With Implications for Instruction
Linda Elder with Richard Paul
Though most teachers aspire to make critical thinking a primary objective of their instruction, most also do not realize that, to develop as thinkers, students must pass through stages of development in critical thinking. That is, most teachers are unaware of the levels of intellectual development that people go through as they improve as thinkers. We believe that significant gains in the intellectual quality of student work will not be achieved except to the degree that teachers recognize that skilled critical thinking develops, only when properly cultivated, and only through predictable stages.
In this paper we shall set out a stage theory based on the nearly twenty years of research of the Center for Critical Thinking and explain some of the theory’s implications for instruction. We shall be brief, concise, and to the point in our explanation with minimal theoretical elaboration. Furthermore, we believe that the “practicality” of the theory we explain here is best tested in the classroom and in everyday life. The reader should be expressly aware that we are approaching the human mind exclusively from an intellectual standpoint — not from a psychological standpoint. Each stage of intellectual development will be explained in terms of the following variables:
- Defining Feature
- Principal Challenge
- Knowledge of Thinking
- Skill in Thinking
- Relevant Intellectual Traits
- Some Implications for Instruction
Due to space limitations, we have made no attempt to be exhaustive with respect to any stage, nor to answer the many questions that might be raised concerning the development, reliability or validity of the stages. The basic intention is to provide a practical organizer for teachers interested in using a conceptual map to guide student thinking through developmental stages in the process of becoming critical thinkers. Once the stages are explained, and stage-specific recommendations are given, we close with some global implications for instruction.
We make the following assumptions: (1) that there are predictable stages through which every person who develops as a critical thinker passes, (2) that passage from one stage to the next is dependent upon a necessary level of commitment on the part of an individual to develop as a critical thinker, is not automatic, and is unlikely to take place “subconsciously,” (3) that success in instruction is deeply connected to the intellectual quality of student learning, and (4) that regression is possible in development.
Before moving to the stages themselves, a brief overview of what we mean by critical thinking is in order. Our working definition is as follows: We define critical thinking as:
the ability and disposition to improve one’s thinking by systematically subjecting it to intellectual self-assessment.
It is important to recognize that on this view, persons are critical thinkers, in the fullest sense of the term, only if they display this ability and disposition in all, or most, of the dimensions of their lives (e.g. as a parent, citizen, consumer, lover, friend, learner, and professional). We exclude from our concept of the critical thinker those who think critically in only one dimension of their lives. We do so because the quality of one’s life is dependent upon high quality reasoning in all domains of one’s life, not simply in one dimension.
The stages we will lay out are as follows:
Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker
Stage Two: The Challenged Thinker
Stage Three: The Beginning Thinker
Stage Four: The Practicing Thinker
Stage Five: The Advanced Thinker
Stage Six: The Accomplished Thinker
Stage One: The Unreflective Thinker
Defining Feature: Unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of the determining role that thinking is playing in their lives and of the many ways that problems in thinking are causing problems in their lives. Unreflective thinkers lack the ability to explicitly assess their thinking and improve it thereby.
Knowledge of Thinking: Unreflective thinkers lack the knowledge that high quality thinking requires regular practice in taking thinking apart, accurately assessing it, and actively improving it. In fact, unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of thinking as such, hence fail to recognize thinking as involving concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc. Unreflective thinkers are largely unaware of the appropriate standards for the assessment of thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc.
Skill in Thinking: Unreflective thinkers may have developed a variety of skills in thinking without being aware of them. However, these skills are inconsistently applied because of the lack of self-monitoring of thought. Prejudices and misconceptions often undermine the quality of thought of the unreflective thinker.
Some Implications for Instruction: We must recognize that in the present mode of instruction it is perfectly possible for students to graduate from high school, or even college, and still be largely unreflective thinkers. Though all students think, most students are largely unaware of how their thinking is structured or how to assess or improve it. Thus when they experience problems in thinking, they lack the skills to identify and “fix” these problems. Most teachers do not seem to be aware of how unaware most students are of their thinking. Little is being done at present to help students "discover" their thinking. This emphasis needs shifting.
Stage Two: The Challenged Thinker
Defining Features: Thinkers move to the “challenged” stage when they become initially aware of the determining role that thinking is playing in their lives, and of the fact that problems in their thinking are causing them serious and significant problems.
