This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 05:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Reading & WritingQuarterly: OvercomingLearning DifficultiesPublication details, includinginstructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20

AN INTERSESSIONMODEL FORACCELERATED LITERACYLEARNINGCindy Jacobsen , Mimi Bonds , KathyMedders , Chris Saenz , Kathi Stasch &Jim SullivanPublished online: 07 Jan 2011.

To cite this article: Cindy Jacobsen , Mimi Bonds , Kathy Medders ,Chris Saenz , Kathi Stasch & Jim Sullivan (2002) AN INTERSESSIONMODEL FOR ACCELERATED LITERACY LEARNING, Reading & WritingQuarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 18:2, 151-173, DOI:10.1080/10573560252808521

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560252808521

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our

licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publicationare the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall notbe liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with,in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

AN INTERSESSION MODEL FOR ACCELERATEDLITERACY LEARNING

Cindy Jacobsen, Mimi Bonds, Kathy Medders, Chris Saenz,Kathi S tasch, and Jim Sullivan

Visalia Uni�ed School District, Visalia, California, USA

This article describes how early literacy practices were extended to acceleratethe literacy progress of at-risk third- through sixth-grade students through asummer school model and an intersession model for year-round schools. Bothmodels produced impressive gains in reading achievement, with the year-roundintersession model producing the greatest gains.

We are members of the Visalia Uni�ed School District elementary teachingcommunity, and we have been asking literacy questions and searching foranswers for almost a decade now. Socrates said, ’’A good question is half ananswer.’’ What follows is a description of the questions and answers that ledto our attempts to accelerate reading acquisition for our at-risk readers. Toarrive at that description, we �rst review our overall current literacy sup-port system for K76 classrooms and our initial attempts to enable accel-eration of at-risk students in an early intervention program. We describeour current understanding of key concepts related to acceleration based onour previous experiences with early intervention. Then, we detail how wehave extended our understanding of the process of acceleration to older at-risk students through an intersession model of intervention for studentswho are attending year-round schools, where they have a schedule of threemonth blocks in school with a one month break in between. We concludewith results that students achieved in this intersession model of supple-mental assistance.

In 1990 we asked, ’’How can we teach children to read that have over-whelmingly been leaving our elementary schools as severely limited readersor non-readers?’’ We investigated Reading Recovery1 (Clay, 1993b), anintensive one-on-one intervention for �rst grade students at risk for failingto learn to read. Over two years, the school district trained two ReadingRecovery1 Teacher Leaders who provided direction for both our early

151

Address correspondence to Cindy Jacobsen, 5527 N. Buena Vista, Visalia, CA 93291.E-mail: cindyjac@aol.com

Reading & Writing Quarterly, 18: 1517173, 2002Copyright # 2002 Taylor & Francis1057-3569 /02 $12.00 + .00

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

intervention program and classroom literacy support team. Through thesuccess of Reading Recovery1 as our early intervention program, the mostat-risk �rst grade students were becoming successful readers and writers.

Reading Recovery1 serves a very small population, but because of itssuccess with this frequently overlooked population, we were led to a fur-ther exploration of our initial question, ’’How can we teach children to readthat have overwhelmingly been leaving our elementary schools as severelylimited readers or non-readers?’’

We explored the research describing what an environment looks likethat supports the construction of early literacy (Clay, 1991; Cunningham &Allington, 1994) which led us to attempt an answer to our second questionin 1995. We initiated an intensive teacher development training program forall kindergarten through second grade teachers in the district. We adoptedClay’s An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993a) asa district wide assessment tool. Teachers learned to give running records ofreading texts and the �ve other observation tasks built into this survey.

A training system was designed around learning theory, classroom lit-eracy components, and research on staff development that would enablestrong classroom literacy instruction—independent of prepared pro-grams—with the understanding that this was an ongoing process of teacherlearning (Fullan & Hargreaves, 1996). Teachers were supported throughgroup inservice, individual classroom visits, modeling of teaching techni-ques and strategies in the classroom, and by creating a ’’behind the glass’’(DeFord, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1991) classroom for observation and trainingsessions. Teachers had opportunities to explore new theories and under-standings while observing them in action (Lyons, Pinnell, & DeFord, 1993).

The literacy team grew over the next three years to include six literacytrainers and coaches. Our ’’behind the glass’’ classrooms expanded to twoother sites. However, our inquiry continued to expand, now includinggrades three through six. We asked, ’’How can we extend this to uppergrades?’’ In 1997, with district support, a group of �fteen highly respectedteachers from third through eighth grades began a year long exploration oflearning and literacy theory. They enrolled in a six-unit graduate levelcourse of study. At the end of the training year, two teachers from thisgroup joined our district Literacy Team: one as a trainer, the other as a�fth=sixth grade demonstration teacher=coach. A one-way glass was addedto another classroom, allowing observation opportunities to span kinder-garten through sixth grade. We chose an assessment piece that was ap-propriate to grades 376, The Developmental Reading Assessment, orDRA (Beaver, 1997).

At the end of each year, the Literacy Team held a retreat. We spentseveral days looking critically at positive changes and at who remained ’’atrisk.’’ The team looked at why some of our deepest literacy questions

152 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

remained unanswered. A group of students who had not had access toReading Recovery1 in �rst grade were now failing. Some were many gradelevels behind. They needed more than the classroom teacher could do onher own. Could we apply our initial discovery, the concept of ’’acceleration’’(Clay, 1993b) to this group of students?

