Examining Technology-Based Reading Programs 

Milagros M. Seda
Carmen M. Seda
The University of Texas at El Paso

      The promise of technology as a means of enriching student learning has resulted in millions of dollars of education monies spent on equipment, software, professional development and educational programs.  Yet recently researchers (Cummins, Brown, Sayers, 2007) have challenged that assumption, asking for an examination of the genuine impact of technology on reading in an education culture of high-stakes-testing.  While few would argue the value of teaching technology, or supporting instruction with technology, as a foundation for employment and advancement in an information-based economy, the value of technology programs that purport to unravel the mysteries of High-Stakes-Testing, or have an effect on reading development, instruction, and enrichment is another matter.  Programs for reading that utilize technology visa vie technology-based-reading programs, are often marketed as a panacea to solve all the problems of reading instruction, intervention, and/or remediation for schools or school districts anxious to address the needs of their most challenging students. Ten such reading programs are examined for their provable utility, limitations, and applications within the context of a larger culture of learning.
     The question of reliance on technology-based-reading programs as solutions unto themselves, rather than as supplemental tools is also discussed. More specifically, this study examined the following ideas:

1. Do the selected technology-based reading programs contain evidence-based best practices?
2. What is the role of the teachers who are involved in technology-based reading programs?
3. Do the programs contain unique features that might contribute to increased reading achievement?
4. What are some of the strengths and weaknesses of the programs selected for examination?
5. To what extent do the selected programs involve “transmission-based orientations geared to high-states testing focus vs inquiry-based orientations that support students in constructing curriculum-related knowledge” (Cummins, et al., 2007, p. 93)?

Technology-based Reading Programs Selected from an Earlier Study
     In 2004, the Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) conducted an examination of 64 reading programs that included four core reading programs, 28 technology-based, and 32 other types of supplemental, intervention, or remedial reading programs.  The grade ranges of these programs included kindergarten through high school and in some cases adult levels.  This study examined ten of the technology-based reading programs from the FCRR report to determine the extent to which these programs included other characteristics that could yield additional information about program effectiveness. These included the presence of evidenced-based best practices, the role of the teacher, reading techniques and/or unique features, and any particular strengths and weaknesses that would provide further incite about these programs. For example, one of these programs (Fast ForWord) was selected for its unique emphasis on instruction based on brain elasticity— the ability of the brain to change and adapt to new learning styles. In addition, the study also discussed the extent to which the programs were teacher-reduced vs teacher-augmenting, with some discussion on transmission-based vs inquiry-based.
     The ten selected technology-based programs included: Academy of Reading, Classworks, Fast ForWord, Language First, My Reading Couch, Reading 180, Read Naturally, Soliloquy Reading Assistant, Success Maker Enterprise, and Thinking Reader.
     As shown in the matrix (Appendix 1) prepared for this study and based on the FCRR report, these programs have many varying, yet overlapping elements.  Several include strong vocabulary development, or an oral component.  Programs such as Reading Coach are specifically designed to remediate in a core area, in this case auditory discrimination. Reading 180 is designed with a more encompassing goal of increasing decoding, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Reading 180 also allows for adaptation by the teacher, whereas Fast ForWord has minimal teacher engagement, requiring instead a trained clinician or educator trained in the Fast ForWord model.  Yet, though the FCRR report addresses strengths and weaknesses with respect to the components of reading instruction, it does not examine those programs within the context of a larger framework of best practices in literacy.  An examination of technology-based reading programs from that perspective can provide powerful data for schools and districts seeking the best match of program, reader needs, and developmental needs of the literacy community.
     Gambrell, Morrow, Pressley, and Guthrie (2006) in their third edition of  “Best Practices of Literacy Instruction”, list ten evidence based best practices that when implemented consistently, support a culture of literacy learning in the classroom that accounts for the social, environmental and emotional components of literacy development as well as the cognitive, textual and auditory components:

