JRR 9.1 Konstantellou Lose

Creating New Possibilities
The Promise of Clay’s Theory of

Literacy Processing: Training Literacy
Lessons Intervention Specialists
Eva Konstantellou, Trainer, Lesley University
Mary K. Lose, Trainer, Oakland University
Clay’s revisions of the Guidebook [Literacy Lessons Designed for teaching career as a special education
that resulted in Literacy Lessons Individuals] acknowledges that teacher in New Zealand. Clay had
Designed for Individuals Part One and these things have occurred achieved success in teaching children
Part Two (Clay, 2005a & 2005b) and implies that further explo- with measured low intelligence how
have not only signaled refinements ration of working with some to read, and she reported her work
and changes in the Reading Recov- special education children is as part of her master of arts thesis,
ery teaching procedures but have appropriate. (Clay, 2005a, p. ii) Teaching of Reading to Special Class
also highlighted new possibilities Children, completed in 1948. At a
Along these lines, Clay envisioned
for applying the theory underlying time when other countries had
training for specialist teachers who
Reading Recovery instruction to documented success in teaching
want to expand their teaching rep-
the teaching of a broader spectrum mentally disabled children how to
ertoire through intensive study of
of children experiencing extraor- read at levels beyond their mental
the literacy processing theory that
dinary literacy difficulties (Doyle, age, similar outcomes for these
informs Reading Recovery. In this
2009). In fact, the change of the children had not been achieved in
article, we describe the rationale for
title of the revised guidebook from the New Zealand education system.
training Literacy Lessons interven-
Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for At the time, New Zealand education
tion specialists, the historical and
Teachers-In-Training to Literacy Les- policy promoted approaches to
theoretical frameworks for its devel-
sons Designed for Individuals was classroom instruction that valued
opment, the culture of collaboration
meant to capture Clay’s intent that individual learners in classrooms,
that optimizes learning for all chil-
many teachers of struggling literacy but failed to adequately respond to
dren in our schools, and the current
learners—beyond our set of Reading the learning needs of the lowest-per-
development of Literacy Lessons
Recovery teachers—could benefit forming children in classrooms.
intervention specialist training in the
from Reading Recovery theory and
United States. Clay attributed this lack of success
instructional procedures. So, Lit-
to late referrals to special education
eracy Lessons can serve as a valuable
classes, poor training for teachers of
resource not only for Reading The Rationale for
special children, uncertainty about
Recovery teachers but also for those Individual Interventions instructional approaches, and inap-
teachers who design individual les- Beyond Reading Recovery: propriate instructional materials. She
sons to meet the needs of the special
populations they teach. In Clay’s
What Is Possible for advocated for individualized, preven-
All Children? tive, early intervention, instructional
words,
methods and materials that would
If children require special indi- A historical note place meaning-making and language
vidual instruction, help can be Marie Clay’s commitment to a focus experience at the forefront of the
gained from Reading Recovery on the individual learner and the child’s learning, fostering change
professionals in exploratory tri- need for intervention specialist sup- over time in the child’s visual dis-
als. The new title for this book port can be traced to her earliest crimination of print, and support-
62 Journal of Reading Recovery Fall 2009 • Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America
ing the child’s control over his own Lessons from Reading Recovery fies those children who do not make
learning (Ballantyne, 2009, p. 11). Clay’s research into what is possible the accelerated progress necessary
In spite of these earlier recommenda- for children whose reading goes to meet grade level expectations and
tions, Clay, working as a school psy- astray in the first year of school who, therefore, require longer-term
chologist in the 1950s, observed that led to the development of Reading support for their literacy learning
10% of the referred children were Recovery as a preventive intervention needs. Clay had commented on the
placed in special classes, while 90% in literacy learning. Reading Recov- role of Reading Recovery as a pre-
of these same children remained ery serves the lowest-performing first referral intervention in her seminal
in regular classrooms without the graders excluding no child for what- article, “Learning to be Learning
essential specialist support needed to ever reason from services (Lose & Disabled” (1987): “Reading Recovery
respond to their reading difficulties. Konstantellou, 2005). Children who is a programme which should clear
have been labeled as learning dis- out of the remedial education system
Clay consistently argued that the
abled and children who are acquiring all the children who do not learn to
child challenged by literacy learning
read for many event-produced rea-
requires a skilled teacher who is pro-
sons and all the children who have
fessionally trained and who embraces
the complexity of literacy learning Clearly, throughout her organically-based reading problems…
career—from 30 years leaving a small group of children
required for supporting the range
requiring specialist attention” (p.
of diversity among literacy learners. prior to the development 169). It was with these children and
She reiterated this view in a paper on of Reading Recovery to their specialist teachers in mind that
learning disorders written in 1972:
