Loading presentation...

Present Remotely

Send the link below via email or IM

Copy

Present to your audience

Start remote presentation

  • Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
  • People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
  • This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
  • A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
  • Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article

Do you really want to delete this prezi?

Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.

DeleteCancel

Make your likes visible on Facebook?

Connect your Facebook account to Prezi and let your likes appear on your timeline.
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.

No, thanks

Using the CIPP (Context, Input, Process, & Product) Model to

No description
by

A'Kena LongBenton

on 9 December 2013

Comments (0)

Please log in to add your comment.

Report abuse

Transcript of Using the CIPP (Context, Input, Process, & Product) Model to

The purpose of this research study is to use the CIPP Model to evaluate multimodal reading comprehension strategies utilized in college developmental reading courses.
Problem Statement
Research Topic: Using the CIPP (Context, Input, Process, & Product) Model to
Evaluate Multimodal Reading Instruction
Types of literature: primary, secondary, or both? Provide one example of each.
Major topics/themes for literature review
Major findings in each topic/theme
How do these topics relate to one another?
How do these topics relate to your research topic?
International Reading Association.
Educational Leadership,
Handbook of reading research
Developmental Psychology, 27, 108–118.

Young children’s approaches to books: The emergence of
comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 64(2), 120-130.
Duke, N. K. (2000). 3.6 minutes per day: The scarcity of information texts in first grade.
Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 202-224.
Echevarria, J. Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2008). In Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model (3rd ed., pp. 94-113). Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon.
Eisner, E. W. (2003). The arts and the creation of mind. Language Arts, 80(5), 340-344.
Fingeret, L. (2008). March of the Penguins: Building knowledge in a kindergarten classroom.
The Reading Teacher, 62(2), 96-103.
Glasswell, K. & Ford, M. (2011). Let’s start leveling about leveling. Language Arts, 88(3), 208-
2016.


Goodman, K. S. (1996). Learning and teaching reading and writing. In On reading: A common-
sense look at the nature of language and the science of reading (pp. 117-146). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Guerra-Lopez, I. (2008). Performance evaluation: Proven approaches for improving program and organizational performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Harste, J. C. (1990). Jerry Harste speaks on reading and writing. Reading Teacher, 43, 316-318.
Hock, M. & Mellard, D. (2005). Reading comprehension strategies for adult literacy outcomes.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 192-200.
Jenkins, S. (2009). How to maintain school reading success: Five recommendations from a
struggling male reader. The Reading Teacher, 63(2), 159-162.
Jones, D. J., & Watson, B. C. (1990). ‘‘High risk’’ students in higher education. (ASHE-ERIC

Higher Education Report No. 3). Washington, DC: Association for the Study of Higher

Education.

Jordan, G. E., Snow, C. E., & Porche, M. V. (2000). Project EASE: The effect of a family

literacy project on kindergarten students’ early literacy skills. Reading Research

Quarterly, 35(4), 524-546.

Lenski, S.D., Ehler-Zavala, F., Daniel, M.C., & Sun-Irminger, X. (2006). Assessing English-

language learners in mainstream classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 60(1), 24-34.

Ley, K. & Young, D.B. (1998). Self-regulation behaviors in underprepared (developmental)

and regular admission college students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 42-

64.

Long, A. (2002). Reading wheel. The Michigan English Teacher, 52(5), 11.

Long, A. (2003). What’s the sense in reading? Michigan English Teacher, 53(1), 1-2.

Martinez-Roldan, C. M. & Newcomer, S. (2011). “Reading between the Pictures”: Immigrant

students’ interpretations of The Arrival. Language Arts, 88(3), 188-197.

Mills, K. A. (2009). Floating on a sea of talk: Reading comprehension through speaking and
listening. The Reading Teacher, 63(4), 325-329.
Moss, B. (2008). The information text gap: The mismatch between non-narrative text types in
basal readers and 2009 NAEP recommended guidelines. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 201-219.
Nicholson, T. (1989). Using the CIPP model to evaluate reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 32(4), 312-318.
Pruisner, P. (2009). Moving beyond No Child Left Behind with the merged model for reading
instruction. TechTrends, 53(2), 41-47.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R & D program
in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved December 4, 2011, from http://www.michigan.gov/documents/English_Language_Proficiency_K-12_Standards_103705_7.pdf
Richey, R. C., Klein, J. D., & Tracey, M. W. (2011). The instructional design knowledge base:
Theory, research, and practice. New York: Routledge.
Roser, N., Martinez, M., Fuhrken, C., & McDonnold, K. (2007). Characters as guides to
meaning. The Reading Teacher, 60(6), 548-559.
Santori, D. (2011). “Search for the answers” or “Talk about the story?”: School-based literacy

participating structures. Language Arts, 88(3), 198-207.

Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1989). Emergent literacy: New perspectives. In D. Strickland &

Morrow, L.M. (Eds.). Emerging literacy: Young children learn to read and write (pp. 1-

15). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Wren, S. (2006). Developing research-based resources for the balanced reading teacher: The

http://www.balancedreading.com/simple.html
The Reading Teacher.

Resources & Databases
Full transcript