ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

�CorrespondToronto, Ont.,

fax: +1416 813

E-mail addr

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Preparing teachers to remediate reading disabilities in highschool: What is needed for effective professional development?

Maureen W. Lovetta,b,�, Lea Lacerenzaa,c, Maria De Palmaa, Nancy J. Bensona,Karen A. Steinbacha, Jan C. Frijtersa,d

aThe Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ont., CanadabUniversity of Toronto, Toronto, Ont., Canada

cToronto Catholic District School Board, Toronto, Ont., CanadadBrock University, St. Catharines, Ont., Canada

Received 5 May 2006; received in revised form 14 September 2007; accepted 25 October 2007

Abstract

In this paper, we ask what constitutes effective professional development for teachers faced with struggling readers in

high school. Metacognitive teacher training, instructional coaching, mentorship, and collaborative learning are considered.

We describe a professional development model preparing high school teachers to teach PHAST PACES, a remedial

reading program. A metacognitive teaching style and specific skills for teaching comprehension and decoding strategies

were emphasized. Teachers provided high positive ratings regarding the usefulness of the training, and attributed to the

training an increased sense of efficacy in improving student outcomes and understanding reading problems. A comparison

of student outcomes for teachers’ first and subsequent classes suggested that the professional development model promotes

better outcomes on more complex skills.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: High school students; Reading difficulties; Remedial reading; Reading strategies; Program development; Teaching models

1. Introduction

Approximately two-thirds of all US students withdisabilities scored below the basic level in reading inthe 2003 National Assessment of EducationalProgress. Regardless of whatever special servicesthey were receiving, 71% of students with disabil-ities in 4th grade, 68% in 8th grade, and 68% in12th grade read below the basic level and could not

ee front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2007.10.005

ing author. The Hospital for Sick Children,

Canada. Tel.: +1416 813 6319;

6126.

ess: mwl@sickkids.ca (M.W. Lovett).

understand the NAEP text materials (NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 2003). Some 2.3million US students are specifically identified with areading disability (RD), and struggling readersrepresent 80% of American students with learningdisabilities (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).

Despite the high prevalence of reading problemsand learning disabilities, a national survey ofteachers in US public schools revealed majorconcerns about how to address the needs of disabledstudents in the classroom. Only 32% of teacherswhose classes included students with disabilities feltwell-prepared to address their academic needs (USDepartment of Education: National Center for

.

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971084

Education Statistics, 2001). Clearly, there is anenormous need for specific programs to improve thetraining and professional development of teachersof students with disabilities. If students withdisabilities are to be taught the reading skills theyneed to fully participate in society, research isneeded to identify how teachers can be taught tounderstand the causes of reading failure and to beprepared to implement the best instructional prac-tices and combinations of practices for theireffective remediation.

Recent research on effective instruction hastaught us a great deal about how to prevent readingacquisition failure and RDs in at-risk children.There is very little evidence, however, regardingintervention for the hundreds of thousands ofstudents still struggling with reading when theyreach high school. Is reading remediation effectiveinto high school? How well prepared are high schoolteachers to address the needs of students in 9th and10th grade who lack adequate decoding skills,reading fluency, and reading comprehension abil-ities? Can a professional development model bedesigned to allow teachers to effectively remediateRDs in the high school environment? These ques-tions motivate the present paper.

The National Reading Panel (NRP) (2000)emphasized the need for instruction that encom-passes multiple dimensions of proficient readingskill: phonemic awareness, phonics/decoding, read-ing fluency, reading comprehension, and vocabularydevelopment. As Fletcher, Denton, Fuchs, andVaughn (2005) suggest, multiple reports now sup-port the conclusion of the National ResearchCouncil Report that teachers must integrate instruc-tion involving multiple domains of reading skill(decoding, word recognition, fluency, and textcomprehension) for their students to become trulyproficient readers (Snow et al., 1998). Few studieshave been reported, however, that provide acontrolled evaluation of multiple component read-ing remediation programs with these specific in-structional emphases. And no evidence existsregarding how to provide teachers with the training,resources, and mentorship they need to provide thistype of integrated multiple component remediation.

The problem is particularly acute when thecomplex instructional needs of older strugglingreaders are considered along with the current skillsset of secondary school teachers. Research isrequired to provide an evidence base to guide theprofessional development required for teachers to

be prepared to offer comprehensive effective reme-dial reading instruction for disabled readers insecondary school. As Fisher, Schumaker, andDeshler (2002) have insisted:

Clearly in order for students with high-incidencedisabilities to meet the expectation that theycomprehend the complex written content asso-ciated with subject-area classes, educationalpractices must be altered. Specifically thesestudents must be taught the strategies they needto comprehend written information, and theirteachers must learn to present information insuch a way as to enhance their students’comprehension (2002, p. 353).

As part of our research developing and evaluatinginterventions for students with severe RDs (Lovett,Lacerenza, & Borden, 2000; Lovett, Lacerenza,Borden et al., 2000; Lovett & Steinbach, 1997;Lovett, Steinbach, & Frijters, 2000; Morris et al.,submitted), we have encountered questions regardingprofessional development to prepare teachers toaddress the decoding, text reading, fluency, andreading comprehension deficits of elementary andhigh school students with RDs. We have developedand are piloting a professional development programthat trains teachers to teach a multiple componentreading intervention program specifically designedfor disabled high school readers. To date, thisprofessional development project includes teachersof students from 9th and 10th grade who meetcriteria for RD and require special educationservices. The teachers learn how to teach a remedialreading program called PHAST PACES. ThePHAST PACES Program addresses multiple sourcesof dysfluent reading and impaired reading compre-hension, and focuses on the decoding, reading rate,and comprehension problems of adolescent studentswith RD. This intervention is adopted as a scaffold-ing structure for the professional developmentproject because of its demonstrated efficacy in ourintervention research. PHAST PACES students havedemonstrated significant gains relative to controlstudents on multiple measures of reading achieve-ment and transfer-of-learning in a small efficacystudy conducted in four different high schools. ThePHAST PACES Program and the initial efficacystudy have been described in a separate report(Lovett, Lacerenza, Kunka, & De Palma, 2007).

The professional development model is character-ized by a strong emphasis on the teachers develop-ing metacognitive models of effective literacy

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1085

instruction, becoming more reflective regardingtheir own teaching practices, and mastering effectivemultiple component approaches to reading inter-vention. A long-term mentoring and instructionalcoaching framework is being implemented insideand outside of teachers’ classrooms. The programincludes opportunities for collaborative learning,with small groups of teacher participants forminginformal learning communities. The frequency andduration of the in-class coaching, long-term mentor-ship, and collaborative learning experiences are allparameters important to the professional develop-ment model.

