This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
= /p/. The pattern layer operates both within and between syllables: (a) Within single syllables, as with the vowel/consonant/silent e (VCe) pattern signaling a long vowel as in tape in contrast to the short vowel in tap. Included here as well are the more subtle orthographic features such as
< previous page
page_527
next page >
< previous page
page_528
next page > Page 528
breaking through the ''sound" barrier, as it were, thus realizing the economy and consistency that pattern and meaning bring to the system. This insight, however, is not available automatically, and the nature of individuals' lexicons changes rather dramatically over time as individuals acquire competence in reading and writing (C. Chomsky, 1970). As we explore later in this chapter, research into the developmental nature of spelling knowledge supports the observation that, at the primary levels, students learn how to spell sound; at the intermediate levels and beyond, however, students learn how to spell meaning. We turn now to a consideration of how researchers' and educators' changing conceptions of the English spelling system have influenced research throughout the 20th century. Historical Context In the United States, for much of the nation's history, spelling and reading were taught together (Henderson, 1990; Venezky, 1980). In the 20th century, they have been largely separated and have only recently once again begun to be merged. Spelling research and pedagogy have historically and unavoidably been based on assumptions about learners and the system to be learned. Until recently, however, assumptions about the system proceeded without informed linguistic analysis. Expressed simply, the prevailing paradigm held that learners were passive recipients and that the spelling system did not make sense. In the introduction to his influential work Teaching Spelling, Edmund Henderson (1990) commented: "History has a remarkable way of repeating itself in new and better forms. This is certainly true for the teaching of spelling" (p. 1). Henderson was referring to the reemergence of interest among researchers and educators in a possible relationship between reading and spelling development. Up until the late 1800s, spelling and reading instruction were closely related. In the Alphabet Method of colonial times, children were first taught the alphabet letters and a short-vowel syllabarium (e.g., ab, eb, ib, ob, and ub); then they were taught to spell and read a basic sight vocabulary. Similarly, Webster's popular "Blue-backed Speller" of the 19th century combined systematic spelling drills with early reading lessons. In the first half of the 20th century, spelling continued to enjoy status as a school subject, although no longer was it thought to be integral to the teaching of reading. Spelling, instead, was viewed as an important element in written expression, a socially useful skill that, in part, defined an educated person. Over the second half of the 20th century the importance of spelling instruction in the schools declined. Venezky (1980) was one of the first to address the issue: Neither spelling instruction nor spelling reform occupy central roles today in education or in public life. No major funding agency in the last 25 years has included among its highest priorities the improvement of spelling instruction or the development of a simplified spelling system. . . . The public schools exhibit limited enthusiasm for spelling. Some have no systematic spelling instruction at all while the average class offers perhaps two or three 15-minute periods for it each week. (p. 10) In the 1980s and 1990s, many educators adopted a new conception of the role of spelling; instead of considering spelling as a form of orthographic knowledge or as an indicator of general literacy competence, these educators focused more narrowly on the role of spelling as a tool for writing (e.g., Calkins, 1996; Graves, 1983; Wilde, 1991). Spelling textbooks sales declined, and many teachers began to teach spelling as an adjunct or "add on" activity in the writing process.
< previous page
page_528
next page >
< previous page
page_529
next page > Page 529
In the last few years of the 20th century matters have changed, and spelling is once again a topic of interest and concern. This is in part due to the ever-shifting social and political winds, driven in part by lower standardized test scores. It is also due to the fact, however, that researchers (e.g. Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1997; Perfetti, 1993) have come to view spelling as a proxy for the orthographic knowledge that underlies efficient, automatic generation of words during writing and efficient, automatic perception of words during reading. Conceptualized in these orthographic terms, spelling as a developmental process assumes greater importance. In Henderson's terms, history is repeating itself. If it is to do so in "new and better forms," however, then spelling researchers and educators must address more than mere encoding; they must include a broad focus on word structure and meaning in a wide range of literacy activities. Looking at spelling research throughout the 20th century, we suggest that there are three successive periods, each characterized by a distinct theoretical perspective that affected classroom instruction: Spelling is a process of rote memorization. Spelling is a process of abstracting regular sound/spelling patterns. Spelling is a developmental process. Spelling Is a Process of Rote Memorization In the 20th century, the earliest psychological and educational research investigating the learning of spelling was guided by a phonocentric view of the spelling system (English spelling is irregular) and a behavioral conception of the learner (Locke's tabula rasa on which the spellings of individual words were etched with essentially no organizational schema applied by the learner). Throughout much of the 20th century, theory and research reflected the perception that, because letter/sound representation is so variable, learning to spell is essentially a process of rote memorization and therefore instruction should emphasize primarily the development of visual memory for the spelling of words (Cahen et al., 1971; E. Horn, 1960; T. Horn, 1969). In fact, most of the empirical work on spelling instruction was carried out during this earlier period (e.g., see T. Horn, 1969, for a comprehensive review of this research). The focus was on identifying appropriate words for instruction, tabulating types of spelling errors in an effort to determine what makes particular words difficult to spell, and identifying effective instructional practices. Selection of words for study was based on frequency counts of English (E. Horn, 1926; Thorndike, 1921); given the conceptualization of spelling as a tool for effective writing, it seemed logical to conclude that explicit instruction should focus on the most frequently occurring words. This focus in turn reinforced the strong instructional emphasis on memorization because of the "irregular" sound/symbol correspondences manifest in so many of these high-frequency words. Efforts to identify common spelling errors focused primarily on sound, and the errors that students made were analyzed primarily in terms of their correspondence to sound (Gates, 1937). Where structural features were the source of the error, as for example in the doubling of consonants, these features were tabulated as part of a single error category with no consideration of the underlying linguistic motivation for the feature. With the benefit of hindsight we can see the shortcomings of this level of analysis. Consider, for example, the increasing conceptual sophistication of consonant doubling in the following contexts: base word plus inflectional ending [bat + ed = batted vs. rake + ed = raked]; syllable juncture within monomorphemic words [happen vs. pilot]; doubling within assimilated prefixes [ad + count = account; in + literate = illiterate]). Within the prevailing spelling as rote memory paradigm, studies that explored instructional practice supported the following:
< previous page
page_529
next page >
< previous page
page_530
next page > Page 530
Presenting words in lists rather than in context (McKee, 1924). Administering a self-corrected pretest followed by study of list wordsas opposed to study of list words followed by a posttest (E. Horn, 1960; T. Horn, 1946). Spending 60 to 75 minutes per week on spelling instruction (E. Horn, 1960). Spelling Is a Process of Abstracting Regular Sound/Spelling Patterns It was not until the second half of the 20th century that comprehensive analyses of the alphabetic, syllabic, and morphemic aspects of English spelling were undertaken (Chomsky & Halle, 1968; Cummings, 1988; Hanna, Hanna, Hodges, & Rudorf, 1966; Venezky, 1970, in press). The Stanford research (Hanna et al., 1966) was seminal because it demonstrated, for the first time, how a linguistic perspective can inform investigations into how students might learn to spell English. This research showed that English spelling is a logical, rule-based language system. By programming a computer to detect and learn regularities, Hanna et al. demonstrated that the system is far more regular than assumed when the focus is on patterns of letters and how they represent sound, as opposed to a strict one letter/one sound level of analysis. The researchers noted that how a particular sound is spelled very often depends on its position within a syllable, an assertion that was not merely theoretical but testable through the use of the computer. Although the computer spelled a majority of the words correctly, Hanna, Hodges, and Hanna (1971) observed that had morphemic information been available to the computer, the percentage would have been even higher. Although there has been debate about how Hanna et al. determined regularity, their basic finding remained: English spelling quite reliably represents the sounds of English when the syllable as opposed to the phoneme is the unit of analysis. Thus, the variable of pattern was added to frequency. Although frequency of usage previously guided the selection of spelling words, frequency of usage and frequency of pattern occurrence now guided selection. This sequencing of patterns is reflected still in most contemporary spelling programs. Because Hanna and others such as Edgar Dale recognized the progressive complexity of the spelling system, they also emphasized the desirability of integrating spelling and morphology; this was a theme that later researchers and educators would also take up (Dale, O'Rourke, & Bamman, 1971; Hanna et al., 1971). Spelling Is a Developmental Process The result of Chomsky and Halle's and Venezky's analyses was a renaissance in linguistic insight that spelling can reliably represent meaning and sound when the morpheme is the unit of analysis. This renaissance affected research in word perception in reading and word generation in writing. In the latter instance, spelling came to be increasingly viewed as a developmental process. The first groundbreaking investigations of young children's invented spelling (C. Chomsky, 1970; Read, 1971, 1975) were the motivation behind the conceptualization of spelling as a developmental process. Read's studies were undertaken in an effort in part to test the psychological reality of the phonological component of Chomsky's transformational generative grammar. The implications of this research were far-reaching, but perhaps most notably they led to the realization that young children are capable of constructing knowledge about the relationships between sounds and letters without explicit instruction. This realization supported the general conception of the child as a language learner who brings an innate psycholinguistic endowment to the task of language development (Chomsky, 1968; Lenneberg, 1967). In terms of literacy development in general and spelling development in particular, this realization also lent support to the perspective that learning to read and write was natural.
< previous page
page_530
next page >
< previous page
page_531
next page > Page 531
A number of studies over the last quarter century have elaborated on this developmental perspective (e.g., Ehri, 1993; Ellis, 1990; Frith, 1985; Ganske, 1994; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1980; Schlagal, 1992; Seymour, 1992; Templeton & Bear, 1992; Treiman, 1993; Wilde, 1991). Most of this work focuses on the early stages of development, but some researchers have explored word knowledge as manifested through spelling at later phases of literacy development (e.g., Derwing, Smith, & Wiebe, 1995; Fischer, Shankweiler, & Liberman, 1985; Fowler & Liberman, 1995; Marsh et al., 1980; Templeton, 1979; Templeton & Scarborough-Franks, 1985). A central tenet that has emerged from this line of research is that learners share a common developmental sequence of acquisition of orthographic knowledge, despite natural variation in their attention to printed language and their understanding of the relationships between print and speech. Although there is considerable agreement regarding the characterization of spelling as a developmental process (Ehri, 1997; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Seymour, 1992; Templeton & Bear, 1992; Treiman, 1993), there is less agreement about how to describe and characterize this development over time and about the roles of explicit and implicit learning in this process. Stage or phase models are the primary vehicle for characterizing developmental growth, although more recently development has been investigated in terms of growth in strategies for problem solving (Varnhagen, 1995). Both stage models and strategy development models have drawn inferences about the nature of underlying knowledge of word structure at points along a developmental continuum. Stage models emerged during the preeminence of Piagetian theory and characterized descriptions of language development (e.g., Brown, 1973). It was out of this context that the genesis of a stage model for spelling development emerged. The studies undertaken by Henderson and his students at the University of Virginia (Henderson & Beers, 1980; Templeton & Bear, 1992) grew out of Henderson's work as a reading clinician and later as director of the McGuffey Reading Center at the University of Virginia. This research was motivated by Henderson's hypothesis in the late 1960s that looking at how children spell words can provide insight into how they read words, or their lexical representation for words (Henderson, 1981). The Virginia work explored and refined developmental phases of orthographic knowledge that Henderson labeled preliterate, letter name or alphabetic, within-word pattern, syllable juncture, and derivational constancy (Barnes, 1982; Bear, 1982; C. Beers, 1978; J. Beers, 1974; Beers & Henderson; 1977; Gentry, 1977; C. Gill, 1980; J. T. Gill, 1992; Invernizzi, 1985; Morris, 1983, 1993; Morris, Nelson, & Perney, 1986; Schlagal, 1982; Stever, 1977; Temple, 1978; S. Templeton, 1976, 1979; Zutell, 1975). The labels reflect the salient orthographic features learners explore in both spelling and reading at each phase of development. These phases reflect a growth in sophistication of knowledge about letters and sounds, letter patterns and syllable patterns, and how meaning is directly represented through spelling (Schlagal, 1992). In addition to the Virginia studies, a number of investigations explored in depth young children's invented spellings (e.g., Ellis & Cataldo, 1990; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Huxford, Terrell, & Bradley, 1992; Treiman, 1993). Children's semiphonetic/partial alphabetic and phonetic or full alphabetic spellings reflect the conception that the spelling system represents sounds in a predominately left-to-right fashion. For example, a child in the semiphonetic/partial alphabetic phase may spell truck as HRK; in the subsequent phonetic or full alphabetic phase the spellings may be, respectively, CHRIK, CHRUK, TRUK. In time, conventional representations for most short vowels are learned during the full alphabetic phase, although long vowel sounds may continue to be spelled with single letters. As children advance in their literacy skills, however, their invented spellings begin to include vowel markerssilent letterswhich indicate that they are attending at some level to the pattern layer in English spelling; for ex-
< previous page
page_531
next page >
< previous page
page_532
next page > Page 532
ample, BIEK (bike) and RANE (rain). They conceptualize the vowel and what follows within a word as an orthographic unit (Ehri, 1989; Invernizzi, 1992). This leads to the conceptualization that the spelling system is not a strictly linear left-to-right matchup of letters; through orthographic patterns, letters that themselves do not correspond to sound provide information about the pronunciation of other letters within the pattern. This level of spelling knowledge characterizes the within-word pattern phase. With further development, learners' spelling is characterized as syllable juncture; their spellings reveal closure on most vowel patterns in single-syllable words, and errors on stressed syllables of polysyllabic words reflect how these syllables would be spelled if they were single syllables, for example, PARAIDING (parading). In the syllable juncture stage, errors also occur at the conjoining of syllables, as for example ALOWED (allowed) and HAPEN (happen) (Bear, Templeton, & Warner, 1991; Ganske, 1994; Schlagal, 1992). Other errors characteristic of this phase are less frequent vowel patterns such as -ough in though and enough, and the schwa or reduced vowel in unstressed syllables, such as LOCLE (local) or PILAT (pilot). As students encounter a greater number of words in their reading that reflect processes of derivational morphology, their errors at this level characterize the derivational constancy phase and reveal a conceptual readiness to explore how spelling preserves the semantic relationships across derivationally related words, as in SOLEM (solemn), CONFADENT (confident), and OPASITION (opposition). Just as it had been an impetus to the early work in invented spelling, the Chomskian revolution in linguistics spurred some of the earlier work investigating older students' knowledge of the spelling system (Templeton, 1979; Templeton & Scarborough-Franks, 1985). In fact, knowledge of some aspects of derivational morphology was more secure in students' spelling than in their pronunciation, leading Templeton (1979) and Templeton and Scarborough-Franks (1985) to suggest that students' productive knowledge of certain aspects of derivational morphology in orthography preceded and facilitated their productive knowledge of these processes in phonology. These studies supported Carol Chomsky's (1970) observation that: This process of internalization . . . is no doubt facilitated in many cases by an awareness of how words are spelled. . . . Thus the underlying system which the child has constructed from evidence provided by the spoken language . . . may itself by improved by his increased familiarity with the written language. (p. 298) A number of researchers have explored the relationship between students' higher-level orthographic knowledge and other aspects of their literacy development (Marsh et al., 1980; Frith, 1985; Seymour, 1992). Taken together, this research has led to a more systematic exploration through instruction of the role that morphology plays in the spelling system. Developing and elaborating this knowledge may entail directing students' attention to the spelling/meaning relationships among derivationally related words; students who make errors such as SOLEM for solemn and CONFADENT for confident have the cognitive sophistication to conceptualize how the orthographic representation remains constant, despite changes in sound, in related words such as solemn/solemnity and confide/confident (Templeton, 1989; Zutell, 1979). While the research has been relatively sparse in this area, instructional suggestions along these lines have been offered for some time. Dale noted many years ago that "Organizing spelling lessons to coincide with the study of morphology gives the students a contextual structure for the study of spelling" (Dale et al., 1971, p. 172). More recently, the linguist Mark Aronoff noted that, "From a teacher's point of view, morphology is important for two major reasons: spelling and vocabulary. . . . Unfortunately, very little time is spent in school on systematic learning of morphology" (1994, pp. 820821). For this reason, most students are not aware of the role that morphemic elements can play
< previous page
page_532
next page >
< previous page
page_533
next page > Page 533
in the spelling of words (Derwing et al., 1995; Fowler & Liberman, 1995; Goulandris, 1994; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Templeton, 1989), nor, for that matter, are most adults (Fischer et al., 1985). Making this connection explicit for students may provide both a more productive strategy for spelling as well as a means of expanding vocabulary (Derwing et al., 1995; Templeton, 1992b). If learning to spell is a developmental process, then it follows that individual students will progress at different rates and that spelling instruction may need to accommodate these individual differences. Morris and his colleagues have recently explored this issue of a spelling instructional level. In a year-long study of four third-grade classrooms in which all students were taught from a grade-level spelling book Morris, Blanton, Blanton, and Perney (1995) found that students varied greatly in year-end spelling achievement. Although two-thirds of the students scored 86% on a curriculum-based posttest, the bottom one third of students scored only 46% correct. In a separate follow-up study, Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, and Perney (1995) manipulated spelling instructional level to see if low-spelling students (identified on a beginning-of-year pretest) would benefit from studying easier, more developmentally appropriate words. Over the course of a school year, 24 third-grade low spellers (intervention group) were taught from a second-grade spelling book, and a comparison group of 24 students were taught from a third-grade spelling book. End-of-year results showed that the intervention group scored significantly higher than the comparison group on a second-grade posttest and a third-grade transfer test. Moreover, the intervention group scored as high as the comparison group on a curriculum-based list of third-grade words that the comparison group (but not the intervention group) had been taught. Morris et al. explained these curious findings in terms of instructional level theory, arguing that, over the course of the year, the low spellers who were taught at the appropriate level (second grade, in this case) learned more about the spelling system than did the low spellers who were taught inappropriately ("over their head") at grade level. Although spelling authorities (e.g., Henderson, 1990; T. Horn, 1969) have long recommended that spelling instruction be differentiated in the classroom according to student ability level, the Morris et al. study is the first to provide empirical support for this position. Recently, some researchers have explored students' metalinguistic reflections on their spelling as a function of spelling development (Hughes & Searle, 1997; Sabey, 1997). A consistent finding is that there is a lag between the sophistication of students' knowledge as evidenced in their spellings and their ability to reflect on their own strategies and knowledge. For example, within-word pattern spellers will eventually spell the inflectional ending -ed conventionally across its three possible pronunciations (e.g., clapped [/t/], climbed [/d/], wanted [/Id/]), revealing a tacit sensitivity to visual and morphological features of the spelling system. They will explain their spellings, however, in terms of sound. Several researchers have suggested that these types of spellings reveal that even young children are sensitive to other features besides sound; for example, how meaning is directly represented visually (Read, 1994; Snowling, 1994; Treiman, 1993). Hughes and Searle's study (1997), in which students were interviewed about their developing conceptions of spelling, is notable because (a) it was longitudinal, following the spelling development of the same children over an 8-year period; and (b) it was conducted in classroom settings. For these reasons, this study is next examined more closely. Hughes and Searle addressed a number of issues: the nature of spelling development over time, the relationship between spelling development and reading and writing development, and the role of spelling instruction specifically and literacy instruction in general in the development of spelling ability. The investigators selected two schools; one served a neighborhood of "urban professionals" and the other a "sub-urban community of nonprofessional" parents. For over half of the students in this sec-
< previous page
page_533
next page >
< previous page
page_534
next page > Page 534
ond school, English was not the only language in the home. Based on developmental spelling research, Hughes and Searle constructed a spelling assessment list that was administered three times a year. Following each administration, students were interviewed one-to-one concerning how they approached their spelling of the words. At the completion of the study, 37 students had been followed over a 7-year period. Despite variation in the type and amount of spelling instruction over the years for the children in the study, Hughes and Searle were able to draw some conclusions about development and instruction: "Learning to spell [is] such a high-level, problem-solving, sense-making activity, so much like other processes of language learning" (p. 185). Across children there was a high "degree of consistency . . . in the patterns of learning to spell" and "a lot of commonality in the knowledge children used and how they used it" (p. 184). Significant amounts of reading and writing are critical if students are to advance in spelling ability. For all children in the early years of schooling, invented spelling should be encouraged. Once students begin to explore spelling on a regular basis, they should be encouraged to look for patterns; this reflects the importance of the visual comparison of words. It is highly desirable to ask questions that will serve to help children extend their sense of the "logics" of spelling. As children move into the higher grades, "Spelling instruction tends to become much more focussed on correcting and rewriting text. Ironically, this focus may come just at a time when many children are better able to handle approaches that encourage explicit analysis and generalization . . . we have to recognize [spelling's] complexity and give it more developmental time throughout a child's years at school" (p. 184). The developmental perspective on spelling has been offered as an explanation for spelling acquisition in learning-disabled students (Moats, 1995; Worthy & Invernizzi, 1990) and nonliterate adults as well (Worthy & Viise, 1986). Although their rate of growth is slower, learning-disabled children seem to follow the same developmental benchmarks as other learners. Adults initially acquiring literacy follow the same trends as well; although they usually make fairly rapid progress through the alphabetic phase, the within-word pattern phase requires time and effort. This is where most adult literacy programs suffer their greatest attrition rate. Recent Research: Spelling and Reading Relationships The process and product of individuals' spelling have recently gained such intense interest largely because of a growing consensus within the research community that a common orthographic base underlies individuals' encoding of words through spelling and their decoding of words during reading. As has been noted, some of the developmental spelling research was motivated by the hypothesis that spelling and reading processes both draw on and reflect a common underlying base of orthographic knowledge. Recent research into the development of word knowledge lends support to this hypothesis (e.g., Ehri, 1997; Ganske, 1994; Gill, 1992; Invernizzi, 1992; Richgels, 1995; Zutell, 1992; Zutell & Rasinski, 1989). Asserting the central role of word knowledge in the reading process, several cognitive psychologists have suggested that the most ef-
< previous page
page_534
next page >
< previous page
page_535
next page > Page 535
fective means of determining the nature of individuals' lexical representations for specific words, as well as their lexical knowledge in general, is to administer a well-constructed spelling list (e.g., Ehri, 1997; Gill, 1992; Perfetti, 1993). Perfetti observed that "Spelling and reading use the same lexical representation. In fact, spelling is a good test of the quality of representation" (Perfetti, 1993, p. 170). Examining students' spelling can provide insights about the types of perceptual units engaged during word recognition in reading, the code that individuals use to access their lexical representations (Templeton, 1992b). In other words, if the full conventional orthographic representation of a word encountered during reading is not held in memory, then the way in which the reader spells that word may reveal the type of orthographic knowledge he or she is using to perceptually process the word. Although the surface manifestations of reading words and spelling words appear to be asynchronousthat is, individuals can read words that they cannot spell conventionallythe general nature of individuals' orthographic or lexical knowledge is applied similarly to both processes (Ehri, 1997). Early writing helps to construct the lexical frame for words in early reading; in this regard, Frith (1985) commented that spelling is the pacemaker for reading at the early levels. Later, however, reading helps to construct, sketch, or fill in the space within that frame; reading becomes the pacemaker for spelling. Henderson (1990) characterized Carol Chomsky's (1970) and Charles Read's (1971, 1975) early work with preschool and primary children's invented spelling as providing a "rosetta stone" for explaining the rationale that underlies early invented spelling (Henderson, 1981, 1990). For children who are emergent readers and writers, Ehri and Wilce (1987) found that the exercise of letter name knowledge through writing facilitates the development of phonemic awareness. Letters themselves can serve the function of concretizing sound, and although much of this process is implicit (e.g., Perfetti, 1992), it leads to children's conscious, reflective awareness of constituent sounds within words (Yaden & Templeton, 1986). For most children, reflective awareness probably begins with the written representation of their name. In studies of kindergarten and first-grade readers, Morris (1983, 1993) found that a reciprocal relationship exists between developing awareness of sounds and the concept of a word in print. A stable concept of word in print is defined as awareness that a word is a series of letters bound by spaces at both ends; children evidence this awareness when they are able to point to the words in a line of text as they are reciting the text from memory. When children have a stable concept of the printed word, they have a stable mental representation that frames and sequences the sounds and letters within words. Indeed, knowing where printed words begin and end as well as that they correspond to spoken words sets the stage for the conscious awareness and manipulation of vowels as well as consonants. In tracing this phenomenon, Morris has supported the conception that the development of phonemic awareness is not an all-or-none affair; with respect to syllables and single-syllable words, children advance from beginning sounds to ending sounds to the medial sound, which is last to appear. For the beginning reader who is an alphabetic speller, the effect of exposure to words and patterns not currently present in his or her spelling leads gradually to the appearance of silent letters in spelling. This builds the information within each lexical entry, moving it closer to convention and thus automaticity. For example, although cape may initially be read as / kæp / by an alphabetic reader/writer, the feedback that cape is pronounced / keyp / has the effect, over time, of directing the learner to look for reasons why: In this case, the presence of a word-final e emerges as the explanation, and together with similar information about other words, subsequently guides the reorganization of the lexicon so that long vowel sounds are distinguished from short vowel sounds in print by letters that themselves do not represent sounds. At this level,
< previous page
page_535
next page >
< previous page
page_536
next page > Page 536
homophony may play an accompanying role in driving the lexicon forward; the child who spells both cap and cape as CAP similarly spells both hat and hate as HAT. This phenomenon, emerging first at a tacit level, causes the child to search for distinguishing alternatives. Although not as much work has been done at the upper levels as at the lower to synthesize work in reading and spelling words, there are suggestive parallels to be drawn from studies that have investigated reading words at this level and those that have investigated spelling words. Templeton (1992b) suggested a parallel between the syllable juncture phase and derivational constancy phase in developmental spelling and the syllabic and morphemic layers of lexical decomposition described in several models of word recognition (e.g., Rayner & Pollatsek, 1995; Taft, 1991). Implications of Research for Instruction At the close of a century that has seen a definite evolution in the way spelling is conceptualized, instructional implications have emerged that build on the twin foundations of developmental appropriateness and the basic logic of the spelling system of English. Our focus now must be on how best to interface what we understand about the learner with what we understand about the system; that is, configuring what classroom spelling instruction should look like in a developmental context. The developmental learner explores words, seeking after pattern. The particular type of pattern to be exploredalphabetic, withinword, or meaningis a function of the developmental level of the learner. Based on a review of the developmental research at the time, Read and Hodges (1982) concluded that a challenge to designers of spelling curriculum was to bring instruction more in line with a developmental perspective. Writing a decade after Read and Hodges's review, Zutell (1994) suggested that this was beginning to occur. Describing approaches to instruction in terms of whole language and developmentalists, Zutell held that the developmentalists had unified developmental research with some type of systematic instruction. This was in contrast to the whole-language perspective, which, although acknowledging a developmental progression, held that sufficient instruction included minilessons focused on specific spelling problems arising out of writing and direct instruction limited to the "few rules and patterns that have a high degree of utility" (p. 1099). As many educators have perceived the need for more focused exploration of words, the instructional literature has reflected the tenor of the implications from research (Bear, Invernizzi, & Templeton, 1995; Henderson, 1985, 1990; Henderson & Beers, 1980; Henry, 1996; Moats, 1995; Templeton & Bear, 1992). Instructional models range along a continuum from more explicit and deductive (e.g., Henry, 1996) to more implicit or inductive (e.g., Bear et al., 1995; Bear & Templeton, 1998; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Invernizzi, Abouzeid, & Gill, 1994). As described by Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, and Perney (1995) and Zutell (1994), most of these approaches to instruction assume that learning to spell is a developmental process and that it requires direct facilitation and guidance, as opposed to assuming that spelling may be acquired on an "as needed" basis, at which time minilessons are conducted, usually in the context of writing. Although the latter practice clearly illustrates the importance of spelling and the appropriate application of spelling knowledge in the authentic context of writing, its possible shortcomings for most students are: (a) It depends on the teacher's knowledge base to present appropriate words that reflect the appropriate patterns, and (b) even if all teachers had this knowledge base readily available, such incidental instruction does not provide students the degree of exposure necessary for abstraction of appropriate spelling patterns. In the past, this latter issue has been discussed in terms of time on task; more recently, it has been addressed in terms of having a sufficient number
< previous page
page_536
next page >
< previous page
page_537
next page > Page 537
of opportunities to examine and make connections across words to abstract patterns, thus strengthening pathways within and between lexical itemsquite literally, establishing connections at the neurological level (Foorman, 1995). The tenor of much recent research, therefore, reflects the conclusion that if systematic spelling instruction drives orthographic knowledge that is important to both spelling and word recognitionand indirectly, to comprehension (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993)then attention to spelling should not be left to an "as needed" basis. Toward this end, Templeton (1991) argued that spelling instruction ought to be reconceptualized: The purpose of instruction becomes more than simply mastering the conventional spellings of words, but more broadly word study, a means of looking at words from a variety of perspectives that serve reading, writing, and vocabulary development. Instruction can develop and reinforce specific orthographic patternsthe structural aspects of lexical knowledge and of individual lexical entriesand do so in an engaging fashion. Such instruction includes strategies for thinking about words and exercising word and conceptual knowledge through examining and exploring words from a variety of perspectives: word sorts/categorization, word-building activities, analogical reasoning with semantic and orthographic categories, and so forth (Cramer, 1998; Cunningham, 1995; Moats, 1995; Templeton, 1991). Exploration is based primarily although not exclusively on words that have been selected by the teacher so as to facilitate discovery of pattern (Bear et al., 1995; Invernizzi et al., 1994; Zutell, 1996). In the context of an inductive approach in which word sorting or categorizing was used as a means of developing sensitivity to patterns in spelling, Fresch and Wheaton (1992) and Sabey (1997) explored and emphasized "think-alouds" among their students. Although all students can benefit from such a broader approach to spelling or word study, students who have been classified as special education or learning disabled may require more deliberate, systematic, and deductive instruction (Gordon, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1993; Henry, 1994; Moats, 1995). Given our understanding of the system to be learned and the nature of the learner, teachers need to assess their students' levels of spelling knowledge (Henderson, 1990; Morris, Nelson, & Perney, 1986; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, & Perney, 1995; Schlagal, 1992). With respect to learning about words, students are too often presented with new information about words before they have consolidated what they know about known words. Once students' developmental levels have been assessed, known words are examined to support conceptual development for spelling patterns; this pattern knowledge then can be extended to unknown words. The implications of most of the preceding research is now being explored in the context of classrooms, addressing teacher attitudes and practices, student learning, development, and attitude, and the consequent instructional environment (Allal, 1997; Fresch & Wheaton, 1992; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, & Perney, 1995; Sabey, 1997). Whether teachers teach with a published program of some type or not, there is a need to understand both the spelling system and the stages of the learner (Barone, 1992; Ganske, 1994; Gill & Scharer, 1996; Henry, 1989; Hughes & Searle, 1997; Morris et al., 1995). Teachers themselves often voice concerns about not being familiar enough with how best to teach spelling or with the nature of the spelling system itself (Gill & Scharer, 1996; Morris, Blanton, Blanton, Nowacek, & Perney, 1995). Although many teachers believe that spelling patterns should be emphasized, the teachers' knowledge of the nature and possible sequence of these patterns is limited. This uncertainty is particularly evident with respect to the morphological aspects of spelling (Moats & Smith, 1992). Based on their longitudinal investigation of spelling learning and instruction, Hughes and Searle (1997) concluded that: Many teachers themselves see spelling as more arbitrary than systematic; at least, they give that impression to their students. Even when that is not the case, it is likely that their
< previous page
page_537
next page >
< previous page
page_538
next page > Page 538
own knowledge of the spelling system is largely implicit or relatively poorly understood. For example, they may teach spelling as a solely sound-based system long after that is useful. . . . If we teachers do not believe that spelling has logical, negotiable patterns, how can we hope to help children develop that insight? (p. 133) Conclusion Throughout the 20th century, most researchers and educators have assumed that the task of learning to spell is a daunting one. Instructional efforts have ranged from attempting to teach all of the possible sound/symbol correspondences systematically to hoping that most learners would acquire necessary spelling knowledge as they developed their ability to read and write. Both of these extremes, and most points in between, have been influenced by what we characterized as a phonocentric view of English spelling. When researchers and educators assume that both decoding and encoding are based exclusively on mastering sound/symbol associations, then they inadvertently set students up for struggle and oftentimes frustration. In a general evaluation of American spelling, Cummings (1988) referred to the ''intricate simplicity" of the system: Its intricacies lie in the different levels on which it represents information from sound through meaning; its simplicity is the design and consistency with which it represents this information at each level (Templeton, 1992a). Educators' knowledge of this design and simplicity will better inform instruction, as well as the understanding of how students acquire knowledge of these influences. Learners' appreciation of the consistency and simplicity resonates with their advancing cognitive sophistication and knowledge. This knowledge in turn draws on an increasingly abstract conceptual domain reflected in the words students encounter in their reading. With respect to specific instructional practice, it is hardly surprising that research does not unambiguously support a specific type of instructional activity or systematic program. Given the studies that have investigated the effect of examining words in the context of an active search for pattern, however, there are some general conclusions that are at least strongly suggested: For most students, an inductive or exploratory approach is appropriate; for severely struggling spellers who are working at an appropriate developmental level, a more deductive, systematic, and direct approach is preferred. An emphasis on the interrelatedness of spelling and phonics, morphology, and vocabulary. This emphasis includes the explicit presentation and discussion of how morphology is represented in the spelling system; this allows a significant merger of spelling and vocabulary instruction. An emphasis in teacher preparation and professional development programs on the need for developing teachers' knowledge base about word structure, thus being empowered to facilitate students' development of word knowledge. Additional research is still needed in the following areas: Pacing spelling instruction to developmental level. "Intervention" -type instruction in the regular classroom, including investigations of students' application of spelling knowledge during the process of writing. Continuing work in exploring literacy development across spelling or orthographic knowledge, reading, and writing.
< previous page
page_538
next page >
< previous page
page_539
next page > Page 539
Sustained investigation of effects of combining spelling and vocabulary instruction at the intermediate levels and beyond. More investigation of what students themselves believe they are doing as they apply spelling knowledge. The continued exploration of spelling development in native speakers of languages other than English as well as speakers acquiring English as a new language. Although one may be tempted to disparage the narrower vision of spelling research and teaching throughout much of this century, each phase of the spelling research nevertheless made significant contributions to our understanding of the learning and teaching of spelling. Frequency studies, exploration of effects on memorization, developmental studies, and reconceptualizations of the role and nature of the spelling system have all provided essential underpinnings. There is now the potential for an important blend of traditional and contemporary aspects of instruction that promotes an appropriate synthesis of meaningful reading and writing experiences with developmentally paced word study. References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT Press. Alexander, G. (1906). A spelling book. New York: Longmans, Green. Allal, L. (1997). Learning to spell in the classroom. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 129150). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Aronoff, M. (1994). Morphology. In Purves, A. C., Papa, L., & Jordan, S. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts (Vol. 2, pp. 820821). New York: Scholastic. Barnes, W. (1982). The developmental acquisition of silent letters and orthographic images in English spelling. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Barone, D. (1992). Whatever happened to spelling? The role of spelling instruction in process-centered classrooms. Reading Psychology, 13(1), 118. Bear, D. R. (1982). Patterns of oral reading across stages of word knowledge. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., & Templeton, S. (1995). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bear, D. R., & Templeton, S. (1998). Explorations in developmental spelling: Foundation for teaching phonics, spelling, and vocabulary. Reading Teacher, 52, 222242. Bear, D. R., Templeton, S., & Warner, M. (1991). The development of a qualitative inventory of higher levels of orthographic knowledge. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction, Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 105110). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Beers, C. (1980). The relationship of cognitive development to spelling and reading abilities. In E. H. Henderson & J. W. Beers (Eds.), Developmental and cognitive aspects of learning to spell (pp. 7484). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Beers, J. W. (1974). First and second grade children's developing orthographic concepts of tense and lax vowels. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Beers, J., & Henderson, E. (1977). A study of developing orthographic concepts among first graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 11, 133148. Bradley, H. (1919). On the relations between spoken and written language. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press. Brown, R. (1973). A first language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cahen, L. S., Craun, M. J., & Johnson, S. K. (1971). Spelling difficulty: A survey of the research. Review of Educational Research, 41, 281301. Calkins, L. (1996). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chomsky, C. (1970). Invented spelling in the open classroom. Word, 27, 499518. Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York: Harper & Row. Craigie, W. (1927). English spelling: Its rules and reasons. New York: F. S. Crofts. Cramer, R. J. (1998). The spelling connection: Integrating reading, writing, and spelling instruction. New York: Guilford Press.
< previous page
page_539
next page >
< previous page
page_540
next page > Page 540
Cummings, D. W. (1988). American English spelling. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Cunningham, P. (1995). Phonics they use (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Dale, E., O'Rourke, J., & Bamman, H. (1971). Techniques of teaching vocabulary. Palo Alto, CA: Field Education Enterprises. Derwing, B. L., Smith, M. L., & Wiebe, G. E. (1995). On the role of spelling in morpheme recognition: Experimental studies with children and adults. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 327). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehri, L. C. (1989). The development of spelling knowledge and its role in reading acquisition and reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 356365. Ehri, L. C. (1993). How English orthography influences phonological knowledge as children learn to read and spell. In R. J. Scales (Ed.), Literacy and language analysis (pp. 2143). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehri, L. C. (1997). Learning to read and learning to spell are one and the same, almost. In C. A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 237269). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehri, L., & Wilce, L. (1987). Does learning to spell help beginners learn to read words? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 4765. Ellis, N., & Cataldo, S. (1990). The role of spelling in learning to read. Language and Education, 4, 128. Fischer, F., Shankweiler, D., & Liberman, I. Y. (1985). Spelling proficiency and sensitivity to word structure. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 423441. Foorman, B. R. (1995). Practiced connections of orthographic and phonological processing. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.), The varieties of orthographic knowledge, Volume II: Relationships to phonology, reading and writing (pp. 377418). Boston: Kluwer. Fowler, A. E., & Liberman, I. Y. (1995). The role of phonology and orthography in morphological awareness. In L. B. Feldman (Ed.), Morphological aspects of language processing (pp. 157188). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Francis, W. N. (1958). The structure of American English. New York: Ronald Press. Fresch, M. J., & Wheaton, A. (1992, December). Open word sorts: Helping third grade students become strategic spellers. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K. Patterson, J. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia (pp. 301330). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ganske, K. (1994). Developmental spelling analysis: A diagnostic measure for instruction and research. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville. Gates, A. I. (1937). A list of spelling difficulties in 3876 words. New York: Teachers College Press. Gentry, J. R. (1977). A study of the orthographic strategies of beginning readers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 39 (07A) 4017. (University Microfilms No. AAG7901152) Gill, C. E. (1980). An analysis of spelling errors in French. Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 (09A), 3924. (University Microfilms No. AAG8026641) Gill, C. H., & Scharer, P. L. (1996). "Why do they get it on Friday and misspell it on Monday?" Teachers inquiring about their students as spellers. Language Arts, 73, 8996. Gill, J. T. (1992). The relationship between word recognition and spelling. In S. Templeton & D. R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 79104). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gordon, J., Vaughn, S., & Schumm, J. S. (1993). Spelling interventions: A review of literature and implications for instruction for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 175181. Goulandris, N. (1994). Teaching spelling: Bridging theory and practice. In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process, and intervention (pp. 407423). Chichester, England: John Wiley. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Hanna, P. R., Hanna, J. S., Hodges, R. E., & Ruforf, H. (1966). Phonemegrapheme correspondences as cues to spelling improvement. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education Cooperative Research. Hanna, P. Hodges, R. & Hanna, J. (1971). Spelling: Structure and strategies. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Henderson, E. H. (1981). Learning to read and spell: The child's knowledge of words. DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois Press. Henderson, E. H. (1985). Teaching spelling. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Henderson, E. H. (1990). Teaching spelling (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Henderson, E. H., & Beers, J. (Eds.). (1980). Developmental and cognitive aspects of learning to spell: A reflection of word knowledge. Newark, DE: International Reading Association Henderson, E. H., & Templeton, S. (1986). A developmental perspective of formal spelling instruction through alphabet, pattern, and meaning. Elementary School Journal, 86, 305316.
Henry, M. K. (1989). Children's word structure knowledge: Implications for decoding and spelling instruction. Reading and Writing, 1, 135152. Henry, M. K. (1996). Words: Integrated decoding and spelling instruction based on word origin and word structure. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Hockett, C. (1958). A course in modern linguistics. New York: Macmillan.
< previous page
page_540
next page >
< previous page
page_541
next page > Page 541
Horn, E. (1926). A basic vocabulary of 10,000 words most commonly used in writing. Iowa City: University of Iowa. Horn, E. (1960). Spelling. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (3rd ed., pp. 13371354). New York: Macmillan. Horn, T. (1946). The effect of the corrected test on learning to spell. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Horn, T. (1969). Spelling. In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (4th ed., pp. 12821299). New York: Macmillan. Hughes, M., & Searle, D. (1997). The violent e and other tricky sounds: Learning to spell from kindergarten through grade 6. York, ME: Stenhouse. Huxford, L., Terrell, C., & Bradley, L. (1992). 'Invented' spelling and learning to read. In C. Sterling, & C. Robson (Eds.), Psychology, spelling, and education (pp. 159167). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Invernizzi, M. (1985). A cross-sectional analysis of children's recognition and recall of word elements. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (02A), 483. (University Microfilms No. AAG8526886) Invernizzi, M. (1992). The vowel and what follows: A phonological frame for orthographic analysis. In S. Templeton, & D. R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic Knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 106136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Invernizzi, M., Abouzeid, M., & Gill, J. T. (1994). Using students' invented spellings as a guide for spelling instruction that emphasizes word study. Elementary School Journal, 95, 155167. Lenneberg, E. (1967). The biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, P. (1980). The development of strategies in spelling. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive strategies in spelling (pp. 339353). New York: Academic Press. McKee, P. (1924). Teaching and testing spelling by column and context forms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa City. Moats, L. (1995). Spelling: Development, disabilities, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: York Press. Moats, L., & Smith, C. (1992). Derivational morphology: Why it should be included in assessment and instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing in the Schools, 23, 312319. Morris, D. (1983). Concept of word and phoneme awareness in the beginning reader. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 359373. Morris, D. (1993). The relationship between children's concept of word in text and phoneme awareness in learning to read: A longitudinal study. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 133154. Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W. E., Nowacek, J., & Perney, J. (1995). Teaching low-achieving spellers at their "instructional level." Elementary School Journal, 96, 163178. Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and achievement in six classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 96, 145162. Morris, D., Nelson, L., & Perney, J. (1986). Exploring the concept of "spelling instructional level" through the analysis of errortypes. Elementary School Journal, 87, 181200. Nagy, W. E., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304330. Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Perfetti, C. A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145174). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Perfetti, C. A., Rieben, L., & M. Fayol (Eds.). (1997). Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1995). The psychology of reading (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Read, C. (1971). Preschool children's knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 134. Read, C. (1975). Children's categorizations of speech sounds in English. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Read, C. (1994). Teaching the lexicon to read and spell. Review of Shane Templeton and Donald R. Bear (Eds.), Development of Orthographic Knowledge and the Foundations of Literacy: A Memorial Festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson. American Journal of Psychology, 107, 471476. Read, C., & Hodges, R. (1982). Spelling. In H. Mitzel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of educational research (5th ed., pp. 17581767). New York: Macmillan. Richgels, D. (1995). Invented spelling ability and printed word learning in kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 96109. Richgels, D. J. (1995). Invented spelling ability and printed word learning in kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 30,
96109. Sabey, B. (1997). Metacognitive responses of syllable juncture spellers while performing three literacy tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Nevada, Reno. Schlagal, R. C. (1982). A qualitative inventory of word knowledge: A developmental study of spelling, grades one through six. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47 (03A), 915. (University Microfilms No. AAG8611798) Schlagal, R. (1992). Patterns of orthographic development into the intermediate grades. In S. Templeton & D. R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 3152). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_541
next page >
< previous page
page_542
next page > Page 542
Scragg, D. G. (1974). A history of English spelling. New York: Barnes & Noble. Seymour, P. (1992). Cognitive theories of spelling and implications for instruction. In C. M. Sterling & C. Robson (Eds.), Psychology, spelling, and education (pp. 5070). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Simplified Spelling Board. (1906). Simplified spelling. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Snowling, M. (1994). Towards a model of spelling acquisition: The development of some component skills. In G. D. A. Brown & N. C. Ellis (Eds.), Handbook of spelling: Theory, process, and intervention (pp. 111128). Chichester, England: John Wiley and Sons. Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211229. Stever, E. (1977). Dialectic and socioeconomic factors affecting the spelling strategies of second-grade students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 (07A), 4120. (University Microfilms No. AAG7700149) Taft, M. (1991). Reading and the mental lexicon. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Temple, C. A. (1978). An analysis of spelling errors in Spanish. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40 (02A), 721. (University Microfilms No. AAG7916258) Templeton, S. (1976, December). The spelling of young children in relation to the logic of alphabetic orthography. Paper presented at the 26th annual convention of the National Reading Conference, Atlanta, GA. Templeton, S. (1979). Spelling first, sound later: The relationship between orthography and higher order phonological knowledge in older students. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 255264. Templeton, S. (1989). Tacit and explicit knowledge of derivational morphology: Foundations for a unified approach to spelling and vocabulary development in the intermediate grades and beyond. Reading Psychology, 10, 233253. Templeton, S. (1991). Teaching and learning the English spelling system: Reconceptualizing method and purpose. Elementary School Journal, 92, 183199. Templeton, S. (1992a). New trends in an historical perspective: Old story, new resolutionSound and meaning in spelling. Language Arts, 69, 454463. Templeton, S. (1992b). Theory, nature, and pedagogy of higher-order orthographic development in older students. In S. Templeton & D. R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 253277). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Templeton, S., & Bear, D. R. (Eds.). (1992). Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Templeton, S., & Scarborough-Franks, L. (1985). The spelling's the thing: Older students' knowledge of derivational morphology in phonology and orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 371389. Templeton, W. S. (1976). An awareness of certain aspects of derivational morphology in phonology and orthography among sixth, eighth, and tenth-graders. Dissertation Abstracts International, 37 (07A), 4190. (University Microfilms No. AAG7700209) Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The teacher's word book. New York: Teachers College Press. Treiman, R. (1993). Beginning to spell. New York: Oxford University Press. Vachek, J. (1989). Written language revisited. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. Varnhagen, V. W. (1995). Children's spelling strategies. In V. W. Berninger (Ed.). The varieties of orthographic knowledge. Volume II: Relationships to phonology, reading and writing (pp. 251290). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Venezky, R. L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton. Venezky, R. L. (1980). From Webster to Rice to Roosevelt: The formative years for spelling instruction and spelling reform in the U.S.A. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling (pp. 930). London: Academic Press. Venezky, R. L. (in press). A treatise on English orthography. New York: Guilford. Wilde, S. (1991). You Kan Red This!: Spelling and punctuation for whole language classrooms, K6. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Worthy, M. J., & Invernizzi, M. (1990). Spelling errors of normal and disabled students on achievement levels one through four: Instructional implications. Annals of Dyslexia, 40 138151. Worthy, J., & Viise, N. M. (1986). Morphological, phonological, and orthographic differences between the spelling of normally achieving children and basic literacy adults. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 8, 139159. Yaden, D., Jr., & Templeton, S. (Eds.). (1986). Metalinguistic awareness and beginning literacy: Conceptualizing what it means to read and write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Zutell, J. (1975). Spelling strategies of primary school children and their relationship to the piagetian concept of decentration. Dissertation Abstracts International, 36 (08A), 5030. (University Microfilms No. AAG7600018)
Zutell, J. (1979). Spelling strategies of primary school children and their relationship to Piaget's concept of decentration. Research in the Teaching of English, 13(1), 6980. Zutell, J. (1992). An integrated view of word knowledge: Correlational studies of the relationships among spelling, reading, and conceptual development. In S. Templeton & D. R. Bear (Eds.), Development of orthographic knowledge and the foundations of literacy: A memorial festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson (pp. 213230). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_542
next page >
< previous page
page_543
next page > Page 543
Zutell, J. (1994). Spelling instruction. In A. C. Purves, L. Papa, & S. Jordan, (Eds.), Encyclopedia of English studies and language arts (Vol. 2, pp. 10981100). New York: Scholastic. Zutell, J. (1996). The Directed Spelling Thinking Activity (DSTA): Providing an effective balance in word study instruction. Reading Teacher, 50, 98108. Zutell, J., & Rasinski, T. (1989). Reading and spelling connections in third and fifth grade students. Reading Psychology, 10, 137155.
< previous page
page_543
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_545
next page > Page 545
Chapter 30 What Should Comprehension Instruction Be the Instruction Of? Michael Pressley University of Notre Dame Children are taught to read so that they can understand what is in text. Thus, most of what matters in reading instruction matters because ultimately it affects whether the student develops into a reader who can comprehend what is in text. Reading instruction is effective in stimulating student comprehension abilities to the extent that it stimulates students to process texts as good readers do. It is important to understand what those processes are, and thus, the first major section of this chapter is devoted to coverage of the ideas and research on effective comprehension that seems most relevant to consider in making recommendations about comprehension instruction. The discussion in the second section on instruction is explicitly informed by the review of effective comprehension in the first section. As a preview of what is to come, this chapter differs from recent treatments on comprehension instruction (Pearson & Dole, 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1987; Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989), which have focused on strategy instruction to the exclusion of other approaches. I review in the first section of this chapter how the development of comprehension depends on word-level skills, background knowledge, and comprehension strategies. Hence, in the second section of the chapter, I make the case that instruction aimed at increasing comprehension abilities should be aimed at improving word-level competencies, building background knowledge, and promoting use of comprehension strategies. I found it challenging to write an integrative, summary chapter on comprehension instruction, especially in light of the space constraints given to me. First, during the 20th century, there was a great deal of research that can be related to the naturalistic development of comprehension skills and development of comprehension abilities through instruction. Second, much of that work was fragmented, with the typical investigator interested in a particular aspect of comprehension or instruction, most often to the exclusion of others. Third, comprehension and comprehension instruction typically have been studied separately. Researchers interested in naturalistic comprehension often seem to have given little to no thought about the development of comprehension skills through instructional experiences. Typically, instructional researchers focused on the aspects of comprehension most relevant to the comprehen-
< previous page
page_545
next page >
< previous page
page_546
next page > Page 546
sion instruction they favored (e.g., strategy instructionalists were informed about readers' naturalistic use of comprehension strategies but not as much about word-level comprehension). Despite the challenges, including the fragmented, large literature, I offer in the first section of this chapter a summary of the work on naturalistic comprehension that seems to me to be most pertinent to consider in thinking about instruction. What is emphasized in this section are ideas about naturalistic comprehension that have had some staying power, in that they are referenced often by the reading research community. Rather than exhaustive citation of research, I relate studies that have provided especially compelling evidence with respect to each of the points made about naturalistic comprehension. The second section is a list of instructional recommendations that make sense based on both work pertaining to naturalistic comprehension and research directly concerned with comprehension instruction. What Is Known about the Development of Skilled Comprehension Comprehension involves a number of lower order (i.e., word-level) and higher order processes (i.e., processes above the word level) specific to reading. The review of efficient, naturalistic comprehension in this section proceeds from word-level processes to the higher order skills. Word-Level Processes Affecting Comprehension A useful way of thinking about word-level processes that affect comprehension is to consider those more affecting recognition of words (i.e., decoding) versus those more affecting understanding of words. Decoding In recent years, there has been a great deal of work directed at how skilled readers are adept at sounding out words based on knowledge of graphemicphonemic relationships and how children can be taught to blend graphemicphonemic cues to read words (Ehri, 1991, 1992). Once sounded out, the child can recognize the word because all words in the books encountered by beginning readers are ones that have been in the speaking vocabularies of most children for years. Thus, many researchers studying beginning reading assume that if children can decode words in the books that they are reading, they will understand them (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). An extension of this line of reasoning is that word-level decoding is a critical bottleneck in the comprehension process, that if the reader cannot decode a word, she or he cannot comprehend it (e.g., Adams, 1990; Metsala & Ehri, 1998; Pressley, 1998, Chap. 6). There is increasing evidence that skilled decoders do not sound out letter by letter when they encounter an unfamiliar word, however, but rather recognize common letter chunks, such as the recurring blends (e.g., sh-, br-), prefixes, suffixes, Latin and Greek root words, and rimes (e.g., -ight, -on, -ime, -ake) of the language (e.g., Ehri, 1992). Thus, the fluent English reader would not sound out the nonsense word dight, but would recognize the -ight chunk automatically and blend its sound with the beginning d sound. The ability to recognize recurring word chunks and use them to sound out words is present to some extent even in a 4-year-old, that is, even in readers who are just learning to decode (Goswami, 1998). With respect to comprehension of words, development of skill in recognizing word chunks should have a positive impact on the comprehension of words. This is because
< previous page
page_546
next page >
< previous page
page_547
next page > Page 547
both recognizing and comprehending a word occur within short-term memory (i.e., consciousness), which is limited in its capacity (Miller, 1956). Hence, recognition and comprehension of a word compete for the short-term capacity available for processing of the word. Thus, the more effort required to decode a word, the less capacity is left over to comprehend it (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Hence, in general, the more automatic decoding processes are, the better is the understanding of the word. Reading of words boils down to decoding and comprehension, with word-level comprehension depending greatly on the efficiency of decoding (Gough & Tunmer, 1986). One potential problem with this line of argument is that training children to read words to the point of automaticity has not always produced improved comprehension (e.g., Fleisher, Jenkins, & Pany, 1979; Samuels, Dahl, & Archwamety, 1974; Yuill & Oakhill, 1988, 1991). A recent analysis involving especially thorough training of word recognition, however, produced data more consistent with the conclusion that learning words to the point of rapid recognition improves reading comprehension (Tan & Nicholson, 1997). The participants in Tan and Nicholson (1997) were 7-to-10-year-old weaker readers. In the critical training condition of the study, participants practiced recognizing target words until they could read each word without hesitation. This training condition also included brief training about the meaning of the trained words. In contrast, in the control condition, training consisted of discussions between the experimenter and the student about the meanings of target words, although the students did not see the words (i.e., the experimenter read the words to the students). Thus, the control condition was heavily oriented toward developing participants' understanding of the word with no attention to the development of word recognition. Following training, the participants in Tan and Nicholson (1997) read a passage containing the target words, with 12 comprehension questions following the reading. Eight questions could be answered based on verbatim information in the text; four required making an inference based on combining pieces of information in the text. Although some of the questions tapped points in the passage relating directly to trained words, this was never the case for the majority of questions. (The exact number of questions based on target vocabulary varied from pupil to pupil because different training lists and passages were employed, depending on characteristics of the reader.) The most important result was that the trained participants answered more comprehension questions than did control participants, despite the fact, that if anything, the control condition developed understanding of the target words better than did the training condition. See Breznitz (1997a, 1997b) for another set of analyses confirming that more rapid decoding improves comprehension, probably by freeing up more short-term capacity for comprehension. Researchers and educators who identify with whole-language philosophy and methods have rejected the validity of word recognition as being driven primarily by graphemicphonemic analyses. Their perspective is that word recognition in the context of text involves three cuing systems: the graphemicphonemic cues within a word, but also syntactic cues (i.e., information about the syntactic role of the word in the sentence) and semantic cues (i.e., meaning cues about the word in the text, including clues in illustrations accompanying the text). Most emphatically, the graphemicphonemic cuing system is not primary in word decoding according to the whole-language perspective, with meaning cues considered much more critical (e.g., Goodman, 1993, 1996; Weaver, 1994). Even though the scientific evidence favors the graphemicphonemic cues as primary in skilled decoding (e.g., Nicholson, 1991; Nicholson, Bailey, & McArthur, 1991), skilled decoders recognize when they have misread a word because it does not make sense in the context being read (Gough, 1983, 1984; Isakson & Miller, 1976). That is why powerful approaches aimed at the improvement of beginning reading, such as Read-
< previous page
page_547
next page >
< previous page
page_548
next page > Page 548
ing Recovery, teach students to pay attention to whether the word that has been sounded out makes sense in the context being read (Clay, 1991). Thus, powerful approaches to beginning reading encourage word comprehension in relation to the overall meaning of the text, and in doing so, provide feedback about the adequacy of decoding and whether there is the need to work additionally at decoding the word that was just processed. Vocabulary The extent of a reader's vocabulary is related to the person's comprehension skills (e.g., Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Nagy, Anderson, & Herman, 1987). Particularly important here, there are experimental data making clear that a more extensive vocabulary promotes comprehension skill (Beck, Perfetti, & McKeown, 1982; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Perfetti, 1983; McKeown, Beck, Omanson, & Pople, 1985). For example, in Beck et al. (1982), Grade 4 children were taught 104 new vocabulary words over a period of 5 months, with the students encountering the words often as part of the intervention and using the words in multiple ways as part of instruction. At the end of the study, comprehension tended to be better for students receiving the vocabulary intervention compared to control students, including on an analysis of pretest-to-posttest gain scores on a standardized comprehension test. Not all attempts to increase vocabulary have led to increases in comprehension skills, however. In reviewing the relevant studies, Beck and McKeown (1991; see also Durso & Coggins, 1991), concluded that when comprehension was not affected by vocabulary development, there tended to be superficial and rote learning of vocabularydefinition linkages. Vocabulary developmentcomprehension development linkages are more certain when students make deep and extensive connections between vocabulary words and their definitionsthat is, when the teaching requires the students to use the words in multiple ways, over an extended period of time. Although vocabulary can be taught, most vocabulary words are learned incidentally as a function of encounters in context (Sternberg, 1987). This is one reason why people who read a great deal have extensive vocabularies, with the lexical development stimulated by reading in turn empowering reading in the future (Stanovich, 1986). As will be elaborated in the next subsection, knowledge of all sorts potentially increases comprehension skills, although the impact of vocabulary knowledge is especially direct. If a word is not known to the reader, then the reader's understanding of it depends entirely on context clues, with the result uncertain understanding of the word. Readers often do not infer correctly the meaning of a word from context clues (Miller & Gildea, 1987). When a sentence or passage's comprehension depends critically on just that one word, the potential for lack of vocabulary knowledge undermining comprehension is obvious. Comprehension very much depends on word-level processing. Summary Skilled decoding of words depends somewhat on comprehension (i.e., the meaning of a word as decoded is compared to the overall meaning of the text to determine if the word as decoded makes sense in the present context). Decoding also contributes to comprehension, however. The more skilled the decoding, the less conscious effort is required for it, and the more conscious capacity is left over for comprehension of the word, including in relation to contextual clues. If the word is not one in the reader's listening vocabulary, such context cues are critical in providing hints about the word's meaning. Although most vocabulary words are learned through contextual encounters, studies in which vocabulary have been taught explicitly have been especially revealing about the causal role of vocabulary knowledge in the development of comprehension skills.
< previous page
page_548
next page >
< previous page
page_549
next page > Page 549
Processes above the Word Level Affecting Comprehension As important as word-level processes are in comprehension, most comprehension researchers have focused on more integrative processes above the word level. The most prominent analyses in recent decades are taken up in this section. Automatic Relating of Text Content to Prior Knowledge The mature reader knows much about the world. Such prior knowledge affects comprehension, with readers' schematic knowledge, in particular, and how schematic knowledge affected comprehension explored in detail in the 1970s and 1980s (e.g., Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz, 1977). A central premise of schema theory is that much of knowledge is stored in complex relational structures, schemata (schema is the singular, schemata the plural). Thus, the schema for a ship christening includes its purposeto bless the ship. It includes information about where it is done (i.e., in dry dock), by whom (i.e., a celebrity), and when it occurs (i.e., just before launching of a new ship). The christening action is also represented (i.e., breaking a bottle of champagne that is suspended from a rope). Schemata help people understand events easily. Thus, once some small part of the ship-christening schema is encountered, perhaps a picture of the bottle of champagne being held up to the ship, the activated schema causes reasonable inferences to be made about details of the event (e.g., as the bottle is seen breaking on the bow, the viewer might infer that there was a platform beside the ship with one or more persons on it, one of them a celebrity). Schematic processing is decidedly top-down in that activation of the higher order idea occurs first and affects thinking about the details of the situation. Schematic processing affects comprehension from early in life. Katherine Nelson, Judith Hudson, Robyn Fivush, Patricia Bauer, and their colleagues determined that even very young children develop schematic representations for recurring events in their lives (Bauer & Fivush, 1992). Thus, children have schemata representing events such as dinner (both at home and at McDonald's!), bedtime, making cookies, birthday parties, and going to a museum (Hudson, 1990; Hudson & Nelson, 1983; Hudson & Shapiro, 1991; McCartney & Nelson, 1981; Nelson, 1978; Nelson & Gruendel, 1981). Such knowledge permits them to draw inferences from stories that include information related to their schematic knowledge (e.g., Hudson & Slackman, 1990). For example, when preschoolers are presented stories that are not quite right, in that they include information inconsistent with schemata stored by most children, what children do is to make inferences to ''fix" the story to be consistent with their schemata (Hudson & Nelson, 1983). Of course, for schemata to affect text processing, the reader must have had the experiences permitting the schemata to develop. Thus, the richer a child's world experiences and vicarious experiences (e.g., through stories and high-quality television), the richer the child's schematic knowledge base. Comprehension does not always occur vis-á-vis schemata. Sometimes understanding occurs from the bottom up (Graesser, 1981; Kintsch, 1974, 1982, 1983), with the reader processing many individual ideas in text (and sometimes referred to as propositions) and how the ideas are related to one another by the text to construct a general understanding of the text's meaning, with such summary meanings sometimes referred to as macropropositions (e.g., Kintsch, 1983; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983). Knowledge from this perspective is most often conceived as networks of propositions and macropropositions. From this perspective, knowledge, in general, can be developed from reading broadly but also from other world experiences. When readers encounter ideas in text that relate to knowledge encoded in their propositional networks, there is the possibility of activation of the directly relevant and associated prior knowledge, which is then used in comprehending the current
< previous page
page_549
next page >
< previous page
page_550
next page > Page 550
text, for example, by permitting inferences based on the prior knowledge (e.g., Hayes-Roth & Thorndyke, 1979; Kintsch, 1988; van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983, chap. 6). One of the really important findings produced by those working within the propositionaltheoretical tradition, however, is that skilled thinkers do not make inferences unless understanding of the text demands them (McKoon & Ratcliff, 1992). That is, when reading a text, there are many inferences that could be made based on prior knowledge, but are not made. Typically, good readers make prior knowledge-based inferences only when they are required to understand the ideas in text. In doing so, the readers relate only prior knowledge that is directly relevant to the ideas encoded in text. One of the ways that weak readers undermine their comprehension is by relating to texts they are reading prior knowledge that is not directly relevant to the most important ideas in the text, making unwarranted and unnecessary inferences as they do so (e.g., Williams, 1993). In short, both schema and propositional theorists provide accountings about how long-term knowledge can affect processing and comprehension of new information, more or less automatically. Both theories specify that readers often relate their prior knowledge to ideas in text, when the ideas in text overlap to some extent the ideas in the long-term knowledge base. Such automatic use of prior knowledge to comprehend text is decidedly in contrast to the many reading processes that can be consciously controlled. Conscious, Controllable Processing Peter Afflerbach and I (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995) analyzed and summarized the 40+ think-aloud studies of reading that have been published. In each of these investigations, readers read texts and, as they did so, reported verbally what they were doing and/or thinking. The verbal protocol studies provided a great deal of information about readers' goals and how readers' goals influence text processing, as well as the articulation of online processing of text, inferences, and affective responses during reading. That is, the verbal protocols were especially informative about comprehension processes that are conscious and controllable. Mature readers flexibly use a variety of processes as they read texts, including the following: Being aware of their purpose in reading, whether it be pleasure or to find critical information for some task (e.g., writing a paper, evaluating a political position). Overviewing the text to determine if it is really relevant to the reader's goal as well as to identify sections that might be particularly apt. Reading selectively, focusing on the portions of text most relevant to the reader's goal. Making associations to ideas presented in a text based on reader prior knowledge. Evaluating and revising hypotheses that arose during previewing or occurred in reaction to earlier parts of the text, revising hypotheses if that is in order. Revising prior knowledge that is inconsistent with ideas in the text, if the reader is convinced by the arguments in the text (alternatively, rejecting the ideas in the text, when they clash with prior knowledge). Figuring out the meanings of novel words in text, especially if the words seem important to the overall meaning of the text. Underlining, rereading, making notes, and/or paraphrasing in an attempt to remember some point made in the text. Interpreting text, perhaps to the point of having an imaginary conversation with the author.
