text:
Embedded learning strategy instruction: story-structure pedagogy in heterogeneous secondary literature classes.
Meeting adequate-yearly-progress (AYP) goals in reading is a challenge for secondary school practitioners. Recently released National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data indicate that more than two-thirds of secondary students, including a high percentage of students with learning disabilities (LD), lack the reading skills necessary to succeed in school and the world of work (Perie, Grigg, & Donahue, 2005).
This record of student failure leaves educators in search of evidence-based practices that can be implemented across secondary settings in an attempt to close the performance gap that emerges between students' literacy skills that have plateaued at the fourth-grade level and the increasing academic grade-level demands (Deshler & Schumaker, 2006). Moreover, because many adolescents with LD are taught in general education settings (IDEA, 2004) so they can earn credits toward graduation, language arts teachers are increasingly being asked to shoulder a major part of the burden for comprehension instruction, especially as it relates to narrative texts. These teachers need evidence-based methods of delivering direct and explicit comprehension instruction that provides the necessary skill development for students with LD and other low-achieving students while simultaneously challenging high-achieving students in the same classroom.
One approach to defining instructional design and delivery to improve reading comprehension was suggested by Kintsch (2004), who argued that the goal of literacy instruction should be to get students engaged in processes equivalent to those that expert readers employ. One such process involves categorizing information in light of certain text structures. According to Kintsch, student knowledge and use of text structure favorably impacts comprehension, just as knowledge of syntax or vocabulary can. Text structure is believed to be most relevant to the reading process during encoding and during the reader's organization of the text into high-order units. While syntactic and semantic instruction foster sentence-level knowledge construction, discourse-level structure construction can be improved by teaching genre-specific text structures. Thus, according to this model, instruction should explicitly introduce students to the use of narrative text structure (or story structure) to aid in the conceptual understanding of narrative texts.
Indeed, awareness of underlying story structure has been shown to improve basic academic performance and lead to higher-order thinking, including causal reasoning (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Narrative text structure has been investigated within three successive phases of research (Olson & Gee, 1988). Early research centered on developing empirical evidence to support a taxonomy of narrative elements that can be used to develop a basic understanding of story construction during encoding (e.g., Mandler & Johnson, 1977; Rumelhart, 1975; Stein & Glenn, 1978; Thorndyke, 1977). Overall, this research supported the existence of various theoretical models of story structure, surfacing universal components of a canonical structure for encoding (e.g., character, setting, conflict, resolution, and theme). Moreover, studies in this phase of research suggested that variations in reader knowledge of story structure are related to reader recall, which led to the second phase of story-structure research.
The second phase of research centered on developmental differences between types of readers with regard to the flexible use and complexity of story structure (e.g., Mandler &Johnson, 1977; Ouellette, Dagostino, & Carifio, 1998; Stein & Glenn, 1978; Whaley, 1981). A limited number of these studies explored developmental differences for individuals with LD (e.g., Montague, Maddux, & Dereshiwsky, 1990; Weaver & Dickinson, 1982). Results from this line of inquiry indicated that there were developmental differences related to story-structure knowledge, with story-structure knowledge appearing initially at the first-grade level and becoming well developed at the sixth-grade level for typical readers. In one study focusing on students with LD (Montague et al., 1990), no main effect was found for grade between 4th- through 11th-grade students with LD, indicating a story-structure plateau similar to the general reading achievement plateau reported by Warner, Schumaker, Alley, and Deshler (1980).
Due to the findings of developmental differences across groups of school-age readers, a third phase of research has focused on the instruction of the previously validated components of story structure to improve reading comprehension. While some studies have included elementary school students (e.g., Carnine & Kinder, 1985; Fitzgerald & Spiegel, 1983; Griffey, Zigmond, & Leinhardt, 1988; Idol & Croll, 1987; Short & Ryan, 1984), four relevant studies were conducted at the secondary level, including students in grades 6 through 11 in instruction of story-structure components.
In the first study, Singer and Donlan (1982) used a control-group design with 27 eleventh-grade students (no students with disabilities) randomly assigned to instructional groups of 15 over a six-day period. Story-grammar instruction was provided to the experimental group. Results on the lone measurement instrument, a 10-question multiple-choice quiz following each of six stories, showed that the only difference between groups was in favor of the experimental group on the quiz taken after the fifth story.
Gurney, Gersten, Dimino, and Carnine (1990) used a multiple-baseline design with seven high school students with LD in instructional groups of two or three in pullout classes over a nine-week period. The authors concluded that, on 7- to 10-question story-grammar and basal-type quizzes given every other day, students showed improvement on questions related to story grammar and no improvement on basal questions (no mean scores were provided on either question type). However, no individual student graphs were shown nor were group means reported, making it difficult to interpret the results.
In the third study, Dimino, Gersten, Carnine, and Blake (1990) conducted an experimental follow-up to Gurney et al.'s study (1990) with 32 low-performing ninth-grade students, including a subset of six students with LD and two students in Title I programs, over 19 days. Students were randomly assigned to the groups after being matched for reading achievement. Results on story-grammar and basal-type quizzes indicated statistically significant differences in favor of the story-grammar instruction group related to scores on story-grammar questions, basal questions, theme questions (a subset of story-grammar questions), and a summarizing task on the posttest and on the maintenance measure (mean raw score differences across all measures ranged from .3 [1.5% of total] to 2.5 [12.5% of total]). Results for the students with LD were not reported separately from group means.
Drawing from the work of Dimino et al. (1990) and Idol and Croll (1987), Gardill and Jitendra (1999) conducted a multiple-baseline study with six middle school students with LD in instructional groups of two in pullout classes. Results showed that (a) all students' scores on story grammar and basal comprehension tests improved concomitant with the onset of instruction, (b) all students' scores increased on generalization and maintenance story-grammar tests from baseline and for four students on basal tests, and (c) five of the six students demonstrated an increase in the number of story elements when they orally retold stories over baseline.
In summary, when instruction in story structure was implemented, results across the studies cited above indicated (a) differences within or between groups on criterion-referenced story-grammar measures (i.e., answering story-grammar-related questions about a given passage) when instruction was multi-phased and at least five hours in length; (b) inconsistent results on students' ability to answer basal (factual) questions; and (c) uncertain benefits for students with LD when taught in a heterogeneous group.
While Gersten and colleagues (2001) are accurate in their conclusion that instructing the awareness of underlying story structures has improved students' basic academic skills in some studies, the research is not complete. Several limitations are associated with the total body of research in this area, including both elementary and secondary studies.
First, there is a paucity of research on heterogeneous groups (or classes) of students that include students with LD, especially at the secondary level. Second, only a few studies focus on even moderate teacher-to-student ratios, and these studies typically fail to disaggregate data for students with LD. Hence, little is known about the application of this type of instruction in larger classroom settings and outcomes for students with LD. Third, control-group design studies have involved only limited components of research-based reading comprehension instruction for the control group. Thus, the value added by story-structure training cannot be determined in comparison. Fourth, no secondary study has considered the merits of packaging (or combining) elements of story structure to intensify instruction. Fifth, because the measures in previous studies have been criterion-based related to isolated passages, limited information has emerged regarding such variables as related knowledge (including knowledge of strategy components and literary terms), strategy use, written summaries of narrative passages, and student satisfaction with instruction.
Given the status of the research on story structure outlined above and the pressing need for secondary literacy instruction to bolster students' reading comprehension, an instructional routine, the Embedded Story Structure (ESS) Routine, was designed for use in general education classrooms serving heterogeneous populations of students. The routine is based on the findings of Swanson's (1999) meta-analysis on effective components of explicit cognitive learning strategy instruction (i.e., advance organizer, skill review, demonstration, modeling, guided practice, independent practice, and corrective feedback), as well as the validated components of story structure (e.g., Mandler & Johnson, 1977). This study investigated the effects of using the ESS Routine in an inclusive ninth-grade literature class relative to improving student use of reading comprehension strategies, knowledge of strategy components and literary terms, comprehension of stories, and satisfaction with the routine.
Participants were 79 incoming ninth-grade students attending a summer school program for at-risk students at a private urban high school in a southeastern state. At-risk status was determined by school personnel in reading or mathematics based on test scores from EXPLORE (EXPLORE Test, 2005) taken during the spring of students' eighth-grade year. The student population reflected heterogeneous characteristics, as some students exhibited limited reading comprehension ability while others only exhibited limited abilities in mathematics (i.e., the latter group contained stronger readers).
The researcher met with all parents and students prior to the experiment to solicit written permission for participation. Students with permission were subsequently matched according to four variables. (1) Members of each matched pair were randomly assigned to one of two groups: (a) the embedded-story structure (ESS) group or (b) the comprehension skills instruction (CSI) group. Students in each group were also assigned randomly to one of three classes, for a total of six classes (three in each condition). Matching variables were (a) disability diagnosis versus no diagnosis; (b) EXPLORE reading comprehension national percentile score (within six percentile points) (EXPLORE Test, 2005); (c) gender; and (d) age in months (within six months). (See Table 1 for demographic data for the ESS and CSI groups.) Independent samples t-tests were employed to determine whether the groups were statistically different with regard to age and EXPLORE reading comprehension national percentile. Results showed that they were not, t(77) = .516, p = .608; t(77) = .609, p = .544, respectively.
An LD diagnosis was present for 14 subjects, based on the school's existing psychological profiles. (Table 2 provides demographic data related to these students in both groups.) Full-scale IQ scores were available for 13 of the 14 students on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler, 1991, 2003). The seven students in the ESS group earned a mean full-scale IQ score of 103.7 (SD = 7.2), whereas the six CSI students earned a mean IQ score of 104.0 (SD = 2.5). Independent samples t-tests were employed to determine whether the groups were statistically different with regard to age, IQ score, and EXPLORE reading comprehension national percentile scores. Results showed that they were not, t(12) = -.050, p = .961; t(11) = .093, p = .928; t(12) = .315, p =. 758, respectively.
Instruction was provided in a typical classroom. The total school population was 1,480, drawing students from across the city. Classroom desks were arranged in four rows. An overhead projector was positioned on a table at the front of the room, along with a large presentation screen and two side-by-side whiteboards.
Instructional Materials
Eight short stories and a folktale were selected as passages to be used during instruction and student practice and as the basis for comprehension assessment for all students. The materials included renowned classics (e.g., Poe's The Tell-Tale Heart) as well as more contemporary stories that present accounts of dilemmas encountered by adolescents (e.g., Myers' The Treasure of Lemon Brown). Stories were 9-18 pages long, with lexile scores ranging from 600 (The Tell Tale Heart) to 1220 (The Monkey's Paw; Metametrics, 2000).
The Instructional Programs
Embedded story-structure routine. The Embedded Story-Structure (ESS) Routine targeted three strategies: (a) self-questioning (used during pre-reading), (b) story-structure analysis (used during reading), and (c) summary writing (used after reading). A graphic device, the ESS Organizer, was designed to facilitate the interactive construction of knowledge between students and teacher and the integration of the three strategies (see Figure 1).
The self-questioning strategy involves students asking and answering a series of seven questions initially introduced by the teacher that relate to eight critical components of story structure (e.g., main character, initiating event, time, place, central conflict, climax/turning point, resolution, and theme) (e.g., Dimino et al., 1990; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999). When implementing this strategy, students use seven individual question words (e.g., "who," "what," "when," "where," "which," "how," and "why") as a mnemonic device to help them remember the eight components and the related seven questions. (See Table 3 for the story components and questions.) Students record their answers to each self-question on the ESS Organizer.
The second strategy, story-structure analysis, involves filling in a Story-Structure Diagram on the back of the ESS Organizer by labeling specific events from a short story. To help them remember this strategy, students are provided with a second mnemonic device that connects each critical element of the Story Structure Diagram to a unique picture cue. Students draw these cues when labeling the Story-Structure Diagram.
Students use the third strategy, a summary writing strategy, to generate a written summary of the short story on the back of the ESS Organizer based on their answers to the self-questions using a four-sentence formula that includes each critical element of story structure.
Comprehension skill instruction. Comprehension Skill Instruction (CSI) was designed to parallel the ESS instruction by targeting three research-based strategies for instruction: (a) the LINCS Vocabulary Strategy (Ellis, 2000; used during prereading); (b) Question-Answer Relationships (QAR) (Raphael, 1982, 1986; used during reading); and (c) semantic summary mapping (Englert, Mariage, Garmon, & Tarrant, 1998; used after reading). The CSI strategies were chosen because they have previously been studied (separately) as mechanisms that might improve student reading comprehension. To parallel the ESS instruction, comparison students received a graphic device, called the CSI Organizer, to facilitate the interactive construction of knowledge between students and teacher. (2)
The LINCS Vocabulary Strategy involves the use of a set of mnemonic strategies, including a key word strategy, a visual imagery strategy, and a story strategy to link known information to new vocabulary words and their definitions (Ellis, 2000). Students record LINCS information related to a teacher-chosen vocabulary word on the first page of the CSI Organizer.
For the QAR strategy, students ask themselves and answer text-based and knowledge-based questions to develop story understanding. Text-based questions include (a) "Right There" questions, which require students to find answers explicitly stated right there in the text (e.g., "What is Johnny's father's job?"); and (b) "Think and Search" questions, which require locating answers stated explicitly in the text but require examination of more than a single location in the text (e.g., "What are some of the challenges facing the kidnappers?").
Students record QAR questions and answers on the first page of the CSI Organizer. Students use the third strategy, semantic summary mapping, to visually summarize stories by mapping self-identified critical components of the story. The strategy involves identifying and listing critical components of the story before organizing them into a connective semantic/concept map of related ideas on the back of the CSI Organizer.
Measurement Instruments
Strategy-use test. The Strategy-Use Test was administered to all students in both groups at pretest (Day 1), progress test (Day 5), posttest (Day 9), and maintenance (8 weeks after the posttest). The purpose of this measure was to provide evidence that the ESS students learned the ESS strategies that they were taught (and that the CSI students did not learn the ESS strategies) so that their learning could later be related to student performance on reading comprehension measures. Each of four forms of the test included three sections, each section corresponding to use of one of the three ESS strategies. The first provided seven lines on which students could write prereading questions related to novel passages. For the second section, students were asked to read a 260- to 300-word narrative passage (7.68.2 GE) from the Analytic Reading Inventory (ARI) (Woods & Moe, 2003) and correctly label a Story-Structure Diagram. (Each form of the test contained a different passage.) The third section on the test required students to write a summary of the passage that was approximately 60 words in length.
In order to control for passage difficulty, a counter-balanced design was used. That is, Form A was administered to half the class in the pretest and the other half of the class in the posttest, and vice versa for Form B. During the progress and maintenance tests, Form C was administered to half the class in the progress test and the other half of the class in the maintenance test, and vice versa for Form D. All sections of the test were scored using an answer key. The total number of points available was 24, with eight points each available for prereading questions, for correct diagram labels, and for a written summary.
