of the
support provided in a clinic that successfully guided teachers in improving
their literacy instruction (Collet, 2011). In GIR, coaches model, make
recommendations, ask probing questions, affirm teachers’ appropriate
decisions, and praise in order to provide decreasing scaffolding which
moves teachers toward independent use of effective instructional practices.
SUCCESS FROM THE START: COACHES IN

THE CLINIC
An important part of the mission of a reading clinic is to provide support to

struggling readers. Whether the clinic is fee-based or provides pro bono
services, parents bring their children to the clinic with the hope and
expectation that their child’s needs will be met – that they will be receiving
superior instruction on the university campus. Children often come to the
clinic with a history of failure; they cannot afford to fail again. These factors
emphasize the need for lessons to be successful from the start. However,
clinical teachers are often novices in providing intervention; they are pre-
service or in-service teachers seeking additional knowledge and further
certification. How, then, is the exemplary instruction that students need to
be achieved? Therein lies the role of the clinical supervisor or coach.
Coaches provide the necessary support so that teachers and students can
tackle the tutoring task holistically, with coaches making up the difference
between what the teacher can do on her own and what is needed for
330 VICKI COLLET
successful intervention. Just as in guided reading, when teachers provide a

rich introduction that allows students to successfully read that text, in the
clinic coaches provide sufficient scaffolding so instruction will be successful.
By directing diagnoses, supporting planning, and guiding reflection, coaches
ensure the student’s learning and growth as a reader. In the beginning of the
clinical experience, coaches provide direction regarding which assessments
will be used and then support interpretation of assessment results. Once
areas of focus have been determined, the coach assists during planning,
often making recommendations about research-based practices that might
be used during tutoring. Coaches also support the reflection process, which
results not only in enhanced instruction but also in increased teacher
learning.
By grounding questions and goals in authentic events, coaches can draw
attention to ‘‘the rub between theory and practice’’ (Mills & Satterthwait,
2000, p. 31). No longer are teachers simply reading about best practices for
intervention, they are putting them into play, and coaches are there to
support application of these practices in a way that meets the unique needs
of the learner. Literacy coaches work with teachers where and when they are
teaching, addressing problems of practice with immediacy not possible in
many teacher education settings. Coaching provides contextualized profes-
sional development, creating opportunities for the construction of beliefs
and practices to be grounded in teaching experiences. Individually,
instructional improvements can occur as teachers practice, observe results,
and evaluate the effects on student outcomes. Instructional coaches can
support this process and encourage a consistent reflective stance.
THE GIR: A MODEL FOR SUCCESSFUL COACHING

IN THE CLINIC
The GIR model for Coaching (Collet, 2008) described in this chapter is an
adaptation of Pearson and Gallagher’s GRR model (Pearson & Gallagher,
1983). GIR emphasizes the meditational role of coaching; it includes
coaching practices that provide decreasing levels of scaffolding as teachers
become more proficient in providing support to struggling readers.
Qualitative analysis of data collected in teachers’ classrooms over a 1.5-year
period indicated that following this model led to sustained improvement in
literacy instruction (Collet, 2011). These results support use of the GIR model
as a guide for scaffolding interactions between teachers and coaches.
Sociocultural theories have been used to emphasize the role of social

interaction in learning (Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Vygotsky, 1978). Effective
instruction is organized so that learners ‘‘are encouraged to take over more
and more of the regulative responsibilities’’ (Wertsch, 1991, p. 112). This
meditational role is described in the GRR model which portrays changing
instructional interactions as learners increase in proficiency. The GRR
model portrays a sequence of explanation, guided practice, corrective
feedback, and independent practice and application, through which learners
become independent with the task (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). The model,
which has been applied to students’ literacy learning for over 30 years,
(Clark & Graves, 2004; Dole, Brown, & Trathen, 1996; Duffy et al., 1986)
has potential for adult learning as well, specifically teacher education.
According to Pearson and Gallagher (1983), any academic task can be
conceptualized as requiring differing proportions of teacher and learner
responsibility for successful completion. In a university clinic, support for
teachers is created by the coach and by the practices and routines utilized.
This assistance provides scaffolding, the ‘‘bridge necessary to support a
learner’s performance’’ (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). The GIR model
describes the journey across that bridge, depicting the varying amounts of
scaffolding needed as learners move toward independence.
The GIR model for coaching described in this chapter is an adaptation of
the GRR model. Whereas Pearson and Gallagher’s GRR model emphasizes
the teacher’s role in releasing responsibility to the learner, the GIR model
emphasizes the role of the learner in gradually taking on increased
responsibility. The GIR model describes changes in coaching over time
(see Fig. 1; Collet, 2008). This model considers the responses provided by
coaching in terms of what types of feedback are best at what times in the
teacher education process. The coach continually adjusts scaffolding to meet
the needs of the individual teacher; thus, interactions with the coach support
teachers’ increasing expertise and experience. By modeling, making
recommendations, asking probing questions, affirming teachers’ appro-
priate decisions, and praising, coaches can provide scaffolding that moves
teachers toward interdependence and collaboration.
The GIR model shows teachers’ gradually increasing interdependence and
collaboration as they rely less on the coach and engage more in collaborative
practices. Rather than a linear course, this change is shown as sinuous and
flowing, with coaches providing varying but decreasing support. Rather
than beginning at ‘‘0-0,’’ the path (shown by the curving line) acknowledges
the teachers’ previous knowledge and experience by starting at a point
further up the axis; likewise, it shows the assumption that teachers will
332 VICKI COLLET
Fig. 1. Gradual Increase of Responsibility – A Model for Coaching and

Collaboration.
continue to learn and grow in their profession by having the line end below
the upper corner.
The GIR model provides a guide for the coaching process as teachers’
ability to support struggling readers increases. In general, modeling occurs
most frequently at the beginning of the clinical experience as teachers are
learning and trying new assessments and methodologies. Providing slightly
less support, coaches often make recommendations early in the semester as
teachers determine goals for their students and decide what approaches to
take. As teachers gain more confidence in working with their students,
coaches scaffold them by asking probing questions. Such questions push
teachers to consider implications of their instruction and how they might
move forward. Later in the semester, coaching may take the role of
affirming teachers’ instructional decisions. When teachers feel confident
about what they are doing, coaches offer praise. Of course, this progression
is not perfectly linear and there is interplay among these coaching practices;
however, overall there is a tendency toward decreased support and increased
teacher responsibility. As the clinical experience progresses, the support that
coaches provide changes in both quantity and quality. There is a decrease in
the amount of support provided as teachers increase in competence and
confidence. Concurrently, the type of scaffolding changes as coaches use
practices that provide less support. Elaboration and description of the
practices delineated in the GIR model are provided in the sections that
follow.
Modeling
Modeling has long been encouraged as a scaffold for learning (Anderson &
Roit, 1993; Block & Israel, 2004; Dole et al., 1996). Similarly, modeling is
valuable as a practice in the coaching cycle. As part of GIR, modeling
provides the most supportive scaffolds for teachers in the clinic. In addition
to the typical practice of modeling during a lesson, modeling may take other
useful forms. For example, instructional practices may be modeled during
planning or post-lesson discussions, models may be provided through digital
recordings, and coaches may also model instructional decision-making by
thinking aloud when conferencing with teachers. These several forms of
modeling are discussed below.
Modeling during a Lesson

When teachers are learning new intervention practices, coaches may
determine that modeling the practice with the student during a lesson
would be helpful, or teachers may request such modeling. Teachers can
observe during the tutoring session either side-by-side or behind the glass.
Modeling during tutoring allows the teacher to see the practice in action in
an authentic situation that illustrates the nuances of the practice. Since the
approach is being used with the same student that the teacher is tutoring,
watching a modeled lesson allows the teacher to envision how the student
will respond later, when she is the one guiding the learning. Modeling during
a lesson may also help build a relationship of trust between the coach and
teacher. The teacher sees both the competence of the coach and her
willingness to take a risk and learn and think alongside the teacher.
Modeling during a lesson may not always be the best strategy, however. The
coach and teacher should consider together whether such modeling would
be an intrusion on the relationship that is developing between the teacher
and student.
Modeling during Planning or Debriefing Conversations

If modeling during a lesson is not needed or is determined to be inappro-
priate, coaches may model instructional practices when meeting with
teachers during a seminar or when coaching one-on-one. For example, when
several students in the clinic needed to work on improved comprehension, a
334 VICKI COLLET
coach modeled a lesson on using comprehension fix-up strategies during the

weekly seminar meeting with all teachers (Collet, 2011). Similarly, when a
teacher was working with a student who needed to improve fluency, Debra,
her coach, modeled the steps of Teacher Modeling-Guided Repeated
Readings (Kibby, 1995), a strategy to increase reading fluency (Collet,
2012).
Although modeling in the actual learning environment has the advantage
of allowing teachers to observe interactions with their own students,
modeling in teacher-learning contexts also has benefits: the coach can isolate
a specific skill to model, models of the coach’s own thinking can be included
as think-alouds, and teachers have the opportunity to dialogue immediately
afterward about what they have seen.
Providing Models through Video Recordings

Video recordings are another way to provide an instructional model. Coach
and teacher can view and discuss recordings together during a planning or
debriefing session, or recordings can be viewed by the teacher on her own
time. Similar to modeling during a lesson, using video recordings allows the
teacher to see the practice in action with a student. Recordings can be
obtained through online resources (e.g., the Teaching Channel [teaching-
channel.org] or Choice Literacy [choiceliteracy.com]), which have the added
benefit of being easily shared by providing a link during an online coaching
conversation. Clips from video recordings purchased from publishers or
professional organizations may also be useful. In many clinics, tutoring
sessions are recorded, and these recordings can be valuable in providing
models for other teachers, since they show the practices in action in contexts
similar to those where the teacher will be using them. Recordings need not
be perfect examples; learning occurs through reflecting on both successes
and less-successful aspects of lessons.
Modeling Instructional Decision-Making

Modeling provides ‘‘living examples’’ (Feiman-Nemser, 2001, p. 24) that can
include sharing the decision-making strategies used to design instruction. As
coaches think aloud about approaches that might be taken during a tutoring
session, they illuminate the many factors under consideration. When
modeling expert decision-making, for example, a coach may review
assessment information, consider a student’s strengths and weaknesses as
a reader, determine where the student lies on a developmental continuum,
weigh possible learning experiences (considering the affordances of each),
and determine a plan of action.
Modeling is an effective coaching practice that predicts changes in student

achievement (Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2007). Whether recorded or live, with
students or without, modeling may be especially useful early in the clinical
experience. Such observed experiences open doors for communication and
support teachers as they then use the strategies in their own instruction.
‘‘Teachers who (have) as reference only their own experience y require
something more than reflection to analyze and question their own practice’’
(Halai, 2006, p. 704); modeling can be that ‘‘something more’’ and should
play an important role early in the coaching process.
Recommending
As teachers increase the tools in their instructional toolbox and their

comfort with using them, they may no longer need modeling. When using
the GIR model, coaches shift to the practice of making recommendations as
the coaching cycle moves forward. In doing so, coaches take an expert
stance based on a wider teaching repertoire. They draw on research and
experience, advocating for particular choices and actions. In addition to
taking into consideration the needs of the student, coaches need to consider
the knowledge and abilities of the teacher in order for recommendations to
be effective. This stage of the coaching cycle requires credibility and trust,
which coaches have been working to build.
In this consulting role, coaches encourage teachers to use appropriate
intervention practices and attend to instructional goals that target the
unique needs of the learner. Coaches often make recommendations early in
the clinical experience as teachers are determining goals for their students
and deciding what approaches to take. The coach may provide information
about instructional strategies; content or skills being taught; the develop-
mental processes of reading and writing; or the standards, curriculum, or
resources being used.
Making Recommendations about Instructional Strategies

The coach may recommend a teaching strategy to address students’ needs.
The following comment, written by a coach on an early lesson plan, makes
an instructional recommendation: ‘‘I feel like 30 minutes is too long to
spend on word work; he will benefit from time with connected text’’ (Collet,
2011, p. 92). This recommendation encourages the teacher to move from
isolated skills instruction to contextualized practice. The coach might also
336 VICKI COLLET
recommend collection or review of formative assessment data to guide

instructional decision-making.
Making Recommendations about Content or Skills

Making recommendation about skills or content for upcoming lessons
supports teachers in the instructional design process. For example, the
recommendation in this e-mail correspondence from a coach reminds the
teacher of a need that has been thus far neglected:
Your insights about Caleb’s comprehension will be helpful as you plan instruction. We
do see evidence that vocabulary instruction would be helpful to Caleb, so it is
appropriate to include it. Before too long, you’ll also want to address his word
recognition needs. In your next reflection, would you please include your thinking about
this need? (Collet, 2012, p. 39)
The coach first acknowledges relevant insights the teacher has shared,
building the teacher’s confidence and strengthening feelings of trust in their
relationship. She then nudges the teacher to consider additional needs of the
student.
Making Recommendations about the Developmental Processes of

Reading and Writing
Reading and writing are complex processes that require searching for and
using many sources of information. The development of these processes is
not linear. A learner does not focus on one discrete skill at a time; rather,
both reading and writing are interactive processes (Rodgers, 2012). For
example, early readers do not focus their attention simply on decoding;
word analysis, vocabulary knowledge, comprehension, and fluency work
together in the reading process, even for novice readers. Having an
understanding of reading development, how it emerges over time to become
proficient reading, is essential in order to plan effective intervention that
accelerates a student’s growth along the reading continuum. Because of the
complexity of the processes of becoming literate, teachers in the clinic may
benefit from specific recommendations about how instruction should change
over time to support students’ movement through the developmental
processes of learning to read and write. In addition to making
recommendations about instructional design that align with the student’s
development, the coach may recommend professional reading to increase
the teacher’s understanding of these processes.
Making Recommendations about the Standards, Curriculum, or Resources

Being Used
Having clear learning objectives enhances instructional design. Objectives
may be crafted from a knowledge of developmental reading processes, or
they may be lifted from standards teachers are required to use, such as the
Common Core State Standards. In either case, coaches might make
recommendations about specific objectives that would enhance the student’s
learning.
The coach might also make recommendations about specific texts that
align with the abilities and interests of the learner. The following
recommendation, a comment made by a coach on a lesson plans near the
beginning of the coaching cycle, suggests a specific text:
Give him an opportunity to transfer the skill of reading with expression to real text –
otherwise, it’s not serving a real purpose. Perhaps he could preview the sample paper,
‘‘Put Ups Are Important’’ by reading it out loud attending to punctuation. (Collet, 2011,
p. 92)
Because the coach may have greater familiarity with texts that are
available, such a recommendation could be helpful. Note that the coach’s
recommendation of a text is also combined with suggestions about authentic
application of a discrete skill (fluency) on which the teacher has been
focusing during tutoring sessions.
By making recommendations about instructional strategies, content or
skills being taught, the developmental processes of becoming literate, or
the standards or resources being used, coaches can encourage teachers to
attend to important instructional goals. Although some coaching models
do not encourage coaches to take a consulting role (Costa & Garmston,
2002), studies indicate that taking an expert stance and offering
suggestions to improve instruction can be an effective coaching practice
(Bean, 2004; Carrier, 1980; Darby, 2008; Gibson, 2006; Glazer &
Hannafin, 2006; Symonds, 2003). Making recommendations can appro-
priately scaffold teachers as they develop strategies for intensive
intervention.
In the GIR model, making recommendations is most prevalent near the
beginning of the coaching cycle and then decreases sharply as the clinical
experience progresses. By making recommendations, coaches encourage
teachers to attend to important instructional goals. This focus continues as
coaches shift from making recommendations to asking questions, scaffold-
ing teachers to form habits of focused reflection.
338 VICKI COLLET
Questioning
As teachers gain more confidence in working with their students, coaches

increase teachers’ responsibility by moving from a consulting stance of
making recommendations to a coaching stance of asking questions. Coaches
should be careful that the questions they ask support reflection and
instructional decision-making rather than being disguised recommenda-
tions. Consider the following coaching language:
Recommendation:
‘‘You could have students use the rubric to assess their own papers.’’
Recommendation disguised as a question:
‘‘What would happen if students used their rubric to assess their own work?’’
Question:
‘‘What would have to change for students to work more for themselves and less for
you?’’
When the coach asks ‘‘What would have to change y.,’’ she opens the
teacher’s thinking to new possibilities, rather than funneling her thinking to
a single, pre-determined choice.
Principles for Asking Questions

Costa and Garmston (2002) have suggested general principles that make
questioning more effective during a coaching conversation. Using an
approachable voice (one with lilt and melody) brings authenticity to the
conversation. Couching questions in the language of plurals (What are some
of the things you might try?) steers teachers away from thinking there is one
right answer toward considering multiple possibilities. Using plurals also
builds trust in the relationship and increases feelings of teacher responsi-
bility; the teacher does not feel she is playing ‘‘guess-what-is-in-my-head’’
when responding to the coach’s questions. Another questioning technique
that builds trust and supports risk-taking is using tentative language (What
are some of the things you might try?). Using invitational stems (As you
think about your goal, what are some of the things you might try?) is another
good way to open up a conversation. Finally, phrasing questions in
language that expresses positive assumptions builds trust and encourages
teachers to explore their own intentions. Questions such as ‘‘What is your
long-term plan?’’ and ‘‘Considering what you know about learning

styles y.’’ assume capability and empowerment. Questions that grow from
positive assumptions enhance understanding and support a trusting,
respectful relationship between teacher and coach.
By monitoring voice quality; using plurals, tentative language, and
invitational stems; and expressing positive assumptions, coaches encourage
teachers to consider students’ responses to instructional practices. It is
difficult, however, to keep all of these principles in mind during the flow of a
coaching conversation. If a coach wants to improve the effectiveness of her
questioning, she might choose one of these principles to focus on at a time
when she anticipates a conversation where asking questions will be a
dominant coaching practice.
Purposes for Asking Questions

Coaches ask questions that enhance reflection and support teachers’
theoretical understandings. Depending on need and where the conversation
is in the coaching process, coaches may ask questions that inquire (to
broaden thinking) or probe (to deepen thinking). For example, the question,
‘‘How much pictorial support are students in this group needing?’’ inquires
about an important cueing system for early readers; the question supports
teachers’ thinking about the continuum of literacy learning. The probing
question, ‘‘Is Jason reading at his instructional level, based on results of his
diagnostic testing?’’ sends the teacher to specific assessment data and may
implicate intervention strategies. Different types of questions serve different
purposes.
Broadening the Scope of Ideas. At times the coach may want to ask
questions that broaden the scope of ideas under consideration. These
inquiring questions tend to be open-ended. The following question stems can
be used to craft questions that support inquiry:
How are __ and __ similar/different?

