# data[].attributes.headline
Research-Based Literacy Initiatives at Ohio State University   dated :  FEB. 19, 2009 

# data[].attributes.subject
Research-Based Literacy Initiatives at Ohio State University   dated :  FEB. 19, 2009 

# data[].attributes.body
The article gives an explanation of reading recovery, literacy collaborative, leveled literacy intervention, and K-4 Literacy. There is a comparison chart based on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 Guidelines for all the Literacy initiatives for Ohio State University.

# data[].attributes.body
Interview with Boushey and Moser about CAFE Reading strategiesThe article is about the 2 sisters : Gail Boushey and Joan Moser who are the authors of the Daily Five: Fostering Literacy Independence in Elementary Grades  (2006) and The CAFE Book : Engaging all students in Daily Literacy Assessment and Instruction (2009).  The Daily Five developed a program that gets independently read and write during literacy block in elementary grade levels.  The CAFE(comprehension, accuracy, fluency and enhancing vocabulary) introduces  reading strategies in whole groupinstruction and then assess and guide those strategies in one-on-one conferences.  The article is an interview that describes thereading strategies that are present in the CAFE book and the Daily Five.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gail Boushey and Joan Moser, authors of The Cafe Book, discuss their system for catering to students' individual reading needs.
A conversation with Gail Boushey and Joan Moser, known to many educators as "The Sisters," will conjure far-flung thoughts of your favorite primary school teacher. They're cheery, energetic, and generous yet sincere with praise. The biological sisters are also self-described best friends.
Boushey and Moser have taught grades K-6, special education, and reading resource, totaling about 60 years of teaching experience between them. In 2006, they published The Daily 5: Fostering Literacy Independence in the Elementary Grades, which lays out a structure for getting students to read and write independently during a literacy block, freeing up the teacher for one-on-one conferences. The CAFE Book: Engaging all Students in Daily Literacy Assessment and Instruction, their 2009 follow-up, addresses the natural next question: What exactly should the teacher be doing during those individual conferences?

An acronym for comprehension, accuracy, fluency, and expand vocabulary, CAFE is a system designed to help teachers work methodically through literacy standards based on students' individual needs. Teachers introduce reading strategies to the whole class, then assess and guide the use of those strategies in small groups or individual conferences. CAFE is also a visual tool-students refer back to a large poster with the strategies listed, placing a sticky note with their name next to the one they're working on.

Since they began using the CAFE system in their own classrooms, Boushey and Moser say, their students have consistently averaged an astounding two and a half years of growth in reading per year. In fact, every single student they've taught, including those with the most challenging needs, has made at least one year of growth-and some have made as much as five years. It's no wonder the two, who are now literacy consultants, consistently sell out professional development workshops and have become must-see presenters at reading conferences across the country.

In an interview with the Teacher PD Sourcebook's Liana Heitin, Boushey and Moser discussed why their system works, how it changed their classroom culture, and the importance of staying faithful to the current reading research.
Can you describe the process of developing the CAFE system? How did you do this in a collaborative way?
Moser: In our own classrooms, it really started with "Daily 5." We knew we wanted to work with individuals and small groups of kids but we couldn't figure out what to do with the rest of the class. Once we figured out how to manage them, our kids were so independent that all of the sudden the dirty secret was, O.K., what are we teaching them? And how are we managing our assessments so that they really do inform our instruction?

Boushey: Before CAFE, we would assess and put the assessment away and go back into whatever teaching we were doing. CAFE really is a way to simplify our assessing, so that we can make it a guide for instruction.

Moser: And collaboration just has always come naturally for us. By the nature of our personalities, but also because we both were in the same spot with the same question. As a matter of fact, the first glimmer of CAFE came while we were on a family vacation, sitting around the kitchen table.
A concept that you emphasize in your book-and seem to have lived by in the classroom-is that "fair is not always equal." Can you explain why this is so central to your teaching and how it applies to reading instruction?
Moser: I think it stems from the beginning of our careers where we were given a resource that was one-size-fits-all. We had one basal anthology and we did mostly whole-group instruction. Everybody got the same thing. But one of the reasons we love this job so much is that students are all so different. And every single one of them has completely different needs. Some of our kids don't need to be met with one-on-one as often. In fact, some of the research shows that if you meet with them too much it's even more of a hindrance. With the use of Daily 5 and CAFE, we're able to really look at those kids and pinpoint: What are those next steps over the course of the next couple of weeks that we can support you with to help you move forward?
But somebody could argue that the kids you meet with less often, even if they're on par with the rest of the class, might not be excelling to their potential. How do you respond to that?
Moser: We think about Kelly Gallagher's book Readicide, where he talks about how we really want to let kids get into the reading flow, which is that uninterrupted time to read. We are by no means saying that we don't meet with those kids. But I look at somebody like Tiger Woods in golf-we don't want to coach him as much as we want to coach players like me and Gail. If we are doing too much coaching with him, we're going to interrupt his flow of the game, whereas I would need a coach side-by-side.