Knowledge test. The Knowledge Test, administered to both groups, measured student knowledge of ESS strategy components and literary terms associated with the ESS strategies to provide evidence that students in the ESS group learned knowledge about the ESS strategies but students in the CSI group did not, so that this learning could later be related to students' performance on reading comprehension measures.
The knowledge test was divided into three sections. The first provided a blank Story-Structure Diagram and asked students to demonstrate knowledge of the location of story-structure elements by labeling each component (e.g., initiating event, climax, resolution) on the diagram. The second section asked students to demonstrate knowledge of the picture cues and their connections to the story-structure components by listing the appropriate elements of story structure along with the corresponding picture cue (e.g., initiating event--[??], time--[??]). Finally, the third section required students to answer four open-ended questions related to basic language arts knowledge (e.g., "What are the types of conflict?" and "What are the components of characterization?"). The total score for the Knowledge Test was 30 points, with 8 points each for the appropriate labels and correct picture cue answers and 14 points for the language arts knowledge questions. An answer key was used to score the test which was administered at pretest and posttest.
Unit comprehension test. The Unit Reading Comprehension Test measured student retention of information related to the eight stories read by both groups during instruction. The hypothesis was that students in the ESS group would retain more information than students in the CSI group. The test included 40 short-answer and fill-in-the-blank questions. One point was awarded for each correct answer for a total of 40 points.
To create two forms of the test, a test bank of 80 questions was created with eight sets of 10 questions per story. Each set contained six questions related to the story-structure elements of the story and four higher-order questions (two induction and two deduction questions). Question sets were paired for each story according to the difficulty level of story-structure element, and one question from each pair was randomly assigned to each form of the test. To ensure measurement reliability, a counterbalanced design was used during the pretest and posttest, with Form A administered to half the class in the pretest and the other half of the class in the posttest, and vice versa for Form B. Two certified secondary English teachers juried the measure and agreed that all questions were appropriate to the corresponding passage, all answers could be found in the passage, the answers in the answer key were correct, and that Forms A and B of the test were equivalent in difficulty (100% agreement in all areas).
Satisfaction surveys. To evaluate student satisfaction with the interventions, two social validity measures were also administered. The Reading Satisfaction Survey measured students' satisfaction with their own reading. Questions related to students' satisfaction with reading and remembering short stories or novels, writing summaries, and test performance on reading comprehension tests. The Satisfaction with Instruction Survey measured student satisfaction with the ESS Routine (or the CSI Routine) and its components. Questions here related to student satisfaction with how helpful instruction was with regard to improving story understanding, how easy it was to identify the specific elements of story structure, whether or not students could use what they had learned independently, and overall satisfaction with the routine. On both surveys, items were formatted on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from "Completely Dissatisfied" to "Completely Satisfied." The average rating was calculated for each item for each group.
Fidelity of treatment checklists. A fidelity checklist was used to assess the quality of teacher performance in implementing the specified instruction in each lesson. Each checklist was comprised of a list of 29-46 items, cataloging all the instructional practices associated with both routines and intervention-specific components for each routine appropriate to the given lesson, including (a) review of the previous lesson, (b) use of advance and post-organizers, (c) encouraging independent strategy use, (d) administering a quiz, (e) giving notes and defining terms related to ESS or CSI instruction, (f) reading the same stories, (g) periodically engaging students in dialogue, (h) demonstration and modeling of the ESS- or CSI-related strategies, and (i) teacher-led practice with ESS- or CSI-related strategies. An independent scorer and the researcher listened to randomly selected audio recordings of 22% of the instructional lessons for each group and completed the checklist. The fidelity score was calculated by totaling the number of observed instructional behaviors for the intervention, the number of unobserved instructional behaviors for the alternative intervention, and the number of observed instructional behaviors common to both interventions.
The total score was then divided by the total number of points possible, ranging from 29 to 46. Interscorer reliability. Interscorer reliability was determined by having two scorers independently score a random sample (20%) of each of the instruments at each point in the data-gathering plan for each group. An item-by-item analysis was used to compare observer recordings. For the Strategy-Use Test, scorers agreed on 1,443 out of 1,536 opportunities to agree (range from 83.3% to 100%) for 94% agreement. For the Knowledge Test, scorers agreed on 914 out of 960 opportunities to agree (range from 83.3% to 100%) for 95.2% agreement. For the Unit Reading Comprehension Test, scorers agreed on 1,233 out of 1,280 opportunities to agree (range from 83% to 100%) for 96% agreement. For fidelity of treatment, scorers agreed on 272 out of 282 opportunities to agree (range from 90% to 100%) for 96.5% agreement.
Pretest and progress measure procedures. Pretesting occurred in two sessions. The first battery of measures was administered during a 90-minute block, and included the Strategy-Use Test (20 minutes), Knowledge Test (15 minutes), and the Unit Reading Comprehension Test (25 minutes). The Reading Satisfaction Survey was administered during the first 20 minutes of the first lesson. Additionally, the Strategy-Use Test was repeated during the last 20 minutes of the fifth lesson as a progress measure.
Instructional procedures. Teacher-to-student instructional ratios were 1:12, 1:13, or 1:14, depending on the class enrollment. The same teacher (and first author), a special education doctoral student with certification in secondary-level English, provided all instruction to both groups. Instruction for each class took place over a nine-day summer school session with 90 minutes of instruction on Days 1 and 9 and 120 minutes of instruction on Days 2 through 8, for a total of 17 hours of instruction. Instruction took place in four phases: (a) teacher demonstration and modeling of the targeted strategies, including think-aloud problem solving; (b) student-teacher collaboration and co-construction of knowledge and strategy use; (c) student peer collaboration (cooperative learning) and teacher-guided practice; and (d) independent student practice. The teacher used the cooperative learning and independent practice sessions as opportunities to circulate through the classroom to provide personal corrective feedback to individual students. The teacher also provided individual instruction at the teacher's desk when needed by a student. All lessons began with a review of the previous day's lesson and an advance organizer of the current day's instruction. All lessons ended with a brief review of the day's lesson.
Instruction was delivered with consideration given to two guiding principles: (a) the content of instruction (i.e., components of the three targeted strategies for each instructional condition); and (b) the four-phase pedagogy of instruction described above. (See Table 4 for a summary of instructional procedures.) The instructional sequence for the ESS and CSI groups was the same; only the content (the three strategies specified for each group) differed.
Day 1 instruction involved teacher introduction, demonstration, and modeling of all strategy components while using the appropriate organizer to provide students with an overall "big picture" example of how the three targeted strategies were to be used in combination in relation to the first story. At the end of Day 1 instruction, the teacher prompted the students to participate in using the strategies in relation to the end of the story in a whole-group teacher-guided practice activity.
The first half of Day 2 instruction focused on teacher demonstration and modeling of selected parts of two of the strategies in relation to Story #2. During the second half of the period, the students were prompted to use the strategies in a whole-group teacher-guided practice activity, also for Story #2.
On Day 3, students engaged in cooperative peer practice of the strategy components covered on Day 2 for the initial sections of Story #3 and independent practice for the remaining sections of the story.
Day 4 instruction mirrored Day 2 instruction using Story #4, but focused on the remaining strategy components that were not covered on Days 2 and 3.
On Day 5, students engaged in cooperative peer practice of all three targeted strategies for some sections of Story #5 and independent practice of all three strategies on other sections.
Days 6 through 8 again allowed for periods of peer collaboration and periods of independent practice of the combined strategies with sections of a new story each day and with students slowly transitioning to longer periods of independent work.
The final session (Day 9) concluded with a class-wide review of the complete unit of eight short stories covered. The teacher followed a written protocol for each lesson and concluded each class with a class-wide discussion of the day's short story. Students handed in their completed graphic organizers periodically to the teacher for corrective feedback. (For more details about the instructional procedures for each group, see Faggella-Luby, 2006.)
Posttest and maintenance procedures. Posttesting occurred in identical fashion to the pretesting with two group-administered sittings. During the first sitting, students completed the satisfaction surveys. In the second sitting, 90-minutes was provided for the battery of measures to be administered. For the maintenance probe, the Strategy-Use Test was administered eight weeks after the final lesson.
Design and Data Analyses
The study employed a control-group design with random assignment of members of matched pairs of students to two groups (ESS and CSI) to determine the effects of the ESS Routine. The same teacher conducted all instruction to control for teacher effects. Instructional time, stories, and the general instructional methodology were identical across the groups.
For the Strategy-Use measure, which was administered four times, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with one within-subjects factor and two between-subjects factors was conducted. Time with four levels (pretest, progress, posttest, and maintenance) was the within-subjects factor (independent variable). Instructional condition (ESS and CSI) and whether or not students had a diagnosed disability (students with disabilities and other peers) were the between-subjects factors.
For the Unit Reading Comprehension Tests and Knowledge Tests, which were each administered twice, a one-way ANOVA with one within-subjects factor and two between-subjects factors was conducted. Time with two levels (pretest and posttest) was the within-subjects factor (independent variable). Instructional condition (ESS and CSI) and whether or not students had a diagnosed disability (students with disabilities and other peers) were the between-subjects factors.
To determine between-group differences on the Unit Reading Comprehension Tests and Knowledge Tests, independent-samples t-tests were completed separately for each administration of a measure. A Bonferroni Correction was used to control for Type 1 error ([alpha] = .05/2 = .025). For the Strategy-Use Test, to determine within-group differences, paired-samples t-tests were completed separately for the ESS and CSI groups to compare the pretest to posttest scores, the pretest to maintenance scores, and the posttest to maintenance scores. Again, a Bonferroni Correction was used to control for Type I error for all pairwise comparisons ([alpha] = .05/(2x3) = .0083).
Strategy Use Test
Means and standard deviations for Strategy-Use Test scores are presented in Table 5 for students with disabilities and the remaining students in the ESS and CSI groups. The ANOVA results indicated no statistically significant time by condition by disability diagnosis interaction, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .972, F(3,73) = .700, p = .555, multivariate [[eta].sup.2] = .028. However, a statistically significant time-by-condition interaction was found, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .330, F(3,73) = 49.5, p <. 001, multivariate [[eta].sup.2] = .670, indicating a large effect size. Thus, regardless of whether or not students had a disability diagnosis, ESS subjects exhibited equivalent gains on this test.
Results of an independent samples t-test indicated no statistically significant difference between the ESS and CSI students' performance on the strategy-use pretest: t(77) =-.293, p = .770, d = .015. However, there were statistically significant differences between the groups, in favor of the ESS group, on all three remaining tests: the progress test, t(56.4) = -14.6, p < .001, d = .738; the posttest, t(60.5) = -15.9, p = <.001, d = .807, and the maintenance test, t(59.2) = -10.7, p = <.001, d = .542, indicating large and moderate effect sizes, respectively.
Results of the three paired-samples t-tests revealed significant differences on two comparisons for the ESS group: pretest to posttest, t(38) = -18.3, p < .001, [DELTA] = 4.27; and pretest to maintenance, t(38) = -10.84, p < .001, [DELTA] = 3.70, indicating large effect sizes. There was no significant difference between the posttest and the maintenance test, t(38) = 2.06, p = .046, [DELTA] = .41. No significant differences were found for all three pairwise comparisons for the CSI group: t(39) = -1.28, p = .210, [DELTA] = .21; t(39) = .110, p = .913, [DELTA] = .02; and t(39) = 1.38, p = .179, [DELTA] = .30, respectively.
Knowledge Test
Means and standard deviations for the Knowledge Test scores are presented in Table 6. The ANOVA results again indicated no statistically significant time by condition by disability diagnosis interaction, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .99, F(1,75) = .138, p = .711, multivariate [[eta].sup.2] = .002. However, there was a statistically significant time-by-condition interaction, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .376, F(1,75) = 124.4, p < .001, multivariate [[eta].sup.2] = .624, indicating a large effect size.
Results of an independent samples t-test indicated no statistically significant difference between the ESS and CSI groups on the pretest: t(77) = -.890, p = .376, d = .045. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups on the posttest: t(77) = -4.11, p < .001, d = .208, indicating a small effect size in favor of the ESS group.
Unit Reading Comprehension Test
Means and standard deviations for the Unit Reading Comprehension Test scores are presented in Table 7. ANOVA results indicated no statistically significant time by condition by disability diagnosis interaction, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .992, F(1,75) = .621, p = .433, multivariate [[eta].sup.2] = .008. However, again there was a statistically significant time-by-condition interaction, Wilks' [LAMBDA] = .908, F(1,75) = 7.61, p = .007, multivariate [[eta].sup.2] = .092, representing a medium effect size. Thus, regardless of whether or not students had a disability diagnosis, the ESS subjects exhibited equivalent gains on the Unit Reading Comprehension Test.
Results of an independent-sample t-test comparing the pretest scores of the two groups indicated no difference between the groups: t(77) = -.104, p = .917, d = .005. However, there was a statistically significant difference between the groups on the posttest: t(54.4) = -15.3, p < .001, d = .776, in favor of the ESS group. This represents a large effect size.
Reading satisfaction survey. Means and standard deviations for the Reading Satisfaction survey scores are presented in Table 8. Results from an independent samples t-test indicate no statistically significant differences between the groups on either the pretest or the posttest grand mean ratings: t(77) = -.516, p = .607, d = .03; and t(77) = .114, p = .909, d = .006, respectively. Two follow-up paired samples t-tests were conducted to examine within group differences from pretest to posttest. A Bonferroni Correction was used to control for Type I error for both pairwise comparisons ([alpha] = .025). Results indicated statistically significant differences and large effect sizes for both the ESS, t(38) = -8.62, p < .001, [DELTA] = 1.23, and the CSI, t(39) = -9.62, p < .001, [DELTA] = 1.23, groups between pretest and posttest ratings, with higher mean scores on the posttest indicating higher levels of reading satisfaction than at pretest.
Satisfaction with instruction survey. Means and standard deviations for ratings on the Satisfaction with Instruction Survey are presented in Table 9. A grand mean rating of 6.27 (SD = .54) was calculated for the ESS students, and a grand mean rating of 6.26 (SD = .54) was calculated for the CSI students. An independent samples t-test revealed no statistically significant difference between groups' satisfaction ratings, t(77) = -.053, p = .958, d = .003.
Fidelity of Treatment
The teacher completed a mean of 97% of the instructional steps across the analyzed lessons for the ESS Routine with a range from 90% to 100% for individual ESS lessons. A mean of 98% of the instructional steps across the analyzed lessons was completed for the CSI Intervention with a range from 94% to 100% for individual CSI lessons. No content components of the CSI intervention were taught during the ESS intervention. Likewise, no components of the ESS intervention were taught during the CSI intervention.
The methodological and theoretical presuppositions inherent in this study's design are directly related to the earliest work surrounding story-structure instruction. The study was designed to answer the question: Can story-structure components be taught to heterogeneous groups of learners, in general education settings, to improve reading comprehension without sacrificing the learning of the higher achieving peers?
The results are similar to those of previous studies regarding (a) positive effects of multi-phase instruction with moderate-sized groups including a variety of learner types and using authentic literature with secondary students (e.g., Dimino et al., 1990; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Idol, 1987); and (b) improved performance on criterion-referenced story grammar measures (e.g., Dimino et al., 1990; Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Idol, 1987).