Ten Evidence-Based Best Practices for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction
1. Create a classroom culture that fosters literacy motivation.
2. Teacher reading for authentic meaning-making literacy experiences: for pleasure, to be informed, to perform a task.
3. Provide students with scaffold instruction in phonemic awareness (PA), phonics (P), vocabulary (V), fluency (F), and comprehension (C) to promote independent reading.
4. Give students plenty of time to read in class.
5. Provide children with high quality literature across a wide range of genres.
6. Use multiple texts to link and expand vocabulary and concepts.
7. Build a whole-class community that builds upon prior knowledge.
8. Balance teacher and student led discussions of texts.
9. Use technologies to link and expand concepts.
10. Use a variety of assessment techniques to inform instruction.  (Gambrell, Morrow, Pressley, and Guthrie 2007)

     Applying the above criteria to the FCRR analysis of the ten technology-based reading programs provides a more compelling look at the potential efficacy of the programs in a fully developed classroom or school literacy culture.  For example, the Soliloquy Reading Assistant appears weak in the areas of teacher interaction and discussions of texts, yet it provides scaffolded instruction, and sufficient reading time.  These factors now being evident provide information for schools and school districts as to the best programs to select from depending on where on the continuum of emergence their literacy-learning culture falls.
     Dufour and Eaker refer to professional learning communities when describing dynamic communities of learners that constantly seek improvement, and embrace best practices based on evidence (1998).   Accordingly, those professional learning communities “focus no on how the group can do what its currently doing better or faster, but rather on why it is doing it in the first place” (p. 58).  These communities, therefore, require a descriptive analysis of the features of a program to understand how it might serve the community.  Since professional learning communities emerge into their learning culture in varying ways, the developmental needs of the learning community and the needs of its service population (e.g. students) must both be accounted for.  A professional learning community (or learning community) in its earliest stages of development in building a literacy-learning culture may investigate Success Maker Enterprise, hoping that its varying literature based activities and skills provide the dual task of serving student needs and providing models of strategies and tools that support best practices for its teaching population.  In this case, professional development will accompany the delivery of instruction as teachers become familiar with essential strategies and rich literature models. A learning community in its mature stages may investigate multiple programs that meet with a variety of needs based on evidence of reading behavior among its service population.  Or that same community may prefer a single program that powerfully supports its already healthy and cohesive literacy culture.
     With the component of evidence-based best practices as an analytic criteria, the over-arching concerns of whether the program undermines or supports the work of a learning community becomes urgent. Continuous improvement for a professional learning community requires them to regularly look not just at the resulting data, but at the design standards that underlay their instructional framework (Blankstein, 2004).  A mature learning community may not feel properly served by a program that is little more than an on-line basal reader.  Therefore, issues of relevance to examine would include the role of the teacher, actual reading achievement, reading components enhanced or supported, and flexibility within the larger context of the professional learning community’s culture of literacy and framework of best practices.
     Though high-stakes testing has acted as a catalyst for many schools and districts to re-examine their practices, an over emphasis on those tests may result in what Cummins, et al. refer to as a “transmission-based orientation” (2007, p. 93).  In this context, the learning community may find itself moving away from the rich, constructed learning that underlies genuine comprehension and fluency.   Therefore, it becomes essential for a technology-based program to “support students in constructing curriculum-related knowledge” (Cummins, et al., 2007, p. 93).   The program then should embed evidence-based practices that permit engagement among and between the teachers and the learners through inquiry-based strategies thereby creating an environment for increased literacy emergence.  If the program does not embed a wide variety of best practices, then it has to fill a focused need identified by the learning community as a special remedial or intervention need that cannot be properly addressed through their regular instructional practices. 
