# data[].attributes.body
AT1 - Team Curry Puff

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a guideline on how to go about conducting an observation to assess children's learning and development based on the Nurturing Early Learners (NEL) framework. This resource also provide examples and scenarios for teachers to have an insight on how teachers can tackle the different situation using observations and documentation to plan what is the next step for the child to improve on.

Based on the NEL framework, systematic observations and documentation are important to keep track of children's learning progression. The information gathered from the observations are evidence that will help teachers understand the children's strengths/weaknesses and likes/dislikes.Teachers can then make modifications and plan more constructive learning experiences based on children's response and observations.

Methods of observations:
- Anecdotal records
- Checklists and questionnaires
-Time sampling
-Event/Frequency sampling
-Photographs, artefacts and work samples
- Information and Communication Technology (ICT resources)

(Ministry of Education, 2013)

# data[].attributes.body
Kress (2004) mentioned that literacy in the new media age involves "human, cognitive/affective, cultural and bodily engagement with the world and on the forms and shapes of knowledge". He suggested a shift from alphabetic literacy to explore the new forms of literacy needed in today's world. This "multimodal turn" is a recognition that language with other semiotic resources and meaning is made multimodally. Communication with multimedia and social media involves both language and the use of multimodal resources such as imges, videos and three dimensional objects to make meaning  in different context(Smith et al. 2014).

Developing multi modal literacy in children is about developing their ability to view multimodal texts critically and for them to represent their ideas through the production of effective multimodal texts. This approach provides scaffolds for children to access the meanings made in multimodal texts by introducing the features and typical functions of the text while using it in mutlimodal texts to make meaning(Lim, 2018).

# data[].attributes.body
Reading fluency is defined as "accurate reading of connected text at a conversational rate with appropriate prosody or expression." (Hudson, Lane, and Pullen, 2015)
The elements of reading fluency includes accuracy rate, automaticity, phrasing and expressiveness.

Fluency is important because it provides a bridge between word recognition and comprehension.
Fluency also leads to a better comprehension and having the ability to read efficiently.

# data[].attributes.body
Phonemic awareness is the ability to focus on and manipulate individual sounds in words.

Phonemic awareness is the foundation for spelling and word recognition skills. Educators can use Phonemic awareness to predict how children will learn to read during the first 2 years of instruction.

Phonemic awareness is not phonics it is auditory and not print dependent.

Teaching Strategies:
Teaching phonics through play based activities.  Games for children younger than 4 years old involves rhyming activities, older children 5 years old and above includes blending and segmenting of words into onset and rime,

Recognizing which words in a set of words begin with the same sound ("Ball, boy, and bird all have /b/ at the beginning.")

Learn to isolate and say the first or last sound in a word ("The beginning sound of ball is /b/." "The ending sound of kit is /t/.")

Practice combining, or blending the separate sounds in a word to say the word ("/b/, /a/, /g/ – bag.")

Breaking, or segmenting a word into its separate sounds ("an – /a/, /pn.")

# data[].attributes.headline
Print referencing tips for parents and caregivers

# data[].attributes.subject
Print referencing tips for parents and caregivers

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers parents and caregivers some tips on how to read to a child. This resource is based on a program name STAR (Sit Together and Read) program that is developed by Dr. Laura Justice.

Before reading with your child
- Find a quiet and comfortable reading space away from distractions.
- Sit in a position whereby your  child can see the reader and the storybook.
- Point out to the cover page and the tittle of the book.
- Talk about the book and ask your child what they think the book is about.
-Relate the topic of the book to your child's prior knowledge.

While reading with your child
- Read at a slower pace so that your child have time to comprehend and understand the parts of the story.
- Pause between pages to allow your child to spend some time to look at the pictures in the book, ask questions, point to words or letters.
- Actively involve your child in the story by encouraging them to make predictions on what will happen in the story. It is important to explain new words and ideas in the story.
- Read with expression. Change voices for different characters or for slow/exciting parts of the story. This is to add excitement and add details to the story.
- Pay attention to prints (learning about letters/ prints/ sentences/ punctuation marks).

After reading with your child
- Ask questions relating to the book. E.g. Ask what they like/don't like from the story. Ask the children open-ended questions.
- Encourage and provide support during storybook reading.

(Justice & Sofka, 2010)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reading to Littles: Print Referencing for Caregivers

# data[].attributes.body
Theory of Literacy Development
Holdaway (1979)
- Holdaway believed that "learning to read is viewed as a natural development occurrence".
- reading begins at home where parents models and reinforced  reading to children.
- rich literacy classroom environment to immerse children in meaningful language experiences with high-quality
children’s literature.
- recommends the use of big books and shared reading techniques in the classroom.

Maturation theory
Morphett & Washburne (1931)
- According to the maturation  theory, children should only be taught to complete tasks when they are physically and mentally ready to do so.

Cognitive Development
Jean Piaget (1969)
- children acquire knowledge by interacting with the world.
- children are active participants in their own learning.
- children learn through direct experiences and social interaction with peers.

Emergent Literacy Theory
- Children's development in the areas of listening, speaking, reading and writing are interrelated.
- emphasize on the critical role that children's home environments have on children's literacy development.
- believes in literacy-rich environment.
(Tracey & Morrow, 2006)

Friedrich Froebel Theory on play
- importance of play as a central integrating element in a child's development and learning.
- requires adult guidance and a planned environment that promotes curiosity,  enquiry, sensory stimulation.
(UKEssays, 2018)

Social constructivism
John Dewey (1966)
- process of inquiry.
- children learn by asking questions and actively seeking answers.
- hands-on approach.
- learning is child- centered (built around the interest of the child).
- children learn best through play because of social interaction.

Lev Vygotsky (1981)
- children construct knowledge.
- learning leads to development.
- learning occurs in social context.
- language plays an important role in intellectual development.
- zone of proximal development.
(Hill, 2012, pg.3)

Family Literacy Theory
- focuses on the role of parents in children's literacy development.
-  literacy-rich homes environment contributes to children’s early successful literacy development.
(Tracey & Morrow, 2006, pg 88)

# data[].attributes.body
Reading and viewing is the ability to decode and interpret with a range of text. This will include multi modal texts with purpose and critical awareness, which is also a process of constructing meaning from print and other symbols. Reading is also an integral part of literacy as a whole and it is not separable from writing, viewing, speaking and listening.

Young children's development of emergent literacy skills begin in early life. By observing and participating in literacy events at home and in other social settings, they learn about the functions of literacy. Their reading and writing skills will develop in correlation with their visual and motor skills (Susan, 2009). Children was exposed to literacy skills through verbal and non-verbal communication patterns such as body gestures, sign language and various prints and symbols. This also means that children are learning literacy everywhere ranging from their homes to other social context like shopping malls and sometimes even outdoor play

According to the National Reading Panel, there are five essential components of reading.
1. Phonemic Awareness
2. Phonics
3. Fluency
4. Vocabulary
5. Comprehension
(National Reading Panel, 2000)

Importance of reading and viewing.
As a child starts to understand the print on the page stands for something, they are developing print awareness. This skill might aid the child in future development like holding a book properly and eventually allowing the child to know when a story starts or ends, and even knowing that texts is read from left to right (Shrier & Michigan State University Extension, 2013).

As a child's reading skills develop, their independence level will increase as they are able tackle unknown words on their own. When they learn to read, their vocabulary expands and they have a wider understanding of the words, hence leading the child to be more expressive with the way they speaks.

As they build a base knowledge of words, spelling and grammar, they will feel confident in learning new vocabulary and using the words they have acquired previously. They would develop the skills in decoding the unknown words by analyzing the situation and condition.

A child's ability to read also help them in unlocking achievement in other subjects in the future.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a video example on how to carry out a choral reading activity to practice fluency. The students practice fluency by given opportunities to read independently at their independent level or read with feedback from a teacher/more able reader.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Video 36: Choral Reading (REL Southeast)

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a diagram of the four resources model developed by Allan Luke and Peter Freebody, 1990. It helps educators to understand the key processes involved when a reader approach a text. This model can be used as a way to scaffold students towards becoming active users of texts.

The four resources model is important as it is a framework for teachers to use to develop and plan teaching activities for literacy learners.

Using the four roles of a reader:
1. Code breaker - ability to break the code. Readers understanding of alphabetic principle, phonemic awareness, letter knowledge and phonics.