In addition, this study extends previous research and contributes to the field in several important ways. First, it supports Kintsch's (2004) suggestion to instruct components of narrative text structure to improve reading comprehension. Second, it furthers investigations of outcomes for heterogeneous groups of learners (including individuals with disabilities). Moreover, while relatively modest in scope, the study is the largest of its kind to date, involving 79 students, including 14 students with disabilities, in a control-group design. Third, the study extends the research into secondary or adolescent literacy, a growing but minimally explored area of study. Fourth, the study demonstrates that, unlike previous studies of story-structure instruction in which the inclusion of individuals with disabilities required instructional ratios of 3:1 (e.g., Gardill & Jitendra, 1999; Gurney et al., 1990) to produce gains, students can be taught successfully in instructional groupings of 14:1. Fifth, this is the first study related to teaching story structure that used research-based reading comprehension instruction in the comparison condition, providing substantial support to claims that differences were related to the benefits of the ESS Routine over another strong instructional model. Sixth, this study provides preliminary evidence about the effects of packaging elements of story structure to intensify instruction by combining student self-questioning, story mapping, and summarizing. Finally, the study adds three new assessment tools to the research on story structure, which enable measurement of intervention efficacy: (a) a strategy-use test, (b) a knowledge test, and (c) a unit test over all of the short stories covered during the unit. The strategy measures demonstrate whether or not students have learned and can use the strategies that have been taught. Such a demonstration helps to eliminate the alternative explanation that reading practice alone produced the differences in reading comprehension.
Implications for Practice
Study results support the use of the ESS Routine as an instructional intervention for improving reading comprehension of at-risk learners in heterogeneous inclusive secondary classrooms. Thus, the Strategy-Use Test and Knowledge Test results indicated that students receiving the ESS Routine instruction not only outperformed CSI students, but gains were equivalent regardless of the disability/no disability category. Moreover, participation in the routine led to significant improvements in strategy use from pretest to posttest, and from pretest to maintenance. No such trend existed for CSI students, whose Strategy-Use Test scores remained linear and low.
Results from the Unit Reading Comprehension Test indicated, once again, that students, including those with disabilities, benefited equally from use of the ESS Routine. Significant differences between students in the ESS group and the CSI group on the reading comprehension measure and the Knowledge Test are particularly significant, given their similar nature to criterion-referenced assessments common in language arts classrooms. These findings support the belief that instruction in the ESS Routine may bolster educational outcomes for individuals with disabilities in such classrooms.
The socially significant findings across all survey measures are positive indicators of the palatability of the ESS Routine. More specifically, differences within both groups from pretest to posttest scores for the Reading Satisfaction Survey indicate that, regardless of instruction type, students were more satisfied with their reading abilities after instruction. Further, student survey scores on the Satisfaction with Instruction Survey in both groups indicated not only overall satisfaction with the instruction, but also a feeling that this instruction: (a) helped them understand short stories, (b) was fun and interesting, and (c) would lead to likely independent use of the strategies. Again, these results are positive indicators to support the likelihood of instructional palatability.
Finally, an important aspect of this study design is that ESS condition scores on strategy-use and knowledge test measures when evaluated in light of scores on the unit reading comprehension test provide strong evidence to suggest that a relationship exists between student use and knowledge of ESS strategies and growth in reading comprehension.
Several limitations apply to this study. First, the teacher for the study was also the researcher. While this arrangement controlled for teacher effects, the effects that may be produced by other teachers are unknown, as are other teachers' satisfaction with the routine and their ability to implement it.
Second, ESS Routine efficacy was measured in relation to heterogeneous groups of students, in part because federal law continues to advocate the need to educate individuals with disabilities in the least restrictive environment. The effects of the ESS Routine when implemented in supportive learning environments and under the optimal conditions of effective learning strategy instruction described by Swanson (2001) are unknown.
Third, the sample population included only 14 students with disabilities. While this percentage of the study population (18%) is larger than the reported prevalence rate of 6% of students with LD in reading found nationally in schools (National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, 2002), this small number of students with LD limits the generalizability of the results with regard to this type of student. Moreover, the subjects were all students referred to a summer school program.
Fourth, as a group, although the ESS student performance on the Unit Reading Comprehension Test was significantly higher than the performance of the CSI group, the level of their performance on the posttest may not be considered educationally significant (M = 24.0 or 60%, SD = 4.99). This is partially the result of rigorous application of a scoring rubric and the initial design of a difficult test to ensure against a ceiling effect. A second consideration is that the question type was short-answer, proving more challenging than the multiple-choice or fill-in-the-blank format commonly used in schools. Though the total number of hours of instruction (17) was typical for demonstrating effective learning strategy instruction (e.g., Deshler et al., 2001), the relatively short number of instructional days (9) may have produced an additional cognitive challenge for the specific student population. That is, complex packages of strategies (e.g., self-questioning, story mapping, summary writing) require sufficient time to master. Perhaps additional practice sessions would have yielded improved results.
Finally, a significant challenge to all the research to date on story-structure instruction is the lack of standardized reading comprehension measures. This study is no exception. In part, no such measure was used because of the relatively short amount of instructional time and the prediction that scores on a standardized reading test would not have a chance of changing after only nine sessions of instruction.
Future Research
Future research should include studies that involve implementing the ESS Routine by a teaching cadre other than the researcher across multiple classes and over a longer period of time. A second future direction is to implement the ESS Routine in a supportive learning environment for students with LD using the eight stages of instruction from the Strategic Instruction Model's Learning Strategies Curriculum (see Deshler & Schumaker, 2006) to allow maximum intervention effectiveness to be measured. Another study might focus on a component analysis of the routine.
All of these studies might involve standardized reading comprehension measures. Such research will be important to the field of special education and students with disabilities because it will lead to the development of successful pedagogy that is appropriate for all levels of learners in inclusive classrooms.
Carnine, D., & Kinder, D. (1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. RASE, 6(1), 20-30.
Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J., Bulgren, J., Lenz, K., Jantzen, J. E., Adams, G., Carnine, D., Grossen, B., Davis, B., & Marquis, J. (2001). Making learning easier: Connecting new knowledge to things students already know. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(4), 82-85.
Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. (Eds.). (2006). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Dimino, J., Gersten, R., Carnine, D., & Blake, G. (1990). Story grammar: An approach for promoting at-risk secondary students' comprehension of literature. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 19-32.
Ellis, E. S. (2000). The LINCS vocabulary strategy (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Edge Enterprises.
Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Garmon, M. A., & Tarrant, K. L. (1998). Accelerating reading progress in early literacy project classrooms: Three exploratory studies. Remedial and Special Education, 19(3), 142-159.
EXPLORE Test. (2005). Iowa City, IA: ACT, Inc.
Faggella-Luby, M. (2006). Embedded learning strategy instruction: Story-structure pedagogy in secondary classes for diverse learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas.
Fitzgerald, J., & Spiegel, D. L. (1983). Enhancing children's reading comprehension through instruction in narrative structure. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 1-17.
Gardill, M. C., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). Advanced story map instruction: Effects on the reading comprehension of students with learning disabilities. Journall of Special Education, 33(1), 2-17.
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(2), 279-320.
Griffey, Q. L., Jr., Zigmond, N., & Leinhardt, G. (1988). The effects of self-questioning and story structure training on the reading comprehension of poor readers. Learning Disabilities Research, 4(1), 45-51.
Gurney, D., Gersten, R., Dimino, J., & Carnine, D. (1990). Story grammar: Effective literature instruction for high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(6), 33-343.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). P. L. 108-446.
Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20(4), 196-205.
Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214-229.
Kintsch, W. (2004). The construction-integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction. In R. B. Rudell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1270-1324). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Mandler, J. M., & Johnson, N. S. (1977). Remembrance of things parsed: Story structure and recall. Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 111-151.
MetaMetrics. (2000). The Lexile framework for reading. Durham, NC: Author. Retrieved September 15, 2004, from http://lexile. com/faq.htm.
Montague, M., Maddux, C. D., & Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1990). Story grammar and comprehension and production of narrative prose by students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23(3), 190-197.
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD). (2002). Researcher consensus statement. Information Digest Number 3. Retrieved November 19, 2005, from http://www. nrcld.org/html/information/articles/digests/digest3.html
Olson, M. W., & Gee, T. C. (1988). Understanding narrative: A review of story grammar research. Childhood Education, 64(5), 302-306.
Ouellette, G., Dagostino, L., & Carifio, J. (1998). The relationship of children's expectations for structure in story to their knowledge of literature and their reading ability. Reading Improvement, 35(3), 98-113.
Perie, M., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2005). The nation's report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Raphael, T. (1982). Question-answering strategies for children. The Reading Teacher, 36(2), 186-190.
Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question-answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39(6), 516-522.
Rumelhart, D. E. (1975). Notes on a schema for stories. In D. G. Bobrow & A. M. Collins (Eds.), Representation and understanding (pp. 211-236). New York: Academic Press.
Short, E. J., & Ryan, E. B. (1984). Metacognitive differences between skilled and less skilled readers: Remediating deficits through story grammar and attribution training. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(2), 225-235.
Singer, H., & Donlan, D. (1982). Active comprehension: Problem-solving schema with question generation for comprehension of complex short stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 166-185.
Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1978). An analysis of story composition on elementary school children. In ?? Friedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Volume 2, pp. 53-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instructional method. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(3), 129-140.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1977). Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology, 9, 77-110.
Warner, M. M., Schumaker, J. B., Alley, G. R., & Deshler, D. D. (1980). Learning disabled adolescents in public schools: Are they different from other low achievers? Exceptional Education Quarterly, 1(2), 27-35.
Weaver, P. A., & Dickinson, D. K. (1982). Scratching below the surface structure: Exploring the usefulness of story grammars. Discourse Processes, 5(3), 225-243.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). New York: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Whaley, J. F. (1981). Readers' expectations for story structures. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(9), 107-111
Woods, M. L., & Moe, A. J. (2003). Reader's passages to accompany: Analytic Reading Inventory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
MICHAEL FAGGELLA-LUBY, Ph.D., University of Connecticut, Center for Behavioral Education and Research.
JEAN S. SCHUMAKER, Ph.D., University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.
DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning.
Correspondence should be addressed to: Michael Faggella-Luby, University of Connecticut, 249 Glenbrook Rd., Unit 2064, Storrs, CT 06269; e-mail: email@example.com
(1) Please note that there were 79 students who had permission to participate; thus, one student did not have a matched partner. After all the other matches were made, the 79th student was assigned to the CSI condition by a coin flip.
(2) Comprehension Skills Organizer available upon request.
Table 1 Demographic Data on All Subjects ESS CSI Category N % N % Total number of subjects 39 40 Gender Male 22 56.4 21 52.5 Female 17 43.6 19 47.5 Age (months) 171.44 172.08 Standard deviation 4.63 6.25 Ethnicity Caucasian 30 77.0 29 72.5 African American 6 15.4 5 12.5 Hispanic 1 2.6 3 7.5 Other 2 5.1 3 7.5 Avg. EXPLORE Percentile (reading) 47.97 50.70 Frequency EXPLORE Scores 80th-89th Percentile 1 1 70th-79th Percentile 6 6 60th-69th Percentile 7 8 50th-59th Percentile 7 8 40th-49th Percentile 9 12 30th-39th Percentile 0 0 20th-29th Percentile 4 2 10th-19th Percentile 2 0 0-9th Percentile 3 3 Table 2 Demographic Data on Students with Learning Disabilities Age EXPLORE (months) Gender Ethnicity IQ Nat Per ESS S1 175 M C 114 17 S2 174 M O 101 29 S3 166 M C 93 29 S4 165 F C 101 51 S5 166 F C 112 42 S6 177 M C 102 42 S7 168 M C 103 66 M = 170.1 M = 103.7 M = 39.4 SD = 5.0 SD = 7.2 SD = 16.2 CSI S1 162 M C 108 51 S2 167 M O mid range 42 S3 175 M AA 105 7 S4 177 F unmarked 104 51 S5 168 M C 102 42 S6 166 M C 101 51 S7 175 M unmarked 104 51 M = 170.1 M = 104.0 M = 42.1 SD = 5.0 SD = 2.5 SD = 16.1 Disability * ADD D R ULD ESS S1 ** ** S2 ** ** ** S3 ** ** S4 ** ** S5 ** S6 ** S7 ** CSI S1 ** ** ** S2 ** S3 ** S4 ** S5 ** S6 ** S7 ** Note. Ethnicity: C=Caucasian; AA=African American; O=other. * Disability: ADD=Attention Deficit Disorder; D=Dyslexia; R=Reading Deficit; ULD=Unspecified Learning Disability. IQ=Full Scale IQ score on the WISC-IV or WISC-III. Table 3 Component, Question, and Picture Cue for ESS Instruction Story-Structure Component Story-Structure Question Picture Cue Main Character Who is the main character? [??] (protagonist and antagonist) Central Conflict/ What is the central conflict [??] Initiating Event and how does it begin? Time When does the story take [??] place? Place Where does the story take [??] place? Climax Which decision or event is [??] the turning point? Resolution How does the central [??] conflict end/resolve? Theme Why did the author tell us [??] the story in this way? Table 4 Summary of Instructional Procedures Your-Phase Pedagogy of Instruction Content Demonstration Teacher-Guided of Instruction Day(s) & Modeling Practice * Whole strategy 1 ** ** 1st half 2 ** ** of each substrategy 3 components 2nd half 4 ** ** of each substrategy components 5 * Whole strategy 6-8 9 Your-Phase Pedagogy of Instruction Content Cooperative Independent of Instruction Day(s) Peer Practice Practice Review * Whole strategy 1 1st half 2 of each substrategy 3 ** ** components 2nd half 4 of each substrategy components 5 ** ** * Whole strategy 6-8 ** ** 9 ** ** * All components of specific instructional condition strategies (i.e., self-questioning, story-structure analysis, and summarizing for ESS; and QAR, LINCS, and semantic summary mapping for CSI). Table 5 Strategy-Use Test Results Pretest Progress N Mean SD Mean SD ESS SWD * 7 6.86 0.69 18.14 3.13 Other 32 6.09 2.49 16.25 4.08 CSI SWD * 7 6.43 2.15 7.00 2.08 Other 33 6.00 2.51 6.06 2.01 Posttest Maintenance N Mean SD Mean SD ESS SWD * 7 15.93 2.83 17.00 3.37 Other 32 16.02 3.32 14.19 4.51 CSI SWD * 7 5.71 1.60 5.43 2.44 Other 33 6.76 1.87 6.15 2.49 * SWD=Students with disabilities. Table 6 Knowledge Test Results Pretest Posttest N Mean SD Mean SD ESS SWD * 7 6.57 2.57 23.71 5.96 Other 32 4.19 2.79 22.47 6.20 CSI SWD * 7 3.86 2.41 5.43 2.37 Other 33 4.70 2.77 6.33 3.04 * SWD=Students with disabilities. Table 7 Unit Reading Comprehension Test Results Pretest Posttest N Mean SD Mean SD ESS SWD * 7 2.00 2.83 21.86 3.67 Other 32 2.09 2.18 24.44 5.17 CSI SWD * 7 1.14 2.61 17.14 6.15 Other 33 1.72 2.20 19.67 5.06 * SWD=Students with disabilities. Table 8 Reading Satisfaction Survey Results ESS CSI Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest M SD M SD M SD M SD Q1 4.64 1.56 5.90 0.99 4.65 1.27 6.15 0.83 Q2 4.59 1.50 6.15 0.90 4.28 1.40 6.12 0.94 Q3 4.05 1.64 6.13 1.11 4.18 1.80 5.79 1.20 Q4 4.72 1.40 6.15 1.11 5.15 1.23 6.08 0.96 Q5 5.58 1.27 6.18 0.97 5.68 1.19 6.30 0.79 Q6 5.79 1.26 5.77 1.14 5.25 1.41 5.77 0.99 Q7 5.17 1.21 5.85 0.90 4.75 1.52 6.03 0.92 Q8 4.68 1.34 6.05 0.94 4.30 1.22 6.07 0.86 Grand Mean 4.89 0.92 6.02 0.73 4.78 0.99 6.04 0.65 Note. Item score can range from 1 to 7. Table 9 Posttest Satisfaction with Instruction Survey Results ESS CSI M SD N M SD N Q1 6.46 0.76 39 6.58 0.64 40 Q2 6.28 0.79 39 6.50 0.93 40 Q3 5.97 1.04 39 5.67 1.02 40 Q4 6.24 1.05 38 6.02 1.07 40 Q5 6.46 0.76 39 6.33 0.89 40 Q6 5.79 1.07 38 5.80 1.07 40 Q7 5.78 0.95 39 6.13 1.01 39 Q8 5.90 0.94 39 6.07 1.07 40 Q9 6.13 0.92 39 6.18 0.98 40 Q10 3.01 0.95 39 6.05 1.18 40 Q11 6.36 0.90 39 6.13 1.02 40 Q12 6.54 0.79 39 6.37 0.74 40 Q13 6.61 0.64 38 6.50 0.72 40 Q14 6.72 0.76 39 6.83 0.50 40 Q15 6.59 0.68 39 6.53 0.64 40 Q16 6.53 0.60 38 6.55 0.68 40 Grand Mean 6.27 0.54 39 6.26 0.54 40 Note. Item scores can range from 1 to 7.
Reader Opinion
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
|Title Annotation:
|Deshler, Donald D.
|Learning Disability Quarterly
|Mar 22, 2007
|Previous Article:
|Using experimental analysis to determine interventions for reading fluency and recalls of students with learning disabilities.
|Next Article:
|English language learners and response to intervention: introduction to special issue.


