&62=.9:2;@7/#17-.:4*6-&62=.9:2;@7/#17-.:4*6-
202;*475576:Ê*475576:&#
744.0.7/-<,*;276*,<4;@"<+42,*;276: .26:;.26744.0.7/-<,*;276
"9.8*92609.*-26042;.9*,@:8.,2*42:;:;75..;,1*60.:*6-"9.8*92609.*-26042;.9*,@:8.,2*42:;:;75..;,1*60.:*6-
,1*44.60.:6;.96*;276*42;.9*,@::7,2*;276B:$;*6-*9-:,1*44.60.:6;.96*;276*42;.9*,@::7,2*;276B:$;*6-*9-:
2*6..96
&62=.9:2;@7/#17-.:4*6-
-3.96<92.-<
#2;* .*6
442:76$>*6*0.6
.=.94@.'92.:
<;<567-0.
$..6.?;8*0./79*--2;276*4*<;179:
7447>;12:*6-*--2;276*4>793:*;1;;8:-202;*4,75576:<92.-<.-<,*;276)/*,8<+:
2;*;276"<+42:1.9;;92+<;2762;*;276"<+42:1.9;;92+<;276
.96.*6# *0.6$.'92.:7-0.7*;4.@'88742;7".9326:(*43.9
*417<:."9.8*92609.*-26042;.9*,@:8.,2*42:;:;75..;,1*60.:*6-,1*44.60.:6;.96*;276*4
2;.9*,@::7,2*;276B:
$;*6-*9-:
2;.9*,@#.:.*9,1*6-6:;9<,;276
-72
=*24*+4.*;1;;8:-72790
%12:9;2,4.2:+97<01;;7@7<+@;1.&62=.9:2;@7/#17-.:4*6-;1*:+..6*,,.8;.-/7926,4<:27626744.0.7/
-<,*;276*,<4;@"<+42,*;276:+@*6*<;1792A.-*-5262:;9*;797/202;*475576:𓛛.26/795*;276
84.*:.,76;*,;-202;*4,75576:097<8<92.-<798.952::276;79.<:.,78@9201;.-,76;.6;,76;*,;;1.*<;179
-29.,;4@
"9.8*92609.*-26042;.9*,@:8.,2*42:;:;75..;,1*60.:*6-,1*44.60.:"9.8*92609.*-26042;.9*,@:8.,2*42:;:;75..;,1*60.:*6-,1*44.60.:
6;.96*;276*42;.9*,@::7,2*;276B:$;*6-*9-:6;.96*;276*42;.9*,@::7,2*;276B:$;*6-*9-:
<;179:<;179:
2*6..96#2;* .*6442:76$>*6*0.6.=.94@.'92.:<;<567-0.'290262*7*;4.@*,@
88742;7.4.6".9326:*6-792:(*43.9*417<:.
%1.&62=.9:2;@7/#17-.:4*6-*,<4;@1*=.5*-.;12:*9;2,4.78.64@*=*24*+4.%1.&62=.9:2;@7/#17-.:4*6-*,<4;@1*=.5*-.;12:*9;2,4.78.64@*=*24*+4.
"4.*:.4.;<:367>"4.*:.4.;<:367>17>!8.6,,.::;7;12:9.:.*9,1+.6.C;:@7<17>!8.6,,.::;7;12:9.:.*9,1+.6.C;:@7<
%12:2:*89.8<+42,*;276*<;1795*6<:,928;7/;1.C6*48<+42:1.-*9;2,4.
%.95:7/&:.
%12:*9;2,4.2:5*-.*=*24*+4.<6-.9;1.;.95:*6-,76-2;276:*8842,*+4.;7>*9-:!8.6,,.::"742,@
9;2,4.:*::.;/79;1267<9%.95:7/&:.
%12:*9;2,4.2:*=*24*+4.*;202;*475576:;8:-202;*4,75576:<92.-<.-<,*;276)/*,8<+:
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
1
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists to Meet Changes and Challenges: International Literacy
Association’s Standards 2017
Diane Kern, University of Rhode Island
Rita M. Bean, University of Pittsburg
Allison Swan Dagen, University of West Virginia
Beverly DeVries, Southern Nazarene University
Autumn Dodge, Lynchburg College
Virginia Goatley, University at Albany
Jacy Ippolito, Salem State University
J. Helen Perkins, University of Memphis
Doris Walker-Dalhouse, Marquette University
Contact: Dr. Diane Kern, 297 Pine Hill Road, Wakefield, RI 02879
[email protected], (401) 742-2389
Submitted: November 17, 2017
Revised and resubmitted: January 31, 2018
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
2
Changing times require changes in what reading/literacy specialists are required to know
and be able to do. The International Literacy Association (ILA) has been involved in developing
standards for preparing reading professionals for several decades (Kern, 2011). Universities and
colleges, states, and school districts use these standards for making decisions about program
development, certification, and hiring practices for literacy professionals, including reading
specialists, literacy coaches, and literacy program supervisors/coordinators.
In this article, we describe major changes that differentiate the Standards for the
Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 (Standards 2017) (ILA, 2018) from earlier versions,
focusing on standards for the role of the reading/literacy specialist. We then elaborate on the
content of each of the 2017 Standards and discuss implications for those involved in designing
programs for preparing reading/literacy specialists.
Changes in Roles
In this section, we discuss specific changes in roles and titles of the standards (IRA,
2010; ILA, 2018), which have implications for programs and states planning certification,
endorsement or credential pathways for reading/literacy specialists, literacy coaches and literacy
coordinator/supervisors.
Separation of Reading/Literacy Specialist from Literacy Coach
The titles of reading specialist, literacy coach, literacy coordinator are often used
interchangeably in schools and districts. A goal of the 2017 Standards was to differentiate among
each of these roles in ways that reflected the findings described in the ILA The Multiple Roles of
School-Based Specialized Literacy Professionals Research Brief (ILA, 2015a) and Position
Statement (ILA, 2015b). Current research as well as economic, political, and social conditions
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
3
that affect schools and how they function informed ILA’s decision to create a set of distinct
standards for the three roles of specialized literacy professionals.
By separating the roles, we have “sharpened the terminology” as recommended by
Galloway and Lesaux (2014, p. 524). Standard requirements for the reading/literacy specialist
now focus on the primary role as instructional, while maintaining an emphasis on the need for
professionals to be able to work collaboratively with other educators. Standards for literacy
coaches place primary emphasis on working with teachers in schools; whereas, standards for
literacy coordinators/supervisors emphasize districtwide leadership of literacy programs. Thus,
preparation programs can now focus their development efforts more precisely on the role of the
reading /literacy specialist or coach or coordinator/supervisor.