Boushey: Our goal every single day is to meet with three small groups and nine to 12 individuals. So when we say that we're not meeting with those accelerated kids, that means not every day. But it might be three times a week.
According to the book, the first reading strategy you teach each year is a comprehension one-"check for understanding." Why is that at the top of the priority list? Can you teach that before students are fluent readers?
Boushey: Yes, it's first and the reason is two-fold. We start with comprehension because if we don't comprehend, we're not reading. It's also really an easy strategy to teach because we teach it with our read-alouds. So whether kids are traditional readers or preschoolers, they can start that process of checking for understanding. It becomes an anchor for absolutely everything we do. We teach it whole-group with our first read-aloud.

Moser: If we wait until kids crack the code or become more fluent to talk about comprehension, we're really sunk. Because then we send the message to children that reading is just word calling, whereas reading is really all about comprehension. It's all about making meaning.
How often do you assess students' reading?
Moser: Every time we sit down and confer with a child, that line between assessment and instruction blurs. It's a constant cycle of asking, "Are they getting that? Is my instruction taking hold? If it is, how am I going to move them forward? If it's not, what am I going to do differently to help them?"

Boushey: We kind of laugh at each other when we hear about RTI [response to intervention] and progress monitoring because we truly have been doing this since CAFE came out. Every time we meet with a student, at the end of that we say to ourselves, "OK, did I meet the mark on that? Is my instruction working?"

We've come up with what we call "touchpoints," which are just a way to quantify the work we're doing and get a holistic score. For example, at the end of each conference or small group, we'll give a student a one, two, three, or four-below the standard, approaching, meeting, or exceeding. So at the end of two to three meeting times, if kids are still below standard, we have to change something. We have to change our instruction. Because if we keep teaching the same way that we're teaching, we're going to get the same results.
How do you decide when to re-teach the whole group rather than individual students? Is it when a percentage of the class isn't getting something?
Moser: When we look at going from small group to whole group, we've really changed our approach based on the most current research by Richard Allington. He says the largest a small group should be is two to three. So what we look at is, OK, if I've got more than two to three kids that need instruction on one of the strategies, do I want do two groups, do I want to do three groups, or is it so many kids that I'm going to teach it whole group? Would the majority of my kids benefit from that? We don't have an exact percentage.

Part of that is because we do short bursts of instruction. The rule of thumb from [education consultant] Dr. Ken Wesson is that the average number of years your children are in age is the average number of minutes they can maintain upper-level cortex thinking during direct instruction. Let's say you have mostly 8-year-olds. You have about eight minutes of direct instruction-whole-group, small-group, or one-on-one-where their brain function is in their upper-level cortex-where all of our higher-level thinking, all of our processing, and vocabulary development, and retention take place. So we don't have to worry about wasting 40 minutes of kids' time having them sit through instruction they may not need. The review is going to be in a short burst.
With the CAFE system, you're forthright with students about their assessment scores and weaknesses so that they know what to work on independently. How does this kind of transparency change a classroom?
Boushey: Before, we'd just say, you're reading at a 2.0 level, good luck and we'll see you next time. Now, we may talk about the reading level but the next step is digging deeper. If we want them to become a better reader we ask, "What are one or two strategies I could teach you in the next three weeks that would make you better at reading?" And once they're part of that discussion and part of that ownership, they feel so much more empowered.

And when you say here's a goal and strategy you can work on ... they're not in competition with each other to become a 2.5 reader, they're in competition to have more reading strategies so they can access any text.

