Promising Practices in the Preparation of Special Educators to Provide Reading Instruction

Abstract

The majority of students with disabilities require support in the area of reading. Given the importance of reading instruction, it is essential that special education teacher preparation programs prepare candidates who are knowledgeable about reading development and skilled in the delivery of reading instruction. The purpose of this article is twofold. First, an overview of key concepts related to reading acquisition and the implications for what special education candidates should know about reading development and instruction is provided. Second, a review of promising practices in higher education that support special education candidates’ knowledge and skills related to reading is presented. Finally, future directions that will enhance candidates’ ability to successfully identify and remediate reading difficulties are discussed.

Keywords

special education teacher preparation literacy reading instruction evidence-based practices teacher quality

Approximately 85% of students with disabilities who receive special education services require support in the area of reading (Moats et al., 2010). In recent decades, research on reading development, strategies, and interventions that support reading acquisition and effective reading practices in the schools has enhanced educators’ knowledge of how to teach reading (McCutchen et al., 2002; National Reading Panel, 2000; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004). Unfortunately, the information gleaned from these advances in reading research has not been consistently incorporated within teacher preparation programs (Al Otaiba & Lake, 2007; Binks-Cantrell, Joshi, & Washburn, 2012; Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2001; Joshi et al., 2009; Moats et al., 2010). Many teachers, both special and general educators, report feeling unprepared to meet the needs of students who struggle with reading (Bos et al., 2001; Spear-Swerling, Brucker, & Alfano, 2005), and in many cases, they themselves may not be fluent in the underlying skills needed to teach reading effectively (e.g., Bos et al., 2001; Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2004; McCutchen et al., 2002). Given the demand for special educators to be knowledgeable and skilled in the area of reading instruction, this article highlights promising practices in higher education for improving the knowledge and skills about reading of special education teacher candidates.

In the first section, key findings from the literature on reading instruction are provided. These findings represent part of the knowledge-base teacher candidates should possess on completion of their preparation programs. In the second section, a review of evidence-based and promising practices in special education teacher preparation is delineated. Findings from these studies provide the foundation for an evidence-base for supporting special education teacher candidates to engage in effective reading instruction and intervention. Finally, implications for special education teacher preparation are discussed.

Concepts and Skills Associated With Effective Reading Instruction

Teachers, as proficient readers, are typically unaware of the underlying concepts and processes associated with reading development—reading comes very naturally to them. Without overt instruction in the discrete and interconnected components of reading, teachers can experience difficulty (a) identifying the source of struggling students’ reading challenges or (b) planning and delivering remedial instruction. For example, teachers who possess poor knowledge of phonemes will have difficulty supporting students who are learning to read; a teacher who is unfamiliar with the three sounds associated with the grapheme pair “-ed” will be unable to support students’ pronunciation of words such as “wanted,” “beeped,” “loved,” “lifted,” “camped,” and “buzzed.” Researchers have identified several key concepts important for supporting students’ reading development, including (a) phoneme awareness, (b) single word decoding, (c) fluency, (d) comprehension, (e) systematic, explicit instruction, and (f) interconnectivity among reading, writing, and spelling. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of how these six concepts connect to the National Reading Panel’s (2000) five areas (big ideas) of beginning reading instruction. The following sections define the six critical concepts and provide a rationale for why teachers should be knowledgeable about them.

Figure 1.

The Relationship between the National Reading Panel’s five big ideas in beginning reading and the six critical concepts associated with evidenced-based instruction.

Phonemic Awareness

Phonemes are individual sounds in spoken language; there are approximately 44 phonemes in the English language (e.g., /a/, /s/, /t/, /ch/; Adams, 1990). The majority of students with learning disabilities in the area of reading have difficulty identifying and manipulating these individual sounds (Pugh et al., 2001). Without a deep understanding of phonemes, teachers encounter difficulty teaching these concepts and identifying when students are struggling with phonemic awareness. Teachers can facilitate students’ awareness of phonemes by correctly modeling phoneme production. Accurate, crisp, clear pronunciation of phonemes helps students hear individual sounds. For example, teachers who teach the sound /kuh/ (rather than a crisp /k/) for the first sound in the word “cat” make it more difficult for students to isolate, manipulate, and blend the sounds—essential skills needed for understanding the alphabetic principle.