Analyzing technology-based-reading programs using evidence based best practices
     When the selected programs were examined through the critical lens of the ten evidence-based best practices that were listed earlier in this discussion, it was revealed that, while all the programs contained “scientifically-based” elements that included phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, fluency and comprehension, only five of the programs contained more of the evidence-based best practices. These programs were Reading 180, Read Naturally, Soliloquy Reading Assistant, Success Maker Enterprise, and Thinking Reader. The rest of the programs (Academy of Reading, Classworks, Fast ForWord, Language First, and My Reading Coach), primarily contained technology-enhanced reading instruction that might be found in most core basal reading programs.  Basal reading programs are scientifically-based reading programs that include: Phonemic awareness instruction, attention to systematic explicit phonics lessons, activities that promote fluency and automaticity in reading, vocabulary development and instruction, and text comprehension activities. Such programs often contain a scope and sequence chart that guides the teacher in specified areas of reading instruction. For example, when teaching and reinforcing the long sounds of the vowels, the scope and sequence chart in basal readers will direct the teacher to the pages in the text where that skill may be located.
     It should be noted that, of the five programs that contained the least evidence-based practices, one stood out as being uniquely different from the others. (This category - uniqueness - will be explored in more depth later on this report.) This was the Fast ForWord program, which appears to have the most success for learners who have been diagnosed as language delayed. The Fast ForWord program contains computer instruction and activities that provide motivationally positive animated segments that are designed to improve the way oral language enters the brain, which eventually changes to allow the learner to better comprehend the written word. This is based on the idea of “brain elasticity”, which is transformed as the learners’ oral language aligns with the written language (ie reading). The problem, according to critics of this program, is that not all students are alike in their inability to read. Therefore, students who do not have a language delay problem may not experience the same success in improving reading with this product (Cummins, et al. 2007; Florida Center for Reading Research, 2004).   This program, then, has a targeted purpose that may only serve the needs of a special service population, and only if the learning community has deemed oral language alignment as a need area for that population based on diagnostic data.
     Of the five programs that provided the evidenced-based best practices, the Reading 180 and Success Maker Enterprise stood out as containing more than the rest. Each of these programs went beyond the “scientifically-based” parameters of reading instruction (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) and included literacy events that appear to provide students with deeper understandings of the text content in a social setting that allows for peer interaction as well as student and teacher interactions.  Gambrell et al. describe a first grade teacher, “Georgia,” whose reading practices involve reading conferences, guided reading groups, reading centers, independent reading days, writing workshops, and regular read alouds (2007, p. 88).   Recognizing the relationship between best practices and effective instructional support, Gambrell et al cite Swanson and Hoskyn (1998) noting that “struggling readers need a steady supply of essential strategy lessons accompanied by extensive opportunities to independently practice and apply those strategies in high success reading materials” (2007, p. 100).  Reading 180 and Success Maker Enterprise, then, may provide the well-rounded supplemental technology-based reading program that a teacher like “Georgia” needs.  Or, “Georgia” might find that her mature and well-developed reading program is better served by Read Naturally, which, though it has fewer evidenced-based best practice markers may supplement some aspect of her program that needs greater augmentation. 
Role of the Teacher
