Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy LearningAuthor(s): Seth A. ParsonsSource: The Reading Teacher, Vol. 61, No. 8 (May, 2008), pp. 628-635Published by: Wiley on behalf of the International Reading AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204642 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 17:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Wiley and International Reading Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extendaccess to The Reading Teacher.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.213.220.173 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 17:50:53 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ira

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20204642?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Providing All Students ACCESS

to Self-Regulated Literacy

/

Learninq ^##:s.

"^-^^ Seth A. Parsons ^- ""

ACCESS ?s an organizational framework

that helps teachers plan tasks that meet

curriculum standards and that encourage in students self-regulated learning.

Is it possible to design literacy instruction that pre

pares students to pass high-stakes tests and that em

powers and motivates students to take charge of

their learning? The teachers who supervise my under

graduate teacher candidates recently answered no.

They explained that they had to focus on preparing students for the end-of-grade reading test and, there

fore, could not model authentic literacy instruction for

the prospective teachers observing in their classrooms.

The research literature and my own experiences as a

teacher and teacher educator, however, tell me that

such instruction is possible. This article presents ACCESS?an organizational

framework designed to help teachers plan instruction

that improves students' reading proficiency while also

empowering and motivating students. ACCESS stands

for tasks that are authentic, that require collaboration

among students, that challenge students, that culmi

nate with an end product, that allow self-direction by

giving students choices, and that sustain learning across time. I combined these task components from

research on effective instruction. In this article, I first

outline self-regulated learning, which is associated

with competent, motivated, and empowered students.

Next, using a classroom example, I review the litera

ture that led to the formation of ACCESS and explain how each component supports students' self-regulated

literacy learning. I then discuss how ACCESS helps teachers provide instruction that improves students' lit

eracy proficiencies. I conclude by describing how to

use ACCESS in teachers' already busy schedules.

Throughout this manuscript, I argue that these tasks

can, and should, take place in all classrooms, regard less of the ability level orsocioeconomic makeup of

the students.

What Is Self-Regulation? Perry, Hutchinson, and Thauberger (2007) described

self-regulated learners as intrinsically motivated, strate

gic, and metacognitive. Students who are intrinsically motivated are interested in their academic work and

want to learn for the sake of learning (Ryan & Deci,

2000). Students who are strategic and metacognitive exhibit enhanced reading comprehension (Baker &

Beall, in press; Duffy, 2003; Paris, Wasik, & Turner,

1991). Therefore, enhanced motivation and improved

reading achievement are advantages associated with

self-regulation. Figure 1 presents additional character

istics of self-regulated learners.

Zimmerman (2000) stated, "Perhaps our most im

portant quality as humans is our capability to self

regulate" (p. 13). In spite of the benefits associated

with self-regulated learning, researchers have demon

strated that a majority of students are not adequately

self-regulating (Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006). This finding is not surprising because researchers have

suggested that students have few opportunities in

school to regulate their learning (Randi & Corno,

2000). Researchers have offered strategies for develop

ing self-regulated learners, such as implementing ap

propriate tasks, creating collaborative environments,

and using noncomparative evaluation (Perry et al.,

2007; Turner, 1995). While classroom assignments, or tasks, are only

one aspect of classroom contexts, they have been

The Reading Teacher, ?7(8), pp. 628-635 ? 2008 International Reading Association

628 DOI:10.1598/RT.61.8.4 ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online



y y/ identified as the salient feature in encouraging self

/ regulated learners (Perry, Phillips et al., 2006). In his ' landmark article, Doyle (1983) suggested that tasks

determine what students learn, and subsequent re

search has demonstrated the effect of tasks on stu

dents' motivation and literacy learning (e.g., Miller &

Meece, 1999). Therefore, to develop motivated stu

dents with advanced literacy skills, teachers must pay

particular attention to the tasks they assign.

What Types of Tasks Promote

Self-Regulated Literacy Learners? Six characteristics of tasks have strong support in the

ory and research for fostering self-regulated learning:

authenticity, collaboration, challenge, an end prod

uct, self-direction, and sustained learning. Authentic

tasks encourage self-regulation because they give stu

dents a genuine purpose for participating in an activi

ty (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Collaborative activities

compel regulatory action because students must coor

dinate their thoughts and actions with others (Miller & Meece, 1999). Challenging assignments compel self

regulation because students must be strategic to ac

complish the task (Pressley, 2006). Tasks that

culminate with a meaningful product encourage self

regulation because students set goals and monitor

their progress toward those goals (Hacker, 1998). When students participate in activities that are self

directed, they regulate their work because they have

some control over the assignment (Brophy, 2004).