2. Text user - identifying the purpose and text type or book genre.

3. Meaning maker- comprehending the text on a literal, interpretive and critical level.

4. Text Analyst - evaluate the author's intention/accuracy of the information.

(Hill, 2012, pg.197-200)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Expanding the four resources model: reading visual and multi-modal texts Frank Serafini
Abstract
Freebody and Luke proffered an expanded conceptualization of the resources readers utilize when reading and the roles readers adopt during the act of reading. The four resources model, and its associated four roles of the reader, expanded the definition of reading from a simple model of decoding printed texts to a model of constructing meaning and analysing texts in sociocultural contexts. This article continues the reconceptualization of the four resources model to four resources or social practices for reading-viewing multi-modal texts. Drawing on research and theories from visual culture, semiotics, critical media studies, grammars of visual design and multi-modal analysis, the expanded four resources or social practices are reader-viewer as (1) navigator, (2) interpreter, (3) designer and (4) interrogator. Each resource-practice is described in detail and the interpretive repertoires required of reader-viewers transacting with multi-modal texts from each perspective are considered.

Keywords
Freebody and Luke ( 1990) proffered an expanded conceptualization of the resources readers utilize and the roles readers adopt during the act of reading. The four resources model and its associated four roles of the reader expanded the definition of reading from a simple model of decoding printed texts (Gough, 1972) to a model of constructing meaning and analysing texts in sociocultural contexts (Gee, 1996). The goal was to shift the focus from trying to find the right method for teaching children to read to determining whether the range of resources available and the strategies emphasized in a reading programme were indeed covering and integrating the broad repertoire of practices required in today's economies and cultures (Luke & Freebody, 1999).

The four resources model has been used as a foundation for curriculum reform (Ludwig, 2003), a theoretical framework to broaden educators' understanding of literacy and reading (Freebody, 1992), and as a socio-constructivist critique of the dominance of cognitive perspectives on literacy education and instructional practices (Luke, 1995). The four resources model - which originally included the following four roles of (1) reader as code breaker, (2) reader as text participant, (3) reader as text user and (4) reader as text analyst - provided literacy educators, researchers and theorists with an expanded perspective on what it means to be a successful reader in new times (Freebody & Luke, 1990). Readers were expected to draw upon various resources available to develop and sustain the four roles necessary to be a successful reader. These four roles have taken on a life of their own throughout educational communities irrespective of the authors' original intentions.

In later reiterations of the four resources model, Luke and Freebody ( 1997, 1999) revised their original concept of the roles readers were to adopt from predetermined ways of acting and thinking that can be defined a priori for particular readers to fit into, to a set of resources or social practices that readers draw upon to make sense of their worlds. This reconceptualizing of the four roles or resources as social practices suggests these roles are constructed rather than adopted, developed in the context of reading rather than taken on as predetermined sets of cognitive skills performed in everyday classrooms, negotiated among practitioners and redeveloped, recombined and articulated in relation to one another on a continuing basis (Luke & Freebody, 1999). The shift from resources and roles to social practices foregrounded how literacy is tied up with political and cultural contexts, social power and capital (Street, 1984). Successful readers should be described in terms of the civil, sociocultural and job demands and expectations that any particular culture places on its members in terms of the degree to which and the ways in which they deal with written text, rather than on the accumulation of cognitive strategies or operations they can perform as individuals. These four resources or social practices are embedded within each other and have been conceptualized as necessary but insufficient for being fully literate in today's society (Freebody & Luke, 1990). In other words, none of the four resources or associated social practices is mutually exclusive or sufficient in and of themselves to create an informed, literate citizenry.

The concept of text throughout the original articulations of the four resources model was primarily focused on printed text and written language. The word text was originally associated with each of the four roles and resources (code breaker or text decoder, text participant, text user, text analyst) and generally referred to print-based materials, although digital and visual texts were not specifically excluded. The first role or resource, reader as code breaker, focused on readers' abilities to decode written text, focusing on sound-symbol relationships and correspondence, not on the interpretation or comprehension of visual images or multi-modal designs. Henderson ( 1992) described the role as code breaker as "proficient users of the technology of the written script" (p. 124). In addition, Walsh ( 2006) states, "while there have been different, and often controversial, definitions of reading in the field of education these have been traditionally applied to the reading of print-based and mostly monomodal texts" (p. 25).

In other discussions of the four resources model, Freebody and Luke ( 2003) acknowledge the multi-modal nature of texts and the importance of digitally based literacies when they state: "To be literate is to be an everyday participant in literate 'societies', themselves composed of a vast range of sites, locations and events that entail print, visual, digital and analogue media" (p. 53). Other educators (Anstey & Bull, 2004; Zammit & Downes, 2002), to name but a few, have expanded the concept of text to include digitally based, multi-modal elements combined with traditional print-based texts. As the concept of text expands beyond the borders and boundaries of the printed book, so too must our definitions and conceptions of what it means to be a reader or literate being.

Freebody ( 2007) suggests the original intention of the four resources model "was to provide an accessible and inclusive framework for discussions of literacy education, while at the same time affording a range of pedagogical strategies and frameworks for teaching literacy and for understanding various disciplines' orientations to literacy education" (p. 35). In the same publication, Freebody ( 2007, p. 34) continues to use the terms written language and text without specifically referring to screen-based, digital or multi-modal texts on a chart outlining the four roles of the reader. Although I believe his intention was not to ignore the multi-modal aspects of contemporary texts, the terms visual and multi-modal were not included in this description of the model. In further reading of Luke and Freebody's work and various members of the New London Group, Kress ( 2003, 2010), in particular, supports the idea that Luke and Freebody envisioned multi-modality as an important aspect of the texts readers encounter in today's world, though a definition of text as a multi-modal entity was not directly stated in the original conceptualization of the four resources model.

My intentions are not to find fault with the work of Freebody and Luke, nor lessen the impact or importance of the four resources model. I have nothing but the utmost respect for their work and believe the four resources model has been a vital step forward in expanding the understandings of literacy educators worldwide. My premise is that articulating an expanded conception of the four resources model that specifically addresses the challenges and possibilities that multi-modal texts bring to literacy education is worthy of delineation.

In this article, my intentions are to expand the concept of the four resources model of reading to four resources or social practices for reading-viewing multi-modal texts. In addition, I want to expand the notion of text to address the multi-modal aspects of communication and to include research and theories from visual culture (Barnard, 2001), semiotics (Scholes, 1982; Smith-Shank, 2004), critical media studies (Semali, 2003), grammars of visual design (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) and multi-modal analysis (Baldry & Thibault, 2006; Bateman, 2008; Jewitt, 2009).

To expand the original concept of the four resources model, one must reconceptualize the reader as a reader-viewer attending to the visual images, structures and designs of multi-modal texts along with printed text. Although the focus has shifted from printed, mono-modal texts to multi-modal texts throughout the later iterations of the four resources model by numerous educators working from Luke and Freebody's original framework, making the resources and social practices readers draw upon more explicitly focused on visual and multi-modal aspects of screen-based and printed texts alike is an important consideration. Unsworth and Wheeler ( 2002) assert that if children are to understand how images represent and construct meaning, they need knowledge of the visual meaning-making systems used in their production and interpretation.

In order to create an informed, literate citizenry, readers must be able to navigate, interpret, design and interrogate the written, visual and design elements of multi-modal texts. Cognitively based reading comprehension strategies (Pressley & Block, 2001; Snow & Sweet, 2003) alone will not provide a sufficient foundation for dealing with the various modes of representation incorporated in the multi-modal texts readers encounter in today's world. Theories and research outside the traditional discipline of reading or literacy education should be drawn upon to expand the strategies and skills reader-viewers need to be successful in reading the textual, visual and design elements of the multi-modal texts they encounter.

The goal of this article is not to suggest a failure on the part of Luke and Freebody to adequately address the visual and multi-modality in their original conceptions; rather it is to follow their line of inquiry and continue the expansion of their work to focus on the changing nature of the texts readers encounter in contemporary settings and to expand our vision of reading to include visual images and design elements, in addition to written language. The re-conceptualized four resources or social practices I propose are reader-viewer as (1) navigator, (2) interpreter, (3) designer and (4) interrogator. I will describe each resource-practice and reconsider the actions, abilities and interpretive repertoires required of reader-viewers transacting with multi-modal texts from these perspectives.

Although reading multi-modal texts requires readers to be both readers of written language and viewers of visual images and design elements, I will use the traditional term reader throughout the article rather than the more cumbersome reader-viewer to connote the bifurcated role of the reader and viewer of multi-modal texts.

A shift to multi-modal texts
Contemporary educators and literacy theorists have described a shift from the primacy of the printed word to the visual image and the multi-modal text (Anstey & Bull, 2006; Kress, 2003). Readers are confronted with multi-modal texts that include visual images and a variety of graphic design elements in their everyday lives with greater frequency than texts that are exclusively made of written language (Fleckenstein, 2002). However, multi-modal texts and print-based texts should not be viewed as mutually exclusive. Printed texts often include visual components, for example, font and design elements, and multi-modal texts generally include written language. In addition, readers continue to interact with traditional print-based texts that contain multi-modal elements, for example, picture books, informational texts, magazines and newspapers, and contemporary multi-modal texts that contain visual images, hypertext, video, music, sounds and graphic designs. In fact, most written texts in current social and textual contexts are accompanied by visual images (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001).