Single Word Decoding

One goal of early reading instruction is to facilitate rapid and accurate single word decoding. Single word decoding is the ability to read a word in isolation without the support of context clues or images. Researchers have found that proficient readers are strong single word decoders. This finding is in contrast to the theory that proficient readers skip words or rely on context clues for reading (Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2002; Share & Stanovich, 1995). For students to decode single words, they must have a grasp of the alphabetic principle, an understanding that words are composed of letters that represent sounds (Ehri, 2002). Mapping phonemes to letters and letter combinations aids students in identifying familiar words and decoding novel words. Emphasizing an analytic approach to phonics to build rapid word retrieval can be efficient as well as effective, in that approximately 87% of English spelling is based on identifiable patterns and rules (Moats, 1994). That is, students who are taught to recognize patterns and common spellings can use these skills to recall words more quickly and read new words with less effort (Berninger, Abbott, Vermeulen, & Fulton, 2006).

Fluency

Research consistently demonstrates the importance of accurate, swift reading on the ability to comprehend text (Jenkins, Fuchs, van den Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003). Automatic reading allows students to expend cognitive effort on meaning making rather than decoding. Chard, Vaughn, and Tyler’s (2002) synthesis on fluency interventions for students with learning disabilities found greater gains for students when teachers (a) employed explicit (adult rather than peer) models of fluency, (b) provided opportunities for repeated reading of familiar texts, and (c) gave corrective feedback as students read. Effective teachers will employ these strategies (as opposed to sustained, silent reading) within their classrooms to support struggling readers. Although fluency is an important component of a student’s ability to comprehend, fluency does not ensure comprehension.

Comprehension

Several independent and overlapping skills support students’ ability to comprehend text. Among these skills are vocabulary knowledge, text structure understanding, and strategy knowledge. Explicit instruction that supports the development of vocabulary knowledge includes frequent exposure to targeted vocabulary words, direct instruction in word meanings, and scaffolded questioning (Baker, Simmons, & Kame’enui, 1998; Butler et al., 2010). Research has shown that students with disabilities can make great gains in comprehension through explicit instruction in sentence combining, learning text structure (such as cause and effect), the use of graphic organizers, and direct teaching of vocabulary words (see Torgesen et al., 2007). Teachers promote comprehension by including these strategies within reading instruction and across the content areas.

Systematic, Explicit Instruction

Systematic instruction follows a planned scope and sequence. Explicit instruction involves the direct teaching/modeling of skills involving high levels of student engagement and teacher feedback. Some reading skills will build on each other in a hierarchical manner whereas other skills develop in concert with one another. For example, a student need not possess a complete awareness of phonemes prior to the introduction of the alphabetic principle, but researchers have found early decoding instruction that highlights predictable (i.e., regular) letter–sound patterns lays the foundation for introducing more complex spelling patterns. In a synthesis of reading practices, Snow and Juel (2005) found that explicit attention to the alphabetic principle in early reading instruction is “helpful for all children, harmful for none, and crucial for some” (p. 518). In contrast to explicit, systematic instruction, a teacher may teach a phonics rule but fail to provide ample practice opportunities (i.e., an example of explicit but not systematic instruction), which can lead to “using but confusing” rules. Thus, special educators should understand how to develop instruction that is explicit, is systematic, and leads to mastery learning.

Interconnectivity

A reciprocal relationship among reading, writing, and spelling exists. As students’ reading improves, so does their spelling, and gains in the knowledge of spelling patterns strengthen students’ ability to read novel words (Graham, Harris, & Chorzempa, 2002; Weiser & Mathes, 2011). Similarly, the more students read, the better they write. In turn, writing deepens students’ awareness of spelling (particularly in early development) and text structure (in later development) that improves reading and reading comprehension. Teachers who understand these connections can develop instruction that intertwines these practices. Table 1 provides an overview of key concepts related to reading development and corresponding teaching implications for each concept.

Table 1.

Key Research Findings Related to Reading Development and Instruction.

Concept	Importance to reading development	Teacher candidate instructional implication
Phoneme awareness	Research has shown that students in kindergarten and first grade who have difficulty with phonemic awareness are at greater risk for experiencing difficulty learning to read and older students have difficulty with reading continue to have poor phonemic awareness (Brady & Moats, 1997).	Teacher candidates should
		1. Be knowledgeable about phonemic awareness (and the hierarchy of phonological awareness) and its relation to reading development
		2. Have the ability to assess students’ phonemic awareness
		3. Be able to implement instruction to support the development of phonemic awareness
Single word decoding	Skilled readers read words in isolation at a similar rate to words in context, indicating that skilled readers decode words. Similar research has demonstrated that skilled readers read (fixate) on every word (Share & Stanovich, 1995). Struggling readers benefit from systematic instruction in the alphabetic principle to help them learn how to decode words.	Teacher candidates should
		1. Be knowledgeable about the alphabetic principle and its relation to word recognition and efficient reading (e.g., mid-elementary students are exposed to thousands of novel words annually that must be decoded)
		2. Be able to implement and interpret assessments of students’ word reading
		3. Implement appropriate instruction to develop students’ word reading
Fluency	Fluent reading allows students to allocate cognitive attention to higher level processing skills involved with meaning making, inference, storage, and retrieval rather than focusing on lower level processes involved with word reading (Perfetti, 1985; Pressley, 2000).	Teacher candidates should
		1. Be knowledgeable about the role that fluency plays in students’ comprehension
		2. Be able to use progress monitoring to regularly assess and monitor students’ fluency
		3. Know how to implement evidence-based practices associated with promoting fluency such as adult modeling, repeated reading, and corrective feedback
Comprehension	Many skills contribute to students’ ability to comprehend text. Beyond students’ word reading ability, knowledge of vocabulary, text structure, and comprehension strategies can enhance students’ comprehension (Pressley, 2000).	Teacher candidates should
		1. Be knowledgeable about the independent and overlapping skills required for comprehension
		2. Know strategies for teaching vocabulary, text structure, and comprehension monitoring
		3. Be able to support students’ comprehension through the delivery of vocabulary and strategy instruction
Systematic, explicit instruction	Instruction that is systematic (follows a logical scope and sequence) and is explicit (provides clear a clear model, involves high levels of student engagement, and includes teacher feedback) results in greater gains for struggling readers (Torgesen, 2006; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2004).	Teacher candidates should
		1. Understand the explicit teaching cycle—identification of student error patterns, provision of correct feedback, development of instructional materials, and review of the efficacy of instruction
		2. Know how to plan for instruction that follows a scope and sequence and include ample practice opportunities
		3. Be able to evaluate curricula and interventions to determine if there is an appropriate scope and sequence with practice
Interconnectivity among reading, spelling, and writing	Research has demonstrated interconnectivity among reading, spelling, and writing—learning spelling patterns improves reading, understanding morphographs improves spelling and enhances comprehension, reading increases vocabulary, vocabulary attainment supports comprehension, and writing supports understanding of text structure which facilitates comprehension.	Teacher candidates should
		1. Understand the components of reading, spelling, and writing and their relation to each other
		2. Be able to plan for spelling instruction that emphasizes patterns and morphographs, writing instruction includes a focus on text structure/story development, and ample reading opportunities to develop vocabulary and awareness of text

Promising Practices for Reading Instruction

There is a growing consensus regarding what knowledge-base future teachers should possess to be effective teachers of reading (International Dyslexia Association, 2010); therefore, teacher preparation programs have an obligation to determine best practices in delivering that knowledge base to preservice teachers. In this second section, studies on specific practices in special educator teacher preparation to support (a) candidates’ knowledge of reading development (content knowledge) and (b) pedagogical content knowledge and skill in delivery of reading instruction are summarized.

Improving Candidate Knowledge

To be effective reading instructors, teacher candidates need to have not only the content knowledge of what to teach early and struggling readers but also knowledge of how to teach them. There are several promising practices one can consider when looking to improve candidate knowledge of reading content and concepts (see Gormley Budin, Mather, & Cheesman, 2010). Specifically, multimedia instruction, explicit instruction, and deliberate course and program planning have been demonstrated in the literature as beneficial for supporting candidate knowledge acquisition.

Multimedia Instruction

Several studies have employed the use of multimedia instruction to teach reading concepts to teacher candidates (Gormley & Ruhl, 2007; Kennedy, Driver, Pullen, Ely, & Cole, 2013). Gormley and Ruhl (2007) developed an instructional training package that included a video tutorial and online study guide to teach candidates essential elements associated with the alphabetic principle—phonemic awareness and phonics concepts. They found that when provided explicit instruction that included visual and auditory models, candidates made considerable gains in their knowledge of language structure. Specifically, gains in the production of phonemes and the ability to correctly identify phonemes were found. Similarly, Kennedy et al. (2013) created content acquisition podcasts (CAPs), brief, multimedia instructional units that apply validated design principles (see, Mayer, 2008) on phonological awareness. Teacher candidates who received CAP instruction demonstrated significant differences in knowledge of phonological awareness compared to candidates who received instruction via a text-only condition.

Explicit Instruction

In addition to the use of multimedia instruction to facilitate gains in candidates’ knowledge, researchers have found that explicit instruction (i.e., directly teaching word structure concepts) can also have a positive effect on candidate knowledge of reading. Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2004) examined the effects of specific word structure instruction on teacher candidates’ ability to count phonemes, specify syllable types, and identify irregular words. They found that across three groups of candidates (i.e., those who received direct instruction on word structure, those who received both direct instruction and participated in an applied tutoring condition, and a comparison group who received no instruction), the two groups of candidates who received direct teaching performed significantly better than a comparison group on measures of word structure knowledge. More important, Spear-Swerling and Brucker (2006) found that candidates with strong basic reading skills performed poorly on pretest measures of word structure. In addition, although the instruction provided in the Spear-Swerling and Brucker study resulted in knowledge gains that were significant, the intervention did not result in candidates mastering the material. Posttest means of candidates in the direct instruction conditions did not approach the ceiling (i.e., the highest possible score possible). Similarly, a study by Pufpaff and Yssel (2010) found that six sessions of instruction on the National Reading Panel’s five areas of reading resulted in significant gains in special education candidates’ knowledge of scientifically based literacy instruction, but again, posttest means did not reflect mastery of the material. Thus, these findings reiterate the need for intensive as well as explicit instruction.

To insure intensive, accurate, and explicit instruction in scientifically based reading concepts, one can also look to the materials used in the preparation of teacher candidates, most commonly the textbook (see Joshi et al., 2009). Although not an innovative practice, the traditional course textbook can affect basic knowledge and skills of both the candidate as well as his or her instructor. Emerging data suggest that teacher educators may “not possess a good understanding of basic language constructs” (Binks-Cantrell, Washburn, Joshi, & Hougen, 2012, p. 534), such as those needed to teach phonics and advanced word reading. Thus, textbook selection may be an important first step in addition to the other promising practices listed here.

Course and Program Planning

Finally, to facilitate the delivery of explicit instruction in reading, teacher preparation programs can look to various accrediting bodies and expert “centers” to determine how evidence based practices can be purposefully included in teacher training. One example is the recent accreditation process suggested by the International Dyslexia Association (IDA) for programs that prepare teachers who work with students who have reading difficulties and disabilities. This process identifies programs that meet the comprehensive and rigorous standards outlined in their Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading (IDA, 2010; Moats et al., 2010). Another example includes the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality (TQ Center), which created an innovation configuration for reading. Innovation configurations promote the implementation of evidence-based practices by providing self-assessment tools for teacher educators. Using the Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Innovation Configuration (Smartt & Reschly, 2011), teacher educators can evaluate the degree to which their programs address the components of scientifically based reading research, phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, integration, systematic instruction, explicit instruction, screening assessment, and progress monitoring (see Table 2).

Table 2.

Implementation Ideas for Program Planning and Course Development.

Promising practice	Implementation ideas
Multimedia instruction	Create or identify multimedia examples that provide visual and auditory models of beginning reading concepts (phonemes, early reading activities, assessment techniques). For example,
	• Florida Center for Reading Research’s word families model: http://www.fcrr.org/FAIR_Search_Tool/FLVs/launchFAIRplayer.html?src=601.flv
	• Phonemes and letter sounds: https://vimeo.com/73774052
	• DIBELS training videos: https://dibels.org/scoring_practice.html
Explicit instruction	Create a scope and sequence of beginning reading concepts. Design or select knowledge assessments to monitor candidates’ knowledge and skill development. For example,
Explicit instruction	• Survey of Basic Language Constructs (Binks-Cantrell, Joshi, & Washburn, 2012)
Course and program planning tools	Use standards or a set of recommendations to guide the development of a course or sequence of courses on reading. For example,
	• The Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Innovation Configuration (Smartt & Reschly, 2011) can be used as a guide: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/IC_SBReading.pdf
	• The International Dyslexia Association’s (2010) Knowledge and Practice Standards for Teachers of Reading: http://eida.org/knowledge-and-practices/
Structured tutoring	Create tutoring opportunities for special education candidates. Use a structured lesson plan format or evidence-based reading instruction program.
Structured tutoring	• Evidence-based interventions can be found at the What Work’s Clearinghouse in reports on children and youth with disabilities/literacy interventions: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Topic.aspx?sid=19
Case studies and video analysis	Integrate video case studies and strategy examples within coursework. For example,
	• The IRIS Center has modules, case studies, activities, information briefs, and video vignettes related to reading, literacy, and language arts instruction: http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/iris-resource-locator/
	In addition, require candidates to use video-stimulated recall for reflection and analysis.
	• The Video Feedback Protocol (Usui Johnson, 2012) can be used as a model: http://centerx.gseis.ucla.edu/xchange-repository/teacher-leadership/teacher-workroom/video-feedback-protocol

Improving Candidate Knowledge and Skill

Knowledge of reading development related content is necessary but not sufficient to be an effective teacher. Teacher candidates must also engage in practices designed to improve their pedagogical content knowledge and reading instruction skills. In these studies, candidate content knowledge was paired with an applied experience to build skills in the delivery of effective reading instruction. In particular, research on structured tutoring experiences demonstrates the efficacy of this practice to facilitate the development of pedagogical content knowledge, but two other promising practices include the use of case studies and video analysis.

Structured Tutoring

Spear-Swerling (2009) examined changes in teacher candidates’ knowledge of reading instruction and gains in second grade students’ reading skills following a literacy-focused university course and field-based tutoring experience. As a result of explicit instruction in foundational reading concepts and instruction in how to use a structured lesson plan format and assessment protocol, teacher candidates made gains in their knowledge of reading and were able to facilitate gains in second grade students’ learning. Similarly, Al Otaiba and Lake (2007) found that a structured tutoring experience greatly increased candidates’ knowledge of reading and ability to use curriculum-based assessments to inform the delivery of reading intervention. In addition, qualitative analysis demonstrated special education teacher candidates’ enhanced understanding of tutored pupils’ phonological awareness, phonics, and fluency. That is, candidates were able to apply their understanding of the alphabetic principle to support pupils’ reading development.

Case Studies and Video Analysis

One alternative to field-based experiences to enhance candidates’ pedagogical content knowledge (i.e., the capacity to make instructional decisions regarding reading) has been the use of video cases (Yadav, Bouck, Da Fonte, & Patton, 2009). Video cases provide candidates with a quasi–field experience in which they can see practice and engage in authentic problem solving. The research base on the use of cases in special education is limited, but data from early studies demonstrate the potential of this practice (McNaughton, Hall, & Maccini, 2001; Pindiprolu, Peterson, Rule, & Lingugaris/Kraft, 2003).

Video analysis, the recording and analysis of one’s teaching practice, is a final practice that could enhance teacher candidates’ ability to deliver effective reading instruction. In a recent review of video analysis, Nagro and Cornelius (2013) found consistently positive outcomes associated with the use of video analysis. Specific studies that included teacher candidates (preservice teachers) included studies on microteaching, web-mediated professional development, and video self-reflection.

All of the strategies, approaches, and concepts identified in this article reflect aspects of practice currently employed to support the knowledge and skill development of teacher candidates in the area of reading instruction. Table 2 provides suggestions and links to resources that faculty in teacher preparation programs can use when designing reading instruction coursework. Teacher preparation programs can strengthen their delivery of reading knowledge and pedagogy by applying the recommendations to their coursework.

Conclusions, Cautions, and Future Practice

Findings from the literature on reading instruction provide strong guideposts for types of knowledge and skills special education candidates should possess on program completion. Tools such as IDA’s (2010) Knowledge and Practice Standards or the TQ Center’s innovation configuration can be instrumental for educators seeking to assess and strengthen their delivery of reading instruction within teacher preparation. As specific studies have demonstrated, explicit instruction in English word structure, key concepts related to reading development, and specific strategies for instruction and intervention can result in important knowledge and skill gains for candidates. The research also indicates, however, that optimal instruction has yet to be obtained. Whereas each of the promising practices highlighted in this article showed gains in candidate knowledge, no practice resulted in mastery learning—whether measured by candidates’ attainment of a desired criterion (Gormley & Ruhl, 2007) or candidates’ approach of ceiling scores (Pufpaff & Yssel, 2010; Spear-Swerling, 2009). Future research on the preparation of special educators for teaching reading will undoubtedly shed light on the intensity of instruction required for mastery learning (e.g., duration, frequency, distribution over time) as well as the efficaciousness of specific practices (i.e., which instructional practices result in greater gains within a shorter period). In addition, more research is needed on instructional practices that lead to the development of pedagogical content knowledge.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Adams

M. J.

(1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Al Otaiba

Lake

(2007). Preparing special educators to teach reading and use curriculum-based assessments. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 591–617. doi:10.1007/s11145-007-9056-z

Baker

Simmons

Kame’enui

(1998). Vocabulary acquisition: Synthesis of the research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational Resources Information Center.

Berninger

V. W.

Abbott

R. D.

Vermeulen

Fulton

C. M.

(2006). Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 334–351.

Binks-Cantrell

Joshi

R. M.

Washburn

E. K.

(2012). Validation of an instrument for assessing teacher knowledge of basic language constructs of literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 62, 153–171.

Binks-Cantrell

Washburn

E. K.

Joshi

R. M.

Hougen

(2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526–536. doi:10.1080/10888438.2011.601434

Bos

Mather

Dickson

Podhajski

Chard

(2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120. doi:10.1007/s11881-001-0007-0

Brady

Moats

L. C.

(1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations for teacher preparation. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

Butler

Urrutia

Buenger

Gonzalez

Hunt

Eisenhart

(2010). A review of current research on vocabulary instruction. Washington, DC: National Reading Technical Assistance Center.

10.

Chard

D. J.

Vaughn

Tyler

B. J.

(2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.

11.

Cunningham

Perry

Stanovich

(2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K–3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals Of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167.

12.

Ehri

L. C.

(2002). Phases of acquisition in learning to read words and implications for teaching. In Stainthorp

Tomlinson

(Eds.), Learning and teaching reading (pp. 7–28). London, UK: British Journal of Educational Psychology Monograph Series II.

13.

Gormley

Ruhl

K. L.

(2007). Language structure knowledge of preservice teachers: Connecting speech to print. Teacher Education and Special Education, 30, 27–36.

14.

Gormley Budin

Mather

Cheesman

(2010). Examining promising practices to improve linguistic knowledge and inform practice in teacher education. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 36, 13–16.

15.

Graham

Harris

K. R.

Chorzempa

(2002). Contribution of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669–686.

16.

International Dyslexia Association. (2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Baltimore, MD: Author.

17.

Jenkins

J. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

van den Broek

Espin

Deno

S. L.

(2003). Sources of individual differences in reading comprehension and reading fluency. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 719–729.

18.

Joshi

Binks

Hougen

Dahlgren

M. E.

Ocker-Dean

Smith

D. L.

(2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 392–402. doi:10.1177/0022219409338736

19.

Kennedy

M. J.

Driver

M. K.

Pullen

P. C.

Ely

Cole

M. T.

(2013). Improving teacher candidates’ knowledge of phonological awareness: A multimedia approach. Computers & Education, 64, 42–51.

20.

Mayer

R. E.

(2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760–769. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760

21.

McCutchen

Harry

Cunningham

A. E.

Cox

Sidman

Covill

(2002). Content knowledge of teachers of beginning reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228.

22.

McNaughton

Hall

T. E.

Maccini

(2001). Case-based instruction in special education teacher preparation: Practices and concerns of teacher educator/researchers. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 84–94. doi:10.1177/088840640102400203

23.

Moats

(1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102.

24.

Moats

Carreker

Davis

Meisel

Spear-Swerling

Wilson

(2010). Knowledge and practice standards for teachers of reading. Baltimore, MD: International Dyslexia Association.

25.

Nagro

S. A.

Cornelius

K. E.

(2013). Evaluating the evidence base of video analysis: A special education teacher development tool. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 312–329.

26.

National Reading Panel. (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 Pub. No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

27.

Perfetti

C. A.

(1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.

28.

Pindiprolu

S. S.

Peterson

S. M. P.

Rule

Lingugaris/Kraft

(2003). Using web-mediate experiential case-based instruction to teach functional behavioral assessment skills. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 1–16.

29.

Pressley

(2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In Kamil

Mosenthal

P. B.

Pearson

P. D.

Barr

(Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

30.

Pufpaff

L. A.

Yssel

(2010). Effects of a 6-week, co-taught literacy unit on preservice special educators’ literacy-education knowledge. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 493–500. doi:10.1002/pits.20485

31.

Pugh

K. R.

Mencl

Jenner

A. R.

Lee

Katz

Frost

S. J.

. . . Shaywitz

B. A.

(2001). Neuroimaging studies of reading development and reading disability. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 240–249.

32.

Rayner

Foorman

B. R.

Perfetti

C. A.

Pesetsky

Seidenberg

M. S.

(2002). How should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286, 84–91.

33.

D. L.

Stanovich

K. E.

(1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 1–57.

34.

Smartt

S. S.

Reschly

D. J.

(2007). Barriers to the preparation of highly qualified teachers in reading (TQ Research & Policy Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

35.

Snow

C. E.

Juel

(2005). Teaching children to read: What do we know about how to do it? In Snowling

M. J.

Hulme

(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 501–520). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

36.

Spear-Swerling

(2009). A literacy tutoring experience for prospective special educators and struggling second graders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 431–443. doi:10.1177/0022219409338738

37.

Spear-Swerling

Brucker

(2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332–364. doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0016-x

38.

Spear-Swerling

Brucker

(2006). Teacher-education students’ reading abilities and their knowledge about word structure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 116–126. doi:10.1177/088840640602900204

39.

Spear-Swerling

Brucker

P. O.

Alfano

M. P.

(2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–296.

40.

Torgesen

J. K.

(2006). Recent discoveries from research on remedial interventions for children with dyslexia. In Snowling

Hulme

(Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 521–537). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

41.

Torgesen

J. K.

Houston

D. D.

Rissman

L. M.

Decker

S. M.

Roberts

Vaughn

. . . Lesaux

(2007). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

42.

Usui Johnson

(2012). Teacher leadership resource tool: Video feedback protocol. Los Angeles, CA: Center XChange.

43.

Vaughn

Linan-Thompson

(2004). Research-based methods of reading instruction: Grades K–3. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

44.

Weiser

Mathes

(2011). Using encoding instruction to improve the reading and spelling performances of elementary students at risk for literacy difficulties: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 81, 170–200.

45.

Yadav

Bouck

Da Fonte

Patton

(2009). Instructing special education preservice teachers through literacy video cases. Teaching Education, 20, 149–162. doi:10.1080/10476210902878510