Finally, assignments that are sustained compel stu

dents to monitor and regulate their progress over time

(Perry, Phillips, & Dowler, 2004).

ACCESS Tasks This article combines these task components?

authenticity, collaboration, challenge, an end prod

uct, self-direction, and sustained learning?into AC

CESS. These elements are drawn from various studies

in literacy and educational psychology, such as re

search on concept-oriented reading instruction

(CORI; Guthrie, 2004), situated learning (Gee, 2004),

project-based learning (Krajcik et al., 1998), and high

challenge tasks (Miller, 2003). However, none of these

research agendas include all of the components of

ACCESS or pertain specifically to self-regulation.

Figure 1 Attributes of Self-Regulated Learners

They are aware of academic strengths and weaknesses.

They believe ability is incremental.

They focus on personal progress and deep understanding. They have high efficacy for learning. They attribute outcomes to factors they can control.

j They are strategic in approaching challenging tasks.

\ They are proactive. | They are adaptive.

| Note. From Perry et al. (2006) and Zimmerman (2000).

Therefore, this article presents an organizational framework for improving literacy instruction that is

based upon extensive research. To be clear, ACCESS

is not designed to be additional content in teachers'

already packed schedules. Instead, it describes char

acteristics of literacy assignments that can be used to

enhance teachers' current curricula.

An Example of an ACCESS Task Ms. Mashburn (all names are pseudonyms) teaches

fourth grade in a diverse, inner-city U.S. school that

requires her to use the basal as the foundation of her

reading instruction. She knows that the concepts high

lighted in the basal are important for her students, but

she also wants to motivate her students to read and

write for their own purposes. Therefore, as her class

reads the selections and studies the concepts in the

basal, they complete authentic, challenging projects based upon these selections.

One example you might see upon entering Ms.

Mashburn's classroom is students working in groups to create a newspaper based upon the historical fic

tion unit in the basal. One group is writing a mock in

terview of a woman from the time period to get her

perspective on historical events?a perspective that

was not highlighted in the texts they were studying. Ms. Mashburn is working with another group, explic

itly explaining how they can use text structure to help them better comprehend the informational texts they are using to gather information. Against the far wall,

students are writing editorials as citizens of the time

period, discussing how historical events affected their

daily lives. At the table next to them, a group is brain

storming ideas to write an advice column for a histor

ical figure. After finishing her minilesson, Ms.

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning 629



Mashburn walks around the classroom providing ex

plicit instruction and guidance as it is needed. The

classroom buzzes with focused activity. All the students in this classroom are engaged in

the work they are completing. They are reading and

writing for real purposes, taking multiple perspectives, and collaboratively planning newspaper articles. In

short, these students are exhibiting self-regulated be

haviors. Moreover, the teacher is providing explicit instruction to small groups, thereby enhancing stu

dents' reading proficiency, while teaching both the

literacy and the social studies curricula.

Unfortunately, not all teachers implement such au

thentic, differentiated instruction. Instead, many teach

reading with scripted programs, worksheets, and iso

lated skills instruction. Schools often encourage, or

worse mandate, teachers to use such limited literacy instruction. ACCESS does not neglect literacy skills

and strategies; it helps teachers teach them within au

thentic tasks that encourage self-regulation.

Nonetheless, one difficult aspect of using ACCESS is

the pressure in schools to simplify reading instruction.

Researchers have long asserted that the most effec

tive reading teachers "teach against the grain" in order

to do what is best for their students (e.g., Duffy, 1991). In today's accountability-focused schools, this is truer

than ever.

Ms. Mashburn's newspaper assignment is based

upon instruction in a diverse, Title I school, and it

serves as an illustrative example of the type of assign ment being presented in this article. As noted above,

many factors influence instructional effectiveness. For

the newspaper project to run smoothly, Ms. Mashburn

must have well-established routines and procedures.

Also, the classroom must be a collaborative communi

ty in which evaluation is based on personal growth rather than comparison. However, because the task

has been found to be the salient feature in facilitating

self-regulated learning (Perry et al., 2007), designing effective literacy tasks is the emphasis of this article.