     In a learning culture that commits to best practices, the role of the teacher is essential in facilitating and scaffolding instruction for students (Gambrell, Morrow, and Pressley, 2006).  All ten of the best practices are teacher-facilitated actions.  Therefore, another component for examination would be the degree to which the program fosters and facilitates the teacher’s role with respect to those practices.  Though the evidence examined here offers limited insight into the role of teacher within each programs protocol, the evidence that is available suggests a continuum ranging from teacher-reduced to teacher-augmenting roles.  Teacher-reduced will be used when describing programs that minimize the role of the teacher to that of program facilitator, or that otherwise make little use of the teacher/student relationship within the learning context.  Teacher-augmenting will describe programs that provide the teacher with significant flexibility in making proactive choices based on learner needs. Teacher-augmenting may also describe a program that augments a teacher’s already skillful literacy knowledge, or the degree to which the teacher can add to or extend on the parameters of the program.  Teacher-led will describe programs where teachers make choices within a preset context of choices determined by the program.
     In each of the ten programs that were examined, there were differing teacher requirements. Starting with the Academy of Reading program, the FCRR reported that the role of the teacher in guiding and supporting the students was a crucial and necessary part of this program.  While in the Classworks program, there were numerous web-based tools that assisted in the management of the program that allowed teachers more freedom to be involved in the optional projects, which were teacher-directed. It is interesting that in the Fast ForWord program, according to the information supplied by FCRR, there was minimal teacher role. Instead, the program requires trained clinician or trained educator to best implement the program.   This suggests a teacher-reduced role and begs the question of how the teacher might scaffold learning acquired through the program to connect those skills to comprehension, meaning making, or fluency.  Similarly, the Soliloquy Reading Assistant requires minimal teaching. Instead the teacher serves as manager of the program.  These programs, then, should be examined through action research so that the nature of the relationship dynamic between the learner, instructor, and technology is better understood in the context of best practices. 
     There are some programs, however, where the teacher’s role with respect to best practices may be difficult to discern without actually engaging in the program.  In the Language First program, a portion of the program is implemented by the teacher, while in the My Reading Coach program, there is an emphasis on teacher interaction and management. Yet the nature of the implementation and the level of engagement may depend more on the teacher’s prior knowledge of essential strategies and how they impact instruction utilizing the program.  This makes it difficult to determine whether these are teacher-led, or teacher-augmenting programs—is the teacher guiding the students through the program, or does the teacher’s extensive prior knowledge augment the program?   The Reading 180 program allows the teacher to adapt lessons and extend practice as needed by students, thereby augmenting the teacher’s rich instructional practices.  Similarly, in the Read Naturally program the teacher is needed for proper implantation of the program, according to the FCRR report. But the report is silent as the nature of that implementation.  Reading 180 and Read Naturally, therefore, might be construed to be teacher-augmenting programs that provide the teacher with necessary materials within a framework that allows for choice making, but the degree and portent of that augmentation is not known without deeper analysis. Finally, in the both the Success Maker and Thinking Reader, there is a balance of teacher augmentation and program management. In the latter program, teachers have the flexibility to adjust the program to adapt to students’ individual needs. It is interesting and reassuring to note that all of the programs had varying degrees of teacher input and that none of the programs would likely operate as “stand alone” technology-based programs without a teacher’s support.   Yet the nature of that support is relevant to understanding whether the program supports best practices.
Reading Techniques and or Unique Features
     While most of the programs included technology-enhanced systems and attention to scientifically-based principles (phonemic awareness, phonics etc.-as outlined earlier in this discussion), several of the programs included unique features that were not exclusively as evident in some of the rest of the programs. For example, the Academy of Reading program was based primarily on the reading principle of automaticity leading to fluency and ultimately reading comprehension, which is defined by Hook and Jones (2002) in the following excerpt from their study on automaticity and fluency for reading efficiency and comprehension:

