PDF (Adobe Reader) - Florida Reading Association

The Florida Reading Journal -- Vol. 48, No. 3, Summer 2012 1

NULL PAGE – not to be printed 

The Florida Reading Journal -- Vol. 48, No. 3, Summer 2012

The Florida Reading Journal -- Vol. 48, No. 3, Summer 2012 1 

Editor _____________________________________ Ruth Sylvester, University of South Florida Lakeland 

Editor _____________________________________ Sherry Kragler, University of South Florida Lakeland 

Associate Editor ________________________________ Terence Cavanaugh, University of North Florida 

Advertising Manager _________________________________________________________ Evan Lefsky 

EDITORIAL REVIEW BOARD 

Carole Byrd, Ph.D. _________________________________ Florida State College at Jacksonville 

Gigi M. David, Ed.D. ______________________________________ University of North Florida 

Althea Duren, Ed.D. ______________________________________ Florida Memorial University 

Tania Mertzman Habeck, Ph.D. _______________________ University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 

Wanda Hedrick, Ph.D. _____________________________________ University of North Florida 

Andrea Kauffman ______________________________________________ University of Florida 

Loren Kaye __________________________________________ Broward County School District 

Diane Kroeger, Ph.D. ______________________________________ University of South Florida 

Linda Martin, Ph.D. ____________________________________________ Ball State University 

Katie Monnin, Ph.D. _______________________________________ University of North Florida 

Suzanne Quinn, Ph.D. __________________________ Roehampton University, London, England 

Tammy Ryan, Ph.D. _______________________________________ Jacksonville University, FL 

Nile Stanley, Ph.D. ________________________________________ University of North Florida 

Zandra Stino, Ph.D. ___________________________________Nova Southeastern University, FL 

Mercedes Techenor, Ph.D. ______________________________________ Stetson University, FL 

G. Pat Wilson, Ph.D. _______________________ University of South Florida – Sarasota-Manatee 

Cover image "Dive into a Book" by Nicole Jones of Pinellas County, winner of the 2011 Florida Reading 

Association Poster Contest.

2 The Florida Reading Journal -- Vol. 48, No. 3, Summer 2012 

Volume 48, No. 2, Spring 2012 

Table of Contents 

Articles | 

Predictors of FCAT Performance of Adolescents Who Struggle with Reading .......................... 8 

Adriana L. Medina 

Applying Concepts of Adult Learning to Professional Development ........................................ 17 

and Coaching Models 

Ruth L. Rohlwing & Carol A. Leli 

A Study of Repeated Readings on Fluency among Third Grade Students ................................ 26 

Halie Paglio, Alejandro E. Brice, & AnnMarie Gunn 

Features | 

Editors’ Note ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 

President’s Message ......................................................................................................................................... 4 

Call for Manuscripts ........................................................................................................................................ 5 

Just Read, Florida!: Strengthening Content Area Literacy in Elementary ................................................ 6 

Douglas Fisher 

Technology: Text Sonification ...................................................................................................................... 38 

Terence Cavanaugh 

Florida Reading Association Board of Directors, Staff, and Local Council Presidents .......................... 41 

FRA Membership Application ...................................................................................................................... 43 

IRA Membership Application ....................................................................................................................... 44 

Directory of Exhibitors and Publishers ........................................................................................................ 45 

The Florida Reading Journal is published in Winter, Spring, and Summer by the Florida Reading Association. 

Membership in the FRA includes an electronic subscription. Institutions may subscribe to the electronic and print editions 

for $75.00 per year. The foreign subscriber rate for the electronic and print versions is $100.00 per year. Correspondence 

regarding subscriptions or single-copy orders should be addressed to FRA Membership, PO Box 151555, Cape Coral FL 

33915 or become a member online at www.FLReads.org. 

The Florida Reading Journal is published for members of the Florida Reading Association and all others concerned with 

reading. Because The Florida Reading Journal serves as an open forum, its contents do not necessarily reflect or imply endorsement 

of the FRA, its officers, or its members. 

Advertisements: Those wishing to advertise in The Florida Reading Journal should contact Evan Lefsky 

(fraexhibits@gmail.com) 6012 Tremayne Dr., Mt. Dora, FL 32757.

The Florida Reading Journal -- Vol. 48, No.32, Summer 2012 3 

Editors’ Note… 

Ruth Sylvester, Assistant Professor 

University of South Florida Lakeland 

ruthsylv@usf.edu 

Sherry Kragler, Associate Professor 

University of South Florida Lakeland 

skragler@usf.edu 

Editors, Florida Reading Journal 

Dear Readers, 

“Summer time and the livin‟ is easy,” wrote George Gershwin. Even though he may have thought this 

about the summer, many of us are taking classes, attending professional development conferences, or 

simply reading professional materials such as this journal. Amid the busyness of summer, we hope you 

do find some texts where the „readin‟ is easy. 

In this issue, Paglio, Brice, and Gunn investigated the effects of repeated readings during literacy 

instruction on reading fluency rate and accuracy of third students with varying reading abilities. 

In a correlation study, Medina found that vocabulary is a strong predictor of FCAT performance on 

11th grade students. 

Rohlwing and Leli explored the contexts that support growth, challenge, and transformation of 

teachers and the role coaches can assume in the process. 

Dr. Terry Cavanaugh presents in his column, Technology, an interesting way to visualize text through 

text sonification. 

Within the wide readership of the Florida Reading Journal, we are confident there are individuals 

contemplating the publication of their scholarly work. We invite you to submit a manuscript about 

your teaching experience, research you have conducted, or a literacy strategy you successfully 

implemented in your classroom. We hope to publish your work in a forthcoming issue of the FRJ. 

Happy Reading, 

Ruth Sylvester & Sherry Kragler 

Editors, The Florida Reading Journal


From the President… 

Maria Callis 

Florida Reading Association President 

The summer break is here – and another school year is in the books. 

The past year saw a lot of change for the state of Florida, much of 

which we will still be navigating well into the foreseeable future. 

Specifically, two I am referring to are the changes from the FCAT to the 

FCAT 2.0, and the implementation of the new cut scores for achievement 

levels. We knew to expect a decline for many students‟ levels this year. While we emphatically 

celebrated gains across many schools, we still took any declines we saw to heart despite our 

understanding of the impact of the new cut scores. Instead of seeing this as something negative, we 

must see this as an opportunity for growth and to remain focused on working to ensure our students 

continue to improve from month to month and year to year. 

Additional changes we are beginning to see surround the transition from the Next Generation 

Sunshine State Standards (NGSSS) to the full implementation of the Common Core State Standards 

(CCSS) and the move from FCAT 2.0 to the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and 

Careers (PARCC). Initial glances at these changes have us clearly understanding that increasing 

academic rigor is something we will be addressing for some time to come. 

We are all caring educators who strive to do the best with the students entrusted to us. We all 

understand the importance of making students stretch beyond their current abilities – we want them to 

always reach and achieve at higher levels. Increasing academic rigor is always good, and I think we all 

agree that those increases must be done in a thoughtful and strategic way. 

However, here is the thing – no matter what assessment measures may be in place, reading is 

always going to be the fundamental bedrock of student achievement. What we do, as reading 

educators, is so important for the development of every student, and every student relies on us to help 

them do their very best. 

So while summer break is here – and another school year is in the books, take this “time off” to 

work to improve how we instruct and support our students. If you were not fortunate to be a 

participant in one of the Florida Department of Education‟s Common Core State Standards Summer 

Institutes, I encourage you to read through the CCSS and seek out information to develop your 

personal understanding of these standards and how their implementation changes expectations for our 

students. While the transition may be difficult at first, the benefits that our students will reap are tools 

that will assist them throughout their lives. 

Thank you for your dedication and the hard work you have put in for our students this year. 

You make a lasting difference in the lives that you touch. 

Yours Sincerely , 

Maria Callis


Call for Manuscripts 

The Florida Reading Journal publishes manuscripts related to literacy research and classroom practice. 

Research syntheses and creative works are also considered for the journal. The Florida Reading 

Journal (FRJ) has a readership of approximately 7000 teachers, literacy coaches, teacher-educators, 

and literacy researchers. 

Information for Authors: 

Authors are requested to submit only unpublished articles not under review by any other publication. A 

manuscript (8-14 pages) should be typed, double spaced, not right justified, not hyphenated, and 

should follow the 6th edition guidelines of APA (Publication Manual of the American Psychological 

Association). 

Submit online as an email attachment which is Microsoft Word compatible in .doc, docx, or .rtf 

format (Mac users please remember to add extensions). Include a cover page this contains the 

manuscript title, the author(s), institutional affiliation, contact information, and date of submission. 

Remove any information from the manuscript that might identify the author(s). 

Manuscripts are first reviewed by an internal review board for appropriateness of the manuscript for 

the journal. If it is evaluated as a good fit, the manuscript is blind, peer-reviewed by three members of 

the Editorial Review Board. If the manuscript is accepted, the coeditors reserve editorial rights. The 

review process takes about two (2) months. The acceptance rate is 25%. 

The journal is published in January, March, and June. 

Send manuscripts by e-mail as an attachment to frjeditor@flreads.org 

Coeditors: Dr. Sherry Kragler and Dr. Ruth Sylvester 

(University of South Florida Lakeland)


Just Read, Florida! 

Strengthening Content Area Literacy in Elementary 

The following article was written by Douglas Fisher for Just Read, 

Florida! He is a professor in the College of Education at San Diego State University 

The second-grade students in Ms. 

Albright‟s mathematics class are confronting a 

problem: How can an orange, a banana, and a 

box of nuts be shared equally among five 

friends With the items in front of them, the 

students debate on how to best solve the 

problem. While Natasha proposes that the 

group deal out pieces of the food into five piles, 

Adrian observes that this would mean they 

might cut the banana wrong. They read the task 

card again: “All five people in the group must 

get the same amount of food.” Rocio proposes 

an alternative idea: “Let‟s draw it on paper first 

so we get some ideas.” Natasha peels the fruit 

and discovers it has eight sections. Adrian 

counts the number of nuts in the box and 

announces there are 52 in total. Rocio measures 

the length of the banana and learns that it is 

five inches long. “Let‟s write all this down,” 

says Rocio, and she adds quantitative 

information to her drawings. After a few 

minutes of debating, they decide to use division 

to figure out how much they should distribute. 

Each student reaches for the interactive graphic 

organizer (Zike, 2009) they created earlier in 

the week on division with remainders. After 

putting the known variables on paper, Natasha 

reads the task card one more time and says, “It 

doesn‟t say we can‟t have leftovers!” In a short 

time, they announce that the best way to divide 

their snacks are to give each person one orange 

segment, 10 nuts, and a one-inch banana slice. 

This will leave them with three orange 

segments, two nuts, and no banana slices left 

over. They represent their mathematical 

thinking on a chart paper they will share with 

students in the class. “But what will you do 

with the remainder” asks Ms. Albright. The 

three students look at one another then say, 

“We‟ll eat those snacks tomorrow!” 

Why Does Content Literacy in Elementary 

Matter 

The simple answer is that students use 

literacy, defined as reading, writing, speaking, 

and listening, throughout the school day. 

Certainly the students in Ms. Albright‟s class 

did so. But the more complex answer is that 

students use literacy to think. Natasha, Adrian, 

and Rocio are in a classroom where ideas are 

discussed, represented on paper, and 

augmented with texts. The oft-noted “fourth 

grade slump” that Chall and Jacobs (1983) 

wrote about persists, despite almost three 

decades of expressed concern. Moss (2005) 

offers encouraging advice: foster teacher 

expertise in the use of content area literacy 

routines that promote inquiry, require 

informational texts, and develop thinking using 

literacies. 

The students in the opening scenario are 

immersed in literacy throughout the day. They 

read narrative and informational texts to 

expand their understanding of the world. They 

discuss concepts in small groups and with the 

entire class. In addition, they write about the 

topics they are learning using the academic 

language of the subject. These interactions are 

not left to chance, as the classroom teacher 

purposefully creates opportunities for her 

students to use what they are learning in 

meaningful and authentic ways. Two important 

areas of emphasis influence her teaching. The 

first is vocabulary development in writing 

using generative sentences. The second is 

making and using interactive graphic 

organizers to solidify their understanding of 

math, social studies, and science.


Generative Sentences 

There is little doubt that vocabulary 

knowledge is essential in content area literacy. 

But it is important to think beyond the 

traditional “assign-define-test” approach many 

of us experienced in our own elementary 

schooling. Vocabulary knowledge is now 

widely viewed as a student‟s ability to apply, 

rather than define. Its use in spoken and 

written language is a far better measure than 

simply the scores on a weekly test of isolated 

words. A generative sentence approach requires 

students to move from the word level to 

applying them within the context of a sentence. 

For example, as part of her instruction, Ms. 

Albright asks students to generate sentences 

using key vocabulary terms. But rather than 

assign students a long list of terms to look up, 

Ms. Albright uses generative sentences to cause 

her students to consider the context and the 

syntax when using a term. After students have 

been introduced to the terms and have had 

some initial experiences reading and using the 

words in oral language, she expands their 

application to writing. She spends about 10 

minutes several times a week with generative 

sentences. “Here we go, everyone,” she says. 

“My first word for you is angle. I want you to 

use that word in the fifth word of a sentence.” 

After a minute or so, students begin 

volunteering examples: “A triangle has three 

angles and also three sides.” Another student: 

“Squares have only four angles and so do 

rectangles” She repeats this process with 

several other words, then asks students to select 

their favorite one as a topic sentence for a 

paragraph to write in class. “It‟s amazing to see 

how quickly they start making these terms their 

own. I hear them more frequently in student 

discussions after we start using them in 

generative sentences,” Ms. Albright said. 

Interactive Graphic Organizers 

Ms. Albright regularly uses what Zike 

(2009) calls Foldables. These student-created 

tools combine the usefulness of notetaking with 

the visual advantages of graphic organizers. 