text:
James Ellis appointed Commissioner for Tennessee
April 16, 2015
James Ellis returns to serve & improve Tennessee ASA/USA Softball
OUs Paige Parker earns POW honors
April 14, 2015
The freshman pitcher went 2-0 from the circle with 21 K's against Red River Rival Texas.
Florida reclaims the top spot in Top 25 Poll
April 14, 2015
Check out this week's Top 25 poll to see where your team is ranked!
Game schedule announced for Junior World Championship
April 13, 2015
See when the JWNT will be playing in OKC this August
Success through teamwork
April 13, 2015
Teaching teamwork can happen both on and off the field.
How the Top 25 Fared Week 10
April 12, 2015
See how your favorite team did!
Field of 24 teams set for USA Softball JO Cup
April 10, 2015
Twenty-four teams to compete in the inaugural event this summer!
One Last Thing with Alyssa Palomino
April 10, 2015
See what Junior Women's National Team Member Alyssa Palomino has done recently!
Umpiring runs in the Cappadonia family
April 10, 2015
For the Cappadonia family, umpiring is a family affair.
Top 26 Finalists for Player of the Year
April 08, 2015
See which athletes were named as a finalist for USA Softball Collegiate Player of the Year!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
John L. Lumley
|John Leask Lumley
|Fluid dynamics
|Pennsylvania State University
Cornell University
|Alma mater
|Johns Hopkins University
|Doctoral advisor
|Stanley Corrsin
|Doctoral students
|William K. George
|Known for
|Fluid turbulence
|Notable awards
|Fluid Dynamics Prize (1990)
John Leask Lumley is a Professor Emeritus, Graduate Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering at Cornell University.[1] He is widely known for his research in turbulence and is the coauthor of A First Course in Turbulence along with Hendrik Tennekes.
Academic career[edit]
Lumley received his M.S.E. and Ph.D. degrees from The Johns Hopkins University in 1954 and 1957 respectively. His Ph.D. thesis supervisor was Stanley Corrsin. He started his academic career at the Pennsylvania State University where he became Evan Pugh Professor of Aerospace Engineering. He was also in charge of research on turbulence and transition at the Applied Research Laboratory. In 1977 Lumley joined Cornell University where he is now the Professor Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering and Aerospace Engineering.
Honors and awards[edit]
Lumley received the 1990 Fluid Dynamics Prize of American Physical Society, "For his outstanding contributions to the understanding of turbulent flow, in particular, the fundamental structure of turbulent shear flows, the effects of drag-reducing additives, and his widely recognized contributions to the statistical theory of turbulence, and for his personal and intellectual leadership in the international fluid dynamics community, including his educational films and books, and his long active devotion to the Division of Fluid Dynamics of The American Physical Society."[2] He has also received several other wards, including:
- Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Award of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1982[3]
- Timoshenko Medal, 1993[4]
- Recipient of two honorary doctorate degrees (honoris causa) from the French University System, in Lyon and in Poitiers.
- Fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
- Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Member of the National Academy of Engineering
- Tennekes, H. and J. L. Lumley, A First Course in Turbulence, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA (1972).
- Holmes, P., J. L. Lumley, and G. Berkooz, Turbulence, Coherent Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry, Cambridge University Press (1998). ISBN 978-0-521-63419-9
- Lumley, J. L., Engines: An Introduction, Cambridge University Press, (1999).
- Lumley, J. L., Still Life with Cars: An Automotive Memoir, McFarland, (2005).
- Lumley, J. L., Stochastic Tools in Turbulence, Dover Publications (2007). ISBN 978-0-486-46270-7
- Monin, A. S., A. M. Yaglom, and J. L. Lumley, Statistical Fluid Mechanics - vol 1: Mechanics of Turbulence, The MIT Press (1971). ISBN 978-0-262-13062-2
- Lumley, J. L., H. A. Panofsky, "The Structure of Atmospheric Turbulence", John Wiley & Sons, Inc, New York, NY (1964).
External links[edit]
- Fluid dynamicists
- Johns Hopkins University alumni
- Pennsylvania State University faculty
- Cornell University faculty
- Fellows of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences
- Members of the United States National Academy of Engineering
- Fellows of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
- Living people
- Guggenheim Fellows