We studied other researchers who have written about students failing toachieve independent literacy in the traditional public school setting (Cun-ningham & Allington, 1994; Freire, 1993; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Good-man, & Hemphill, 1991; Slavin, Karweit, & Wasik, 1993; Stanovich, 1986;Taylor, 1983). From this rich background of inquiry, study, and experience,and with the full support of our district administration, we as the district’sliteracy trainers developed and implemented a ’’pilot’’ model of accelerativeintervention for students in grades 376 in April, 1998.

THE INTERSESSION PILOT

Willow Glen School is a year-round campus. Students are on ’’tracks,’’ at-tending school for three months with one month off between each three-month school period. We wanted to determine the viability of delivering anintensive program to help students ’’catch up’’ during an intersessionmonth. During the month of April 1998, a thirteen-day intersession washeld in the ’’behind the glass’’ classroom. All students in ’’blue track’’ (oneclassroom each of grade 4, 5, and 6 students) were tested using the DRA(Beaver, 1997). The �fteen students who scored lowest were invited tocome back during their off-track month and participate in a three-hourliteracy block with the goal of accelerating their reading achievement .Thirteen students attended, and nine out of the thirteen students attendedevery day. Direct literacy instruction for acceleration was provided fromthe �rst day through day twelve. The last day was used to post-test thestudents, again using the DRA (see Table 1).

By this time, the students were supporting each other in literacy eventsand were able to continue adding to their repertoire of literacy strategies.These gains were viewed as fragile and would require continuing supportby classroom teachers. Some of the growth was evident in testing (Table 1),and some was evident through the scripting of classroom interactions.These students had become ’’empowered.’’ They were engaged, motivated,and excited about reading and writing. They took charge of their literacy.Smiles, laughter, joy, and energy can’t be measured, but they can be re-corded. Dialogue such as this exchange. . .

Student 1: Who’s the teacher?Student 2: I am.Student 3: We all are. . .

Intersession Model 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

provided evidence of a growing sense of success in students who originallyentered the room passively. On another day, a sixth-grade student said, ’’Inever knew this book was so good.’’ His mother, visiting several days later,commented that it was the �rst time he had wanted to come to school andread in �ve years.

By using the ’’behind the glass’’ classroom for the intersession class, aforum was created for observation and critique. As one member of theLiteracy Team taught this �rst group of students in an accelerative format,district administrators and literacy team members watched, talked, scrip-ted dialogue, debriefed, and tussled with the notion of the best use of timein terms of fostering the most growth (i.e., acceleration) for the students.From the pilot experience and results (Table 1), we decided to extend theconcept to the upcoming district summer school session beginning in June1998. We organized our ideas into a description of critical features foraccelerative teaching called a concept map. The map represents a synth-esis of the instructional features that resulted in the gains of students in-volved in the pilot intersession.

A CONCEPT MAP OF CRITICAL FEATURES OFACCELERATIVE INSTRUCTION

The theoretical understanding for this late intervention model is based onthe belief that all students can become literate. The goal of the model is toassist students in the development of an accelerated reading and writing

TABLE 1 Visalia Uni�ed School District, Visalia Accelerative Literacy Model forIntersession. Pilot Session 13 days—April 1998

Student Grade Pre-test level Post-test level Pro�ciency=grade correlation

1 3 1 3 Preprimer2 3 12 18 Second Grade3 3 12 18 Second Grade4 3 1 14 First Grade5 4 6 10 Primer6 4 3 4 Preprimer7 4 6 6* Preprimer8 5 6 10 Primer9 5 14 20 Second Grade

10 5 20 34 Third Grade11 6 20 34 Third Grade12 6 20 34 Third Grade

*This student was re-assessed one month later and was able to read at Level 12independently.

154 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

literacy process that leads to a self-extending system (Clay, 1991) for lit-eracy learning. All participating students are considered signi�cantly belowgrade level in literacy and therefore must be viewed with a sense of ur-gency and interacted with in the most powerful manner.

We have come to believe that ten critical features must be considered in anyaccelerative teaching effort. The key concepts are: affect, teaching for stra-tegies, environment, dialogue, success, social interaction, ownership, engagedtime, independence, and opportunity. Our evolved understanding of theseideas came from our own research of professional literature, personal teachingexperience, the training programs, and pilot intersession observations.

Crit ical Feature 1: Considerat ion of Affect

Students with a history of reading failure, some with as much as sevenyears’ worth, most likely have developed an aversion to literacy events. Youcannot separate self-concept from learning (Caine & Caine, 1991). The onlyway to develop a positive affect toward literacy events is to experiencesuccess. In an accelerative situation, that success must occur immediatelyupon entering the room. In our pilot study, we made sure that each studentimmediately connected with a successful literacy event as they weregreeted at the door the �rst day. We need to ensure all students experiencesuccess which will build self-con�dence and neutralize the effects of yearsof negative affect. Success occurs through instructional scaffolding. Allstudents can do something, and all students come in with an existing bodyof knowledge and understanding of literacy. An aspect of the teacher’sresponsibility is to discover what students know about literacy and de-termine how to support their developing ’’frontier’’ of learning. Effectiveteaching occurs when it promotes behaviors that are within the Zone ofProximal Development (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). In scaffolded instruc-tion, learners are given responsibility for those parts of the task that theycan already perform and receive help with those that they cannot yetmanage alone. The teacher’s role is to ensure that all literacy events aresuccessful (Wells, 1992).

In accelerative teaching, we are constantly monitoring our success increating interactions within every student’s Zone of Proximal Development(Vygotsky, 1978). At the same time, we worked to avoid wasting learningtime by carefully observing, through neutral observation techniques, theeffects of teaching interactions.