< previous page
page_550
next page >
< previous page
page_551
next page > Page 551
Evaluating the quality of the text. Reviewing the text after the reading is completed. Thinking about how to use the information in the text in the future. Summary Words in text specify a large number of interrelated ideas, each of which can be thought of as a proposition. Readers can process interrelated propositions to construct summary understandings of what they read. The summary understandings that are produced depend in part, however, on the knowledge that the reader brings to the reading, with the knowledgeable reader possessing much knowledge that is schematic and can be used to understand text that is read. Whether a reader uses relevant schematic knowledge (i.e., prior knowledge) depends somewhat on unconscious and automatic processes of association but also on many conscious reading processes, ones that can occur before, during, and after reading. Text comprehension begins with decoding of words, processing of those words in relation to one another to understand the many small ideas in the text, and then, both unconsciously and consciously, operating on the ideas in the text to construct the overall meaning encoded in the text. Of course, the meaning constructed by the reader is a function of the ideas explicitly represented in the text and the reader's response to those ideas, responses that often depend greatly on the prior knowledge of the reader (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Rosenblatt, 1978). The many active processes of readingprediction, construction of images during reading, monitoring of comprehension and rereading, summarization, and interpretationdepend greatly on prior knowledge, with skilled reading being an articulation of prior knowledge and these active reading processes. Because comprehension is complicated it requires a complicated educational strategy to meet the goal of improving readers' comprehension skills. How to Develop Comprehension Abilities through Instruction: Recommendations Following from the Analysis of Comprehension One implication of the analysis of comprehension just offered is that instruction aimed at promoting comprehension skills should be multicomponential. Another implication is that development of comprehension abilities is best thought of as a longterm developmental process. In particular, if the word-level processes are not mastered (i.e., recognition of most words is not automatic), it will be impossible to carry out the higher order processes that are summarized as reading comprehension strategies. Thus, for each of the recommendations that follow, I comment on the points in development when the recommendation makes most sense. Teach Decoding Skills There is much that is now known about promoting the development of decoding skills. The probability of success in early reading is promoted by teaching students the lettersound relationships, with plenty of practice in sounding out words (Adams, 1990; Chall, 1967). There is increasing evidence that it also helps to teach the major word chunks in English (i.e., prefixes, suffixes, base words, blends, digraphs; Ehri & Robbins, 1992; Peterson & Haines, 1992). It is somewhat ironic that those who favor downplaying decoding instruction often do so by claiming that they want children to orient more to the meaning of the texts being read (e.g., Goodman, 1996; Weaver, 1994), for getting the meaning of the text is facilitated when the reader can easily recognize the individual words on the page (e.g., Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; also see Tan &
< previous page
page_551
next page >
< previous page
page_552
next page > Page 552
Nicholson, 1997, reviewed earlier in this chapter). Not surprisingly, well-developed word recognition skills in the primary years also predict good comprehension in the later elementary grades (e.g., Juel, 1988). Thus, one way to develop comprehension abilities is to develop decoding skills during the primary years. Encourage the Development of Sight Words When less effort can be put into decoding during reading, there is more short-term capacity for comprehension of text. When words are recommended automatically, this maximizes the capacity available for understanding the word (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Demonstrations such as that of Tan and Nicholson (1997) go far in supporting the practice of drilling students on words they will frequently encounter and continue such drilling until words are recognized without hesitation. This is a practice that certainly makes sense during the early elementary years. Teach Students to Use Semantic Context Cues to Evaluate Whether Decodings Are Accurate Although whole-language enthusiasts have urged that students be taught to use semantic context cues (i.e., picture cues, the emerging storyline) as primary in decoding per se (e.g., Goodman, 1993, 1996), there is little support for this recommendation (e.g., Nicholson, 1991; Nicholson et al., 1991). What good readers do, however, is catch themselves when they mis-decode by noticing that the word as decoded does not make sense in the present context (Isakson & Miller, 1976). Encouraging such monitoring and correction is decidedly consistent with what good readers do (Baker & Brown, 1984). In doing so, comprehension in general should be improved, for much more of the text will be correctly decoded. This is an important skill that can be developed as an integral part of primary reading instruction. Teach Vocabulary Meanings With respect to understanding the individual words, there is a substantial debate about whether it makes sense to attempt to teach vocabulary to students. One part of the argument invokes naturalistic vocabulary acquisition processes (Sternberg, 1987). Students learn most vocabulary in context, incidentally as a function of experiencing and reexperiencing vocabulary words in reading and speaking contexts, and vocabulary words so acquired are going to be better learned and understood than vocabulary taught through explicit instruction, because the learner will have been so active and constructive in developing the meaning of the word in the former compared to the latter situation. A second part of the argument is that there are so many vocabulary words that instruction has no hope of making much dent on comprehension (e.g., Nagy & Anderson, 1984). A counter is that those raising this objection overestimate the number of different words in English that need to be known in order to read well (e.g., d'Anna, Zechmeister, & Hall, 1991). As an empiricist, however, I am impressed by demonstrations such as those provided by Beck and her colleagues that reading comprehension does improve when students are taught vocabulary that can be related to the readings they are doing (Beck et al., 1982; McKeown et al., 1983, 1985). I think there is more evidence in favor of teaching vocabulary than evidence against the practice. I know of no evidence that suggests such teaching should be limited to some particular age or grade level.
< previous page
page_552
next page >
< previous page
page_553
next page > Page 553
Encourage Extensive Reading Being able to decode per se helps comprehension somewhat, but as long as decoding is effortful, decoding is a bottleneck, using up valuable capacity that could serve comprehension if reading of words was more fluent. The development of fluent, automatic word recognition depends on many encounters with words (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974), with the most natural way for that to occur through reading and lots of it. The more a reader reads and improves fluency, the more comprehension should improve by increasing the cognitive capacity available for comprehension. Comprehension should be more certain as a consequence of extensive reading of and exposure to excellent literature and expository material for another reason, however. Literature exposure increases reader knowledge (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1993), for example, as reflected by the breadth of the reader's knowledge of vocabulary (e.g., Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Elley, 1989; Fleisher et al., 1979; Pellegrini, Galda, Perlmutter, & Jones, 1994; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Rosenhouse, Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1997; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992; Whitehurst et al., 1988). Thus, when children read books that include a great deal of information pertaining to beginning science, they know more science (Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith, 1997), which should improve comprehension of related science content encountered in the future. That there are multiple benefits from reading a great deal is why elementary students are so often advised to, "Read! Read! Read!" Encouraging extensive reading is possible throughout elementary schooling and for all students, for even the youngest and most immature readers can "read" picture books. Encourage Students to Ask Themselves Why the Ideas Related in a Text Make Sense Although readers often automatically relate what they know to ideas in text, they do not always do so when doing so might permit the reader to meet task demands. In particular, fact-filled text can be rendered much more memorable by encouraging students to consistently ask themselves why the facts in the text are sensible. Wood, Pressley, and Winne (1990, Experiment 2) provided a clear demonstration that children in Grades 4 through 8 can benefit from asking themselves why-questions about facts presented in connected text. The children in Wood et al. (1990, Experiment 2) were asked to learn elementary science content pertaining to different types of animals. For each animal, they read a paragraph specifying the physical characteristics of the animal's home as well as its diet, sleeping habits, preferred habitat, and predators. Some students were instructed to ask themselves why each fact in the text made sense (e.g., for the facts related to skunks: "Why do skunks eat corn?" "Why do owls prey on skunks?" "Why is the skunk away from 3 a.m. until dawn?'') and to attempt to answer such why questions based on prior knowledge as they read. These students remembered much more of what was presented in the text than control students, who read and studied the text as they normally would. Why-questioning produces large effects on learning and can be used profitably by elementary and middle school students to learn material in factually dense text (Pressley, Wood, Woloshyn, Martin, King, & Menke, 1992). It does so by orienting readers to prior knowledge that can render the facts in a text more sensible, and hence, more comprehensible and memorable (Martin & Pressley, 1991). One way to think about teaching students to why-question themselves and answer such why-questions as they read factually dense text is to consider the approach a comprehension strategy.
< previous page
page_553
next page >
< previous page
page_554
next page > Page 554
I did not do so here because this approach has not been included in training programs to date that are intended to stimulate selfregulated use of comprehension strategies, taken up in the next subsection. Teach Self-Regulated Use of Comprehension Strategies Despite the improvements in fluency and knowledge permitted by extensive reading, the "read, read, read" approach does not lead to as active meaning construction during reading as occurs when students are taught explicitly to use and articulate comprehension strategies when they read. Teaching students to use comprehension strategies is sensible because self-regulated use of comprehension strategies is prominent in the reading of exceptionally skilled adult readers, as documented in the verbal protocol studies (Pressley & Afflerbach, 1995). That has not been the evidence compelling most scholars who advocate teaching of comprehension strategies, however. What has compelled them is that comprehension instruction has consistently proven its worth in experimental evaluations of it. There have been two waves of important studies in my view. The first wave occurred in the 1970s and early 1980s. There were a number of studies evaluating the teaching of individual comprehension strategies (for detailed reviews, see Haller, Child, & Walberg, 1988; Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pressley, Johnson, Symons, McGoldrick, & Kurita, 1989). In these studies, participants in the treatment condition were taught to use a particular strategy during reading, with control participants left to their own devices to process the text. (An assumption in all of these studies was that the participants, who typically were children, did not use the instructed strategy already.) Reading of text typically was followed by some type of objective test of understanding (e.g., multiple-choice items over literal and implied messages in text). If the strategy-trained students outperformed the control students on the test, there was support for the efficacy of the strategy. Strategies that proved their worth in such studies included the following:(a) prior knowledge activation (e.g., Levin & Pressley, 1981), (b) question generation during reading (e.g., Rosenshine & Trapman, 1992), (c) construction of mental images representing the meanings expressed in text (e.g., Gambrell & Bales, 1986; Gambrell & Jawitz, 1993; Pressley, 1976), (d) summarization (e. g., Armbruster, Anderson, & Ostertag, 1987; Bean & Steenwyk, 1984; Berkowitz, 1986; Brown & Day, 1983; Brown, Day, & Jones, 1983; Taylor, 1982; Taylor & Beach, 1984), and (e) analyzing stories into story grammar components (Idol, 1987; Idol & Croll, 1987; Short & Ryan, 1984). That is, researchers succeeded in identifying strategies that readers could use before, during, and after they read, to understand and remember text (Levin & Pressley, 1981). The second wave of studies followed the development of sophisticated models of thinking that specified that multiple strategies are articulated in sense making (e.g., Baron, 1985; Brown, Bransford, Ferrara, & Campione, 1983; Levin & Pressley, 1981; Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985). One of the most prominent of the efforts for teaching multiple comprehension strategies was reciprocal teaching (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Four comprehension strategies were at the heart of the approach (i.e., prediction, questioning, seeking clarification when confused, summarization), with students taught over a fairly short period of time (e.g., 20 lessons) to use these strategies as they read text. Reciprocal teaching involved a rigid sequence of events. After a portion of text is read, the student leader of the group (one is appointed) poses a question for peers. The peers attempt to respond. Then the student leader proposes a summary. Only then are the other students in the group invited into the conversation, to seek clarifications by posing questions or make predictions about upcoming text, although a great deal of flexible discussion of text and issues in text can occur with this framework.
< previous page
page_554
next page >
< previous page
page_555
next page > Page 555
Across all of the studies of reciprocal teaching (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994), there were consistent, striking effects on cognitive process measures, such as those tapping summarization and self-questioning skills. With respect to standardized comprehension, however, the effects were less striking, with an average effect size of 0.3 SD. Reciprocal teaching was more successful when there was more direct teaching of the four comprehension strategies than when there was not, important in light of work by Duffy et al. (1987). Roehler and Duffy (1984) hypothesized that comprehension strategies instruction should begin with teacher explanations of strategies and mental modeling of their use (i.e., showing students how to apply a strategy by thinking aloud; Duffy & Roehler, 1989). Then student practice of the strategies in the context of real reading makes sense. Such practice is monitored by the teacher, with additional explanations and modeling provided as needed. Feedback and instruction is reduced as students become more and more independent (i.e., instruction is scaffolded). Teachers encourage transfer of strategies by going over when and where the strategies being learned might be used. Teachers cue use of the new strategies when students encounter situations where the strategies might be applied profitably, regardless of when these occasions arise during the school day. Cuing and prompting continue until students autonomously apply the strategies they have been taught. Duffy et al. (1987) evaluated the effects of direct explanation strategy instruction on Grade 3 reading over the course of an entire academic year. All of the skills typically taught in Grade 3 literacy instruction were taught as strategies. By the end of the year, students in the direct explanation condition outperformed control students on standardized measures of reading. These results had a profound effect on the reading education community, with direct explanation as Duffy et al. (1987) defined it subsequently being used by many educators to implement comprehension strategies instructions in their schools. Additional evaluations of direct explanation approaches to the development of a strategic repertoire followed. The interventions that were evaluated were consistent with what is observed in classroom communities that have comprehension strategies instruction as a centerpiece of the literacy curriculum, with such communities very much influenced by the Roehler and Duffy (1984) model (Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi, & Brown 1992). Such instruction came to be known as transactional strategies instruction (Pressley, El-Dinary, 1992), because it emphasized reader transactions with texts (Rosenblatt, 1978), interpretations constructed by readers thinking about text together (i.e., transacting; e.g., Hutchins, 1991), and teachers' and students' reactions to text affecting each other's individual thinking about text (i.e., interactions were transactional; e.g., Bell, 1968). In brief, transactional strategies instruction involves direct explanations and teacher modeling of strategies, followed by guided practice of strategies, consistent with the Duffy et al. (1987) approach. Teacher assistance is provided on an as-needed basis (i.e., strategy instruction is "scaffolded"; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). There are lively interpretive discussions of texts, with students encouraged to interpret and respond to text as they are exposed to diverse reactions to text by their classmates. The flexibility of student discussion is great with the transactional strategies instruction approach (see Gaskins, Anderson, Pressley, Cunicelli, & Satlow, 1993). There are no restrictions on the order of strategies execution or when the particular members of the group can participate. The transactional strategies instructional approach succeeds in stimulating interpretive dialogues in which strategic processes are used as interpretive vehicles, with consistently high engagement by all group members. One of the most striking aspects of transactional strategies instruction is that it takes a while, with instruction occurring over semesters and years. This contrasts substan-
< previous page
page_555
next page >
< previous page
page_556
next page > Page 556
tially with the very brief comprehension strategies instruction that was evaluated in the early 1980s (e.g., Palincsar & Brown, 1984). There have been three published experimental evaluations of long-term transactional strategies instruction: Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, and Schuder (1996) with Grade 2 students; Collins (1991) with Grades 5 and 6 students; and Anderson with middle school and high school students (1992; see also Anderson & Roit, 1993). Transactional strategies instruction produced better comprehension test scores and more interpretive readers in these studies, with the effects quite striking in all three of the evaluations. In summary, in the past quarter century, there has been a great deal of evidence produced consistent with the general conclusion that comprehension strategies instruction improves understanding of text, especially when children are taught to use such strategies. Although the early studies were extremely limited in scope (i.e., single or a few strategies evaluated in short-term experiments), more recent work has evaluated credible instructional packages delivered over a semester to a year of instruction, consistent with the practices of many educators who are committed to developing strategic comprehension processing in their students through instruction followed by strategies practice. That there was success in teaching comprehension strategies at the Grade 2 level in Brown et al. (1996) makes clear that such instruction is possible during the primary years. Indeed, I have observed the teaching of individual comprehension strategies at the Grade 1 level (Pressley, El-Dinary, et al, 1992). I have never observed the teaching of more than two strategies until the Grade 2 level, however. Summary and Concluding Comments Throughout the elementary years, it is possible to interact with children in ways to increase their comprehension skills. The beginning of comprehension is the decoding of individual words, and thus, instruction increasing the likelihood that students will become skilled decoders serves the development of comprehension competence. Once children can decode, they are empowered to read, read, and read, with greater fluency, vocabulary, and world knowledge by-products of such reading, all of which contribute to comprehension skill. Beyond incidental learning of vocabulary through reading, students also can be taught vocabulary, which positively affects comprehension. Finally, elementary students can be taught to be active as they read in the sense of using a variety of comprehension strategies to make sense of the meanings encoded in text. When they were taught strategies like the ones that excellent readers report as they read, comprehension, in fact, improved, dramatically in validation studies to date. The development of comprehension skills is a long-term developmental process, which depends on rich world, language, and text experiences from early in life; learning how to decode; becoming fluent in decoding, in part, through the development of an extensive repertoire of sight words; learning the meanings of vocabulary words commonly encountered in texts; and learning how to abstract meaning from text using the comprehension processes used by skilled readers. The frequent admonition for children to "Read, read, read," makes sense in that extensive reading promotes fluency, vocabulary, and background knowledge (i.e., it promotes a number of competencies simultaneously). Immersion in reading alone, however, is unlikely to lead to maximally skilled comprehension. At the primary level, there is no compelling evidence that such immersion produces the skilled decoding that is important in permitting word-level recognition and comprehension, nor is there evidence that such immersion in the later elementary years results in the development of the many consciously articulated comprehension processes used by good readers.
< previous page
page_556
next page >
< previous page
page_557
next page > Page 557
The development of comprehension is multicomponential and developmental, and hence, teaching to stimulate the development of comprehension skills must be multi-componential and developmental. Thus, although it is defensible at the Grade 1 level to emphasize word-level skills in the service of the development of comprehension skills, it makes more sense for reading instruction in the middle elementary grades to emphasize the development of higher order comprehension strategies, although word-level instruction (e.g., teaching of vocabulary) and word-level development (e.g., increases in fluency with additional practice reading) continue. Comprehension instruction can be enhanced by long-term instruction that fosters development of the skills and knowledge articulated by very good readers as they read. In closing, I recognize that one response to the list of points made in this chapter is that the list is unnecessary, that teachers know all of this already and are doing it. In fact, with the exception of encouraging students to read extensively, every one of the explicit instructional suggestions in this section is inconsistent with the most constructivist versions of whole language (e.g., Goodman, 1993, 1996; Weaver, 1994), which is the predominant philosophy in elementary language arts in many school districts in North America and abroad. Even the teaching of comprehension strategies, which has received consistent and strong endorsements from the reading research community, is not very common in elementary schools (Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Hampson, & Echevarria, 1998). Comprehension instruction in elementary schools seems not to be what it could be. A reasonable hypothesis is that if elementary reading instruction were to be transformed so that children were taught the skills and knowledge reviewed in this section, children's comprehension would be better. This is a hypothesis worth testing in the immediate future. References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. Anderson, R. C., & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J. T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension and teaching: Research reviews (pp. 77117). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255291). New York: Longman. Anderson, R. C., Reynolds, R. E., Schallert, D. L., & Goetz, E. T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research Journal, 14, 367382. Anderson, V. (1992). A teacher development project in transactional strategy instruction for teachers of severely readingdisabled adolescents. Teaching & Teacher Education, 8, 391403. Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 610. Elementary School Journal, 94, 121137. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., & Ostertag, J. (1987). Does text structure/summarization instruction facilitate learning from expository text? Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 331346. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 353394). New York: Longman. Baron, J. (1985). Rationality and intelligence. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bauer, P. J., & Fivush, R. (1992). Constructing event representations: Building on a foundation of variation and enabling relations. Cognitive Development, 7, 381401. Bean, T. W., & Steenwyk, F. L. (1984). The effect of three forms of summarization instruction on sixth graders' summary writing and comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 16, 297306. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 789814). New York: Longman. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., &McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506521. Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 8195. Berkowitz, S. J. (1986). Effects of instruction in text organization on sixth-grade students' memory for expository reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 161178.
< previous page
page_557
next page >
< previous page
page_558
next page > Page 558
Breznitz, Z. (1997a). Effects of accelerated reading rate on memory for text among dyslexic readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 289297. Breznitz, Z. (1997b). Enhancing the reading of dyslexic children by reading acceleration and auditory masking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 103113. Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. (1983). Learning, remembering, and understanding. In J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. III, Cognitive development (pp. 77166). New York: Wiley. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 114. Brown, A. L., Day, J. D., & Jones, R. S. (1983). The development of plans for summarizing texts. Child Development, 54, 968979. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second grade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 1837. Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Clay, M. M. (1991). Becoming literate The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Collins, C. (1991). Reading instruction that increases thinking abilities. Journal of Reading, 34, 510516. d'Anna, C. A., Zechmeister, E. B., &Hall, J. W. (1991). Toward a meaningful definition of vocabulary size. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 109122. Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104122. Duffy, G. G., & Roehler, L. R. (1989). Why strategy instruction is so difficult and what we need to do about it. In C. B. McCormick, G. Miller, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Cognitive strategy research: From basic research to educational applications (pp. 133154). New York: Springer-Verlag. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 347368. Durso, F. T., & Coggins, K. A. (1991). Organized instruction for the improvement of word knowledge skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 109112. Ehri, L. C. (1991). Development of the ability to read words. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 383417). New York: Longman. Ehri, L. C. (1992). Reconceptualizing the development of sight word reading and its relationship to recoding. In P. B. Gough, L. C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 107143). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Ehri, L. C., & Robbins, C. (1992). Beginners need some decoding skill to read words by analogy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 1227. Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174187. Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first graders' comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339356. Fleisher, L., Jenkins, J., & Pany, D. (1979). Effects on poor readers' comprehension of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 3048. Gambrell, L. B., & Bales, R. J. (1986). Mental imagery and the comprehension-monitoring performance of fourth- and fifthgrade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 454464. Gambrell, L. B., & Jawitz, P. B. (1993). Mental imagery, text illustrations, and children's comprehension and recall. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 264273. Gaskins, I. W., Anderson, R. C., Pressley, M., Cunicelli, E. A., & Satlow, E. (1993). Six teachers' dialogue during cognitive process instruction. Elementary School Journal, 93, 277304. Goodman, K. S. (1993). Phonics phacts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goodman, K. S. (1996). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goswami, U. (1998). The role of analogies in the development of word recognition. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 4163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gough, P. D. (1983). Context, form, and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading (pp. 203211). New York: Academic Press. Gough, P. B. (1984). Word recognition. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 225254). New York: Longman. Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading, and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 610.
Graesser, A. C. (1981). Prose comprehension beyond the word. New York: Springer-Verlag. Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1988). Can comprehension be taught? A quantitative synthesis of "metacognitive" studies. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 58. Hayes-Roth. B., & Thorndyke, P. W. (1979). Integration of knowledge from text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 18, 91108. Hudson, J. A. (1990). Constructive processing in children's event memory. Developmental Psychology, 26, 180187.
< previous page
page_558
next page >
< previous page
page_559
next page > Page 559
Hudson, J., & Nelson, K. (1983). Effects of script structure on children's story recall. Developmental Psychology, 19, 625635. Hudson, J. A., & Shapiro, L. R. (1991). From knowing to telling: The development of children's scripts, stories, and personal narratives. In A. McCabe & C. Peterson (Eds.), Developing narrative structure (pp. 89136). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hudson, J. A., & Slackman, E. A. (1990). Children's use of scripts in inferential text processing. Discourse Processes, 13, 375385. Hutchins, E. (1991). The social organization of distributed cognition. In L. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 283307). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Idol, L. (1987). Group story mapping: A comprehension strategy for both skilled and unskilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 196205. Idol, L., & Croll, V. J. (1987). Story-mapping training as a means of improving reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 214229. Isakson, R. L., & Miller, J. w. (1976). Sensitivity to syntactic and semantic cues in good and poor comprehenders. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 787792. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437447. Juel, C., Griffith, P. L., & Gough, P. B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243255. Kintsch, W. (1974). The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kintsch, W. (1982). Text representations. In W. Otto & S. White (Eds.), Reading expository material (pp. 87102). New York: Academic Press. Kintsch, W. (1983). Memory for text. In A. Flammer & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Discourse processing (pp. 186204). Amsterdam: North-Holland. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163182. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293323. Levin, J. R., & Pressley, M. (1981). Improving childrens' prose comprehension: Selected strategies that seem to succeed. In C. M. Santa & B. L. Hayes (Eds.), Children's prose comprehension: Research and practice (pp. 4471). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Martin, V. L., & Pressley, M. (1991). Elaborative-interrogation effects depend on the nature of the question. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 113119. McCartney, K. A., & Nelson, K. (1981). Children's use of scripts in story recall. Discourse Processes, 4, 5970. McKeown, M. g., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15, 318. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Pople, M. T. (1985). Some effects of the nature and frequency of vocabulary instruction on the knowledge and use of words. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 522535. McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440466. Metsala, J., & Ehri, L. (Eds.). (1998). Word recognition in beginning reading. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus-or-minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 8197. Miller, G. A., & Gildea, P. (1987). How children learn words. Scientific American, 257(3), 9499. Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 5476. Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 304330. Nagy, W., Anderson, R., & Herman, P. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading. American Educational Research Journal, 24, 237270. Nelson, K. (1978). How children represent their world in and out of language. In R. S. Siegler (Ed.), Children's thinking: What develops? (pp. 255273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nelson, K., & Gruendel, J. (1981). Generalized event representations: Basic building blocks of cognitive development. In A. Brown & M. Lamb (Eds.), Advances in developmental psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 231247). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Nicholson, T. (1991). Do children read words better in context or in lists? A classic study revisited. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 83, 444450. Nicholson, T., Bailey, J., & McArthur, J. (1991). Context cues in reading: The gap between research and popular opinion. Journal of Reading: Writing and Learning Disabilities, 7, 3341. Nickerson, R. S., Perkins, D. N., & Smith, E. E. (1985). The teaching of thinking. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175.
< previous page
page_559
next page >
< previous page
page_560
next page > Page 560
Pearson, P. D., & Dole, J. A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a new conceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, 88, 151165. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815860). New York: Longman. Pellegrini, A. D., Galda, L., Perlmutter, J., & Jones, I. (1994). Joint reading between mothers and their head start children: Vocabulary development in two text formats (Reading Research Rep. No. 13). Athens, GA, College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center. Peterson, M. E., & Haines, L. P. (1992). Orthographic analogy training with kindergarten children: Effects of analogy use, phonemic segmentation, and letter-sound knowledge. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 109127. Pressley, G. M. (1976). Mental imagery helps eight-year-olds remember what they read. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 355359. Pressley, M. (1998). Elementary reading instruction that works: Why balanced literacy instruction makes more sense than whole language or phonics and skills. New York: Guilford Press. Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schuder, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, L., & Brown, R. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Elementary School Journal, 92, 511554. Pressley, M., Johnson, C. J., Symons, S., McGoldrick, J. A., & Kurita, J. A. (1989). Strategies that improve children's memory and comprehension of text. Elementary School Journal, 90, 332. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Hampson, J. M., & Echevarria, M. (1998). The nature of literacy instruction in ten grade4/5 classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159194. Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91110. Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 5464. Roehler, L. R., & Duffy, G. G. (1984). Direct explanation of comprehension processes. In G. G. Duffy, L. R. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 265280). New York: Longman. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenhouse, J., Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1997). Interactive reading aloud to Israeli first graders: Its contribution to literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 168183. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of nineteen experimental studies. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479530. Rosenshine, B., & Trapman, S. (1992, April). Teaching students to generate questions: A review of research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Samuels, S. J., Dahl, P., & Archwamety, T. (1974). Effect of hypothesis/test training on reading skill. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 835844. 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, 225235. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407. Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993). Where does knowledge come from? Specific associations between print exposure and information acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 211229. Sternberg, R. J. (1987). Most vocabulary is learned from context. In M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 89105). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tan, A., & Nicholson, T. (1997). Flashcards revisited: Training poor readers to read words faster improves their comprehension of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 276288. Taylor, B. M. (1982). Text structure and children's comprehension and memory for expository material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 323340. Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students' comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19, 134146. Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1992). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: A systematic extension to Mexican day care. Developmental Psychology, 28, 11061114. van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. Weaver, C. (1994). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picturebook reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552559. Williams, J. P. (1993). Comprehension of students with and without learning disabilities: Identification of narrative themes and idiosyncratic text representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 631641.
< previous page
page_560
next page >
< previous page
page_561
next page > Page 561
Wood, E., Pressley, M., & Winne, P. H. (1990). Elaborative interrogation effects on children's learning of factual content. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 741748. Wood, S. S., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1988). Effects of inference awareness training on poor comprehension. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 2, 2345. Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Children's problems in reading comprehension. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
< previous page
page_561
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_563
next page > Page 563
Chapter 31 Literature-Based Reading Instruction Lesley Mandel Morrow Rutgers University Linda B. Gambrell Clemson University Since the late 1980s there has been a dramatic increase in interest in literature-based reading instruction in elementary classrooms. There are a number of factors that have contributed to this shift toward inclusion of literature in the reading curriculum, including the availability of high-quality children's literature (Cullinan, 1989), the popularity of the whole-language movement (Fisher & Hiebert, 1990; Goodman, 1989), and the prominence of reader-response theory (Iser, 1980; Bleich, 1978; McGee, 1992; Rosenblatt, 1978). In this review of the research on literature-based reading instruction we first explore the historical roots of this movement, the predominant theory on which it is based, and descriptive features of literature-based instruction. We then examine research on literature-based reading instruction related to storybook reading with young children and literature-based instruction in classroom settings. We conclude with implications for theory, practice, policy, and future research. The reading research of the 1980s was grounded in an active-constructive model of the reading process that emphasized the interaction between the reader and the text (Anderson & Pearson, 1984; Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985). This research also provided important insights about the relationships between reading and writing. Most importantly, this research led us to rethink the reading curriculum and the materials that are used for instruction. It was during the 1980s, according to Barr (1992), that teachers began to move away from sole reliance on basal materials and experiment with alternative forms of literacy instruction. Historical Perspectives on Literature-Based Instruction Basal programs have been documented as the dominant reading materials used for instruction in American elementary classrooms from the 1940s through the 1990s (Koeller, 1988; Shannon, 1989). In 1958, according to Koeller (1988), 95% to 99% of
< previous page
page_563
next page >
< previous page
page_564
next page > Page 564
teachers used basal programs, and in 1980, these figures were down slightly with 80% to 90% of the teachers reporting the use of basals for reading instruction. In a survey conducted in 1980, Gambrell (1992) explored the programs, approaches, and materials used in the reading curriculum. The study was replicated in 1990 in an attempt to identify shifts or changes in the reading curriculum from 1980 to 1990. In the initial study conducted in 1980, the respondents were 93 teachers, kindergarten through sixth grade, from three eastern states and the District of Columbia. Each of the 93 teachers reported using a basal program as the primary basis for reading instruction. Only 5% of the teachers, primarily at the kindergarten level, reported that they supplemented basal instruction with other materials or approaches. The supplemental programs and materials were fairly evenly distributed among children's literature, language experience, and phonics programs. These results, which indicate almost sole reliance on the use of basal programs in the early 1980s, were not entirely unexpected. However, it was surprising that teachers reported so little use of supplementary materials in the reading curriculum. The survey study was replicated in 1990 (Gambrell, 1992). The respondents were 84 teachers from seven Eastern states and the District of Columbia. Although 80% of the respondents reported that they used a basal program as the primary basis for reading instruction, over 50% of these teachers indicated they supplemented the basal program with children's literature, a significant increase from 1980. A small percentage of teachers (3%) reported that they supplemented the basal program with both children's literature and language experience. The most surprising finding was that the remaining 20% of the respondents reported using children's literature as the primary basis for their reading program. The results of the 1990 survey revealed that approximately half of the teachers using basals were incorporating children's literature into the reading curriculum and 20% of the teachers were using children's literature as the core of the reading curriculum (Gambrell, 1992). Perhaps the most compelling evidence of widespread implementation of literature-based reading instruction comes from the findings of the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress (Mullis, Campbell, & Farstrup, 1993). The data from this national study revealed that approximately half of all fourth-grade teachers reported a ''heavy" emphasis on literature-based reading, and that students of teachers reporting heavier emphases on literature-based reading instruction had higher levels of reading proficiency. In 1994, Strickland, Walmsley, Bronk, and Weiss interviewed teachers in eight states and found that 18% of the teachers reported using children's literature exclusively, whereas 80% used both basals and children's literature. Thus, it seems that the case is well made for the current popularity of literature-based reading instruction. It should be noted, however, that the survey results described in these studies are based on teachers' and students' reports of reading programs rather than observations of actual practice. However, the findings of the survey studies (Gambrell, 1992; Strickland et al., 1994) are consistent with observational research conducted during the same time period (Barr, 1989; Durkin, 19781979; Gambrell, 1986; Morrow, 1983). Taken together, the survey studies and the observational studies provide convincing evidence of the heavy reliance on basal programs. Morrow (1983), for example, found that the use of literature was limited in kindergarten through third grade classrooms and that most teachers did not set aside time for children to use trade books. Morrow's (1983) work also offered at least one explanation for the limited use of literature in the elementary reading curriculum. A survey conducted with parents, principals, and teachers revealed that reading for pleasure with children's literature was not a high priority and that the development of comprehension, word recognition, and study skills were ranked higher in importance by these groups. More recently, Lehman, Freeman, and Allen (1994) conducted a survey study with 192 elementary teachers who enrolled in a one-day conference on literature-based
< previous page
page_564
next page >
< previous page
page_565
next page > Page 565
reading instruction. Although this population is not a representative sample, the responses to the survey provide some interesting insights about teacher perceptions of the role of literature in the reading curriculum. In response to the survey, 94% of the teachers agreed that literature should be the primary component of the language arts program. When queried about their actual classroom practices, however, 45% reported using literature exclusively and 55% reported the use of basal programs for some instructional purposes. Clearly, the research to date on materials used for reading instruction documents the increasing significance of children's literature as we entered the decade of 1990 (Gambrell, 1992; Lehman et al., 1994; Morrow, 1997; Strickland et al., 1994). During the 1990s many teachers made the transition from basal programs that are highly structured to literature-based programs that require extensive decision making with respect to materials, grouping practices, instruction, and assessment (Alexander, 1987; Cullinan, 1989; Scharer, 1992). With the increasing growth in the use of children's literature in the classroom, several concerns about the implementation of literature-based instruction began to emerge. Gardner (1988), for example, speculated that without significant staff development efforts, teachers would basalize literature by using instructional guides that have formats similar to basal manuals. Cullinan (1989) voiced the concern that few teachers keep current with respect to the field of children's literature and that teachers lack appropriate course work necessary for undertaking a literature based reading curriculum. Theoretical Underpinnings of Literature-Based Reading Instruction According to McGee (1992), one defining characteristic of the current literature-based reading movement that distinguishes the movement from others in the past is the grounding in reader response theory (Bleich, 1978; Iser, 1980; Rosenblatt, 1978). Reader response theory draws on literary criticism theory which attempts to explain how readers read and interpret literature (McGee, 1992; Tompkins & McGee, 1993). The basic notion of reader response theory is that readers play a central role in the construction of meaning. Rosenblatt (1978) used John Dewey's term, transaction, to emphasize the contribution of both reader and text to the reading process. Meaning, therefore, is a two-way process that resides in the transaction that occurs between the reader and text wherein the reader constructs a personal envisionment of meaning that is guided by the text. The transaction is a dynamic where readers shape text as they use their prior experiences to select images and feelings, while at the same time the text shapes readers by creating new experiences and orientations (McGee, 1992; Rosenblatt, 1978, 1991). Rosenblatt (1978, 1991) distinguished between two stances that readers take, aesthetic and efferent, depending on their purposes for reading. The term aesthetic is derived from the Greek word meaning "to sense" or "to perceive." In taking an aesthetic stance in reading a story, a poem, or a play, for example, the reader's attention shifts inward and centers on what is being created during the actual reading: personal feelings, ideas, and attitudes. On the other hand, the term efferent is derived from the Latin word meaning ''to carry away." In taking an efferent stance in reading informational text, such as a textbook, directions, or instructions, the readers' attention will narrow in order to build up the meanings and ideas to be retained. According to Rosenblatt (1991), it is the reader rather than the text that dictates the stance that is taken, and any text can be read either way. Readers may select a text because it suits their already chosen, efferent or aesthetic, purposes, or the reader may note cues in the text and adopt an appropriate stance. In keeping with reader response theory, Rosenblatt (1978) posited that when reading any one text, readers shift along a continuum from the aesthetic to the efferent stance (see Marshall in this volume).
< previous page
page_565
next page >
< previous page
page_566
next page > Page 566
Many researchers find Louise Rosenblatt's reader response theory to be both relevant and important in providing a foundation for literature-based reading instruction (e.g., Eeds & Wells, 1989; Galda, 1990; Langer, 1994; McGee, 1992). Recent research studies have explored literature-based reading instruction and children's responses to literature, motivation to read, and reading performance. These studies provide insights about new ways that teachers and researchers are conceptualizing reading instruction in literature-based classrooms (Allington, Guice, Michelson, Baker, & Li, 1996; McGee, 1992). Features of Literature-Based Instruction Literature refers to a wide range of materials including picture books, big books, predictable books, folktales, fables, myths, fantasy, science fiction, poetry, contemporary realistic fiction, historical fiction, nonfiction informational books, and biographies (Lehman et al., 1994; Routman, 1988). Current definitions of literature-based instruction emphasize the use of high-quality literacy works, usually trade books, as the core instructional materials used to support reading achievement (Harris & Hodges, 1995; Huck, 1977; Scharer, 1992). According to Galda, Cullinan, and Strickland (1993), literature-based reading programs are characterized by the following: (a) a knowledgeable teacher who serves as an enthusiastic guide, (b) an environment that encourages social interaction about books, (c) a structure that allows students to make choices about what they will do with books, and (d) both the time and materials to allow students to read and respond to what they read. These characteristics are consistent with descriptions of literature-based language arts instruction in the research literature. An observational study conducted by Fisher and Hiebert (1990) provided insights about operational definitions of literaturebased instruction. They examined the types of tasks engaged in by elementary students in literature-based and skills-oriented classrooms. Videotapes, field notes, teacher interviews, and samples of student work were collected over five full days of instruction. Doyle's (1983) task framework was used to contrast the learning opportunities provided to students in classrooms using the two approaches to reading instruction. The analysis focused on seven aspects of tasks: subject-matter content, duration, cognitive complexity, product specification by student, product type, activity format, and task size. The findings of this study revealed substantial differences in the kind and number of literacy tasks in the literature-based and skills-oriented classrooms. Students in the literature-based classrooms spent more time in literacy activities, especially writing. The writing in the skills-oriented classrooms generally involved worksheets, whereas students in the literature based classrooms were usually involved in the generation of connected text. In addition, students in literature-based classrooms had more control over their literature activities. The activities were also more cognitively complex than those of the skills-oriented classrooms in that they required synthesis, integration, or generation of ideas, as opposed to recognition of facts or memory. Reading aloud to students from children's literature is also frequently mentioned in the literature as a critical feature of literature based instruction. Many proponents of literature based programs emphasize the importance of reading aloud on a daily basis (Galda et al., 1993; Huck, Hepler, & Hickman, 1987; Routman, 1988; Tompkins & McGee, 1993). In a survey study that examined the read-aloud practices of kindergarten through third-grade teachers in 1980 with those of teachers in 1990, Chasen and Gambrell (1992) reported that in 1980, only 45% of the teachers reported reading aloud to their students on a daily basis, whereas in 1990 almost 75% of the teachers reported doing so. In a more recent survey study conducted by Lehman et al. (1994), 85% of elementary teachers reported reading aloud to their students at least once a day. Daily
< previous page
page_566
next page >
< previous page
page_567
next page > Page 567
read-aloud has also been an important component of research studies exploring the effects of literature-based reading instruction (Morrow, 1992; Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith, 1997; Scharer, 1992; Smith, 1993). The literature-based perspective posits that the acquisition of literacy occurs in a book-rich context of purposeful communication where meaning is socially constructed (Cullinan, 1987). A number of authorities agree on the distinguishing features of a literature-based reading program (Cullinan, 1987; Galda et al., 1993; Tompkins & McGee, 1993). First, literature is used as an important vehicle for language arts instruction. Literature may be the sole or primary basis for reading instruction or it may be used as a supplement to basal programs, in which case the role of literature in the program is at least as important as the basal or other materials being used for instruction. Second, opportunities are provided for students to independently read books of their own choosing every day. Third, students are provided with sustained opportunities to read and write. These extended periods of time involve both independent and collaborative reading and writing activities. Fourth, social interaction among students is encouraged. Discussions of literature and related activities are commonplace in literature-based classrooms, as is collaboration on writing projects. Finally, an important characteristic of literature-based instruction is a strong read-aloud program, with teachers spending time reading high-quality literature aloud to their students on a regular basis, usually daily. Storybook Reading with Young Children In early childhood, reading to children has always been the most common practice for implementing literature-based instruction with young children. Reading aloud to children has been advocated as a vital experience in literacy development both at home and in school. In 1985, the report of the National Institute of Education stated that "the single most important activity for building the knowledge required for eventual success in reading is reading aloud to children" (Anderson et al., 1985, p. 23). Theoretical, correlational, case study, experimental designs, and anecdotal reports have reinforced accepted practices and perceptions by describing children's behavior and identifying direct relationships between being read to and aspects of literacy development. Clay (1979) and Smith (1978) discussed the positive effects of reading to children, suggesting that the activity helps youngsters to learn about features of written language. Children learn that written language is different from oral language, that print generates meaning, and that printed words on a page have sounds. Mason (1983) suggested that children who are read to develop a metacognitive knowledge about how to approach reading tasks. Metacognition is one's own awareness about how learning takes place in particular settings. Correlational research has played a prominent role in identifying the relationship between literacy development and being read to by an adult. These studies have found that early readers and children who learned to read before coming to school came from homes where they were read to frequently (Clark, 1984; Durkin, 1966; Morrow, 1983; Sutton, 1964; Teale, 1978, 1981). Children who had a desire to learn to read, and subsequently became successful readers, were frequently read to by an adult in the home (Durkin, 19741975; Mason & Blanton 1971; Walker & Kuerbitz, 1979). Language development, specifically syntactic complexity and increased vocabulary, is also associated with early experiences of being read to frequently (Burroughs, 1972; Chomsky, 1972; Irwin, 1960; Templin, 1957). Anecdotes and observations from case studies of children who have been read to frequently have described behaviors similar to those in the correlational investigations. Case studies by Baghban (1984), Doakes (1981), Hoffman (1982), and Rhodes (1979) indicate that young children who have been read to frequently know how to
< previous page
page_567
next page >
< previous page
page_568
next page > Page 568
handle books, and can identify the front of a book, the print to be read, and the appropriate direction for reading the print. The results of several studies using experimental designs investigated the effects of storybook reading as a regular classroom practice on children's achievement in various aspects of literacy development. In these investigations, the children in the experimental classrooms who were read to daily over long periods of time scored significantly better on measures of vocabulary, comprehension, and decoding ability than children in the control groups who were not read to by an adult (Bus, Ijzendoorn, & van, Pellegrini, 1995; Cohen, 1968; Dickinson & Smith, 1994; Elley, 1989; Feitelson, Goldstein, Iraqi, & Share, 1993; Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Senechall & Cornell, 1993; Senechall, Thomas, & Monker, 1995). How does being read to promote literacy development? Experimental investigations in school settings have tried to untangle specific elements of storybook readings that enhance literacy skills. Each of the studies has involved children in some type of active participation before, during, or after storybook reading. Qualitative studies, through observations and interviews, have documented how children and parents interact and participate together in reading storybooks in the home environment (Teale, 1987). Another group of studies has focused on the influence of the teacher when reading to a whole class in school. For example, some studies found that the reading style of the teacher affects children's comprehension of stories (Dunning & Mason, 1984; Green & Harker, 1982; Peterman, Dunning & Mason, 1985). In experimental studies carried out in school settings where children participated with their teacher and peers in some part of the storybook reading experience, their comprehension and sense of story structure improved in comparison to children in the control groups. The treatments involved activities implemented prior to story reading, during story reading, and after story reading. Activities implemented prior to story reading included previewing the story through discussion, prediction, and setting a purpose for listening prior to the story being read. Activities implemented during the story reading focused on ideas related to the story that were spontaneously discussed at appropriate times. Activities implemented after the reading included discussing predictions, discussing purposes set, role playing stories, retelling stories, and reconstructing stories through pictures. Apparently, these activities enabled children to relate various parts of a story to each other and to integrate information across the entire story (Brown, 1975; Morrow, 1985; Pellegrini & Galda, 1982). Ethnographic studies of read-aloud events, mostly in homes, illustrate that the events involve social interaction between parent and child in which the two participants actively construct meaning based on the text. The read-aloud event typically involves the child's independent practice of reading through a reenactment of the story reading event in which they model the parentchild interaction. The nature of the interaction between parent and child in story reading can influence the knowledge the child gains, as well as the attitudes toward reading and skills acquired for reading (Teale & Sulzby, 1987). Meyer, Wardrop, Stahl, and Linn (1994) described negative effects on literacy development as a result of storybook reading. These authors suggested that reading stories is not a magical activity for literacy development; it is the quality of the interaction that occurs during reading that results in positive effects, rather than just storybook reading unto itself. They reported that storybook reading sessions in classrooms are often not of sufficient quality to engage students fully and to maximize literacy growth. Reading stories as an act in itself does not necessarily promote literacy; however, the research suggests that certain methods, environmental influences, attitudes, and interactive behaviors apparently enhance the potential of the read-aloud event for promoting literacy development.
< previous page
page_568
next page >
< previous page
page_569
next page > Page 569
The nature of the learning that occurs as a result of adults reading storybooks with young children is consistent in a number of literacy theories. Wittrock's (1974, 1981) model of generative learning supports the notion that the reader or listener understands prose by actively engaging in the construction of meaning and making connections with the textual information he or she hears or reads (Linden & Wittrock, 1981; Wittrock, 1974, 1981). According to Vygotsky's (1978) cultural-historical theory, literacy appears to develop from children's social interactions with others in specific environments of which reading, writing, and oral language are a part. The literacy activities and the interactions that are mediated by the adults determine the ideas about and skills acquired toward literacy development (Teale & Sulzby, 1987). Holdaway's (1979) model of developmental teaching, derived from observations of middle class homes, asserted that children benefit most when their earliest experiences with storybooks are mediated by an adult who interacts with the child in a problem-solving situation. The child is asked to respond, and the adult offers information as needed to sustain the activity. In such situations, children and adults interact to integrate, construct, and develop understandings of the printed text. The primary goal of the read-aloud event, then, is the construction of meaning from the interactive process between adult and child (Vygotsky, 1978). During story reading, the adult helps the child understand and make sense of text by interpreting the written language based on experiences, background, and beliefs (Altwerger, Diehl-Faxon, & Dockstader-Anderson, 1985). Teale (1984) described the interaction as being interpsychological first, that is, negotiated between adult and child together; and intrapsychological next, when the child internalizes the interactions and can function independently. Parent Interactive Behaviors during Story Readings A parent or teacher rarely reads to a child without offering comments about the story, which in turn trigger responses and questions from the child. Likewise, children initiate discussion during a reading, which results in similar social interaction. Story reading appears to involve the cooperative construction of meaning between adult and child through negotiation and mediation in the verbal exchange about the story. Differences have been found in the way that individual parents interact with children in story readings. As story readings progress over time, parents tend to change the nature of their interactive style as children change the nature of their responses to the activity (Bloome, 1985; Heath, 1982; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Taylor, 1986; Teale & Sulzby, 1987). Researchers have identified a number of adult interactive behaviors that affect the qualitative aspects of read-aloud activities. They include questioning, scaffolding dialogue and responses, praise or positive feedback, offering or extending information, clarifying information, restating information, directing discussion, sharing personal reactions, and relating concepts to life experiences. Flood (1977), using a descriptive-correlational approach, described reading styles of parents during book reading sessions with pre-kindergarten children. He found the following variables combined as the best predictors of success on readiness scores: (a) total number of words spoken by children, (b) total number of questions answered by children, (c) number of preparatory questions asked by parents, (d) number of poststory evaluative questions asked by parents, (e) total number of questions asked by the child, and (f) positive reinforcement offered by the parent. Flood concluded that parents should be encouraged to talk about text with their children before, during, and after storybook reading. Based on a careful analysis of a mother interacting with her child from the age of 8 to 18 months, Ninio and Bruner (1978) identified a four-step parentchild routine during the reading of picture books. This routine involved attention-getting dialogue, questions, labeling and scaffolding, then feedback. These researchers observed the scaf-
< previous page
page_569
next page >
< previous page
page_570
next page > Page 570
folding process in which the adult supplies all responses that the child cannot, preparing the child to do so later on. The adult scaffolds or gives responses to questions asked so that the child can discover what is expected and can experience success in later responses. As the child begins to make appropriate responses, parental scaffolding diminishes (Applebee & Langer, 1983; Ninio & Bruner, 1978). Cochran-Smith (1984) observed storybook readings in school settings and concluded that the events were based on cooperative negotiation of textual meanings by the readers and listeners. Responses by the listeners influence the story reader's guidance and a mutual dependency arises. To be most useful, interactions must include "life to text" as well as "text to life" information. "Life to text" focuses on using the child's knowledge to make sense of information in the book. "Text to life'' shows the child how the information in the book can be related to his or her life. The patterns reflect the Piagetian viewpoint of applying new ideas to existing schemata and accommodating new information. They also follow Ausubel's theory that learning becomes more meaningful as it is related to the child's present knowledge (Payton, 1984). Shanahan and Hogan (1983) compared interactive behavior by adults during story reading with children's achievement on a test of print awareness. They determined that minutes of book reading per week, answering children's questions during readings, and references to children's own experiences were the best predictors of achievement on the print awareness measures. Roser and Martinez (1985) described three roles that adults play during story readings at home and in school. As co-responders, adults initiate discussion in order to describe information, recount parts of a story, share personal reactions, relate experiences to real life, and invite children to share responses in the same ways. As informers/monitors, adults explain aspects of a story, provide information to broaden a child's knowledge, and assess a child's understanding of a story. As directors, adults introduce a story, announce conclusions, and assume leadership. As a child's participation in story readings increases, all three roles become interchangeable between adult and child. According to Heath (1980), interactive language behaviors during story readings change as children get older. Initially, parents expect very young children to interrupt stories, and the parents accept dialogue and questioning from the children during the story reading event. By the age of 3 years, Heath observed, the child is expected by parents to listen to the story and learn information from it as in traditional school settings. The adult begins to question the child after a reading to determine content understanding and recall. Sulzby and Teale (1987) in their study of storybook reading behaviors of eight families found similar changes over time in the interactive patterns between parents and children. Book reading behaviors differ with socioeconomic settings. Children in low socioeconomic communities tend to be read to infrequently or not at all. Differences in interactive behavior between participants in low socioeconomic status (SES) and those in high-SES homes are revealed in higher levels of vocabulary development for high-SES children (Ninio & Bruner, 1978). Heath (1980) found that in middle-class homes, "why" questions and affective comments were sought often; in lower SES settings, "when" and "what" questions were the rule. Children in the latter group were at a disadvantage when they met higher level thought questions at school. Teacher Interactive Behaviors during Story Readings Studies reported thus far have investigated the interactions during story reading events that involved one-to-one readings between parent and child at home. Studies focusing on teachers' interactive behaviors when reading to whole classes of children have documented the impact of teachers' reading style on children's comprehension of stories (Dunning & Mason, 1984; Green & Harker, 1982; Peterman et al., 1985).
< previous page
page_570
next page >
< previous page
page_571
next page > Page 571
A series of investigations was carried out in classrooms to determine children's comprehension of story in whole-class, smallgroup, and one-to-one settings (Morrow, 1987, 1988; Morrow & Smith, 1990). The interactions that occurred within these different settings were also studied. On a test of comprehension, children who heard stories in small-group settings performed significantly better than children who heard stories read one-to-one, who in turn performed significantly better than children who heard stories read to the whole class. In addition, children who heard stories read in a small-group or one-to-one setting generated significantly more comments and questions than children in the whole-class setting. Thus, reading to children in small groups offers as much interaction as one-to-one readings, and appears to lead to greater comprehension than whole-class or even one-to-one readings. Children's Responses during Storybook Readings Children's responses to read-aloud experiences, both in questions and in comments, are a critical aspect of the interactive process. Yaden (1985) pointed out that children's questions can aid their literacy development by providing a direct channel of information. When questions are asked and then answered, a child receives immediate feedback. The opportunity to question provides an environment for learning. Holdaway's (1979) model for literacy instruction advocates that children have the opportunity to regulate their own learning by questioning adults in literacy situations such as storybook reading. Cochran-Smith (1984) found that the types of questions and comments children make during story reading events help us gain insights into the way young children attempt to construct meaning and make sense of text. Children's initial questions and comments during first storybook readings relate mainly to illustrations, as youngsters label or name items pictured or repeat and restate words said by the adult who is reading the story. Children also respond by answering questions posed by the adult (Bloome, 1985; Ninio & Bruner, 1978; Yaden, 1985). Questions and comments about story content or meaning become prevalent and more complex with time, eventually including narrational, evaluative, interpretive, associative, predictive, informative, and elaborative remarks (Roser & Martinez, 1985). One of the last things children ask about is the print itself. Few children, for instance, ask for speech equivalents of printed words, or for names of letter sounds. Children's responses most often reflect adult interactive behavior. The changes in children's responses over time indicate internalization of interactive behavior. As time goes by, children begin to control the story reading by taking more responsive roles during the activity. Children often request that favorite stories be read aloud. This common practice of rereading favorite stories to children has attracted the attention of many scholars. Researchers have questioned whether lasting cognitive and affective benefits result from repeated readings of the same story. Investigators have sought to answer this question by studying the responses of children who have had the opportunity to hear repeated readings of the same story. Roser and Martinez (1985) and Yaden (1985) suggested that children's comments and questions increase and become more interpretive and evaluative when they have listened to repeated readings of the same story. Case study investigations (Snow, 1983; Snow & Goldfield, 1983) of repeated storybook readings found that in their comments and responses to the readings, children discussed more aspects of the text and discussed them in greater depth. Children also elaborated more often and interpreted issues in the story following repeated readings. Teale and Sulzby (1987) reported that with repeated readings, children internalized the interaction that occurred between parent and child. The child gradually took over conducting the story reading. Sulzby (1985) reported that the familiarity that comes with repeated readings enables children to reenact stories or attempt to read stories on their own.
< previous page
page_571
next page >
< previous page
page_572
next page > Page 572
These reenactments model the parent's storybook reading. Early attempts are governed by pictures; that is, the child reads the story by focusing on the illustration. At first, stories are not well formed, but the child's reenactments gradually take on the shape and sound of story reading. Eventually the child begins to attend to the print, combining reading and telling until actual reading is achieved. These reenactments play an important role in literacy learning (Teale & Sulzby, 1987). Reenactment could hardly occur without repeated readings of a story. Repeated readings seem to be an important component in reading stories. The familiarity gained through the experience provides children with frameworks of background information that enable them to deal with the text on a variety of levels. Literature-Based Instruction in Classroom Settings Although there are relatively few empirical studies in the literature that directly compare literature-based reading instruction with alternative models, a number of studies provide evidence that evaluates the use of literature in the reading program. In this section we review a range of studies that explored the effects of literature-based reading instruction on elementary-age children's literacy development. Some of these studies compared whole-language or literature-based classrooms with skills-based classrooms. In the studies cited in this section the descriptions of whole-language classrooms emphasized the use of children's literature for reading and writing instruction. Other studies compared the effects of basal only control groups with basal plus literature-based reading instruction, where the basal instruction was supplemented with equal time devoted to literature-based reading instruction. In addition, a recent qualitative study by Baumann and Ivey (1997) explored the nature and efficacy of a combined literature/strategy-based instructional program on children's reading and writing development. Comparisons of Literature-Based and Skills-Based Classrooms A number of recent studies compared literature-based programs with skills-based reading and language arts instruction. In these studies, skills-based programs are typically defined as a traditional program characterized by the use of a commercial reading series emphasizing the introduction and practice of a hierarchy of reading skills ordered from basic to more complex. Literaturebased programs are characterized as using children's literature as the basis for instruction, with a focus on meaningful reading and writing experiences and self-selected extension activities related to the literature. Studies of this type have demonstrated the positive effects of literature-based programs on the print awareness and word reading acquisition of kindergarten students (Reutzel, Oda, & Moore, 1989). At the elementary level, literature-based programs have been shown to positively influence students' knowledge of written language (Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, & Freppon, 1995), vocabulary (Reutzel & Cooter, 1990), and comprehension (Reutzel & Cooter, 1990; Richek & McTague, 1988). Other studies have found that students in a literature-based program were more strategic readers than those in a skills-based program (Dahl & Freppon, 1995; Freppon, 1991). In addition, students taught using a literature-based approach viewed reading as a meaning-making process and had higher levels of metacognitive awareness than students in the skills-based programs (Gambrell & Palmer, 1992; Freppon, 1991).