text:
Children from kindergarten through sixth grade are invited to an exclusive storytelling event with multicultural performer Michael McCarty at the Valencia Library on Thursday, February 23, 2012 at 4:00 p.m. No RSVP is necessary for this special storytelling event.
Known for his engaging style, McCarty shares African-American stories, International Folktales, and historical and scientific accounts with children, which are drawn from his personal experiences as a world traveler.
Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered right to your inbox
McCarty's storytelling style is best described as energetic and engaging, as he often seeks audience participation to illustrate his tales and sagas.
"The Santa Clarita Public Library provides engaging and unique programming, like this storytelling event, to promote literacy and early childhood education. McCarty is uniquely talented in sharing stories of international cultures and lifestyles with children, providing an untraditional and fun way of fulfilling the Library's goal of fostering a life-long love of learning," says Mayor Laurie Ender.
For more information please contact the Santa Clarita Public Library at (661) 259-8942 or visit santaclaritalibrary.com


text:
You add a second license to your order at half price!. Press OK to add this offer to your order.
"Populate Building Interiors" is our brand new Forest Pack and RailClone Tips & Tricks tutorial.
See complete tutorial.
RailClone 2.4 is out now! With a brand new UVW Xform operator, Evenly Count mode, exportable size attributes and usability features.
We are proud to announce our new RailClone Beginners Guide
"Animating with Forest Pack Pro" is our brand new Tips & Tricks tutorial.
See complete tutorial.
We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our site.
By continuing to use our website without changing the settings, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.


