Guided Reading Approach: Teaching Reading to

Guided Reading Approach Teaching Reading to Students Who Are Deaf and Others Who Struggle

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 52-58. Copyright 2010 CEC.

Barbara R. Schirmer and Laura Schaffer

Students who are deaf, hard of hearing, English language learners, or learning disabled need daily reading instruction that offers opportunities to learn and to practice strategies for word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. The guided reading lesson structure is flexible enough to be used with any type of reading material and leaves decisions about selection of strategies to teach on any given day up to the teacher. The teacher can provide exactly the level of supportive instruction needed by the students and incorporate evidence-based practices for teaching the skills needed to become successful readers. When Isabella graduated from her teacher education program, she knew a lot about the importance of teaching the five components of reading instruction recommended by the National Reading Panel (2000)—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension—and that these same components are crucial for teaching reading to students who are deaf (Schirmer & McGough, 2005). She also knew quite a few strategies for teaching each of these. When she started to organize her classroom for 52

COUNCIL

FOR

EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

instruction, however, she realized that she did not have a grasp on how to put these components together into a lesson structure that would serve as a framework for daily reading instruction for students who are deaf. If Isabella’s school had adopted SRA Direct Instruction (McGraw-Hill School Education Group, 2010) or Success for All (Success for All Foundation, 2010), she would have been handed a particular lesson structure for literacy instruction. Both of these models require following a scripted lesson format and using specially designed materials. Though SRA Direct Instruction and Success for All and other such models can be highly effective in improving literacy learning (e.g., Carnine, Silbert, Kame’enui, Tarver, & Jungjohann, 2006; Slavin & Madden, 2000), teachers cannot individually decide to select them; these approaches are implemented as schoolwide programs, requiring substantial training of teachers, use of common reading curriculum materials throughout all grade levels by all teachers, and ongoing professional development to ensure fidelity to the steps in the lessons. Isabella needed to identify a lesson structure into which she could slot evidence-based strategies for explicitly and systematically teaching word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. She also needed a lesson structure that offered the opportunity to teach these strategies at the three crucial points in time for any literacy lesson: Before reading, when instruction is designed to build the student’s knowledge of the words, sentence structures, vocabulary, and content that will be encountered in the upcoming reading material.

During reading, when strategies are focused quite deliberately on providing the support needed for the student to interact effectively with reading material and to help the reader internalize these strategies so that they can be applied independently with future reading material.

After reading, when activities reinforce the skills taught before and during reading, synthesize what students have learned in order to move toward independence in applying these skills, and extend their ability to think critically and creatively about the ideas in the material. Isabella sought a model for reading instruction with a strong research base, but also an approach that she could incorporate into her instructional repertoire without a huge investment in new reading materials or training. Fountas and Pinnell’s (1996) guided reading approach caught her attention; popular among general education teachers, Isabella also found that the guided reading approach is recommended by the Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center for use with deaf students (Gallaudet University, 2009). Since introducing the approach, Fountas and Pinnell also continued to develop lists of reading materials categorized across a range of difficulty levels to support reading instruction. This list of leveled books has grown continuously since the first lists were published and is now available on a web site to accommodate the constant additions (Fountas & Pinnell, 2009). Having this list of books at progressive levels of difficulty serves to increase the ease of adoption and implementation by teachers. Though lacking a body of research on efficacy with hearing readers, guided reading has been found to be effective with deaf elementary-level readers

lar fluency activities, and teaching of cognitive strategies for comprehension (Schirmer & Schaffer, in press; see box, “Research on the Guided Reading Approach With Deaf Students”). Further, the approach incorporates evidence-based practices for which there is current consensus: • Creating a classroom culture that fosters motivation to engage in literacy activities. • Teaching reading as an authentic activity (for pleasure, for information, for completing a task). • Providing students with scaffolded instruction in the five key areas of reading instruction (i.e., phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension). • Giving students ample time to read in class. • Providing children with high-quality literature across a range of genres. • Using multiple texts that link and expand vocabulary and concepts. • Connecting new concepts to background knowledge. • Balancing student- and teacher-led discussions of texts. • Using the new literacies of the Internet and technology-based instruction. • Using a variety of assessment strategies and techniques (Gambrell, Malloy, & Mazzoni, 2007). What Isabella learned about guided reading can help other teachers in selecting a lesson structure for stu-