Simply put, a multi-modal text is a text composed of more than one mode. Photography, music, sculpture and written language are examples of different modes. A mode is a system of signs created within or across various cultures to represent and express meanings. Modes were developed by humans to express ideas and communicate with one another. In other words, when more than one mode is present in a text, we consider the text to be multi-modal.

Written language is often subordinate to visual images as the primary mode that readers draw upon to construct meaning (Kress, 2010). Street signs, posters, billboards, websites and contemporary picture books place a primacy on the visual elements readers transact with to construct meanings. A novel which contains little or no visual images or cover art draws primarily on written language to convey meaning. Even in this rare scenario, the text of a novel must be presented in visual form through the application of a particular font and typographic design. Essentially, from this perspective all texts are multi-modal, some more notably than others.
Multi-modal texts present information across a variety of modes including visual images, design elements, written language and other semiotic resources. These texts present challenges to novice readers as they work across these multiple sign systems to construct meaning (Siegel, 2006). The mode of written language and that of visual image are governed by distinct logics: written text is governed by the logic of time or temporal sequence, whereas visual image is governed by the logic of spatiality, organized arrangements and simultaneity (Kress, 2003). In written text, meaning is derived from position in the temporal sequence, and meaning is derived in visual images from spatial relations or visual grammar (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996).

Using a semiotic perspective as a lens for understanding the ways in which students construct meaning with multi-modal texts, researchers have begun to expand their vision of what it means to be literate and to endorse the significant role that visual literacy plays in contemporary classrooms (Arizpe & Styles, 2003; Callow, 1999; Sipe, 1998). The blending of visual design elements, images and written language into multi-modal texts presents readers with new challenges and requires an expansion of our view of the resources and interpretive practices readers draw upon to make sense of multi-modal texts.

Humans participate in interactions more expansive than language alone can account. "The visual and verbal ... are dimensions of the psyche and culture that are closely interconnected" (Seppanen, 2006, p. 6). In addition, readers must also learn to interrogate the assumptions that are embedded within multi-modal texts (Albers, 2008). In order to provide support for these interpretive practices, teachers need theoretical frameworks, new vocabularies or metalanguage and pedagogical strategies for teaching students to interpret and interrogate the visual images and designs encountered in multi-modal texts (Zammit, 2007).

Reader as navigator
The term reader as navigator is not new in research and discussions concerning hypertext and online resources (Lawless & Schrader, 2008). However, the term has not been used as frequently in reference to readers reading traditional print-based, multi-modal texts. When used in reference to reading printed text, the definition of the term navigator presented here subsumes several processes or abilities often associated with reading proficiency, such as decoding, concepts of print, directionality and sequencing. In a broader sense, navigation means to move through space; in terms of hypertext, navigation includes movement through both cognitive and virtual space (Whitaker, 1998). Lawless and Schrader ( 2008) use the term navigation as a metaphor to describe how readers interact with hypermedia texts. This term can be extended to include digital and print-based, multi-modal texts as well. Readers navigate print-based multi-modal texts (e.g. textbooks or picture books) and screen-based multi-modal texts based on their purposes for reading and the meanings readers construct in their transactions with these texts.

The research on the decoding of written texts refers to a series of cognitive strategies or skills, including word recognition, vocabulary knowledge, sound (phoneme) to symbol (grapheme) correspondence and the recognition of patterns in spelling and language to be successful (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2000; Dahl, 2001; Moustafa, 1997). When reading multi-modal texts, the skill of decoding written text needs to be accompanied by an understanding of the structures and codes associated with design, images and other visual elements (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). In addition to decoding written language, readers must learn to navigate the design of written text, including the left to right orientation of English language texts, and understand the role and structures of charts, graphs, diagrams and other visual images encountered in picture books, informational texts, graphic novels, websites, advertisements and other multi-modal texts.

In contrast to the temporal nature of the written language, there is no preset or determined path that readers are required to follow sequentially through multi-modal texts (Kress, 2003). Readers actively select objects from their visual field to attend to and interpret. A particular multi-modal text or visual image may contain compositional structures that lead a viewer's eye in certain directions, and certain features of visual grammar - for example, modality, framing and salience (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996) - may draw one's attention to particular aspects of an image or multi-modal text; however, the reading path is ultimately determined by the readers during their transaction with the spatial composition of the text.

Focusing on visual images, Beardsley ( 1981) suggested:
a picture is two things at once: it is a design, and it is a picture of (italics in original) something. In other words, it presents something to the eye for direct inspection, and it represents something that exists, or might exist outside the picture frame. (p. 267)
What is presented to the eye for direct inspection or close attention are the literal or natural aspects of an image (Panofsky, 1955). Naming the visual elements of a multi-modal text, and taking an inventory of its contents, is primarily a perceptual act (Serafini, 2010). Readers navigating multi-modal texts must attend to, or perceive, what has been rendered by the artist, illustrator, publisher or graphic designer. The successful navigation of multi-modal texts is an important precursor of the interpretation of these texts.

Navigating multi-modal texts requires readers to attend to the grammars of visual design, in addition to the grammar, structures and typography associated with written language. The decoding processes outlined by Luke and Freebody ( 1999), for instance, delineate a reader's ability to break the code of written texts by recognizing and using fundamental features and architecture, including alphabet, sounds in words and spelling, and structural conventions and patterns may be subsumed within the larger concept of navigating. In addition, non-linear structures, hypertext, visual images and multi-modal compositional structures need to be navigated by readers if readers are to be successful in today's educational settings. Navigating, including the decoding of written text, is an important skill and an equally important consideration for literacy educators, but it is an insufficient skill in and of itself to make readers proficient in new times.

Reader as interpreter
Simply stated, readers as interpreters are readers engaged in the act or process of interpretation. Interpretation is a process of constructing or generating viable meanings and responses to various texts and images. Terms such as comprehending, understanding, constructing meaning and making sense are often used interchangeably to define the act of interpretation. Whatever term is selected, one of the primary goals of reading a multi-modal text or viewing a visual image is to understand or comprehend what has been written by the author or depicted by the artist (Goodman, 1996; Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996).

Interpretation is a contested concept. Various literary theories rely on different methods or processes of interpretation "because each has a different metaphysics, a different set of convictions that makes up its point of departure and defines its position in the hermeneutic field" (Armstrong, 1990, p. 4). Debates between monists, theorists that assert single, correct interpretations of a literary work discoverable by appealing to authorial intentions or close readings of the work itself, and pluralists, theorists that insist any text allows for an infinite array of legitimate readings, have challenged the notion of comprehension as an objective enterprise. If one aligns with Rorty's (1979) contention that there exists no single truth but always an array of interpretations, comprehension must be reconsidered as an act of interpretation, not as one of discovery of a single meaning or truth that exists a priori to the act of reading. The monist and pluralist theoretical positions may be incommensurable, but each relies on particular epistemological moves to "give momentary stability and coherence to what is dynamic, contradictory, and historical" (Solsken, 1993, p. 319).

Writing about Luke and Freebody's four resources model, Ludwig ( 2003) chooses the preposition from when describing the reader as text participant. She writes, "the emphasis is on comprehending and composing or making meaning from written, spoken, visual and multi-modal texts" (p. 1). The preposition from assumes that meaning is interred within the text and a meaning is discovered that exists a priori to the act of reading. Often times, the use of the preposition from connotes an objectivist conception of meaning, assuming meaning exists before the act of reading takes place and is to be discovered by the reader (Serafini, 2010). The preposition with could be used to connote a more constructivist stance in regard to the act or processes of reading.

In addition, the term comprehension connotes an objective perspective towards meaning making (Smagorinsky, 2001). It may be useful to reconsider the term comprehension (as noun), referring to a commodity or amount of information that is individually acquired through cognitive skill or work, or some measurable amount of knowledge or understanding that is literally taken away from every successful reading event. Instead, it may be more appropriate to consider the term comprehending (as verb), to refer to reading as a process, a recursive cycle of generating meanings that changes each time readers transact with a visual image of multi-modal text across particular contexts. This second definition, comprehending as verb, is closely associated with the concept and process of interpretation presented here. Interpretation is a construction of meaning drawing on one's prior knowledge and experiences the immediate and cultural contexts of the act of reading and the language and images presented for interpretation (Scholes, 2001).

Based on these theoretical assertions, readers should no longer be viewed as solitary explorers trying to uncover a single main idea hidden in the bowels of a classic novel or as "passive consumers of authoritative interpretations" (Faust, 1994, p. 25). Readers should be viewed as active constructors of meanings, transacting with texts in particular times, places and contexts (Rosenblatt, 1978). Readers come to the act of reading with their prior cultural, linguistic, literary and life experiences and draw upon these experiences as each reading is "situated in dialogue with and in extension of other readings" (Smagorinsky, 2001, p. 141). An expanded definition of reader as interpreter needs to address the processes of generating viable interpretations in transaction with visual images and written texts and one's ability to construct understandings from multiple perspectives, including the author's intentions, textual references, personal experiences and sociocultural contexts in which one reads (Serafini & Ladd, 2008).