Crit ical Feature 2: Explicit Teaching for Strategies

The low progress student has an accumulation of knowledge about literacy.What is critical is not to waste time adding more bits and pieces of

Intersession Model 155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

unconnected information to his repertoire. The important teaching will beto show him how to use and apply this collected store of knowledge aboutletters, sounds, words, story, print, and language. Once learners havelearned powerful strategies, the item knowledge they have accumulatedwill provide them with ways to help themselves.

The goal of the teaching is to assist the child to produce effectivestrategies for working on text, not to accumulate items of knowledge(Clay, 1991). Some guidelines we discovered are:

1. Effective teacher decision making involves responding to students mo-ment-by-moment.

2. Teaching for application of a strategy is most powerful during momentsof discovery when learners can make the most of the interaction.

3. Teachers need to have an understanding of how learning precedes andleads development of speci�c abilities (Vygotsky, 1978).

4. Good teaching supports what is partially correct rather than negating it(Clay, 1991).

5. When teachers emphasize strategies, students become aware of themand are able to use them; in other words, students attend to what we asteachers attend to (Clay, 1993b).

Crit ical Feature 3: Environment

The classroom literacy environment must support risk taking and providemassive amounts of literacy experiences. Classrooms that have interestingand accessible reading materials provide an opportunity for students toread as much as one million words per year (Krashen, 1993).

Classrooms must contain hundreds of titles from which readers canchoose. In addition, a ’’safe’’ atmosphere in which students feel free to trynew things, make mistakes, share ideas, talk to one another, search forconnections, and learn that reading and writing are their own rewards isessential. Teachers must believe that in the right environment, every stu-dent wants to, can, and will learn.

Crit ical Feature 4: Dialogue

Instruction in and encouragement of literate conversations between stu-dents and between teachers and students is an important goal of effectiveinstruction. It is in the dialogue between teacher and student as well asstudent and student that meaning and knowledge are constructed(Wells, 1992).

Maintaining a major focus on the quality of language interactions (andthe mental searches they initiate) can be the one feature to make or inhibit

156 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

the development of an independent literacy process in students. Teachershave a role both as collaborators in these dialogues as well as recorders.They need to keep a daily literacy record �lled with dialogue, re�ectivethoughts, and quotes. Their own ongoing learning through their classroomobservations and professional readings can be included in this record.It’s also a place for noting concerns, ponderings, and triumphant moments.The following excerpt is from a literacy journal kept by one teacher:

Andrew saw us writing in our notebooks and asked:

A: What are you doing?T: Writing in notebooks.A: Why?T: We write down things we never want to forget.A: Could I have one of those?

I had a blank notebook at home and added a pen and a bookmark to it. Writinga personal note, I hoped he could begin something to last . . . a literacyconnection. Today he was the �rst one to the room, notebook in hand. He had�lled ten pages with lists and words and stories . . . his life.

A: Here’s a list of the teachers. . .and this is where I’m breaking words. . . .Here is a story I want to write.

With no formal introduction, he’s begun to collect his life into print. In thebook I’m reading, ’’Becoming a Constructivist Teacher,’’ it says, ’’Studentsmust understand that they are ultimately responsible for their ownlearning. . . and ’’we search for tools to help us understand our experiences.’’I see Andrew’s use of the notebook as an example of both of these ideas.I’m anxious to see what more he does with it. (5=98)

Crit ical Feature 5: Success

The brain is designed to learn; unfortunately, failure, fear, shame, frustra-tion, and boredom are triggers that shut down learning. Conversely, suc-cess and learning form a partnership. The teacher must be initiallyresponsible for providing an environment that builds success, thus result-ing in learning. Learners assume more and more of the initiation of suc-cessful effort over time. Successful learning occurs congruently with thenatural design of the brain (Jensen, 1998).

The learner needs to have interest and ways to pursue interests throughliterate events. Successful literacy events are reward enough to the brain.Emotions, thinking, learning, and mind are one (Jensen, 1998).

Intersession Model 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Crit ical Feature 6: Social Interact ion

Learning occurs during interactions. In a community of learners, coopera-tion, pride, responsibility, respect, trust, and hard work are the drivingforces and outcomes. They weave every situation together. We are building’’literacy character.’ ’ Literacy-building social interactions must be learned.

All participants value and respect their own ideas and the ideas ofothers. They also feel responsible for their own learning and the learning ofothers. Learning for both students and teachers is the primary outcome.(Hogan and Pressley, 1997).

Crit ical Feature 7: Ow nership

Engagement in learning is connected to ownership of the classroom(Calkins, 1991). Students must make decisions about the environment,their use of time, the books they read, and the writing they do. In a truecommunity of learning, there is sharing at every level of literacy involve-ment (Wells, 1992).

Ownership goes beyond the external. Ownership becomes internalizedwhen children learn to pursue their own questions, develop thoughts andre�ective practices, and create a system of personal strategies that allowsthem to read and write independently.

Crit ical Feature 8: Time

Long stretches of time to engage in reading and writing are necessary foracceleration. Any teaching practice that does not contribute to the devel-opment of independent literacy must be discarded (Clay, 1993b). Totalengagement is needed for every available minute. The teacher must beconstantly evaluating the power of the tasks, the use of time, the con-versations between students, the conversations between teachers andstudents, and whether time is being used in a manner that can accelerateliteracy learning. Time can be viewed as a stream. Placing a rock at onepoint will effect the �ow. Piles of rocks may stop the �ow altogether or sendit off in a new direction. What happens to a child, at one point in time, willhave an effect as time continues to �ow. The impact, either positive ornegative, will be like those rocks in the stream.

