Guided ReadingApproach

Teaching Reading to StudentsWho Are Deaf and OthersWho StruggleBarbara R. Schirmer and Laura Schaffer

Students who are deaf, hard of hear-ing. Er^lish language learners, orlearning disabled need daily readinginstruction that offers opportunities tolearn and to practice strategies forword recogniiio«, fluency, and compre-hension. The guided reading lessonstructure is flexible enough to be usedwith any type of reading material andleaves decisions about selection ofstrategies lo leach on any given day upto the teacher. The teacher can provideexactly the level of supportive insiruc-lion needed by the students and incor-porate evidence-based practices forteaching the skills needed to becomesuccessful readers.

When Isabella graduated from herteacher education program, she knew alot about the importance of teachingthe five components of reading instruc-tion recommended by the NationalReading Panel (2000)—phonemicawareness, phonics, fluency, vocabu-lary, and text comprehension—and thatthese same components are crucial forteaching reading to sludents who aredeaf (Schirmer & McGough, 2005). Shealso knew quite a few strategies forteaching each of these. When she start-ed to organize her classroom for

52 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

instruction, however, she realized thatshe did not have a grasp on how to putthese components together into a les-son structure that would serve as aframework for daily reading instructionfor students who are deaf.

If Isabella's school had adopted SRADirect Instruction (McGraw-Hill SchoolEducation Group, 2010) or Success forAll (Success for AH Foundation, 2010),she would have been handed a particu-lar lesson structure for literacy instruc-tion. Both of these models require fol-lowing a scripted lesson format andusing specially designed tnaterials.Though SRA Direct Instruction andSuccess for All and other such modelscan be highly effective in improving lit-eracy learning (e.g., Carnine, Silbert,Kame'enui, Tarver, & Jungjohann,2006; Slavin & Madden. 2000). teacherscannot individually decide to selectthem; these approaches are implement-ed as schoolwide programs, requiringsubstantial training of teachers, use ofcommon reading curriculum materialsthroughout all grade levels by all teach-ers, and ongoing professional develop-ment to ensure fidelity to the steps inthe lessons.

Isabella needed to identify a lessonstructure into which she could slot evi-dence-based strategies for explicitlyand systematically teaching wordrecognition, nuenc7, and comprehen-sion. She also needed a lesson struc-ture that offered the opportunity toteach these strategies at the threecrucial points in time for any literacylesson:

^ Before reading, when instructionis designed to build the student'sknowledge of the words, sentencestructures, vocabulary, and con-tent that will be encountered inthe upcoming reading material.

G3 Dnririg reading, when strategiesare focused quite deliberately onproviding the support needed forthe student to interact effectivelywith reading material and to helpthe reader internalize these strate-gies so that they can be appliedindependently with future readingmaterial.

G3 After reading, when activitiesreinforce the skills taught beforeand during reading, synthesizewhat students have learned inorder to move toward independ-ence in applying these skills, andextend their ability to think criti-cally and creatively about theideas in the material.

Isabella sought a model for readinginstruction with a strong research base,but also an approach that she couldincorporate into her instructional reper-toire without a huge investment in newreading materials or training. Fountasand Pinnell's (1996) guided readingapproach caught her attention; popularamong general education teachers,Isabella also found that the guidedreading approach is recommended bythe Laurent Clerc National DeafEducation Center for use with deaf stu-dents (Gallaudet University, 2009).Since introducing the approach,Fountas and Pinnell also continued todevelop lists of reading materials cate-gorized across a range of difficulty lev-els to support reading instruction. ThisHst of leveled books has grown continu-ously since the first lists were pub-lished and is now available on a website to accommodate the constant addi-tions (Fountas & Pinnell. 2009). Havingthis list of books at progressive levelsof difficulty serves to increase the easeof adoption and implementation byteachers.

Though lacking a body of researchon efficacy with hearing readers, guid-ed reading has been found to be effec-tive witb deaf elementary-level readers

lar fluency activities, and teaching ofcognitive strategies for comprehension(Schirmer & Schaffer, in press; see box,"Research on the Guided ReadingApproach With Deaf Students"). Fur-ther, the approach incorporates evi-dence-based practices for which thereis current consensus:

• Creating a classroom culture thatfosters motivation to engage In liter-acy activities.

