Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning Seth A. Parsons

ACCESS is an organizational framework that helps teachers plan tasks that meet curriculum standards and that encourage in students self-regulated learning.

I

628

eracy proficiencies. I conclude by describing how to use ACCESS in teachers’ already busy schedules. Throughout this manuscript, I argue that these tasks can, and should, take place in all classrooms, regardless of the ability level or socioeconomic makeup of the students.

s it possible to design literacy instruction that prepares students to pass high-stakes tests and that empowers and motivates students to take charge of their learning? The teachers who supervise my undergraduate teacher candidates recently answered no. They explained that they had to focus on preparing students for the end-of-grade reading test and, therefore, could not model authentic literacy instruction for the prospective teachers observing in their classrooms. The research literature and my own experiences as a teacher and teacher educator, however, tell me that such instruction is possible. This article presents ACCESS—an organizational framework designed to help teachers plan instruction that improves students’ reading proficiency while also empowering and motivating students. ACCESS stands for tasks that are authentic, that require collaboration among students, that challenge students, that culminate with an end product, that allow self-direction by giving students choices, and that sustain learning across time. I combined these task components from research on effective instruction. In this article, I first outline self-regulated learning, which is associated with competent, motivated, and empowered students. Next, using a classroom example, I review the literature that led to the formation of ACCESS and explain how each component supports students’ self-regulated literacy learning. I then discuss how ACCESS helps teachers provide instruction that improves students’ lit-

What Is Self-Regulation?

The Reading Teacher, 61(8), pp. 628–635 DOI:10.1598/RT.61.8.4

© 2008 International Reading Association ISSN: 0034-0561 print / 1936-2714 online

Perry, Hutchinson, and Thauberger (2007) described self-regulated learners as intrinsically motivated, strategic, and metacognitive. Students who are intrinsically motivated are interested in their academic work and want to learn for the sake of learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Students who are strategic and metacognitive exhibit enhanced reading comprehension (Baker & Beall, in press; Duffy, 2003; Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). Therefore, enhanced motivation and improved reading achievement are advantages associated with self-regulation. Figure 1 presents additional characteristics of self-regulated learners. Zimmerman (2000) stated, “Perhaps our most important quality as humans is our capability to selfregulate” (p. 13). In spite of the benefits associated with self-regulated learning, researchers have demonstrated that a majority of students are not adequately self-regulating (Perry, Phillips, & Hutchinson, 2006). This finding is not surprising because researchers have suggested that students have few opportunities in school to regulate their learning (Randi & Corno, 2000). Researchers have offered strategies for developing self-regulated learners, such as implementing appropriate tasks, creating collaborative environments, and using noncomparative evaluation (Perry et al., 2007; Turner, 1995). While classroom assignments, or tasks, are only one aspect of classroom contexts, they have been

identified as the salient feature in encouraging selfregulated learners (Perry, Phillips et al., 2006). In his landmark article, Doyle (1983) suggested that tasks determine what students learn, and subsequent research has demonstrated the effect of tasks on students’ motivation and literacy learning (e.g., Miller & Meece, 1999). Therefore, to develop motivated students with advanced literacy skills, teachers must pay particular attention to the tasks they assign.

Figure 1 Attributes of Self-Regulated Learners They are aware of academic strengths and weaknesses. They believe ability is incremental. They focus on personal progress and deep understanding. They have high efficacy for learning. They attribute outcomes to factors they can control. They are strategic in approaching challenging tasks. They are proactive. They are adaptive. Note. From Perry et al. (2006) and Zimmerman (2000).

What Types of Tasks Promote Self-Regulated Literacy Learners? Six characteristics of tasks have strong support in theory and research for fostering self-regulated learning: authenticity, collaboration, challenge, an end product, self-direction, and sustained learning. Authentic tasks encourage self-regulation because they give students a genuine purpose for participating in an activity (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Collaborative activities compel regulatory action because students must coordinate their thoughts and actions with others (Miller & Meece, 1999). Challenging assignments compel selfregulation because students must be strategic to accomplish the task (Pressley, 2006). Tasks that culminate with a meaningful product encourage selfregulation because students set goals and monitor their progress toward those goals (Hacker, 1998). When students participate in activities that are selfdirected, they regulate their work because they have some control over the assignment (Brophy, 2004). Finally, assignments that are sustained compel students to monitor and regulate their progress over time (Perry, Phillips, & Dowler, 2004).