Authentic Instruction The first aspect of the activity in Ms. Mashburn's class

room that makes it an ACCESS task is its authenticity. The newspaper assignment is authentic because the

students are completing real-world tasks; in effect,

they are completing the same work as journalists and

editors. Because they are purposeful, real-world tasks

encourage intrinsic motivation and deep understand

ing (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Shepard et

al., 2005; Teale & Gambrell, 2007). Many literacy re

searchers promote the use of authentic learning situ

ations. For example, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000)

asserted, "Real-world interactions are enjoyable, im

mediately interesting activities that can provide moti

vation for reading and learning from text" (p. 410). Time spent doing what real readers and writers do?

using connected texts for real reasons?promotes self

regulated learning (Allington, 2005; Duffy, 2003; Fairbanks, 2000; Pressley, 2006).

Collaborative Instruction The newspaper activity is also collaborative. Students

work together not only to decide what to include in

their articles but also to complete the task.

Researchers have demonstrated myriad benefits of

students learning together, including increased self

esteem and improved attitudes toward school (Slavin,

1995). In identifying scientifically based reading re

search, the National Reading Panel (National Institute

of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) found collaborative assignments to improve compre

hension. Similarly, Guthrie and Humenick (2004), in

their meta-analysis of empirical research, identified

collaboration as one of only four aspects of instruction

to motivate students to read. Turner and Paris (1995) noted that other students' ideas can spark curiosity and that observing peers' progress can improve confi

dence. Likewise, Pressley (2006) asserted that collab

orative activities enable students to scaffold one

another's literacy learning.

Challenging Instruction Ms. Mashburn's assignment is challenging because

the students must take multiple perspectives to write

the articles, consider their audience in their writing, and coordinate jobs and deadlines among group

members. An appropriate level of challenge is the fun

damental concept behind Vygotsky's (1978) Zone of

Proximal Development?the idea that students learn

best when they receive support to complete work that

is just beyond what they could do by themselves.

Research has supported this concept: "The data are

overwhelming that tasks a little bit beyond the learn

er's current competence level are motivating. Tasks

that are a little bit challenging cause students to work

hard and feel good about what they are doing"

630 The Reading Teacher Vol. 61, No. 8 May 2008



(Pressley, 2006, p. 387). Millerand Meece (1997,1999; Miller, 2003) have conducted extensive research on

high-challenge tasks, and they have found that chal

lenging assignments are associated with improved stu

dent motivation and literacy learning. They concluded that one reason the tasks were motivating

was because they allowed for differentiation:

Assignments could be tailored to meet individual

learning needs (Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006). In addi

tion, Turner and Paris (1995) asserted that appropri

ately challenging tasks encourage students to learn in

a variety of ways because there is no obvious path to a

right answer, which develops self-regulated learning.

Instruction Requiring an End Product

The project from the example concludes with stu

dents creating a finalized newspaper. Literacy tasks

that culminate in a meaningful product facilitate self

regulated learning because students have an explicit

purpose for engaging in the assignment. Instead of

completing tasks simply because they are assigned, students have a reason to engage in the assignment

(Moje, 1999). Students come to value the work for in

trinsic reasons because they are working toward a

worthwhile goal (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Bogner,

Raphael, and Pressley (2002) found that successful

reading teachers often had their students create prod ucts such as Big Books. The students took pride in

these completed artifacts, thus enhancing student in

terest. Moreover, assignments with valued end prod ucts further require regulated behavior because

students must be metacognitive, monitoring their

progress toward this goal (Hacker, 1998).

Self-Directed Learning Ms. Mashburn's newspaper assignment is student

directed because students decide the main content

of their articles, the separation of work, and the format

of their articles. The teacher is there to give guidance in making these decisions, but the students are given the autonomy to make decisions about their learning.

Tasks that give students choices compel self-regulation

(Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Guthrie and Humenick

(2004), in their meta-analysis of scientifically-based re

search, identified choice as a motivating aspect of lit

eracy instruction. When students are involved in the

decision making, they are more apt to take ownership

of, and thus regulate, their learning. Paris et al. (1991)

explained that when students are active decision mak

ers in their learning, they adopt positive attitudes to

ward academic work. Conversely, when students feel

that they have little control over their learning, they of

ten feel incompetent or helpless, which leads to de

fensive strategies counter to self-regulation such as

nonparticipation.