the recent provision Clay envisioned instruction based
For older children, the magic of Literacy Lessons on her theory of literacy learning
is to individualize instruction through adaptations of the Reading
and to motivate the child to
innovations—Clay Recovery training and implemen-
re-enter the area of previous called for appropriately tation. Clay expressed clearly her
difficulty and try again. Given intensive instruction thinking regarding the teaching of
these conditions, the chances of within education struggling readers needing long-term
success are increased by having specialist help in Change Over Time
well-trained, sensitive teachers
systems in support of
in Children’s Literacy Development.
with a respect for the complex- the individual learner.
If a policy of mainstreaming or
ity of psychological functioning
inclusion for children with pro-
and for the diversity of paths
nounced handicaps is operated
which can lead to the same English are among those who have
and a specialist report is avail-
achievement. This eschews a responded successfully to Reading
able, special conditions may be
misplaced faith in one type of Recovery because teaching is tailored
arranged, over and above the
program and one theoretical to their individual needs, and the
normal preventive thrust of the
explanation for the disorder. instructional procedures allow for
early intervention using the
(Clay, 1982, p. 166) accelerated progress in literacy learn-
same theoretical and instruc-
ing. As Clay has emphatically stated,
Clearly, throughout her career—from tional model, under a label
“It is because these procedures are
30 years prior to the development like ‘literacy processing theory’
designed for adapting the instruction
of Reading Recovery to the recent but not labelled as RR. Work
to the learning needs of individual
provision of Literacy Lessons innova- with such children proceeds
children that they can be applied
tions—Clay called for appropriately for longer according to need
to many beginning readers who are
intensive instruction within educa- with different rules for imple-
in some kind of special education”
tion systems in support of the indi- mentation and delivery, and
(2005a, p. i).
vidual learner. the lower outcomes predicted
Reading Recovery also serves as a are accepted as worthwhile.
diagnostic intervention that identi- This then becomes a treatment
Celebrating 25 Years of Reading Recovery in North America • Fall 2009 Journal of Reading Recovery 63
intervention for individuals, not tion provided additional one-to-one various challenges and are receiving
a preventive intervention which intensive literacy instruction by special education services:
is adopted by an education system Reading Recovery professionals for a
Children who are profoundly
[Clay’s emphasis]; it involves longer period of time, following the
deaf, or have cerebral palsy, or
longer-term treatments deliv- completion of the Reading Recovery
other severe handicaps affecting
ered to individuals but it uses series of lessons.
eyesight, hand movements or
the same literacy processing
In addition to the children who language performance, could
theory as RR to guide instruc-
have received Reading Recovery and probably benefit from Reading
tion for individuals who have a
require longer-term specialist support Recovery instruction but they
cluster of individual handicaps.
are other learners who will benefit would be ideally served by a
(Clay, 2001, p. 218)
from the intensive treatment pro- teacher with special training
Thus, Clay suggested that children vided by a specialist teacher trained for the child’s condition [Clay’s
who are in need of long-term services in Literacy Lessons. These include emphasis] and additionally
require instruction as robust and children who may have been identi- trained in Reading Recovery.
supportive as the short-term early fied as having special needs before The question of time in the
intervention previously provided, but first grade, children who do not have program could be handled by
with longer treatment based on the access to Reading Recovery during this specialist teacher, and the
diagnostic information gathered dur- their first-grade year, and elementary resourcing of standard Reading
ing the intervention period and with children beyond the first grade. Clay Recovery would not be affected
further adaptations based on the has commented on the appropriate- by this. (New Zealand Reading
child’s unique needs. ness of designing individual lessons Recovery, 2004, p. 2)
utilizing Reading Recovery teaching
The training of specialist teachers Indeed, there have been remark-
procedures for children who face
in Literacy Lessons would further able results with utilizing such an
enhance what is known as the second
positive outcome of Reading Recov-
ery (Jones et al., 2005), namely that
Reading Recovery serves as a diag-
nostic intervention for those children
who do not make accelerated prog-
ress. With the availability of Literacy
Lessons training for teachers, many
of these children will receive longer-
term support from professionals who
share a common theoretical founda-
tion about literacy learning with their
Reading Recovery colleagues. An
early example of an innovation which
demonstrated the potential of such
an approach was the work of Phil-
lips and Smith (1997), known as the
third chance intervention for children
who while they made some progress,
did not reach within-average perfor-
mance levels during their Reading
Recovery lessons and subsequently Marie Halpin, special education teacher at Doherty Elementary in the West
were referred for further specialist Bloomfield School District in Michigan, works with first-grade student Jordan.
support. The third chance interven- Marie is training as a Literacy Lessons intervention specialist this year.
approach in the development of Lit- quickly and momentarily construct