Meta-analyses of the research that has beenconducted on improving the reading and readingcomprehension skills of students with RD haveconfirmed the superiority of remediation programsthat provide a combination of direct instruction andstrategy-based instruction. While professional de-velopment traditionally emphasizes a skill-buildingand knowledge acquisition model, no systematicwork has been conducted to develop and evaluateprograms that enable teachers to become moremetacognitive in their approach to their ownteaching, and to allow them to acquire the mentalmodels necessary for teaching students to becomeeffective and flexible strategy-users (Israel, Block,Bauserman, & Kinnucan-Welsch, 2005). In thepresent paper, we describe our professional devel-opment model for high school teachers. Anemphasis on developing metacognitive models ofeffective literacy instruction, and of the PHASTPACES program in particular, characterizes theprofessional development.

The past two decades have witnessed considerableresearch on what type of remedial interventions arerequired for students with reading and otherlanguage learning disabilities. Widespread consen-sus exists about what remedial components arecritical to developing decoding skills in strugglingreaders. Less consensus exists on what is needed tofacilitate improved reading comprehension or tofoster reading fluency in individuals with RDs. Bycomparison, very little work has been undertaken toaddress the question of what professional develop-ment support is required for teachers to acquireexpertise with effective interventions and to teachthese interventions effectively and with confidence.Recent attention on the importance of metacogni-tion to effective strategy instruction has led torealization that metacognitively-oriented teacherswho are able to self-regulate thought and action are

key to effective teaching of literacy in the classroom(Israel et al., 2005). What remains unclear is how todevelop such teachers and support their profes-sional growth.

In the following sections, we review first what isknown about how to address the remedial needs ofstruggling readers in their middle and high schoolyears. Secondly, we examine what elements areassociated with effective teaching, and finally, weaddress issues related to effective professionaldevelopment programs for teachers.

2. What is needed to improve reading and text

comprehension skills in older disabled readers?

Progress has been made in identifying some of thecomponents of effective remediation for strugglingreaders. A central empirical review was publishedon what effective reading interventions with dis-abled readers must include (Rayner, Foorman,Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001). To addressdecoding and word identification deficits, this reportemphasized the necessity of direct remediation ofphonological awareness deficits, systematic andexplicit instruction in letter- and letter cluster–soundmappings, and reinforcement of word identificationlearning through ample text reading practice usingcontrolled decodable reading vocabulary. Strug-gling readers in high school frequently exhibitsizeable gaps in their decoding abilities and letter–-sound knowledge, gaps that are often demonstratedby failures in identifying multi-syllabic words, theexistence of persistent vowel mispronunciationerrors, and many of the same decoding errorsdemonstrated by much younger children. Evidencefrom our own efficacy studies with the PHASTPACES Program indicates the importance ofteaching word identification strategies to strugglingreaders of any age; high school students with RDsmade significant improvements in their decodingskills following 60–70 h of PHAST PACES instruc-tion (Lovett et al., 2007).

Much remains to be discovered regarding reme-diation of the accompanying fluency and readingcomprehension problems of students with RDs.Disabled readers are known to struggle with textstructure and the complex comprehension demandsof reading in context. High school disabled readersare particularly challenged by different types ofcomprehension processing required for reading indifferent courses. Printed text provides none of theprosodic and non-verbal cues that facilitate oral

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971086

language comprehension, and many students needexplicit instruction on written cues (Carlisle & Rice,2002). Many disabled readers are handicapped by adeficient or poorly organized knowledge base withrespect to text structure and text conventions(Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Lovettet al., 1996), and appear to have difficulty in theirselection and use of specific reading strategies(Brown & Campione, 1984; Snow & Lohman,1984) and in their ability to monitor strategyimplementation (Carlisle & Rice, 2002; Chan, Cole,& Barfett, 1987).

Comprehension strategy instruction has beenidentified as one of the most effective interventionsto improve the comprehension of students with RD(Forness, Kavale, Blum, & Lloyd, 1997; Kamil,2004; NRP, 2000) and is most effective when itfocuses on the use of metacognition (Malone &Mastropieri, 1992), attributional retraining (Bor-kowski, Weyhing, & Carr, 1988; Schunk & Rice,1992), and includes ample opportunities for practice

and generalization (Pressley, Goodchild, Fleet,Zajchowski, & Evans, 1989; Pressley, Simmons,Snyder, & Cariglia-Bull, 1989; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997). Effective strategy implementa-tion requires understanding of the strategies,including when and why to use them in compre-hending text (Mason, 2004; Sinatra, Brown, &Reynolds, 2002; Vaughn et al., 2000). As concludedby Carlisle and Rice (2002, p. 72), ‘‘the metacogni-tive aspect of strategic behavior should be a centraltheme in strategy instruction.’’

Efficacy of comprehension interventions, includ-ing cognitive strategy instruction specifically for LDstudents, was examined in a meta-analysis (Swan-son, 1999). Swanson’s results support the effective-ness of models of strategy instruction thatincorporate direct explanation and metacognitiveembellishment. Instruction in individual strategiessuch as comprehension monitoring, question an-swering and generation, summarization, graphicorganizers, and story structure appear effective; thegreatest gains occur when students learn to usemany strategies.

A review of available research suggests that thefollowing design features are important aspects ofeffective comprehension instruction for adolescentdisabled readers (Meichenbaum & Biemiller, 1998;NRP, 2000; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1998):instruction in multiple strategies; direct explanationof strategies prior to and during instruction; teachermodeling of strategies; scaffolded instruction and

practice of strategy application; contextualizedinstruction, with extensive strategy cuing; metacog-nitive instruction; and evaluation and attributionalretraining (Borkowski et al., 1988; Brown, Pressley,Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Duke & Pearson,2002; Malone & Mastropieri, 1992; NRP, 2000;Pressley, 1998; Schunk & Rice, 1992).

3. What characterizes the effective teacher?

Observational studies of effective teachers haveidentified common recurring themes to their de-scriptions (Pressley, Schuder, Bergman, & El-Dinary, 1992). As Borkowski and Muthukrishna(1992) characterized them, ‘‘Effective teachersseemed to possess a clear understanding of theirmission and how they planned to achieve it, that is,they appeared to have formed a broad conceptualframework (or internal model) in which strategicteaching occurred’’ (p. 492). Block and Pressley(2002) have cautioned that helping students becometruly self-regulated comprehenders is hard work andthe teaching methods necessary to achieve this goaltake most teachers more than a year to master.

The common element to descriptions of effectiveteachers is that they are highly metacognitive

teachers, fluent in their use and orchestration of arepertoire of effective and adaptive instructionalstrategies. Metacognitive teachers clearly possessimplicit working models of mental development,reading comprehension, the multi-dimensionallearning trajectories of their students, and theirown instructional strategies. Effective teachers havebeen described as exhibiting distinctly metacognitivebehaviors (Duffy, 2005). Effective teachers employfeedback from their own performances to adjustinstruction (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, &Beckingham, 2004; Zimmerman, 2000), abandonprescribed teaching routines when they fail (Zim-merman, 2000), and readily transfer knowledgefrom one context to another without prompts.