Principal Challenge: To become initially aware of the determining role of thinking in one’s life and of basic problems that come from poor thinking.
Knowledge of Thinking: Challenged thinkers, unlike unreflective thinkers are becoming aware of thinking as such. They are becoming aware, at some level, that high quality thinking requires deliberate reflective thinking about thinking (in order to improve thinking). They recognize that their thinking is often flawed, although they are not able to identify many of these flaws. Challenged thinkers may develop an initial awareness of thinking as involving concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc., and as involving standards for the assessment of thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc., though they have only an initial grasp of these standards and what it would take to internalize them. Challenged thinkers also develop some understanding of the role of self-deception in thinking, though their understanding is limited. At this stage the thinker develops some reflective awareness of how thinking operates for good or ill.
Skill in Thinking: Most challenged thinkers have very limited skills in thinking. However like unreflective thinkers, they may have developed a variety of skills in thinking without being aware of them, and these skills may (ironically) serve as barriers to development. At this stage thinkers with some implicit critical thinking abilities may more easily deceive themselves into believing that their thinking is better than it actually is, making it more difficult to recognize the problems inherent in poor thinking. To accept the challenge at this level requires that thinkers gain insight into the fact that whatever intellectual skills they have are inconsistently applied across the domains of their lives.
Relevant Intellectual Trait: The fundamental intellectual trait at this stage is intellectual humility, in order to see that problems are inherent in one’s thinking.
Some Implications for Instruction: We must recognize the importance of challenging our students — in a supportive way — to recognize both that they are thinkers and that their thinking often goes awry. We must lead class discussions about thinking. We must explicitly model thinking (e.g., thinking aloud through a problem). We must design classroom activities that explicitly require students to think about their thinking. We must have students examine both poor and sound thinking, talking about the differences. We must introduce students to the parts of thinking and the intellectual standards necessary to assess thinking. We must introduce the idea of intellectual humility to students; that is, the idea of becoming aware of our own ignorance. Perhaps children can best understand the importance of this idea through their concept of the "know-it-all," which comes closest to their recognition of the need to be intellectually humble.
Stage Three: The Beginning Thinker
Defining Feature: Those who move to the beginning thinker stage are actively taking up the challenge to begin to take explicit command of their thinking across multiple domains of their lives. Thinkers at this stage recognize that they have basic problems in their thinking and make initial attempts to better understand how they can take charge of and improve it. Based on this initial understanding, beginning thinkers begin to modify some of their thinking, but have limited insight into deeper levels of the trouble inherent in their thinking. Most importantly, they lack a systematic plan for improving their thinking, hence their efforts are hit and miss.
Principal Challenge: To begin to see the importance of developing as a thinker. To begin to seek ways to develop as a thinker and to make an intellectual commitment to that end.
Knowledge of Thinking: Beginning thinkers, unlike challenged thinkers are becoming aware not only of thinking as such, but also of the role in thinking of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc. Beginning thinkers are also at some beginning stage of recognizing not only that there are standards for the assessment of thinking: clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc., but also that one needs to internalize them and thus begin using them deliberately in thinking. They have a beginning understanding of the role of egocentric thinking in human life.
Skill in Thinking: Beginning thinkers are able to appreciate a critique of their powers of thought. Beginning thinkers have enough skill in thinking to begin to monitor their own thoughts, though as “beginners” they are sporadic in that monitoring. They are beginning to recognize egocentric thinking in themselves and others.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: The key intellectual trait required at this stage is some degree of intellectual humility in beginning to recognize the problems inherent in thinking. In addition, thinkers must have some degree of intellectual confidence in reason, a trait which provides the impetus to take up the challenge and begin the process of active development as critical thinkers, despite limited understanding of what it means to do high quality reasoning. In addition, beginning thinkers have enough intellectual perseverance to struggle with serious problems in thinking while yet lacking a clear solution to those problems (in other words, at this stage thinkers are recognizing more and more problems in their thinking but have not yet discovered how to systematize their efforts to solve them).