eracy Lessons with children who are a somewhat complex operating sys- The work of Literacy
deaf whose particular literacy learn- tem which might solve the problem”
ing needs require the expertise of (Clay, 2001, p. 224).
Lessons intervention
specialist teachers trained in Reading specialists who teach
This theory is based on the following
Recovery (Fullerton, 2008; Charles-
principles:
special populations is
worth et al., 2006). grounded in the same
• Reading is a complex prob-
This conception of a school’s seam-
lem-solving process.
literacy processing
less approach to meeting the needs theory that guides
of all children with literacy chal- • Children construct their own
understandings.
Reading Recovery
lenges—including those who respond
to early intervention and those who professionals in their
• Children come to literacy
need long-term treatment—has been
with varying knowledge.
teaching of the lowest-
a long-standing, fundamental tenet performing first graders.
of Clay’s approach to literacy learn- • Reading and writing are
ing: “It supports the expectation reciprocal and interrelated
that schools will try to succeed with processes.
all children in one way or another” • Learning to read and write writing (Lyons, 2003). The teacher’s
(Clay, 2001, p. 219). involves a continuous process role in assisting children, especially
of change over time. those who struggle, to construct this
A common foundation: complex literacy process is critical.
Clay’s theory of literacy processing • Children take different paths
Responsive instruction tailored to the
The work of Literacy Lessons inter- to literacy learning.
most-struggling learners requires the
vention specialists who teach special (Schmitt et al., 2005, p. 43) most-skilled teachers (Lose, 2007).
populations is grounded in the same
literacy processing theory that guides The understanding that children Similarly, the notion that children
Reading Recovery professionals in take different paths to literacy learn- are active, constructive learners helps
their teaching of the lowest-performing helps explain why Clay’s literacy dispel a ‘deficit view’ of the learner
ing first graders. Literacy Lessons theory would be ideally suited to and proclaim that no matter how
intervention specialists receive pro- provide guidance for non-Reading challenging literacy learning is for
fessional development that helps Recovery teachers who work with some children—including both the
them meld their own knowledge of struggling readers and writers. The lowest-achieving first graders selected
individual differences in learners emphasis on different paths to for Reading Recovery and older
with an instructional approach based literacy learning suggests that vari- readers who are in some form of
on Clay’s literacy processing theory. ability is normal and that teaching special education needing long-
Clay has referred to her theory as with a view of variability enhances term literacy support—they all have
“complex” (Clay, 2005a, p. 1) and instruction in support of the indi- unique strengths which teachers can
posits that, as learners engage in vidual learner and is more efficient build on to design appropriate
reading and writing activities, they and effective than one-size-fits-all instruction. Literacy processing
assemble a system of perceptual and instructional approaches. This view theory fosters the flexibility needed
cognitive competencies that helps embraces the diversity in children’s by Reading Recovery and Literacy
them solve problems as they arise. In learning and accommodates all Lessons teachers to respond efficient-
Clay’s words, “Learners pull together variants of individual learning dif- ly and effectively on behalf of their
necessary information from print in ferences; it only requires that these most-challenged literacy learners.
simple ways at first…but as opportu- very different children be supported
nities to read and write accumulate by a sensitive, observant teacher who
over time the learner becomes able to provides them with opportunities
to learn from the act of reading and
A Systemic Approach to Recovery, the same tenets of imple- Instead, allocate resources to
mentation apply to the development provide appropriately inten-
Literacy Teaching and
of Literacy Lessons innovations for sive, one-to-one, early treat-
Learning: Building a identified exceptional learners. ment at the first sign of dif-
Culture of Collaboration These successful implementations ficulty for the most struggling
Between Reading would build on a culture of col- literacy learners and build on
Recovery and Other laboration within schools that offer their strengths as the founda-
Reading Recovery and Literacy tion for subsequent learning.
Literacy Professionals Lessons professional development for
The Reading Recovery intervention • Systematizing a comprehen-
teachers to support comprehensive
has been successful in a wide variety sive approach to literacy with
literacy efforts.
of educational contexts. In part, this proven interventions. Provide
success has resulted from its flexible To optimize learning for all children, Reading Recovery on entry
problem-solving approach to the all members of the school team— to first grade for the young-
multifaceted challenge of responding administrators, classroom teachers, est literacy learners need-
early to the literacy learning needs specialist educators, Reading Recov- ing individual support and
of the lowest-performing children in ery teachers, and Literacy Lessons provide one-to-one Literacy
their second year of formal school- intervention specialists—would Lessons instruction for identi-
ing. Clay placed problem-solving adopt this culture of collaboration fied special needs children
responsibility for children’s literacy and the following associated features: for longer periods, e.g., both
learning squarely within the educa- in the first grade and in sub-
• Abandoning the assumption
tion systems in which these children sequent elementary grades.
that a lower performing child
are educated: “I know that the lit- Additional support can be
is a ‘slow learner’ or lacks
eracy processing systems constructed provided to less intensively
ability to achieve literacy.
by learners during beginning literacy
are massively influenced by expecta-
tions and opportunities of the school
curriculum and by the teaching
practices of their schools” (Clay,
2005a, p. 3).
To assure its replication in a variety
of systems, Clay conceptualized the
implementation of Reading Recovery
across three concentric circles: imple-
menting, teaching, and learning. The
outer circle, implementation, would
ask whether an education system
could put the innovation into place.
The middle circle, teaching, would
determine whether teachers could be
trained to respond to the broad range
of diverse learners. The inner circle,
learning, would apply the theoretical
foundation that informs the instruc-
tion that would support children’s
learning (Clay, 1997). Drawing Northwest Area Education Agency teachers in Iowa go the extra mile for Gabriela.
on the proven success of Reading She is supported by a group of dedicated professionals including her Reading
Recovery teacher, classroom teachers, and other specialist teachers.
challenged learners by deploy- interventions (McEneaney, Lose,

ing well-trained teachers to & Schwartz, 2006). By provid- By providing Literacy
provide responsive classroom ing Literacy Lessons interventions
and small-group instruction. alongside Reading Recovery in the
Lessons interventions
Provided with instruction context of supportive classrooms and alongside Reading
tailored to their needs within small-group instructional settings, Recovery in the
a comprehensive approach educators can collaborate to achieve context of supportive
to literacy and with shared a seamless approach to meeting all
classrooms and small-
ownership among the mem- children’s needs.
bers of the school team, any group instructional
The goal is to ensure high-quality
challenged literacy learner settings, educators can
classroom instruction and small-
can acquire more effective
group support for more-able learners, collaborate to achieve
literacy processing strategies a seamless approach to
Reading Recovery preventive services
and demonstrate progress in
learning to read and write.
for the lowest-performing first grad- meeting all children’s
ers, and Literacy Lessons intervention needs.
• Planning for a multilayered for students requiring longer-term
approach in response to all specialist support.
children as a standard educa-
tional practice in the schools 3. Ongoing data collection,
Current Explorations research and evaluation
that implement Reading
Recovery and Literacy of Literacy Lessons
4. Establishment of an infra-
Lessons interventions. Intervention Specialist structure and standards to
• Investing in training and Training sustain the implementation
In 2006, at the International and maintain quality control
professional development for
Reading Recovery Trainers
teachers of Reading Recovery Exploratory trials have been under-
Organization (IRRTO) Executive
and Literacy Lessons within taken by a number of Reading
Board meeting, Marie Clay proposed
a comprehensive approach Recovery university training centers
a Literacy Lessons trademark that
to children’s learning. By (UTCs) across the United States in
would protect the quality of any
definition, a comprehensive the past few years and the reports
exploratory developments in design-
approach means all children, from the field have been quite prom-
ing lessons for individual children
not most children and cer- ising. In April of 2008, the North
based on her literacy processing
tainly not the most capable American Trainer Group, comprised
theory.1 Clay suggested the inclusion
or the most likely to achieve of Reading Recovery trainers from
of four common descriptors in the
literacy success. the United States and Canada, com-
Literacy Lessons trademark applica-
The development of Literacy Lessons piled reports that described the kind
tion and in the development of
intervention specialists meets the of pilot projects undertaken by vari-
standards for Literacy Lessons in
requirements of an effective response ous UTCs regarding the training of
each country that implements
to intervention (RTI) approach. specialist teachers in the theory and
Literacy Lessons interventions
One of the primary goals of an RTI procedural implications of Literary
(Doyle, 2009, p. 300):
approach is to provide support in Lessons. These specialist teachers
1. Individually designed and (including special education teachers,
response to children’s learning that
individually delivered ELL teachers, teachers of the deaf,
is appropriately intensive, that avoids
instruction for children etc.) initially participated in training
delays in serving children, and that
will foster their continuous progress 2. A recognized course for qual- classes with Reading Recovery teach-
and prevent unnecessary refer- ified teachers with ongoing ers but, as demand has increased,
rals and placement in longer-term professional development some UTCs have arranged for train-
1
The Literacy Lessons trademark in the United States is held by The Ohio State University.
a common language around literacy Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time