< previous page
page_572
next page >
< previous page
page_573
next page > Page 573
Studies Evaluating the Effects of Literature-Based Programs on Literacy Achievement Two recent quasi-experimental studies investigated the effects of a combination approach consisting of equal time devoted to basals and children's literature as compared to control groups that used basals only (Morrow, 1992; Morrow et al., 1997). In a study conducted by Morrow (1992), second-grade classrooms were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (a) a literaturebased reading and writing program that included literacy centers, teacher-directed literacy activities, and independent reading and writing periods as a complement to the existing basal reading program; (b) an identical group to the one described in (a), except for the addition of a component in which parents supported the literacy activities at home; or (c) a control group that used a basal-only program. In a second study, Morrow and her colleagues investigated the effects of a literature-based program integrated into science instruction (Morrow et al., 1997). The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of a literaturebased program integrated into literacy and science instruction on achievement and use of literature. Third-grade classrooms were assigned to one of three groups: (a) literature-based reading and literature-based science instruction as a complement to the existing basal reading program; (b) literature-based reading instruction and textbook science instruction in addition to the existing basal reading program; or (c) basal reading instruction and traditional textbook-based science instruction. Both studies spanned an entire school year, and in both investigations a basal reader with workbook materials was used for reading instruction prior to the implementation of the study. The literature component of both studies was designed to complement the existing basal reading instruction program; however, less time was spent with the basal in order to incorporate the emphasis on literature. Even so, the same amount of overall time was spent on reading instruction in both experimental and control groups. Also, in both studies children could not be randomly assigned to treatment conditions; therefore, intact classrooms were the unit of analysis, and the classroom mean was used for all measures. The results of both studies were strikingly similar. Across both studies the performance of students in the literature treatment conditions was statistically superior to that of the control groups on the following measures: story retelling, story rewriting, and the writing of original stories. In addition, in the Morrow et al. (1997) study, the treatment group that received basal and literature-based reading instruction as well as science instruction using tradebooks (the most intensive literature treatment group) outperformed the basal and literature based-reading and science text group and the basal-only group on the California Test of Basic Skills (reading score and total language score). In addition, the literature and science tradebook group outperformed the comparison groups on two measures of science content, suggesting that the use of literature enhances content learning. Overall, the results of these studies suggest that the combination of literature-based instruction with traditional basal reading instruction is more powerful than traditional instruction alone. In addition, the Morrow et al. (1997) study confirms the findings of several recent quasi-experimental studies that have documented the positive effects of literature-based instruction on content area learning (Guzzetti, Kowalinski, & McGowan, 1992; Jones, Coombs, & McKinney, 1994; Smith, 1993). Block (1993) investigated the effects of a literature-based reading program designed to teach reading and thinking strategies. In this study, second- and third-grade students were randomly assigned, by classrooms, to experimental or control conditions. In the literature-based classrooms, students received lessons twice weekly for 32 weeks. The lessons consisted of two parts: (a) teacher explanation and modeling of a thinking and reading comprehension strategy (e.g., decoding an unknown word, predicting) using
< previous page
page_573
next page >
< previous page
page_574
next page > Page 574
written strategy application guides, and (b) student selection of literature and application of the previously taught cognitive strategy. In the control group, students received traditional instruction that did not emphasize strategy instruction. The results revealed that the strategy/literature-based group outperformed the control group on the reading comprehension, vocabulary, and total battery sections of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. In addition, students in the strategy/literature-based group also outperformed controls in the ability to transfer cognitive strategies to out-of-school applications and on measures of self-esteem and critical and creative thinking. Baumann and Ivey (1997) note that although Morrow's (1992) study explored the impact of a program of rich literature-based experiences on children's ability to respond and react to literary experiences, and Block's (1993) study investigated the effects of a systematic program of strategy instruction within a literature-based program, neither of these studies attempted to clarify the impact of a long-term, combined program of both contextualized skill and strategy instruction within a literature-based reading program. Baumann and Ivey (1997) conducted a year-long qualitative case study to explore what second-grade students learned about reading, writing, and literature in a program of strategy instruction integrated within a literature-based classroom environment. Baumann was the full-time teacher for the entire school year, and Ivey was a participant observer in the classroom. Data sources included personal journals kept by both investigators, individual student interviews and interviews with parents and caregivers, videotapes of regular classroom literacy activities, artifacts of students' reading and writing, assessments of student's literacy learning, and the teacher's daily plan book. A content analysis of the data sources revealed that students grew in overall reading performance and came to view reading as a natural component of the school experience. The students demonstrated high levels of engagement with books, developed skill in word identification, fluency, and comprehension, and grew in written composition abilities. This qualitative study provides support for the efficacy of teaching students reading and language arts strategies within a literature based framework. Baumann and Ivey (1997) concluded: that there is a bidirectional, mutually reinforcing relationship between the presence of literature environment and contextualized strategy instruction. The immersion in literature and the embedded strategy instruction created a kind of symbiotic, synergistic relationship in which each program characteristic contributed to and fed off the other. In other words, the literature enhanced students reading and writing fluency, and their developing literacy abilities promoted their literary knowledge and appreciation. (p. 272) Literature Discussion Groups The increase in the use of children's literature in the elementary classroom has drawn attention to the ways in which children respond to literature during discussion groups. The research studies that have focused on discussion groups used a variety of qualitative and quantitative methods to examine what happens when students engage in discussions about books they have read (Gambrell, 1996). Literature discussion groups are typically described as involving small groups of children (from three to eight) who read a story or novel over a period of time. The underlying principle of literature discussion groups is that the teacher and students work together in order to construct and refine deeper meaning and understanding of the text. Researchers who have explored the cognitive processes that are necessary for higher level thinking agree that deep-level understanding occurs only through interactions with others (Almasi, 1995, 1996; Baker, 1979; Schallert & Kleiman, 1979). This finding is in keeping with the theories of Vygotsky (1978), which posit that social interaction is central to the development of language and thought. According to
< previous page
page_574
next page >
< previous page
page_575
next page > Page 575
Vygotskian theory, learning is facilitated through the assistance of more knowledgeable members of the community and higher level mental processes, such as those involved in language processes and academic discourse. Several studies explored the effects of the book club format for literature discussion on reading development. The book club format typically consists of silent reading, writing in response to the reading, small-group discussion, and instruction (Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1995; Goatley & Raphael, 1992). A number of other studies have investigated the effects of peer-led literature discussion groups on reading comprehension and higher-level thinking (Almasi, 1995; Eeds & Wells, 1989; Goatley et al., 1995; Goatley & Raphael, 1992; Many & Wiseman, 1992; McGee, 1992). There is quantitative and qualitative evidence that prior to instruction or experience with literature discussion groups, students' responses tend to be unelaborated and their discussions involve very limited interactions among students (Almasi, 1995; Gambrell, 1987; Goatley & Raphael, 1992). As a result of participation in literature discussion groups, however, students exhibited a wide range of behaviors that demonstrated comprehension and evaluation of the text as well as personal responses (Almasi, 1995; Eeds & Wells, 1989; Goatley, 1996). For example, Eeds and Wells (1989) found that even without direct questioning by the teacher there was evidence in students' discussions that they recalled text information, drew inferences, supported their inferences, and read critically. In some studies, students sometimes had difficulty making personal connections to text prior to the intervention of discussion groups; however, given opportunities to participate in discussions these same students quickly learned to respond personally to their reading (Gerla, 1996; Goatley, 1996). Some researchers have reported that the collaborative nature of literature discussions appears to help students to construct meaning and clarify confusions (Almasi, 1995; Eeds & Wells, 1989; Goatley et al., 1995; Goatley & Raphael, 1992). Students in these studies were observed to orchestrate turn-taking, negotiate leadership, and to draw on a variety of sources to clarify or agree on text interpretation. Many and Wiseman (1992) found that the quality of literature discussions was directly related to instructional approach. In the literary experience, group discussion focused on students' thoughts and personal reactions to the story; in the literary analysis group the emphasis was on literary elements such as character development, problems, and solutions. All the students in the study exhibited at least some level of personal response to the stories they read. The students in the literary experience group, however, appeared to clarify the story and their own experiences by making significant real-world connections to story events. The students who participated in a literary analysis group tended to focus more on literary elements such as character development or theme in their discussions. The research on elementary-age students' discussions of children's literature suggests that young children are capable of producing elaborate and sophisticated responses to literature, especially when supported with instruction. Across these studies, children were able to construct meaning, share personal reactions, and demonstrate strategic reading behaviors such as hypothesizing, interpreting, predicting, confirming, generalizing, and evaluating. The research clearly indicates that reading and discussing children's literature offers students opportunities to explore interpretations of literature and respond at higher levels of abstract and critical thinking (McGee, 1992). Literature-Based Reading Instruction in the Content Areas The integrated language arts perspective (see Gavelek, Raphael, et al., this volume, chap. 32) is based on the belief that reading and writing are functional tools not to be mastered unto themselves, but to be situated within content area teaching (McGinley
< previous page
page_575
next page >
< previous page
page_576
next page > Page 576
& Tierney, 1989). In the integrated language arts approach, the use of children's literature is a major source of instruction materials in content area teaching. The literature provides the opportunity for children to engage in shared oral reading and writing experiences; the teacher uses literature in guided lessons; and there is time given for social interaction with peers during periods of independent reading of literature about subject areas (Edelsky, Altwerger, & Flores, 1991; Goodman, 1989; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Wells, 1985). When teaching science, math, and social studies, 95% of teachers use subject-specific texts 90% of the time (Ogens, 1990). Baker (1991) and Baker and Saul (1994) concluded that elementary science textbooks often require reasoning beyond the capabilities of students. Because one science text is typically used for all students in a class, mismatches occur between reading competence and reading demands for many children (American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1989; Chall, Conrad, & Harris-Sharples, 1991; Meyer, 1991). This is true in social studies and math as well. Reliance on science and social studies textbooks tends to favor the accumulation of factual knowledge at the expense of activities that stimulate the process-oriented inquiry needed to deal with science- and social studies-related issues. The content of science and social studies textbooks is restricted to avoid controversy, and space limitations preclude attention to many topics. Children's literature that deals with these topics; however, has few restrictions and can provide the reader with insight beyond factual accounts. In addition, children's literature on content area topics provides a wide range of ideas that promote emotional responses, personal association, imagination, prediction, and evaluation (Ross, 1994; Smith, 1994). The literature on integrating language arts with content area instruction yields many anecdotal reports that support this perspective and offer strategies for classroom practice. There are few investigations that involve empirical, controlled, experimental evaluation of the integration of language arts with other content areas. When investigating content integration in elementary classrooms, Schmidt et al. (1985) found that although teachers expressed belief in integration when interviewed, they spent a small percentage of their instructional time engaged in integrated language arts activities. A number of studies have demonstrated that the use of children's literature enhances both literacy development and children's interest in reading (Hoffman, Roser, & Farest, 1988; Morrow, 1992; Morrow, O'Connor, & Smith, 1990; Morrow et al., 1997). It has been documented that students' understanding of difficult scientific concepts is enhanced through the use of literature (Moore & Moore, 1989). Careful selection of quality literature for the science curriculum could provide students with more interesting scientific reading than that found in science textbooks, thus stimulating students' interest in participating in science (Renninger, Hidi, & Krapp, 1992). Several recent quasi-experimental studies investigated the efficacy of using children's literature for content area learning instead of traditional content area textbooks. Smith, Monson, and Dobson (1992) studied the effects of using historical novels in an integrated language arts approach to social studies and literacy instruction. The control group used basal readers and social studies texts whereas the treatment group used historical novels for reading and social studies instruction. Student's knowledge about U.S. history was assessed at the beginning and at the end of the school year using an oral free-recall measure. Students in the group using historical fiction novels in place of basal readers recalled significantly more details, main ideas, and total amount of historical information than the students using just the social studies text. Guzzetti et al. (1992) compared a literature-based themed approach to a traditional textbook approach for a unit on China. On a multiple-choice concept test, statistically significant differences favored the literature-based group. The researchers concluded
< previous page
page_576
next page >
< previous page
page_577
next page > Page 577
that students can acquire more social studies concepts and a greater understanding of those concepts through literature-based instruction. Jones et al. (1994) compared a literature-based themed unit approach to a traditional textbook approach for learning about Mexico. During a 2-week period, two sixth-grade classes were taught a unit on Mexico. The results revealed that the literaturebased group showed a statistically significant gain in achievement as compared to the textbook group on a test of content knowledge about Mexico (the instrument assessed only information that was common to both the literature and the textbooks). Morrow et al. (1997) studied the impact of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction on achievement, use of literature, and attitudes toward the literacy and science program with third-grade children. Children in the literature/science group scored significantly better on standardized and informal written and oral tests used to determine growth in literacy and science. Guthrie and his colleagues (Guthrie et al., 1996; Guthrie & McCann, 1997) described the positive outcomes of their research on Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI). In this interdisciplinary project, science was taught to enable students to gain conceptual understandings through real-life hands-on science activities and the use of concept-oriented children's literature. The interpretation of literary texts through discussions with the teacher and peers was an important part of the program. On performance assessment measures, students in the CORI classrooms did significantly better than the comparison group using basals and traditional textbooks in their ability to search and locate information, explain their understanding of science concepts, transfer concepts by writing solutions to problems, and engage in multiple strategies for literacy learning. Additional research is needed to explore qualitative differences in the understanding of concepts learned through literature-based experiences and those acquired by traditional textbook presentations. The expectation is that literature-based experiences will lead to concepts being more meaningfully connected with related ideas, but we do not know this from studies reviewed. There are important questions that have yet to be fully explored about the qualities of interaction that lead to improved learning (Cazden, 1986; Forman & Cazden, 1985; Slavin, 1983). Detailed analyses of literature based interactions have the potential to inform us about how students' prior knowledge is used during knowledge construction, as students discuss, question, and reflect on what they read (Jett-Simpson, 1989). Consistent with Vygotsky's (1978) theory, analyses of these academic interactions could help us better understand the development of thought, and distributed models of cognition. The use of literature-based instruction integrated into content areas deserves careful analysis because it has been found to motivate children's interest in learning. We need to determine if student enthusiasm diminishes over time as a result of the novelty of the literature integration wearing off. This integration might make the relevance and importance of both content learning and literature-based instruction more obvious to the learner. If so, literature-based instruction integrated into the content areas could be a key ingredient in creating more motivating educational environments. Using Literature-Based Instruction with Special Populations Recent research provides insights about the value of using literature-based instruction with special populations. Several studies have specifically targeted adolescent special education students. In a pretestposttest comparison study, Oberlin and Shugarman (1989) found that learning disabled middle school students who participated in a literature-based reading workshop demonstrated improved attitudes toward and increased levels of involvement with books. These 14 sixth-, seventh-, and eighthgrade
< previous page
page_577
next page >
< previous page
page_578
next page > Page 578
students, who reported reading an average of only 1 book per year prior to the study, read an average of 20 books during the 18week reading workshop. Stewart, Paradis, Ross, and Lewis (1996) interviewed seventh and eighth graders at the conclusion of a literature-based developmental reading program. Ninety percent of the students indicated that they felt better about themselves as readers because they could read faster and more fluently, could remember and comprehend more of their reading, and were better able to complete reading assignments. Standardized test scores indicated that the students made academic gains commensurate with the gains of students in the previous, more traditional remedial program. Using a case study approach, Worthy and Invernizzi (1995) reported on a 14-year-old, hyperlexic reader characterized as having well above average word recognition accompanied by severe deficits in reading comprehension. In this study, instruction that focused on meaningful reading of children's literature resulted in a gain in reading comprehension of more than 3 years over a period of three semesters. In addition, a written retelling indicated the student's improved sense of story structure as well as the ability to make inferences and use supporting details. In a case study conducted by Jimenez and Gamez (1996), students speaking English as their second language began to think more strategically while using literature to learn about cognitive strategies. Three seventh graders made strategic and metacognitive comments that had not been noted in observations prior to the intervention. For example, the students mentioned such things as reading more in order to improve, reading being less difficult because it made more sense to them, picturing things in their heads as they read, and looking for clues when they encountered an unknown word. Goatley and her colleagues (Goatley, 1996; Goatley et al., 1995; Goatley & Raphael, 1992) documented the positive benefits of literature discussion groups for special education students. Learning disabled and educable mentally retarded students in these studies participated actively and cooperatively, demonstrated text comprehension, and responded both aesthetically and efferently to literature. In one study, three 16-year-old boys were observed as they engaged in a program similar to a book club in which they read, wrote about, and discussed two novels over an 8-week period. These students, who avoided reading at the outset of the study, became not only willing but eager readers. They engaged in discussions about the literature, making personal connections and working together to construct an understanding of the stories. Although the research on using literature based reading instruction with special populations is limited in scope, it appears that there are promising results with respect to promoting positive attitudes toward reading as well as increased reading proficiency. The interview and case studies reviewed here suggest that special populations can benefit from literature-based reading instruction; however, further research with special populations is warranted. Literature-Based Instruction and Attitude toward Reading Understanding the role of attitude in reading development is important for a number of reasons (Guthrie, 1995; McKenna, Kear, et al., 1995). First, attitude may affect the level of ability that students ultimately attain because attitude influences factors such as engagement and amount of time spent reading. Second, poor attitude may cause students to choose not to read when other options exist (McKenna, Stratton, et al., 1995). There is considerable debate in the literature with respect to the motivational efficacy of literature-based and basal-based instruction; to date, the research on the effects of instructional approach on attitudes toward reading has yielded mixed results. Stahl, McKenna, and Pagnucco (1994) conducted a review of the research comparing children's reading attitudes in literaturebased and traditional programs using
< previous page
page_578
next page >
< previous page
page_579
next page > Page 579
self-report attitude rating scales. They identified 14 studies, which revealed the following results: 2 favored literature based instruction, 1 favored traditional instruction, and 11 yielded no significant differences between literature-based and traditional programs with respect to attitudes toward reading. Several large-scale studies by McKenna and his colleagues have focused on the effects of literature-based and basal-based reading instruction on students' attitudes toward reading. McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, and Jenkins (1995) conducted a series of three studies in Grades 1 to 5, investigating the differential effects of literature-based (whole language) and traditional (basal) instruction on reading attitudes. This large-scale study revealed no meaningful difference in attitude attributable to instructional approach. In a national study of 18,185 elementary students from across the United States, McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995) investigated the effects of literature-based (whole language) and traditional (basal) instruction. In this study approximately 81% of the students were taught using basals as the primary instructional material, and only 3.6% were taught using literature as the primary instructional material. Approximately 12% of the students received instruction that was based on a combination of basal and other materials and approaches. The findings from this study supported McKenna, Stratton, Grindler, and Jenkins's (1995) finding that there were no meaningful differences in attitude due to instructional approach. In a number of studies using a range of quantitative and qualitative methodologies, researchers have reported that literaturebased programs positively affected children's attitudes toward reading (Gerla, 1996; Goatley & Raphael, 1992; Oberlin & Shugarman, 1989; Richek & McTague, 1988), and frequently of reading (Morrow, 1992; Morrow et al., 1997; Oberlin & Shugarman, 1989; Stewart et al., 1996). Students in literature-based programs were also found to be more persistent (Dahl & Freppon, 1995; Gerla, 1996) and demonstrated improved ability to work together (Dahl & Freppon, 1995; Goatley, 1996; Goatley et al., 1995). Several other studies have investigated the effect of literature-based instruction on attitudes toward reading and content area learning. Guzzetti et al. (1992) investigated the learning and attitudes of sixth-grade students in a literature-based social studies program. Although they found differences in content acquisition favoring the experimental group, no differences were revealed between the groups on a survey designed to assess attitude toward reading and social studies. The students in the experimental group did not express a preference for social studies at the conclusion of the program. One possible explanation for this finding was revealed in the follow-up interviews. Students did not consider the unit they had completed as "social studies" because they had not used a "text." Smith (1993) explored the attitudes of fifth graders using either historical fiction novels or a combination of basal readers and social studies textbooks. At the conclusion of the program, students in the literature-based group outperformed the comparison group on content knowledge, and survey responses revealed that students preferred using historical fiction novels rather than a basal reader and textbook to learn about history. In another study investigating sixth-grade students' attitudes toward literature and textbook instruction in social studies, Jones et al. (1994) found that students in the literature group outperformed the comparison group on achievement and desire to use literature in social studies. Morrow et al. (1997) compared the reading and science achievement and the attitudes of students in three treatment conditions: (a) basal plus literature-based reading and literature-based science instruction, (b) basal plus literature-based reading instruction and textbook-based science instruction, and (c) basal reading instruction and textbook-based science instruction. The achievement scores across several measures of reading performance (retelling, probed recall, written stories, and a science test) fa-
< previous page
page_579
next page >
< previous page
page_580
next page > Page 580
vored the basal plus literature-based reading and science group. In addition, attitudes toward science were more positive for this group as compared with the other two groups. Additional research in needed that will explore the effects of literature-based reading and content area instruction on students' attitudes and motivation to learn. Generally, the results of these studies are somewhat disappointing in that attitude has not been a major focus of well-controlled studies on literature-based reading instruction. Clearly, the question of the effect of instructional materials and approaches on attitudes toward reading is an important and complex one that calls for broad, program-level comparison studies that closely attend to program fidelity (McKenna, Kear, et al., 1995). Summary and Implications for Practice and Policymaking Reading and language arts curriculum have shifted dramatically during the last decade with respect to increasing emphasis on literature-based instruction (Pearson, 1996, 1994). Given this dramatic shift, it is not surprising that the research on literaturebased instruction does not provide adequate information on the nature of literature-based instruction and its impact on student literacy development (Allington et al., 1996). Two important limitations to the existing research on literature-based instruction have been identified by Allington and his colleagues. First, most studies focused on a single classroom or one school. Although there are examples of studies that used multiple classrooms (e.g., Mervar & Hiebert, 1989; Morrow, 1992; Reutzel & Cooter, 1990; Zarrillo, 1989), none were found that reported exploring the effects of literature-based instruction across a number of classrooms in a number of schools in multiple school districts. Second, only a few studies (e.g., Baumann, 1997; Morrow, 1992) reported on literature-based instruction in schools and districts serving large numbers of children from low-income families. Although the research to date appears to support the efficacy of using the literature-based approach in the teaching of reading and in the content areas, there are many issues that are not clearly understood. For example, there is little agreement as to what constitutes a literature-based curriculum other than providing students with the opportunity to read high-quality children's literature (Allington et al., 1996). There are also many remaining questions about the effects of literature-based programs on the acquisition of early literacy skills and strategies. In particular, there has been increasing attention to the question of the appropriate role of children's literature in early literacy development as opposed to text that is more readable for young readers. The practices of the literature-based approach are currently being questioned by those favoring more direct instruction in beginning reading with an emphasis on phonemic awareness skills and phonics instruction (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, & Schatschneider, 1998). Although there are acknowledged limitations in the existing research on literature based instruction, the research does provide some clear implications for practice and policymaking. First, classrooms need to have classroom libraries that are rich in print materials of all types and genres. Research by Allington et al. (1996) revealed that few classrooms meet adequate standards for the number and range of reading materials available to students. Second, teacher knowledge of children's literature is basic to the success of a literature based program. Professional development opportunities for teachers are essential for developing the breadth of knowledge of literature that is needed for effective teaching. There needs to be a renewed emphasis on supporting the professional development of teachers if the implementation of literature based in-
< previous page
page_580
next page >
< previous page
page_581
next page > Page 581
struction is to provide the basis for a new, thoughtful literacy in our schools (Allington & Cunningham, 1996; Allington et al., 1996; Pearson, 1996). Although a good deal of research related to literature-based instruction exists, a great deal remains to be done. Future research is needed to investigate the value of literature-based instruction as compared to the more direct models that are emerging. Clearly, we need research in this area that is rigorous, uses varied designs, and is of a qualitative and quantitative nature. References Alexander, F. (1987). California reading initiative. In B. E. Cullinan (Ed.), Children's literature in the reading program (pp. 149155). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. (1996). Schools that work: All children readers and writers. New York: HarperCollins. Allington, R. L., Guice, S., Michelson, N., Baker, K., & Li, S. (1996). Literature-based curricula in high-poverty schools. In M. F. Graves, P. van den Broeck, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), The first ''r": Every child's right to read (pp. 7396). New York: Teachers College Press. Almasi, J. F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314351. Almasi, J. G. (1996). A new view of discussion. In L. B. Gambrell & J. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions!: Fostering engaged reading (pp. 224). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Altwerger, A., Diehl-Faxon, J., & Dockstader-Anderson, K. (1985). Read-aloud events as meaning construction. Language Arts, 62, 476484. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1989). Science for all Americans: A Project 2061 report on literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E., Scott, J., & Wilkinson, I. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Anderson, R. C., & Pearson, P. D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255292). New York: Longman. Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (1983). Instructional scaffolding: Reading and writing as natural language activities. Language Arts, 60, 168175. Baghban, M. J. M. (1984). Our daughter learns to read and write: A case study from birth to three. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Baker, L. (1979). Comprehension monitoring: Identifying and coping with text confusions. Journal of Reading Behavior, 11(4), 366374. Baker, L. (1991). Textbooks and text comprehension. Science Education, 75, 359367. Baker, L., & Saul, W. (1994). Considering science and language arts connections: A study to teach cognition. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 10231037. Barr, R. (1989). The social organization of literacy instruction. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1933). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Barr, R. (1992). Teachers, materials, and group composition in literacy instruction. In M. J. Dreher & W. H. Slater (Eds.), Elementary school literacy: Critical issues (pp. 2751). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Baumann, J. F. (1997). The inside and outside of teacher research: Reflections on having one foot in both worlds. Perspectives in Reading Research (Rep. No. 11). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Baumann, J. F., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 244275. Bleich, D. (1978). Subjective criticism. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Block, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based reading program. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 139151. Bloome, D. (1985). Bedtime story reading as a social process. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research perspective (pp. 287294). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Brown, A. (1975). Recognition, reconstruction and recall of narrative sequences of preoperational children. Child Development, 46, 155166. Burroughs, M. (1972). The stimulation of verbal behavior in culturally disadvantaged three-year-olds. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University. Bus, A. G., Ijzendoorn, M. H., & van Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A metaanalysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 121. Cazden, C. B. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), The handbook of research in teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432463). New York: Macmillan.
< previous page
page_582
next page > Page 582
Chall, J. S., Conrad, S. S., & Harris-Sharples, S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students? The case for easier and harder books. New York: Teachers College Press. Chasen, S. P., & Gambrell, L. B. (1992). A comparison of teacher read aloud practices and attitudes: 19801990. Literacy: Issues and Practices, 9, 2932. Chomsky, C. (1972). Stages in language development and reading exposure. Harvard Educational Review, 42, 133. Clark, M. M. (1984). Literacy at home and at school: Insights from a study of young fluent readers. In J. Goelman, A. A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 122130). London: Heinemann. Clay, M. M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behavior. Auckland: Heinemann. Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). The making of a reader. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Cohen, D. (1968). The effect of literature on vocabulary and reading achievement. Elementary English, 45, 209213, 217. Cullinan, B. E. (1987). Children's literature in the reading program. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cullinan, B. E. (1989). Latching on to literature: Reading initiatives take hold. School Library Journal, 35, 2731. Dahl, K. L. & Freppon, P. A. (1995). A comparison of innercity children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 5074. Dickinson, D. K. & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers' book readings on low-income children's vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104122. Doakes, D. (1981). Book experiences and emergent reading behavior in preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alberta. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159199. Dunning, D., & Mason, J. (1984, November). An investigation of kindergarten children's expressions of story characters' intentions. Paper presented at the 34th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, St. Petersburg, FL. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press. Durkin, D. (19741975). A six year study of children who learned to read in school at the age of four. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 961. Durkin, D. (19781979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481533. Edelsky, C., Altwerger, B., & Flores, B. (1991). Whole language: What's the difference? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An exploration of meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 429. Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 174187. Feitelson, D. Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, U., & Share, D. (1993). Effects of listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a dialogic situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28. 7079. Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to series stories on first graders' comprehension and use of language. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339356. Fisher, C. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 91(1), 318. Flood, J. (1977). Parental styles in reading episodes with young children. Reading Teacher, 30, 846867. Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 3755. Forman, E., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323347). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. Freppon, P. A. (1991). Children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 139163. Galda, L. (1990). Children's literature as a language experience. Advocate, 3(4), 247259. Galda, L., Cullinan, B. E., & Strickland, D. S. (1993). Language, literacy and the child. New York: Harcourt Brace. Gambrell, L. B. (1986). Reading in the primary grades: How often, how long? In M. R., Sampson (Ed.), The pursuit of literacy (pp. 102107). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Gambrell, L. B. (1987). Children's oral language during teacher-directed reading instruction. In J. E. Readence, & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives (pp. 195200). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Gambrell, L. B. (1992). Elementary school literacy instruction: Changes and challenges. In M. J. Dreher & W. H. Slater (Eds.), Elementary school literacy: Critical issues (pp. 227239). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Gambrell, L. B. (1996). What research reveals about discussion. In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions!: Fostering engaged reading (pp. 2538). Newark, DE: International Reading Association Gambrell, L. B., & Palmer, B. (1992). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading and writing in literature-based and conventional classrooms. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory and practice; Views from many perspectives (pp. 215224). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_582
next page >
< previous page
page_583
next page > Page 583
Gardner, M. (1988). An educator's concerns about the California Reading Initiative. New Advocate, 1, 250253. Gerla, J. P. (1996). Response-based instruction: At-risk students engaging in literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 12(2), 149169. Goatley, V. J. (1996). The participation of a student identified as learning disabled in a regular education book club: The case of Stark. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 12(2), 195214. Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education "Book Clubs." Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352380. Goatley, V. J., & Raphael, T. E. (1992). Non-traditional learners' written and dialogic response to literature: Fortieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 313322). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Goodman, Y. M. (1989). Roots of the whole language movement. Elementary School Journal, 90, 113127. Green, J. L., & Harker, J. O. (1982). Reading to children: A communicative process. In J. A. Langer & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader meets author/Bridging the gap: A psycholinguistic and sociolinguistic perspective (pp. 196221). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Guthrie, J. T. (1995). Relationships of instruction to amount of reading: An exploration of social, cognitive, and instructional connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 825. Guthrie, J., & McCann D. A. (1997). Characteristics of classrooms that promote motivations and strategies for learning. In J. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 128148). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Guthrie, J. T., Meter, P. V., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306333. Guzzetti, B. J., Kowalinski, B. J., & McGowan, T. (1992). Using a literature-based approach to teaching social studies. Journal of Reading, 36(2), 114122. Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (Eds.). (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Heath, S. B. (1980). The functions and uses of literacy. Journal of Communication, 30, 123133. Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11, 4976. Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., & Farest, C. (1988). Literature sharing strategies in classrooms serving students from economically disadvantaged and language different home environments. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research: Thirty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 331338). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Hoffman, S. J. (1982). Preschool reading related behaviors: A parent diary. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Sydney: Ashton Scholastic. Huck, C. (1977). Literature as the content of reading. Theory Into Practice, 16(5), 363371. Huck, C. S., Hepler, S., & Hickman, J. (1987). Children's literature in the elementary school. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Irwin, O. (1960). Infant speech: Effects of systematic reading of stories. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 3, 187190. Iser, W. (1980). The reading process: A phenomenological approach. In J. P. Tompkins (Ed.), Reader response criticism: From formalism to poststructuralism (pp. 5069). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Jett-Simpson, M. (1989). Creative drama and story comprehension. In J. W. Stewig & S. L. Sebesta (Eds.), Using literature in the elementary classroom (pp. 91109). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Jimenez, R. T., & Gamez, A. (1996). Literature-based cognitive strategy instruction for middle school Latina/o students. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(2), 8491. Jones, H.J., Coombs, W. T., & McKinney, C. W. (1994). A themed literature unit versus a textbook: A comparison of the effects on content acquisition and attitudes in elementary social studies. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(2), 8596. Koeller, S. A. (1988). The child's voice: Literature conversations. Children's Literature in Education, 19(1), 316. Langer, J. A. (1994). A response-based approach to reading literature (Report Series 6.7). Albany, NY: National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Learning. Lehman, B. A., Freeman, E. V., & Allen, V. G. (1994). Children's literature and literacy instruction: "Literature-based" elementary teachers' belief and practices. Reading Horizons, 35(1), 329. Linden, M., & Wittrock, M. C. (1981). The teaching of reading comprehension according to the model of generative learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 4457.
Many, J. E., & Wiseman, D. L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third-grade students' response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265287. Mason, J. (1983, November). Acquisition of knowledge about reading in the preschool period: An update and extension. Paper presented at the Society for Research in Child Development Convention, Detroit. Mason, G., & Blanton, W. (1971). Story content for beginning reading instruction. Elementary English, 48, 793796.
< previous page
page_583
next page >
< previous page
page_584
next page > Page 584
McGee, L. M. (1992). Exploring the literature-based reading revolution (Focus on research). Language Arts, 69(7), 529537. McGinley, W., & Tierney, R. J. (1989). Traversing the topical landscape: Reading and writing as ways of knowing. Written Communication, 6, 243269. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children's attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 934955. McKenna, M. C., Stratton, B. D., Grindler, M. C., & Jenkins, S. J. (1995). Differential effects of whole language and traditional instruction on reading attitudes. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 1944. Mervar, K., & Hiebert, E. H. (1989). Literature-selection strategies and amount of reading in two literacy approaches. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 529535). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Meyer, L., Wardrop, J. Stahl, S., & Linn, R. (1994) Effects of reading storybooks aloud to Children. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 6985 Meyer, L. A. (1991). Are science textbooks considerate? In C. M. Santa & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Science learning: Processes and applications (pp. 2837). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Moore, S., & Moore, D. (1989). Literacy through content: Content through literacy. Reading Teacher, 42, 170171. Morrow, L. M. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 221230. Morrow, L. M. (1985). Retelling stories: A strategy for improving children's comprehension, concept of story structure and oral language complexity. Elementary School Journal, 85, 647661. Morrow, L. M. (1987). The effect of small group story reading on children's questions and comments. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 7786). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Morrow, L. M. (1988). Young children's responses to one-to-one story readings in school settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 89107. Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 251275. Morrow, L. M. (1997). Literacy Development in the Early Years: Helping Children Read & Write (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Morrow, L. M., O'Connor, E., & Smith, J. (1990). Effects of a story reading program on the literacy development of at risk kindergarten children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 255275. Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 5476. Morrow, L. M., & Smith, J. K. (1990). The effects of group size on interactive storybook reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 214231. Mullis, I., Campbell, J., & Farstrup, A. (1993). NAEP 1991 reading report card for the nation and the states: Data from the national and trial state assessments. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. S. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labeling. Journal of Child Language, 5, 115. Oberlin, K. J., & Shugarman, S. L. (1989). Implementing the reading workshop with middle school LD readers. Journal of Reading, 32(8), 682687. Ogens, E. (1990). A review of science education: Past failures, future hopes. American Biology Teacher, 53, 199203. Payton, S. (1984). Developing awareness of print: A young child's first steps toward literacy. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Birmingham, England. Pearson, P. D. (1994). Integrated language arts: Sources of controversy and seeds of consensus. In L. M. Morrow, J. K. Smith, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrated language arts: Controversy to consensus (pp. 1132). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Pearson, P. D. (1996) Reclaiming the center. In M. F. Graves, P. van den Broeck, & B. M. Taylor (Eds.), The first "r": Every child's right to read (pp. 259274). New York: Teachers College Press. Pellegrini, A., & Galda, L. (1982). The effects of thematic-fantasy play training on the development of children's story comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 443452. Peterman, C. L., Dunning, D., & Mason, J. (1985, December). A storybook reading event: How a teacher's presentation affects kindergarten children's subsequent attempts to read from the text. Paper presented at the 35th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA. Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A. (1995). Learning written storybook language in school: A comparison of lowSES children in skills-based and whole language classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 659685. Renninger, K. A., Hidi, S., & Krapp, A. (1992). The role of interest in learning and development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reutzel, D. R., & Cooter, R. B. (1990). Whole language: Comparative effects on first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 83(5), 252257.
< previous page
page_584
next page >
< previous page
page_585
next page > Page 585
Reutzel, D. R., Oda, L. K., & Moore, B. H. (1989). Developing print awareness: The effect of three instructional approaches on kindergartners' print awareness, reading readiness, and word reading. Journal of Reaching Behavior, 21(3), 197217. Rhodes, L. K. (1979, May). Visible language acquisition: A case study. Paper presented at the Twenty-Fourth Annual International Reading Association Convention, Atlanta, GA. Richek, M. A., & McTague, B. K. (1988). The "Curious George" strategy for students with reading problems. Reading Teacher, 42, 220226. Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 5464. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Rosenblatt, L. M. (1991). LiteratureS.O.S. Language Arts, 68(6), 444448. Roser, N., & Martinez, M. (1985). Roles adults play in preschoolers' response to literature. Language Arts, 62, 485490. Ross, E. (1994). Using children's literature across the curriculum. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Routman, R. (1988). Transitions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schallert, D. L., & Kleiman, G. M. (1979). Some reasons why teachers are easier to understand than textbooks (Reading Education Rep. No. 9). Cambridge, MA: Illinois UniversityUrbana, Center for the Study of Reading. Scharer, P. L. (1992). Teachers in transition: An exploration of changes in teachers and classrooms during implementation of literature-based reading instruction. Research in the Teaching of English, 26(4), 408445. Schmidt, W. H., Roehler, L., Caul, J. L., Buchman, M., Diamond, B., Dolomon, D., & Cianciolo, P. (1985). The uses of curriculum integration in language arts instruction: A study of six classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17, 305320. Senechall, M., & Cornell, E. H. (1993). Vocabulary acquisition through shared reading experiences. Reading Research Quarter, 28, 360374. Senechall, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995) Individual differences in 4-year-old children's acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of educational Psychology, 87, 218229. Shanahan, T., & Hogan, V. (1983). Parent reading style and children's print awareness. In J. Niles (Ed.), 32nd Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 212217). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Shannon, P. (1989). Broken promises. Granley, MA: Bergin and Gavey. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. Smith, F. (1978). Understanding reading (2nd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Smith, J. (1994). Models for implementing literature in content studies. Reading Teacher, 48, 198209. Smith, J. A. (1993). Content learning: A third reason for using literature in teaching reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(3), 6471. Smith, J. A., Monson, J. A., & Dobson, D. (1992). A case study on integrating history and reading instruction through literature. Social Science Education, 56, 370375. Snow, C. E. (1983). Literacy and language: Relationships during the preschool years. Harvard Educational Review, 53, 165189. Snow, C. E., & Goldfield, B. A. (1983). Turn the page, please: Situation specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 535549. Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R. (1994). The effects of whole-language instruction: An update and reappraisal. Educational Psychologist, 29(4), 175185. Stewart, R. A., Paradis, E. E., Ross, B. D., & Lewis, M. J. (1996). Student voices: What works in literature-based developmental reading. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39(6), 468477. Strickland, D., Walmsley, S., Bronk, G., & Weiss, K. (1994). School book clubs and literacy development: A descriptive study (Rep. No. 2.22). Albany, NY: State University of New York, National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Learning. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite books: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458481. Sulzby, E., & Teale, W. H. (1987). Young children's storybook reading: Hispanic and Anglo families and children (Report to the Spencer Foundation). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan. Sutton, M. H. (1964). Readiness for reading at the kindergarten level. Reading Teacher, 17, 234240. Taylor, D. (1986). Creating family story: "Matthew, we're going to have a ride!" In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 139155). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Teale, W. H. (1978). Positive environments for learning to read: What studies of early readers tell us. Language Arts, 55, 922932.
Teale, W. H. (1981). Parents reading to their children. What we know and need to know. Language Arts, 58, 902911. Teale, W. H. (1984). Reading to young children: Its significance for literacy development. In H. Goelman, A. A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 110121). London: Heinemann. Teale, W. H. (1987, December). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing development in early childhood. Paper presented at the 36th annual National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.
< previous page
page_585
next page >
< previous page
page_586
next page > Page 586
Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (1987). Literacy acquisition in early childhood: The roles of access and mediation in storybook reading. In D. A. Wagner (Ed.), The future of literacy in a changing world (pp. 111130). New York: Pergamon Press. Templin, M. (1957). Certain language skills in children. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Tompkins, G. E., & McGee, L. M. (1993). Teaching reading with literature. New York: Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Walker, G. H., & Kuerbitz, I. E. (1979). Reading to preschoolers as an aid to successful beginning reading. Reading Improvement, 16, 149154. Wells, G. (1985). The meaning makers. London: Oxford University Press. Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11, 8795. Wittrock, M. C. (1981). Reading comprehension. In F. J. Pirozzolo & M. C. Wittrock (Eds.), Neuropsychological and cognitive processes in reading (pp. 229259). New York: Academic Press. Worthy, J., & Invernizzi, M. A. (1995). Linking reading with meaning: A case study of a hyperlexic reader. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(4), 585603. Yaden, D. (1985, December). Preschoolers' spontaneous inquiries about print and books. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA. Zarrillo, J. (1989). Teachers' interpretations of literature-based reading. Reading Teacher, 43(1), 2228.
< previous page
page_586
next page >
< previous page
page_587
next page > Page 587
Chapter 32 Integrated Literacy Instruction James R. Gavelek Taffy E. Raphael Sandra M. Biondo Danhua Wang Oakland University Deriving from Latin, integrate means to make whole or renew. Definitions from the 1996 American Heritage Dictionary include (a) to join so as to form a larger more comprehensive entity, and (b) to blend, harmonize, synthesize, arrange, incorporate, unify, coordinate, and orchestrate. By their very definition, integration and integrated approaches to literacy instruction are extremely appealing. Further, integrated instruction has been thought to address three needs in education: authenticity, meaningfulness, and efficiency. Integrated instruction is more authentic, being parallel to real-world tasks, not those developed solely for schooling. Integrated instruction is more meaningfulknowledge or information is rarely needed to answer isolated questions. Rather, knowledge construction is an integrative process. Third, integrated instruction is efficient, offering hope for greater curriculum coverage. Integrated instruction may be everyone's ideal, but it is the reality in few classrooms. Our literature review convinced us that integrated literacy instruction is one of our field's most multi-faceted and elusive constructs.1 Our chapter consists of four sections: (a) our process for generating the pool of writings for our review; (b) a brief historical treatment of integrated literacy instruction; (c) our analysis of the "state of research," and (d) a theoretical critique. Identifying the Database Assuming we could build on recent reviews, we began with three recent research handbooks (Barr, Kamil, Mosenthal, & Pearson, 1991; Flood, Jensen, Lapp, & Squire, 1991; Jackson, 1992). We found no chapters on integrated instruction, integrated cur1 In our review, we distinguish our analyses of the construct of integration from analyses detailing specific relationships between the language arts. Excellent reviews of such relationships exist elsewhere (e.g., listening and reading reviewed by Sticht & James, 1984, and Sinatra, 1990; writing and reading by Langer & Allington, 1992; Shanahan & Lomax, 1988; Spivey & Calfee, 1998; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991).
< previous page
page_587
next page >
< previous page
page_588
next page > Page 588
riculum, or integrated literacy instruction; although several explored relationships between specific language processes (e.g., reading/writing by Tierney & Shanahan, 1991; speaking/listening by Pinnell & Jaggar, 1991) or reviewed language and the language arts (Marzano, 1991). Moreover, there were no index entries for integrated instruction in either the reading or language arts handbooks. When library searches (e.g., ERIC) of refereed journals between 1988 and 1998 revealed few entries for empirical studies on integration, we widened our "net" to include papers published from nonrefereed sources and did not restrict our time period. Bibliographic tracing led to writings from the late 1800s, although most studies were conducted in the 1980s and 1990s. We met biweekly for 5 months to analyze the sources. Our first analysis focused on conceptually mapping what our field has meant by integrated literacy instruction and similar terms (e.g., integrated curriculum, interdisciplinary instruction). Our second, focused primarily on elementary grades (see Adler & Flihan, 1997, for a review of middle and high school research in this area), examined the research base for different types of integrated literacy instruction. To set a context, we begin historically. A Brief History of Integrated Literacy Instruction As Langer and Allington (1992) discussed in detail, integrating school subjects was offered as a solution to various educational problems. For example, the National Education Association formed the Committee of Ten to examine students' college preparation. It determined students were underprepared in language skills and suggested that "There can be no more appropriate moment for a brief lesson in expression than the moment when the pupil has something which he is trying to express" (National Education Association, 1894, p. 87, as cited in Langer & Allington, 1992, p. 690). Others were concerned about the educational experiences of young learners. Scholars (Cremin, 1964) associated with the Progressive Education Movement emphasized a child-centered curriculum. This movement decried the factory-like efficiency models underlying school structures, and feared that learning had little meaning for the average child and little resemblance to the real world. This philosophy laid the groundwork for interdisciplinary approaches. Our whole policy of compensatory education rises or falls with our ability to make school life an interesting and absorbing experience to the child. In one sense there is no such thing as compulsory education. We can have compulsory physical attendance at school; but education comes only through willing attention to and participation in school activities. It follows that the teacher must select these activities with reference to the child's interest, powers, and capabilities. In no other way can she guarantee that the child will be present. (Dewey, 1913, p. ix) To date, the most ambitious study undertaken to examine these beliefs in practice was the Eight Year Study conducted in the 1930s in 30 high schools across the country. With the cooperation of 300 colleges and universities who agreed to waive traditional subject-matter entrance examinations, the researchers were freed to develop a curriculum that focused on the personal and social needs of students. Courses were created that integrated across disciplinary boundaries, emphasizing learning experiences that mirrored real-world events. Scores from standardized college-level tests of 1,475 matched pairs of students revealed that, generally, students from the progressive high schools outperformed peers in traditional programs. Progressive classroom students also were more active in extracurricular activities, suggesting their broader educational goals. However, despite this evidence, the study had little effect on redesigning instructional goals or organizing today's classrooms.
< previous page
page_588
next page >
< previous page
page_589
next page > Page 589
More recent iterations reflect continued influence of principles for integrated instruction, reflected in the progressive education movement. For example, the British infant school movement was grounded on principles of student-centered learning that emphasized language and language arts as central to the study of school subjects. The open school movement (Holt, 1967; Silberman, 1970) emphasized inquiry-driven activity across disciplines as students pursued questions they found intriguing. One philosophical base of whole language is integrationemphasizing what is "whole" about language and the study of school subjects (Goodman, 1989). Perhaps most recently, the influence of integrated approaches is visible in some current reform efforts (e.g., Coalition of Essential Schools, 1988; Sizer, 1984). Although integrated approaches have a long history, those supporting them have not clearly delineated the construct. Integrated curricula are often based in life experiences, but it is not clear whether integrating experiences should be the basis for exploring curriculum content, or if the content itself should be presented as an integrated fait accompli. Across decades, our field has confounded these two orientations. Our first analysis focused on clarifying the construct. Defining Integrated Instruction In creating our conceptual map defining integrated literacy instruction, we noticed a lack of core citations and inconsistency in use of terms and definitions. Four decades ago, in his introduction to the Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education focused on integrated instruction, Dressel (1958, p. 8) wrote, In our day the term (integration) has come into such varied use as to be suspect. . . . The real difficulty with the word "integration" rests in the multiplicity of interrelated meanings which permit its use in reference to many and differing situations but which may also result in ambiguity that interferes with a reasoned discussion. Four decades later, little has changed. Shoemaker (1991, p. 793) suggested there exist "an equal number of terms to describe the various ways [integrated instruction] might be approached." Editors of a National Council of Teachers of English Committee book on integrating the language arts note that "Integrated language arts learning takes many forms, some of which are controversial" (Busching & Schwartz, 1983, p. vii), but they neither critique nor define the term. Some (e.g., Ellis & Fouts, 1993) equate terms such as interdisciplinary curriculum and integrated studies; others (e.g., Beane, 1995, 1997) distinguish between interdisciplinary and integrative curriculum. For some, "interdisciplinary" preserves disciplinary boundaries whereas "integrated" does not. Both Kain (1993) and Beane (1995) suggested that interdisciplinary studies may repackage or enhance discipline-based knowledge, but they are not integrated. In contrast, Petrie (1992) used interdisciplinary to characterize a blending of disciplines, and multidisciplinary to maintain boundaries across disciplines. These are but a few examples of the diverse ways in which integrated instruction and related terms have been characterized. In discussing whole language, Bergeron (1990, p. 321) argued for the importance of shared definitions when promoting alternatives to current practice. She suggested "a common terminology for those ideas we wish to share. . . . Without a common terminology the differences between research and practice, and between innovation and instruction, will be difficult to reconcile." Integrated instruction reflects alternatives to current instructional practices, within the language arts, as well as between language arts and school subjects (e.g., general science) or disciplines (e.g., biology). The absence of shared definitions severely limits the usefulness of integrated instruction as a generative construct.
< previous page
page_589
next page >
< previous page
page_590
next page > Page 590
A Conceptual Map of Integrated Instruction For some researchers describing curriculum integration, the referent is the curriculum (i.e., the "what"), whereas for others it is the processes that support integration (i.e., the "how"). In the former, teachers present a curriculum that has been integrated; in the latter, they teach processes for integrating across school subjects. In 1958, Dressel echoed this distinction when he suggested a difference between integrated curriculum and integrating experience. Building from Dressel (1958) and other scholars' conceptual schemes, we identified three categories that compose our conceptual map (see Fig. 32.1): integrated language arts, integrated curriculum, and integration in and out of school. Each denotes integration toward some purpose. Integrated Language Arts When the language arts are brought together to achieve some end(s), we call this integrated language arts. Synonymous with intradisciplinary (Lipson, Valencia, Wixson, & Peters, 1993), coordinated (Grisham, 1995), and topics-within-disciplines (Shoemaker, 1993), some combination of reading, writing, listening, speaking, and viewing is taught together as students pursue interesting problems or topics. This is not simply using one of the language arts to support another (as in teaching text structures through writing to help children's reading), but the coordinated instruction of some combination of the major language processes as tools to achieve a learning goal.2 Many have emphasized the importance of the interrelationship among the language arts. Morrow, Pressley, Smith, and Smith (1997) argued that an integrated approach can help young children see that what they are learning in one domain can transfer to another. Walmsley and Walp (1990) suggested that written literacy can be a major vehicle for gaining access to, enlarging, and communicating knowledge. Wixson, Peter, and Potter (1996) characterized the base of intradisciplinary units as the
Fig. 32.1 A conceptual map of "integration." 2 Integrated language arts has also been one of the primary tenets of whole-language approaches, although the two are not synonymous. In this review, we deliberately chose not to conflate the two terms. For a treatment of instructional research on whole language, see Raphael and Brock (1997). For the history of whole language, see Goodman (1989).
< previous page
page_590
next page >
< previous page
page_591
next page > Page 591
issues, themes, and problems within literature and other oral, visual, and written texts where students pursue important questions, enhancing the relevance of the language arts themselves. Within this category, the language processes may be applied directly to reading, interpreting, and responding to literature (e.g., a literary text, a collection of literature related by author or genre). Alternatively, language processes may be linked more generally to literary themes for understanding humanity (Galda, 1998), with instructional foci on developing students' understandings of these themes through activities grounded in using written and oral language and, more recently, viewing. Integrated Curriculum The concept of integrated curriculum, highlights the integration of content by blending disciplines through ''overlapping skills, concepts and attitudes" (Fogarty, 1991b, p. 64). One positioninterdisciplinary curriculumemphasizes connection between language arts and content area learning (e.g., Grisham, 1995; Roehler, 1983), or problem-centered, thematic pursuits (e.g., Anders & Pritchard, 1993; Powell, 1995). From this perspective, language and literacy are "functional tools, rather than curricular entities to be studied or mastered in their own right" (Pearson, 1994, p. 19). In these definitions, the presence of more than one discipline or school subject as part of the curricular unit is centralif not coreto integration. Although associated with interdisciplinary approaches, Beane's (1993, 1997) view of curriculum integration fundamentally differs. Disciplinesespecially as reflected in school subjectsrepresent what he calls the "hardening of the categories" (1997, p. 39). Placing curriculum integration within a collection of interdisciplinary approaches implies a continuum, where teachers moving from instruction in separate subject matters may first move toward connecting across disciplines, later to integration. Instead, Beane suggests that disciplinary boundaries be downplayed, not approached in terms of how they can each contribute to a particular line of inquiry or a project. The integrative activities within the curriculum use knowledge without regard to the school subject area or discipline with which it is associated. Integration In and Out of School A conceptualization of integrated instruction emphasizes learning across contexts (e.g., home, school, community, work). This category is orthogonal and complementary to the previous two because integration across language processes or school subjects may occur within and beyond the school classroom. Summary Pearson (1994) highlighted the linguistic link between integrity and integration, and the irony that the notion of integrity is used to argue both for maintaining separation of the disciplines or school subjects and for promoting the integration of language processes, subject areas, disciplines, and disciplined inquiry. Definitions of integrated instruction leave open debate about what "counts" as integrated instruction. Is it sufficient to link more than one area of study? Can linked areas exist only within written literacy; within language and literacy; within language, literacy, and viewing; across language/literacy and disciplinary study? Must we see connections across units; or across grade levels and, hence, across classrooms and teachers? In the next section, we turn to our second analysis detailing the research base for integrating processes. Integrated Instruction: The Research Base In our review, we discovered that despite a large body of writing on curriculum organization, "little of it reports research, if one defines 'research' as seeking to demonstrate or describe a relationship between . . . some pattern of organization and such
< previous page
page_591
next page >
< previous page
page_592
next page > Page 592
outcomes as the understanding of subject matter" (Goodlad & Su, 1992, p. 327). Referring to studies integrating social studies and literature, McGowan, Erickson and Neufeld (1996) concurred: The number of convincing arguments for social studies instruction based on literary sources far outweighs the amount of published research documenting the extent to which literature-based teaching promotes the knowledge, skills and values that constitute civic competence. Evidence seems limited, inconclusive, and concentrated on how trade books enhance students' knowledge acquisition. (p. 206) Similarly, in describing integrated literacy instruction, Shanahan (1997, p. 15) wrote, given the long history and nearly universal acceptance of the idea of integration . . . there have been few empirical investigations of its effects. . . . I have been able to identify no study, in any field with any age level, that has clearly demonstrated more coherent or deeper understandings, or better applicability of learning as a result of integration. In the sections that follow, we frame our review within the categories in Fig. 32.1. We first examine studies of language arts integration, then research on integrated curricula with the focus across disciplines. We end with studies that focus on integration in and out of school. Integrated Language Arts Some studies (e.g., Morrow, 1992; Walmsley & Walp, 1990) provide conceptual arguments for integration and insights into challenges and potential benefits for teachers and students. Some provide images of what integrated language arts instruction looks like in classrooms and how such experiences impact students across grade and ability levels (e.g., Baumann & Ivey, 1997; Block, 1993; Goatley, Brock, & Raphael, 1995; Raphael, Brock, & Wallace, 1998). Others (e.g., Meyer, Youga, & FlintFerguson, 1990; VanTassel-Baska, Johnson, Hughes, & Boyce, 1996) show positive effects of what is purported to be an integrated approach, but lack details about the nature of the intervention, and descriptions of the outcome measures make it difficult to determine what was integrated. As conveyed in Fig. 32.1, studies of integrating the language arts tended to organize around either language processes or a literary selection. In the first instance, language processes are central; text selection tends to be incidental. Subject matter texts, a single literary text, or a text set related by theme or topic is chosen and used in the service of the language processes. The second form reverses figure and ground. Literary texts drive the language instruction, emphasizing language processes derived from those texts. Walmsley and Walp's (1990) study illustrates integrated language arts research that takes written language as its central focus. With third- and fourth-grade teachers, they identified themes to guide unit construction, literature selection, and to-be-taught skills. The integrated language arts period included a teacher read-aloud, reading and writing instruction, and opportunity for students to present reading and writing projects. However, they noted separate times and activities for reading and writing, and the activities emphasized were traditional ones (e.g., directed reading activities, sustained silent reading). Although potentially integrative in focus, there was nothing inherent about the activities or organization to encourage integration. Assuming that teachers' guidance and framing questions underlying these units were integrative in nature, did this impact students' written language development? Because the authors noted that their project was aimed at solving specific problems in the elementary language arts curriculum rather than proving superiority of a method, they were cautious
< previous page
page_592
next page >
< previous page
page_593
next page > Page 593
in claiming effectiveness. They did show that despite the challenges, data from vocabulary and comprehension subtest performance on a reading achievement test showed students performed at or above grade level. Further, a measure of the number of books from sustained silent reading for which students held conferences with their teacher revealed a substantial amount read at each grade level. However, we cannot know whether these measures would reflect differences had students been in a traditional program; nor is the form and nature of the integration students experienced clear from the description. Morrow (1992) built on Walmsley and Walp's (1990) study, focusing directly on impact as she studied the effects of supplementing an existing basal reading program with literature in two second-grade classrooms. Although she did not explicitly define her intervention as an integrated language arts approach, the program shared many of those features: (a) emphasizing written and oral language processes in response to literature, (b) embedding skill-oriented literacy learning within literature reading, and (c) identifying key outcomes including comprehension, ability to create both oral and written stories, development of language complexity, vocabulary, and positive dispositions toward literacy and literature. When compared to similar children with neither literacy centers nor a literature emphasis, these children outperformed their control-group peers on virtually all measures. Students in the intervention group read more, had higher scores in story retellings, had higher comprehension scores, and created more original stories than did students in the control group, all with no cost to their performance on standardized tests. Morrow's well-designed and carefully controlled experimental approach provided sufficient description of both the intervention and students' engagement to interpret findings. The study built a persuasive case for the value of, at the very least, systematically supplementing traditional commercial programs with literature. Although it would be easy to criticize the study for not clarifying "integrative" thinking results from such activity, it is important to remember that the study did not purport to be a model of integrated instruction. In contrast, VanTassel-Baska and her colleagues (1996) purported to be investigating a model of integrated teaching, interweaving language processes. The researchers examined the impact on gifted and talented students' language arts development after students participated in what the researchers labeled as an "integrated curriculum model." Like Morrow, these researchers created an interventionin this case a single unit called "Autobiographies: Personal Odysseys of Change"and a control group for comparison purposes. Their goals included developing students' literary analysis and interpretive skills, persuasive writing skills, and linguistic competency. Participating schools were accepted if they could participate in the training (one to a few days) and provide a control group from the district. The study found that students in the experimental group outperformed those in the control groups in all three goal areas. If we had more information, we might learn more from this research. Unfortunately, the unit was not described in terms of content, related activities, integrative lens, or planned length of participation. Researchers reported that some teachers made modifications (e.g., substituting literature if the packaged material was too difficult, dropping a research component for lack of time). However, changes were not discussed in terms of significance for unit integrity or relationship to unit goals. Unit effectiveness was judged in terms of traditional performance measures (e.g., describing the main idea of a literary selection, creating and justifying a title for a selection), not in terms of integrative abilities. One potentially integrative performance measure activity asked students to relate the concept of change to a selected literary passage. These problems make it challenging to know exactly what is integrative about this approach and how to interpret the findings that are favorable to students who participated in the researcher-developed unit. Studies such as this one may provide traditional "rigor" in
< previous page
page_593
next page >
< previous page
page_594
next page > Page 594
testing one group's performance against another, but without information about the intervention, such findings beg the possibility of meaningful interpretations. Although language was the central focus of the studies just described, others (e.g., Baumann & Ivey, 1997; Block, 1993; Goatley et al., 1995) have studied intradisciplinary integration by teaching language processes through integrative activities centered on the literature itself. Baumann and Ivey's (1997) study is characteristic of such research. The authors described their work as balancing literature study and skill/strategy instruction on the one hand, and balancing teacher-initiated and childcentered instruction on the other. Three kinds of activitiescentered on the literaturewere typical each day: (a) reading practice times, where students read connected text for 10 to 15 minutes; (b) strategy lessons focusing on word identification, vocabulary, comprehension, literature reading, and writing strategies; and (c) reading/language arts activities from teacher read-alouds to students writing related to the literature they were reading on their own. Baumann, as teacher, emphasized integrating strategy and skill instruction within the context of literature reading, writing, and discussion, and creating opportunities elsewhere in the curriculum to extend this integration. Baumann and Ivey measured students' progress in literacy learning and attitudes through teacher and student reflections, students' work samples, videotapes of classroom literacy activities, and assessments, including anecdotal records, grades and progress reports, and an informal reading inventory. The researchers conducted cross-case analyses to provide insights into the breadth of children's learning, and two case studies to provide insights into students' depth of learning. They identified five areas of students' learning. Children became readers, engaged with literacy, developed strategic approaches to word identification, demonstrated they understood written texts, and learned to write about personal interests and experiences with a sense of audience. These studies of intradisciplinary integration provide a small but encouraging base for the potential of integration to improve students' abilities to engage in literacy processes in meaningful ways and to do so within the context of reading, writing, and talking about literature and other resource materials. Initial studies point to the difficulties teachers face in creating such contexts and to the challenges of determining how these experiences affect students' literacy development. Integrated Instruction: Interdisciplinarity and Curriculum Integration According to curriculum scholars Goodlad and Su (1992, p. 330), an integrated curriculum "is intended to bring into close relationship such elements as concepts, skills, and values so that they are mutually reinforcing." Both empirical studies where disciplines are brought together to contribute to a common inquiry and studies where disciplinary boundaries are broken down in pursuit of a common problem are rare. Goodlad and Su suggest that such work may be more feasible in elementary schools, which lack constraints from separate curriculum specialists. However, school curriculum frameworks or standards establish such boundaries even when subjects are taught by the same teacher. Jacobs (1989a) cited two problems that plague curricula for interdisciplinary inquiry. The potpourri problem reflects lack of structures so that units become simply a sampling of knowledge from each discipline. The polarity problem underscores the territoriality that Goodlad and Su noted. Where studies about interdisciplinary efforts do exist, they tend to preserve disciplinary boundaries. However, occasionally, an innovation will break down disciplinary boundaries (e.g., Bruner [1971] and colleagues' curriculum, Man: A Course of Study). The vast majority of "studies" of any type of interdisciplinary approach consisted of anecdotal cases written for practitioners promoting an integrated curriculum,
< previous page
page_594
next page >
< previous page
page_595
next page > Page 595
usually where language and literacy processes are used in the practices associated with learning about school subjects (e.g., Casteel & Isom, 1994; Trepanier-Street, 1993). Further, the majority of these texts were simply "how-to" proposals, such as Fogarty's (1991) "Ten Ways to Integrate Curriculum" or descriptions such as Lapp and Flood's (1994) "Integrating the Curriculum: First Steps." Interdisciplinary Research Research within this category centers on science, mathematics, and social studies. Interdisciplinary approaches centered on science tend to substitute literature and authentic resource materials for textbooks, and/or to make a conscious effort to teach domain-specific language arts skills and strategies within the context of learning a content area (e.g., Palincsar & Herrenkohl, 1999; Romance & Vitale, 1992, cited in Bristor, 1994; Morrow et al., 1997). Bristor (1994) described results from the first 2 years of a 5-year study of science and language arts integration (see also Romance & Vitale, 1992). Motivated by efficiency and a desire to make content area literacy instruction more meaningful, researchers designed a program in which they drew on literacy research to build students' background knowledge prior to reading content texts. They linked relevant language arts curriculum objectives from their district guidelines to science activities. They drew on literature with science content from trade books and their basal reading program, and they engaged students in dramatic play related to the science themes. Based on subtests of standardized achievement texts, the researchers reported gains in the achievement in both reading and in science for students in the integrated program as compared to those in traditionally separate curriculum. Further, based on a 6-point scale inventory of affect, students in the integrated program showed more positive attitudes and greater self-confidence than comparable students in the separate curriculum. Morrow et al. (1997) had similar findings. Students were in one of three treatment groups: literature/science, literature only, and control. The two experimental groups involved a literature-based intervention using trade books in both literacy and science programs, or only in the literacy programs. Control classrooms used commercially published basal readers and textbooks. Students were tested before and after the year-long intervention, using informal and standardized tests to evaluate their growth in literacy skills and science content knowledge. On almost all measuresfrom story retellings to standardized testsfindings favored the integration of literature into science instruction. Winograd and Higgins (1995), former classroom teachers, described their approach to integrating language process instruction within their mathematics curriculum through student-generated story problems. Through a series of vignettes, they detailed the integration of mathematical reasoning, oral interactions through small-group discussions, and process writing activities. Further, they detailed how creating daily story problems led students to observe events outside the classroom as sources of story problems (e.g., one student interviewed his father about his job sanding streets after a snowfall). They suggest that such curriculum integration helps students move beyond surface features of a story problem to considering its meaning, and thus facilitates their ability to solve problems. Teachers invite students to write, and accompany that invitation with instruction in problem-writing and problem-solving skills and strategies. Many researchers have examined interdisciplinary connections between social studies and literature or literacy. For example, Monson, Howe, and Greenlee (1989) surveyed middle elementary students to find out the questions they had about their counterparts in other countries, then examined literature and textbooks for information that could address students' questions. They found that children's questions could be answered more deeply in trade books than in textbooks, because trade books provided more depth in answering questions about the human condition than did
< previous page
page_595
next page >
< previous page
page_596
next page > Page 596
comparable-age social studies books. Levstick's (1986, 1989, 1990) research with first-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students demonstrated that literature can be motivating to history learning. Children across age levels were very interested in the human condition, and literature served as a way of entering its study so that it was possible for the youngsters to make connections to their own lived experiences. Smith and his colleagues (1993; Smith, Monson, & Dobson, 1992) found that children remembered more and had better conceptual understanding when literature and social studies were integrated. Smith pre- and posttested students using an oral free recall measure to determine their knowledge of U.S. history. The intervention used trade books dealing with U.S. history to supplement students' social studies instruction. The free-recall measure revealed that students in the literaturesocial studies group recalled 60% more information about U.S. history than did control-group students. Further, lack of difference on spring standardized scores indicated this advantage did not adversely affect performance in reading. Guzzetti, Kowalinski, and McGowan's (1992) comparison of sixth-grade students' learning about China through textbooks versus an integrated trade/textbook approach yielded similar findings. Although these studies looked at how literature could be integrated with social studies, Beck and McKeown (1991; Beck, McKeown, Sandora, Kucan, & Worthy, 1996) examined how integrating literacy instruction with social studies impacted students' textbook comprehension. In a series of studies, they found that students' comprehension improved when they learned to consider the authors behind the textbooks, and to ask questions, metaphorically, of the author as they fill in gaps in their understanding. Curriculum Integration In one of the few studies of curriculum integration, Sylvester (1994) documented teacher research he conducted with third graders as they created and participated in a classroom economy. Mathematics, literature, history, science, and other school subjects came together as students considered the real issues in the community's day-to-day operations. Drawing on his field notes and samples of students' work, Sylvester created three short case studies to illustrate the social and academic benefits students experienced. Students showed growth in self-esteem and motivation, interpersonal skills, sense of responsibility, and in "daydreaming new futures." Sylvester suggested that, overall, students gained a great deal from the experience. First, he saw them engaged in meaningful drill, working on daily applications of math problems, and engaging in literacy for real purposes. Second, students saw themselves in new roles, as entrepreneurs with businesses to run; as government leaders; and as citizens with a voice in and responsibilities to the community. Third, they maintained a strong racial identity without it conflicting with attempts for academic success. Fourth, they learned to deal with power (e.g., their teacher) in proactive ways. Fifth, they came to see "reality" as something to question and analyze, not simply accept as "the way it is." These assertions seemed consistent with the descriptions of the classroom community, the neighborhood, and students' participation within them. However, to understand the potential of such innovations for students' literacy development, it would be useful to include thicker descriptions of students' use of literacy across contexts, and related changes in their literacy abilities. Integration In and Out of School Integration in and out of school merges classroom life with contexts beyond a classroom's walls. Attempts involve integration across school, home, and community (e.g., Edwards, 1996; Moll, 1992a, 1992b). These innovations reflect a shift in focus, from literacy as a set of skills to literacy as a set of cultural practices. In the former view, the job of school is simply to see that this set of skills is acquired by "organizing effective les-
< previous page
page_596
next page >
< previous page
page_597
next page > Page 597
sons . . . diagnosing skills strength and deficits, providing appropriate exercises in developmentally felicitous sequences, motivating students to engage in these exercises, giving clear explanations and directions" (Resnick, 1990, p. 171). However, viewing literacy as a set of cultural practices underscores the importance of socializing students into the community or culture of literacy users (Moll, 1992a). Rethinking literacy in this way opens the door to connecting between students' cultural backgrounds and school experiences, the essence of integrating school literacy practices with those of home and community. A number of studies explored the meaning of such an approach for curriculum innovations and professional development. HomeSchool Connections At one level, teachers create opportunities for students to share school language and literacy activities with their families (e.g., Morrow, 1992), or to draw on families to share home literacies and events in school (e.g., Edwards, 1996; Damkoehler, GayleEvans, Farrell-Stroyan, & Lockhart, 1996). Edwards (1996) provided one example of such home-school connections in her study of sharing time in two kindergarten classrooms, based on concerns about the discontinuity some children experience between home and school language patterns. Although Michaels (1981) attributed such discontinuity to students' ethnic backgrounds, teachers working with Edwards observed that "white children as well as black children failed to employ a topiccentered style during sharing time" (1996, p. 345). If students experience a discontinuity between home and school literacy practices, they lose opportunities to understand literacy as part of their cultural practices and connect from their lives to the work of school. The researchers thought students' difficulties might be helped by involving their families in decisions about what to share in school and practicing how to share it. Their approach was designed to make school language explicit and to provide a context for students to practice oral presentation, a major part of the kindergarten curriculum through "sharing time." Parents received guidance to help their children prepare for upcoming presentations. Teachers and researchers kept records of individual students' growth in oral language facility. As a result of participating in this daily activity, teachers believed their students became better listeners, developed an understanding of topic-centered presentation, and developed greater self-esteem. Field notes describing one child's progress traced his evolution from a shy child who typically mumbled so severely that he was inarticulate, to one who maintained eye contact with his peers, used complex sentences, and paused for questions, which he capably answered. Similar attempts to connect to family stories have been made in later grades through studies of family histories (see, e.g., Damkoehler et al., 1996), although to date, little formal research has been conducted to indicate specific consequences for students' literacy learning. Within such studies, integration of oral and written language was important, but the integration of the child's home and school language experiences, and their developing understandings of themselves as cultural beings were equally crucial. Such experiences may serve as an important basis for students to later actually study the language, literacy, and culture in their homes and in the communities in which they live (Pearson, 1994, defined this as integration into the community). School-Community Integration In "integration into the community" studies, integration occurs in two ways. First, language and literacy skills are applied as students gather information. In doing so, they have authentic reasons to engage in literate activity, and, we assume, are motivated because the subject of study is connected to their lives. Second, language and literacy skills are themselves the object of study, as students look across contexts to explore how language and literacy are used in different contexts, some of which may be unfamiliar.