Some Implications for Instruction: Once we have persuaded most of our students that much of their thinking — left to itself — is flawed and that they, like all of us, are capable of improving as thinkers, we must teach in such a way as to help them to see that we all need to regularly practice good thinking to become good thinkers. Here we can use sporting analogies and analogies from other skill areas. Most students already know that you can get good in a sport only if you regularly practice. We must not only look for opportunities to encourage them to think well, we must help them to begin to understand what it is to develop good HABITS of thinking. What do we need to do regularly in order to read well? What must we do regularly and habitually if we are to listen well? What must we do regularly and habitually if we are to write well. What must we do regularly and habitually if we are to learn well? We must recognize that students are not only creatures of habit, but like the rest of us, they are largely unaware of the habits they are developing. They are largely unaware of what it is to develop good habits (in general), let alone good habits of thinking. If our students are truly “beginning” thinkers, they will be receptive to the importance of developing sound habits of thought. We must emphasize the importance of beginning to take charge of the parts of thinking and applying intellectual standards to thinking. We must teach students to begin to recognize their native egocentrism when it is operating in their thinking.
Stage Four: The Practicing Thinker
Defining Feature: Thinkers at this stage have a sense of the habits they need to develop to take charge of their thinking. They not only recognize that problems exist in their thinking, but they also recognize the need to attack these problems globally and systematically. Based on their sense of the need to practice regularly, they are actively analyzing their thinking in a number of domains. However, since practicing thinkers are only beginning to approach the improvement of their thinking in a systematic way, they still have limited insight into deeper levels of thought, and thus into deeper levels of the problems embedded in thinking.
Principal Challenge: To begin to develop awareness of the need for systematic practice in thinking.
Knowledge of Thinking: Practicing thinkers, unlike beginning thinkers are becoming knowledgeable of what it would take to systematically monitor the role in their thinking of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc. Practicing thinkers are also becoming knowledgeable of what it would take to regularly assess their thinking for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc. Practicing thinkers recognize the need for systematicity of critical thinking and deep internalization into habits. They clearly recognize the natural tendency of the human mind to engage in egocentric thinking and self-deception.
Skill in Thinking: Practicing thinkers have enough skill in thinking to critique their own plan for systematic practice, and to construct a realistic critique of their powers of thought. Furthermore, practicing thinkers have enough skill to begin to regularly monitor their own thoughts. Thus they can effectively articulate the strengths and weaknesses in their thinking. Practicing thinkers can often recognize their own egocentric thinking as well as egocentric thinking on the part of others. Furthermore practicing thinkers actively monitor their thinking to eliminate egocentric thinking, although they are often unsuccessful.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: The key intellectual trait required to move to this stage is intellectual perseverance. This characteristic provides the impetus for developing a realistic plan for systematic practice (with a view to taking greater command of one’s thinking). Furthermore, thinkers at this stage have the intellectual humility required to realize that thinking in all the domains of their lives must be subject to scrutiny, as they begin to approach the improvement of their thinking in a systematic way.
Some Implications for Instruction: What are the basic features of thinking that students must command to effectively become practicing thinkers? What do they need to do to take charge of their thinking intellectually, with respect to any content? We must teach in such a way that students come to understand the power in knowing that whenever humans reason, they have no choice but to use certain predictable structures of thought: that thinking is inevitably driven by the questions, that we seek answers to questions for some purpose, that to answer questions, we need information, that to use information we must interpret it (i.e., by making inferences), and that our inferences, in turn, are based on assumptions, and have implications, all of which involves ideas or concepts within some point of view. We must teach in such a way as to require students to regularly deal explicitly with these structures (more on these structure presently).
Students should now be developing the habit — whenever they are trying to figure something out — of focusing on: purpose, question, information, inferences, assumptions, concepts, point of view, and implications. The result of this emphasis in instruction is that students begin to see connections between all the subject matter they are learning. In studying history, they learn to focus on historical purposes and questions. When studying math, they clarify and analyze mathematical goals and problems. When studying literature, they reflect upon literary purposes and questions. They notice themselves making historical, mathematical, and literary assumptions. They notice themselves tracing historical, mathematical, and literary implications. Recognizing the "moves" one makes in thinking well is an essential part of becoming a practicing thinker.