text:
APARTMENT LIDDELL175 River Hill Rd, Conestoga, PA 17516 View On Map (717) 872-9584
For rates, availability, and other information fill out the availability request form and a representative from APARTMENT LIDDELL will contact you shortly
Apartment Liddell is located in the Harrisburg Area in the 17516 zip code. View this apartment on a map.
Back to Top
Maps & Directions
click to view interactive map


text:
Harlequin Pies
|Crushed chocolate wafers
|3 Cup (48 tbs)
|Soft butter/Margarine
|6 Tablespoon
|Unflavored gelatin
|2 Tablespoon (2 Envelopes)
|Cold water
|1⁄2 Cup (8 tbs)
|3 Cup (48 tbs)
|Egg yolks
|6 , beaten
|Granulated sugar
|1⁄2 Cup (8 tbs)
|1⁄4 Teaspoon
|4 Teaspoon
|Vanilla extract
|2 Teaspoon
|Unsweetened chocolate square
|3 Ounce (3 Squares)
|Egg whites
|White rum
|2 Tablespoon
|Heavy cream
|1 Cup (16 tbs)
|Unsweetened chocolate
|1⁄2 Cup (8 tbs), shaved
Using fork, mix wafer crumbs with butter until crumbly.
With back of spoon, press to bottoms and sides of 2 9" pie plates.
Bake at 375°F. 8 min.; cool.
Add gelatine to water; set aside.
Scald milk in double boiler; slowly stir into egg yolks, 1/2 cup sugar, salt, and cornstarch, combined.
Cook, stirring, over hot, not boiling water, until custard coats spoon.
Remove from heat; add gelatine; stir until melted.
To half of custard, add vanilla, 3 sq. melted chocolate; beat until smooth.
Refrigerate until mixture mounds; pour into 2 crusts; refrigerate.
Refrigerate other half of custard till it just begins to set.
Meanwhile, beat egg whites till they form peaks when beater is raised.
Slowly add 1/2 cup sugar, beating till stiff.
Fold egg whites and rum into custard.
Spoon over chocolate mixture in shells; refrigerate until set; wrap; freeze.


text:
Staybridge Suites Guelph
Welcome to Staybridge Suites Extended Stay Hotel Guelph, Ontario Canada!
Staybridge Suites Hotel Guelph is the ideal choice for your extended stay needs. The Staybridge Suites Hotel is located near Highway 401 and Highway 6 North, 45 minutes from Toronto Pearson International Airport (YYZ) and 40 minutes from Hamilton John Munroe (YHM) Airport.
The Staybridge Suites offers near proximity to the University of Guelph, Cambridge Butterfly Conservatory, River Run Centre for the Performing Arts, Guelph Civic Museum, John McCrae House, St. Jacob's Farmer's Market, African Lion Safari, Downtown Guelph Shops, Restaurants, Stone Road Shopping Mall, and Bingamans Water park.
Our hotel is minutes from Toyota, Denso Manufacturing, Linamar, Metso, Cooperators and various Ministry Government offices.
The Staybridge Suites offers apartment like suites with all the conveniences of home to suit your extended stay or short term hotel needs. Our pet friendly hotel offers suites with fully-equipped kitchens, cable TV, Pay-Per-View, free wireless Internet and direct dial phone with personalized voicemail.
Quick Info
- Check In: 3:00 PM
- Check Out: 12:00 PM
- Minimum Check-In Age: 18
- Late Check Out Available
- Parking: Free
- Print Fact sheet
- Chat Online
Important Update[{"start": "1421730000000","end":"1427774400000", "desc": "Winter Blowout sale, stay two nights and get 25% off your second night!
Book first night at value added rates and get your second night 25% off, yes, 25% off; free parking, free breakfast, free Wi-Fi and free laundry.
Blackout dates may apply and not applicable to groups and tournaments. Rates shown may fluctuate; two-night minimum stay. Rates adjusted at check out."}]
Hotel Highlights
- On-site Guest Self-Laundry Facilities
- Housekeeping Full Service
- Complimentary Breakfast Buffet
- Standard Wireless Internet service is free for all members
- On-Site Fitness Center Available
Guest Reviews
Overall Experience
Review of StayBridge guelph
May 30, 2015
Most suites have a kitchen with oven, microwave, sink, dishes, forks, knifes etc,,
The room temperature was not warm enough at night .
Recommend hotel guest to go eat breakfast outside hotel.
Nice hotel
May 28, 2015
Rooms are nice and large, staff is great, food it good. Will always use this hotel when staying in Guelph area.
An amazing facilty
May 20, 2015
Everything is what you want from a hotel stay at this property. Even the annoying hockey families are well addressed by the staff here, which is a miracle. Food and room amenities are home-like... I'd stay for a month next time.
The breakfast items could be better.
May 19, 2015
Other than food quality, I would recommend the hotel. it has a good location near major highway and easy to drive in. Close parking to hotel. Well kept and nice décor. Room suite was great for family. Swimming pool well kept. The hotel is located on out skirt of city which makes it quiet from downtown city noise. I will stay here again on my next visit.


text:
For us at Tool Venture, the Italian-made Engineers/ Technicians tool case range from GT Line represents just about the best a professional can get. From their vast list of products we have chosen tool cases that match specific professional requirements, with a choice of sizes and internal capacities in several formats made from alternative materials. The GT Line Engineers tool case range starts at the lightweight ABS construction of the Revo tool case, through to the tough polypropylene used on the Atomik tool case, up to the Waterproof tool case and Turtle tool cases which are made from super durable HDPE and are tough enough to cope with air travel and aircraft hold storage.Read More
£19.95(Inc. VAT)
In Stock
£10.00(Inc. VAT)
Out of Stock
Pre Order Now
£15.95(Inc. VAT)
In Stock
£10.95(Inc. VAT)
In Stock
£17.95(Inc. VAT)
In Stock


text:
Pop singer Pink, who performed at the Hard Rock Hotel nightclub in Las Vegas on New Year's Eve, seems to be on good terms with motocross riding ex-husband Carey Hart, who reportedly "escorted her to the stage and toasted her at midnight," according to a source quoted by Perez Hilton. "Then he wished everyone a happy new year. It was very informal."
Pink was seen spending time with Carey and some friends in the VIP area. Reportedly, the two didn't talk much but when the New Year's bell sounded Carey pulled her up to the stage and introduced her to the crowd.


text:
Narrow your search
The Bose SoundTouch 20 is a likeable streaming speaker with capable performance and great sound, but it needs to support more music services.
It costs less than some other tabletop PCs, but the Lenovo Flex 20 can still be a very good family-style household computer if you don't mind the lower-end specs.
Despite some downsides, including a high price, the Bose QuietComfort 20 offers the best noise-canceling in an in-ear headphone and should tempt frequent travelers looking for a more compact alternative to a full-size NC headphone, such as the Bose QuietComfort 15.
Dell adds a new entry-level all-in-one to its line up with the Pentium-powered Inspiron 20 3000.
HP's entry in the growing tabletop PC field, the 20-inch Envy Rove 20, is a fun family PC, but it really should have a full 1080p display.
The e-commerce company announces free, same-day shipping on over 1 million items in 14 metro areas across the US.
A compelling experiment in tablet-desktop hybridization, the Sony Vaio Tap 20 is a great fit for home tech enthusiasts willing to try something new.
Samsung squeezes in another camera in the $150 gap between its just-released NX1100 and NX300, emphasizing the touch-screen and wireless experience.
When Google unveiled its smart and controversial eyewear three years ago, some early tech adopters tried to do their part by eagerly pushing for Glass acceptance. The world pushed back.
That's a crazy-good deal on a monitor that includes an HDMI input and stereo speakers. But there is a small catch.


