Will the Implementation of a Close ReadingLiterary Instructional Strategy

Improve Reading Comprehension & Fluency inElementary Age Students?

EDF6481

February 10, 2013

Bernadette Harris&

Elizabeth StognerUniversity of South Florida Sarasota-Manatee

College of EducationGraduate School

Abstract: Academic achievement in literacy in American students has historically

been, and continues to be, low in a global perspective, with American students still

graduating from high school without the literacy skills necessary to make them

successful in college and the workplace. The researchers in this study seek to

determine if there is a relationship between the explicit reading instructional

method known as “close reading” and proficiency in reading fluency and

comprehension in students in kindergarten through fifth grade.

In the study, students in two Florida public schools were randomly selected

and assigned to either a treatment or control group, within their grade level. The

treatment group in each grade level received explicit “close reading” instruction two

days per week, for 45 minutes per day, for twelve weeks. The control group in each

grade level received no “close reading” instruction, and instead received alternate

reading instruction. Pre and post assessment data was then analyzed by multiple

educators in order to determine whether a relationship exists between the

implementation of “close reading” instruction and students’ proficiency in reading

fluency and comprehension.

I. Introduction (Problem Statement)

Literacy education in elementary grades provides the foundation necessary

to build strong, effective communications skills in students. These skills are the

vital component in what will determine these students’ future ability to manage

the increasing academic demands of progressive years of education, including

increased difficulty of subject area content, independent study skills, aptitude in

creating and presenting written theses, proficient oral presentations, and

demonstrated comprehension of complex texts, as well as proficiency in literary

technology skills.

Explicit reading instruction is perhaps the missing component in producing

higher reading proficiency. One form of explicit reading instruction that has been

prescribed as being very effective is “close reading” instruction. The question that

this study seeks to answer is whether the implementation of explicit close reading

instruction will improve reading comprehension and fluency in elementary aged

students.

The pandemic pattern of academic inferiority in students in the United States

when compared to their global counterparts is one that is not newly born.

In the words of Sykes (1995), “While critics tend to rely on the three-decades long decline of the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) to document the dumbing down of American education, more alarming is our performance against the students of other industrialized countries. By virtually every measure of achievement, American students lag far behind their counterparts in both Asia and Europe, especially in math and science. Moreover, the evidence suggests that they are falling farther and farther behind.”

Educational research for decades has pointed to the failing ability of American

learning institutions to produce highly functioning, literate members of society.

American business owners continue to report that universities are graduating

alarming numbers of students with marginal (if not poor) literary and

communications skills. This study addresses the need to increase rigor and literacy

demands on students, rather than decreasing expectations.

In addition to the global academic variance, educational researchers such as

Johansen (2011) remind us of the prevalence of an equally alarming achievement

gap even within our own schools in America. The number of students that live in

poverty, with little or no educational resources, is staggering. Johansen states that,

according to Chase (2010), “We have to stop talking about how to close the

achievement gap. We have to think about how to prevent the achievement gap.”

This existing gap has led to the birth of N.C.L.B. law which demands increased

accountability for student learning and explicit literacy instruction to insure

students are no longer graduating from high school and college without proficient

communications skills.

In the past several decades, educational reform has taken many approaches

in its attempt to close this achievement gap, with standards based education and

high stakes testing. Standards as well as standards-based exams have varied from

state to state across the nation, leading the emergence of Common Core Standards of

education, which will come into full implementation between 2014 and 2015.

The foundational premise of Common Core Standards is the prescribed

consistency of content as well as complexity level of content to be uniform across all

public schools in America. In addition, the proficiency exam will be consistent, as

well. This will enable stakeholders in education to assess how well students from

each state are performing in comparison with their peers from the other 49 states

(assuming that all 50 states adopt Common Core Standards).