Sustained Learning The newspaper assignment from the previous sce

nario is sustained because it lasts over several weeks.

It takes time to plan the content of a newspaper, to ob

tain information, and then to actually put the news

paper together. Tasks that compel students to sustain

their engagement in academic work over a period of

time encourage self-regulated learning because stu

dents set goals and determine how to obtain them

(Miller & Meece, 1999; Perry et al., 2004). Too often, lit

eracy assignments require brief attention to isolated

skills. Explicit explanation of skills and strategies is an

important aspect of literacy instruction (Dole, Nokes,

& Drits, in press) and should occur throughout the

school day and within ACCESS tasks. Isolated skills

instruction, however, should not dominate teaching

practices. Tasks that are sustained over time allow the

teacher to nest explicit literacy instruction within au

thentic assignments. Table 1 presents examples of

ACCESS tasks in primary and intermediate grades.

How ACCESS Helps Teachers In the previous section, I described how the compo

nents of ACCESS benefit students' self-regulated learn

ing. In this section, I explain how using ACCESS to

design instruction benefits teachers by promoting en

hanced communication among educators, differentiat

ed instruction, explicit teaching, and interdisciplinary activities. When teachers implement differentiated and

explicit instruction, they are able to help each student

develop the skills and strategies to improve his or her

reading proficiency, thereby helping students perform well on high-stakes assessments.

ACCESS Promotes a Common

Language ACCESS enables teachers, administrators, and re

searchers to discuss instruction that promotes self

regulated literacy learning. Researchers suggest that




Table 1

Examples of ACCESS Tasks

Grade level ACCESS tasks

Primary In groups students create a welcoming pamphlet that introduces to visitors the students

and the classroom.

Students work in small groups to write and illustrate their own big books.

In a unit on Native Americans, students create a nonfiction text sharing what they learned.

While studying holidays around the world, students create a travel journal describing holidays in various cultures.

Intermediate In a unit on Australia, students create brochures in groups advertising a city or region of

their choice.

In groups, students create themed poetry books that include students' favorite poems as

well as poems they have written.

Students write a persuasive letter to the mayor outlining the benefits of recycling to

suggest more recycling facilities.

In a unit on the solar system, students create a collection of science-fiction short stories.

even when teachers do implement instruction that fos

ters self-regulated learning, they often do not under

stand the relationship between tasks and

self-regulation (Perry, Phillips, et al., 2006). Therefore,

the common language offered through ACCESS is par

ticularly helpful, facilitating dialogue about effective

instruction. When planning with their grade-level col

leagues, for example, teachers can use ACCESS to cre

ate interdisciplinary assignments that encourage

self-regulation and allow explicit teaching of literacy skills. Administrators or literacy coaches can use this

organizational framework to plan professional devel

opment or to evaluate teachers' instruction over time.

Table 2 is a sample rubric that could be used to plan or evaluate this type of instruction.

ACCESS Promotes Differentiated

Instruction Differentiation is instruction that meets the individual

needs of each student (Tomlinson, 2004). Designing tasks with ACCESS enables differentiated instruction

by encouraging students to work cooperatively in au

thentic situations. The nature of these assignments al

lows the teacher and the student to control the degree of challenge, thereby allowing all students to work

within their Zone of Proximal Development (Perry,

Turner, et al., 2006). In the newspaper example, for

instance, all students completed the same task: They

composed newspaper articles. In completing this task,

each student wrote at his or her level. Lower perform

ing students wrote articles of less quality, but they were working within their Zone of Proximal

Development. Thus, ACCESS tasks are inherently dif

ferentiated because they enable students to control

challenge. Moreover, because the teacher's role with

in these tasks becomes that of a facilitator, he or she

is able to provide small-group instruction as students

work on the assignment. The teacher differentiates by

providing instruction that is responsive to students'

individual needs, pushing them beyond their current

ability levels. Therefore, students receive the instruc

tion they need to improve their reading, and also all

students participate in challenging, authentic tasks

that promote self-regulation.