Students should be encouraged to routinely catch themselves thinking both egocentrically and sociocentrically. They should understand, for example, that most of the problems they experience in learning result from a natural desire to avoid confusion and frustration, and that their inability to understand another person’s point of view is often caused by their tendency to see the world exclusively within their own egocentric point of view.
Stage Five: The Advanced Thinker
Defining Feature: Thinkers at this stage have now established good habits of thought which are “paying off.” Based on these habits, advanced thinkers not only actively analyze their thinking in all the significant domains of their lives, but also have significant insight into problems at deeper levels of thought. While advanced thinkers are able to think well across the important dimensions of their lives, they are not yet able to think at a consistently high level across all of these dimensions. Advanced thinkers have good general command over their egocentric nature. They continually strive to be fair-minded. Of course, they sometimes lapse into egocentrism and reason in a one-sided way.
Principal Challenge: To begin to develop depth of understanding not only of the need for systematic practice in thinking, but also insight into deep levels of problems in thought: consistent recognition, for example, of egocentric and sociocentric thought in one’s thinking, ability to identify areas of significant ignorance and prejudice, and ability to actually develop new fundamental habits of thought based on deep values to which one has committed oneself.
Knowledge of Thinking: Advanced thinkers are actively and successfully engaged in systematically monitoring the role in their thinking of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc., and hence have excellent knowledge of that enterprise. Advanced thinkers are also knowledgeable of what it takes to regularly assess their thinking for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc. Advanced thinkers value the deep and systematic internalization of critical thinking into their daily habits. Advanced thinkers have keen insight into the role of egocentrism and sociocentrism in thinking, as well as the relationship between thoughts, feelings and desires.
They have a deep understanding of the powerful role that thinking plays in the quality of their lives. They understand that egocentric thinking will always play a role in their thinking, but that they can control the power that egocentrism has over their thinking and their lives.
Skill in Thinking: Advanced thinkers regularly critique their own plan for systematic practice, and improve it thereby. Practicing thinkers regularly monitor their own thoughts. They insightfully articulate the strengths and weaknesses in their thinking. They possess outstanding knowledge of the qualities of their thinking. Advanced thinkers are consistently able to identify when their thinking is driven by their native egocentrism; and they effectively use a number of strategies to reduce the power of their egocentric thoughts.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: The key intellectual trait required at this stage is a high degree of intellectual humility in recognizing egocentric and sociocentric thought in one’s life as well as areas of significant ignorance and prejudice. In addition the thinker at this level needs: a) the intellectual insight and perseverance to actually develop new fundamental habits of thought based on deep values to which one has committed oneself, b) the intellectual integrity to recognize areas of inconsistency and contradiction in one’s life, c) the intellectual empathy necessary to put oneself in the place of others in order to genuinely understand them, d) the intellectual courage to face and fairly address ideas, beliefs, or viewpoints toward which one has strong negative emotions, e) the fair-mindedness necessary to approach all viewpoints without prejudice, without reference to one’s own feelings or vested interests. In the advanced thinker these traits are emerging, but may not be manifested at the highest level or in the deepest dimensions of thought.
Some Implications for Instruction: For the foreseeable future most of our students will not become advanced thinkers — if at all — until college or beyond. Nevertheless, it is important that they learn what it would be to become an advanced thinker. It is important that they see it as an important goal. We can help students move in this direction by fostering their awareness of egocentrism and sociocentrism in their thinking, by leading discussions on intellectual perseverance, intellectual integrity, intellectual empathy, intellectual courage, and fair-mindedness. If we can graduate students who are practicing thinkers, we will have achieved a major break-through in schooling. However intelligent our graduates may be, most of them are largely unreflective as thinkers, and are unaware of the disciplined habits of thought they need to develop to grow intellectually as a thinker.
Stage Six: The Accomplished Thinker
Defining Feature: Accomplished thinkers not only have systematically taken charge of their thinking, but are also continually monitoring, revising, and re-thinking strategies for continual improvement of their thinking. They have deeply internalized the basic skills of thought, so that critical thinking is, for them, both conscious and highly intuitive. As Piaget would put it, they regularly raise their thinking to the level of conscious realization. Through extensive experience and practice in engaging in self-assessment, accomplished thinkers are not only actively analyzing their thinking in all the significant domains of their lives, but are also continually developing new insights into problems at deeper levels of thought. Accomplished thinkers are deeply committed to fair-minded thinking, and have a high level of, but not perfect, control over their egocentric nature.