How does __ affect ___?
What might the benefits be?
What are some other ways that might be done?
(Adapted from Killion & Harrison, 2006)
Considering such questions requires higher-order thinking that moves the
teacher toward broader views. Generating alternatives and considering
multiple perspectives can result in important ‘‘ah-ha!’’ moments. The
340 VICKI COLLET
thinking path is not predetermined by the coach, but is a course of inquiry

that coach and teacher are pursuing together.
Making Thinking More Precise. Using information that has been shared
by the teacher, the coach may choose to ask questions that take thinking to
a deeper, more precise level. These probing questions are specific to the
content of the conversation and express genuine curiosity. For example,
when a coach asks, ‘‘What might you hear students saying if they
understood that concept?’’ she invites consideration of the measurement
of learning targets. When a coach follows up on a teacher’s comment, ‘‘They
just don’t get it!’’ with the probing question of, ‘‘What are some examples of
students’ confusion?’’ she is moving the conversation in a productive
direction. Questioning by asking for concreteness and requesting
clarification can provide opportunities to engage in collaborative problem
solving that lead to improved instruction (Crasborn, Hennissen, Brouwer,
Korthagen, & Bergen, 2008; Gibson, 2006).
Challenging Assumptions. As a coaching practice, questioning provides an

opportunity to mediate teacher cognition. Questioning can encourage
teachers to challenge the assumptions in their own practice, a practice that
Halai calls ‘‘critical questioning’’ (Halai, 2006). If teachers have conceptions
that misdirect instruction, coaches can ask questions that draw attention to
inconsistencies. In the following example, the coach pushes Betsy’s thinking
about her definition of comprehension:
What level of detail would you expect or hope for Caleb to remember? What level of
detail will he need to be able to retain to be successful in school and, most importantly,
life experiences? (Collet, 2011, p. 86)
The coach asked these questions when Betsy was concerned about her
student’s ability to retain the information that Betsy was expecting. The
questions encouraged Betsy to reevaluate her expectations and possibly her
concept of comprehension; her revised lesson plan for the following session
included opportunities for deeper thinking versus recall of details. When a
coach hypothesizes that a teacher’s underlying assumptions are negatively
impacting instruction, she asks questions that lead to an examination of
theory and broad concepts. Questions that bring theories, principles, and
concepts of instruction into focus can have a far-reaching effect on
instructional practices.
Encouraging Reflection. Asking questions that inquire, probe, and challenge

assumptions encourages reflection, a practice that, with practice, can become
automatic. Reflection increases awareness of self, others, and the context in
which instruction is occurring. When reflection focuses on monitoring one’s
decisions and the resulting effects, instructional decision-making is enhanced.
Asking questions such as, ‘‘How do you think it went?’’ and ‘‘What did you
notice y.?’’ encourage the teacher to revisit instruction. Questions such as,
‘‘What stands out in students’ work?’’ and ‘‘What are your hunches about
what may have caused y.?’’ lead to analysis. To solidify discoveries and build
bridges to future practice, the coach might ask, ‘‘What insights can you take
from this?’’ or ‘‘So what do you want to stay mindful of as you’re planning?’’
These questions push teachers to consider implications of their instruction and
how they might move forward. Coaches may find it useful to keep a list of
reflective questions available during a coaching session until questioning
practices become comfortable and instinctive (see Fig. 2).
Rather than asking questions that are thinly masked recommendations, at
this stage coaches’ questions should encourage teachers to reflect on
students’ needs and how their practice is supporting those needs, to analyze
their own assumptions about learning, and to consider options for how to
move forward. Reflective questioning can lead to deeper, richer, and more
thoughtful coaching conversations. Questioning is the climax of a good
story – the coaching story. Once questioning has been internalized as a
reflective practice, coaches move into the denouement of the GIR model.
Affirming and praising are an appropriate ‘‘falling action’’ for the coaching
plot as teachers’ ability and responsibility increase.
Affirming
Through questioning, teachers become ‘‘more autonomous in analyzing

situations arising in practice, and also in thinking of alternative ways of
dealing with them’’ (Harrison, in Crasborn et al., 2008, p. 502). Increased
autonomy means teachers are less dependent on coaches and are making
instructional decisions on their own. However, at this stage, they may still
look to their coaches for confirmation that they are doing the right thing.
During this phase of the GIR model, coaches offer support by providing
affirmations. To affirm means to assert as valid; to agree, verify, or concur.
Coaches may make comments that affirm or praise throughout the clinical
experience; however, coaching practices trend toward increasing use of
affirmation as teachers’ experience and competence increase.
342 VICKI COLLET
Fig. 2. Conference Plan for Gradual Increase of Responsibility.

Coaches provide affirmation by confirming that practices are appropriate,

by agreeing with teachers’ plans for instruction, and by using work samples or
student data to validate the effectiveness of instruction. For example, Cindy’s
coach affirmed her decision to display strategy posters in the tutoring cubby:
‘‘Having these resources visually available seems very effective for Brian’’
(Collet, 2012, p. 40). The coach also provided affirming comments when Cindy
included in her lesson plan a review of the six traits of writing she had been
teaching Brian: ‘‘Yes y you’ve introduced these traits very quickly, so
pausing to review would be a good idea (Collet, 2011, p. 97).’’ When Betsy’s
student, a reluctant adolescent reader, participated more actively during his
tutoring session, the coach affirmed the effectiveness of the practices Betsy had
been using by drawing attention to student work: ‘‘Betsy, Caleb seemed more
engaged in the lesson today! He was able to use more expression when reading
the ABC activity!’’ (Collet, 2011, p. 97). These examples highlight forms that
affirming may take during clinical practice. As coaches confirm teachers’
instructional decisions, teachers’ self-efficacy increases. Development of this
affective characteristic is important, since teachers’ self-efficacy correlates
highly with increased student achievement (Cantrell & Callaway, 2008).
Teachers with a feeling of efficacy believe that if they work hard, students will
learn. They believe they have the necessary knowledge and skills to provide
effective instruction. Teachers with self-efficacy are more resourceful and
perseverant and exhibit cause and effect thinking. Efficacy positively influences
the effort that teachers expend while working with students and their willingness
to modify instruction in response to students’ needs (Cantrell, Madden, Carter,
Rintamaa, & Almasi, 2011; Costa & Garmston, 2002; Guskey & Passaro, 1993).
Affirmation from coaches supports an attitude of efficacy and is especially
pertinent for teachers when they are acquiring new skills, as is the case with
teachers during their clinical experience. Affirmations denote a context in
which teachers are making sound instructional decisions but are still looking
to their coaches for confirmation. With the accumulation of successful
teaching experiences, affirming plays a less important role in determining
efficacy (Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2007) and plays a less important role in
the GIR model for coaching.
Praising
Affirming is a helpful coaching practice when teachers are making sound

instructional decisions but are looking for confirmation that they are doing the
right thing. Later, as the GIR coaching cycle draws to a close, affirming shifts
344 VICKI COLLET
to praising. Although teachers may no longer be looking for confirmation

from the coach, they do appreciate a good word! To praise is: to express
favorable judgment; to commend or admire; to acclaim, extol, or laud. When
coaches see something worth lauding, they shouldn’t hold their tongues – they
should pass the words of praise along. Mark Twain (n.d.) exclaimed, ‘‘I can
live for two months on a good compliment.’’ When Sandi’s coach said, ‘‘Sandi,
watching you work with Jason is such a joy! Your rapport with him allows you
to accomplish so much and have both of you enjoy the experience,’’ (Collet,
2012, p. 40) her compliment built potential for future successes. The coach
applauded the effort Sandi had made to develop a relationship with her
student and emphasized the positive effects of that effort. Offered near the end
of the clinical experience, the coach’s praise was both precise and warranted.
Providing specific, justified praise is a collegial action that should be a genuine
response at this phase of the coaching cycle.
Although coaches should not be in a formally evaluative role and should
exercise care in making evaluative statements, appropriate praise is a
beneficial finale to the coaching cycle. Specific, personalized praise is an
authentic coaching response when teachers are making sound instructional
decisions. Unjustified praise is ineffective, however, so coaches should move
to this phase of the cycle only when there is genuine justification for praise.
Coaches can provide praise that applauds knowledge, commends practice,
and acknowledges teachers’ effective instructional decision-making. Praising
teachers confirms the non-threatening role of a coach. Cross (1995) suggests
that this acknowledgment bolsters confidence and contributes to the teacher’s
future development. By offering praise, coaches utilize a strengths-based app-
roach. At the end of their clinical experience, teachers will have the credentials
to be looked to as literacy experts in their schools. When a coach feels confi-
dent that a teacher is equipped with the tools needed in this expert role, she
enhances feelings of efficacy by providing warranted praise. Offering war-
ranted praise helps teachers see themselves as competent interventionists,
ready to take the skills they have learned in the clinic and apply them in other
settings. When coaches offer praise to their teaching colleagues, they acknow-
ledge that the teachers have successfully taken on the responsibility of
providing intervention tailored to meet the unique needs of struggling readers.
Collaboration and Interdependence
Although Pearson and Gallagher’s (1983) GRR model shows students

taking on increased responsibility and moving toward independence, a
significant feature of the GIR coaching model is that it moves teachers

toward increased collaboration and constructive interdependence (Collet,
2012). Collaboration plays a role throughout the clinical experience;
however, the nature of coaching interactions shifts as teachers gain
experience in the reading clinic. Whereas the coaching practices near the
beginning of the GIR cycle (modeling and recommending) involve a
consulting stance, later stages of the model call for a more collaborative
stance. When questioning, affirming, and praising, coaches regard teachers
as colleagues and partners in the intervention experience. A collaborative
stance is reflected in this teacher’s comment: ‘‘It was good to think at it from
another perspective. I think having two perspectives is definitely important’’
(Collet, 2012, p. 41). This comment reflects the teacher’s feeling at the end of
the semester that she and her coach were collaborators in defining her
student’s needs and held equally valuable perspectives. Teachers’ collabora-
tion and interdependence increase as they rely less on the coach and engage
more in collaborative discourse with both the coach and other teachers.
Activities with other teachers can be included as an ongoing part of the
clinical experience, encouraging teachers to develop collaborative relation-
ships with one another. For example, the group of teacher clinicians may
meet together for weekly seminar, teachers may meet in small groups with
their coach, and opportunities for teachers to interact one-on-one may be
built into the clinical experience or may occur informally. These collegial
conversations support teachers’ development of a collaborative stance.
Sandi, a teacher in the clinic, commented, ‘‘I liked when our small group got
together sometimes because then you’d have more people’s opinions’’
(Collet, 2011, p. 100). Effective collaborators not only accept ideas from
others, they also bring insight to their interactions with colleagues. This
notion of constructing meaning as a shared enterprise is central to a socio-
cultural stance for learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The collaborative social space
of the clinic can foster an ongoing approach to co-construction of
knowledge and teacher practice. Coaching embodies the role of social
interaction in teacher change and facilitates ongoing teacher interdepen-
dence and collaboration with the coach and other colleagues. Rather than
moving toward independence, the GIR model can be used to strengthen
teachers as they move toward interdependence, a personality trait
characteristic of mature individuals (Covey, 1990; Gandhi, 1922) and
inherent in collaboration. By following the pattern of modeling, making
recommendations, asking questions, providing affirmations, and giving
praise, coaches help teachers apply new learning and move them toward
collaborative interdependence.
346 VICKI COLLET
Additional Facets of the GIR Model
Using the GIR model, coaching support moves from being instructional and
very supportive to affirming and providing praise. The model can be used to
guide the mediation provided by coaches as teachers’ competencies are
emerging, with the coach providing varying but decreasing support. This
changing support reflects teachers’ increase in responsibility. However,
coaches should adapt the scaffolding they provide based on the experiences
and needs of the teachers. Coaches can respond to the dynamic nature of a
teacher’s zone of proximal development (ZPD) by assessing and staying
within that zone. Coaches leverage teachers’ abilities by providing
progressive scaffolding – support that changes to match teachers’ escalating
zones of proximal development (Collet, 2011). In the GIR model, this
flexible support is represented as an indirect course, which describes the
recursive and iterative but progressive use of the coaching moves.
An additional feature of the GIR coaching model is the acknowledgment
that teachers bring funds of knowledge (Moll, Amanti, & Gonzalez, 2001) to
any learning situation and that they will continue to learn and grow in their
profession. The coaching path (shown in the model by the curving line)
acknowledges teachers’ previous knowledge and experience by starting
above the ‘‘0-0’’ position on the axis. The model also illustrates the belief
that teachers will continue to learn and grow in their profession by having
the line end below the upper corner. The model describes changes in
coaching over time and shows teachers’ growth as they rely less on the coach
and engage more in collaboration.
GIR IN SCHOOLS AND DISTRICTS

Although the GIR coaching model was developed in a university reading
clinic and is helpful for the coaches or supervisors there, the same coaching
model has value beyond the clinic. Research currently underway indicates
that the GIR model can be effectively used by school and district coaches
and leadership to support teachers’ growth. Understanding the practices
coaches can use to guide teachers to increased competence and confidence
helps us to approach the coaching experience in more efficacious ways. The
model clarifies the varying roles that coaches or supervisors can play as they
support teachers in improving their practice.
In school settings, administrators and coaches work with teachers who
have a wide variety of experience and needs. The GIR model can be used as
they consider these variabilities; leaders can ‘‘place’’ teachers on the GIR
model as a way to begin considering the type of coaching support they might
provide (keeping in mind GIR’s circuitous path, which acknowledges the
need for varying support rather than a linear progression through phases of
the model). Additionally, the GIR model serves as a guide to the shared
work that teachers are encouraged to undertake in today’s schools.
The collaborative features of the GIR model have pertinence in today’s
educational climate, where collaboration is emphasized and the organiza-
tion, rather than the individual, is viewed as the unit of change (City,
Elmore, Fiarman, & Teitel, 2009). Collaboration is a necessary facet of
professional learning communities (PLCs), which are being encouraged
throughout the country as a means for improving education (Cox, 2001;
DuFour, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Senge, 1990). The coaching process
instantiated in the GIR model prepares teachers for participation in these
communities of learners. By following the pattern of modeling, making
recommendations, asking questions, providing affirmations, and giving
praise, coaches help teachers apply new learning and move them toward the
final stage of the GIR model: Interdependence and Collaboration. The GIR
model is useful as coaches and other school leaders seek to provide
meaningful, job-embedded professional development and strengthen the
work of PLCs within their schools.
CONCLUSION
The GIR model adapts Pearson and Gallagher’s (1983) GRR to provide a
model for coaching that reflects teachers’ growing increase in responsibility.
By modeling, making recommendations, asking probing questions, affirm-
ing teachers’ appropriate decisions, and praising, coaches can provide
scaffolding that stays within teachers’ ZPD and moves them toward
interdependence and collaboration. There is a decrease in the amount of
support provided as teachers increase in competence and confidence.
Interactions with a coach support teachers’ increasing expertise and
experience.
Using the GIR model fosters collaboration. When used in university
reading clinics, interdependent, collaborative relationships are developed
within the clinic. This may encourage teachers who are participating to
develop such relationships outside of the clinic. Developing relationships of
trust in the clinic with colleagues and the coach may encourage teachers to
seek out similar benefits in their schools, because teachers see the value
348 VICKI COLLET
gained from collaboration. When the model is used in school settings,