ACCESS Tasks This article combines these task components— authenticity, collaboration, challenge, an end product, self-direction, and sustained learning—into ACCESS. These elements are drawn from various studies in literacy and educational psychology, such as research on concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI; Guthrie, 2004), situated learning (Gee, 2004), project-based learning (Krajcik et al., 1998), and highchallenge tasks (Miller, 2003). However, none of these research agendas include all of the components of ACCESS or pertain specifically to self-regulation.

Therefore, this article presents an organizational framework for improving literacy instruction that is based upon extensive research. To be clear, ACCESS is not designed to be additional content in teachers’ already packed schedules. Instead, it describes characteristics of literacy assignments that can be used to enhance teachers’ current curricula.

An Example of an ACCESS Task Ms. Mashburn (all names are pseudonyms) teaches fourth grade in a diverse, inner-city U.S. school that requires her to use the basal as the foundation of her reading instruction. She knows that the concepts highlighted in the basal are important for her students, but she also wants to motivate her students to read and write for their own purposes. Therefore, as her class reads the selections and studies the concepts in the basal, they complete authentic, challenging projects based upon these selections. One example you might see upon entering Ms. Mashburn’s classroom is students working in groups to create a newspaper based upon the historical fiction unit in the basal. One group is writing a mock interview of a woman from the time period to get her perspective on historical events—a perspective that was not highlighted in the texts they were studying. Ms. Mashburn is working with another group, explicitly explaining how they can use text structure to help them better comprehend the informational texts they are using to gather information. Against the far wall, students are writing editorials as citizens of the time period, discussing how historical events affected their daily lives. At the table next to them, a group is brainstorming ideas to write an advice column for a historical figure. After finishing her minilesson, Ms.

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning

629

Mashburn walks around the classroom providing explicit instruction and guidance as it is needed. The classroom buzzes with focused activity. All the students in this classroom are engaged in the work they are completing. They are reading and writing for real purposes, taking multiple perspectives, and collaboratively planning newspaper articles. In short, these students are exhibiting self-regulated behaviors. Moreover, the teacher is providing explicit instruction to small groups, thereby enhancing students’ reading proficiency, while teaching both the literacy and the social studies curricula. Unfortunately, not all teachers implement such authentic, differentiated instruction. Instead, many teach reading with scripted programs, worksheets, and isolated skills instruction. Schools often encourage, or worse mandate, teachers to use such limited literacy instruction. ACCESS does not neglect literacy skills and strategies; it helps teachers teach them within authentic tasks that encourage self-regulation. Nonetheless, one difficult aspect of using ACCESS is the pressure in schools to simplify reading instruction. Researchers have long asserted that the most effective reading teachers “teach against the grain” in order to do what is best for their students (e.g., Duffy, 1991). In today’s accountability-focused schools, this is truer than ever. Ms. Mashburn’s newspaper assignment is based upon instruction in a diverse, Title I school, and it serves as an illustrative example of the type of assignment being presented in this article. As noted above, many factors influence instructional effectiveness. For the newspaper project to run smoothly, Ms. Mashburn must have well-established routines and procedures. Also, the classroom must be a collaborative community in which evaluation is based on personal growth rather than comparison. However, because the task has been found to be the salient feature in facilitating self-regulated learning (Perry et al., 2007), designing effective literacy tasks is the emphasis of this article.

Authentic Instruction The first aspect of the activity in Ms. Mashburn’s classroom that makes it an ACCESS task is its authenticity. The newspaper assignment is authentic because the students are completing real-world tasks; in effect, they are completing the same work as journalists and editors. Because they are purposeful, real-world tasks encourage intrinsic motivation and deep understand-

630

The Reading Teacher

Vol. 61, No. 8

May 2008

ing (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004; Shepard et al., 2005; Teale & Gambrell, 2007). Many literacy researchers promote the use of authentic learning situations. For example, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) asserted, “Real-world interactions are enjoyable, immediately interesting activities that can provide motivation for reading and learning from text” (p. 410). Time spent doing what real readers and writers do— using connected texts for real reasons—promotes selfregulated learning (Allington, 2005; Duffy, 2003; Fairbanks, 2000; Pressley, 2006).

Collaborative Instruction The newspaper activity is also collaborative. Students work together not only to decide what to include in their articles but also to complete the task. Researchers have demonstrated myriad benefits of students learning together, including increased selfesteem and improved attitudes toward school (Slavin, 1995). In identifying scientifically based reading research, the National Reading Panel (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000) found collaborative assignments to improve comprehension. Similarly, Guthrie and Humenick (2004), in their meta-analysis of empirical research, identified collaboration as one of only four aspects of instruction to motivate students to read. Turner and Paris (1995) noted that other students’ ideas can spark curiosity and that observing peers’ progress can improve confidence. Likewise, Pressley (2006) asserted that collaborative activities enable students to scaffold one another’s literacy learning.

Challenging Instruction Ms. Mashburn’s assignment is challenging because the students must take multiple perspectives to write the articles, consider their audience in their writing, and coordinate jobs and deadlines among group members. An appropriate level of challenge is the fundamental concept behind Vygotsky’s (1978) Zone of Proximal Development—the idea that students learn best when they receive support to complete work that is just beyond what they could do by themselves. Research has supported this concept: “The data are overwhelming that tasks a little bit beyond the learner’s current competence level are motivating. Tasks that are a little bit challenging cause students to work hard and feel good about what they are doing”

(Pressley, 2006, p. 387). Miller and Meece (1997, 1999; Miller, 2003) have conducted extensive research on high-challenge tasks, and they have found that challenging assignments are associated with improved student motivation and literacy learning. They concluded that one reason the tasks were motivating was because they allowed for differentiation: Assignments could be tailored to meet individual learning needs (Perry, Turner, & Meyer, 2006). In addition, Turner and Paris (1995) asserted that appropriately challenging tasks encourage students to learn in a variety of ways because there is no obvious path to a right answer, which develops self-regulated learning.

Instruction Requiring an End Product The project from the example concludes with students creating a finalized newspaper. Literacy tasks that culminate in a meaningful product facilitate selfregulated learning because students have an explicit purpose for engaging in the assignment. Instead of completing tasks simply because they are assigned, students have a reason to engage in the assignment (Moje, 1999). Students come to value the work for intrinsic reasons because they are working toward a worthwhile goal (Blumenfeld et al., 1991). Bogner, Raphael, and Pressley (2002) found that successful reading teachers often had their students create products such as Big Books. The students took pride in these completed artifacts, thus enhancing student interest. Moreover, assignments with valued end products further require regulated behavior because students must be metacognitive, monitoring their progress toward this goal (Hacker, 1998).

Self-Directed Learning Ms. Mashburn’s newspaper assignment is studentdirected because students decide the main content of their articles, the separation of work, and the format of their articles. The teacher is there to give guidance in making these decisions, but the students are given the autonomy to make decisions about their learning. Tasks that give students choices compel self-regulation (Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000). Guthrie and Humenick (2004), in their meta-analysis of scientifically-based research, identified choice as a motivating aspect of literacy instruction. When students are involved in the decision making, they are more apt to take ownership of, and thus regulate, their learning. Paris et al. (1991)

explained that when students are active decision makers in their learning, they adopt positive attitudes toward academic work. Conversely, when students feel that they have little control over their learning, they often feel incompetent or helpless, which leads to defensive strategies counter to self-regulation such as nonparticipation.

Sustained Learning The newspaper assignment from the previous scenario is sustained because it lasts over several weeks. It takes time to plan the content of a newspaper, to obtain information, and then to actually put the newspaper together. Tasks that compel students to sustain their engagement in academic work over a period of time encourage self-regulated learning because students set goals and determine how to obtain them (Miller & Meece, 1999; Perry et al., 2004). Too often, literacy assignments require brief attention to isolated skills. Explicit explanation of skills and strategies is an important aspect of literacy instruction (Dole, Nokes, & Drits, in press) and should occur throughout the school day and within ACCESS tasks. Isolated skills instruction, however, should not dominate teaching practices. Tasks that are sustained over time allow the teacher to nest explicit literacy instruction within authentic assignments. Table 1 presents examples of ACCESS tasks in primary and intermediate grades.

How ACCESS Helps Teachers In the previous section, I described how the components of ACCESS benefit students’ self-regulated learning. In this section, I explain how using ACCESS to design instruction benefits teachers by promoting enhanced communication among educators, differentiated instruction, explicit teaching, and interdisciplinary activities. When teachers implement differentiated and explicit instruction, they are able to help each student develop the skills and strategies to improve his or her reading proficiency, thereby helping students perform well on high-stakes assessments.

ACCESS Promotes a Common Language ACCESS enables teachers, administrators, and researchers to discuss instruction that promotes selfregulated literacy learning. Researchers suggest that

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning

631

Table 1 Examples of ACCESS Tasks Grade level

ACCESS tasks

Primary

In groups students create a welcoming pamphlet that introduces to visitors the students and the classroom. Students work in small groups to write and illustrate their own big books. In a unit on Native Americans, students create a nonfiction text sharing what they learned. While studying holidays around the world, students create a travel journal describing holidays in various cultures.

Intermediate

In a unit on Australia, students create brochures in groups advertising a city or region of their choice. In groups, students create themed poetry books that include students’ favorite poems as well as poems they have written. Students write a persuasive letter to the mayor outlining the benefits of recycling to suggest more recycling facilities. In a unit on the solar system, students create a collection of science-fiction short stories.

even when teachers do implement instruction that fosters self-regulated learning, they often do not understand the relationship between tasks and self-regulation (Perry, Phillips, et al., 2006). Therefore, the common language offered through ACCESS is particularly helpful, facilitating dialogue about effective instruction. When planning with their grade-level colleagues, for example, teachers can use ACCESS to create interdisciplinary assignments that encourage self-regulation and allow explicit teaching of literacy skills. Administrators or literacy coaches can use this organizational framework to plan professional development or to evaluate teachers’ instruction over time. Table 2 is a sample rubric that could be used to plan or evaluate this type of instruction.

632

composed newspaper articles. In completing this task, each student wrote at his or her level. Lower performing students wrote articles of less quality, but they were working within their Zone of Proximal Development. Thus, ACCESS tasks are inherently differentiated because they enable students to control challenge. Moreover, because the teacher’s role within these tasks becomes that of a facilitator, he or she is able to provide small-group instruction as students work on the assignment. The teacher differentiates by providing instruction that is responsive to students’ individual needs, pushing them beyond their current ability levels. Therefore, students receive the instruction they need to improve their reading, and also all students participate in challenging, authentic tasks that promote self-regulation.

ACCESS Promotes Differentiated Instruction

ACCESS Promotes Explicit Instruction

Differentiation is instruction that meets the individual needs of each student (Tomlinson, 2004). Designing tasks with ACCESS enables differentiated instruction by encouraging students to work cooperatively in authentic situations. The nature of these assignments allows the teacher and the student to control the degree of challenge, thereby allowing all students to work within their Zone of Proximal Development (Perry, Turner, et al., 2006). In the newspaper example, for instance, all students completed the same task: They

The teacher’s role of facilitator does not preclude explicit instruction. Instead, it allows for more direct forms of instruction for students who demonstrate the need. Research has established that explicit literacy instruction helps students improve their reading and writing (Duffy et al., 1987; Graham & Harris, 2003). ACCESS tasks allow the teacher to provide explicit small-group instruction—just as Ms. Mashburn is doing in the example. Small groups permit the teacher to explain and model literacy skills and strategies for stu-

The Reading Teacher

Vol. 61, No. 8

May 2008

Table 2 Sample Rubric Authenticity

1: The task is limited to activities that are completed primarily in school. 2: The activity mimics outside-of-school tasks but still has many features of school-based activities. 3: The activity closely replicates tasks completed by people in their day-to-day lives outside of school.

Collaboration

1: Students work alone on the activity. 2: Students collaborate minimally on the activity. 3: Students must collaborate throughout the activity.

Challenge

1: Students complete the task with minimal effort or are frustrated by the activity. 2: Some aspects of the activity challenge the students, or only some of the students are challenged by the task. 3: Most aspects of the activity are challenging but not frustrating, and the task is arranged in order to challenge all students.

End product

1: There is no culminating product. 2: There is a culminating product, but it is peripheral to the activities within the task. 3: The culminating product drives the activities within the task.

Student directed

1: The students have no input on the task. 2: The students have input, but the choices have minimal influence on the task. 3: Students have input into many substantial aspects of the activity.

Sustained

1: The task is completed in one sitting. 2: The task lasts throughout one day. 3: The task spans two or more days.

Note. Adapted from Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, & Tower (2007) and Miller & Meece (1999).

dents who demonstrate the need. Therefore, the teacher teaches fundamental skills and strategies needed to read proficiently and to succeed on highstakes tests, but this instruction occurs within authentic assignments that promote self-regulated literacy learning.

ACCESS Promotes Interdisciplinary Instruction ACCESS describes components of tasks, and, as such, they can be applied to any content. Therefore, ACCESS encourages instruction that addresses multiple state standards. In Ms. Mashburn’s activity, for example, literacy standards were facilitated as students read and wrote extensively as well as received explicit instruction. The focus on historical fiction addressed social studies standards, and the word processing involved in publishing the newspaper worked toward technology standards. While the content of this assignment focused on social studies, the teacher could eas-

ily have arranged the task to address specific math or science standards. The sample tasks in Figure 2 demonstrate how ACCESS promotes cross-disciplinary instruction. Pamphlets, books, newspapers, debates, and artifacts, for instance, can focus on any topic related to state standards. A Big Book in a kindergarten classroom could focus on precipitation as students study weather, or a brochure in the fourth grade could describe prominent state citizens. A disciplinary emphasis does not detract from any of the components of ACCESS. In fact, such cross-disciplinary instruction promotes the “coherence of instructional processes” that Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) suggested improves student engagement and reading comprehension.

How Do I Fit ACCESS Into My Busy Schedule? ACCESS is not additional instruction that teachers must squeeze into their busy days. Instead, it is an

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning

633

organizational framework that helps teachers plan tasks that meet curriculum standards and that encourage in students self-regulated learning. Every assignment, obviously, cannot include all these components, especially when programs and mandates make such authentic instruction difficult. Nonetheless, it is important to use such instruction to help all students become self-regulated literacy learners, even when it requires teachers to teach against the grain. Because ACCESS encourages interdisciplinary instruction, time allotted for various subjects can be combined to create large blocks of time to work on the project. For example, in completing an ACCESS task focusing on science, time could be taken from literacy and science blocks to allow 90 minutes every other day for a couple of weeks. Time in schools is precious, especially with all that teachers are required to teach. Implementing ACCESS tasks, though, is well worth the effort because it encourages self-regulation in students while also helping teachers implement differentiated, cross-disciplinary instruction.

Encouraging Self-Regulated Literacy Learners Preparing students to succeed on high-stakes tests is important. Indeed, students need to master basic literacy competencies that allow them to perform well on such assessments. This outcome should be expected of teachers. However, it should be the minimum expectation. Higher expectations, such as empowering and motivating students, should also exist. At the beginning of this article, I asked if it was possible to design literacy instruction that prepares students to pass high-stakes tests and that empowers and motivates students to take charge of their learning. ACCESS is an organizational framework that helps teachers do both. The differentiated and explicit literacy instruction facilitated by ACCESS helps students develop the reading skills and strategies to help students pass high-stakes tests. This skill and strategy instruction, however, is nested within authentic, challenging tasks that facilitate self-regulated literacy learning. While no research to date has established the impact of ACCESS on student literacy learning or motivation, its components are rooted in theory and research from literacy and educational psychology. Future study on the implementation of ACCESS tasks will demonstrate the extent of the benefits they afford students.

634

The Reading Teacher

Vol. 61, No. 8

May 2008

Parsons is a doctoral candidate at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, USA; e-mail [email protected]. References Allington, R.L. (2005). What really matters for struggling readers: Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Baker, L., & Beall, L. (in press). Metacognitive processes and reading comprehension. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge. Blumenfeld, P.C., Soloway, E., Marx, R.W., Krajcik, J.S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26(3 & 4), 369–398. Bogner, K., Raphael, L.M., & Pressley, M. (2002). How grade 1 teachers motivate literate activity by their students. Scientific Studies of Reading, 6, 135–165. Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Dole, J.A., Nokes, J.D., & Drits, D. (in press). Cognitive strategy instruction. In S.E. Israel & G.G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension. New York: Routledge. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199. Duffy, G.G. (1991). What counts in teacher education? Dilemmas in educating empowered teachers. In J. Lutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction, 40th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1–18). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Duffy, G.G. (2003). Explaining reading: A resource for teaching concepts, skills, and strategies. New York: Guilford. Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M.S., et al. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347–368. Duke, N.K., Purcell-Gates, V., Hall, L.A., & Tower, C. (2006/2007). Authentic literacy activities for developing comprehension and writing. The Reading Teacher, 60(4), 344–355. Fairbanks, C.M. (2000). Fostering adolescents’ literacy engagements: “Kid’s business” and critical inquiry. Reading Research and Instruction, 40(1), 35–50. Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling. New York: Routledge. Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (2003). Students with learning disabilities and the process of writing: A meta-analysis of SRSD studies. In H.L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of research on learning disabilities (pp. 323–344). New York: Guilford. Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36(1), 1–29. Guthrie, J.T., & Humenick, N.M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 329–354). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R.

Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hacker, D.J. (1998). Definitions and empirical foundations. In D.J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A.C. Gaesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 1–24). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Krajcik, J., Blumenfeld, P.C., Marx, R.W., Bass, K.M., Fredricks, J., & Soloway, E. (1998). Inquiry in project-based science classrooms: Initial attempts by middle school students. Journal of the Learning Science, 7(3 & 4), 313–350. Miller, S.D. (2003). How high- and low-challenge tasks affect motivation and learning: Implications for struggling learners. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(1), 39–57. Miller, S.D., & Meece, J.L. (1997). Enhancing elementary students’ motivation to read and write: A classroom intervention study. Journal of Educational Research, 90(5), 286–299. Miller, S.D., & Meece, J.L. (1999). Third-graders’ motivational preferences for reading and writing tasks. Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 19–35. Moje, E.B. (1999). From expression to dialogue: A study of social action literacy projects in an urban school setting. The Urban Review, 31(3), 305–330. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Paris, S.G., Wasik, B.A., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609–640). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Perry, N.E. Hutchinson, L., & Thauberger, C. (2007). Mentoring student teachers to design and implement literacy tasks that support self-regulated reading and writing. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 27–50. Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Dowler, J. (2004). Examining features of tasks and their potential to promote self-regulated learning. Teachers College Record, 106(9), 1854–1878. Perry, N.E., Phillips, L., & Hutchinson, L. (2006). Mentoring student teachers to support self-regulated learning. Elementary School Journal, 106(3), 237–254.

Perry, N.E., Turner, J.C., & Meyer, D.K. (2006). Classrooms as contexts for motivating learning. In P.A. Alexander & P.H. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed., pp. 327–348). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford. Randi, J., & Corno, L. (2000). Teacher innovations in self-regulated learning. In M Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 651–685). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Rust, F. (with Snowden, J.B., Gordon, E., et al.). (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 275–326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Teale, W.H., & Gambrell, L.B. (2007). Raising urban students’ literacy achievement by engaging in authentic, challenging work. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 728–739. Tomlinson, C.A. (2004). Sharing responsibility for differentiating instruction. Roeper Review, 26(4), 188. Turner, J.C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 410–441. Turner, J.C., & Paris, S.G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children’s motivation for literacy. The Reading Teacher, 48(8), 662–675. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zimmerman, B.J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P.R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Providing All Students ACCESS to Self-Regulated Literacy Learning

635