Moser: It becomes a group of people working together to get better at reading. I found that it really becomes more like cheerleading. They spend a lot of time reading together and they celebrate each other's utilization of strategies. ... We hear that from people all over world, that CAFE changed their culture.
Can you explain why you made the change from using static small groups based on ability to using flexible small groups based on the strategies students are working on?
Boushey: I think the reason we used to do leveled groups was that was all we knew. We would assess kids and put them in those leveled groups. But Joan and I started thinking that when we pull kids in small groups who are reading at the same level, they still had a lot of differences. They might be reading at a 2.5, but one child needs comprehension, another one needs accuracy, another needs fluency, another needs vocabulary. So we started thinking, "How about if we just pulled them together by strategies?" That was not an easy thing.
That's scary for a lot of teachers.
Boushey: It's really scary. For us, it's about how to manage it. If I know how to manage it, I might be able to do it. We created this little six-block form. When we were assessing kids, we would just write down the goal and strategy of the child and put their name in the box. Sebastian is going to need the goal of comprehension, with the strategy of check for understanding. If I assess my next student, Amanda and she needs the same thing, I'm going to put her name in that same box. So by the time we're done assessing all our kids, we have a two-page form and we have now put kids into groups by the strategy they needed.

And whatever we're working on in a small group, we're working on the exact same strategy one-on-one. It goes back to the idea of "curricular coherence." RTI's been talking about this really a lot, too. We're wrapping around that child, we're not jumping from strategy to strategy. We're going to have laser-pointed vision on one or two strategies until we're ready to move onto another one.
The CAFE "menu" has 38 reading strategies (divided into the four categories) that you teach throughout the year. Would you recommend that teachers alter those strategies based on their state standards or the Common Core State Standards? Or should they stick with those strategies you've identified?
Boushey: We always say our strategies are not the end-all be-all. So if you have a program, if you have district requirements, whatever you're teaching the whole group, that's what gets posted on the board. We aligned our menu to the Washington state standards. The whole idea is to post the standards you're teaching so kids can see them.

Moser: In January we released the CAFE alignment to the common core on our website [ www.thedailycafe.com].
Other than your books, of course, what should literacy teachers be reading to stay up-to-date with their instruction?
Moser: We are constantly going to publishers-Stenhouse, Heinemann, Scholastic, etc.-which usually publish all the new reads twice a year. And we pour through that list of new books. What is it that it looks like we should be reading? We really talk a lot to teachers about building your toolkit, having read many different resources to put in that toolkit so you have a lot to draw from.

That said, we really think that everything written by Dick Allington, teachers need to read. [See " Responding to RTI," Spring/Summer 2010, for an interview with Allington.]

We tell teachers to get on listserves, get reading these things online. The Marshall Memo, for example. There are so many that are quick and easy to skim through.

And as silly as this sounds, we are right now running a brand new feature on our website about Twitter. There are huge communities on Twitter around elementary, around every grade level, around writing, around comprehension. My goal is to set aside 10 minutes a night and to flip through that day's posts. I am shocked at how much professional development I get from Twitter.

Vol. 05, Issue 02, Pages 28,30-32

Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus.
Back to Top

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A conversation with Gail Boushey and Joan Moser, known to many educators as "The Sisters," will conjure far-flung thoughts of your favorite primary school teacher. They're cheery, energetic, and generous yet sincere with praise. The biological sisters are also self-described best friends.

# data[].attributes.headline
Daily Five - CAFE by Gail Boushey and Joan Moser

# data[].attributes.subject
Daily Five - CAFE by Gail Boushey and Joan Moser

# data[].attributes.body
Comprehension, accuracy, fluency and expanding vocabulary
article is a study that was conducted at the College of Brockport,
University of New York : The Effects of the Daily Five.
This is a research paper that is 76 pages in length and it explains the effectiveness of the Daily Five which was developed by Gail Boushey & Joan Moser.  The Daily Five was developed in 2006 as a literacy instructional approach that teaches children to work independently on five different tasks during a literacy block or reading time. The five tasks are reading to self (from a leveled library), reading to someone, writing, word work, and listening to reading.  The author of this research utilized classroom observations, anecdotal notes, along with interviewing teachers who currently use the Daily Five to get a first-hand knowledge of the program.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to gain a better perspective on the Daily Five reading and writing approach in order to learn ways to implement a more efficient literacy block in my future classroom. I wanted to achieve an understanding for a structure of a whole-language approach that encourages students' independence and engagement while fostering their reading and writing development. Also through this study, I have developed my own personal skills in order to become a better educational researcher. Through my research, I answered the following question using the data collected: What are the effects of the Daily Five, developed by Gail Boushey & Joan Moser, on classroom literacy instruction?