< previous page
page_597
next page >
< previous page
page_598
next page > Page 598
Two well-known scholars in this area are Luis Moll and Shirley Brice Heath. In the 1970s, Heath (1982) conducted ethnographic research in North Carolina's Piedmont area, studying students and their families from three different cultural communities. She later applied what she had learned to collaborative work with teacher-researchers (Heath, 1983). She described a third-grade classroom with integrated written and oral language activities, as well as school activities integrated with students' home and community experiences. For example, speakers from the community were interviewed in the classroom. Students viewed themselves as "language detectives" uncovering differences in language use among working contexts: A grocer uses a lot of "politeness" terms and essentially asks "yesno" questions, whereas guides from the nature museum talk in long paragraphs. Students also analyzed talk in their homes, beginning by recording the types of questions they heard asked, and later interviewing their parents about the types of reading, writing, and talking they engaged in at their jobs. Heath noted that by the end of the year, most students in this class were above grade level on reading tests, able to write stories and create paragraphs related to their content area study. More recently, Moll (1992a, 1992b; Moll & González, 1994; Moll, Vélez-Ibáñez, & Greenberg, 1989), working collaboratively with teachers, explored "how literacy takes place in the broader social contexts of households and community life (in an) attempt to understand and forge relationships between these domains of study" (1992b, p. 211). One aspect of this work involved identifying the funds of knowledge in the community, then drawing on these funds to contribute in substantive ways to the classroom's intellectual life. This integration of classroom and community played out in several classroom-based projects. To date, Moll and his colleagues concentrated analyses on the impact of such approaches on teachers' professional development. Moll studied the curriculum practices teachers initiated, their understanding of literacy as cultural practice, and homes as important sites for literacy engagement and use for a wide range of purposes. Moll illustrated how the interweavings of professional development initiatives in the form of a teacher study group and an afterschool laboratory support students' literacy development (Moll et al., 1989) and contributed to teachers rethinking their literacy curriculum. For example, Ina A. created an interdisciplinary unit around the topic of construction, knowing that there were substantial resources she could draw on within the community, including parents of students in her class and other, unrelated adults. Students engaged in traditional forms of information gathering that invited practice of literacy skills, such as library research, creating models, and writing related essays in either Spanish or English, so they could emphasize their ideas without constraint. Community members in their study were invited to present to the classroom. Literacy routines in the classroom included research, oral presentations, and written presentations. Teachers who participated with Ina A. described what Moll and González (1994) called the "transformative potential of viewing households from a funds of knowledge perspective" (p. 444). First, like teachers participating in Edwards (1996) study, they reported realizing as myth the notion that working-class parents of language minority students lacked experiences and knowledge to contribute to their students' literacy development. Second, they developed sophisticated notions of culture, moving from thinking of culture as a collection of personality traits, folk celebrations, and so forth to seeing culture as a collection of lived practices and knowledge (Moll, Amanti, Neff, & González, 1992). One of the findings of Moll's line of research is the importance of teachers' own experiential learning. They developed their understanding of funds of knowledge and transformed their classrooms as a result. Other efforts explored paths from professional development to transforming curriculum. Tchudi and Lafer (1993) felt that
< previous page
page_598
next page >
< previous page
page_599
next page > Page 599
among the challenges teachers face in teaching within integrated approaches is that they themselves have no experience in such methods. The researchers created a summer institute in which teachers could experience an interdisciplinary curriculum, grounded in the study of their local community's scientific, economic, literary, and cultural heritage. They described their work as existing within a language arts perspective of "reading and writing the culture" (p. 78), where participants read poetry, nonfiction, and fiction about the region; maintained journals; wrote imaginative texts across the curriculum drawing on their experiences studying the Truckee River of Nevada; met with local writers in workshops; and participated in a "chautauqua," a 19th-century tradition for a cultural exposition and tent show including reenactments and lectures highlighting historical figures and events. In their anecdotal report, the researchers traced the impact of participants' firsthand experience in an interdisciplinary approach on their subsequent site-based curriculum development. Tchudi and Lafer described four teachers who had substantial influence in changing their elementary school curriculum to an integrated approach developing a year-long theme of "communities." Their work in the elementary school eventually led to presentations at a regional conference and the publication of their curriculum by one of the state's professional organizations. Other participants revealed impact through revisions to courses they taught, implementation of new units, and providing support for other professionals in their teaching sites (e.g., compiling a bibliography on the desert/Nevada/water for young readers). Challenges to Integration In and Out of School Goodlad and Su (1992) suggested what may be obvious from the lines of research just described: Teaching from an integrated perspective or creating an integrated curriculum is challenging, which helps us understand why, as Walmsley and Walp (1990) found, it is such a long-term process. Schmidt and his colleagues (1985) found that despite teachers' favoring integration and their belief that it is more efficient, integrated instruction of any kind (within the language arts and across disciplines) accounted for less than 10% of their instructional time during the academic year in which the study took place. Why do so few teachers move in this direction? Some researchers have documented specific challenges that inhibit integrated instruction. Both Pappas and Oyler (with Barry & Rassel, 1993) and Roskos and Neuman (1995) created case studies of teachers as they began planning and implementing integrated language arts units. Pappas and Oyler (1993) presented case studies of two teachers as they began the process of integration. Their focus was initially intradisciplinary, but gradually moved toward cross-content area studies. Michaela first-year, fifth-grade teacherhad established several features in his classroom characteristic of others studying integrated instruction. He had developed crossdisciplinary thematic units, integrating literacy instruction with science and social studies. He supplemented or replaced traditional textbook-driven curriculum, using materials with more potential to support integrative inquiry. For example, he received a grant to buy animals and informational books to support students' inquiry about the animals. He implemented alternative social structures in the classroom that gave students voice and some control over their learning, such as initiating literature response groups as part of the literacy program. At the beginning of the following year, Michael discussed some of his goals. His comments suggest that such surface-level changes are not sufficient to insure integration. He said that one area he wanted to concentrate on was "contentI've just been bringing in books, but I don't think I was understanding that the books are to help us to understand and inquire about content" (Pappas & Oyler, 1993, p. 300). In other words, despite his incorporation of many of the features of an integrated classroom, he recognized that a key feature had been missing from his previous year's teachingsupport for students to make the connections between the availability of new textual materials
< previous page
page_599
next page >
< previous page
page_600
next page > Page 600
and engaging in language processes for the purposes of inquiry. Pappas and her colleagues suggested that changes in teaching practices involve more than simply "taking on new methods or techniques. At the root of their innovations is a different theory about knowledge and language" (Pappas & Oyler, 1993, p. 301). Further, as Lipson et al. (1993) noted, "this type of teaching requires a different view of the language arts within different organizational structures" (p. 254). In short, becoming effective integrative teachers requires fundamental changes in teachers' epistemological beliefs and the day-to-day practices of structuring their classroom. In studying teacher planning, Roskos and Neuman (1995) provided insights into how fundamental changes in beliefs and practices play out in teachers' integrated unit planning, and in so doing, shed light on the demands such approaches place on teachers. They studied two kindergarten teachers as they planned topic-based units where students used language and literacy as tools for learning. Challenges to unit planning stemmed from two sources. First, there were multiple levels of planning, far more complex than they had experienced in more traditional lesson planning: metaplanning (i.e., planning the plan), topic and content planning, activity planning, environmental planning, and revision planning. Second, these layers of planning created demands on teachers' time, specificity of planning, knowledge, and level of work. There were greater demands for what Shulman (1986) termed pedagogical content knowledge. This type of knowledge requires that teachers be able to understand and interpret the subject matter that they plan to include, find ways to represent this knowledge for their students, and adapt it to their students' levels and their own classrooms. The teachers studied by Roskos and Neuman found that they were not simply adding new techniques, they were fundamentally changing the way they looked at their instruction. One might wonder if teachers who do not have support for participating in experiential opportunities or mutual planning time can turn to commercially available materials to support their own integration attempts within their classrooms. A study of professional materialsteacher education texts, commercial reading and language arts programsrevealed discouraging information (Lipson et al., 1993). Researchers found that although the philosophy and rationale for integration may be clear from these resource materials, the discussion of how to effectively create and implement integrated units falls short of expectations. Similar findings emerged in their analysis of basal reading and supplementary materials (albeit from the early 1990s). Although superior to earlier editions, the series often lacked the focus and coherence needed to promote thematic learning. Supplementary materials were often collections of activities that led more to fragmentation than integration around coherent concepts. Summary: Promises and Cautions Integrated instruction is hard work that involves crossing boundaries of the curriculum and the classroom/school, involves intensive planning, and involves well-developed knowledge. Moreover, it requires a theoretical framework to guide both curriculum construction and innovations in instruction. Without such a theory, there are risks. Social studies educators Alleman and Brophy (1993, 1994), recommended that educators "consider integration a potential tool that is feasible and desirable in some situations but not in all" (p. 66), because so many current recommendations for integrated practices lack any conceptual base. In their analysis of how integration played out in a social studies series, they noted activities irrelevant to learning social studies (e.g., using social studies content to focus on pluralizing nouns) or so time-consuming as to be questionable (e.g., artistic or construction work). Some activities distort social studies content (e.g., five steps to building a log cabin). Literacy educator Pearson, (1994, p. 25) saw similar problems from a literary perspective: "My fear is that if we view literature as a basis for contextualizing or applying specific language activities or strategies, we may end up doing violence to the very literature we selected so that these activities would be 'relevant and authentic.'"
< previous page
page_600
next page >
< previous page
page_601
next page > Page 601
More can be done to support teachers to ease constraints that mitigate against innovations. More can be done to create meaningful opportunities for teachers to experience such learning first hand. More can be made available in terms of professional resources. Certainly, more is needed in terms of both a theoretical and a research base as we consider not when or how to integrate the curriculum, but whether, for what purposes, and for whom. A Theoretical Critique: Integrated Instruction Understood Transactively As editor of the National Society for the Study of Education yearbook devoted to integration, Dressel (1958) characterized it as ''truly the central problem of education." Given this importance, we were surprised that among the many articles about integrated approaches, with few exceptions, there was little attempt to address integration theoretically. There were references to important theoretical lenses, but a theory conceptualizing the what, whys, and hows of integration was seldom in evidence. Typically, proponents emphasized authenticity, motivational value, and efficiency, which, although important, provide little rationale for thoughtful integration. What makes integration educative? And why? Integration is multifaceted, referring to many distinct but related constructs. With no theoretical lens to guide research, policy, and practice, it is impossible to determine the relationship among these different facets of integration. Research questions to date may be too narrow, focused on whether or not integration is effective for organizing curricula. Instead of asking whether to integrate, we need a principled, contextual conception of integration to guide us in addressing what to integrate with what, why, when, how, and for whom. In concluding our review, we briefly describe a transactional conception of integration, supported by recent developments in evolutionary biology (Levins & Lewontin, 1985; Maturana & Varela, 1980), neurophysiology (Varela, Thompson, & Rosch, 1991) and cognitive science (Winograd & Flores, 1986), as well as philosophy, psychology, and education (Dewey, 1896; Vygotsky, 1997). We stress two tenets derived from a transactional perspective: (a) the constitutive role of embodied language practices in mediating the relationship between individuals and their environment, and (b) the importance of understanding both the developmental history of learners and the cultural history of what they are to learn. We close with some ways in which a transactive conception of integration can lead to developing students' understanding of a critical disciplinarity. A Transactional Conception of Knowing Most work on integration seems predicated on an underlying dualism in which the individual and the environment are assumed to exist independent of each other. Arguing for a transactional conception of mind, Johnson (1987) suggested that this dualism leads to our asking, how are the two related, and which is responsible for the structure of the world? Idealist perspectives emphasize the contribution of the individual, whereas objectivist perspectives emphasize the contribution of the environment. Johnson (1987, p. 207) maintained that "it is a mistake to think of an organism and its environment as . . . independent and unrelated entities; the organism does not exist . . . apart from its environment." Contrary to idealism, individuals do not simply construct reality according to subjective desires and whims. Contrary to objectivism, individuals are not merely mirrors of nature that determine concepts in one and only
< previous page
page_601
next page >
< previous page
page_602
next page > Page 602
one way. This dualism can result in naive constructivism, in which individuals are assumed to be free to draw relationships wherever they "see" them; or a naive realism, in which integration is judged against an individual's ability to accurately relate objects and events as they are assumed to exist objectively in the world. Instead, Johnson argued for a transactional perspective of mind such that our structured experience is an organismenvironment interaction in which both poles are altered and transformed through an ongoing historical process. In other words the environment is structured in ways that limit the possibilities for our categorizations of it. But the structure of the environment by no means strictly determines the structure of our experience, which is to say, our understanding of our world. (Johnson, 1987, p. 207) Thus, the locus of integrated knowledge is found in neither the eyes of the beholder nor the object beheld, but in the transactions between the two. When we speak of "experience," we mean our history, culture, language, institutions, and so on, not simply a set of mental representation of a static, already organized reality. Central to understanding the nature of these personenvironment transactions is the role of embodied language practices. The Constitutive Role of Embodied Language Practices The belief that language represents or corresponds to an independently existing reality is deeply ingrained in our folk psychology and pedagogy. The role of language is often assumed to be transparent, merely a vehicle through which the already organized world is named and described. However, from a transactional perspective, "language [is] a means for social coordination and adaptation. . . . Describing how things are [is shorthand for] finding descriptions of reality that work more or less well given our purposes in framing descriptions of reality" (Johnson, 1987, p. 211). Two implications follow when language is understood transactively. First, language helps us shape our knowledge, our "reality." Rather than mirroring what is in the world, language practices are constitutive of what we come to know. For language to realize this constitutive function, it must occur within the contexts of joint social activity where determinate meanings and their relationships are formed (e.g., literature discussions, project-based activities in subject areas). Integration, the processes by which we come to know what goes with what, is a normative practice. It is discursive, but also grounded in practice. Language doesn't simply name already existing integrative relationships; it is constitutive in bringing these relationships into being. However, not anything goes; rather, established integrative relationships are based on a history of embodied social practices with a material and ideal world. Many of the arguments for integration stem from notions of increased authenticity. This view of language offers a warrant for such a position. It argues for the kind of socially based activities within topics and themes characteristic of integrated instruction. Thus, teachers collaborating with Moll (1992a) used ethnographic techniques to describe how things were among students' households, and found that in doing so, they challenged the "reality" they had earlier created about the families' attitudes and resources. Students in Winograd and Higgins's (1995) study reconstructed their understandings of mathematical reasoning through the story problems they composed. A second implication of a transactive conception of language follows from the first. Because language is not to be understood in terms of accuracy in representing or corresponding to an independently existing world, it is fundamentally underdetermined in its capacity for constructing, integrating, and communicating meanings. This is particularly problematic in schooling, where one goal is to convey society's common knowl-
< previous page
page_602
next page >
< previous page
page_603
next page > Page 603
edge (Edwards & Mercer, 1987). This underscores the importance of creating discourse-based communities of practice (Brown, 1994; Swales, 1990; Wenger, 1998) that share a common lexicon, mechanisms for communication, and a critical mass of participants. Thus, a further warrant for integrated instruction, supported by a transactional perspective, is that such approaches build communities for engaging in embodied language practices as phenomena are explored. For example, Sylvester and his students tackled elusive concepts related to economics, government, and human rights. They did so using language that had shared meaning within the community. Rather than simply talk about these constructs, the students within this community practiced them. The Developmental History of the Knower and Cultural History of the Known We have seen that objects and events may be combined into larger wholesthey may be integratedbecause individuals with particular developmental histories transact with school subjects with particular cultural histories. What goes with what is a function of the ongoing history of transaction between persons and their environment. Thus, a second insight of a transactive perspective concerns the importance of a joint emphasis on teachers' understanding the cultural history of that which is to be learned (e.g., disciplinary knowledge) and the developmental history of their students. It is only through genetic analyses of both knower and known that we can fully understand their present ongoing transactions. If teachers are to integrate the curriculum in a manner that their students are able to understand, they must coordinate their pedagogical transactions with these students in ways that are developmentally sensitive. The adult mind is so familiar with the notion of logically ordered facts that it does not recognizeit cannot realizethe amount of separating and reformulating which the facts of direct experience have to undergo before they can appear as a "study," or branch of learning. (Dewey, 1902/1956, p. 6) The challenge of understanding and implementing integrated instruction from a transactive perspective thus requires that we simultaneously keep both the developing knower and known in our conceptual field of vision. Fostering the development of children in a changing world thus becomes the allegorical equivalent of building a ship while at sea. We must assist them in coming to understand the normative integrative meanings (e.g., subject matter knowledge) that have been culturally constructed, while at the same time understanding their origins in embodied discursive practices, practices that are likely to lead to newly integrated meanings. Such "binocular vision" is necessary if we are to foster their development of what we call a critical disciplinarity. Fostering Students' Critical Disciplinarity We believe that a critical disciplinarity rests on a critical literacy. Any conception of child development must recognize the central role of language in the development of mind and the development of the disciplines. Halliday (1993) suggested that "the distinctive characteristic of human learning is that it is a process of making meaning. . . . [T]he ontogenesis of language is at the same time the ontogenesis of learning." The challenge of fostering students' development of a critical disciplinarity involves the two-pronged task of assisting them in coming to understand the systematized meanings associated with disciplinary knowledge, while simultaneously encouraging an historical consciousness that reveals the constructed, discursive nature of such knowledge.
< previous page
page_603
next page >
< previous page
page_604
next page > Page 604
"Language is not a domain of human knowledge; language is the essential condition of knowing, the process by which experience becomes knowledge" (Halliday, 1993, p. 94). Several individuals have emphasized the developmental and epistemological primacy of narrative genres in the development of both the knower and the known. Scholes, a literary theorist, characterized narrative as "a major armature of thought" (1989, p. 4). Nelson (1996, p. 184) suggested that "narrative is the 'natural product' of language; it precedes and is the source of theoretical thinking." She maintained that "human cognition is basically formulated in terms of stories, and logic, classification, and rational inference are all in some sense derivative from storytelling." Similarly, Bruner (1996, p. 121) suggested that ''it is very likely the case that the most natural and earliest way in which we organize our experience and knowledge is in terms of narrative form . . . that the beginnings, the transitions, and the full grasp of ideas in the spiral curriculum depend upon embodying those ideas into a story or narrative form." For example, the pedagogical use of well-chosen narrative histories of conceptual change across multiple school subjects has the potential to teach children not only about the disciplines, but the idea of (inter)disciplinarity itselfthe discursive processes by which the disciplines are constructed, maintained, and permeated by other disciplines. Over and above their literary value, the principled integrative use of various narrative genres in elementary education has the ironic potential of leading to a deeper, more critical understanding of subject matter knowledge. One can imagine developmentally informed integrated literacy instruction that in the early elementary grades forefronts the storied, discursive nature of knowing, but in later elementary grades comes increasingly to emphasize the disciplined, systematic nature of organizing and understanding school subjects. Concluding Statement Integrated literacy instruction turned out to be a far more elusive and far more complex area than we had ever anticipated. In the process of this review, we found ourselves surprised at the small ratio of data-driven articles to overall papers on the subject and wondered if the push toward integration of any kind might be premature, or even ill-founded. We became increasingly convinced, however, by the albeit small number of studies, that integrative approaches are exciting ways of rethinking school curriculum within and beyond the language arts. Future research is required to provide the needed base for promoting integrated innovations. But we need more than just research. We need research driven by a strong, conceptual framework that helps us unpack the construct, consider its potential advantages, and find ways to address the very real challenges and drawbacks we cannot ignore. References Adler, M., & Flihan, S. (1997). The interdisciplinary continuum: Reconciling theory, research, and practice (Report Series No. 2.36). National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement, University of Albany, State University of New York. Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (1993). Is curriculum integration a boon or a threat to social studies? Social Education, 57, 287291. Alleman, J., & Brophy, J. (1994). Trade-offs embedded in the literacy approach to early elementary social studies. Social Studies and the Young Learner, 6(3), 68. Anders, P. L., & Pritchard, T. G. (1993). Integrated language curriculum and instruction for the middle grades. Elementary School Journal, 93(5), 611624. Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., Mosenthal, P. B., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman. Baumann, J. F., & Ivey, G. (1997). Delicate balances: Striving for curricular and instructional equilibrium in a second-grade, literature/strategy-based classroom. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(3), 244275.
< previous page
page_604
next page >
< previous page
page_605
next page > Page 605
Beane, J. A. (1993). Problems and possibilities for an integrative curriculum. Middle School Journal, 25(1), 1823. Beane, J. A. (1995). Curriculum integration and the disciplines of knowledge. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 616622. Beane, J. A. (1997). Curriculum integration: Designing the core of democratic education. New York: Teachers College Press. Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (1991). Social studies texts are hard to understand: Mediating some of the difficulties (Research directions). Language Arts, 68(6), 482490. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., Sandora, C., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385414. Bergeron, B. S. (1990). What does the term whole language mean? Constructing a definition from the literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(4), 301329. Block, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based reading program. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 139151. Bristor, V. J. (1994). Combining reading and writing with science to enhance content area achievement and attitudes. Reading Horizons, 35(1), 3143. Brown, A. L. (1994). The advancement of learning. Educational Researcher, 23(8), 412. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MD: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1971). The relevance of education. New York: W. W. Norton. Busching, B. A., & Schwartz, J. I. (Eds.). (1983). Integrating the language arts in the elementary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Casteel, C. P., & Isom, B. A. (1994). Reciprocal processes in science and literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 47(7), 538545. Coalition of Essential Schools. (1988). The common principles of the Coalition of Essential Schools. Providence, RI: Coalition of Essential Schools, Brown University. Cremin, L. A. (1964). The transformation of the school: Progressivism in American education 18761957. New York: Random House. Damkoehler, D., Gayle-Evans, G., Farrell-Stroyan, S., & Lockhart, M. (1996). Family histories: Collecting, connecting, celebrating. Primary Voices K6, 4(2), 713. Dewey, J. (1896). The reflex arc concept in psychology. Psychological Review, III(4), 357370. Dewey, J. (1956). The child and the curriculum. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1902) Dewey, J. (1913). Interest and effort in education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Dressel, P. L. (1958). The meaning of significance of integration. In B. Henry (Ed.), The integration of educational experiences: Fifty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 3, pp. 325). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dressel, P. L. (1958). Integration: An expanding concept. In B. Henry (Ed.), The integration of educational experiences: Fiftyseventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 3, pp. 251263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edwards, P. A. (1996). Creating sharing time conversations: Parents and teachers work together. Language Arts, 73(5), 344349. Edwards, D., & Mercer, N. (1987). Common knowledge: The development of understanding in the classroom. New York: Methuen. Ellis, A., & Fouts, J. (1993). Research on Educational Innovations. Princeton, NJ: Eye on Education. Flood, J., Jensen, J. M., Lapp, D., & Squire, J. R. (1991). Handbook for research on teaching the English language arts. New York: Macmillan. Fogarty, R. (1991a). How to integrate the curricula. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight. Fogarty, R. (1991b). Ten ways to integrate curriculum. Educational Leadership, 49(2), 6165. Galda, L. (1998). Mirrors and windows: Reading as transformation. In T. E. Raphael & K. H. Au (Eds.), Literature-based instruction: Reshaping the curriculum (pp. 111). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Goatley, V. J., Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education "Book Clubs." Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352380. Goodlad, J. I., & Su, Z. (1992). The organization of the curriculum. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 327344). New York: Macmillan. Goodman, Y. M. (1989). Roots of the whole-language movement. Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 113127. Grisham, D. (1995). Exploring integrated curriculum. Reading Psychology, 16, 269279. Guzzetti, B. J., Kowalinski, B. J., & McGowan, T. (1992). Using a literature-based approach to teaching social studies. Journal of Reading, 36(2), 114122. Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Towards a language-based theory of learning. Linguistics and Education, 5, 93116.
Heath, S. B. (1982). Questioning at home and at school: A comparative study. In G. Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling (pp. 102131). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Heath, S. B. (1983). Research currents: A lot of talk about nothing. Language Arts, 60(8), 9991007. Holt, J. (1967). How children learn. New York: Pitman. Jackson, P. (1992).Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan. Jacobs, H. H. (1989a). Design options for an integrated curriculum. In H. H. Jacobs (Ed.), Interdisciplinary curriculum: Design and implementation (pp. 1322). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
< previous page
page_605
next page >
< previous page
page_606
next page > Page 606
Johnson, M. (1987). The body and the mind: The bodily basis of meaning, imagination, and reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kain, D. L. (1993). Cabbages-and-kings: Research direction in integrated/intradisciplinary curriculum. Journal of Educational Thought, 27(3), 312331. Langer, J. A., & Allington, R. L. (1992). Curriculum research in writing and reading. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 687725). New York: Macmillan. Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (1994). Integrating the curriculum: First steps. Reading Teacher, 47(5), 416419. Levins, R., & Lewontin, R. C. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Levstick, L. S. (1986). The relationship between historical response and narrative in a sixth-grade classroom. Theory and Research in Social Education, 14, 115. Levstick, L. (1989). Historical narrative and the young reader. Theory into Practice, 28(2), 114119. Levstick, L. S. (1990). Research directions: Mediating content through literary texts. Language Arts, 67, 848853. Lipson, M. Y., Valencia, S. W., Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1993). Integration and thematic teaching: Integration to improve teaching and learning. Language Arts, 70, 252263. Marzano, R., J. (1991). Language, the language arts, and thinking. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 559586). New York: Macmillan. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1980). Autopoiesis and cognition. London: D. Reidel. McGowan, T. M., Erickson, L., & Neufeld, J. A. (1996). With reason and rhetoric: Building a case for the literature-social studies connection. Social Education, 60(4), 203207. Meyer, J., Youga, J., & Flint-Ferguson, J. (1990). Grammar in context: Why and how. English Journal, 79(1), 6670. Michaels, S. (1981). "Sharing time": Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Literacy in Society, 10, 423442. Moll, L. C. (1992a). Bilingual classroom studies and community analysis. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 2024. Moll, L., C. (1992b). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In R. Beach, J. Green, M. Kamil, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Multidisciplinary perspectives in community and classrooms (pp. 211244). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & González, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132141. Moll, L., & González, N. (1994). Critical issues: Lessons from research with language-minority children. JRB: A Journal of Literacy, 26(4), 439456. Moll, L. C., Vélez-Ibáñez, C., & Greenberg, J. (1989). Year one progress report: Community knowledge and classroom practice: Combining resources for literacy instruction (IARP Subcontract No. L-10). University of Arizona, College of Education and Bureau of Applied Research in Anthropology. Monson, D. L., Howe, K., & Greenlee, A. (1989). Helping children develop cross-cultural understanding with children's books. Early Child Development and Care, 48, 38. Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 251275. Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 5476. Nelson, K. (1996). Language in cognitive development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Palincsar, A. S., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (1999). Designing collaborative contexts: Lessons from three research programs. In A. O'Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 151178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pappas, C. C., Oyler, C., with Barry, A., & Rassel, M. (1993). Focus on research: Collaborating with teachers developing integrated language arts programs in urban schools. Language Arts, 70, 297303. Pearson, P. D. (1994). Integrated language arts: Sources of controversy and seeds of consensus. In L. M. Morrow, J. K. Smith, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Integrated language arts: Controversy to consensus (pp. 1131). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Petrie, H. (1992). Interdisciplinary education: Are we faced with insurmountable opportunities? In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 299333). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Pinnell, G. S., & Jaggar, A. M. (1991). Oral language: Speaking and listening in the classroom. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 691720). New York: Macmillan. Powell, R., & Skoog, G. (1995). Students' perspectives on integrative curricula: The case of Brown Barge Middle School. Research in Middle Level Education Quarterly, 19(1), 85115.
Raphael, T. E., & Brock, C. H. (1997). Instructional research in literacy: Changing paradigms. In C. Kinzer, D. Leu, & K. Hinchman (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (pp. 1336). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Raphael, T. E., Brock, C. H., & Wallace, S. (1998). Encouraging quality peer talk with diverse students in mainstream classrooms: Learning from and with teachers. In J. R. Paratore & R. McCormack (Eds.), Peer talk in the classroom: Learning from research (pp. 176206). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
< previous page
page_606
next page >
< previous page
page_607
next page > Page 607
Resnick, L. B. (1990). Literacy in school and out. Daedalus, 19(2), 169285. Roehler, L. R. (1983). Ten ways to integrate language and subject matter. In B. A. Busching & J. I. Schwartz (Eds.), Integrating the language arts in the elementary school (pp. 2834). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1992). A curriculum strategy that expands time for in-depth elementary science instruction by using science-based reading strategies: Effects of a year-long study in grade four. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 545554. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (1995). Two beginning kindergarten teachers' planning for integrated literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 195215. Schmidt, W. H., Roehler, L., Caul, J. L., Buchman, M., Diamond, B., Solomon, D., & Cianciolo, P. (1985). The uses of curriculum integration in language arts instruction: A study of six classrooms. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 17(3), 305320. Scholes, R. (1989). Protocols of reading. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shanahan, T. (1997). Reading-writing relationships, thematic units, inquiry learning. . . . In pursuit of effective integrated literacy instruction. Reading Teacher, 51(1), 1219. Shanahan, T., & Lomax, R. G. (1988). A developmental comparison of three theoretical models of the reading and writing relationship. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 196212. Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414. Shoemaker, B. J. E. (1991). Education 2000 integrated curriculum. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(10), 793797. Shoemaker, B. J. E. (1993). Two sides of the same coin. Educational Leadership, 50(8), 5557. Silberman, C. E. (1970). Crisis in the classroom. New York: Random House. Sinatra, G. (1990). Convergence of listening and reading processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 115130. Sizer, T. (1984). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Smith, J. A. (1993). Content learning: A third reason for using literature in teaching reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 32(3), 6471. Smith, J. A., Monson, J. A., & Dobson, D. (1992). A case study on integrating history and reading instruction through literature. Social Education, 56(7), 370375. Spivey, N. N., & Calfee, R. C. (1998). The reading-writing connection, viewed historically. In N. Nelson & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Readingwriting connection: Ninety-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 152). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 293317). New York: Longman. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sylvester, P. S. (1994). Teaching and practice: Elementary school curricula and urban transformation. Harvard Educational Review, 64(3), 309331. Tchudi, S., & Lafer, S. (1993). How dry is the desert: Nurturing interdisciplinary learning. Educational Leadership, 51, 7679. Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interactions, transactions, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, 2, (246280). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Trepanier-Street, M. (1993). What's so new about the project approach? Childhood Education, 70(1), 2528. Van Tassel-Baska, J., Johnson, D. T., Hughes, C. E., & Boyce, L. N. (1996). A study of language arts curriculum effectiveness with gifted learners. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(4), 461480. Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., & Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3) (R. Van der Veer, Trans.). New York: Plenum. Walmsley, S. A., & Walp, T. P. (1990). Integrating literature and composing into the language arts curriculum: Philosophy and practice. Elementary School Journal, 90(3), 251274. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Winograd, T., & Flores, F. (1986). Understanding computers and cognition: Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Winograd, K., & Higgins, K. M. (1995). Writing, reading, and talking mathematics: One interdisciplinary possibility. Reading Teacher, 48(4), 310318. Wixson, K., Peter, C. W., & Potter, S. A. (1996). The case for integrated standards in English language arts. Language Arts, 73(1), 2029.
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_609
next page > Page 609
Chapter 33 The Role of Text in Classroom Learning Suzanne E. Wade University of Utah Elizabeth B. Moje University of Michigan The title of this chapter, "The Role of Text in Classroom Learning," may evoke for many of our readers images of students sitting at desks or in groups reading published print texts such as basal readers and textbooks. These images may yield a number of questions about the role of text in classroom learning: What are these texts like? How are they being used in classrooms and for what purposes? In what ways do texts used in elementary classrooms differ from those used in secondary classrooms? How do students make sense of and learn with these texts? What are they learning? How do teachers use such texts as curriculum guides? Who controls the content and use of published texts? In this review, we address many of these questions about the uses of printed texts in classroom learning. In addition, we examine how other forms of printed text are used such as trade books, magazines, and newspapers. Further, we examine the written texts that teachers prepare for students' use, such as outlines of lecture notes, worksheets, and graphic organizers; written texts authored by students, such as essays, stories, and lecture notes; and electronic texts used and generated by students. This broadened conception of text also compels us to examine how teachers' and students' oral textslectures, recitations, discussions, and conversationsplay a role in classroom learning. Finally, drawing from semiotic and other perspectives on text (Ackerman & Oates, 1996; Barthes, 1977/1996; Eco, 1983, 1992; Eisner, 1994; Hartman, 1997; Siegel, 1995), we include studies that analyze the texts derived from multiple forms of representation, such as drawings, paintings, musical renderings, and performances, and unsanctioned student texts such as notes to friends, comic books, popular magazines, and graffiti. What Counts as Text? The perspectives on text that guide this review are drawn from our analysis of five theoretical perspectives that examine text and how texts are used in teaching and learning. These perspectives include (a) cognitive and sociocognitive theories, (b) literary
< previous page
page_609
next page >
< previous page
page_610
next page > Page 610
theories, (c) linguistic, sociolinguistic, and semiotic theories, (d) sociocultural theories, and (e) critical, feminist, and poststructural theories. After reviewing definitions of text held by representatives of those five perspectives, we concluded that to yield significant insights about teaching and learning our conception of text in this review should be broad and encompassing. Derrida (1976, 1982) counted as text any organized network of meaning, thus suggesting that text can be much more than print on a page. Bloome and Egan-Robertson (1993) argued that People textualize experience and the world in which they live, making those phenomena part of a language system (broadly defined). The result of textualizing experience can be a set of words, signs, representations, etc. But it might be other forms and products not usually associated with texts: architecture, rock formations, the stars in the sky, the wind, the ocean, emotionthese can all be texts, but their being texts depends on what people do. (p. 311) Texts, then, are organized networks that people generate or use to make meaning either for themselves or for others. Texts can be formalized and permanent, reproduced as books or speeches and sold as commodities. Or, they can be informal and fleetingwritten lists or notes that are scribbled out and quickly thrown away, or conversations and performances that are made permanent only as they are written or recorded by sound or video devices or passed on orally to other people. The level of formality or permanence of a text does not diminish its potential as a way of making meaning or its potential to be linked consciously or unconsciously to other, more or less formal types of texts. Different views of what counts as textwhether they are formal and informal; oral, written, enacted; permanent or fleetinglead to different views of what counts as learning, and consequently expand or limit the opportunities students have to learn in classrooms. Realizing that teachers, students, classroom contexts, and personal and institutional histories are unique, we undertake in this review the task of describing how different types of text, broadly defined, have been used in classrooms. We found that variations in text use reflected differences in pedagogical approach and in purpose (e.g., learning goals) but also differences in students, subject area, grade level, academic track or reading group level, systems of assessment and accountability, content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers, teachers' and students' beliefs about knowledge and appropriate uses of literacy, beliefs about the purpose of schooling, past school experiences, and home and community experiences. Together, these variables shape the sociocultural context in which teachers and students work (Moore, 1996), how they use text, and how they respond to reform efforts to restructure text use, curriculum, and schools. Although each of the variables we have listed is critical in shaping how text is defined and used in classrooms, we have organized our analysis around two general categories of pedagogical approachtransmission approaches and participatory approaches. Because pedagogical approach is itself shaped by sociocultural and economic contexts, we describe the contexts of the classrooms studied as we discuss how the role of text varies in transmission and participatory approaches. In our discussion of the roles texts play in these two pedagogical approaches, we focus on two questions: (a) What counts as text, and (b) how are texts used by both teachers and students for the purpose of learning in classrooms? We recognize that these pedagogical approaches are neither the only possible approaches nor are they pure categories. Although one approach will usually predominate in a classroom, elements of the others may be adapted to fit within it. Further, the pedagogies in some classrooms may best be thought of as hybrids. Although we wish to avoid the temptation to designate any approach as the "best" way, we do acknowl-
< previous page
page_610
next page >
< previous page
page_611
next page > Page 611
edge that participatory approaches take a broad view of texta view that we believe is beneficial for diverse groups of students in an increasingly technological and information-based world. Nevertheless, we have analyzed the strengths and limitations of how text and learning are viewed and put into practice in each approachhow each attempts to meet particular goals in teaching and learning, and not others, and how each focuses attention on certain attributes of texts and learners while ignoring others. Of course, the views that we have of teachers' and students' uses and perceptions of text are influenced by the theoretical perspectives of the researchers who described and evaluated them in published studies. Like Rex, Green, Dixon and the Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group (1998), who argued that the ways in which researchers define context influence the outcomes of their research, we assert that definitions of text and learning and the privileging and dismissal of different texts and ways of learning have ideological and material consequences for students, teachers, and society. Thus, the views provided of the role of text in classroom learning must be considered in light of particular theoretical perspectives on text and learning, which we endeavor to include in our discussion. Text and Learning in the Transmission Approach Observational studies reveal that the transmission model has been the dominant pedagogical approach to teaching reading and subject-area content (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Cuban, 1984, 1986; Durkin, 19781979; Goodlad, 1984, 1994; McNeil, 1986; Shannon, 1990; Stodolsky, 1988; Wildy & Wallace, 1995). The role of both the text and the teacher in the transmission approach is to transmit a large body of authorized, or "official," knowledge and skills to studentswho are often thought of in generic terms without attention to race, class, or genderto enable them to be successful in the meritocratic system that dominates schools and society (Apple, 1986, 1989; Shannon, 1990). Thus, instruction tends to be both content and teacher centered. Typically, the teacher initiates and controls the interaction toward the goal of achieving particular learning objectivesusually the mastery of discrete skills and the correct recall of information. The classroom structure is one of the teacher interacting with the whole class or working with small groups of students usually differentiated by ability, or of students working alone, monitored by the teacher. The teacher lectures, explains, asks questions, demonstrates, gives assignments or instructions, provides feedback, and assesses students' learning. Student participation consists of listening, responding, reading orally or silently, working alone on independent seatwork, and taking tests. The teacher is active and in control; students are (or are supposed to be) passive and compliant, generating texts to document their learning of information. What Counts as Text within the Transmission Approach Critical researchers argue that just as knowledge in transmission classrooms is "official," so are the texts that dominate teacher and student discourse. These texts serve to establish boundaries as to what skills, topics, authors, and ideologies are considered legitimate and valuedthat is, what counts as knowledge and as learning (Luke, de Castell, & Luke, 1989; Shannon, 1990). For elementary reading instruction, basal reading series are usually the primary, official texts. The 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), which included a survey of reading instruction in Grade 4, found that for 36% of the fourth-grade students, teachers relied solely on basal readers for reading instruction, 49% were taught through a combination of both basal materials and trade books, and 15% were being taught without use of basal materials (Mullis, Campbell, & Farstrup, 1993). Fractor, Woodruff, Martinez, and Teale (1993) found that
< previous page
page_611
next page >
< previous page
page_612
next page > Page 612
the number of elementary classrooms with library centers for trade books steadily decreased with grade level, from 75% of kindergarten classrooms that had libraries to only 26% of Grade 5 classrooms that did. In response to criticisms by a number of reading researchers (Goodman, 1989; Goodman, Shannon, Freeman, & Murphy, 1988), basal series have changed over time, moving away from contrived stories with controlled vocabulary to the inclusion of published texts by authors of children's literature (Hoffman et al., 1994). As a result, many of the new basals represent an elementary-school anthology of literature from which teachers can draw, and a number of the literature-based series make extensive recommendations for the development of thematic units using diverse works of literature. Published basal series also have shifted from a focus on the drill and practice of discrete, sequenced reading skills to the teaching of context-based decoding and comprehension strategies and the eliciting of readers' responses. In making this shift, basal authors have provided teachers with pedagogical recommendations that are said to be less directive and prescriptive than former versions (Hoffman et al., 1994). For subject-area instruction, the textbook has been the dominant form of official text within the transmission approach at both the elementary and secondary levels (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Gottfried & Kyle, 1992; Yore, 1991). According to Alvermann and Moore (1991), a class set of a single textbook has been the main source of reading material in most content classrooms, and is rarely supplemented by library books, articles from magazines, or newspapers. Observational and interview studies indicate that this continues to be the case (cf. DiGisi & Willett, 1995; Jetton, 1994; Moje, 1996). How Teachers and Students Use Published Texts in Transmission Classrooms Although most elementary students regularly read from basal texts (Hoffman et al., 1994), the textbook appears to be used more by teachers than by students in subject-area classrooms (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Armbruster et al., 1991; Hinchman, 1937; Smith & Feathers, 1983). Many teachers rely on textbooks to structure content, organize lessons, and provide suggestions and materials for teaching and assessment. Thus, as Tyson-Bernstein noted, "According to virtually all studies of the matter, textbooks have become the de facto curriculum of the public schools" (1988, p. 11). This reliance on the textbook as a curriculum guide tends to be most true of teachers with less knowledge of their subject area. For example, elementary teachers, who often feel underprepared in science, report a preference for structured science materials, including teachers' guides with suggestions about demonstrations, activities, and discussion/recitation questions (Lantz & Kass, 1987; Shymansky, Yore, & Good, 1991). At the secondary level, Jetton (1994) and Jetton and Alexander (1997) found that science teachers with low domain knowledge relied most on the textbook as the basic core of knowledge to transmit, whereas teachers with high domain knowledge relied on their prior knowledge and a variety of texts such as articles from science magazines. Carlsen (1991) also found that teacher's oral texts were more likely to follow the textbook when the teacher was less familiar with the topic. In lesson planning, for example, teachers with less domain knowledge asked questions that emphasized recall of material found in the textbook, whereas teachers with high domain knowledge asked questions that required students to synthesize content. In addition to teachers' confidence (or lack of) in their subject-area expertise, certain institutional constraints and beliefs about the disciplines shape how much they rely on textbooks to structure their curriculum. Stodolsky and Grossman (1995) found that
< previous page
page_612
next page >
< previous page
page_613
next page > Page 613
highly sequential and well-defined subject areas such as math and foreign languages allow for less curricular autonomy than less well-defined, less sequentially organized subjects such as English, science, and social studies. Also, state and district curriculum guidelines, assessment programs, and text adoption policies control what texts are selected, how they are used in classrooms, and what counts as learning. Thus, the perception of a need to sequence instruction and to meet state and district requirements compels teachers to place greater emphasize on coverage and therefore to rely on the content of official texts so that students are prepared for assessments and subsequent courses. Although textbooks and their accompanying curriculum guides are used extensively by teachers to present content and to structure classroom learning activities, most studies have found that students engage in little reading of any kind of published text, either in class or as homework, other than basal texts used for reading instruction (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Armbruster et al., 1991; DiGisi & Willett, 1995; Goodlad, 1984; Hinchman, 1987; Jetton, 1994; Smith & Feathers, 1983). In a study of fourth-grade teachers and students engaged in content-area lessons, Armbruster et al. (1991) found that even in lessons where the textbook was the focus of instruction, students did very little actual reading, and what they did do consisted of round-robin oral reading. At the secondary level, Alvermann and Moore (1991) found that "continuous reading in classrooms is rare" (p. 965). DiGisi and Willett (1995) found that only in basic biology classes was the textbook read in class, and then it was read orally by either the teacher or students to make sure the whole class heard the informationan oral rendering of the published text. Only in the most advanced level biology classes did teachers assign and expect students to use the textbook independently to learn information that they did not have time to cover in class. Stodolsky (1988) and Stodolsky, Salk, and Glaessner (1991) found that students, especially those having difficulty, viewed their mathematics textbooks as a source of problems assigned as homework rather than as a resource for new learning, relying on the teacher to explain and guide their learning; in fact, students ranked "hearing an explanation," "asking someone," and "being told what to do'' as the best means for learning mathematics. In their review, Alvermann and Moore (1991) reported that in other content areas students often use the textbook only to skim for answers to end-of-the-chapter questions or to search for definitions of vocabulary words. These findings are supported by surveys conducted for the NEAP, which reported that approximately half of the students in the three grades tested (Grades 4, 8, and 12) reported reading 10 or fewer pages each day for school work across the curriculum (Langer, Applebee, Mullis, & Foertsch, 1990). Later NEAP reports confirmed these findings for students in Grade 12, but found that students in Grades 4 and 8 reported reading more each day in school and for homework in 1996 (Campbell, Voelkl, & Donahue, 1997). Other studies reported that when students realize they can rely exclusively on their teachers' lectures and recitations (oral texts) to learn the content, they see little need to read assigned pages (Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996; Moje, 1996). Little text reading is assigned for several reasons. Some teachers are concerned that many students will not or cannot read assigned pages from textbooks, in part because the textbooks are too difficult or poorly written, or students lack the necessary background knowledge (Armbruster, 1984; Beck, McKeown, & Gromoll, 1989; Dole & Niederhauser, 1989; McKeown & Beck, 1990; McKeown, Beck, Sinatra, & Loxterman, 1992). Some teachers have questioned the value of reading about a topic as a tool for learning, especially in content areas such as science, advocating experience-based learning activities instead (Yore, 1991). Finally, many secondary teachers argue that they can cover vast amounts of content more quickly through other activities such as lectures and demonstrations (O'Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995).
< previous page
page_613
next page >
< previous page
page_614
next page > Page 614
The Role of Teacher-Generated Oral and Written Text in Transmission Classrooms Because subject-area teachers believe that students cannot or will not learn independently from textbooks and because they view their role as teaching content (rather than literacy), most teachers rely heavily on oral textswhole-class lecture, explanation, demonstration, and recitationconsidering them to be the most efficient way to deliver course content and to monitor learning (Davey, 1988; DiGisi & Willett, 1995; Goodlad, 1984; Hinchman, 1987; Jetton, 1994; Moje, 1996; Moje & Wade, 1997; O'Brien et al., 1995; Schumm, Vaughn, & Saumell, 1992; Stewart, 1990; Stodolsky, 1988). Sizer (1985) called this reliance on oral texts the "pedagogy of telling." As one biology teacher in DiGisi and Willett's study (1995, p. 131) stated, "I think the information should come first from the teachers and from labs and demonstrations . . . the textbook should be almost secondary to what goes on in the classroom." In her study of six biology teachers, Jetton (1994) found that all of the teachers relied on the pedagogy of telling, aided by teacher-generated conceptual maps. These maps were presented on an overhead projector to guide students though the lectures, which were the dominant form of oral text. In addition, the teachers in this study created handouts of notes designed to simplify the information in the textbook. Several studies have shown that secondary-school students place greater value on a combination of teacher-generated texts such as lectures, study guides, outlines, and conceptual mapsand on the texts they generate themselves in class such as lecture notesthan they do on official course texts (Dillon, O'Brien, Moje, & Stewart, 1994; Jetton, 1994; Moje, 1996). Thus, although findings of many studies that focus on printed texts indicate that students often use the textbook only to skim for answers to end-of-the-chapter questions or to search for definitions of vocabulary words, a number of studies illustrate that the other kinds of texts, especially those texts created in interactions between students and teachers, play a prominent role in classroom learning. Among the forms of oral text that have been studied in transmission classrooms, researchers have given a good deal of attention to the ways that initiationresponseevaluation (IRE) formats such as recitation are used to monitor students' learning during lectures or their recall of information from assigned readings. IRE formats typically consist of a question posed by a teacher, answered by a student, and evaluated by the teacher (Bellack, Kliebard, Hyman, & Smith, 1966; Cazden, 1986; Dillon, 1984; Lemke, 1990; Sinclair & Coulthard, 1975). It is one of the most common patterns of verbal interaction in classrooms, serving the purpose of reviewing, drilling, and quizzing students about what they have learned (Alvermann & Moore, 1991), while also controlling student behaviors and the dissemination of knowledge (Lemke, 1990). A number of researchers (Alvermann & Hayes, 1989; Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Armbruster et al., 1991; Carlsen, 1991) found that almost all of the questions and answers during recitations are at the literal level, and that students tend to give brief and unelaborated answers. Not surprisingly, students rarely ask questions, question the teacher's interpretation, or offer alternative interpretations during recitations. Researchers have also examined how the discourse during recitation and other forms of oral text contribute to the construction and reconstruction of particular assumptions about the nature of knowledge in the disciplines. For example, Moje's (1997) critical discourse analysis of the oral texts created by a high-school chemistry teacher, Ms. Landy, and her students illustrated how Landy emphasized objectivity in scientific observation, accurate and precise definitions and pronunciation of scientific terms, and rules and procedures. Furthermore, despite Landy's good intentions to teach her students to communicate in science ("to develop scientific literacy," in her words), her discourse of accuracy and precision positioned students as demonstrators of knowledge and positioned her as evaluator of their demonstrations.
< previous page
page_614
next page >
< previous page
page_615
next page > Page 615
Although written and oral texts may be viewed as quite separate in transmission classrooms, they seldom stand alone in any classroom, as we have seen. In most classrooms, oral and written texts are constructed and negotiated as teachers and student interact with one another. For example, Golden (1988) illustrated how print text meaning can change by showing how the same teacher leading two different small groups in a reading lesson segmented the same text in different ways and stressed different literacy elements. As a result, the textand the concomitant learningfor the two groups of students was different (see also Cazden, 1985). In another study, Kamberelis and de la Luna (1996) illustrated how an African American fourth-grade teacher used the basal texts to challenge oppressive practices and structures while also helping students learn conventions of stories and processes for mainstream and alternative comprehension of texts. Thus, the criticism that texts serve as devices of control does not take into account how texts, even those that are standardized and formalized, are always reconstructed in interaction. How texts are reconstructed, however, depends on teachers' and students' ideological commitments, their content knowledge, and the social, cultural, and economic contexts in which their teaching and learning are embedded. The Role of Student-Generated Texts Student-Generated Oral Text Students' oral texts also play an important role in classroom learning. In a study of story-sharing time among young children in school, Michaels (1981) illustrated how the oral texts of mainstream and nonmainstream children were used to teach children the conventions of language and literacy. Although all children were invited to share stories, the texts they created were differentially valued. Michaels demonstrated that these oral sessions had an impact on children's developing sense of how to read and write stories. Through such sessions, norms for "appropriate" oral texts are often translated into similar norms for appropriateness in written text (see also Luke, 1993). Studying the oral texts generated by students in peer-led discussions, Alvermann et al. (1996) found that talk was likely to be unrelated to the topic when students found the topic to be boring and meaningless or when the task was unchallenging and did not require debate or collaboration. For example, in one of the research sitesa 10th-grade college preparatory class in which the curriculum and final examination were controlled by state requirementsstudents divided the task up among group members to complete independently with minimal talk except to call out answers to other group members, even though students reported that they would have preferred meaningful discussions. A similar situation occurred in an 8th-grade language arts class in which discussion tasks consisted of questions and activities from the published resource book accompanying the literature textbook. Students in this class also rarely complied with the teacher's instructions to discuss tasks in groups because collaboration was not necessary. Both classrooms are interesting examples of how elements of participatory models, such as peer-led discussions that simply are added onto transmission approaches, are transformed by students to conform to the larger classroom context. Student-Generated Written Text In transmission-oriented elementary school classrooms, language arts teachers often ask students to generate text as a way of assessing students' understanding of story structures, themes, and concepts or as a way of assessing their retention of information. In recent years, however, a number of elementary and middle school language arts teachers have incorporated journal writing and writer's workshop methods as a way of including student-generated texts in their curriculum (Dressman, 1993; Lensmire, 1994). We discuss these forms of text in more detail in the section on participatory pedagogies.
< previous page
page_615
next page >
< previous page
page_616
next page > Page 616
In most subject-area classes at both the elementary and secondary levelsespecially in disciplines other than English compositionstudents have few opportunities to engage in the construction of written text, either in class or in homework assignments (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Applebee, 1984; Jetton, 1994; Jetton & Alexander, 1997). In a national survey of secondary teachers and 259 observations of 9th- and 11th-grade classes in two schools, Applebee (1984) found that only 3% of class time was devoted to writing at least a paragraph in length. In addition, writing assignments that involved a paragraph or more were made only 3% of the time. Applebee also found that 32% of the teachers reported that they never assigned such writing, whereas only 31% (mostly English teachers) reported that they did so frequently. Similar findings have been reported over the years in NAEP surveys (Campbell et al., 1997). Most of the student-generated written text in subject-area classes is limited to multiple-choice and fill-in-the-blank exercises, short-answer responses requiring a sentence or two, copying from the blackboard, note taking, and math calculations (Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Applebee, 1984; Cohen & Ball, 1990; Jetton, 1994; Jetton & Alexander, 1997). The primary purposes of having students engage in this kind of writing were to review subject-area information and to test their recall of what had been taught. Almost all of this kind of writing was found to be at the literal level (Alvermann & Moore, 1991). Not surprisingly, the primary audience for such writing was the teacher in the role of examiner. In summary, within transmission approaches, published print texts and teachers' oral texts have the role of transmitting information and controlling how that information is used in classroom learning, whereas student-generated texts have served primarily to document whether students have processed the information correctly. In addition, handouts, outlines, board notes, study guides, individualized question and answer sessions, informal conversations, and students' drawings constitute important texts that transmit and control, but also reconstruct, information and knowledge. Although it can be argued that teachers and students always textualize their classroom experiences in multiple ways in every kind of classroom, the primary role of texts within transmission approaches is to serve as repositories, transmitters, and guardians of information and knowledge. However, reliance on transmission approaches alone may not accomplish the learning goals they espouse. Goldman (1997) criticized the outcomes of transmission approaches in three ways. First, knowledge acquired through transmission approaches has not been found to transfer to new situations. Second, performance on recognition and recall tests may suffer when learners go beyond surface-level processing and relate knowledge-to-be-learned to their prior knowledge and experience. Third, other types of learning that are deemed essential to success in the world, such as the ability to think critically and to collaborate with others in solving problems, have been ignored. Based on these critiques and on theories regarding the social construction of knowledge (Bloome & Green, 1984; Cole, 1985; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986; Wertsch, 1991), many restructuring efforts have focused on bringing learners together in collaborative and community-based problem-solving activities. In addition, cultural theories (Heath, 1983; McDermott & Varenne, 1995; Moll & Greenberg, 1990; Street, 1995) have prompted reformers to engage in pedagogical and school restructuring efforts designed to tap into students', families', and communities' ways of knowing. As a result, restructuring efforts have been underway in many schools and classrooms to create classroom learning environments that support these forms of learning, resulting in what a number of scholars refer to as "participatory approaches." In the next section, we examine the role of text in classroom learning by reviewing studies of participatory approaches. Text and Learning in Participatory Approaches In recent years, educators have explored a number of alternatives to transmission approaches (e.g., Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1994; Cummins, 1986; Marx, Blumenfeld,
< previous page
page_616
next page >
< previous page
page_617
next page > Page 617
Krajcik, & Soloway, 1997; Goldman, 1997; Goodman, 1986; Graves, 1983; Guthrie et al., 1996; Mercado, 1992; Moje, Willes & Fassio, in press; Moll & Gonzales, 1994; Moll, Tapia, & Whitmore, 1993; Rose, 1989; Warren, Rosebery, & Conant, 1989). Although these alternatives vary in many ways, we have identified two common features of each approach. First, whereas transmission approaches cast the teacherand textsas controllers of knowledge and learning, these alternative pedagogies invite students to participate in the construction of knowledge and in the construction of texts. Second, these participatory pedagogies view texts as tools for learning and constructing new knowledge rather than as repositories and guardians of information. Moll (1994) described participatory approaches in this way: These "participatory" approaches highlight children as active learners, using and applying literacy as a tool for communication and for thinking. The role of the teacher is to enable and guide activities that involve students as thoughtful learners in socially meaningful tasks. Of central concern is how the teacher facilitates the students' "taking over" or appropriating the learning activity. (p. 180) We have identified two strands of these participatory approaches, those that focus on developing the individual student and those that focus on developing the individual as a member of social and cultural communities. Both approaches use texts as tools and rely on social interaction, but the individually focused approach is aimed at furthering each child's cognitive development as a result of peer interaction or interaction with a more knowledgeable other. In contrast, the socioculturally focused approach draws on students' social and cultural backgrounds and engages students in activities aimed at understanding, negotiating, and contributing to the classroom, school, or local community. As a result, the types of textual tools they use differ to some extent. What Counts as Text within Participatory Approaches Participatory approaches rely on a wide range of texts, including published print materials such as textbooks, reference books, novels, journals, magazines ("'zines"), and comic books; student-generated writings, presentations, and notes; oral discourse constructed in discussions and conversations; electronic texts read and generated on the Internet and with hypermedia; television, radio, and film media; and visual and performance art. In addition, texts drawn from experiences in people's homes and communities"funds of knowledge" (Moll & Greenberg, 1990; Vélez-Ibáñez, 1988)are brought into play with those texts traditionally valued in school. Because participatory approaches are intertextual in nature, they do not lend themselves to categories that represent them as serving discrete roles in classroom learning. Consequently, in the following discussion, we divide our discussion of what these texts accomplish by looking at various types of participatory pedagogies and examining the interrelated roles and accomplishments of published print texts, oral texts, teacher-and student-generated texts, and texts drawn from media, home, and community used within these pedagogies. How Teachers and Students Use Text within Participatory Approaches In participatory approaches, teachers work with students to decode, comprehend, extract, and synthesize information from multiple texts, but they also encourage students to generate their own knowledge and to make their own interpretations of texts. Socioculturally situated approaches additionally encourage students to examine how
< previous page
page_617
next page >
< previous page
page_618
next page > Page 618
they are members of communities and how their texts are connected to the texts of their classmates and community members. As Heath (1994) noted, the texts that students have access to are cultural tools that shape not only what people know, but how they know and learn. The purpose of text use and of learning from these perspectives, then, is to expand the cultural tools to which students have access, not by dismissing the texts (or tools) they bring to school, but by incorporating them into the curriculum and working with students to make connections among the various texts they explore. According to Moll and Gonzalez (1994), the emphasis in education should be on "students' novel use of cultural resources, including people, ideas, and technologies, to facilitate and direct their intellectual work" (p. 453). Literature Discussions Many participatory classrooms ask students to read published literature texts and to create oral texts by discussing their interpretations with one another (Almasi, 1994; Evans, 1996; Many, 1991; McMahon & Raphael, 1997; Rogers, 1991; Santa Barbara Discourse Group, 1994). These approaches build on the idea that the role of literary texts in classroom discussions is dependent on very particular contexts, that the same text will be different from one class to another, and that the oral texts that are constructed around the published text are an important aspect of that difference. For example, the Santa Barbara Discourse Group (SBDG, 1994) illustrated that as various texts were used in a high school English classroom, different meanings and purposes were assigned to the particular texts being used. The SBDG gave the example of a class reading of The Catcher in the Rye (Salinger, 1951), which, because it was being read for school, took on different social purposes than it might have had it been read for pleasure. Moreover, the book did not stand alone as a text in this class, but became a part of a larger class text centered on a particular concept ("Coming of Age"). Thus, an attempt was made on the part of the teachers to create a socially situated intertextcomprised of classroom discussion, students' writings, and other texts about the coming of ageto which students would link The Catcher in the Rye. The text did not serve as a source of literary information, but rather as a tool for thinking about and examining the process of "coming of age." In addition to whole-group discussions of text, peer-led discussions of literature have been used in participatory approaches as a way of decentering the teacher's authority and encouraging students to explore their own questions about the literature. These peer-led discussions yield yet another type of oral text, with differences that have important implications for classroom learning. Almasi (1994), for example, found that students who participated in peer-led discussions of texts produced significantly more elaborate and complex discussions than those who participated in teacher-led discussions. Moreover, the children who participated in the peer-led discussions were better able to recognize and resolve sociocognitive conflicts that arose during their discussions. However, a number of teachers who have adopted literature-based, participatory approaches have found that they and their students struggle to negotiate a balance between a focus on skills and strategies and a focus on personal response to the literature. Enciso (1997), for example, highlighted her own struggle to understand connections made by two African American boys while reading The Gold Cadillac (Taylor, 1987). Although her first impression was that the boys had "misread" the text, she learned through her analysis of the episode that the boys' readings had to be understood in light of their particular social and cultural experiences. Thus, classroom teachers eager to incorporate students' "personal" texts are presented with the challenge of understanding and linking personal texts to published texts. Other studies have identified issues of marginalization and silencing of others' voices in peer-led groups. Alvermann (1996) and Evans (1996) found that peer-led literature groups created to decenter teacher authority and encourage student participation often created the unintended consequence of allowing some students to dominate
< previous page
page_618
next page >
< previous page
page_619
next page > Page 619
whereas other students were silenced. Consequently, the texts of peer-led groups may serve to enrich some students' learning while inhibiting the learning of other students. Reading/Writing Workshops In reading/writing workshops, the most privileged texts are those that students choose or generate, although published texts chosen by the teacher are often used as models for writing themes and conventions (cf. Atwell, 1987; Calkins, 1994; Graves, 1983). Studies have demonstrated that encouraging students to generate and respond to one another's texts contributes to enhanced content learning and positive social growth by helping students learn social skills necessary for communication, cooperation, and collaboration (DiPardo & Freedman, 1988; Forman & Cazden, 1985). Thus, these approaches are said to provide opportunities for students to build the knowledge, experiences, and skills they bring to the classroom while also developing new knowledge, experiences, and skillsand thus, new texts. For example, McCarthey (1994) illustrated how students incorporated both "authoritative" and "internally persuasive" voices (cf. Bakhtin, 1981) into their written texts as a result of the oral texts ("talk") that they constructed in conferences with the teacher and other students. Lensmire (1994), however, raised concerns about some aspects of workshop approaches. From his work with third-grade students, he concluded that textsboth published and student- generatedshould not be used only as tools for modeling the writing process, but should also be examined by students for the assumptions and stereotypes that they offer to readers. He pointed out that because the texts students generated remained rooted in their particular conceptions of the world, students were not challenged to think differently about their texts or their worlds. As a result, some studentswho came from nonmainstream social and cultural worldswere implicitly, and sometimes explicitly, told by other children that their texts and worlds were inferior. Lensmire, then, envisioned that texts in a modified writer's workshop could be used as tools for challenging oppression and marginalization, but that students would need to be guided in the deconstruction of texts and in the construction of countertexts (Aronowitz & Giroux, 1991). Other studies also examined how the texts generated or selected in expressivist approaches might silence or regulate diverse voices and texts in classrooms (Finders, 1996; McCarthey, 1996; Moje et al., in press; Willis, 1995). McCarthey (1996), for example, found that the teachers in expressivist, participatory classrooms often relied exclusively on mainstream literature and overlooked how students' cultural experiences might influence their engagement with and interpretations of the literature being used. Willis (1995) questioned how aspects of expressivist pedagogy such as the "author's chair" or "group shares" might silence or regulate diverse voices and perspectives in a reading/writing workshop, causing children to keep their personal texts separate from the classroom. In a study of the different texts that seventh-grade students produced in two writer's workshop classrooms in a diverse urban setting, Moje et al. (in press) found that students did indeed initially keep their personal and social texts separate from the texts they prepared to meet the demands of the official writer's workshop curriculum. Finders (1996) found similar results in her study of an ethnically homogeneous, but socioeconomically diverse, midwestern classroom. By engaging in intensive observation of and interaction with two groups of young women, Finders learned that many of the texts they read and wrote in their reading/writing workshop classroom were different from the texts they read and wrote in their out-of-school family and social interactions. Thus, although student-generated texts are given primacy in participatory approaches such as the writing workshop, what is considered appropriate or acceptable text by teachers and students may shape the kinds of texts students generate in both their written and oral work. Moje et al. (in press) and Fassio (1998), however, found that when the typical guidelines of
< previous page
page_619
next page >
< previous page
page_620
next page > Page 620
expressivist pedagogy (such as group sharing and publication) were relaxed or modified, students in diverse classrooms began to construct countertexts drawn from their actual life experiences. Project-Based Pedagogies Project-based pedagogies incorporate published and student-generated oral, written, electronic and pictorial texts into classroom practices as a way of engaging students in collaborative investigations of real-world problems (Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Marx et al., 1997). Typically, project-based pedagogies result in shared, student-created textssuch as exhibits, books, research reports, models, videotapes, or computer programsthat represent students' learning. In Maryland, for example, researchers, classroom teachers, and reading specialists have collaborated to develop Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), designed to promote elementary students' engagement in literacy and science (Guthrie et al., 1996). CORI involves four phases, in which a variety of published and student-generated print, pictorial, and oral texts are integrated in a project-based curriculum. During each phase, teachers explicitly teach cognitive and metacognitive strategies to help students accomplish specific goals. Guthrie et al. (1996) found that the texts generated in CORI served as tools to increase students' literacy engagement and performance on a number of assessment measures, including writing, conceptual transfer, comprehension of informational text, and narrative interpretation. Goldman (1997) described several classroom-based studies that relied on multiple textssuch as print texts, CDS, and the Internetfor students' research projects in different content areas. In the Whole Day, Whole Year (Goldman, 1997) project, for example, middle school students searched for relevant information in these texts, taking notes in their field journals. In the final phase of student-generated projects, students evaluated the information they had collected and integrated what they deemed trustworthy and relevant into written products. Especially important in this phase were the oral texts generated by students and teachers as they shared, evaluated, integrated, and composed. Garner and Gillingham's (1996) study of the use of the Internet in six elementary and high school classrooms also reveals multiple uses of texts, broadly defined. In each of these classrooms, the Internet was the site for different kinds of student discourse, which became an essential part of daily classroom life. Similarly, at the Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS), researchers and teachers are working together to examine how learning and collaborative technologies can be used as catalysts for systemic change in U.S. urban schools (cf. Marx et al., 1997). Viewing texts as something more than published print, LeTUS bases the students' curriculum in the texts of their experience by asking students to identify community issues and problems, or driving questions, that they will study and work on through their research. Like Garner and Gillingham (1996), Goldman (1997), and the New London Group (1996), the LeTUS sees an important challenge ahead for students and teachers to broaden the role of text in classroom learning into one in which students are asked to negotiate a variety of text types, including printed, electronic, and multimedia texts; to collaborate with fellow students; to extract and synthesize informationor make meaningacross multiple resources; and to contribute to community development and change. Moll et al. (1993) reported on a socioculturally focused, community-based project approach in which third-grade bilingual students conducted original research of their own community. Using two languages, the children wrote, piloted, and revised a questionnaire about community resources; tabulated the data they collected; revised and readministered the questionnaire; and reported their findings to the community. The children consulted multiple printed texts; generated their own oral, written, and graphic texts (interviews, questionnaires, and reports); worked with other children,
< previous page
page_620
next page >
< previous page
page_621
next page > Page 621
their families, and community members while using these texts; and summarized, synthesized, and communicated their findings. Moll and Gonzales (1994) argued that the children's texts have an especially important role in classroom learning because they emphasize reading and writing in different languages. Similar projects include a participatory, community-based, bilingual social studies curriculum constructed for Navajo students (McCarty, Wallace, Lynch, & Benally, 1991); Mercado's (1992) work with Puerto Rican and African American students in New York; social-action projects generated by urban-school students in Salt Lake City, Utah (Moje & Fassio, 1997); and Warren et al.'s (1989) work with Haitian students in Boston. In summary, participatory approaches have been studied and critiqued from different theoretical perspectives, thus focusing on different learning goals and issues. Some critiques have focused on problems of design and implementationfor example, tasks that are not challenging, inadequate strategy instruction or guidance for students, and inadequate support for teachers (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthey, 1996), or the difficulties of teaching complex cognitive strategies using multiple texts (e.g., Goldman, 1997). Sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspectives that have critiqued peer-led discussions and reading/writing workshops have tended to focus on issues of multiple interpretations generated by students, the sometimes conflicting roles of teachers and students, choice of texts, the difficulties of challenging students to read and write critically for social change, the emphasis of process over product to the disadvantage of nonmainstream students, and the ability of all students to participate fully (e.g., Delpit, 1988; Dressman, 1993). Atwell (1997), who worked from expressivist literary perspectives, was concerned that by allowing students total choice, she was not exposing them to texts beyond their experiences. Unlike transmission approaches, participatory approaches are all grounded in students' texts and experiences, whether individual, social, or cultural. Nevertheless, because they focus on the role of texts in classrooms and on connecting community texts to academic learning, the approaches at times overlook the texts that children and adolescents use to navigate the many different spacesschool, family, community, and youth social groupsin which they live and work every day. These texts often are unacknowledged and sometimes unsanctioned in each of their different communities. In the next section, we examine these different texts and their implications for student learning. Unacknowledged and Unsanctioned Texts Missing from many of the studies we have reviewed are the socialand often unsanctionedwritings that students generate. Although these texts often go unacknowledged and do not serve as texts for reading or content learning in the classroom, students nevertheless learn a great deal about themselves, about schooling, and about society from the texts they create and exchange. At times, these missing texts are a result of a disjuncture between home/community and school. For example, as Heath (1983) demonstrated, the home and community texts of various cultural groups she studied did not always match the texts that were valued in school. A number of other literacy studies have followed Heath's lead in examining the multiple texts that students generate in and out of school (cf. Camitta, 1990; Finders, 1996; Hartman, 1997; Heath & McLaughlin, 1993; Moje & Thompson, 1996; Moll et al., 1993; Myers, 1992) and have demonstrated that what students learn from the various texts they use outside of school often can be more powerful than what they learn in school. In particular, a number of these studies have examined the texts that children and adolescents view as important in their social interactions with other youth, rather than focusing only on the texts of various school, family, or community groups (cf. Camitta, 1990; Finders, 1996; Hartman, 1997; Moje, in press; Moje & Thompson, 1996; Myers, 1992).
< previous page
page_621
next page >
< previous page
page_622
next page > Page 622
Myers (1992) pointed out that "students must be seen as active participants in social activity even if they appear to be passive responders to external stimuli" (p. 302). One of the ways students actively construct their social and classroom contexts is to create their own texts, texts that serve multiple purposes in their in- and out-of-school learning. Camitta (1990), for example, drew on poststructural and cultural studies perspectives to study what she called the "vernacular writing" of high-school students to find that they used writing both in and out of the classroom to make a social space for themselvesto write themselves into the world. These texts were not only texts that were valued at home or in the community, but also were texts valued by other adolescents. Similarly, Finders (1996) examined the out-of-classroom reading and writing practices of two groups of adolescent girls and learned that the girls used the texts that they read and generated not only to construct social spaces, but to define them and limit others' participation in them. A particularly interesting finding of her research revolved around the girls' uses of text in the classroom: Several of them reported reading very different kinds of texts in private spaces, but carrying and "reading" certain texts in school as a way of identifying themselves with particular groups for the benefit of both their peers and teachers. Hartman's (1997) study of the textual practices of two African American adolescents outside of school illustrated their multiple uses and generation of very diverse texts such as sermons in church and works of art in museumstexts that are not valued in their high school classrooms, but are also not necessarily valued in their larger communities. Moje (in press) illustrated that the gangconnected adolescents in the two classrooms she studied used graffiti and tagging texts, as well as conventional written texts about gang practices, to claim space and position in their social worlds. These texts were not validated in their schools, homes, churches, or communities, but were nevertheless quite powerful for the adolescents in their social interactions with other youth. Each of these studies raises questions about how to acknowledge the sophistication and power of these textual practices for young people without simply appropriating them into the official curriculum as "sanctioned" texts and requires that we begin to study more closely the texts that we do not see (cf. Mahiri, 1994). Conclusions As researchers and theorists, we need to be more explicit about what is counted as text and as learning as we make pedagogical recommendations. A number of the studies we reviewed did not make their perspectives on text explicit, but implicitly acknowledged only published, print texts as the texts to be valued and studied in classroom learning. We contend that to examine thoroughly the role of text in classroom learning, we must use multiple perspectives to look at what texts are, what learning is, and how texts could be used to learn. In effect, success and failure in our schools are defined by what counts as text and as learning and by how texts are actually used in classrooms to achieve particular learning goals. Success and failure, then, are relative to the perspective on texts and learning privileged in particular studies, classrooms, and assessment practices (cf. McDermott & Varenne, 1995; Rose, 1989). When notions of text and learning are broadenedin projects such as CORI (Guthrie et al., 1996), the Whole Day, Whole Year project (Goldman, 1997), or Heath's (1983) and Moll's work with teachers to learn about students' ways of knowing and "funds of knowledge" (Moll & Greenberg, 1990; Moll & Gonzales, 1994)we begin to see how successful children and adolescents are in settings in which they are encouraged to use and learn from many different texts and where learning is assessed in many different ways. These studies also broaden definitions of "classroom" to include students' uses of and learning from multiple texts in multiple settings.
< previous page
page_622
next page >
< previous page
page_623
next page > Page 623
As reading/literacy researchers, we need to draw on more than one or two perspectives to inform our understanding of the role of text in classroom learning. In his forward to the book Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents' Lives, Vacca (1998) wrote, ''Although we know more today about text and instructional variables from a psychological perspective, we know very little about what counts as literacy from adolescent perspectives or the literacies that adolescents engage in outside of an academic context" (p. xvi). We concur with Vacca's assessment of adolescent literacy, and of the reading/literacy field in general: If we count only print texts as text, and if we view learning as extracting important information or as individual responses or interpretations of text, then we miss many possibilities for engaging all students in learning in multiple ways from multiple texts. We also risk disenfranchising large groups of students for whom print texts are not paramount because they hold different social or cultural values. Operating from one perspective means that our pedagogical recommendations will remain rooted in finding ways to help students become successful according to certain predefined conceptions of success. This view privileges the learning and textual practices of some students and devalues the practices of others, thereby relegating some students to the status of "unsuccessful," "problem," or "at risk of failure." Using multiple approaches to text and learning, we may be able to expand our understanding of the role of text in classroom learning and work with more students to expand their textual, social, and cultural worlds. References Ackerman, J. M., & Oates, S. (1996). Image, text, and power in architectural design and workplace writing. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 81121) Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Almasi, J. (1994). The effects of peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature on fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 4059). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Alvermann, D. E. (1996). Peer-led discussions: Whose interests are served? Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 39, 282289. Alvermann, D. E., & Hayes, D. A. (1989). Classroom discussion of content area reading assignments: An intervention study. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 305335. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951983). New York: Longman. Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Weaver, D, Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., Thrash, E. C., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Middle and high school students' perceptions of how they experience text-based discussions: A multi-case study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 244267. Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: The political economy of class and gender relations in education. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1989). Regulating the text: The socio-historical roots of state control. Educational Policy, 3, 107123. Applebee, A. (1984). Writing in the secondary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Armbruster, B. B. (1984). The problem of inconsiderate text. In G. Duffy, L. Roehler, & J. Mason (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions (pp. 202217). New York: Longman. Armbruster, B. B., Anderson, T. H., Armstrong, J. O., Wise, M. A., Janisch, C., & Meyer, L. A. (1991). Reading and questioning in content-area lessons. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 3560. Aronowitz, S., & Giroux, H. A. (1991). Postmodern education: Politics, culture, and criticism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Atwell, N. (1997, June). Cultivating our garden. Council Chronicle, 6(5), 16. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barthes, R. (1996). The photographic message. In P. Cobley (Ed.), The communication theory reader (pp. 134147). London: Routledge. (Original work published 1977) Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Gromoll, E. W. (1989). Learning from social studies texts. Cognition and Instruction, 6, 99158. Bellack, A. A., Kliebard, H. M., Hyman, R. T., & Smith, F. L., Jr. (1966). The language in the classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
< previous page
page_623
next page >
< previous page
page_624
next page > Page 624
Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social construction of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 304333. Bloome, D., & Green, J. (1984). Directions in the sociolinguistic study of reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. B. Mosenthal, (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 395421). New York: Longman. Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26, 369398. Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Camitta, M. (1990). Adolescent vernacular writing: Literacy reconsidered. In A. A. Lunsford, H. Moglen, & J. Slevin (Eds.), The right to literacy (pp. 262268). New York: Modern Language Association. Campbell, J. R., Voelkl, K., & Donahue, P. L. (1997). Report in brief, NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Carlsen, W. S. (1991). Questioning in classrooms: A sociolinguistic perspective. Review of Educational Research, 61, 157178. Cazden, C. B. (1985). The social context of learning to read. In H. Singer & R. B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 595610). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cazden, C. (1986). Classroom discourse. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook on Teaching (3rd ed., pp. 432460). New York: Macmillan. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1990). Relations between policy and practice: A commentary. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 249256. Cole, M. (1985). The zone of proximal development: Where culture and cognition create each other. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 146161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms 18801980 (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Cuban, L. (1986). Persistent instruction: Another look at constancy in the classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 68, 711. Cummins, J. (1986). Empowering minority students: A framework for intervention. Harvard Educational Review, 56, 1836. Davey, B. (1988). How do classroom teachers use their textbooks? Journal of Reading, 31, 340345. Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Pedagogy and power in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280298. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Derrida, J. (1982). Margins of philosophy (A. Bass, Trans.). Brighton: Harvester Press. DiGisi, L. L., & Willett, J. B. (1995). What high school biology teachers say about their textbook use: A descriptive study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 123142. Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., Moje, E. B., & Stewart, R. A. (1994). Literacy learning in science classrooms: A cross-case analysis of three qualitative studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 345362. Dillon, J. T. (1984). Research on questioning and discussion. Educational Leadership, 42, 5056. DiPardo, A. & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119150. Dole, J. A., & Niederhauser, D. S. (1989, December). The effects of considerate and refutation text on learning conceptually easy and difficult science topics. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Dressman, M. (1993). Lionizing lone wolves: The cultural romantics of literacy workshops. Curriculum Inquiry, 23, 245263. Durkin, D. (19781979). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 481533. Eco, U. (1992). Interpretation and overinterpretation (S. Collini, Ed.). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Eco, U. (1983). Travels in hyperreality (W. Weaver, Trans.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Eisner, E. W. (1994). Cognition and curriculum reconsidered (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Enciso, P. (1997, September). Learning to be/read together: A sociocultural analysis of children's reading, art, and relationships. Paper presented at the 1997 fall forum of the National Academy of Education, Boulder, CO. Evans, K. (1996). A closer look at literature discussion groups: The influence of gender on student response and discourse. New Advocate, 9, 183196. Fassio, K. (1998, November). The Mexican alliance in 2-b (on March 23, 1998): Children's political negotiations in a 2ndgrade classroom. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Studies Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Finders, M. (1996). "Just girls": Literacy and allegiance in junior high school. Written Communication, 13, 93129. Forman, E. A., & Cazden, C. B. (1985). Exploring Vygotskian perspectives in education: The cognitive value of peer interaction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 323347). New York: Cambridge University Press.
< previous page
page_624
next page >
< previous page
page_625
next page > Page 625
Fractor, J. S., Woodruff, M.. C., Martinez, M. G., & Teale, W. H. (1993). Let's not miss opportunities to promote voluntary reading: Classroom libraries in the elementary school. The Reading Teacher, 46, 476484. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1996). Internet communication in six classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Golden, J. M. (1988). Structuring and restructuring text. In J. Green & J. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of classroom discourse (pp. 71106). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Goldman, S. R. (1997). Learning from text: Reflections on the past and suggestions for the future. Discourse Processes, 23, 357398. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill. Goodlad, J. I. (1994). What schools are for. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Goodman, K. (1986). What's whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goodman, K. (1989). Access to literacy: Basals and other barriers. Theory into Practice, 28, 410421. Goodman, K., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y., & Murphy, S. (1988). Report card on basal readers. New York: Richard C. Owen. Gottfried, S. S., & Kyle, W. C., Jr. (1992). Textbook use and the biology education desired state. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 29, 3549. Graves, D. (1983). When children write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Guthrie, J. T., van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306343. Hartman, D. (1997, September). Doing things with text: Mapping the textual practices of two African-American male high school students. Paper presented at the fall forum of the National Academy of Education, Boulder, CO. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1994). The children of Trackton's children: Spoken and written language in social change. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 208230). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers College Press. Hinchman, K. A. (1987). The textbook and three content-area teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 26, 247263. Hinchman, K. A., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Reading for success in a tenth-grade global-studies class: A qualitative study. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 91106. Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S. J., Abbott, J., Christian, C., Corman, L., Curry, C., Dressman, M., Elliott, B., Matherne, D., & Stahle, D. (1994). So what's new in the new basals? A focus on first grade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 4774. Jetton, T. L. (1994). Teachers' and students' understanding of scientific exposition: How importance and interest influence what is assessed and what is discussed. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University, College Station. Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290308. Kamberelis, G., & de la Luna, L. C. (1996). Constructing multiculturally relevant pedagogy: Signifying on the basal. In D. Leu, C. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 329344). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Langer, J., A., Applebee, A. N., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foertsch, M. A. (1990). Learning to read in our nation's schools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Educational Progress. Lantz, O., & Kass, H. (1987). Chemistry teachers' functional paradigms. Science Education, 71, 117134. Lemke, J. L. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Lensmire, T. (1994). When children write. New York: Teachers College Press. Luke, A. (1993). Stories of social regulation: The micropolitics of classroom narrative. In B. Green (Ed.), The insistence of the letter: Literacy studies and curriculum theorizing (pp. 137153). London: Falmer. Luke, C., de Castell, S. C., & Luke, A. (1989). Beyond criticism: The authority of the school textbook. In S. C. de Castell, A. Luke, & C. Luke (Eds.), Language, authority, and criticism (pp. 245260). London: Falmer. Mahiri, J. (1994). Reading rites and sports: Motivation for adaptive literacy of young African-American males. In B. J. Moss (Ed.), Literacy across communities (pp. 121146). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Many, J. E. (1991). The effects of stance and age level on children's literary responses. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 6185. Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (1997). Enacting project-based science. Elementary School Journal, 97, 341358.
McCarthey, S. (1994). Authors, text, and talk: The internalization of dialogue from social interaction during writing. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 200231. McCarthey, S. (1996, December). Learning the qualities of good writing: Literacy practices in elementary schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC.
< previous page
page_625
next page >
< previous page
page_626
next page > Page 626
McCarty, T. L., Wallace, S., Lynch, R. H., & Benally, A. (1991). Classroom inquiry and Navajo learning styles: A call for reassessment. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 22, 4259. McDermott, R. P., & Varenne, H. (1995). Culture as disability. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26, 324348. McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (1990). The assessment and characterization of young learners' knowledge of a topic of history. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 688726. McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Sinatra, G. M., & Loxterman, J. A. (1992). The contribution of prior knowledge and coherent text to comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 7993. McMahon, S., & Raphael, T. E. (1997). The book club connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk. New York: Teachers College Press. McNeil, L. (1986). Contradictions of control: School structure and social knowledge. New York: Routledge. Mercado, C. (1992). Researching research: A classroom-based student-teacher-researchers collaborative project. In A. Ambert & M. Alvarez (Eds.), Puerto Rican children on the mainland: Interdisciplinary perspectives (pp. 167192). New York: Garland. Michaels, S. (1981). "Sharing time": Children's narrative styles and differential access to literacy. Language in Society, 10, 423442. Moje, E. B., (1996). "I teach students, not subjects": Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172195. Moje, E. B. (1997). Exploring discourse, knowledge, and subjectivity in chemistry class. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 32, 3544. Moje, E. B. (in press). To be part of the story: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press. Moje, E. B., & Fassio, K. (1997, December). Revisioning the writer's workshop. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Moje, E. B., & Thompson, A. (1996, September). Sociocultural practice and learning to write in school: Exploring the communicative and transformative potential of gang literacies. Paper presented at the second Conference for Sociocultural Research, Vygotsky/Piaget Centennial, Geneva, Switzerland. Moje, E. B., & Wade, S. E. (1997). What case discussions reveal about teacher thinking. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 691712. Moje, E. B., Willes, D. J., & Fassio, K. (in press). Constructing and negotiating literacy in a seventh-grade writer's workshop. In E. B. Moje & D. G. O'Brien (Eds.), Constructions of literacy: Studies of teaching and learning in secondary classrooms and schools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Moll, L. C. (1994). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 179207). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Moll, L. C., & Gonzalez, N. (1994). Lessons from research with language minority children. Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 439456. Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319348). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Moll, L. C., Tapia, J., & Whitmore, K. (1993). Living knowledge: The social distribution of cultural resources for thinking. In G. Solomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 139163). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Moore, D. W. (1996). Contexts for literacy in secondary schools. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1546). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Mullis, I. V. S., Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. E. (1993). NAEP 1992 Reading Report Card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Myers, J. (1992). The social contexts of school and personal literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 296333. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 6092. O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary curriculum: Strategies, goals, and classroom realities. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442463. Rex, L., Green, J., Dixon, C., & the Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. (1998). Critical issues: What counts when context counts?: The uncommon "common" language of literacy research. JLR: Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 405433. Rogers, T. (1991). Students as literary critics: The interpretive experiences, beliefs, and processes of ninth-grade students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 391424. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Rose, M. (1989). Lives on the boundary. New York: Penguin.
Salinger, J. D. (1951). The catcher in the rye. New York: Modern Language Association. Santa Barbara Discourse Group. (1994). Constructing literacy in classrooms: Literate action as social accomplishment. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 124154). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
< previous page
page_626
next page >
< previous page
page_627
next page > Page 627
Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Saumell, L. (1992). What teachers do when the textbook is tough: Students speak out. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 481503. Shannon, P. (1990). The struggle to continue: Progressive reading instruction in the United States. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Shymansky, J. A., Yore, L. D., & Good, R. (1991). Elementary school teachers' beliefs about and perceptions of elementary school sciences, science reading, science textbooks, and supportive instructional factors. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 431454. Siegel, M. (1995). More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20, 455475. Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press. Sizer, T. R. (1985). Horace's compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Smith, F. R., & Feathers, K. M. (1983). The role of reading in content classrooms: Assumption vs. reality. Journal of Reading, 27, 262267. Stewart, R. A. (1990). A microethnography of a secondary science classroom: A focus on textbooks and reading (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, 1990). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50, 3540A. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activity in math and social studies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Stodolsky, S. S., & Grossman, P. (1995). The impact of subject matter on curricular activity: An analysis of five academic subjects. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 227249. Stodolsky, S. S., Salk, S., & Glaessner, B. (1991). Student views about learning math and social studies. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 89116. Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography, and education. London: Longman. Taylor, M. (1987). The gold Cadillac: A fancy new car and an unforgettable drive. New York: Puffin. Tyson-Bernstein, H. (1988). A conspiracy of good intentions: America's textbook fiasco. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education. Vacca, R. T. (1998). Foreword. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A., Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. xvxvi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vélez-Ibáñez, C. G. (1988). Networks of exchange among Mexicans in the U. S. and Mexico: Local level mediating responses to national and international transformations. Urban Anthropology, 17(1), 2751. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (A. Kozulin, Trans. & Ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1934) Warren, B., Rosebery, A., & Conant, F. (1989). Cheche Konnen: Science and literacy in language minority classrooms (Report No. 7305). Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek, & Newman. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). A sociocultural approach to understanding socially shared cognition. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 85100). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Wildy, H., & Wallace, J. (1995). Understanding teaching or teaching for understanding: Alternative frameworks for science classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 32, 143156. Willis, A. I. (1995). Reading the world of school literacy: Contextualizing the experience of a young African American male. Harvard Educational Review, 65, 3049. Yore, L. D. (1991). Secondary science teachers' attitudes toward and beliefs about science reading and science textbooks. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 5572.
< previous page
page_627
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_629
next page > Page 629
Chapter 34 Reading in the Content Areas: Social Constructivist Dimensions Thomas W. Bean University of Nevada Since Volume II of the Handbook, with its related chapter on secondary reading (Alvermann & Moore, 1991), there has been a considerable shift in research emphasis and methodology in content area reading studies. Research reviewed for the 1991 volume reflected a quest for teaching and learning strategy validation, typically through experimental and quasi-experimental studies. That line of research has now given way to qualitative studies in content area classrooms aimed at understanding sociocultural underpinnings in teaching and learning (e.g., Bean, 1997; Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996; Moje, 1996; Sturtevant, 1996a). Thus, one of the goals of this review is to provide a picture of the past and present landscapes encompassing research in reading in the content areas with implications for theory, practice, policy, and future research. I begin the chapter by first defining content area reading. Historical work is alluded to, and the earlier review of secondary reading research in Volume II of the Handbook (Alvermann & Moore, 1991) serves as a valuable departure point for the present review. Second, I explore four topics from a social constructivist perspective: (a) teacher beliefs and practices; (b) attitudes and interests in content reading; (c) the role of literature in content area classrooms; and (d) implications for research and future directions. Definition of Content Area Reading In a historical exploration of content area reading instruction, Moore, Readence, and Rickelman (1983) noted: The specialty of content area reading instruction came about in recognition of the fact that readers require various strategies when they study particular subject areas and read many kinds of materials for different purposes. Content area reading instruction is designed to deliver those strategies. To date, the primary mission of this instruction is to develop students' reading-to-learn strategies. (p. 419) The focus on teaching strategies in the content areas, although remaining a cornerstone of methods courses, has expanded to include other forms of communication,
< previous page
page_629
next page >
< previous page
page_630
next page > Page 630
particularly writing and discussion. For example, our content methods text (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998, p. 4) used the more inclusive term content area literacy and the definition: "The level of reading and writing skill necessary to read, comprehend, and react to appropriate instructional materials in a given subject area." Similarly, Vacca and Vacca's (1996) methods text defined content literacy as "the ability to use reading and writing to learn subject matter in a given discipline" (p. 8). The road to an expanded view of content area literacy, now anchored in text and reader-based research in the cognitive sciences (as well as more recent work in classroom-based ethnography) has been arduous. At times, content area literacy research has taken a back seat to the greater funding opportunities available for research in early literacy (Vacca, 1998). Yet, it is precisely at the point where young readers encounter content area texts that they often flounder (Readence et al., 1998). Even very early accounts of content area reading provide a picture of social stratification based on access and ability to handle the demands of technical writing. The next section considers some of the issues related to who had access to content area information in the past and how this information was managed. Historical Background Reading and writing for informational purposes has its roots in ancient society. In Mesopotamia, scribes noted astronomical data to keep the calendar; they charted financial transactions, medical diagnoses, and chronicles of war (Manguel, 1996). Indeed, school tablets or early textbooks were common in the wealthier Mesopotamian households. Writing and reading were aristocratic activities in ancient society (Manguel, 1996). In Manguel's historical account of early informational texts, some of the problems that plague our information rich society were already causing problems in 323 b.c. in Egyptian society. The lofty goal of Alexandria's library was to "encapsulate the totality of human knowledge" (p. 189). However, without a system of organization, the vast records of the scribes on pig keeping, selling beer, and trading in roasted lentils overburdened the storage capacity of Alexandria. By 1250, Richard de Fournival created a library catalog system for content area reading topics including geometry, astronomy, physics, medicine, law, and so on. Thus, even in early society, crucial knowledge was contained in written documents to be read only by those with the power, knowledge, and skills to do so. Medieval libraries guarded access to books by keeping them chained to the shelves (Boorstin, 1983). With the advent of Gutenberg's printing press in 1454 and the ability to mass produce books, access to content literacy expanded. Multiple copies of secular works by Aristotle and other great thinkers increased the public's motivation and interest in reading. Coupled with English dictionaries in the 1600s literacy was no longer the exclusive domain of a privileged few (Boorstin, 1983). Following these early beginnings of informational text, content reading became linked with memorizing and reciting texts in the early 1900s (Moore et al., 1983). A few researchers such as Edmund Burke Huey and E. L. Thorndike tackled the difficult task of studying reading for meaning, but their landmark work languished in subsequent years with the rise of behaviorism. Harold Herber's revolutionary textbook Teaching Reading in the Content Areas (1970) and a series of research monographs highlighting empirical and quasi-empirical investigations in content area classrooms by promising doctoral students at Syracuse University changed the landscape. Alvermann and Moore's (1991) earlier review of research related to secondary reading provides a sense of the cognitivist ethos of research in the 1980s and serves as a good departure point for the present review.
< previous page
page_630
next page >
< previous page
page_631
next page > Page 631
Earlier Research in Secondary Reading Alvermann and Moore (1991) tabulated and calculated the effectiveness of various teaching and learning strategies. They concluded that many of our teaching and learning strategies (e.g., graphic organizers) are moderately effective when the experimental and actual classroom conditions match. They found that 61% of the effective strategy interventions had the classroom teacher at the forefront, and only 48% of the effective interventions were conducted by experimenters. In addition, 76% of the studies used contrived rather than real content area text selections. Alvermann and Moore stressed four major problems with this research: (a) limited ecological validity, (b) limited teacher input, (c) limited texts, and (d) limited instruction in actual strategy use. They raised serious concerns about the decontextualized nature of the studies reviewed and argued for future research aimed at providing greater naturalistic detail about content area classrooms. The five themes Alvermann and Moore identified included: 1. Single text use predominated in content classrooms. 2. Learning facts was a dominant goal. 3. Little preteaching of concepts and vocabulary occurred. 4. Teacher control and order were of paramount interest. 5. Accountability testing and time constraints limited teachers' efforts to implement content area reading strategies. Has the landscape changed since the 1991 review, and if so, how? The Influence of Social Constructivism The shift away from strategy validation studies steeped in the cognitivist tradition has been influenced, in large measure, by social constructivism. Social constructivist theory places the experiences and views of participants in a social context at the forefront (Au, 1998). Questions exploring how and why teachers and students use literacy in and out of classrooms have become paramount (Hinchman & Moje, 1998). Meaning is socially constructed by teachers and students as they interact with texts, media, and each other (Au, 1998). Some literacy practices are valued and others marginalized. In a social constructivist view, classrooms are seen as complex, hegemonic contexts where participants negotiate multiple discourses with varying degrees of success (Hinchman & Moje, 1998). It is from this social constructivist stance that I selected and considered studies in content area literacy. Teacher Beliefs and Practices Preservice Teachers A fairly extensive body of work informs our current understanding of content area teachers' beliefs and practices at both preservice and inservice levels (Bean, 1997; Dillon, O'Brien, Moje & Stewart, 1994; Fox, 1994; Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996; Jetton & Alexander, 1997; Lloyd, 1996; Moje, 1996; Sturtevant, 1996a; Wilson, Konopak, & Readence, 1993). At the preservice level, there is substantial variability in beliefs and practices within the same content area. This variability is shaped partially by the sociocultural dimensions of individual biography, discipline subculture, and
< previous page
page_631
next page >
< previous page
page_632
next page > Page 632
field-based experiences. Cooperating teachers exert substantial influence over preservice teachers' use of content strategies. In this social context where the cooperating teacher holds power, preservice teachers often opt for traditional transmission strategies that optimize control, rather than using content strategies that give students more agency in small-group structures. Studies of preservice content teachers in the fields of English, social studies, biology, and mathematics reveal the tension between stated beliefs and practices that emerge in the school context. Preservice teachers struggle with their desire to embrace an interactive model and their larger desire to please an expert cooperating teacher who may well be successful with a more traditional transmission model. For example, Fox (1994) conducted a qualitative case study of preservice English teachers engaged in teaching a literature course after learning about a reader-centered literature response curriculum in their university English methods class. Larry, one of the case study participants, continued his strong belief in a transmission model of teaching literature even after his methods class demonstration activities designed to counter this view. Unlike Larry, Mario knew from personal experience that a distant transmission model was not appropriate for powerful literature like Rudolfo Anaya's (1972) Bless Me Ultima. Fox (1994) found that preservice teachers needed opportunities to reflect on the internal conflicts they had about how to balance transmission and transactional models of teaching literature. In a study of three preservice teachers from social studies, biology, and English, Bean and Zulich (1992) explored the beliefs and practices of nontraditional preservice teachers through the window of studentprofessor dialogue journals in a required content literacy course. Students expressed real interest in content area reading strategies introduced in the course, and they found graphic organizers in social studies and biology, and word concept maps in English, to be strategies they planned to use in their 2-day practicum. Unfortunately, their field placements with restrictive cooperating teachers limited their attempts to experiment with interactive strategies. Bean (1997) charted preservice content area teachers' selection and use of specific vocabulary and comprehension strategies for a microteaching session in a field-based practicum attached to a required content area literacy course. Twenty-seven participants from science, social studies, mathematics, English, art, and music initially selected 14 strategies for microteaching. These included graphic organizers, anticipation-reaction guides, writing roulette, the verbal-visual strategy, word concept maps, study guides, prereading questions, analogical study guides, text previews, KWL, fictionary, jigsaw, parallel notes, and bingo games. However, in a subsequent semester, where students were interviewed in a 5-day practicum or student teaching, their selection and use of strategies narrowed dramatically. Only 2 out of 10 preservice teachers interviewed in this second phase of the study continued to use the strategy originally selected for microteaching. Eight of 10 preservice teachers were using one of the content literacy strategies introduced in the course. The most dominant influence in strategy selection and use was the cooperating teacher. In a case study that sheds further light on the dichotomies that develop between preservice teachers' stated beliefs and the realities of secondary classrooms, Wilson et al. (1993) followed a student through the content literacy class to student teaching. Wilson et al. found that David, a 21-year-old preservice teacher, espoused beliefs about secondary reading that were largely interactive and reader-based in his first semester of content literacy and its related practicum in social studies. He felt positive about using graphic organizers and webs to guide students' text reading. However, during the subsequent semester of student teaching, he became very text based in his teaching, abandoning any use of content literacy prereading and postreading strategies. He typically lectured, wrote key points on the board, and adopted a transmission model of teaching, in direct opposition to his stated beliefs. In an interview, David stated that too much time is consumed by content reading strategies. In essence, he mirrored his co-
< previous page
page_632
next page >
< previous page
page_633
next page > Page 633
operating teacher's approach to maintaining order, control, and easy accountability through low-level assessments and worksheets. Even in less text-bound, more hands-on problem-based fields like mathematics, these same preservice teacher patterns persist. Sturtevant (1996b) examined five math student teachers from a military group transitioning into teaching as a new career. They took a content area literacy class prior to student teaching and identified a number of strategies that they planned to use in student teaching. Their actual instructional decisions, once in the school site, clashed with their original desire to use interactive content reading approaches. Interviews showed that the cooperating teacher's traditional style out-weighed the preservice teachers' enthusiasm for content literacy strategies. In recent years, alternative practicum models have been attempted in an effort to change the apprenticeship model that seems to diminish preservice teachers' efforts to try out promising content area literacy strategies (Banaszak, Wilson, & McClelland, 1995). These researchers described a Clinical Master Teacher Program model where the dual roles of campus student teaching supervisor and cooperating teacher are fulfilled by a master teacher. Careful selection of master teachers involves identifying individuals who possess a master's degree, 5 years of teaching experience, supervisory experience, and participation in a summer workshop. It remains to be seen what impact this model and others including compressed field-based certification programs will have on altering the traditional apprenticeship model. A number of studies, increasingly in a qualitative vein, chart inservice teachers' beliefs and practices in content literacy (Fox, 1994; Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996; Konopak, Wilson, & Readence, 1994; Lloyd, 1996; Moje, 1996; Sturtevant, 1996a). At the inservice level, the following themes are evident (some of which intersect with the aforementioned preservice themes): 1. Teacher-centered approaches to content area instruction predominate, making more student-centered, small-group learning appear unusual. 2. Content teachers often espouse a desire to foster students' high-level interpretive thinking yet emphasize lower level questions and tasks in actual classroom practice. 3. Students are very adept at playing the game and sensing the signs and symbols that signal membership in each unique content area classroom. 4. Content teachers are highly idiosyncratic in classroom organization, use of content strategies, and delivery, partly due to content and pedagogical content knowledge. 5. Pacing and control issues also occupy inservice content teachers concerns, much like their preservice colleagues. Inservice Teachers Experienced content area teachers, although free of many of the constraints preservice teachers labor under (e.g., meeting the expectations of university and school-based supervisors), must cope with school and community expectations that may conflict with their beliefs. For example, in a study of 35 secondary social studies teachers, followed by an intensive case study of one teacher, the dichotomous nature of beliefs and practices emerged (Konopak et al., 1994). These teachers were primarily reader based in their stated beliefs about comprehension instruction. In a follow-up case study of George, a world geography teacher with 19 years of experience, he opted for literal-level questions and conducted discussions that were very teacher centered. Control won out in his teaching, despite espoused beliefs in reader-based instruction (Konopak et al., 1994). Sturtevant (1996a) explored the role of content literacy in two high school history classes from the teachers' perspectives. Both teachers had 20 years of experience.
< previous page
page_633
next page >
< previous page
page_634
next page > Page 634
Using a qualitative case study approach including teacher autobiographies, observational field notes, and interviews, Sturtevant painted a contrasting picture of Dan and Joe. Dan believed strongly in a slow, methodical coverage of history content designed to help students grasp concepts in depth. His classroom style was very teacher directed with two to three guide questions and subsequent student recitation. As the semester progressed, he opted for an accelerated presentation of content. After digressing to discuss a local problem with students, he fell further behind his intended pacing and began speeding up the next day. In contrast, Joe used listening guides to present content and tapped students' opinions as much as possible. Both teachers said interpretation of content was important but they devoted little time to this dimension. In their autobiographical interviews, both teachers pinpointed key sociocultural influences in their beliefs about teaching. Dan viewed his former elementary teachers, his wife (a history teacher), his cooperating teacher during student teaching, and his students who struggled with concepts as influential. Joe recalled his junior high social studies teacher, his wife (an elementary teacher), a friend who taught English, and his students who struggled with the class as influential. Sturtevant (1996a) argued that our reform efforts designed to infuse content literacy strategies in classrooms need to carefully consider the school-based dilemmas teachers wrestle with, as well as deeply ingrained belief systems teachers hold. Other efforts to understand the social context of content classrooms were conducted by Dillon et al. (1994). They conducted an ethnographic study of three teachers in biology, chemistry, and earth science. The first teacher used a mastery learning model in biology that centered on study guides he wrote highlighting technical vocabulary, questions, and guidance about what parts of the textbook chapter students needed to read. He believed strongly that all students could learn biology, even if this was not a high-interest area for them. He placed students in small cooperative learning groups to discuss their responses to the study guides. The second teacher, in chemistry, believed that science was best defined as an organizational system with inherent structure. She felt students would learn how to learn by acquiring organizational metacognitive strategies like SQ3R. In contrast to the biology teacher, she was very teacher directed in guiding text discussions where students took split-page notes on her lectures and wrote summaries of text information. Similarly, the third teacher, in earth science, was very success oriented in his beliefs about student learning. He felt that connecting science to students' lives, creating a relaxed classroom atmosphere, and using humor were keys to student success. Therefore, he used the text only as a reference to create outlines of key points on the board with related teacher-directed lectures. All three of these teachers held philosophies that valued student learning. Yet, they carried out their philosophies using instructional decisions about guiding content reading, writing, and talk in very idiosyncratic ways. Strategy selection flowed logically from their espoused philosophies, and the degree of student autonomy varied from small cooperative group learning using teacher-made study guides to a teacher-centered lecture-outline format. Dillon et al. (1994) concluded that philosophies about a content field and teaching are intertwined with instructional decisions in complex and varied ways. In a study designed to explore how teachers in physical science signal important text information and how students react to this information, Jetton and Alexander (1997) looked at three teachers displaying varying levels of content knowledge in astrophysics. Using a textbook article about Stephen Hawking's work on black holes (Hurd, Silver, Bacher, & McLaughlin, 1988), these researchers found teachers' content pedagogical knowledge weighed heavily in students' understanding.
< previous page
page_634
next page >
< previous page
page_635
next page > Page 635
The first teacher possessed limited knowledge of astrophysics and felt compelled to cling to the text as her source of information. Using a very text-based style of presentation and lecturing, students gained little from this material. The second teacher, side-tracked by seductive details of Hawking's life in the article, did little to convey scientific information about black holes. Finally, the third teacher had a strong grounding in astrophysics and focused her class on the scientific concepts in the article. Jetton and Alexander (1997) concluded that, in addition to beliefs and strategies, content knowledge and content pedagogical knowledge are crucial elements in instruction and learning. Although science teachers often embrace strategies like concept mapping, without adequate content knowledge, such strategies may have little impact. In a critique of research efforts aimed at validating content literacy strategies and infusing them in secondary classrooms, O'Brien, Stewart, and Moje (1995) developed a strong case for naturalistic studies approaching classrooms as sociocultural communities. They took the position that strategy instruction, combined with small-group learning, flies in the face of control and management issues in classrooms. Content area literacy classes emphasize student centeredness, reader response literature circles, and collaboration in constructing meaning. But textbooks and tests serve to center authority on the teacher. ''A primary goal of the secondary curriculum is to construct an efficient framework to control the transmission of formalized value-free knowledge, toward predictable outcomes measured with tests" (O'Brien et al., 1995, p. 447). As a means of better understanding and overcoming some of the roadblocks to infusing content area literacy in secondary classrooms, O'Brien et al. called for studies approaching teaching and learning as social constructivist enterprises. Studies from this naturalistic stance seek an insider's perspective and view teachers' personal philosophies as important precursors to using or avoiding content area literacy approaches. Exploring teacher beliefs reflectively through autobiographies, dialogue journals, discussion of teaching cases, and field experiences coupled with debriefing and critiques could go a long way toward changing the technocratic and idiosyncratic nature of our classroom practice. In a critical review of literacy research in secondary classrooms, Moore (1996) suggested that the current emphasis on social forces in classrooms shows the powerful influence of social contexts on students' content learning. Classroom situational contexts are coproduced by teachers and students actively interpreting the patterns and signals that arise in the course of daily instruction. He further argued that case studies help reduce our positivistic tendency to overgeneralize and overlook the individuality of teachers and students. Individual agency, revealed in the more recent qualitative studies (Dillon et al., 1994; Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996; Lloyd, 1996; Moje, 1996; Sturtevant, 1996a), helps reduce overly deterministic views that broad societal forces shape situational contexts. Rather, teachers and students in the wide-ranging classrooms already charted in the present review forge unique situational contexts. Thus, the possibility for change is always there. Indeed, an evaluation study of a long-term intervention program for high school students from underrepresented groups struggling socioeconomically further supports the view that individual and collective agency can alter the status quo (see Bean & Valerio, 1997 for a complete account of Project AVID). Intervention projects that assist students in study strategies, as well as ways to communicate effectively with high school teachers, show great promise in providing students from underrepresented groups with the cultural capital necessary for success (Bean & Valerio, 1997). The sociocultural theory of individual agency is perhaps best illustrated in a qualitative study contrasting a teacher's criteria for success in a 10th-grade global studies class with her students' views of success (Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996). The teacher
< previous page
page_635
next page >
< previous page
page_636
next page > Page 636
defined success as conceptual understanding and used guide material coupled with lectures and discussion to foster student understanding. Students defined success as getting the grade, resulting in varying levels of effort from average to excellent. Students adopted a utilitarian stance, reading mainly to find answers. They used traditional study approaches, including skimming chapter material and rereading as needed. The teacher and students' conflicting notions of success reduced any sense of community in this classroom. Indeed, the teacher felt pressed to cover as much global studies content as possible. This undoubtedly sent a conflicting message to students that content coverage was more important than depth of understanding. In a 2-year ethnography of a high school chemistry class, students learned both science concepts and study strategies that they could conceivably use in other classes, but they elected not to (Moje, 1996). Landy, an experienced chemistry teacher, believed strongly in science as organization, and she selected strategies mirroring this view. Using SQ3R, split-page notetaking, concept mapping, and graphic organizers, Landy cared about students' grasp of chemistry concepts. In turn, students viewed the use of these strategies as signs that they were members of this classroom culture. Students reported that they did not transfer the use of these strategies to other courses. The strategies were viewed as unique to Landy's style of teaching. Moje (1996) noted that students held socially constructed theories about the nature of knowledge and purposes of literacy in the chemistry classroom and other classes they were taking. They could differentiate those beliefs and practices teachers held and adjust their approach accordingly, even when the two viewpoints were in conflict with each other. Another science classroom study looked at beliefs and practices of two high school biology teachers and the beliefs held by their students (Lloyd, 1996). Larry and Ed, the two teachers, held contrasting beliefs about learning that were evident in their science teaching. Larry held to a behaviorist stance emphasizing learning through repetition. He instructed his students to compile notebooks of their reading and lecture notetaking. In his view, the notebooks reinforced repetition of important information in biology. In contrast, Ed believed that students' prior knowledge was the key bridge to new concept learning. Notebooks in Ed's class became vehicles for analyzing and synthesizing ideas. Students in Larry's class viewed his methods as largely ineffective. They were particularly unhappy about the absence of smallgroup interaction and opportunities for discussion of text material. Ed's students had ample opportunities for small-group interaction and cooperative lab activities to learn biology concepts. These studies show the impact of teachers' and students' socially constructed beliefs about the nature of teaching and learning across a range of core content areas. When teachers' and students' views of learning conflict, important concepts may be glossed over. More importantly, students' sense of agency as learners is diminished. In addition to research in content teacher beliefs and practices, a growing body of work chronicles the affective area of how students view literacy and voluntary reading at the secondary level. Attitudes and Interests in Content Area Literacy McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995) surveyed students' attitudes toward recreational and academic reading through Grade 6. A total of 18,185 students responded to the survey, and the results chart a steady decline in attitudes toward recreational and academic reading as students advance in grade level. This finding was especially strong for less able readers. By sixth grade, students were largely indifferent to reading. The relation between attitude and reading frequency is critical, as reading fre-
< previous page
page_636
next page >
< previous page
page_637
next page > Page 637
quency helps comprehension (McKenna et al., 1995). Thus, a decline in reading attitudes at middle and secondary levels has a marked impact on content learning and the potential effect of causing students to avoid difficult reading tasks. Undergraduate college students also report little reading for pleasure, despite the ability to do so (Duchein & Mealey, 1993). In their study of 90 college students, these researchers found students had vivid memories of those few teachers who read aloud in class at the secondary level. Similar declines in attitude toward reading have been found for adult preservice and inservice content area teachers by Bean and Readence (1995). Using autobiographical literacy histories, they explored 53 preservice and inservice teachers' attitudes toward reading from their earliest memories of home and school, through high school and their present college experiences. A precipitous decline in attitude toward reading occurred by the middle stage of their school experiences. Negative influences included dull textbooks, reading as a form of forced labor, and problems related to low-level tracking of some students. Positive influences involved time for book sharing and discussion. Journal writing about books, book clubs, and field trips linked to book reading were also viewed positively. Content teachers who introduced study strategies and socioculturally interesting material were recalled fondly. Thus, content teachers exert a tremendous influence on reading attitudes. This is especially true at middle and secondary levels where the nature of reading often centers exclusively on locating, analyzing, and synthesizing technical information to the exclusion of captivating fiction. The Role of Literature in Content Area Classrooms The degree to which adolescents are motivated to engage in learning science, mathematics, history, and other content is heavily influenced by the nature of the material they encounter and opportunities for discussion (Bean, 1998). An engaged reader is intrinsically motivated to use content area learning strategies to create connections between prior knowledge and new information (Guthrie, Alao, & Rinehart, 1997). The increasing use of thematic units incorporating literature within the content areas of science, mathematics, and social studies offers a model that is likely to increase students' engagement in reading. For example, the inclusion of well-crafted young adult novels linked to content area concepts illuminates otherwise turgid text. An award-winning book like David Klass' (1994) California Blue, where the main character finds an endangered butterfly in a northern California logging area, raises a number of issues for discussion in a social studies class about citizenship (Bean, Kile, & Readence, 1996). Multicultural young adult literature explores issues of ethnic identity development, human relations, and rites of passage. A novel like Heartbeat, Drumbeat (Hernandez, 1992), where the main character explores her Navajo and Hispanic ethnicity, generates a rich array of topics that ninth-grade English students can explore (Bean, Valerio, Money-Senior, & White, 1997). In this research, reader response patterns in students' writing were investigated across a variety of topics. Students wrote about gender issues, researched and critiqued the authenticity of Navajo burial ceremonies in the novel, and carried on dialogue journal conversations with their peers in a classroom filled with computers and a small group of students in a Hawaii high school. Most importantly, the infusion of multicultural young adult novels expands the traditional literary canon and engages students in works relating to their cultures and lives (Godina, 1996). The use of multicultural young-adult literature also engaged preservice teachers in a critical examination of their long-held beliefs about groups outside the European-American culture. For example, Chevalier and Houser (1997) conducted a onesemester action research project aimed at exploring preservice teachers' literature
< previous page
page_637
next page >
< previous page
page_638
next page > Page 638
circle discussion of books by Walter Dean Myers and others in social studies and literacy methods classes. They found that preservice teachers initially believed in the value of assimilation of all cultures into the mainstream. Following novel reading and discussion, they began to experience a heightened level of awareness of other cultures. As a result, some of these preservice teachers developed plans to use multicultural young adult literature whereas others held to a resistance position. Similar to the earlier work reviewed on preservice teachers' beliefs and practices, the individuals approached these readings with biographical and institutional experiences that influenced how they thought about this literature. Sociocultural theories (Bloome, 1991) lead to research questions exploring hidden curricular choices in what literature is taught and how this literature is discussed. For example, does the teacher control discussion, or are students able to engage in readerresponse patterns where they can critique a work from their point of view? In essence, reader-response research now embraces a view of literacy as cultural practice with related questions about who gets to participate, and who decides what is read and how it is discussed (Bloome, 1991). Bloome (1991, p. 52) argued that "The questions being asked and the supporting arguments given can be viewed as a debate over what counts as the literary cultural capital of the society and what value or priority is given to the literary domain compared with other domains (e.g., skill development)." Recent studies in reader response in content classrooms suggest that, although students' voices have been largely ignored in past work, there is a growing interest in exploring their unique views of classroom discussion. For instance, in a recent multicase study in five school sites, students viewed opportunities for discussion of literary and expository texts as almost nonexistent (Alvermann, et al., 1996). Interviews showed that these middle school and secondary students in English and social studies held views of good discussions emphasizing a preference for small groups of friends, each sharing equally by participating actively in discussion. Furthermore, they saw teacher guidelines for discussion as only moderately important and felt that their own approaches would result in effective, task-oriented talk. This study suggests that content teachers need to be willing to adopt a model of shared decisionmaking that respects students' ideas and approaches to text discussion. In addition, the absence of research on student discussion in mathematics, science, and other content classrooms suggests a need to explore crossdisciplinary differences in future studies (Alvermann et al., 1996). Newell (1996, p. 149) asserted: "A fundamental assumption operating in many literature classrooms is that the author's meaning remains hidden until unveiled by the teacher's own interpretive agenda." In an effort to understand the contrast between readerbased and teacher-centered modes of literary discussion, Newell conducted a descriptive study of two classes of middle-track 10th-graders' discussion and writing about a short story. The teacher-centered classroom involved students in responding to teacher prompt questions for discussion and a five paragraph essay. Students in the reader-based classroom engaged in smallgroup discussion aimed at judging the main character's values and reporting this to the whole class. They also completed a free writing. Students in the reader-based classroom displayed more personal associations in their character discussion and demonstrated more interpretive engagement in their discussion and writing. Reader-response studies in content classes show the potential of shared decision making. Students are more likely to socially construct personally meaningful interpretations of literature in settings that encourage and respect multiple perspectives. This is not to say that peer status rankings will not interfere with whose voice gets heard and who is silenced (cf. Dillon & Moje, 1998). Nevertheless, moving away from the teacher as the central source of knowledge has the potential to liberate students' knowledge construction.
< previous page
page_638
next page >
< previous page
page_639
next page > Page 639
In the final section, I want to summarize the current state of the art in content area literacy research and suggest some future directions that I think are critical if content area literacy is to move beyond our present knowledge base. Implications for Research and Future Directions At the outset of this chapter, I alluded to the issues uncovered in Alvermann and Moore's (1991) review of research in secondary reading. Their synthesis and critique of studies centered on the 1980s strategy validation research of that period. Four problems in research of that era surfaced in their review: (a) limited ecological validity, (b) limited teacher input, (c) limited texts, and (d) limited instruction in actual strategy use. These problems prompted me to raise the question, "Has the landscape changed since their 1991 review and, if so, how?" I believe the landscape has changed and that contemporary researchers in content area literacy have expanded our understanding of classroom contexts dramatically. This fairly extensive line of work also points toward gaps in our knowledge, particularly as technical reading demands accelerate in many fields. Careers that, in the past, were primarily devoted to physical labor with minimal reading demands, increasingly involve the use of computers and at least some sociotechnical literacy (Bruce, 1997). It seems clear that research in the 1990s has overcome the decontextualized nature of our earlier work by placing classroom social contexts at the forefront. Much of the more recent research in content area literacy is grounded in social constructivist theory (Au, 1998). Studies (Bean, 1997; Bean & Zulich, 1992; Fox, 1994; Sturtevant, 1996b; Wilson et al., 1993) in preservice teachers beliefs and practices in content area literacy show the powerful sway of school contexts on what fledgling teachers say they believe and their tendency to acquiesce to the demands of the cooperating teacher. Although preservice content teachers vary somewhat in their beliefs and practices, they lean toward transmission styles of teaching that reinforce teacher control at the expense of content area strategies. Content area strategies rely on small-group work and reward student independence and agency. The continuing dominant use of single textbooks serves to further center instruction on the teacher. Thus, in many ways, we have not shifted away from the textbook as a source of authority, a recurring theme in Alvermann and Moore's (1991) review. Inservice content teachers vary in their beliefs and practices but also veer toward teacher-centered approaches, particularly when they are pressed for time to cover content faster (Dillon et al., 1994; Lloyd, 1996). Content teachers often express a desire to develop students' critical thinking in their disciplines yet emphasize lower level questions and tasks in actual classroom practice (Sturtevant, 1996a). Students become skilled at discerning what is required "to do school" and quickly assess the signs and symbols signaling membership in content classrooms (Hinchman & Zalewski, 1996; Moje, 1996). Content teachers' pedagogical content knowledge drives how they approach a topic (Jetton & Alexander, 1997). When the knowledge base is low for a particular topic, and shared decision making with students is not part of their repertoire, a marked tendency to become very text based and teacher centered is the norm. We have taken to heart Alvermann and Moore's (1991) call for more contextualized research in content literacy and learned a great deal from these studies. In many ways it seems that we now need to move on. We need studies that stay attuned to issues of social context while providing exemplars of the unusual. By that, I mean classrooms where small-group discussion is the norm, where the use of multiple texts is common, where students download informational text from the Internet and communicate with other classrooms and communities via electronic mail and video conferencing. These promising modes of learning are not well represented in our current research in con-
< previous page
page_639
next page >
< previous page
page_640
next page > Page 640
tent area literacy, and there is a danger that we will repeat what we already know from our rich array of studies in teachers beliefs and practices. Strategy use is now seen as an integral part of the content teacher's personal and institutional biography, often tied closely to how a discipline organizes knowledge (Moje, 1996). For example, concept maps often appeal to science teachers, whereas social studies teachers may find anticipation-reaction guides stimulate discussion (Bean, 1997). These strategies are no longer the focal point of research in content area classrooms. Our research attention now centers on the social interaction patterns of teachers and students. As our understanding of classroom social context has grown, we have documented a status quo world in schools, whereas students' attitudes toward recreational reading show precipitous declines as they advance into middle and secondary grades (Bean & Readence, 1995; Duchein & Mealey, 1993; McKenna, et al., 1995). Contemporary models of reading attitude show the powerful relation between attitude and reading frequency and its impact on reading comprehension (McKenna et al., 1995). Thus, I believe we need to explore the role of literature in a variety of content classrooms. Captivating young adult literature like David Klass's (1994) award-winning novel California Blue can serve to illuminate otherwise abstract concepts such as "citizenship" presented in textbooks (Bean et al., 1996). We need to study students' reactions to these works, their discussion patterns, and the impact of this work on content teachers' classrooms. Models of reader response and shared decision making need greater research attention, particularly in core content fields. Another untapped area of research involves efforts to use young adult literature in content classrooms outside English (Bean, 1998). Given the large collection of outstanding books for young adults spanning science, social studies, physical education, and other fields, it is surprising that more work has not been undertaken in this area. For example, research questions might include: 1. What problems do content area teachers experience as they attempt to select young adult novels to use with particular topics? 2. How do content area teachers incorporate literature in their classrooms? 3. How do students react to the use of young adult literature in classrooms outside English? In short, this dimension of literature and reader response is one that has yet to attract much research energy. Even adding a single novel like California Blue (Klass, 1994) that delves into science-related topics in ecology and environmental protection would be atypical in most science classrooms. It is precisely this sort of change in the use of single content area texts that is most likely to help students learn how to interpret, critique, and synthesize diverse points of view on a topic. Subject areas often ignored in our literacy research offer contexts for exploring the infusion of literature. For example, music and physical education rarely receive much research attention in our literacy journals. Agriculture, art, vocational education, career education, guidance, and a host of other areas typically dealt with in high school are absent from our research lens. Novels like Gary Paulsen's (1994) The Car might captivate students' interest in vocational-technical classes (Bean, 1998). At this point, we simply have too little research in noncore content areas to speculate about the role of literature on students' attitudes and concept learning. The use of multicultural young adult literature in content classrooms is beginning to expand the traditional literary canon to include underrepresented groups (Godina, 1996). Research gauging the impact of this work on content learning and ethnic identity awareness is still in the early stages. The potential for altering students' views of school as a place where only certain literary works are acceptable to read and discuss is very great, but we need in-depth studies of how this literature impacts content classrooms.
< previous page
page_640
next page >
< previous page
page_641
next page > Page 641
Another dimension of content literacy that needs greater attention is the impact of multiple texts on students' learning, interest, critical thinking, writing, and attitudes toward reading. Multiple texts have the potential to increase students' reasoning precisely because they present various viewpoints about a topic (Hartman & Allison, 1996; Palmer & Stewart, 1997; Perfetti, Britt, & Georgi, 1995; Stahl, Hynd, Britton, McNish, & Bosquet, 1996). For example, history is the story of events depicted in historical documents. In order to judge the truth value of historical documents, students need substantial practice in the process of weighing evidence across multiple texts (Perfetti et al., 1995). Using multiple texts has the advantage of capturing students' interest because each text is a novel representation of an event. As we begin to see more use of compact disk text storage and retrieval in classrooms, these hypertext representations offer a manageable means to engage students in sophisticated document comparison (Perfetti et al, 1995). We need to conceptualize "texts" in a broad fashion to include the use of census data (Sweeney, Monteverde, & Garrett, 1993), multimedia (Hermanson & Kerfoot, 1994) in music and other fields, and Internet technology that is becoming more accessible in many schools (Bruce, 1997). We need careful descriptive studies of classrooms in history and other content fields where teachers are experimenting with multiple texts defined broadly to include print in all its recent forms. Studies exploring unusual classrooms where teachers and students are pushing into the future using technology to expand students' voices and connections with other students seem especially promising across content fields. Research in content literacy has emerged from the cognitivist emphasis of the 1980s to embrace qualitative paradigms in the 1990s. Research reviews like Alvermann and Moore's (1991) compilation, and this one, serve to gauge where we have been and to speculate on where we might go next. Much like the voyages of the Polynesian double-hulled canoe, Hokule'a, we are engaged in what Will Kyselka (1987), in a wonderful book entitled, An Ocean in Mind, called "wayfinding" (p. x). Early theories of Polynesian voyaging held to a drift theory that viewed their voyages and landfalls as largely accidental. The numerous voyages of the Hokule'a, using ancient experiential forms of navigation, cast doubt on simplistic drift theories (Kyselka, 1987). Stars, cloud patterns, birds, and so on provided observational data modern-day Hawaiian navigator Nainoa Thompson and others used to guide Hokule'a to intended landfalls. Kyselka (1987, p. 179) painted a powerful contrasting picture of traditional celestial navigation and wayfinding: "How different the ways of navigation. Instrument navigation is discontinuous, and we don't know where we are until we have a fix. The wayfinder on the canoe so close to us stays continuously oriented: external verification is neither a possibility nor is it wanted." Like astute Polynesian navigators, it seems we are now staying much closer to participants' experiences in content classrooms in our research than we did in the 1980s. In the 1980s, we sought to validate content area literacy strategies in studies that often minimized the larger context of the classroom, teachers biography, and students' voices. Our quasi-experimental methodology, much like instrument navigation, charted students' performance in relation to the impact of various teaching strategies. In the 1990s our research embraced qualitative methodology, using interpretive participant-observation much like a navigational wayfinder paying close attention to patterns at sea. Moving into and beyond the year 2000, I suspect that technology and alternative forms of data representation will play a profound role in how we study and share our discourse of discovery with colleagues (Eisner, 1997; Maring, Wiseman, & Myers, 1997). Electronic journals like the International Reading Association's Reading Online (http://www.readingonline.org) offer a forum to display classroom audio and video clips accompanying research studies. This feature, coupled with chat opportunities
< previous page
page_641
next page >
< previous page
page_642
next page > Page 642
about a study, is altering the sharing and critique of research in content literacy. Technology-rich classrooms offer a vehicle for enriching language through web-site communities and multiple perspectives on content topics that we are just beginning to explore (Maring et al., 1997). In a wide-ranging examination of alternative forms of data representation, Eisner (1997, p. 8) speculated that "as the use of alternative forms of data representation increases, we can expect new ways of seeing things, new settings for their display, and new problems to tackle." Sociocultural issues of access to literacy and knowledge, whose knowledge counts as legitimate in content classrooms, and teacher and student interaction patterns will remain important concerns in our research in content classrooms. Where will our search take us next in content area literacy? The answer to that question will have to await our next decade of exploration combining the best of our recent forms of inquiry with new forms yet to be discovered. Acknowledgment The author thanks Paul Cantú Valerio, University of Nevada, Las Vegas doctoral student in literacy, for his valuable assistance in gathering library sources for this chapter. References Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 951983) New York: Longman. Alvermann, D. E., Young, J. P., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K. A., Moore, D. W., Phelps, S. F., Thrash, E. C., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Middle and high school students' perceptions of how they experience text-based discussions: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 244267. Anaya, R. (1972). Bless Me Ultima. Berkeley, CA: Tonatiuh Quinto Sol International. Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 30, 297319. Banaszak, R. A., Wilson, E. K., & McClelland, S. M. (1995). Redefining the student teaching triad. Teacher Education and Practice, 11, 5059. Bean, T. W. (1997). Preservice teachers' selection and use of content area literacy strategies. Journal of Educational Research, 90, 154163. Bean, T. W. (1998). Teacher literacy histories and adolescent voices: Changing content area classrooms. In D. Alvermann, D. Moore, S. Phelps, & D. Waff (Eds.), Toward reconceptualizing adolescent literacy (pp. 149170). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bean, T. W., Kile, R. S., & Readence, J. E. (1996). Using trade books to encourage critical thinking about citizenship in high school social studies. Social Education, 60, 227230. Bean, T. W., & Readence, J. E. (1995). A comparative study of content area literacy students' attitudes toward reading through autobiography analysis. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 325333). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Bean, T. W., & Valerio, P. C. (1997). Constructing school success in literacy: The pathway to college entrance for minority students [Review of the book Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking low-achieving students]. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 320327. Bean, T. W., Valerio, P. C., Money-Senior, H., & White, F. (1997, December). Secondary English students' engagement in reading and interpreting a multicultural young adult novel. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Bean, T. W., & Zulich, J. (1992). A case study of three preservice teachers' beliefs about content area reading through the window of student-professor dialogue journals. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives: Forty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 463474). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Bloome, D. (1991). Anthropology and research on teaching the English language arts. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 4655). New York: Macmillan. Boorstin, D. J. (1983). The discoverers. New York: Random House. Bruce, B. C. (1997). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 289309.
< previous page
page_642
next page >
< previous page
page_643
next page > Page 643
Chevalier, M., & Houser, N. D. (1997). Preservice teachers' multicultural self-development through adolescent fiction. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 426436. Dillon, D. R., & Moje, E. B. (1998). Listening to the talk of adolescent girls: Lessons about literacy, school, and life. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. 193223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dillon, D. R., O'Brien, D. G., Moje, E. B., & Stewart, R. A. (1994). Literacy learning in secondary school science classrooms: A cross-case analysis of three qualitative studies. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 345362. Duchein, M. A., & Mealey, D. L. (1993). Remembrance of books past . . . long past: Glimpses into aliteracy. Reading Research and Instruction, 31, 8497. Eisner, E. W. (1997). The promise and perils of alternative forms of data representation. Educational Researcher, 26, 410. Fox, D. L. (1994). What is literature? Two preservice teachers' conceptions of literature and of the teaching of literature. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy: Research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 394405). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Godina, H. (1996). The canonical debate-implementing multicultural literature and perspectives. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 39, 544549. Guthrie, J. T., Alao, S., & Rinehart, J. M. (1997). Engagement in reading for young adolescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 438446). Hartman, D. K., & Allison, J. (1996). Promoting inquiry-oriented discussions using multiple texts. In L. B. Gambrell & J. F. Almasi (Eds.), Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading (pp. 106133). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Herber, H. L. (1970). Teaching reading in content areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Hermanson, C., & Kerfoot, J. (1994). Technology assisted teaching: Is it getting results? American Music Teacher, 43, 2023. Hernandez, I. B. (1992). Heartbeat, drumbeat. Houston, TX: Arte Publico Press. Hinchman, K. A., & Moje, E. B. (1998). Locating the social and political in secondary school literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 117128. Hinchman, K. A., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Reading for success in a tenth-grade global-studies class: A qualitative study. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 91106. Hurd, D., Silver, M., Bacher, B. A., & McLaughlin, C. W. (1988). Stephen Hawking: Changing our view of the universe. Prentice Hall Physical Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (1997). Instructional importance: What teachers value and what students learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 290308. Klass, D. (1994). California blue. New York: Scholastic. Konopak, B. C., Wilson, E. K., & Readence, J. E. (1994). Examining teachers' beliefs, decisions, and practices about content area reading in secondary social studies. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 127136). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kyselka, W. (1987). An ocean in mind. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Lloyd, C. (1996). Scientific literacy in two high school biology classrooms: Considering literacy as social process. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 31, 2530. Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking. Maring, G. H., Wiseman, B. J., & Myers, K. S. (1997). Using the world wide web to build learning communities: Writing for genuine purposes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 41, 196207. McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children's attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934956. Moje, E. B. (1996). "I teach students, not subjects": Teacher-student relationships as contexts for secondary literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 172195. Moore, D. W. (1996). Contexts for literacy in secondary schools. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 1546). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Moore, D. W., Readence, J. E., & Rickelman, R. J. (1983). An historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 419438. Newell, G. E. (1996). Reader-based and teacher-centered instructional tasks: Writing and learning about a short story in middletrack classrooms. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 147172. O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 442463.
Palmer, R. G., & Stewart, R. A. (1997). Nonfiction trade books in content area instruction: Realities and potential. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 630641. Paulsen, G. (1994). The car. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. Perfetti, C. A., Britt, M. A., & Georgi, M. C. (1995). Text-based learning and reasoning studies in history. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_643
next page >
< previous page
page_644
next page > Page 644
Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1998). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 430456. Sturtevant, E. G. (1996a). Lifetime influences on the literacy-related instructional beliefs of two experienced high school history teachers: Two comparative case studies. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 227258. Sturtevant, E. G. (1996b). Beyond the content literacy course: Influences on beginning mathematics teachers' uses of literacy in student teaching. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 146158). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Sweeney, J. C., Monteverde, F. E., & Garrett, A. W. (1993). Social history, the census, and the blues: A high school application. Social Studies, 84, 107112. Vacca, R. T. (1998). Foreword. In D. Alvermann, D. Moore, S. Phelps, & D. Waff (Eds.), Toward reconceptualizing adolescent literacy (pp. xvxvi). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Vacca, R. T., & Vacca, J. L. (1996). Content area reading (5th ed.). New York: HarperCollins. Wilson, E. K., Konopak, B. C., & Readence, J. E. (1993). A case study of a preservice secondary social studies teacher's beliefs and practices about content-area reading. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 335343). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_644
next page >
< previous page
page_645
next page > Page 645
Chapter 35 College Studying Sherrie L. Nist Michele L. Simpson University of Georgia College Studying It is well accepted both in theory and in practice that academically successful college students know how to study. Yet research suggests that many students enter postsecondary institutions unprepared to meet the studying demands placed on them (e.g., Pressley, Yokoi, van Meter, Van Etten, & Freebern, 1997). This lack of preparation can be traced, in part, to the fact that studying is part of the ''hidden curriculum" at the secondary level (Mayer, 1996). That is, study strategies are "hidden" because teachers at all levels assume that students already have a repertoire of studying behaviors when they enter their classrooms. As a result of this lack of preparation, a majority of colleges and universities offer some vehicle for students to become efficient and active learners (Maxwell, 1997). Some institutions have entire programs to provide students with a variety of academic assistance options; others offer "Learning to Learn" courses and Freshman Experience programs that focus on teaching students to be active learners. But what does it mean to say that students know how to study or that they are active learners? And what is it that the research community knows about studying in college? Finally, in what directions does the field need to move given what we currently know about studying? It is on these questions that this chapter focuses. Before we begin our discussion, however, we need to express the frustration we often felt in communicating the complexity of studying as we worked through numerous drafts of this chapter. Because of this complexity, we believed that it was imperative to at least acknowledge the importance of factors other than learning strategies. Thus, we begin our discussion of college studying with a brief historical perspective. Then we set the theoretical stage by examining models and taxonomies that have guided researchers as they have investigated studying. Using one model, we then review the research factors related to studying at the college level: course characteristics, learner characteristics, and learning strategies. Finally, we conclude the chapter with implications for practice and policy as well as suggesting recommendations for future research. * Authors are listed alphabetically; both contributed equally to this chapter.
< previous page
page_645
next page >
< previous page
page_646
next page > Page 646
Search Procedures We focused our literature review based on the idea that studying is an interactive process as portrayed in Thomas and Rohwer's (1986) component and process model. Starting with the components of this model as descriptors, we conducted a computer search of ERIC and examined the Citation Index to Journals in Education, Resources in Education, and did a cursory search of Dissertation Abstracts. In addition, we searched scholarly books, yearbooks from the National Reading Conference for the past 15 years, and current issues of all pertinent journals. The reference lists from the book chapters and yearbooks were particularly helpful in leading us to other specific research studies. Similarly, the bibliographies of recent reviews of pertinent topics from the Review of Educational Research also assisted us in identifying relevant investigations and assured us that we had included the most up-todate information in our search. Historical Background College students have been identified as needing academic assistance or "remedial" help almost since the inception of institutions of higher education. In fact, as early as 1927, Book and others were bemoaning the fact that "they [students] have great difficulty in orientating themselves to the life and work of a college or university" (p. 529) and he suggested that students become part of "How to Study'' groups. Book's recommendation caused quite a stir, and, as a result, many other colleges and universitiesthe University of Minnesota, New York University, Harvard, and Dartmouth, to name a fewdesigned courses or entire programs to improve college students' study skills. Some of these institutions continued to lead the way in college reading and studying programs for years to come. The growth of programs to promote academic assistance and studying at the college level has been strongly tied in our society to particular landmark events, mostly through some type of federal legislation. These events, for a variety of reasons, have spurred greater enrollment in postsecondary institutions, thus causing a trickle-down effect for programs for the underprepared. For example, in 1944 the G.I. Bill of Rights caused tremendous change on college campuses. Likewise, the passage of the National Defense Act of 1958, which was precipitated by the launch of Sputnik 1 year earlier, provided loans and grants to nonveteran students, causing again a major increase in the numbers of students on college campuses. A third key event was the civil rights movement and the passage of the Higher Education Act of 1965. The focus now switched from primarily veterans to the recruitment and admission of minority students who had been historically underrepresented in higher education (Boylan, 1994). Two major early movementsbehaviorism in the 1940s and 1950s and humanism in the 1960sinfluenced the types of programs and instruction available for college students and, to a lesser degree, in the types of studies that were conducted. Much of the research at this time examined the effectiveness of particular programs or materials in promoting students' reading rate, comprehension, and study skills. Researchers such as Kingston, Spache, Raygor, and McConihe, led the way with college reading studies that were presented at the Southwest Reading Conference, a precursor to the National Reading Conference (Baldwin et al., 1992). In the 1960s, humanism also became evident in practice and pedagogy. Although it became more important at this time for students to feel good about themselves as readers and learners, this belief was evidenced more in practice than in research (Enright & Kerstiens, 1980) Research, however, continued to have a behavioristic influence (e.g., Bliesmer, 1968).
< previous page
page_646
next page >
< previous page
page_647
next page > Page 647
Two overriding conclusions can be drawn from this brief historical perspective. First, whether the need for assistance was because students lacked basic skills or because the transfer from high school to college was academically traumatic for students, the solutions to solve these problems were similar. Second, much of the early research in college reading and studying simply described effective reading or study skills courses or programs. However, as theoretical models were developed in the late 1970s and beyond, researchers began to base their investigations on stronger theoretical grounds. Theoretical Models Since the early 1980s, researchers committed to helping students become successful, active learners have based their studies on a variety of interactive, theoretical models. Albeit diverse, these models share a common assumption that there are a number of variables that impact students' learning from text. Jenkins's (1978) tetrahedral model of learning, for example, proposed that active learners consider the nature of the material to be learned and examine the criterial task, determining the products (i.e., recognition or recall) and levels of thinking embodied in that task. Moreover, active learners are also aware of their own characteristics, especially their own strengths and weaknesses in terms of the specified tasks and texts. Using that information about themselves as learners and the specified tasks and texts, active learners then determine the appropriate strategies to employ. Gradually, researchers refined the tetrahedral model and created their own models, which included a variety of additional variables. Of these models, Thomas and Rohwer's (1986) component and process model perhaps best captures the factors impacting college students' studying. Their model proposes that the experiences, ability, and volition-related characteristics of students and the characteristics of a course (i.e., materials, tasks factors, course conditions) are filtered by students' perceptions or beliefs. These components interact to impact students' study activities and hence their performance. What particularly distinguishes this model is the research that Thomas and Rohwer (1987) conducted in classroom settings. They used their model to investigate study practices in social studies courses across the grade range of junior high school to college, finding that students' study activities are influenced by a relatively large number of course features or characteristics. From the Thomas and Rohwer model and other theoretical models, several important generalizations about studying can be drawn. First, the models imply that there are no generic best strategies or methods of studying. Rather, strategies are considered appropriate when they match the demands of the texts and tasks and the beliefs and background knowledge of the learner. Moreover, studying involves more than a knowledge of the possible strategies. To be active learners, students must understand the what, when, how, and why of strategies if they are to apply them to their own tasks and texts (Paris, Lipson, & Wixson, 1983; Pressley, 1995). Third, these models suggest that there is a core of essential cognitive and metacognitive processes that cut across domains. These processes include selecting, transforming, organizing, elaborating, monitoring, planning, and evaluating (Mayer, 1996; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986). Finally, and most importantly, these models imply that active learning takes a long time to foster and develop (Butler & Winne, 1995; Pressley, 1995). As we have suggested, studying and active learning involve considerably more than students employing strategies. In the sections that follow, we briefly address these other factorscourse characteristics, learner characteristics, and belief systemsbefore discussing learning strategies.
< previous page
page_647
next page >
< previous page
page_648
next page > Page 648
Factors Related to Effective Studying and Active Learning Course Characteristics The first factor that influences studying at the college level is a student's ability to understand the situation and/or context (Alexander, 1995; Garner, 1990). Thomas and Rohwer described context as the characteristics of a course, or the external factors that influence reading and studying (Thomas, Bol, & Warkentin, 1991; Thomas & Rohwer, 1986). These external factors include the texts that are assigned and the academic tasks that are either tacitly or explicitly communicated by the professor. College students who know how to interact with texts and how to determine tasks independently can use this information to assist them in strategy selection. Given the fact that approximately 85% of all college learning involves reading, and that texts are central to learning at all levels of education (Voss & Silfies, 1996; Woodward, 1993), first we discuss the role of text. Then the role of academic task, which is beginning to make its way into the literature, is described. Text Early research examining text was mainly concerned with text structure (see Vol. I of the Handbook on Reading Research, Meyer & Rice, 1984). Then, in the mid to late 1980s, research on text characteristics focused on how text aids and organization influenced text comprehension. Many of these foci were reviewed in Volume II of the Handbook of Reading Research. The research at this time, which was primarily quantitative in nature, had a rather profound influence on publishers of college textbooks, although some research suggested that text aids promoted passive processing (Schallert, Alexander, & Goetz, 1985). Publishers began inserting numerous aids, many of which had been scientifically researched, to help students better understand and organize text information. Text inserts providing additional background information, the inclusion of many visual aids, and inserted questions all made college texts more readable and considerate. Currently, text research, especially as it is related to college studying, seems to be heading in two directions. First, there has been an emphasis more recently on how students approach text in a variety of domains, particularly in history and science (Carson, Chase, & Gibson, 1993; Donald, 1994; Simpson & Nist, 1997; Voss & Silfies, 1996; Wineburg, 1991), as well as students' beliefs about these texts. That is, rather than simply focusing on the differences between narrative and expository texts, researchers are examining differences between expository texts from a variety of disciplines using more qualitative methodology. In history, for example, Wineburg's (1991) descriptive research concerning students' beliefs about history text suggests that subtexts, or underlying texts, supplement the more explicit meaning of the text. In two other investigations, also in the domain of history, Simpson, Nist, and Sharman (1997) and Simpson and Nist (1997) found that college students' beliefs about history and history text influenced the strategies they selected and the way they interpreted task. Studies such as these represent a step forward and have important implications for college readers because they indicate that text, like strategies, does not operate independently of other factors (Alexander, 1992; Simpson & Nist, 1997). That is, researchers are considering other factorsmetacognition (Kuhn, 1991), task (Simpson & Nist, 1997), study strategies (Schommer, 1990)as they relate to beliefs about text in a variety of domains. A second direction that currently is drawing interest from researchers is how students interact with lecture notes as texts, particularly how they attempt to organize and study these texts as part of test preparation (Kiewra, 1989; Kiewra, Benton, Kim, & Risch, 1995; King, 1991, 1992; van Meter, Yokoi, & Pressley, 1994). King (1992), for example, found that students who were trained to generate and answer their own ques-
< previous page
page_648
next page >
< previous page
page_649
next page > Page 649
tions over lecture content did significantly better on a delayed retention measure than those who wrote summaries or reviewed their notes. The results from these recent studies strongly support the notion that college students should use generative strategies (Wittrock, 1990) to interact with lecture notes, just as they should use generative strategies to interact with textbooks. In addition, these investigations are helping to create a theory of notetaking beyond the encoding-storage perspective that has dominated the notetaking literature. Academic Tasks The second course-specific characteristic is academic task. Academic tasks are the products students are asked to formulate, (e.g., tests or papers) and the operations or thinking processes they should use to formulate these products (Doyle, 1983). In order to be successful in their studying, students must understand the characteristics and nuances of academic tasks and then adjust their strategies accordingly. Because many college students do not adjust their strategies to match the varying task demands, texts, or domains, they suffer from what has been termed transfer-appropriate processing deficiencies (Pressley et al., 1997). As noted by Anderson and Armbruster (1984), tasks have been studied in a variety of ways in laboratory settings. In particular, previous researchers have investigated the impact of students having complete, partial, or no task knowledge on their recall or recognition test performance (e.g., Rickards & Friedman, 1978). Although these studies have contributed to our understanding of the importance of specific and accurate task knowledge, the more recent research studies have moved to actual classroom settings where academic tasks are no longer defined and manipulated by the researcher (Chase, Gibson, & Carson, 1994; Chiseri-Strater, 1991; Donald, 1994; Hofer, 1998). Current research on academic tasks has focused on two areas. First, some researchers have investigated how tasks vary across domains (Burrell, Tao, Simpson, & Mendez-Burreuta, 1996; Chase et al., 1994; Donald, 1994; Schellings, Van Hout-Wolters, & Vermunt, 1996a, 1996b; Simpson & Nist, 1997). In general, the findings from these studies have suggested that academic tasks are not only specific to a domain, but also specific to a professor and a setting. Moreover, the findings indicate that students and professors frequently have different perceptions of what is considered the essential thinking processes in a particular domain. Donald (1994), for example, found that in the sciences, the match in task perceptions between professors and students was the closest in engineering courses and the furthest away from congruency in physics courses. Other studies have investigated academic tasks using case study methodology in order to describe the patterns that seem to exist between students' interpretation of academic tasks, their choice of strategies, and their subsequent academic performance. For example, Simpson and Nist (1997) concluded that students who earned high grades in a history course were those who either initially understood the professor's tasks, or were flexible enough to modify their task perceptions and strategies. Characteristics of the Learner In their model, Thomas and Rohwer also considered the characteristics that college students bring to each learning environment. Among the learner characteristics that are important to active learning are prior knowledge, students' metacognitive abilities, their motivational levels, and interest in what they are reading or studying. Prior Knowledge In a special issue of Educational Psychologist (Vol. 31, 1996), Alexander divided the research that has examined the role of knowledge on comprehension and learning into two periods: First Generation of knowledge, which laid the groundwork, and Second Generation of knowledge, which examines knowledge as it
< previous page
page_649
next page >
< previous page
page_650
next page > Page 650
relates to social and cultural contexts. Most closely related to the focus of this chapter is the role that domain knowledge has on college students' abilities to understand and learn through text or lecture as well as the interaction between domain and strategy knowledge. Domain knowledge is defined as the knowledge learners have about a specific field of study (Alexander & Judy, 1988). As such, domain knowledge involves declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge (Paris et al., 1983). Alexander (1992) aptly pointed out that researchers have not been quick to understand the relationship between domain knowledge and strategy research as a way of building a more complete model of learning and suggested that both are crucial if we want to understand more about how knowledge is acquired and used. Current researchers seem to be taking Alexander's ideas to heart, focusing on the more complex questions about domain knowledge, strategy selection, and other factors that may influence performance. What seems to be emerging in the recent literature is the degree to which both domain knowledge and topic knowledge influence not only strategy choice, but also the performance level of students (Alexander, Kulikowich, & Schulze, 1994). Stanovich's (1986) idea that "the rich get richer" seems to be thriving in the domain knowledge arena. We also currently see a line of research that examines the degree to which interest interacts with domain knowledge (Garner, Alexander, Gillingham, Kulikowich, & Brown, 1991). Moreover, other research suggests that some knowledge that college students bring to learning situations is highly resistant to change, even when they have read information to the contrary (e.g., Alvermann & Hynd, 1989; Marshall, 1989), and that prior knowledge can inhibit comprehension (Pace, Marshall, Horowitz, Lipson, & Lucido, 1989). Such resistance indicates that an affective as well as a cognitive component is at work as students attempt to make sense of information (Dole & Sinatra, 1994). The results of this and similar research, once again, indicate the interaction of numerous variables in the learning and studying processes. Metacognitive Ability Paris, Wasik, and van der Westhuizen (1988) pointed out that many of the early metacognitive papers were not empirical in nature, but instead "simply extolled the virtues of metacognition for understanding reading" (p. 162). Subsequent studies, most of which have been intervention or correlational in nature, have confirmed the idea that in order to be successful college students need well-developed metacognitive skills. In the first volume of the Handbook, Baker and Brown (1984) concluded that mature readers may have limited metacognitive skills, and that college students often also failed to monitor their comprehension. These two conclusions still hold true today. College students, who may or may not be mature readers, not only have persistent problems in monitoring text reading (Bielaczyc, Pirolli, & Brown, 1991; Maki & Berry, 1984; Pressley, 1995), but they also have monitoring problems when it comes to test preparation and subsequent prediction concerning how well they have performed on tests for which they have studied (e.g., Nist, Simpson, Olejnik, & Mealey, 1991; Pressley, Snyder, Levin, Murray, & Ghatala, 1987). Intervention research has also confirmed the idea that students can be trained to monitor their learning, thus becoming more metacognitively aware (Dunlosky & Nelson, 1994; Nelson & Narens, 1990; Pressley et al., 1987; Shenkman and Cukras, 1986; Thiede & Dunlosky, 1994). It appears, then, that there is a large payoff when college students are taught metacognitive skills. The current trend in metacognitive research seems to be heading in two directions. First, metacognition is being studied more in how it relates to self-regulated learning (SRL), rather than in isolation. Drawing on theoretical models of SRL (Butler & Winne, 1995; Metcalfe & Shimamura, 1994), Winne (1996) suggested that cognitive and metacognitive tasks are highly interrelated, yet admitted that there is a "relatively
< previous page
page_650
next page >
< previous page
page_651
next page > Page 651
small population of (empirical) studies that directly examine how metacognition is used within SRL." The second area in which there has been a considerable amount of interest has been how to measure metacognition (Dennison, 1997). Several instruments have subscales that tap not only cognitive but metacognitive abilities as well. The best known of these instruments are perhaps the Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI) (Weinstein, Palmer, & Schulte, 1987) and the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & MeKeachie, 1991). Although these instruments seem to have some reliability and validity problems, when used under appropriate conditions, they can provide valuable information. Motivation Much of the research on college students' motivation has been done in isolation of strategic learning, thus portraying what Pintrich and Garcia (1994) called a "motivationally inert" learner (p. 123). That is, there is a considerable amount of research on motivation as well as strategic learning or studying, but researchers are just beginning to examine how these constructs interact. Researchers term the blending of motivation with cognition "hot" cognition (e.g., Winne, 1996). The role that motivation plays in strategic learning and self-regulation is portrayed nicely in the Reciprocal Empowerment Model (McCombs, 1994). In this model, skill, will, and social support are deemed essential if maximum motivation is to occur, but the will component is the center if a student is to become truly self-regulated. Likewise, Mills (1991) claimed that students must be able to gain control over their own thinking processes rather than to be controlled by external standards. It is only then that they will be open to learning new strategies. Moreover, if students believe that strategies are useful in meeting their goals, they will have higher levels of motivation and put forth greater effort (Schunk & Swartz, 1991). In a somewhat different perspective, Paris and Turner (1994) presented what they referred to as situated motivation, the idea that students' motivation is dynamic, thus changing as the situation changes. Much of the research that examines the interaction between college students' strategy use and motivation is correlational in nature. For example, when correlating different subscales from the MSLQ, Pintrich and his colleagues (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992) found that those who are intrinsically motivated, value task, and are highly self-efficacious are more likely to be strategic and metacognitively aware. Moreover, students who use motivational strategies, such as selfhandicapping and defensive pessimism (Garcia, 1993) when they are in "risky" situations, improve their cognitive engagement (Garcia, 1993). Interest Hidi's (1990) synthesis on the role that interest plays in learning has contributed much to what we know about both individual and situational interest. Hidi drew two major conclusions in this synthesis. First, she concluded that interest is key in determining how students process information. Second, Hidi also concluded that interesting information seems to be processed differently than that which is uninteresting. Other research with college students has found that interest played a role in how they responded to text, but that domain knowledge (Garner et al., 1991) and the nature of the text (Schallert, Meyer, & Fowler, 1995) also made a difference. Garner et al. found that interestingness had a particular effect on recall if the participants had little domain knowledge about the topic. Similarly, Schallert et al. found that when students responded to text, both related to and not related to their own majors, they had significantly more interest and involvement in readings for which they had the most domain knowledge. However, the considerateness of the text also played a role. In a review exploring the intersection of the importance of text information and interest, Alexander and Jetton (1996) concluded that: (a) discrepancies in findings may
< previous page
page_651
next page >
< previous page
page_652
next page > Page 652
be more due to how researchers have defined these constructs rather than reflecting any real discrepancies; (b) developmental studies that examined both importance and interest were nonexistent; (c) researchers need to investigate the role of importance and interest using nonlinear texts as well as authentic classroom situations; and (d) research should expand into other domains and topics. Students' Beliefs as Filters What college students believe about learning has an influence on how they interpret the task, how they interact with text, and, ultimately, the strategies they select. Because student beliefs are so important, Thomas and Rohwer (1987) suggested that beliefs serve as the "filter" through which students decipher and interpret the other components of their model. College students' beliefs about knowledge, or epistemologies, and how those beliefs influence learning are currently receiving considerable attention from researchers. Perry (1968, 1970) was the first to discuss epistemologies in an academic setting, and much of the subsequent work is rooted in his findings. The most current line of research defines epistemological beliefs that may influence students' performance on academic tasks. Schommer (1990, 1993, 1994) and her colleagues (Schommer & Hutter, 1995; Schommer & Walker, 1995) characterized epistemologies as individuals' beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning. These beliefs include a student's belief about the certainty of knowledge, the organization of knowledge, and the control of knowledge acquisition (Schoenfeld, 1988; Schommer, 1994; Schommer, Calvert, Gariglietti, & Bajaj, 1997; Schommer & Hutter, 1995). A slightly different approach, the reflective judgment model (King & Kitchener, 1981; Kitchener, King, Wood, & Davidson, 1989), posits that epistemological beliefs are developmental and assumes that individuals progress through seven stages, without skipping any. Although these approaches to thinking about epistemologies differ in some respects, all models assume that individuals move from naive to mature beliefs with experience. Some of the most recent epistemological research focuses on how beliefs influence factors such as motivation, strategy use, and performance. In a series of correlational studies, Schommer (1990, 1993) found significant relationships between certain scales on the epistemological questionnaire she developed and student performance. In her later studies (Schommer, 1993), she concluded that beliefs about knowledge may also influence students' self-report of strategy use. Other researchers are looking at the role that students' beliefs play in task interpretation and strategy selection. For example, Ryan (1984) found that epistemological beliefs (whether students were dualists or relativists as defined by Perry's theory) influenced how students monitored their reading and learning. Moreover, Simpson and Nist (1997) and Simpson et al. (1997) concluded that students' beliefs about knowledge in general, and more specifically their beliefs about what history is, strongly influenced the strategies they selected and their interpretation of the task in a college history class. One final area currently of interest related to epistemological beliefs is the controversy over whether beliefs are domain specific or whether college students have the same underlying beliefs across all domains (Hofer & Pintrich, 1997). Most of the research indicates that epistemological beliefs are developmental in nature, suggesting that at a particular point in time, a student's beliefs would be at the same stage across all domains (e.g., Schommer & Walker, 1995). Yet, as noted by Hofer and Pintrich, the issue of domain specificity as related to epistemological beliefs has received little attention.
< previous page
page_652
next page >
< previous page
page_653
next page > Page 653
Learning Strategies Learning strategies are the "behaviors of a learner that are intended to influence how the learner processes information" (Mayer, 1988, p. 11). Although learning strategies have been part of an assumed or hidden curriculum, researchers have acknowledged their importance and have churned out a plethora of studies investigating their efficacy. Most of the studies during the 1960s, 1970s, and early 1980s were experimental or correlational and attempted to isolate a superior study strategy system or to determine which strategy was more effective in a particular situation. These earlier studies offered an equivocal array of findings for practitioners and researchers. For example, the conclusions from the numerous studies on notetaking and outlining indicated that these strategies were no more effective than passive techniques such as rereading and memorizing (Brown, 1982). Accordingly, the reviews of the extant literature on learning strategy instruction and strategy programs were cautious, at best, and not particularly positive. In Volume I of the Handbook of Reading Research, Anderson and Armbruster (1984) concluded that "empirical research fails to confirm the purported benefits of the popular strategies" and "the effort to find the one superior method has not been successful" (p. 665). In addition, Anderson and Armbruster suggested that most learning strategies were being taught because of tradition or instructors' personal beliefs about their effectiveness rather than because the empirical research confirmed their advantages and benefits. The strategy research studies conducted during the mid 1980s and 1990s changed focus in several significant ways. Rather than attempting to identify a superior strategy, most of these studies investigated whether the performance of college students could be altered if they received an instructional intervention. These later studies were particularly noteworthy in that the interventions were usually quite intensive, employing what Brown, Campione, and Day (1981) characterized as informed training. Such training encouraged students to use a strategy and provided them conditional and procedural knowledge. However, during this period the most significant change in the research on studying occurred with the emergence of the "cognitive constructivist vision of learning" (Mayer, 1996, p. 364). These studies typically occurred in more authentic contexts and viewed the learner as an active participant and "sense maker." These researchers, albeit diverse in their approaches, agreed that learning strategies embodied the essential cognitive and metacognitive processes necessary for college students to make meaning or sense of the world of academia (e.g., Mayer, 1996; McKeachie, Pintrich, Smith, & Lin, 1986; Thomas & Rohwer, 1986; Weinstein, 1994). Although these methodological and philosophical changes had an impact on investigations focusing on studying at the college level, the reality was that there were still a considerable number of atheoretical studies being conducted that repeated the questions and mirrored the methodologies of the past. Hence, it is not surprising that reviews of the more recent literature on studying have yielded conclusions and cautious recommendations similar to those of Anderson and Armbruster in 1984. For example, McWhorter's meta-analysis (1993) of 54 studies found only a moderate effect size for learning strategy interventions on students' test performance. Hattie, Biggs, and Purdie (1996) reviewed 51 studies in which the interventions were aimed at enhancing student learning with one or more study skills or learning strategies. The 18 studies that focused on college students' performance on subject area tests, grade point averages, and tests of general ability found only a small effect of 0.27. Finally, Hadwin and Winne (1996) reviewed 566 strategy intervention studies conducted at the college level. After eliminating 96.7% of the studies, they concluded from their review of the remaining 21 studies that there was a scant research base for the strategies typically recommended by practi-
< previous page
page_653
next page >
< previous page
page_654
next page > Page 654
tioners and commercial materials. However, we should point out that the major limitation of this meta-analysis was the small number of studies included. Although the results of these meta-analyses are certainly equivocal, we believe that important generalizations about studying and active learning have emerged from the large body of research studies. Three generalizations seem particularly relevant. Quality Strategy Instruction Can Promote Active Learning As noted by Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991) and Alvermann and Moore (1991) in Volume II of the Handbook, it is imperative that students receive quality learning strategy instruction if the goal is to insure that they can apply the strategies to their tasks and texts. One important legacy from the research studies of the eighties is that we have a clearer sense of the characteristics of quality strategy instruction or training. First, we know that in order to develop active learners who have a repertoire of strategies, a substantial amount of time must be committed to instruction (Garner, 1990; Paris, 1988; Pressley, 1995). Such instruction should not only be intensive, but should also be of significant duration. In a study that validated the importance of sustained time, Nist and Simpson (1990) found that students' metacognition gradually improved over time, but distinct and significant improvement did not emerge until 4 weeks after the initial instruction. Had the instruction and data collection ended with the first test after only 1 week of intensive instruction, improvement would not have been detected. Second, strategy instruction should include not only the declarative knowledge about a strategy, but also the procedural and conditional knowledge (Butler & Winne, 1995; Garner, 1990; Paris, 1988; Pressley, 1995). For students to gain conditional knowledge, it is critical that they practice strategies with authentic texts and authentic tasks and that they learn how to analyze the texts and tasks in order to determine which strategies are the most appropriate (Butler & Winne, 1995; Simpson, Hynd, Nist, & Burrell, 1997). Moreover, the texts and tasks should be challenging and complex enough so that students will not opt for a more "primitive" routine (e.g., rereading) that is familiar to them and deemed more cost effective (Garner, 1990; Paris & Byrnes, 1989; Pressley, 1995). Third, and perhaps most important, is that instruction should occur within a specific context and specific domain (Alexander, 1996; Garner, 1990; Mayer, 1996; Perkins & Salomon, 1989; Pressley, 1995). As Garner (1990) pointed out, "One thing that we already know about strategy use is that it is embedded. It does not occur in a vacuum. When context varies, the nature of strategic activity often varies as well" (p. 523). Such contextualized instruction, however, is very rare at the college level (Hadwin & Winne, 1996; Simpson et al., 1997). Finally, effective strategy instruction should be explicit and direct (Garner, 1990; Pressley, 1995; Winograd & Hare, 1988). In addition, students should receive specific instructor feedback on their practice attempts because such process checks are critical to the development of active learners (Butler & Winne, 1995). We have observed that very few researchers have actually collected and analyzed students' strategies to determine whether they have correctly interpreted and applied the strategy, and few, if any, have shared that information with the students during the training period (Simpson et al., 1997). Research-Validated Strategies Are Few in Number The second generalization focuses on research validated strategies. Most researchers and practitioners would agree that it is best to teach students a limited number of validated strategies (Levin, 1986; McKeachie et al., 1986; Pressley, 1995). Interestingly,
< previous page
page_654
next page >
< previous page
page_655
next page > Page 655
that recommendation is quite easy to adopt given that there is a limited number of research validated strategies appropriate for college students. The four strategies we examine here have been validated in several research studies and have been conducted, in most situations, by a variety of researchers rather than just one. In addition, these studies have included explicit instruction, using high school or college students as their participants. However, one caveat should be noted: Their selection in no way implies that they are useful for all students, domains, or tasks. Research that has investigated these variables in a consistent manner simply does not exist. Question Generation and Answer Explanation When students generate questions about what they have read, they are actively processing text information and monitoring their understanding of that information. As a result, their text comprehension improves (Graesser & McMahen, 1993; King, 1990, 1995; Palinscar & Brown, 1984; Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1994; Spires & Donley, 1998). In order to train students in how to create task-appropriate questions which elicit higher levels of thinking, several methods have been used. For example, King (1989, 1992) used generic questions stems that asked students to analyze, predict, compare and contrast, apply, and evaluate (e.g., "What is an example of . . .?"). Other research studies capitalized on the power of reciprocal teaching, in which students worked cooperatively in pairs or small groups, asking each other questions and answering them in a reciprocal manner (e.g., King, 1990; King & Rosenshine, 1993; Palinscar & Brown, 1984). The findings from these studies and others have suggested that the question answering is equal in importance to the question asking because students are encouraged to clarify concepts, create alternative examples, or relate ideas to their partners' prior knowledge in order to answer the question from their partner (King, 1995). Text Summarization Writer-based summaries are external products that students create for themselves in order to reduce and organize information for their subsequent study and review. According to Wittrock's (1990) model of generative comprehension, for a summary to be effective, students must use their own words to form connections across the concepts and relate the concepts to their own prior knowledge and experiences. Such a definition of summarization implies that it is not a strategy quickly mastered (Brown & Day, 1983; Pressley et al., 1997). Because of the inherent difficulties in producing generative summaries, many of the early research studies, which did not provide explicit instruction of some duration, found that summaries had no impact on students' performance (e.g., Howe & Singer, 1975). However, the majority of the more recent studies have found that writer-based summaries not only improve students' comprehension, but also help them monitor their understanding (Brown & Day, 1983; Hare & Borchardt, 1984; King, 1992; O'Donnell & Dansereau, 1992; Wittrock, 1990). Summarization as a study strategy has taken a variety of forms. Many of the studies in the mid 1980s taught students rules for summarizing, hoping to make explicit the steps that expert readers use when they read and study text (Day, 1980; Hare & Borchardt, 1984). Other investigations (e.g., Palinscar & Brown, 1984; O'Donnell & Dansereau, 1993) examined the combined impact of dyad learning and summarization on students' performance. Nist and Simpson (1988) incorporated many of Wittrock's principles of summarization into a text-marking strategy called annotation, training students to write brief summaries in the margins of their texts. These researchers and others have found that students' test performance and summary writing abilities improved when they were taught to summarize and annotate (Harris, 1991; Hynd, Simpson, & Chase, 1990; Strode, 1991).
< previous page
page_655
next page >
< previous page
page_656
next page > Page 656
Student-Generated Elaborations When students generate elaborations, they create examples or analogies, draw inferences, and explain the relationships between two or more concepts (Gagne, Weidemann, Bell, & Anders, 1984). Since Anderson and Armbruster's (1984) review of studying, there have been several studies investigating the impact of elaboration (Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, & Ahmad, 1987; Simpson, Olejnik, Tam, & Supattathum, 1994; Woloshyn, Willoughby, Wood, & Pressley, 1990). These more recent studies have demonstrated rather consistently that students can be trained to create elaborations and that self-generated elaborations can significantly effect students' performance on both recall and recognition measures. Pressley and his colleagues have conducted numerous studies on elaborative interrogation (e.g., Kaspar & Wood, 1993; Pressley, McDaniel, Turnure, Wood, & Ahmad, 1987; Pressley, Symons, McDaniel, Snyder, & Turnure, 1988; Woloshyn et al., 1990). Elaborative interrogation involves students in making connections between ideas they have read and their prior knowledge by generating ''why" questions and then answering those questions. The findings from the elaborative interrogation studies have suggested that the quality of the generated elaborations does not impact students' understanding when the targeted topic domain is one for which they have some prior knowledge. In a different type of elaboration study, Simpson et al. (1994) trained students to generate their own elaborations and then to recite them orally. Like the findings from the elaborative interrogation studies, the students who produced oral elaborations performed significantly better than their counterparts on immediate recall and recognition measures. However, Simpson et al. also investigated the long-term impact of the strategy, discovering that oral elaborations had a significant effect on students' performance on a delayed recall measure that occurred 2 weeks after the immediate testing. Organizing Strategies Perhaps most researched of all validated strategies are those that help students organize information. Several researchers have sought to validate the effectiveness of strategies that assist students in visually organizing and representing important relationships among ideas present in written or oral text (Bernard & Naidu, 1992; Briscoe & LeMaster, 1991; Kiewra, 1994; Lambiote, Peale, & Dansereau, 1992; McCagg & Dansereau, 1991). Most of these organizing strategies involve students in identifying main ideas and subordinate ideas, making connections among those ideas, and then choosing a way in which to visually represent those relationships in an abbreviated spatial format. Although there are variations in these organizing strategies, the two basic types are concept maps and network representations, both of which are closely associated with the network and propositional models of memory. Concept maps generally depict a hierarchical or linear relationship, and can be created in such a way as to represent complex interrelationships among ideas. When researchers have provided training in how to map, they have found that students who studied these maps performed better on dependent measures than their counterparts (Bernard & Naidu, 1992; Lipson, 1995). Mapping appears to be especially effective in situations where students must read and study complex expository text and then demonstrate their understanding on measures requiring higher levels of thinking such as synthesis and application (Bernard & Naidu, 1992; Briscoe & LeMaster, 1991). As such, much of the research on mapping has been conducted in the sciences. In addition, the studies seem to suggest that mapping best benefits students who are persistent in using the strategy and who have high content knowledge in a particular domain (Hadwin & Winne, 1996). According to the researchers at Texas Christian University, network representations differ from concept maps in that students link key ideas with a canonical set of labels or
< previous page
page_656
next page >
< previous page
page_657
next page > Page 657
links (Lambiote, Dansereau, Cross, & Reynolds, 1989). Perhaps the earliest study on a network representation was done by Diekhoff, Brown, and Dansereau (1982), who found that college students using the NAIT strategy (Node Acquisition and Integration Technique) performed significantly better on the recall measures than their counterparts who self-selected their own strategies. NAIT gradually evolved into a strategy that was renamed the knowledge map or k-map. The effectiveness of the k-map has been investigated with both oral and written text (Lambiote et al., 1992; McCagg & Dansereau, 1991). In both studies, the researchers found that students using k-maps performed better than their counterparts using alternative methods. It should be noted, however, that the type of thinking demanded on the dependent measure and the domain (e.g., physiology vs. statistics) used as the study material has influenced the success of k-maps. In general, the findings from these organizing strategies have not been as compelling as with the findings from other strategies such as self-questioning and elaborating. Students' Cognitive and Metacognitive Processing Is Important The third generalization that emerged from the extant literature reaffirms the importance of students' cognitive and metacognitive processing. In a quest to determine a superior strategy or to train students to use a specific strategy, previous researchers targeted their efforts totally on the strategy itself, thus overlooking processes underlining that strategy. Recent researchers (e.g., Mayer, 1996; Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993), however, have focused their investigations more on processes, believing that what makes a difference in students' learning is the cognitive and metacognitive processes that students enact as they read and study. Although there are some slight differences in the terminology, the processes typically include selecting and transforming ideas, organizing, elaborating, monitoring, planning, and evaluating (Hadwin & Winne, 1996; Mayer, 1996; Pintrich et al., 1993; Weinstein, 1994). The cognitive and metacognitive processes essential to active learning have been studied in a variety of ways. Mayer (1996), for example, has theorized that the selectionorganizationintegration model represents the cognitive processes involved in students' meaningful learning from expository text and has identified several strategies for enhancing each process. Other researchers have trained students to employ certain processes such as elaborating, planning, monitoring, and evaluating (Pressley, McDaniel, et al., 1987; Nist & Simpson, 1990). A majority of these studies have used quantitative methodologies, and, in particular, correlational designs that have attempted to determine what relationships exist between students' self-reported cognitive and metacognitive processes and their performance in a particular domain or their overall grade point averages. For example, Pintrich and Garcia (1991) concluded that students who were engaged in deeper levels of processing, such as elaboration and organization, were more likely to do better in terms of grades on assignments or exams, as well as overall course grades. The renewed emphasis on process rather than strategies has significant implications for program evaluation efforts and for studies on strategy transfer. That is, students could be employing certain cognitive or metacognitive processes as they read and study, but not using the specific strategy that embodies these processes. When practitioners and researchers ask students in interviews or in questionnaires to list or check the strategies they are presently using, they may be overlooking the most important data. The irony of this oversight is that we want students to focus on the processes they are using when they study, not just the strategies. If students can learn to think about the cognitive and metacognitive processes demanded in a task, they then can define their goals and study appropriately (Hadwin & Winne, 1996; Pressley, 1995).
< previous page
page_657
next page >
< previous page
page_658
next page > Page 658
Implications of the Current Research In this section we examine the implications of the extant research and theory. We describe four components of effective college studying programs and courses, comparing and contrasting, when appropriate, the "ideal" to the status quo. Then we examine the implications of current research for public policy. Finally, we offer suggestions for future research endeavors. Courses and Programs Based on our review of the literature, we recommend the following for programs and courses. Programs Should Reflect Students' Academic Tasks. Although it may seem obvious, our first recommendation is that programs and courses should reflect the academic tasks and texts that professors assign. Our 20 years of experience in the field have taught us that many college studying programs still use a generic model that relies on commercial materials to dictate what students will be taught. A more powerful approach is for instructors to begin curriculum development with an explicit understanding of the tasks and texts expected of students at their institutions. For example, are students in humanities courses asked to read a variety of primary and secondary sources and take essay exams over these texts? If so, then the objectives of the studying course should reflect these tasks. When instructors emphasize the teaching of processes and strategies within a specific domain, the approach is usually classified as the embedded approach. Perkins and Salomon (1989) described the embedded approach as one that "calls for the intimate intermingling of generality and context-specificity in instruction" (p. 24). Although there are a variety of embedded approaches that acknowledge college students' tasks and texts, the two most prevalent are "Learning to Learn" courses and paired courses. ''Learning to Learn" courses are designed to teach students a variety of study strategies, which they then apply to their own tasks and texts. These courses have been implemented by a variety of larger universities such as the University of Michigan, the University of Texas, and the University of Georgia. In paried courses, also known as supplemental instruction (Martin & Arendale, 1994), an instructor "pairs" strategy instruction to a particular high-risk college course. The instructor attends the targeted course, reads the assigned material, takes lecture notes, and then organizes sessions outside the class period on how to study, making sure that the strategies pertain to the professor's tasks and texts. Programs Should Encourage Students to Decipher Academic Tasks and Become Aware of Personal Epistemologies. In order to succeed, students must understand their professors' objectives and goals, build an awareness of how professors think about their domain, and learn how to organize that information. The paired course approach is an ideal situation for teaching students how to interpret academic tasks because the study strategy instructor and the students are both placed in a specific context. However, the embedded model presents only one learning context to students. Hence, instructors wanting to build task awareness might consider using scenarios or case studies to sensitize students to the nuances of tasks and the many ways in which professors directly and indirectly communicate tasks. In addition to teaching students to decipher academic tasks, it is important for students to become aware of their personal beliefs/epistemologies about learning and to realize that their professors may have differing belief systems. General or domain spe-
< previous page
page_658
next page >
< previous page
page_659
next page > Page 659
cific beliefs about learning are important because they impact students' choices on how they read, process, and choose to study (Gibbs, 1990; Schommer, 1993). Programs Should Emphasize a Variety of Validated Strategies and Processes. Because the extant literature suggests that there is no superior study strategy or study system, it seems reasonable that students should be taught a repertoire of strategies, some of which are general cognitive and metacognitive strategies and some of which are domain specific (i.e., problem-solving steps for mathematics). More important than the decision of which research validated strategies to teach is the commitment to making sure that students know how to select, transform, organize, elaborate, plan, monitor, and evaluate all critical thinking processes. In addition to these cognitive processes, instructors should address the pivotal role that motivation plays in active learning. Programs Should Encourage Strategy Transfer and Modification. The extant literature suggests that students do not automatically or immediately transfer strategies in a flexible manner (Garner, 1990; Pressley, 1995). For transfer to occur, students must understand strategies and be able to discuss "knowingly" the domains and tasks for which they are appropriate (Butler & Winne, 1995; Campione, Shapiro, & Brown, 1995). In addition, students must understand the advantages of a particular strategy, especially if they are expected to abandon their usual approaches, which may be more comfortable and accessible (Pressley, 1995; Winne, 1995). Finally, students must learn how they can modify a strategy to fit situations slightly different from those in which they originally learned the strategy (Pressley, Harris, & Marks, 1992). To encourage strategy transfer, instructors should provide students with explicit instruction and practice opportunities with a diverse set of tasks across domains. As students analyze these academic tasks and try out the strategies, instructors should gently nudge them toward the belief that learning is not always quick and easy. Finally, in order to promote flexible strategy employment, instructors should arrange opportunities for students to reflect and evaluate (Campione et al., 1995). Policy Unlike emerging literacy and the paradigm wars concerning reading methodologies, very few literacy professionals currently seem concerned about active learning and whether students are being taught how to study. As mentioned earlier, the lack of concern is probably due, in part, to the fact that studying is a part of the hidden curriculum in our public schools (Mayer, 1996). As a result, many college students are totally unprepared for the academic demands and tasks they encounter in their courses (Simpson & Nist, 1997; Weinstein, 1994). Realizing that they lack the strategies necessary for the more demanding tasks in college, many students, sometimes the very brightest high school graduates, seek out courses on how to study. Ironically, these are the courses being reduced or cut altogether because college administrators erroneously believe such courses to be "remedial" and unnecessary. Although there are no easy solutions to these problems, we suggest that researchers and instructors specializing in the area of study strategies forge cooperative relationships with individuals in decision-making positions such as legislators, members of boards of education, and administrators. These individuals must first realize that reading to learn and studying are essential processes that must be incorporated into the K12 curriculum so that students are continually using active reading and learning strategies, whether it be for 4th-grade social studies or 11th-grade chemistry.
< previous page
page_659
next page >
< previous page
page_660
next page > Page 660
Research We divide our research agenda into two parts. First, we discuss the more methodological issues related to designing investigations related to studying. Second, we outline specific gaps that we perceive, suggesting future directions that the research on studying might take. Methodological Issues We see three overriding methodological issues that need to be addressed. First, a major problem with the extant studies, particularly those that are correlational in nature, concerns the instruments used to measure both cognitive and affective factors related to studying. The most commonly used instruments have both reliability and validity problems that, at the very least, call into question research results. It is not that we believe that these instruments are poorly constructed. Rather, they simply are not appropriate in all research settings. Therefore, we suggest that future studies pilot instruments on students similar to those they will use in their actual studies. Furthermore, researchers should consider collecting information using a variety of instruments and data collection methods. For example, reliable and valid standardized instruments could be coupled with data from interviews and observations as a way of triangulating information. Second, we need additional studies that use alternative methodologies. We believe that qualitative methodology lends itself well to investigating college studying because such methods allow for greater insights into the complexity of studying at the student level. Moreover, researchers interested in quantitative methodology should move beyond simple correlational and regression studies, working toward building models of studying through structural equation modeling. Furthermore, although some comparison studies still provide valuable information, the last thing the field needs is more studies comparing one strategy with another or a specific strategy with no treatment at all. Finally, both qualitative and quantitative researchers need to conduct more long-term investigations to determine how students' studying behaviors evolve over time. It is only through long-term studies that researchers can understand strategy transfer and make better sense of the factors that play a role in students' studying behaviors. Future Directions First and foremost, we need to focus future research studies on the interactive nature of studying. In the past, the majority of studies that have examined interactions have concentrated on how strategy use interacts with one other variable such as domain knowledge or text type. As outlined in the Rohwer and Thomas model, we need to know more about how factors such as text, academic task, and students' beliefs impact and interact with strategy use. Second, we need further research on the processes that underlie studying rather than on specific strategies. Some researchers have done an admirable job of beginning to identify the processes (Mayer, 1988, 1996; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986), but, clearly, we do not understand how these processes interact. Third, we need additional studies that focus on course characteristics, concentrating on the role that both academic tasks and texts play in student learning. That is, it is important to determine how academic tasks are communicated in college classrooms and how students go about interpreting those tasks within varying contexts. What kinds of compensatory strategies do students use when tasks are conveyed only implicitly, or not at all? In terms of text, one of the major gaps in the research is how students deal with the problem of multiple texts. Fourth, studies that examine the role of student beliefs as they relate to strategy selection, motivation, task interpretation, and academic performance are lacking. Our
< previous page
page_660
next page >
< previous page
page_661
next page > Page 661
experiences suggest that most students have little idea about their own beliefs about learning and knowing, let alone how these beliefs influence their academic performance. Moreover, research findings indicate that professor beliefs and student beliefs are generally disparate (Wineburg, 1991). We need additional studies examining these issues within classroom settings across a variety of domains. Finally, program evaluation studies on "Learning to Learn" or study strategy courses are virtually nonexistent, except for a few presented at conferences or published in tertiary journals. We believe that this lack of evaluation has occurred for several reasons. First, good evaluation studies are challenging to design. Second, evaluation studies are difficult to get published, particularly in the better research journals. We applaud the efforts of researchers such as Dubois, Staley, and Dennison (1998) and Weinstein et al. (1997), who have designed and reported long-term evaluation studies, but such investigations are rare, or perhaps just rarely reported. Third, good evaluation studies involve the researchers in a long-term commitment because data on students' academic achievement must be collected for at least 2 years after they have completed such a program or course. Finally, program and course evaluations can be politically charged. Because pressure can be exerted administratively to indicate that such programs and courses are worthy, many program evaluation studies are often designed using instruments and variables guaranteed to show growth. Given these reasons why evaluation studies are scant in the literature, well-planned studies are important if how to study or "Learning to Learn" programs at the college level are to survive. References Alexander, P. A. (1992). Domain knowledge: Evolving themes and emerging concerns. Educational Psychologist, 27, 3351. Alexander, P. A. (1995). Superimposing a situation-specific and domain-specific perspective on an account of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 189193. Alexander, P. A. (1996). The past, present, and future of knowledge research: A reexamination of the role of knowledge in learning and instruction. Educational Psychologist, 31, 8992. Alexander, P. A., & Jetton, T. L. (1996). The role of importance and interest in the processing of text. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 89122. Alexander, P. A., & Judy, J. E. (1988). The interaction of domain-specific knowledge in academic performance. Review of Educational Research, 58, 375404. Alexander, P. A., Kulikowich, J. M., & Schulze, S. K. (1994). The influence of topic knowledge, domain knowledge, and interest on the comprehension of scientific exposition. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 379397. Alvermann, D. E., & Hynd, C. R. (1989). Study strategies for correcting misconceptions in physics: An intervention. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 353361). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Alvermann, D. E., & Moore, D. W. (1991). Secondary school reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol II, pp. 951983). New York: Longman. Anderson, T. H., & Armbruster, B. B. (1984). Studying. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 657679). New York: Longman. Baker, L., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 353394). New York: Longman. Baldwin, R. S., Readence, J. E., Schumm, J. S., Konopak, J. P., Konopak, B. C., & Klingner, J. K. (1992). Forty years of NRC publications: 19521991. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24, 505532. Bernard, R. M., & Naidu, S. (1992). Post-questioning, concept mapping, and feedback: A distance education field experiment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 23, 4860. Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P., & Brown, A. L. (1991, April). The effects of training in explanation strategies on the acquisition of programming skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Bliesmer, E. P. (1968). 1968 review of research on college-adult reading. Psychology of Reading Education, 8, 7999. Book, W. F. (1927). Results obtained in a special "How to Study" course given to college students. School and Society, 26, 529534.
< previous page
page_661
next page >
< previous page
page_662
next page > Page 662
Boylan, H. R. (1994). Educating all the nation's people: The historical roots of developmental education. In M. A. Maxwell (Ed.), From access to success (pp. 37). Clearwater, FL: H & H. Briscoe, C., & LeMaster, S. U. (1991). Meaningful learning in college biology through concept mapping. American Biology Teacher, 53, 214219. Brown, A. L. (1982). Learning to learn from reading. In J. A. Langer & M. T. Smith-Burke (Eds.), Reader meets author/Bridging the gap (pp. 2654). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Brown, A. L., Campione, J. C., & Day, J. D. (1981). Learning to learn: On training students to learn from text. Educational Researcher, 10, 1421. Brown, A. L., & Day, J. D. (1983). Macrorules for summarizing texts: The development of expertise. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22, 14. Burrell, K. I., Tao, L., Simpson, M. L., & Mendez-Burreuta, H. (1996). How do we know what we are preparing students for? A reality check of one university's academic literacy demands. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 13, 5570. Butler, D. L., & Winne, P. H. (1995). Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 65, 245281. Campione, J. C., Shapiro, A. M., & Brown, A. L., (1995). Forms of transfer in a community of learners: Flexible learning and understanding. In A. McKeough, J. Lupart, & A. Marini (Eds.), Teaching for transfer: Fostering generalization in learning (pp. 3568), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Carson, J. G., Chase, N. D., & Gibson, S. U. (1993). A model for faculty collaboration: Focus on academic literacy. Atlanta: Center for Adult Literacy, Georgia State University. Chase, N. D., Gibson, S. U., & Carson, J. G. (1994). An examination of reading demands across four college courses. Journal of Developmental Education, 18, 1016. Chiseri-Strater, E. (1991). Academic literacies: The public and private discourse of university students. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Day, J. D. (1980). Training summarization skills: A comparison of teaching methods. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Champagne-Urbana. Dennison, R. S. (1997, March). Relationships among measures of metacognitive monitoring. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Diekhoff, G. M., Brown, P. J., & Dansereau, D. F. (1982). A prose learning strategy training program based on network and depth-of-processing models. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 180184. Dole, J. A., & Sinatra, G. M. (1994). Social psychology research on beliefs and attitudes: Implications for research on learning from text. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 245264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Donald, J. G. (1994). Science students' learning: Ethnographic studies in three disciplines. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning (pp. 79112). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159199. DuBois, N. F., Staley, R., & Dennison, R. S. (1998, April). Longitudinal analysis of a college study skills course: Motivation, study tactics, and GPA relationships. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Dunlosky, J., & Nelson, T. O. (1994). Does the sensitivity of judgments of learning (JOLs) to the effects of various study activities depend on when the JOLs occur? Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 545565. Enright, G. & Kerstiens, G. (1980). The learning center: Toward an expanded role. In O. T. Lenning & R. L. Nayman (Eds.), New directions in learning assistance (pp. 124). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gagne, E. D., Weidemann, C., Bell, M. S., & Anders, T. D. (1984). Training thirteen-year-olds to elaborate while studying. Human Learning, 3, 281294. Garcia, T. (1993). Skill and will for learning: Self-schemas, motivational strategies, and self-regulated learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Garner, R. (1990). When children and students do not use learning strategies: Toward a theory of settings. Review of Educational Research, 60, 517529. Garner, R., Alexander, P. A., Gillingham, M. G., Kulikowich, J. M., & Brown, R. (1991). Interest and learning from text. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 643659. Gibbs, G. (1990). Improving student learning project briefing paper. Oxford, UK: Oxford Centre for Staff Development, Oxford Polytechnic. Graesser, A. C., & McMahen, C. L. (1993). Anomalous information triggers questions when adults solve quantitative problems and comprehend stories. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 136141. Hadwin, A. F., & Winne, P. H. (1996). Study strategies have meager support. Journal of Higher Education, 67, 692715.
Hare, V., & Borchardt, K. M. (1984). Direct instruction of summarization skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 6278. Harris, J. (1991, November). Text annotation and underlining as metacognitive strategies to improve comprehension and retention of expository text. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Hattie, J., Biggs, H. J., & Purdie, N. (1996). Effects of learning skills interventions on student learning: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 99136.
< previous page
page_662
next page >
< previous page
page_663
next page > Page 663
Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Educational Research, 60, 549571. Hofer, B. K. (1998, April). Personal epistemology in context: Student interpretations of instructional practice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. Hofer, B. K., & Pintrich, P. (1997). The development of epistemological theories: Beliefs about knowledge and knowing and their relation to learning. Review of Educational Research, 67, 88140. Howe, M. J. A., & Singer, L. (1975). Presentation variables and students' activities in meaningful learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 5261. Hynd, C. R., Simpson, M. L., & Chase, N. D. (1990). Studying narrative text: The effects of annotation vs. journal writing on test performance. Reading Research and Instruction, 29, 4454. Jenkins, J. J. (1978). Four points to remember: A tetrahedral model of memory experiments. In L. S. Cermak & F. I. M. Craik (Eds.), Levels of processing and human memory (pp. 425445). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kaspar, V., & Wood, E. (1993, April). Academic achievement as a predictor of adolescent success in elaboration strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Kiewra, K. A. (1989). A review of note-taking: The encoding-storage paradigm and beyond. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 147172. Kiewra, K. A. (1994). The matrix representation system: Orientation, research, theory, and application. In J. Smart (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (pp. 331373). New York: Agathon. Kiewra, K. A., Benton, S. L., Kim, S. L., & Risch, N. (1995). Effects of note-taking format and study technique on recall and relational performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 20, 1995. King, A. (1989). Effects of self-questioning training on college students' comprehension of lectures. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 116. King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom through reciprocal questioning. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664687. King, A. (1991). Improving lecture comprehension: Effects of a metacognitive strategy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5, 331346. King, A. (1992). Comparison of self-questioning, summarizing, and note taking review as strategies for learning from lectures. American Educational Research Journal, 29, 303323. King, A. (1995). Cognitive strategies for learning from direct teaching. In E. Wood, V. Woloshyn, & T. Willoughby (Eds.), Cognitive strategy instruction for middle and high schools (pp. 1865). Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. King, A., & Rosenshine, B. (1993). Effects of guided cooperative questioning on children's knowledge construction. Journal of Experimental Education, 61, 127148. King, K. S., & Kitchener, P. M. (1994). Developing reflective judgement. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kitchener, P. M., King, K. S., Wood, P. K, & Davidson, M. L. (1989). Sequentially and consistency in the development of reflective judgement: A six-year longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 10, 7395. Kuhn, D. (1991). The skills of argument. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Lambiote, J. G., Dansereau, D. F., Cross, D. R., & Reynolds, S. B. (1989). Multirelational maps. Educational Psychology Review, 1, 331367. Lambiote, J. G., Peale, J., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992, April). Knowledge maps as review devices: Like 'em or not. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Levin, J. R. (1986). Four cognitive principles of learning strategy instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 317. Lipson, M. (1995). The effect of semantic mapping instruction on prose comprehension of below-level college readers. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 367378. Maki, R. H., & Berry, S. L. (1984). Metacomprehension of text material. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 663697. Marshall, N. (1989). Overcoming problems with incorrect prior knowledge: An instructional study. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 323330). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Martin, D. C., & Arendale, D. (1994, February). Review of research concerning the effectiveness of SI from the University of Missouri-Kansas City and other institutions across the United States. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Freshmen Year Experience, Columbia, SC. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 370 502). Maxwell, M. (1997). Improving student learning skills. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing. Mayer, R. E. (1988). Learning strategies: An overview. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 1122). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive
processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8, 357371. McCagg, E. C., & Dansereau, D. F. (1991). A convergent paradigm for examining knowledge mapping as a learning strategy. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 317324.
< previous page
page_663
next page >
< previous page
page_664
next page > Page 664
McCombs, B. L. (1994). Strategies for assessing and enhancing motivation: Keys to promoting self-regulated learning and performance. In H. F. O'Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 4969). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. McKeachie, W. J, Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., & Lin, Y. G. (1986). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature. Ann Arbor, MI: National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. McWhorter, J. Y. (1993). The effects of postsecondary learning strategy use on performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens. Metcalf, J., & Shimamura, A. (1994). Metacognition: Knowing about knowing. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books. Meyer, B. J. F., & Rice, G. E. (1984). The structure of text. In P. D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 319352). New York: Longman. Mills, R. C. (1991). A new understanding of self: The role of affect, state of mind, self understanding, and intrinsic motivation. In B. L. McCombs (Ed.), Unraveling motivation: New perspectives from research and practice [Special issue]. Journal of Experimental Education, fall. Nelson, T. O., & Narens, L. (1990). Metamemory: A theoretical framework and new findings. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 125173). New York: Academic Press. Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (1988). The effectiveness and efficiency of training college students to annotate and underline texts. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research: Thirty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 251257). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Nist, S. L., & Simpson, M. L. (1990). The effect of PLAE upon students' test performance and metacognitive awareness. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms: Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 321328). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Nist, S. L., Simpson, M. L., Olejnik, S., & Mealey, D. L. (1991). The relation between self-selected study processes and performance. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 849874. O'Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1992). Scripted cooperation in student dyads: A method for analyzing and enhancing academic learning and performance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups: The theoretical anatomy of group learning (pp. 120141). New York: Cambridge University Press. O'Donnell, A. M., & Dansereau, D. F. (1993). Learning from lectures: Effects of cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Education, 6, 116125. Pace, A. J., Marshall, N., Horowitz, R., Lipson, M. Y., & Lucido, P. (1989). When prior knowledge doesn't facilitate text comprehension: An examination of some of the issues. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction: Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 213224). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117175. Paris, S. G. (1988). Models and metaphors of learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in assessment, instruction, and evaluation (pp. 299321). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Paris, S. G., & Byrnes, J. P. (1989). The constructivist approach to self-regulation and learning in the classroom. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H. Schunk (Eds.), Self-regulated learning and academic achievement: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 169200). New York: Springer-Verlag. Paris, S. G., & Turner, G. C. (1994). Situated motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein, (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning (pp. 213238). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 293316. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609640). New York: Longman. Paris, S. G, Wasik, B. A., & van der Westhuizen, G. (1988). Meta-metacognition: A review of research on metacognition and reading. In J. R. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research: Thirty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 143166). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Perkins, D. N., & Salomon, G. (1989). Are cognitive skills context-bound? Educational Researchers, 18, 1625. Perry, W. G. (1968). Patterns of development in thought and values of students in a liberal arts college: A validation of a scheme. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 024315) Perry, W. G. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston. Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Goals and self-regulatory processes (Vol. 7, pp. 371402). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1994). Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies and motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning (pp. 113133). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_664
next page >
< previous page
page_665
next page > Page 665
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students' motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom tasks. In D. H. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences (pp. 149183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1991). A manual for the use of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan National Center for Research to Improve Postsecondary Teaching and Learning. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivation Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 801813. Pressley, M. (1995). More about the development of self-regulation: Complex, long-term, and thoroughly social. Educational Psychologist, 30, 207212. Pressley, M., Harris, K. R., & Marks, M. B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! Educational Psychologist, 4, 132. Pressley, M., McDaniel, M. A., Turnure, J. E., Wood, E., & Ahmad, M. (1987). Generation and precision of elaboration: Effects on intentional and incidental learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 291300. Pressley, M., Snyder, B. L., Levin, J. R., Murray, H. G., & Ghatala, E. S. (1987). Perceived readiness for examination performance (PREP) produced by initial reading of text and text containing adjunct questions. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 219236. Pressley, M., Symons, S., McDaniel, M. A., Snyder, B. L., & Turnure, J. E. (1988). Elaborative interrogation facilitates acquisition of confusing facts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 268278. Pressley, M., Yokoi, L., van Meter, P., Van Etten, S., & Freebern, G. (1997). Some of the reasons preparing for exams is so hard: What can be done to make it easier? Educational Psychology Review, 9, 138. Rickards, J. P., & Friedman, F. (1978). The encoding versus external storage hypothesis in notetaking. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 3, 136143. Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman, S. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 64, 479530. Ryan, M. P. (1984). Monitoring text comprehension: Individual differences in epistemological standards. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 248258. Schallert, D. L., Alexander, P. A., & Goetz, E. T. (1985). What do instructors and authors do to influence the textbook-student relationship? In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Issues in literacy: A research perspective: Thirty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 110115). New York: National Reading Conference. Schallert, D. L., Meyer, D. K., & Fowler, L. A. (1995). The nature of engagement when reading in and out of one's discipline. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 119125). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Schellings, G. L. M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Vermunt, J. D. (1996a). Individual differences in adapting to three different tasks of selecting information from texts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 423446. Schellings, G. L. M., Van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., & Vermunt, J. D. (1996b). Selection of main points in instructional texts: Influences of task demands. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 355378. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of "well-taught" mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23, 498504. Schommer, M. (1990). Effects of beliefs about the nature of knowledge on comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 498504. Schommer, M. (1993). Comparisons of beliefs about the nature of knowledge and learning among post-secondary students. Research in Higher Education, 43, 355370. Schommer, M. (1994). An emerging conceptualization of epistemological beliefs and their role in learning. In R. Garner & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 2540). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schommer, M., Calvert, C., Gariglietti, G., & Bajaj, A. (1997). The development of epistemological beliefs among secondary students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 3740. Schommer, M., & Hutter, R. (1995, April). Epistemological beliefs and thinking about everyday controversial issues. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Schommer, M., & Walker, K. (1995). Are epistemological beliefs similar across domains? Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 424432. Schunk, D. H., & Swartz, C. W. (1991, April). Process goals and feedback: Effects on children's self-efficacy and skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Shenkman, H., & Cukras, G. (1986). Effects of a metacognitive study training program on underprepared college students. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers: Thirty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 222226). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_666
next page > Page 666
Simpson, M. L., Hynd, C. R., Nist, S. L., & Burrell, K. I. (1997). College academic assistance programs and practices. Educational Psychology Review, 9, 3987. Simpson, M. L., & Nist, S. L. (1997). Perspectives on learning history: A case study. Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 363395. Simpson, M. L., Nist, S. L., & Sharman, S. J. (1997, December). "I think the big trick of history is": A case study of selfregulated learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Simpson, M. L., Olejnik, S., Tam, A. Y., & Supattathum S. (1994). Elaborative verbal rehearsals and college students' cognitive performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 267278. Spires, H. A., & Donley, J. (1998). Prior knowledge activation: Inducing engagement with informational texts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 249260. Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407 Strode, S. L. (1991). Teaching annotation writing to college students. Forum for Reaching, 23, 3344. Thiede, K. W., & Dunlosky, J. (1994). Delaying students' metacognitive monitoring improves their accuracy in predicting their recognition performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 290302. Thomas, J. W., Bol, L., & Warkentin, R. W. (1991). Antecedents of college students' study deficiencies: The relationship between course features and students' study activities. Higher Education, 22, 275296. Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. (1986). Academic studying: The role of learning strategies. Educational Psychologist, 21, 1941. Thomas, J. W., & Rohwer, W. D. (1987). Grade-level and course-specific differences in academic studying: Summary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 12, 381385. van Meter, P., Yokoi, L., & Pressley, M. (1994). College students' theory of note-taking derived from their perceptions of notetaking. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 323338. Voss, J. F., & Silfies, L. N. (1996). Learning from history text: The interaction of knowledge and comprehension skill with text structure. Cognition and Instruction, 14, 4568. Weinstein, C. E. (1994). Strategic learning/strategic teaching: Flip sides of a coin. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein (Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning (pp. 257273). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weinstein, C. E., Dierking, D., Husman, J., Roska. L. & Powdril, L. (1998). The impact of a course in strategic learning on the long-term retention of college students [Monograph]. Developmental Education: Preparing successful college students, 24, 8596. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. F. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 315327). New York: Macmillan. Weinstein, C. E., Palmer, D. R., & Schulte, A. C. (1987). Learning and Study Strategies Inventory. Clearwater, FL: H & H Publishing. Wineburg, S. (1991). On the reading of historical texts: Notes on the breach between school and academy. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 495519. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173187. Winne, P. H. (1996). A metacognitive view of individual differences in self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 327353. Winograd, P., & Hare, V. C. (1988). Direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies: The nature of teacher explanation. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T. Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies (pp. 121140). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345376. Woloshyn, V. E., Willoughby, T., Wood, E., & Pressley, M. (1990). Elaborative interrogation facilitates adult learning of factual paragraphs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 513524. Woodward, A. (1993). Introduction: Learning from textbooks. In B. K. Britton, A. Woodward, & M. Binkley (Eds.), Learning from textbooks (pp. viix). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_666
next page >
< previous page
page_667
next page > Page 667
Chapter 36 Re-Mediating Reading Difficulties: Appraising the Past, Reconciling the Present, Constructing the Future Laura Klenk Michael W. Kibby University at Buffalo A small but significant portion of otherwise normal American children encounter major difficulties in learning to read when provided regular classroom reading instruction. These children (heretofore called "remedial readers") and the special intervention programs designed to help them become better readers (heretofore called "remedial reading") are the dual foci of this chapter. We offer a caveat, however: The fact that there exists a sizable number of children who have reading difficulties need not be interpreted as a negative reflection on the overall status of reading ability of American students. It is an irrefutable fact that children in Grades K8 today read as well or better than children at any other time in the history of the United States (Berliner & Biddle, 1995; Farr, Fay, Myers, & Ginsberg, 1987; Kibby, 1993, 1995a, b). Even in the last 30 yearsand in spite of the surfeit of negativity in the mediareading achievement has improved significantly for 9- and 13-year olds (Campbell, Voekl, & Donahue, 1997). Further, although some studies find that the achievement of high school students since 1963 has not increasedindeed, has decreased slightly (Gates & MacGinitie, 1978; MacGinitie & MacGinitie, 1989)the general conclusion from the NAEP data (Campbell et al., 1997) and an analysis of changes in median scores on the nation's major reading achievement tests (Linn, Graue, & Sanders, 1990) is that, even at the high school level, reading ability has increased during this era. Added to the fact that children read as well or better today than at any other time in the history of the United States is the fact that American children today score more than a full standard deviation above the scores of children in 1932 on individually administered IQ tests (Flynn, 1984a, 1984b, 1987). By analysis of restandardization data, Flynn found that the scores on 1930s/1940s IQ tests (Stanford-Binet and WISC) by
< previous page
page_667
next page >
< previous page
page_668
next page > Page 668
1970s/1980s students were 1522 points higher than the actual scores on these tests by 1930s/1940s students. Further, in the International Education Association (Elley, 1992) comparison of reading tests scores of 9-year-old students from 27 countries, Americans had the second highest scores, exceeded by only Finland; in the comparison of 15-year-olds from 31 countries, American students tied for fifth place with 6 other countries, exceeded by Finland, France, Sweden, and New Zealand. In terms of reading and knowledge acquisition, American schools are doing something right (although it is rare that one ever hears of such in the media). In spite of these and many other successes, there remains a segment of the population of school children who struggle to learn to read in their first years of school; in addition, there are those who, after years of classroom reading instruction, have not learned to read at a level that is thought appropriate for their other abilities, age, or grade. We now turn our attention toward these students and the remedial programs to which they are often assigned. The field of remedial reading is rooted in noble social intentions, yet mired in theoretical and practical contentions. Despite advances in our understanding of the developmental process of literacy acquisition, we are besieged in the professional and lay community with arguments over what counts as legitimate research and appropriate remedial instruction. Some of these arguments are steeped in political rhetoric rather than scholarly or pedagogical logic. Repeated calls for an end to the ''reading wars" not withstanding (Kameenui, 1993; Matson, 1996; Spiegel, 1992; Stanovich, 1990), we continue to labor under widespread mistrust and popular misconceptions that are fueled, in part, by partisan rhetoric and our own history of limited success in remediating reading difficulties. In fact, the field of remedial reading long has been fertile ground for questionable "remedies" that have coexisted alongside an honorable tradition of research and practice. In this chapter we celebrate past achievements and recognize past failures, we confront current controversies, and, hopefully, we encourage momentum for a dynamic future. We begin with an historical review of research and practice in remedial reading, followed by a discussion of current trends and controversies. Appraising the Past: A Historical Perspective on Remedial Reading Today, it is generally accepted that most children who struggle to read do not require instruction that is substantially different from their more successful peers; rather, they require a greater intensity of "high-quality instruction" (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). But the trail of theory and practice in reading intervention programs has, at times, sharply diverged from theory and practice in general developmental reading. In this review, we characterize these points of divergence as "non-print based," describing "remedies" for reading difficulties from such diverse professions as optometry, neurology, pharmacology, and occupational therapy. "Print-based" responses are usually, but not always, those that have more closely paralleled the mainstream, whether from behaviorist, cognitive, or social-constructivist perspectives of learning. Hypotheses about the Causes of Reading Disability Perhaps the most unfortunate component of the conceptualization of children who have difficulty learning to readseemingly from the very first notice of reading difficulties (Morgan, 1896)was the assumption that something must be wrong with children if they do not learn to readsomething other than not learning to read, that is. Morgan, a British ophthalmologist, used the term congenital word blindness to describe a 14-year-old boy with apparently average intellect who had failed to learn to read.
< previous page
page_668
next page >
< previous page
page_669
next page > Page 669
Fisher (1905) and Hinshelwood (1917) also used this term. The use of intelligence tests in public education may have had a major role in drawing attention to reading problems and to searching out their cause. In the late 1920s, after the publication of group intelligent tests and the individually administered Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, it became increasingly obvious that most children who were failing in reading had intellectual abilities that far surpassed their reading abilities, many having aboveaverage IQ scores. A major research focus of the second quarter of the century was attempting to delineate the cause (or causes) of reading difficulties. This is known as the medical model of reading diagnosis. Among the major variables studied were visual acuity, auditory acuity, general physical status, neurological factors, emotional/psychiatric factors, and intelligence. Particularly noteworthy from this era are the comprehensive studies of groups of disabled readers by Marion Monroe (1932) and Helen M. Robinson at the University of Chicago (1946). Robinson's study included a review of extant research on each of the hypothesized causes of reading difficulty and an exhaustive evaluation of 30 children with severe reading problems by a team of physicians (e.g., pediatricians, otologists, ophthalmologists, psychiatrists, neurologists), clinical/school psychologists, social workers, and teachers. These and other smaller scale studies gave little support for attributing reading difficulties to any single cause, even for a given child. By the middle of the 20th century, it was obvious from 30 years of accumulated research that the medical model of reading diagnosisto search for the cause of the reading difficultywas no longer a valid line of research. It was at this time that reading diagnosis took a major turn (Pelosi, 1977), and moved from the medical model to the intensive instructional intervention model of "a process of gaining a thorough knowledge of a person's reading performance, strategies, skills, and instructional needs through accurate observations for the purpose of modifying instruction" (Kibby, 1995c, p. 2). Not all research on the causes of reading difficulty disappeared in the 1940s and 1950s, however, most especially in special education. Research on the neurological or perceptual bases of reading disability was prevalent during this era. Orton continued his research on the role of hemispheric dominance in reading difficulties, and his theories were transformed by Gillingham and Stillman (1960) into the OrtonGillingham method of teaching phonics (a method still widely in use). At the same time, Heinz Werner and Alfred Strauss, both having fled Nazi Germany in the late 1930s, were working at the Wayne County Training School in Detroit, MI, with children known to have brain injury or brain disease. It was during this time that children who did not actually have a history of brain trauma or brain disease, but who shared some of the symptoms of brain-damaged children (called "soft signs"), came to be referred to as minimally brain dysfunctioned or minimally brain damaged (MBD). Soft signs included difficulties in perception, distractibility, and emotional lability, in addition to difficulties in reading and spelling. At the same time the concept of MBD was taking hold, three men with new PhD degrees in psychology or special education went to Detroit to study with Werner and Strauss: William M. Cruickshank, Newell C. Kephart, and Samuel A. Kirk. Each became a founding father of learning disabilities (Hallahan & Cruickshank, 1973; Kavale & Forness, 1985; Weiderholt, 1974). In this era, the major domains of special education (besides physical handicaps) were mental retardation and emotional disturbance; thus, parents of children diagnosed as MBD not only had to reconcile themselves to the harshness of this label, but also found their child's difficulties often confused with mental retardation and emotional disturbance. In 1963, at a meeting of parents of MBD children in Chicago, Sam Kirk coined the term learning disabled to describe children of normal (or higher) intellectual abilities who failed to learn to read in spite of seemingly adequate classroom developmental reading programs and individual remedial reading instruction.
< previous page
page_669
next page >
< previous page
page_670
next page > Page 670
Effects of Labeling and Blaming By the late 1960s, the term MBD had mostly disappeared and terms such as learning disability or learning adjustment were gaining wider use. The neurological attributions (stemming back to the work of Werner and Strauss) remained, however, even if no tests existed to measure or validate these neurological problems (Cruickshank, 1979). Regardless of the terms used, educators and psychologists have exerted a subtle, unique, and probably unintended effect of blaming the child for reading or learning problems through the process of labeling (e.g., attention-deficit syndrome, perceptually handicapped) and classification for special education programs (e.g., learning disabled). Indeed, P.L. 90-142, the 1975 federal legislation originally mandating instruction for children with handicapping conditions in the least restrictive environment, defined learning disability as: a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. Note that the child does not simply have difficulty reading but is afflicted with a "basic psychological" processing "disorder," which in turn causes the reading problem. Such reasoning follows logically from the medical model. In medical diagnoses, physicians do search for causes, but reading clinicians do not search for causes in their reading diagnoses (Gil, Hoffmyer, VanRokel, & Weinshank, 1979; Gil, Vinsonhaler, & Sherman, 1979; Gil, Vinsonhaler, & Wagner, 1979; Gil, Wagner, & Vinsonhaler, 1979; Vinsonhaler, 1979). In these studies, both physicians and reading clinicians were observed as they conducted diagnoses. Although both groups conceptualized diagnosis as a problem-solving process, the researchers found that the diagnostic process in medicine differs significantly from that in reading. First, medical diagnoses generally concentrate only on the problems presented by the patient, but reading diagnoses account for both a reader's strengths and problems. Second, in medical diagnoses, causal statements about problems are the rule; in reading diagnoses, statements about the cause of a reading problem are rare. Third, deductive thinking predominates in medical diagnoses, whereas inductive thinking predominates in reading diagnoses. When applied to reading diagnosis, the logic of the medical model becomes twisted. Instead of saying, "Here is a child and that child has difficulty reading," we now say, "Here is a learning disabled child." We have moved from stating one aspect of a child with no attributions at all, to labeling and identifying the whole of the child by just one attribute: that is, the unspecifiedindeed, unknowninternal attributes of the child that are to be blamed for his or her learning difficulties. The influence of this line of thinking on special educators remains today and is manifested in the vast gulf between reading educators and some special educators in conceptualizing reading difficulties. Today's well-informed reading educators view reading difficulty as having no precise etiology and consider that the only avenue to a possible correction of this reading difficulty is a print-based reading instruction program. Learning disability, however, is viewed by special educators as a perceptual or neurological disability that requires extraordinary forms of instruction, including development of perceptual abilities. Applied to reading difficulties, this perspective was the foundation for many non-print-based remedial reading methods.
< previous page
page_670
next page >
< previous page
page_671
next page > Page 671
Non-Print-Based Methods Perceptual Training and Perceptual-Based Programs There is little question that learning to read words is largely a cognitive-perceptual task, a process of learning to recognize words by their visually distinctive or distinguishing characteristics (Ehri, 1994; Gibson, 1965; Gibson & Levin, 1975). There is also little question that difficulty in learning to read is rarely the result of visual-spatial perceptual or perceptual-motor deficits (Vellutino, 1979). In spite of the fact that issues related to perceptual handicaps should have been dismissed from consideration by classroom and reading teachers more than a quarter of a century ago, these persist. In a survey of classroom and specialist teachers' beliefs about perception and reading, Allington (1987) found that 40% of the classroom and specialist teachers believed that "visual perceptual handicaps are the most prevalent cause of reading disability"; 52% believed that reversing such words as was or on are indicators of "disturbed visual perceptual processes"; and 49% believed children with learning or reading disabilities who "have a strength in the visual modality learn most effectively when reading instruction focuses on the visual aspects of words.'' A greater proportion of classroom teachers held these beliefs than specialist teachers, but far too many specialists still persist in believing that perceptual abilities are the root of reading problems. In addition, perception continues to play a role in school psychological evaluations, a common outcome of which is to place children into one of two programs: those that provide no print-based instruction but, instead, focus on developing visualperceptual or visual-motor skills; or modality matching programs that emphasize only one mode of instruction (such as phonics for children who are thought to have limited visual-perceptual skills or whole-word methods for children who are thought to have limited auditory skills). The validity of perceptual training programs as a method of improving reading has long been debunked (Balow, 1971/1996; Coles, 1978; Kavale, 1982, 1984; Perfetti, 1985; Vellutino, 1977, 1979, 1987; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1987). The conclusion from decades of research on this topic is abundantly clear: Perceptual training programs, although perhaps increasing perceptual ability, have no substantive affect on reading ability. Similarly, modality matching has not been supported by research. On tests of visual and auditory perception, Robinson (1972) found that only 11% of nearly 550 first graders demonstrated mixed modalities (high visual/low auditory [HV/LA] or low visual/high auditory [LV/HA]). Further, when taught by a phonic program, both groups learned equally well; and when taught by a whole-word program, both groups learned equally well. Robinson's data lent no support to the hypothesis that children who have higher performance in one modality (visual or auditory) than the other learn best when taught by a teaching method thought to match the preferred modality. Indeed, both the HV/LA and LV/HA groups in Robinson's study were reading at an average level at the end of Grade 1 and at the end of Grade 3. The children with far-below-average reading scores in both grades were the children who had low scores on both the visual and auditory perceptual tests. Visual perceptual training with nonprint stimuli and modality matching have utterly failed in study after study; there is no room in remedial reading for these totally debunked notions of perceptual deficit, perceptual training, or modality matching. Reading instruction for children who have difficulty reading must be print based (Gibson, 1965; Gibson & Levin, 1975)there is no other way.
< previous page
page_671
next page >
< previous page
page_672
next page > Page 672
Effects of Ritalin on Reading Achievement A more recent nonprint intervention that has gained wide acceptance amongst teachers, parents, psychologists, and physicians is the use of pharmacological remediesparticularly methylphenidate, a stimulant commonly known as Ritalin. Based on information from the Drug Enforcement Administration, several state departments of health, and national prescription audits, Safer, Zito, and Fine (1996) estimated that 1.4 million children from 5 to 18 years old currently receive pharmacological treatment for problems of behavior, attention, and learning. Methylphenidate (Ritalin) is the drug most often prescribed for this purpose (Stoner, Carey, Ikeda, & Shinn, 1994). Although the literature includes numerous studies on the effects of methylphenidate on reading achievement, most of these are limited due to: (a) small numbers of participants; (b) inadequate (if any) descriptions of the reading instruction received by participants; (c) reliance on teacher and/or parent reports rather than direct evidence of achievement; (d) reliance on indicators of the quantity of work completed (i.e., the number of worksheets or problems completed), rather than on the quality of the work; (e) too brief interventions (less than 1 month); (f) lack of attention to dosage levels administered to participants; and (g) high levels of comorbidity with attention and conduct disorders. At this time, no reliable evidence can be found to indicate that Ritalin is effective in ameliorating reading difficulties apart from concurrent, effective reading instruction. At best, Ritalin may allow some children to become more sensitive to behavioral management, thus leading to higher levels of participation in academic tasks, including reading (Ajibola & Clement, 1995; Forness, Swanson, Cantwell, Youpa, & Hanna, 1992; Stoner et al., 1994). Concerns persist regarding overreliance on Ritalin as an educational intervention due to the potential for numerous side effects (Safer et al., 1996). However, as long as reading difficulties are perceived to be inherent within the child, non-print-based interventions (including Ritalin) will likely remain popular options for many educators and parents. Print-Based Instruction: A Review of Fluency Research A hallmark of children who have difficulty in reading is a lack of fluency. Fluency is reading smoothly, without hesitation, and with comprehension (Harris & Hodges, 1995). In fluent oral reading, word recognition is also mostly accurate. LaBerge and Samuels' (1974) term automaticity is the same as fluency. The improvement of reading fluency is considered a major goal, if not the major goal, of programs of intensive intervention in reading. Allington (1983) was an early advocate of fluency instruction as part of both developmental and intensive intervention reading programs, and Samuels (1979) is often credited as the first person to conduct research on the validity of repeated readings to facilitate reading fluency. Clay (1979, 1993b) built repeated readings into her Reading Recovery methods as a means of developing reading fluency, and these remain a key component of Reading Recovery. Today, methods of developing fluency, especially in primary grades and in intensive reading intervention programs, usually conjoin two major components: teacher modeling of the text that the student will be reading, and repeated readings. Teacher modeling is when the teacher reads a text aloud to a student(s) as that student follows along in the reading, and then the student reads the text several times. Modeling may or may not be done with finger-pointing of each word or group of words as they are read. Repeated readings is when a student reads the same text repeatedly, time after time, until the rate of reading, comprehension, or errors while reading (or all three) reach a specific criterion. This repeated reading is almost always aided: that is, the teacher assists the child during the reading when needed (see Clay, 1993b). Teacher
< previous page
page_672
next page >
< previous page
page_673
next page > Page 673
modeling and repeated readings are sometimes conjoined with direct teaching of difficult words (sight vocabulary) in the text to be read (Arya, Kutno, & Kibby, 1995). The theory underlying fluency is that while reading, a reader has only so much attention to focus on meaning. If part of that attention is diverted from comprehension and understanding, the result is limited reading fluency and comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974). Beginning readers and children with reading difficulties who have not experienced processing words and meaning automatically and fluently will find it more difficult to: (a) monitor their reading; (b) comprehend the text; and (c) perhaps most important, know how it sounds and feels to read text fluently. Teacher modeling and guided repeated readings are designed to help such students to gain each of these abilities. Working with second graders, Dowhower (1987) found that oral reading rate, accuracy, and comprehension improved significantly with repeated reading practice. Similar positive results have been found for first graders (Simons, 1992; Turpie & Paratore, 1994; Young, Bowers, & MacKinnon, 1996;); for second and third graders (Richek & McTague, 1988; Stahl, 1994); and for children who have reading difficulties (Homan et al., 1993; Koskinen & Blum, 1986; Rashotte & Torgesen, 1985; Rasinski, 1990; Weinstein & Cooke, 1992; Young et al., 1996). Although there is only a modest research base on teacher modeling, studies by Maxson (1996), Rasinski (1990), and Young et al. (1996) found that it facilitates oral reading accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Summary What has become clear as we near the end of a century is that, given adequate social and cognitive assistance, children learn to read through engagement in a variety of age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate print-related activities. These activities may focus the learner's attention on one or more specific facets of reading including: print concepts such as alphabet recognition (Walsh, Price, & Gillingham, 1988); metalinguistic awareness (Clay, 1979); phonemic awareness (Adams, 1990; Adams, Treiman, & Pressley, 1998); assisted reading for fluency or comprehension (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Palincsar & Brown, 1984); assisted writing (Englert, Raphael, Fear, & Anderson, 1988; Graham & Harris, 1989); and explicit "word study" consisting of phonics, sight vocabulary, and spelling instruction (Bear, Invernezzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 1996). Although vociferous arguments persist as to the balance and particular focus of these activities, there is little, if any, justification for remedial reading methods that assume an unknown cause or that proceed from non-print-based methods. Reconciling the Present: Current Issues and Trends in Remedial Reading Several trends and issues have dominated remedial reading during the past decade. First is the current emphasis on the prevention of reading difficulties through early intervention, in contrast to the more typical practice of providing remedial services to children after they have demonstrated considerable difficulty and even failure (Snow et al., 1998). To this end, elementary teachersparticularly in the primary gradesare being held to greater accountability for the results of reading instruction provided within general classrooms. Another trend is the call by many scholars and practitioners for "balanced instruction," a term that defies common understanding (Freppon & Dahl, 1998) Although, in a popular sense, it has come to mean that both "wholistic" and "skill-based'' instruction have value for struggling readers. A third trend is noted in a more expansive view of remedial reading in which writing and thinking skills are recognized as crucial elements of remedial instruction. For example, writing (includ-
< previous page
page_673
next page >
< previous page
page_674
next page > Page 674
ing the use of "invented" or "functional" spellings by young children) has become an important component of many early intervention programs (Hiebert & Taylor, 1994). Other significant trends in remedial reading can be traced to the influence of Marie Clay's (1979) early intervention known as Reading Recovery. Conceptually, Clay's work has popularized the notion of accelerating reading development in young children in order to prevent failure. In addition, success in Reading Recovery is defined as reading at grade level. For a field in which discussions of successlet alone a consensus on the definition of successhave been conspicuously absent, this conception is bold. On a practical level, Reading Recovery has legitimized the tutorial model of remedial instruction in contrast to the drill-and-skill models of the past. Finally, Reading Recovery has revived interest in the legitimacy of the one-to-one model of remedial instruction taught by highly trained experienced teachers. This revival comes at a time when fiscal constraints have led to increasing use of small-group and whole-class models of remedial instruction and an increasing reliance on nonprofessionals to staff remedial programs. Recent research on the role of phonemic awareness in early reading has received intense publicity, if not public scrutiny. In particular, numerous studies sponsored by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) have been cited frequently in the popular press and by policymakers as providing definitive support for explicit instruction in phonics and the alphabetic principle. Lovett et al. (1994) and Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, and Mehta (1998), among others, report consistent results for the positive effects of phonemic awareness and phonics training on measures of isolated word recognition, pseudo-word decoding, and word-or sentence-level comprehension. Critics of this research claim that the results are exaggerated and misleading, and that they are frequently misinterpreted to promote a specific instructional and/or political agenda. Allington and Woodside-Jiron (1997) pointed out that measures of fluency, reading rate, and comprehension of extended text are missing in this work. Moreover, the NICHD studies lack specificity regarding the general classroom instruction provided to the children in these interventions, attributing gains solely to the experimental conditions. The extent to which these studies will be used to shape legislative initiatives for early literacy is a cause of concern for many reading researchers. Other perennial controversies swirling around the field are centered on questions such as: Who should provide remedial services? Where should these services be situated? What are the most appropriate and efficacious remedial methods for children with reading difficulties? Particularly onerous is the present tension over what counts as legitimate research (and, therefore, practice) in remedial reading. Some of these tensions are played out as turf wars across professional organizations in reading and special education, and others are reflected in a decade of federal funding and initiatives for improving remedial reading. Title I Remedial Reading Funds for compensatory education in reading were first allocated by the federal government in 1966 through Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), for the explicit purpose of improving the instructional opportunities and outcomes in schools serving populations with high concentrations of poverty. Approximately half of all Title I funds are distributed as basic, concentration, and targeted grants to local education agencies (LEAs). The budget for grants to LEAs has grown from less than $1 billion in 1966 to $7.3 billion in 1998; however, when adjusted to 1988 dollars, the current figure for 1998 is $5.48 billion (Office of Compensatory Education Programs, December 1997). In 1996, nearly 13.5% (3,618,859) of elementary school chil-
< previous page
page_674
next page >
< previous page
page_675
next page > Page 675
dren and 5.6% (774,564) of secondary students in the United States received remedial reading services (Digest of Education Statistics, 1996). In addition, it is estimated that 80% (1,864,650) of K12 students receiving services for specific learning disabilities have reading problems for which they receive services through special education (U.S. Department of Education, 1996), or from a combination of Title I and special education programs. These figures do not reflect children who receive remedial reading instruction in schools that do not qualify for Title I funding. Effectiveness of Remedial Services Because Title I (known from 1981 to 1994 as Chapter 1) is a funding mechanism rather than a remedial program per se, evaluation of Title I programs has proven difficult. Funds are distributed to states, then redistributed to LEAs where they are applied with wide variation. Due to the lack of adequate control groups and dissimilar (and questionable) procedures employed in local and state program evaluations, large-scale evaluations are limited (Borman & D'Agostino, 1996). However, reports throughout the past 20 years have concluded that, although students served in Title I programs may demonstrate higher achievement than nonparticipating peers, these students fail to achieve or maintain levels of success comparable to their mainstream peers (Kennedy, Birman, & Demaline, 1986; Puma et al., 1997). A meta-analysis of 17 evaluation studies by Borman & D'Agostino (1996) confirmed this finding, citing a modest trend for improved effectiveness over time, due, in part, to increased funding, greater awareness of students' needs, and increasing flexibility in the use of Title I funds. Several explanations for the limited success of Title I programs have been offered (McGill-Franzen, 1994). First, typical instruction in these programs has been characterized as both limited in emphasis and limiting to recipients. With a predominant focus on repetitive practice of low-level, rigidly sequenced skills, typical remedial instruction is neither challenging, authentic, nor contextualized to students' lives beyond the remedial classroom (Allington, 1991; Knapp, 1995; Means & Knapp, 1991; Millsap, Moss, & Gamse, 1993). Students in such programs are considered to be further disadvantaged by the lack of access to instruction in higher order cognitive skills. Simultaneously, the lack of challenge and/or success leads to diminished motivation. Observational studies point to a second explanation for the limited success of remedial programs: incongruence between the theoretical, philosophical, and instructional basis of general and remedial classrooms (Allington, 1994; Glynn, Bethune, Crooks, Ballard, & Smith, 1992). This lack of congruence, it is argued, leads to confusion and further difficulties for students who are already struggling to learn to read. Adding support to these observations, Tancock's (1995) interviews of 27 classroom teachers and 3 reading specialists revealed that the two groups of teachers differed on instructional matters and in their philosophies of remediation, as well as in their overall perceptions of remedial programs. These teachers lacked common planning times and other opportunities for communication that might have lead to greater congruence among programs. D'Agostino (1996) observed reading instruction in 52 self-contained Title I classes serving children in Grade 3. These students did not receive reading instruction in any other setting. Observers in this study documented instances in which children were engaged in "authentic instruction," as evidenced by: (a) engagement in higher order thinking skills, such as making inferences or predictions, developing opinions, and building concepts; (b) coherence of instruction, characterized by the depth of concept coverage, and the extent to which topics were interrelated through sequencing and structuring; (c) direct connections to students' prior and current life experiences; (d) amount of substantive dialogue and conversation; and (e) level of social support provided by the teacher and student engagement. D'Agostino reported
< previous page
page_675
next page >
< previous page
page_676
next page > Page 676
that two of the most crucial principles of authentic instructionhigher order skills and connections to personal experiencewere rarely observed in these classrooms. Bean, Cooley, Eichelberger, Lazar, and Zigmond (1991) summarized the major concerns regarding pull-out programs. In addition to the lack of congruence between remedial and general education teachers, these authors pointed to lost instructional time in the transition between the classroom and the remedial setting and the negative consequences of labeling students as learning or reading disabled. These consequences involve lowered expectations on the part of remedial and special education teachers, which too often lead to the impoverished instruction noted earlier. In perhaps the strongest critique of remedial reading programs to date, Allington (1994) asserted that the now fully institutionalized, entrenched "second tier" system of compensatory and special education has failed in its promise to lift at-risk students out of school failure. Allington called for dramatic improvements in the "first tier" (general education) programs to circumvent many of the difficulties encountered by children in their early experiences with literacy instruction. One antidote to pull-out programs has been inclusion, or "pull-in" programs, in which children with reading difficulties remain in their general education classrooms for whole-class instruction. Schumm, Moody, and Vaughn (1996) observed reading instruction in 29 third-grade classrooms in which struggling readers (including those identified as learning disabled) made little or no progress in reading. Similar results were reported for LD students in general education classrooms in which whole-class instruction, with no modifications for individual differences, was the norm (Klingner, Vaughn, Schumm, Hughes, & Elbaum, 1997; Schumm, Vaughn, Haager, & Klingner, 1994; Zigmond et al., 1995). In contrast, Cunningham, Hall, and Defee (1998) reported high rates of success for low-achieving first- and second-grade students given whole class instruction that is structured around four intensive, theme-related "blocks" or instructional activities, including guided reading, word study, writing, and selfselected reading. Additional support is given to struggling readers in these classrooms through flexible, heterogeneous, smallgroup activities similar to the four blocks. The failure of struggling readers in some general education classes is attributed to the lack of specific, systematic skills instructions, and a lack of teacher guidance in basal reader manuals for individualizing instruction (Schumm et al., 1994; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). However, based on the Cunningham et al. (1998) report, whole-class or "pull-in" reading instruction can be effective in preventing and ameliorating reading difficulties, given appropriate support and sufficient opportunities for engagement in a variety of print-based activities. Federally Funded Initiatives Several major legislative initiatives been enacted since the late 1980s with the purpose of improving Title I services. The Hawkins-Stafford Amendments of 1988 revised the purpose of Chapter 1 by requiring instruction in basic and advanced skills in all funded programs. More recent federal initiatives, including the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA as the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), have continued to stress this requirement: "The new Title I has one overriding goal: to improve the teaching and learning of children in high-poverty schools to enable them to meet challenging academic content and performance standards" (Fowler, 1995). The authors of the IASA also addressed the issues raised by critics of pull-out remedial programs. A major emphasis of this initiative was to "promote instruction through an enhanced and accelerated curriculumdelivered through such mechanisms as extended-day and extended-year programs rather than 'pull-out' remedial efforts that compete with, rather than complement, the regular curriculum" (Fowler, 1995, p. 9).
< previous page
page_676
next page >
< previous page
page_677
next page > Page 677
Federal initiatives since 1988 have encouraged greater flexibility in the application of federal funds for remedial services. No longer limited to the "pull-out" model of remediation, school-wide projects, aimed at improving the curriculum of general education classes, have become popular. These projects are designed to meet local needs and range from staff development projects, to implementation of early intervention programs, to lowering class size by assigning remedial reading teachers and some administrators, to general elementary classrooms. Because evaluations are conducted locally and with as many variations as are found in the projects themselves, it is difficult to conduct meta-analyses of quantitative evaluations. One major survey of school-wide programs indicates enthusiasm on the part of administrators, parents, classroom teachers, and Title I teachers for such programs (Schenck & Beckstrom, 1993). Evaluation reports by numerous individual districts have been published as unreviewed ERIC documents. Virtually all of these reports indicate improvement in some areas of reading achievement following implementation of school-wide projects. The most current federal initiatives for reading are the 1997 America Reads Challenge and the Reading Excellence Act (H. R. 2614, 1997). A prominent provision of this initiative provides funds for the training of 1 million volunteer reading tutors by the year 2000 through VISTA, AmeriCorps, and work-study programs. Volunteers are currently tutoring children in preschool programs such as Head Start and Even Start, as well as working with children in the primary grades in a variety of in-school and after-school programs. In sum, the three primary goals for federally funded programs during the past decade include improving the quality and level of instruction in pull-out remedial classrooms; school-wide improvements in reading instruction in general education classes; and early intervention efforts to prevent reading difficulties and reduce the need for remedial services in the elementary and secondary schools. One of the practical dilemmas facing educators charged with meeting these goals concerns who is qualified to teach remedial reading. Who Should Teach Remedial Reading? Depending on local circumstances, children may receive remedial reading instruction from certified reading teachers or learning disabilities teachers, from paraprofessionals (classroom aides), or from volunteer tutors. Contentions surrounding this question arise primarily from two sources: first, the need to stretch limited resources; and second, from professional feuds over the nature of reading difficulties and paradigms of instruction. Paraprofessionals School districts faced with increasing enrollment, class sizes, and numbers of at-risk learners often stretch Title I funds by hiring paraprofessionals rather than certified reading teachers. In 1994, an issue paper released by the International Reading Association (IRA) aired concerns regarding the employment of paraprofessionals in remedial reading. According to the IRA report, which summarized findings from several major evaluations of Title I, the number of full-time certified reading teachers rose 4.3% from 1985 to 1992, while the number of full-time aides rose 10.1%more than double the percent of increase for teachers during the same period. In 1992 there were 72,000 full-time Title I teachers and 65,000 full-time aides. The employment of teacher aides can have positive consequences in schools, particularly in providing linguistic and cultural diversity; further, career opportunity programs offer potential for diversifying the urban teaching pool by recruiting paraprofessionals from minority communities (Haselkorn & Fideler, 1995). The primary concern raised by the IRA regarding aides is that they provide instruction to at-risk children despite being poorly trained (if at all) and unsupervised.
< previous page
page_677
next page >
< previous page
page_678
next page > Page 678
Forty-four percent of Title I aides reportedly deliver instruction, independent of a teacher, to an average of 25 or more children per day. This practice is most common in high-poverty schools. Particularly disconcerting is the assertion that the majority of interactions between students and aides are characterized as low-level forms of assistance that foster dependency on the aide rather than leading to independent learning. At a time when the mandates for Title I reform emphasize instruction for higher level cognitive skills, the use of untrained paraprofessionals is particularly ironic. Although the "IRA would discourage the widespread, routine hiring of aides with Chapter 1 funds," (IRA, 1994, p. 3), the continued use of aides was recognized as inevitable, given financial constraints on many school districts. Therefore the report set forth recommendations for establishing federal funding and guidelines for state certification programs for Title I aides. In addition, classroom and Title I teachers must be better prepared for supervising and mentoring the paraprofessionals who assist them. One model cited in this report is the training program for Head Start aides, known as the Child Development Associate Credential and administered by a professional organization of early childhood educators (National Association for the Education of Young Children). Volunteer Tutors Despite steady increases in the number of Title I teachers and paraprofessionals, many at-risk children in impoverished schools still do not have access to individual reading instruction. Volunteer reading tutors comprise an alternative to formal programs for these children. Even before the Clinton administration proposed the America Reads Challenge in 1997, nearly 1 million volunteers were already assisting in various capacities in American public schools through federally funded programs such as Foster Grandparents, VISTA and AmeriCorps volunteers, along with parents and other community volunteers (Michael, 1990). Volunteer programs vary on numerous dimensions. Volunteers may be paid or unpaid; some receive little or no training and supervision, whereas others go through extensive and ongoing training and supervision. In the Reading Recovery/AmericaCorps partnership, for example, paid volunteers receive 150 hours of training, in addition to online supervision (DeFord, Pinnell, & Lyons, 1997). The level of volunteer engagement with children ranges from simply providing incentives for reading books, to listening to children read, to providing direct instruction in skills and strategies. Tutoring sessions may last from 30 min to 2 hr, and volunteers may meet their tutees 1 day per week or up to 4 days per week. Programs may run for the duration of a school year or for a fraction of a semester. Evaluations of volunteer programs are sparse, and rigorous evaluation designs are even more rare. In a recent review of 17 adult volunteer programs, Wasik (1998) reported that only 3 of these programs employed equivalent treatment and control groups. Of programs that reported results, measures varied from standardized achievement tests (Metropolitan Achievement Test, The Iowa Test of Basic Skills, Woodcock), to word recognition and oral reading passages from basal readers. In a candid evaluation of their volunteer tutoring program, Vadasy, Jenkins, Antil, Wayne, and O'Conner (1997) reported difficulties such as scheduling appropriate space for an after-school program, unreliable volunteers (in this case, paid high school volunteers and community volunteers), and difficulty maintaining fidelity to components of the instructional program. Despite these conflicts, first-grade children in this study demonstrated significant improvements on several measures. Evidence from other programs indicates that volunteer programs can effect positive change in struggling readers, although results are not consistent across participants. Juel (1996), whose study of college athletes as tutors is among the most innovative,
< previous page
page_678
next page >
< previous page
page_679
next page > Page 679
well-designed, and evaluated programs, reported that the children who were tutored in this program demonstrated improvements over their nontutored peers. However, these children scored below their age and grade norms, with wide variations in progress as noted in the high SD reported in this study. In addition to programs using adult tutors, several cross-age tutoring programs have been reported (Labbo & Teale, 1990; Taylor, Hanson, Justice-Swanson, & Watts, 1997). In the Taylor et al. program, a small-group Title I intervention for students in second grade was supplemented with cross-age tutoring by trained fourth-grade students who, like the student athletes in Juel's program, were also struggling readers. In each of these studies, the tutors, as well as their younger tutees, made demonstrable progress in reading, as has been found in earlier studies of cross-age tutoring (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, 1982). Insights on Nonprofessional Reading Tutors Data on the effectiveness of volunteer tutors and paraprofessionals are mixed, and several recommendations are offered. First, effective programs require adequate training for tutors, whether these are college students, community volunteers, or other children. Second, supervision of tutors is essential. The qualitative observations of tutors in Juel's study indicated that a tutor's level of sophistication in scaffolding assistance for tutees can either enhance or compromise the efficacy of the tutoring. Third, tutoring sessions must be carefully plannedalthough not necessarily scriptedfor maximum benefit. Vadasy et al. (1997) planned a tutoring program that included activities similar to those followed in Reading Recovery. In addition, they incorporated a component of phonemic awareness activities. Most of their tutors were unable to demonstrate fidelity to the highly scripted lessons that were planned for them, despite initial and ongoing training and supervision. The services of volunteer tutors are an increasingly popular option for financially strapped school districts with many needy children; however, the short- and long-term efficacy of volunteer tutors remains ambiguous. It is imperative that resources be allocated to design and implement sophisticated evaluations of tutoring efforts. Learning Disabilities Teachers Nearly 80% of students identified as learning disabledand thus eligible for special education serviceshave reading difficulties (National Center for Educational Statistics, 1994). By legislative fiat, most learning disabled students with reading difficulties receive instruction from special education teachers rather than from reading specialists. Since 1995, the leadership of the International Reading Association has actively challenged the exclusion of reading specialists from providing instructional services to children identified as learning disabled. In a 1995 position paper entitled "Learning Disabilities: A Barrier to Literacy Instruction," the IRA expressed concerns regarding both the overidentification (and misidentification) of children with learning disabilities and the inadequate preparation of learning disabilities (LD) teachers to provide remedial reading instruction. A recent study of reading instruction in 14 LD classrooms substantiates concerns aired in the IRA position paper (Vaughn et al., 1998). Children in these classrooms received whole-class instruction. Individual modifications or individualized support were rarely observed. Based on standardized achievement test scores, the children in these classrooms made "little to no growth in reading" (Vaughn et al., 1998, p. 220). Similarly, Morris, Ervin and Conrad (1996) traced the failure of a sixth-grade LD student to achieve independent reading, despite his retention in kindergarten and 4 years of instruction in a self-contained LD class. These authors attributed the failure of instruction in these instances to several factors. First, the LD teachers were following a "whole-language" trend, including whole-class instruction. Second, Vaughn et al.
< previous page
page_679
next page >
< previous page
page_680
next page > Page 680
(1998) observed that reading groups in the LD classrooms ranged from 5 to 19 students, making individualized instruction difficult at best. These authors also speculated that, because the LD teachers had no special preparation in reading (they received the same required preservice reading course as general education teachers), they tended to implement instruction similar to what might be recommended for a general classroom. The IRA position paper fueled tensions between the leadership of professional organizations in reading and learning disabilities, as both sides lobbied for federal support of their respective programs. The Council for Exceptional ChildrenDivision of Learning Disabilities (CEC-DLD) responded to criticism of LD teachers by questioning the preparation of reading teachers to provide instruction to children with learning disabilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 1997). Despite the sometimes hostile public rhetoric accompanying this fray, members of both factions have come to agreement on several points, including the need to streamline and shorten the lengthy process of referral to special education services, and the desirability of preventive versus remedial interventions for children with reading difficulties (Council for Exceptional Children, 1997; Pikulski, 1998). Even as Congress deliberates the matter of allowing reading specialists to provide services to children with learning disabilities, at least one state (New York) has passed legislation to this effect. Given that children identified as learning disabled are generally indistinguishable from generic poor readers (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996), there is no logical reason for withholding from these youngsters the services of highly trained reading teachers. In the next section, we describe the professional standards of and expectations for reading specialists, along with recommendations for future research. Constructing the Future of Remedial Reading: Beliefs, Reality, and Needed Future Research In the domain of reading, most particularly in regards to reading difficulties, there are many widely held beliefs. As the discussion in the appendix shows, some of these beliefs are logically or empirically indefensible; others are perhaps logical, but not supported by extant research. It is hoped that this listing and description and the calls for research will promote research to investigate the validity of these beliefs. Requiem for Remedial Reading Along with the theoretical and practical contentions that dog the field, remedial reading is mired in arcane terminology representing an outdated conceptualization of reading problems. The requiem we compose here is not a signal for the demise of intensive instructional interventions for children who struggle to acquire print literacy; rather, the intent is to note publicly a turning point, a new era in the field. The word remedial as used in both "remedial reading" and "remedial reader" is most problematic. It derives from remedy, meaning ''to cure" or to "restore to natural or proper condition" (Random House Dictionary of the English Language, Second Unabridged Edition, 1987). For two reasons, the remedying aspect of remedial does not fit the typical case of a child with a reading problem. First, it is the rare child who makes appropriate progress in the initial stages of reading, then falters. Children who need what was previously called "remedial reading" are children whose learning lagged from the first day of developmental reading instructionand became further and further behind as readily learning peers made ever-increasing progress in reading. These children had never been at a "proper" level of reading to which remedial reading
< previous page
page_680
next page >
< previous page
page_681
next page > Page 681
would "restore" them. Indeed, the term Matthew effect has been used to describe this ever-widening gulf between children who make continuous progress in reading lessons, and those children who never seem to get out of the starting blocks, falling further and further behind their faster learning peers (Stanovich, 1986). The second reason the term remedial fails (although most in reading would prefer to overlook this point) is that most children provided remedial reading never come fully up to grade level, that is, their reading problems are not "cured." This includes not only children in economically depressed areas but also children attending schools in affluent suburbs. The term remedial reading must be cast off. This argument was previously made by Johnston and Allington (1991). We propose a deliberate shift from the metaphor of the remedy to that of mediation as in the remediational (or remedial) context. This shift is based on the sociohistorical theories of Vygotsky (1962, 1978) and neo-Vygotskian scholars such as Cole (1990) and Tharp and Gallimore (1988). A basic tenet of sociohistorical theory is that psychological processes are "culturally mediated, historically developing, and arise from practical activity" (Cole, 1990, p. 91). The notion of historical development is most pertinent to the present discussion. Gallimore and Tharp (1990) described learning and development as movement, with various levels of assistance, or mediation, through recursive stages of the zone of proximal development. "Assisted performance" marks the first level, in which the learner is engaged in activity with the assistance of a teacher. At the second level, the learner demonstrates self-assisted performance in the form of self-directed speech. The third level is characterized by independent performance, as learning has become internalized and automatic. Recursiveness kicks in at the fourth level, when the learner confronts a new task. Throughout this process, learners are assumed to be actively involved in problem-solving with print. This perspective stands in contrast to those in which struggling readers are viewed as passive, helpless victims of circumstance or heredity. As St. Augustine noted 1,700 years ago (Saint Augustine, 1942), learning to read is not accomplished as naturally as learning to speak but, as is the case in most learning, if children learn to read, they must learn far more than what their teachers explicitly teach them or make them practice. That is, learning to read is not learning solely a set of skills the teacher demonstrates and makes students practice; rather, children who have learned to read have taken bits and pieces of what they have been taught and practiced, constructed their own generalizations and understanding of the reading process, and organized and integrated the strategies and skills of reading. Every child must engage in this constructive process to become a mature, fluent, analytic, critical reader. This description of the constructivist view of learning to read casts the teacher into a role far greater than that of a presenter of skills and concrete information, but rather describes the teacher as someone who carries out a variety of roles that mediate learning. These roles include modeling, encouraging, reminding, hinting, questioning, challenging, correcting, directly teaching, reteaching, reviewing, and, when necessary, just letting the learner be. The teacher's role in teaching children to read is best described as mediator. To learn, children also must act as mediatorsattending to and analyzing finer and finer aspects of print and text and constructing their own interpretation and organization of orthography, text, and meaning-gaining strategies. Thus, if we consider normal, developmental reading instruction to be a mediational process for both teachers and students, then when children fail to learn to read during this mediation, both teacher and children must encounter this learning task once againhence, re-mediation. As we mark the beginning of a new century, the knowledge base in re-medial reading is robust, having the breadth and depth of multiple research and instructional perspectives. Public interest inand criticism ofreading programs is strong, albeit often based on narrow perspectives, misperceptions, and myths. Enduring tensions
< previous page
page_681
next page >
< previous page
page_682
next page > Page 682
will continue within the field; however, the momentum created by the current wave of public interest affords opportunities for reading professionals to correct public misperceptions about the nature of reading acquisition and reading difficulties, and to create public support for programs of research and practice that reflect the breadth and depth of this dynamic field. Appendix: Beliefs, Reality, and Needed Future Research Belief: Reading Failure Results from Poor Schools and Poor Teaching Unquestionably, many reading problems result from poor schools and teaching, but it is also the case that in the same first- or second-grade classroom where one child or a small group of children failed to learn to read, the vast majority usually did learn to read. There is too little research that examines reading development over a period of time (e.g., 4 or 5 years), teacher by teacher. The First-Grade Studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967) found greater achievement variation within a large number of classrooms taught by a given reading method than between the average scores of classrooms taught by different instructional methods. The authors of that study concluded that this "greater variation within than between groups" outcome resulted from teacher differences; however, none of the projects in the First-Grade Studies actually accounted for teaching or teachers. It is important to know if, in controlled studies, some primary-grade teachers consistently end the school year with larger numbers of children with reading difficulties and if another group of teachers consistently end the school year with few or no children with reading difficulties. It is commonly believed that such teaching variation exists, but research documentation of this belief is scant. Belief: Curricular Congruence Is Important Curricular congruence is when there is a strong similarity in the rationale, methods, and materials of the reading instruction that a student receives in the classroom and in remedial reading. Curricular congruence is not viewed here as "narrow-based" instruction (e.g., all phonics in a skills-based program, all context in a literature-based program) but, by definition, it demands goals, methods, and materials adhered to by both the classroom and reading teacher. Although, at first blush, this notion of curricular congruence has intuitive appeal, the reading research community has failed to establish its validity. Curricular congruence may be open to at least three specific criticisms. First, the specificity required if classroom and remedial teachers convene to design a reading program will delimit options in reading instruction. From the constructivist position, teaching reading is not laying out a bounded set of goals and activities that the child follows in a more-or-less straight line, but rather is a process of exposing the child to a multitude of varying literacy experiences frequently revised in light of the child's progress and learning. The teacher's role here is to expose children to a multitude of skills and strategies that they may use to learn to read, to assist children in their initial applications of those skills and strategies, and to guide children in revising their notions of the reading process. Curricular congruence could have the effect of limiting the options available to children in trying to learn what they need to learn in order to be able to learn to read. Further, although remedial reading has not wiped out the nation's reading difficulties, many children have made large gains in reading proficiency and motivation via remedial reading instruction. Perhaps it is just the remedial reading instruction that
< previous page
page_682
next page >
< previous page
page_683
next page > Page 683
causes this growth in reading, but just as valid an explanation is the hypothesis that the joint action (interaction) of the classroom program and the remedial program caused the growth. We do not know, and this state of ignorance only exacerbates the need for further researching the validity of curricular congruence. Yet another reason to call for research on the validity of curricular congruence is that most reading specialists have found themselves in the position of providing remedial reading to children whose previous reading instruction was not only narrow in focus, but also poorly conducted. In this case, perhaps a form of curricular congruence is truly called forthe classroom teacher should teach the way the reading specialist is teaching. Research on curricular congruence is in short supply, but a recent dissertation by Wilson-Bridgeman (1998) failed to find that curricular congruence was associated with gains in reading ability. Research on the content and construct validity of curricular congruence is sorely needed. Belief: Skilled Reading Teachers Have Special Knowledge and Abilities for Teaching Reading Much time, effort, and expense is given by many to graduate reading programs for previously certified classroom teachers. These programs require as many as six to eight reading courses or practicums. Such expense and effort would not be expended if we did not believe that, at the completion of these programs, reading teachers would have gained knowledge, insights, abilities, and techniques beyond those of most classroom teachers. Following are seven commonly accepted beliefs about what it is that reading teachers know and can do. In spite of the fact that references can be found for most of these beliefs, there is little or no data to support any. First, expert reading teachers have knowledge and models of good readers at the various stages of reading development (Chall, 1983). They know what a good reader at a given stage is able to do and not do, and they are able to contrast this model to children they are teaching who have reading difficulties to build reasonable goals for that child (Kibby & Barr, in press). They also have internalized and used models of effective teaching (Allington & Cunningham, 1996, p. 163). Perhaps most importantly, an expert reading teacher is an excellent "systematic observer" who "drops all presuppositions about a child . . . and listens very carefully and records very precisely what the child can in fact do" (Clay, 1993a, p. 3). Eisner (1991) would say that these excellent reading teachers had developed "the enlightened eye." They also have developed a decision-making model of the diagnostic assessment that provides an overall perspective, or gestalt, of the components and strategies important to successful reading and a sequence for routinely evaluating those components and strategies in a rational and efficient manner (Gil et al., 1979; Kibby, 1995c; Kibby & Barr, in press; O'Flahavan et al., 1992; Polin, 1981; Snow et al., 1998, p. 287). Second, for any given intensive intervention reading lesson, good reading teachers can substantiate, document, or explain why they are providing the instruction they arethat is, they can explain what the child is able to do and how they know; they can explain what are children's successive needs to learn; they can explain the nature of the instruction the children require to learn what they next need to learn and how they know; and they can explain the form of supporting guidance and review that children will need in applying or practicing this new knowledge and how they know (Clay, 1993b; Pinnell, Fried, & Estice, 1990). Third, good reading teachers view all their planned instruction as "responsive instruction" (Shanahan & Barr, 1995, p. 963) or "diagnostic teaching" (Kibby, 1995c, p. 49). One outcome of this rationale is that they presume that every lesson that they design requires adjustment as they implement it (Allington & Cunningham, 1996, p. 164;
< previous page
page_683
next page >
< previous page
page_684
next page > Page 684
Clay, 1993b; Pinnell et al., 1990). This adjustment of in-process instruction is continuous and requires critical analyses of children's responses to the text being read (prior to, while, and after reading), knowledge of the demands of the text, and ability to implement a wide range of instructional techniques. Another outcome of viewing all instruction as diagnostic teaching is that every individual lesson is a diagnosis, and any one lesson must be based upon the results of the previous diagnostic lesson (Clay, 1993b; Morris, Ervin, & Conrad, 1996). Fourth, it surely is the case when children read a text with a reading teacher's instruction that comprehension of the text's content is paramount. In reading instruction, however, the goal of instruction is not the information gained per se, but to teach the reading strategies and skills required for children to gain this information from independent reading. Fifth, good reading teachers know that solid reading instruction requires a balance of easy (independent, nondirected, or unguided) reading and more difficult (instructional, directed, or guided) reading. They know that learning to read is moving from not knowing, to knowing how, to doing, to doing with ease, accuracy, and speed. Whether a child is still attempting to master the essentials of word recognition or striving to develop the comprehension strategies of analysis and synthesis, fluency is required. Therefore, not all of every instructional session can be devoted entirely to teaching children new strategies, skills, or information, but some of every lesson must be devoted to help children do what has already been learned, but more rapidly, with less attention, and with fewer errors (i.e., with greater fluency) (Clay, 1993b; Snow et al., 1998). Sixth, Barr (19731974) found in first-grade classrooms that the amount learned was highly dependent on instructional pace, that is, the rate at which teachers accomplished the basal reader's lessons. Expert reading teachers know that children with reading difficulties not only need greater amounts of high-quality reading instruction but also that the pace of instruction in the intervention program must be intense. Finally, good reading teachers realize that the purpose of any lesson is children's learning, not the mere accomplishment of the lesson. This child focus means that the teacher's perception is affixed to what is and is not being learned, not to the instructional activity itself. Belief: Almost Every Child Should Be Reading on Grade Level The basic premise of all intervention, remedial, or learning disability programs is to "get the child up to grade level." Some may say that this is not logical; it would be the same as saying that every child will be approximately average in height, or taller (Cannell, 1987). Speaking strictly statistically, this is correct; the Lake Woebegone Effect of everybody scoring at or above average on a normed test is impossible. The statistical word average is the problem, and should be replaced with the more general term on grade level. The term grade level here is not a grade equivalent score on a standardized test but is the ability to read texts generally considered appropriate for children's age or grade. Given this interpretation of average, then the notion of almost every child reading on grade level may not be dismissed on purely logical grounds. Allington (1995) listed six pieces of conventional wisdom he believed are erroneous; the first of these deceptive ad hominems is "not all children can become literate with their peers." He suggests that the basis of this deceptive conventional wisdom is the "enormous range of differences in children when they begin school" (p. 6). One of those variables that has been thought to limit progression in reading is intelligence, but in the primary grades, IQ scores correlate with reading achievement at only the .2 to .45 level. There is nothing so complicated about learning to read that would keep any child who is not mentally retarded from being able to learn to read near, on, or above grade
< previous page
page_684
next page >
< previous page
page_685
next page > Page 685
level, provided that this child is given enough instruction and instruction of sufficient quality. And because, within a normally distributed population, about 95% of the population will, theoretically, have IQ scores of 80 and above, then in accordance with the thinking of Bloom (1968), Carroll (1964, 1989), and Allington (1995), almost every child in elementary school should be reading on grade level at grade level. Those who claim that every elementary school child should be reading at grade level (this includes the authors) find little to support this belief beyond faith. The dualfold data nullifying this belief include: 1. Not every child does learn to read, some in spite of high IQs, homes that value and encourage language and reading, excellent developmental reading instruction, and excellent remedial reading instruction. 2. Those who hold this belief (including the authors) have been unable to proffer methods that guarantee success for all. Even in Reading Recovery, children who do not make success after 60 lessons are dropped from the program and returned to the regular classroom or referred to a special education program. There certainly have been numerous major attempts to eliminate reading difficulties within our society (e.g., Title I, Special Education, Remedial Reading, Reading Recovery, Success for All), but there are still significant numbers of children who have difficulty reading. Studies are needed in which a school or a school district commits itself to not allowing a single child in an entire cohort of 4-year-olds (or younger) to fall significantly behind in learning to read through grade five or six. Funding for this project would permit whatever form of instruction, including a great deal of one-to-one teaching if such were deemed necessary. It is important to know if it is only limited funding and staffing that stands in the way of success for all, or if it is a lack of reading theory and instructional methods. References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Adams, M. J., Treiman, R., & Pressley, M. (1998). Reading, writing, and literacy. In I.E. Siegel & K. A. Renninger, (Eds.). Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 4: Child psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 275355). New York: Wiley. Ajibola, O., & Clement, P. W. (1995). Differential effects of methylphenidate and self-reinforcement on attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Behavior Modification, 19(2), 211233. Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. Reading Teacher, 36(6), 556561. Allington, R. L. (1987). The persistence of teachers beliefs in facets of the visual perceptual hypothesis. Elementary School Journal, 87(4), 351359. Allington, R. L. (1991). The legacy of "slow it down and make it more concrete." In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.) Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 1930). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Allington, R. L. (1994). What's special about special programs for children who find learning to read difficult? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(1), 95115. Allington, R. L. (1995). Literacy lessons in the elementary schools: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America's elementary schools (pp. 115). New York: Teachers College Press. Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work: Where all children read and write. New York: HarperCollins. Allington, R. L., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1997). Adequacy of a program of research and of a "research synthesis" in shaping educational policy (Rep. Ser. 1.15). National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement. Albany, NY: State University of New York at Albany. Arya, P., Kutno, S., & Kibby, M. W. (1995, December). Creating fluent readers: A comparison of two teaching strategies for dysfluent readers. Paper presented to the 48th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, New Orleans.