Crit ical Feature 9: Independence

Students must develop an intrinsic need and desire to learn. They mustseek out learning opportunities and necessary resources without teacherprompts and external motivation. Only then will they have the inner re-sources to extend their own literacy.

158 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Once extrinsic motivators are used, they become the driving force. In-dependence is based on the development of intrinsic motivation (Jensen,1998).

Crit ical Feature 10: Opportunity

Each of these ordinal features is only as powerful as the opportunity todevelop it. Teachers must ask themselves ’’How do I create opportunities foraccelerated learning to occur?’’ In order to recognize and act upon oppor-tunities, the teacher must be knowledgeable about learning theory thatsupports literacy. They must be able to design a powerful implementationfor each child based on that child’s immediate understanding and need.It requires moment-by-moment re�ection and decision making based onskilled observation. In an environment of opportunity, there are four inter-related situations (Figure 1). Within these boundaries are spontaneous andstructured opportunities. Some of these opportunities can accelerate, someare neutral, and some can become negative. We have created an idea of a�exible hierarchy that recognizes over twenty kinds of opportunities, suchas observed, contrived, seized, missed, dismissed, interactive, scaffolded,ignored, and several others. A knowing teacher must sort through all ofthe possibilities to �nd optimal moments in this ongoing �ow of opportunity.

This concept map of key ideas is only as useful as the knowledge of tea-chers. If they are not always watching, wondering, monitoring, searching,thinking, re�ecting, learning, and challenging their own assumptions, ac-celeration will not likely occur. Literate individuals are not created on aprogram assembly line. The mystery and beauty of literacy is more like thegentle work of a sculptor creating a masterpiece. We teachers can guide thesculpting hands of our children as they create the beauty of their own literacy.

SUMMER SCHOOL LITERACY ACCELERATION MODEL

Having identi�ed critical instructional components in our pilot session, wewere ready now, as a team, to take our experience in the pilot accelerationclassroom and our concept map to the next phase. Our goal was to shift froma traditional summer school approach to an intensive intervention approach.

The summer school program in VUSD had been regarded as an oppor-tunity for enrichment opportunities in the past. Teachers generally workedaround themes, literature, arts, food preparation, and other activities.While these kinds of programs have merit, it would not meet the criterianecessary to accelerate the literacy development for the students who werelagging seriously behind their peers.

The intensive intervention model was initiated through four summerschool institutes that provided ongoing education for teachers to develop

Intersession Model 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

their understanding of teaching for acceleration. The �rst institute for thosewho would teach summer school was held in May of 1998, one month beforesummer school was to begin. The concept of acceleration was introduced,and articles were read to help teachers frame the experience of studentswho have not been successful readers. It was emphasized that all childrencan learn to read and it is our responsibility to teach these children.

The next three institutes focused on developing a deeper understandingof acceleration. Some of the topics included were: taking running records,selecting appropriate tools to scaffold students’ learning, documentingaccelerative behaviors, helping students build powerful connections towhat they already know, choosing texts to support acceleration, andbuilding an awareness of the power of teacher language to support (orinhibit) students’ development of independence and cognitive growth.

FIGURE 1 Environment of opportunity.

160 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Four Title 1 schools participated in the �rst summer acceleration model.All kindergarten through second grade students were tested in May withthe district’s leveled text assessment. Four literacy coaches, one for eachschool site, were hired: three of the four coaches had been trained inReading Recovery1 and literacy theory and practice, and the lead trainer,from Visalia’s Literacy Team, led the institute training, made visitations andtaught demonstration lessons at each school site. A coach and trainer fromthe literacy team was hired as the lead coach whose daily responsibility wasto coach, support, and at times challenge teachers to maintain the integrityof the acceleration model at all four sites.

Each day the summer school lead coach visited two school sites. Duringeach visit she would observe classrooms, teach lessons, and re�ect with theteachers and site coaches as needed. She met with all summer schoolcoaches on a weekly basis. At these meetings, coaches shared effectiveteaching tools and practices they had tried or observed in classrooms.

Weekly school site meetings were held to support the on-going devel-opment of the teacher’s theory of acceleration. At some sites, a communityof teachers as researchers evolved as teachers shared observations anddiscussed the possible accelerative teaching points from their records.

This intervention was �ve weeks in duration. Post-testing occurred thelast week, again using the district text level assessment. Text level gains atone school are listed in Table 2. The results are for forty-six kindergartenthrough second grade students. Forty students involved in the interventionmade zero to three levels gain during the intervention. Six students madegains of four to six levels.

PROBLEMS AND CONCERNS

Members of the literacy team and summer school coaches assessed theresults of the text level testing from summer school. We reviewed theteacher training process and the observation notes from classroom visits.We felt many teachers made shifts in understanding learning theory butwere unable to make signi�cantly enough changes in their approach toteaching interactions to create an environment of acceleration. Many tea-chers were unable to change from a traditional enrichment summer schoolto the summer school Literacy Acceleration Model.

TABLE 2 Summer School Text Level Gains, July 1998

12 students 9 students 12 students 7 students 2 students 1 student 3 students

0 levels 1 level 2 levels 3 levels 4 levels 5 levels 6 levels

Intersession Model 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

We made the following conclusions:

1. Training needs to be more extensive, and teachers participating in thistraining must come in with a high level of expertise in literacy learningtheory.

