National Reports in Literacy

Pearson, P. David; Hiebert, Elfrieda H.

doi:10.3102/0013189x10370205

Cited by 43 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although the codification of the new reading research paradigm has faced criticism from some researchers (Allington, 2006; Pearson, 2004), we infer that it contributed to the passage of state-level dyslexia legislation. Pearson and Hiebert (2010) observed thatthe report of the [National Reading Panel] has proved to be amazingly influential in shaping policy and practice at both the federal level (through the Reading First provisions of NCLB) and the state level (by virtue of policies designed by states to be aligned with NCLB–Reading First). (p. 287)…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multiple Streams Analysis of Recent Changes to State-Level Dyslexia Education Law

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article provides an overview of recent changes to state-level dyslexia legislation. It begins by applying a variant of Kingdon’s multiple streams approach to explain how the dyslexia education “policy window” came to be opened. The article then describes the most likely effects and side effects of the new laws. Likely short-term effects include (a) a greater focus in schools on dyslexia screening and intervention, (b) greater use of multitiered systems of support and explicit instruction, and (c) changes in teacher preparation and training. Possible long-term effects include a reconceptualization of what constitutes “normal” school practice.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Multiple Streams Analysis of Recent Changes to State-Level Dyslexia Education Law

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(Blau, 1997;Fontaine, Dee Torre, Grafwallner, & Underhill, 2006;Reynolds, 1998) & Smith, 1999;Drouin & Harmon, 2009;Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000) 36 papers were discussion and/or review articles related to ECP skills and language and literacy but no data present (e.g. Anthony & Lonigan, 2004;Dickinson, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010;Pearson & Hiebert, 2010) 6 studies where the ECP was not the primary agent leading to the reported child outcomes (e.g. Ruston & Schwanenflugel, 2010; van Kleeck, Vander Woude, & Hammett, 2006) 4 where the studies focused on the outcomes of school age children (e.g.…”

Section: Ebp Advancement Corner: Ebp In Slp Training 151mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Additionally, studies that only reported child outcomes with no detail on the ECPs' skills that led to the reported child outcomes were excluded (e.g., Baker & Smith, 1999;Drouin & Harmon, 2009;Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Thirdly, discussion or review articles related to ECP skills or child outcomes in language and literacy with no peer-reviewed data provided were excluded (e.g., Anthony & Lonigan, 2004;Dickinson, Golinkoff, & Hirsh-Pasek, 2010;Pearson & Hiebert, 2010). Additionally, as previously described, studies were excluded where the ECP was not the primary agent and instead a therapist or other personnel focused on changing child outcomes within the child care setting (e.g., Ruston & Schwanenflugel, 2010;van Kleeck et al, 2006).…”

Section: Ebp Advancement Corner: Ebp In Slp Training 151mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-based practice in speech language pathologist training of early childhood professionals

El-Choueifati

Purcell

McCabe

et al. 2012

Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

With more children attending formal child care and limited speech language pathology resources, there is a need to consider alternate service delivery models. One such approach is clinician training of early childhood professionals (ECPs). To be appropriately targeted and efficient, training programs should be based on research evidence. This systematic review focuses on studies into which ECP skills improve child language and literacy. Databases searched were PsychINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, ERIC, LLBA, and Medline from 1990 onwards. Papers were included if they were (a) studies reporting the efficacy of professional development programs in terms of positive outcomes for both child and ECP, or (b) longitudinal or cross-sectional experimental investigations that examined the relation between ECP skills and child language/literacy outcomes. The initial search identified 212 potential studies with 34 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. These 34 studies included 2 longitudinal, 1 descriptive, and 31 crosssectional experiments (16 randomized controlled trials, RCTs; 15 non-RCTs). The review identified four key skill categories: (a) quality adult-child interactions; (b) explicit literacy instruction; (c) storytelling skills; and (d) supporting peer-to-peer interactions. The inclusion of these skills by clinicians in training of ECPs is supported by research evidence.

show abstract

“…Educational policy on literacy focuses primarily on cognitive and psychological approaches (Muth & Perry, 2010;Pearson & Hiebert, 2010) that rely on development of traditional skills, such as decoding, fluency, and comprehension (Perry, 2012). Sociocultural approaches, on the other hand, emphasize the social, economic, cultural, and political circumstances that give rise to literary practices.…”

Section: Conceptual Framework For Defining Literacymentioning

confidence: 99%

Computational Thinking and Literacy

Jacob

Warschauer

2018

Journal of Computer Science Integration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today’s students will enter a workforce that is powerfully shaped by computing. To be successful in a changing economy, students must learn to think algorithmically and computationally, to solve problems with varying levels of abstraction. These computational thinking skills have become so integrated into social function as to represent fundamental literacies. However, computer science has not been widely taught in K-12 schools. Efforts to create computer science standards and frameworks have yet to make their way into mandated course requirements. Despite a plethora of research on digital literacies, research on the role of computational thinking in the literature is sparse. This conceptual paper proposes a three dimensional framework for exploring the relationship between computational thinking and literacy through: 1) situating computational thinking in the literature as a literacy; 2) outlining mechanisms by which students’ existing literacy skills can be leveraged to foster computational thinking; and 3) elaborating ways in which computational thinking skills facilitate literacy development.

show abstract

National Reports in Literacy

Cited by 43 publications

References 16 publications

A Multiple Streams Analysis of Recent Changes to State-Level Dyslexia Education Law

A Multiple Streams Analysis of Recent Changes to State-Level Dyslexia Education Law

Evidence-based practice in speech language pathologist training of early childhood professionals

Computational Thinking and Literacy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About