Automaticity is defined as fast, accurate and effortless word identification at the single word level. The speed and accuracy at which single words are identified is the best predictor of comprehension. Fluency, on the other hand, involves not only automatic word identification but also the application of appropriate prosodic features (rhythm, intonation, and phrasing) at the phrase, sentence, and text levels. Wood, Flowers, and Grigorenko (2001) emphasize that fluency also involves anticipation of what will come next in the text and that speeded practice alone is not sufficient. Anticipation facilitates reaction time and is particularly important for comprehension. (p. 9)

     Miguel Bengoa Elt (2008) in his evaluation of automaticity states, “Regardless of their position of how reading should be taught, educators agree that students need to become fluent or automatic in decoding to become skilled readers.” In fact, the principle of automaticity was first introduced by LaBerge and Samuals in 1974. Therefore, automaticity in reading continues to be supported by most researchers as an authentic and scientfically-based approach to the development of reading on the continuum from learning to read to reading to learn.
     Nonetheless, while automaticity ought to be included in a learning to read curriculum, there are many other aspects of reading that need to be included to make the program successful. These include best practices # 6 - using multiple texts to link and expand vocabulary and concepts - and best practices #2: reading for authentic meaning-making literacy experiences, which do not appear to be included in the Academy of Reading program, as reported by FCRR.  This program, therefore, was clearly not designed as a stand-alone program, but was designed to augment teacher instruction.   The question then would be to what degree the parameters of the program permit the teacher to augment the program toward making multiple links, and reading for authentic meaning making.  Is this program a closed circuit, or an open invitation?
     In a related aspect of reading principles, the Read Naturally program focused on speed, accuracy and proper expression as the primary focus of the instruction and is based on research that comprehension and fluency are highly correlated. While these may be factors that positively affect the surface features of reading instruction, also labeled the transmission model by Cummins et. al, (2007), such reading principles do not include the “inquiry-based orientations” or the idea that students are actively involved in constructing ideas and adjusting the learning.
     Another program that included a unique and cutting edge feature is the Fast ForWord program, which is designed as an immediate and intensive interventions program for students in K-12 that are learning disabled, ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and low performing students. As mentioned earlier in this discussion, Fast ForWord provides students who are language delayed with computer-driven activities that retrains the brain in making connections between speech and meaning. While the product publishers suggest that the gains such students make in reading achievement are equally successful for all students regardless of their particular reading problem, the notion that success for a specific population with a specific need can be generalized to populations with different needs is questionable.  The success of a program must parallel a discernable student need.  The program would not be effective without targeting their particular reading and language needs (Wren, 20xx).  Such programs are successful only in a limited context, “but…do not appear to translate into increased achievement on broader measures of language acquisition or reading abilities” (Cummins, et al., 2007). Thus, the Fast ForWord is promising and has shown success for only a portion of students who need interventions for reading (discussed at length in the FCRR report, 2004). Furthermore, the fact that this program is technology-based does not appear to necessarily add to its effectiveness for all students.
     A unique feature of Language First! program is that the lessons are delivered primarily via a program called the Leap Pad Classroom Learning System, which involves portability that allows students to take the unit home to obtain further practice in learning the skills that are packaged in the program. Another unique feature is that directions for the lessons are in several languages.  In 2004, when FCRR examined Language First!, there was no empirical evidence to validate its effectiveness. As of this writing, a brief search on the internet of the availability of empirical research on Language First! was not available. However, since 2004 the Leap Frog company has added more such language programs and are recognized for their contributions to improved reading instruction.  It is clear this program is enhanced by and makes excellent use of technology to support its program, but the effectiveness of such programs to go beyond the surface of reading skills to deeper aspects of reading comprehension are still questionable.  Wren (2008) says:

A more elaborate form of language comprehension builds inferential understanding on top of explicit comprehension. Sometimes, in order to truly understand language, the listener must consider the context in which communication is taking place. Sometimes, one needs to “read between the lines” and draw inferences (par. 4).

