One Page

~lichael P. :Ford ~ lichael E Opitz

Using centers to engage When a teacher works with a small

group, other students need independent activities that help

them learn and practice reading and writing.

children during guided reading time: Intensifying learning experiences

away from the teacher While ... small-group work is at the heart of guided reading, it must not be seen as an end in itself .. .. Small-group guid- ed reading, as powerful as it is, must be understood as bul one part of a comprehensive literacy program. (Routman, 2000. p. 140)

here is no question that the practice of meeting with readers in small groups to provide guided reading instruction is

perceived as a critica l part of literacy programs designed to create independent, life long readers (C unningham , Hall, & Cunningham, 2000; Fo untas & Pinnell , 1996; Mooney, 1990). The smaller groups provide a greater opportuni ty for teachers to use instruction that scaffolds the learn- ing and engages the learner-two key character- istics of exemplary teachers in high-ach ievi ng primary class roo ms (Pressley, 1998). These small groups allow for a more effective type of strategic coaching to take place, and strategic coaching appears to be one of the key elements that distinguish high-achieving classrooms from those with moderate or low performances (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 1999). Seeing guided readin g promoted and imple- mented by countless teachers is no surpri se. Hearing questions emerge as teachers give their best efforts to implement guided reading is also no surprise. Regardless of the teaching strategy, our own teaching experiences have helped us to

71 0 The Reading Teacher· Vol. 55. No.8 May 2002

see that translatin g theory into practice takes time and effort. Why should guided reading be any different?

In our interactions with pdmary teachers working to effectively implement guided read- ing practices, many ofthe questions we receive relate to the issues Routman raised in the com- ments that introduce this article (Opitz & Ford, 200 1). More specifically, questions relate to classroom organizati on and management. A re- view of articles and books focused on guided reading helps to exp lain why this is so (Cunni ngham, Hall, & Cu nningham, 2000; Mooney, 1995). Much of the attention in these publications focuses on the quality of instruction that occurs with the teacher during guided read- ing, leaving questions unanswered about what the other children should be doing and the qual- ity of their instruction when they are away from the teacher. However, because students spend a significant amount of time away from the teacher during guided reading, the time ques- tion is critical. Clearly, the power of the instruc- tion that takes place away from the teacher must rival the power of the instruction that takes place with the teacher.

Thi s article offers some suggestions that can be used to maximize the literacy learning that can and needs to occur during this independent

~2002 lnl<m:!llonal R<:uhng A:;socltotion (pp . 7 10-7 171

learning time. After presenting three poss ible classroom o rganizational structures, we e labo- rate on the one that many teachers are (re )di s- covering: learning center .

Instruction away from the teacher: Three organizational structures

In traditional classroom organizational pat- terns, approximately two thirds of a s tudent 's time during the designated reading block wou ld be spent away from the teacher (Baumann, Hoffman , Duffy-Hes ter, & Ro, 2000). For the teacher to focus on the small group at hand , the re maining students had to be engaged in an in- dependent activity. That activity was ofte n de- fined by workbooks and workshee ts (Durkin, 197 8-1979; Ford. 199 1 ). In a more contempo- rary version of that pattern, s mall groups of chil- dren me t to talk with their teacher about their books while others were independently engaged in a menu of cut, color, and paste respon e pro- jects. Neither scenario seemed to provide a lev- el of in struction away from the teacher that was as powerful as the instruction with the teac her.

While we be lieve strongl y in s ma ll groups for instru c ti on as one criti cal eleme nt in a bal- anced reading program, we offer a caution that the concerns of the past do not surface again with the increasing use of guided reading. In some di- verse classrooms where g uided reading groups are formed primari ly wi th children who are read- ing texts at the same level, the classroom teacher may be juggling even more small groups than in the past. From what we have observed in some classrooms that are imple menting guided read- ing, a student's time with the teacher i even less frequent than in th e trad ition al model s. So the question of just bow we make that time away from the teacher as powerful as the time spent with the teacher becomes even more critical.