coaching practices can lead directly to ongoing collaboration with the coach
and others.
The GIR model aids application and transformation of learning about
literacy instruction. Interactions with a coach support teachers’ increasing
expertise, leading teachers to deeper understanding of strategies for literacy
instruction. Research suggests that teachers can then flexibly and appro-
priately apply their new learning both as tutors in the reading clinics and in
their own classrooms (Collet, 2011).
As coaches (in clinics, schools, and districts) take on the job of improving
teachers’ instruction, providing training in the GIR model could increase
their success. The model clarifies the varying roles that coaches or
supervisors can play. By providing a description of how coaching changes
over time, the GIR model enables coaches to thoughtfully enact change and
enhances their effectiveness. Just as teachers in classrooms need to consider
the varying needs of their students, coaches must find and follow a sinuous
path to mediate teachers’ learning while increasing teachers’ responsibility
for making instructional decisions. The GIR model can provide a
framework to help teacher educators and coaches tailor their support to
meet teachers’ needs for feedback and evaluation.
Coaching for GIR facilitates instructional change by situating the teacher
as an active constructor of knowledge. GIR coaching practices support
discussion, reflection, and observed and enacted experiences, events that
have been shown to improve teachers’ instructional decision-making
(Amobi, 2005; Dunston, 2007; Risko et al., 2009). By the end of the GIR
model, rather than falling within a teacher’s zone of proximal development,
new instructional practices are within their zone of actual development
(Vygotsky, 1978), indicating ability for more autonomous performance. By
embodying the stance that good teaching is dependent upon knowledge of
where the learner is and an understanding of where the learner is ready to
move next, coaches not only facilitate the learning of teachers, they also
model this sociocultural concept as a theoretical consideration for learners
of all ages.
REFERENCES
Amobi, F. A. (2005). Preservice teachers’ reflectivity on the sequence and consequences of
teaching actions in a microteaching experience. Teacher Education Quarterly, 32(1),
115–126.
Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction
for delayed readers in grades 6–10. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 121–137.
Bean, R. (2004). The reading specialist: Leadership for the classroom, school, and community.
New York, NY: Guildford Press.
Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. The
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy
instruction: Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1739–
1750.
Cantrell, S. C., Madden, A., Carter, J. C., Rintamaa, M. & Almasi, J. (2011). The development
of teacher efficacy in a dual-role literacy coaching position. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Carrier, C. (1980). Developmental environments for teachers. Theory into Practice, 19(4),
240–247.
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Clark, K., & Graves, M. (2004). Scaffolding students’ comprehension of text. The Reading
Teacher, 58(6), 570–580.
Collet, V. (2008, December). Coaching today’s teachers: Mentoring using new literacies. Paper
presented at the 2008 National Reading Conference, Orlando, Florida.
Collet, V. (2011). The gradual increase of responsibility: Scaffolds for change. ProQuest Digital
Dissertations (UMI No. 3475305).
Collet, V. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: Coaching for teacher change.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27–47.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (1994, 2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance
schools (1st and 2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Covey, S. (1990). Principle-centered leadership. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cox, M. D. (2001). Faculty learning communities: Change agents for transforming institutions
into learning organizations. To Improve the Academy, 19, 69–93.
Crasborn, F., Hennissen, P., Brouwer, N., Korthagen, F., & Bergen, T. (2008). Promoting
versatility in mentor teachers’ use of supervisory skills. Teaching and Teacher Education,
24(3), 499–514.
Cross, R. (1995). The role of the mentor in utilising the support system for the newly qualified
teacher. School Organisation, 15(1), 35–41.
Darby, A. (2008). Teachers’ emotions in the reconstruction of professional self-understanding.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1160–1172.
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction on the
comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 62–88.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R. (1986).
The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction
and student awareness and achievement: A study of reading teacher effects. Reading
DuFour, R. (2004). Schools as learning communities. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
Dunston, P. J. (2007). Instructional practices, struggling readers, and a university-based reading
clinic. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 50(5), 328–336.
350 VICKI COLLET
Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S. (2007). Does literacy coaching make a difference? The effects of
literacy coaching on reading achievement in grades K-3 in a Reading First district. Paper
presented at the 57th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
Research brief. Retrieved from http://www.niu.edu/cisll/documents/Elish-
Piper%20&%20L’Allier.pdf. Accessed on June 21, 2010.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). Helping novices learn to teach: Lessons from an exemplary support
teacher. Journal of Teacher Education, 52(1), 17–30.
Fullan, M. (2001). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
Gandhi, M. (1922). The collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. Ahmedabad, India: Navjivan
Press.
Gibson, S. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading coach.
Literacy Research and Instruction, 45(4), 295–318.
Glazer, E. M., & Hannafin, M. J. (2006). The collaborative apprenticeship model: Situated
professional development within school settings. Teaching and Teacher Education, 22,
179–193.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1993). Teacher efficacy: A study of construct dimensions. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association,
Atlanta, GA.
Halai, A. (2006). Mentoring in-service teachers: Issues of role diversity. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 22, 700–710.
Kibby, M. W. (1995). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-
making model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kibby, M., & Barr, R. (1999). The education of reading clinicians. In D. Evensen &
P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy.
Advances in Reading/Language Research (Vol. 6, pp. 3–40). Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Killion, J., & Harrison, C. (2006). Taking the lead: New roles for teachers and school-based
coaches. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.
Mills, M., & Satterthwait, D. (2000). The disciplining of pre-service teachers: Reflections on the
teaching of reflective teaching. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 29–38.
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (2001). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2),
132–141.
Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. Cummins, C. Bean, R., Block, C. C., & Anders, P. (2009). Making sense
of reading teacher education research and prospects for future research. Presentation at the
annual conference of the International Reading Association, Minneapolis, MN.
Rodgers, E. (2012). Using systematic observation to assess early literacy development and plan
instruction. In E. Ortlieb & E. H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Utilizing informative assessments
towards effective literacy instruction (pp. 107–136). Bingley, UK: Emerald.
Roskos, K., Boehlen, S., & Walker, B. (2000). Learning the art of instructional conversation:
The influence of self-assessment on teachers’ instructional discourse in a reading clinic.
The Elementary School Journal, 100(3), 229–252.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Symonds, K. W. (2003). Literacy coaching: How school districts can support a long-term strategy
in a short-term world. Oakland, CA: Bay Area School Reform Collaborative.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2007). The differential antecedents of self-efficacy beliefs
of novice and experienced teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 944–956.
Twain, M. (n.d.). Quotes.net. Retrieved from http://www.quotes.net/quote/39037. Accessed on
July 11, 2012.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In
M. Cole, V. Alfred-Steiner, S. Schribener & E. Souberman (Eds.), Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Wood, D. J., Bruner, J., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
PEER CONFERENCING: ADDING A
COLLABORATIVE COMPONENT TO
GRADUATE AND
UNDERGRADUATE UNIVERSITY
READING CLINICS
Sherrye Dee Garrett and Lucinda Marie Juarez
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter provides the reader with a discussion of a peer-

conferencing component, called ‘‘cadre conferencing,’’ which was
incorporated into undergraduate and graduate reading clinics. University
students were placed into cadres based on the grades of the children they
were tutoring. Cadres met during scheduled class time to discuss
assessments, strategies, and materials.
Design – Graduate and undergraduate students were asked to provide
feedback about the cadre conferencing model. They identified what they
liked about the peer conferencing and what changes they would make. The
feedback was used as a way for the faculty member to evaluate an
instructional change in existing courses.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002020
353
354 SHERRYE DEE GARRETT AND LUCINDA MARIE JUAREZ
Implications – Both graduate and undergraduate students reported

benefits to the cadre conferencing component. Graduate students were
in-service teachers who reported that they benefited most from sharing
ideas about strategies and materials. Undergraduate students reported
that they benefited from sharing ideas, but also from the personal
support they experienced from members of their cadre. Both groups
recommended that cadre conferencing continue to be included in the two
courses.
Practical and social implications – Observations of the cadres in their
meetings and feedback from a course survey indicate that peer
conferencing can be a powerful tool for groups of educators. The model
would transfer best into programs that are designed to include shared
decision-making and peer collaboration. Schools that adopt a professional
learning communities model or team-teaching approach could integrate
the cadre conferencing into their existing group structures.
Keywords: Peer conferencing; reading clinics; assessment; response to

literature
INTRODUCTION
University reading clinics, both graduate and undergraduate, have long

been an essential element of college reading programs. Most have dual
purposes: (1) they provide a vehicle for future reading professionals to
sharpen their knowledge of assessment and instruction under the direct
supervision of university faculty, and (2) they provide services to the
community by offering specialized assessment and instruction for children
experiencing difficulties learning to read. The mentoring required in such a
clinical experience can be a challenge when one university faculty member
supervises 12–25 college students.
This chapter discusses a strategy that complements individual faculty
mentoring and provides multiple sources of support for clinic students. In
previous years, the masters level graduate reading clinic at our university
was integrated with a doctoral level clinical supervision course. In that
structure, doctoral students supervised and mentored the masters students.
A revision in the doctoral coursework reduced the clinical supervision hours
and doctoral students were no long available to support masters students.
Peer Conferencing 355
The situation called for creative problem-solving, and a new strategy was
implemented – peer conferencing. The conferencing was introduced into
both graduate and undergraduate settings, albeit with slightly different
formats. The strategy was dubbed ‘‘cadre conferencing,’’ a term that defined
the verbal interactions of a small professional group. Cadre conferencing
has proven to be effective in both graduate and undergraduate clinical
reading experiences.
The graduate reading clinic at the university is called the BEST Program,
with ‘‘BEST’’ being an acronym for Basic Educational Skills and Teaching.
Initially conceived by Dr. Jack Cassidy at Millersville University in
Pennsylvania, the BEST Program has been implemented successfully for
more than 20 years at two different universities. The BEST Program is a 12-
week, two-hour Saturday clinic associated with a six-credit graduate course
in a reading masters program. The tutors are in-service teachers. The tutors
first determine students’ levels and needs through a variety of diagnostic
tools: parent interviews, teacher interviews, student interviews, informal
reading inventories, attitude surveys, and writing inventories. Tutors then
use the results of the diagnostic activities to develop an individual plan of
instruction for their students. Each tutoring session consists of four 30-
minute components: reading, writing, skills, and response to literature. The
first three components are taught one-on-one. In the response to literature
segments, students are grouped by grade level and one tutor conducts a read
aloud and follow-up activities. Because the response-to-literature groups
have students in a one-year to two-year grade range, the tutors face similar
instructional situations. Thus, in the graduate course, each response-to-
literature group became a grade-specific cadre.
The undergraduate reading clinic is called a ‘‘reading camp.’’ The camp
consists of eight 75-minute tutoring sessions. The tutors are pre-service
teachers. The undergraduates use diagnostic tools similar to those in the
graduate program: student interviews, student self-selection book activities,
attitude surveys, informal reading inventories, and writing inventories. The
tutors use information learned from the diagnostic activities to develop one-
on-one tutoring lessons for the students. The tutoring sessions are not
divided into specific segments, but tutors are required to include reading,
writing, skills, and read aloud activities in their lessons. The cadres in the
undergraduate program were created by grouping tutors who were teaching
children in the same grade.
The cadre conferencing sessions were conducted before tutoring in the
graduate course and after tutoring in the undergraduate course. Positive
results were reported from each group.
HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS
For a time, it appeared that there was little research related to university
reading clinics. Pearce, Garrett, Grote-Garcia, and Schaum (2007) reported
that studies in the 1980s related to ‘‘organization, materials, and practices’’
(p. 43). Bader and Wiesendanger (1986), Bates (1984), and Irvin and Lynch-
Brown (1988) were among those who conducted surveys about assessments,
grouping, affiliation, approaches to mediation, and strengths and challenges
of the clinics. In the early 1990s, Cassidy and Hanes (1992) noted that many
reading clinic programs, because of their predominantly diagnostic-
prescriptive approach, were philosophically incompatible with the holistic
methods of that decade. Many clinics closed because of the influence of the
whole language movement (Jones & Joshi, 1991). The BEST Program began
operating in 1980 at Millersville University in Pennsylvania as an alternative
to the prescription-remediation model (Cassidy & Hanes, 1992). Unlike
previous clinics that emphasized an extensive diagnosis component, the
BEST clinic allocated less time for diagnosis and more time for
individualized tutoring. The BEST diagnostic battery included informal
reading and writing inventories, a standardized test, an attitude test, and
student, parent, and teacher interviews. Gone were tests of intelligence, and
visual and auditory perception and discrimination. The focus of the clinic
involved general goals with an emphasis on a child’s strengths.
Research on reading clinics increased in the 2000s, reflecting researcher
efforts to determine again how reading clinics were organized and how they
delivered services (Bevans, 2004; Carr, 2003; Cuevas, Schumm, Mits-Cash, &
Pilonieta, 2006; Elish-Piper, 2001; Garrett, Pearce, Salazar, & Pate, 2007;
Hoffman & Topping, 2001; Jensen & Tuten, 2007; Pearce et al., 2007; Tuten &
Jensen, 2008). Garrett et al. (2007) focused on the topic of instructional
delivery; their findings indicated that the overwhelming amount of clinic
tutoring involved individualized instruction, followed by small group
instruction or a combination of the two. But of the existing reading clinic
literature, few, if any, studies have explored the function, roles, and operation
of masters or undergraduate students in the reading clinic. There appears,
then, to be a gap in the literature with regard to peer conferencing.
The support for peer learning and conferencing are sound. The term
‘‘cadre’’ was selected intentionally. Two definitions for cadre apply to the
peer-conferencing model. The first stems from military history, as in ‘‘a key
group of officers and enlisted personnel necessary to establish and train a
new unit.’’ The second refers to ‘‘a group of trained or otherwise qualified
personnel capable of forming, training, or leading an expanded organiza-

tion’’ (Gale Group, 2008). The term reflects the reading clinic peer-
conferencing in that tutors collaborated in a close-knit unit, helping one
another in their service to students. The term also emphasizes the profess-
ionalism that the tutors demonstrated in their tutoring and contributions to
their common cause.
The cadre model is reflected in publications from Lincoln and McAllister
(1993) and Hart (1990), whose combined works identify 17 benefits of peer
group learning: (1) recognizing group members as resources and acknowl-
edging their professional expertise, (2) encouraging information sharing,
(3) allowing feedback on individual contributions, (4) providing reassurance,
(5) creating a feeling of equality, (6) making it okay to admit problems,
(7) taking pressure off individuals, (8) providing different perspectives,
(9) encouraging a professional approach to problems, (10) helping organize
information, (11) giving direction for actions, (12) alleviating/diffusing
conflict, (13) increasing self-esteem and confidence, (14) developing listening
and facilitation skills, (15) improving small group skills, (16) creating group
power, and (17) spreading enthusiasm.
Social Constructivist Model
Even as some reading clinics closed in the whole language era of the 1990s,
others evolved. Social constructivist theory espoused by whole language
advocates changed practices in the surviving reading clinics. The prior
emphasis on intervention and remediation was diminished and the new
focus included more social interaction between peers in reading clinics
(Ortlieb, 2012). The social constructivist practices of peer questioning,
sharing of information, and learning became common components in the
reading clinic. Shulman and Carey (1984) describe social constructivism as
representative of a paradigmatic shift toward the construction of meaning
through the reciprocal influences of individuals and context.
While constructivist theory in reading clinics involved teacher–tutor
interactions, several other practices, like those adopted in the BEST clinic
model emerged: reflection, learner-centered instruction, collaborative
learning, problem-solving, cohort groups, and action research (Dangel &
Guyton, 2003). These practices highlighted meaning making and learning
from social interaction. The social constructivist theoretical framework
played a role in establishing the value of peer collaboration. Forman and
Cazden (1985) state that peer collaboration involves an individual acquiring

‘‘a deeper understanding of the knowledge being shared as he or she tries
out alternative forms of explanation, modeling and solution testing’’ (as
cited in Mallory & New, 1994, p. 330).
The knowledge of the evolution of reading clinics, and a commitment to a
social constructivist view of learning led to the decision to implement ‘‘cadre
conferencing’’ at our university.
IMPLEMENTATION
The authors, a university faculty member and a doctoral assistant,
developed the collaborative cadre model to establish and support an
environment of reciprocal teaching and scaffolding between equal learners –
the tutors. Peer conferencing was called ‘‘cadre conferencing’’ in the two
programs because tutors are placed into grade-specific ‘‘cadres.’’ The cadre
format allowed the tutors to support each other with suggestions about
appropriate materials and methodology.
There was differentiation in the implementation of the peer conferencing
with graduate and undergraduate cadres. The graduate cadres were made up
of in-service teachers, many with several years of experience. Graduate cadres
were provided with 45-minute meeting times before each tutoring session; they
were encouraged to self-select discussion topics. On some days, the cadres
discussed assessments. On other days, they used the time to plan their response
to literature lessons. For example, in one response to literature group planning
session, teachers in cadre conferencing began brainstorming how to formulate
higher thinking skills questions after one member shared that her student was
having struggles answering comprehension questions. The tutor expressed her
concerns about the questions she should ask about a book: her questions
tended to be knowledge based; she had difficulty preparing higher order
thinking skill questions. The cadre members worked together to prepare the
response to literature session for their second-grade and third-grade students
using the book We All Scream for Ice Cream! The Scoop on America’s Favorite
Dessert by Lee Wardlaw. In the end, the cadre’s students were able to answer
inferential and synthesis questions that centered on what would happen if
certain ingredients were left out of the ice cream making process and the
implications that this type of learning would have for environmental climatic
issues. The structure of the questions the teachers had selected scaffolded from
simple knowledge-based ingredients in the book to critical conclusions about
what happens to land forms when water sources such as river flowing or
snowing do not occur in a region.
Undergraduates, on the other hand, met for 30 minutes after each
tutoring session; they were provided with specific prompts. The first set of
undergraduate prompts required students to pose questions about ass-
essments. The targeted assessment prompt was used because undergrad-
uates were unfamiliar with diagnosis and were often hesitant about asking
for help in interpreting assessments. The prompts addressed a range of
topics from the scoring of word lists and analysis of miscues to identifying
comprehension strengths. Questions addressed issues student may have
encountered in the reading inventories or writing attitude surveys and how
they should score certain aspects of the assessments, such as what clusters
of answers might mean regarding an individual’s actual attitude or even
how to determine with accuracy a student’s reading level. The assessment-
focused prompts included, ‘‘Ask a question about the Bader Informal
Reading Inventory,’’ and ‘‘Ask a question about the Cassidy Writing
Inventory.’’
The second set of cadre prompts related to the activities, plans and
strategies that the tutors were implementing with their assigned students.
The cadre conferencing time for this prompt involved sharing books of
interest, activities connected to the book, and strategies designed to move
the learners forward. Other questions in this second group of prompts
guided the tutors in discussing and reflecting upon reading comprehension
activities, lessons, and strategies they were finding to be particularly useful.
Typical comprehension issues involved how to best get students to ask
their own questions as they read, engage in making inferences from the
texts, write concise summaries, determine main idea from the selections,
and synthesize material. The activity-focused questions included, ‘‘Share a
good nonfiction book you’ve used with your student,’’ and ‘‘Share a
comprehension activity you’ve used with your student.’’
The third generalized cadre prompt asked the tutors to write down an
important idea they received during cadre conferencing time. In this way,
tutors was engaging in self-reflection concerning ways to improve their
teaching and increase their own efficacy. Providing time for the tutors to
write out the ideas or information they acquired from the sessions
regarding strategies, assessments, and decision-making helped them to
integrate new ideas, information and learning into their own repertoire of
teaching practices. The last session prompted students to ‘‘Share how the
reading camp experience has changed your knowledge/attitude toward
teaching.’’
RESULTS OF THE CADRE CONFERENCING

EXPERIENCE
Graduate and undergraduate students were asked to discuss the value they
saw in the cadre conferencing. Both groups reported that cadre meetings
allowed them to take advantage of suggestions and recommendations they
previously had not considered on their own; however, there were differences
in the type of support the two groups valued. A feedback questionnaire,
‘‘Cadre Conferencing Opinion Survey,’’ was used to collect opinions from
graduate and undergraduate groups. The first question, for example, asked
students to indicate the extent to which the cadre meetings helped them
‘‘interpret results of your IRI?’’ Students responded on a five-point Likert-
type scale, on which ‘‘1’’ meant ‘‘not at all,’’ to ‘‘5,’’ which meant ‘‘a great
deal.’’ Other questions addressed interpretation of assessments and ideas for
instructional support. The survey results indicated that both groups valued
the sessions, with undergraduate students perceiving more benefit from the
sessions than graduate students. The results of the feedback on the questions
are shown in Table 1, with the averages for each group on each question.
The feedback survey included several open-ended questions that asked
students what they liked best about the conferencing and what they would
change. Generally, feedback was very positive.
The graduate tutors in the BEST Program were in-service teachers who
had taken a previous course in diagnosis. They did not feel that the cadre
Table 1. Undergraduate and Graduate Perceptions of Specific Benefits

of Cadre Conferencing.
Benefit Students (N=30)
Undergraduates Graduates
(n=22) (n=8)
1. Interpret results of an IRI 3.7 2.3

2. Interpret results of Cassidy Writing Inventory 3.6 2.0
3. Identify word recognition 4.0 3.1
4. Identify comprehension strategies 4.0 3.5
5. Identify writing strategies 3.7 2.8
6. Identify materials to use in tutoring 4.0 3.6
7. Identify ideas for using trade books 3.7 3.0
8. Increase feeling of personal competence 4.2 3.6
sessions helped them with interpreting assessments. They did find the
meetings useful for sharing tutoring ideas and learning about new materials
and trade books. Some graduate tutors wanted biweekly meetings; others
wanted longer weekly sessions. Several tutors felt that occasional whole
group sessions would be helpful so they could learn about other grade levels.
Comments from graduate students addressed function issues; they included,
‘‘Maybe instead of small groups, have some conference as a whole class to get more
opinions.’’
‘‘More time and directly AFTER tutoring,’’
‘‘I would allow more time to meet. Possibly meet before and after working with the
student.’’
The undergraduate tutors, who were preservice teachers, found great

value in the cadre meetings. They reported that the sessions helped them
interpret assessments and plan tutoring. They liked learning new ideas for
activities and books they could use in their own tutoring. Perhaps the most
frequent comment was that undergraduates found the sessions reassuring;
they felt better when they heard that other tutors shared the same
insecurities and anxieties. It made them feel better that they were ‘‘not
alone’’ in needing advice and support. The undergraduate tutors generally
wanted more time for cadre meetings. Comments from undergraduate
addressed both functional and personal issues; they included,
‘‘The whole experience was very helpful. My confidence level went up and I feel that
I can now assess and instruct a student one-on-one.’’
‘‘Talking about things out loud to one another helped me work through, in my mind,
how to tackle a particular issue.’’
‘‘Cadre meetings should never be taken out of this course. It is necessary for us who are
doing this for the first time.’’
IMPLICATIONS
The value of including a cadre conferencing model in reading clinic classes

lies in the many benefits received by both the tutors and the students
receiving the planned and targeted interventions. Ertmer et al. (2010) offer
key suggestions for successful peer conferencing time: (1) training
(discussions of theory, practice and feedback), (2) modeling what follow
up conferencing should look like, (3) providing key information about

memory research and facts that affect thinking and behavior and how this
affects conferring practice, (4) allotting sufficient time for the behaviors to
take hold, (5) holding review and refine sessions, and (6) including a public
forum for celebrations of success.
The writers observed a number of successful conferencing experiences
during the cadre meetings. The tutors initiated open dialogues about book
sharing and talked about book selections from clinic library carts. They
shared information about their students’ responses in the interest surveys.
The graduate cadre members worked together on reader response read
alouds and collaborated on questioning strategies and follow-up activities.
The cadre conferencing assignment of pairing up peers working on the same
assignment with the same goals provided a safe environment for the in-
service teachers to readily seek advice from each other. Conversations about
whether trust played a factor in the conferencing resulted in comments from
the teachers such as, ‘‘I feel supported because I am not being judged for my
questions or comments from a teacher or professor.’’ Another teacher
commented, ‘‘For me this is an empowering collaboration. I get very real
answers from teachers like me who were experiencing similar issues.’’
In providing parameters for creating a safe environment, setting reason-
able goals for the group and following up with the group to see that follow
through is occurring, are important factors that help form a trusting
environment (McDermott, 2012). The trusting environment results in peers
helping each other engage in self-directed and mutual goal-directed
behaviors. But the environment created is just one of several factors that
play a role in trusting, effective collaborative peer relationships. Peer
Assisted Learning (PAL), peer tutoring, cooperative learning, and reciprocal
teaching, are noted in the literature to have many useful benefits from
collaboration (Sampaio, Teixeira, Camacho, & deFreitas Govuviea, 2010–
2011). These benefits include peers being more comfortable in seeking advice
and revealing that they do not have a sufficient knowledge base in an area of
practice to solve perplexing issues. Sampaio et al. (2012) also report that
these types of groupings result in sharing of plans, progressing with one
another, and helping each other to overcome obstacles or resolve issues of
previously difficulty. Costa and Garmston (2002) in their book, Cognitive
Coaching: A Foundation for Renaissance Schools, discuss key components of
a trusting environment as a significant cognitive coaching goal, but also
include processes in the trust environment that occur as well, such as
teachers asking questions of themselves and learning how to analyze and
prescribe their own remedies to problems.
The guidelines for successful cadre conferencing involve making reflection

a part of implementation time. This involves asking the teacher tutors how
they might implement the ideas and strategies they acquired from the session
in their very next teaching/tutoring session. This is significant because it
counters the tendency to delay changing the status quo and then not using
the enhanced or preferred strategies into their teaching practices. A required
time commitment to cadre conferencing is also very important. Lack of time
is often a deterrent to many instructors, particularly those who teach large
undergraduate courses. For this reason, we recommend that instructors
make cadre conferencing time, as well as response to questions and
reflection, a part of regular class time.
CONCLUSION
An important challenge for reading clinic directors who want to use cadre
conferencing is to determine how to meet the needs of both graduate and
undergraduate students. In graduate courses, tutors were concerned with
implementing strategies and learning more about trade books. In the under-
graduate courses, tutors valued opportunities for sharing concerns about
interpreting assessments as well as ideas for strategies and materials. The cadre
conferencing model allowed reading clinic instructors to provide multiple
resources for tutors in the form of faculty mentoring and peer support.
Peer learning is best supported by school systems in which there is a
shared model or shared decision-making. The transferability of a cadre
conferencing model then is best supported by an environment where learner-
centered communities are valued and discussion and reflective practice are
implemented as effective learning strategies. Persico, Pozzi, and Sarti (2010)
posit that models of PAL, peer tutoring, and reciprocal teaching best result
in the development of group problem-solving abilities. The observations of
undergraduate and graduate tutors in cadre conferencing activities reflected
reading professionals striving to improve their instructional practices and
their knowledge of assessments and materials. Because the model supported
the exchange of ideas, problem-solving strategies, and multiple perspectives,
overall tutor and student satisfaction were reported.
REFERENCES
Bader, L., & Wiesendanger, K. (1986). University based reading clinics: Practices and
procedures. The Reading Teacher, 39, 698–702.
Bates, F. (1984). Profile of university based reading clinics: Results of a U.S. survey. Journal of
Reading, 27, 524–529.
Bevans, J. (2004). A study to determine the status and features of reading clinics that serve
elementary students in teacher education institutions in the state of Ohio. Unpublished
doctoral dissertation. The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Carr, K. C. (2003). Today’s reading clinic: How relevant is the grading reading practicum? A
researcher evaluates the effectiveness of a graduate-level clinical practicum and finds
positive results. The Reading Teacher, 57(3), 256–269.
Cassidy, J., & Hanes, M. (1992). Rethinking the college-based reading clinic: Past traditions and
new alternatives. In N. Padak, T. V. Rasinski & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and
practice: Foundations for the year 2000. Kansas City, KS: College Reading Association.
Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for Renaissance
Schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Publishers, Inc.
Cuevas, P., Schumm, J. S., Mits-Cash, M., & Pilonieta, P. (2006). Reading clinics in the U.S.:
A national survey of present practice. Journal of Reading Education, 31(2), 5–12.
Dangel, J., & Guyton, E. (2003, January 24–27). Expanding our view of teaching and learning:
Applying constructivist theory(s) to teacher’s education. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, New Orleans,
LA (ED472816).
Elish-Piper, L. (2001). Reading clinics in the new century: A preliminary analysis. Paper
presented at the annual conference of the College Reading Association, Orlando, FL.
Ertmer, P. A., Richardson, J. C., Lehman, J. D., Newby, T. J., Cheng, X., Mong, C., & Sadaf,
A. (2010). Peer feedback in a large undergraduate blended course: Perceptions of value
and learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(1), 67–88.
Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The
cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and
cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323–347). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Gale Group, Inc. (2008). Dictionary of collective nouns and group terms. Farmington Hills, MI:
Author.
Garrett, S. D., Pearce, D. L., Salazar, L. A., & Pate, R. S. (2007b). University-based reading
clinics: Where are we now? In M. B. Sampson, P. E. Linder, F. Falk-Ross, Foote &
S. Szabo (Eds.), Multiple literacies in the 21st century (pp. 198–212). Logan: UT College
Hart, G. (1990). Peer consultation and review. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 7,
40–46.
Hoffman, S., & Topping, D. (2001). Reading clinics: Same goals but many different paths.
Pennsylvania Reads, 2(2), 10–26.
Irvin, J. L., & Lynch-Brown, C. (1988). A national survey of U.S. university reading clinics:
Clientele, functions, and tests. Journal of Reading, 31, 436–442.
Jensen, D. A., & Tuten, J. A. (2007). From reading clinic to reading community. Reading
Horizon Journal, 4(3), 295–313.
Jones, J. J., & Joshi, R. M. (1991). Where have all the reading centers gone and why? The results
of a national survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the College Reading Association,
Washington, DC.
Lincoln, M. A., & McAllister, L. L. (1993). Peer learning in clinical education. Medical Teacher,
15(1), 17–26.
Mallory, B. L., & New, R. S. (1994). Social constructivist theory and principles of inclusion:
Challenges for early childhood special education. Journal of Special Education, 28(3),
322–337.
McDermott, L. (2012). Tapping the Wisdom of Peers. T þ D, 66(5), 70–72.
Pearce, D. L., Garrett, S. D., Grote-Garcia, S., & Schaum, A. M. (2007). University-based
reading clinics: Perceptions and practices. The Reading Professor, 29(2), 43–48.
Persico, D., Pozzi, F., & Sarti, L. (2010). Monitoring collaborative activities in computer
supported collaborative learning. Distance Education, 31(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1080/015879
11003724603.
Sampaio, P. N. M., Teixeria, J. M., Camacho, M. F., & deFreitas Gouveia, R. H. (2010–2011).
Blended peer-assisted learning platform: Improving learning outcomes with a
collaborative environment. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 39(4), 371–395.
Shulman, L. S., & Carey, N. B. (1984). Psychology and the limitation of individual rationality:
Implications for the study of reasoning and civility. Review of Educational Research,
54(4), 501–524.
Tuten, J. A., & Jensen, D. A. (2008). Re-visioning the reading clinic experience: Tutoring at the
edge of one’s comfort zone. Journal of Reading Education, 42(1), 25–32.
KEEPING LEARNERS AT THE
CENTER OF TEACHING
Cheryl Dozier and Theresa Deeney
ABSTRACT
Purpose – This chapter shares a model of responsive teacher preparation
in literacy labs/reading clinics that emphasizes student-centered instruc-
tion.
Approach – Through vignettes and the voices of teachers enrolled in
literacy lab/reading clinics, the authors highlight clinical practices
effective in helping teachers focus on learners including building
relationships, learning from students, structuring opportunities for student
success, and understanding the power of language choices.
Practical implications – Teacher educators can use practices presented in
this chapter in their clinical instruction. In turn, their teachers can
transfer these clinical practices and foundations to school settings.
Originality/value – This approach to teacher education creates a culture
of collaboration and responsive teaching that moves beyond clinical
settings to classrooms and schools.
Keywords: Responsive teaching, struggling readers, literacy lab/

reading clinic teacher preparation

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002021
367
368 CHERYL DOZIER AND THERESA DEENEY
INTRODUCTION
In the current educational climate, it is easy to lose sight of learners and

their strengths when deficit language abounds. Educational discussions
focus on filling in gaps, designing intervention programs, improving test
scores, and adhering to teacher-proof materials. Yet, focusing on learners is
key to reaching the very goal at the heart of accountability and curriculum
mandates: Improved student achievement. In clinics and labs we understand
the centrality of tailoring instruction to meet the needs of learners
(Allington, 2005, 2009; Clay, 1998, 2001). We provide purposeful, inten-
tional experiences for teachers to adopt a learner-centered, strengths-based
stance. This often challenges teachers’ assumptions about teaching and
learning and leads to intellectual unrest (Cambourne, 1995). In working
through this dissonance, and helping teachers persevere in the face of it, we
create a climate of resiliency, of teachers as learners, and of teachers who
focus on learners.
In this chapter, through vignettes and voices of teachers and students, we
highlight the ways we structure clinical experiences to support teachers as
they learn to focus on students. We emphasize building relationships with
students, learning from students, providing opportunities for student
success, and understanding the power of our language choices (Table 1).
Throughout the chapter, we reframe conversations about teaching and
learning from deficit driven to strengths focused, from an evaluative lens to
a learner focused lens, and from teachers as strict implementers of
curriculum to teachers who analyze and engage in responsive instructional
practices.
BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS
In clinics/labs, we teach adults and children. By building relationships with

both learners, we better understand them personally and academically. We
learn what matters, what engages or frustrates, what learners are good at,
and what they need to learn (Delpit, 2012). We also learn zones of proximal
development (Vygotsky, 1978; Warford, 2011), so we can tailor our
instruction to capitalize on strengths and meet their needs. Building
relationships and developing trust enable teachers and students to take risks
and work outside of their comfort zones (L’Allier, Elish-Piper, & Bean,
2010).
Keeping Learners at the Center of Teaching 369
Building Relationships with Teachers
Talking to teachers about building relationships with students becomes

empty advice if we, as clinic/lab instructors, do not take the time to build
relationships with our teachers. In our clinics/labs, we model how we want
teachers to teach children. This includes modeling for them and building
relationships with them. We expect that, when teachers experience these
relationships, they will come to value them and recognize the importance of
building relationships with students, in clinics/labs and in classrooms
(Dozier, Johnston, & Rogers, 2006).
Introductions
Introductions are a powerful vehicle for learning about our teachers and
helping them become invested in each other. On the first night of class, we
ask teachers to bring in a decorated manila folder filled with photos, favorite
sayings, and artifacts. The folders serve two purposes. First, teachers use
them as anchors to introduce themselves to the group. As teachers listen to
one another, they learn about their colleagues, find commonalities, and
begin the process of creating a community of learners. Second, teachers use
the folders when they submit their assigned work. As we read teachers’
course assignments, the folders remind us of who our teachers are beyond
the clinic/lab walls, of what they bring to teaching and learning.
Celebrations and Artifacts

Every seminar begins with teachers sharing celebrations. Teachers have
shared celebrations from their personal lives – they have announced
engagements and pregnancies, shared family photos, recounted tales of
moving and purchasing new homes, and held countdowns to long awaited
vacations. They share celebrations of teaching and learning – moments
when writers have engaged for the first time, great lines from student
writing, or books that have engaged their students. At the end of each
semester, teachers celebrate going to interviews, accepting new jobs, setting
up their classrooms, and meeting with administrators. The celebrations
teachers choose become entry points for conversations and connections
about teaching and learning (Dozier et al., 2006).
We also ask teachers to bring artifacts to seminar that reflect their
teaching. Artifacts serve as another tool for building relationships. Teachers’
artifact choices help us learn about what matters to them as teachers. For
example, we learn that Amy values her family connection when she shares
letters she and Nazeer write weekly to his family. Even though she has not
heard from Nazeer’s family, he assures her they read each and every letter.
We learn that Lisa notices Julianna’s breakthrough as a reader when she
shares Julianna’s running record, with her first ever self-correction. We learn
from Chrissie that Jacquari has finally engaged as a writer when she reads
aloud his writing from the afternoon, even though we groan when hear he
has included earwax, spiders, and crayons in his version of Yuccky Soup. In
our lab, sharing artifacts provides teachers a way to build relationships,
which they can transfer (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999) beyond the clinic lab
experience into classrooms.
With the pressure of meeting the needs of teachers and students, it
would be easy for clinic/lab instructors to view time for teacher sharing
as wasted time. However, in clinics/labs, our teachers are faced with
many challenges and uncertainties as they work with their learners. They
must be open to accepting advice and learning from others. By building a
community from the first night, teachers come to trust each other and
their instructors. This trust is important as we help teachers become
responsive and focus on the learners they tutor (Dever, Johnson, &
Hobbs, 2000; Gardiner, 2012). Knowing our teachers well gives us an
inroad in how best to support them as they engage in the difficult work
ahead.
Building Relationships with Children and Families
When teachers learn from children and their families, they better understand
how to design lessons and plan for each child’s progress (Kroeger & Lash,
2011; Kyle, McIntyre, Miller, & Moore, 2002; Rosebery, McIntyre, &
Gonzalez, 2001). For some, building relationships with students and families
is an easy process; for others, it is more difficult. We expect this, and provide
opportunities and support for teacher to learn about their students.
Family Photographs
In the lab, we use photographs as a way to learn about our students. Tutors
give students a disposable camera, and invite them to, ‘‘Take photographs
that matter to you.’’ Teachers talk with family members about the cameras
and explain how they will serve as writing prompts for future writing pieces
during the tutorials. Students are thrilled with their cameras, and take
photos of a wide variety of people and activities in their lives – new babies,
grandparents, family pets, Halloween costumes, family celebrations,
weddings, and sporting events. The process of developing the photos and
then using the photographs for writing is one of discovery for the teachers.
What photos did the student take? What are the stories behind the photos?
By inviting children to share photographs, we invite them to bridge their
home lives with their schooling lives, and can better understand each
student’s interests and strengths beyond school boundaries (Orellana &
Hernandez, 1999; Spielman, 2001). Photographs also help us connect with
students’ families as we engage in thoughtful, deliberate, and intentional
conversations, and use these conversations to engage students in purposeful
writing (Dozier, 2006; Spielman, 2001).
Weekly Conversations with Families

In another effort to build relationships with families, our teachers meet with
families at the end of each tutoring session. To pick up their children,
families go to the classrooms to talk with the children and their teachers.
This time together gives families an opportunity to see the tutorials in
action, and what the children have read and written during the session.
Teachers and students collaboratively share with families what they learned
that day. This not only engages everyone in the conversation, it helps to
eliminate some of the awkwardness around initial meetings with families.
Teachers begin to value families as partners in their child’s education, as
Laura discusses about her conversations with Tyshawn’s mom:
My conversations and connections with Tylene, Tyshawn’s mother, were helpful. She
told me about his interests and about their family y I always had that in mind as we
read together. That influenced the books I chose and the conversations we had around
reading. In the past, I have not always been able to see the true benefit of talking with
parents. Now, I see it as a priceless entity that should gear our instruction.
As we observe and listen carefully to teachers’ celebrations and artifacts,

we gain information to guide our instruction in the lab. Likewise, teachers
draw from what they learn from children’s lives to design meaningful and
authentic instruction (Ladson-Billings, 2009; Rosebery et al., 2001). In turn,
through these experiences, we expect teachers to see the value of building
relationships with learners.
Learning from Challenging Relationships
The importance of building relationships cannot be understated. However,

it is not always easy, and can become a source of frustration or anxiety for
our teachers. We use the story of Dana, a straight ‘‘A’’ student, to illustrate
the complexities of developing relationships with students and families.
Dana was well-prepared for her first session with her second grader, Tara.
She wrote a letter to introduce herself to her Tara’s family, gathered
materials to work with her, and planned introductory reading and writing
events. All was going well on the first night, and Dana was excited to
introduce herself to Tara’s family. However, a family member rushed in to
pick up Tara 30 minutes late, leaving no opportunity for Dana to talk or
introduce herself. As this pattern continued, Dana became increasingly
frustrated. After all, she was required to communicate with the family each
week. Rather than adopting a problem-solving stance to working with Tara
and her family, Dana made judgments about them, and worried how their
lack of participation would affect her course grade. This frustration
impeded Dana’s relationship with Tara. Dana continued to plan detailed
lessons, but was not yet responsive to Tara’s needs, engagement, and
interests. Dana often described Tara with deficit language, She doesn’t want
to y She didn’t y She won’t write. Dana met with course instructors to ask
why she was having so much trouble during the tutorials.
As teacher educators, we need to help teachers think through their
relationships with students, even when these conversations may be
uncomfortable. From our observations, Dana had not connected with
Tara. When we told her this, Dana was hurt and defensive – she had never
had trouble establishing a relationship with a student, ever. The relationship
we had built with Dana allowed us to help her begin to move past her hurt
to accept advice. We helped Dana choose texts and activities that related
more closely to Tara’s life. We also modeled responsive, purposeful
instruction by following Tara’s lead when she asked to write a birthday
card for her sister. In this way, we helped Dana think and learn about Tara’s
engagement and interests.
When Tara’s mother arrived at a tutoring session later in the semester,
Dana’s preconceived notions of Tara’s family were challenged. Rather than
being an uninvolved parent, Dana learned Tara’s mom was blind and had
trouble getting to lab. When Tara’s mom was able to come, she talked with
Dana at length. Dana learned about their family trips to the library, the
books Tara chose, holiday traditions, and Tara’s interests. Dana shared this
experience during celebrations and acknowledged she had judged Tara’s
family. This was a defining moment for Dana. She was now ready to focus
on Tara as a learner. In her final reflective essay, Dana wrote that ‘‘building
a trusting relationship with Tara’s mother and sister’’ helped her respect
students and become a more caring teacher.
Transferring Ideas from Clinic to Classroom
In our clinic instruction, we help teachers build relationships with students,

parents, and colleagues through carefully crafted opportunities. However,
our goal is not that teachers simply adopt clinic activities in their own
practice, but that they learn to value relationships and strive to cultivate
them in their own classrooms and school communities (Kroeger & Lash,
2011; Ladson-Billings, 2009). Our research (Deeney et al., 2011) shows that
our teachers do transform their own ideas about the importance of
relationships, and find their own avenues to meet this need. As one research
participant told us,
When I look back at clinic it really made me more reflective on y how to work with
others. I learned to value what each person brought y from this I became less
judgmental and I think it made me a better leader. (p. 136)
LEARNING FROM STUDENTS
In labs/clinics, our teachers often want ready answers. But learners,

particularly those who struggle, are complicated, and, we argue, require
close observation. Only then can we understand our learners, develop
appropriate instructional plans, and make appropriate assessment decisions
in clinical and classroom settings. In this section, we discuss how careful
observation and listening can provide more complete portraits of learners
(Clay, 2001, 2005a, 2005b). We use Carissa’s story as a way of highlighting
the kinds of instruction we provide our teachers to use observation.
Careful Observation
Fern, a novice teacher, related that it was difficult to engage her nine-year-
old, third-grade student, Carissa, in discussions related to literacy tasks. In
working with Carissa, Fern noticed that although Carissa liked animals,
when reading books about them, she often did not appear to understand.
When asked a question about shark pups, Fern relayed that Carissa sat for
several moments and then said, ‘‘Wait, what?’’ Fern wondered about
Carissa’s attention, engagement, and comprehension, and wanted to know
what further assessments she could give to answer her questions. However,
to choose the most appropriate assessments, we need to know what areas to
target.
As experienced clinic/lab instructors, we are able to focus our

observations of students and teachers, and suggest multiple interpretations
of what we see/hear to our teachers. These observations and interpretations
become important sources of data to inform instructional and assessment
decisions. We help teachers learn these same observational skills. We begin
by asking teachers questions related directly to the observation (e.g., What
did you notice about y? What did the student say? What could the student
do?), and following these with interpretive questions (What does that tell
you?).
Initially, our teachers notice student weaknesses and make general
observations. In discussing her observations of Carissa, Fern replied that
Carissa sat there and seemed uncomfortable when asked questions. We help
teachers describe further what students actually say/do. When probed for
more details, Fern reported that Carissa at times scrunched up her face,
looked up to the ceiling, and repeatedly banged her fist on her knee,
muttering, ‘‘oooh,’’ before she looked at Fern and responded, ‘‘I don’t
know.’’ We then help teachers make inferences about what these
observations might mean. Since our first impressions are not always
accurate; we push our teachers to entertain multiple explanations.
Fern generated several hypotheses of Carissa’s behaviors. By scrunching
up her face, Carissa may have been annoyed or thinking; by looking up to
the ceiling she may have been ‘‘looking’’ for the answer or avoiding eye
contact; by banging her fist on her knee and muttering, she may have been
angry, frustrated, or trying to ‘‘bang’’ out the answer. Thinking about
these behaviors and Carissa’s interests (she loved sharks), Fern started to
tease apart some of her initial inferences about Carissa’s ‘‘Wait, what?’’
response to a question. Rather than thinking Carissa was inattentive or
unengaged, Fern concluded that Carissa seemed as though she were
actively trying to come up with the answer and was perhaps frustrated by
her difficulties. These are very different pictures – an inattentive,
disengaged student versus a student who is trying to find an answer and
has difficulty doing so.
Our continued observations of Carissa, and discussions with her mom
and teachers, led us to believe that Carissa had things she wanted to say, but
had trouble saying them. Therefore, we now had much information to direct
further assessment. Rather than assessing her reading, we targeted language
and uncovered Carissa’s significant difficulty with language retrieval and
expressive language. This explained some of Carissa’s apparent difficulty
with comprehension, and what initially appeared to be a lack of engagement
in discussions.
The Critical Role of Observation in Classrooms
In clinics/labs, careful and continuous observation, coupled with multiple

interpretations of those observations, yields data to better understand
learners and determine next steps in assessment and instruction. We want
teachers to bring these same skills into classrooms and schools. We expect
our teachers to ask for alternative and additional explanations, and to
challenge others to entertain multiple interpretations. In this way, our
teachers can become change agents in their schools.
To help our teachers transfer (Bransford & Schwartz, 1999) observational
skills learned in clinic to their classrooms, we structure opportunities for our
teachers to follow an observation and interpretation protocol (what do you
see/hear, what does that tell you), insisting that teachers entertain multiple
perspectives of behavior. Teachers learn to discuss what they see/hear first,
without interpretation, and then to use those observations to begin to
unravel learner complexities. Our research (Deeney et al., 2011) suggests
these opportunities help teachers transfer close observation and analysis to
classrooms and schools. As our teachers become keen observers, they use
observation as a problem-solving tool, as we will see in our next section
discussing successful learning opportunities.
STRUCTURING OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUCCESS
When classrooms adopt whole-group instruction, students who need a

different approach, different materials, or a different pace can find school a
source of failure (Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 2002). In our clinics/labs, we see
many such students. Their past lack of success perpetuates the belief that
they are, at best, unsuccessful, and at worst, unable. Our older students in
particular can seem disengaged from literacy learning or from school in
general (Guthrie & Davis, 2003). In clinics/labs, we work to build
relationships; we engage in careful planning based on each student’s
strengths and needs; we try to foster success. Yet, even with our tailor-made
instruction, students can remain unengaged, and our teachers can begin to
feel discouraged.
In this section we focus on two critical areas in clinical teacher
preparation: assuming a problem-solving stance in understanding learners,
and developing teachers’ resilience. We do this first by redefining what we
mean by ‘‘success,’’ and then contextualize success, problem-solving, and
resilience through our story of Mark, a fifth grader with a long history of
learning difficulties, whom records indicated lacked frustration tolerance and

was disengaged, inattentive, difficult, rigid, and explosive.
Success as Self-Regulation
In our clinics/labs, we want teachers to help students accomplish tasks that

matter to them. For us, success is measured by students’ desire to read and
write, and their ability to accomplish their goals. We know that self-
regulated learners are intrinsically motivated (Zimmerman, 2000), and want
to learn for the sake of learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). However, not all
learners self-regulate (Clay, 2001), and these are the students we generally
see in clinic. They rely on external motivation, especially comparisons to
peers (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002), and when faced with evidence of failure,
can take a defensive stance toward learning (Paris & Newman, 1990). This
seemed to be the case with Mark, who introduced himself with, ‘‘Even my
first-grade sister reads better than me.’’ He also shared that in school he was
not ‘‘allowed’’ to read challenging texts that interested him because his
teachers knew they were ‘‘too hard.’’ Thus, Mark’s issues involved not only
reading, but his attitude toward reading – his lack of engagement,
defensiveness, and feeling that, despite his best efforts, he would never be
‘‘as good’’ as others.
Maura, Mark’s tutor, came each and every week well prepared and with a
positive outlook toward working with Mark, understanding that motivation
and engagement would be critical. She created lessons that capitalized on
Mark’s strengths in hockey (he was an exceptional hockey player) and
technology, and his interest in war (his uncle had been in the military). She
also built a strong relationship with Mark and his family. Sometimes Mark
complied and could, with generous encouragement and scaffolding,
accomplish the tasks and activities. Yet, despite Maura’s considerable
efforts to teach to Mark’s strengths, Mark was rarely engaged, therefore,
rarely successful in our definition of self-regulation and engagement.
Problem-Solving
Although it may be easier to see Mark as the source of his own lack of
engagement, in lab/clinics, when our students are not learning, we take a step
back and reevaluate. What are we doing? How is it working? What are we
going to do differently? We use the power of our clinic/lab colleagues to answer
these questions. We intentionally create opportunities for our teachers to view

each others’ teaching through videotaped lessons to problem-solve difficulties
and work together to generate possible solutions. First, we ask our teachers to
jot down what they notice in their colleagues’ teaching and offer possibilities
for how it could have been done differently. This encourages teachers to
entertain multiple teaching possibilities and helps guard against the ‘‘yeah,
but y’’ response, which constrains thinking. Second, we ask teachers to view
their colleagues’ teaching through the lenses of self-regulation, responsiveness,
and staying in the zone of proximal development (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).
When Maura’s colleagues observed her lesson with Mark, they commended
Maura’s warmth and responsiveness and felt her instruction was within
Mark’s zone of proximal development. However, they noted Maura seemed to
be doing much of the work for Mark, and questioned Marks’ engagement in
his own learning. Maura relayed that Mark felt much of their work was
‘‘babyish’’ and requested more challenging texts. Yet, she struggled with this,
as she knew Mark could not read more challenging material and worried that
increased text difficulty would address Mark’s weaknesses rather than
strengths. In clinic, and in school, Mark was trying to engage in self-regulated
learning, but those in authority thwarted his attempts.
Developing Resilience to Learn from Mistakes
Although Maura listened to and understood Mark’s position on his own

learning, she struggled to find a way to incorporate it into instruction. Mark
wanted challenging texts, yet Maura was hesitant to provide these because
she did not want to frustrate him. Maura was having difficulty scaffolding
for self-regulation and had not yet helped Mark develop purposefulness and
ownership. Maura, our most positive tutor, became discouraged. However,
the relationship we had built with Maura and the collaborative atmosphere
in the clinic helped Maura persevere.
With encouragement from instructors and colleagues, Maura changed her
approach to working with Mark. Since Mark did not identify specific goals
he had for his time in clinic, Maura carefully crafted opportunities based on
his strengths and interests to help him find purposes. She researched many of
Mark’s interests so she was prepared with materials, and purposely set up
instances to pique Mark’s curiosity. For example, when Mark and his
mother arrived one day, Maura was reading an online article she found
about Mark’s recent hockey game. She praised Mark for his hat trick, and
relayed that she knew of another kind of hat trick. Mark and his mom knew
all about the ‘‘Gordie Howe hat trick’’ (one goal, one assist, and one fight in
the same game). Mark was proud to share that he had scored his own
‘‘Gordie Howe hat trick.’’ He and Maura then read an article on Howe and
learned that the famous ‘‘Mr. Hockey’’ had dyslexia – one of Mark’s hockey
heroes was more like him than he realized.
There were other topics that interested Mark throughout the rest of the
semester, among them building paper airplanes and investigating crime
scenes. The key was Maura’s research and extensive planning to help Mark
discover his own interest in these topics. Mark, finally, was engaged,
learning, and self-regulating. He was better able to work through challen-
ging texts without giving up, and more amenable to instruction. While
earlier in the semester, Mark would have become discouraged and quit, he
now actively solved his own problems. With guidance from instructors and
colleagues and ‘‘permission’’ to refocus her lessons on enhancing Mark’s
self-esteem and self-regulation, Maura focused on what Mark wanted and
needed to accomplish.
From Maura and Mark, we learn the importance of fostering self-
regulation, of working together to problem-solve, and of supporting teachers
to develop resilience. As clinic/lab instructors, we must offer generous
encouragement and support to teachers and students so neither gives up.
In considering how our clinic focus on problem-solving transfers to
school contexts (Deeney et al., 2011), participants discussed the importance
of working to find relevance for students, fostering motivation and
engagement, and seeking variety in choosing instructional practices and
materials. One participant noted,
I transferred in a big way the notion of relevancy and working to the student y It’s not
a program that I have to follow. It’s not a script. It’s meeting the child where the child is,
finding the success and working where the child needs to go (p. 138).
INTENTIONAL AND PURPOSEFUL LANGUAGE:

EXAMINING OUR LANGUAGE CHOICES
We believe language choices matter and have consequences for student’s

learning and for how they are represented (Johnston, 2004). Language choices
are central to building relationships, learning from students, and structuring
opportunities for children to be successful. Because of this, in our clinics/labs
we help teachers become more purposeful and intentional with their language
choices and in their representation of learners (Dozier et al., 2006).
Examining Language during Lessons
In clinic/lab, we ask teachers to name the strategies readers and writers use
and to name students as readers and writers (Johnston, 2004). This emphasis
on language helps teachers move beyond ‘‘Good job,’’ ‘‘Excellent,’’ ‘‘Nice
work’’ statements. These global statements do not help students identify
their processes as learners. Students in the lab need to know how to focus
their energies, and which strategies and behaviors help them accelerate as
readers (Mercer, 2000). Teachers, at first, find monitoring their language
difficult. As one teacher said, ‘‘I’ve never had to think about my language this
much!’’
During our observations and subsequent conferences, we help teachers
notice and name reading and writing strategies and behaviors they observe.
We emphasize helping children build on their strengths (Clay, 2005a,
2005b). Teachers learn to name when children self-correct or re-read
sections of the text. They come to name when students question texts and
include craft features explored during mini-lessons. Hannah noted, ‘‘I have
begun noticing and naming the strategies my students use, and I do my best to
give purpose for each task I request of them.’’
When teachers name students as readers and writers, students take on
these identities (Johnston, 2004), many for the first time. Teachers find that
the specificity of their noticing and naming helps students continue to
engage productively. Maggie observed, ‘‘When I named Jake as a reader or
writer or let him know that he was doing things that readers and writers do, he
began to feel more secure and his effort and stamina grew.’’ Carla, too, noted
the power of naming students as writers.
I have never said ‘‘That’s what writers do’’ or ‘‘That’s what readers do’’ until this
semester. I have implied it, but I haven’t explicitly stated it. Now, I will y. After Sophie
extended the ending of ‘‘Stray’’ by Cynthia Rylant, I saw the power of those prompts.
That’s what writers do. They observe the way words flow on a page. They pay attention
to adjectives that are used to describe things in interesting ways. In Sophie’s ending, she
captured the beautiful, quiet language Rylant used in her short story. Sophie referred to
the dog as pup, just as Rylant did y Sophie’s writing was beautiful, and insightful, and
compelling. That’s what writers do.
Examining Language through Transcription
Emphasizing language during the tutorials is powerful, yet can be difficult.

Language is often lost in the moment. Therefore, we help teachers slow
down their teaching to better analyze their language by transcribing and

analyzing three lessons (two audiotapes and one videotape). Teachers find
that transcribing allows them to think deeply about their interactions and
re-imagine their teaching (Dozier et al., 2006; Schon, 1987). Mitch reflected,
‘‘Initially, I found myself leaving very little time for Jessie to respond to my
questioning. I often found myself asking several ‘rapid fire’ questions directly
after a question where he did not respond.’’ Mitch later gave more wait time
after he asked questions, and discovered Jessie was more open to
conversations around the books he read.
Initially, teachers often believe they ask open-ended questions. After
analyzing and reflecting on the transcripts of their lessons, they come to
realize that their questions are actually framed to generate one-word or brief
answers. Alana noted the differences in her student Beth’s responses when
Alana’s language changed:
In the beginning, my questions focused on surface level comprehension. When I asked

surface level questions, she gave me short responses; however, as my language changed,
Beth’s answers became more thoughtful y The open ended questions helped me learn
about the logic of Beth, and once I understood Beth’s logic, I began to prepare more
natural spots to stop and discuss.
Like many other teachers in the class, Alana began to write out open-
ended questions before the tutorials to ensure she and Beth engaged in
deeper conversations.
Collaborative Language Examination
While transcripts help teachers reflect on their own language choices, we

also set up opportunities for teachers to collaboratively reflect and comment
on colleagues’ language choices (Dozier, Garnett, & Tabatabai, 2011).
During class viewings of videotaped lessons, we engage in collective noticing
and naming. As teachers watch the videos, we ask them to identify the
language teachers use, and students’ literacy engagement. Through these
conversations, teachers envision multiple ways to use language for teaching
and learning (Mercer, 2000), and how to notice and name each other’s
teaching moves, just as we expect they will do in schools. In their final
reflective essays, teachers note the importance of observing others and
engaging in this careful analysis together. Sue commented, ‘‘Anytime people
come together and share their ideas, the overall understanding of the group
increases.’’
Examining the Language of Reports
As teachers write student reports, we impress upon teachers to be mindful of

their language choices because, as Johnston (1997) reminds us, ‘‘you are
creating a representation that can have serious consequences for the student’’
(p. 296). Our words as educators carry great weight, and, in our clinics/labs we
ask teachers to take a step back and hear what their words say. When teachers
use deficit language, we must first help them come to recognize this. Initially,
tutors might not see their representation as deficit-driven. We help teachers see
that words like simple, just, only, and never are value laden. Before teachers
turn in their final reports, we ask teachers, How are you representing your
learner? Are you clearly representing learner’s strengths? How are you repre-
senting families? Would someone reading this report feel like you know the child
well? Sometimes, instructors need to ask directly, Would you use these words
when writing about own child? Language choices matter and have con-
sequences. Therefore, we strive for teachers to transfer this emphasis on how
we represent learners beyond clinic/lab walls.
CONCLUSION
Learners are complex. Families are complex. Teachers are complex. Therefore,
our work in clinics/labs is complex. We recognize these complexities and
intentionally focus clinic experiences and our own instruction on the multiple
layers of learning needed to enable all participants to be successful (Table 1). We
begin by building relationships with teachers and students so we can learn how
best to teach them. Since students often come to our clinics/labs with difficult
learning histories, we ask teachers to find what inspires, what challenges, and
what engages each learner. Through this process, teachers learn how to help
students see possibilities. Through our relationships, we push teachers and
students to persevere during times of frustration and unrest, and work together
to solve problems. We seek to help teachers realize there is a way for every child
to engage successfully, even if it takes a while to discover this. In clinics and labs,
just as we want children to become self-regulated, our goal is for teachers, too, to
become purposeful, intentional, problem-solvers. Most important, we want
teachers to expect that teaching is complex and to be comfortable and confident
in dealing with that complexity. As such, teachers learn to examine both their
teaching decisions and their language choices through multiple lenses and
multiple interpretations. Through the deliberateness of our instruction, we set
teachers up to transfer these sensibilities to their future educational contexts.
Table 1. Clinic/Lab Activities Used to Help Teachers Keep Learners at

the Center of Their Teaching.
Purpose/Intent Activity Brief Explanation
Build relationships Introductions/artifacts Teachers bring artifacts to introduce

Build community Celebrations themselves to colleagues. Each week in
seminar, teachers share celebrations of
teaching and learning. Teachers also
share issues for colleague feedback.
Photographs Tutors give students a disposable camera
and invite them to take photographs that
matter to them. Teachers use the
photographs to get to know the students
and for future writing pieces during the
tutorials.
Family communication After reading articles about developing
family partnerships, teachers write an
initial plan to engage with families.
Teachers communicate with families
when they pick up their children and
through phone conversations, e-mails, or
notebooks.
Family celebration Families, students, and teachers gather
together to celebrate learning during a
final presentation at the end of the
semester.
Learn about Lesson plans For each session, teachers plan, prepare,
students through Anecdotal notes and articulate pedagogical decisions.
observation Reflections During the lesson, teachers write
Teacher/instructor anecdotal notes, documenting close
conferences observations of students. After lessons,
Videotape presentation teachers reflect on student’s engagement
with feedback from and learning in light of their teaching
colleagues decisions, and set future goals. Teachers
confer with course instructors and,
through video presentation, with
colleagues, analyze teaching interactions,
observe learners, consider multiple
alternatives, and extend teaching.
Analyze language Audiotape analysis Teachers transcribe two five-minute
choices segments of audiotaped lessons to
examine their language choices and
consequences in light of their teaching
decisions and evidence of student
engagement. Teachers consider alternate
language possibilities.
Table 1. (Continued )
Purpose/Intent Activity Brief Explanation
Videotape presentation Teachers choose a segment of one tutorial

Videotape analysis to share with colleagues. Colleagues
provide oral and written feedback, share
insights, examine instructional decisions,
problem-solve, and analyze instructional
language. Teachers examine how they
represent learners to colleagues.
Colleagues learn to provide constructive
feedback on language usage.
Initial report Teachers write reports that document and
Written updates analyze students’ assessment and
Final report instructional data. Teachers analyze and
revise reports for parent-friendly
language that focus on student strengths.
Problem-solving Anecdotal notes Teachers write weekly reflections about
Reflections their lessons, specifically citing what
Teacher–instructor worked well and what did not, based on
conferences their observations of student learning
Audiotape analysis and behavior; they also analyze a video-
Videotape presentation recorded session of their teaching
with feedback from following a discussion with colleagues.
colleagues Teachers use these tools to identify and
problem-solve teaching and learning
issues, confer with colleagues and
instructors, and generate alternatives.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon.
Allington, R. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention. New York, NY: Allyn &
Bacon.
multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in
education (Vol. 24, pp. 61–100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research
Association.
Cambourne, B. (1995). Toward an educationally relevant theory of literacy learning. Twenty
years of inquiry. The Reading Teacher, 49(3), 182–190.
Clay, M. M. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.
Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. (2005a). Literacy lessons designed for individuals, Part 1. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. (2005b). Literacy lessons designed for individuals, Part 2. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Smit, J., Davis, S., Laster, B., Applegate, M., Cobb, J., y Morewood,
A. (2011). Clinic experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters
in clinical teacher preparation. 60th annual yearbook of the literacy research association
(pp. 111–127). Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.
Delpit, L. (2012). ‘‘Multiplication is for White people’’: Raising expectations for other people’s
children. New York, NY: The New Press.
Dever, M. T., Johnson, F. F., & Hobbs, D. E. (2000). A qualitative analysis of an intensive
mentor-apprentice collaboration: MAC. Journal of Research and Development in
Education, 33(4), 241–256.
Dozier, C. (2006). Responsive literacy coaching. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Dozier, C., Garnett, S., & Tabatabai, S. (2011). Responsive teaching through conversation. The
Dozier, C., Johnston, P., & Rogers, R. (2006). Critical literacy/critical learning: tools for
preparing responsive teachers. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Gardiner, W. (2012). Coaches’ and new urban teachers’ perceptions of induction coaching:
Time, trust, and accelerated learning curves. Teacher Educator, 47(3), 195–215.
Guthrie, J. T., & Davis, M. H. (2003). Motivating struggling readers in middle school through
an engagement model of classroom practice.. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 19, 59–85.
Johnston, P. H. (1997). Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. York, ME:
Stenhouse.
Johnston, P. H. (2004). Choice words: How our language affects children’s learning. Portland,
ME: Stenhouse.
Kroeger, J., & Lash, M. (2011). Asking, listening, and learning: Toward a more thorough
method of inquiry in home-school relations. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(2),
268–277.
Kyle, D. W., McIntyre, E., Miller, K., & Moore, G. (2002). Reaching out: A K-8 resource for
connecting with families. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children
(2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
L’Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R. (2010). What matters for elementary literacy coaching?
Guiding principles for instructional improvement and student achievement. The Reading
Teacher, 63(7), 544–554.
Mercer, N. (2000). Words and minds: How we use language to think together. London:
Routledge.
Orellana, M., & Hernandez, A. (1999). Talking the walk: Children reading urban environmental
print. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 612–619.
Paris, S. G., & Newman, R. S. (1990). Developmental aspects of self-regulated learning.
Educational Psychologist, 25, 87–102.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research and
applications. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
Rosebery, A., McIntyre, E., & Gonzalez, N. (2001). Connecting students’ cultures to
instruction. In E. McIntyre, A. Rosebery & N. Gonzalez (Eds.), Classroom diversity:
Connecting curriculum to students’ lives (pp. 1–13). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67.
Schon, D. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Spielman, J. (2001). The family photograph project: ‘‘We will just read what the pictures tell
us’’. The Reading Teacher, 54(8), 762–777.
Tharp, R., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning and schooling in
social context. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (2002). Motivation and the struggling to learn: Responding
to fractured experience. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Warford, M. K. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 27(2), 252–258.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn. Contemporary Educational
INNOVATIVE PRACTICES:
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE
COLLABORATION AND
PARTNERSHIPS WITHIN SCHOOL-
BASED READING CLINICS
Tammy Milby
ABSTRACT
Purpose – The chapter provides the reader with an overview of how

teacher preparation programs can utilize a school-based reading/literacy
clinic model within university coursework. Information on how to
successfully scaffold teacher candidates into becoming more reflective
educators through the use of a reading clinic model is provided. Details for
partnering with community organizations to provide tutoring support for
struggling readers is illustrated.
Methodology/approach – The research support for utilizing tutoring
programs is shared. Implications for teacher preparation programs
seeking to develop literacy experiences for preservice and practicing
educators are depicted. This book chapter describes a framework for
establishing and maintaining tutoring partnerships within communities.

ISSN: 2048-0458/doi:10.1108/S2048-0458(2013)0000002022
387
388 TAMMY MILBY
Practical implications – The author provides examples of effective

community partnerships with suggestions and techniques for developing
new programs and/or partnerships. Practical tips for establishing and
maintaining tutoring programs which are composed of innovative
practices are included.
Social implications – The key element of effective tutoring programs is to
improve student achievement in literacy. Educators must build meaningful
and thought-provoking literacy practices into the tutoring setting. A
model for using a tutoring approach supportive of struggling readers is
described. The components for effectively designing and preserving a
reading clinics program are shared.
Keywords: Reading/literacy clinics; tutoring; interventions; teacher

candidates; reflection; community partnerships; struggling readers
INTRODUCTION
Teacher preparation programs often use a variety of approaches to build

relevant practical experiences into university coursework. The focus of
practical experiences for preservice educators is learning how to effectively
teach a child to ‘‘read, write, and think critically’’ prior to attaining one’s
own classroom. For in-service educators, the goal is much the same; to learn
how to effectively teach a child to ‘‘read, write, and think critically’’ while
reflecting on how the implementation of this intervention relates to
enhancing one’s own classroom. In the discipline of literacy, practical
application of pedagogy is essential for gaining the complex understandings
necessary for teaching a child to read. One successful approach is the use of
School-based Reading Clinics. School-based Reading Clinics offer the
opportunity for universities and schools to collaborate together to address
the needs of diverse learners in the classroom.
The School-based Reading Clinic model typically involves a university
faculty member serving as a coach or facilitator while university students tutor
elementary or adolescent students. School-based experiences are sometimes
held off-campus at a public or private school locations. Reading clinics can be
offered during the traditional academic school year or during the summer
months. Clinics can also be housed within community organizations. Clinics
are most often held during school hours or during an after-school program.
Innovative Practices 389
For example, a university class focused on learning how to conduct reading

assessments might enter a public school setting to provide individual or small
group instruction for struggling first-grade readers who require additional
support with literacy strategies. While university students work one-on-one
with the elementary children in an after-school program, the university faculty
member will circulate, observe, and provide modeling or assistance with
implementation of assessments and teaching techniques. Most school-based
clinics offer a time of reflection following the teaching opportunity in which the
instruction is discussed and analyzed. University students are provided
feedback on their teaching and lesson planning skills. Much of the conver-
sation concentrates on enhancing the success of the tutoring intervention while
applying the key ideas from the university readings and coursework. This
approach is described as a mutually beneficial opportunity for the children
who are served, the university, and the public school. Universities provide
support to the community by supplying highly trained and closely supervised
tutors. Teaching candidates are able to learn to apply literacy coursework in
real-world settings. Public schools benefit by having a cadre of university
volunteers to supplement the ability of school personnel to provide individual
services which amplify the academic achievement of those children needing
additional help. In addition to academic growth in literacy, children who are
served within a School-based Reading Clinic can gain increased confidence
and motivation toward reading. One second-grade student who participated in
a reading clinic stated, ‘‘My tutor helps me to find books I like to read and
shows me how to read hard words.’’ Thus, the school-based partnership is
advantageous for all involved.
RESEARCH SUPPORT FOR TUTORING PROGRAMS

Historically, many cultures have used tutoring as one of the oldest forms of
teaching (Shanahan, 1998). Tutoring has become a popular form of instruc-
tional support for struggling readers and is often utilized as a primary inter-
vention for those students needing more literacy support. The use and
effectiveness of tutoring programs worldwide have been documented exten-
sively in the educational research literature (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982;
Fashola, 1998, 2001; Ritter, Barnett, Denny, & Albin, 2009; Wasik & Slavin,
1993). Providing students with individual instruction to supplement high-quality
classroom teaching provides needed instructional gains for struggling readers.
Working one-one-one with individual students is one of the most effective ways
to prevent reading failure in the primary grades, fostering student autonomy and
390 TAMMY MILBY
self-directed learning (Clay, 1985; Cobb, 2001; Morris, 2003; Pullen, Lane, &
Monaghan, 2004; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). The practice and use of tutoring as a
pedagogical method is also extensively documented (Cohen et al., 1982; Fashola,
2001; Lauer et al., 2006; Wasik & Slavin, 1993). Additionally, many fiscal
resources have been utilized across time to fund tutoring programs and these
programs may significantly influence educational policy. Yet, educators and the
public may wonder, ‘‘How effective is a supplemental tutoring program
conducted by a university student?’’ The academic benefits of tutoring programs
have recently been analyzed through two meta-analyses. Elbaum, Vaughn,
Hughes, and Moody (2000) conducted a meta-analysis of supplemental, adult-
instructed one-on-one reading interventions for students who are at-risk for
reading failure. These researchers documented that interventions that used
trained volunteers or college students were highly effective. According to their
findings, students who were tutored by college students made the largest gains.
This research team also found that intensive programs had more powerful
effects, noting that interventions focused on comprehension tended to produce
the largest instructional gains. Elbaum et al. reached the conclusion that ‘‘college
students and trained, reliable community volunteers were able to provide
significant help to struggling readers’’ (p. 616).
Having trained volunteers work under the supervision of a teacher,
reading specialist, or university faculty member qualified to teach reading
may increase the quantity and quality of services provided (Dromsky &
Gambrell, 1999; Invernizzi, Juel, & Rosemary, 1997; Morrow & Woo,
1999). Likewise, meaningful lesson planning including a structured
approach which includes high-quality materials will also increase the value
of instruction (Wasik, 1998). As the tutoring is conducted, monitoring and
reinforcement of instructional progress can enhance the growth of reading
achievement (Meier & Invernizzi, 2001). Ongoing monitoring of progress
and careful guidance from an experienced supervisor who is trained in
literacy practices will help student attain greater progress (Johnston,
Invernizzi, Juel, & Lewis-Wagner, 2009).
A second meta-analysis conducted by Ritter et al. (2009) examined the
effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for improving the academic skills
of K-8 students enrolled in public school settings. Ritter et al. determined that
volunteer tutoring has a positive effect on achievement for students being
tutored and found specific gains in the areas of word study, oral fluency, and
writing when comparing tutored students to peers who were not tutored. These
authors conclude that success of participation in a volunteer program results in
improved overall reading measures and offers instructional advice to
educators looking to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals on state
assessment measures. Ritter et al. explained that ‘‘It would be worthwhile to

consider structured, reading-focused volunteer tutoring programs as strategies
to improve reading and language skills’’ (p. 20).
RESEARCH IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHER

PREPARATION PROGRAMS
Likewise, researchers have examined the influence of tutoring experiences for

prospective teachers. From a preparation perspective, tutoring programs
provide developing teachers powerful insights into the process of teaching
reading and learning about individual student needs. A team of researchers on
behalf of the International Reading Association examined and reviewed 82
empirical studies on teacher preparation for reading instruction (Risko et al.,
2008). These researchers investigated the complexities of learning to teach
reading and analyzed what conditions impact teacher shifts and changes in
knowledge. Risko et al. found that participation in tutoring programs as a part
of field experiences during teacher preparation programs was positively
associated with changing the belief systems and responsibility held by
prospective teachers related to working with culturally and linguistically
diverse students. Worthy and Patterson (2001) noted that working individually
with one student during tutoring provided many prospective teachers with
three significant skills including (1) increasing the confidence that was
displayed in their ability to teach struggling readers, (2) displayed a more
caring attitude, and (3) shifting their deficit views to recognition of their
students’ unique capabilities. Peck (2009) found that reading clinics in
authentic settings such as urban areas served as powerful encounters for
graduate students because the experience ‘‘encourages them to reflect not only
upon the intricacies of literacy tutoring but also upon the added complexities
of designing and carrying out instruction targeted for urban youth’’ (p. 120).
An additional team of researchers concluded that reading clinics are a suc-
cessful practice providing both preservice and in-service teachers the ability to
‘‘transfer’’ instructional understanding and assessment practices to classroom
contexts (Deeney et al., 2011). Deeney et al. determined that some educators
moved further than ‘‘transfer’’ of knowledge, successfully demonstrating the
ability to ‘‘transform’’ these new understandings by sharing and applying these
understandings with other educators through literacy leadership practices.
Transfer of knowledge from teacher preparation programs into the school
context is essential for ‘‘teachers to understand deeply a wide array of things
392 TAMMY MILBY
about learning, social and cultural contexts, and teaching and be able to enact
these understandings in complex classrooms serving increasingly diverse
students’’ (Darling-Hammond, 2006, p. 302). School-based Reading Clinics
facilitate the purposeful ability of teacher educators to help college students
apply course materials through demonstrating, reinforcing, and modeling
crucial literacy techniques in a practical one-on-one setting. Thus, this type of
clinical experience allows for greater learning, enhanced reflective thinking,
and rich, guided conversations to occur.
PURPOSEFUL PARTNERSHIPS
Partnerships occur when organizations agree to cooperate or work together
to support mutual interests. Schools and universities have this mutual
interest, since they are both working towards the same global mission – the
pursuit of knowledge to build lifelong literacy. Universities have the
opportunity to offer the community a wide range of resources that can
provide valuable support. Schools are always in need of ongoing literacy
support to upkeep educational excellence. A common purpose of many
educational partnerships is to improve both the academic achievement as
well as the social outcomes for children (Blank, Jacobson, & Melaville,
2012). However, it is sometimes challenging for elementary or secondary
schools to build a long-term partnership with university partners that can
service the needs and interests of both groups. How can school and
university partnerships best be achieved?
Partnerships must begin with both parties recognizing the need for
working with one another. Universities must recognize the shift in teacher
education toward a more robust program based on a complex view of
teaching (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000). Clinical instruction has shifted
thinking to focus more centrally on teaching children rather than teaching
skills, addressing how to use assessments to guide instruction planning and
address the individual needs of learners (Peck, 2009). Schools must also shift
toward recognizing the need to become more open to community partner-
ships (Epstein, 2001). ‘‘Schools that are committed to developing students’
critical thinking skills and real-world applications of knowledge as well as
providing necessary services and enrichment activities need to forge new
relationships with the community to improve student learning’’ (Shields,
1994). School and university partnerships align resources and help greater
learning to occur. Blank et al. (2012) in the document entitled, Achieving
results through community school partnerships: How district and community
leaders are building effective, sustainable, relationships, provide six main

foundational strategies for building and continuing community partner-
ships. These strategies include: (1) Ensuring a common vision among all
partners, (2) Establishing structured opportunities to engage stakeholders,
(3) Encouraging open dialogue about challenges and solutions, (4) Engaging
stakeholders in the use of data, (5) Creating central-office capacity to sustain
community schools work, and (6) Leveraging community resources and
braiding funding streams. These categories are adapted below to help
university faculty members or school leaders apply these foundational
principles to the school-based clinical setting:
1. Creating a common vision among all partners
At the start of a School-based Reading Clinics partnership, it is crucial to help
everyone involved develop a common vision of the goals and expectations for
the experience. For university faculty, this will involve leadership to help build
the program with the school division, school administration (principal and/or
program coordinator), cooperating teachers/ reading specialists, building staff
(office manager & custodians), college students, as well as tutees and their
families. The first step is to help all participants develop a shared under-
standing of the off-site tutoring program. The focus throughout partnership
development is developing a lasting and sustained partnership where all
members of the collaboration experience success and feel the benefits of the
team effort. Often, universities operate on a semester-to-semester schedule
which may differ from schools which operate on a yearly academic schedule.
However, the goal is developing more than a one semester experience. In order
to sustain a program across time, all key stakeholders must be vested.
Partnerships which view reading clinics solely as a university class or
program are destined to encounter difficulties. Since universities often begin
or facilitate this relationship, schools or community organizations can
perceive these programs as something from the outside ‘‘moving in’’ rather
than a joint effort. Extra programs or activities rarely last in school and
community settings which have limited time and space resources. Investing
the time upfront to guide all participants in the collaboration allows the
School-based Reading Program to belong to both the school and
community or off-site partner.
Although the main vision is to sustain a relationship amongst the
university and school, school-age students should also be considered when
creating a partnership. School-age students may become more motivated
and engaged in the learning process when communities and schools work
together. For example, Tyron who is a fourth-grader reading a couple of
394 TAMMY MILBY
years below grade level, may recognize the need to read better but may not
be motivated to engage in recreational reading behaviors. A university
student athlete who comes 2–3 times per week to tutor Tyron in literacy may
assist Tyron in developing the value of reading for pleasure and could help
him find books which contain the adventures he has been seeking. Tyron
benefits from not only academic but also social support, once he
understands the vision and is included in the partnership.
2. Establish structured opportunities to engage key stakeholders
Once the clinic has been started, one of the first steps will be determining
which type of relationship should be established. Will you need a formal
written agreement or can your relationship be developed more informally
through meetings and emails? Who is able to grant permission for building
or facility use? Who will ensure access to the needed students and materials?
Face-to-face meetings at the beginning of the partnership can be a strong
step toward developing a lasting relationship. The focus on this meeting
should be the creation of a beneficial and trusting relationship. Blank et al.
(2012) discuss the importance of developing trust within your collaborative
partnership. They write:
The structures and functions associated with building a community schools strategy are
built on a deepening foundation of collective trust. That trust is vital to achieving the
collective impact that emerges when school and community partners share responsibility
for the education of our children and youth. (p. 4–5)
Networking is sometimes a helpful strategy for building this trusting

relationship. Faculty members may wish to utilize a school or community
partner with whom previous collaborations have been successful. Another
route might be to look for graduates of your program who would be more
likely to invite and collaborate with the college to hold a literacy clinic in
their school setting. A third technique for building trusting relationships is
to look for leaders within the community. A school principal who is an
advocate for literacy or a National Board Certified Reading Specialist is the
type of leader who may value the addition of a School-based Reading or
Literacy Clinic.
3. Encouraging open dialogue about tutoring clinic challenges and solutions
Schools are complex organisms which operate with deep intricacy. Adding a
reading clinic may seem like the addition of just one simple program, but it
will often impact multiple individuals within the school building. Issues such
as parking, sign-in procedures, access to students, intervention time,
communication, sharing spaces, permission slips, and use of resources

(books, assessments, technology, copying) require dialogue and proactive
communication. There will be challenges, and with these challenges come
creative solutions. Without developing that trusting and collaborative
relationship, a school-based clinic can easily encounter difficulties. For
example, how will you handle logistical occurrences such field trips or
university breaks? A mailbox in the teacher’s lounge may be a good place to
start. It is a visual reminder of your presence in the building and may be a
place to exchange information such as school calendars and permission
slips. Who will be your first point of contact? A few meetings along the way
designated with the purpose of openly discussing concerns will lead to a
stronger partnership.
Collaborating with classroom teachers or reading specialists may be
challenging at off-site locations. Many times literacy clinics are offered after
school or during key instructional blocks when access to conversations and
student-focused dialogue may be limited. If possible, consider recruiting
someone from the school or community site to serve as an ‘‘insider’’ to help
facilitate dialogue and navigate the challenges and solutions as needs arise.
Technology (such as email) or journals can also serve as a way to facilitate
conversations related to the ever changing needs of the tutoring students.
Another suggestion is to schedule a couple of meetings to be held during the
semester at the beginning of the partnership. These meetings will serve as a
great opportunity to discuss what is working and what needs tweaking
during the School-based Reading Clinic experience.
4. Engaging stakeholders in the use of data
Most university teacher preparation programs have a goal of encouraging

teaching candidates to analyze and use ongoing data to inform the decision-
making process. The approach is often circular in nature. Candidates (1)
collect initial data to determine the type of reading difficulty, (2) develop
intervention goals, (3) tutor while collecting formative assessments, and then
(4) reassess to determine student progress and success of the program. The
crucial point to ponder becomes, how do all stakeholders within the clinical
model share in the use of data? How can the collaboration support both the
learner and the clinical instructor? Will the school share informal
assessments? How? What will you do to determine if the program is
working for all stakeholders? How often will you meet to determine if needs
of everyone in the collaborations are being met? What are the outcomes of
the collaboration?
396 TAMMY MILBY
Products created within the clinic can be useful artifacts for school or
community partners. For example, documents such as assessment reports,
instructional activities, and family newsletters could all be helpful materials
to share with school and community partners. One point to consider is that
the clinic supervisor cannot always view everything. All lessons and family
interactions cannot always be supervised or recorded. New assessments are
likely being given as a learning opportunity for the university student and
could contain small mistakes as the university student may be nervous to
administer the protocol for the first time with an actual student. As with
school children, miscues, questions, or prompts made by university students
during instruction can serve as a powerful catalyst to promote learning. The
crucial factor is determining what data will be collected, how it will be
utilized and shared, and who will have access to confidential materials.
5. Creating capacity to sustain the work
Change is an ongoing part of everyday life. From chaos comes growth and
development. However, it is important to develop the capacity of your clinic
so that it can be sustained long-term. Within any school program, change
will occur. Teachers and faculty retire. Reading specialists transfer or get
promoted. Administrators will be appointed to new schools. The key to
coping with change is to plan for it, building contingencies into your clinical
program. Getting more individuals vested in the School-based Reading
Clinic and sharing your success will ensure that small changes don’t lead to
the demise of your program. Consider training additional faculty or school
staff to support the goals of the clinic. In addition to human resources, other
physical changes can greatly influence the feasibility of the clinical model.
Space for an ‘‘extra’’ program or a ‘‘curricular’’ model that disconnects with
the divisions approach can lead to program closure. Sometimes, these issues
are unavoidable or it is just time to move along to a better location or
learning experience.
The wise faculty member is ever flexible and responsive, ever forging
relationships and building community connections so that change brings
new opportunities. Creating capacity to sustain the work does not stop with
off-site school and community partners. Faculty need to consider how to
share the work and success of the clinic model with others within and out-
side of their education departments. Some universities are considering off-
ering totally online teacher preparation experiences in order to recruit
students from a larger geographic population. This movement is impacting
reading clinics specifically, which are built on establishing rapport and lea-
rner interactions in a face-to-face environment that promotes high-quality
literacy instruction with coaching. Another consideration of School-based

Reading Clinics is that they are held off-site and university administrators
may not have the opportunity to understand the powerful program
implications of adapting the current model. To create capacity and sustain
your work, determine the best strategies for publicizing this effort.
6. Leveraging resources and funding
School-based Reading Clinics tend to take fewer resources than campus-

based clinical models which utilize a tremendous amount of campus space
and materials (such as two-way mirrors for behind the glass or extensive
video equipment). However, it is still an instructional lab requiring materials
and funding. At the start of the relationship, a portable collection of
materials will need to be purchased including materials such as leveled
readers, children’s literature, writing materials, and assessments. If possible,
a budget should be established for the clinic to manage the ongoing and
consumable needs of curricular materials. If the faculty budget is limited,
one approach might be to have the university student create a tutoring kit or
collection of materials to use individually with the learner. In addition to
materials, faculty and support staff time is another resource which must be
investigated as the off-site School-based Reading Clinic is established.
Grant funding or business initiatives may be another source of resources
for the developing clinical reading program. Sometimes, resources currently
exist which can be reallocated for this type of off-site program. Access to
technology is a consideration when determining the resources which are
available at the clinic site(s). In order to model how to embed technology
into instruction, faculty supervisors benefit from having internet access at
the off-site location. The tutors also gain instructional experiences from
access and use of tablets, electronic children’s books, or laptops with
educational and/or word-processing software. Recent advances with
handheld devices make integrating technology into instruction at off-site
locations more possible. A set of small tablets (such as iPads) with wireless
access can enhance instructional opportunities during tutoring.
MODEL FOR USING A SCHOOL-BASED READING

CLINIC TO SUPPORT STRUGGLING READERS
Once the community partnership has been established, the next step is ensuring
that the tutoring that takes place will support diverse learners. Gunning (2006)
398 TAMMY MILBY
describes the powerful nature of tailored tutoring experiences. He states,

‘‘Because it provides one-one-one instruction, tutoring can be tailored to the
students’ needs in a way that no group approach can. Tutoring is potentially
the most effective approach of all’’ (Gunning, 2006, p. 157). The first step in
designing a school-based program to meet the needs of struggling readers or
lower-achieving students is to ensure that all children are receiving high-
quality classroom instruction. Tutoring is a supplemental or additional
support service designed to accompany effective classroom teaching, not to
bypass the problem of ineffective teaching. Next, consider who will provide
services to which students.
Although the approach may vary, most reading experts agree that the
individual who is most qualified to teach reading should work with those
students needing the most services (Gordon, 2009). Allington (2005) suggests
that schools consider two essential elements to alter the type of support that
struggling readers receive. These elements are ‘‘intensity and expertness.’’
First, enhance access to ‘‘intensive’’ style interventions. Make the most of
every instructional minute and meet with students with greater frequency
(daily works best) to enhance the benefits or gains that are produced. Consider
limiting small group size or adopting an individual tutoring design to for
instruction to really accelerate learning. Next, consider the topic of
‘‘expertness.’’ Expert interventions are needed for those children who have
failed to develop the expected literacy growth. Thus, a highly qualified
Reading Specialist or Title 1 teacher could ‘‘push into’’ the classroom to work
with the lowest quartile of children while university students work with those
students falling just below the benchmark on initial assessments.
As the tutoring model is established, the work of Wasik (1998) is a useful
guide for supplying the tutoring elements which promote literacy achieve-
ment. In order to close the literacy gap for struggling readers, those students
who are behind need an accelerated program (Gunning, 2006). These
students must make average progress plus extra progress including receiving
both extra instructional help and putting in extra reading time. Tutoring is
one way of getting this needed extra help (Gunning, 2006). Wasik (1998)
evaluated tutoring programs to determine common components which
foster meaningful experiences for learners in tutoring settings. These
components are easily adapted to the clinics model:
Coordination and supervision of tutoring sessions is conducted by a

trained literacy professional.
A structured lesson plan format exists which is focused on high payoff
activities geared to meet the needs of the individual student.
Tutoring should take place for a substantial time period and must include
ongoing learner scaffolding.
Appropriate and engaging instructional materials should be utilized.
Ongoing monitoring occurs which includes opportunities for tutor
training and feedback with scaffolding and modeling as needed.
Tutoring should be aligned with and congruent to the classroom reading
program.
The components outlined above demonstrate the expectation that the

tutoring block is highly structured and focused. The instructional activities
included must meet the complex literacy needs of each learner. Wasik
suggests that the minimal time allocated for tutoring session should be at
least 30 minutes two times per week. More recent research concurs with this
finding and has demonstrated that holding sessions more often leads to
more effective results. The instructional materials utilized should include
appropriate texts on the students reading level as well as interactive elements
like dry erase boards, board games, and interesting writing papers. School-
based Reading Clinic supervisors need to examine the curriculum which is
being utilized by the classroom teacher and explore opportunities to support
tutors by aligning learning and making connections to the classroom
reading program. Additionally, the role and tone of the supervisor is
supportive and constructive. Tutors have great responsibility for a valuable
block of instructional time. Maintaining high expectations and building a
caring, committed environment may influence student engagement and
success (Rothman & Henderson, 2011). Thus, supervisors who observe less
effective techniques may choose to join or engage in the tutoring session to
model different techniques which could be more useful. Modeling is a
valuable approach, beneficial for the greater good of the tutoring student
and teacher in training.
EXAMPLES OF EFFECTIVE COMMUNITY