Key Changes in Standards
Standards 2017 titles remain the same for Standards, 1, 2, 3, and 6 (see Table 1). Changes
were made in the titles of Standard 4 and Standard 5. Standard 7: Practicum/Clinical
Experiences, developed specifically for the three roles of the specialized literacy professionals, is
an entirely new standard in Standards 2017.
Changes in the Content and Implications: Standard by Standard
Universities and colleges have an enormous task in designing, implementing, and
evaluating programs for preparing reading/literacy specialists. They must prepare candidates
who have the advanced content and pedagogical knowledge, skills, and dispositions that enable
them to work effectively with students, especially those experiencing difficulty with reading and
writing. In addition, they must prepare candidates who can collaborate with teachers so that
students are receiving appropriate classroom instruction. The Standards Revision Committee
(SRC), in the development process, continued to ask itself, “What does it mean to be a
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
4
reading/literacy specialist? What ‘advanced ‘skills, knowledge, and dispositions are essential,
beyond those expected of the classroom teacher, and how can these be incorporated in a coherent
program that is effective and doable?”
Below we describe the content of each of the seven 2017 Standards, highlighting the
research and theory serving as a basis for each of the standards. We then discuss implications for
reading/literacy specialist program revision, design, and evaluation.
Standard 1. Foundational Knowledge
One of the most significant changes in the standards is the shift from a narrower focus on
reading and writing to a broader perspective that acknowledges that candidates are responsible
for literacy instruction of students. Such a change results from findings that identify the
interrelatedness of the various components of the language arts and the importance of an
integrated approach to literacy instruction (Gavelek, Raphael, Biondo & Wang, 2000; Graham &
Hebert, 2010; Lawrence & Snow, 2011). We see this shift in the expectations of standards for
preparing teachers (e.g., National Board) as well as standards for students (e.g., Common Core
State Standards [NGA & CCSSO, 2010]), and similar standards developed by states that call for
a more integrated model of literacy instruction.
To develop the content for this Standard, the SRC grappled with how literacy would be
defined. For example, literacy has been defined as the ability to read and write. Other
researchers conceptualized literacy more broadly, even incorporating political and social
dimensions (Gee, 1990; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). We described three
components of literacy: reading (1.1), writing (1.2), and language (1.3) (see Table 1).
Component 1.3 (language) addresses the structure of language, speaking, listening, viewing and
visual representation. We also highlighted the importance of the connectedness between and
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
5
among the components of literacy. Candidates for reading/literacy specialist certification must
develop an understanding of the major theories and conceptual foundations of literacy (e.g.,
Alvermann, Unrau, & Ruddell, 2013; August & Shanahan, 2006; Kamil, Pearson, Moje, &
Afflerbach, 2010; MacArthur, Graham, and Fitzgerald, 2016; McGill-Franzen & Allington,
2010; National Early Literacy Panel, 2008; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008, Tracey & Morrow,
2017).
The fourth component of Standard 1 (1.4) focuses on the importance of the historical and
evidence based foundations related to the role of the reading/literacy specialist (Bean, 2015;
Bean, Kern, Goatley, Ortlieb, Shettel, Calo,…Cassidy (2015); Galloway & Lesaux, 2014;
Quatroche, Bean, & Hamilton, 2001). Those aspiring to become reading/literacy specialists must
possess knowledge about the role and the ways this role has evolved through the years if they are
to be effective in their positions.
Implications
First, given the broader emphasis on literacy, those who develop programs must make
decisions about what major theories and concepts are important for candidates entering the
program. Program designers will need to reexamine the nature of instruction and assignments,
that is, what do candidates need to learn that demonstrate an understanding of the ways in which
the components of literacy are connected and the evidence that supports literacy learning.
Programs will most likely need to reorganize their coursework in ways that emphasize the ways
in which key theories (e.g., Behaviorist, Cognitive, Social Constructivist) have influenced
literacy instruction. A key is to synthesize what is important for candidates to know, or as Snow,
Griffin, and Burns (2005) indicate, we must sift through the knowledge to identify what aspects
of it are useable for developing a reflective, experienced practitioner.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
6
Second, those who prepare specialized literacy professionals will need to think differently
about how to develop programs that emphasize the key function of reading/literacy specialists,
that is to prepare educators who work primarily with students experiencing difficulties with
reading; at the same time, they will need to include experiences that develop candidate
knowledge about the other components of literacy that will strengthen their ability to be
successful in their role. The Four Lenses of Learning (i.e., language based, meaning centered,
social, and human), as described by Botel and Paparo (2016), provide a useful theoretical
framework for thinking about literacy processes for learning to read and for literacy and its
impact on subject area learning.
Third, given the complexity of literacy, choices must be made about what topics or
themes are essential in programs designed to prepare reading/literacy specialists. The list below,
in Table 2, although not inclusive, identifies some of those critical topics and resources for
program designers.
Finally, the shift from reading to literacy has implications for how the foundational
knowledge of literacy specialists will be assessed so that the knowledge base of literacy is well
represented. Those who develop tests (e.g., state departments, programs, and standardized test
developers, such as Educational Testing Service) may need to revise their examinations to ensure
literacy foundational knowledge is measured.
Standard 2. Curriculum and Instruction
Changes in the content of Standard 2 also reflect the shift from reading to literacy.
Further, candidates are expected to use or apply foundational knowledge to make decisions about
literacy curriculum and instruction; such as, ability to design, critique, and adapt literacy
curricula (2.1); select or design evidence-based approaches and practices that meet the needs of
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
7
whole class and small groups of students (2.2); select, adapt, teach and evaluate supplemental
and intervention approaches (2.3); and ability to collaborate with and coach peers in developing,
implementing and evaluating literacy instruction and curriculum (2.4) (see Table 1).
Being aware of the various, interrelated components of literacy requires candidates to be
able to design instruction in which listening, speaking, reading, and writing are integrated as a
means of improving students’ literacy learning (Graham & Hebert, 2010; Raphael & Hiebert,
2013; Ankrum, 2017; Pearson & Hiebert, 2015). Important shifts in literacy instruction that
should influence the content in preparation programs include: a focus on reading and writing to
inform, persuade, and convey experiences; a focus on increasing text complexity; a focus on
speaking and listening; a focus on text-based evidence for argumentation; and a focus on
academic vocabulary and language (Fisher & Frey, 2013).