Guided reading has been found to be effective with deaf elementary-level readers in improving reading achievement. in improving reading achievement, given its focus on matching the readability level of the materials to the instructional reading level of the deaf students, explicit and systematic instruction in word recognition and new vocabulary, incorporation of regu-

dents, whether students are deaf, hard of hearing, English language learners, learning disabled, or need daily reading instruction that offers opportunities to learn and to practice strategies for word recognition, fluency, and comprehension.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN 冨 MAY/JUNE 2010

53

Research on the Guided Reading Approach With Deaf Students

When a state school for the deaf selected the guided reading approach as the main instructional model for teaching deaf students (Schirmer & Schaffer, in press), we set out to investigate the effects of the model on the reading development of students in Grades 1 through 5. Classroom teachers were certified teachers of the deaf with a range of experience from 2 to 30 years. The school describes its curriculum as a regular public school curriculum with modifications in terms of presenting information via American Sign Language and written English. Students, teachers, and staff are assessed regularly with the Sign Language Proficiency Interview (Newell, Caccamise, Boardman, & Holcomb, 1983); teachers and staff receive training as needed to ensure that the campus is barrier-free in terms of communication. School size was approximately 180 students during the first year and 160 students during the second year of intervention; class sizes per grade at the elementary level ranged from 4 to 9 students. In addition to the teacher of the deaf, most classes had at least one teacher aide. Speech and language services were conducted in pull-out sessions with the speech-language clinician. Within each classroom, students were grouped by reading level, and the classroom teacher conducted the lessons. Guided reading lessons were conducted 3 to 4 times a week during each academic year of the study. The teachers also conducted a running records assessment (Clay, 2000) monthly to assess student progress and adjust instruction accordingly. In these assessments, the teacher asked the student to read out loud/in sign (referred to as storysign) a new passage at the same reading level as the material used for instruction. During reading, the teacher made a checkmark for each word the student read correctly, notated when the student did not know a word, and wrote the word used by the student when it was a substitution, repetition, omission, or incorrect pronunciation. The teacher also notated the student’s reading fluency. The teacher then asked the student to retell the story and appraised the student’s inclusion of setting, characters, events, and important details. Results showed several major patterns: • Improvement during the guided reading instruction ranged from a half year to 2 years of progress each year of the study for most of the students. • Achievement dropped precipitously from the end of one school year and the beginning of another school year, particularly for students at the earlier grade levels. • It took several months of the new school year for students to recapture the level they had achieved at the end of the previous school year. • Reading achievement levels at the outset were low regardless of grade level, with none of the elementary students at or close to grade level. Comparing our results to findings with deaf students during the past 2 decades, which have shown that the average deaf student gains one third of a grade equivalent change each school year (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2005; Holt, 1993; Wolk & Allen, 1984), outcomes were better than this average for most of the students in our study. However, it is generally recognized that the goal for reading growth is 1 year of progress for each school year and only a few students came close to this benchmark. Given the low scores at the outset for most of the participants, and the dip that typically took place each summer, progress for most of the participants was far below the benchmark of 1 year of progress per each year of school. Outcomes, though modest, offer incipient evidence for the potential of the guided reading approach in improving the reading achievement of deaf students.

54

COUNCIL

FOR


Getting Started With the Guided Reading Approach The four steps of the guided reading approach (see box) were originally developed by Fountas and Pinnell (1996) as a model for supporting independent and fluent reading for students from kindergarten through Grade 4 and did not incorporate the kinds of concentrated and systematic instruction that struggling readers typically need. By also teaching new vocabulary words before reading and having students read material in segments (rather than a whole book at one sitting), teachers can provide explicit instruction on word recognition, complex syntax, figurative language, new vocabulary, and text structure as needed before, during, and after reading. And, indeed, these modifications are recommended for English language learners and students who are deaf and hard of hearing (Avalos, Plasencia, Chavez, & Rascón, 2007; Schirmer & Schaffer, in press). The guided reading approach is taught within homogenous groupings of students in order to ensure that all of the students are reading material at their instructional reading levels. When there is a match between current reading level and the readability of the material, instruction can be aimed at the students’ zone of proximal development (Vygotsky, 1978): the distance between current developmental level, as indicated by independent problem solving, and potential developmental level that is possible with guidance from an adult or in collaboration with a more capable peer. In other words, the material is just difficult enough to offer opportunities to learn and apply new strategies with support from the teacher. It is, therefore, crucial to distinguish between independent, instructional, and frustration level materials. Independent materials are those that the student can read with essentially no support. These materials are aimed at the student’s current developmental level. Instructional materials are those that the student can read only with support. Frustration materials are those that the student cannot read regardless of the support pro-

vided. Frustration materials represent the reader’s zone of distal development, the distance between his or her current developmental level and furthest potential developmental level. Even with significant support from the teacher, the student is unable to read materials within the zone of distal development. Materials at the reader’s frustration level make appropriate read-alouds by the teacher. (See box, “Determining Readability,” for guidelines for selecting the appropriate level for instruction.) Guided Reading in Action Isabella teaches deaf students at a school for the deaf. Some of her students have concomitant disabilities, such as learning and intellectual disabilities. The students are placed in grade levels by chronological age so the reading levels in her classroom range across several grade-equivalent level spans, which her colleagues in other school settings also notice among their students who are deaf and hard of hearing. One of the characteristics of the guided reading approach that Isabella particularly liked was that she could develop a template lesson structure for a week of reading instruction that she could adapt for each reading

Steps of the Guided Reading Approach

Step 1: Group Students and Select Leveled Books. The students are grouped homogenously by instructional reading level. The teacher selects a book that matches the instructional reading level of the students in the group. Each student is provided with a copy of the book to be read. Step 2: Introduce the Book. The teacher introduces the book by having the students look at the cover, read the title and author, and talk about the topic. Indepth building of background knowledge of the topic may be necessary for struggling readers. Vocabulary words crucial to understanding the story are taught. Step 3: Ask the Students to Read Silently. The students read the book silently in meaningful segments. The teacher observes, notes student behaviors during reading, and provides support with word recognition, understanding unfamiliar sentence structures, and comprehension when needed. After each segment, the teacher poses a question, encourages the students to self-question, asks for a prediction, or uses another strategy for comprehension monitoring. For struggling readers, reading aloud before silent reading can enable the teacher to pinpoint word recognition difficulties. Step 4: Discuss. After reading, the students discuss the book. The teacher has the children revisit the text to clarify, find evidence of interpretations, and problem solve confusing or unclear information. The children can then reread a passage independently or with a partner to build fluency. (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996)

Isabella’s template lesson plan, one full instructional period was dedicated to teaching the new vocabulary that the students would encounter in the reading material because vocabulary devel-

One of the characteristics of the guided reading approach that Isabella particularly liked was that she could develop a template lesson structure for a week of reading instruction that she could adapt for each reading group. group. Her template lesson plan included the four steps of the guided reading approach. For Step 1, she selects a new leveled book for each reading group, making sure to match the book’s level to the instructional reading level of the group. (Isabella knows the instructional level of each student in the group because she assesses them regularly. She flexibly varies her grouping of students based on their changing abilities.) Step 2 incorporates strategies that Isabella teaches before reading. In

opment is particularly important for deaf readers. By combining vocabulary teaching with sight word teaching, Isabella could teach two strategies at the same time (i.e., new word concept + automatic recognition of the word in print). While pointing out letter-sound relationships, prefixes and suffixes, and onsets and rimes in these new words, she could teach multiple strategies at the same time (i.e., new word concept + phonic analysis + structural analysis + onset-rime analysis + automatic word recognition).