ACCESS Promotes Explicit Instruction The teacher's role of facilitator does not preclude ex

plicit instruction. Instead, it allows for more direct

forms of instruction for students who demonstrate the

need. Research has established that explicit literacy instruction helps students improve their reading and

writing (Duffy et al., 1987; Graham & Harris, 2003). ACCESS tasks allow the teacher to provide explicit

small-group instruction?just as Ms. Mashburn is do

ing in the example. Small groups permit the teacher to

explain and model literacy skills and strategies for stu




Table 2

Sample Rubric

Authenticity

Collaboration

Challenge

End product

Student directed

Sustained

1 : The task is limited to activities that are completed primarily in school. 2: The activity mimics outside-of-school tasks but still has many features of school-based

activities.

3: The activity closely replicates tasks completed by people in their day-to-day lives outside of school.

1 : Students work alone on the activity. 2: Students collaborate minimally on the activity. 3: Students must collaborate throughout the activity.

1 : Students complete the task with minimal effort or are frustrated by the activity. 2: Some aspects of the activity challenge the students, or only some of the students are

challenged by the task. 3: Most aspects of the activity are challenging but not frustrating, and the task is arranged in

order to challenge all students.

1 : There is no culminating product. 2: There is a culminating product, but it is peripheral to the activities within the task. 3: The culminating product drives the activities within the task.

1 : The students have no input on the task. 2: The students have input, but the choices have minimal influence on the task. 3: Students have input into many substantial aspects of the activity.

1 : The task is completed in one sitting. 2: The task lasts throughout one day. 3: The task spans two or more days.

Note. Adapted from Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, & Tower (2007) and Miller & Meece (1999).

dents who demonstrate the need. Therefore, the

teacher teaches fundamental skills and strategies needed to read proficiently and to succeed on high stakes tests, but this instruction occurs within authen

tic assignments that promote self-regulated literacy

learning.

ACCESS Promotes Interdisciplinary Instruction

ACCESS describes components of tasks, and, as such,

they can be applied to any content. Therefore,

ACCESS encourages instruction that addresses multi

ple state standards. In Ms. Mashburn's activity, for ex

ample, literacy standards were facilitated as students

read and wrote extensively as well as received explic it instruction. The focus on historical fiction addressed

social studies standards, and the word processing in

volved in publishing the newspaper worked toward

technology standards. While the content of this assign ment focused on social studies, the teacher could eas

ily have arranged the task to address specific math or

science standards. The sample tasks in Figure 2

demonstrate how ACCESS promotes cross-disciplinary

instruction. Pamphlets, books, newspapers, debates,

and artifacts, for instance, can focus on any topic relat

ed to state standards. A Big Book in a kindergarten

classroom could focus on precipitation as students

study weather, or a brochure in the fourth grade could

describe prominent state citizens. A disciplinary em

phasis does not detract from any of the components of

ACCESS. In fact, such cross-disciplinary instruction

promotes the "coherence of instructional processes"

that Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) suggested improves

student engagement and reading comprehension.

How Do I Fit ACCESS Into My Busy Schedule? ACCESS is not additional instruction that teachers

must squeeze into their busy days. Instead, it is an




organizational framework that helps teachers plan tasks that meet curriculum standards and that encour

age in students self-regulated learning. Every assign

ment, obviously, cannot include all these

components, especially when programs and man

dates make such authentic instruction difficult.

Nonetheless, it is important to use such instruction to

help all students become self-regulated literacy learn

ers, even when it requires teachers to teach against the

grain. Because ACCESS encourages interdisciplinary

instruction, time allotted for various subjects can be

combined to create large blocks of time to work on

the project. For example, in completing an ACCESS

task focusing on science, time could be taken from

literacy and science blocks to allow 90 minutes every other day for a couple of weeks. Time in schools is

precious, especially with all that teachers are required to teach. Implementing ACCESS tasks, though, is well

worth the effort because it encourages self-regulation in students while also helping teachers implement dif

ferentiated, cross-disciplinary instruction.

Encouraging Self-Regulated Literacy Learners Preparing students to succeed on high-stakes tests is

important. Indeed, students need to master basic lit

eracy competencies that allow them to perform well

on such assessments. This outcome should be expect ed of teachers. However, it should be the minimum

expectation. Higher expectations, such as empower

ing and motivating students, should also exist. At the

beginning of this article, I asked if it was possible to de

sign literacy instruction that prepares students to pass

high-stakes tests and that empowers and motivates stu

dents to take charge of their learning. ACCESS is an or

ganizational framework that helps teachers do both.