text:
- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Posted July 1, 2012
I found 'One Day to Find a Husband' hard to get into initially as the hero Finn Mckenna really hard to accept as a hero, he seemed much to business like and not very likeable. How wrong can first impressions be, Finn turned out to be a well rounded character who had shut himself off from the world of Love due to heartbreak. Something I am sure many can relate. His business is in serious trouble and agrees to enter a marriage of convenience in order to get on board with WW CEO Ellie. She gets to adopt a child from a Chinese orphanage and Finn would get his business on track.
Without a husband Ellie can not pass the stringent adoption process, it made me wonder if my parents had to go through a similar thing when they adopted my brother then a few years later me. The marriage of inconvenience works and both get what they want. But they go back to being the people they both were at the start. Yet why is it they still feel so sad and empty without the other.
I will let you all wonder how it ends and if they get together. Some people may take to Finn straight away others may want to hit him with his briefcase, but believe me you want to give Finn a chance.
Posted June 29, 2012
One Day To Find A Husband by Shirley Jump
Finn McKeena is one of the best architects in the city for any design needed.
His younger brother is the casanova of the family, a girl every night of the week without even trying
Ellie Winston has just moved from the south to Boston to take over and run her father's architect firm as he's had a heart attack. Problem is people are leaving for other positions with other companies. she has just won a bid for the new hospital and nobody there is qualified to design it for the company.
Finn needs an alliance with Ellie so his company can stay afloat.
He approaches her and will think on it. She needs him to marry her to save her friends child from the China orphanage and counteroffers marriage.
After the marriage they both work on avoiding one another and staying out of each others way. When she learns from her father what went wrong in Finn's previous marriage to cause the divorce he's concerned it may be happening again...
His brothers love giving him a hard time and she's always wanted that type of family life...
I couldn't help but smile when reading about Boston, the rowing and when they guys talk to one another...


text:
West Point Police Department is looking for any information on a string of robberies from automobiles in late 2012.
About 11:15 a.m. Nov. 29, 2012, officers responded to the 600 block of Grove Street in reference to a burglary from a vehicle. The owner reported that a Savage .270 caliber rifle with a Simmons ATE scope was allegedly stolen from his automobile. According to the incident report, the owner believed the door to the vehicle was left unlocked. The rifle is valued at $450 and the serial number is E780559.
Work on the Louise Campbell Center for the Arts is closer to completion, as the renovation of the former McClure Furniture building on Commerce Street has reached the final stages.
The $460,000 renovation began in January, and the center will be the new home for the West Point/Clay County Arts Council. The city has worked on the building since earlier this year. The Campbell Center will be the first permanent home for WPCCAC.
Dog passes out from excitement to see owner
The We Care Committee is set to close its summer feeding program for local youth with a school supply fundraiser beginning at 11 a.m. Saturday at the LueZarah Robinson Healthcare Services building at 826 Highway 45 Alt. N.
The feeding program began on July 1, and WCC President LueZarah Robinson said WCC would be selling barbecue plates, fish plates and hot dogs to raise money for school supplies for the kids in the program.
The Clay County Board of Supervisors voted to pass a new heavy-hauling ordinance at its meeting Thursday. The ordinance has been discussed at length in board meetings for the past two months, mostly due to a proposed $35,000 bond for haulers in the county, a bond which was eliminated from the final ordinance.
Valeda Carmichael has called West Point home for the last 34 years. By the end of the summer, however, that may change.
DTL staff
Judge Lee Coleman issued three bench warrants for defendants who were on the docket for the Clay County July Circuit Court term but didn't show up for court Wednesday. A bench warrant authorizes immediate on-sight arrest of the individual who failed to appear.
One of the bench warrants issued by Coleman was for Marquis Boyd, 23, of West Point, who escaped from the Clay County Detention Center on June 11 and is still at large.
By Donna Summerall
The West Point School District will be implementing a new option available to schools participating in the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs called the Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) for the 2014 – 15 school year.
Since the West Point Police Department took over animal control duties from Public Works at the beginning of July, the search has been on for at least a part-time animal control officer for the city. Now the search is over, as West Point native Eric Davis, 24, was hired as West Point's new animal control officer Monday.
Mississippi has been enjoying a tax break on clothing and shoes the last weekend in July since 2008. Then Governor Hailey Barbour instituted the tax-free weekend to help Mississippi families afford back-to-school clothing for children ages pre-K through college. The time frame for the tax-free weekend is 12:01 a.m. Friday, July 25 through 12 p.m. Saturday, July 26. Clothing and shoes priced under $100 each, qualify for the savings.


text:
Disclaimer: You must not rely on the information on this website as an alternative to medical advice from your doctor. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. These products are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent disease. I am a Simply Aroma Independent Consultant and links in this post go to my business page.
Multitasking for young families with Pennzoil oil changes at Walmart
This shop has been compensated by Collective Bias, Inc. and its advertiser. All opinions are mine alone.#DropShopAndOil #CollectiveBias
Most of the time, being a one-vehicle family is pretty simple for us. We live on campus, Hubster walks to work, and the kids and I are free to use the car during the day. The one thing I dread? Taking the car in for maintenance. I do not like waiting with two small children while our car is in for an oil change! That feeling of dread faded away when we visited the Automotive Care Center at our local Walmart.
Lilla Rose Review and Giveaway
Disclosure: I received complimentary product for review purposes. The links below are to a family member's Lilla Rose business.
I have a love-hate relationship with my hair. It's thick, curly and unruly. When humidity strikes, I can either choose to look like a poof ball or put my hair up. The same old hair elastics get a little boring, though. Lilla Rose offers a line of pretty hair clips and jewelry to add some sparkle and fun to your look. Now I don't need to look like I had to put my hair up on a rainy day. I can put my hair up and still look on point! Dark hair and fluorescent university lighting make this a little difficult to see, but the flexi held my super thick, mid-back length hair.
Serve up some Chiquita Bites and WIN a Thirty-One Thermal Tote!
Disclosure: I received this product for free from the manufacturer. I agreed to use this product and post my opinion on my blog. My opinions do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the manufacturer of the product.
C's feeding therapy group has been going really well. They're exposing him to a lot of new foods, some of which he used to eat regularly but eliminated from his diet. One of those foods: apples. He likes to "make them crunch!" I can't even explain the joy in my heart when he requests to eat apples!
Sponsored: $50 Costco Cash Card Giveaway! #SnugandDryPlus #MC
Disclosure: I participated in a campaign on behalf of Mom Central Consulting for Huggies® Brand. I received product samples to facilitate my review and a promotional item to thank me for participating.
Baby Jo and I are loving the Huggies® Snug and Dry Plus Diapers from Costco. The SnugFit waistband and Leak Lock® protection keep her dry day and night. My little lady enjoys running, climbing and exploring. I constantly find her climbing into the toy box, standing on top of books and puzzle boxes, and this week I caught her trying to climb onto the coffee table! She sure keeps me busy. I'm glad that Huggies® Snug and Dry Plus Diapers and Huggies Natural Care® Plus Wipes, available at Costco, can keep up with Baby Jo's adventurous personality.
{FLASH GIVEAWAY} Pretty Muddy Women's Fun Run!
Disclosure: This post is sponsored by Pretty Muddy. As a 2014 Pretty Muddy Blogger, I received two entries to give away. The opinions below are entirely my own.
What's better than laughing with your girlfriends? Laughing while blasting through obstacles and getting Pretty Muddy! I'm excited to be offering one free registration code to TWO lucky readers. Enter to win a free entry and tell your friends about this fun run just for women. Pretty Muddy is all about fitness, fun, friendship, and flying out of your comfort zone.


text:
2005 BEST Bakery, South
French Memories
As if life on picturesque Duxbury Harbor wasn't sweet enough, French Memories steps in with a cadre of top-notch carbs to up the ante. On hand are tiny petits fours and crunchy baguettes that would hold their own anywhere along the Seine. But the standouts are the truly irresistible almond croissants. Their crispy, buttery layers and dense, nutty filling condense into one cakelike bite.
Be respectful of our online community and contribute to an engaging conversation. We reserve the right to remove impersonators or personal attacks, threats, profanity, or flat-out offensive comments. By posting here, you are permitting Boston magazine and Metro Corp. to edit and republish your comment in all media.


text:
2007 Schedule
CFN Prediction: 11-1
at Mississippi St
Sept. 8
Virginia Tech
Sept. 15
Middle Tennessee
Sept. 22
South Carolina
Sept. 29
at Tulane
at Kentucky
Louisiana Tech
at Ole Miss
2006 Record:
2006 predicted
has done it with speed, speed, athleticism, and more speed, with backups
that have more raw talent than the starters for about 100 other teams.
This year's version is no exception, and with a schedule that's far more
manageable than last year's (only two road games against a 2006 bowl
team, Kentucky and Alabama), an SEC title is a demand, and a national championship
is certainly possible.
How loaded is LSU? It lost
JaMarcus Russell, and likely will replace him with Matt Flynn, who has
starter's experience, or eventually Ryan
Perrilloux, the super-recruit of a few years ago with next-level
skills and more running ability than Russell. The track team of NFL
receivers that left is being replaced by another track team of NFL
receivers, and veterans are waiting in the wings to replace the starting
safeties … who are also off to play in the big league.
Can LSU win the really big game? It proved it could at the end of last
year. Is LSU able to reload rather than rebuild? 11-2 and a Sugar Bowl
win gave the answer. Can LSU win the national title under Miles? This
year, anything less will be a disappointment.
What to watch for on offense: Don't expect much of a change in
the offensive production with Gary Crowton, who replaces Jimbo Fisher
(who left for Florida State), but that doesn't mean things won't be
different. Crowton's spread offense bogged down at times at Oregon, but
he's fantastic at developing quarterbacks and should use backs Keiland
Williams, Jacob Hester and Alley Broussard to give the offense more
balance. Expect more option use and more running from the quarterbacks
than Tiger fans are used to.
What to watch for on defense: More of the same. With eight
starters returning, including future NFL millionaire tackle Glenn
Dorsey, the nation's number three defense of last year should be every
bit as dominant. Defensive coordinator Bo Pelini will keep the D
aggressive, the sacks will come in bunches, and the front seven will be
a brick wall to run on.
The team will be far better if … the penalties are reduced. The
Tigers weren't killed by the errors, but there were just enough, 83 on
the season, to be annoying. They were mostly the ticky-tack, five-yard
variety, but it is one of the few areas that could use improvement.
The Schedule:
The schedule
last year had four brutal road games and eight manageable home dates.
This season, the scheduling gods are much kinder, with the five away
games at Mississippi State, Kentucky, Tulane, Alabama and Ole Miss. Any
team that thinks it can win the national title should be able to get
through those five without much of a problem. The early home game with
Virginia Tech should be as good as any BCS match-up in January, while
the showdown with Florida will be as good as whatever the national title
game turns out to be. Missing Georgia and Tennessee from the East is a
Best Offensive Player:
Sophomore OT
Ciron Black. A 314-pound rock on the left side, he turned in a great
freshman season and a top pro prospect from day one. With potentially
four returning starters up front, the line should be a strength in time
as long as Black plays as expected.
Best Defensive Player:
Senior DT
Glenn Dorsey. An almost-certain first-round pick had he left early, and
a possible top-15 selection, the 300-pound All-American will be the
anchor of one of the best lines in America. He missed spring ball with a
leg injury but is expected to be more than fine by the time the season
starts. As long as he keeps his weight in check, he'll be a sure-fire
Key player to a
successful season:
WR Early Doucet. Is this the year he puts it all together and becomes
the superstar, All-America-caliber target everyone's been waiting for?
The speed is peerless and he has decent size; now he has to be
consistent as a number one, instead of as a second or third option
behind Dwayne Bowe and Craig Davis.
The season will be a
success if
... LSU plays for the national title. The defense will be among the five
best in the nation, the offense will be more than fine no matter who's
at quarterback, and the schedule is tailor-made for a title. Of course,
if all goes well there will be an SEC championship game first, and the
Tigers will be more than happy to worry about that when the time comes.
Key game:
Oct. 20 vs. Auburn. LSU
can afford a loss to someone like Florida or even Virginia Tech (but not
both) and can still get to the national championship (since those two
games are relatively early on the slate). However, winning the West
might be tough if Auburn wins in Death Valley for the first time since