A metacognitive professional development frame-work is very different from traditional in-servicetraining. In contrast to teachers who passivelyreceive imparted knowledge and implement newskills procedurally, a metacognitive model seeks todevelop teachers with ‘‘the proactive state of mindand the emotional strength to take charge’’ (Duffy,2005, p. 301). The question remains: Can wefacilitate the development of a metacognitiveteacher and how? And can we construct profes-sional development models that will foster and

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1087

sustain meaningful change (Butler et al., 2004;Collins, 1998)?

4. Professional development for teachers of

struggling readers in high school: What is needed?

The cognitive demands placed upon teacherscharged with improving reading comprehensionamong their students are considerable. The NRPconcluded:

ysuccessful teachers of reading comprehensionmust respond flexibly and opportunistically tostudents’ needs for instructive feedback as theyread. To be able to do this, teachers themselvesmust have a firm grasp not only of the strategiesthey are teaching the children but also of theinstructional strategies that they can employ toachieve their goal. Many teachers find this typeof teaching a challenge, most likely because theyhave not been prepared to do such teachingy.Teaching comprehension strategies effectivelyin the natural setting of the classroom involves alevel of proficiency and flexibility thatyrequiressubstantial and intensive teacher preparation(NRP, 2000, p. 4-119–4-126).

There have been only a few small studiesevaluating the efficacy of training teachers toprovide comprehension strategy instruction. Thequasi-experimental study of Brown et al. (1996)evaluated the effects of teacher training andexperience with a form of multiple strategy instruc-tion (transactional strategy instruction or TSI)relative to more traditional approaches to readingcomprehension instruction, with five teachers,matched on a number of attributes, in eachcondition. Students of the TSI-trained teachersout-performed the other teachers’ students bothon standardized reading measures and in self-awareness of their own word identification andcomprehension strategies. These results and those oftwo other studies (Anderson, 1992; Duffy et al.,1987) suggest that intensive instruction of teacherscan prepare them to teach reading comprehensionstrategically and that such teaching can foster instudents a greater awareness of reading strategiesand improved reading comprehension (NRP, 2000).

It must be acknowledged, however, that pro-grams like TSI are challenging for teachers to learn,require high energy and real commitment fromparticipating teachers, and are best implemented insituations where ongoing support from school

administration or school districts is clear (Block &Pressley, 2002; El-Dinary, 2002). Traditional mod-els of professional development are poorly equippedto provide the types of learning experiences requiredfor teachers to develop proficiency of this type.Traditional approaches to teacher in-service aretypically ‘‘top-down’’ presentations by visitingexperts, narrowly focused, and quite disconnectedfrom the realities of life in the classroom (Butler etal., 2004; Rosemary, 2005). These models are notequipped to foster in teachers the type of expertiserequired for effective strategic teaching. Traditionalone-shot workshops have been criticized as achiev-ing at best shallow implementation of instructionalprinciples, a preoccupation with acquisition ofprocedural skills, and little sustained use of inno-vative practices (Englert & Tarrant, 1995; Gersten,Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Palincsar, 1999).

5. The development of metacognitive teachers: What

characterizes effective professional development?

There is awareness of the need for dramaticreform of professional development practices forteachers (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Butler et al., 2004;Kinnucan-Welsch, 2005; Palincsar, 1999; Richard-son, 2003). In the area of reading remediation,professional development to increase the efficacy ofteachers must provide the tools and the contextsthat will facilitate greater skill and deeper under-standing of both content and pedagogy (Rosemary,2005). There is growing awareness of the crucial roleof the teachers’ own level of metacognitive aware-ness of his/her instructional practices and efficacy,of the differing stages of cognitive and metacogni-tive development of individual students, and of thepower of instructional interactions to promotestudent learning. Effective teachers exhibit meta-cognitive behaviors; they take charge of their workand are adaptive decision makers, able to self-regulate as they respond differentially to childrenand situations in the classroom.

One model of professional development thoughtto have excellent potential for fostering greatermetacognition among teachers is that of instruc-tional coaching (Kinnucan-Welsch, 2005). Deshlerand his colleagues at the University of KansasCenter for Research on Learning (Deshler, 2004)have reported that while an ‘‘enlightened’’ profes-sional development program that included partner-ship learning and in-class modeling was associatedwith high levels of knowledge and skill acquisition

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971088

among trained teachers (80–85%), classroom appli-cation was observed only 10–15% of the time.When the program was enhanced by the addition ofinstructional coaches, knowledge and skill acquisi-tion rates among trained teachers remained high(90%), and classroom application rates soared to80–90%. Deshler suggests that the deep relation-ships that develop between teachers and instruc-tional coaches allow ongoing conversations overtime conducive to reflective practice, and provide acontext within which teachers can acquire deepknowledge of innovative practices and instructionalframeworks, both on an explicit and implicit level.Relationships with an instructional coach allowlong-term mentorship, an apparent prerequisite forthe acquisition and internalization of a metacogni-tive teaching mental model.

A professional development model that usesinstructional coaching still retains a knowledgedissemination responsibility. Although admittedly‘‘raw knowledge is not enough’’ (Duffy, 2005,p. 305), teachers cannot self-regulate knowledgethat they do not possess. Metacognitive teachers, tobe effective, possess considerable professionalknowledge about the complexities of oral andwritten language structure, text environments, theimportance of time on task, cognitive developmentand instructional theories, classroom management,explicit teaching, and effective instructional prac-tices (Butler et al., 2004; Duffy, 2005; Israel et al.,2005). A metacognitive professional developmentmodel includes opportunities for teachers to trans-form and adapt this professional knowledge. Whenlearning about an instructional technique, teacherswould be given academic tasks that require them toadapt and modify the technique for use in un-anticipated classroom situations, thus combiningknowledge acquisition with active transformation ofknowledge and self-regulation experiences with thecontent (Pintrich, 1995; Randi & Corno, 2000).

It has been recognized that practice in profes-sional development programs must occur in thecontext of teachers’ actual classroom situations. It isargued that instruction is not a tidy endeavor thatcan be predicted in advance, and that the use ofsimulations, peer teaching, and non-classroomactivities in professional development come acrossas artificial and not reflective of the teachers’realities in their classrooms. Professional develop-ment practice should instead be ‘‘situated inground-level complexities’’ (Schmoker, 2004), thusthe expert/instructional coach must model and

facilitate successful implementation in the class-room. It is important for instructional coaches

to immerse themselves in the messiness of day-to-day teaching, doing demonstration lessons tomodel the thinking involved, providing scaffold-ing and coaching as teachers attempt to imple-ment, and assisting as teachers evaluate theeffectiveness of their effortsy.Developing self-regulated teachers requires a field-based situationin which experts are ‘on site’ enough to ensurethat teacher learning occurs in the context of realclassrooms, that assistance is provided over time,and that teachers reflect on their practiceexperiences. When experts do this, together withdeveloping teachers’ psychological strength,being supportive rather than directive, andemphasizing transformation of knowledge, tea-chers have a chance to become metacognitive(Duffy, 2005, p. 307).

A final consideration in the formulation ofeffective professional development practices con-cerns the important role of collaborative learningand the construction of communities of teachers/learners. Some researchers refer to a ‘‘communitiesof practice’’ (COP) framework (Henry et al., 1999;Palincsar, 1998). As described by Butler et al.(2004), this involves groups of teachers and/orresearchers who work together locally withinschools or in meetings after school to develop newways of teaching. Teachers try implementing newteaching practices in their classrooms and monitorthe success of their undertaking. The group comestogether to discuss and review their instruction,reflect on student outcomes, and critically evaluatetheir own teaching. The practical benefits of a COPframework include the fact that it provides struc-tured opportunities for reflection not routinelyavailable to practicing teachers. In addition, theconcept of a truly collaborative community cansustain momentum for participating teachers whenthey face implementation problems, and generateenergy for and commitment to innovation, renewal,and growth in practice. It has been recognized thatlonger-term professional development for teachersis needed; if teachers are to achieve the level ofreflective and metacognitive teaching describedhere, it has been estimated that a minimum of ayear’s intensive support is required (Block &Pressley, 2002).

In our research partnerships with schools, wehave developed a model that embraces the instruc-

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1089

tional coaching, long-term mentorship, and colla-borative learning features described above. Thisprofessional development model has been designedto train high school teachers to remediate multi-faceted RDs in adolescent struggling readers. Ourmodel emphasizes the development of a metacogni-tive and reflective teaching style, and also allowsteachers to acquire the specific skills they needfor effective instruction of comprehension anddecoding strategies. The specific program used toremediate RDs in high school is the PHASTPACES Program described below. The program isbriefly outlined because it provides the curricularcontent on which the professional developmentmodel is scaffolded.

6. The PHAST PACES Program

The PHAST PACES Program integrates wordidentification and text comprehension strategyinstruction and was developed for high schoolstudents meeting criteria for RD. PHAST PACESincludes all of the instructional, metacognitive, andcontextual features identified to be important fromprevious efficacy studies. The program offers adecoding track called the Phonological and Ortho-graphic Knowledge or PHAST Track, and twocomprehension tracks that work in unison called theText Knowledge and Comprehension StrategyTracks. The PHAST PACES Program has beendescribed in detail in a separate paper (Lovett et al.,2007).

The PHAST Track teaches students five specificword identification strategies (Sounding Out,Rhyming, Peeling Off, Vowel Alert, and Spy) alongwith a metacognitive organizational plan thatsupports successful and flexible strategy application.The Text Knowledge Track focuses on under-standing the structure of narrative, expository, andgraphical texts. Students learn to recognize specifictext features and signaling devices that authors use,and learn how to use these signals to increase theirunderstanding of text content. The skills taughtand practiced in the Text Knowledge Track serveas springboards to the comprehension strategiestaught in the Comprehension Strategy Track,which introduces five text comprehension strategies(Predicting, Activating Prior Knowledge, Clarifying,Evaluating-through-Questioning, Summarizing) andteaches them concurrently with metacognitive strat-egy instruction (self-monitoring and evaluativeskills).

Instructional features to promote learning andtransfer of learning are inherent and consistentamong the three tracks. Each lesson combines directinstruction and dialogue-based strategy training,presents material in a sequential and structuredmanner, and teaches all necessary prerequisite skillsto mastery. The metacognitive instruction is scaf-folded and teaches explicit self-monitoring andevaluative skills. High school curricular materialsand texts appropriate for adolescents are used.Efforts have been made to meet the Grade 9Ministry expectations for literacy in the provinceof Ontario: PHAST PACES would be well situatedin the continuum of literacy courses offered by anyschool district.

The key elements of the PHAST PACES inter-vention are supported in the literature. Swanson,Hoskyn, and Lee (1999) conducted a meta-analysisof remedial reading intervention research describingthe necessary components for a comprehensivemulti-dimensional remediation program for RDstudents. They reported that a combined directinstruction/strategy training approach is critical toimproving the reading comprehension and textreading skills of disabled readers. Several importantinstructional components were identified in theSwanson et al. (1999) meta-analysis, and all ofthese features characterize the PHAST PACESProgram.

We recently completed a small preliminary studyto evaluate the efficacy of the PHAST PACESprogram in improving reading skills for RDadolescents relative to a waiting-list control group.Students from Grades 9 and 10 in four high schoolswere referred by their teachers for reading interven-tion. Students’ RD status was confirmed in ascreening assessment. To qualify, adolescents de-monstrated underachievement greater than onestandard deviation below age norms on a set ofstandardized reading measures. Thirty studentswere assigned to PHAST PACES or the WaitingList Control (students waiting to receive theprogram in the second semester). All students wereassessed at pretest and after approximately 60–70 hof instruction. After 60–70 h of PHAST PACES,struggling readers demonstrated significant gains onstandardized tests of word attack, word reading,and phonological skills, and in multi-syllabic wordidentification. Large to very large effect sizes wererevealed on these outcome measures.

These preliminary results demonstrate the efficacyof PHAST PACES in improving several dimensions

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971090

of reading skill. Hierarchical modeling of these datahave revealed substantial variability in gains amongstudents in PHAST PACES, however (often equalto the gains themselves). Such variability indicatesthat implementation and training factors at theteacher and instructional group level may play ahighly significant role in mediating reading skillgains. A focus on how to improve our professionaldevelopment model and better facilitate the learningexperiences and teaching outcomes of our PHASTPACES teachers was needed. An overview of ourtraining program for new PHAST PACES teachersis outlined below.

7. The professional development program for

PHAST PACES teachers

All teachers new to the PHAST PACES Programare trained to implement the program throughprofessional development training that is spreadover two semesters (September–June). On-site visitsto the teacher’s class are an essential component ofthe training model. Senior teachers from our clinicalresearch program serve as the Mentor Teachersunder the direction of the second author who hasbeen responsible for writing most of the PHASTPACES Program. The Mentor Teachers are experi-enced in teaching the interventions and have trainedand mentored teachers in our previous research.Mentor Teachers conduct the 8–10 days of in-service training, typically in workshop format, andvisit each teacher’s PHAST PACES class regularlyto observe program implementation, provide con-structive feedback, model new program content,and offer ongoing support.

For in-service teacher training to be consideredsuccessful, novice teachers must not only learn theinformation being presented, but also generalize orapply their new knowledge and skills to their ownclasses (Smith & McKinney, 1997). Showers, Joyce,and Bennett (1987) suggest that the inclusion oftheory, demonstration, practice, and feedback intraining enhances the likelihood of generalization.Our training models rely on these four keyinstructional components to train all of the wordidentification and comprehension strategies in-cluded in PHAST PACES: (i) providing theoryand rationale for the importance of each strategyintroduced; (ii) modeling skills, strategies and lessonformats; (iii) providing opportunities for teachers topractice the skills and strategies in pairs and smallgroups; and (iv) offering Mentor Teacher feedback.

The training model for new PHAST PACESteachers incorporates the following components: (1)introductory workshops on what research hastaught us about effective reading instruction, theetiology and core deficits of RDs, and the implica-tions of these deficits for appropriate readinginstruction; (2) off-site in-service events to trainPHAST PACES content and skill development; (3)on-site visits to the novice teachers’ classrooms byMentor Teachers; and (4) ongoing informal supportand availability to the novice teachers (e.g., viae-mail and telephone). An overview of the profes-sional development model is provided in Table 1.

The introductory 3-day workshop occurs beforethe teachers begin any PHAST PACES teachingand is usually held the last week of August. The firstday of training focuses on describing key readingconcepts, and the current research evidence onreading development, what is known about RDs(e.g., underlying core deficits), and effective reme-dial programming for students with RD. Ourexperience has shown that high school teachers, ingeneral, know very little about the fundamentals ofreading instruction. The day concludes with anoverview of the PHAST PACES Program outliningthe essential instructional features and introducingthe importance of decoding strategies, comprehen-sion strategies, and metacognition to readingremediation. The second and third days of trainingfocus primarily on teaching the first PHASTPACES decoding strategy, Sounding Out. TheSounding Out strategy is based largely on theCorrective Reading Program (Engelmann et al.,1988), which is a direct instruction program used toteach sound segmentation and sound-blending skillsas well as letter–sound associations. In addition,teachers learn how to complete the daily plans foreach lesson (called daily diaries). Five additionaldays of in-service training occur during the firstsemester of teaching PHAST PACES. Each in-service training day includes: (i) question/answerand discussion periods, (ii) the introduction of newskills and strategies, and (iii) opportunities topractice all previously learned and new skills andstrategies. As part of the training, novice teachersobserve the classes of an experienced PHASTPACES teacher on four separate occasions.

The ninth day of training occurs at the beginningof the second semester before teachers begin theirsecond PHAST PACES group. This day serves toreview key instructional skills and strategies. Thetenth training day focuses on discussion in which

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 1

Overview of the professional development model used to train high school teachers to teach the PHAST PACES remedial reading program

Year one

Semester one

Summer workshops Days 1– 3 of professional development

� Introduction to current research on reading disabilities and multiple component reading remediation, fundamentals

of effective reading instruction for adolescent struggling readers, overview and introduction of the PHAST PACES

Program

� Emphasis on metacognition and its role in instruction

� Introduction to Sounding Out strategy: this includes modeling of skills, small group and large group practice,

feedback

� Introduction to Rhyming strategy; preskills required; metacognitive framework (goals, purpose, strategy skill review)

In-service training Days 4– 8

� 4 of the 5 days will begin with visits to classes of experienced PHAST PACES teachers

� Question/Answer Period

� Introduction of new skills/strategies content

� Opportunities to practice in groups and in pairs with Mentor Teacher feedback

� Modeling instruction—Mentor teacher teaches a PHAST PACES lesson with program teachers playing the role of

students

Onsite visits/in-class

coaching

3 visits in the first month

2 visits per month each of the following months

� During the first visit, after observing/co-teaching the class, Mentor Teacher aids in determining appropriate initial

instructional level for the students, discusses types of difficulties with which students are presenting, and general

classroom organization

� During all other visits, Mentor Teacher co-teaches to model program implementation, observes the program teacher

instructing the class independently, offers constructive feedback, answers questions, reviews new skills and strategies

Fostering a

community of

learners

� During all in-service training days, lunches are catered in order to promote peer discussions regarding program

implementation and develop collaborative relationships

Semester two

In-service training Day 9

� Review PHAST PACES instructional content

� Discussion of needs of new instructional groups

Day 10

� Panel discussion (experienced PHAST PACES teachers also attend); program teachers provide feedback on the

training they received, their perceptions on the effectiveness of the PHAST PACES program, the usefulness of

program materials, and any other training/program implementation issues

Onsite visits/in-class

coaching

2 visits per month

Year two

Continued in-service

training

2 days of in-service training over the year

� Refresher, further review, new initiatives, new materials, needs of new groups

� Each training day may begin with visit to the class of an experienced PHAST PACES teacher

Onsite visits/in-class

coaching

1– 3 visits per semester (3– 6 visits during the year)

� Mentor Teacher may co-teach to model program implementation, observe program teacher instructing the class,

offer constructive feedback, and answer questions

Year three

Onsite visits 1– 3 visits

� Mentor Teacher may co-teach to model program implementation, observe program teacher instructing the class,

offer constructive feedback, and answer questions

M.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1091

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971092

the teachers are asked to provide feedback on thetraining they received, their perceptions of theeffectiveness of the PHAST PACES program, howthe program, its implementation, and teachertraining could be improved, and any other trainingor program implementation issues.

Regular on-site visits by the Mentor Teachers areconsidered an essential component of our profes-sional development model as studies have demon-strated that the attrition of skills following in-service training is significant and has been reportedto be as high as 85% within 3 weeks of training(Fox, 1989).

Mentor Teachers develop a strong positiverapport and close collaborative partnership withthe PHAST PACES teachers and encourage ques-tions, new ideas, and ongoing discussion aboutprogram implementation. On the first day ofteaching the program, novice program teachers arevisited by their Mentor Teacher who ensures thatinstruction is starting at the level appropriate for thegroup and who discusses any start-up concerns theteacher may have. Within 5 days, the MentorTeacher visits the program teacher again andteaches his/her class in order to model the use ofprogram content and skills. The following week, theMentor Teacher visits again and this time observesthe new program teacher teaching the program. TheMentor Teacher provides constructive feedback,and reviews any new content that the teacher mayencounter in the next several lessons of the program.From this point until the end of the semester, theMentor Teacher visits the teacher’s class every 2weeks to provide coaching. Observation, feedback,modeling, and support continue to be an integralpart of each Mentor Teacher visit.

In their second and third years, the teachersparticipate in review workshops before starting theirnew programs and during the school year. On-sitevisits by the Mentor Teacher occur two–three timesper semester.

8. Evidence of the efficacy of the PHAST PACES

professional development program: Feedback from

the teachers

Of the 23 teachers who were trained to teach thePHAST PACES Program over the 2005–2007school years, nine completed a short post-trainingquestionnaire with a mix of open-ended and rating-format questions. Across nine questions, four dealtwith the quality of on- and off-site mentoring,

program materials, and the teacher training modelitself. Across these four questions, teachers rated thetraining program itself as uniformly positive. On afour-point scale, with 4 indicating ‘‘extremely help-ful,’’ the mean rating was 3.8 (SD ¼ 0.47). Twoitems asked participating teachers if they felt theirunderstanding of students with reading problemsand their own knowledge base as a reading teacherhad increased. A similarly positive response wasobserved on a four-point scale, with 4 indicating‘‘increased a lot’’, a mean rating of 3.7 was reported(SD ¼ 0.49). Finally, two questions targetedwhether teachers felt that their sense of efficacy(i.e., ability to alter student performance) andeffectiveness at implementing the literacy programincreased. With a rating of four indicating ‘‘in-creased a lot’’, the mean level of endorsement forthese questions was 3.7 (SD ¼ 0.46).

Additional teacher outcome evidence was ob-served in extensive qualitative comments providedby teachers in response to several open-endedquestions. Two of these questions asked whetherthe training had affected the way the teacher hadsubsequently taught the PHAST PACES programand whether their teaching style had changed.Across the nine questionnaires, themes of becomingmore aware of teacher’s own style emerged con-sistently. For example, ‘‘I am more conscious ofmodeling strategies in all my classes (e.g., self-talk).I certainly am more apt to spend time onmetacognition with my students so that I amfocusing on process more than I used to’’ and ‘‘Iam more aware of students struggling with transferof information.’’ One teacher became more aware ofher own speech patterns and how these mightimpact students’ learning in her classroom, ‘‘I’mmuch more conscious of the way that I speakEnglish. I know that I speak quickly and thistraining has forced me to slow down.’’ The benefitsof a metacognitive approach to teacher trainingextended to the classroom for many teachers, whoreported that they became more aware of student’sindividual learning needs by becoming more meta-cognitive in their own approach to teaching, ‘‘I havealways been an animated teacher in any course Ihave taught, but through [the training] I havebecome more observant, on a daily basis, of thelearning of individual students.’’

Some teachers who completed the mentorshipprocess after initially teaching the program pro-vided reflections on the effect of ongoing mentor-ship, and how the effect of working with a training

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1093

coach facilitated effective student–teacher relation-ships. One teacher described her experience ofteaching after becoming more aware of the meta-cognitive issues in teaching the program:

Well, of course I felt far more confident aboutteaching the course throughout the secondsemester. The first time around, I thought I knewwhat I was doing (and essentially I did), but thesecond time, I truly had a sense of where theentire program was going and how it all fittogether. This confidence and experience prob-ably allowed me to explain strategies moreclearly, so I feel the students likely had a betterunderstanding of the metacognitive aspect of theprogram. Also, I think the first time around, myinstinct was to automatically correct a student ifhe/she made an error. I now feel that I’ve becomea better ‘‘coach,’’ guiding a student to find thebest strategy/answer on his own.

Overall, this qualitative evidence suggests that theprimary goals of mentorship, metacognition, andmodeling central to the professional developmentmodel can be explicitly shared with novice teachers.While not constituting a full qualitative evaluationof the professional development program andpartially limited by the number of teachers whocontributed questionnaires, the reflections of thetrainee teachers suggest that the professional devel-opment model is promising.

9. Evidence of the efficacy of the PHAST PACES

professional development program: student outcomes

A different kind of evidence for the influence ofthe instructional coaching model, and in particularthe effect of ongoing mentoring, can also be seen instudent reading outcomes and their relationship toteachers’ experience with program training andimplementation. Students who were taught PHASTPACES by participating teachers were assessed onseveral dimensions of reading ability both beforeand after 60–70 h of intervention. Students partici-pated in classes of 4–10, receiving on average 1 h ofinstruction daily. Measures used to assess readingskill included the Woodcock Reading MasteryTests-Revised (WRMT-R) Passage Comprehension,Word Attack, and Word Identification subtests,along with experimental measures of word reading(Challenge Test) designed to assess transfer oflearning and application of the metacognitive wordreading strategies taught in PHAST PACES.

Assessments were carried out by trained psychome-trists under standardized testing conditions beforeand after instruction by the participating teachers.An examination of the efficacy of PHAST PACES isprovided in Lovett et al. (2007).

When student outcomes were examined, substan-tial variability was observed in the gains that highschool students made over the course of interven-tion. On a text reading measure, for example, theWRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest, 18% ofPHAST PACES students made gains greater than astandard deviation (15 standard scores), while 12%made no gains on this measure. Teachers of thesestudents were teachers trained with the PHASTPACES professional development model describedabove. Some students in this sample were taught inthe first PHAST PACES group taught by aparticular teacher, and some groups were taughtin second or subsequent PHAST PACES groups.Between the initial and subsequent instructionalexperiences, these teachers gained experience withPHAST PACES, received continued monitoring,and engaged in further mentoring by and contactwith the Mentor Teacher. These experiences repre-sent some key elements of the components ofeffective metacognitive teacher training alreadydiscussed.

Analyses were undertaken to examine the impacton student achievement of additional training,mentoring, and experience by their teachers. Be-cause improved student outcomes are the ultimatebarometer of effective teacher training and support,a comparison was made of the gains demonstratedby PHAST PACES students taught by a teacherteaching the program for the first time versus thoseof students instructed by a teacher teaching theprogram for a second or subsequent time. A seriesof one-way analyses of variance were performed onpre–post test gains over 60–70 h of PHAST PACESinstruction, comparing first-taught (N ¼ 52) andsubsequent-taught (N ¼ 50) groups of PHASTPACES students to a waiting-list control group(N ¼ 38). Two apriori contrasts were formed asfollows: the first contrast compared the outcomes(gains) of PHAST PACES to Control students, andthe second contrast compared the outcomes (gains)of teachers’ first- and subsequent-taught PHASTPACES students. Results of these analyses arepresented in Table 2.

Significant and substantial effects were observedfor the first contrast evaluating the efficacy of theprogram for struggling high school readers. Stu-

ARTICLE IN PRESS

Table 2

Comparison of gains made over 60–70 h by PHAST PACES

students of teachers teaching the program for their first time

versus those instructed by a teacher teaching the program for a

second or subsequent time

Measure Contrast A coeff.

(SE)

Contrast B coeff.

(SE)

Letter–sound

combinations

10.6 (1.3)�� �0.7 (0.7)

Challenge test 18.7 (3.4)�� 3.4 (1.7)�

Test of transfer 15.0 (3.1)�� 1.2 (1.5)

WRMT-R word attack—

raw

11.7 (2.4)�� �0.3 (2.3)

WRMT-R word attack—

SS

12.1 (2.6)�� 0.4 (1.3)

WRMT-R passage

comp.—raw

7.6 (2.7)�� 4.1 (1.4)�

WRMT-R passage

comp.—SS

8.3 (2.9)�� 4.2 (1.5)�

WRMT-R word ident.—

raw

4.9 (3.1) 2.3 (1.6)

WRMT-R word ident.—

SS

3.1 (2.1) 1.6 (1.1)

Notes: Positive contrast coefficients for Contrast B indicate that

second-taught groups demonstrated greater gains than first-

taught groups.�po0.05.��po0.01.

M.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971094

dents in PHAST PACES gained more reading skillsover 60–70 h of programming than those in thecontrol group. Table 2 also details the results of thesecond contrast. There were no differences betweenfirst and subsequent groups on measures of basicdecoding and word identification skills. However,students taught in a teacher’s second instructionalgroup made significantly greater gains in theirability to read difficult multi-syllabic words (e.g.,disenfranchised), and in their performance on themeasure of text comprehension (WRMT-R PassageComprehension). Second-taught students were alsobetter on a standardized word identification mea-sure (WRMT-R Word Identification), but thedifference only approached significance.