2. Massive amounts of text reading must take place, requiring eachclassroom to have access to many, many books. Clay (1991) cites anAuckland research study in which it was found that high progress stu-dents read a total of 3,507 words per week, high middle progress stu-dents read 2,601 words per week, whereas the slow progress studentsread only 757 words per week.

3. In order to attempt to replicate the results of the pilot intersessionprogram, we would need to recruit Reading Recovery1 trained teachersas they have the necessary understanding of literacy learning theory andacceleration theory. Although we did not see the accelerative results instudent text level gains, we did see many teachers shift in their theory oflearning. One teacher made the following comment:

’’We should be feeling a real sense of urgency because if they’re insummer school it’s because of something we did not do in regular school,then shouldn’t urgency be the same (in regular school) and that would makeus evaluate what we do as teachers and get rid of things that don’t work.’’

THE YEAR-ROUND EDUCATION MODEL

The pilot intersession and 1998 summer school results led us to continue toinvestigate programs designed to accelerate student achievement inreading for year-round sites. Five elementary schools have developed andimplemented supplemental acceleration programs. The treatment and datafrom two schools, Fairview and Willow Glen Elementary, are included inthis study.

Both schools have a similar ethnic make-up. The student populationincludes a growing number of Hispanic and Asian English Language lear-ners. The classes included in the intervention re�ect the ethnic make-up oftheir school sites. Both schools are on a year-round education schedule andreceive Title 1 as well as state funding for Limited English Pro�-cient=Economic Impact Aid (LEP=EIA). The intersession program wasdesigned to deliver supplemental literacy instruction for year-round stu-dents ranked in the lower third (7710 students) of their class in reading.

The acceleration model draws heavily on Vygotsky’s theory of learningand the work of Clay; it also utilizes a number of instructional techniquesfound to be effective in fostering reading growth. The focus is on

162 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

acceleration rather than remediation, on promoting student independenceand self-direction through choice, and on providing time for ’’make upopportunities’’ (Clay, 1993b).

The intervention was, on average, three weeks (ranging from twelve to�fteen instructional days) in duration during the student’s vacation month.A typical session lasts for three hours. Each month, thirty students (�fteenfrom second through third grade and �fteen from fourth through sixthgrade who are identi�ed as signi�cantly below grade level, as determinedby the (DRA) are invited to participate during their track time off.

ASSESSMENT AND SELECTION OF STUDENTS

Assessment was a key component of the VUSD Early Literacy Instructiontraining. We decided the third through sixth grade teachers needed moreinformation about comprehension and how students learn. Our primaryassessment was based on An Observation Survey of Early LiteracyAchievement (Clay, 1993a) . A variety of assessment tools was investigated.The DRA (Beaver, 1997) was selected. This test was developed for primarystudents; however, we found that for third through six grade students, itgave a detailed description of the students’ reading level, comprehension,and their use of effective literacy strategies.

In order to choose students for intersession, we asked classroom tea-chers to alternately rank their students. Teachers were asked to write downthe highest reading student at the top of their list, then write down thelowest reader on the bottom line. Next the teacher would write down thesecond highest reader and the second lowest reader. The teacher wouldcontinue ranking their students alternating high and low. After completingthe alternate ranking, teachers assess the bottom third using the DRA.

The procedure used for giving a running record is taken from Clay’sAn Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (1993a). Aftercompleting the story, the student is asked to retell the story while theteacher listens and evaluates the information given. Students make pre-dictions about the story. After the student reads the entire story, a runningrecord is taken on a smaller portion of the text. The students are asked torespond to questions about reading preferences, retelling, and inferences.

Information gathered from the assessment is summarized and recordedon the DRA continuum and given to the intersession teacher. The in-formation gives the teacher the necessary tools to make decisions aboutreading instruction and allows the teacher to record the strategies that willbe the focus. The intersession teacher compiles a list using all studentcandidates. The candidates are ranked high to low using their DRA scores,and the bottom �fteen students are invited to participate in intersession.

Intersession Model 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Parents are contacted by intersession teachers with letters that containinformation on the intersession model as well as suggestions for homeliteracy activities that would support reading achievement with their chil-dren. The letters are followed up with personal contacts through con-ferences and phone calls to ensure maximum participation andcommitment from home.

INSTRUCTION

Accelerated instruction is realized through three hours of daily readingimmersion with a goal of one thousand words of reading on continuous texteach day. This is achieved through guided reading, shared reading, in-dependent rereading, classroom libraries, and literacy centers (Fountasand Pinnell, 1996). Concepts of phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling,effective reading strategies, and the reciprocity of reading and writing(Clay, 1991) are also reinforced.

The teacher identi�es the strengths of the students and uses the in-formation to design learning experiences that emphasize problem solving.These children with ’’limited repertoires’’ (Clay, 1991) engage in many andvaried quality literate interactions, including coaching in the use of stra-tegies to foster independence in reading and writing. They experience andparticipate in focused and literate conversations, and they are engageddaily in choosing and constructing their literacy experiences. Teacher ob-servation and on-going assessment are pivotal to determine what demon-strations and interactions are at the cutting edge (Clay, 1991) of students’learning.

At the end of the three-week intervention, teachers communicate withclassroom teachers. They share observations and re�ections to establishpractices for the next three months.

The materials used are from a variety of sources. Books for individualreading encompass a variety of levels and publishers (Fountas and Pinnell,1996). Each student maintained personal libraries. Materials needed for theother components of the lesson were standard items found in classroomsimplementing literacy instruction, such as big books, chart paper, writingmaterials, letter and word stamps, magnetic letters, individual dry eraseboards, and paper.