Her students have become adept at taking notes 

using a sheet of paper folded into a simple 

pattern that represents the number of concepts 

she wants them to associate with one another. 

For example, when she was initially teaching 

them about division, she asked them to fold 

their paper into three sections. Next, she had 

them label each section: Picture It, Write It, and 

Check It. Over the course of several lessons, 

Ms. Albright asked her students to add details 

in each section. When Natasha, Adrian, and 

Rocio were confronted with the problem of 

dividing an unequal amount of food, they had 

their completed interactive graphic organizer to 

help them with solving the dilemma. Using the 

math thinking strategies she had taught them, 

the students arrived at a means to coming to a 

realistic solution. 

It is important that students see the 

applicability of literacy outside of the 

reading/language arts block. Approaches that 

encourage students to write using content 

vocabulary, and use notes in authentic ways are 

essential for laying a strong foundation of 

thinking in elementary school. 

References 

Moss, B. (2005). Making a case, and a place, 

for effective content area literacy 

instruction in the elementary grades. The 

Reading Teacher, 59, 46-55. 

Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (1983). Writing 

and reading in the elementary grades: 

Developmental trends among low-SES 

children. Language Arts, 60, 617-626. 

Zike, D. (2009). Foldables and VKVs for 

phonics, spelling, and vocabulary pre-K-3. 

San Antonio, TX: DynaMite.


.PREDICTORS OF FCAT PERFORMANCE OF ADOLESCENTS WHO 

STRUGGLE WITH READING 

Adriana L. Medina 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

AdrianaLMedina@uncc.edu 

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to identify reading factors that influence performance on the Florida 

Comprehensive Assessment Test (FCAT). Participants were 11th graders, mostly Hispanic (96%), who had failed the 

FCAT once or multiple times. Results indicate the FCAT correlates with the Woodcock Johnson III (WJIII) broad reading 

test, suggesting it is a valid measure of broad reading. Scores on the phonemic awareness, word attack, reading vocabulary, 

and passage comprehension subtests from the WJIII Tests of Achievement, as a set, can provide preliminary decision 

making data. The results suggest vocabulary is a strong predictor of FCAT performance. 

Most children learn to read easily; however, 

many experience difficulty in learning to read 

(Juel, 1988; Torgesen, 2004a,b, 2005). It is 

estimated that “8 million youngsters between 

fourth and twelfth grade struggle to read at 

grade level” (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004, p. 3). 

In an attempt to remedy the reading problem 

and raise standards for student learning, our 

nation has participated in many campaigns for 

change. Due to the requirements of the No 

Child Left Behind Act of 2001, there has been 

an increased focus on students‟ performance on 

measures of reading achievement. Current 

efforts focus on state accountability systems 

and high-stakes tests are used with U.S. 

students like never before (Kohn, 2000; Neill & 

Medina, 1989). 

In Florida, the Florida Comprehensive 

Assessment Test (FCAT), a comprehension test 

designed to measure reading achievement, is 

the high-stakes accountability test (Florida 

Department of Education [FLDOE], 2012). 

Florida is no stranger to high-stakes graduation 

tests or its influences (See Borg, Plumlee, & 

Stranahan, 2007). Florida was one of the first 

states to institute a minimum competency 

graduation test (Bond & King, 1995). Florida is 

still currently considered a “leader in the highstakes 

testing movement” (Myers & Curtiss, 

2003, p. 70). 

Since reading achievement is being used for 

high-stakes decision making, there is a need to 

examine how performance on well-established 

measures of reading associates with 

performance on high-stakes measures of 

reading. The National Reading Panel (National 

Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development [NICHHD], 2000) has identified 

five core areas critical to successfully teaching 

children to read - phonemic awareness, 

phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and 

comprehension. This study focused on the 

contributions these core areas make to reading 

achievement, as measured by the FCAT Grade 

10 Reading Test. 

Research Related to Predicting High Stakes 

Test Scores in Florida 

The FCAT is part of Florida‟s assessment 

program. In 1999, the FCAT replaced the High 

School Competency Test (HSCT), the previous 

graduation requirement which tested basic 

knowledge (Grech, 2002). In 2003, the FCAT 

became a gatekeeper to graduation. The 

criterion-referenced FCAT measures student 

success with the Sunshine State Standards 

(FLDOE, 2012). At present, Florida‟s K-12 

statewide assessment program is transitioning 

to the implementation of FCAT 2.0 and Endof-Course 

assessments to measure success on 

the Next Generation Sunshine State Standards 

(FLDOE, 2012). 

According to Torgesen (2005), there are 

two qualities about the FCAT that pose 

difficulties for many students. First, the FCAT 

places high demands on vocabulary. Second, it


places particular demands on reading fluency 

because the test requires students to read 

lengthy passages. Torgesen (2004b) examined 

the reading and language factors that most 

strongly related to individual variability in 

performance on the FCAT at grades 3, 7, and 

10, and what reading and language factors are 

most deficient in students who perform below 

grade level on the FCAT. The findings 

indicated that the FCAT is sensitive to 

differences among children in verbal 

knowledge and reasoning ability as they 

become older and it identifies students who are 

both more accurate and fluent readers and who 

have more knowledge and reasoning ability. 

Torgesen (2004a) has also identified six 

attributes responsible for adolescents‟ low 

FCAT performance. The first attribute is an 

inaccurate reading of passages due to lack of 

sight words or word attack strategies. The 

second attribute is slow, dysfluent reading that 

prolongs the time necessary to comprehend 

what is being read. A third attribute is limited 

vocabulary knowledge. Torgesen believes that 

struggling readers do not know the meanings 

for enough words that appear on the FCAT, nor 

are they able to access the layers of meaning 

for those words when they appear in different 

contexts. A fourth attribute is limited content 

knowledge essential to construct new 

knowledge when reading new passages. The 

inability to construct new knowledge comes 

from limited domain-specific knowledge. A 

fifth attribute is limited use of comprehension 

strategies to monitor and repair comprehension 

when it breaks down. A lack of this knowledge 

impedes comprehension. Last, is a limited 

ability to engage in higher order thinking. The 

FCAT, at each grade level, increases the 

percentage of higher order inferential/reasoning 

questions; at 10th grade, 70% of the questions 

require higher order thinking skills (Torgesen, 

2004a). 

In a technical report of the Florida Center 

for Reading Research (FCRR), Buck, 

Torgesen, and Schatschneider (n.d.) attempted 

to determine how useful students‟ prior 

performance on the FCAT was in helping to 

identify students who were likely to struggle on 

the subsequent year‟s FCAT. For Grades 3, 4, 

and 5, the researchers were able to develop a 

formula to determine the probability that a 

student would perform adequately on the 

FCAT Sunshine State Standards (FCAT-SSS) 

based on the previous years‟ scores. The 

findings indicated that the “previous year‟s 

FCAT performance or another reliable measure 

of reading comprehension is an excellent way 

to identify students who are likely to need 

special support if they are to break the pattern 

of inadequate performance on these tests” (p. 

14). In other words, the researchers propose 

that performance on the FCAT should correlate 

with other measures of reading comprehension. 

Thus, since reading achievement is used for 

high-stakes decision making, examination of 

the contributions of core areas of reading to 

FCAT performance is vital. 

Method 

The purpose of this study was to examine 

the contributions core areas of reading make to 

reading achievement as measured by the FCAT 

Grade 10 Reading Test. The research question 

was: What is the relationship between students‟ 

performance on broad reading tasks (as 

assessed by the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of 

Achievement) and the FCAT Grade 10 Reading 

Test 

Setting and Sample 

Miami-Dade County Public Schools (M- 

DCPS) is the fourth largest school district in 

the nation. It employs over 21,000 teachers and 

serves over 350,000 students in prekindergarten 

through 12th grade. Its student 

membership is 66% Hispanic, 24% Black Non- 

Hispanic, 8% White Non-Hispanic, 2% Other 

(i.e. Asian, Pacific Islander, American Indian, 

and Multiracial; MDCPS, 2012). The study was 

conducted at Clark Senior High School 

(pseudonym), a school serving 3,500 ninth 

through twelfth graders. Its student population 

is diverse - 67% Hispanic, 19% White, 12% 

Black, and 2% Asian. In addition, 27% of the


students qualified for Free/Reduced Lunch and 

11% were English language learners (ELLs). 

There were 779 students in the 11th grade 

class. Almost 52% of the 11th graders failed 

the 10th grade FCAT. Of those 402 students 

who failed the FCAT, 377 were listed to retake 

the FCAT. Of the 377 students, 330 took the 

reading portion of the FCAT, with 90 of them 

passing the test. Thus, there was a group of 240 

11th grade students remaining who had not 

passed the FCAT. This represented 31% of the 

11th grade class. The researcher invited the 240 

students to participate in this study. 

Participation was voluntary. Out of the 240 

students, 133 students (55% of the targeted 

sample) returned signed permission forms. Of 

the 133 students, 14 students withdrew from 

school, three students stopped attending school, 

59 refused to participate, and 57 agreed to 

participate, with 55 completing the study. Of 

the 55 students who completed the study, 23 

were males (42%) and 32 were females (58%). 

One student was African American, one was 

Asian, and the remaining 53 students were 

Hispanic (96%). 

Procedure and Instrumentation 

Four graduate students and the researcher 

established an inter-rater reliability of .90 in 

administering and scoring the tests. The 

researcher checked the test scoring before 

SPSS database entry. Each student was 

individually assessed during a 90-minute 

session in the high school‟s media center that 

began with an icebreaker and continued with 

the administration of the broad reading tests 

from the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of 

Achievement (WJ III ACH; Woodcock, 

McGrew, & Mather, 2001). The broad reading 

tests include letter-word identification, reading 

fluency, and passage comprehension from the 

standard battery and word attack and reading 

vocabulary from the extended battery. The WJ 

III ACH is an established test with data 

supporting its validity (Mather & Woodcock, 

2001). 

Mean scores for the criterion-referenced 

FCAT are reported on a scale of 100 to 500. 

Student FCAT Grade 10 Reading Test scores 

provided by the school district were used. 

Design and Data Analysis 

To address the research question, 

relationships were evaluated between 

performance on the broad reading tests from 

the WJ III ACH standard battery (i.e., letterword 

identification, reading fluency, and 

passage comprehension) as well as two tests 

from the extended battery (i.e., word attack and 

reading vocabulary) and FCAT scores. 

Following evidence in previous studies, 

descriptive as well as simple and multiple 

correlation analyses were documented and 

reported. 

Results 

Means and standard deviations for student 

performance are in Table 1. According to the 

WJ III, average scores range between 90 and 

110. The majority of the students in this sample 

scored well below this range. The subtests of 

the WJ III with scores that enter into 

calculation of the Broad Reading measure 

evidenced strong reliability in this sample. 

Reliability estimates calculated for the 

population of this study using Cronbach‟s alpha 

were .88 for letter-word identification, .96 for 

reading fluency, and .89 for passage 

comprehension. Correlations (see Table 2) 

between these core area predictor variables and 

FCAT performance were statistically 

significant and moderate (range .28 - .56) 

reflecting small effect sizes (r2) between .08 

and .31. The relationships among the predictor 

variables were generally higher (.40 - .96). 

A summary of the regression analysis is in 

Table 3. Residual plots were examined, and it 

was determined that linearity and 

homoscedasticity assumptions were not 

violated. The multiple regression omnibus test 

with all predictors included was statistically 

significant, F(4,50) = 6.180, R2 = .33, p < .001. 

The coefficient of determination, R2, can be 

interpreted to mean that the variables, as a set, 

accounted for 33 percent of the variance in the 

scores of the FCAT Grade 10 Reading Test


[FCAT Reading Score = 130.80 + 2.08 

(reading vocabulary) + -.63 (phonemic 

awareness) + .27 (word attack) + .08 (passage 

comprehension)]. A second stepwise regression 

[FCAT = 120.67 + 1.89 (reading vocabulary)] 

indicated that reading vocabulary accounted for 

31 percent of variance in FCAT scores and that 

the additional variance accounted for by adding 

phonemic awareness, word attack, and passage 

comprehension scores to the model was judged 

trivial (i.e., accounting for less than 5% of 

additional variance). Although phonemic 

awareness had a positive and statistically 

significant correlation with the FCAT, its beta 

was negative in the regression equation. This 

was most likely due to multicollinearity or high 

relationship between some predictor variables 

in the equation. In an attempt to reduce 

multicollinearity and thereby obtain a more 

clearly interpretable analysis, several 

additional regression analyses were 

performed, each systematically 

removing one of the predictor variables. 

Each time a variable was removed, the 

resulting equation included a negative 

beta value for another independent 

variable. In summary, reading 

vocabulary was the only independent 

variable that contributed unique 

variance to prediction of the dependent 

variable. This can be interpreted to 

mean that all things being equal, unit 

increases in reading vocabulary are 

associated with FCAT increases of 

about 2 points. Put another way, reading 

vocabulary score was a significant and 

best predictor of FCAT performance for 

students participating in this study. 

Discussion 

The significant association between 

the scores on the FCAT Grade 10 

Reading Test and the broad reading 

measure on the WJ III reveals a small 

amount of shared variance (23%) 

between scores obtained with these 

instruments. This finding is surprising 

given that both are purported to be 

general measures of reading ability. A possible 

reason for the unaccounted for variance is that 

the sample data are characterized by restriction 

of range, in that students‟ scores were all at the 

low end of the range of possible scores on the 

test. Also, the content and test structure of these 

measures may be different; therefore, 

potentially measuring different constructs. 

Another result of this study is that as a set, 

phonemic awareness, word attack, reading 

vocabulary, and passage comprehension 

explain approximately 33% of the variation in 

FCAT scores. Interestingly, the observed 

variance accounted for by these variables as a 

set, exceeded the variance accounted for by 

broad reading. In addition, they explained more 

of the variability in the FCAT scores than did 

any of the other variables individually; 

however, a large amount of variability


remained unexplained. It may be concluded 

that for adolescents it may not be possible to 

separate the core systems of reading that 

contribute to comprehension; on the other hand, 

the majority of the variance is still unaccounted 

for. Another result of this study is that reading 

vocabulary uniquely captures 10.3% of the 

variability in the FCAT scores. This finding is 

consistent with other research indicating that 

there is a strong relationship between 

vocabulary and comprehension (Anderson & 

Freebody, 1981; Baumann, 2005, Davis, 1983; 

Nagy, 1988). Thus, it can be predicted that 11th 

graders who have poor performance on the 

reading vocabulary subtest of the WJ III ACH 

may also perform poorly on the FCAT Grade 

10 Reading Test. 

Limitations 

Other factors that affect test performance 

(i.e. test-wiseness, passage dependency, genre, 

and length, task demands, test anxiety, written 

responses) were beyond the scope of this study. 

Implications and Recommendations 

for Improvement of Practice 

An important finding of this study suggests 

that reading vocabulary is a strong predictor of 

performance on the FCAT. The results of this 

study concur with the plethora of research that 

supports providing students with rich 

experiences and teaching general vocabulary 

and content area vocabulary in order to 

improve reading comprehension. Thus, an 

emphasis on reading vocabulary instruction 

provided within the context of meaningful


reading tasks that require the enactment of all 

the core reading systems for reading 

comprehension to occur is recommended. 

At the secondary school level, the global 

reading score provided by the FCAT on its own 

may identify students who need support in 

reading, and the cluster scores may identify the 

general areas in which a student needs 

assistance, but more sensitive diagnostic 

measures are needed to pinpoint the contents of 

the core systems of reading in most need of 

remediation. It is imperative to identify 

students who struggle with reading before they 

fail the FCAT. The inclusion of diagnostic tests 

of vocabulary would be beneficial upon 

entrance into high school. 

Additionally, consistent and purposeful 

interventions are necessary. For adolescents 

who struggle with reading, comprehensive and 

balanced reading programs that devote 

attention to all the core areas of reading are 

necessary. There are high school appropriate, 

research-based interventions (e.g., Language! 

Project, Fell-Greene, 1998) and research-based 

strategies, for example, Peer-Assisted Learning 

Strategies (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Kazdan, 1999), 

Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klingner, 

Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001), 

Questioning the Author (McKeown, Beck, & 

Worthy, 1993), and Reciprocal Teaching 

(Palinscar & Brown, 1984) that focus on the 

core skill areas as a student enacts reading. 

Lastly, instructional materials need to be 

age-appropriate for the student‟s independent 

reading and vocabulary level and instruction 

needs to be differentiated to meet each 

student‟s reading needs. As Buly and 

Valencia‟s (2002) study found, students in the 

same classroom may look similar in terms of 

test performance, but their strengths and 

weaknesses may differ because each has 

progressed through distinct patterns of learning 

to read. Instruction must be re-arranged so that 

one core area receives attention as the student 

engages in meaningful reading tasks that 

require the coordination of all areas of reading. 

Implications and Recommendations 

for Research 

The results of this study do not provide 

support for the idea that posited constituent 

components of skilled reading - phonemic 

awareness, phonics, reading vocabulary, 

fluency, and passage comprehension – make 

unique and separable contributions to overall 

reading achievement of adolescents who are 

poor readers. Additional research is warranted. 

Also, more research is needed to identify tests 

that correlate with and predict FCAT 

performance especially with the introduction of 

the FCAT 2.0 and the Next Generation 

Sunshine State Standards. Other feasible 

measures are needed to identify students‟ 

strengths and weaknesses before they fail (cf. 

Stanley & Stanley, 2011). Successful 

interventions could lead to improved 

achievement and proficiency in reading and to 

fewer students failing the FCAT and an 

increase in graduation rates. Moreover, the 

context of high-stakes testing cannot be 

ignored. Future research needs to aggressively 

address the issue of adolescents‟ reading 

proficiencies and statewide tests. The stakes are 

high at the secondary level; remediation is of 

an essence and time is limited. For the students 

in this study, “time was up,” but for their peers, 

good news: improvement in vocabulary relates 

strongly to improvement on high-stakes tests of 

reading. 

References 

Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). 

Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie 

(Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: 

Research reviews (pp. 77-117). Newark, 

DE: International Reading Association. 

Baumann, J. F. (2005). Vocabularycomprehension 

relationships. In B. Maloch, 

J. V. Hoffman, D. L. Schallert, C. M. 

Fairbanks, & J. Worthy (Eds.), Fifty-fourth 

yearbook of the National Reading 

Conference (pp.117-131). Oak Creek, WI: 

National Reading Conference.


Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading 

next - A vision for action and research in 

middle and high school literacy: A report to 

Carnegie Corporation of New York. 

Washington, D. C.: Alliance for Excellent 

Education. 

Borg, M. O‟M., Plumlee, J. P., & Stranahan, H. 

A. (2007). Plenty of children left behind: 

High-stakes testing and graduation rates in 

Duval County, Florida. Educational Policy, 

21(5), 695-716. 

Buck, J., Torgesen, J., & Schatschneider, C. (n. 

d.). Predicting FCAT-SSS Scores using 

prior performance on the FCAT-SSS, 

FCAT-NRT, and SAT9 (FCRR Technical 

Report #4). Tallahassee, Florida: Florida 

Center for Reading Research. Retrieved 

from http://www.fcrr.org. 

Buly, M. R., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below 

the bar: Profiles of students who fail state 

reading assessments. Educational 

Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219- 

239. 

Davis, F. B. (1983). Fundamental factors of 

comprehension in reading. In L. M. Gentile, 

Kamil, M. L., Blanchard, J. S. (Ed.), 

Reading research revisited (pp. 235-245). 

Ohio: Charles E. Merrill Publishing 

Company. 

Fell-Greene, J. (1998). Another chance: Help 

for older students with limited literacy. 

American Educator (Spring/Summer), 74- 

79. 

Florida Department of Education, Bureau of K- 

12 Assessment. (2012). Florida‟s K-12 

Statewide Assessment Program homepage. 

Retrieved from www.fcat.fldoe.org. 

Education Information and Accountability 

Services. (2012). Data Publications and 

Reports: Students. Retrieved from 

http://www.fldoe.org/eias/eiaspubs/pubstud 

ent.asp. 

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Kazdan, S. (1999). 

Effects of peer-assisted learning strategies 

on high school students with serious 

learning problems. Remedial & Special 

Education, 20(5), 309-319 

Grech, D. A. (2002, May 23). FCAT failure 

rate is „scary‟. The Miami Herald, p. 1B. 

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A 

longitudinal study of 54 children from first 

through fourth grades. Journal of 

Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. 

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against 

standardized testing: Raising the scores, 

ruining the schools. Portsmouth, New 

Hampshire: Heinemann. 

Klingner, J. K., Vaugh, S., Dimino, J. Schumm, 

J. S., & Bryant, D. (2001). From clunk to 

click: Collaborative Strategic Reading. 

Longmont, CO: Sopris West. 

Miami-Dade Public Schools. (2012). 

Assessment, Research, and Data Analysis. 

Membership. Retrieved 

http://oada.dadeschools.net/StudentMember 

ship/membership.asp. 

Mather, N., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). 

Examiner’s Manual. Woodcock-Johnson III 

Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside 

Publishing. 

McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L, & Worthy, J. 

(1993). Grappling with text ideas: 

Questioning the author. Reading Teacher, 

46, 560-566. 

Myers, M. A., & Curtiss, D. (2003). Failing the 

equity test. Principal Leadership, 4(2), 70- 

73. 

Nagy, W. E. (1988). Teaching vocabulary to 

improve reading comprehension. Newark, 

DE: International Reading Association. 

National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development (NICHHD). (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. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 

Neill, D. M., & Medina, N. (1989). 

Standardized testing: Harmful to 

educational health. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 

688-702. 

Stanley, N., & Stanley, L. (2011). Predicting 

FCAT reading scores using the reading-


level indicator. Reading Psychology, 32(2), 

99-112. 

Torgesen, J. K. (2004a, January). Leaving no 

Adolescent Behind in Florida: Our 

Challenges and Opportunities. Presented at 

professional development update meetings 

of the Strategies Intervention Model (SIM), 

St. Augustine, FL. Retrieved from 

http://www.fcrr.org. 

Torgesen, J. K. (2004b, May). Adolescent 

literacy, reading comprehension, and the 

FCAT. Invited presentation to the Council 

of Language Arts Supervisors, Naples. 

Retrieved from 

http://www.fcrr.org/science/pptpresentation 

s.htm. 

Torgesen, J.K., (2005, October). The challenge 

of teaching all students to read proficiently: 

Lessons from the science of reading. 

Presented at the Reading First Academy for 

Speech/Language Pathologists. Retrieved 

from 

http://www.fcrr.org/science/pptpresentation 

s.htm. 

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, 

N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of 

Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside 

Publishing. 

About the author: 

Adriana L. Medina was born and raised in 

Miami, Florida, is a “product” of Dade County 

Public Schools, and received her PhD from 

University of Miami. While in Florida, she 

served on the board of the Dade Reading 

Council and Florida Reading Association. 

Presently, she is an assistant professor at The 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She 

teaches courses in content area literacy, 

reading assessment and intervention, and 

teaching reading to English language learners. 

Dr. Medina’s research interests include 

adolescents who struggle with literacy, teacher 

education, and educational program 

evaluation. She can be reached at 

AdrianaLMedina@uncc.edu


Florida Reading Association’s Fall Conference 

Please join us as we gather to celebrate our 50th conference. As you spend time with 

reading professionals and children’s book authors, you will enhance your professional 

development through engaging, thought - provoking and stimulating sessions. The 

keynote and featured speakers include a dedicated group of researchers and 

educators sure to inspire you. A special fun-filled evening is planned for our 

President’s Reception and 50th Conference Celebration. We look forward to seeing 

you as we celebrate “50 Years of Literacy Gold”. 

Conference registration opportunities will be available shortly. 

FRA 50th Conference 

Rosen Shingle Creek Resort 

October 18-21, 2012


APPLYING CONCEPTS OF ADULT LEARNING TO PROFESSIONAL 

DEVELOPMENT AND COACHING MODELS 

Ruth L. Rohlwing 

Saint Xavier University 

rohlwing@sxu.edu 

Carol A. Leli 

Concordia University in Chicago 

carolleli@yahoo.com 

Abstract: The International Reading Association Standards (2010) propose that reading specialists have 

foundational knowledge of adult learning theory along with research about professional development. To 

help literacy coaches better understand the challenges of working with teachers, an awareness of how 

adults grow and change, the importance of providing differentiation through high support and challenge for 

each individual is critical. Using the constructive-developmental view of adult growth and development, 

the authors explore the contexts or “holding environments” that support growth, challenge, and 

transformation and also consider direct applications to coaches‟ differing roles that can range from one-onone 

sessions to on-going professional development for faculty. 

As literacy coaches, the challenge of 

helping teachers often becomes overwhelming 

as new initiatives such as No Child Left Behind 

(2001) and, more recently, the Common Core 

State Standards (CCSS) (2011) are interpreted 

and implemented. Over the course of the many 

changes, teachers frequently become 

disgruntled as they struggle with unpacking 

new initiatives, but nevertheless they remain 

committed to helping all students attain high 

literacy levels. The Common Core State 

Standards demand text rigor and high levels of 

critical thinking across all curricular areas. 

How will coaches meet the rigor of CCSS 

while scaffolding teachers‟ learning so that all 

students learn at levels demanded for success in 

the 21st century While Knowles (1980) 

pioneered the field of adult learning several 

decades ago, the International Reading 

Association Standards (2010) only recently 

proposed that reading specialists have 

foundational knowledge of adult learning 

theory along with research about professional 

development (Standard 6.1). As literacy 

coaches design and implement professional 

learning experiences for teachers, the demands 

of working with these adult learners with 

varying learning styles, beliefs, and 

orientations, result in a need for differing 

support levels to sustain and promote 

development in each individual. Learners 

operate in their unique contexts and 

environments, but all need support and 

challenge in order to grow and flourish. The 

work and support that literacy coaches provide 

must be examined from this developmental 

theory perspective. Just as young children 

develop at their own rates, so also is the 

development of teachers who continue to grow 

throughout life. 

Coaches’ Work in 

Professional Development Settings 

Literacy coaches‟ work is job embedded 

and commonly delivered through one-on-one 

consulting, classroom demonstrations, and 

professional development sessions. The 

dimensions of high quality professional 

development research (Hawley & Valli, 1999; 

National Staff Development Council, 2001; 

Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005) focuses on four 

principles: (a) learning outcomes for students,


(b) teachers‟ learning that is embedded in 

practice, (c) sustainability over time, and (d) 

time for teachers to work together on relevant 

issues. Moving away from traditional models of 

professional development that focused on 

short-term workshops, learning through 

professional development is now viewed as a 

collaborative act between the practices of 

teachers in individual classrooms and the 

broader context of the school (Dillon, O‟Brien, 

Sato, & Kelly, 2011). Recently, The Standards 

for Professional Learning (2011) reflect the 

shift from traditional delivery models and 

emphasize the need for educators to take active 

roles in their professional learning and 

development. Learning Forward, formerly The 

National Staff Development Council, in their 

recent revision of professional development 

standards stresses the prerequisite skills that 

educators bring to learning. Two prerequisites 

that particularly highlight the importance of 

previous experience and are directly applicable 

to the work of literacy coaches recognize that 

“[b]ecause there are disparate experiences and 

levels and use of practice among educators, 

professional learning can foster collaborative 

inquiry and learning that enhances individual 

and collective performance” and “[l]ike all 

learners, educators learn in different ways and 

at different rates” (Learning Forward, 2011). 

Thus, an examination of adult learning theory 

and development is the focus of this writing 

along with direct applications to professional 

development sessions. 

Understanding Adult Learners 

Learning is developmental for people of all 

ages. In their daily routines, K-12 teachers 

concentrate on pedagogy, or the study of 

children learning. Some assume that learning is 

the same for all, that what works for one 

developmental level will be effective for 

learners of all ages. Andragogy, the study of 

adult teaching and learning (Knowles, 1980), 

focuses on how adult learners seek new 

information. For some, new information is 

often realized through additional course work 

and professional development at their school 

where learning is often enhanced and modified 

through expanding funds of knowledge or 

informational learning (Kegan, 2000). Adults 

seek informational learning centering on 

increasing knowledge and skills – emphasizing 

what a person knows. In contrast, 

transformational learning changes how a person 

knows – the very way that an individual makes 

sense of experience or the core of assumptions 

and beliefs that a person holds (Kegan, 1994, 

2000). Not all individuals begin at the same 

place, but coaches must recognize this and 

know learners so that learning can be 

differentiated with regards to what adult 

learners know and how they know it. 

As educators of adult learners, literacy 

coaches search for effective instructional 

applications to optimize professional 

development time and differentiate one-on-one 

coaching instruction. This assumption requires 

consideration that individuals are unique in the 

ways of knowing and understanding 

experiences. Kegan (1994) proposes that a 

person‟s way of knowing “dictates how 

learning experiences will be taken in, managed, 

handled, used, and understood” (Drago- 

Severson, 2004, p. 24). In Kegan‟s 

constructive-developmental theory, individuals 

use five ways of knowing or meaning-making 

systems to make sense of reality. Some are 

found in childhood, but three systems are 

common in adulthood and include the 

instrumental, socializing, and self-authoring 

ways of knowing. The “instrumental” person 

understands the world in concrete terms and 

cannot fully take in another‟s perspective while 

being bound by the rules and right way of 

doing things. The “socializing” way of 

knowing person makes meaning through 

socializing, generalizing, and reflecting on her 

own and others actions: cooperation and 

consensus are important. Finally, the “selfauthoring” 

individual is governed by her own 

internal authority and manages relationships 

through embedded assertions, theories, ideals, 

and principles: many voices must be heard in 

the quest for reasonable compromise (Drago- 

Severson, 2004). Thus, each brings a unique


perspective to problem solving, and coaches 

must recognize the individual meaning systems 

that adults use as they navigate through various 

learning situations. Drago-Severson (2011) 

reminds us that 

we need a variety of pedagogical 

practices in any professional learning in 

order to adequately support and 

challenge adult learners who have 

different ways of understanding their 

experiences. What feels like a good fit 

pedagogically for one learner might feel 

overly challenging for another, so paying 

careful attention to differentiating the 

structures we create and the expectations 

we convey in designing learning can 

make a big difference for educators and 

for our schools. (p.11) 

An increase in informational learning can 

bring about changes in adults‟ attitudes, skills, 

and competencies (Drago-Severson, 2009), and 

all are needed and have a critical purpose in 

their ways learning as knowledge bases expand. 

Expanded knowledge is often insufficient as 

teachers face the many challenges and 

complexities of working in the 21st century 

classrooms with the demands of digital literacy 

and critical thinking, for example. Managing 

these complexities requires a different kind of 

learning that transforms an individual‟s 

perspective. This learning is transformational 

learning - changing how a person knows. 

Individuals who have changed through 

transformational learning are able to take a 

broader perspective of themselves and others 

around them. This change is what Kegan 

(1994) calls constructive-developmental view 

of adult growth and development. 

Adults Learning in “Holding Environments” 

The constructive-developmental view 

evolves in an environment. Kegan (1994) 

describes these environments and contexts as 

“holding environments” - the contexts in which 

individuals grow, challenge, and transform new 

ways of understanding and knowing. The 

holding environment is organic and changes 

with the individual. The environment is not 

stagnant, rather it serves three functions as 

learners progress: the environment must “hold 

well,” “let go,” and “stick around” (Drago- 

Severson, 2004, p. 34). The concept of the 

holding environment provides the 

organizational framework for this article; the 

authors provide practical applications to 

strengthen adults‟ ways of knowing and 

developing and to sustain the community of 

learners. 

“Holding Well” Environments. Holding 

well is accomplished by “meeting people where 

they are and by honoring how they are making 

sense of their experiences” (Drago-Severson, 

2004, p. 34). The adult learning professional 

development setting functions as a holding 

environment in which adult learners operate. 

As literacy coaches begin working with 

individuals, they must find the personal levels 

of knowledge that each brings to the school 

setting. Coaches provide an environment that 

holds well by supporting and responding to 

individual differences since adults vary in the 

amount of time and support needed. In 

particular, the individual whose way of 

knowing is “instrumental,” can flourish in the 

“holding well” environment that recognizes 

current levels of understanding; through 

instructional activities that often are an integral 

component of professional development 

sessions, personal development is fostered as 

the individual begins to consider others‟ views. 

Intentionally using instructional activities 

that uncover and confront beliefs in the 

supportive holding environment scaffolds 

learners from where they are to their next levels 

of understanding. Adult learners bring a 

plethora of lived experiences that shape current 

beliefs and understandings (Knowles, 1980). 

Changing beliefs in adults is rare unless there is 

a conversion from one authority to another. In 

fact, individuals tend to hold on to beliefs based 

on incorrect or incomplete knowledge even 

when correct explanations are provided


(Pajares, 1992). Coaches meet adult learners 

where they are in their personal belief systems. 

Professional learning strategies for 

“Holding Well” environments. Professional 

learning activities at this level provide adult 

learners with individual reflective time to 

access current thinking followed by a sharing 

time when they publicly acknowledge what 

they know; public sharing is an integral part of 

the process and occurs in pairs, small or large 

groups. Mezirow (2000) contends that unless 

learning is transformed through expanded 

awareness, critical reflection, validating 

discourse, and finally, reflective action, 

individuals remain focused on accessing more 

information. 

An instructional strategy that intentionally 

fosters Mezirow‟s elements of transformational 

learning is the visual literacy poster (VLP) that 

activates learners‟ schema and connects 

existing beliefs to current andragogy. This 

strategy traces individuals‟ literacy memories 

(e.g., memories of learning to read, current 

reading habits, or life experiences with books). 

Using a visual literacy poster as an in-session 

strategy necessitates that all use a visual format 

often with chart paper and markers and with 

only a 15-20 minutes work period. This takes 

minimal seat time but stimulates adult learners 

to search memories for previous 

understandings, to uncover hidden beliefs, and 

to reflectively consider views of others in class 

as teachers individually present their VLP to 

the whole group. An example of VLP would be 

when teachers have voluntarily shared an early 

literacy memory that had been stagnant or longforgotten. 

For example, one teacher, Mauricio, 

commented that when he was growing up in 

Mexico he did not remember being read to by 

anyone. Another teacher, Anna, noted that she 

was unable to relate to the Dick and Jane books 

of American readers because of her cultural 

differences and Albanian background. Thus, 

the VLP provided the venue for activating 

schema to promote and expand their personal 

knowledge base as well as exposure and 

validation of others‟ diverse experiences. 

The public sharing of work builds on 

Mezirow‟s (2000) validating discourse as adult 

learners talk through conceptions, 

misconceptions, or beliefs. Many who work 

with adult learners fail to include the critical 

step of validating discourse in the 

developmental learning process and often make 

comments such as “Oh, you‟re adults. You 

know how to do this or you know what I 

mean.” Vella (2002) in outlining principles of 

adult learning proposes that “adult learning is 

best achieved in dialogue among adults who 

have enough expertise and experience to work 

productively with other adults” (p. 3). 

Accordingly, learning is a social activity and 

discourse provides an essential step in 

processing and internalizing 

Many instructional strategies that educators 

use with K-12 learners can also be applied in 

adult learning settings, but coaches often do not 

realize their importance to the learning process. 

For example, another approach that is 

commonly used and supports a learning 

environment that holds well is an Exit Slip - 

short, end-of-session reflective writings that 

honor learners where they are in their current 

thinking. Exit slips are often handwritten on 

half sheets of paper and require anywhere from 

3-10 minutes to complete, depending on the 

number of reflective entries required. For 

example, the exit slip 3-2-1 asks learners to list 

3 things they‟ve learned, 2 questions they have, 

and 1 “a ha.” Although the three areas can be 

restructured or rotated, the format provides the 

coach with insight into the current group status 

while at the same time honoring where each 

individual is and thus the environment “holds 

well.” 

Teachers’ behaviors and reactions in 

“Holding Well”. At this developmental level, 

the literacy coach may observe learners‟ 

disengagement and disequilibrium as old ways 

of knowing are challenged by raised levels of 

discomfort as they dig deeper and reconfigure 

their learning. Observable behaviors may 

include elevated levels of awareness or anxiety 

because learners are out of their comfort zone


and now must think out of the box. They are 

challenged in this holding environment to begin 

sharing experiences and reminisce about 

previous learning while at the same time 

expanding thinking to appreciate others‟ point 

of view. 

“Letting Go” Environments. As coaches 

continue to support adult learners, the 

classrooms‟ holding environment provides the 

venue in which all can begin to “let go.” Kegan 

(1994) describes this second function of the 

holding environment as a place that can “let go 

by challenging learners and permitting them to 

grow beyond their current meaning system to a 

new way of learning” (p. 34). For example, 

literacy coaches scaffold teachers‟ new literacy 

understandings of vocabulary, fluency, or 

assessment. In this model, teachers are “let go” 

but support remains when the challenge 

becomes too much. Teachers are given freedom 

to confront and experiment with new ideas 

while the holding environment maintains the 

safe haven. 


environments that “Let Go”. Instructional 

strategies at this level provide time for learners 

to expand their ways of knowing with strategies 

that focus on small group interactions to enable 

learners to move beyond themselves rather than 

individual reflective activities of “holding on.” 

Learners bring their own decision-making 

skills, negotiate and respond to conflict in 

different ways, and work in groups in their 

distinctive meaning-making orientations 

(Drago-Severson, 2009). An instructional 

strategy that demonstrates teamwork and 

interdependence is the carousel which offers 

learners a venue for information sharing and 

reflecting. A carousel is often done by 

mounting large sheets of paper on the wall with 

different statements or categories; in pairs or 

small groups, learners rotate around the room 

discussing, posting comments, debating, or 

merely adding information. In the ensuing 

discussion the different ways that an individual


knows and understands emerges as the 

organizational framework for responding. 

“Save the Last Word for Me” (Short, 

Harste, & Burke, 1996) is an instructional 

strategy that empowers learners to build their 

thinking and response in the “letting go” 

holding environment. After locating several 

important quotations from readings, an 

individual reads one selected quote to the small 

group and then waits silently as each responds. 

In the end she makes the final response and 

reaction – thus allowing her to have the last 

word. As a small group instructional strategy, 

the learner is encouraged to develop 

independent thinking and then respond to the 

thinking of others; through reflective response 

and dialogue learners have a holding 

environment that allows them to let go. 


“Letting Go” environments. At this 

developmental level, coaches may observe 

expanded knowledge funds resulting in higher 

confidence levels as learners negotiate and 

respond to peers through new lenses of 

understanding. At the same time a dichotomy 

of extremes may be present as learners 

fluctuate between confidence and uncertainty in 

their attempts to navigate and assimilate their 

new way of knowing. 

“Sticking Around” Environments. Kegan 

(1994) describes the final function of the 

holding environment as a place that “sticks 

around” and provides continuity and a context 

of stability. Some adult learners strive for 

independence as new understandings emerge 

and old ways of knowing are transformed. At 

the same time other individuals require support 

and feedback as they test new practices. Thus, 

the literacy coach remains available to foster 

growth through the support in the professional 

learning community. 


environments that “Stick Around”. The 

“sticking around” environment and strategies 

are dependent on the individuals‟ ways of 

knowing since all arrive with varied 

background knowledge and experience as was 

demonstrated through “holding well” and 

“letting go” strategies. Throughout professional 

learning, adults with diverse ways of knowing 

react in different ways to problem solving and 

instructional strategies that might include 

decision-making skills, communication, 

interpersonal skills and negotiation (Drago- 

Severson, 2004). Individuals have their own 

starting points and progress at differing rates 

through the complex process of refining their 

meaning-making system – their way of 

knowing. 

Literacy coaches provide support that 

“sticks around” since their work is jobembedded 

and directly related to the daily lives 

of teachers and students. Literacy coaches are 

committed to promoting learning along with 

sticking around as needed, but their ultimate 

goal is to provide venues that empower 

teachers to continue to take in new 

understandings and transform thinking. 

Traditional teacher-discussion formats such as 

hallways, lunch rooms, and teachers‟ lounges 

offer settings to continue conversations. At the 

same though, emerging technologies provide a 

distinctive format for the “sticking around” 

holding environment. However, new socialnetworking 

formats such as “Grouping Up” 

through web-based applications allow learners 

to continue to chat, discuss, debate, and reflect. 

Technology offers the continuity, stability and 

supportive environment that learners often 

require in the stick around phase. Online 

communities made up of discussion groups, 

chat rooms, Wikis, You Tube videos, and 

podcasts, to name a few, are examples of how 

learners can appreciate continued support. 

Discussion groups designed to extend 

classroom discourse in an asynchronous 

manner can extend classroom discussions or 

offer new concepts for discourse. The chat 

rooms in their synchronous mode can also keep 

learners updated and connected to professional 

learning. These communities offer the social 

interaction, engagement, accountability, and 

opportunity for debate and critical reflection.



“Sticking Around” environments. At this 

developmental level, the coach can serve as a 

mentor or in some cases, a colleague, as 

teachers are ready to move beyond and take 

attitudes and beliefs outside of the professional 

development session. New understandings may 

serve as a springboard for new actions in the 

school at large. Unrest may still be prevalent in 

some, but this restlessness may be the result of 

excitement as learners are energized for action 

and change in their long established ways of 

thinking. 

The instructional strategies included in 

Table 1 can be useful to connect professional 

development learning activities to the holding 

environments. The list is not exhaustive but 

may serve as a catalyst for recalling other 

effective instructional strategies that promote 

learning in various “holding environments.” 

Implications 

The three functions of a holding 

environment recognize individual differences 

and provide an effective framework for 

supporting teachers in their professional 

learning. Drago-Severson (2004; 2009) 

acknowledges the developmental diversity that 

each teacher brings to the school environment 

but advocates for a supportive community that 

helps individuals manage change. An 

understanding of teachers‟ learning in schools‟ 

holding environments promotes the 

professional development and learning that is 

outlined in the Standards for Professional 

Learning (Learning Forward, 2011). People 

grow best in learning communities that provide 

support and challenge. Kegan (1994) cautions, 

however, that “environments that are weighted 

too heavily in the direction of challenge 

without adequate support are toxic; they 

promote defensiveness and constriction. Those 

weighted too heavily toward support without 

adequate challenge are ultimately boring; they 

promote devitalization” (p. 42). The challenge 

is to create that environment that is neither 

toxic because challenge has left teachers 

floundering on their own or devitalized because 

learning is boring and vitality is abandoned. As 

coaches gradually release individuals to 

challenge, experiment, and explore, the model 

of gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & 

Gallagher, 1983) that forms the developmental 

understanding for young learners, can also form 

the developmental framework for adult 

learning. The holding environment gradually 

releases responsibilities out to adults when 

independent, transformative learning is 

realized. 

The Literacy Coach in the Community of 

Learners 

Literacy coaches must provide instructional 

strategies that support the holding environment 

and meaning making system or way of 

knowing that each brings to the adult learning 

classroom. Activities are tied to the different 

developmental levels and holding environments 

in which learners grow. The approaches 

challenge adult learners to move away from 

merely acquiring more information and 

empower them to take on a new way of 

knowing - to “transformational education, a 

„leading out‟ from an established habit of 

mind” (Kegan, 1994, p. 232). Kegan reminds 

us that the mind is always in motion. He 

questions us, “How might we understand 

transformational learning differently - and our 

opportunities as educators- were we better to 

understand the restless, creative processes of 

development itself, in which all our students 

partake before, during, and after their 

participation in our classrooms” (Kegan, 2000, 

p. 69). As the leaders in these learning 

communities, the challenge is to create restless, 

creative opportunities for transformation even 

after teachers leave existing support sessions. 

References 

Dillon, D., O‟Brien, D., Sato, M., & Kelly, C. 

(2011). Professional development and 

teacher education for reading instruction. In 

M. Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. Moje, & P. 

Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading


research (4th ed., pp. 629-660). New York: 

Routledge. 

Drago-Severson, E. (2004). Helping teachers 

learn: Principal leadership for adult 

growth and development. Thousand Oaks, 

CA: Corwin Press. 

Drago-Severson, E. (2011). How adults learn 

forms the foundation of learning designs 

standard. Journal of Staff Development, 32(5), 

10-12. 

Drago-Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult 

learning: Supporting adult development in 

our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin 

Press. 

Hawley, W., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials 

of effective professional development: A 

new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & 

G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning 

profession: Handbook of policy and 

practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco, CA: 

Jossey-Bass. 

International Reading Association. (2010). 

Standards for reading professionals - 

revised 2010. Newark, DE: International 

Reading Association. 

Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The 

mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, 

MA: Harvard University Press. 

Kegan, R. (2000). What „form‟ transforms A 

constructive-developmental approach to 

transformative learning. In J. Mezirow & 

Associates, Learning as transformation: 

Critical perspectives on a theory in 

progress (pp. 35-69). San Francisco: 

Jossey-Bass. 

Knowles, M. (1980). The modern practice of 

adult education: From pedagogy to 

andragogy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice 

Hall/Cambridge. 

Learning Forward (2011). Retrieved from 

http://www.learningforward.org/standards/i 

ndex.cfm 

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an 

adult: Core concepts of transformation 

theory. In J. Mezirow and Associates, 

Learning as transformation: Critical 

perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3- 

33). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 

National Governors Association & Council of 

Chief State School Officers. (2010, June). 

Common core state standards for English 

language arts & literacy in history/social 

studies, science, and technical subjects. 

Retrieved from www.corestandards.org 

Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers‟ beliefs and 

educational research: Cleaning up a messy 

construct. Review of Educational Research, 

62(3), 307-332. 

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The 

instruction of reading comprehension. 

Technical Report No. 297. (ERIC document 

Reproduction Service No. ED 236 565) 

Short, K., Harte, J., & Burke, C. (1996). 

Creating classrooms for authors and 

inquirers (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: 

Heinemann. 

Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. (2005). 

Knowledge to support the teaching of 

reading. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Vella, J. (2002). Learning to listen, learning to 

teach: The power of dialogue in educating 

adults (Rev. ed.). San Francisco: Jossey- 

Bass. 

About the Authors: 

Ruth Rohlwing is an assistant professor in the 

School of Education at Saint Xavier University 

in Chicago, Illinois. Carol Leli is retired from 

Concordia University in Chicago, Illinois 

where she was an associate professor in the 

College of Graduate and Innovative Programs.

The Florida Reading Journal -- Vol. 48, No.32, Summer 2012 25


A STUDY OF REPEATED READINGS ON FLUENCY AMONG THIRD GRADE 

STUDENTS 

Halie Paglio 

University of South Florida St. Petersburg 

Alejandro E. Brice 

aebrice@usfsp.edu 


AnnMarie Gunn 


Abstract: This single classroom case study examines the effects of repeated readings during literacy 

instruction on reading fluency rate and accuracy. Participants included 20 third grade (n=20) students of 

varying reading abilities. Twenty percent were identified as English learners (ELs). This study attempts to 

reveal if the instructional strategy of repeated readings promotes and enhances reading fluency 

competencies. The students engaged in repeated reading interventions included: independent silent 

reading, reading aloud, and partner reading. Students read one passage per week over three weeks, each 

passage was read approximately ten times per week with the repeated reading interventions. The data 

indicated that all students made gains in WCPM (words read correctly per minute) scores for all passages, 

regardless of reading or language abilities. Qualitative observations and anecdotal records indicated that 

students benefited from goal setting and corrective feedback. A paired t-test, used to compare passage one 

and passage three WCPM scores, was not statistically significant. Data revealed that not all students 

reached the criterion rate or transferred skills to each new passage; however, all students made reading 

fluency rate and accuracy gains. The results confirm that repeated readings may identify children who need 

intensive interventions in the areas of fluency and comprehension. 

Introduction 

Components of Reading 

Research indicates that there are many 

significant strategies and best practices of 

exemplary literacy teaching that enhances the 

learning process for learners of varying abilities 

(Abadiano & Turner, 2003; Block & Mangieri, 

2003; Gambrell, Morrow, Neuman, Pressley, & 

Mazzoni, 1999; Pardo, 2004). The central 

element of literacy instruction for all learners 

should be to make language rich, 

comprehensible, and meaningful (Bauer & 

Manyak, 2008). Therefore, educators must 

understand and implement strategies and best 

practices to promote success for all learners. 

In conjunction with the National Institute of 

Child and Health Development and the U.S. 

Department of Education, the National Reading 

Panel (NRP) reviewed research concerning 

literacy development and instruction (National 

Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development, 2010). In order to provide 

students with the most effective instruction, the 

NRP‟s examinations identified critical skills 

and practices that consistently relate to reading 

success. Based on their analysis of the reading 

research, the panel concluded how children 

successfully learn to read, established the most 

effective instructional reading methods, and 

identified five core elements of systematic and 

explicit classroom reading instruction: (a) 

phonemic awareness; (b) phonics; (c) fluency; 

(d) vocabulary; and, (e) comprehension 

(National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development, 2010). The panel‟s findings 

indicated that intensive instruction in these 

areas provided children with solid foundational 

skills necessary to becoming literacy proficient. 

Spanish Speaking English Learners (ELs) 

It is well documented that Spanish speaking 

English learners (ELs) are at-risk for reading 

difficulties (Escamilla, Chavez, & Vigil, 2005;


Lopez, 2009; Hemphill, Vanneman & Rahman, 

2011; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998; Waxman, 

Padrón, Shin, & Rivera, 2008). Kohler and 

Lazar n (200 ) stated nationally only 29% of 

EL 8th grade students scored at or above the 

basic reading achievement levels. In 

comparison, nationally the non-EL 8th grade 

students scored at 75% at or above the basic 

reading achievement levels. 

In addition, the achievement gap among 

English learning (EL) students has existed and 

continues to exist. Unfortunately, this gap 

widens each year (Alexander, Entwisle, & 

Olson, 2007). EL students are capable of 

closing the academic achievement gap during 

the school year with concerted school efforts 

(e.g., involving ESOL/ESL teachers, special 

education teachers, speech-language 

pathologists, general education classroom 

teachers, and school principals), but ultimately 

regress and fall behind. (Ortiz, 2007). 

Therefore, the question remains as to whether 

intensive repeated readings will improve 

fluency abilities of bilingual Spanish EL 

students. 

Reading Fluency 

Learning to read fluently is a vital skill 

developed during literacy instruction in early 

elementary classrooms. Researchers have found 

that a possible source of reading 

comprehension problems is the inability for 

some readers to understand ideas and meanings 

in the text due to their limited word recognition 

and/or inefficient fluency skills (Homan, 

Kleisus, & Hite, 1993; Pinnell, et al., 1995; 

Snow et al., 1998). 

Due to the prerequisite of being able to read 

fluently in order to accurately comprehend text, 

this study focuses solely on fluency. 

According to the NRP fluency means that 

students are “Able to read quickly, knowing 

what the words are and what they mean, and 

properly expressing certain words, putting the 

right feeling, emotion, or emphasis on the right 

word or phrase” (NICHD, 2010). The NRP 

also concluded that teaching fluency includes, 

“Guided oral reading, in which students read 

out loud to someone who corrects their 

mistakes and provides them with feedback, and 

independent silent reading where students read 

silently to themselves” (NICHD, 2010). Their 

research indicates that the ability to read 

fluently improves students‟ abilities to 

recognize new words and understand what they 

read with greater rate, accuracy, and expression 

(NICHD, 2010). 

Repeated Readings 

Reading fluency is only one of the many 

components of reading; however, critical 

higher order thinking, reading, and 

comprehension skills cannot easily be 

developed without a solid foundation of word 

recognition accuracy (Musti-Rao, Hawkins, & 

Barkley, 2009; Schwanenflugel, Hamilton, 

Kuhn, Wisenbaker, & Stahl, 2004). Positive 

connections between the fluency intervention 

of repeated readings and improved 

comprehension have been noted (Sindelar, 

Monda, & O‟Shea, 1990; Vadasy & Sanders, 

2008). 

Rigorous and focused reading practice and 

instruction is recommended to help close the 

gap between students with poor fluency and 

their average reading peers (Vadasy & Sanders, 

2008). Repeated reading interventions serve as 

a way for students to achieve fluency 

automaticity in order to free their attention for 

comprehension (Herman, 1985; Hapstak & 

Tracey, 2008). 

A strong relationship between the 

development of word recognition accuracy, 

reading fluency, and the ability to obtain 

meaning to comprehend text has been observed 

(Dowhower, 1989; Pardo, 2004; Snow et al., 

1998); therefore, this study focuses on how the 

practice of repeated text readings can improve 

students' reading rate and accuracy; thus, 

serving as a foundation for comprehension. To 

engage in repeated readings, students read the 

text several times until a criterion rate of 

reading is attained (Herman, 1985). The 

criterion rate varies depending on grade level


and student performance. Once the criterion 

rate of improvement is reached, students 

choose another passage to practice until the rate 

is achieved again (Herman, 1985). Herman‟s 

research (1985) also found across-story transfer 

effect of repeated readings. The across-story 

transfer effect states that students read each 

unpracticed story faster, with better accuracy, 

and improved comprehension as a result of 

obtaining accuracy on a previous reading 

(Herman, 1985). 

Purpose 

The purpose of this study is to determine 

the efficacy of repeated readings during literacy 

instruction on reading fluency rate and 

accuracy among third grade students of varying 

reading and language abilities (20% of the 

study incorporated Spanish speaking English 

learners); typical of most general education 

classrooms. In this study, the authors sought to 

determine if repeated readings were conducive 

to student achievement in regards to reading 

fluency rate and accuracy. 

It was expected that third grade students of 

varying reading abilities attending a Title I 

charter school in an urban city in Florida would 

increase fluency rate and accuracy scores. 

These scores were expected to increase due to 

the integration and implementation of repeated 

readings during literacy instruction as measured 

by performance measures of words read 

correctly per minute (WCPM). 

Design 

Methods 

The present study extends the results of 

previous studies (Hapstak & Tracey, 2007; 

Herman, 1985; Musti-Rao et al., 2009; 

Rasinski, 1990; Sindelar et al., 1990; Vadasy & 

Sanders, 2008) on the efficacy of repeated 

readings by evaluating students in the same 

grade level but of varying reading abilities. In 

this single classroom case study, the categorical 

independent variable was the integration of 

repeated readings during literacy instruction. 

The quantitative dependent variable was 

fluency rate measured by WCPM, and fluency 

accuracy measured by the percentage of words 

read correctly by the number of words 

attempted. 

Due to the importance of providing ongoing 

and immediate feedback and support, students 

were instructed to complete a fluency graph 

after each reading. This fluency graph was 

used as a means for students to interpret their 

own data and visually recognize their goals and 

improvements. 

Repeated readings of brief, engaging texts 

were used with the goal of improving fluency 

rate and accuracy while building confident and 

fluent readers. Throughout, students graphed 

their fluency progress and were active 

participants in their learning by setting personal 

goals and receiving corrective feedback 

interventions to improve their reading rate and 

accuracy. 