The Leap Pad, then is a limited context that is not a natural language process.  It has the capacity to expose students to vocabulary, but for inferential understanding the teacher would have to step outside of the parameters of the program.  Further, there is a question as to whether what is going on within the parameters of the program is sufficient to augment the teacher’s regular instruction based on best practices.  Using Cummins et al (2007) as an analytic model, the Language First! program seems to be transmission-based, limiting inquiry and therefore limiting a teacher’s capacity to utilize what is learned by students toward  constructed curriculum-related knowledge.   This does not imply that there is no value to the student interactions with the program, simply that the results are limited by the limited parameters of the program.  Ringstaff and Kelly (2002) in their article -The Learning Return of our Educational Investment: A Review of Findings from Research - had similar concerns when they stated: “to use technology effectively teachers must understand how its use fits into the larger curricular and instructional framework” (p. 22).
     The Reading 180 program contained the most evidence-based practices and was also the only program in the study that included support for writing skills to engage students in reading and writing connected projects. This program also allows for the teacher to adapt lessons and extend practice as needed by student.   This teacher-augmenting program has the unique feature of providing support for a multitude of evidence-based best practices allowing flexibility.  Similarly, the Success Maker Enterprise program had several evidence-based practices and was unique in its inclusion of literature-based readings along with skill activities.  Both programs, then, are unique in their capacity to create a framework for best practices that go beyond single dimensional goals.
Strengths and Weaknesses
     There are varying degrees of strengths and weaknesses in each of the programs when examined individually. The FCRR included specific areas of strengths and weaknesses in their 2004 report for each of the programs they evaluated. The Appendix (1) prepared for this study listed some that were pertinent to each program, but none that stood out as being any more problematic or stronger than the other. However, when examined as a whole, it appears that overall, the programs that contained the most evidenced-based practices were the strongest of the ten programs in that they contained features that interlocked and interconnected in order to provide a strong scaffold of best practices.  Those whose primary strength was phonemic awareness (Academy of Reading, Fast ForWord) were highly transmission based rather than facilitating a constructed learning experience.  Yet, whereas the Academy of Reading was highly teacher-led (as opposed to teacher-augmenting, as though the teacher was a guide, they were not supported in best practice choice making), the Fast ForWard was teacher reduced.  The question, then, of whether phonemic awareness is best instructed by way of a technology-based reading program is an issue.  Or, we may ask instead which populations are assisted by these programs, and how might they be utilized within a larger framework of effective practices?   Those five programs showing the highest number of evidence-based best practices within the parameters of the program were strongest in vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency.  Further, the one with the strongest evidence-based best practices provided a systematic framework within which the teacher might make informed choices based on student needs.  These teacher-augmenting programs contain within the parameters the power to professionally develop teachers who engage with the program. 
Conclusion
     A metaphoric parallel for understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the programs is by looking at weight loss and nutrition plans.  A fad diet may cause a person to lose weight, but important nutrients such as carbohydrates, proteins, or anti-oxidants may be compromised (Weight Loss, 2008).  Just so, a fad-reading program applied to an entire population without regard to the loss of instructional nutrition may result from over-emphasizing the program in learning contexts or with learner populations the program was not meant to support.  Plans such as the NutriSystem diet require the dieter to purchase and consume foods pre-prepared by the company.  It promises and delivers ease of planning, which basically means a consumer-reduced contribution to the plan.  While it provides results, the question of whether dieters have a genuine understanding of portion control, food choice making, and life-style effect is unclear.   A prepackaged technology-based reading program that reduces teacher contribution may provide temporary results, but whether it has lasting effects or augments a learning community’s understanding of nutritious instructional practices is questionable.  The Weight Watchers plan teaches the dieter portion control and choice making by way of a point system.  Dieter knowledge of food planning is augmented by following the plan.  It is a more challenging diet plan, and requires social support to fully realize life long results, just as a fully developed challenging technology-based reading program augments all learners in the system.  This metaphor as applied to technology-based reading programs asks the professional learning community to be an informed consumer.  Be aware of the intellectual value of the program and its application to the overall health of the professional learning community.
     As part of that examination, Cummins et al. (2007) recommend creating a tool that allows the learning community to examine any tools, programs, strategies, or initiatives along a continuum of “transmission-based” to “inquiry-based” learning.  The ten evidence-based best practices for comprehensive literacy instruction may provide a starting point for a community to create such an examination tool.  But a community also has to examine its own practices and procedures to ensure that it does not continually gravitate toward “transmission-based” programs that limit teacher opportunity to create a base of inquiry for learning. Any given technology-based reading program may provide results, but are they lasting results?  Are the results sustainable within a framework of inquiry based, constructed learning?  A topic of future research might involve a discussion of what such an analytic tool may look like.  The tool would have to be created in an independent environment that is fully committed to the principles of professional learning communities without a vested financial interest in the outcome, therefore avoiding skews in the criteria.
     A key limitation of this study is the absence of action research with respect to the various programs.  This study used textual information regarding the programs as described by the FCRR data.  Yet, the true measure of a program with respect to the social, environmental and emotional components of reading and their relationship to cognitive and textual considerations would require independent experiential engagement with the various programs and narrative as well as statistical feedback.  This narrative and statistical feedback would have to be conducted independent of the vendor companies, which cannot always be relied on to discuss the limitations of their own programs.   What dynamic principles are inherent in the parameters of the program that may enhance or inhibit a teacher’s emergent knowledge with respect to best practices?  How might those dynamic principles be accurately described for consideration by future professional learning communities?
     Technology-based reading programs are in a unique position among reading programs in that the auspicious nature of technology to open doors and create possibilities often creates a halo-effect for programs designed for that technology.  Yet, clearly not all technology-based reading programs are alike, or have the same academic mission.  A professional learning community that relies overly on technology-based reading programs risks transforming what might be a transformative experience into a transmission-based and reduced experience.  Recognizing their role within the larger framework of best practices in literacy give learning communities the power to critically analyze the genuine utility value of the program and its potential application to their community.

