A longitudinal study of enhancing critical thinking and reading comprehension in title I classrooms

Journal for the Education of the Gifted

Volumn 33, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 7-37

  VanTassel Baska, Joyce ^a   Bracken, Bruce ^a   Feng, Annie ^b   Brown, Elissa ^c  

^a The College of William and Mary   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^c Middle/ High School Council   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 72549118623     PISSN: 01623532     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/016235320903300102     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Alvermann, D. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 189-209.
2. Alvermann, D. E., Umpleby, R., & Olson, J. R. (1996). Getting involved and having fun: Dilemmas in building a literate community in one lower-track English class. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9,461-475.
3. Applebee, A. N., & Langer,J. A. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America's schools: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.
4. Applebee, A. N., LangerJ. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Latham, A. S., & Gentile, C. A. (1994J. NAEP 1992 writing report card. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
5. Applebee, A. N.. Langer, J., Nystrand, M., & Gamoran, A. (2003). Discussion-based approaches to developing understanding: Classroom instruction and student performance in middle and high school English. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 685-730.
6. Armbruster, B. B., & Osborn, J. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks of reading instructions. Retrieved July 11, 2009, from http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/Publications/ researchread.htm
7. Baumann, J. E, & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for cur- ricular and instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 244-275.
8. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1999). Comprehension: The sine qua non of reading. Teaching and Change, 6,197-211.
9. Bottomley, D. M., Truscott, D. M., Marinak, B. A., Henk, W. A., & Melnick, S. A. (1999). An affective comparison of whole language, literature-based and basal reader literacy instruction. Reading Research and Instruction, 29,115-129.
10. Bracken, B. A. (1993). Multidimensional Self-Concept Scale. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
11. Bracken, B. A. (1996). Clinical applications of a multidimensional, context-dependent model of self-concept. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), Handbook of self concept: Developmental, social, and clinical considerations (pp. 463-505). New York: John Wiley and Sons.
12. Bracken, B. A., Bai, W, Fithian, E., Lamprecht, M. S., Little, C, & Quek, C. (2003,). The Test of Critical Thinking. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education, The College of William and Mary.
13. Bracken, B. A., & McCallum. R. S. (1998). Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
14. Chandler, K. (2004).A national study of curriculum policy and practice for gifted students in the fifty states. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
15. Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
16. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: The emerging paradigm. NAMTA Journal, 25, 5-25.
17. Dahl, K. L., Scharer, P.L., Lawson, L. L., & Grogan, P. R. (1999). Phonics instruction and student achievement in whole language first-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 312-341.
18. Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72,433-479.
19. Feng, A. X., VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C, Bai, W, & O'Neill, B. (2005). A longitudinal assessment of gifted students' learning using the Integrated Curriculum Model (ICM): Impacts and perceptions of the William and Mary language arts and science curriculum. Roeper Review, 27,78-83.
20. Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading comprehension: What works. Educational Leadership, 51(5), 62-67.
21. Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G. (2000). Balance in the making: Learning to read in an ethnically diverse first-grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,3-22.
22. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind: How children think and how schools should teach. New York: Basic Books.
23. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279-320.
24. Henry, A., & Roseberry, R. L. (1996). A corpus-based investigation of the language and linguistic patterns of one genre and the implications for language teaching. Research in the Teaching of English, 30,427-489.
25. Hillocks, G., Jr. (1986). Research on written composition: New directions for teaching. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills and National Conference on Research in English.
26. Hoover, H. D., Dunbar, S. B., & Frisbie, D. A. (2001). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
27. Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.
28. Jewell, T. A., & Pratt, D. (1999). Literature discussions in the primary grades: Children's thoughtful discourse about books and what teachers can do to make it happen. The Reading Teacher, 52, 842-850.
29. Kaplan, D. (Ed). (2004). The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
30. Knapp, M. S., Adelman, N. E., Marder, C, McCollum, H., Needels, M. C, Padilla, C, et al. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high- poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.