The major role of most reading/literacy specialists is that of working with students who in
some way exhibit a propensity for reading difficulties or have been identified as having such
difficulties; therefore, candidates must understand the nature of supplemental and intervention
approaches effective for improving the literacy skills of these learners. Whether reading/literacy
specialists work in specific intervention programs such as Response to Intervention, have
responsibilities for students receiving Title 1 support, or for differentiating instruction to address
literacy needs of students in a school or classroom, they must be able to demonstrate the ability
to design instructional approaches and use materials that meet students’ literacy needs.
The implications below are focused on the important role that reading/literacy specialists
have in working with learners experiencing difficulty with literacy, At the same time, we
acknowledge that these professionals should also have a deep and broader understanding of
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
8
curriculum and instruction that enables them to support the work of the overall school literacy
program.
Implications
First, given that students with reading difficulties exhibit different characteristics, and
patterns of reading abilities, (Buly & Valencia, 2002; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 2010),
instructional interventions will need to vary. This variability requires reading/literacy specialists
to be able to identify profiles of readers and to have a deep understanding of the various
intervention approaches.
Second, reading/literacy specialists must be able to target instruction to meet the needs of
students with whom they work. According to Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998), instructional
approaches for students with difficulties may not differ dramatically from that for readers who
learn to read more easily; however, students with reading difficulties need instruction that is
more explicit, intense, and more supportive (Foorman & Torgeson, 2001; Wharton-McDonald,
2011). Such instruction is critical when teaching not just the foundational skills, but the
meaning-based aspects of literacy. There is evidence that, when learning to read, many students,
and especially those who struggle, need explicit, systematic, phonological and phonics
instruction (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Connor, Alberto,
Compton, & O’Connor, 2014), which requires reading/literacy specialists to understand how the
structure of language (Moats, 2004) impacts instruction. In addition to having the ability to
teach more explicitly, candidates need to be able to intensify instruction by increasing
instructional time and providing effective small group instruction. Of great importance, is the
need for specialized literacy professionals to develop lessons that provide the scaffolding and the
appropriate level of challenge that engage learners. Such instruction should be engaging and
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
9
provide opportunities for student choice to enhance student motivation to read and write
(Guthrie, 2008).
Finally, given the range of levels at which these reading/literacy specialists might work,
that is, from preschool through high school, there is much they need to know about curriculum
and instruction. Program designers would be wise to consider ways in which to modify their
programs to provide for some candidate choice. In other words, there may be options in the
program such as the following: candidates who choose to work at the preschool or primary levels
might take an additional course related to emergent literacy and beginning reading while those
who choose to work at the high school level might have the opportunity to select a course about
disciplinary or adolescent literacy. Certainly, there will need to be a basic strand for all
candidates so that they have a common and foundational understanding of instructional
approaches, but the need for some program variability is suggested.
Standard 3 Assessment and Evaluation
The primary goal of Standard 3, Assessment and Evaluation, is to enable candidates to
use a variety of assessment tools and practices to plan and evaluate effective literacy instruction.
Candidates are expected to understand the technical attributes of assessment instruments and to
administer these appropriately, (3.1), to be able to collaborate with colleagues in interpreting
results and use those results for instructional planning (3.2), to assist their colleagues in
administering and analyzing results (3.3), and to communicate results and serve as advocates for
stakeholders (3.4). (see Table 1).
Reading/literacy specialists need to be both experienced and strategic in knowing how to
analyze data patterns that document students’ strengths and needs to optimize student learning
(Afflerbach, 2011; Lipson, Chomsky-Higgins, Kanfer, 2011; Scanlon, 2010). Another key
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
10
aspect of their role is to use results of these assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of
instructional practices. Therefore, specialists must understand the value of assessments and draw
on multiple forms of assessment data to inform literacy instruction (Afflerbach, 2016; Roskos &
Neuman, 2012; Torgeson & Miller, 2009; Vogt, Echevarria, & Short, 2010; Wixson & Valencia,
2011). They should be able to administer assessments with knowledge of purpose, audience,
strengths/limitation, bias, etc. of each assessment tool. Then, they must use the results of
multiple assessment tools to systematically evaluate literacy instruction within and across
individuals, classrooms, and schools.
As school-level leaders, reading/literacy specialists play a key role in analysis of
assessment data that can inform professional learning experiences and school/district
improvement initiatives (Bean & Lillenstein, 2012). The range of responsibilities has increased
over time and the 2017 standards reflect this evolving nature of leadership of reading/literacy
specialists in the assessment process.
Within a time period when many stakeholders attempt to dictate policy requirements
about assessment, the 2017 Standards emphasize the need for specialists to be advocates for
students and teachers with multiple audiences (e.g., parents, administrators, community
members). Specialized literacy professionals should understand the local, interpretive, and
situational contexts in which assessment occurs and draw on that knowledge to systematically
use assessment data, “to plan instruction, select specific strategies for a given context or content,
evaluate students’ responses to instruction/intervention, engage their learners in self-appraisal,
and critically reflect on practice (International Literacy Association, 2018).
Implications
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
11
First, preparation programs need to provide activities and learning experiences that
ensure candidates know how to select and administer assessments, determine which assessments
to use, collaborate with colleagues to interpret results, use data results for instructional decision
making, and communicate their findings to relevant stakeholders.
Second, given the shift from a focus on reading to a broader focus on literacy, program
designers will need to consider what assessment measures to include in their programs so that
candidates have a better understanding of how to measure, for example, writing, or language
development. Likewise, what measures are important for assessing the needs of students at the
early levels of schools as well as for those at the high school level? Only a finite number of
assessment measures can be introduced within a program, and therefore program designers might
take into consideration whether they have included those that can serve as examples of the
following categories of assessment tools: formal standardized measures, screening measures,
diagnostic tools, and informal measures. They might also focus on helping candidates develop
an understanding of how to evaluate assessment tools and their appropriateness for specific
purposes.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, evaluation and the use of data should be linked to
decision-making about instruction. This recommendation requires that program designers
highlight the connections between Standard 2 and Standard 3.