Study Approach

My study approach consisted of a qualitative study that lasted for a six week time period of data collection. My data methods were composed of producing and administering authentic one-on-one interviews with five general education teachers currently using the Daily Five literacy approach in their instruction and classroom observations of the Daily Five. The demographics of the school district where I conducted interviews consisted of schools located in the Western New York area. The schools will were located in a suburban setting.

Rationale

I pursued this topic because I feel that for elementary-aged students, the process of learning to read and write is essential and those skills may be some of the most important they will acquire in school. The reading and writing process is a life-long journey that continues to grow and build upon previously learned skills (Boushey & Moser, 2006). I wanted to gain a better understanding for a researched-based method of teaching that is centered on promoting the gradual release theory (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983), fostering independence, active learning, and providing students substantial time to read and write, and be able to implement the method in my classroom. Interviewing teachers who currently use this practice, allowed me to gain first-hand knowledge of the program. Teachers were truthful and honest about their feelings regarding the program because the interview study allowed them to remain anonymous with their responses. Performing classroom observations and taking anecdotal notes allowed me the ability to gain a first-hand perspective on the approach and determine how well students responded to the practices of the Daily Five ideology.

Repository Citation

LaShomb, Jason Matthew, "The Effects of the Daily Five, Developed by Gail Boushey & Joan Moser, on Classroom Literacy Instruction" (2011). Education and Human Development Master's Theses. 151.
https://digitalcommons.brockport.edu/ehd_theses/151

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Effects of the Daily Five, Developed by Gail Boushey & Joan Moser, on Classroom Literacy Instruction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to gain a better perspective on the Daily Five reading and writing approach in order to learn ways to implement a more efficient literacy block in my future classroom.

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation of Dynamic
Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
Skills (DIBELS)
The article describes the use of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an Out-Comes Driven Model that identifies children early who may need additional instructional support and to evaluate and modify instruction on an ongoing, formative basis to ensure that all children achieve high stakes reading goals.

# data[].attributes.body
comparison of DRA/Fountas&Pinnell/Lexile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Use this guide to select motivating books that will realistically meet the instructional needs of all of your readers at any level.

# data[].attributes.body
explanation of what DRA means to young readers.
The article answers the question "what is meant by the term DRA"?  DRA stands for Developmental Reading Assessment which is a standardized reading test that is used to determine a student's instructional reading level. The summary list the criteria of the following level of readers Emergent Readers :  Grade Level Benchmark: Mid to End of Kindergarten Early Readers :  Grade Level Benchmark : Beginning to Mid-Gr. 1 Transitional Readers: Grade Level Benchmark: Mid-Gr. 1 to End of Gr. 2Extending Readers: Grade Level Benchmark: Beginning Gr. 3 to End of Gr. 4

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Maximize educators' instruction time with a seamless flow of data from assessment to instruction and practice resources, then back into a unified measure of student mastery.

Learn more "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Renaissance - K-12 Educational Software Solutions & Learning Analytics

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Maximize educators' instruction time with a seamless flow of data from assessment to instruction and practice resources, then back into a unified measure of student mastery. Learn more "

# data[].attributes.body
website for Lexile

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Lexile Framework for Reading - Lexile

# data[].attributes.body
article gives list and explanation of the cognitive elements According to the article,reading is all about decoding and comprehension.  It is the integration of these two skills
that is essential to reading.  One is notmore important than the other. Both have equal parts when it comes to reading.  The article asks the question  of 1. What is required to be a good at
understanding language?
2.What is necessary to be good at decoding text?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Framework Elements - The Cognitive Foundations of Learning to Read: A Framework

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the reader sits motionless, she is simultaneously decoding the text and comprehending the message contained within the text. That is what reading is all about-decoding and comprehension. The integration of these two skills is essential to reading, and neither one is more or less essential than the other.