READING

The volume and quality of reading experiences for intersession students isone key to successful acceleration (Clay, 1991). Each day, students receivetwo to three new books at their appropriate reading level as determined by

164 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

the use of daily running records. Close attention is paid to the kinds ofoperations the students can initiate and carry out and what kinds of op-erations they neglect to use. This guides the teacher in her prompting andquestioning (Clay, 1991).

In addition to guided reading and reading their personal libraries, stu-dents engage in shared and independent reading. This volume of appro-priate reading allows the student the opportunities to develop such a self-improving system.

Students expand their phonemic awareness and their knowledge of howwords work during guided and shared reading by constructing and decon-structing words using magnetic letters. This ’’word magic’’ is a powerful toolfor teaching students analogy and quick word solving with chunks whilereading as well as scaffolding the reciprocal process of sound segmenting,word building, and the principles of spelling in writing. Since meaning fromtext can easily be constructed and facilitated socially, students have a dailyopportunity to make connections with their lives, the world around them,and other books through a text read aloud by the teacher. They writeafter each reading, share in groups of three, and then have the opportunityto chart out those connections (Keene & Zimmerman, 1997).

During the intervention, strategies had to be taught that could helpchildren become more �exible, adaptive, independent, and engaged(Keene & Zimmerman, 1997). We, as teachers, needed to model thethinking process. This modeling is a daily practice to help students makeconnections to their lives, other texts, or the world.

The �nal challenge for students is writing. Students need to develop asense of purpose for writing. With the introduction and use of notebooks,students can write personal life experiences, observation of science cen-ters, literate discussions, poetry, and playing with words.

All of these elements set the stage for students to demonstrate the in-dependence necessary for literate thinking to take place (Johnston, 1997).We found that, without exception, the children who demonstrated growthin their text level reading were also those who began to take charge of theshape and content of their time in the classroom. They took their learningtime seriously and made choices that extended their literacy. Researchover the last ten years has shown that one source of the differences be-tween highest and lowest achieving students is the extent to which theyachieve self-regulation of their learning (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988).

TEACHER OBSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT

Teachers need to be sensitive observers while teaching (Clay, 1991). If weare to teach children, and not a curriculum or program, then good teaching

Intersession Model 165

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

must be based on neutral observation. Clay further asserts that ’’everyteacher builds a kind of ’personal theory’ of what the surface behaviors inreading imply about the underlying cognitive processes.’’

Teachers keep an anecdotal record of what students choose to do andwhat behaviors are observed, noting especially where a new strategy istried and succeeds or partially succeeds. They document conversations,student to student and student to teacher. They use these anecdotal re-cords to hypothesize, develop theories, plan, and con�rm.

The dialogue that follows is a transcript from students’ conversation onthe second day of intersession interacting with the environment and eachother. (At an observation center with a tarantula and hermit crabs):

Student 1: (looking at tarantula) ’’It has sharp claws.’’Student 2: ’’Feet, it has feet.’’Student 1: ’’How do you spell claws?’’Student 2: ’’It’s a ’c’. Can we take it out?’’Student 1: ’’It might bite.’’ (Takes lid off cage and uses magnifying glass)Student 2: ’’Hey, he doesn’t have claws!’’Student 1: ’’On the bottom of his feet—he has like little claws—you can just

see them.’’ (Student 3 joins the group)Student 3: ’’I know how to stretch it out.’’ (Uses his hands) ’’Cl-a-a-s.’’

(Students 1 and 2 are saying the word slowly with Student 3 andrecording it)

Student 3: ’’Hey, what’s this on his back? It looks pink.’’Student 2: ’’I don’t know.’’Student 1: ’’We need a book.’’ (To teacher) ’’Do you have a book with

tarantulas?’’

The students continued to work on their pieces about the spider, scaf-folding each other and learning about writing, research, and inquiry withminimal teacher input. This dialogue was then used to show this process toother students.

Another tool for recording and analyzing student behavior while readingis the running record (Clay, 1993a). These ’’snapshots’’ of the readingprocess are taken daily, analyzed carefully, and used to inform book choiceand teaching.

The end of each intersession is a time of re�ection about our studentsand about ourselves professionally. We carefully glean information from ourobservations, analyze running records and DRA testing, and begin to syn-thesize a narrative about each child that captures our observations, ourtheories, and what we believe are the logical next steps in instruction.These narratives are bridges from their intersession experience to theregular classroom, and they must be well built and easy to cross. They must

166 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

offer the classroom teacher a new, clearer view of the learner, as well asde�ning a direction to continue.

We sift through evidence and puzzle about the cause of the amazing pro-gress in one child and the painfully slow progress of another. We consider theimplications of each outcome as it relates to our own teaching. We questionand we celebrate as we pull together the threads of our own learning.We have become the students of our students—lifelong learners ourselves.

FINDINGS

Data gathered here are a result of two school sites within our district. Datawere collected at the end of each session for eight months. Data from theDRA were correlated with grade and standard reading levels for furtherexplanation and re�nement of DRA level expectancies (see Table 3).

Data collected during the intervention show students made gains inreading achievement as de�ned by the DRA Text level (Table 3). On

TABLE 3 DRA Text Level Correlations

DRA level* Reading level* Strategy focus**

A,1,2 Readiness Early Behaviors, 1:1 Matching,Directionality, Locating Known

Words378 Preprimer Building Sight Vocabulary,

Learning to look at print10712 Primer Orchestrating Cues, Known

Words to Unknown WordsVisually

14716 First Grade Reading Different GenreOrchestrating on Longer

Stretches of Text18728 Second Grade Increasing Comprehension

Developing Schema ThroughReading

30738 Third Grade Increasing ComprehensionDeveloping Schema Through

Reading40 Fourth Grade Increasing Comprehension

Developing Schema ThroughReading

44 Fifth Grade Increasing ComprehensionDeveloping Schema Through

Reading

* Information derived from DRA (Beaver, 1997).** Strategies identi�ed by authors.

Intersession Model 167

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

average, students made between six to eight average levels growth in athree-week period (Table 4).

Out of the 242 participating in the intervention, 97 students (40% ) weresuccessfully discontinued during the time frame of July to March. Dis-continued rates increased with the second intersession series for eachtrack (see Table 5).

At the end of the �rst series of intersessions (August to November) ,forty students (25% ) in the program were determined to be progressingsuf�ciently and did not require further intervention (see Table 6).

Students identi�ed to be in need of additional literacy support receivedsupplemental help through additional intersessions at their next off trackperiod. A total of sixty students participating in the �rst intersession re-turned for additional literacy instruction in the second intersession series(Table 6). Students participating in the second intersession made sig-ni�cant gains after the second intervention (see Table 7).

After the �rst intersession series, eighteen students were discontinuedfrom further assistance due to regular classroom teachers reporting ac-celerated growth made after returning to the classroom. In addition, reg-ular classroom teachers reported student attitudes toward learning andliteracy improved. Some teachers indicated that the students feltsuccessful in the intersession intervention and maintained that attitude inthe classroom.

Upon completion of the second intersession series, 106 students weredetermined to be in need of continued assistance. Further monitoring ofstudents’ progress in regular instruction is required to determine whetherthey required a third intersession. A signi�cant percentage of students inthe year-round model showed gains in reading strategies and comprehen-sion. Data from the summer school intervention show that few studentsmade accelerated gains in reading levels. One reason cited for lack of ac-celeration was teacher training: the Summer School Model Teachers in-volved in the Year-Round Intersession Model intervention were all Reading

TABLE 4 DRA Assessment Score Means, Willow Glen and Fairview ElementarySchools. August 19987March 1999

Grade level# of students

servedEntry

level rangeExit

level rangeMean

entry levelMean

exit levelMean

level gains

2 71 2714 3723 5 11 63 45 1724 3728 8 14 64 57 3730 6738 17 23 65 24 3738 6744 15 22 76 35 6738 10744 16 24 8

168 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

TA

BL

E5

Tota

lN

umbe

rof

Stud

ents

Succ

essf

ully

Dis

cont

inue

dF

rom

Fur

ther

Inte

rven

tion

s(A

sD

eter

min

edby

Text

Leve

lP

ost

Ass

essm

ent

DR

A)

Aug

ust

1998

7M

arch

1999

Gra

de

#of

stud

ents

dis

cont

inu

edA

ugus

t15

day

sSe

pt.

12da

ysO

ct.

14da

ysN

ov.

12d

ays

Dec

.*11

days

Jan.

*13

days

Feb

.*14

day

sM

ar.*

14da

ys

234

53

52

22

78

315

00

43

22

31

419

14

14

22

32

513

00

31

22

32

616

00

04

31

35

Tot

al97

67

1314

119

1918

%of

Stud

ents

24%

19%

25%

23%

24%

21%

32%

40%

*In

clu

des

stud

ents

retu

rnin

gfo

rse

cond

roun

dof

inte

rses

sion

.

169

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

TA

BL

E6

Dis

cont

inua

tion

Rat

esfo

rW

illow

Gle

nan

dF

airv

iew

,A

ugus

t19

987

Mar

ch19

99

Gra

de

Tota

l#

ofst

ude

nts

serv

ed

Inte

rses

sion

seri

esA

ug.

1998

7N

ov.

1998

#of

stud

ents

serv

ed

Inte

rses

sion

seri

esD

ec.

1998

7M

arch

1999

#of

stu

den

tsse

rved

*

#of

Stu

den

tsre

turn

ing

for

seco

ndin

ters

essi

on

#of

Stu

dent

sdi

scon

tin

ued

dur

ing

1st

inte

rses

sion

seri

es**

Stu

dent

sdi

scon

tinu

edd

urin

g2n

din

ters

essi

onse

ries

***

Tot

al#

ofst

uden

tsdi

scon

tinu

ed

271

5242

1615

1934

345

2832

117

815

457

3937

1310

919

534

2125

134

913

635

2027

74

1216

Tota

l24

216

016

360

4057

97%

37%

25%

35%

40%

*Inc

lude

sst

uden

tsre

turn

ing

for

seco

ndin

ters

essi

on.

**S

tud

ents

wh

odi

scon

tinu

edaf

ter

1in

ters

essi

onas

mea

sure

dby

the

DR

A.

***S

tud

ents

who

disc

onti

nue

daf

ter

2nd

inte

rses

sion

asm

easu

red

byth

eD

RA

(Inc

lude

sre

turn

ing

stud

ents

).

170

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Recovery1 Teachers. Teachers in the summer school model were givensome additional literacy training; however, few were extensively trained.

The results of the intersession program indicate the intervention testedis a viable option for districts implementing supplemental literacy pro-grams. Information and data collected by this intervention are useful forfuture consideration of supplemental literacy programs designed to accel-erate students who exhibit dif�culties with reading.