Standard 4 Diversity and Equity
Standard 4 has been expanded to include a focus on educational equity. To accomplish
this, literacy professionals are challenged to demonstrate leadership and to work collaboratively
with students, teachers, district and community personnel, and families in advocating for equity
for diverse students to eliminate school-based practices and institutional structures that are
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
12
inherently biased. The goal is to use what we know about diversity and equity to teach
reading/literacy specialists how to create a more culturally responsive literacy curriculum, and to
interact in more socially just, culturally competent ways with families from varied communities--
urban, rural, and suburban--in which schools are located. Second, the changes reflect a broader
and more inclusive definition of diversity. This broader definition of diversity acknowledges the
many ways in which individuals differ. The four components of Standard 4 are: the need for
candidates to have knowledge of the major foundational theories about diversity learners, equity,
and culturally responsive instruction (4.1); ability to demonstrate an understanding of themselves
and others as cultural beings through their interactions with others (4.2); ability to create and
advocate for inclusive and affirming classroom and school environments (4.3); and advocate for
equity with various stakeholders (4.4) (see Table 1).
Standard 4 builds on seminal research used in Standards 2010 and expands the literature
review to include additional theories, pedagogies, and essential concepts of diversity and equity.
For example, we revisited Gloria Ladson-Billings’ investigation of the literacy instruction of
eight teachers of African-American students, which provided the foundation for a culturally
relevant theory of education (Ladson-Billings, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995). This research
informed theory that rejects a deficit approach to thinking about culturally diverse students and
reinforces a belief in their capacity to learn.
Moll and Gonzalez (1994) conducted seminal ethnographic research with Mexican
American families in working class communities that led to the funds of knowledge theory. The
theory recognizes the accumulated and cultural knowledge and skills that children acquire as
they function in their individual home environment. The knowledge that children acquire from
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
13
their respective home and communities were considered resources to be recognized, valued, and
used to advance their learning.
Third space theory (Gutiérrez, 2008, Gutiérrez, Baquedano-Lopez, & Tejeda, 1999) is
based on seminal research conducted with migrant farmworker families that recognizes the home
and community knowledge of students, and the activities and practices of schools. The theory
supports a creation of a third space in which the different knowledge acquired by students from
their home, school, and communities is brought together and used to create new teaching and
learning opportunities.
Implications
First, faculty aligning their reading/literacy specialist curriculum and assessments to the
2017 Standards may want to examine their programs for inclusion of experiences that develop
candidates’ content knowledge, their own cultural competence, and ability to implement
culturally responsive pedagogies and practices with students and their families. For example,
candidates might be required to engage in personal assessment of their own attitudes and beliefs
about diversity and to participate in professional development activities that enable them to
understand theories across all forms of diversity. Another experience might include collaborating
with other educators to analyze and set equitable goals for student learning that respect and
affirm students’ identities and recognize the funds of knowledge that they bring to learning.
Second, program faculty are encouraged to find ways to help candidates: reflect about the
representation of diversity in the school curriculum, materials, and routines used in creating an
inclusive environment for learning; to collaborate with families in support of students’ learning
and to seek opportunities to use the knowledge of students’ home and school communities to
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
14
connect their home and school literacies; and to advocate for policy, procedures, and curriculum
that address issues of social justice, advocacy, activism, and resiliency.
Finally, reading/literacy specialist candidates would benefit from multiple opportunities
to observe, plan, and teach diverse students in school settings. Candidates should engage in
personal reflection that examines the extent to which they understand, affirm and validate
students’ diversity. Subsequent critical discussions of the academic needs of students across all
forms of diversity could be discussed, along with the changes needed to improve instructional
practices and learner outcomes. An outgrowth of the discussions might be the creation of a plan
for advocacy that builds upon candidates’ understanding of school and community demographics
and assets, and recognizes the relevance of diversity to language learning, literacy development,
motivation, engagement, and achievement.
Standard 5 Learners and the Literacy Environment
In 2017, the “learner” was added to emphasize the centrality of students in the literacy
learning environment. Moreover, we expanded the notion of environment to address contextual
factors influencing 21
st
century learning, namely digital literacies. The four components include
meeting the developmental needs of learners (5.1), access to and integration print, digital texts
and online resources (5.2) safe and effective use of digital technologies (e.g., devices, texts,
interactions, and tools) (5.3) and the ways reading/literacy specialists play an integral role in
fostering a positive literacy learning environment (5.4) (see Table 1).
How the field unpacks the construct of environment, should both be in response to and
directed toward the evolving needs of all learners, from those at risk to advanced learners and
those with exceptionalities. In the past, for example, researchers have looked at environment’s
print rich influence on young learners (Wolfersberger, Reutzel, Sudweeks & Fawson, 2004),
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
15
social interaction and play (Pellegrini & Galda, 1993), and access to materials (Roskos &
Neuman, 2001) to define effective elements in creating physical and social spaces for learning.
In revising this standard, we acknowledge and include this key research that focuses on both the
physical and social aspects of environments including access, grouping, routines and classroom
configuration.
There are two major additions to this body of existing research. First, is the
acknowledgement of the centrality of the individual literacy learner in any consideration of the
literacy environment. It is expected that reading/literacy specialists will have knowledge and
understanding of theoretical models of learner development and learner differences. This also
requires programs to provide opportunities for candidates to engage with learners of a wide range
of age, abilities (e.g., English learners, gifted, those experiencing difficulty with literacy tasks),
and development.
The second major revision of Standard 5 emphasizes the deictic nature of literacy (Leu,
Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, Henry, 2013), which in the 21st century is driven by the speed in which
technology evolves, changes, and influences schooling and society. Literacy learners are
immersed in and engaged with social media, have 24/7 access to news and information, and use
functional tools and applications daily. Standard 5 acknowledges that literacy learners live in a
world of digital tools, devices, and interactions to communicate and learn. The treatment of
digital literacies in Standard 5, and across the standards, is a response to what it means to be
literate. Digital technologies are changing the definition of literacy); digital literacy simply is
literacy (Castek, 2015). Leu states, “social contexts have always shaped both the function and
form of literate practices and been shaped by them in return” (2013, p. 1151). In Standard 5, we
address digital literacies as the multiple ways we read, write, communicate using digital
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
16
technologies (e.g., tools and devices). The Standards acknowledge that digital literacies
influence the way learners consume, create and communicate/share digital content (e.g., blogs,
social media, You Tube). Further, digital (and print) texts provide nearly unlimited choices, and
reading/literacy specialists need to recognize their role in personalizing the individual student
literacy experience. Guiding students’ use of new tools and providing feedback helps develop the
skills needed to find and evaluate information, create representations of their learning, and share
ideas in ways that extend student literacy learning
Implications
First, implications for programs preparing reading/literacy specialists include a call for
increased in depth learning experiences to develop foundational knowledge about individual
learners, digital technologies, digital literacies and learning environments. Program coordinators
and faculty can use the ILA Standards 2017 (2018) as a framework to review existing
coursework and program curriculum.