II. Purpose of Study

Despite the fact that there are staggering gaps in literacy and large numbers

of public education students, who are performing far below grade level currently,

with Common Core Standards comes yet a higher demand for literacy

comprehension. This includes, increased text complexity in grade level reading

materials and assessments, and an increased focus on informational text beginning

as early as kindergarten place an even higher demand on educators to find effective

methods for improving student aptitude and achievement. This study will look at

whether implementing the explicit reading instruction method known as “close

reading instruction” is related to student proficiency in reading fluency and

comprehension.

III. Review of Literature

In a qualitative study conducted by Katz & Carlisle (2009), three fourth grade

female students participated in a 12-week literacy intervention program which

implemented close reading instruction to measure improvement in the students’

independent reading comprehension. The program stressed both morphological

and contextual analysis strategies through guided close reading instruction. A

pretest and post-test were used to measure improvement. Although the results of

their study were very limited (due to the size and selection of their sample,) the

results of the post-test concluded that the implementation of close reading

instruction had a positive effect on the sample’s reading comprehension, and further

research is warranted.

The students in this study were weak in vocabulary, which affected their

reading comprehension and fluency. Close reading instruction targets and teaches

explicit reading strategy instruction, which places a higher demand for attention to

task and higher order thinking about reading content, on the reader. This is the

same type of targeted reading instruction that our current study plans to pursue.

In another study by Homan, Klesius and Hite (1993), 26 sixth grade students

who were reading at a fourth grade reading level were selected to participate in a

mixed methods reading instruction program, in order to determine the effectiveness

of repetitive and non-repetitive reading strategies on improving reading fluency.

Methods that were included in the instruction were guided reading, echo

reading, unison, timed and error-recording reading, as well as close reading. Pre-

and post-tests were used to measure the effects of the seven week program on the

students’ fluency rates. The findings were that both the repetitive and non-

repetitive reading strategies had an equivalent positive effect on improving reading

fluency.

This study also implemented the close reading instructional strategy that will

be used in our current study. However, I found that perhaps one of the biggest

limitations to the study conducted by Homan, Klesius and Hite (1993) is the number

of methods used. It seems that it would be more difficult to identify the true

effectiveness of any of the methods implemented in the study without isolating each

and then assessing for improvement.

In a study conducted by Hilden & Pressley (2007), five fifth grade teachers

participated in a year long professional development study, during which time they

learned and implemented explicit “transactional strategy instruction” methods for

improving reading comprehension and fluency in their students. Transactional

strategies include explicit self-regulation reading strategies, such as stopping to

make predictions and inferences, note-taking and highlighting text, self-questioning

and visualizing story events. This is done through close reading of texts, and

rereading for multiple purposes. Explicit instruction methods were taught first in

workshops, modeled in classrooms, and observations and anecdotal records were

collected to measure whether the strategies were being effectively implemented.

The results indicated that in all five classrooms, the transactional strategy approach

was being implemented consistently. This was based also on a Grounded Theory

Analysis, including time in professional development, time spent on planning and

implementation, teacher challenges with regard to low achieving students,

classroom reorganization and instructional reorganization demands, classroom

management and assessment methods.

The results indicated a positive effect on teacher attitudes toward teaching

literacy with the new information and strategy instruction they received. There was

also a positive effect on classroom instruction and student engagement, with an

observable decrease in teacher-initiated teacher-student interactions and a majority

of teacher directed reading and an increase in student-initiated discussion, student-

student interaction and engagement in reading. Teachers observed a significant

positive effect on student interest in reading as well as students actively utilizing the

transactional reading strategies. The teachers noted significant growth in their

students as independent readers, and their ability to connect with and more fully

comprehend texts.

The results of this study serve to further endorse the need for further

research in the implementation of targeted reading instruction and indicate that

close reading strategies are shown to have a positive impact on reading engagement

and comprehension.

In a study conducted by Fan (2010), the effects of Collaborative Strategic

Reading (CSR) were investigated on 110 Taiwanese University students’ reading

comprehension with reference to specific types of reading comprehension

questions. The students, which had low- intermediate to intermediate levels of

English, are considered EFL (English as a Foreign Language Learners). The study,

which was conducted for one semester, included a pre and post-test as well as a

control group. In CSR, four reading strategies were taught including, preview, click

and clunk, get the gist, and wrap-up.

The purpose of this article was to determine how collaborative strategic

reading strategies would impact these EFL/ ELL students and their ability to make

gains in comprehension. Although, the measure of the study was insufficient, due to

the limited use of only one measure, the findings suggest that implementing

comprehension strategy instruction for one semester, may help learners adopt

some degree of strategic reading behaviors, particularly in relation to identifying the

main idea and finding supporting details, but it takes long-term efforts and practices

for EFL/ ELL learners to fully develop their strategic reading abilities. In our study,

we will further investigate how explicit reading strategies, will improve reading

comprehension in ALL students, regardless of whether they are English Language

Learners.

In a study by Baker, Chard, Fien, Park and Otterstedt (2013) titled, An

Evaluation of an Explicit Read Aloud Intervention Taught in Whole-Classroom

Formats in First Grade, which describes an evaluation of a read aloud intervention

to improve comprehension and vocabulary of first grade students, twelve teachers

were randomly assigned to an intervention or comparison condition. The study

which lasted 19 weeks, focused on the systematic use of narrative and expository

texts and dialogic interactions between teachers and students delivered in whole

classroom formats.

The study was designed to make read- aloud lessons more systematic and

explicit, while maintaining the enjoyable experience that teachers and students

expect. The rationale behind the study was to integrate two instructional design

features (a) lesson content and (b) how lesson content was organized and taught. It

was guided by evidence- based principles of vocabulary and text comprehension

instruction. The intervention was delivered in whole-classroom formats with all

students being in first grade classrooms, and was intended to be particularly

effective for students at risk for language or literacy difficulties. Several key

principles of explicit instruction were used.

Regarding intervention research on teaching comprehension strategies to

students, The National Reading Panel (2000) identified seven specific strategies that

offered a firm scientific basis for concluding that they improve comprehension.

These strategies include monitoring comprehension and summarizing texts,

representing texts structurally and graphically, asking generating questions, and

working cooperatively with others. Six of the seven approaches were active

components in the read aloud intervention.

Explicit instruction was the underlying foundation for how the intervention

was delivered by teachers (Coyne, Kame’enui, &Carnine, 2007). To our knowledge,

explicit instruction using these core principles, or others typically associated with

explicit instruction (Archer& Hughes, 2011), have not been used in evaluations of

read aloud interventions (Institute of Education Sciences, 2007; NELP, 2008;

Swanson et al, 2011). In the past, the explicit reading component had been added

either before or after reading the text, or the read aloud used text-focused guidance

by the teacher. However, this study has designed the intervention to be teacher

driven and highly explicit throughout the read aloud lessons.

Four features were relied upon when structuring the read aloud intervention

and developing it for explicit instruction. First, selection criteria included the books

topic, student interest, length, cost, availability, and representation of diversity, text

coherence, and text’s alignment with content area standards. Second, narrative and

expository texts were integrated systematically throughout the intervention. Third,

teachers were provided a set of prescriptive lessons for the intervention. Each

lesson included a long form lesson plan and a short form lesson plan. Fourth,

dialogic interactions during read aloud lessons occurred between teachers and

students, and among students. For example, students learned how to work in dyads

on prescribed comprehension tasks, such as summarization. The dialogue objective

was that teachers closely monitor student verbalizations about text, to extend

student understanding through verbal interactions and to immediately address

comprehension breakdowns and misconceptions that occurred when trying to

understand complex texts.

The read aloud intervention was implemented over 19 weeks. Early lessons

emphasized teacher demonstrations of comprehension tasks using think-aloud’s,

explicit demonstrations, and concise explanations. As lessons progressed, students

assumed a greater responsibility for accomplishing comprehension tasks

independently with teacher feedback. Each lesson included a before, during, and

after read aloud section. Before reading, identifying the book type, established the

purpose for reading and preparation. During reading, lesson content centered on

story grammar elements for narrative texts and K-W-L components for expository

texts. The bulk of explicit instruction focused on higher-order comprehension skills

such as inference making and comprehension monitoring. Instruction on new or

review vocabulary words also occurred as teachers read and discussed the text.

After reading, lesson content focused on summarizing and retelling practice, and

vocabulary review. Teachers modeled retelling using standard formats, and

students used these formats to practice retelling with a partner.

Teachers in the comparison condition engaged in read aloud activities at

least 4 days per week during the study. They were asked to use read aloud

procedures they normally used, particularly procedures they felt would promote

student comprehension. Three specific requests were also made for the purpose of

the study (a) comparison teachers selected a narrative or expository text that would

serve as the focus of the read aloud for that day, (b) comparison teachers engaged in

read aloud activities for approximately 30 minutes per day, and (c) at weeks 7 and

17 comparison teachers used a book we selected for the read aloud on 2 consecutive

days. Intervention teachers also used the same book on those days.

Although the sample size was relatively small and limited, the results

measured the impact of the read aloud intervention on four student outcomes:

listening comprehension, narrative retell, expository retell, and vocabulary. They

revealed that overall; the intervention had a statistically significant impact on the

narrative retell measure and the vocabulary measure. However, the intervention

did not have an impact on the information retell measure or on the listening

comprehension measure. One of the reasons given as to why the intervention may

have had a stronger impact on the narrative retell measure than on the information

retell measure is due to the fact that student knowledge of the information text may

not have been captured accurately.

This article was chosen because it proves that explicit instruction had a

significant impact on academic outcomes such as vocabulary and narrative retelling.

This information supports our study that the explicit close read strategy will also

increase reading comprehension and fluency in elementary students.

The study, Effects of Explicit Teaching and Peer Tutoring on the Reading

Achievement of Learning-Disabled and Low-Performing Students in Regular

Classrooms by Simmons, Fuchs, Mathes, & Hodge (1995), examines the effects of

explicit teaching and peer tutoring on the reading achievement of students with

learning disabilities (LD) and non disabled, low performing readers (LP) in

academically integrated general education classrooms.

The study included 24 general education teachers in grades 2-5, 44 LD

students, and 24 LP students participated in the 16–week mainstream classroom

based study. 16 experimental teachers were randomly assigned to explicit teaching

(ET) or explicit teaching plus peer tutoring (EP+PT) conditions: 8 teachers served as

controls. Explicit teaching was conducted in teacher-directed group reading

instruction, whereas peer tutoring occurred outside of class during independent

reading time. The finding indicated the effectiveness of explicit teaching plus peer

tutoring; there was no reliable independent effect for explicit teaching. The LD and

LP students in the explicit teaching plus peer tutoring treatment read more fluently,

answered more questions correctly, and selected a greater number of maze

responses than students in teaching explicit teaching or control classrooms.

Educators face increasing pressure to achieve better outcomes for all

students. The current emphasis on educating students with mild disabilities in

general education classes makes this article relevant. Its findings suggest the

difficulty of producing achievement gains for LD and LP students through general

education instruction but also suggest that explicit teaching can be implemented

effectively and can improve performance among average- and low-achieving

readers. More research is needed to determine how much explicit reading

strategies will improve reading comprehension and fluency in order to meet the

needs of all students.

In the study, Effects of Explicit Reading Strategies Instruction and Peer Tutoring

on Second and Fifth Graders’ Reading Comprehension and Self-Efficacy Perceptions

( Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005), the authors evaluated the effectiveness of explicit

reading comprehension strategies instruction, followed by practice in teacher-led

whole-class activities (STRAT), reciprocal same-age (STRAT+ SA) peer tutoring activities,

or cross-age peer-tutoring activities (STRAT+ CA) on 2nd and 5th graders’ reading

comprehension and self- efficacy perceptions. The aim in the present intervention study

was to evaluate the effectiveness of explicit reading strategies instruction and the

surplus value of peer tutoring as tools to enhance second and fifth graders’ reading

comprehension achievement and self-efficacy judgments. A pretest and posttest

retention test was used, including three experimental conditions and a comparable

control condition. The experimental groups were typified by explicit instruction in six

reading strategies, followed by practice in teacher-led whole- class activities, in student

led cross-age peer-tutoring activities, or in reciprocal same-age peer-tutoring activities.

In the control condition, a traditional reading comprehension approach characterized by

content specific questions, asked by the teacher, was applied. The study took place in

the challenging context of intact classes, providing a natural setting for the

interventions’ implementation.

In total, 444 second and 454 fifth graders from 44 classes in 25 different schools

participated in the study. Except for some small scale iniatives of individual schools,

peer tutoring was fairly unfamiliar at the time of the study. The majority of the children

were from middle class families and there was approximately an equal gender

distribution. Class sizes ranged from 15-28 students and were considered academically

heterogeneous. Second and fifth grade teachers had, on average, 11 and 20 years of

experience. However, none of the teachers had previous experience in explicit reading

strategies instruction or peer tutoring.

Standardized tests were used to measure the student’s reading comprehension

achievement and decoding fluency. Questionnaires were administered with respect to

reading attitude and preoccupation with attributions and self-efficacy perceptions

toward reading. Implementation of the experimental interventions was spread out over

the entire school year and was conducted with students during regularly scheduled

reading instruction. A post test was administered 6 months after the end of the school

year to determine retention.

Second graders’ comprehension results show that explicit strategies instruction

created a significant extra learning gain of approximately one quarter of a standard

deviation. It made no difference, however, whether reading strategies were practiced

under direct teacher supervision or in a cross-age setting with well prepared fifth

graders as tutors. Compared with the control condition, both conditions created the

same learning gain. Interestingly, poor readers made as much gains as high achievers. In

the long term, 6 months after the end of the intervention, the effect of both the

STRAT+CA and STRAT condition disappeared. Apparently, at this age, long- lasting

effects can be obtained only by continuing the intervention. Second graders practicing

reading strategies in reciprocal same-age peer tutoring dyads did not make extra

learning gains compared with the control group.

For fifth graders, all experimental conditions appeared to create nearly equally

large extra learning gains by the end of the school year, with effect sizes between 0.32-

0.39 standard deviation. The interventions appeared to be as effective for poor as for

high achievers.

For second graders, no effects on preoccupation with self efficacy related

thoughts were found. This does not necessarily mean that supplying reading strategies

instruction and peer tutoring does not have any effect on second graders’ self efficacy

perceptions with regard to reading. It is possible that the way of assessing

preoccupations might not be appropriate for second graders. Therefore, subsequent

research should study whether extending the intervention succeeds in producing

significant effects.

For fifth graders’ self efficacy-related thoughts, the study revealed that by the

end of the year, children in the STRAT+CA condition were significantly less occupied

with failure attributions and negative self-efficacy related thoughts compared with

students in the control and STRAT + SA conditions. There is a significant difference with

the control group endured at the retention test. It can be assumed that high scores for

thoughts relating to failure attributions and negative self efficacy perceptions indicate

the presence of low self esteem with regard to reading ability. The study was able to

determine that the negative thoughts decreased as students became more confident in

their own reading competence and were less preoccupied with doubts.

The study points out that the significant effects on the students’ comprehension

achievement can be attributed to an improvement in their metacognitive skills and

application of reading comprehension strategies. The outcomes of the studies

corroborate the effectiveness of explicit reading strategies instruction followed by

practice in peer tutoring or teacher led activities as a feasible tool to promote

regular elementary students’ reading comprehension achievement. However, further

research into the effectiveness of blending explicit reading strategies instruction and

peer tutoring is needed.

IV. Design:

The type of study we have selected for this research is correlational, as the

study seeks to establish whether or not there is a relationship between

implementing explicit reading instruction such as CLOSE reading, and student

proficiency in reading fluency and comprehension.

V. Participants

Participants in the study will include 20 kindergarten, 20 first grade, 20

second grade, 20 third grade, 20 fourth grade and 20 fifth grade public school

students, randomly selected and assigned at two public elementary schools in

Florida. Although the random selection and assignment may include English

Language Learners, no provisions such as translation of English language will be

made, since the purpose of the study is to assess the relationship between a specific

type of explicit reading instruction method and student achievement in reading

fluency and comprehension. Translation of text to the student’s native language, or

instruction given in a native language other than English, would require a separate

study, due to resource constraints.

For all participants who are randomly selected, informed consent will be

obtained through a written Informed Consent Agreement, signed by the parent or

legal guardian of each participant, as well as assent from each participant in Grades

2 and above. (Children younger than Grade 2 would be considered too young to give

informed assent for participation.)

VI. Methodology

Pre-Assessment:

After random selection of participants is complete and informed consent has

been attained, each student’s DRA reading assessment data from the beginning of

the current school year will be collected in order to provide a baseline of each

student’s proficiency in reading comprehension. In addition, each student’s FAIR

Diagnostic Reading Assessment from Quarter 1 will be collected in order to provide

a baseline of each student’s proficiency in reading fluency. Both of these

assessments are research-based and are given to all public school students in the

state of Florida at least twice each school year.

After all baseline assessment data has been collected, participants will be

randomly assigned to two groups per grade level: a treatment group and a control

group. The treatment groups for Kindergarten through second grades will receive

the following treatment:

During the regular 90-minute reading block, on two days per week for a total

of 12 weeks, participants will receive 45 minutes of CLOSE reading instruction,

using brief, high quality complex texts. The first read will consist of the teacher

engaging students by introducing the text, setting a purpose for reading, and

reading for meaning, by limiting the amount of times for stopping to discuss.

Students will work on making meaning by determining what the author is saying

and analyzing unknown words. The teacher models think- alouds to demonstrate

annotations (highlighting important parts of the text). The teacher asks text based

questions and encourages discussion among students.

The second read will consist of delving deeper into the text. The teacher

rereads while students listen closely for context clues and word meaning. Students

will think, write and talk about what was read using text based evidence to support

their ideas and thinking.

On the third read, students reread the text once again and dissect

information in the text even further, by comparing and contrasting two versions of

the same story, as well as stories on the same topic. Students will determine

meaning from illustrations and words, and analyze elements of the text. Students

will think, write and talk about what they read, and will be asked to refer to the text

any time they are explaining their viewpoint (e.g., “In the third paragraph . . .”).

The next day, the participants will be given the five item assessment to their

reading passage, which will be given individually.

The control group will receive regular classroom reading instruction using

the Imagine It! Houghton-Mifflin reading materials for their grade level. They will

not do close reading activities for the 12 weeks of the study.

The treatment groups for grades 3-5 will receive the following treatment:

During the regular 90-minute reading block, on two days per week for a total of 12

weeks, participants will receive 45 minutes of CLOSE reading instruction, using

grade level passages from the FAIR resource manual. When the passages are

distributed to the students, they will not initially receive the assessment page.

Instead, they will revisit the same passage for three separate reading

comprehension purposes, three times. On the first read, they will be asked to read

the passage closely and highlight any vocabulary that they are unfamiliar with OR

any words that are used in the article more than four times (other than standard

conjunctions or transition words.) After identifying this vocabulary, they will then

be expected to use surrounding words and context clues in the text to identify the

meaning of unfamiliar words, without use of a dictionary or other aid, and to discuss

with a partner and then write a few sentences explaining why they believe any

words that were used repeatedly were used so much in the article. They will

participate in a class discussion about the use of context clues, and the author’s

purpose in using a significant word or phrase repeatedly in a passage.

On the second read, the student will underline key details and then use these

to explain the main idea of the passage. They will then participate in a brief class

discussion about how paying attention to the details in a story or passage helps the

reader identify the passage’s main idea. This discussion will include the use of the

reader’s schema and making inferences.

On the third read, the student will infer the author’s purpose by rereading

the passage, as well as their notes about vocabulary and main idea, and using these

to determine author’s purpose. They will write a paragraph explaining the

vocabulary they identified, the main idea they identified, and how those collectively

helped them to determine author’s purpose. They will participate in a brief class

discussion about different types of passages and texts, as well as the different

author’s purposes for writing, and how using clues as they did in their close reading

can help them identify these.

The next day, the participants will be given the five item assessment to their

reading passage, which they will complete independently.

The control group will receive regular classroom reading instruction using

the Imagine It! Houghton-Mifflin reading materials for their grade level. They will

not do close reading activities for the 12 weeks of the study.

At the conclusion of the study, all participants will be given the

alternate DRA assessment, as well as the FAIR Diagnostic Reading Assessment.

Using a 6-way ANOVA, the baseline and post-treatment assessment data will be

graphed and analyzed, in order to determine if the results indicate a relationship

between close reading instruction and participant proficiency in reading

comprehension and fluency.

VII. Strengths & Limitations of Study

One limitation of this study is the fact that there will only be two groups at

each grade level, and that this will take place at two individual public schools.

Another limitation is that, although close reading was implemented in each

treatment group, the instructional delivery was not identical due to the variation of

grade level of the participants. Further research implementing the same close

reading instruction and materials to more treatment groups and measuring the

results against more groups who did not receive the treatment is necessary to

strengthen the reliability of this study.

The results will be transferrable to the study of educational and literacy

research, in that the data will show whether there is a relationship between reading

fluency and comprehension proficiency and the implementation of Close Reading

explicit reading instruction. Also, the use of multiple raters in analyzing the data,

and the consistency of assessment tools across all participant groups increases the

reliability of the results of the study.

References:

Archer, A.L, & Hughes, C...A. (2011). Exploring the Foundations of Explicit Instruction.

In A.L. Archer& Hughes (Eds.), Explicit instruction; Effective and Efficient Teaching (pp. 1-22). New York; Guilford.

Baker, S., Santoro L.E., Chard, D.J., Fien, H., Park, Y. & Ossterstedt, J. (2013). An Evaluation of an Explicit Read Aloud Intervention Taught in Whole –Classroom Formats in First Grade, The Elementary School Journal (000).

Chase, R. (2010). Window of opportunity: babies can’t wait, the 4th annual Nancy Latimer convening for Children & Youth. Minnesota Council on Foundations.

Coyne, M.D.. Kame’enui, E.J.& Carnine, D.W. (2007). Effective Teaching StrategiesThat Accommodate Diverse Learners (3rded.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Fan, Y. (2010). The Effect of Comprehension Strategy Instruction on EFL Learners’Reading Comprehension. Journal of Asian Social Science (19-29).

Hilden, K.R. & Pressley, M. (2007). Self-regulation through transactional strategyinstruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly (23)51-75.

Homan, S.P., Klesius, J.P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students’ fluency and comprehension. Journal ofEducational Research (87-2).

Institute of Education Sciences. (2007). What Works Clearing House. AccessedSeptember 10, 2007, from http://ies..ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

Johansen, B. (2011). Intensive intervention: strategy for closing the achievement gap. Retrieved February 9, 2013 from http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2011/10/30/intensive-intervention-strategy-closing-achievement-gap.

Katz, L.A. & Carlisle, J.F. (2009). Teaching students with reading difficulties to be close readers: a feasibility study. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, (40) 325-340.

Florida Center for Reading Research (2003). Progress monitoring and reporting network assessments. Florida Department of Education.Available at https://pmrn.fcrr.org.

Simmons, D.C., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Mathes, P., Hodge, J.P. (1995). Effects of ExplicitTeaching and Peer Tutoring on the Reading Achievement of Learning Disabled and Low-Performing Students in Regular Classrooms. The ElementarySchool Journal (387-408).

Sykes, C. J. (1995). Dumbing down our kids. NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Van Keer, H. & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). The Effects of Explicit Reading Strategies Instruction and Peer Tutoring on Second and Fifth Graders’ Reading

Comprenhension and Self-Efficacy Perceptions. Journal of Experimental Education 73(4), 291-329.