References

Bengoa Elt, M. (2008). Automaticity in reading. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from:
       http://miguelbengoa.com/elt/2008/02/29/automaticity-in-reading/
Blankstein, A.M. (2004). Failure is not an option:  Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools.
         Corwin Press, Thousand Oak, California.  The Hope Foundation. 
Cummins, J., Brown, K., & Sayers, D. (2007). Literacy, technology, and diversity: Teaching for success in changing times.
       Pearson, Alyn, and Bacon.
Dufour, R., Eaker, R.  (1998).  Professional learning communities at work:  Best practices for enhancing student achievement. 
       National Education Service, Bloomington, Indiana.
Florida Center for Reading Research (2004). Summary Table for FCRR Reports. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from:
       http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/table.asp
Gambrell, L. B., Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., & Guthrie, J. (Eds., 2006). Best practices in literacy instruction (3 rd ed.).
       The Guilford Press.
Hook, P.E & Jones, S.D. (2002). The importance of automaticity and fluency for efficientreading comprehension.  International
       Dyslexia Association quarterly newsletter, Perspectives, Winter, vol. 28, no.1, pages 9-14. IDA website:
      http://www.interdys.org. Retrieved April 30, 2008, from: http://www.resourceroom.net/readspell/2002_automaticity.asp
LaBerge, D, & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive  Psychology,
       6, 293-323.
Ringstaff, C. & Kelley, L. (2002). The learning return on our educational technologyinvestment: A review of findings from
       research, WestEd.. Retrieved April 24, 2008, from:
      http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/learning_return.pdf
Wren, S. (2008).  Cognitive elements of reading.  Reading Resources.  Retrieved May 1, 2008, from
       http://www.sedl.org/reading/framework/elements.html
Web MD (2008).  Weight loss- spotting fad diets. Retrieved May 1, 2008, from: http://women.webmd.com/fad-diets

Matrix for Technology-Based Reading Programs
Grade Levels, Type of Program, Evidence-based best practices, Role of Teacher
Programs: Academy of Reading, Classworks, Fast ForWord, Language First,
 My Reading Coach, Reading 180

Matrix for Technology-Based Reading Programs
Reading Technique, Strengths, Weaknesses/missing feature
Programs: Academy of Reading, Classworks, Fast ForWord, Language First,
 My Reading Coach, Reading 180

Matrix for Technology-Based Reading Programs
Grade Levels, Type of Program, Evidence-based best practices, Role of Teacher
Programs: Read Naturally, Soliloquy Reading Assistant, Success Maker Enterprise, Thinking Reader

 Matrix for Technology-Based Reading Programs
Reading Technique, Strengths, Weaknesses/missing feature
Programs: Read Naturally, Soliloquy Reading Assistant, Success Maker Enterprise, Thinking Reader

Ten Evidence-Based Best Practices for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction
1. Create a classroom culture that fosters literacy motivation.
2. Teacher reading for authentic meaning-making literacy experiences: for pleasure, to be informed, to perform a task.
3. Provide students with scaffold instruction in phonemic awareness (PA), phonics (P), vocabulary (V), fluency (F), and comprehension (C ) to promote independent reading.
4. Give students plenty of time to read in class.
5. Provide children with high quality literature across a wide range of genres.
6. Use multiple texts to link and expand vocabulary and concepts.
7.  Build a whole-class community that builds upon prior knowledge.
8. Balance teacher and student led discussions of texts.
9. Use technologies to link and expand concepts.
10. Use a variety of assessment techniques to inform instruction.