Programs might also consider reviewing their treatment of the “learner” throughout the
entire program. Introducing various developmental theories, in an already packed program, may
occur as part of a foundations course or through a partnership with Educational Psychology
department. A second wave of program reflection may involve asking deeper questions, such
as, what is the program’s theoretical orientation and beliefs about development, engagement,
motivation, and intervention specific to individual learners experiencing difficulties with reading
and writing? Also, how does the program provide candidates with opportunities to apply this
knowledge in field experiences, either in schools or within community settings?
Second, programs might consider reviewing their treatment of “digital literacies”
throughout the entire program. For example, candidates will need to understand major theories
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
17
and research findings related to these new literacies (Leu, Kinzer, Coiro, Castek, & Henry,
2013), technology-enhanced learning principles, and students’ out- of-school digitally supported
literacy engagements. As well, programs need to ensure candidates learn how this information
influences instructional practices. An additional level of review may look at how programs
model their own use of print and digital materials and how they support candidate’s own learning
in the program.
Last, programs might consider reviewing their treatment of “literacy environments”
throughout the program, In addition to the physical (e.g., what we see) and non-physical (e.g.,
how we feel) elements of environments, program might determine how they develop knowledge
and application on bridging in and out of school literacy (Hull & Schultz, 2001); engaging parent
and community in literacy learning (Paratore, Cassano & Schickendanz, 2010); recognizing how
both physical, social and emotional learning contexts contribute to collaborative learning
opportunities (Kriete, 2014; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998), and recognizing learners’ motivation
and choice (Gambrell, 2011; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Another level of review may require
programs to think about how they model and provide candidates opportunities for social
interaction. What opportunities are presented throughout the program so candidates may
collaborate on decisions impacting literacy learners (e.g., grouping patters and routines)?
Standard 6: Professional Learning and Leadership.
The 2017 Standards focus more clearly on candidates demonstrating the ability to: seek out and
reflect on their own professional learning activities (6.1); engage in collaborative decision
making with colleagues (6.2); demonstrate leadership and facilitation skills (6.3); and apply their
knowledge when advocating for students, teachers, and the larger community (6.4) (see Table 1).
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
18
The separation of the reading/literacy specialist from the literacy coach role in the 2017
Standards required a new way of thinking about the expectations for Standard 6. Although their
primary role is to teach students who are experiencing difficulties with literacy tasks, they must
also be able to collaborate with and support colleagues in delivering effective literacy instruction.
They should continue to be involved in the development of schoolwide literacy programming
and may be involved in mentoring and coaching their peers. However, their primary role is to
teach students who are experiencing difficulties with literacy tasks AND support colleagues in
delivering effective instruction that meets student literacy needs.
The shifts in Standard 6 are modest but important and based on recent research and policy
about professional learning and the roles of literacy professionals in schools (Bean & Ippolito,
2016; Galloway & Lesaux, 2014; Risko & Vogt, 2016). Standard 6 encourages preparation
programs to expand their focus on reading/literacy specialists as leaders and facilitators of both
student and adult learning, facilitators who understand and know how to use discussion-based
protocols and can lead collaborative decision-making (Breidenstein, Fahey, Glickman &
Hensley, 2012). Revised Standard 6 also encourages reading/literacy specialist candidates to
model best practices with students and design/lead professional learning for colleagues that
improves literacy instruction and intervention work. Finally, the 2017 version of Standard 6
increases the emphasis on advocacy, as reading/literacy specialists have the potential to play a
vital role as literacy leaders within their schools and communities (Bean & Ippolito, 2016).
Implications
First, preparation programs that prepare reading/literacy specialists must continue to
provide learning opportunities that develop candidates’ ability to be critical consumers of literacy
research and promising practices in literacy instruction and assessments. Often, reading/literacy
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
19
specialists are involved in leading or facilitating team meetings (e.g., grade level, data teams,
academic departments). Programs should make candidates aware of these leadership
possibilities by providing experiences that develop candidates’ understanding of how to lead and
participate in collaborative discussions about instruction, how to facilitate decision-making, and
how to support teacher learning in the school.
Second, candidates can be provided with opportunities to develop and lead advocacy
efforts within the school and larger community. During fieldwork, candidates might collaborate
with school-based specialists and coaches to organize and lead family literacy events that
encourage all family members to engage in rich literacy activities (e.g., supporting parents in
effectively choosing and reading texts with students at home) (Taylor, 1983).
Ultimately, the 2017 Standards position reading/literacy specialists increasingly as
teacher leaders within their schools; consequently, preparation programs that have traditionally
focused exclusively on preparing candidates to “teach literacy only” may increasingly need to
collaborate with colleagues in education or organizational leadership preparation programs to
borrow courses from principal preparation programs to better support candidates’ knowledge and
skills related to leading adult learning, facilitating professional conversations, and supporting
school change. Course and fieldwork that attends both to effective literacy instruction and
leading adult professional learning will ultimately serve future reading/literacy specialists quite
well.
Standard 7: Practicum/Clinical Experiences
The 2017 Standards include a new standard designed to set clear expectations for
programs designing practicum/clinical practices in university clinics, centers, and schools.
Practicum experiences may occur in candidates’ own classrooms and can be integrated
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
20
throughout the program and demonstrated through assignments such as assessing a specific
student’s literacy strengths and needs, lesson planning with a colleague, etc. The four
components of Standard 7 are as follows: candidates demonstrate the ability to apply what they
are learning by working with students in their own schools or in clinical settings (7.1) and to
reflect on their teaching practices by working collaboratively with peers and experienced
colleagues (7.2). Candidates are required to have one or more opportunities for authentic, school-
based practicum experiences (7.3) and to receive supervision, from highly qualified supervisors
(7.4) (see Table 1).
Standard 7 incorporates key aspects of the ILA (2015b) position statement on the
Multiple Roles of Specialized Literacy Professionals states candidates should “engage with
students experiencing difficulties with reading and writing, their families, and their teachers to
extend candidates’ experiences with appropriate planning, assessment, and instruction” and also
have “various experiences related to adult learning and leadership” such as facilitating
professional learning communities (pp. 14-15).
Lacina and Block’s (2011) study examined programmatic features of six literacy teacher
education programs that received the International Reading Association (IRA) Certificate of
Distinction. Of the 14 highest ranking programmatic features, highest ranking was “consistent,
carefully selected, and relevant field experiences” that were “closely tied…to content presented
in courses” (Lacina & Block, 2011, p. 336). In these programs of distinction, “each literacy
related course contained field experiences” (p. 336). Further, faculty who taught the courses
supervised field experiences and “immediate feedback was given by this supervisor as well as by
fellow teacher candidates” (p. 336).