RECOMMENDATIONS

During the course of the intervention, it became evident that the regularclassroom teachers required additional feedback in order to facilitate andsupport student progress. In the beginning, teachers were given pre- andpost-test level scores from the DRA. After conferencing with the regularclassroom teachers, feedback was modi�ed to include written narratives ofobservable reading behaviors as well as interests, strengths, and usefulstrategies for follow up in the classroom. These collaborative efforts re-sulted in professional growth for both the intersession and classroom tea-chers, as well as promotion of student acceleration.

Regular classroom teachers who had extensive training such asReading Recovery had a signi�cant amount of students who were dis-continued from the intervention due to accelerated growth after returningto regular classroom instruction. Interviews with intersession and regularclassroom teachers indicated consistency and continuity in techniquesand strategies that resulted in accelerated growth in the regular class-room setting after the �rst intersession. (However, because of time re-strictions with the year-round schedule and individual learning progress,some students required follow up when they resumed a regular classschedule.)

TABLE 7 Mean Level DRA Scores for Students Attending More Than One Inter-session, August 19987March 1999

Grade level# of

studentsMean

entry level

Meanexit level

intersession 1

Meanexit level

intersession 2Mean

level gains

2 16 3 8 16 133 11 5 11 15 104 13 12 16 22 105 13 13 18 24 116 7 12 26 36 21

Intersession Model 171

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Ongoing staff development and collaboration are essential to any ef-fective program implementation. The intersession model makes consider-able demands on its teachers. Although collaboration and teacher trainingare pivotal for effectiveness, intersession schedules and time constraintspresent obstacles to observation of other intersession teachers in accel-eration settings. Accordingly, in order to maintain and expand theoreticalknowledge and understandings of the learning process, monthly meetingswith other teachers in acceleration models were scheduled by VisaliaUni�ed School District.

A determining factor of success for effective approaches to instruction isadministrative as well as collegial support. District and site support for theintersession model is essential. Site administrators assist in supplyingmaterials, providing feedback from classroom visitations, and helping tocreate a climate conducive for collaboration.

Future studies should include assessment on other measures to in-vestigate gains in reading achievement . Longitudinal studies are requiredto determine if the progress outlined in this study is sustained over time.

ALTERNATIVE DISTRICT IMPLEMENTATIONS

Other sites in VUSD are developing an acceleration model to �t the con-straints of their schedules and funding. Some examples of programs indevelopment and implementation are after-school programs, extended dayprograms, pullout, small group instruction, and summer school for schoolson traditional schedules. In addition, there are two pilot programs currentlybeing piloted at non-Title 1, middle, and high schools in the district.

SUMMARY

Our decade-long literacy journey is just beginning. Through study, re�ec-tion, and practice, we have learned that we can change the educationpossibilities for many children. We know how to better serve the needs ofour learners. We also have more to learn. Our pilot intersession, conceptmap and subsequent trials using these concepts have taught us that withouta teachers’ knowledge base, wide spread acceleration is not likely to occur.Our intersessions run by teachers with extensive knowledge and backgroundare demonstrating that the concepts can be applied successfully.

An account by Maya Angelou (1999) best describes our past and presentjourney: In West Africa, an expression called ’’deep talk’’ describes how theelders often use a parable, or axiom, to inform others of a situation. At theend of the axiom, they add, ’’Take that as ’deep talk,’’’ meaning that one will

172 C. Jacobsen et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

never �nd a set answer but can continue to go down deeper and deeper. Wewill continue to ’’go deeper’’ in our questions until every child is literate.

REFERENCES

Angelou, M. (1999) . Sunbeams. The Sun 227, 48. Chapel Hill, NC: Sun Publications.Beaver, J. (1997). Developmental reading assessment resource guide. Glenview, IL: Cele-

bration Press.Caine, R. N. & Caine, G. (1991) . Making connnections: Teaching and the human brain.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Calkins, L. M. (1991) . Living between the lines. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Clay, M. M. (1991) . Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.Clay, M. M. (1993a) . An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.Clay, M. M. (1993b) . Reading Recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (1994) . Classrooms that work: They can all read and

write. New York, NY: Harper Collins College Publishers.Deford, D. E., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (1991) . Bridges to literacy: Learning from

Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996) . Guided reading: Good �rst teaching for all children.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Freire, P. (1993) . Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.Fullan, M., & Hargreaves , A. (1996) . What’s worth �ghting for in your school? New York, NY:

Teachers College Press.Hogan, K., & Pressley, M. (1997) . Scaffolding student learning. Cambridge, MA: Brookline

Books.Jensen, E. (1998) . Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.Johnston, P. (1997) . Knowing literacy: Constructive literacy assessment. York, MN:

Stenhouse Publishers.Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997) . Mosaic of thought. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Krashen, S. (1993) . The Power of reading: Insights from the research. Englewood, CO:

Libraries Unlimited, Inc.Lyons, C. A., Pinnell, G. S., & Deford, D. E. (1993) . Partners in learning: Teachers and

children in Reading Recovery. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., & Wasik, B. A. (1993) . Preventing early school failure: What

works. Educational Leadership, 50 (4), 10718.Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unful�lled expec-

tations: Home and school in�uences on literacy. London, England: Harvard University Press.Stanovich, K. E. (1986) . Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differ-

ences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 3607407.Taylor, D. (1993) . Family literacy: Young children learning to read and write. Portsmouth,

NH: Heinemann.Tharp, R. G. & Gallimore, R. (1988) . Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) . Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wells, G. L. (1992) . Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry

and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Intersession Model 173

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

05:

04 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014