# data[].attributes.body
by Fountas & Pinnell
Fountas&Pinnell's Blog. Resources for reading intervention teaching guided reading, leveled books and K-2 Professional Development. Research on the Effectiveness of Leveled Literacy Intervention by Gay And Irene at April 15,2010  7:43 Filed Under: Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) Research, Field Studieshttp://fpblog.heinemann.com/archive.aspxThearticle is part of a blog for Fountas & Pinnell's.  The articles are Books and Readability Levels, Field Studies, Guided Reading, Professional Development,  Reading Recovery, Research, RtI (response toIntervention, and  Special Education, and  One blog refers to  Leveled Literacy Intervention (LLI) .

# data[].attributes.headline
 Reaching the Goal by  Reaching for the Impossible by Joan Richardson in The Learning System Magazine (pgs 1, 6-7). 

# data[].attributes.subject
 Reaching the Goal by  Reaching for the Impossible by Joan Richardson in The Learning System Magazine (pgs 1, 6-7). 

# data[].attributes.body
In 1995 Kennewick School District (in Washington state) adopted the 90% Reading Goal, which stated that 90% of all students will read at grade level upon completion of 3rd grade. This article explains specific strategies adopted by the district which have resulted in reaching the goal in 2006. It is important to note that only 57% of 3rd graders read at grade level in fall 1995

# data[].attributes.body
The article answers the questions about Running Records. What is a running record? How to take a running record and when and how often to take a running record , Making a Running record Scoring and Analyzing Running record. The article has several links to explanations of error rate, accuracy, what a self correction rate means and how to analyze the results.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Search Reading A-Z Teacher Resources - Reading A-Z

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Award-winning reading solution with thousands of leveled readers, lesson plans, worksheets and assessments to teach guided reading, reading proficiency and comprehension to K-5 students

# data[].attributes.body
http://readingandwritingproject.com/resources/assessments/reading-assessments.html

The article is from the TCRWP (Teachers College Reading & Writing Project) that offers a set of informal reading inventories for narrative texts that connect to the Fountas and Pinnell system for leveling books. The website refers you to avariety of Language Art assessments.  The Reading assessment can that help teachers identify which level of texts students can read by themselves so they can apply those reading strategies that they are learning during the Reading Workshop. The assessments provide an analysis of comprehension, miscues, and, fluency (fluency is only assessed for Levels J. Several links to many supportive reading material.

# data[].attributes.headline
Criteria/Correlation Chart for Leveled Reading 

# data[].attributes.subject
Criteria/Correlation Chart for Leveled Reading 

# data[].attributes.body
This article explains the three elements that reflect the model of text complexity which are  1.  Qualitative, 2.  Quantitative  3. Reader Task The article describes the guidelines for determining text complexity that is outlined in the Common Core Standards. Illustration of the correlation chart of the  age, grade,Fountas & Pennell scale, Reading Recovery, DRA scale and Lexile Scale.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The best-in-class, proprietary Learning A-Z Text Leveling System was developed over ten years with input from teachers and instructional experts. Thousands of books, ranging in difficulty from simple sentences to complex novels and academic texts, were put into the system to create developmentally appropriate levels for students.

The leveling criteria used by the Text Leveling System accurately and reliably measure text complexity to support differentiated instruction. Our Text Leveling System follows the guidelines for determining text complexity outlined in the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The Standards call for an evaluation of student reading materials in three areas of text complexity: qualitative measures, quantitative measures, and reader and task considerations.

The Spanish Text Leveling System takes into account the unique features of the Spanish language. The leveling criteria was adjusted and modified accordingly in order to create accurate levels for students learning to read in Spanish.

The Common Core Model of Text Complexity

Qualitative Measures

Qualitative measures are text attributes that can only be evaluated by a human reader. These include factors such as the author's purpose, the levels of meaning, structure of the text, language conventions, language clarity, knowledge demands, and the complexity and importance of visual devices.

The Text Leveling System takes into account the following qualitative measures:

Predictability of text

Text structure and organization

Logical nature of organization

Text and feature distractions

Labeling and reader supports

Illustration support

Infographics

Complexity

Text reliance on

Knowledge demands

Concept load

Familiarity of topic (common everyday vs. unfamiliar)

Single vs. multi-themed

Intertextual dependence

Quantitative Measures

Quantitative measures are statistical measurements of text. These include factors such as average sentence length, number of syllables per word, and the total number of different words.

Reading A-Z's leveling criteria take into account the following quantitative measures:

Total word count

Number of different words

Ratio of different words to total words

Number of high frequency words

Ratio of high frequency words to total words

Number of low frequency words

Ratio of low frequency words to total words

Sentence length

Sentence complexity

Consideration of the reader and the reading task

Consideration of the reader and the reading task is the final component of text complexity as outlined in the Common Core Standards. Each reader brings different skills, background, and motivation to the act of reading. For example, a student who is interested in the topic of a particular book is likely to bring more background knowledge to the reading task and to be motivated to learn more about the subject.

Reader and task considerations are something teachers must evaluate for themselves. No leveling system can encompass these considerations because they depend upon the circumstances of each student in relation to each particular book at the time of reading.

By evaluating the qualitative and quantitative criteria accurately and reliably, the Learning A-Z leveling system frees teachers to focus their energy and attention where they are most needed-on the reader and task considerations that affect their individual students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The best-in-class, proprietary Learning A-Z Text Leveling System was developed over ten years with input from teachers and instructional experts. Thousands of books, ranging in difficulty from simple sentences to complex novels and academic texts, were put into the system to create developmentally appropriate levels for students.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Genre/Form

2. Text Structure

3. Content

4. Themes

5. Language and Literacy Features

6. Sentence Complexity

7. Vocabulary

8. Words

9. Illustrations

10. Book and Print Features

# data[].attributes.headline
5 Leveled Reading Program Parents should know : 

# data[].attributes.subject
5 Leveled Reading Program Parents should know : 

# data[].attributes.body
1. Basal or Grade Level

2. Fountas Pinnell Guided Reading Level (A - Z scale)

3. Developmental Reading Assessment (DRA)

4. Lexile Framework

5. Accelerated Reader

# data[].attributes.body
Research Base for Guided Reading as an Instructional Approach by Gay Su Pinnell and Irene C. Fountas The article describes background information on Guided reading  - small group instruction· Literacy Programs and Guided Reading's A Chart on Instructional Context forTeaching Reading   1. Whole - Class Instruction 2. Small-Group Instruction(heterogeneous groups) Small-Group Instruction         (homogeneous) groups   3.Individual Instruction (Independent Reading) - LEVELED LIBRARIES Research Supporting Instruction in Guided Reading Lessons

# data[].attributes.headline
 Offer wide range of books for student choice in classroom with a leveled library  

# data[].attributes.subject
 Offer wide range of books for student choice in classroom with a leveled library  

# data[].attributes.body
Differentiated Instruction

Teach any aspect of reading individually

Read variety of fiction and nonfiction texts.

Assess reading fluency, accuracy and comprehension

# data[].attributes.headline
My Action Research Project will be investigating the impact of a leveled library as it relates to independent reading  as a  part of a guided reading program . 

# data[].attributes.subject
My Action Research Project will be investigating the impact of a leveled library as it relates to independent reading  as a  part of a guided reading program . 

# data[].attributes.body
Question : Does leveling your classroom library improve reading performance?

# data[].attributes.body
Literacy Collaborative is a nationally recognized, comprehensive school literacy model based on the award-winning work by reading experts Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell in collaboration with teachers and university teams at The Ohio State University and Lesley University. Research that highlights Literacy Collaborative's positive effect on literacy teaching, student learning, and professional learning community.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Research findings highlight Literacy Collaborative's positive effect on literacy teaching, student learning, and professional learning community. Literacy Collaborative's multi-faceted body of knowledge continues to evolve through internal and external research conducted at the local and national levels.

Research FAQs

What independent studies have been conducted of the Literacy Collaborative?

A number of independent studies have been conducted:

The U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) funded the largest and most recent study. Download the Summary

Researchers from Stanford University, University of Chicago, and Literacy Collaborative collected data on 240 teachers and 8,500 students at 17 Literacy Collaborative schools over a four-year period (2004-2008). Dr. Anthony Bryk, an expert in school reform and president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, led the $3 million study. Download the Report

Literacy Collaborative has also been studied by the Center for Research and Educational Policy at the University of Memphis, the Education Development Center in Newton, Massachusetts, and the Center for Education Evaluation and Policy at Indiana University. See more research findings below.

What does the data show about improvements in student literacy achievement?

The IES study (described above) used DIBELS and Terra Nova assessments to measure the literacy skills of students in grades K-2 in 17 Literacy Collaborative schools where 40% of the students were low income. Student literacy growth increased by an average of 16% in Year 1, 28% in Year 2, and 32% in Year 3.

An Indiana University's Center for Education Evaluation and Policy study found that both low-poverty and high-poverty Literacy Collaborative schools showed substantially greater year-to-year improvements on the state's 3rd grade reading test than schools with no literacy interventions.

Literacy Collaborative researchers at Ohio State analyzed 2nd grade Gates-MacGinitie reading scores in 52 Literacy Collaborative schools over five years (1996-2001). While the entering skills of the kindergarten students remained the same, the average 2nd grade scores rose from 40 NCEs, to 49 NCEs (on a scale of 0-100) - with the greatest gains achieved in schools where more than 50% of students received free or reduced-price lunch.

Does teaching improve in Literacy Collaborative schools?

The Primary Model: In the IES study described above, 240 Literacy Collaborative primary teachers were observed in their classrooms and evaluated three times per year for three years using a quantitative rubric. Analyses showed that average teaching skills improved and individual rates of teacher improvement were correlated with the amount of professional development and one-to-one coaching teachers received from their literacy coaches.

The Intermediate Model: Education Development Center in Newton, Mass., studied schools that adopted Literacy Collaborative at the intermediate level. In an 18-month study, EDC observed and evaluated 54 teachers (grades 3-6) at 17 Literacy Collaborative schools and compared them with teachers in 9 control schools. On average, teaching skills improved in the Literacy Collaborative schools, with no improvement in the control schools.

Does Literacy Collaborative reduce special education referrals and retention rates?

In their study of early literacy interventions in Indiana, the Center for Education Evaluation and Policy found that Literacy Collaborative schools in Indiana had lower 2nd grade special education referral rates and slightly lower 2nd grade retention rates than demographically similar schools without special literacy programs.

Does Literacy Collaborative help improve student attitudes toward reading and writing?

In 2004, Literacy Collaborative researchers observed, interviewed, and surveyed Literacy Collaborative students in grades 3-5 in Westfield, Mass. More than 90% of the students said that they liked to read and write. Those interviewed also reported that they engaged in literacy activities during their free time at home. Teachers reported in focus groups that the Literacy Collaborative project had improved student attitudes and motivation.

What alignment exists between the Literacy Collaborative teaching goals and the Common Core State Standards?

The Continuum of Literacy Learning (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009) is a foundational resource for literacy coaches and teachers in Literacy Collaborative schools. This text outlines specific behaviors and understandings expected in the areas of reading, writing, language, and word study in grades PreK-8. There is a strong relationship between the new Common Core Standards for Language and Literacy and Fountas and Pinnell's The Continuum of Literacy Learning.

The goal of both documents is to ensure that all students are college- and career-ready literate no later than the end of high school. The curriculum goals specifically detailed in the Continuum reach for this high level of skill by the end of eighth grade.

Does Literacy Collaborative foster collaboration and a professional learning environment?

In 2004, Dr. Anthony Bryk, currently President of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, received a $3 million, four-year grant from the federal Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to study the value-added effects of the Literacy Collaborative K-2 program on student learning and achievement.
In brief: Teacher expertise increased substantially and the rate of improvement was predicted by the amount of coaching a teacher received. In addition, professional communication amongst teachers in the schools increased over the three years of implementation, and the literacy coordinators became more central in their schools' communication networks. Download the Resarch Summary

Our Research Comes From:

Literacy Collaborative

Literacy Collaborative staff and researchers conduct studies using data from multiple Literacy Collaborative schools to examine patterns of improvement.

Participating Schools

Participating schools conduct their own research and evaluation. Schools analyze student test scores and work samples, and gather data from student assessments, staff or parent surveys, classroom observations, and interviews. Literacy Collaborative provides training and support to help each school or district develop an evaluation plan, and collect, analyze, and present its own student outcome data in order to evaluate program effectiveness at the local level. Our professional research team provides:

guidance on developing an evaluation plan

support in understanding and measuring implementation fidelity

webinars on data analysis and reporting

individual technical assistance on evaluation issues as needed

Outside Studies

In addition, we commission and/or participate in outside studies conducted by researchers at other universities or educational consulting companies.

Articles and Research Reports

An article published in September 2010 in the prestigious, peer-reviewed research journal, Elementary School Journal, describing the value-added effects of the LC program on student achievement in 17 LC schools.

Elementary School Journal, 112, 356-382. Atteberry, A. & Bryk A.B (2011).

A summary and literature review of the major quantitative and qualitative studies on the effects of the Literacy Collaborative on teachers and students. The full articles are available below. Bibliography included.

A paper, written at Stanford University, reporting results of a four-year USDOE-funded study of student achievement in 18 Literacy Collaborative schools across the U.S. 10,000 students were tested. The average rate of student learning increased by 15% in Year 1 of implementation and by 28% in Year 2.

A paper, written at Stanford University, reporting results from the same US ED-funded study, which included observations of 240 teachers over three years. Average measured teaching expertise improved, and the amount of individual teacher improvement was linked with the amount of professional development and coaching teachers received from the literacy coaches in their school.

A report written by the Center for the Evaluation of Educational Policy (CEEP) at Indiana University on their evaluation of several early literacy programs adopted in Indiana in 1998-2004, including Literacy Collaborative. Literacy Collaborative schools showed more improvement in 3rd grade passing rates than schools with no interventions, and fewer special education and retention referrals.

Link to purchase (from the publisher) a 2005 article in The Elementary School Journal reporting on an evaluation of Literacy Collaborative and three other literacy reform models adopted by the Boston Public Schools in 1999-2000. Literacy Collaborative schools showed modestly higher first grade writing scores. ($10.00)

A report written by the Education Development Center (EDC) in Newton, Massachusetts, on their evaluation of improvements in teaching in schools that adopted the LC Intermediate Program for grades 3-5 or 3-6. Average literacy teaching skill in the Literacy Collaborative schools improved over 18 months but remained the same in the non-Literacy Collaborative control schools.

A report on seven years worth of reading data from 52 Literacy Collaborative schools. Average 2nd grade scores on the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test rose steadily, particularly in low-income schools.

Three studies of (1) student attitudes toward literacy activities, (2) teacher reports of how Literacy Collaborative has affected their teaching practice, and (3) teacher buy-in to the Literacy Collaborative school reform model.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Research findings highlight Literacy Collaborative's positive effect on literacy teaching, student learning, and professional learning community. Literacy Collaborative's multi-faceted body of knowledge continues to evolve through internal and external research conducted at the local and national levels. What independent studies have been conducted of the Literacy Collaborative?

# data[].attributes.body
An Empirical Study to Evaluate the Efficacy of Fountas & Pinnell’s Leveled Literacy Intervention System (LLI) (2009-2010)

# data[].attributes.headline
Leveled Literacy Intervention  Dated :  2011 - 2012

# data[].attributes.subject
Leveled Literacy Intervention  Dated :  2011 - 2012

# data[].attributes.body
This is a brief summary of what a LLI program consists of. The cost, training, and availability is stated in the article.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leveled Literacy Intervention ™ :Small Group Instruction, K·3     developedbyGay Su PinnellIrene C. Fountas  Dated 2008

# data[].attributes.subject
Leveled Literacy Intervention ™ :Small Group Instruction, K·3     developedbyGay Su PinnellIrene C. Fountas  Dated 2008

# data[].attributes.body
This article supports the effectiveness of small-group intervention used in combination with effective classroom teaching for all students and
one-to-one tutoring for the most needy students in grade 1. The "leveled literacy
intervention" (LLI) provides intensive, sequenced, and short-term small-group
intervention for students at critical times of need in grades kindergarten through 3. The
intervention procedures have been in the process of development and testing since 2001.

# data[].attributes.headline
Leveled Literacy Intervention System :  A research paper on the effectiveness of Fountas And Pinnell Systems.  Dated : 2010

# data[].attributes.subject
Leveled Literacy Intervention System :  A research paper on the effectiveness of Fountas And Pinnell Systems.  Dated : 2010

# data[].attributes.body
The article list the description, acquisition cost, usage, Program specifications and requirements, Training.
List a breakdown of the participants in the study.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Search | Center on Response to Intervention

# data[].attributes.headline
Evaluation Of Leveled Libraries University of Memphis/Lesley University/Texas Tech University  dated :  March 2008

# data[].attributes.subject
Evaluation Of Leveled Libraries University of Memphis/Lesley University/Texas Tech University  dated :  March 2008

# data[].attributes.body
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association in New York, NY
March 2008. This is a collaboration between several schools on evaluating the effectiveness of leveled libraries.

# data[].attributes.attachment
Evaluation of the Leveled Lite racy Intervention:// Year 1 