Implications
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
21
First, faculty must ensure candidates’ practicum/clinical experiences are ongoing, allow
for experiences that require candidates to work with students, especially those who struggle with
literacy, occur in school settings, and provide opportunities for candidates to develop the ability
to work collaboratively and reflectively. Development of ongoing experiences should allow for
integration across coursework and program assessments.
Second, programs are encouraged to consider the use of technology in their practicum
experiences, especially those that are supervised online. For example, video clips taken during
intervention sessions with students can be used to inform reflection, critique, and plans for
improvement. Likewise, those supervisors who cannot go into schools might consider using
something similar to blue tooth technology to observe and provide feedback to candidates as they
work with specific students (Rock, Gregg, Gable, & Zigmond, 2009). The use of video clips
might play heavily into how candidates receive feedback from supervisors and peers and engage
in reflective practice. Standard 7 lays out guidance for using technology at all levels (e.g.,
observation, reflection, feedback, collaboration) to enhance literacy preparation programs of all
formats (face-to-face, hybrid, and online). We suggest examining the work of those in the field
using video reflection in literacy teacher education featured in the volume edited by Ortlieb,
McVee, and Shanahan (2015), as well as Christ, Arya, and Chiu’s (2012) work on the results of
collaborative peer video analysis among literacy teachers.
Third, even though the primary role of the reading/literacy specialist is that of instruction,
candidates do need experiences that provide opportunities to coach and or collaborate with peers.
When working in a school or clinical setting, they might be able to “coach” each other as they
discuss lesson plans and observe each other. It is also worthwhile for program developers to
establish relationships with schools so that these candidates might be able to collaborate with
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
22
reading specialists in the field. In such an experience, the candidate and reading specialist can
work collaboratively with teachers to make decisions about instructional approaches for students
(Bean & Ippolito, 2016). Candidates might also be able to take a leadership role in a professional
learning community in the school in which they are working. This work could be integrated in a
course where candidates learn about adult learning theories and professional development.
Finally, and of critical importance, those who lead, design, and teach in programs
designed to prepare reading/literacy specialists need the skills, knowledge, and dispositions that
enable them to provide the instruction and feedback that enable reading/literacy specialist
candidates to become effective literacy professionals.
Discussion
The goals of this article were to provide a summary of key information about the 2017 ILA
Standards for the Preparation of Literacy Professionals 2017 for the role of the reading/literacy
specialist. Below we discuss several themes related to the 2017 Standards for preparing
reading/literacy specialists: Designing a Reading/Literacy Specialist Program, Process for
Program Re-design, and Supporting and Sharing Standards.
Designing a Program
Although we discussed implications for designing programs as they pertain to each
standard, one cannot design a program without considering the overall standards to develop a
coherent, comprehensive program that is doable, given the constraints of university
programming. In other words, designers must think about ways to integrate learning experiences
across standards and to design assessments that serve to measure several of the required
components. For example, program designers might require candidates to assess a student and to
design instruction that addresses the literacy needs of that student. In addition to addressing
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
23
components in Standard 2 and 3, the instruction might be assessed to determine whether it
addresses issues related to Diversity and Equity (Standard 4) and to Student as Learner (Standard
5). Program designers are accustomed to this type of thinking, given their experiences with the
2010 Standards. However, it is even more critical at this time, given the greater demands of
these standards.
The separation of reading/literacy specialist from literacy coach requires program
designers to rethink the ways in which candidates are given opportunities to collaborate with and
coach their peers. Currently many programs have a single course, often with titles such as
Leadership Role of the Reading Specialist, or Coaching and Leadership. They may choose to
keep such a course, or they may decide to embed coaching experiences and content within
several courses. What our 2017 Standards acknowledge is that the single course in the previous
programs was not sufficient for preparing those who became coaches in the schools. However,
such courses are still extremely important first experiences for reading/literacy specialists who
will need to know more about leadership, how to collaborate with their peers, and who may have
some coaching responsibilities on-the-job. Given the emphasis on shared leadership as an
important means of school improvement, such experiences also enable candidates to develop a
better sense of their role as teacher-leaders, able to collaborate with others to improve overall
literacy learning.
Process for Program Design
The process for new program design or re-designing an existing program can take many shapes.
Meetings with colleagues at your own institution or in your region, especially if your program
faculty is small, is a great way to start the process. Faculty could jigsaw the standards 1-7 to
review the standard, components, and supporting research and literature. Then faculty could
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
24
meet in person or use distance communication technology, such as Skype or Zoom, to discuss.
Faculty might also share their beliefs and philosophies about teaching reading, writing and
language, acknowledging that each brings something important to the table. Below are a few
guiding questions to foster robust conversations about key shifts in Standards 2017:
• Technology
o What digital literacy pedagogical knowledge and skills are required of
reading/literacy specialists today?
o What technology supports, or professional development might the faculty need to
teach digital literacy methods to our candidates?
• Diverse learners
o How does research delineate ways to foster candidates’ cultural competence,
dispositions and beliefs to best support students experiencing difficulties with
reading and writing?
o We know that culturally-sustaining pedagogy builds upon the premises of
culturally relevant instruction by “supporting young people in sustaining the
cultural and linguistic competence of their communities while simultaneously
offering access to dominant cultural competence (Paris, 2012, p. 95).” What
might this look like in reading/literacy specialist Master’s programs?
• Collaboration
o What do the research and literature on adult learning, peer collaboration and
coaching suggest for those starting out in the role of reading/literacy specialist or
other teacher-leader?
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
25
o How are recent graduates of our program(s) successfully collaborating or
coaching in schools? What more do they wish they had learned while in our
program?
• Advocacy
o What do successful experiences of family and community involvement in
education look like and how do reading/literacy specialists strive to create bridges
between in and out of school literacy experiences?
Another important step in the process of program re-design is to conduct a “gap
analysis.” In other words, analyze the 2017 Standards to determine the knowledge, skills and
dispositions of candidates that were not included or emphasized enough in a program aligned to
previous standards. The implications sections above may prove helpful as a starting point. Gaps
discovered may include: shifting from reading to literacy foundational knowledge, curriculum,
instruction and assessment; developing candidate dispositions on professional learning,
collaboration and diversity; technology; and engaging candidates in advocacy.