• Teaching reading as an authenticactivity (for pleasure, for informa-tion, for completing a task).

• Providing students with scaffoldedinstruction in the five key areas ofreading instruction (i.e., phonemicawareness, phonics, vocabulary, flu-ency, and comprehension).

• Giving students ample time to readin class.

• Providing children with high-qualityliterature across a range of genres.

• Using multiple texts that link andexpand vocabulary and concepts.

• Connecting new concepts to back-ground knowledge.

• Balancing student- and teacher-leddiscussions of texts.

• Using the new literacies of the Inter-net and technology-based instruc-tion.

• Using a variety of assessment strate-gies and techniques (Gambrell, Mal-loy, & Mazzoni, 2007),

What Isabella learned about guidedreading can help other teachers inselecting a lesson structure for stu-

Guided reading has been found to be effective with deafelementary-Ievei readers in improving reading achievement.

in improving reading achievement,given its focus on matching the read-ability level of the materials to theinstructional reading level of the deafstudents, explicit and systematicinstruction in word recognition andnew vocabulary, incorporation of regu-

dents. whether students are deaf, hardof hearing, English language learners,learning disabled, or need daily read-ing instruction that offers opportunitiesto learn and to practice strategies forword recognition, fluency, and compre-hension.

TEACHING ExcEPTtONAL CHILDREN [ MAY/JUNE 2010 53

Research on the Guided Reading Approach With Deaf Students

When a state school for the deaf selected the guided reading approach as themain instructional model for teaching deaf students (Schirmer & Schaffer, inpress), we set out to investigate the effects of the model on the reading devel-opment of students in Grades 1 through 5. Classroom teachers were certifiedteachers of the deaf with a range of experience from 2 to 30 years. The schooldescrihes its curriculum as a regular public school curriculum with modifica-tions in terms of presenting information via American Sign Language andwritten English. Students, teachers, and staff are assessed regularly with theSign Language Proficiency interview (Newell. Caccamise, Boardman, &Hülcomb, I983J; teachers and staff receive training as needed to ensure thatthe campus is barrier-free in terms of communication. School size wasapproximately 180 students during the first year and 160 students during thesecond year of intervention; class sizes per grade at the elementary levelranged from 4 to 9 students. In addition to the teacher of the deaf, mostclasses had at least one teacher aide. Speech and language services were con-ducted in pull-out sessions with the speech-language clinician.

Within each classroom, students were grouped hy reading level, and theclassroom teacher conducted the lessons. Guided reading lessons were con-ducted 3 to 4 times a week during each academic year of the study. Theteachers also conducted a running records assessment (Clay, 2000) monthlyto assess student progress and adjust instruction accordingly, ln these assess-ments, the teacher asked the student to read out loud/in sign (referred to asstorysign] a new passage at the same reading level as the material used forinstruction. During reading, the teacher made a checkmark for each word thestudent read correctly, notated when the student did not know a word, andwrote the word used by the student when it was a substitution, repetition,omission, or incorrect pronunciation. The teacher also notated the student'sreading fluency. The teacher then asked the student to retell the story andappraised Ihe student's inclusion of setting, characters, events, and importantdetails.

Results showed several major patterns:

• Improvement during the guided reading instruction ranged from a halfyear to 2 years of progress each year of the study for most of the students.

• Achievement dropped precipitously from the end of one school year andthe beginning of another school year, particularly for students at the earli-er grade levels.

• It took several months of the new school year for students to recapture thelevel they had achieved at the end of the previous school year.

• Reading achievement levels at the outset were low regardless of gradelevel, with none of the elementary students at or close to grade level.

Comparing our results to findings with deaf students during the past 2decades, which have shown that the average deaf student gains one third of agrade equivalent change each school year (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2005;Holt, 1993; Wölk & Allen, 1984), outcomes were better than this average formost of the students in our study. However, it is generally recognized that thegoal for reading growth is 1 year of progress for each school year and only afew students came close to this benchmark. Given the low scores at the out-set for most of the participants, and the dip that typically took place eachsummer, progress for most of the participants was far below the benchmarkof 1 year of progress per each year of school. Outcomes, though modest, offerincipient evidence for the potential of the guided reading approach in improv-ing the reading achievement of deaf students.