Principal Challenge: To make the highest levels of critical thinking intuitive in every domain of one’s life. To internalize highly effective critical thinking in an interdisciplinary and practical way.
Knowledge of Thinking: Accomplished thinkers are not only actively and successfully engaged in systematically monitoring the role in their thinking of concepts, assumptions, inferences, implications, points of view, etc., but are also regularly improving that practice. Accomplished thinkers have not only a high degree of knowledge of thinking, but a high degree of practical insight as well. Accomplished thinkers intuitively assess their thinking for clarity, accuracy, precision, relevance, logicalness, etc. Accomplished thinkers have deep insights into the systematic internalization of critical thinking into their habits. Accomplished thinkers deeply understand the role that egocentric and sociocentric thinking plays in the lives of human beings, as well as the complex relationship between thoughts, emotions, drives and behavior.
Skill in Thinking: Accomplished thinkers regularly, effectively, and insightfully critique their own use of thinking in their lives, and improve it thereby. Accomplished thinkers consistently monitor their own thoughts. They effectively and insightfully articulate the strengths and weaknesses inherent in their thinking. Their knowledge of the qualities of their thinking is outstanding. Although, as humans they know they will always be fallible (because they must always battle their egocentrism, to some extent), they consistently perform effectively in every domain of their lives. People of good sense seek out master thinkers, for they recognize and value the ability of master thinkers to think through complex issues with judgment and insight.
Relevant Intellectual Traits: Naturally inherent in master thinkers are all the essential intellectual characteristics, deeply integrated. Accomplished thinkers have a high degree of intellectual humility, intellectual integrity, intellectual perseverance, intellectual courage, intellectual empathy, intellectual autonomy, intellectual responsibility and fair-mindedness. Egocentric and sociocentric thought is quite uncommon in the accomplished thinker, especially with respect to matters of importance. There is a high degree of integration of basic values, beliefs, desires, emotions, and action.
Some implications for Instruction: For the foreseeable future the vast majority of our students will never become accomplished thinkers — any more than most high school basketball players will develop the skills or abilities of a professional basketball player or student writers the writing skills of a published novelist. Nevertheless, it is important that they learn what it would be to become an accomplished thinker. It is important that they see it as a real possibility, if practicing skills of thinking becomes a characteristic of how they use their minds day to day.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. London, England: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Al Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy instruction: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berninger, V. (1998). Guides for intervention: Reading and writing. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bereiter, C., Brown, A., Campione, J., Carruthers, I., Case, R., & Hirshberg, J., et al. (2002). Open Court reading. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Blachman, B., Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, F., & Clonan, S. (2003). Early reading intervention: A classroom prevention study and a remediation study. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 253–274). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, P., & Wolf, M. (1999). The “double-deficit hypothesis” for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 9(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
California Association of School Psychologists. (2003). Critical constructs and principles regarding the reauthorization of IDEA. Retrieved October 22, 2004, from www.caspsurveys.org?NEW/CASP_IDEAfinal.htm
Christo, C., Brady, J., & Leaman, S. (2003, Spring). The important role of school psychologists in current educational reforms. CASP Today, 1–3.Google Scholar
Deno, S., Fuchs, L., Marston, D., & Shin, M. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524.Google Scholar
Denton, C., & Mathes, P. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 229–252). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Retrieved January 2, 2005, from http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.htmlGoogle Scholar
Ehri, L. (2004). Teaching phonemic awareness and phonics: An explanation of the National Reading Panel meta-analysis. In P. McArdle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 153–186). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.Google Scholar
Finn, C., Rotherman, A., & Hokanson, C. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J., Coulter, W., Reschly, D., & Vaughn, S. (2002). Alternative approaches to the identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 30–69.Google Scholar
Foorman, B. (Ed.). (2003). Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, D., Katz, L., Liberman, I., Stuebing, K., Francis, D. et al. (2002). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 172–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1999). Monitoring student progress toward the development of reading competence: A review of three forms of classroom-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 28(4), 659–671.Google Scholar
Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2002) Progress monitoring, accountability and LD identification. Testimony to the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. Retrieved December 5, 2004, from http://www.aimsweb.com/_lib/pdfs/Lynn%20F%20Commission.pdf
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Mathes, P., Lipsey, M., & Eaton, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of reading differences between underachievers with and without the LD label: A brief report. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