The success of guided reading as an instruc- tional practice certainly depends on the impl e- mentation of a classroom tructure that provide teachers with opportunities to effective ly work with small groups of readers whil e keepi ng oth- er readers .independently engaged in meaningful literacy learning activitie (Kane, 1995.) Collaborating with other is one organ izational tructure th at is sometimes used to make this

happe n. Some classroom teachers are fortu nate enough to work in schoo ls designed to encour-

age coJi aboration with other pro fes ionals such as reading specialists and special educators . T he type of collaboration differs among schools and teacher .. Sometimes s pecialists plan and tea m teach with teachers wi thin the regular classroom setting. In thi s model there are two profession- als in the room during the guided reading time, and each works with differe nt guided reading groups. This makes work with evera l groups more likel y and more manageable. Other times, spec ialis ts and teachers plan together for given groups of students, and some students leave the room to work with a specialist (Til ton, 1996).

Another classroom struc ture combine the u e of an established progra m like writers ' work- hop with guided reading. If students a re we ll

versed and rehearsed in a mo re independe nt classroom routine like writer ' workshop. then individual writing, revising, and editing times; peer conferences; a nd sharing times provide nat- ura l ways for s tudents to stay engaged in pow- e rful literacy acti vities away from the teacher. Teachers may have less n eed to develop an ad- ditional infra tructure for stude nt engagement in order to secure time to work with small guid- ed reading groups.

A third c las roo m struc ture in vo lves us ing lea rning centers. ma li areas within the class- room where student work a lone or together to ex plore literacy activities independently while the teacher provides small-gro up guided read- ing in struction.

There are many ways to imple ment centers (Morrow, 1997: Opitz, 1994). Sometime one center is call ed "guided reading," and thi s i where the teache r is stationed . Chi ldren rotate through the centers according to a specified time chedu le, thereby e n uring that every child doe!>

g uided readin g during the course of the day. Other times, c hildre n are gr ouped a nd the n c hoose their own centers. The teacher then se- lects one or two chi ldren from the various groups to meet for guided reading instruction. Instead of a et rotation, student'> stay at the center until the tas k is completed and then move to other cen- ters until center time is fini s he d (Founta::. & Pinne ll , 1996). Regardl ess of the way that o ne chooses to use learning center . there are sever- al considerations that e n ure success for students and teacher alike.

l ·sing centers to engage chi ldre n during guided 1·cading time 711

Figure 1 Word identification skills and strategies

Meaning cues Usmg pictures

Us1ng background knowledge Using information in the selection

Visual memory cues Letter-sound cues Spelling patterns

Language structure cues Comparing an unknown word to known words

Reading on Rereading

Self-monitoring Self-corrections

Considerations for successful learning centers

I . As w ith any good teaching, decisions about learning centers need to be grounded in the teacher's knowledge about the children as read- ers, writers, and learners. In cons ide ring the learners. one often overl ooked question for the teacher to answer has to do with independence. Just how well can the childre n function indepen- dentl y? What do they need to learn to function better as independent learners? Most often, ch il - dre n need to be taught how to be independent. Tak in g time to teach them how to be indepen- dent learners is we ll worth the effort. Opitz ( J 994) offered a framework for bow to do just that. He emphas ized that the teacher must watch children to see what needs to be taught. For ex- ample, ch ildren may need to learn how to work with others in a group, use a tape recorder, care for materials, and locate he lp. After identifying these needs, Opitz s uggested planning a four- part mini lesson focused on each need:

• A focus (purpose for the lesson)~ • An exp lanation. in which children arc pro-

vided wi th the information related to the stated purpose:

• Role playing. which gives students oppor- tunities for guided practice: and

• Direct application, which provides children with time to use the information as they complete their center activities for the day.

2. Con sider the types of activities in whi ch ch ildre n w ill be independently e ngaged.

712 Th e Reading Teacher Vol 55. No 8 May 2002

Children need activities that will advance their knowledge about literacy. Looking at what chil- dren are able to do on their own and how they perform on assessments and during gu ided read- ing can provide a wealth of information. Do stu- dents need repeated practice w ith a given story? Do they need to read with a partner to better un- derstand a s tory? Do they need to write a re- spo n. e to something they have read? Do students need to listen to a given story on tape to better understand how to read with fluency? Answer<; to questions such as these lead to spe- cific learning center activities designed to ad- dress them.

It is important to distinguish between inde- pendent activities that c reate excitement about reading and writing and those that actually re- quire students to interact with print while read- ing and writing. While any number of cut, color. and paste activities done in response to o r in sup- port ofreadi ng and writing experiences can help to create some exc iteme nt about read ing and writing instruction, these activities do littl e tore- quire students to actually interact with pri nt. This interaction is essential for learning about print and inte nsifies the power of center-based instruction .

3. Consider state or district curricul ar expec- tatio ns. Now more than eve r, it seems, teachers are expec ted to fol low cur ricu lum guides and provide evidence that s tudents have been ex- posed to (if not mastered) the curricu lum . Designing center<; w ith the literacy curricu lum in mind is an excellent way to ensure that children are exposed to it. Of co urse. to make some of these documents user friendly, teachers may want to transform them into manageable li sts for easy reference. These lists might be housed in a lesson plan book or affixed to a fi le folder. (See Figure 1.) ln some cases, activities can be coded to these lists (Opitz, 1 994.)

4. Consider w hat is known abou t e ngage- ment in instructiona l settin gs. According to Brophy ( 1987), there are two keys that motivate learning: perceptio n of the possibility of success and perception that the outcome wil l be valued. The instructional activity must be within reach of the learner. T n other words, the learner needs to be able to perce ive the possibi lity of success. Most of us withdraw q uickly from any activity w hen we perceive that success is not possible (especially when that perception is based o n the

real experience of repeated failure) . And so it is with children. We need to set them up for suc- cess. and one way to do this is to provide appro- priate activities. Another way is to make sure that the children fully understand the activity as the result of discussing, modeling. and practicing it in large- and s mall-group instructional seltings guided by the teacher. By the time the activity is placed in a center for independent use, students can' t he lp but be successful.

Students need to perceive not only that "l can do this! " but also that the outcome will be valued. Perhaps the best way to accomplish thi s is to of- fer purposeful and meaningful literacy activities. The challenge for teachers is knowing that stu- dents within one class vary quite significantly in their abilities to perceive s uccess and in what out- comes they will value. Giving tudents a variety of activitiel!. is essential when one considers the diversity that exists within any one clas room. All students deserve to be successful. and some will need more support than others. Pl.anning centers that operate with instructional densi ty around multiple goals and outcomes is one way to guarantee this success. Opitz (1994) provided concrete suggestions for accomplishing this.

One example is to design an independent word-family activity. Teachers can identify an anchor word like bug but differentiate expecta- tion s for different groups moving through that center. Some groups might work with bug and create a word family based on the phonogram -ug with initial conso nant s ubstitution s (e.g .. rug, mug, tug, hug). Other groups might start with bug as a root word and create a word fami- ly that is more structurally based by adding end- ings to the root word (e.g., bugs , bugged, bugging. buggy). Another group might start with bug at the center of a semantic map and map out meaning-based connections to the word (e.g .. bother, spy, insect). The instruction at the center thu can address multiple goals and produce dif- ferent outcome .

5. Finally. con ider the following guidelines for establishing an infrastructure of ins truction away from the teacher. This infrastructure needs to do the following:

• Facilitate independent use by s tudents. Any activity that has the potential to inter- rupt small-group instruction because of the complexity of s ustaining its operation may be more of a deterrent than a learning tool.

• Operate with minimal tran s ition time and management concerns. If impleme nting centers consumes more time, energy, and effort than the instructio n and activities that take place at the centers. using them needs to be rethought.

• Encourage equitable use of activities among learners. If all center-based activi- ties have value, it stands to reason that they would be important for all students. While orne s tudents may like some activities

more than others, they need to be encour- aged to participate in all activities. lf the organization precludes some students from having access to the same centers as other students, arrangements need to be made to equalize access.

• Include a si mple built-in accountability system. Engagement in the center-based activities is critical if students are going to learn what we would like them to learn as a res ult of completing them. True. we can be comfortable knowing that some s tu - dents will stay productively engaged in the learning activities in the teacher's absence. At other times , we may well wonder whether all students were productively en- gaged. Simp le accountability meas ures will motivate some students to stay pro- ductively engaged while serving as a win- dow on the level of engagement for each s tudent. One example is a center card is- s ued to each student (see Figure 2). On it. a teacher can identify the independe nt activ- ity options for students, and students can color in or mark off activities completed during independent time.

•Allow for efficient use of teacher prepara- tion time . Elaborate centers that consume large amounts of teachers' limited prepara- tion time without similar payoffs in dura- tion of student engagement will lead to a quick abandonment of centers. Busy teach- ers need activities that can be easily changed or altered once established as part of center-based instruction .

•Build around class routines. Routines pro- vide a predictable way for children to engage in learni ng. Routines also provide a predi c table way for teacher s to plan

l 'sing centers to engage child reu duriu~ ~uided reading time 713

Figure 2 A student's center card

Listening Writing Pocket Read the center center charts room

~~ ~ ~:J Partner read Writing

Date: 11 -6- q q center

~~ Independent read

ABC games

<i) ABC instruction that minimi zes concerns, con- fusion, and chaos a long the way. After they have been e tabli shed and practiced with teacher g uidance, routines can be per- formed without teacher guid ance. The gradual release of responsibility (Pearson & Gall agher. 1983) gives the teache r greater assurance that the activities stude nts are expected to co mplete inde pe ndently arc within their reach.

Centers that meet established criteria

The following section describe:, nine centers that meet the criteria we have discus ed. They each build on classroom routines to e ncou rage independent use by students and efficient use of teacher preparation time. While the structure of the center can stay the same, the activities with - in them can change with re lative ease. Each cen- ter is designed to be accessible for a ll students and provide for individual differences because of

714 The Reading Teach e1· Vol. 55, No 8 May 2002

ABC games

A?JC the level of ophistication each learner brings to the task. Each can be linked to what the teacher knows about studen ts as readers, w riters . and learners as well as to standards, curricu la, and assessments. With simple structures, transition time can be kept Lo a minimum , equitab le use c an be e nco uraged, and accountability can be ensured.

Listening post: The Listening post provides learners with additi o nal practice with prinl. By placing a stOry on tape and multiple copies of the text at the center, the teacher can easily create a changeable center that gives learners an o ppor- tunity to warm up before. review after, or ex- tend beyond a g uided reading session . One teacher we observed in tensifies the practice a t the li tening post for a longer period of time by e ncouragi ng students to work through an identi- fied routine that involved repeated practice of the text in a va ri ety of ways (see Figure 3). Accountability ca n be built in by in v itin g stu- dents to orall y perform a selection practiced at

the listening post at the end of the language arts block.

Readers Theatre: Like the listening post. a Readers Theatre center can be easily created by a classroo m teacher by des ignating a practice space, providing multiple texts, and identifying g uidelines for practicing. Like with the li stening post, it can be used as a warm-up, rev iew, or ex- tension from the g uided reading instruction . It can a lso all ow more he terogeneous ly g ro uped students to work together because appropriate parts ca n be assigned to students of differi ng abilities. A sequenced routine (see Fig ure 4) can engage students for lo nger periods of time as they practice for a performance, which can serve as an accountability check. T his type of practice provides a purposeful opportunity for bui lding fluency, oral performance skills, and confidence. The addition of simple props, masks. o r puppets can make the production of plays from practiced texts another way to engage students .

Reading/writing th e room: This is often a popular way to become familiar with a print-rich classroom environment. Students can be encour- aged to choose partners and use special pointers and glasses to " read the roo m''-one stude nt points to words in the e nvironment as the partner reads them. Clipboards and scrap paper mig ht be avail able for stude nts to use in "writing the room"-<opying words from the environment. To engage students in a more challeng ing activ- ity, teachers can easil y create a scavenger hunt (see F ig ure 5) that invites s tudents to look for specific exam ples to ex plore concepts of print, letter names, word identification, and vocabulary element more closely g ro unded in curric ular needs. Th ese can be ea...:;ily changed and desig ned in varying degrees of difficulty for diverse learn- ers. It leaves a "paper trail" from the students' ef- forts that can be collected and quickly reviewed by the teacher.

Pocket chart: Any in s tructiona l too l and space used in large-group instruction can easily become a center for more independent activity during g uided reading instruction . In one class- room the pocket c hart was used to introduce common core poems used at the line, phrase, word, and word-part levels (Ford, 1996). When a poem wa initially introduced o n the pocket c hart, the teacher used sentence s trips to go through the verse line by line. Children were in- vited to point to different lines and read the

Figure 3 Listening post routi ne

1. Listen to the story on tape and follow along . 2. Listen to the story on tape and read along. 3. Turn off the tape and read together. 4. Turn off the tape and read with a partner. 5. Turn off the tape and read on your own. 6. Listen to the story on tape and read along again. 7. Talk about your improvement. 8. Be ready to share the story with the class.

Figure 4 Readers Theatre routine

1. Leader reads the story aloud . 2. Everyone reads the story together. 3. Partners read the story together 4. Everyone is assigned a part. 5. Students practice their parts on their own. 6. Students practice their parts together. 7. Students share the story with the class.

Figure 5 Scavenger hunt routine

Find three words in our room that .. 1. Have more than six letters. 2. End in -ing where the final letter was doubled . 3. Mean the same as said. 4 . Have the same sound pattern as boat. 5. Are words from math . 6. Start with sh. 7. Have the same spelling pattern as nice. 8. Are contractions 9. Rhyme with she.

words on the se ntence strip for that line . The teacher would al o say a line, and children would have to come up and point to it. T he teacher would hand out copies of the ente nce strips, and children wou ld matc h them to the lines on the pocket chart or put the poem back together in order. As childre n showed mastery of the poe m at the line level, the teacher would cut up the sentence strips into smaller chunks- phrases-and g uide s tudents throug h si milar activities, requiring g reater attentio n to print de- tail s and finer v isual discrimina tio n skills. As c hi ldre n showed mastery of the poem at the phrase level, the teacher would cut up the phra e strips into individua l words.

Using centers to e ngage children during g uided reading time 715

Using the pocket chart as an independent center, students can conduct activities modeled by the teacher in large-group ettings. One reg- ular activity that can be linked to pocket charts that conta in poems is providing students with blank paper grids and inviting them to copy each word from the poem in a box on the grid. Students can cut the words apart and create a set of word cards that can be used to independemly reconstruct the poem or to create innovations by changing the words around. Working with part- ners. s tudents can play common word card games, which provide opportunities for indepen- dent skill practice. Activities chosen by students ca n vary in difficulty according to their needs. The introduction of a new poem provides new material and another opportunity to repeat the activity.

Poems/s tory packs: In another classroom. when the teacher retires a poem or story from large-group practice situations sh e places the words, phrases, or sentences created for word s tudy in a large see-throu gh envelope. These packs of s tory and poem parts are placed in a basket and made available to students during center time. Because they represent materials created from texts of vary ing difficulties. stu- dents can select packs appropriate for their level. Students fmd a quiet place to shake out the parts and engage in a variety of activities incl uding re- cons tructing or innovating on the language of the familiar text. Working with partners or inde- pendently, they can e ngage in a variety of clas- sifying and sorting activities that call attention to words and their features. Color-coding the parts for each text makes it easy to get the right parts back into the right pack.

Big Books: Again, teachers have discovered the importance of letting students independent- l y explore materi al s previously introduced in large- and small-group settings. For example. re- visiting Big Books used in shared reading expe- riences provides a natural opportunity for stude nts to explore print more independently. Big Books placed in an easily accessible center can be made more inviting by giving students ac- cess to teaching tools like pointers, word frames, adhesive notes, a nd correcting tape so they can conduct activities modeled by the teacher in the large-group setting. As anyone who has worked with young children knows, children thorough- ly enjoy taking on the role of teacher.

716 The Reading Teacher Vol. 55, No. 8 May 2002

Responding through art: We have already noted concern about the difference between ac- tivities that generate excitement and those that actually engage students in reading and writing. Response activities placed in centers for students to work on independently may be a better use of limited class time than having students do activ- ities as a whole group. We would argue, howev- er, that response activities need to be designed in a way that minimize teacher's preparation time. Planned, precut. prepared art projects may not be necessary for response. In one classroom, Shel Si lverstein's ( 1974) poem "Spaghetti" was featured. The response center contained a variety of bags of pasta and large sheets of colored con- struction paper. Students designed projects as creative as any teacher-prepared art project might have been. By labeling pictures, adding talking bubbles, or writing descriptive sentences, the teacher could use these student responses to create a print-rich bulletin board, and later bind them into a book for the c lass reading center.

Writing: There is no question th at one of the best ways to engage children with text is to have them generate their own. Writing demands much critical thinki ng in that the writer must organize ideas and use pecific words to express thoughts to create text that is meaningful to self and o th- ers. Other times, writing is a form of response that enables the writer to show what was of per- sonal value in the text or what was remembered. It is also a way for the writer to apply all known print conventions. The centers can be easily cre- ated by supplying students with access to a vari- ety of writing tools. formats, and resources. Students can engage in writing activities that dif- fer in their demands. The writing projects can be shared public ly and reviewed privately to hold students accountable.

Reading: We cannot emphasize enough that the best activity for students to become involved in away from the teacher is reading. Students should always be encouraged to read when they are waiting for instruction with the teacher. This can be done individually, with a c lassmate, or with a more competent coach. Teachers can eas- ily create in viting reading centers that provide easy access and inviting opportunities to inde- pendently explore texts (Morrow, I 997). This exploration can be one additional way to warm up. review. or extend texts from g uided reading instruction. In one c lassroom. students are

encouraged to grab a text, a buddy, and a carpet square; find a quiet corner; and read to each oth- er. Some teachers have developed structures to maximize the value of buddy reading (Samway, Whang, & Pippin, 1995 ). Finally. additional people in the classroom may provide the stu- dents with the possibility of additional contact with a competent reade r (a n older student or adult classroom volunteer) . These indi vidual s may not be capabl e of conducting a separate guided read ing group, but can certainly listen to individual s read texts. Like writing, practiced reading can be sha red publicly or recorded in simple logging formats.

Instruction away from the teacher needs to be as powerful as instruction with the teacher. Like instruction with the teacher, it needs to be grounded in knowledge of the children-their reading and writing abilities and their degree of independence. It needs to be sensitive to the ex- ternal demands of standards, curricula, and as- sessme nts. ft should involve c hildre n in an unce asing cycle of self-improveme nt by con- tinued e ngagement with print- rich activities. Children and adults mu st see learning experi- ences away from the teacher as accessible and pwposeful. Such activities must set up children for success so that they see themselves as inde- pendent readers-the ultim ate goal of guided reading.

Ford is Associate Dean at the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh (NE 113, College of Education and Human SefY!ces, Oshkosh, W/54901 USA). Opitz teaches at the Unwersity of Northern Colorado Greeley, Colorado, USA

Refe rences Baumann, J., Hoffman, J., Duffy- Hester, A., & Ro, J. (2000). The

first R yesterday and today: U.S. elementary reading instruc- tion practices reported by teachers and admi nistrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 338-377.

Brophy, J. ( 1987). Synthesis of research on strategies for moti- vating students to learn. Educational Leadersh1p. 54, 40-45.

Cunningham, P., Hall, D. , & Cunningham. J. (2000). Guided reading the four·blocks way. Greensboro, NC: Carson- Dellosa.

Durkin, D. ( 1978- 1979). What classroom observations reveal about comprehension insLrucLion. Reading Research Quarterly, 10.48 1-533.

Ford, M.P. ( 1991). Worksheets anonymous: On the road tore- covery. Language Arts, 6. 553-559.

Ford, M.P. (1996). Tightening up: Working toward balanced lit- eracy. The Whole Idea, 7, I, 12-15.

Fountas, I., & Pinnell , G. ( 1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kane, K. (1995). Keeping your balance: Teacher's guide for guided reading in the ea rly grades. Danbury, CT: Grolier.

Mooney, M. (1990). Reading to, with, and by children. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.

Mooney, M. (1995). Guided reading: The reader in control. Teaching K~. 25, 57-58.

Morrow, L. ( 1997). The literacy center: Contexts for reading and writing. York, ME: Stenhouse.

Opitz, M.F. ( 1994). Lea rning centers: Getting them started, keep· ing them going. New York: Scholastic.

Opitz, M.F., & Ford, M. (200 1). Reaching readers: Inn ovative and flexible strategies for guided reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Pearson. P.D., & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The new instruction of reading comprehension (Tech. Rep. No. 297). Urbana, LL: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.

Rout man, R. (2000). Conversations: Strateg ies for teaching, learning and evaluating. Portsmouth. NH: Heinemann.

Samway, K., Whang, G., & Pippitl, M. ( 1995). Buddy reading: Cross-age tutorillg in (I multicultural school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Silverstein, S. ( 1974). Wh ere the sidewalk ends: The poems and drawings of She/ Sil1•erstein. New York: HarperCollins.

Taylor. B .. Pearson, P.O., Clark, K.F., & Walpole, S. ( 1999). Effecti ve schools/ Accomplished teachers. The Reading Teacher. 53, 156-158.

Tilton. L. (1996). l11clusion: A fresh look. Shorewood, MN: Covington Cove.

Using centers to e ngage children during g uided reading time 717