31. Langer J. A. (1994).A response-based approach to reading literature: Report Series No. 6.7. Albany, NY: National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Language.
32. Langer, J. A. (2000). Guidelines for teaching middle and high school students to read and write well: Six features of effective instruction. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement.
33. LangerJ. (2001). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 837-880.
34. Levy, C. M., & Ransdell, S. (Eds.). (1996). The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
35. Lohman, D., & Hagen, E. P. (2001). Cognitive Abilities Test norms booklet. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
36. Morrow, L., Pressley, M., Smith, J., & Smith M. (1997).The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 54-78.
37. National Assessment Governing Board. (2009). Reading framework for the 2009 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
38. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
39. Newell, G. E. (1996). Reader-based and teacher-centered instructional tasks: Writing and learning about a short story in middle-track classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 147-172.
40. Paul, R. (1992). Critical thinking: What every person needs to survive in a rapidly changing world. Sonoma, CA: The Foundation for Critical Thinking.
41. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1982). The literary transaction: Evocation and response. Theory Into Practice, 21,268-277.
42. Sadoski, M., Willson, V. L., & Norton, D. E. (1997). The relative contributions of research-based composition activities to writing improvement in the lower and middle grades. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 120-147.
43. Schoenfeld, A. (2006). What doesn't work: The challenge of the WWC to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Education Researcher, 35(2), 13-21.
44. Schorzman, E., & Cheek, E. (2004). Structured strategy instruction: Investigating an intervention for improving sixth-graders' reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 25(1), 37-60.
45. Stevens, R. (2003). Student team reading and writing: A cooperative learning approach to middle school literacy instruction. Educational Research and Evaluation, 9,137-160.
46. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
47. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3-30.
48. U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Reading first. Retrieved July 24,2006, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/index. html
49. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1988). Developing scope and sequence in curriculum: A comprehensive approach. Gifted Child Today, 11(3), 29-34.
50. VanTassel-Baska, J. (1998). Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners (3rd ed.). Denver, CO: Love.
51. VanTassel-Baska, J. (2003). Curriculum planning and instructional design for gifted learners. Denver, CO: Love.
52. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L. D., Little, C. A., & Hughes, C. E. (2000). An evaluation of the implementation: The impact of the William and Mary units on schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 244-272.
53. VanTassel-Baska, J., Avery, L., Struck, J., Feng, A. X., Bracken, B., Drummond, D., et al. (2003). Classroom Observation Scale- Revised. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education, The College of William and Mary.
54. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., & Avery, L. (1998). A national pilot study of science curriculum effectiveness for high ability students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 42, 200-211.
55. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Brown, E., & Feng, A. (2005). Project Athena year three student data report. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education, The College of William and Mary.
56. VanTassel-Baska, J., Bracken, B., Feng, A., & Brown, E. (in press). A longitudinal study of reading comprehension and reasoning ability of students in elementary Title I schools. Journal for the Education of the Gifted.
57. VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., Brown, E., Baytops, J., Henshon, S., & Bai, W. (2002). An evaluation study of the Greenville, South Carolina challenge program. Williamsburg, VA: Center for Gifted Education, The College of William and Mary.
58. VanTassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C. E., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of the language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted lesrners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 461-480.
59. VanTassel-Baska, J., Quek, C, & Feng, A. X. (2007). Developing structured observation scales for instructional improvement in classrooms accommodating gifted learners. Roeper Review, 29, 84-92.
60. VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). Project Athena: A pathway to advanced literacy development for children of poverty. Gifted Child Today, 29(2), 58-63.
61. VanTassel-Baska, J., Zuo, L., Avery, L. D., & Little, C. A. (2002). A curriculum study of gifted student learning in the language arts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 30-44.
62. Villaume, S. K., & Brabham, E. G. (2002). Comprehension instruction: Beyond strategies. The Reading Teacher, 55, 672-676.
63. Wasserman, J. D., & Bracken, B. A. (2003). Psychometric characteristics of assessment procedures. In J. R. Graham, J. A. Naglieri, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Volume 10: Assessment psychology (pp. 43-66). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.