Gaskin, J., Ehri, L., Cress, C., & Donnelly, K. (1997). Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries about words. The Reading Teacher, 50, 312–327.Google Scholar
Good, R., Simmons, D., & Kame’enui, E. (2001). The importance and decision making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.Google Scholar
Houghton-Mifflin. (2001). Houghton-Mifflin reading: A legacy of literacy. Boston, MA: Author.Google Scholar
Iverson, S., & Tunmer, W. (1993). Phonological processing skills and the Reading Recovery program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 112–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaminski, R., & Good, R. (1998). Assessing early literacy skills in a problem solving model: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum based measurement (pp. 113–142). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Kovaleski, J. (2003). The three tier model for identifying learning disabilities: Critical program features and systems issues. Paper presented at the Response to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Kratochwill, T., & Stroiber, K. (2000). Uncovering critical research agendas for school psychology: Critical dimensions and future directions. School Psychology Review, 29(4), 591–603.Google Scholar
Kratochwill, T., & Shernoff, E. (2004). Evidence-based practice: Promoting evidence-based interventions in school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33(1), 34–48.Google Scholar
Lyon, R., Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shaywitz, B., Torgesen, J., Wood, F. et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. Finn, A. Rotherman, & C. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, D.C.: The Fordham Foundation.Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M. (2003). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention (RTI): Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.Google Scholar
Mathes, P., & Torgesen J. (1998). All children can learn to read: Critical care for the prevention of reading failure. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(34), 317–340.Google Scholar
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Unpublished manuscript, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
National Research Council. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Paper presented at the Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6300 et seq.Google Scholar
Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved January 3, 2003, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/ommissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports.htmlGoogle Scholar
Rayner, K., Foorman, B., Perfetti, C., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. (2001). How psychological science informs the teaching of reading. Psychological Sciences in the Public Interest, 2, 31–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, E. (2004). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
Shefelbine, J. (1999). Beginning Phonics Skills Test.Google Scholar
Shinn. (n.d.). Assessing response to intervention: Getting it right with the AIMSweb system. Retrieved December 27, 2004, from http://www.aimsweb.com/_lib/pdfs/AIMSweb%20RTI.pdf
Shinn, M., Shinn, M., Hamilton, C., & Clarke, B. (2003). Using curriculum based measurement in general education classrooms to promote reading success. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 113–142). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
Simmons, D., Kame’uni, E., Good, R., Harn, B., Cole, C., & Braun, D. (2002). Building, implementing and sustaining a beginning reading improvement model: Lessons learned school by school. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 537–570). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
Stage, S., & Jacobson, M. (2002). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment. School Psychology Review, 31(1), 71–92.Google Scholar
Stanovich, K., & Siegel, L. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strong, K., Christo, C., & Cooley, L. (2003) School-wide change and the role of the school psychologist: A three-point system for increasing school success for all students. Paper presented at the California Association of School Psychologists Annual Meeting, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Swanson, L. (1999). Instructional components that predict treatment outcomes for students with learning disabilities: Support for a combined strategy and direct instruction model. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14, 129–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swanson, H., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J. (2000). Individual differences in response to early intervention: The lingering problem of treatment resistors. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgesen, J. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. C. McCardle (Ed.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brooks.Google Scholar
Torgesen, J., Alexander, A., Wagner, R., Rashotte, C., Voeller, K., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tunmer, W., Chapman, J., & Prochnow, J. (2003). Preventing negative matthew effects in at-risk readers. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 122–164). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
United States Department of Education. (2002). No child left behind: Elementary and secondary education act. Washington, D.C.: Author.Google Scholar
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to intervention: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 137–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughn S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). Group size and time allotted to intervention. In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 299–324). Baltimore, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Vellutino, F., & Scanlon, D. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolf, M., Bowers, P., & Biddle, K. (2000). Naming speed processes, timing and reading: A conceptual review. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 387–407.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar