Large numbers of students are not benefiting from current reading curricula and practices. However, despite the presence of a scientifically validated basis for teaching reading, the nuances of exactly how to translate beginning reading research into day-to-day classroom practice remain to be validated. In this article, beginning literacy outcomes for the instructional practices employed in Project PRIDE are presented. Project PRIDE is a model for preventing reading failure that employs a combination of systematic, explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and phonics with a total classroom reading program; a multitiered teaching approach; data-based decision making; and professional development that includes ongoing, on-site coaching. The effects of 2 years of PRIDE implementation in three inner-city schools in a medium-sized midwestern city are presented, and the implications of these findings for current practice and future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Allington, R. (1980). Poor readers don't get to read much in reading groups. Language Arts, 57, 873—875.
2.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers . Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
3.
Armbruster, B.B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
4.
Baker, S., & Smith, S. (2001). Linking school assessments to research-based practices in beginning reading: Improving programs and outcomes for students with and without disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education , 24, 315—332.
5.
Bereiter, C., Anderson, V., Brown, A., Scardamalia, M., & Campione, J. (1995). Open Court collections for young scholars. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill .
6.
Boudah, D.J., Logan, K.R., & Greenwood, C.R. (2001). The research to practice projects: Lessons learned about changing teacher practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 290—303.
7.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Evaluation of a program to teach phonemic awareness to young children: A 1-year follow-up. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 104—111.
8.
Carnine, D., Silbert, J., Kame'enui, E., & Tarver, S. (2003). Direct instruction reading (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.
9.
Deno, S.L., & Markell, M.A. (1997). Effects of increasing oral reading: Generalization across reading tasks. The Journal of Special Education, 32, 233—250.
10.
Dickson, S.V., & Bursuck, W.D. (1999). Implementing a model for preventing reading failure: A report from the field. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 191—202.
Engelmann, S., & Osborn, J. (1999). Language for learning. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.
13.
Farr, R., Strickland, D., & Beck, I. (2001). Collections. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
14.
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Building a bridge across the canyon. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 99—101.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., & Germann, G. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239—256.
16.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1990). Rethinking the regular education initiative: Focus on the classroom teacher. Remedial and Special Education, 11, 7—16.
17.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Changing teaching takes more than a one-shot workshop . Educational Leadership, 49, 69—72.
18.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Best practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 699—720). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
19.
Good, R.H., Simmons, D.C., & Kame'enui, E.J. (2001). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257—288.
20.
Greenwood, C. (2001). Introduction to topical issue: Bridging the gap between research and practice in special education: Issues and implications for teacher preparation. Teacher Education and Special Education , 24, 273—275.
21.
Kame'enui, E.J. (1999). The national research council report on the prevention of reading difficulties in young children and the process of dubitation. Journal of BehavioralEducation, 9, 5—22.
22.
Kaminski, R., & Good, R.H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215—227.
23.
Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program for stimulating skills in word analysis in first-grade children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 234—250.
24.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O.P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in preschool children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263—284.
25.
Lyon, G.R. (1998). Why reading is not a natural activity. Educational Leadership, 3, 14—18.
26.
Lyon, G.R., & Moats, L.C. (1997). Critical conceptual and methodological considerations in reading intervention research. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 578—588.
27.
National Center for Educational Statistics. ( 1999). National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP): Report card for the nation and states. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publication/nrp/smallbook.htm
29.
O'Connor, R.E., Jenkins, J.R., & Slocum, T.A. (1995). Transfer among phonological tasks in kindergarten: Essential instructional content. Journal of Educational Psychology , 87, 202—217.
30.
O'Connor, R.E., Notari-Syverson, A., & Vadasy, P.F. (1998). First grade effects of teacher-led phonological activities in kindergarten for children with mild disabilities: A follow-up study. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 43—52.
31.
Perfetti, C. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
32.
Polloway, E.A., Bursuck, W.D., Jayanthi, M., Epstein, M.H., & Nelson, J.S. (1996). Treatment acceptability: Determining appropriate interventions within inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 31, 133—144.
33.
Richardson, V. (1991). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19, 10—18.
34.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., Tilly, W.D., & Collins, V.L. (1992). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relation to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 459—479.
35.
Showers, B. (1985). Teachers coaching teachers. Educational Leadership, 42, 43—48.
36.
Simmons, D.C., Kame'enui, E.J., Coyne, M.D., & Chard, D.J. (2002). Effective strategies for teaching beginning reading . In E. Kame'enui, D. Carnine, R. C. Dixon, D. C. Simmons, & M. D. Coyne (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd ed., pp. 53—92). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
37.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading di ficulties in young children . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38.
Stahl, S. (1997). Fluency-oriented reading instruction (Reading Research Report No. 79). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
39.
Stanovich, K.E. (1984). The interactive—compensatory model of reading: A confluence of developmental, experimental, and educational psychology. Remedial and Special Education, 5(3), 11—19.
40.
Stanovich, K.E. (1994). Constructivism in reading education. The Journal of Special Education, 28, 259—274.
41.
Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 211—238.