The differentiated and explicit literacy instruction fa

cilitated by ACCESS helps students develop the read

ing skills and strategies to help students pass

high-stakes tests. This skill and strategy instruction,

however, is nested within authentic, challenging tasks

that facilitate self-regulated literacy learning. While no

research to date has established the impact of ACCESS

on student literacy learning or motivation, its compo nents are rooted in theory and research from literacy and educational psychology. Future study on the im

plementation of ACCESS tasks will demonstrate the

extent of the benefits they afford students.

Parsons is a doctoral candidate at the University of

North Carolina at Greensboro, USA; e-mail

saparson @uncg. edu.

References

Allington, R.L. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers:

Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Baker, L, & Beall, L. (in press). Metacognitive processes and read

ing comprehension. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York:

Routledge.

Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M,

& Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning:

Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational

Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369-398.

Bogner, K., Raphael, L.M., & Pressley, M. (2002). How grade 1

teachers motivate literate activity by their students. Scientific

Studies of Reading, 6,135-165.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Dole, J.A., Nokes, J.D., & Drits, D. (in press). Cognitive strategy in

struction. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of re

search on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge.

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational

Research, 53(2), 159-199.

Duffy, G.G. (1991). What counts in teacher education? Dilemmas

in educating empowered teachers. In J. Lutell & S. McCormick

(Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research

and instruction, 40th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1-18). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Duffy, G.G. (2003). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching con

cepts, skills, and strategies. New York: Guilford.

Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C, Meloth,

M.S., et al. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associat

ed with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly,

22(3), 347-368.

Duke, N.K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L.A., & Tower, C. (2006/2007). Authentic literacy activities for developing comprehension and

writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344-355.

Fairbanks, CM. (2000). Fostering adolescents' literacy engage ments: "Kid's business" and critical inquiry. Reading Research

and Instruction, 40(\), 35-50.

Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School en

gagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.

Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59-109.

Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of tra

ditional schooling. New York: Routledge.

Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2003). Students with learning disabili

ties and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies.

In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of

research on learning disabilities (pp. 323-344). New York:

Guilford.

Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of

Literacy Research, 36(\), 1-29.

Guthrie, J.T., & Humenick, N.M. (2004). Motivating students to

read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra

(Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329-354). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation

in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R.




Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp.

403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hacker, D.J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D.J.

Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Gaesser (Eds.), Metacognition in ed

ucational theory and practice (pp. 1-24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., &

Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science class

rooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of

the Learning Science, 7(3 & 4), 313-350.

Miller, S.D. (2003). How high- and low-challenge tasks affect moti

vation and learning: Implications for struggling learners.

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(\), 39-57. Miller, S.D., & Meece, J.L. (1997). Enhancing elementary students'

motivation to read and write: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 286-299.

Miller, S.D., & Meece, J.L. (1999). Third-graders' motivational pref erences for reading and writing tasks. Elementary School

Journal, 700(1), 19-35.

Moje, E.B. (1999). From expression to dialogue: A study of social

action literacy projects in an urban school setting. The Urban

Review, 31(3), 305-330.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

(2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children

to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research

literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction

(NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of

strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D.

Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp.


Perry, N.E. Hutchinson, L., &Thauberger, C. (2007). Mentoring student teachers to design and implement literacy tasks that

support self-regulated reading and writing. Reading & Writing

Quarterly, 23(\), 27-50.

Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of

tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1854-1878.

Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring stu

dent teachers to support self-regulated learning. Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 237-254.

Perry, N.E., Turner, J.C., & Meyer, D.K. (2006). Classrooms as con

texts for motivating learning. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp.


Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for

balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated

learning. In M Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651-685). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:

Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54-67.

Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Rust, F.

(with Snowden, J.B., Gordon, E., et al.). (2005). Assessment. In

L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers

for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to

do (pp. 275-326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and

practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Teale, W.H., & Gambrell, LB. (2007). Raising urban students' liter

acy achievement by engaging in authentic, challenging work.

The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 728-739.

Tomlinson, CA. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating in

struction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188.

Turner, J.C (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children's motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly,

30(3), 410-441.

Turner, J.C, & Paris, S.G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence chil

dren's motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662-675.

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

psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard

University Press.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cogni tive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.




Documents

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning