William Rupley III

Dr. William Rupley III

College of Education and Human Development, Texas A&M University, MS 4232, College Station, TX 77843, USA
orcid
avatar
Co-authors
avatar
Following
avatar
Followers

Research Focus & Metrics

Explore full metrics on Scilit

Academic Career Length

45Years (1982-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
25 March 2009 in Reading & Writing Quarterly
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
William Rupley IIIWilliam Rupley III
William Rupley III
TBTimothy R. Blair
Timothy R. Blair
WNWilliam D. Nichols
William D. Nichols
Struggling readers are more likely to learn essential reading skills and strategies if the direct or explicit model of instruction is part of the teacher's repertoire of teaching methods. Directly/explicitly teaching reading means imparting new information to students through meaningful teacher–student interactions and teacher guidance of student learning. In this approach, the teacher clearly leads the teaching–learning process. At the heart of the direct instruction method are explicit explanations, modeling or demonstrating, and guided practice. Direct/explicit instruction needs to be an integral part of learning the major content strands of the reading process—phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension.
1 July 2005 in Reading & Writing Quarterly
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
William Rupley IIIWilliam Rupley III
William Rupley III
WNWilliam Dee Nichols
William Dee Nichols
Children's acquisition of vocabulary is essential for gains in reading comprehension and reading development. Struggling readers often do not make gains in their reading comprehension because they have a limited reading vocabulary. Enhancing the vocabulary development and growth for children who are experiencing reading difficulties enables them to better identify key concepts in text that they read, make inferences within and between texts, and increase their abilities to comprehend. Teaching vocabulary and the incidental learning of words should not be viewed as competitive forces that create a good/bad dichotomy. Instead, it should be acknowledged that learners develop vocabularies through both approaches, and that teachers need to know when students would benefit from explicit instruction that initially teaches word meaning by application in meaningful narrative and expository text (McKeown, 1993 McKeown , M. G. (1993). Creating effective definitions for young word learners. Reading Research Quarterly , 28, 16–33. [CSA] [Crossref] [Google Scholar] ).
22 February 2024 in Education Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DPDavid Paige
David Paige
William Rupley IIIWilliam Rupley III
William Rupley III
LZLeily Ziglari
Leily Ziglari
Critical thinking has been identified as an essential skill for the 21st century, yet little research has investigated its role in reading comprehension. Executive functions (EF) and critical thinking overlap, where the latter often rely on the proficient operation of EF and vice versa. Extending the simple view of reading, the active view of reading considers the contribution of language comprehension and decoding to reading comprehension by including the role of EF. In the present study, we assess 360 seventh-grade English language learners attending schools in three states in India. We gathered measures of reading comprehension, critical thinking and listening comprehension, reading fluency, academic vocabulary, and encoding. Using multiple regression to fit a linear model, the best-fit model explained 59.3% of the total variance in reading comprehension. Two indicators of critical thinking, induction and deduction, were significant predictors of reading comprehension, along with listening comprehension, encoding, and academic vocabulary. Also of interest was the result showing reading fluency to be a non-significant predictor of reading comprehension. Results of this study add empirical support for the role of critical thinking in reading comprehension.
28 March 2018 in Child Development Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
DPDavid Paige
David Paige
William Rupley IIIWilliam Rupley III
William Rupley III
GSGrant S. Smith
Grant S. Smith
COCrystal Olinger
Crystal Olinger
MLMary Leslie
Mary Leslie
This study measures letter naming, phonological awareness, and spelling knowledge in 2,100 kindergarten students attending 63 schools within a large, urban school district. Students were assessed across December, February, and May of the kindergarten year. Results found that, by May, 71.8% of students had attained full letter naming knowledge. Phonological awareness emerged more slowly with 48% of students able to reliably segment and blend phonemes in words. Spelling development, a measure of phonics knowledge, found that, by May, 71.8% of students were in the partial-alphabetic phase. A series of regression analyses revealed that by the end of kindergarten both letter naming and phonological awareness were significant predictors of spelling knowledge (b = .332 and .518 for LK and PA, resp.), explaining 52.7% of the variance.
10 March 2010 in Literacy Research and Instruction
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
William Rupley IIIWilliam Rupley III
William Rupley III
SSScott Slough
Scott Slough
Vocabulary knowledge is a salient factor influencing success both in and out of school. The specialized vocabulary knowledge in science represents the concept-laden hooks on which learning is hung and enables students to build prior knowledge through the expansion of these conceptual hooks. We have identified four levels of learners—struggling readers (SR), English Language Learners (ELL), breakthrough learners (BL), and conceptual learners (CL)—that are found in almost every intermediate and middle school classroom in the United States, including science. We propose a focus on science learning with strong theoretical and practical supports from reading and the purposeful combination of narrative informational text, textbooks, and hands-on science activities in a manner that is adaptable to the needs of all students in learning science.
3 June 2020 in Education Sciences
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
William Rupley IIIWilliam Rupley III
William Rupley III
William NicholsWilliam Nichols
William Nichols
TRTimothy Rasinski
Timothy Rasinski
DPDavid Paige
David Paige
Over the past two decades, reading fluency has been increasingly recognized as an important instructional variable for success in reading. Yet, this has not always been the case. This article presents a historical review of the nature and role of fluency instruction in the United States. The roots of oral reading fluency began in an age when texts and other forms of entertainment and information were limited. Historically, in America, oral reading was the predominant means for conveying ideas and passing the time at home with the family. In the 1800s, American education’s primary method of instruction emphasized the need for being able to read aloud with expression and fluency, in order to hold the listeners’ attention and convey information. As texts and other forms of information became more available, oral reading became deemphasized, and silent reading was viewed as a better approach to developing readers’ comprehension at the cost of fluency development. With continued research and national reports that indicate the significant contributions of oral reading fluency to reading comprehension and academic proficiency, it is clear that the roots of oral reading run deep, and that fluent reading development is important to learners’ academic achievement and reading comprehension.