learning that will further support in children’s literacy development.
The collaboration of Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Marie Clay’s belief that if some chil-
Reading Recovery teach- dren are unable to learn we should Clay, M. M. (2005a). Literacy lessons
ers with their Literacy continually strive to find new, inno- designed for individuals part one: Why?
Lessons colleagues will vative ways to teach them. Literacy when? and how? Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
help create a common Lessons intervention specialist train-
ing presents the context for authentic Clay, M. M. (2005b). Literacy lessons
language around literacy designed for individuals part two:
dialogue around the teaching and
learning that will further learning of our most-challenged Teaching procedures. Portsmouth, NH:
support Marie Clay’s learners, thus realizing the promise Heinemann.
belief that if some of Clay’s theory of literacy processing Doyle, M. A. (2009). A dynamic future.
and her conviction that all children In B. Watson & B. Askew (Eds.),
children are unable Boundless horizons: Marie Clay’s search
can learn.
to learn we should for the possible in children’s literacy
continually strive to find (pp. 287–306). Portsmouth, NH:
References Heinemann.
new, innovative ways Ballantyne, A. (2009). Research origins: Fullerton, S. K. (2008). The develop-
to teach them. The historical context. In B. Watson ment of Literacy Lessons with children
& B. Askew (Eds.), Boundless hori- who are deaf. The Journal of Reading
zons: Mary Clay’s search for the pos- Recovery, 8(1), 34–42.
sible in children’s literacy (pp. 7–34).
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Jones, N., Johnson, C., Schwartz, R.,
ing of intact classes of Literacy Les-
& Zalud, G. (2005). Two posi-
sons teachers.2 Teachers who have Charlesworth, A., Charlesworth, R., tive outcomes of Reading Recovery:
participated in Literacy Lessons Raban, B., & Rickards, F. (2006). Exploring the interface between
training have reported remarkable Teaching children with hearing loss in Reading Recovery and special educa-
changes in their understandings Reading Recovery. Literacy Teaching tion. The Journal of Reading Recovery,
and practices that have had positive and Learning: An International Journal 4(3), 19–34.
effects on the learning of their spe- of Early Reading and Writing, 6(1),
21–50. Lose, M. K. (2007). A child’s response
cial education students. They have to intervention requires a respon-
also found that their school literacy Clay, M. M. (1982). Learning disorders. sive teacher of reading. The Reading
teams benefit from the shared under- In M. Clay, Observing young readers Teacher, 61(3), 276–279.
(pp. 156–166). Portsmouth, NH:
standings among all participating Lose, M. K., & Konstantellou, E. (2005).
Heinemann.
teachers regarding children’s literacy Selection of children for Reading
development. These are brief, initial Clay, M. M. (1987). Learning to be Recovery: Challenges and responses.
learning disabled. New Zealand
responses. Ongoing exploratory trials The Journal of Reading Recovery, 5(1),
Journal of Educational Studies, 22, 32–45.
will continue and findings will be
155–173. (Reprinted in The Journal of
studied to inform the development Lyons, C. A. (2003). Teaching struggling
Reading Recovery, 7(1), 54–66).
of standards and guidelines that will readers: How to use brain-based research
Clay, M. M. (1997). International per- to maximize learning. Portsmouth,
guide the training of Literacy Les-
spectives on the Reading Recovery NH: Heinemann.
sons intervention specialists and the
program. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, &
implementation of Literacy Lessons D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research McEneaney, J., Lose, M. K., & Schwartz,
innovations in our schools. on teaching literacy through the commu- R. M. (2006). A transactional per-
nicative and visual arts (pp. 655–667). spective on reading difficulties and
The collaboration of Reading response to intervention. Reading
Old Tappan, NJ: Simon and Schuster.
Recovery teachers with their Literacy Research Quarterly, 41(1), 117–128.
(Reprinted in The Journal of Reading
Lessons colleagues will help create
Recovery, 7(1), 16–34).
2
Districts and schools interested in Literacy Lessons training for specialist teachers should contact the Reading Recovery training sites
in their regions. Training sites work closely with the university training centers they are affiliated with to address issues pertaining to
the training and professional development of Literacy Lessons teachers.
New Zealand Reading Recovery.