Of the outcome measures examined, performanceon the multi-syllabic Challenge Words and on theWRMT-R Passage Comprehension subtest involvesome of the more advanced skills addressed inPHAST PACES. The teaching of these skills isstrongly dependent on the teacher’s ability tointegrate multiple domains of content and strategyinstruction, and to teach effective flexible strategiesfor success in word identification, text reading, andreading comprehension.

Potential limitations of these student outcomedata should be acknowledged. These include thefact that students were not randomly assigned toparticipation in the first or subsequent classes of aPHAST PACES teacher. Also, differences instudent outcome between first or subsequent classassignments may reflect general growth and devel-opment in teaching skill. These analyses, however,do provide suggestive evidence that the programand its teacher training model affect student out-comes in positive ways. The results to date suggestthat there is value to the present professionaldevelopment model, and justification for furtherdevelopment of this multi-faceted model and itsmaintenance over an extended period of time.

10. Summary and conclusions

Interest in adolescent literacy problems is growingas hundreds of thousands of students in Canada andmillions in the United States are scoring signifi-cantly below expectation in reading and literacyskills on current testing measures. Reading achieve-ment is related to more than high school drop-outrates. Increased schooling opportunities promotegreater productivity, higher incomes, economicgrowth, and considerable health benefits (Bloom &Canning, 2000). The implications of widespreadreading difficulties for child and youth health, forfamilies, and for all sectors of North Americansociety are significant.

In this paper, we have asked what constituteseffective professional development for high schoolteachers faced with struggling readers at thesecondary level. The prevalence of significantliteracy underachievement into the high schoolyears, with many students still experiencing diffi-culty with basic word identification and text readingskills, focuses attention on the issue of whetherremediation of basic reading skills can be effectiveinto high school and should be an instructionalpriority in schools. Given the need that exists inmany North American high schools, the questionalso becomes how to equip teachers with the skills,knowledge, and experiences they will need toaddress students’ needs and to face instructionalchallenges for which they have not been trained.

Metacognitive teacher training, instructionalcoaching, long-term mentorship, and collaborativelearning have been proposed as important featuresof effective professional development. We have des-cribed a professional development model designed

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1095

to train high school teachers to effectively remediateRDs. The model emphasizes the development of ametacognitive and reflective teaching style, andallows teachers to acquire the new skills they needfor effective instruction of comprehension anddecoding strategies. The specific instructional pro-gram on which the teachers are trained, the PHASTPACES Program, is designed to remediate RDs inhigh school and has demonstrated good preliminaryefficacy. In the present evaluation, we comparedstudent outcomes for teachers’ first and subsequentinstructional groups. The superiority of the subse-quent-instructed groups’ performance in readingdifficult multi-syllabic words and on a passagecomprehension test suggests the value of the pro-fessional development model in promoting betterstudent outcomes on the more complex skills taughtin the program. Teachers assigned high positiveratings to the usefulness of the professional devel-opment training, and reported increased under-standing of reading problems and effective readingremediation, and an increased sense of efficacy inimplementing the PHAST PACES program.

We suggest that there is value in continuing topursue high school initiatives that address theliteracy learning needs of older students directlyand also provide a vehicle for their teachers toacquire all they need to provide these instructionalinitiatives. With this focus, with our partnerschools, we share a common purpose—to allowevery student with reading problems an opportunityto achieve an excellent standard of reading skill andaccess to a fully literate future.

References

Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transac-

tional strategy instruction for teachers of severely reading-

disabled adolescents. Teaching and Teacher Education, 8,

391–403.

Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does

text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning

from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22,

331–346.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, K. K. (1999). Developing practice,

developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of

professional development. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G.

Skyes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning professional: Handbook

of policy and practice (pp. 3–32). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Block, C. C., & Pressley, M. (2002). Comprehension instruction:

Research-based best practices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Bloom, D. E., & Canning, D. (2000). The health and wealth of

nations. Science, 287, 1207–1208.

Borkowski, J. G., & Muthukrishna, N. (1992). Moving meta-

cognition into the classroom: ‘‘Working models’’ and effective

strategy teaching. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T.

Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in

school (pp. 477–501). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Borkowski, J. G., Weyhing, R. S., & Carr, M. (1988). Effects of

attributional retraining on strategy-based reading comprehen-

sion in learning disabled students. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80(1), 46–53.

Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1984). Three faces of transfer:

Implications for early competence, individual differences, and

instruction. In M. Lamb, A. Brown, & B. Rogoff (Eds.),

Advances in developmental psychology, Vol. 3 (pp. 143–194).

Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A

quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies

instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18–37.

Butler, D., Lauscher, H., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B.

(2004). Collaboration and self-regulation in teachers’ profes-

sional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20,

435–455.

Carlisle, J. F., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading

comprehension: Research-based principles and practices. Balti-

more, MD: York Press.

Chan, L. K., Cole, P. G., & Barfett, S. (1987). Comprehension

monitoring: Detection and identification of text inconsisten-

cies by learning disabled and normal students. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 10(2), 114–124.

Collins, D. (1998). Achieving your vision of professional develop-

ment. Tallahassee, FL: South Eastern Regional Vision for

Education.

Deshler, D. (2004). The scaling of innovations: Factors to consider

beyond professional development. Presentation to the Interna-

tional Dyslexia Association, Chicago, IL, December 2004.

Duffy, G. G. (2005). Developing metacognitive teachers: Vision-

ing and the expert’s changing role in teacher education and

professional development. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L.

Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in

literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and profes-

sional development (pp. 299–314). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

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

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

reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading

Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347–368.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for

developing reading comprehension. In A. E. Farstrup, & S. J.

Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading

instruction (pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

El-Dinary, P. B. (2002). Challenges of implementing transac-

tional strategies instruction for reading comprehension. In C.

C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:

Research-based best practices (pp. 201–218). New York, NY:

Guilford Press.

Engelmann, S., Johnson, G., Carnine, L., Meyer, L., Becker, W.,

& Eisele, J. (1988). Corrective reading: Decoding strategies,

decoding B1. Chicago, IL: Science Research Associates, Inc.

Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative

cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special

Education, 16(6) 325–336, 353.

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–10971096

Fisher, J. B., Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2002).

Improving the reading comprehension of at-risk adolescents.

In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension

instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 351–364).

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. A., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R.

(2005). Multi-tiered reading instruction: Linking general

education and special education. In J. Gilger, & S. Richard-

son (Eds.), Research-based education and intervention: What

we need to know (pp. 21–43). Baltimore, MD: International

Dyslexia Association.

Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997).

What works in special education and related services: Using

meta-analysis to guide practice. Teaching Exceptional Chil-

dren, 29(6), 4–9.