The other half of Step 2 is to build background knowledge for the book’s topic and text structure. In the guided reading approach, this activity can be a brief discussion but if the topic and structure are quite unfamiliar to the students or particularly complex, the teacher can slot more in-depth teaching into this step. Isabella often found that she was able to connect the teaching of new vocabulary with teaching about the topic. And sometimes she was able to coordinate the teaching of the new topic with what she was teaching in science or social studies. Step 3 provides the opportunity to teach during-reading strategies. Isabella liked to vary the ones she slotted into this step. For comprehension, sometimes she asked questions but other times she asked the students to predict, engage in mental imagery, or generate their own self-questions. For word recognition, she often taught brief mini-lessons on a skill needed to read a specific word, particularly a word essential for understanding the passage. In the guided reading approach, silent reading does not always provide


55

Determining Readability

A number of factors, within texts and within readers, contribute to readability. Within-text factors include content, structure, cohesiveness, format, typography, literary form and style, vocabulary difficulty, sentence complexity, idea or proposition density, level of abstractness, and organization. Within readers, attitude, motivation, purpose for the reading, cultural background, knowledge of vocabulary, extent of background knowledge of the topic, knowledge of text structure, and ability to identify words contribute to the ease with which the text will be comprehended (Irwin & Davis, 1980; Zakaluk & Samuels, 1988). The most frequently used tool for determining readability is a readability formula. Most formulas rely on two factors. Some use average sentence length and vocabulary difficulty, such as Spache (Spache, 1953; Grades 1–4) and Dale-Chall (Chall & Dale, 1995; Grade 4–adult); others use average sentence length and number of syllables, such as Fry (1989; elementary–adult) and Flesch-Kincaid (Flesch, 1948; Kincaid, Fishburne, Rogers, & Chisson, 1975; upper elementary– secondary). Clearly, these factors do not exhaust all of the possible variables that influence text readability. When used as probability statements or estimates, though, formulas can provide predictive information regarding how easily a text will be understood by the average reader (Fry, 1989). But they will not predict precisely whether a given reader will interact successfully with a particular text. The use of readability formulas is simple and straightforward, and computer technology has made the process relatively quick. Software is available for most of the formulas and virtually all word-processing programs incorporate readability measures. However, formulas cannot be used in isolation. Although it may be tempting to rely solely on computer software with its aura of scientific validity, formulas must be augmented with other measures for estimating the readability of text (Kotula, 2003). One approach is for teachers to read the target text themselves, using their own knowledge and understanding of their students to compare against the demands of the text (Dreyer, 1984). A second approach is to give a selection of the text to the student for a trial reading (Rush, 1985). If the student is able to read 98% of the words automatically, with good phrasing and strong comprehension, the material is independent. (Some authors use a 95% target, but when the student has to stop and figure out 5 out of every 100 words, the material is not very accessible.) If the student is able to read 90% or fewer of the words automatically, uses word-by-word reading, and has weak comprehension, the material is frustration. Instructional material lies between these two points. A third approach is to use a cloze procedure, in which the student is given a reproduced portion of the text from which words have been systematically deleted, usually every fifth word except for the first and last sentences. A fourth suggestion is to develop your own checklist that includes within-reader and within-text factors. 56

COUNCIL

FOR


Another approach is to use leveled books. Fountas and Pinnell (2009) apply four main criteria in their leveling process: • Book and print features include length (number of pages, words, and lines per page), print (font type, font size, and spaces between words and lines), layout (placement of phrases, sentences, print, and pictures; consistency of layout; use of chapters, headings, and other organizational features), range of punctuation, and illustrations (number and relation to print). • Content, theme, and ideas include familiarity with content, technical nature of content, sophistication of theme, and complexity of ideas. • Text structure includes narrative text (predictability of story structure, description of setting, character development, plot complexity, genre, structure of episodes) and expository text (presentation, organization, and level of information and ideas). • Language and literary features include perspective of author and characters, structure of phrases and sentences, structure of paragraphs and chapters, use of words or phrases as literary devices, and vocabulary (variety of words, number and range of high frequency and interest words, number of multisyllabic words, and word difficulty). Several options are available for teachers who are not using the Fountas and Pinnell leveled books. Fawson and Reutzel (2000) suggest adapting basal readers. Teachers can work together in using Fountas and Pinnell’s criteria to level the basal stories in their reading series or use Fawson and Reutzel’s text leveling of several popular basal reading series (including Harcourt Brace, Silver Burdett Ginn, Houghton Mifflin, Scott Foresman, and Scholastic). Another option is to use the increasingly popular publishers’ leveling of their reading packages and theme collections. Some of these publishers use Fountas and Pinnell’s leveling and some use their own algorithms. When using a published leveling system, it is important to recognize that the particular criteria used in leveling may not result in a good match between the book’s level and your students’ instructional reading needs. For example, Cunningham and his colleagues (2005) analyzed books leveled by Reading Recovery and found that although Reading Recovery lessons incorporate the study of high-frequency words and phonics instruction using onset-rime patterns, “the books they select for their program provide little support for these two instructional components, and the way they level the books provides none at all” (p. 45). Whatever system you use to determine the readability of the material you select for reading instruction, it is up to you to determine whether the leveling system makes sense in light of the instructional strategies and skills you will be teaching and, if not, to feel free to modify the levels using the other readability measures discussed in this section.

enough information to the teacher about the struggling reader’s problems with word recognition and how word recognition difficulties result in comprehension breakdowns. So Isabella typically asked her deaf readers to first read out loud, or—more accurately for deaf students—to storysign. When storysigning during guided reading, the students express ASL conceptually appropriate signs in English word order. She also broke the story into segments because it offered her more opportunity to intervene with a strategy lesson targeted to a word recognition or comprehension difficulty. After-reading strategies are incorporated into Step 4. In Isabella’s template lesson plan, she included a menu of activities for word recognition, fluency, and comprehension from which she could select during any given lesson. For comprehension, she often asked questions that encouraged critical and creative thinking but she sometimes asked the students to retell or dramatize what they had read, write a narrative or story map summary, or engage in a discussion. For vocabulary and word recognition, she found that worksheets, games, and activities in classroom centers could reinforce skills and information she had taught before reading. For fluency, Isabella often asked the students to reread a section together (i.e., choral reading) and other times she paired the students and asked them to alternate rereading a section to each other. In Isabella’s template lesson plan, Step 2 was carried out on Monday and Steps 3 and 4 on Tuesday through Friday, with a new segment of the book being read each day. By Friday, they complete the book and each Monday begin a new book. The lesson structure enables Isabella to systematically and explicitly teach the word recognition, fluency, and comprehension strategies needed by her students to become increasingly more proficient readers. Final Thoughts The guided reading approach offers a lesson structure for teaching literacy to students no matter what their reading

ability levels are and the strategies they need to learn and practice. The lesson structure is flexible enough to be used with any type of reading material and leaves decisions about selection of strategies for teaching word recognition, fluency, and comprehension on any given day up to the teacher. The teacher can provide exactly the level of supportive instruction needed by students who are deaf and others who struggle with reading. Ongoing assessment is a crucial component of the guided reading approach. Because the students’ instructional reading level is matched to the readability level of the material, the struggling reader’s abilities grow as a result of learning to read materials that are challenging and that present opportunities for applying newly learned skills and strategies. Growth occurs when instructional materials become independent materials, frustration materials become instructional materials, and strategies previously taught become ones the student uses independently.

Because the students’ instructional reading level is matched to the readability level of the material, the struggling reader’s abilities grow as a result of learning to read materials that are challenging and that present opportunities for applying newly learned skills and strategies. The selection of the guided reading approach was a good fit for Isabella and the deaf students in her class. She was able to focus instruction on her students’ strengths and weaknesses through ongoing assessment and clear benchmarks for their progress. The lesson structure enabled her to select before, during, and after activities that addressed the needs of each student. The approach has provided Isabella with an instructional framework for daily reading instruction into which

she can target the word recognition, fluency, and comprehension skills needed by her students. References Avalos, M. A., Plasencia, A., Chavez, C., & Rascón, J. (2007). Modified guided reading: Gateway to English as a second language and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher, 61, 318–329. Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., Tarver, S. G., & Jungjohann, K. (2006). Teaching struggling and at-risk readers: A direct instruction approach. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale-Chall readability formula. Brookline, MA: Brookline Books. Clay, M. M. (2000). Running records for classroom teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cunningham, J. W., Spadorcia, S. A., Erickson, K. A., Koppenhaver, D. A., Sturn, J. M., & Yoder, D. E. (2005). Investigating the instructional supportiveness of leveled texts. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 410–427. Dreyer, L. G. (1984). Readability and responsibility. Journal of Reading, 27, 334–338. Fawson, P. C., & Reutzel, D. R. (2000). But I only have a basal: Implementing guided reading in the early grades. The Reading Teacher, 54, 84–97. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233. Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (2009). Leveled Books: K–8 [curriculum materials]. Available from http://www. fountasandpinnellleveledbooks. com/default.aspx Fry, E. G. (1989). Reading formulas— maligned but valid. Journal of Reading, 32, 292–297. Gallaudet Research Institute. (2005). Stanford Achievement Test 10th edition, norming. Retrieved from http://gri.gallaudet. edu/~catraxle/sat10-faq.html Gallaudet University, Laurent Clerc National Deaf Education Center. (2009). Guided reading and writing with deaf and hard of hearing children. Retrieved from http://clerccenter.gallaudet.edu/Clerc_ Center/Information_and_Resources/Info_ to_Go/Hearing_and_Communication_ Technology/Literacy-It_All_Connects/ Guided_Reading_and_Writing.html Gambrell, L. B., Malloy, J. A., & Mazzoni, S. A. (2007). Evidence-based practices for comprehensive literacy instruction. In L. B. Gambrell, L. M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy


57

instruction (pp. 11–29). New York, NY: Guilford. Holt, J. (1993). Stanford Achievement Test— 8th edition: Reading comprehension subgroup results. American Annals of the Deaf, 138, 172–175. Irwin, J. W., & Davis, C. A. (1980). Assessing readability: The checklist approach. Journal of Reading, 24, 124–130. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Jr., Rogers, R. L., & Chisson, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Millington, TN: Naval Technical Training. Kotula, A. W. (2003). Matching readers to instructional materials: The use of classic readability measures for students with language learning disabilities and dyslexia. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 190–203. McGraw-Hill School Education Group. (2010). SRA Direct Instruction [software and training materials]. Available from https://www.sraonline.com/di_home. html??PHPSESSID=7498a856b0aa6e40ec 9df2027e498b6b National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research litera-

ture on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Newell, W., Caccamise, F., Boardman, K., & Holcomb, B. R. (1983). Adaptation of the Language Proficiency Interview (LPI) for assessing sign communicative competence. Sign Language Studies, 41, 311–352. Rush, R. T. (1985). Assessing readability: Formulas and alternatives. The Reading Teacher, 39, 274–283. Schirmer, B. R., & McGough, S. M. (2005). Teaching reading to children who are deaf: Do the conclusions of the National Reading Panel apply? Review of Educational Research, 75, 83–117. Schirmer, B. R., & Schaffer, L. (in press). Implementation of the guided reading approach with elementary deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2000). One million children: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Spache, G. (1953). A new readability formula for primary-grade reading materials. The Elementary School Journal, 53, 410–413. doi:10.1086/458513 Success for All Foundation. (2010). Success for all [curriculum materials]. Available from http://www.successforall.net/

A Guide for Writing in Education

PUBLISH,

Falnod urisiffehren,ce Make a D

Edited E.byObiakor Festus zine Bob Algoz er Fred Spoon

N E W L Y

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Wolk, S., & Allen, T. E. (1984). A 5-year follow-up of reading comprehension achievement of hearing-impaired students in special education programs. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 161–176. Zakaluk, B. L., & Samuels, S. J. (Eds.). (1988). Readability: Its past, present, and future. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Barbara R. Schirmer (CEC MI Federation), Professor of Education, University of Detroit, Michigan. Laura Schaffer (CEC MI Federation), Special Education Teacher, Michigan School for the Deaf, Flint. Address correspondence to Barbara R. Schirmer, P.O. Box 700350, Plymouth, MI 48170 (e-mail: Barbara.schirmer@ udmercy.edu). TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 42, No. 5, pp. 52–58. Copyright 2010 CEC.

R E V I S E D !

Got the writing bug? This encouraging and inspiring book will help college and graduate students, practitioners, professors, and grant writers better express themselves, find their true “voice,” and understand the in’s and out’s of education publishing. Sections include: • • • •

Overcoming challenges facing new writers Technology Expressing diversity Working with editors of research journals

and more! A Guide to Successful Writing in Education

58

COUNCIL

FOR


Order today at www.cec.sped.org/store

1-888-232-7733