Supporting and Sharing Standards
There are several sources of supports available to program designers and state
policymakers to share ideas and expertise in implementing Standards 2017. The ILA website
(https://www.literacyworldwide.org/get-resources/standards) has information on how to obtain
various publications related to the Standards, FAQs, blog posts, Literacy Today articles, and
additional resources. Attending sessions at conferences, including International Literacy
Association (ILA), Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers (ALER) and Literacy
Research Association (LRA), or joining specialty interest groups (SIGs) are great ways to learn
from and with colleagues.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
26
We also encourage those involved with the reading/literacy specialist programs to share
their program’s challenges and successes as well as their research on reading/literacy specialist
teacher education. There is much need for continued research, both within and across
institutions, to facilitate program improvement.
Last, tap into expertise within your own institution and education community! Resources
from the Dean could help develop capacity for redesigning the program assessment system. For
example, funds could be used to connect with ILA 2017 Standards experts to learn how to design
performance based assessments and rubrics, and/or to visit reading/literacy specialist program
faculty outside of your institution to share key assessments and ideas. Candidates also provide a
valuable support to inform program improvement. Monitoring candidate data, using data to
inform program improvements, program graduate surveys and focus groups with key partners,
candidates, and recent graduates can also assist in learning more about the program and its
excellence in achieving Standards 2017.
In sum, ILA 2017 Standards provide a national framework for rethinking programs for
preparing reading/literacy specialists as well as a description of what is expected of those serving
in the field. They necessitate a review of programs, that is a journey worth taking. Finally, while
the standards are rigorous and require high expectations, they provide for flexibility in program
design, implementation, and evaluation.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
27
References
Afflerbach, P. (2011). Understanding and using reading assessment K-12 (2
nd
ed.). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Afflerbach, P. (2016). Reading assessment: Looking ahead. The Reading Teacher, 69(4), 413-
419.
Alvermann, D. E., Unrau, N. J., & Ruddell, R. B. (Eds.). (2013). Theoretical models and
processes of reading (6th ed.). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Ankrum, J. (2017). Differentiated literacy instruction: Assessing, grouping, teaching. New York:
Routledge.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority
children and youth. Philadelphia: Erlbaum.
Bean, R. M. (2015). The reading specialist: Leadership and coaching for the classroom, school
and community (3
rd
ed.) New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Bean, R., Kern, D., Goatley, V., Ortlieb, E., Shettel, J., Calo, K., Marinak, B., Sturtevant, E.,
Elish-Piper, L., L'Allier, S., Lane, M., Frost, S., Mason, P., Quatroche, D., Cassidy, J.
(2015). Specialized literacy professionals as literacy leaders: Results of a national survey.
Literacy Research and Instruction, Taylor & Francis, 1-32, DOI
10.1080/19388071.2014.998355.
Bean, R. M., & Ippolito, J. (2016). Cultivating coaching mindsets: An action guide for literacy
leaders. West Palm Beach, FL: Learning Sciences International.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
28
Bean, R. M. & Lillenstein, J. (2012), Response to intervention and the changing roles of
schoolwide personnel. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 491–501. doi: 10.1002/TRTR.01073
Botel, M. & Paparo, L.B. (2016). The plainer truths of teaching, learning, and literacy. Ephrata,
PA: Owl Publishing.
Breidenstein, A., Fahey, K., Glickman, C., & Hensley, F. (2012). Leading for powerful learning:
A guide for instructional leaders. New York: Teachers College Press.
Buly, M., & Valencia, S. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading
assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219-239.
Castek, J. (2015). Instruction with multimodal, multiple texts. International Literacy Association
E-ssentials Series: Newark, DE. http://reading.org/general/Publications/e-ssentials/e8064
Clay, M. (1966). Emergent reading behaviour. An unpublished doctoral dissertation. University
of Auckland, New Zealand.
Christ, T., Arya, P., Chiu, M. M. (2012). Collaborative peer video analysis: Insights about
literacy assessment and instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 44(2), 171-199.
Connor, C.M., Alberto, P.A., Compton, D.L., O’Connor, R.E. (2014). Improving reading
outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A Synthesis of the
contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers (NCSER 2014-
3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. This report is available on the IES
website at http://ies.ed.gov/.
Dobbs, C. L., Ippolito J., Charner-Laird, M. (2016). Layering intermediate and disciplinary
literacy work: Lessons learned from a secondary social studies teacher team. Journal of
Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 60(2), 131–139.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
29
Fisher, D. & Frey, N. (2013). Common core English language arts in a PLC at work Grades 6-
8. Bloomington, IN: Solution-tree Press.
Foorman, B.R., & Torgeson, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group
instruction to promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 16(4), 203-212.
Galloway, E. P., & Lesaux, N. K. (2014). Leader, teacher, diagnostician, colleague, and change
agent. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 517-526.
Gambrell, L. (2011). Seven rules of engagement: What's most important to know about
motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 65(3) 172-178.
Gavelek, J.R., Raphael, T.E., Biondo, S.M. & Wang, D. (2000). Integrated literacy instruction.
In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, R. Barr. (Eds.). Handbook of reading
research, Vol. III (pp. 587-608), New York: Erlbaum.
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. New York: Routledge.
Graham, S., & Hebert, M.A. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve
reading. A Carnegie corporation Time to act Report. Washington, DC: Alliance for
Excellent Education.
Guthrie, J. T. (2008). Engaging adolescents in reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
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: Volume
III (pp. 403-422). New York: Erlbaum.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading
Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
30
Gutiérrez, K. D., Baquedano-Lopez, P., & Tejeda, C. (1999). Rethinking diversity: Hybridity
and hybrid language practices in the third space. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 6(4), 286-
303.
Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney, Australia. Ashton Scholastic.
Hill, J. D., & Bjork, C. L. (2008). Classroom instruction that works with English language
learners: Facilitator’s guide. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Hull, G. A., & Schultz, K. (2001). Literacy and learning out of school: A review of theory and
research. Review of Educational Research, 71(4), 575–611.
International Literacy Association (2010). Standards for reading professionals—Revised.
Newark, DE: Author.
International Literacy Association (2015a). Multiple roles of specialized literacy professionals
(Research brief). Newark, DE: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/literacy-
professionals-research-brief.pdf?sfvrsn=ff3aa28e_10
International Literacy Association (2015b). Multiple roles of specialized literacy professionals
(Position statement). Newark, DE: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-stand/literacy-
professionals-position-statement.pdf?sfvrsn=f33aa28e_4
International Literacy Association (2016). Dyslexia: Research advisory. Newark, DE: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.literacyworldwide.org/docs/default-source/where-we-
stand/ila-dyslexia-research-advisory.pdf?sfvrsn=6
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
31
International Literacy Association. (2018). Standards for the preparation of literacy
professionals 2017. Newark, DE: Author.