text:
Email Alerts
License Dashboard extends partner network
Software Asset Management specialist License Dashboard has extended its global partner network News | 04 Nov 2013
Livingstone shuffles management pack
SAM specialist Livingstone has seen its CEO head to run US operations as it introduces a fresh head of sales in EMEA News | 21 Oct 2013
Progress plans greater managed service provider focus
Application development platform specialist Progress is looking to work with more managed service providers News | 17 Oct 2013
IRIS buys KashFlow to boost cloud ambitions
Accountancy player IRIS Software has acquired cloud bookkeeping specialist KashFlow News | 17 Oct 2013
Canalys tips software and wearable computing for growth
Using software as a differentiator and extending apps into the more personal wearable PC market should provide fertile ground for the channel News | 02 Oct 2013
Express Metrix looks for strategic SAM partners
Software Asset Management specialist Express Metrix is looking to make the conversation partners have with customers around software more strategic News | 26 Sep 2013
MicroScope's top stories, week ending 20 September 2013
HP UK boss Wilson heads Down Under, Advanced rides to rescue of 2e2 public sector customer, and Outsourcery strikes Ingram Micro deal. Catch up on the biggest channel news stories from the past week News | 22 Sep 2013
Adobe talks up "overwhelming" cloud demand
Adobe might have missed revenue targets for its Q3 but is increasing its recurring revenue generating cloud subscriber base News | 18 Sep 2013
MicroScope's top stories, week ending 9 August 2013
Gartner calls for cloud security transparency, Cisco picks Avnet to supply SAP HANA on UCS, and Kelway heads up north. Catch up on the biggest channel news stories from the past seven days News | 12 Aug 2013
Polish Oracle, Salesforce.com partner Outbox hits UK shores
Warsaw, Poland-based CRM consultancy and Oracle reseller Outbox expands its reach with new City of London digs News | 08 Jul 2013


text:
Career Info for a Degree in Skin Care & Aesthetics
Skin care and aesthetics are generally available as hands-on training programs. Continue reading for an overview of the training, as well as career and salary info for graduates.
Essential Information
Aesthetics training programs are typically offered at stand-alone vocational schools, cosmetology schools or community colleges. One must complete between 600 and 1,500 hours of classroom and practical training before being eligible to take the licensing exam. Most state licensure exams include written and practical components.
Postsecondary aesthetics certificate and degree programs typically consist of training in skin care techniques, make-up application and the removal of unwanted facial and body hair. Classroom sessions are often supplemented with hands-on learning experience in a school's clinic; students may offer services to the public under the supervision of instructors.
|Education Requirements
|State-approved training program
|Other Requirements
|State licensure
|Projected Job Growth (2012-2022)*
|40% for skin care specialists
|Average Salary (2013)*
|$32,990 for skin care specialists
Source: *U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Career Information
Aestheticians and skin care specialists often work in salons, medical offices, hotels and spas. Some of these professionals, like facialists, hair removal specialists and make-up artists, only offer particular services. Certification in this field may be available through third-party organizations that manufacture or sell skin care products. Earning voluntary certification may lead to additional job opportunities.
Salary Statistics
According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average salary for skin care specialists was $32,990 per year as of May 2013 (www.bls.gov). Salaries in this field can vary considerably depending on geographic location. For example, specialists in Oklahoma earned an average salary of $22,760 as of May 2013; specialists in New Hampshire earned an average wage of $42,300 per year.
Job Prospects
Career prospects for skin care specialists were expected to grow by 40% from 2012-2022, reported the BLS, which was faster than the national average. Job growth may result from an increase in the number of people who use skin care products or receive professional treatments, as well as the availability of new services.
Related to Career Info for a Degree in Skin Care & Aesthetics
- Related
- Recently Updated
- Popular
Skin Care Specialist: Licensure, Certification and Credentialing Info
Skin care specialists, or estheticians, give facials, skin treatments and beauty treatments to the clients they serve. They may...
Esthetician: How Do I Become an Esthetician
Find out how to become an esthetician. Research the education and career requirements, and learn about the experience you need...
How to Become a Skin Specialist: Education and Career Roadmap
Research the requirements to become a skincare specialist. Learn about the job duties, and read the step-by-step process to...
Interior Design: Diploma Summary
Read about interior design diploma programs. Get information about courses, internships, requirements and job prospects to make...
What's the Difference Between an Aesthetician and Esthetician?
- Hawaii Job Outlook: Overview of the Fastest Growing Careers
- Skin Care Technician: Job Description & Requirements
- Online Skin Care Courses for Aspiring Skin Care Professionals
- Associate Degree in Child Development: Program Summary
- Associate of Business: Management Technology Degree Overview
- Computer Art Master's Degree Program Information
- Bachelor of Web Design and Multimedia: Degree Overview


text:
Latest The Kennel Club Stories
HUNTSVILLE, Ala., March 30, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- LINE-X Protective Coatings of Kentucky recently awarded the Louisville Metro Police Department's K-9 Unit with a $10,000 contribution towards the refurbishment of its kennel facility which is in dire need of repair and upgrades.
DETROIT, Jan. 27, 2011 /PRNewswire/ -- The Detroit Kennel Club Dog Shows return to Cobo Center to entertain and educate dog lovers from all over the Midwest.
GENEVA, June 22, 2010 /PRNewswire/ -- Eukanuba Partners with The Danish Kennel Club and Sponsors the FCI World Dog Show 2010. From 24th to 27th June 2010 another dynamic edition of the FCI World Dog Show will take place with more than 19,300 dogs from all around the world competing to win prestigious titles and celebrate the best of them. To view the Multimedia News Release, please click: http://multivu.prnewswire.com/mnr/prne/eukanuba/42446/ This year the WDS is hosted by...
LOS ANGELES, May 19 /PRNewswire/ -- Some of America's well-loved heroes, which happen to be four-legged and fuzzy enlisted soldiers who sniff out bombs in enemy territories and save lives, will be honored this Memorial Day at the Kennel Club LAX (www.kennelclublax.com) at 5325 West 102nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
NEW YORK, Feb.
NEW YORK, Feb. 4 /PRNewswire/ -- The PETaPOTTY Westminster Experience is setting the stage for an incredible four-day BarkBar Invitational Vendor Expo, SkyBark Red Carpet Kickoff Party & Golden Paw Awards, in conjunction with Westminster Kennel Club's 134th Annual Dog Show.
PHILADELPHIA, Nov.
PROVIDENCE, R.I., Oct. 23 /PRNewswire/ -- Providence's Bay Colony Dog Show is one of the nation's largest American Kennel Club (AKC) dog events, and has moved to Providence after 100 years in Boston.
IRVINE, Calif., March 5 /PRNewswire/ -- BowTie, Inc., the world's largest publisher of pet and animal magazines and websites, is pleased to announce that Bo Bengtson, Amy Fernandez and Richard G.
- A young chicken: also used as a pet name for children.


text:
day trip from Athens
Hello - In mid-October, I'm on a group tour of Greece and Turkey, first visting Athens for two days. We'll be visiting the Areopagus, Acropolis, Agora, and Plaka. The third day is Corinth. After Corinth, tour is going to some greek islands and Turkey. I have an extra day at the beginning of the trip, and thought I'd do a day trip from Athens. Reading through Rick Steves' book, he recommends either Delphi or Hydra. Which do you prefer, or is there another option for a day trip? I like museums, natural scenery, photography. Not really into laying on the beach, shopping or night life. Thanks! Dan


text:
Lunch Seven Days! Mon - Sun 11:30-2
Dinner Thurs-Fri-Sat 4-10pm
Also: Sunday afternoons for football!
Entertainment EVERY Thursday evening ... click here for details
Thurs: Mexican Night! $3 Mexican Beers & $4 Margaritas
$5 Burritos & Quesadillas*
Fri: Ribs & Flight Night
Flight of Four Ales $5
All-You-Can-Eat Ribs**$14.95
with choice of two sides
Sat: Garage Date Night
Racy Cocktails $4 and $5 Bottle of Vino $12
Dinner-For-Two $26 Choice of starter and two main digs*
* Thurs: All Burritos & Quesadillas except those with seafood.
** Fri: No sharing or take-home on All-U-Can-Eat Ribs
*** Sat: No deals on Ribs ... come Friday for discount Ribs!