(2004). Entry to Reading Recovery:
Mainstreaming and inclusion. [Tutor
About the Authors
information sheet]. Auckland, New
Zealand: Author.
Phillips, G., & Smith, P. (1997). A third
chance to learn: The development and
evaluation of specialized interventions
for young children experiencing the
greatest difficulty in learning to read.
Wellington: New Zealand Council for Eva Konstantellou is associate pro- Mary K. Lose is associate profes-
Educational Research. fessor in the School of Education, sor in the School of Education and
and Reading Recovery trainer at Human Services, and director of
Schmitt, M. C., Askew, B. J., Fountas,
the Center for Reading Recovery the Reading Recovery Center of
I. C., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S.
and Literacy Collaborative at Michigan at Oakland University
(2005). Changing futures: The influ-
Lesley University in Cambridge, in Rochester, MI. Her research
ence of Reading Recovery in the United
MA. Her research interests include interests focus on early literacy
States. Worthington, OH: Reading
language learning, the role of early intervention policies and initiatives,
Recovery Council of North America.
literacy intervention in school teachers’ professional development,
change, and critical pedagogy. and contingent teaching.
ȱȱȱ¢ ț
ȱŘśȱ¢ȱȱǷȱȱȱȱȱ
¢ȱȬȱȱȱȬȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ
ŗşŞŖȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ¢ǰȱ
ȱȱǯȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱ
ȱȱŜȬ¢Ȭȱȱ ȱȱǯ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱǰȱǯȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱǯȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ
ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱǯ
ȱȱ ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱŘśȱ¢ǯȱȱȱ
ȱǯȱȱȱȱ¢ǯȱȱ
ȱ ǯ
ȱǰȱǯȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
ȱȱȱŘśȱ¢ȱȱǯ
ȱǯȱ ȱǰȱǯ
ȱȱȱ
ǯ ǯȦȬǯȱȊȱŞŖŖȬřřŜȬśśŞŞȱ
-UO5GJ5HFDGERRNVULJKWLQGG 30

JRR 9.1 Konstantellou Lose

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

JRR 9.1 Konstantellou Lose

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Creating New Possibilities

The Promise of Clay’s Theory of

approach in the development of Lit- quickly and momentarily construct

challenged learners by deploy- interventions (McEneaney, Lose,

a common language around literacy Clay, M. M. (2001). Change over time

New Zealand Reading Recovery.

You might also like