Getting Started WHh theGuided Reading Approach

The four steps of the guided reading

approach (see box) were originallydeveloped by Fountas and Pinneil(1996) as a model for supporting inde-pendent and fluent reading for studentsfrom kindergarten through Grade 4 anddid not incorporate the kinds of con-centrated and systematic instructionthat struggling readers typically need.By also teaching new vocabularywords before reading and having stu-dents read material in segments (ratherthan a whole book at one sitting),teachers can provide explicit instruc-tion on word recognition, complex syn-tax, figurative language, new vocabu-lary, and text structure as neededbefore, during, and after reading. And,indeed, these modifications are recom-mended for English language learnersand students who are deaf and hard ofhearing (Avalos, Plasencia, Chavez. &Rascón. 2007; Schirmer & Schaffer, inpress).

The guided reading approach istaught within homogenous groupingsof students in order to ensure that allof the students are reading material attheir instructional reading levels. Whenthere is a match between current read-ing level and the readability of thematerial, instruction can be aimed atthe students' zone of proximal deuelop-ment (Vygotsky, 1978): the distancebetween current developmental level,as indicated by independent problemsolving, and potential developmentallevel that is possible with guidancefrom an aduli or in collaboration witha more capable peer, ln other words,the material is just difficult enough tooffer opportunities to learn and applynew strategies with support from theteacher. It is. therefore, crucial to dis-tinguish between independent, instruc-tional, and frustration level materials.

Independent materials are thosethat the student can read with essen-tially no support. These materials areaimed at the student's current develop-mental level. Instructional materialsare those that the student can readonly with support. Frustration mater-ials are those that the student cannotread regardless of the support pro-

54 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

vided. Frustration materials representthe reader's zone of distal develop-tnent, the distance between his or hercurrent developmental level and fur-thest potential developmental level.Even with significant support from theteacher, the student is unable to readmaterials within the zone of distaldevelopment. Materials at the reader'sfrustration level make appropriateread-alouds by the teacher. [See box,"Determining Readability," for guide-lines for selecting the appropriate levelfor inslruction.)

Guided Reading in AcHon

Isabella leaclies deaf studetits at aschool for the deaf. Some of her stu-dents have concomitant disabilities,such as learning and intellectual dis-abilities. The students are placed ingrade levels by chronological age sothe reading levels In her classroomrange across several grade-equivalentlevel spans, which her colleagues inother school settings also notice amongtheir students who are deaf and hardof hearing. One of the characteristics ofthe guided reading approach thatIsabella particularly liked was that shecould develop a template lesson struc-ture for a week of reading instructionthat she could adapt for each reading

Sfeps of fhe Guided Reading Approach

Step 1: Group Students and Select Leveled Books. The students are groupedhomogenously by instructional reading level. The teacher selects a book thatmatches the instructional reading level of the students in the group. Each stu-dent is provided with a copy of the book to be read.

Step 2: Introduce the Book. The teacher introduces the book by having the stu-dents look at the cover, read the title and author, and talk about the topic. In-depth building of background knowledge of the topic may be necessary forstruggling readers. Vocabulary words crucial to understanding the story aretaught.

Step 3.- Ask the Students to Read Silently. The students read the book silently inmeaningful segments. The teacher observes, notes student behaviors duringreading, and provides support with word recognition, understanding unfamiliarsentence structures, and comprehension when needed. After each segment, theteacher poses a question, encourages the students to self-question, asks for aprediction, or uses another strategy for comprehension monitoring. For strug-gling readers, reading aloud before silent reading can enable the teacher to pin-point word recognition difficulties.

Step 4: Discuss. After reading, the students discuss the book. The teacher hasthe children revisit the text to clarify, find evidence of interpretations, andproblem solve confusing or unclear information. The children can then rereada passage independently or with a partner to build fluency.

(Fountas & Pinneil, 1996)

Isabella's template lesson plan, one fullinstructional period was dedicated toteaching the new vocabulary that thestudents would encounter in the read-ing material because vocabulary devel-

One of the characteristics of the guided reading approachthat Isabella particularly liked was that she could develop atemplate lesson structure for a week of reading instruction

that she could adapt for each reading group.

group, Her template lesson plan includ-ed the four steps of the guided readingapproach.

For Step 1, she selects a new leveledbook for each reading group, makingsure to match the book's level to theinstructional reading level of the group.(Isabella knows the instructional levelof each student in the group becauseshe assesses them regularly. She flexi-bly varies her grouping of studentsbased on their changing abilities.)

Step 2 incorporates strategies thatIsabella teaches before reading. In

opment is particularly important fordeaf readers. By combining vocabularyteaching with sight word teaching,Isabella could teach two strategies atthe same time (i.e., new word concept-t- automatic recognition of the word inprint). While pointing out letter-soundrelationships, prefixes and suffixes, andonsets and rimes in these new words,she could teach multiple strategies atthe same time (i.e., new word concept+ phonic analysis + structural analy-sis + onset-rime analysis -i- automaticword recognition).

The other half of Step 2 is to buildbackground knowledge for the book'stopic and text structure. In the guidedreading approach, this activity can be abrief discussion but if the topic andstructure are quite unfamiliar to thestudents or particularly complex, theteacher can slot more in-depth teachinginto this step. Isabella often found thatshe was able lo connect the leaching ofnew vocabulary with teaching aboutthe topic. And sometimes she was ableto coordinate the teaching of the newtopic with what she was teaching inscience or social studies.

Step 3 provides the opportunity toteach du ring-read ing strategies. Isabellaliked to vary the ones she slotted intothis step. For comprehension, some-times she asked questions but othertimes she asked the students to predict.engage in mental imagery, or generatetheir own self-questions. For wordrecognition, she often taught briefmini-lessons on a skill needed to reada specific word, particularly a wordessential for understanding the pas-sage. In the guided reading approach,silent reading does not always provide

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MAY/JUNE 2010 55

Determining Readability

A number of factors, within texts and within readers, con-tribute to readability. Within-text factors include content,structure, cohesiveness, format, typography, literary form andstyle, vocabulary difficulty, sentence complexity, idea orproposition density, level of abstractness, and organization.Within readers, attitude, motivation, purpose for the reading,cultural background, knowledge of vocabulary, extent ofbackground knowledge of the topic, knowledge of text struc-ture, and ability to identify words contribute to the ease withwhich the text will be comprehended (Irwin & Davis, 1980;Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988],

The most frequently used tool for determining readabilityis a readability formula. Most formulas rely on two factors.Some use average sentence length and vocabulary difficulty,such as Spache (Spache, 1953; Grades 1-4) and Dale-Chall(Chali & Dale, 1995; Grade 4-adult); others use average sen-tence length and number of syllables, such as Fry (1989; ele-mentary-adult) and Flesch-Kincaid (Flesch, 1948; Kincaid,Fishburne, Rogers, & Chisson, 1975; upper eletnentary-secondary). Clearly, these factors do not exhaust all of thepossible variables that influence text readability. When usedas probability statements or estimates, though, formulas canprovide predictive information regarding how easily a textwill be understood by the average reader (Fry, 1989). Butthey will not predict precisely whether a given reader willinteract successfully with a particular text.

The use of readability formulas is simple and straightfor-ward, and computer technology has made the process rela-tively qtiick. Software is available for most of the formulasand virtually all word-processing programs incorporate read-ability measures. However, formulas cannot be used in isola-tion. Although it may be tempting to rely solely on computersoftware with its aura of scientific validity, formulas must beaugmented with other measures for estimating the readabilityof text (Kotula, 2003).

One approach is for teachers to read the target text them-selves, using their own knowledge and understanding of theirstudents to compare against the demands of the text (Dreyer,1984), A second approach is to give a selection of the text tothe student for a trial reading (Rush. 1985), If the student isable to read 98% of the words automatically, with goodphrasing and strong comprehension, the material is independ-ent. (Some authors use a 95% target, but when the studenthas to stop and figure out 5 out of every 100 words, the mate-rial is not very accessible.) If the student is able to read 90%or fewer of the words automatically, uses word-by-word read-ing, and has weak comprehension, the material is frustration.Instructional material lies between these two points. A thirdapproach is to use a cloze procedure, in which the student isgiven a reproduced portion of the text from which wordshave been systematically deleted, usually every fifth wordexcept for the first and last sentences. A fourth suggestion isto develop your own checklist that includes within-reader andwithin-text factors.

Another approach is to use leveled books. Fountas andPinnell (2009) apply four main criteria in their levelingprocess:

• Book and print features include length (number of pages,words, and lines per page), print (font type, font size, andspaces between words and lines), layout (placement ofphrases, sentences, print, and pictures; consistency oflayout; use of chapters, headings, and other organizationalfeatures), range of punctuation, and illustrations (numberand relation to print).

• Content, theme, and ideas include familiarity with content,technical nature of content, sophistication of theme, andcomplexity of ideas.

• Text sfmc/ure includes narrative text (predictability of storystructure, description of setting, character development,plot complexity, genre, structure of episodes) and exposi-tory text (presentation, organization, and level of informa-tion and ideas).

• LangUiige and literary features include perspective ofauthor and characters, structure of phrases and sentences,structure of paragraphs and chapters, use of words orphrases as literary devices, and vocabulary (variety ofwords, number and range of high frequency and interestwords, number of multisyllabic words, and worddifficulty).

Several options are available for teachers who are notusing the Fountas and Pinnell leveled books. Fawson andReutzel (2000) suggest adapting basal readers. Teachers canwork together in using Fountas and Pinnell's criteria to levelthe basal stories in their reading series or use Fawson andReutzel's text leveling of several popular basal reading series(including Harcourt Brace. Silver Burdett Ginn, HoughtonMifflin, Scott Foresman, and Scholastic),

Another option is to use the increasingly popular publish-ers' leveling of their reading packages and theme collections.Some of these publishers use Fountas and Pinnell's levelingand some use their own algorithms.

When using a published leveling system, it is important torecognize that the particular criteria used in leveling may notresult in a good match between the book's level and your stu-dents' instructional reading needs. For example, Cunninghamand his colleagues (2005) analyzed books leveled by ReadingRecovery and found that although Reading Recovery lessonsincorporate the study of high-frequency words and phonicsinstruction using onset-rime patterns, "the books they selectfor their program provide little support for these two instruc-tional components, and the way they level the books providesnone at all" (p. 45).

Whatever system you use to determine the readability ofthe material you select for reading instruction, it is up to youto determine whether the leveling system makes sense inlight of the instructional strategies and skills you will beteaching and. if not, to feel free to modify the levels using theother readability measures discussed in this section.

56 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTÍONAL CHILDREN

enough information to the teacherabout the struggling reader's problemswith word recognition and how wordrecognition difficulties result in com-prehension breakdowns. So Isabellatypically asked her deaf readers to firstread out loud, or—more accurately fordeaf students—to storysign. Whenstorysigning during guided reading,the students express ASL conceptuallyappropriate signs in English wordorder. She also broke the story intosegments because it offered her moreopportunity to intervene with a strate-gy lesson targeted to a word recogni-tion or comprehension difficulty.

After-reading strategies are incorpo-rated into Step 4. In Isabella's templatelesson plan, she included a menu ofactivities for word recognition, fluency,and comprehension from which shecould select during any given lesson.For comprehension, she often askedquestions that encouraged critical andcreative thinking but she sometimesasked the students to retell or drama-tize what they had read, write a narra-tive or story map summary, or engagein a discussion. For vocabulary andword recognition, she found that work-sheets, games, and activities in class-room centers could reinforce skills andinformation she had taught beforereading. For fluency, Isabella oftenasked the students to reread a sectiontogether (i.e., choral reading) and othertimes she paired the students andasked them to alternate rereading asection to each other.

In Isabella's template lesson plan.Step 2 was carried out on Monday andSteps 3 and 4 on Tbesday throughFriday, with a new segment of thebook being read each day. By Friday,they complete the book and eachMonday begin a new book. The lessonstructure enables Isabella to systemati-cally and explicitly teach the wordrecognition, fluency, and comprehen-sion strategies needed by her studentsto become increasingly more proficientreaders.

Final Tiioughts

The guided reading approach offers alesson structure for teaching literacy tostudents no matter what their reading

ability levels are and the strategies theyneed to learn and practice. The lessonstructure is flexible enough to be usedwith any type oí reading material andleaves decisions about selection ofstrategies for teaching word recogni-tion, fluency, and comprehension onany given day up to the teacher. Theteacher can provide exactly the level ofsupportive instruction needed by stu-dents who are deaf and others whostruggle with reading.

Ongoing assessment is a crucialcomponent of the guided readingapproach. Because the students'instructional reading level is matchedto the readability level of the material,the struggling reader's abilities grow asa result of learning to read materialsthat are challenging and that presentopportunities for applying newlylearned skills and strategies. Growthoccurs when instructional materialsbecome independent materials, frustra-tion materials become instructionalmaterials, and strategies previouslytaught become ones the student usesindependently.

Because the students'instructional reading level is

matched to the readahility levelof the material, the struggling

reader's abilities grow as a resultof learning to read materials thatare challenging and that presentopportunities for applying newly

learned skills and strategies.

The selection of the guided readingapproach was a good fit for Isabellaand the deaf students in her class. Shewas able to focus instruction on herstudents' strengths and weaknessesthrough ongoing assessment and clearbenchmarks for their progress. The les-son structure enabled her to selectbefore, during, and after activities thataddressed the needs of each student.The approach has provided Isabellawith an instructional framework fordaily reading instruction into which

she can target the word recognition,fluency, and comprehension skillsneeded by her students.

Referencess, M. A., Piasenda, A.. Ch.wez. C . &

Rascón. J. (2007). Modified guided read-ing; Gateway lo English as a second lan-guage and literacy learning. The ReadingTeacher. 6!, 318-329.

Carnine, D. W.. Silbert, J., Kame'emii. E. J..Tarver, S. G., & Juiigiohann, K. (2006).Teaching slrugglins and at-risk recidem: Adirect instruction approach. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Chali. J. S.. & Dale. E. (1995). Readabilityrevisited: The new Dale-Chall readabilityformula. Brookline. MA: BrooklineBooks.

Clay. M. M. (2000). Running records forclassroom leachers. Portsmoulh. NH:Heinemann.

Cunningham, J. W., Spadorcia, S. A., Erick-son. K. A., Koppenhaver. D. A., Slum, J.M., & Yoder, D. E. (2005). InvestigatingIhe instructional supportiveness of lev-eled texts. Reading Research Quanerly,40. 410-427.

Dreyer. L. G. (1984). Readabilily andresponsibility. Journal of Reading. 2?.334-338.

Fawson. P. C. & Reiitzel. D. R. (2000). But Ionly have a basal: Iniplemenling guidedreading in the early grades. Tlw ReadingTeacher. 54. 84-97.

Flesch. R. (1948). A new readability yard-stick. Journal of AppUed Psychology. 32,221-233.

Fountas. I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guidedreading: Good first teaching for all chil-dren. Porlsmouth. NH: Heinemann.

FoLintJs. I., & Pinnell. G. S. (2009). LeveledBooks: K-8 Icurriculum materiaisl.Availabie from http://www.founiasandpinn el ¡leveled books,com/default.aspx

Fry. E. G. (1989). Reading formulas-maligned but valid. Journal of Reading.32. 292-297.

Gallaudel Research Institute. (2005). Sian-ford Achievemenl Test lOt/i edition, nomi-ing. Retrieved from http://gri.gallaudet.edu/ -v catraxle/sat 10-faq.html

Gallaudet University, Laurent Clerc NationalDeaf Education Center. (2009). Guidedreading and writing wiih deaf and hardof hearing children. Retrieved fromhttp://c!erccenter.g.iiIaudet.edu/CIerc_Center/In forma tion_and_Resources/Info_to_Go/Hearing_and_Cominunicalion„Technology/Literacy-lt_All_Connects/Guided_Reading_and_Writing.html

Gambrell. L B.. Malloy. J. A.. & Mazzoni. S.A. (2007). Evidence-based practices forcomprehensive literacy instruction. In L.B. Gambrell. L. M. Morrow, Ä M. Press-ley LEds.), Best practices in literacy

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN MAY/JUNE 2010 57

instruction (pp. 11-29). New york. NY:Guilford.

Holt, J. (1993). Stanford Achievement Test—8th edition: Reading comprehension sub-group results. American Annals of theDeaf, 138, 172-175.

Irwin, } . W, & Davis. C. A. [1980]. Assess-ing readability: The checklist approach.Journal of Reading, 24. 124-t3C.

Kincaid. J. P.. Fishburne, R. P.. Jr.. Rogers.R. L . & Chisson. B. S. (1975). Derivationof new readability formulas (AutomatedReadability Index, Fog Count and FlescbReading Ease Formula) for Navy enlistedpersonnel. Research Branch Report 8-75.MilUngton. TN: Naval Technical Training.

Kotula. A. W. (2003). Matching readers toinstructional malerials: Tbe use of classicreadability measures for studenis withlanguage learning disabilities anddyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders.23. 190-203.

McGraw-Hill School Education Group.(2010)- SRA Direct Instruction [softwareand training materials]. Available fromhttps://www.sraonline.com/di_home.htmK?PHPSESSID = 7498a856b0aa6e40ec9df2027e498b6b

National Reading Panel. (2000). Report ofthe National Reading Panel: Teachingchildren to read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scieniißc research litera-

ture on reading and its implications forreading instruction. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Healtb and HumanServices.

Newell, W., Caccamise. R, Boardman, K., &Hoicomb, B. R. (1983). Adaptation of theLanguage Proficiency Interview (LPI) forassessing sign communicative compe-tence. Sign Ixinguase Studies. 41, 311-352.

Rush, R. T. (1985). Assessing readability:Formulas and alternatives. The ReadingTeacher. 39. 274-283.

Schirmer, B. R., & McGougb, S. M. (2005).Teacbing reading to children who aredeaf: Do the conclusions of the NationalReading Panel apply? Review of Educa-tional Research. 75, 83-117.

ScKirmer. B. R., & Schaffer, L. (in press).Implementation of tbe guided readingapproach witb elementary deaf students.American An7uils of the Deaf

Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2000). Onemillion children: Success for all. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Spache. G. (1953). A new readability formu-la for primary-grade reading materials.The Elementary School Journal 53,410-413. doi:10.1086/458513

Success for All Foundation. (2010). Successfor all [curriculum materials]. Availablefrom http://www.successforall.net/

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The

development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity.

Wolk, S., & Allen, T. E. (1984). A 5-yearfollow-up of reading comprehensionachievement of hearing-impaired stu-

dents in special education programs. The

Journal of Special Education. ¡8. 161-176.

Zakaluk, B. L.. & Samuels. S. J. (Eds.).(1988). Readability: tts past, present, and

future. Newark. DE: International Read-ing Association.

Barbara R. Schirmer (CEC MI Fedemtion),

Professor of Education, University of Detroit,

Michigan. Laura Schaffer (CEC MI Feder-

ation). Special Education Teacher, Michigan

School for the Deaf, ñint.

Address correspondence to Barbara R.

Schirmer. P.O. Box 700350, Plymouth, MI

48170 (e-mail: Barbara.schimier@

udmercy.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Voi. 42,

No. 5, pp. 52-58.

Copyright 2010 CEC.

ExceptionalChildren

Got the writing bug? This encouraging andinspiring book will help college and graduatestudents, practitioners, professors, and grantwriters better express themselves, find their true"voice," and understand the in's and out's ofeducation publishing. Sections include;

• Overcoming challenges facing new writers• Technology• Expressing diversity• Working with editors of research journals

and more!

Order today at www.cec.sped.org/store 1-888-232-7733

58 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for Exceptional Children and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.