PARTNERSHIPS
The most essential element of creating a solid partnership is recognizing

those resources existing in the community which can be developed. The
chart below displays an example of brainstorming done by a university
faculty member who was exploring possible community partnerships in
order to begin a School-based Reading Clinic. This is clearly not an
exhaustive list. The list is the beginning of generating ideas to provide an
400 TAMMY MILBY
overview of active community organizations in your community. Faculty

members who are new to a community may wish to collaborate with others
who are more vested in the neighborhood to determine which resources
might be advantageous to explore. Consider attending neighborhood events
where community groups unite to collaborate for events such as community
causes or celebrations. Faculty could also recruit community partnerships
through seeking civic engagement organizations or service learning
opportunities on-campus or near the university. Another central element
to consider is the program location and schedule. What resources are
located closer to your campus? Student transportation and course schedules
with other university classes are often a consideration. Lastly, contemplate
the timing of your clinic. Will it run during the school day or in the
evenings? Will it run during the academic year or the summer? Could the
reading clinic be aligned or connected with international programs such as
study abroad opportunities? Programs taking place during the traditional
school day can easily work into a schools existing intervention block
whereas evening programs may require more creativity in order to partner
with an organization providing tutors during after-school or summer hours.
Sample Chart of Partnership Organizations:
(Consider organizing your own chart to include the type of partnership,

possible contacts or resources, program time and location, and/or available
opportunities for networking.)
Nonprofit organizations Local government Community-based

agencies organizations
Boys & Girls Clubs, YMCA Head Start, Police Youth Coalition,
Athletic League Cultural Groups,
Jaycees
Teachers unions or Faith-based Neighborhood groups
organizations, retired educator organizations
groups
NEA, Alpha Delta Kappa Wesley Neighborhood
Foundation Associations
Business groups Civic groups Higher education
Chamber of Commerce, Lunch United Way College Clubs, Service
Buddies Learning
Ongoing commitment is needed to sustain the partnership growth. An

example of one successful program currently taking place in Henrico County,
Virginia, USA involves a partnership with the Police Athletic League (PAL).
The police department has established a crime prevention program to enhance
the educational, athletic, and recreational activities that youth participate in
during after-school hours. The purpose of the program is to create trust and
understanding between police officers and youth while engaging in enriching
experiences. The police department was exploring ways to partner with a local
university to meet the educational goals of their program. A director noticed
during the homework help time that many students in the program had
reading difficulties. At the same time, a university faculty member in the
Reading Education Department was seeking a new way to provide education
majors with practical, field experiences related to literacy coursework.
Conversation and communication between community partners about the
improvement of literacy outcomes for all children within the community
allowed for a partnership to be created. A School-based Reading Clinic was
established which provides struggling readers with a one-on-one tutoring
experience one to two times per week.
University students travel to a local after-school program in a nearby
public elementary school. This is where the literacy assessment course will be
housed for the semester. University students pursuing a degree in education
begin with giving assessments and then design an intervention tailored to
meet the needs of this individual student. Progress monitoring is conducted
throughout the program and reassessment is conducted at the end of the
sessions to determine progress. If necessary, the student can be discontinued
from the program if the literacy of the student is now on grade level or
participate in an additional round of tutoring services.
The program is sustained because of two crucial factors. A trusting
relationship has been established which is beneficial for all involved
(university faculty and students, the community group, public school staff,
parents, and after-school students). Next, data are collected in an ongoing
manner to examine the success of the program and the effectiveness of the
tutoring format (Milby, 2007). Periodically, key stakeholders meet to discuss
the program and determine the next steps for sustaining the partnership. A
similar School-based Reading Clinics program is conducted in the same
town by a neighboring college. Children are tutored during after-school
hours in the school cafeteria through a program sponsored by the YMCA.
Another successful partnership takes place in the mornings during the
scheduled language arts timeframe in a public school which is close to the
university campus. University students who are studying to be elementary
402 TAMMY MILBY
teachers visit the school for two mornings per week to work with English
Language Learners. The tutoring takes place after whole-class instruction is
completed during an intervention time where the classroom teacher is
working with small groups of first-grade students. Tutoring takes place
while other students are visiting literacy centers in the classroom. Tutors
work individually with children for 30–45 minutes while the teacher and
reading specialist provide learner support for other students in the
classroom. The university students typically utilize the following sequence
for their lessons: familiar text reading, running record, word study/word
bank, new text reading, writing, and a read aloud experience at the end of
the lesson. This format is an adaptation made by the university faculty
member from research on well-established tutoring programs such as
Reading Recovery, Book Buddies, and the Howard Street models. During
tutoring, the faculty supervisor circulates to coach and observe the
instruction. Following tutoring, the faculty supervisor joins the tutors in
an available classroom in the public school for a university class session
concentrated on reflection and application of course materials.
SCAFFOLDING TEACHER CANDIDATES TO

BECOME REFLECTIVE EDUCATORS
Once a solid partnership is established, the clinic format chosen by the

university professor will guide the successful experience that developing
teachers receive. Clinics provide endless opportunities for understanding the
learning process and building the reflective practices of teaching candidates.
Reflection typically involves an educators’ ability to make informed decisions
about teaching and learning. Reflection-in-action involves a process which is
central to the art by which practitioners learn to deal with a variety of
situations involving uncertainty, instability, uniqueness, and value conflict
(Schon, 1983). Off-site clinics usually include a tutoring session followed by
guided inquiry and discussion of the learning actions that just took place. It is
essential to build both individual, peer, and guided opportunities for reflection
into teacher preparation programs because the exploration of how to use
classroom thinking processes requires enhanced reasoning skills and deepens
instructional understandings (Jennings, Caldwell, & Lerner, 2006).
Providing opportunities for individual tutors to reflect on their own
growth in models of instruction and assessment encourages candidates to
personally apply best practices and course readings. Taking control of their
own learning will enable developing educators to make meaningful

adjustments to their own instruction and become more thoughtful teachers
(Fairbanks et al., 2010; Zeichner, 2006). Much of the daily work of a
classroom teacher involves making quick decisions and or judgments, often
in isolated settings. Prospective teachers must be prepared for the challenges
of working in public schools (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Teacher preparation
programs can support teachers learning how to carefully consider teaching
actions judiciously before, during, and after instruction. For instance, many
reading clinic supervisors require tutors to participate in some type of
reflective activity for each tutoring session. The activity may be a written
journal in which the tutoring session is analyzed, a transcript of a
videotaped portion of a lesson, or a freewrite to explore instructional
decision-making.
Much of a clinical reading experience involves making decisions about
assessments and using this information to inform instruction. Engaging in
dialogue related to questions such as ‘‘What did you notice during
teaching?’’ and ‘‘What are you wondering about?’ can facilitate deeper
levels of thinking related to the individual learner. Peer reflection involves
tutors collaborating with each other to provide useful feedback on tutoring
session decisions. Some university students tend to be able to ‘‘hear’’ honest
feedback from a peer more readily than from a professor or literacy coach.
Likewise, learning to give and accept feedback is an important professional
disposition for educators to obtain. Listening to peer feedback can also
serve as a form of informal assessment for university faculty. Teaching
candidates may feel more comfortable asking questions and admitting
confusions in a peer setting which can later lead to more open dialogue with
the entire class group.
Reflection through guided group inquiry is another way faculty members
may shape the thinking of prospective teachers. After the tutoring session is
completed, taking time to guide educators through a discussion of a particular
topic enables tutors to think globally and apply lessons related to working with
an individual learner to a whole classroom setting. Some prompts may be
specifically related to a course reading or something the supervisor noticed
during observations such as, ‘‘How did you use wait time today during
tutoring?’’ or ‘‘Describe how you encouraged fluency during repeated
readings.’’ Other prompts may lead to more open-ended discussion such as
‘‘What made you proud today and what was more difficult?’’ or ‘‘Who did
most of the talking during your tutoring session today?’’ ‘‘Why?’’ The primary
goal of guided group inquiry conversations is to scaffold thinking supporting
educators with becoming more expert or masterful teachers of literacy.
404 TAMMY MILBY
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
School-based Reading Clinics which are held at off-site locations provide

the opportunity for universities and schools to collaborate together to
address the needs of diverse learners in the classroom. Establishing a reading
clinic begins a successful program that meets the needs of struggling readers
in the classroom while preparing teachers to more effectively teach literacy.
Tutoring is a highly effective instructional approach tailored to support the
literacy development of individual students. Supplemental instructional
support provided through clinics can assist public schools in providing
interventions for a variety of learners. Clinics afford educators with
opportunities to think more critically about the process of learning.
Children will always have unique learning preferences. Faculty will always
face the changing expectations and needs of society and must continually
evolve the practices which occur within the reading clinic. Continuous
collaboration and professional development shapes the future of learning.
The decision-making abilities of prospective teachers are shaped as
university faculty guide the inquiry process. Another benefit of the
School-based Reading Clinics model is the opportunity for sustained
partnerships with community organizations. Universities, schools, and
community organizations collaborate together to combine resources while
supporting the academic achievement of a future generation.
Helping a child learn to read is one of the most crucial responsibilities of
society. Democratic living requires teachers to cultivate the capacity for
students to engage in intelligent learning activities (Henderson, 2001).
Twenty years later, the advice of Wasik and Slavin (1993) is still significant.
These authors state that ‘‘If we know that large numbers of students can be
successful in reading the first time they are taught, and that the success not
only lasts but also builds a bases for later success in school, we have a moral
obligation to do whatever it takes to see that all students do in fact receive
that which is necessary for them to succeed’’ (p. 22). School-based Reading
Clinics are a key part to addressing this moral obligation.
REFERENCES
Allington, R. L. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based
programs (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Blank, M. J., Jacobson, R., & Melaville, A. (2012). Achieving results through community
school partnerships: How district and community leaders are building effective,
sustainable, relationships. American Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanpro

gress.org/issues/2012/01/pdf/community_schools.pdf
Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
Heinemann.
Cobb, J. B. (2001). The effects of an early intervention program with pre-service teachers as
tutors on the reading achievement of primary grade at risk children. Reading Horizons,
41(3), 155–173.
Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-
analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 237–248.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Constructing 21st-century teacher education. Journal of Teacher
Education, 57(3), 300–314.
Deeney, T., Dozier, C., Smit, J., Davis, S., Laster, B., Applegate, M. D., y Milby, T. (2011).
University clinic experiences that promote transfer to school contexts: What matters in
clinical teacher preparation. In P. Dunston, L. Gambrell, K. Headley, P. Stecker,
S. Fullerton, V. Gillis & C. C. Bates (Eds.), 60th yearbook of the Literacy Research
Association. Oak Creek, WI: Literacy Research Association.
Dromsky, A. J., & Gambrell, L. B. (1999, April). America Reads at the University of Maryland:
Practices, evaluation and implications. Panel presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Moody, S. W. (2000). How effective are one-to-
one tutoring programs in reading for elementary students at risk for reading failure?
A meta-analysis of the intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(4),
605–619.
Epstein, J. L. (2001). School, family, and community partnerships: Preparing educators and
improving schools. Boulder, MA: Westview Press.
Fairbanks, C., Duffy, G., Faircloth, B, He, Ye, Levin, B., Rohr, J, & Stein, C. (2010). Beyond
knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others.
Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 161–171.
Fashola, O. S. (1998). Review of extended-day and after-school programs and their effectiveness.
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Education of Students Placed At Risk
(CRESPAR Report No. 24)http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report24.pdf
Fashola, O. S. (2001). Building effective afterschool programs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Gordon, E. E. (2009). Five ways to improve tutoring programs: Evidence on tutoring points to
practices that are found in the most successful tutoring programs. Phi Delta Kappan, 90,
440–445.
Gunning, T. G. (2006). Closing the literacy gap. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Henderson, J. G. (2001). Reflective teaching: Professional artistry through inquiry. Columbus,
OH: Merril, Prentice Hall.
Hoffman, J. V., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading teacher education in the next millennium:
What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher
should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(1), 28–44.
Invernizzi, M., Juel, C, & Rosemary, C. A. (1997). A community volunteer tutorial that works.
The Reading Teacher, 50, 304–311.
Jennings, J. H., Caldwell, J. S., & Lerner, J. W. (2006). Reading problems: Assessment and
teaching strategies (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Johnston, F. R., Invernizzi, M., Juel, C., & Lewis-Wagner, D. (2009). Book buddies: A tutoring
framework for struggling readers. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
406 TAMMY MILBY
Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L.
(2006). Out-of-school time programs: A meta-analysis of effects of at-risk students.
Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313.
Meier, J., & Invernizzi, M. (2001). Book buddies in the Bronx: Testing a model for America
Reads. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(4), 319–333.
Milby, T. M. (2007). Classroom assessment in action: A sourcebook of examples and teaching
techniques. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Morris, D. (2003). Tutoring at-risk beginning readers. In D. Morris & R. E. Slavin (Eds.), Every
child reading (pp. 60–79). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Morrow, L. M., & Woo, D. G. (1999, April). The effects of an American Reads tutoring program
on literacy achievement and an evaluation of the attitudes of teachers, tutors, and children
toward the program. Panel presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Peck, S. M. (2009). Endless possibilities for learning and reflection: Lessons from two after-
school urban literacy clinics. In J. C. Richards & C. A. Lassonde (Eds.), Literacy tutoring
that works (pp. 119–131). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Pullen, P. C., Lane, H. B., & Monaghan, M. C. (2004). Effects of a volunteer tutoring model on
the early literacy development of struggling first-grade students. Reading Research and
Instruction, 43(4), 21–40.
Risko, V. J., Roller, C. M., Cummins, C., Bean, R. M., Block, C. C., Anders, P. L., & Flood, J.
(2008). A critical analysis of research on reading teacher education. Reading Research
Quarterly, 43, 252–288. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.43.3.3
Ritter, G. W., Barnett, J. H., Denny, G. S., & Albin, G. R. (2009). The effectiveness of
volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and middle school students: A meta-
analysis. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), 3–38.
Rothman, T., & Henderson, M. (2011). Do school-based tutoring programs significantly
improve student performance on standardized tests? Research in Middle Level Education,
34(6), 1–10.
Schon, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. London:
Temple Smith.
Shanahan, T. (1998). On the effectiveness and limitations of tutoring in reading. In P.
D. Pearson & A. Iran-Nejad (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 217–234).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Shields, P. M. (1994). Bringing schools and communities together in preparation for the 21st
century: Implications of the current educational reform movement for family and
community involvement policies. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing
Education. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/
shields1.html
Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research
Quarterly, 33, 266–291. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.33.3.2
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. A. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring:
A review of five great programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 179–200.
Worthy, J., & Patterson, E. (2001). ‘‘I can’t wait to see Carlos!’’: Preservice teachers, situated learning,
and personal relationships with students. Journal of Literacy Research, 33(2), 303–344.
Zeichner, K. (2006). Reflections of a university-based teacher educator on the future of college-
and university-based teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 57(1), 326–340.
Zeichner, K., & Liston, D. (1996). Reflective teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Advanced Literacy Practices - FR - Ortlieb, Evan PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Advanced Literacy Practices - FR - Ortlieb, Evan PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

ADVANCED LITERACY

PRACTICES: FROM THE CLINIC

United Kingdom – North America – Japan

First edition 2013

Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited

Reprints and permission service

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

PART 1: FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS

A HISTORICAL VIEW OF STUDENT LEARNING AND

CREATING A UNIVERSITY-BASED LITERACY

DESIGNING AN OFF-CAMPUS LITERACY CLINIC

COACHING FOR SUCCESS: UCF ENRICHMENT

CREATING AN OPTIMAL LEARNING

PART 2: READING AND WRITING ELEMENTS

WHEN KIDS CAN’T READ, WHAT A FOCUS ON

BUILDING WRITING COMMUNITIES AND

PREPARING SPECIAL EDUCATORS TO TEACH

TRANSFER AND TRANSFORMATION OF

PREPARING PRESERVICE TEACHERS

PART 3: TECHNOLOGICAL ELEMENTS

TAKING TECHNOLOGY FROM CLINIC TO

PROVIDING A ‘‘POCKET TUTOR’’: ENHANCING

INNOVATIVE PRACTICES IN THE READING CLINIC:

SUPPORTING STRUGGLING READERS AND

PART 4: COMPLEMENTARY ELEMENTS

THE GRADUAL INCREASE OF RESPONSIBILITY

PEER CONFERENCING: ADDING A

KEEPING LEARNERS AT THE CENTER

INNOVATIVE PRACTICES: DEVELOPING

Melissa Base California State University, Fullerton,

Caroline M. Flury- University at Buffalo, State University of

Mary Anne Prater Brigham Young University, Provo,

motivations, likes, dislikes, communication styles, and background knowl-

Purpose – This historical perspective highlights the evolution of reading

Advanced Literacy Practices: From the Clinic to the Classroom

Practical implications – This chapter offers key information for

Keywords: Reading clinics; literacy research; struggling readers

in reading clinics, I will give illustrations from a variety of research studies

A CLINIC BY ANY OTHER NAME . . .

A note is in order about terminology. A ‘‘reading clinic’’ by any other name

READING CLINICS: STANDING THE TEST OF TIME

Joan Rankin-Erickson, Guy Trainin & Kathleen Wilson

1985 University of Cincinnati Victoria Purcell Gates

1968 Towson University Dr. Joseph P.Gutkoska

2008 New Mexico State University Koomi Kim

1972 National Louis University Bob Hillerich

1966 Califomia State University – Fullerton

1994 Texas A&M University Daniel Pearce

1956 University of Georgia lra E. Aaron

2006 Georgia State University–Atlanta

2004 University of Nebraska-Lincoln

1932 Western Michigan University

Joyce Many & Lori Elliot

Hazel Miller Croy

1920–1950 1950–1950 1960–1970 1980–2010

Fig. 1. Timeline of Reading Clinics.

Reading Laboratory, Reading Center, etc. – it was hard to track them

BEGINNINGS: FROM ‘‘DUMB OR LAZY’’ TO

SPECIAL STUDENTS AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

The establishment of special education as a separate discipline had a major

TRENDING WITH ‘‘WHAT’S HOT’’

THEMES ACROSS TIME

Reading clinics have been a laboratory to bring clarity to issues of

Student Name:Teacher Name:

Reading Levels: Independent Instructional Frustration __