Kamil, M. L., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Afflerbach, P. P. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of
reading research, Vol. IV. New York: Routledge.
Kern, D. (2011). 62 years of the pendulum’s swing: The role of the reading specialist. New
England Reading Association Journal, 46(2), 67-72.
Kriete, R. (2014). The morning meeting book (3
rd
edition). Greenfield, MA: Northeast
Foundation for Children.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American
children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Lacina, J. & Block, C. C. (2011). What matters most in distinguished literacy teacher education
programs? Journal of Literacy Research, 43(4), 319-351.
Lawrence, J. & Snow, C. (2011). Oral discourse and reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.
Moje & P. Afflerbach (Eds.). Handbook of reading research, Vol IV (pp. 320-338), New
York: Erlbaum.
Leu, D.J., Kinzer, C., Coiro, J., Castek, J., & Henry, L.A. (2013). A dual level theory of the
changing nature of literacy, instruction, and assessment. In N. Unrau and D. Alvermann
(Eds.) Theoretical models and processes of reading (6th ed., pp.1150 – 1181). Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Lipson, M. Y., Chomsky‐Higgins, P., & Kanfer, J. (2011). Diagnosis: The missing ingredient in
RTI assessment. The Reading Teacher, 65(3), 204-208.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
32
MacArthur, C. A., & Graham, S., Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.) (2016). Handbook of writing research (2
nd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
McGill-Franzen, A. & Allington, R.L. (Eds.) (2010). Handbook of reading disability research.
New York: Routledge.
Moats, L. (2004). Teaching reading is rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should
know and be able to do [Online]. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.
Retrieved November 11, 2017 from
https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/reading_rocketscience_2004.pdf
Moje, E. B. (2008), Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A
call for change. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 52, 96-107. Retrieved from
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/88028/JAAL.52.2.1.pdf?sequence
=1&isAllowed=y
Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using
a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2),
132-141. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1476399
Moll, L. & González. N. (1994). Lessons from research with language minority children.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(4), 23-41.
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA) & Council of Chief State
School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common Core State Standards (English language
arts). Washington, DC: Authors.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
33
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.
Neuman, S. & Dickinson, D. (2001). Handbook for research in early literacy. New York:
Guilford Press.
Ortlieb, E., McVee, M. B., & Shanahan, L. E. (Eds.). (2015). Video reflection in literacy teacher
education and development: Lessons from research and practice (Literacy research,
practice and evaluation, Volume 5). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Paratore, J., and Cassano, C. & Schickedanz, J. (2010). Supporting early and later literacy
development at home and at school: The long view. In M. L, Kamil, P. D. Pearson, E. B.
Moje & P.P. Afflerback (Eds.) Handbook of reading research Vol. IV (pp. 107-135).
New York: Routledge.
Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and
practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93-97.
Pearson, P.D., & Hiebert. E. H. (2015). Research-based practices for teaching common core
literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pellegrini, A. D., & Galda, L. (1993). Ten years after: A reexamination of symbolic play and
literacy research. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2), 162-175.
Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Reading processes and reading problems: Progress toward a universal
reading science. In P. McCardle, J. Ren, O. Tzeng, & B. Miller (Eds.), Dyslexia across
languages: Orthography and the brain-gene-behavior link (pp. 18-32). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
34
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books.
Quatroche, D. J., Bean, R. M., & Hamilton, R. L. (2001). The role of the reading specialist: A
review of research. The Reading Teacher, 55(3). 282-294.
Raphael, T.E. & Hiebert, E.H. (2013). Creating an integrated approach to literacy instruction.
(Reading Essentials Reprint Series). Santa Cruz, CA: TextProject.
Risko, V. J., & Vogt, M. (2016). Professional learning in action: An inquiry approach for
teachers of literacy. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rock, M., Gregg, M., Gable, R., & Zigmond, N. P. (2009). Virtual coaching for novice teachers:
Technology enables university professors to observe and literally whisper in the ear of a
teacher during instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 36-41.
Roskos, K. A., & Neuman, S. B. (2001). Environment and its influences for early literacy
teaching and learning. In S. B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early
literacy research (pp. 281-294). New York: Guilford Press.
Roskos, K. A., & Neuman, S. B. (2012). Formative assessment: Simply, no additives. The
Reading Teacher, 65(8), 534-538.
Scanlon, D.M. (2010). Response to intervention as an assessment approach. In A. McGill-
Franzen and R. L. Allington (Eds.), Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 139-
148). New York: Routledge.
Scarborough, H.S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities:
Evidence, theory, and practice. In S. Neuman and D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook for
research in early literacy (pp. 97-110). New York: Guilford Press.
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking
content-area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 40-59.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
35
Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2012). What is disciplinary literacy and why does it matter?
Topics in Language Disorders, 32(1), 7-18.
Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M.S. (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading:
Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Snowling, M.G., & Hulme, C. (2011). Evidence-based Interventions for reading and language
difficulties: Creating a virtuous circle. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
81(Pt.1), 1-23.
Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy. Exeter, NH. Heinemann Educational Books.
Torgeson, J. K., & Miller, D. H. (2009). Assessments to guide adolescent literacy instruction.
Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Tracey, D. H., & Morrow, L.M. (2017). Lenses on reading:. An introduction to theories and
models (3
rd
ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Vogt, M.E., Echevarria, J., & Short, D. (2010). The SIOP Model for teaching English language
arts to English learners. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Wharton-McDonald, R. (2010). Expert classroom instruction for students with reading
disabilities: Explicit, intense, targeted and flexible. In A. McGill-Franzen & R. L.
Allington (Eds.). Handbook of reading disability research (pp. 265-272). New York:
Routledge.
Wixson, K.K., & Valencia, S.W. (2011). Assessment in RTI: What teachers and specialists need
to know. The Reading Teacher, 64(6), 466-469.
Preparing Reading/Literacy Specialists and 2017 Standards
36
Wolfersberger, M., Reutzel, R., Sudweeks, R., & Fawson, P. (2004). Developing and validating
the classroom literacy environmental profile (CLEP): A tool for examining the “print
richness” of early childhood and elementary classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research.
36(1), 83-144.
Wood, C. (2007). Yardsticks: Children in classrooms ages 4-14 (3
rd
ed.). Center for Responsive
Schools. Turners Falls: MA.