Interventions 

All students read the same passage per 

week over three weeks; each passage was read 

approximately ten times per week with the 

repeated reading interventions. As motivation, 

students graphed their progress of words read 

correctly per minute. Each week consisted of 

the following: 

Day 

1-


Initial Reading: students silently read the entire 

passage. Students were then prompted to read 

the passage aloud for one minute. The teacher 

recorded WCPM and accuracy scores. Students 

then recorded their WCPM results on a graph. 

Day 2- The teacher randomly selected partners. 

The student‟s partner read the passage. No 

quantitative data was collected on day two. 

Day 3- Second Reading: students silently read 

the entire passage. Students were then 

prompted to read the passage aloud for one 

minute. The teacher recorded WCPM and 

accuracy scores. Students then recorded their 

WCPM results on a graph. 

Day 4- The teacher randomly selected partners. 

Student‟s partner read the passage. No 

quantitative data was collected on day four. 

Day 5- Final Reading: students silently read the 

entire passage. Students were then prompted to 

read the passage aloud for one minute. The 

teacher recorded WCPM and accuracy scores. 

Students then recorded their WCPM results on 

a graph. 

Performance measurements 

Reading rate was measured by timing the 

student‟s oral reading for one minute. The 

teacher recorded the number of words read 

correctly per minute (WCPM) for each passage. 

Each substitution, addition, mispronunciation, 

deletion, or hesitation of more than three 

seconds was scored as a reading error 

(Dowhower, 1987; Good, Wallin, Simmons, 

Kame‟enui, & Kaminski, 2002). Words selfcorrected 

within three seconds were scored as 

accurate (Good et al., 2002). 

Student reading rate was measured by 

subtracting the number of errors from the total 

number of words read in one minute. Accuracy 

was measured by the number of words 

identified correctly for each passage. The total 

number of words read without error was 

divided by the total number of words attempted 

within the one minute reading to receive the 

percentage accuracy rate (PAR). 

The number of words read correctly with 

accuracy were converted to a reading fluency 

rating score as established by Good et al. 

(2002). The fluency criterion rate for 

independent reading was established as reading 

100 or greater words per minute with 90% 

accuracy (i.e., students with low-risk for 

reading difficulties). Students meeting this 

criterion rate were identified as fluently at the 

benchmark level (Good et al., 2002). Students 

not meeting the criterion rate, reading 90-99 

words per minute with accuracy of 90% or less, 

were identified at a strategic-level (i.e., students 

with some risk for reading difficulties). 

Students reading less than 90 words per minute 

with an accuracy of 90% or less were identified 

at an intensive-level (i.e., students at high-risk 

for reading difficulties) (Good et al., 2002). 

Participants 

Participants in this study included twenty 

third grade students (n=20). Complete data for 

all twenty students is reported in this article. 

Forty-five percent of participants were female 

and fifty-five percent were male. As identified 

in school records, the classroom demographics 

consisted of: fifty percent African American, 

thirty-five percent Hispanic, and fifteen percent 

Caucasian. Twenty percent were identified as 

English learners (ELs). Ten percent were 

identified as having a disability and receiving 

services from the exceptional student education 

program. 

The Developmental Reading Assessment, 

2 nd Edition (DRA2), measures all components 

of reading (Pearson Education, Inc., 2011). Per 

the DRA2: (a) 60% of participants were 

identified as reading below grade level; (b) 

25% of participants were identified as reading 

on grade level; and (c) 15% of participants 

were identified as reading above grade level. 

Setting 

Participants in this study attended a charter 

school in an urban city in Florida. This Title I 

school received a “C” grade per the Florida 

school accountability report in the 2010-2011


school year. The school currently has 255 

students enrolled in grades K-8. Eighty-five 

percent of students enrolled are considered 

economically disadvantaged. 

Stimuli 

Florida Assessment for Instruction in 

Reading Ongoing Progress Monitoring Oral 

Reading Fluency running record passages 

were used in this study (State of Florida, 

Department of Education, 2009). The running 

records were lexiled at the third grade reading 

on-level. The lexiled levels increased each 

reading passage to test the transfer effect of 

readings (Herman, 1985). 

Passage 1 “Shark Teeth” lexile level 300 

Passage 2 “Hammock” lexile level 390 

Passage 3 “Building a Sandcastle” lexile 

level 430 

A timer was used to record the amount of 

words read currently per minute. A fluency 

rate graph was also used throughout this study. 

Students were instructed how to use the graph 

prior to the start of data collection. 

Fluency 

Results 

Data were graphed and charted throughout 

the study with the use of running records. The 

data collected on the running records were 

words read correctly per minute (WCPM) and 

reading accuracy percentages. 

All students made WCPM gains from the 

initial reading to the final reading. The mean 

score for the initial reading was 91.15, the 

mean score for the second reading was 114.8, 

and the mean score for the final reading was 

136.05. The combined mean score for all 

passage one readings was 114. Figure 1 

represents WCPM data collected for passage 

one. See Figure 1.


Analyses of the gains made by the EL 

students indicate similar gains made by the 

entire class. Students D.O. and V.L. made the 

least amount of gains over the three repeated 

readings on passage one. See Figure Two. 







passage two readings was 108.7. Figure 3 


two. Refer to Figure 3. 

EL students made similar gains as made by the 

entire class for Passage Two. Students D.O. 

and V.L. made the least amount of gains over 

the three repeated readings on passage. See 

Figure 4.








passage two readings was 118.3. Figure 5 


three. Refer to Figure 5. 

EL students made similar gains as made by 

the entire class for Passage Two. Students 

D.O. and V.L. made the least amount of gains 

over the three repeated readings on passage. 

See Figure Six. 

A two tailed paired t-test comparing 

passage one and passage three WCPM 

indicated non-significant results (p=0.2366). 

Alpha was set at 0.05. 

After the initial reading of passage one the 

following was found: (a) 60% were reading at 

the intensive; (b) 15% were reading at the 

strategic level; and, (c) 25% reading at the 

benchmark level. After the second reading of 

passage one, it was found that: (a) 15% reading 

at the intensive level, i.e., a decrease of 45%; 

(b) 30% were reading at the strategic level, i.e., 

an increase of 15%; and (c) 60% were reading 

at the benchmark level, an increase of 35%. 

After the final and third reading of passage one, 

it was found that: (a) 10% were reading at the 

intensive level, an increase of 50% from the 

initial reading; (b) 10% were reading at the 

strategic level, an increase of 10% from the 

initial reading; and, (c) 80% were reading at the 

benchmark level, an increase of 55% from the 

initial reading. Figure 7 represents the 

percentage of students‟ reading levels for 

passage one. See Figure 7. 

The percentage of students‟ reading levels 

for passage two was as follows: (a) 45% were 

reading at the intensive level; (b) 25% were 

reading at the strategic level; and (c) 30% were 

reading at the benchmark level. After the


second reading of passage two, it was found 

that: (a) 35% were reading at the intensive 

level, a decrease of 12%; (b) 10% were reading 

at the strategic level, a decrease of 15%; and 

(c) 55% were reading at the benchmark level, 

an increase of 25%. After the final reading, it 

was found that: (a) 10% were reading at the 

intensive level, a decrease of 35% from the 

initial reading; (b) 10% were reading at the 

strategic level, with no change in performance 

from the initial reading; and 80% were reading 

at the benchmark level, an increase of 50% 

from the initial reading . Please refer to Figure 

8. 

After the initial reading of passage three, it 

was found that: (a) 35% were reading at the 

intensive level; (b) 5% were reading at the 

strategic level; and (c) 60% were reading at the 

benchmark level. After the second reading of 

passage three, the results indicate: (a) 20% 

were reading at the intensive level, a decrease 

of 15%; (b) 10% were reading at the strategic 

level, an increase of 5%; and (c) 70% were 

reading at the benchmark level, an increase of 

10%. After the final reading of passage 3, the 

results indicate: (a) 10% reading at the 

intensive, a decrease of 20% from the initial 

reading; (b) none were reading at the strategic 

level, a decrease of 5% from the initial reading; 

and (c) 90% were reading at the benchmark 

level, an increase of 30% from the initial 

reading. Figure 9 represents the percentage of 

students‟ reading levels for passage three. 

Please refer to Figure 9. 

Observations 

Students successfully followed all 

directions for repeated reading interventions. 

All students commented they enjoyed 

completing their fluency graphs. Students were 

provided positive feedback, such as verbal 

praise and partner high fives or extrinsic 

rewards, such as stickers for all repeated 

reading interventions. Students also willingly


accepted corrective feedback and were, 

therefore, appeared to benefit from 

motivational interventions such as personal 

goal setting and progress monitoring. 

Conclusions 

This study evaluated the efficacy of 

repeated readings during literacy instruction on 

reading fluency rate and accuracy among third 

grade students of varying reading abilities. The 

paired t-test used to compare passage one and 

passage three WCPM was not statistically 

significant. This may be attributed to the short 

15 day intervention period. However, the 

WCPM and passage reading levels data 

indicate that all students made gains in WCPM 

scores for all passages regardless of reading 

ability. 

The latter assessments suggest that the use 

of repeated readings to increases WCPM 

scores. These results support the positive 

effects of repeated readings to increase fluency 

skills. These results do not confirm Herman‟s 

(1985) across-story transfer effect of repeated 

readings that students are able to transfer 

effects of improved rate and accuracy to new, 

unpracticed stories. In the current study, all 

students improved scores on all passages; 

however, the improvements did not transfer 

when starting a new unpracticed passage. This 

study moved students to the new passage of a 

greater lexile level. Again, the limited length 

of time permitted for interventions may have 

affected the results. It should be noted that 

Herman (1985) did not move students to a new 

passage until the on-level criterion rate was 

met. With longer periods of time for 

interventions, the students may have transferred 

their gains to other stories. 

Throughout this study, EL students made 

similar gains as made by the entire class. Their 

EL status did not impede progress of improving 

fluency skills. This study allowed the native 

speaking teacher to act as a linguistic model 

who provided appropriate corrective feedback. 

Graphing student progress also provided a 

supportive visual representation of their 

learning. 

Students, D.O. and V.L., made gains after 

each repeated reading intervention; however, 

gains were not as strong as their peers. At the 

time of the study, D.O. and V.L. did not 

practice English skills or have opportunities to 

interact with native speakers outside of the 

classroom due to families speaking only 

Spanish at home. During this time, D.O. and 

V.L. were both observed as introverted students 

and anxious about their oral language skills; 

D.O. and V.L. were not likely to take 

opportunities to speak out. As a result of the 

data of this study, D.O. and V.L. were enrolled 

in an after-school tutoring and began the 

Rosetta Stone Language Program to provide 

further opportunities of language immersion 

outside of regular school hours. D.O. and 

V.L.‟s classroom teacher observed increased


interactions with classmates and improved 

progress with oral language skills. 

The WCPM and passage reading levels data 

shows that not all students reached the criterion 

rate to be reading at the benchmark level. This 

could have also been due to the limited 

intervention time. Students considered to be 

critically at-risk may require more substantial, 

sustained, and intensive intervention support to 

reach literacy goals (Good et al., 2002). 

This study is neither comprehensive nor 

exhaustive of fluency instruction; however, it 

demonstrates the possibility that repeated 

reading interventions may increase reading 

fluency skills needed for comprehension. The 

results of the study suggest that data provided 

by repeated readings may identify children who 

need additional intensive interventions in the 

areas of fluency and comprehension. The 

results of this study also suggest that repeated 

readings may be used to increase motivation 

and measure growth in reading skills. 

Educators should be aware of the significant 

connections made between repeated readings 

and fluency. Further research is recommended 

to determine adequate comprehension effects of 

repeated readings. 

References 

Abadiano, H.R., & Turner, J. (2003). The 

RAND report: Reading for understanding: 

Toward an R&D program in reading 

comprehension. The New England Reading 

Association Journal, 39(2), 74-9. Retrieved 

from 

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ezproxy.lib 

.usf.edu. 

Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Olson, L. 

S. (2007). Summer learning and its 

implications: Insights from the beginning 

school study. New Directions for Youth 

Development, 114, 11-32. 

Block, C.C., & Mangieri J.N. (2003). 

Exemplary literacy teachers: Promoting 

success for all children in grades K-5. New 

York, NY: The Guilford Press. 

Bauer, E.B., & Manyak, P.C. (2008). English 

learners: Creating language-rich instruction 

for English-language learners. The Reading 

Teacher, 62, 176-178. doi: 

10.1598/RT.62.2.10. 

Dowhower, S.L. (1987). Effects of repeated 

reading on second-grade transitional 

readers' fluency and comprehension. 

Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 389-406. 


http://www.jstor.org/stable/747699. 

Dowhower, S.L. (1989). Repeated reading: 

Research into practice. The Reading 

Teacher, 42, 502-507. Retrieved from 


Escamilla, K., Chávez, L., & Vigil, P. (2005). 

Rethinking the „„gap‟‟: High-stakes testing 

and Spanish-speaking students in Colorado. 

Journal of Teacher Education, 56, 132-144, 

doi: 10.1177/0022487104273791. 

Gambrell, L.B., Morrow, L.M., Neuman, S.B., 

Pressley, M., & Mazzoni, S.A. (1999). Best 

practices in literacy instruction. New York, 

NY: The Guilford Press. 

Good, R. H., Simmons, D., Kame'enui, E., 

Kaminski, R. A., & Wallin, J. (2002). 

Summary of decision rules for intensive, 

strategic, and benchmark instructional 

recommendations in kindergarten through 

third grade (Technical Report No. 11). 

Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. 

Good, R. H., Wallin, J., Simmons, D. C., 

Kame‟enui, E. J., & Kaminski, R. A. 

(2002). System-wide percentile ranks for 

DIBELS benchmark assessment (Technical 

Report 9). Eugene, OR: University of 

Oregon. 

Hapstak, J. A.,& Tracey, D.H. (2007). Effects 

of assisted-repeated reading on students of 

varying reading ability: A single-subject 

experimental research study. Reading 

Horizons 47(4), 315-34. Retrieved from 

http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com.ezproxy.lib 

.usf.edu.


Hemphill, F., Vanneman, A., & Rahman, T. 

(2011). Achievement gaps. How Hispanic 

and White Students in Public Schools 

Perform in Mathematics and Reading on 

the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress. Statistical analysis report. 

Washington, DC: Institute of Education 

Sciences National Center for Education 

Statistics 

Herman, P.A. (1985). The effect of repeated 

readings on reading rate, speech pauses, 

and word recognition accuracy. Reading 

Research Quarterly, 20, 553-565. Retrieved 

from http://www.jstor.org/stable/747942. 

Homan, S.P., Klesius, J.P., & Hite, C. (1993). 

Effects of repeated readings and 

nonrepetitive strategies on students' fluency 

and comprehension. Journal of Educational 

Research, 87(2), 94-99 

Kohler, A., & Lazarín, M. (2007). Hispanic 

education in the United States. National 

Council of La Raza. Statistical Brief, 8, 1- 

14. 

Lopez, M. (2009). Latinos and education: 

Explaining the attainment gap. 

Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. 

Musti-Rao, S., Hawkins, R.O., & Barkley, E.A. 

(2009). Effects of repeated readings on the 

oral reading fluency of urban fourth-grade 

students: Implications for practice. 

Preventing School Failure, 54(1), 12-23. 

doi: 10.3200/PSFL.54.1.12-23. 

National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development. (2010). National Reading 

Panel. Retrieved from 

http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/topics/nati 

onal_reading_panel.cfm. 

Ortiz, A. (2007). English language learners 

with special needs: Effective instructional 

strategies. The Utah Special Educator, 

27(3), 66-69. 

Pardo, L. (2004). What every teacher needs to 

know about comprehension. The Reading 

Teacher, 58, 272-280. doi: 

10.1598/RT.58.3.5. 

Pearson Education, Inc. (2011). Developmental 

reading assessment, 2 nd edition. Retrieved 

from www.pearsonschool.com. 

Pinnell, G., Pikulski, J., Wixson, K., Campbell, 

J., Gough, P., & Beatty, A. (1995). 

Listening to children read aloud. 

Washington, DC: Office of Educational 

Research and Improvement, U.S. 

Department of Education. 

Rasinski, T.V. (1990). Effects of repeated 

reading and listening-while-reading on 

reading fluency. The Journal of 

Educational Research, 83(3)47-150. 



Sindelar, P.T., Monda, L.E., & O‟Shea, L.J. 

(1990). Effects of repeated readings on 

instructional- and mastery-level readers. 

The Journal of Educational Research, 

83(4), 220-226. Retrieved from 


Snow, C. E., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (1998). 

Preventing reading difficulties in young 

children. Washington, D.C.: National 

Academies Press. 

Schwanenflugel P., Hamilton, A., Kuhn, M., 

Wisenbaker, J., & Stahl, S. (2004). 

Becoming a fluent reader: Reading skill 

and prosodic features in the oral reading of 

young readers. Journal of Educational 

Psychology, 96(1), 119–129. doi: 

10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.119. 

State of Florida, Department of Education. 

(2009). Florida assessment for instruction 

in reading 3-12 tool kit blackline master 

set: Ongoing progress monitoring oral 

reading fluency. Florida Center for Reading 

Research. 

Vadasy, P.F., & Sanders, E.A. (2008). Benefits 

of repeated reading intervention for lowachieving 

fourth- and fifth-grade students. 

Remedial and Special Education, 29, 235. 

doi: 10.1177/0741932507312013. 

Waxman, H. C., Padr n, Y. N., Shin, J., & 

Rivera, H. H. (2008). Closing the


achievement gap within reading and 

mathematics classrooms by fostering 

Hispanic students‟ educational resilience. 

International Journal of Social Sciences, 

3(1), 24-34. 

About the authors 

Halie Paglio is a 3rd grade teacher/curriculum 

specialist at a Community Charter School of 

Excellence and has also applied to the Ph.D. 

program in Childhood Education and Literacy 

Studies at the University of South Florida. 

Alejandro E. Brice is an Associate Professor in 

ESOL at the University of South Florida St. 

Petersburg. 

AnnMarie Gunn is an Assistant Professor in 

Reading and Literacy at the University of South 

Florida St. Petersburg.


Technology: 

A Different Kind of Visualization - Text Sonification 

Terence Cavanaugh 

University of North Florida 

t.cavanaugh@unf.edu 

“Sonification is the rendering of data into 

sound (typically non-speech) designed for 

human auditory perception. The 

informational value of the rendering is often 

unknown beforehand, particularly in data 

exploration” – Alberto de Campo 

The expression "Sonification" comes from 

the latin syllable “sonus” which means 

sound. To “sonify” data is therefore the 

transmission of information via sound. 

"Sonification is the use of non-speech audio 

to convey information." -NASA 

Back when I used to be a science teacher in 

middle and high school, modeling was 

something that I loved to teach. Models are 

very important in many scientific contexts, the 

billiard ball model of a gas, the Bohr model of 

the atom, the Lorenz model of the atmosphere, 

and perhaps one of the most famous - the 

double helix model of DNA. A part of the 

model was to explain behavior but it was also 

to provide a form of visualization for the 

student to use to understand the structure or 

behavior. Usually we think of modeling as a 

form of visualization, where data are taken and 

an image is created - but we don‟t have to stop 

there. 

One thing that I found that I would use with 

my classes when teaching about things such as 

DNA structures was to go beyond the standard 

visualization of the DNA double helix and also 

include sonification of the DNA code - 

“displaying” the DNA code data as sound. A 

number of scientists have mapped the genetic 

code of something and then used algorithms to 

convert DNA data into musical scores based on 

an eight note scale. Genetic codes and music 

are similar in some ways. If we imagine the 

genes, they are encoded information of the 

building-block proteins, similar to a sheet of 

music containing the notes. So, when I got to 

the part where I was teaching something about 

DNA, I would play some of the DNA music 

that I found on the internet. When teaching 

about the planets, I played music from Holst‟s 

The Planets or an audio CD from NASA titled 

the Symphonies of the Planets (see Figure 1), 

where electromagnetic data that the Voyager 

Probe received as it traveled through space was 

converted into sound. And when teaching about 

the water cycle, I always played sections of 

Handel‟s Water Music. I did this to present to 

my students different ways to “visualize” the 

concepts that they were learning (some of 

which were actually quite nice to listen to). 

Figure 1: NASA‟s sonification from the 

Voyager probe, an audio CD collection of 

converted electromagnetic data into sound.


According to scientists in the fields of 

auditory display, there are different types of 

Sonification which can be categorized in three 

different groups: Iconic Sonification; Direct 

Conversion Sonification - also known as 

Audification; and Musical Sonification. So, a 

bell sounding for an emergency or to signal the 

change of classes would be iconic sonification. 

An example of direct conversion would be how 

a Geiger detector which “conveys” information 

about the level of radiation. Musical 

Sonification, though, is when someone maps 

data into sound in a musical way, such as 

occurred with the DNA music. These methods 

are very different from how we interpret 

information we gather from real sound, like the 

doppler shift of a car or train horn or engine 

sound changing that lets you know if the 

vehicle is approaching or moving away from 

you. 

By now you may be asking yourself, what 

does this have to do with reading Well, today 

there are tools that can convert text into tones, 

not voicing, but music, giving us a new way to 

“visualize” text. I know that this isn‟t relating 

to the content or emotion of the text, instead it 

is more about the purity of the text itself. After 

all, a readability analysis isn‟t about the content 

of emotion of the text either, but it still gives us 

information about that text. Here (hear) then is 

another way to look at the complexity of text 

through sound. Tools such as the P22 Music 

Text Composition Generator, Code Organ, and 

Text-to-Music Online Score Generator are free 

utilities that allow users to paste in text that 

then will be converted into a musical 

composition through an analysis algorithm 

which is then played aloud - allowing listeners 

to hear the complexity of the text. 

P22 Music Text Composition Generator: 

http://p22.com/musicfont/ 

Code Organ: 

http://www.codeorgan.com/Default.aspx 

Text-to-Music Online Score Generator: 

http://text-to-music.spellcaster.cc/ 

In my own experimenting with these tools I 

copied portions of text from books like The 

Three Little Pigs, Tarzan, and Pride and 

Prejudice which were all available at Project 

Gutenberg. Then I pasted them into the 

sonification tools to listen to the output. It was 

easy to discriminate the complex differences 

among the books. Also some of the programs 

work better with a Mac, such as the P22 Music 

Text Composition Generator, that one I 

couldn‟t make work on a PC. The P22 Music 

Text Composition Generator processes the text 

and converts the text characters to notes in a C- 

Major scale, I found that I had to increase the 

beats per minute (BPM) to about a thousand to 

make it more listenable. Once the conversion is 

done (see Figure 2), then you can read the 

music, listen to the musical creation, and even 

download and save the MIDI file created based 

on the text. 

Figure 2: Sonification results when using the 

P22 Music Text Composition Generator


Figure 3: “Playing” the cover of Because of 

Winn-Dixie using the Music in Images 

sonification tool. 

Another sonification tool I found that can 

also be used for reading, was Music in Images 

(http://www.musicinimages.com/). This tool is 

an algorithmic music generator that allows you 

to upload an image and then have that image 

converted into music. I found this to create very 

calming tones, something that could be great 

for some ambient music that could play while 

the students were reading. Often the music 

created with this tool was reminiscent of 

multiple wind chimes. My thought would be to 

use the Music in Images with book covers, 

where the teacher would upload a book cover 

and then the site would create the music based 

on the image‟s pixel information (color, 

saturation, brightness). Using it with books like 

Kate DiCamillo‟s Because of Winn-Dixie (see 

Figure 3) made a wonderful variety of tones 

because of the variations within the image, 

while books like Carl Hiaasen‟s Chomp were 

much more limiting as most of the book‟s 

cover is a single color. 

Further examples of the usefulness of 

sonification to visualization include: 

• uncovering patterns masked in visual 

displays 

• identifying new phenomena current 

display techniques miss 

• improving data exploration of large multidimensional 

and multi-dataset 

• exploring in frequency rather than spatial 

dimensions 

• analyzing complex, rapidly, or temporally 

changing data 

• complementing existing visual displays 

• monitoring data while looking at 

something else (background eventfinding) 

• improving visual perception when 

accompanied by audio cues 

So the next time you are teaching 

visualization, you might also want to include 

sonification as one of the ways that something 

can be “visualized” or at least play the book‟s 

cover using dreambells with power chords, it 

makes some nice ambient music. 

Happy reading with technology.


FLORIDA READING ASSOCIATION 

Board of Directors, Advisors, and Staff, 2010-2011 

Executive Committee 

President -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maria Callis 

President-Elect ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Lefsky 

Vice President ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Pedro 

Past President ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sherida Weaver 

Recording Secretary -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jackie Zeig 

Treasurer ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jeanne Petronio 

Director of Membership Development ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deanne Nelson 

IRA State Coordinator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deanne Nelson 

President‟s Advisor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ellen Supran 

District Directors 

Pinellas County- Margaret Adams 

Lee County- Shannon Barone 

Bay County- Kathy Fontaine 

Broward County- Lois Haid 

Polk County- Rita Meadows 

Pasco County- Joy Milner 

Sarasota County – Deanne Nelson/Ann Smith 

Duval County- Alice Smith 

Palm Beach County- Darlene Staley 

Committee Chairpersons and Coordinators 

Administrative Committee Chair ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sherida Weaver 

Adolescent Literacy Coordinator --------------------------------------------------------------------- Georgina Rivera Singletary 

Children‟s Book Award Co-Coordinators ---------------------------------------------------------- Roberta Mann & Jodi Vizzi 

Conference Committee Chair ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Janz 

Council Development Chair ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deanne Nelson 

General Conference Chair 2012 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Pedro 

Governmental Relations Committee Chair -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Craig Cosden 

International Projects Coordinator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Enrique Puig 

Literacy Projects Committee Chair --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pam LaRiviere 

Membership Committee Chair -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Deanne Nelsom 

Publications Committee Chair ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joyce Warner 

Publicity Committee Chair -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rachelle Saint 

Scholarship and Awards Coordinator ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ann Smith 

Studies and Research Committee Chair ------------------------------------------------------------------------------Enrique Puig


Special Interest Councils 

Florida Secondary Reading Council ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rachelle Savitz 

Reading Supervisors of Florida -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Patty Adams 

Editors 

The Florida Reading Journal Editors ------------------------------------------------------- Ruth Sylvester and Sherry Kragler 

The Florida Reading Journal Associate Editor ------------------------------------------------------------- Terence Cavanaugh 

FRA Newsletter Editor ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Heidi Maier 

Liaisons 

Florida Department of Education --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Smith 

Florida Literacy Coaches Association ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brian Dorman 

2012 FRA Conference 

General Conference Chair ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Denise Pedro 

Conference Committee Chair ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Margaret Janz 

FRA Conference Exhibits/Advertising ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evan Lefsky 

FRA Council Presidents, 2011-2012 

Bay– Maggie Odom 

Broward- Lois Haid 

Duval– Lisa Wells 

Lee- Shannon Barone 

Okaloosa- Angelle Crosby 

Pasco-Danielle Varcardipone 

Pinellas- Andrea Dort 

Polk-Leslie Phillips 

Sarasota- Suzanne Naiman 

Volusia-Debbie McDaniel 

Palm Beach- Marsha Bedasse


FRA Membership 

PO Box 151555 

Cape Coral, FL 33915 

www.flreads.org 

Check Appropriate Box: □ New Member □Renewal 

Name_________________________________________________________________________________ 

E-mail________________________________________ Phone __________________________________ 

(Required to receive electronic journals and newsletter) 

Mailing Address_______________________________________City_______________________________ 

County______________________________ State __________________Zip code_____________________ 

School or Organization____________________________________________________________________ 

Occupation: □ Elementary Teacher (PreK-5) □ Secondary Teacher (6-12) 

□District/School Administrator 

□Retired Educator 

□Consultant/Representative 

□College/University Instructor 

□Full Time College Student 

□Other____________________________ 

I am a current member of: 

□ International Reading Association (IRA) 

□ Local Reading Council______________________________________ 

Referred for membership by a current FRA member If so, please list both 

Member’s name____________________________________________ Member #__________________ 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

The membership year is from July 1 through June 30. Membership applications received after March 1 will become effective 

immediately and extend through June 30 of the following year. 

Membership Type: □ Regular with electronic Florida Reading Journal (FRJ) $30.00 

□ Retired with electronic FRJ $20.00 

□ Full Time Student with electronic FRJ $20.00 

______________________________ 

Faculty Sponsor’s Signature (Required) 

______________________ 

College/University 

□ Regular with print FRJ (includes electronic versions) $60.00 

□ Retired with print FRJ (includes electronic versions) $50.00 

Make checks payable to: FRA


IRA Individual Membership Application 

Available Online at: http://www.reading.org/downloads/membership/individual-MACF-080626.pdf 

IRA membership is your best choice for professional resources. As an IRA member you can: Subscribe to top-rated 

journals; register for meetings at the member rate; and buy books and IRA products with your member discount. 

All memberships and journal subscriptions are for a term of one year. Online ordering is available for regular and student 

memberships and subscriptions, and for discounted packages for those living in countries with developing economies (as 

identified by the World Bank). For those who wish to pay by check or money order, or who prefer to fax or mail an 

application, download a form from: http://marketplace.reading.org/memberships/IRA_Membership_Main.cfm. 

IRA Student Membership Application 

http://www.reading.org/downloads/membership/student-SACF-080626.pdf


DIRECTORY OF EXHIBITORS AND PUBLISHERS 

Abrams Learning Trends 

Zena Carter 

16310 Bratton Lane, Suite 250 

Austin, TX 78728 

800-227-9120 

zenac@abramslearningtrends.com 

Achieve3000, Inc. 

Nancy Sites 

Regional Vice President of Sales for 

the Southeast 

PO Box 908 

Montrose, AL 36559 

251-490-5015 

Nancy.sites@achieve3000.com 

Laura Hunt 

Regional Director of Sales for 

Central Florida 

Box 130, 992 Osprey Court 

Crystal Beach, FL 34681 

727-269-4572 

Laura.hunt@achieve3000.com 

Kathleen Rolison 


North Florida 

113 Old Mill Court 

Ponte Vedra Beach, FL 32082 

904-422-2100 

Kathleen.rolison@achieve3000.com 

Rafael A. Villalobos 


Southern Florida 

1091 River Avenue 

Lakewood, NJ 08701 

office: 786-299-8402 

www.Achieve3000.com 

AH-TAH-THI-KI Museum 

Sara Whitehead 

PMB 1003 Clewiston, FL 33440 

863-902-1113 

sarawhitehead@semtribe.com 

American Reading Company 

Heath Hill 

201 S. Gulph Road 

King of Prussia, PA 19406 

321-266-4432 

hhill@americanreading.com 

Bound to Stay Bound Books 

Greg Kaiser, Sales Rep. 

1880 West Morton 

Jacksonville, IL 62650 

800-637-6586 

Crabtree Classroom 

Mary Dolph 

8083 SE 171 st McAlpin Street 

The Villages, FL 32162 

800-296-1692 

dolphread@aol.com 

Andrea Crabtree 

PMB 59051, 350 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10118 

800-387-7650 

andrea_c@crabtreebooks.com 

Curriculum Associates 

Kathy Walsh 

153 Rangeway Road N. 

Billerica, MA 01862 

978-667-8000 

kwalsh@cainc.com 

Dinah-Might Adventures, LP 

PO Box 690328 

San Antonio, TX 78269 

800-993-4624 

Fax: 210-698-0095 

sara@dinah.com 

www.dinah.com/www. 

dzacademy.com 

EPS/School Specialty Literacy and 

Intervention 

Jeanne Tierney 

PO Box 9031 

Cambridge, MA 02139-9031 

800-435-7728, ext. 6118 

Jeanne.tierney@schoolspecialty.com 

FRA Adolescent Poster Contest 

Georgina Rivera-Singletary 

352-467-5636 

georgina.riverasingletary@ 

sdhc.k12.fl.us 

Frog Publication 

Wendy Alli 

11820 Uradco Place 

Suite 105 

San Antonio, FL 

800-777-3763, ext. 206 

conferences@frog.com 

Heinemann Publishing 

Trudy Johnson 

941-725-1672 

Julio DeCastro 

561-506-9211 

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 

Jennifer Behar 

9400 South Park Center Loop 

Orlando, FL 32819 

407-345-3777 

Jennifer.behar@hmhpub.com 

Specialized Curriculum Group; 

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 

9400 South Park Center Loop 


Lynne Rubino, Account Manager, , 

Mobile: 941-730-1634 

Email: lynne.rubino@hmhpub.com 

Tony Ulintz, Account Manager, 

Mobile: 813-857-1809, 

Email: tony.ulintz@hmhpub.com


Beth Webb, Account Manager, Mobile: 

904-472-5049, Email: 

Elizabeth.webb@hmhpub.com 

McGraw-Hill School Education 

Group 

Manager 

Office: 850-651-1168 

Fax: 904-212-1020 

Cell: 850-240-5009 

Email: 

Debbie.Campbell@pearson.com 

JulieWeiss 

julie@edtechconsults.com 

904 270-9710 

JohnBurgess 

john@jbedtech.com 

561 889-6585 

Lynn Brennan 

8787 Orion Place 

Columbus, OH 43240 

813-758-3234 

LBrennan47@gmail.com 

National Geographic School 

Publishing/Hampton Brown 

Debbie King 

11834 Magnolia Falls Drive 

Jacksonville, FL 32258 

904-374-5588 

dking@ngsp.com 

95 Percent Group Inc. 

Carm Bondeson 

475 Half Day Road, Suite 350 

Lincolnshire, IL 60069 

847-499-8217 

cbondeson@95percentgroup. com 

Nova Southeastern University 

Cedric E. Thompson, Academic 

Manager (Orlando Site) 

Email: cedrice@nova.edu 

Phone: 407-264-5609 

Audrey Henry, Director of Academic & 

Faculty Support / Program 

Professor 

Email: henrya@nova.edu 

Phone: 954-262- 8636 

Zandra Stino, Program Professor 

Email: stino@nova.edu 

Maryann Tobin, Program Professor 

Email: mt745@nova.edu 

Pearson 

Debbie Campbell- Florida District 

Barbara Densmore-NW Florida Sales 

Representative 

Office: 850-468-0097 

Fax: 904-212-1758 

Cell: 850-582-1087 

Email: 

Barbara.Densmore@pearson.com 

Mary Farley Cox- NE Florida Sales 


Office: 904-273-4944 

Fax: 904-212-1446 

Cell: 904-613-3499 

Email: 

mary.farley.cox@pearson.com 

Amber Duonnolo- Central Florida 

North Sales Representative 

Office: 678-475-6268 

Email: Amber.Duonnolo@ 

pearson.com 

John Ruby- Central Florida South Sales 


Office: 239-774-7492 

Fax: 239-236-1401 

Cell: 239-438-8378 

Email: John.Ruby@pearson.com 

Andy Martinez- South Florida Sales 


Phone: 305-240-3383 

Email: 

Andres.Martinez@pearson.com 

Reading Performance System 

Jeff Enos 

jeff@k20ec.com 

800 401-0154 

Scott LeDuc 

scott@k20ec.com 

407 718-3490 

LukeTevebaugh 

luke@k20ec.com 

407 970-7048 

Ed Barnes 

ebarnes@windstream.net 

229 891-8358 

Recorded Books 

Ben O'Gradney 

Literacy Consultant 

RB Education 

bogradney@recordedbooks.com 

813-957-7397 

Renaissance Learning, Inc. 

Julie Vetrone 

2911 Peach Street 

Wisconsin Rapids, WI 54494 

715-424-3636 

Julie.vetrone@renlearn.com 

Resources for Reading 

Diane Zingale, CFO 

Kay Hackbarth, Representative 

130 East Grand Avenue 

South San Francisco, CA 94080 

800-278-7323 

http://www.abcstuff.com 

Rowland Reading Foundation 

Kristin Needham 

6120 University Avenue 

Middleton, WI 53562 

608-729-2827 

Kristin.needham@rowlandreadin 

g.org 

Scholastic Book Fairs 

Les Kevehazi 

3600 Cobb International Blvd. 

Suite 100 

Kennesaw, GA 30152 

404-274-0820 

lkevehazi@scholasticbookfairs.com 

Scholastic.com 

Kathy Walsh 

212-343-7649 

kathywalsh@scholastic.com


Mark Barrett 

760-680-9375 

markbrr@gmail.com 

Scholastic Classroom & Community 

Group 

Barry Moffatt 

Toll: 800-754-1194 

Cell: 941-730-3465 

Email: bmoffatt@scholastic.com 

Sleeping Bear Press 

315 E. Eisenhower Parkway, 

Ste. 200 

Ann Arbor, MI 48108 

800-487-2323 

www.sleepingbearpress.com 

Stop Falling Productions 

Sarah Hedrick 

237 E. 5 th Street #159 

Eureka, MO 63025 

800-362-9511 

info@stopfalling.com 

Sylvan Dell Publishing 

Lee German 

612 Johnnie Dodds Blvd. 

Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464 

843-971-6722 

Leegerman@sylvandellpublishing.com 

Texthelp Systems Inc. 

Jeff Levinson, Regional Sales Director 

888-248-0652 

600 Unicorn Park Drive 

Woburn, MA 01801 

www.texthelp.com 

Iversen Publishing 

14525 Millikan Way #80487 

Beaverton, Oregon 97005 

tel / fax - 1-888-789- 3101 

Mark@iversenpublishing.com 

website : iversenpublishing.com 

Tomorrow’s Dreams 

Paula Wiggs 

281 Heritage Hills Drive 

Spartanburg, SC 29307 

864-431-0244 

scqnpw1@bellsouth.net 

Townsend Press 

George Henry 

439 E. Kelley Drive 

West Berlin, NJ 08091 

888-752-6416 

tpatnj@gmail.com 

University of Central Florida/ 

Morgridge International Reading 

Center 

Enrique Puig 

407-882-6472 (MIRC) 

Enrique.Puig@ucf.edu 

USA Today 

Julie Parslow 

National Account Director, Education 

8250 Exchange Drive, Suite 100 


407.952.1823 Mobile 

407.851.2900, ext. 271 

jparslow@usatoday.com 

Debby Dodge 

Director, Education 

7950 Jones Branch Drive 

McLean, VA 22108 

772-781-6146 

ddodge@usatoday.com 

Voyager/Sopris/Cambium Learning 

Technologies 

Matt Bratton, Sales Support 


Voyager 

Longmont, CO 

303-651-2829, ext. 265 

matt.bratton@voyagerlearning.com 

Rolando Rodriguez, Regional Vice 

President, Gulf Region 

Cell: 305-431-0053 

Rolando.rodriguez@voyagerlearning.co 

m 

Jean Correll, Sales Executive, South 

Cell: 954-632-6206 

jean.correll@voyagerlearning.com 

Lazaro Garcia 

Sales Executive, Miami-Dade 

Cell: 954-687-3997 

lazaro.garcia@voyagerlearning.com 

Dan Parvu 

Sales Executive, North 

Cell: 904-223-4242 

dan.parvu@voyagerlearning.com 

David Traviesa 

Sales Executive, West and Panhandle 

Cell: 813-326-2686 

david.traviesa@voyagerlearning. 

com 

Winsor Learning Inc. 

Amanda Burnette 

210 Glen Crest Drive 

Moore, SC 29369 

803-606-4188 

amanda.burnette@winsor 

learning.com 

Wireless Generation 

Manuel Rionda, Executive Director of 

Educational Partnerships – Florida & 

Louisiana 

55 Washington St. Suite # 900 

Brooklyn , NY 11201 

Cell: 305.509.9136 

800.823.1969 Ext. 274 

mrionda@wgen.net 

Zaner-Bloser 

Maxine Garber 

Educational Sales Representative 

South Florida 

Maxine.Garber@zaner-bloser.com 

Phone 561. 376. 4780 

Toll-Free 800. 248. 2568 Ext. 2541 

Fax 561. 509. 6969 

www.zaner-bloser.com 

Tom Bernhardt 

Educational Sales Representative 

North and Central Florida 

Tom.Bernhardt@zaner-bloser.com 

Cell 727. 642. 6490 

Toll-Free 800. 248. 2568 Ext. 2571 

Fax 727. 785. 0103


Florida Reading Association’s Fall Conference 

Please join us as we gather to celebrate our 50th conference. As you spend time with 

reading professionals and children’s book authors, you will enhance your professional 

development through engaging, thought - provoking and stimulating sessions. The 

keynote and featured speakers include a dedicated group of researchers and 

educators sure to inspire you. A special fun-filled evening is planned for our 

President’s Reception and 50th Conference Celebration. We look forward to seeing 

you as we celebrate “50 Years of Literacy Gold”. 

Conference registration opportunities will be available shortly. 

FRA 50th Conference 

Rosen Shingle Creek Resort 

October 18-21, 2012


INSIDE BACK COVER

FRA’s 50 th 

Annual Conference 

Shingle Creek Resort 

Register now for this outstanding 

conference 

♦ Attend a variety of break out sessions on 

new topics and past favorites. 

♦ Network with a variety of vendors on new 

products and services. 

♦ Luncheon with a dynamic Key Note Speaker 

♦ Door Prizes 

Register early for the best deals… 

(ISSN 0015-4261) 

PO Box 151555, Cape Coral, FL 33915

PDF (Adobe Reader) - Florida Reading Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?