Fox, N. V. (1989). Providing effective inservice education.

Journal of Reading, 33, 214–215.

Gersten, R., Vaughn, S. R., Deshler, D. D., & Schiller, E. (1997).

What we know about using research findings: Implications for

improving special education practice. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 30, 466–476.

Henry, S. K., Scott, J. A., Wells, J., Skobel, B., Jones, A., Cross,

S., et al. (1999). Linking university and teacher communities:

A ‘‘think tank’’ model of professional development. Teacher

Education and Special Education, 22(4), 251–268.

Israel, S. E., Block, C. C., Bauserman, K. L., & Kinnucan-

Welsch, K. (2005). Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory,

assessment, instruction, and professional development. Mah-

wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Kamil, M. L. (2004). The current state of quantitative research.

Reading Research Quarterly, 39(1), 100–108.

Kinnucan-Welsch, K. (2005). Coaching for metacognitive in-

structional practice. In S. E. Israel, C. C. Block, K. L.

Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch (Eds.), Metacognition in

literacy learning: Theory, assessment, instruction, and profes-

sional development (pp. 373–389). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence

Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lovett, M. W., Borden, S. L., Warren-Chaplin, P. M., Lacerenza,

L., DeLuca, T., & Giovinazzo, R. (1996). Text comprehension

training for disabled readers: An evaluation of reciprocal

teaching and text analysis training programs. Brain and

Language, 54, 447–480.

Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., & Borden, S. L. (2000). Putting

struggling readers on the PHAST track: A program to

integrate phonological and strategy-based remedial reading

instruction and maximize outcomes. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 33(5), 458–476.

Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., Borden, S. L., Frijters, J. C.,

Steinbach, K. A., & De Palma, M. (2000). Components of

effective remediation for developmental reading disabilities:

Combining phonological and strategy-based instruction to

improve outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(2),

263–283.

Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., Kunka, M., & De Palma, M.

(2007). PHAST PACES: Remediation for struggling readers in

high school and beyond. Manuscript in preparation.

Lovett, M. W., & Steinbach, K. A. (1997). The effectiveness of

remedial programs for reading disabled children of different

ages: Is there decreased benefit for older children? Learning

Disability Quarterly, 20(3), 189–210.

Lovett, M. W., Steinbach, K. A., & Frijters, J. C. (2000).

Remediating the core deficits of developmental reading

disability: A double deficit perspective. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 33(4), 334–358.

Malone, L. D., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1992). Reading compre-

hension instruction: Summarization and self-monitoring

training for students with learning disabilities. Exceptional

Children, 58(3), 270–279.

Mason, L. H. (2004). Explicit self-regulated strategy development

versus reciprocal questioning: Effects on expository reading

comprehension among struggling readers. Journal of Educa-

tional Psychology, 96(2), 283–296.

Meichenbaum, D., & Biemiller, A. (1998). Nurturing independent

learners: Helping students take charge of their learning.

Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.

Morris, R. D., Lovett, M. W., Wolf, M., Sevcik, R. A.,

Steinbach, K. A., Frijters, J. C., et al. (2007). Multiple

component remediation of developmental reading disabilities: A

controlled factorial evaluation of the influence of IQ, socio-

economic status, and race on outcomes. Manuscript submitted

for publication.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2003). National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2003 reading

report card. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences,

US Department of Education.

National Reading Panel (NRP)—Report of the Subgroups.

(2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assess-

ment of the scientific research literature on reading and its

implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: Na-

tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(NIH Pub. No. 004754).

Palincsar, A. S. (1998). Social constructivist perspectives on teaching

and learning. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 345–375.

Palincsar, A. (1999). Response: A community of practice.

Teacher Education and Special Education, 22(4), 272–274.

Pintrich, P. R. (1995). Understanding self-regulated learning. San

Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for

balanced teaching. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Pressley, M., Goodchild, F., Fleet, J., Zajchowski, R., & Evans,

E. D. (1989). The challenges of classroom strategy instruction.

Elementary School Journal, 89(3), 301–342.

Pressley, M., Schuder, T., Bergman, J. L., & El-Dinary, P. B.

(1992). A researcher-educator collaborative interview study of

transactional comprehension strategies instruction. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 84(2), 231–246.

Pressley, M., Simmons, S., Snyder, B. L., & Cariglia-Bull, T.

(1989). Strategy instruction research comes of age. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 12, 16–30.

Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1997). Skilled compre-

hension and its development through instruction. School

Psychology Review, 26, 448–466.

Pressley, M., & Wharton-McDonald, R. (1998). The develop-

ment of literacy, Part 4: The need for increased comprehen-

sion instruction in upper-elementary grades. In Reading

instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (pp.

192–227). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

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

learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.),

Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., &

Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How psychological science informs

the teaching of reading. Psychological Science in the Public

Interest, 2(2), 31–74.

ARTICLE IN PRESSM.W. Lovett et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 1083–1097 1097

Richardson, V. (2003). The dilemmas of professional develop-

ment: Towards high-quality teaching and learning. Phi Delta

Kappan, 84(5), 401–406.

Rosemary, C. A. (2005). Teacher learning instrument: A

metacognitive tool for improving literacy training. In S. E.

Israel, C. C. Block, K. L. Bauserman, & K. Kinnucan-Welsch

(Eds.), Metacognition in literacy learning: Theory, assessment,

instruction, and professional development (pp. 351–371).

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to

substantive instructional improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85,

424–432.

Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1992). Influence of reading-

comprehension strategy information on children’s achieve-

ment outcomes. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(1), 51–64.

Showers, B., Joyce, B., & Bennett, B. (1987). Synthesis of research

on staff development: A framework for future study and state-

of-the-art analysis. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 77–87.

Sinatra, G. M., Brown, K. J., & Reynolds, R. E. (2002).

Implications of cognitive resources allocation for comprehen-

sion strategies instruction. In C. C. Block, & M. Pressley

(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best prac-

tices. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Smith, G. A., & McKinney, P. (1997). The impact of DI

workshop training in the classrooms. Effective School

Practices, 16(4), 14–19.

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

reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the

prevention of reading difficulties in young children. Commis-

sion on behavioral and social sciences and education,

National Research Council (NRC). Washington, DC: Na-

tional Academy Press.

Snow, R. E., & Lohman, D. F. (1984). Toward a theory of

cognitive aptitude for learning from instruction. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76, 347–376.

Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with

learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of intervention out-

comes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32(6), 504–532.

Swanson, H. L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for

students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment

outcomes. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

US Department of Education: National Center for Education

Statistics. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional devel-

opment: 2000. NCES 2001-088, Washington, DC.

Vaughn, S., Chard, D. J., Pedrotty-Bryant, D., Coleman, M.,

Tyler, B.-J., Linan-Thompson, S., et al. (2000). Fluency and

comprehension interventions for third-grade students. Reme-

dial and Special Education, 21(6), 325–335.

Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social

cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrick, & M.

Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.