This shift from comprehension to interpretation assumes an increase in authority or agency of the reader during the reading process. Readers as interpreters are constructors of meanings, drawing upon available resources to make sense of what is written or depicted. This is a shift away from what is referred to as an autonomous model of literacy (Street, 1984) or as a conduit model of reading (Mosenthal, 1987) where meanings exist a priori and are simply presented to readers through a text serving as a neutral channel or conduit.

When considering the images, text and design elements contained in multi-modal texts, it should be made clear that images are not neutral, objective representations of reality anymore than language is a neutral, objective representation of reality (Gombrich, 1961; Rorty, 1979). Viewers of design elements and visual images, like readers of written texts, are socialized into ways of seeing, in much the same way that readers are socialized into particular ways of reading (Berger, 1972).

A visual image, like a written text, does not exist nor is it created in a vacuum. An image, like any written text, "is not a unitary, seamless whole, but can be fragmented and atomized into constituent elements, and these elements represent a life of their own and that of others" (Hartman, 1992, p. 297). Readers draw upon a wide range of experiences with other images and texts during their act of interpretation. The unique personal experiences of each individual reader add to the variations inherent in one's interpretations. In similar fashion, the experiences one has in common with other members of a culture, society or community of readers add to the commonalities of interpretations across individual readers (Fish, 1980).

The process of interpreting multi-modal texts requires readers to draw from their experiential reservoirs to generate viable interpretations to add to the interpretations made by others in a community of readers regardless of one's allegiance to any single literary theory. Freebody's (1992) original conception of reader as text participant included knowledge of "the resources to engage in the technology of the text itself - its meaning and structure" (p. 53) and conceived of the reader as an "inferrer of connections between textual elements and of additional material required to fill out the unexplicated aspects of text" (p. 53). Luke and Freebody ( 1999) extended their definition of reader as text participant to include participation in understanding and composing meaningful written, visual and multi-modal texts, taking into account each text's interior meaning systems in relation to their available knowledge and their experiences of other cultural discourses, texts and meaning systems.

The interpretation of multi-modal texts requires readers to develop interpretive repertoires that address the visual images and design elements, in addition to the text itself, and the meaning potential across the various modes presented. Drawing on social semiotics (van Leeuwen, 2005), multi-modal analysis (Kress, 2010; Machin, 2007), iconography (Panofsky, 1955) and art theory (Gombrich, 1961), the interpretation of visual images and design can be conceived as a tripartite or three-tiered interpretive framework that requires attention to the perceptual, structural and ideological aspects of multi-modal texts (Serafini, 2010). The images contained in multi-modal texts encountered in complex social contexts are created with particular semiotic resources, basic design elements and visual structures. To expand one's interpretive repertoires to include approaches to visual analysis, readers will be required to synthesize perceptual abilities with structural perspectives and political, historical and cultural understandings. The act of interpreting may focus on the construction of knowledge by individual readers, but must also account for the sociocultural contexts of production, as well as reception, of multi-modal texts.

Reader as designer
Reader as designer extends the constructivist metaphor (Spivey, 1997) or role of reader as text participant to assert that readers of multi-modal texts not only construct meaning from what is depicted or represented, but also design the way the text is read, its reading path, what is attended to and, in the process, construct a unique experience during their transaction with a text. Reader as designer goes beyond the classic constructivist metaphor that asserts readers construct meaning from a text that exists a priori, to suggest readers actually construct the text to be read. From a literary theoretical perspective, this concept of constructing meaning associated with reader as designer goes beyond the reception theory of Iser ( 1978) and aligns more closely with Fish's (1980) notion of interpretive communities positing there is no immanent meaning in text and suggests readers decide not only what texts mean, but what can be considered a text.

Beginning with James' ( 1978) notion of selective attention and progressing through contemporary theories of multi-modality (Kress, 2010), a contemporary definition of the term design refers to "the process of translating the rhetor's politically oriented assessment of the environment of communication into semiotically shaped material" (Kress, 2010, p. 132). A general principle of semiosis, in particular a principle of design, is the process of transformation (Kress & van Leeuwen, 2001). Readers design texts to be navigated and interpreted by drawing upon the available semiotic resources presented in a text and construct meanings during the act of reading. Design is the process of organizing what is to be navigated, interpreted and articulated, shaping available resources into potential meanings realized in the context of reading multi-modal texts. In other words, the text to be read does not come to the reader ready-made; the text comes as semiotic potential, where the text to be interpreted is designed during the act of reading.

Up to this point, design has been primarily conceived from the perspective of the writer, creator or rhetor in Kress' terms (Kress, 2010). The designer of a text imagines the task at hand, uses his/her knowledge of available semiotic resources, understands the wider social conditions of production and reception and produces a text by selecting a site of appearance for the materialization of its intended meanings (Kress, 2010). The New London Group ( 1996) suggested educators "treat any semiotic activity, including language to produce or consume texts, as a matter of Design" (p. 74). Their concept of design involved the transformation, not replication, of available designs, suggesting that meaning is constructed anew in each act of reading (interpreting) or authoring (producing) texts, while at the same time reconstructing and renegotiating the reader's identity. Hull and Nelson ( 2005) write, "it is obvious how useful the notion of design can become as a way to conceptualize the suddenly increased array of choices about semiotic features that an author confronts" (p. 229). What may not be as obvious is the way that design plays a role in the way a reader constructs the reading paths, the array of choices of semiotic features and, in essence, the texts being read.

The concept of reader as designer can be extended from the producer of texts to the process of navigating and interpreting multi-modal texts as well. Making a shift from designer as producer of multi-modal texts to navigator, interpreter of texts requires an expansion of the concept of design to include the active construction of meaning potentials during reader's transactions with multi-modal texts. Unlike traditional written text that is presented in a linear, temporal sequence, where the reading path is ordered a priori, multi-modal and hypertexts are often presented in non-linear fashion. For example, postmodern picture books (Sipe & Pantaleo, 2008) require readers to not only navigate the visual and textual elements presented during the act of reading, but to actually design the text to be read from the visual and textual elements. Like the traditional "choose your own adventure texts", the reader is required to become an even more active participant in the navigation, interpretation and design of multi-modal texts.

Numerous reading paths are possible given the compositional nature and spatial arrangements of multi-modal texts (Kress, 2010). However, the paths chosen by readers are not arbitrary, nor are they predetermined by the artist or graphic designer, though these creators draw upon various compositional, visual, design and typographical features to suggest how a text may be read. The interests, needs and experiences of the reader motivate which paths are selected. In this sense, the concept of design provides the reader with agency as he/she constructs meaning from the available semiotic resources presented in the multi-modal text.

Kress and van Leeuwen ( 2001) suggest contemporary or multi-modal texts ask readers to perform a different semiotic work, namely to design the order of the text or reading path for themselves before interpreting the text constructed. This semiotic work requires readers to make choices about how to frame the text being read. Whereas the process of navigation requires the reader to navigate the design elements of the text presented by the author-illustrator-publisher, the process of design requires the readers to construct their own reading path by framing the elements of a multi-modal text to suit their particular needs and interests during the act of reading. Navigating the elements presented by the author-illustrator-publisher and making decisions about the sequence of elements considered should be considered acts of design, utilizing the semiotic resources available to construct meaning in transaction with the elements of these texts.

As compared with the temporal or linear composition of written language, the spatial composition of visual and multi-modal texts presents readers with a less directed, more open reading path. This openness requires readers to design the path through which their reading occurs. Similar to Rosenblatt's (1978) concept of evocation, the reader of multi-modal texts must evoke or design the text to be read before it can be interpreted. The shift from the dominance of linear, print-based texts to visual and multi-modal texts requires a more active process on behalf of the reader and less authority and direction by the author-illustrator-publisher (Kress, 2010).
An additional aspect of reader as designer is the concept of framing (Kress & van Leeuwen, 1996). Readers construct frames around experience to organize encounters with the world, in particular with multi-modal texts, to make sense of these texts and consider them in the contexts in which they are realized. Without a frame, there is no meaning potential since all meaning is constructed within a discourse or other framing device. Frames mark both temporal and spatial locations. They separate the text being read from the context in which it is read. The reader decides on what is part of the text and what is part of the context to be considered when reading.

