Knowledge and Practice Standards for

Teachers of Reading

With Commentary for Classroom Educators

International Dyslexia Association,

Professional Standards and Practices Committee
2010
Louisa Moats, Committee Chair
Suzanne Carreker
Rosalie Davis
Phyllis Meisel
Louise Spear‐Swerling
Barbara Wilson
 INTRODUCTION
Purpose of These Standards
The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) offers these standards to guide the preparation,
certification, and professional development of those who teach reading and related literacy skills in classroom or
other settings. The term teacher is used throughout this document to refer to anyone whose responsibilities
include reading instruction. The standards aim to specify what any individual responsible for teaching reading
should know and be able to do.
Teacher preparation programs should ascribe to a common set of professional standards for the benefit
of the students they serve, including those with diverse learning needs. Adherence to these standards should
assure the public that individuals who teach reading are prepared to implement evidence‐based and
instructionally effective practices for reading instruction.

Background: Why These Standards Are Necessary

Teaching reading effectively requires considerable knowledge and skill. In 2000, the National Reading
Panel, drawing upon decades of research, issued a report that identified the five reading skills necessary to
become a successful reader: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The report
cited the need for highly qualified teachers, but did not spell out the knowledge and skill base necessary to teach
students to become successful readers.
The National Assessment of Educational Progress consistently finds that about 36% of all fourth graders
read at a level described as “below basic.” Included in this group are students living in poverty, English language
learners, and students who demonstrate significant weaknesses with language processes, including but not
limited to phonological processing, that are the root cause of dyslexia and related learning difficulties. Of those
who are referred to special education services in public schools, approximately 85% are referred because of
their problems with language, reading, and/or writing.
The Common Core State Standards, adopted by the majority of states, and other college and career
readiness standards, require a shift towards more rigorous expectations for students in reading and writing.
Students are required to read complex text efficiently and with high levels of comprehension. This expectation
includes students with reading disabilities, and those who struggle for other reasons, such as a language barrier.
The IDA Standards focus on the teacher knowledge and skills required to teach these and other standards.
Mastering the Common Core or similar college readiness standards is a challenge for many with reading
difficulties. However, informed and effective classroom instruction, especially in the early grades, can prevent
most reading problems from developing and ameliorate others. For those students with dyslexia or other
learning difficulties, effective intervention from a well‐trained instructor can lessen the impact of reading
difficulties and increase student success.

How to Use These Standards

The standards outline the 1) content knowledge necessary to teach reading and writing to all students,
including those who are at risk for reading difficulty; and 2) practices of effective instruction. Teachers should
have the foundational knowledge of language, literacy development, and individual differences to serve all the
children in their classroom.

The standards may be used for several purposes, including but not limited to:
 self‐study through professional learning communities and other peer collaboration groups;
 course design within teacher certification programs;
 practicum requirements within certification programs;
 professional development efforts
 criteria for membership in IDA’s coalition of organizations that provide training and supervision of
teachers, tutors, and specialists;
  criteria for the preparation of those professionals receiving referrals through IDA offices; and
 a content framework for the development of licensing or certification examinations.

How to Read the Standards

The Standards include two major sections. Section I addresses foundation concepts, knowledge of
language structure, the principles of structured language teaching, administration and interpretation of
assessments, knowledge of dyslexia and other learning disorders, and ethical standards for the profession.
Section II addresses the application skills teachers and specialists should demonstrate.
In Section I, Standards A, B, C, and E are presented in two columns. The column on the left refers to
content knowledge that can be learned and tested independent of observed teaching competency. The column
on the right delineates the practical skills of teaching that depend on or that are driven by content knowledge.
The exception to this format is Standard D. It includes a third column on the right that specifies in greater detail
what the teacher or specialist should be able to do.
Section II addresses skills to be demonstrated in supervised practice by novice teachers in training,
designated Level 1, or by specialists, designated as Level 2. The recommended standards for preparation of
teachers and specialists provided in this section are distinguished by these two levels.
 SECTION I: KNOWLEDGE AND PRACTICE STANDARDS
A. Foundation Concepts about Oral and Written Learning

Unlike learning to speak, which occurs when children hear speech in their environment, learning to read does
not happen naturally. Most children must be taught foundational concepts of reading. Recently, a convergence
of research has identified what children must be taught and how best to teach those skills. The skills include
processing of oral language at the phonemic level, the alphabetic principle, and metacognitive strategies.
Teachers need to know how to teach these skills and how to support the development of psychological
processes such as executive function and working memory, and how to promote motivation to read.

Oral and written language contributes reciprocally to the development of each and both impact the ability to
read and write. Receptive and expressive oral language contributes to the ability to listen and to speak;
receptive understanding of written language contributes to reading comprehension while expressive use of
spoken language contributes to the ability to write.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Understand and explain the language processing 1. a. Explain the domains of language and their
requirements of proficient reading and writing importance to proficient reading and writing
 Phonological (speech sound) processing (Level 1).
 Orthographic (print) processing b. Explain a scientifically valid model of the
 Semantic (meaning) processing language processes underlying reading and
 Syntactic (sentence level) processing writing (Level 2).
 Discourse (connected text level) processing

2. Understand and explain other aspects of cognition 2. a. Recognize that reading difficulties coexist with
and behavior that affect reading and writing other cognitive and behavioral problems (Level
 Attention 1).
 Executive function b. Explain a scientifically valid model of other
 Memory cognitive influences on reading and writing, and
 Processing speed explain major research findings regarding the
 Graphomotor control contribution of linguistic and cognitive factors to
the prediction of literacy outcomes (Level 2).

3. Define and identify environmental, cultural, and 3. Identify (Level 1) or explain (Level 2) major research
social factors that contribute to literacy findings regarding the contribution of
development (e.g., language spoken at home, environmental factors to literacy outcomes.
language and literacy experiences, cultural values).
 Content Knowledge Application
4. Know and identify phases in the typical 4. Match examples of student responses and learning
developmental progression of behavior to phases in language and literacy
 Oral language (semantic, syntactic, development (Level 1).
pragmatic)
 Phonological skill
 Printed word recognition
 Spelling
 Reading fluency
 Reading comprehension
 Written expression

5. Understand and explain the known causal 5. Explain how a weakness in each component skill of
relationships among phonological skill, phonic oral language, reading, and writing may affect
decoding, spelling, accurate and automatic word other related skills and processes across time (Level
recognition, text reading fluency, background 2).
knowledge, verbal reasoning skill, vocabulary,
reading comprehension, and writing.

6. Know and explain how the relationships among the 6. Identify the most salient instructional needs of
major components of literacy development change students who are at different points of reading and
with reading development (i.e., changes in oral writing development (Level 2).
language, including phonological awareness;
phonics and word recognition; spelling; reading and
writing fluency; vocabulary; reading
comprehension skills and strategies; written
expression).

7. Know reasonable goals and expectations for 7. Given case study material, explain why a student
learners at various stages of reading and writing is/is not meeting goals and expectations in reading
development. or writing for his or her age/grade (Level 1).
 B. Knowledge of the Structure of Language

All students require and benefit from knowledge about the structure of their language; such knowledge is
essential for struggling readers. To teach students effectively, teachers need in‐depth knowledge about the
structure of language including the ability to recognize whether words are phonetically regular or irregular,
common morphemes in words, and common sentence structure in English. Without this kind of knowledge,
teachers may have difficulty interpreting assessments correctly, or they may provide unintentionally confusing
instruction to students. Similarly, to teach spelling and writing effectively, teachers need a knowledge base
about language structure, including sentence and discourse structure. Research suggests that for teachers to
acquire an understanding of language structure, they need explicit and in‐depth instruction in this area.

Content Knowledge Application

Phonology (The Speech Sound System)
1. Identify, pronounce, classify, and compare the 1. a. Identify similar or contrasting features among
consonant and vowel phonemes of English. phonemes
(Level 1).
b. Reconstruct the consonant and vowel
phoneme inventories and identify the feature
differences between and among phonemes
(Level 2).

Orthography (The Spelling System)

2. Understand the broad outline of historical 2. Recognize typical words from the historical layers
influences on English spelling patterns, especially of English (Anglo‐Saxon, Latin/Romance, Greek)
Anglo‐Saxon, Latin (Romance), and Greek. (Level 1).

3. Define grapheme as a functional correspondence 3. Accurately map graphemes to phonemes in any

unit or representation of a phoneme. English word (Level 1).

4. Recognize and explain common orthographic rules 4. Sort words by orthographic “choice” pattern;
and patterns in English. analyze words by suffix ending patterns and apply
suffix ending rules.

5. Know the difference between “high frequency” and 5. Identify printed words that are the exception to
“irregular” words. regular patterns and spelling principles; sort high
frequency words into regular and exception words
(Level 1).

6. Identify, explain, and categorize six basic syllable 6. Sort, pronounce, and combine regular written
types in English spelling. syllables and apply the most productive syllable
division principles (Level 1).

Morphology
7. Identify and categorize common morphemes in 7. a. Recognize the most common prefixes, roots,
English, including Anglo‐Saxon compounds, suffixes, and combining forms in English content
inflectional suffixes, and derivational suffixes; Latin‐ words, and analyze words at both the syllable
based prefixes, roots, and derivational suffixes; and and morpheme levels (Level 1).
Greek‐based combining forms. b. Recognize advanced morphemes (e.g.,
chameleon or assimilated +prefixes) (Level 2).
Semantics
8. Understand and identify examples of meaningful 8. Match or identify examples of word associations,
word relationships or semantic organization. antonyms, synonyms, multiple meanings and uses,
semantic overlap, and semantic feature analysis
(Level 1).

Syntax
9. Define and distinguish among phrases, dependent 9. Construct and deconstruct simple, complex, and
clauses, and independent clauses in sentence compound sentences (Level 1).
structure.

10. Identify the parts of speech and the grammatical 10. a. Identify the basic parts of speech and classify
role of a word in a sentence. words by their grammatical role in a sentence
(Level 1).
b. Identify advanced grammatical concepts (e.g.,
infinitives, gerunds) (Level 2).

Discourse Organization
11. Explain the major differences between narrative 11. Classify text by genre; identify features that are
and expository discourse. characteristic of each genre, and identify graphic
organizers that characterize typical structures
(Level 1).

12. Identify and construct expository paragraphs of 12. Identify main idea sentences, connecting words,
varying logical structures (e.g., classification, and topics that fit each type of expository
reason, sequence). paragraph organization (Level 2).

13. Identify cohesive devices in text and inferential 13. Analyze text for the purpose of identifying the
gaps in the surface language of text. inferences that students must make to
comprehend (Level 2).
 C‐1. Structured Language Teaching: Phonology

Phonological awareness, basic print concepts, and knowledge of letter sounds are important foundational areas
of literacy for all students. Ample research exists to inform teaching of phonological awareness, including
research on the phonological skills to emphasize in instruction, appropriate sequencing of instruction, and
integrating instruction in phonological awareness with instruction in alphabet knowledge. Poor phonological
awareness is a core weakness for students with dyslexia. Without early, research‐based intervention, children
who struggle in these areas are likely to continue to have reading difficulties. It is important for teachers to
understand how to teach these foundational skills, especially to effectively prevent or ameliorate many
children’s reading problems, including those of students with dyslexia.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Identify the general and specific goals of 1. Explicitly state the goal of any phonological
phonological skill instruction. awareness teaching activity (Level 1).

2. Know the progression of phonological skill 2. a. Select and implement activities that match a
development (i.e., rhyme, syllable, onset‐rime, student’s developmental level of phonological
phoneme differentiation). skill (Level 1).
b. Design and justify the implementation of
activities that match a student’s
developmental level of phonological skill
(Level 2).

3. Identify the differences among various phonological 3. Demonstrate instructional activities that identify,
manipulations, including identifying, matching, match, blend, segment, substitute, and delete
blending, segmenting, substituting, and deleting sounds (Level 1).
sounds.

4. Understand the principles of phonological skill 4. a. Successfully produce vowel and consonant
instruction: brief, multisensory, conceptual, and phonemes (Level 1).
auditory‐verbal. b. Teach articulatory features of phonemes and
words; use minimally contrasting pairs of
sounds and words in instruction; support
instruction with manipulative materials and
movement (Level 2).
5. Understand the reciprocal relationships among 5. a. Direct students’ attention to speech sounds
phonological processing, reading, spelling, and during reading, spelling, and vocabulary
vocabulary. instruction using a mirror, discussion of
articulatory features, and so on as scripted or
prompted (Level 1).
b. Direct students’ attention to speech sounds
during reading, spelling, and vocabulary
instruction without scripting or prompting
(Level 2).
6. Understand the phonological features of a second 6. Explicitly contrast first and second language
language or dialect, such as Spanish, and how they phonological systems, as appropriate, to
may interfere with English pronunciation and anticipate which sounds may be most challenging
phonics. for the second language learner (Level 2).
 C‐2. Structured Language Teaching: Phonics and Word Recognition

The development of accurate word decoding skills—that is, the ability to read unfamiliar words by applying
phonics knowledge—is an essential foundation for reading comprehension for all students. Teachers require the
ability to provide explicit, systematic, appropriately sequenced instruction in phonics to all students. This is
critical in helping to prevent reading problems in beginning readers. Decoding skills are often a central weakness
for students with learning disabilities in reading, especially those with dyslexia. For this population, teachers
should also understand the usefulness of multisensory, multimodal techniques to focus students’ attention on
printed words, engage students, and enhance memory and learning.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Know or recognize how to order phonics concepts 1. Plan lessons with a cumulative progression of
from easier to more difficult. word recognition skills that build one on another
(Level 1).

2. Understand principles of explicit and direct 2. Explicitly and effectively teach (e.g., information
teaching: model, lead, give guided practice, and taught is correct, students are attentive, teacher
review. checks for understanding, teacher scaffolds
students’ learning) concepts of word recognition
and phonics; apply concepts to reading single
words, phrases, and connected text (Level 1).

3. State the rationale for multisensory and 3. Demonstrate the simultaneous use of two or
multimodal techniques. three learning modalities (to include listening,
speaking, movement, touch, reading, and/or
writing) to increase engagement and enhance
memory (Level 1).

4. Know the routines of a complete lesson format, 4. Plan and effectively teach all steps in a decoding
from the introduction of a word recognition lesson, including single‐word reading and
concept to fluent application in meaningful connected text that is read fluently, accurately,
reading and writing. and with appropriate intonation and expression
(Level 1).

5. Understand research‐based adaptations of 5. Adapt the pace, format, content, strategy, or

instruction for students with weaknesses in emphasis of instruction according to students’
working memory, attention, executive function, or pattern of response (Level 2).
processing speed.
 C‐3. Structured Language Teaching: Fluent, Automatic Reading of Text

Reading fluency is the ability to read text effortlessly and quickly as well as accurately. Fluency develops among
typical readers in the primary grades. Because fluency is a useful predictor of overall reading competence,
especially in elementary‐aged students, a variety of fluency tasks have been developed for use in screening and
progress‐monitoring measures. Poor reading fluency is a very common symptom of dyslexia and other reading
disabilities; problems with reading fluency can linger even when students’ accuracy in word decoding has been
improved through effective phonics intervention. Although fluency difficulties may sometimes be associated
with processing weaknesses, considerable research supports the role of practice, wide exposure to printed
words, and focused instruction in the development and remediation of fluency. To address students’ fluency
needs, teachers must have a range of competencies, including the ability to interpret fluency‐based measures
appropriately, to place students in appropriate types and levels of texts for reading instruction, to stimulate
students’ independent reading, and to provide systematic fluency interventions for students who require them.
Assistive technology (e.g., text‐to‐speech software) is often employed to help students with serious fluency
difficulties function in general education settings. Therefore, teachers, and particularly specialists, require
knowledge about the appropriate uses of this technology.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Understand the role of fluency in word 1. Assess students’ fluency rate and determine
recognition, oral reading, silent reading, reasonable expectations for reading fluency at
comprehension of written discourse, and various stages of reading development, using
motivation to read. research‐based guidelines and appropriate state
and local standards and benchmarks (Level 1).
2. Understand reading fluency as a stage of normal 2. Determine which students need a fluency‐
reading development; as the primary symptom of oriented approach to instruction, using screening,
some reading disorders; and as a consequence of diagnostic, and progress‐monitoring assessments
practice and instruction. (Level 2).
3. Define and identify examples of text at a 3. Match students with appropriate texts as
student’s frustration, instructional, and informed by fluency rate to promote ample
independent reading level. independent oral and silent reading (Level 1).

4. Know sources of activities for building fluency in 4. Design lesson plans that incorporate fluency‐
component reading skills. building activities into instruction at sub‐word and
word levels (Level 1).
5. Know which instructional activities and 5. Design lesson plans with a variety of techniques
approaches are most likely to improve fluency to build reading fluency, such as repeated
outcomes. readings of passages, alternate oral reading with a
partner, reading with a tape, or rereading the
same passage up to three times. (Level 1).
6. Understand techniques to enhance student 6. Identify student interests and needs to motivate
motivation to read. independent reading (Level 1).

7. Understand appropriate uses of assistive 7. Make appropriate recommendations for use of

technology for students with serious limitations in assistive technology in general education classes
reading fluency. for students with different reading profiles (e.g.,
dyslexia versus language disabilities) (Level 2).
 C‐4. Structured Language Teaching: Vocabulary

Vocabulary, or knowledge of word meanings, plays a key role in reading comprehension. Knowledge of words is
multifaceted, ranging from partial recognition of the meaning of a word to deep knowledge and the ability to
use the word effectively when speaking or writing. Research supports both explicit, systematic teaching of word
meanings and indirect methods of instruction such as those involving inferring meanings of words from
sentence context or from word parts (e.g., common roots and affixes). Teachers should know how to develop
students’ vocabulary knowledge through both direct and indirect methods. They also should understand the
importance of wide exposure to words through reading and listening, to students’ vocabulary development. For
students with dyslexia and other reading problems, oral vocabulary knowledge is frequently strong, but over
time, low volume of reading may tend to reduce these students’ exposure to rich vocabulary relative to their
typical peers. Explicit teaching of word meanings and encouragement of wide independent reading in
appropriate texts are ways to help increase vocabulary development.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Understand the role of vocabulary development 1. Teach word meanings directly using contextual
and vocabulary knowledge in comprehension. examples, structural (morpheme) analysis,
antonyms and synonyms, definitions,
connotations, multiple meanings, and semantic
feature analysis (Levels 1 and 2).

2. Understand the role and characteristics of direct 2. Lesson planning reflects:

and indirect (contextual) methods of vocabulary A. Selection of material for read‐alouds and
instruction. independent reading that will expand
students’ vocabulary.
3. Know varied techniques for vocabulary instruction B. Identification of words necessary for direct
before, during, and after reading. teaching that should be known before the
passage is read.
4. Understand that word knowledge is multifaceted. C. Repeated encounters with new words and
multiple opportunities to use new words
5. Understand the sources of wide differences in orally and in writing.
students’ vocabularies. D. Recurring practice and opportunities to use
new words in writing and speaking.
 C‐5. Structured Language Teaching: Text Comprehension

Reading comprehension is the ultimate goal of reading instruction. Reading comprehension depends not only
upon the component abilities discussed in previous sections, but also upon other factors, such as background
knowledge and knowledge of text structure. Comprehension, background knowledge, and motivation are closely
tied. Comprehension is easier when background knowledge is high, which in turn increases motivation. Equally,
readers most likely will have more background knowledge in areas in which they are motivated to read, which
increases comprehension. Appendix A provides references on motivation.

In order to plan effective instruction and intervention in reading comprehension, teachers must understand the
array of abilities that contribute to reading comprehension and use assessments to help pinpoint students’
weaknesses. For instance, a student with dyslexia, whose reading comprehension problems are associated
mainly with poor decoding and dysfluent reading, will need different emphases in intervention than will a
student with poor comprehension due to weaknesses in vocabulary and oral comprehension. Teachers must be
able to model and teach research‐based comprehension strategies, such as summarization and the use of
graphic organizers, and apply methods that promote reflective reading, metacognition, and student
engagement. Oral comprehension and reading comprehension have a reciprocal relationship; effective oral
comprehension facilitates reading comprehension, and wide reading contributes to the development of oral
comprehension. Teachers should understand the relationships among oral language, reading comprehension,
and written expression, and they should be able to use appropriate writing activities to build students’
comprehension. Teachers should also have a rich understanding of children’s literature and how best to utilize it
with a diverse group of learners.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Be familiar with teaching strategies that are 1. a. State purpose for reading, elicit or provide
appropriate before, during, and after reading and background knowledge, and explore key
that promote reflective reading. vocabulary (Level 1).
b. Query during text reading to foster attention
to detail, inference‐making, and mental model
construction (Level 1).
c. Use graphic organizers, note‐taking strategies,
retelling and summarizing, and cross‐text
comparisons (Level 1).

2. Contrast the characteristics of major text genres, 2. Lesson plans reflect a range of genres, with
including narration, exposition, and emphasis on narrative and expository texts (Level
argumentation. 1).

3. Understand the similarities and differences 3. Model, practice, and share written responses to
between written composition and text text; foster explicit connections between new
comprehension, and the usefulness of writing in learning and what was already known (Level 1).
building comprehension.

4. Identify in any text the phrases, clauses, 4. Anticipate confusions and teach comprehension of
sentences, paragraphs and “academic language” figurative language, complex sentence forms,
that could be a source of miscomprehension. cohesive devices, and unfamiliar features of text
(Level 2).
5. Understand levels of comprehension including 5. Plan lessons to foster comprehension of the
the surface code, text base, and mental model surface code (the language), the text base (the
(situation model). underlying ideas), and a mental model (the larger
context for the ideas) (Level 2).

6. Understand factors that contribute to deep 6. Adjust the emphasis of lessons to accommodate
comprehension, including background learners’ strengths and weaknesses and pace of
knowledge, vocabulary, verbal reasoning ability, learning (Level 2).
knowledge of literary structures and conventions,
and use of skills and strategies for close reading
of text.
 C‐6. Structured Language Teaching: Handwriting, Spelling, and Written Expression

Just as teachers need to understand the component abilities that contribute to reading comprehension, they
also need a componential view of written expression. Important component abilities in writing include basic
writing (transcription) skills such as handwriting, keyboarding, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, and
grammatical sentence structure; text generation (composition) processes that involve translating ideas into
language, such as appropriate word choice, writing clear sentences, and developing an idea across multiple
sentences and paragraphs; and planning, revision and editing processes. Effective instruction in written
expression depends on teachers’ abilities to provide explicit, systematic teaching in each area, as well as to
pinpoint an individual student’s weaknesses in these different component areas of writing. Teachers must also
be able to teach research‐based strategies in written expression, such as those involving strategies for planning
and revising compositions. They should understand the utility of multisensory methods in both handwriting and
spelling instruction. Assistive technology can be especially helpful for students with writing difficulties. Teachers
should recognize the appropriate uses of technology in writing (e.g., spell‐checkers can be valuable but do not
replace spelling instruction and have limited utility for students whose misspellings are not recognizable).
Specialists should have even greater levels of knowledge about technology.

Content Knowledge Application

Handwriting Handwriting
1. Know research‐based principles for teaching letter 1. Use multisensory techniques to teach letter
naming and letter formation, both manuscript and naming and letter formation in manuscript and
cursive. cursive forms (Level 1).

2. Know techniques for teaching handwriting fluency. 2. Implement strategies to build fluency in letter
formation, and copying and transcription of
written language (Level 1).

Spelling Spelling
1. Recognize and explain the relationship between 1. Explicitly and effectively teach (e.g., information
transcription skills and written expression. taught is correct, students are attentive, teacher
checks for understanding, teacher scaffolds
students’ learning) concepts related to spelling
(e.g., a rule for adding suffixes to base words)
(Level 1).

2. Identify students’ levels of spelling development 2. Select materials and/or create lessons that address
and orthographic knowledge. students’ skill levels (Level 1).

3. Recognize and explain the influences of 3. Analyze a student’s spelling errors to determine
phonological, orthographic, and morphemic his or her instructional needs (e.g., development
knowledge on spelling. of phonological skills versus learning spelling rules
versus application of orthographic or morphemic
knowledge in spelling) (Level 2).

Written Expression Written Expression

1. Understand the major components and processes 1. Integrate basic skill instruction with composition in
of written expression and how they interact (e.g., writing lessons.
basic writing/ transcription skills versus text
 generation).

2. Know grade and developmental expectations for 2. a. Select and design activities to teach important
students’ writing in the following areas: mechanics components of writing, including mechanics/
and conventions of writing, composition, revision, conventions of writing, composition, and
and editing processes. revision and editing processes.
b. Analyze students’ writing to determine specific
instructional needs.
c. Provide specific, constructive feedback to
students targeted to students’ most critical
needs in writing.
d. Teach research‐based writing strategies such as
those for planning, revising, and editing text.

e. Teach writing (discourse) knowledge, such as

the importance of writing for the intended
audience, use of formal versus informal
language, and various schemas for writing (e.g.,
reports versus narratives versus arguments).

3. Understand appropriate uses of assistive 3. Make appropriate written recommendations for

technology in written expression. the use of assistive technology in writing.
 D. Interpretation and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction

Teachers work hard to understand what students have learned. A teacher’s ability to administer and interpret
assessments accurately is essential both to planning effective instruction and to early identification of students’
learning problems. Appropriate assessments enable teachers to recognize early signs that a child is either on
track or may not be progressing as expected in reading development. Effective assessment helps teachers
identify students who may be at risk for dyslexia or other learning disabilities. Carefully developed assessment
practices permit teachers to target instruction to meet individual student’s needs and recognize when to refer
students for more extensive diagnostic assessment.

It is important to understand that there are different types of assessments for different purposes (e.g., brief but
frequent assessments to monitor progress in specific skills versus more lengthy, comprehensive assessments to
provide detailed diagnostic information). Such assessments are an important component of frameworks of
multi‐tiered systems of support or response to intervention. It is also important to recognize which type of
assessment is called for in a particular situation, where to find unbiased information about the adequacy of
published tests, and how to interpret this information correctly. It is important for teachers to understand basic
principles of test construction and concepts such as reliability and validity. They should also understand how an
individual student’s component profile may influence his or her performance on a particular test, especially on
broad measures of reading comprehension and written expression. For example, a child with very slow reading
is likely to perform better on an untimed measure of reading comprehension than on a stringently timed
measure; a child with writing problems may perform especially poorly on a reading comprehension test that
requires lengthy written responses to open‐ended questions.

Understanding assessment enables teachers to help students form positive perceptions of themselves as
readers and acquire a love of reading so important for academic success. Classroom teachers use assessment to
ensure children are gaining the necessary foundational skills in reading so students feel confident engaging in
reading for continuous, lifelong enjoyment and learning.

Observable Competencies for

Content Knowledge Application Teaching Students with Dyslexia
and Related Difficulties
1. Understand the differences 1. Match each type of 1. Administer screenings and
among screening, diagnostic, assessment and its purpose progress monitoring
outcome, and progress‐ (Level 1). assessments (Level 1)
monitoring assessments.

2. Understand basic principles of 2. Match examples of technically 2. Explain why individual students
test construction, including adequate, well‐validated are or are not at risk in reading
reliability, validity, and norm‐ screening, diagnostic, based on their performance on
referencing, and know the outcome, and progress‐ screening assessments (Level
most well‐validated screening monitoring assessments (Level 1).
tests designed to identify 1).
students at risk for reading
difficulties.

3. Understand the principles of 3. Using case study data, 3. Display progress‐monitoring

progress‐monitoring and the accurately interpret progress‐ data in graphs that are
use of graphs to indicate monitoring graphs to decide understandable to students
 progress. whether or not a student is and parents (Level 1).
making adequate progress
(Level 1).

4. Know the range of skills 4. Using case study data, 4. Administer educational
typically assessed by diagnostic accurately interpret subtest diagnostic assessments using
surveys of phonological skills, scores from diagnostic surveys standardized procedures (Level
decoding skills, oral reading to describe a student’s 2).
skills, spelling, and writing. patterns of strengths and
weaknesses and instructional
needs (Level 2).

5. Recognize the content and 5. Find and interpret appropriate 5. Write reports that clearly and
purposes of the most common print and electronic resources accurately summarize a
diagnostic tests used by for evaluating tests (Level 1). student’s current skills in
psychologists and educational important component areas of
evaluators. reading and reading
comprehension (Level 2).

6. Interpret measures of reading 6. Using case study data, 6. Write appropriate, specific
comprehension and written accurately interpret a recommendations for
expression in relation to an student’s performance on instruction and educational
individual child’s component reading comprehension or programming based on
profile. written expression measures assessment data (Level 2).
and make appropriate
instructional
recommendations.
 E. Knowledge of Dyslexia and Other Learning Disorders

To identify children with dyslexia and other learning disabilities, teachers need to be able to recognize the key
symptoms of these disorders, as well as how the disorders differ from each other. These standards are
supported by research and by accepted diagnostic guidelines. It is important that teachers recognize the
following characteristics of dyslexia in relation to other reading problems and learning difficulties:
 Dyslexia is a language‐based neurological disorder of learning to read and write originating from a core
or basic problem with phonological processing intrinsic to the individual. Its primary symptoms are
inaccurate and/or slow printed word recognition and poor spelling – problems that in turn affect
reading fluency and comprehension and written expression. Other types of reading disabilities include
specific difficulties with reading comprehension and/or speed of processing (reading fluency). These
problems may exist in relative isolation or may overlap extensively in individuals with reading
difficulties.
 Dyslexia often exists in individuals with aptitudes, talents, and abilities that enable them to be
successful in many domains.
 Dyslexia often coexists with other developmental difficulties and disabilities, including problems with
attention, memory, and executive function.
 Dyslexia exists on a continuum. Many students with milder forms of dyslexia are never officially
diagnosed and are not eligible for special education services. They deserve appropriate instruction in
the regular classroom and through other intervention programs.
 Appropriate recognition and treatment of dyslexia is the responsibility of all educators and support
personnel in a school system, not just the reading or special education teacher.
 Although early intervention is the most effective approach, individuals with dyslexia and other reading
difficulties can be helped at any age.
 Students who are English language learners may have dyslexia or other reading difficulties. It is
important for educators to determine if a student’s difficulties are based in second language acquisition
or due to a reading difficulty.

In order to plan instruction and detect older students with learning disabilities who may have been overlooked
in the early grades, teachers also should understand how students’ difficulties may change over time, based on
developmental patterns, experience, and instruction, and increased expectations across grades.

Content Knowledge Application

1. Understand the most common intrinsic differences 1. a. Recognize scientifically accepted
between good and poor readers (i.e., cognitive, characteristics of individuals with poor word
neurobiological, and linguistic). recognition (e.g., overdependence on context
to aid word recognition; inaccurate nonword
reading) (Level 1).
b. Identify student learning behaviors and test
profiles typical of students with dyslexia and
related learning difficulties. (Level 2).

2. Recognize the tenets of the NICHD/IDA definition 2. Explain the reasoning or evidence behind the
of dyslexia. main points in the definition (Level 1).

3. Recognize that dyslexia and other reading 3. Recognize levels of instructional intensity,
difficulties exist on a continuum of severity. duration, and scope appropriate for mild,
moderate, and severe reading disabilities (Level
1).
4. Identify the distinguishing characteristics of 4. Match symptoms of the major subgroups of poor
dyslexia and related reading and learning readers as established by research, including
disabilities (including developmental language those with dyslexia, and identify typical case study
comprehension disorder, attention deficit profiles of those individuals (Level 2).
hyperactivity disorder, disorders of written
expression or dysgraphia, mathematics learning
disorder, nonverbal learning disorders, etc.).

5. Identify how symptoms of reading difficulty may 5. Identify predictable ways that symptoms might
change over time in response to development and change as students move through the grades
instruction. (Level 2).

6. Understand federal and state laws that pertain to 6. a. Explain the most fundamental provisions of
learning disabilities, especially reading disabilities federal and state laws pertaining to the rights
and dyslexia. of students with disabilities, especially
students’ rights to a free, appropriate public
education, an individualized educational plan,
services in the least restrictive environment,
and due process (Level 1).
b. Appropriately implement federal and state
laws in identifying and serving students with
learning disabilities, reading disabilities, and
dyslexia (Level 2).
SECTION II: GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO SUPERVISED PRACTICE OF TEACHERS
WHO WORK IN SCHOOL SETTINGS
In addition to providing the necessary knowledge base, it is equally important for teacher training
programs to provide opportunities for teachers to practice effective, evidence‐based teaching until
they reach the expected level of expertise to ensure student success.

Training programs for pre‐service teachers often distinguish levels of expertise by the skills and experience of
the individual and the amount of supervised practice required for certification.

Level I individuals are practitioners with basic knowledge who:

1. implement an appropriate program with fidelity
2. formulate and implement an appropriate, differentiated lesson plan
3. demonstrate proficiency to instruct individuals with a reading disability or dyslexia

To attain Level I status, an individual must:

 pass an approved basic knowledge proficiency exam
 demonstrate (over time) instructional proficiency in all Level 1 areas outlined on IDA Knowledge and
Practice Standards, Section I that is responsive to student needs
 document significant student progress with formal and informal assessments as a result of the
instruction.

To attain Level II status, an individual must:

 pass an approved basic knowledge proficiency exam
 complete a one‐to‐one practicum with a student or small group of one to three well‐matched students
who have a documented reading disability. A recognized, certified instructor* provides consistent
oversight and observations of instruction delivered to the same student(s) over time, and the practicum
continues until expected proficiency is reached.**
 demonstrate (over time) instructional proficiency in all Level 1 and 2 areas outlined on IDA Standards,
Section I that is responsive to student needs.
 provide successful instruction to several individuals with dyslexia who demonstrate varying needs and
document significant student progress with formal and informal assessments as a result of the
instruction.
 complete an approve educational assessment of a student with dyslexia and/or language‐based reading
disability, including student history and comprehensive recommendations.

*A recognized or certified instructor is an individual who has met all of the requirements of the level they
supervise but who has additional content knowledge and experience in implementing and observing
instruction for students with dyslexia and other reading difficulties in varied settings. A recognized instructor
has been recommended by or certified by an approved trainer mentorship program that meets these
standards. The trainer mentorship program has been reviewed by and approved by the IDA Standards and
Practices Committee.

**Documentation of proficiency must be 1) completed by a recognized/certified instructor providing

oversight in the specified program; 2) completed during full (not partial) lesson observations; and 3) must
occur at various intervals throughout the instructional period with student.
 References
Introduction
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and
inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K‐3 teachers
and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167.
Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Hougen, M., Ocker‐Dean, E., Graham, L., & Smith, D. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of basic
linguistic skills: Where does it come from? In S. Rosenfield & V. Berninger (Eds.), Handbook on
implementing evidence based academic interventions (pp. 851–877). New York: Oxford University Press.
McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002). Reading teachers’
knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228.
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and
written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102.
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals
of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.
Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts,
classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224–248.
Smartt, S. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2007). Barriers to the preparation of highly qualified teachers in reading.
Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Spear‐Swerling, L. (2008). Response to intervention and teacher preparation. In E. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating
individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond (pp. 273–293). New York: Springer.
Spear‐Swerling, L., Brucker, P., & Alfano, M. (2005). Teachers’ literacy‐related knowledge and self‐perceptions in
relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55, 266–293.
Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Wilcox, D. D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what
elementary teachers aren’t learning. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality.

Section I A: Foundation Concepts about Oral and Written Learning

Level 1
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Learning and thinking about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Baker, L. (2013). Metacognitive strategies. International guide to student achievement (pp. 419‐421). New York:
Routledge.
Bickart, T. (1998). Summary report of preventing reading difficulties in young children (National Academy of
Sciences). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Cavanaugh, C. (2012).Oral language and listening skill development in early childhood. In Hougen, M. & Smartt,
S. (Eds.) Fundamentals of literacy instruction & assessment, Pre‐K‐6. Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing.
De Naeghel, J., Van Keer, H., Vansteenkiste, M., & Rosseel, Y. (2012). The relation between elementary students'
recreational and academic reading motivation, reading frequency, engagement, and comprehension: A self‐
determination theory perspective. Journal of educational psychology, 104(4), 1006.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.
Baltimore: Brookes.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence‐based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National
Institutes of Health.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science‐based program for reading problems at
any level. New York: Knopf.
Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, S. (2006). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading. San Francisco: Jossey‐
Bass.
Spear‐Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What science offers teachers of reading. Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 16, 51‐57.
Vaughn, S. & Linan‐Thompson, S. (2004). Research‐based methods of reading instruction Grades K‐3. Alexandria,
VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Level 2
Adams, M. J. (1998). The three‐cueing system. In F. Lehr & J. Osborn (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and
learning (pp. 73–99). New York: Guilford Press.
Crawford, E. C., & Torgesen, J. K. (2006, July). Teaching all children to read: Practices from Reading First schools
with strong intervention outcomes. Presented at the Florida Principal’s Leadership Conference, Orlando.
Retrievable from http://www.fcrr.org/science/sciencePresentationscrawford.ht
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and
ability ten years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934–945.
Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. (2006). An evaluation of intensive intervention for
students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447–466.
Denton, C., Foorman, B., & Mathes, P. (2003). Schools that “Beat the Odds”: Implications for reading instruction.
Remedial and Special Education, 24, 258–261.
Denton, C., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Bringing research‐based practice in reading intervention to scale.
Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 201–211.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to
intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
Genesee, F., Paradis, J., & Crago, M. (2004). Dual language development & disorders: A handbook on
bilingualism & second language learning. Baltimore: Brookes.
McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brookes.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989) The Psychology of Reading Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Spear‐Swerling, L. (2004). A
road map for understanding reading disability and other reading problems: Origins, intervention, and
prevention. In R. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading: Vol. 5. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York:
Guilford Press.
Stone, A. C., Silliman, E. R., Ehren, B. J., & Apel, K. (Eds.). (2004). Handbook of language and literacy:
Development and disorders. New York: Guilford Press.
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate
evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3–32.

Section I B: Knowledge of the Structure of Language

Level 1
Binks‐Cantrell, E., Washburn, E. R., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading
teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading. v.16, n.6, p. 526‐536.
Coyne, M. Kame’enui, E. & Carnine, D. (2007). Effective teaching strategies for accommodating diverse
learners. (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Ehri, L. C. (2014). Orthographic mapping in the acquisition of sight word reading, spelling memory, and
vocabulary learning. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18:1, 5‐12.
Ehri, L. C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theories, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167‐
188.
Grace, K. (2006). Phonics and spelling through phoneme‐grapheme mapping. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Moats, L.C. (2009). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling (LETRS). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
O’Connor, R. (2007). Teaching Word Recognition. Guilford Press
Level 2
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Nagy, W., & Carlisle, J. (2010). Growth in phonological, orthographic, and
morphological awareness in grades 1 to 6. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 39(2), 141‐163.
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss‐Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., et al. (2009). First grade teachers'
knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts: Examining gains from an intensive form of
professional development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 22, 375–510.
Henry, M. (2003). Unlocking literacy. Baltimore: Brookes.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., & Green, L. B. (2002).Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher
practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69–86.
Moats, L. C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Brookes.
Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a theory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 18:22‐37.
Spear‐Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. (2004). Preparing novice teachers to develop basic reading and spelling skills in
children. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 332–364.
Spear‐Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. (2006). Teacher‐education students’ reading abilities and their knowledge
about word structure. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 113–123.

Section I: C‐1: Structured Language Teaching: Phonology

Level 1
Adams, M., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (Spring/Summer, 1998). The elusive phoneme: Why
phonemic awareness is so important and how to help children develop it. American Educator, 22(1 & 2), 18–
29.
Seidenberg, M. S. (2013). The science of reading and its educational implications. Language Learning and
Development, 9, 331‐360.

Level 2
Brady, S. & Shankweiler, D. (Eds.). (1991). Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Gillon, G. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Neuman, S. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Handbook of early literacy research. New York: Guilford Press.
Scarborough, H. S. (1998). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities: Phonological awareness
and some other promising predictors. In B. K. Shapiro, P. J. Accardo, & A. J. Capute (Eds.), Specific reading
disability: A view of the spectrum (pp. 75–119). Timonium, MD: York Press.
Scarborough, H. S., & Brady, S. A. (2002). Toward a common terminology for talking about speech and reading: A
glossary of the ‘phon’ words and some related terms. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 299–334.

Section I: C‐2: Structured Language Teaching: Phonics and Word Recognition

Level 1
Birsh, J. (Ed.). (2005). Multisensory teaching of basic language skills (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
Moats, L. C. (1998). Teaching decoding. American Educator, 22(1&2), 42–49, 95–96.

Level 2
Blachman, B. A., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Clonan, S., Shaywitz, B., et al. (2004). Effects of
intensive reading remediation for second and third graders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 444–461.
Calhoon, M. B. (2005). Effects of a peer‐mediated phonological skill and reading comprehension program on
reading skill acquisition for middle school students with reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38(5), 424–433.
Catone, W. V., & Brady, S. (2005). The inadequacy of individual educational program goals for high school
students with word‐level reading difficulties. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(1), 53–78.
Christensen, C. A., & Bowey, J. A. (2005). The efficacy of orthographic rime, grapheme‐phoneme
 correspondence, and implicit phonics approaches to teaching decoding skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9,
327–349.
Ehri, L. C. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the national reading panel
meta‐analysis. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153–186).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Joseph, L. M., & Schisler, R. (2009). Should adolescents go back to the basics?: A review of teaching word reading
skills to middle and high school students. Remedial and Special Education 30 (3), 131– 147.
Lovett, M. W., Barron, R. W., & Benson, N. J. (2003). Effective remediation of word identification and decoding
difficulties in school‐age children with reading disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 273–292). New York: Guilford Press.
Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects
of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading
Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.
McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor
reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building intervention. Scientific Studies of Reading, 7,
75–104.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning
to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–381).
Baltimore: Brookes.

Section I: C‐3: Structured Language Teaching: Fluent, Automatic Reading of Text

Level 1
Carreker, S. (2005). Teaching reading: Accurate decoding and fluency. In J. Birsh (Ed.), Multisensory teaching of basic
language skills (2nd ed., pp. 213– 255). Baltimore: Brookes.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1&2), 8–15.
Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral Reading Fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading
teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59 (7), 636–644.
Hudson, R. F., Lane, H. B., & Pullen, P. C. (2005). Reading fluency assessment and instruction: What, why, and
how? The Reading Teacher, 58, 702–714.
Kuhn, M. (2004/2005). Helping students become accurate, expressive reading: Fluency instruction for small groups.
The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338–345.
Meyer, M. (Winter, 2002) Repeated reading: An old standard is revisited and renovated. Perspectives (The
International Dyslexia Association Quarterly Newsletter), 15–18.
Meyer, M. S., & Felton, R. H. (1999). Repeated reading to enhance fluency: Old approaches and new directions.
Annals of Dyslexia, 49, 293–306.
Pikulski, J. J., & Chard, D. J. (2005). Fluency: Bridge between decoding and comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58,
510–519.
Samuels, S. J. (1997). The method of repeated readings. The Reading Teacher, 50, 76–81.
Level 2
Chard, D., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002) A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building fluency with
elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 386–406.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the effect of child‐
instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305–336.
Ehri, L. C. (1997). Sight word learning in normal readers and dyslexics. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of
reading acquisition and dyslexia (pp. 163–189). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress:
How much growth should we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence:
A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision‐making utility of a continuum of
fluency‐based indicators of foundational reading skills for third‐grade high‐stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies
of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.
Hamilton, C., & Shinn, M. R. (2003). Characteristics of word callers: An investigation of the accuracy of teachers’
judgments of reading comprehension and oral reading skills. School Psychology Review, 32(2), 228–240.
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K.W. (2007). The ABC’s of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum‐based
measurement. New York: Guilford Press.
Katzir, T., Kim, Y., Wolf, M., O’Brien, B., Kennedy, B., Lovett, M., et al. (2006). Reading fluency: The whole is more
than the parts. Annals of Dyslexia, 56(1), 51–82.
National Center for Education Statistics, 2002. Fourth grade students reading aloud: NAEP 2002 special study of
oral reading. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Educational Progress, United States Department
of Education, Institute for Education Sciences.
Samuels, S. J., & Flor, R. F. (1997). The importance of automaticity for developing expertise in reading. Reading
and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 13, 107–121.
Speece, D. L., & Ritchey, K. D. (2005). A longitudinal study of the development of oral reading fluency in young
children at risk for reading failure. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(5), 387–399.
Stahl, S. A., & Heubach, K. (2005). Fluency‐oriented reading instruction. Journal of literacy research, 37, 25–60.
Therrien, W. J., Wickstrom, K., & Jones, K. (2006). Effect of a combined repeated reading and question
generation intervention on reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(2), 89–97.
Torgesen, J., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., Conway, T., et al. (2001). Intensive
remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long‐term outcomes
from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.

Section I: C‐4: Structured Language Teaching: Vocabulary

Level 1
Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. (2006). Vocabulary handbook. Berkeley, CA: Consortium on Reading Excellence.
Ebbers, S. (2006). Vocabulary through morphemes. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life, Second Edition: Robust vocabulary
instruction,. New York: Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A. (1999). Language and reading success. In J. Chall (Ed.), From reading research to practice, A series
for teachers. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing words for primary
grade instruction. In E. H. Hiebert and M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing
research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hirsch, E. D. (2006). The knowledge deficit: Closing the shocking education gap for American children. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.

Level 2
Carlisle, J., & Rice, M. S. (2003). Reading comprehension: Research‐based principles and practices. Baltimore:
York Press.
Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long‐term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low‐income
children's vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104–123.
Graves, M. (2006). The Vocabulary book: Learning and instruction. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia
University.
Hirsch, E. D. (2001). Overcoming the language gap. American Educator, 25(2), 4, 6–7.
Kamil, M. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Summary and implications of the National Reading
Panel findings. In P. McCardle and V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 213–
234).
Marzano, R., Simms, J. (2013). Vocabulary for the Common Core. Bloomington, IN. Marzano Research
Laboratory.
Metsala, J. L. (1999) Young children's phonological awareness and nonword repetition as a function of
vocabulary development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 3–19.
Paynter, D. E., Bodrova, E., & Doty, J. K. (2005). For the love of words: Vocabulary instruction that works, Grades
K–6. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass.
Simpson, J. A. (Ed.). (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd Edition, Vol. VII). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stahl, S. A., & Nagy, W. E. (2006) Teaching word meanings. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. T., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading
comprehension in 3rd grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 381–398.

Section I: C‐5: Structured Language Teaching: Text Comprehension

Level 1
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2006). Improving comprehension with questioning the author: A fresh and
expanded view of a powerful approach. New York: Scholastic.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., Hamilton, R., & Kucan, L. (1998). Getting at the meaning. American Educator, 22, 66–85.
Caccamise, D., & Snyder, L. (Eds.). (2009). Reading comprehension: Issues and instructional applications.
Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35(2).
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22, 8–15.
Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 479–530.
Willingham, D. T. (2006). How knowledge helps: It speeds and strengthens reading comprehension, learning, and
thinking. American Educator, 30(1), 30–37.
Willingham, D. T. (2006‐07). The usefulness of brief instruction in reading comprehension strategies. American
Educator, 30(4), 39–45.

Level 2
Barnes, M. A., Johnston, A. M., & Dennis, M. (2007). Comprehension in a neurodevelopmental disorder, Spina
Bifida Myelomeningocele. In K. Cain & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and
written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 193–217). New York: Guilford Press.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. V. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K.
Cain & J. V. Oakhill (Eds.), Children’s comprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive
perspective (pp. 81–103) New York: Guilford Press.
Carlisle, J. R., & Rice, M. S. (2002). Improving reading comprehension: Research‐based principles and practices.
Baltimore: York Press.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. A. (1999). Language basis of reading and language disabilities:
Evidence from a longitudinal investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331–361.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. B., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer‐assisted learning strategies: Making
classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174–206.
Gattardo, A., Stanovich, K., & Siegel, L. (1996). The relationships between phonological sensitivity, syntactic
processing, and verbal working memory in the reading performance of third‐grade children. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 63, 563–582.
Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to
students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 279–320.
Graesser, A. C. (2008). An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. S. McNamara (Ed.), Reading
comprehension strategies: Theories, intervention and technologies (pp. 3–26). New York: Erlbaum.
Hirsch, E. D. (2006). Building knowledge: The case for bringing content into the language arts block and for a
knowledge‐rich curriculum core for all children. American Educator, 30(1), 8–21, 28–29, 50–51.
Kamil, M. (2004). Vocabulary and comprehension instruction: Summary and implications of the National Reading
Panel findings. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 213–234).
Baltimore: Brookes.
Kintsch, E. (2005). Comprehension theory as a guide for the design of thoughtful questions. Topics in language
 disorders, 25(1), pp. 51–64.
National Reading Technical Assistance Center (2010). A Review of the Current Research on Comprehension
Instruction. Retrievable from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/support/index.html
Perfetti, C. & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a Theory of Comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 18
(1), 22‐37.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal,
P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. 3). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward a research and development program in
reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
(http://www.rand.org.multi/achievementforall/reading/readreport.html.)
Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory,
and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 97–110).
New York: Guilford Press.
Scott, C. (2004). Syntactic contributions to literacy development. In C. Stone, E. Stillman, B. Ehren, & K. Apel
(Eds.). Handbook of Language & Literacy (pp. 340–362). New York: Guilford Press.
Shankweiler, D., Lundquist, E., Katz, L., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Brady, S., et al. (1999). Comprehension
and decoding: Patterns of association in children with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 31,
24–35, 69–94.
Stahl, K.A.D. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary grades. The
Reading Teacher, 57, 598–609.
Sweet, A. P., & Snow, C. E. (2003). Rethinking reading comprehension. New York: Guilford Press.
Vaughn, S., & Klingner, J. K. (1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 284–292.
Westby, C. (2004). A language perspective on executive functioning, metacognition, and self‐regulation in
reading. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy:
Development and disorders (pp. 398–427). New York: Guilford Press.
Williams, J. P. (2006). Stories, studies, and suggestions about reading. Scientific studies of reading, 10(2), 121–
142.

Section I: C‐6: Structured Language Teaching: Handwriting, Spelling, and Written Expression
Level 1
Berninger, V., & Wolf, B. (2009) Teaching students with dyslexia and dysgraphia. Baltimore: Brookes.
Graham, S., McArthur, C.A., & Fitzgerald, J. (Eds.). (2007). Best practices in writing instruction. New York:
Guilford Press.
Joshi, M., Treiman, R., Carreker, S., & Moats, L. C. (2008/2009) How words cast their spell: Spelling is an integral
part of learning the language, not a matter of memorization. American Educator, 32(4), 6–16, 42–43.
Moats, L. C. (Winter 2005/06). How spelling supports reading: And why it is more regular and predictable than
you think. American Educator, 12–22, 42–43.

Level 2
Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Jones, J., Gould, L., Anderson‐Youngstrom, M., Shimada, S., et al. (2006). Early
development of language by hand: Composing, reading, listening, and speaking connections; three letter‐
writing modes; and fast mapping in spelling. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29, 61–92.
Berninger, V. W., & Amtmann, D. (2003). Preventing written expression disabilities through early and continuing
assessment and intervention for handwriting and/or spelling problems: Research into practice. In H. L.
Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp. 345–363). New York:
Guilford Press.
Cassar, M., Treiman, R., Moats, L., Pollo, T. C., & Kessler, B. (2005). How do the spellings of children with dyslexia
compare with those of nondyslexic children? Reading and Writing, 18, 27–49.
Edwards, L. (2003). Writing instruction in kindergarten: Examining an emerging area of research for children with
writing and reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 136.
Englert, C. S., Wu, X., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Cognitive tools for writing: Scaffolding the performance of students
through technology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 184–198.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta‐
analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101, 251–272.
Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and
high schools – A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent
Education.
Troia, G. (Ed.). (2009) Instruction and assessment for struggling writers: Evidence‐based practices. New York:
Guilford Press.

Section I D: Interpretation and Administration of Assessments for Planning Instruction

Level 1
Chapman. J.W. & Tunmer, W.E. (2007). Language‐related differences between discrepancy‐defined and non‐
discrepancy‐defined poor readers: A longitudinal study of dyslexia in New Zealand. Dyslexia, 13(1), 42‐66
Hasbrouck, J., & Haager, D. (Eds.). (2007). Monitoring children’s progress in academic learning. Perspectives on
Language and Literacy 33(2).
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.
Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Avoiding the devastating downward spiral: The evidence that early intervention prevents
reading failure. American Educator, 28(3), 6–9, 12–13, 17–19, 45–47.

Level 2
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative contributions of word
recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can depend on how comprehension is
measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10, 277–299.
Deno, S. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum‐based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184–192.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to
intervention. New York: Guilford Press.
Fuchs, L. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum‐based measurement research. School Psychology
Review, 33, 188–192.
Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. (2008). Making "secondary intervention" work in a three‐tier
responsiveness‐to‐intervention model: Findings from the first‐grade longitudinal reading study at the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21,
413–436.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness‐to‐instruction:
Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216–227.
Good, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2001). The importance and decision‐making utility of a
continuum of fluency‐based indicators of foundational reading skills for third‐grade high‐stakes outcomes.
Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 257–288.
Hogan, T. P., Catts, H. W., & Little, T. D. (2005). The relationship between phonological awareness and reading:
Implications for the assessment of phonological awareness. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 36, 285–293.
Jenkins, J. R., Johnson, E., & Hileman, J. (2004). When is reading also writing: Sources of individual differences on
the new reading performance assessments. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 125–152.
Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., & Olson, R. K. (2008). Reading comprehension tests vary in the skills they assess:
Differential dependence on decoding and oral comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 12, 281–300.
Pennington, B. (2009). Diagnosing learning disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive
remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long‐term outcomes
 from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.

Vaughn, S., Linan‐Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying
students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391–409.

Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive
profiles of difficult‐to‐remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for
distinguishing between cognitive and experimental deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601–638.

Section I E: Knowledge of Dyslexia and Other Learning Disorders

Level 1
Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based
on the component model of reading: An alternative to the discrepancy model of LD. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 41, 67–84.
Hudson, R. R., High, L., & Al Otaiba, S. (2007). Dyslexia and the brain: What does current research tell us? The
Reading Teacher, 60(6), 506–515.
Lyon, R., Shaywitz, S., & Shaywitz, B. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 1–14.
Moats, L. C., & Dakin, K. (2007). Basic facts about dyslexia. Baltimore: The International Dyslexia Association.

Level 2
Catts, H. W., Hogan, T. P., & Adlof, S. M. (2005). Developmental changes in reading and reading disabilities. In H.
W. Catts & A. Kamhi (Eds.), The connections between language and reading disabilities (pp. 25–40).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Leach, J. M., Scarborough, H. S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late‐emerging reading disabilities. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 95, 211–224.
Ehri, L., & Snowling, M. (2004). Developmental variation in word recognition. In A. C. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J.
Ehren, & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (pp. 443–460). New
York: Guilford Press.
Hulme, C., & Snowling, M. (2009) Developmental disorders of language, learning, and cognition. Oxford,
England:Wiley‐Blackwell.
Pennington, B. (2009). Diagnosing learning disorders (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
Olson, R. K. (2004). SSSR, environment, and genes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(2), 111–124.
Rayner, K., Foorman, B. F., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How should reading be
taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 84–91.
Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., Peyton, J. A., & Jenkins, J. R. (2002). Timing and intensity of tutoring: A closer look at
the conditions for effective early literacy tutoring. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 227–241.
Wolf, M. (2007). Proust and the squid: The story and science of the reading brain. New York: Harper Collins.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double‐deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91, 415–438.
 Appendix A: Motivation
While researchers have studied motivation from a variety of perspectives, it is clear that motivation
plays a major role in reading development and achievement. If we want students to become motivated
to read and to engage deeply in reading, it is critical that teachers and reading specialists help students
build the strong foundational skills that are outlined in the IDA Standards. Mastery of these skills will
motivate children to spend more time reading, and increased reading will increase their achievement
and academic success. Teachers should also consider individual reading motivators so that students
choose to engage in reading for continuous, lifelong enjoyment and learning.

References:
Ali, J., & McInerney, D.M. (2005). An analysis of the predictive validity of the Inventory of School Motivation
(ISM) [Electronic version]. Paper presented at the AARE 2005 International Educational Conference,
Sydney, Australia. SELF Research Center, AL105403.

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for reading and their relations to reading
activity and reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452‐477.

Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self‐efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist,
28(2), 117‐148.

Blackwell, L., Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit theories of intelligence predict achievement across
an adolescent transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child Development,78(1), 246–263.

Brophy, J. (2008). Developing students’ appreciation for what is taught in school. Educational Psycologist, 43(3),
13‐141.

Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W. E. (1995). Development of young children’s reading self‐concepts: An
examination of emerging subcomponents and their relationships with reading achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154‐167.

Dweck, C. S. (2010). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 68(1), 16–20.

Eccles, J. (1983). Expectancies, values and academic behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.) Achievement and
achievement motives (pp. 75‐146). San Francisco: Freeman.

Gambrell, L.B., Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.M., & Mazzoni, S.A. (1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading
Teacher, 49(7), 518‐533.

Marinak, B.A. & Gambrell, L.B. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children’s
engagement with text. Literacy Research and Instruction, 47(1), 9‐26.

Nolen, S.B. (2007). Young children’s motivation to read and write: Development in social contexts. Cognition &
Instruction, 15(2), 219‐270.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works. NY: The Guilford Press.

Taylor, B. M., Frye, B. J., & Maruyama, G. M. (1990). Time spent reading and reading growth. American
Education Research Journal, 27, 351‐362.
Stahl, S. A. (2004). What do we know about fluency? In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The
voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 187‐211). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Mathew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the
acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360‐407.

Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E.L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self‐determination
theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19‐31.
 Appendix B: Children’s Literature Bibliography
The following books provide an engaging way to support the early literacy skills of letter learning, letter‐sound
relationships and phonemic awareness.*

Alphabet for All!

Arnosky, J. 1999. Mouse Letters: A Very First Alphabet Book. New York: Clarion.

Baker, Keith. 2012. LMNO Peas. New York: Beach Lane Books.

Bingham, Kelly & Zelinsky, P.O. 2012. Z is for Moose. New York: Greenwillow Books.

Bunting, Eve . 2002. Girls A to Z. Ill. Suzanne Bloom. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills Press.

Cabatingan, E. & Myers, M. 2012. A is for Musk Ox. New York: Roaring Book Press.

Cahoon, H. 1999. Word play ABC. New York: Walker and Company.

Catalanotto, P. 2002. Matthew A.B.C. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Chandra, D. & Narakashi, K. 1999. A is for Amos. New York: Farrar Straus Giroux.

Cohen, I. 1997. ABC discovery! An Alphabet Book of Picture Puzzles. New York: Dial Books.

Edwards, W. .2002. Alphabeasts. Tonawanda, NY: Kids Can Press.

Horenstein, H. 1999. A is for…?: A photographer’s Alphabet of Animals. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

Hyman, T.S. 2000. The Alphabet Game. New York: SeaStar Books.

Inkpen, Mick 2000. Kipper’s A to Z. An Alphabet Adventure. New York, NY: Red Wagon Books, Harcourt, Inc.

Lester, A. 1998. Alice and Aldo. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Lichtenheld, T. & Fields‐Meyer, E. 2011. E‐mergency! San Fransisco: Chronicle Books.

Most, B. 2000. ABC T‐rex. San Diego, CA: Harcourt.

Rosenthal, A.K. & Durand, D. 2011. Al Pha’s Bet. New York: Putnam Juvenile.

Sierra, J. & Sweet, M. 2009. The Sleepy Little Alphabet. Knopf Books for Young Readers.
Sneed, Bradley D. 2002. Picture a Letter. New York, NY: Phyllis Fogelman Books, imprint of Penguin Putnam,
Inc.

Walton, R. & Miglio, P. 1998. So Many Bunnies: A Bedtime ABC and Counting Book. New York: Lothrop, Lee &
Shepard.

Alliteration
Edwards, P.D. 1996. Some Smug Slug. Ill. H. Cole. New York: HarperCollins.

Edwards, P.D. & Cole, H. 1997. Dinorella: A Prehistoric Fairy Tale. New York: Hyperion.

Enderle, J., Tessler, S., & O’Brien (1997). Six Sandy Sheep. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills. .

Jonas, A. 1997. Watch William Walk. New York: Greenwillow.

Lindbergh, R. & Pearson, T.C. 1997. The Awful Aardvarks Go to School. Ill. T.C. Pearson.

Most, B. 1998. A Pair of Protoceratops. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

Most, B. 1998. A Trio of Triceratops. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

Always Time for Poetry and Verse

Apperley, D. 2002. Good Night, Sleep Tight, Little Bunnies. New York, NY: Scholastic, Inc.

Church, C.J. 2002. Do Your Ears Hang Low? New York, NY: The Chicken House, Scholastic Inc.

Cotton, C. & Cartwright, R. (2002). At the Edge of the Woods. New York, NY: Henry Holt & Company.

Crews, N. 2004. The Neighborhood Mother Goose. New York: Greenwillow Books.

Davies, N. & Hearld, M. 2012. Outside your Window: A First Book of Nature.

Florian, D. 1999. Laugh‐eteria. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

Florian, D. 2012. Poem Runs: Baseball Poems and Paintings. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing
Company.

Florian, D. & Neubecker R. 2012. Shiver Me Timbers! Pirate Poems & Paintings. New York: Beach Lane Books.

Florian, D. 2012. UnBEElievables: Honeybee Poems and Paintings. New York: Beach Lane Books.

George, K.O. & Carpenter, N. (2012). Emma Dilemma: Big Sister Poems. New York: Clarion Books.

Goldstone, B. & Lent, B. 1998. The Beastly Feast. New York: Henry Holt.

Harper, C. M. 2002. There was a Bold Lady who Wanted a Star. New York, NY: Megan Tingley Books, Little,
Brown and Company.

Harris, P. & Cartwright, R. 1997. Mouse Creeps. New York: Dial.

Hillenbrand, W. 2002. Fiddle‐I‐Fee. New York, NY: Gulliver Books, Harcourt Inc.

Hoberman, M. A. 2012. Forget‐Me‐Nots: Poems to Learn by Heart. New York: Hachette Book Group.
Janeczko, P.B. & Raschka, C. 2009. A Foot in the Mouth. Sommerville, MA: Candlewick Press.

Lewis, J.P. & Desimini, L. 1998. Doodle Dandies: Poems that take shape. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lewis, J. P. 2012. National Geographic Book of Animal Poetry. Wshington, DC: National Geogrpahic Children’s
Book.

Lewis, J. P. & Bloch S. The Underwear Salesman & Other Jobs for Better or Verse. New York: Antheneum Books
for Young Readers.

Martin, Bill. 2009. The Bill Martin Jr. Big Book of Poetry. New York: Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers.

Mayo, M. 2002. Wiggle Waggle Fun. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.

Mitton, T. & Parker‐Rees. 2002. Down by the Cool of the Pool. Ill. Guy Parker‐Rees. New York, NY: Orchard
Books, imprint of Scholastic Inc.

Montgomery, M. & Montgomery W. (2002). Over the Candlestick. Atlanta, GA: Peachtree Publishers.

Nakamura, K.R. & Riley, L. (2002). Song of Night. It’s Time to Go to Bed. Ill. Linnea Riley. New York, NY: The
Blue Sky Press, imprint of Scholastic, Inc.

Nichol, B. 1997. Biscuits in the Cupboard. Toronto: Stoddart Kids.

Opie, I (Ed.) & Wells, R. 1999. Here Comes Mother Goose. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick.

Root, P. 1998. One Duck Stuck. Cambridge MA: Candlewick.

Rose, D. L. & Munsinger, L. (2002). Birthday Zoo. Morton Grove, IL: Albert Whitman & Company. .

Rotner, S. 2001. Parts. New York, NY: Walker & Company.

Ruddell, D. & Rankin, J. 2009. A Whiff of Pine, a Hint of Skunk. New York: Margaret K. Mc Elderly Books.

Schertle, A. & Mathers, P. 2009. Button Up! Wrinkled Rhymes. New York: Harcourt Publishing Company.

Shulman, L. & Wolff, A. 2002. Old MacDonald had a Woodshop. New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

Sidman, Joyce. & Zagarenski, P. 2009. Red Sings from Treetops: A Year in Colors. Houghton Mifflin Books for
Children.

Sklansky, Amy E., Firehammer, K., Koeser, S. & McQuiity, C. 2002. From the doghouse. New York, NY: Henry Holt
& Company.

Wadsworth, O. A. & Vojtech, A. 2002. Over in the Meadow. New York, NY: North‐South Books.

Wescott, N.B. 1987. Peanut Butter and Jelly: A Play Rhyme. New York: E.P. Dutton.

Wheeler, L. & Ohora, Z. 2013. The Pet Project: Cute and Cuddly Vicious Verses. New York: Antheneum Books for
Young Children.
Zelinsky, P. 2002. Knick‐Knack Paddywhack! New York, NY: Dutton Children’s Books, division of Penguin
Putnam Books for Young Readers.

Playing With Words

Baker, K. 1999. Quack and Count. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

Banks, K. & Kulikov, B.2006. Max’s Words. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.

Banks, K. & Kulikov, B. 2011. Max’s Castle. New York: Farrar. Strauss and Giroux.

Baranski, J.S. & Han, Y. 2001. Round as a Pancake. New York: Dutton. ISBN 0‐525‐46173‐6.

Black, M.I. & Kevin Hawks. 2009. Chicken Cheeks. New York: Simon & Schuster Book for Young Readers.

Bynum, J. 1999. Altoona Baboona. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

Carr. J. & Donohue, D. 1999. Frozen Noses. New York: Holiday House.

Dorling Kindersley Publishing. 2002. My First Word Book. New York, NY: DK Publishing, Inc.

Falwell, C. 1998. Word Wizard. New York: Clarion Books.

Fleming, C. & Karas, G.B. 2002. Muncha! Muncha! Muncha! New York, NY: Anne Schwarts Book, Atheneum
Books for Young Readers.

Fox, M. & J. Horacek. 2004. Where is the Green Sheep? San Diego: Harcourt.

Godwin, L. & Root, B. 2002. Central Park Serenade. New York, NY: Joanna Cotler Books, Imprint of
HarperCollins.

Godwin, L. & Morgan, M. 2002. What the Baby Hears. New York, NY: Hyperion Books for Children.

Gravett, E. 2007. Orange Pear Apple Bear. New York: Simon & Schuster Books for Young Readers.

Hines, A.G. & Pham, L. 2001. Who’s Shoes? New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc.

Hines, A.G. & Pham, L. 2002. Which Hat is That? New York, NY: Harcourt, Inc.

Hoberman, M.A. & Wescott, N.B. 1998. Miss Mary Mack. Boston, MA: Little, Brown.

Hubbard, W.M. 2002. Whoa Jealousy! New York, NY: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.

London, J. & Rex, M. 1999. Wiggle Waggle. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace.

McCall, F. & Keeler, P. (2002). A Huge Hog is a Big Pig. New York, NY: Greenwillow Books, an imprint of
HarperCollins.
McLeod, E. 1998. I Heard a Little Baa. Buffalo, NY: Kids Can Press. ISBN 1‐55074‐496‐8.

McMullan, K. & McMullan, J. 2002. I Stink! New York, NY: Joanna Cotler Books, imprint of HarperCollins
Publishers.

Minters, F. & Bynum, J. 2001. Too Big, Too Small, Just Right. New York: Harcourt.

Nikola‐Lisa, W. & Tate, D. 2002. Summer Sun Risin’. New York, NY: Lee & Low Books Inc.

Ochiltree, D. 2002. Pillow Pup. New York, NY: Margaret K. McElderry Books, imprint of Simon & Schuster
Children’s Publishing Division.

Rand, A. & P. 1957. Sparkle and Spin: A Book about Words. San Fransisco: Chronicle Books.

Rosenthal, A.K. & Bloch S. 2012. I Scream! Ice Cream! A Book of Wordles. San Fransisco: Chronicle Books.

Rosenthal, A.K. & Lichtenheld, T. 2012. Wumbers. San Fransisco: Chronicle Books.

Roth, C. & Paparone, P. 2002. The Little School Bus. New York, NY: North‐South Books.

Schotter, R. & Potter, G. 2006. The Boy who Loved Words. (Giselle Potter)

Sierra, J. & Hillenbrand, W. 2001. Preschool to the Rescue. New York: Harcourt.

Singer, M. & Manders, J. 2002. Quiet Night. New York, NY: Clarion Books, imprint of Houghton Mifflin
Company.

Ziefert, H. & Brown, R. 1997. Baby Buggy, Buggy Baby. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ziefert, H. & Brown, R. 1997. Night Knight. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Rhythm & Rhyme

Archer, D. 2013. Urgency Emergency! Big Bad Wolf. Park Ridge, IL: Albert Whitman & Company.

Archer, D. 2013. Urgency Emergency! Itsy Bitsy Spider. Park Ridge, IL: Albert Whitman & Company

Bryan, S. & Murphy, T. 2011. A Boy and His Bear. New York: Arcade Publishing.

Bryan, S. & Murphy, T. 2011. A Boy and His Bunny. New York: Arcade Publishing

Bryan, S. & Murphy, T. 2011. A Girl and Her Gator. New York: Arcade Publishing

Martin, E.W. 2013. Dream Animals: A Bedtime Journey. New York: Random House for Young Readers.

Pearson, S. & Shepherd, A. 2013. Mouse House Tales. Mapplewood, NJ: Blue Apple Books.

Pendziwol, J.E. & Arsenault, I. 2013. Once Upon a Northern Night. Toronto, ON: Groundwood Books.
Robinson, F. 2011. What Animals Really Like. New York: Abrams Book.

Thomas, J. 2009. Rhyming Dust Bunnies. New York: Beach Lane Books.

Wilcox, L. & Monks, L. 2003. Falling for Rapunzel. London: Puffin Books.

*Book list provided by Lisa Patrick, PhD and Patricia Scharer, PhD, The Ohio State University
 ©2010, by The International Dyslexia Association® (IDA).
All rights reserved.
IDA encourages the reproduction and distribution of this document.
If portions of the text are cited, appropriate reference must be made.
This document may not be reprinted for the purpose of resale.