Framing devices include, as well as exclude, aspects of the world or text to be considered. The act of framing decides the aspects of the text to be considered in accordance with the interests of the framer (Kress, 2010). In other words, the reader makes decisions about which aspects of the texts are being navigated to consider and interpret and, in doing so, designs the text to be read, rather than passively uncovering a text that comes to the reader ready-made according to the ministrations of the author, illustrator/designer or publisher. For Kress ( 2010), this is the inherent difference between the world ordered for the reader and the world designed by the reader. The reader as designer selects from all the possible ways of positioning a text, the various design, visual and textual elements presented and the sociocultural contexts of the act of reading and decides on how a particular text is to be read in a particular time and place.

Reader as interrogator
Understanding the social practice of reader as interrogator requires a shift from a primarily cognitive theory of reading (Anderson & Pearson, 1984) to consider cultural theories of meaning (Smagorinsky, 2001). Cultural theories of meaning assume a reading of a text to have idiosyncratic (personal) as well as culturally mediated (public) meanings. From this perspective, reading is re-conceptualized as a social practice that involves the construction of meaning in a socially mediated context, the power relationships inherent in any given setting and the readers' identity and available means of social participation. Although the term interrogator was chosen rather than the term analyst to connote a more aggressive stance to interpreting and designing texts, the two concepts are closely aligned. The concept of interrogator, like that of text analyst, includes the critical and sociocultural aspects of analysis espoused by Luke and Freebody in their original four resources model.

Meanings constructed during the act of reading are socially embedded, temporary, partial and plural (Corcoran, Hayhoe, & Pradl, 1994). Texts are not interpreted by readers in a vacuum, but are always read by particular readers, in particular contexts, written by particular authors, containing an array of semiotic resources, including written language, visual images and design elements (Lewis, 2000). Additionally, different readings, meanings and interpretations have material, discursive and sociocultural consequences for readers. Working from a poststructuralist or critical perspective, the meanings constructed in transaction with multi-modal texts are social, historical, partial, multiple and political (Brodkey, 1992). In other words, if the reading of a multi-modal text requires the text to be framed or designed in a particular way, the text can be framed in other ways and each frame has significant consequences for the reader.

Research from a sociocultural or critical perspective focuses on the types of meanings that readers construct, how these meanings are affected by the social context and reading practices that readers are located within and the purposes of constructing particular responses (Gee, 1992; John-Steiner, Petoskey, & Smith, 1994). Readers construct readings (plural), not as originators of meaning, but as human subjects positioned through social, political and historical practices that remain the location of a constant struggle over power.
Visual grammar, iconology and media studies suggest readers analyse texts at the site of production, image and reception or audience (Rose, 2001). Where cognitive theories of reading focus primarily on the site of reception, the reader as interrogator must consider the production of images and multi-modal texts and the intended audiences for such texts when constructing meanings during the act of reading. "To explore the meaning of images is to recognize that they are produced within a system of social power and ideology. Ideologies are systems of belief that exist within all cultures" (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001, p. 21). They continue, "images are an important means through which ideologies are produced and onto which ideologies are projected" (p. 21). Rose ( 2001) argues, "one of the central aims of 'the cultural turn' in the social sciences is to argue that social categories are not natural but instead are constructed. These constructions can take visual form" (pp. 10-11). The interrogation of the visual images and elements of multi-modal texts, including borders, fonts, graphic design and colour, is just as important as the analysis of the written text.

To understand the images and design elements presented in multi-modal texts requires readers to consider aspects of production and reception, in addition to the aspects of the image and text itself. The capacity of images to affect us as viewers is dependent on the larger cultural meanings they evoke and the social, political and cultural contexts in which they are viewed (Sturken & Cartwright, 2001). Wolcott ( 1996) argues that readers must look not only at the relationships within a work of art but beyond the work itself to the historical, cultural and social contexts in order to comprehend its meaning.

Moving beyond the literal level of meaning requires readers to infer from various texts and contexts to interrogate what they read and view (Serafini & Ladd, 2008). Every classroom is a site for the production of meaning, and every interpretive community has some alignment with a particular literary tradition or perspective (Fish, 1980). Helping readers interrogate the meaning potential of the semiotic and multi-modal resources of a text is an important consideration in today's educational environment.

Concluding remarks
There are numerous theoretical and pedagogical challenges that arise in expanding the four resources or social practices model for reading multi-modal texts. The first challenge in constructing separate resources or practices is the distinctions between the four new resources or reading practices are blurred. How does one perceive and navigate the visual images and design of multi-modal texts without constructing meaning and having a set purpose for reading? How does a reader design the texts being read without analysing them simultaneously? These four expanded resources, although presented as four distinct resources for reading, are interrelated and inseparable in the act of reading-viewing. Freebody and Luke ( 1990) stated that each resource or practice was necessary but insufficient and that no single resource was sufficient in and of itself for being successful in today's societies. The same holds true for the four resources described for reading multi-modal texts.

A second challenge is the social practices for reading multi-modal texts themselves do not emerge a priori; these practices are constructed by readers in the same way as the earlier practices were constructed in sociocultural, historical, political and economic contexts. In addition, viewers of images, like readers of written texts, have agency in their creation of these practices and their use of these interpretive and analytic strategies and processes. The four multi-modal practices are adapted, not simply adopted, by readers as they transact with the texts and images in the various contexts in which they are encountered.

A third challenge arises in trying to avoid describing the four resources model hierarchically. Rather than conceptualizing the four resources as a hierarchical set of competencies, the four practices are "nested" within one another, influencing each other and blurring the distinctions between the various perspectives or practices described (Serafini, 2010). Freebody and Luke ( 2003) consider the four resources model a "systematic way of interrogating practice" (p. 57) with each resource contributing to the reading process in its own unique way.

By expanding the dimensions we bring to interpreting and understanding multi-modal texts, we widen the scope of inquiry to include perceptual and cognitive perspectives, in addition to sociocultural and critical theoretical and analytical perspectives. The power of the four resources model was its inclusion of different theoretical perspectives, not in its exclusion. The role of progressive literacy education is to open up the interpretive spaces we provide through the expectations we set, the responses we endorse and support, the texts we select to expand readers' interpretive repertoires and the strategies we demonstrate during reading instruction (Serafini, 2011).

References

2. Anderson, R.C. and Pearson, P.D. 1984. "A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension". In The handbook of reading research: Vol 1, Edited by: Pearson, P.D., Barr, R., Kamil, M. and Mosenthal, P. 255-291. New York, NY: Longman.

3. Anstey, M. and Bull, G. 2004. The literacy labyrinth, 2nd, Sydney: Pearson Education.

4. Anstey, M. and Bull, G. 2006. Teaching and learning multiliteracies: Changing times, changing literacies, Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

5. Arizpe, E. and Styles, M. 2003. Children reading pictures: Interpreting visual texts, New York, NY: Routledge.

6. Armstrong, P.B. 1990. Conflicting readings: Variety and validity in interpretation, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

7. Baldry, A. and Thibault, P.J. 2006. Multimodal transcription and analysis: A multimedia toolkit and coursebook, London: Equinox.

8. Barnard, M. 2001. Approaches to understanding visual culture, New York, NY: Palgrave.

10. Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S. and Johnston, F. 2000. Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

11. Beardsley, M.C. 1981. Aesthetics: Problems in the philosophy of criticism, Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing.

12. Berger, J. 1972. Ways of seeing, London: Penguin.

13. Brodkey, L. 1992. "Articulating poststructural theory in research on literacy". In Multidisciplinary perspectives on literacy research, Edited by: Beach, R., Green, J., Kamil, M. and Shanahan, T. 293-318. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

14. Callow, J. 1999. Image matters: Visual texts in the classroom, Marrickville, NSW: Primary English Teaching Association.

15. Corcoran, B., Hayhoe, M. and Pradl, G.M., eds. 1994. Knowledge in the making: Challenging the text in the classroom, Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

16. Dahl, K.L. 2001. Rethinking phonics: Making the best teaching decisions, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

17. Faust, M. 1994. "Alone but not alone: Situating readers in school contexts". In Knowledge in the making: Challenging the text in the classroom, Edited by: Corcoran, B., Hayhoe, M. and Pradl, G.M. 25-33. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.

18. Fish, S. 1980. Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

19. Fleckenstein, K.S. 2002. "Inviting imagery into our classrooms". In Language and images in the reading-writing classroom, Edited by: Fleckenstein, K.S., Calendrillo, L.T. and Worley, D.A. 3-26. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

20. Freebody, P. 1992. "A socio-cultural approach: Resourcing four roles as a literacy learner". In Prevention of reading failure, Edited by: Watson, A. and Beadenhop, A. 48-80. Sydney, NSW: Ashton-Scholastic.

21. Freebody, P. 2007. Literacy education in school: Research perspectives from the past, for the future, Camberwell, VIC: Australian Council for Educational Research.

22. Freebody, P. and Luke, A. 1990. Literacies programs: Debates and demands in cultural context. Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7): 7-16.

23. Freebody, P. and Luke, A. 2003. "Literacy as engaging with new forms of life: The "four roles" model". In The literacy lexicon, 2nd, Edited by: Bull, G. and Anstey, M. 51-66. Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education.

25. Gee, J.P. 1996. Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses, London: Taylor & Francis.

26. Gombrich, E.H. 1961. Art and illusion: A study in the psychology of pictorial representation, 2nd, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

27. Goodman, K. 1996. On reading: A common-sense look at the nature of language and the science of reading, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

32. Iser, W. 1978. The act of reading, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

33. James, W. 1978. Essays in philosophy, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

34. Jewitt, C., ed. 2009. The Routledge handbook of multimodal analysis, London: Routledge.

37. Kress, G. 2010. Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication, London: Routledge.

38. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 1996. Reading images: The grammar of visual design, London: Routledge Falmer.

39. Kress, G. and van Leeuwen, T. 2001. Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication, London: Edward Arnold.

40. Lawless, K.A. and Schrader, P.G. 2008. "Where do we go now? Understanding research on navigation in complex digital environments". In Handbook of research on new literacies, Edited by: Coiro, J., Knobel, M., Lankshear, C. and Leu, D.J. 267-296. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

44. Luke, A. and Freebody, P. 1997. "Shaping the social practices of reading". In Constructing critical literacies: Teaching and learning textual practice, Edited by: Muspratt, S., Luke, A. and Freebody, P. 185-225. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

46. Machin, D. 2007. Introduction to multimodal analysis, London: Hodder Arnold.

48. Moustafa, M. 1997. Beyond traditional phonics: Research discoveries and reading instruction, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

49. New London Group. 1996. A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1): 60-92. [CrossRef], [Web of Science ®], [CSA]

50. Panofsky, E. 1955. Meaning in the visual arts, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

51. Pressley, M. and Block, C.C. 2001. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, New York, NY: Guilford.

52. Rorty, R. 1979. Philosophy and the mirror of nature, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

53. Rose, G. 2001. Visual methodologies, London: Sage.

54. Rosenblatt, L. 1978. The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work, Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

55. Scholes, R. 1982. Semiotics and interpretation, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

56. Scholes, R. 2001. The crafty reader, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

58. Seppanen, J. 2006. The power of the gaze: An introduction to visual literacy, New York, NY: Peter Lang.

61. Serafini, F. and Ladd, S.M. 2008. The challenge of moving beyond the literal in literature discussions. Journal of Language and Literacy Education, 4(2): 6-20.

62. Siegel, M. 2006. Rereading the signs: Multimodal transformations in the field of literacy education. Language Arts, 84(1): 65-77.

64. Sipe, L.R. and Pantaleo, S., eds. 2008. Postmodern picture books: Play, parody, and self-referentiality, New York, NY: Routledge.

66. Smith-Shank, D.L., ed. 2004. Semiotics and visual culture: Sights, signs, and significance, Reston, VA: National Art Education Association.

67. Snow, C. and Sweet, A. 2003. Rethinking reading comprehension, New York, NY: Guilford.

69. Spivey, N.N. 1997. The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning, San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

70. Street, B. 1984. Literacy in theory and practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

71. Sturken, M. and Cartwright, L. 2001. Practices of looking: An introduction to visual culture, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

73. van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing social semiotics, London: Routledge.

74. Walsh, M. 2006. The "textual shift": Examining the reading process with print, visual and multimodal texts. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 29(1): 24-37.

75. Whitaker, L.A. 1998. "Human navigation". In Human factors and web development, Edited by: Forsythe, C., Grose, E. and Ratner, J. 63-74. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

77. Zammit, K. 2007. "Popular culture in the classroom: Interpreting and creating multimodal texts". In Advances in language and education, Edited by: McCabe, A., 'Donnell, M. O and Whittaker, R. 61-76. New York, NY: Continuum.

78. Zammit, K. and Downes, T. 2002. New learning environments and the multiliterate individual: A framework for educators. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 25(2): 25-36.

Pedagogies: An International Journal Volume 7, Issue 2, 2012

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Expanding the four resources model: reading visual and multi-modal texts Frank Serafini AbstractFreebody and Luke proffered an expanded conceptualization of the resources readers utilize when reading and the roles readers adopt during the act of reading.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a video demonstration on how to carry out peer reading activity in the classroom. Peer reading encourages students to work together with peers. More fluent readers can be paired with less fluent readers to support peer-assisted learning. Students take turns to read aloud to a partner.
(Reading Rockets, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Read to Someone: A Component Of The Daily Five

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a video resource of children participating in Reader's Theatre. Reader's theatre is one of the strategy to promote reading with fluency. Children participate by oral reading parts of a script without the need to memorize the script. Re-reading the scripts helps reader develop fluency.

Reader's Theatre helps to build student's fluency skill and builds the reader's confidence. It helps readers to learn how to read aloud with expression.
(Reading Rockets, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Nysmith School: 2nd Grade - Reader's Theatre Workshop

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators an article that talks about the best practices in play assessment. Educators could consider play-based assessment as part of assessing children's learning. Play assessment is also used in interventions by psychologists as an observational strategy.

Froebel's theory on play emphasized on the importance of integrating play in children's learning. Froebel believes that play is the highest form of learning. (UKEssays, 2018)

Types of Play Assessment
- Play Assessment Scale
- Transdisciplinary Play-Based Assessment
- Play in Early Childhood Evaluation System (PIECES)

# data[].attributes.body
According to Paratore & McCormack (2007), three effective ways of assessing vocabulary are:

1. Asking children to provide synonyms and antonyms of the word

2. Asking children to categorise the words under headings

3. Observing children's use of words in oral and written contexts.

4. Picture vocabulary can be used to assess receptive vocabulary.

5. Analysing texts produced by children (both written and spoken) can aid in the assessment of expressive vocabulary.

Example of activities that help in assessing:

1. Semantic feature analysis

involves children filling in a grid that pertains to a certain category.

Choose a category names (E.g. Zoo Animals)

Allow children to brainstorm on what words fit into the chosen category.

List some of the features of the items in the category (E.g. Animals with four legs, vegetarian and pouch)

Create a grid and allow children to complete it as a group or class.

After creating the grid, discuss the features of the words with the class.

Synonym Webs

Educator nominates a target word and write it on the board

Children brainstorm synonyms and may use a thesaurus to find others

Both educators and children to collaborate and decide which words go together in categories.

Vocabulary word maps

Children work independently or in pairs to discuss and explore a particular word by writing a definition of the word, putting the word in a sentence and drawing a picture to illustrate the word while thinking of synonyms and antonyms of the word.

Target word chosen by educator or children

Allow children to discuss the word in order to arrive at a definition in their own words, some synonyms and a sentence containing the word.

Draw a picture to illustrate the word.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a video on an example of how to carry out reader's theatre in a classroom.

1. Modelling expressive fluent reading
- Teacher model multiple roles.
- Teacher model how to hold script for reading.

2. Echo read
- Children repeats after the teacher.
- Children practice phrasing and expression.

3. Differentiate roles
- Teacher to ensure children are comfortable with their assigned roles.
- Children with higher reading ability can be assigned to bigger parts of the script.
- Children can switch roles when they are more confident and comfortable after reading the script a few times.

4. Rehearse
- Repeat and practice expressive reading of familiar text in a reader's theatre group.
- Build children's confidence in reading aloud.

5. Joyfully perform
-  Children to practice projection.
- Children can create props or masks to add details to the performance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 5 Tip for Reader's Theater | Classroom Quick Tips

# data[].attributes.body
Children would have a hard time to comprehend the texts, verbally, written or multimodal if they encounter too many words that they don't understand. Some children would be able to deduce the meaning of the words through the context of the text using some cues but sometimes, inadequate receptive vocabulary would lead to a breakdown in text comprehension (Fellowes & Oakley, 2014).

Vocabulary is critical to reading success as:

Comprehension improves when young ones know what the words mean

Words are the currency of communication. They help to improve all areas of communication - Listening, Speaking, Reading and Writing

When the vocabulary of a child improves, their academic, social confidence and competence improves too (“Understanding Vocabulary | Scholastic,” n.d.).

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a fluency rubric that focuses on the level of skill a student demonstrates in phrasing and expression while reading aloud. The educator rates the student according to the level that best describes student's overall performance when student is reading aloud.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
References

Click the "References" link above to hide these references.

Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., and Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-Grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., and Jenkins, J.R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239-256.

Good, III, R.H. and Kaminski, R.A. (Eds.) (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS), 6th Ed. Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement. Eugene, Ore.:University of Oregon.

Hasbrouck, J. and Tindal, G.A. (2006, April). ORF norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636-644.

Hintze, J.M. and Christ, T.J. (2004). An examination of variability as a function of passage variance in CBM progress monitoring. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 204-217.

Hudson, R.F., Lane, H.B., and Pullen, P.C. (2005, May). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and how? The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 702-714.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-4769. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Government Printing Office.

Read Naturally (2002). Reading fluency monitor. Minneapolis: Author.

Shinn, M.R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM Screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children, 90-129. N.Y.:Guilford.

Stecker, S.K., Roser, N.L., and Martinez, M.G. (1998). Understanding oral reading fluency. In T. Shanahan and F.V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), 47th yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 295-310. Chicago:National Reading Conference.

Wolf, M. and Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 211-239.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
national assessment of educational progress fluency scale

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Click the "References" link above to hide these references. Daane, M.C., Campbell, J.R., Grigg, W.S., Goodman, M.J., and Oranje, A. (2005). Fourth-Grade Students Reading Aloud: NAEP 2002 Special Study of Oral Reading (NCES 2006-469). U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a fluency rubric that can help record their assessment of children's fluency in phrasing, smoothness, pace, expression and volume.
(Fellowes & Oakley, 2014, pg. 347)

# data[].attributes.body
Shared reading is a reading activity whereby the teacher read a story to a group of students using enlarged books. The use of big books allows students to engage with the print and illustrations in the book. Teachers can use pointers to help draw children's attention to the print.

The focus of shared reading is to explore conventions of print, identifying words, read various text types, learn how punctuation and grammar is used in sentences.
(Hill, 2012, pg 83)

Holdaway (1979) recommends the use of big books as a teaching tool for conducting shared reading in the classroom. The shared reading activity includes the rereading of stories that helps to build reading fluency and story comprehension. (Tracey & Morrow, 2006, pg 92)

This resource offers educators an example of a shared reading activity. This video shows procedures on how to carry out Shared Book Approach (SBA) using big books.

Goals for Shared Book Approach:
1) Provide an enjoyable experience with books.
b) Encourage children to talk.
c) Provide oral English models for both book and spoken language.
d) Provide further language practice opportunities when the story is reread.
e) Introduce beginning reading skills through motivating stories.

(Ministry of Education, 2013)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Shared Book Approach in Starlight English Language Lessons

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a video resource on how to do a modelled reading activity.

Modelled reading is an activity whereby children listen to a text read aloud by the teacher. Teachers demonstrates fluent and expressive reading, complex vocabulary and good reading behaviour while providing readers with opportunities to familiarize with linguistic and visual features of text.

Modelled reading can be used as a strategy to target various literacy focuses like concepts of prints, phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, fluency.

Modelled reading is important as it develop students understanding about reading and allows students to see a purpose in learning to read.

# data[].attributes.headline
The difference between phonemic awareness and phonological awareness

# data[].attributes.subject
The difference between phonemic awareness and phonological awareness

# data[].attributes.body
Although both phonological awareness and phonemic awareness are about recognising words are made up of a variety of sound. Phonemic awareness deals with only one aspect of sound: mainly the phoneme. A phoneme is the smallest unit of sound in a language that holds.

Phonemic awareness is actually just one aspect of phonological awareness. While phonological awareness encompasses a child’s ability to recognize the many ways sounds function in words, phonemic awareness is only children 's understanding of the most minute sound units in words.

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators an example of how guided reading is conducted in a classroom. Guided reading is usually conducted in small groups whereby children read individual copies of the same text selected by the teacher based on the children's reading level. The teacher then prompt the children to use a range of problem solving strategies to read the text.

The guided reading activity reflects Vygotsky's (1981) zone of proximal development as the teacher helps scaffold children's level of reading and provide additional support.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Mrs. Kardos' 1st Grade Guided Reading SAMPLE

# data[].attributes.headline
Activities to teach Vocabulary (Favourite)

# data[].attributes.subject
Activities to teach Vocabulary (Favourite)

# data[].attributes.body
Visual Vocabulary:

Give children a set of pictures and a set of words in correspondence.

Allow children to match it

At the end of the activity, go through the list with the children and explain the meaning of each word.

Concept based approach

Give children a short paragraph with idioms or expressions to be learned, incorporating clues and hints that help children to get its meaning of the certain idioms.

At the end of the activity, put the idioms in funny sentences and have the children try to guess the meaning.

This activity help them to remember the meaning of the words longer.

Blind Seat

Have a child sit down on a chair with his/her back against the board (Where idioms or words is written)

Allow the rest of children to explain the meaning of the word without mentioning the exact word.

This activity allow children to add a new vocabulary word and also practice fluent speaking and active listening.

Story teller

Write some words on the board and allow children to choose the words

Sit them in a circle and tell them that they are going to be storytellers today. Explain to the children the meaning of words that they chose and explain to them that they are going to create a story together.

Allow one child to create a sentence with the word they chose and subsequently the other children to continue the story with the word they chose until all the words on the board were used.

This activity help children in sentence structuring, imagination, making sense and unleashing their creativity.

Mystery box

Write word cards and place it in a bag or box.

Allow children to choose from it and make a sentence without knowing the meaning of the word.

Afterwards, explain the meaning of the words and ask the children to read out the sentences that they create previously to see if it make sense. If it doesn't make sense, allow children to re-write the sentences. This helps them to learn from mistakes.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Top 5 Games! How to teach vocabulary to kids & adults

# data[].attributes.body
Refering on the video on letters vs Phonemes. She highlights that early childhood educators need to teach children to differentiate between letters and sounds in a word.

# data[].attributes.body
There are 44 phonemes in the english language and this resources guides teachers and students on how to pronounce them.

# data[].attributes.body
Lindamood Phoneme Sequencing Program

This video highlights how a teacher can teach phonemic awareness to children by using phoneme sequencing.

# data[].attributes.headline
NEL Language and Literacy curriculum framework

# data[].attributes.subject
NEL Language and Literacy curriculum framework

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators and parents a guideline of what are the learning goals for language and literacy at Kindergarten level.

This resource is an informative resource which provides examples of lessons with the focused literacy skill and literacy teaching strategies/tools suggestions. Teachers can use this resource to guide them in planning their literacy lesson based on the literacy learning goals in accordance to the NEL framework.

Learning Goal 1
Listen for information and enjoyment.
e.g Identify the main events/characters in a story.

Learning Goal 2
Speak to convey meaning and communicate with others.
e.g. Show understanding of questions by responding with gestures/expressions/words/ phrases.

Learning Goal 3
Read with understanding and for enjoyment.
e.g. Show interest in books. (Looking at pictures and words in the book, asking questions about the story)

Learning Goal 4
Use drawing, mark making, symbols and writing with invented and conventional spelling to communicate ideas and information.
e.g. Use different forms of writing during play.

(Ministry of Education, 2013)

# data[].attributes.headline
Assessing and Evaluating Phonemic Awareness

# data[].attributes.subject
Assessing and Evaluating Phonemic Awareness

# data[].attributes.body
Why evaluate?
Assessment serves essentially dual purposes:
1) To initially identify students who appear to be at risk for difficulty in acquiring beginning reading skills.
2) To regularly monitor the progress of students who are learning those skills.
3)Achieve the goal of children being able to demonstrate phonemic blending and segmentation and using sounds to spell simple words.

Assessment Strategies
1) Test of phonological awareness in kindergarteners.
Requiring students to indicate which of three words (represented by pictures) have the same first sound as a target word.
This measure of phonemic sensitivity strongly predicts which children will demonstrate high segmenting ability following small-group instruction in phonemic awareness.
(Torgesen, J. K., & Mathes, P. G., 1993)

2) Nonword spelling
Five non-words (jeg, tir, wud, gef, yid), children receive one point for each phoneme that they represent correctly in the spelling. This activities assess children's  growth in blending and segmenting after small-group phonological awareness lesson.

3) Yopp-Singer Test of phoneme segmentation

This test consists of 22 items and requires children to separately articulate each phoneme in the presented words. The student receives credit only if all sounds in a word are presented correctly. Teachers are encouraged to give praise if children has achieved the correct answer, or give correction if child mispronounced the phoneme. The test is done with individual students for 5 to 10 minutes and their responses are recorded and evaluated.

(Yopp, 1995)

# data[].attributes.body
- Vocabulary should be taught both directly and indirectly, mainly indirectly through the provision of stimulating and language-rich environment such as home and school. Hence, educators should work hand in hand to maximise the potential learning of the child.

- Repetition and multiple exposure to vocabulary words, in different contexts; oral and written are important. This includes revisiting and revising the meaning of new vocabulary learnt and taught.

- Learning in rich and meaningful contexts is valuable for vocabulary learning and is impactful for the child.

- Vocabulary can be acquired through incidental learning and should entail engagement in learning task (Fellowes & Oakley, 2014).

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators a chart showing Chall's stages of reading development. This can serve educators a useful benchmark to plan for future learning. However, educators do have to keep in mind that children learn at their own pace and they may use the stages of reading development as a guide.

Stage 0:  Pre-reading, birth to age 6.

Stage 1:  Initial reading, grades 1-2.5.

Stage 2:  Confirmation, Fluency, Ungluing from Print, grades 2-3.

Stage 3:  Reading for Learning the New, grades 4-8.

Stage 4:  Multiple Viewpoints, high school, ages 14-18.

Stage 5:  Construction and Reconstruction, college and above, ages 18+.

(Chall, 1996)

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers parents/families research-based suggestions on how they can play a part in promoting early literacy at home. This resource reflects the family literacy theory whereby it emphasize on the role of parents in children's literacy development.

1. Families create literacy-friendly home environments.

2. Families have ongoing and engaging conversations with their children.

3.Families hold high expectations for their children’s learning.

4.Families make reading enjoyable.

5. Families use their home language.

6. Families communicate with their children’s teachers.

7. Families visit the library.

(Caspe & Lopez, 2017)

# data[].attributes.body
This resource offers educators to help plan for a language-rich environment in the dramatic play centre to aid children in developing literacy skills.

According to an article in NAEYC, authentic dramatic play benefit children in developing literacy skills such as learning new vocabulary when they interact with peers and the learning materials provided in the dramatic play centre.

Children used their prior knowledge to enhance their play where they reenact what they see and observe from home, culture or their environment around them.

By engaging and listening to children's conversation, teachers can plan the theme of the dramatic play centre based on children's interest and what they would like to learn about.

When teachers plan for intentional play, children's play becomes interactive as it leads to meaningful learning. By creating such authentic experiences, children can have fun in a comfortable setting, providing them the opportunity to practice their communication and literacy skills.

The emergent literacy theory advocates literacy-rich classrooms that helps promote emergent literacy development. This includes environmental prints and extensive presence of books to create opportunities to interact with the items in meaningful ways.
(Tracey & Morrow, 2006, pg 94)

Planning for a language-rich environment:

1. Verbal mapping
Engage in meaningful conversation with children. Describe what the children/the teachers are doing (describe actions and objects in the  dramatic play centre) and expose children to new words in a meaningful context.

2. Provide props to extend children's play
By providing props in the dramatic play centre, children can extend their learning and build on their knowledge. Teachers can change or add on the props periodically depending on children's level of knowledge, understanding and interest on a particular theme.

3. Make it a print-rich setting
It is important to display materials like pictures, books, functional labels in the learning space so that children can be aware of prints as it symbolises language they use in their daily lives. Prints in the environment also help children to scaffold their language and help them with reading and writing. (NAEYC, 2018)

Examples of dramatic play centre themes and literacy materials:

Restaurants/ Cafe
- menu, signs for food and drinks, restaurant/cafe name.

Clinic/hospital
- patient folder, medicine labels, visual schedule for booking appointments.

Grocery store
- shopping list, price tags, food labels, receipts.

Camping
- maps, compass, food labels, tent instructions, trail signs.

Aquarium/ Zoo
- brochures, diagrams of animals, animal life cycle diagrams, directory of the aquarium/zoo.
(State Government of Victoria Australia, 2019)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It's circle time on a Monday morning in a South Texas Head Start classroom. The children have noticed that la paleteria (food stand selling frozen fruit popsicles and ice creams), the most recent dramatic play center theme, has been taken down and put away, and they are wondering what kind of center should replace it.

Mrs. Ramos invites them to talk about their weekend activities. Rodrigo says he and his grandmother went to the panaderia (bakery). Two children ask, "What is that?" Juanita explains, "That's a bakery where you buy bread and cake." Mrs. Ramos says she and her mother used to go to the panaderia when she was a child. The children smile.

The conversation turns to pan dulce (sweet bread). Some children say they buy it at the local grocery store or corner store. Others say their families buy it at their nearby panaderia. Mrs. Ramos says that could be the theme of the new dramatic play center. The children enthusiastically begin naming baked goods that their panaderia will sell, and Mrs. Ramos writes their suggestions down.

Culturally responsive centers

To identify culturally relevant themes, listen to children's everyday talk. In Mrs. Ramos's classroom, the children's conversations about their family activities led them to create a panaderia in the dramatic play center. Culturally relevant dramatic play centers let young children draw from their experiences to enhance their play. Children reenact activities and observations from family life and share common events in their cultures. Authentic dramatic play leads to children's meaningful learning-especially in language and vocabulary.

Here are some ideas for planning language-rich environments that help dual language learners (in this case, emergent Spanish/English bilinguals) develop communication skills. When you intentionally create interesting experiences for children, their play becomes deeper and more interactive.

Spark conversations through verbal mapping

To expose children to new vocabulary, practice verbal mapping -that is, describe to children what they are doing (or what you are doing) to introduce new words in a meaningful context. Remember to use new vocabulary words in conversations over and over again, because children need to hear and practice unfamiliar words many times to truly understand them. Teachers describe actions and objects that are important to children while in a familiar and meaningful setting. The setting for the classroom might be a bodega, a paleteria, or a panaderia.

Jorge explains that in his neighborhood bakery, you use pinzas para pan, or tongs, to pick up bread. Mrs. Ramos sees this as an opportunity to reinforce the word tongs. She hands two wooden blocks to Jorge and says, "Good morning, sir. I'm delivering the two tongs the manager ordered for the bakery." Although tongs is a new word for the children, they immediately integrate it into their speech and play. The cashier tells the next customer, "Please give me your tray so I can ring up your bread. Leave the tongs over there." Teachers also engage in verbal mapping when they talk about the types of bread customers buy. Without disrupting play, Mrs. Ramos asks questions, supplies vocabulary, and extends the conversation to support children's language development.

Provide new props to extend children's play

Props can be added in phases to build on children's knowledge and hold their interest. Here's how Mrs. Ramos set up the panaderia.

Provide basic bakery props. Offer-or invite families to contribute-common objects and tools, such as photos/pictures of familiar breads, aprons, spice and extract bottles, plastic mixing bowls, wooden spoons, rolling pins, and other kitchen products or tools.

Add more props based on careful observation of children's interactions. After Mrs. Ramos observed children talking about delivering cakes for weddings and quinceañeras (girls' 15th birthday celebrations), she introduced a calendar. The children marked the dates when cakes had to be delivered to or picked up by customers. Other items provided included cookie cutters and a receipt booklet.

Add props that enhance the theme. Mrs. Ramos placed a pretend fire extinguisher in the bakery. This extended children's imaginations (and vocabulary) as they role-played burning bread and putting out a fire in the oven. She also supplied objects like a bakery timer, cake photo album, and pictures of celebrations.

Try placing new props in the center for children to discover first, then explain how to use them. Or teachers might introduce the new props through role-playing, as Mrs. Ramos did with the tongs.

This dramatic play center reflected the Spanish-speaking children in the class. But classes have all sorts of cultural mixes. Regularly assess the materials and props in the dramatic play center to make sure they accurately reflect all of the children and families in your class and accommodate the children with disabilities. Add props that encourage children to talk to each other and to their teacher. When the excitement over a certain dramatic play center fades, offer new props or change the theme.

Make it a print-rich setting

Create a welcoming print-rich dramatic play center. Add functional labels, pictures, books, and other materials reflective of children's cultures, such as familiar recipes, photos of cultural sweet breads, and spice or extract bottles (for example, vanilla, cinnamon, or piloncillo-unrefined brown sugar). Mrs. Ramos labeled the panaderia shelves with the names of different breads and other baked goods that children had heard their families talk about, such as empanadas, conchas, and orejas. Now, they could see how those words were spelled. This encouraged them to write the words as they were ordering or selling sweet bread or creating new bread recipes.

An interesting space encourages children to stay engaged. Children notice the print and learn that it symbolizes language. Using the props, they learn the everyday functions of writing and literacy. When Mrs. Ramos placed an Open/Abierto sign on the panaderia counter, some children said, "Ya esta abierta la panaderia!" ("The bakery is open!").

Place useful labels so that children can touch them-even copy and trace them-and help organize the materials. Mrs. Ramos made labels in Spanish and English for the names and prices of specific baked goods. The "Open/Abierto" sign and the different labels helped children organize their thought process as they created sequenced role-playing episodes. The labels also worked as resources to scaffold the children's language and help with reading.

Conclusion

Children's language development is enhanced by intentional support from teachers, interaction with peers, and opportunities to practice their new communication skills. We hope our examples inspire you to create dramatic play centers that reflect your children's communities, cultures, and experiences outside of school. Center themes encourage children to play together and talk about what is personally meaningful to them. They can have fun using new words in a safe, comfortable setting.

Prop Suggestions for the Panaderia

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Supporting Language: Culturally Rich Dramatic Play

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Mrs. Ramos's classroom, the children's conversations about their family activities led them to create a panaderia in the dramatic play center.