< previous page
page_685
next page >
< previous page
page_686
next page > Page 686
Balow, B. (1996). Perceptual-motor activities in the treatment of severe reading disability. Reading Teacher, 50(2), 8897. (Original work published 1971) Barr, R. (19731974). Instructional pace differences and their effect on reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 9(4), 526554. Bean, R. M., Cooley, W. W, Eichelberger, R. T., Lazar, M. K., & Zigmond, N. (1991). In class or pullout: Effects of setting on the remedial reading program. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 445464. Bear, D. R., Invernezzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (1996). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. J. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America's public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment, 1(2). University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation and Instructional Programs. Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2(4), 5142. Borman, G. D., & D'Agostino, J. V. (1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 18(4), 309326. Campbell, J. R., Voekl, K. E., & Donahue, P. L. (1997, September). NAEP 1996 trends in academic progress. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Cannell, J. J. (1987). Nationally normed elementary achievement testing in America's public schools; How all 50 states are above the national average (2nd ed.). Daniels, WV: Friends for Education. Carroll, J. B. (1964). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 222228. Carroll, J. B. (1989). The Carroll Model: A 25-year retrospective and prospective view. Educational Researcher, 18, 2631. Chall, J. S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill. Clay, M. M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Clay, M. M. (1993a). An observation schedule of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. M. (1993b). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Education outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237248. Cole, M. (1990). Cognitive development and formal schooling: The evidence from cross-cultural research. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 89110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Coles, G. S. (1978). The learning-disabilities test battery: Empirical and social issues. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 313340. Council for Exceptional Children. (1997). Reading difficulties vs. learning disabilities. CEC Today, 4(5). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. [Online]. http://www.cec.sped.org/bk/cectoday/today.htm Cruickshank, W. C. (1979). Learning disabilities: A definitional statement. In E. Polak (Ed.), Issues and initiatives in learning disabilities (pp. 80110). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Cunningham, P. M., Hall, D. P., & Defee, M. (1998). Nonability grouped, multilevel instruction: Eight years later. Reading Teacher, 51(8), 652664. D'Agostino, J. V. (1996). Authentic instruction and academic achievement in compensatory education classrooms. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 22(2), 139155. Deford, D. E., Pinnell, G. S., & Lyons, C. (1997, December). AmeriCorps for literacy and math. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference. Scottsdale, AZ. Dowhower, S. L. (1987). Repeated reading revisited: Research into practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 389406. Ehri, L. (1994). Development of the ability to read words: Update. In R. Ruddell, M. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 323358). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Eisner, E. W. (1991). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. New York: Macmillan. Elley, W. B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of reading literacy. Hamburg, Germany: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Attainment. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Fear, K. L., & Anderson, L. M. (1988). Students' metacognitive knowledge about how to write informational texts. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11(1), 1846. Farr, R., Fay, L., Myers, J., & Ginsberg, M. (1987). Then and now: Reading achievement in Indiana 194445, 1976, and 1986. Bloomington, IN: Center for Reading and Language Studies, School of Education, Indiana University.
Fisher, J. H. (1905). A case of congenital word-blindness. Review, 19, 315318. Flynn, J. R. (1984a). The mean IQ of Americans: Massive gains 19321938. Psychological Bulletin, 95(1), 2951. Flynn, J. R. (1984b). IQ gains and the Binet Decrements. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21(3, fall), 283290. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171191.
< previous page
page_686
next page >
< previous page
page_687
next page > Page 687
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 3755. Forness, S. R., Swanson, J. M., Cantwell, D. P., Youpa, D., & Hanna, G. L. (1992). Stimulant medication and reading performance: Follow-up on sustained dose in ADHD boys with and without conduct disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(2), 115123. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fowler, T. (1995). Improving America's Schools Act of 1994: Reauthorization of the ESEA. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1998). Balanced instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 240251. Gallimore, R., & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Teaching mind in society. In L. C. Moll (Ed.). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 175205). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gates, A. R. & MacGinitie, W. H. (1978). Technical Report: Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (2nd ed.). Chicago: Riverside. Gibson, E. J. (1965). Learning to read. Science, 148, 10661072. Gibson, E. J., & Levin, H. (1975). The psychology of reading. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Gil, D., Hoffmyer, E., VanRoekel, J., & Weinshank, A. (1979). Clinical problem solving in reading: Theory and research (Research Ser. No. 45). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Gil, D., Vinsonhaler, J. F., & Sherman, G. (1979). Defining reading diagnosis: Why, what, and how? (Research Ser. No. 46). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Gil, D., Vinsonhaler, J. F., & Wagner, C. C. (1979). Studies of clinical problem solving behavior in reading diagnosis (Research Ser. No. 42). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Gil, D., Wagner, C. C., & Vinsonhaler, J. F. (1979). Simulating the problem solving of reading clinicians (Research Ser. No. 30). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Gillingham, A., & Stillman, B. W. (1960). Remedial training for children with specific disability in reading, spelling, and penmanship. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service. Glynn, T., Bethune, N., Crooks, T., Ballard, K., & Smith, J. (1992). Reading Recovery in context: Implementation and outcome. Educational Psychology, 12(3-4), 249261. Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (1989). Improving learning disabled students' skills at composing essays: Self-instructional strategy training. Exceptional Children, 56(3), 201216. Hallahan, D. P., & Cruickshank, W. M. (1973). Psychoeducational foundations of learning disabilities. New York: PrenticeHall. Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Haselkorn, D., & Fideler, E. (1996). Breaking the class ceiling: Paraeducator pathways to teaching. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers. Hiebert, E. H., & Taylor, B. M. (1994). Getting reading right from the start: Effective early literacy interventions. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Hinshelwood, J. (1917). Congenital word-blindness. London: H. K. Lewis. Homan, S. P., Klesius, J. P., & Hite, C. (1993). Effects of repeated readings and nonrepetitive strategies on students' fluency and comprehension. Journal of Educational Research, 87(2), 9499. International Reading Association. (1994). Position paper: Who is teaching our children? A look at the use of aides in Chapter 1. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. International Reading Association. (1995). Position paper: Learning disabilities: A barrier to literacy instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Johnston, P. & Allington, R. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 9841012). New York: Longman. Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 268289. Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. Reading Teacher, 46(5), 376383. Kavale, K. A. (1982). Meta-analysis of the relationship between visual perceptual skills and reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 4251. Kavale, K. A. (1984). A meta-analytic evaluation of the Frostig training program. Exceptional Children, 31, 131141. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1985). Learning disabilities and the history of science: Paradigm or paradox. Remedial and
Special Education, 6, 1223. Kennedy, M. M., Birman, B. F., & Demaline, R. (1986). The effectiveness of Chapter 1 services: Second interim report from the National Assessment of Chapter 1. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Kibby, M. W. (1995a). Student literacy: Myths and realities. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Kibby, M. W. (1995b). What reading teachers should know about reading achievement in America. Journal of Reading, 37(1), 2840.
< previous page
page_687
next page >
< previous page
page_688
next page > Page 688
Kibby, M. W. (1995c). Practical steps for informing literacy instruction: A diagnostic decision-making model. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Kibby, M. W., & Barr, R. (in press). The education of reading clinicians. Reconsidering the role of the reading clinic in a new age of literacy Advances in Reading/Language Research (Vol. 6). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Hughes, M., & Elbaum, B. (1997). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13(3), 153161. Knapp, M. S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Koskinen, P. S., & Blum, I. H. (1986). Paired repeated reading: A classroom strategy for developing fluent reading. Reading Teacher, 40(1), 7075. Labbo, L. D., & Teale, W. H. (1990). Cross-age reading: A strategy for helping poor readers. Reading Teacher, 43(6), 362369. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293323. Linn, R. L., Graue, M. E., & Sanders, N. M. (1990). Comparing state and district tests results to national norms: The validity of claims that "everyone is above average." Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10(fall), 514. Lovett, M., Borden, L., DeLuca, T., Lacerenza, L., Benson, N., & Brackstone, D. (1994). Treating core deficits of developmental dyslexia: Evidence of transfer of learning after phonologicallyand strategy-based reading training programs. Developmental Psychology, 30, 805822. MacGinitie, W. H. & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Technical Report: Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests (3rd ed.). Chicago: Riverside. Matson, B. (1996). Whole language or phonics? Teachers and researchers find the middle ground most fertile. Harvard Education Letter, 12(2), 15. Maxson, S. P. (1996, February). The influence of teachers' beliefs on literacy development for at-risk first grade students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for Teacher Educators, Chicago. McGill-Franzen, A. (1994). Compensatory and special education: Is there accountability for learning and belief in children's potential? In E. H. Hiebert & B. M. Taylor, (Eds.), Getting reading right from the start: Effective early literacy instruction (pp. 335). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Means, B., & Knapp, M. S. (1991). Teaching advanced skills to educationally disadvantaged students. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates, and Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Michael, B. (1990). Volunteers in public schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Millsap, M. A., Moss, M., & Gamse, B. (1993). Chapter 1 implementation study: Chapter 1 in public schools. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning. Monroe, M. (1932). Children who cannot read. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Morgan, W. P. (1896). A case of congenital word-blindness. British Medical Journal, 2, 15431544. Morris, D., Ervin, C., & Conrad, K. (1996). A case study of a middle school reading disability. Reading Teacher, 49(5), 368377. National Center for Education Statistics. (1994). U.S. Department of Education statistics. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education. O'Flahavan, J., Gambrell, L., Guthrie, J., Stahl, J., Baumann, J. F., & Alvermann, D. E. (1992). Poll results guide activities for research center. Reading Today, 10, 12. Office of Compensatory Education Programs. (1997, December). Title I (pamphlet). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1(2), 117175. Pelosi, P. L. (1977). The origin and development of reading diagnosis in the United States: 18961946. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo. Perfetti, C. A. (1986). Continuities in reading acquisition, reading skill, and reading disability. Remedial & Special Education, 7(1), 1121. Pikulski, J. J. (1998, February/March). IRA and leaning disabilities: Another update. Reading Today, p. 39. Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1990). Reading recovery: Learning how to make a difference. Reading Teacher, 43, 282295. Polin, R. M. (1981). A study of preceptor training of classroom teachers in reading diagnosis. (Research Ser. No. 110). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Puma, M. J., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuti, A., Thompson, W., & Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997). Prospects: Student outcomesFinal report. U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, Inc.
Random House. (1987). Random House dictionary of the English language, Second Unabridged Edition. New York: Author. Rashotte, C. A., & Torgesen, J. K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(2), 180188. Rasinski, T. V. (1990). Effects of repeated reading and listening while reading on reading fluency. Journal of Educational Research, 83(3), 147150.
< previous page
page_688
next page >
< previous page
page_689
next page > Page 689
Richek, M. A., & McTague, B. K. (1988). The "Curious George" strategy for students with reading problems. Reading Teacher, 42(3), 220226. Robinson, H. M. (1946). Why pupils fail in reading? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Robinson, H. M. (1972). Visual and auditory modalities related to methods for beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 8, 739. Safer, D. J., Zito, J. M., & Fine, E. M. (1996). Increased methylphenidate usage for Attention Deficit Disorder in the 1990s. Pediatrics, 98(6), 10841088. Saint Augustine. (1942). The confessions of Saint Augustine, Books IX. Translated by F. J. Sheed. New York: Sheed & Ward. Samuels, S. J. (1979). The method of repeated readings. Reading Teacher, 32(4), 403408. Schenck, E. A., & Beckstrom, S. (1993). Chapter 1 schoolwide project studyFinal Report. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corp. Schumm, J. S., Moody, S. W., & Vaughn, S. (1996). Grouping for reading instruction: General education teacher's perceptions and practices. Unpublished manuscript. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., & Klingner, J. (1994). Literacy instruction for mainstreamed students: What suggestions are provided in basal reading series? Remedial and Special Education, 15(1), 1420. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early intervention for at-risk learners. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958996. Simons, H. D. (1992, December). The effect of repeated reading of predictable texts on word recognition and decoding: A descriptive study of six first grade children. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin. P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers become "learning disabled." Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Spiegel, D. L. (1992). Blending whole language and systematic direct instruction. Reading Teacher, 46(1), 3844. Stahl, S. A. (1994, November). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360407. Stanovich, K. E. (1990). A call for an end to the paradigm wars in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(3), 22131. Stoner, G., Carey, S.P., Ikeda, M. J., & Shinn, M. (1994). The utility of curriculum based measurement for evaluating the effects of methylphenidate on academic performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(1), 101113. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(3), 458481. Tancock, S. M. (1995). Classroom teachers and reading specialists examine their Chapter 1 reading programs. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(3), 315335. Taylor, B. M., Hanson, B. E., Justice-Swanson, K., & Watts, S. M. (1997). Helping struggling readers: Linking small-group intervention with cross-age tutoring. Reading Teacher, 51(3), 196209. Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Turpie, J. J., & Paratore, J. R. (1994, November). Using repeated reading to promote reading success in a heterogeneously grouped first grade. Paper presented at the 44th annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego, CA. U.S. Department of Education. (1996). Digest of education statistics. Table 369. Public and private school students receiving federally funded Chapter 1 services, by selected school characteristics: School year 19931994. [Online]. http//nces.ed.gov/pubs/d96/D96/T369.html U.S. Department of Education. (1997). Digest of education statistics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. [Online]. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=98015 Vadasy, P. F., Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., & O'Conner, R. E. (1997). The effectiveness of one-to-one tutoring by community tutors for at-risk beginning readers. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 126139. Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64(2), 211225. Vellutino, F. R. (1977). Alternative conceptualizations of dyslexia: Evidence in support of a verbal deficit hypothesis. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 334354. Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vellutino, F. R. (1987). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 256(3), 3441. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (1987). Linguistic coding and reading ability. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in applied psycholinguistics, Vol. 2, Reading, writing, and language learning (pp. 169). New York: Cambridge University Press. Vinsonhaler, J. F. (1979). The consistency of reading diagnosis (Research Ser. No. 28). East Lansing, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University. Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
< previous page
page_689
next page >
< previous page
page_690
next page > Page 690
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, & E. Souberman, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walsh, D. J., Price, G. G., & Gillingham, M. G. (1988). The critical but transitory importance of letter naming. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(1), 108122. Wasik, B. A. (1998). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(3), 268289. Weiderholt, J. L. (1974). Historical perspectives on the education of the learning disabled. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The second review of special education (pp. 103152). Philadelphia: Journal of Special Education Press. Weinstein, G., & Cooke, N. L. (1992). The effects of two repeated reading interventions on generalization of fluency. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(1), 2128. Wilson-Bridgeman, J. (1998). Curricular and communicative congruence: A key to success for students at risk of reading failure. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University at Buffalo. Young, A. R, Bowers, P. G., & MacKinnon, G. E. (1996). Effects of prosodic modeling and repeated reading on poor readers' fluency and comprehension. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17(1), 5984. Zigmond, N., Jenkins, J., Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S., Fuchs, D., Baker, J. N., Jenkins, L., & Couthino, M. (1995). Special education in restructured schools: Findings from three multi-year studies. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(7), 531540.
< previous page
page_690
next page >
< previous page
page_691
next page > Page 691
Chapter 37 Teacher Research in the Contact Zone Susan L. Lytle University of Pennsylvania For over a decade there has been enormous growth in the number of teachers conducting inquiry into literacy teaching and learning in their own schools and classrooms. A considerable portion of this work has been published and disseminated nationally as research monographs, edited volumes, and journal articles. Much of it, however, has been published in newsletters or network collections and has remained intentionally local, not readily available beyond the particular setting to which it is connected. What counts as the literature of teacher research1 is thus at issue because the texts available for a review in a handbook such as this one, although numerous, likely constitute a small proportion of what is actually being written in the field. The problem of reviewing the literature of teacher research is further complicated in that over this same period of time, there has emerged an extensive literature about teacher research written almost solely by university-based researchers. Relatively little of the scholarship about teacher research draws explicitly on the published texts of teacher researchers. Instead, this work describes, theorizes, and critiques teacher research from various authors' stances as participants in and/or analysts of the movement. Additionally there have been, to date, no comprehensive reviews of teacher research in any area that treat it as a literature or body of knowledge. Only recently has the topic of teacher inquiry been regarded as sufficiently prominent to merit inclusion in a major handbook (Baumann, Bisblinghoff, & Allen, 1997; Burton, 1991; Henson, 1996; Zeichner & Noffke, in press), and other chapters in these handbooks contain few, 1 I use the term teacher research throughout this chapter to encompass broadly the forms of inquiry that others in the field of literacy may refer to as action research, practitioner inquiry, or teacher inquiry. The chapter is constructed by juxtaposing the literature of K12 teacher research in literacy as the primary source with conceptual work on teacher research done for the most part by university-based researchers. Sources for teacher research in literacy for this chapter were selected from an extensive literature search for work published in the last 10 yearsincluding monographs, edited volumes, book chapters, and journal articles. In no way intended to diminish the value and relevance of local publications, for the purpose of this chapter citations were limited to sources accessible nationally, with the exception of teacher research published online. Teacher writing was considered teacher research if the writer so specified. Although I reference practitioner inquiry in the field of adult literacy, I do not focus on this work, nor do I attempt to deal explicitly with the many issues surrounding the use of teacher research in preservice teacher education. This chapter does not take up methodological issues in teacher inquiry which are dealt with in the chapter by J. Baumann.
< previous page
page_691
next page >
< previous page
page_692
next page > Page 692
if any, citations to the work of teacher researchers. There is considerable question, then, about what counts as the literature of teacher research and to whom. The ''what counts and to whom" question, however, is not simply one of the difficulties in locating literatures or in selecting from the wide range of texts that call themselves "teacher research," but is rather a problem endemic to the very nature of the work. In this chapter, I place this question at the center of my inquiry in order to emphasize the tensions that characterize what is at issue in the field. By taking seriously this question, the chapter illuminates the ways in which the intellectual and material worlds of research and practice, schools and universities, local and public ways of acting and knowing are being continuously negotiated, and thus how the arena of teacher research has become contested territory. I argue that understanding the work's history, current status, and potential contributions to the field of literacy education hinges on understanding the nature of this contestation. The argument of this chapter is animated by Mary Louise Pratt's (1991) notion of a contact zone as a "social space where cultures meet, clash and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power" (p. 34). In order to reveal what is at issue in the contact zone of teacher research, the chapter is organized into four areas of contestation. These areas are intentionally designed using metaphors of place and space in order to avoid the construction of a definitive typology and instead to suggest a generative framework for provoking further conversation and interpretation. These areas include the legacy of teacher research, that is, where it comes from and what it is connected to; the location of the researcher, that is, who is doing the work; the orientation of the work, that is, what it is about, what it is for, and why; and, finally, how the work is structured by community. The concluding section explores the concept of neighborhood as a way to envision alternative social spaces for the future of teacher research. Legacy Teacher research in the field of literacy came into prominence as an alternative research tradition in the mid 1980s and has since become one of the signature strands of the contemporary North American teacher research movement (Anderson, Herr, & Nihlen, 1994; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993, 1999; Zeichner & Noffke, in press).2 Several complementary and converging lines of thought about the relationships of language and learning created the immediate context for this to occur. The first, marked by the publication of Dixie Goswami and Peter Stillman's "Reclaiming the Classroom: Teacher Research as an Agency for Change" (1987), and edited collection of conceptual essays and pieces of teacher research, emphasized inquiry as both a basis for pedagogy and as an agency for change.3 Tracing its central metaphors to the influence of British educator Lawrence Stenhouse (1983; also Rudduck & 2 This chapter does not trace the history nor explore the range of traditions of teacher research/action research/practitioner inquiry as they have evolved in the United States or abroad. See Zeichner and Noffke (in press) for references to historical analyses. See Hollingsworth (1997) for sources from an international perspective. Teacher research in the United States dates back at least to the 1950s but literacy-related teacher research did not become prominent in the field until the mid to late 1980s. 3 Goswami and Stillman's volume emanated from courses and programs at the Bread Loaf School of English. It highlighted the significance of teachers' and students' questions as well as the critical role of teacher observation and documentation in developmental approaches to children's learning (see, e.g., the work of Emig, Martin, Britton, Dixon, Cazden, Royster, Lunsford, Graves, Heath, Berthoff, Burgess, Armstrong, Medway, Moffett, etc). Over time, Goswami and others (e.g., Atwell, 1987/1998; Branscombe et al., 1992; Christian, 1997) have continued to explore this vision. For a recent publication of Bread Loaf teacher researchers' work, see the summer 1998 Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine published by Bread Loaf School of English, Middlebury College. It is important to note that in the mid 1980s other very similar approaches to teacher research in literacy were being developed by Robinson (1990) and Stock (1995) in Michigan and, with a somewhat different valence, by Myers (1985) in California.
< previous page
page_692
next page >
< previous page
page_693
next page > Page 693
Hopkins, 1985), Ann Berthoff (1987), and James Britton (1987), the volume drew extensively on the literature and dialogue since the 1970s among English educators and writing teachers in the United States and United Kingdom about students as language learners and about inquiry as a basis for teaching, classroom discourse, reading, and writing. What many regard as the seminal book in a second strand, "Working Together: A Guide for Teacher Researchers," was written by classroom teachers and National Writing Project teacher-consultants Marion Mohr and Marian Maclean and drew primarily on their experience as teachers facilitating other teachers' learning. Instrumental in the proliferation of teacher groups in subsequent years, this book guided many teachers in methods for conducting teacher research and in strategies for forming and sustaining communities built around sharing individual teachers' classroom research. Nancie Atwell's influential volume "In the Middle" provided a kind of connecting link between the two strands by offering a detailed account of how she embedded research in practice, thus making immediately accessible images of classroom teaching congruent with ongoing documentation. All three of these volumes were published in 1987 and were written primarily for audiences of teachers. A fourth volume in that same year (Bissex & Bullock, 1987) elaborated the idea of case study research in writing and offered examples of year-long classroom-based studies by teachers in K12 classrooms as well as case studies of writers conducted as part of graduate study. Taken together, this work planted seeds for a "quiet revolution" (Bullock, 1987), for an indigenous or homegrown form of teacher-initiated study of literacy practice to take root. As an extension of the process writing and language-across-thecurriculum movements of the 1970s, this work built on a set of fundamental assumptions about the nature of language and literacy learning and applied them to the act of teaching in order to argue that there are critical connections between the ways that students and teachers learn and co-construct knowledge. The primary organizations responsible for forwarding these ideasthe Bread Loaf School of English and the National Writing Projecteach had more than a decade of experience in connecting teachers, school districts, and higher education in partnerships that by design attempted to interrupt the dominant theory-to-practice model of knowledge utilization. The concept of "teacher as researcher" thus added depth and purpose to established teacher networks already having national reach, as well as supported teachers and teacher educators poised to invent new linkages and relationships. Importantly, the version of teacher research that emerged in literacy not only had pedagogical appeal, but was intentionally quite general, conceptually coherent but only loosely aligned with particular ideologies or research methods. This spirit was evident in Goswami and Stillman's Preface, where as editors they proposed that "following another's blueprint is inimical to the spirit of classroom research." Thus the framework that jump-started teacher research in literacy was deeply practice and classroom focused and supportive of invention and initiative, but also sought the institutionalization of teacher research by making inquiry part of the professional lives of teachers (Myers, 1987). Not insignificantly, teacher researchers in literacy understood writing as central to learning for both their students and themselves and as a consequence were poised to take leadership in developing opportunities for teachers to write proposals for grants, present at local and national conferences, and contribute to a range of publications. Over time, support for and sponsorship of teacher research has been taken on by virtually all of the major professional organizations associated with reading and language research (see Table 37.2 in the section on Community). A range of other approaches to teacher researchaffiliated with different traditions and practices here as well as in other countries such as England and Australiawere being developed, theorized, adapted, and critiqued by university-based researchers over the same period of time. This work conceptualizes teacher research in a range of
< previous page
page_693
next page >
< previous page
page_694
next page > Page 694
ways from an activity or process to a method, project, program, or type of text to an emerging genre of research. Core concepts such as "research," "inquiry," "action," "collaborative,'' and "critical" are used in combination with one another and with the term teacher or practitioner to signal a range of meanings for "insider" investigations into life in classrooms, schools or other educational settings (Anderson et al., 1994; Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Elliott, 1991; Kincheloe, 1991; Zeichner & Noffke, in press). It may be helpful to spin out a few ways in which the language here is problematic. Typically, the term teacher research describes investigations of practice that are intentionally in the tradition of qualitative, interpretive and ethnographic methods and methodologies as distinguished from the tradition, for example, of "reflective practice" attributed to Schon (1983). Action research, on the other hand, has frequently differentiated itself through its definition as joint investigation, curriculum construction, or project with an activist and democratic orientation (Beyer, 1988; Elliott, 1991; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995). Further complicating the discourse, an investigation designated as action research may carry the political and social connotations suggested by affixing the terms critical or, in some cases, collaborative, or it may not (Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Krater, Zeni & Cason, 1994; Goldblatt, 1995; Hollingsworth, 1997; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995; Sagor, 1992). Some literacy-related teacher research literature has favored the term practitioner research over teacher research, in part to signal collaboration with other stakeholders in the educational arena such as administrators, counselors, tutors, social workers, parents, and community members (Anderson et al., 1994). Frequently the term inquiry has begun to be substituted for research. For some teachers, calling the work inquiry is an effort to make more visible and explicit the connection between the stance of the teacher who is conducting the inquiry and the inquiry stance of the learners involved, and thus to resonate with popular notions of classrooms as learning communities and with constructivist, whole-language, and learner-centered pedagogies (Baroz, 1998; Locklear, 1994; Murphy, 1994; J. Schwartz, 1990; Thomas & Oldfather, 1996). For others, using inquiry represents a self-conscious attempt to distinguish or disassociate their work from academic or university-based research, which calls up prior images of research they regard as irrelevant, inaccessible, and/or impositional. Proliferating terms and traditions have been an inevitable consequence of the wide range of participants in the teacher research movement (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Universities, school districts, state education departments, and national reform networks have begun to attach some form of teacher inquiry to all manner of teacher education and professional development, school reform, and curricular improvement (see, e.g., Allen, Cary, & Delgado, 1995; Hollingsworth & Sockett, 1994b; Little, 1993; Richardson, 1994a). Teacher research also plays a role in discipline-based research on practice (in the writing field, see, e.g., Daiker & Morenberg, 1990; North, 1987; Ray, 1993), as well as the newer national reform networks (e.g., most recently, the Annenberg Institute). For more than 10 years, teacher research has been forwarded by all of the major national literacyrelated research centers, each of which has framed and reframed what teacher inquiry is, what it is for, and how it ought to look, according to its own mission and mix of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives (see Table 37.2 in the section on Community). Most of this work has required, not incidentally, establishing and negotiating new relationships between and among school-based teacher researchers and collaborative partners from the university or school districts. Concurrent with this spread and growth has been an intensified debate about whether teacher research is a new paradigm, a new genre of research that is part of a wider social and political movement, or even qualifies, epistemologically and methodologically, as research at all (Anderson et al., 1994; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Fenstermacher, 1994; Huberman, 1996; Ray, 1993).
< previous page
page_694
next page >
< previous page
page_695
next page > Page 695
As a consequence of their particular legacies, the texts of teacher research in literacy thus vary considerably in the ways in which teacher researchers connect their workexplicitly or by implicationwith established or alternative research traditions or particular bodies of knowledge. Although the epistemological and methodological frames teachers bring to research that in turn inform their analyses and interpretations are being debated in the literature about teacher research, most teacher researchers have not taken this on directly. In contrast to research in the academy that emphasizes the deliberate selection of key concepts and the location of work in relation to established traditions, a large proportion of teacher research in literacy has spread as a more organic, grass-roots phenomenon that rarely identifies its roots and relatives.4 In a sense, the literature of teacher research in literacy does not constitute a "tradition" as the academy understands that idea; it does not appear to be evolving necessarily from any agreed-on set of questions, beliefs or assumptions about literacy, teaching, learning, or inquiry itself. Only relatively rarely (and mostly in teacher research dissertations or writing based on them) do teacher researchers choose to frame their texts with extensive reference to academic literatures or methodological traditions (see, e.g., Barbieri, 1995; Duthie, 1996; Fecho, 1998; Goldblatt, 1995; Wilhelm, 1996). In the literature of teacher research in literacy, the most salient "legacies" indicated in the work are often researchers' own social, cultural, political, and educational frameworks, their experiences in and out of the profession, and their indigenous questions (see, e.g., Hankins, 1998; Trotman, 1998; Yagelski, 1990). These sources may be investigated through the construction, for example, of literacy autobiographies as initial sections that explore the origins of the research questions in order to link (and critique) cultural, family, community, and educational frameworks and experiences (see, e.g., Bullough & Gitlen, 1995; Meyer, 1996; Mies, 1982 as cited in Kincheloe, 1991; Smythe, 1992).5 Some pieces examine what it means to "read" as teachers, to engage current research critically and dialectically in light of what they know and are learning from their own classrooms (see, e.g., Allen et al., 1995; Fecho, 1993; Gallas, 1994). Whether and how teacher researchers make or make explicit these kinds of connectionsto particular iterations of teacher research, to established bodies of knowledge on similar topics, to methodological traditions, and/or to their own life experiences, including the conceptual frameworks or theories of practice they bring to teachinghas implications for how their texts are understood and valued by different audiences. Location What it means for classroom teachers to do research has been a subject of debate since the movement began. Some formulations emphasize the unique position of the teacher in the research, arguing that this work is intentionally and necessarily local, rooted in the practices and issues of the everyday life world (Bissex & Bullock, 1987; Britton, 1987; Goswami & Stillman, 1987; Hubbard & Power, 1993; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992; Meier, 1997; Wells, 1994; Wells & Chang-Wells, 1992). In contrast to other researchers who enter schools for a bounded period of time as participant observers, in this view teacher researchers are understood to inhabit the research site as observant participants (Erickson, 1986; Florio-Ruane & Walsh, 1980) with immediate and deliber4 Notable exceptions include the collaborative school-university work of the Santa Barbara Discourse Group (see Green & Dixon, 1993) and the Brookline Teacher Research Group (see Gallas et al., 1996) from sociolinguistic and sociocultural perspectives on classroom language and the Philadelphia Teachers Learning Cooperative (1984) from a phenomenological approach. 5 Some exceptions include the few studies in literacy that also provide extensive analyses of teacher researchers' own research histories, including their education in various literatures and methodologies (see, e.g., Fleischer, 1994, 1995; Vinz, 1996; Hankins, 1998; Wilhelm, 1996).
< previous page
page_695
next page >
< previous page
page_696
next page > Page 696
ate commitments to the task at hand. As insiders studying their own setting, it is argued that teacher researchers bring a unique perspective that can make visible the co-construction of knowledge and the curriculum; drawing on their phenomenal experience, teacher researchers are in a position to interrogate (and alter) classroom and school culture from within (CochranSmith & Lytle, 1993; Knoblauch & Brannon, 1993; Vinz, 1996). Some argue that teachers have different perceptions, a "teacherly" way of viewing the world (Jackson, 1986, as quoted in Ray, 1993)abilities Ray (1993) identifies as "noticing details, processing a considerable amount of information at a glance, perceiving irregularities and trouble spots immediately, thinking in a 'future-oriented' way so as to see possibilities that others miss, and responding appropriately to a variety of behaviors" (p. 59). At the same time, a range of epistemological and methodological critiques has been offered of the notion of a "privileged" kind of emic stance and the attribution of a special kind of knowledge (Fenstermacher, 1994; Huberman, 1996; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998). Although it is acknowledged that practitioners are centrally positioned to test theory because they have access to their own intentions and motives, long-term experience of the setting, and well-established relationships, the argument is nevertheless made that self-knowledge is not necessarily valid; because insiders process knowledge implicitly on the basis of practice-based concerns, the argument is made that they cannot necessarily understand what is going on in a wider context (Hammersley, 1993). Fenstermacher (1994) and Huberman (1996) question the epistemic merit of teacher research as well as its claims for a distinctive methodology, an argument that has been interpreted as applying essentially conventional standards to constructing and assessing teacher research (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1998). On the other end of the continuum, Manning and Harste (1994) argue that much "research ON education" is part of a ''discourse of emasculation," used to control teachers' practice and undermine their professional judgments; it is teacher research "done by teachers and kids in their classrooms" that they regard as "real educational research" (p. 2). Other conceptual and empirical literatures (written by variously situated teacher researchers and university-based scholars) position teacher researchers as both insiders and outsiders who need to renegotiate traditional relationships between schools and universities and rethink assumptions about the relationships of research and practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Freedman, Simons, Kalnin, & Casareno, 1999; Hollingsworth, 1994; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995). By resisting both the unproblematized celebration of teachers' voices and the critiques that would circumscribe teacher research by relying primarily on normative frameworks, these accounts raise deeper issues about what is at stake for teachers doing research, that is, what it means to be implicated in every part of this work as practicing teachers and simultaneously as researchers/writers. There is little disagreement that teacher researchers have complicated relationships to their teaching and research; it is the nature of that complication and its significance to teachers and others that is at issue. In much of the literature of teacher research in literacy, teachers' questions surface first from their practice. Typically they are not expressly (at least initially) tied to issues that others might view as significant for building knowledge in the field, but rather emerge from some discrepancy, nudge, problem, curiosity, desire, surprise, contradiction, and/or "felt need" that is directly tied to their particular setting (see, e.g., Ballenger, 1998; Root, 1996; Schiller, 1996; Waff, 1995b). These questions have "stories" in that they may be traced to the teacher's prior or current educational experiences and pedagogical stance, but they are rarely stable, evolving in relationship to the day-to-day exigencies and insights of ongoing work with learners and with their colleagues (Buchanan, 1994; Cone, 1994/1997; E. Schwartz, 1992; Sims, 1993). Investigating their questions requires that teacher researchers both immerse themselves in lived experience and at once step back from it.
< previous page
page_696
next page >
< previous page
page_697
next page > Page 697
Teachers thus have the opposite dilemma of university-based researchers who come into classrooms, in that as part of the research process teacher researchers need to seek a more distanced perspective on what is closest and perhaps taken for granted in their own practice. Taking the dual stance of teacher and researcher has indeterminate and sometimes problematic implications for the role of teacher researcher as teacher, raising issues about what it really means to attempt to embed research in practice. The literature of teacher research in literacy suggests that decisions about whether to stand back or intervene in classroom behavior, whether to record or attempt to alter an interaction, to interrupt a silence or let a situation play itself out, become at best knottier (Gaughan, 1996; Hartman, 1994). Teaching issues and research issues thus become complexly entangled with each other (Atwell, 1987/1998; Johnston, 1992; Mohr, 1994). Furthermore, although there are many richly documented accounts in the literature of teachers speaking to the positive effects of researching their classrooms on their teaching, there is also a concern about whether the roles are conflicting or compatible (see, e.g., Baumann, 1996; Curtis, 1993; Dudley-Marling, 1995). Much of the published work points to teacher research as complicating, intentionally, the teachers' relationships to students, as teachers style their research as with or for students rather than about them, and as they engage students as co-researchers and therefore need to negotiate the roles of the students in the research process (Branscombe, Goswami, & Schwartz, 1992; Kutz, 1992). As a consequence, issues some identify as those associated with "studying down" may color and complicate already complex power dynamics between students and teachers (Ray, 1993). In arenas beyond the classroom, there is much at stake for teachers when they present their work to others, whether in their own schools or in other educational settings. Teachers' accounts of their classroom-based research make public aspects of their pedagogyeverything from choices made in leading discussions of literary texts to ways of structuring literacy tasks for students to formative or summative assessments of writing and learning (Parker, 1997; Reilly, 1995; Swain, 1994; Udall, 1998). Thus teacher researchers open their teaching practice up to comment and validation but also to examination, critique, and evaluation. When teachers explain the sources of their questions, for example, these stories provide insight into who they are in their classrooms. There is thus a possibility that something will be revealed that is not intended, for example, that the practices made "public" through the research appear incompatible with the teacher's stated beliefs. Always deeply implicated in the culture of the school, teacher researchers often need to negotiate and renegotiate relationships with their colleagues, administrators, parents, and other staff around the connections between their immediate responsibilities for groups of students' learning and their assumption of an inquiry stance on their practice (Chin, 1996; Headman, 1993; Jumpp & Strieb, 1993; Resnick, 1996). The teacher research literatures make evident the vulnerability of the teacher researcher (Hammack, 1997; Lytle, 1993; Nagle, 1997; Ray, 1993, 1996; J. Schwartz, 1990; Zeni, 1996). Researching one's own practice involves not only revealing the contours of one's teaching life over time but also portraying the experiences of students and the variable landscapes of a teaching context. Teacher research is not all about good news, not simply about "revealed excellence" (see, e.g., Baum-Brunner, 1993; Deshon, 1997; Keep-Barnes, 1994; Kucera, 1995). At best, presenting to wider audiences increases teachers' mutual dependence and trust. But the processes of "seeing collectively" may also reveal messy ethical issues in co-investigating school practices with students, or inadvertently may display students' struggles in ways that reinforce stereotypes (Ray, 1993). This has implications for what and how teachers choose to investigate in light of their ongoing relationships with their students, colleagues, schools, and communities (Newkirk, 1992).
< previous page
page_697
next page >
< previous page
page_698
next page > Page 698
Some teacher research highlights these institutional politics and the potential for conflict around the responses of administrators, parents, and colleagues to the critical stance of some practitioner research (e.g., Chase & Doan, 1996; Ellwood, 1992; Lytle & Fecho, 1992; Schaafsma, 1993; Trotman, 1998). As Ray (1993) pointed out, there are clearly issues here about what has been referred to as the good teacher versus the good researcher. Also dealt with in the literature about teacher research, these issues sometimes have a different valence. Contending that practitioner research "must challenge the sociopolitical status quo" of the setting, for example, Anderson et al. (1994) urged that teachers should not fall into reporting what they call "sanitized" forms of practitioner research Others argue for methodological rigor without accounting for inevitable constraints in teachers' work lives or for the possibility of repercussions in their workplaces (see, e.g., Huberman, 1996). The subset of teacher research in literacy done by pairs of schooluniversity collaborators makes visible a kind of "dynamic tension" that requires redefinition of roles (Ray, 1993). Differences are noted in whose questions drive the investigation and how they are identified, what counts as inquiry, what analytic frameworks are used for interpreting the data and where they come from, as well as who or what is expected to change as a consequence of the work together. Some studies, for example, are driven by a teacher's question (Butler, 1992; Ellison, 1997; Keenan, Willett, & Solsken, 1993), some by a university-based researcher's question about the teacher's classroom (Fairbanks, 1995; Henkin, 1995; Snyder, 1992), and some by questions from each participant (Carroll, 1994; Pappas, Oyler, Barry & Rassel, 1993; Taylor & McIntyre, 1992), whereas the majority report studies based on questions developed collaboratively by the participants (Bianchi & Cullere, 1996; Busching & Slesinger, 1995; Chinn & Iding, 1997; Commeyras & Sumner, 1995; Edelsky & Boyd, 1993; Fecho & Lytle, 1993). These collaborative arrangements have been described as social interventions in the lives of participants (Wagner, 1997) that entail issues of power, access, ownership, credit/reward, voice, audience, and purpose (Allen, Buchanan, Edelsky & Norton, 1992; Ellwood, 1992). Edelsky and Boyd (1993), a university-based researcher and a school-based teacher researcher, pointed to an array of factors and potential struggles that influence the work, including research approaches, abilities, and stances, as well as the nature of mentoring relationships, collegial arrangements (e.g., a dissertation done in a colleague's classroom; see Buchanan & Schultz, 1993; Cohen, 1993), and various other permutations that color how the concepts of research "with" and writing "with" are instantiated. Arguing for ethical guidelines for both collaborative and noncollaborative research, teams of school and universitybased researchers have noted that what is at issue in collaborative research for teachers includes ambiguity about being the researcher and the researched, status inequalities, differences in working conditions, and disparities in credit for writing and publication (Alvermann, Olson, & Umpleby, 1993; Fecho & Lytle, 1993; Hudelson & Lindfors, 1993; Mackinson & Peyton, 1993; Mangiola & Pease-Alvarez, 1993). It is not irrelevant that the most widely used computer program for bibliographies has no function for research ''with."6 The complex relationships of teachers to teacher research, schools, districts, and universities constitute sites of conflict considerably more nuanced than the simple opposition of "us" and "them." What is particularly generative about location may be the seemingly contradictory set of relationships between and among participants in what we often take for granted are the separate worlds of the school and university. In teacher research, school-based and university-based researchers are not so easily distinguished from one another: they are at once in union, in opposition, and in response or challenge to each other; none live in a vacuum, speaking just their own language. 6 The software referred to here is Endnote.
< previous page
page_698
next page >
< previous page
page_699
next page > Page 699
This arena of teacher research thus resembles what Gloria Anzaldua (1987) described as a borderland, a vague or undetermined situation or place where two or more cultures edge each other, where differently situated people occupy the same territory and where very similar people find themselves "across the borders" from one another, in different territories. From this perspective, the role of the teacher as a researcher lends itself to a further reinterpretation aligned with Anzaldua's concept of mestiza consciousness: in her view, rather than resisting the construction of duality by seeing oneself as having separate identities, clashing with each other, one can instead decide to see this mestiza consciousness as something powerful to cultivate. The positioning or location of teachers as researchers interrupts the easy distinctions often made between "insider" and "outsider" and destabilizes the boundaries of research and practicecreating a space where a radical realignment and redefinition may be possible. Orientation A content analysis of teacher research in literacy would be an expected dimension of an inquiry such as this one. However, analyzing the content of teacher research in literacy primarily to demonstrate patterns of what it is about is problematic for three reasons. First, the genres of teacher research in literacy vary widely, thereby provoking questions about the significance of relationships between the form and the particular questions or topics that are taken up. Second, the ways purpose is married with content raise questions as to why texts address particular themes, that is, why it is about what it is about and how knowing that (or not) alters how we think about the specific content. Third, the range of readers or audiences for the pieces varies so widely that understanding the content often depends on understanding the teacher researcher's intended relation to a known and/or distal readership. In order to elaborate fully the significant dimensions related to content, a richer notion is required, one that takes into account the intricacies of genre, topic, purpose and audiencewhat is here called an orientation. This said, it is not unuseful to organize the literature thematically, because the range and variation of content foci provide an overview of the areas literacy teacher-researchers regard as important enough to merit systematic investigation. Table 37.1 displays teacher research studies organized broadly by thematic frames, separating work done by individuals or pairs of teacher researchers from publications describing the work of teacher groups or communities. When looking across the literature for themes and patterns, it is clear that the majority of the pieces focus on issues directly related to classroom pedagogy. These include teachers' analyses of individual students and classroom interactions, instructional strategies related primarily to aspects of learner- or response-centered teaching, and analyses of students' expressive and creative abilities and the purposes, attitudes, interests, linguistic and cultural resources students bring to learning. Teacher research on pedagogy often makes problematic the nature and purposes for reading, writing, and talking in school as well as criteria for developing curricula for use in different contexts. Some of this work investigates pedagogical concerns by highlighting the social and organizational structures and oral and written discourse of classrooms as learning environments co-constructed by teachers and students through language and interaction. Other texts link issues of teaching and learning and the patterns of classroom literacy practices explicitly to issues of race, gender, and ethnicity, as well as what it means to make problematic teachers' and students' assumptions about culture and community in various urban, suburban and rural contexts. The corpus of teacher research in literacy also encompasses work that contributes to a transformed and expanded notion of practice (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Some of this work explores the cultures of teaching and learning in and out of schools, partic-
< previous page
page_699
next page >
< previous page
page_700
next page > Page 700
I. Pedagogy
A. Classroom instruction, curriculum, and assessment
B. Classroom environment and organization
II. Culture and community
TABLE 37.1 Teacher Research in LiteracyFour Thematic Frames for Researching Practice Individuals and Pairsa Groups Baum-Brunner Johnson (1995/1997) Sims (1993) Livdahl et al. (1995) (1993) Johnston (1992) Stock (1995) McMahon & Raphael (Eds.) Buchanan Lewis (1993) Strieb (1993) (1996) (1993) Christian (1997) Cone Madigan & Koivu-Rybicki (1997) Swaim (1998) Newman (Ed.) (1990, 1998) (1994/1997) Meier (1997) Udall (1998) Phillips et al. (1993) Duthie (1996) Ray (1987) Whitin (1996) Strickland, Dillon, Feldgus (1993) Reilly (1995) Wilhelm (1996) Funkhouse, Glick, & Rogers Five (1986, Schwartz, E. (1992) Wyshynki & (1989) 1989) Paulsen (1995) Taylor (1990) Gallas Yagelski (1990) Wells (1993) (1991/1997) Hoffman (1996) Ackerman Baroz (1998) Lott (1994) Meyer (1996) (1997) Chase & Doan (1996) Paley (1995) Tuyay, Floriani, Yeager, Allen, J. (1997) Cone (1990, 1992, 1993) Deshon Seabrook Dixon, & Green (1995) Allen, S. (1992)(1997) (1991/1997) Atwell (1987, Fraser & Skolnick (1994) Gallas (1992, Whitmore & 1987/1998) 1994) Crowell (1994) Avery (1993) Juska (1995) Banford (1996) Barbieri (1987) Ballenger Gallas (1998) Gaughan (1996) Hunt Schaafsma Dyson with the San (1992/1997, (1995) Macphee (1997) Moore (1998) (1993) Francisco East Bay Teacher 1996a, 1996b, Murphy (1994) Newland (1990) Schiller (1996) Study Group (1997) 1998) Schwartz, J. Freedman, Simons, Kalnin, Barbieri (1995) (1990) Casareno & M-Class Brown (1993) Skelton (1998) Teacher Researchers (1999) Cziko (1996) Stumbo (1992) Krater et al. (1994) Fecho (1994, Temple (1998) 1996, 1998) Waff (1995a, 1995b, 1996)
(Continues)
< previous page
page_700
next page >
< previous page
page_701
next page > Page 701
(Continued) TABLE 37.1 Individuals and Pairs Austin (1994) Harris (1993) Mohr III. Cultures of teaching in/out of Buchanan (1994) Headman (1993) (1987) schools Chin (1996) Jumpp (1996) Parker Colgan-Davis (1993) Jumpp & Strieb (1997) Christian (1998) (1993) Pincus Fecho (1993) Kaltenbach (1993) (1993) Fleischer (1995) Kanevsky (1993) Resnick Kieffer (1996) (1996) Swain (1994) Wunner (1993) Allen, A. (1997) IV. Access, equity, and democratic Branscombe & Thomas education (1992) Goldblatt (1995) Sylvester (1994/1997) Vasquez (2000) aThe citations here do not include teacherresearcher collaborative pairs.
< previous page
page_701
Groups Allen, Cary, & Delgado (1995) Duckworth et al. (1997) Florio-Ruane (1990) Gallas et al. (1996) Gonzalez et al. (1993) Hollingsworth (1994) Meyer et al. 1998
Allen, J. (Ed.) (1999) Beyer & Liston (Eds.) (1996) Gitlin et al. (1992) Lytle et al. (1994) Taylor et al. (1997)
next page >
< previous page
page_702
next page > Page 702
ularly the changing nature of schools as workplaces and sites of the intersection of school practices with families, community organizations, and schooluniversity partnerships. The work reflects teachers' efforts to assume leadership roles, to connect parents and schools, and to build communities with other teachers and their students across classroom and school boundaries. Research considering issues of professional socialization including teacher-to-teacher collaboration and inquiry as a mode of collegial learning is also evident. A smaller number of studies address issues of access, equity, and democratic education by explicitly framing their work within broad societal issues, including social, economic, political, and moral concerns, and often with a focus on democracy and social justice. Looking at the content of this literature reveals areas that teachers have identified as important to investigate in their practice, broadly construed. The texts themselves, however, reveal considerable diversity in type or genre and thus invite questions about how researching teachers understand relationships between the form and content, particularly when there is little in the texis themselves to illuminate the rationale for these choices.7 More specifically, publications by teacher researchers represent a range of texts both conceptual and empirical, including reflective essays, studies or inquiries, oral inquiries, monographs, and dissertations. Some of these now appear as well in online journals or web sites. Teacher research publications are variously referred to as stories, anecdotes, vignettes, reports, case studies, journals, narratives, autobiographies, personal accounts, qualitative, interpretive, ethnographic or autoethnographic reports (Calkins, 1985; Grimmett & MacKinnon, 1992; Knoblauch & Brannon, 1993; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1990; Stock, 1995). Over more than a decade, literacy teachers have also invented new genres or forms for depicting their research, with some bringing together multiple voices (such as multigenre pieces, multivoiced collages, reader's theater, and other performative modes) and others adapting fictional or poetic modes including satire and parody. Although these texts differ considerably in their interpretations of what it means to gather and make sense of data in schools and classrooms and to communicate results of research to others, there is no necessary hierarchy, for example, a scheme for valuing or evaluating how the content is formed or transformed to construct a reflective essay, in contrast to an ethnographic study or reader's theater piece. This variation, however, does raise questions about the relationships between content and purpose, that is, why the work is about what it is about and why it is represented or written in a particular way. The notion of purpose for teacher research is a particularly contested territory. That the site of inquiry is infused with immediate and consequential actions and meanings is one of the defining features of this research. Taking the literature of teacher research in literacy as a set, the primary purpose most teachers articulate for their research is to teach better, to act or understand something differently so that their students' learning is enhanced. Conspicuous across texts are teachers' concerns about the immediate consequences of actions for particular learners, families, schools, and communities (Meier, 1997; Parker, 1997; Swain, 1994; Taylor, Coughlin, & Marasco, 1997). The purpose is not to "do research," but to observe, document, and analyze the daily work of literacy teaching and learning as it occurs in and out of classroom and school contexts. Thus the choices teachers make about genre are almost always deeply informed by the particular purpose and often local "audience" for whom they are writing, presenting, or performing. Looking across the literature of teacher research in literacy, there appears to be consistency at the most general level about teacher research as a vehicle for making change. However, there is little in the teacher research literature itself that conceptual7 Ray (1993) linked issues around genre to methodological eclecticism, resulting in difficulties in putting the written products in standard research genres and creating "a kind of hybrid textpart narrative, part case study, part experiment, part ethnography, part discourse analysis" (p. 93).
< previous page
page_702
next page >
< previous page
page_703
next page > Page 703
izes, elaborates, or interrogates the nature of change. The change agenda may be assumed or implicit, emanating from the particular nudge or discrepancy that frames the work rather than from a detailed research problem or contextualized question. Thus the rationale for changea more formal statement of the problem in the classroom or in the world that the research responds tomay not be explicitly narrated or argued. The literature about teacher research, on the other hand, reveals considerable attention to various notions of purpose and change and what it means that change is named, defined and valued differently in various educational contexts. In this literature, the concepts of change evolve from particular theoretical orientations to teacher research and are reflected in conversations in the academy linking teacher research with the discourses of reform, critical social theory, professional development, and teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 1994; Hargreaves, 1994, 1996; Hollingsworth & Sockett, 1994; Lieberman & Miller, 1994; Little & McLaughlin, 1993; Pappas & Zecker, in press-a, in press-b; Richardson, 1994b; Stevenson, 1995). And although universitybased researchers consistently affirm the significance of the work for the local context, much of the debate has concerned itself with the value of teacher research in the so-called "wider" or "public" sphere. Often the unit of analysis is foregrounded, so that the concepts structuring the debate emphasize who or what is the object of change. Reviewing the literature for this chapter reveals that the key distinctions about purpose in teacher research often fall out along the lines of the locus of change, that is, change that is directed at individual, institutional, and/or societal change. They are elaborated here in order to sketch the territories within which significant questions of use and value get inscribed and debated. In the literature about teacher research, studies that show the improvement of a teacher's classroom practice are thought to reflect an individual kind of change. From this perspective, teachers do research to observe and document learners' lives in and sometimes outside of classrooms to understand, and perhaps improve, how they and their students construct understandings of educational processes. The agenda of individually oriented change is understood to bring about a more complex or textured view of daily practice, including its tensions, ambiguities, and multiple interpretations. Work characterized as directed toward individual change may attempt to reveal how teachers and their students negotiate what counts as knowledge inand outof the classroom, who can have it, and how their own interpretations of classroom, school, family, and community life are shaped. Teacher research in this category may be understood to be aiming for a clarification of theoretical or interpretive frameworks and for interrogating assumptions, with an eye to changing perspectives and actions. Studies understood as trying to make impact more broadly than the classroom are considered as those attempting to make some kind of institutional change. Teacher research understood to be in this category typically has issues of reform and the restructuring or transformation of schools, programs, district practices, or policies at its center. The intent of this work is understood as an attempt to influence administrative, curricular, or programmatic structures or to make these structures more visible by questioning specific practices. This kind of teacher research includes efforts to change the cultures of teaching and learning in schools and school systems, to make teachers' work more integrated or interdependent, and sometimes to document the work of collaborative communities within or across school sites. Studies that frame the problem within broad social and political issues are considered aimed at some form of societal change. This work articulates the intent to work for and understand, for example, democratic education, antiracist teaching, or pedagogy for social justiceoften by interrogating common understandings and challenging school practices that reproduce social inequalities. And although not the sole or even primary focus of the research, some work within this category is understood to seek to challenge traditional paradigms of educational research and practice, and thus inten-
< previous page
page_703
next page >
< previous page
page_704
next page > Page 704
tionally to provoke questions about the role of practitioners in changing research, that is, the ways research is conducted, valued, and promoted, by and for whom. Research from this perspective raises questions about who sets the agenda for educational inquiry and whose interests are served. At issue in the literature about teacher research is the extent to which teacher research is concerned with practitioners improving their own practice and enhancing their self-knowledge and the extent to which these individual transformations are part of efforts to improve the situations in which practices occur as well as efforts to change social and institutional structures (Anderson et al., 1994; Noffke, 1997; Noffke & Stevenson, 1995; Zeichner & Noffke, in press). Approaches characterized as individualistic and self-improvement oriented are weighed against changing organizational structures, introducing new programs, or seeking to rectify school services that function to maintain inequitable arrangements among students. What is being questioned, in part, are the relationships between changing individuals and changing societal structures, or what differently positioned participants in the debate understand as the social value of individual change, the classroom as a site of cultural and political work, and the role of individual acts in making more fundamental change. Within this conversation is a concern with whether teacher research is fulfilling its potential to contribute to a more socially just world (Zeichner, 1994). Some point out that much of reflective practice has been co-opted, cast as a technology, and rather than challenging standard practices, supports them (Smythe, 1992); similar caveats have been made about teacher research becoming anything and everything, and thus nothing of consequence (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Lytle, 1993). There is considerable discussion about whether classrooms can and do function as arenas for social, cultural, and political struggle and as sites for identifying alternatives to current practices (Noffke, 1997; Zeichner, 1994). A point of critique is what some construe as the limited amount of practitioner work addressing social justice or social equity issues in teaching and schooling (Noffke & Stevenson, 1995). Furthermore, those who are conceptualizing change as a consequence or outcome of teacher research point out that insofar as teachers can identify ways to alter their practice through the research process, they can also reproduce what already exists, solidify inequities, and make changes with little consequence for improving the quality of teaching and learning (Ellwood, 1992; Gore & Zeichner, 1995; Wells, 1993; Zeichner, 1992). Questions of the use and value of teacher research are thus typically construed in the literature about teacher research within a framework of "the greater good," whereas teacher research itself often frames these questions within the immediate context and with reference to local purposes and meanings. And although the themes apparent in the teacher research literature on literacy may appear to map onto the framework of individual, institutional, and societal change, such distinctions are less compelling from the more nuanced and complicated view of orientation, which highlights the critical intersections of what teacher research is about, what it is for, and why. A teacher's research on pedagogy, for example, may be at once concerned with or at least potentially relevant to all three "takes" or loci of change. Nor is it obvious what kinds of texts appeal to whom and thus what work has the potential for contributing to what kinds of change. The paucity of discussion in the literature of teacher research that interrogates the use and value of different kinds of change juxtaposed with the persistent emphasis in the literature about teacher research suggests the need for opening up conversations within and across communities and across the two literatures about what this work is for and about and how it is represented. Zeichner and Noffke (in press) make a related point in their call for ways to bridge the "current divide between academic discussions of critical and emancipatory goals for practitioner research and practitioners' discussions of the classroom as a site for political struggle" (p. 88). There are provocative
< previous page
page_704
next page >
< previous page
page_705
next page > Page 705
questions about the relationship between the so-called public arena of discussion about change within the academy and the particular contexts of teacher research wherein questions of use and value are necessarily defined and negotiated initially if not ultimately in local terms and for local purposes. Community As a critical part of the reform agenda begun in the mid 1980s, the move to create professional community has been recognized by many schools, districts, and universities as a central component in making change. And although historically there have been teacher groups outside of these formal organizational structures, such as the Philadelphia Teachers Cooperative (1984) and the Harvard Educator's Forum (Evans, 1989) and likewise individual teachers who inquired into and wrote about their practice (e.g., Ashton-Warner, 1963; Harris, 1993; Strieb, 1985; Wigginton, 1985), there is evidence that the growth of these many differently configured professional communities in and out of schools, districts, and universities has contributed to and in some cases resulted from the growth of the teacher research movement (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). Over more than 15 years there has evolved a complicated set of social and organizational structures that shape and are sometimes shaped by the work of teacher researchers. From its inception, the teacher research movement in literacy has been, not surprisingly, a profoundly social and collaborative enterprise in which research has been conducted primarily in voluntary communities of teachers within and across schools and school districts and constructed through sets of literacy practices that vary according to the context of the group (see, e.g., Allen et al., 1995; Freedman et al., 1999; Gitlen et al., 1992; Lytle, 1998; Lytle et al., 1994; Meyer et al., 1998; Michaels, 1998; Pappas & Zecker, in press-b; Phillips et al., 1993). These groups have not typically been free-floating, but rather attached in complex ways to some other structurea university, school, school-within-aschool, project, or network. To these inquiry communities teachers bring their "legacy"including what they know or expect about the purpose and nature of the group's activity based on their own educational background and theories of practice. They also bring their "location," their positions relative to other systems or organizations, and thus the particularities of school context and collegial relationships, stance on practice, relationships with students, questions and etiologies of questions as well as their perceptions of the complex relationships of teaching and research. The unique literacy practices of each teacher research group are in part co-constructed from these individual profiles and proclivities and often function as heuristic sites for envisioning an altered classroom community where students become more active constructors of knowledge (Allen, Cary & Delgado, 1995; Waff, 1996). In teacher inquiry or action research communities, discussion and debate around "orientation" are often the ways these dimensions get played out in the particular, that is, through how their written texts reflect participants' views of content and purpose for looking at some classroom, school, or system, as well as decisions about how the investigation will be written up/about and published for particular audiences. The intensity of the group dynamicin contrast with how teachers describe their profound experiences with isolation over timereflects the local connotation and collision of legacy, location and orientation.8 8 Table 37.1 separates teacher research conducted by individuals and pairs of teachers from research conducted and published by teacher research communities to highlight the new genres of publication by groups. Research done by individuals (and pairs of teachers/university-based researchers) often grows out of the work of a community that functions as the social and organizational support for the work accomplished, although this is often not explained in the text.
< previous page
page_705
next page >
< previous page
page_706
next page > Page 706
Table 37.2 displays the sponsorship of teacher research related to literacy over the last 10 years as a multilevel set of loosely interrelated systems providing material and human resources to support various iterations of teacher research.9 Although not exhaustive, it provides an overview of a range of social and organizational structures that have played a visible and critical role in this evolving field.10 In the teacher research literature itself, unless part of a collection or monograph in which the university or district sponsors (or more rarely, a teacher facilitator or participant) explain the social and organizational context from their perspective, there is typically very little written in the individual pieces about the complex layers of sponsorship, especially issues related to the macro context of the work. Furthermore, the meanings or implications of being funded by particular organizations such as foundations, government agencies, school districts, businesses, individuals, or professional networks, the choices to publish with particular presses or in particular journals, and the significance of being affiliated with various groups and universities are rarely discussed. Issues of the depth and valence of supporttypes of resources, amount and duration, degrees of internal and external structure and controlmerit further analysis. In the contact zone of teacher research, the relationships of funders and funded, sponsors and sponsored, university and school cultures compose the subtext of much of the teacher research literature, and suggest a number of critical issues that are at stake in the continued health and growth of the teacher research movement. How are the relationships between organizations and teachers in communities shaped by negotiations conducted between sponsoring organizations and universities, which in turn make decisions about the allocations of resources and participants' roles? What do foundations or universities or school districts or counties want from the work of teacher researchers and how are those desired outcomes communicated, defined, and assessed? To what extent are teachers who participate in communities allied with universities, for example, positioned to make choices about the conceptual frameworkthe legacy and orientationthat govern the work, or its linkage to particular reform agendas, university research priorities, or foundation criteria? How are the collaborators' different agendas made visible, or not? What does it mean to fulfill an "outsider's" vision of the work in contrast to investigating and inventing one from within? In whose interests is the research in and on the community designed and carried out, and who stands to benefit from its completion and dissemination? 9 Missing from the table, however, are the countless school-based and district-based inquiry groups that have been a salient dimension of reform initiatives, many with strong literacy-related components (e.g., Erickson & Christman, 1996; Zeichner, 1997), as well as an indeterminate number of teacher groups without outside funding or with less formal social and organizational structures (e.g., Colgan-Davis, 1993). Also not accounted for are the particular emphases of different sponsors, that is, teacher research as professional development, as school or organizational development, as knowledge generation, and so on. 10 On the national level, supportive structures have included grants for individual and group projects, seminars, institutes and conferences, publication, and network leadership. Both the National Writing Project (through the more than 150 sites and subnetworks involving urban and rural teachers across the country) and the Bread Loaf School of English through the Rural Teacher Network in eight states have continued to take leadership through grant-funded special projects and online communities. Foundations have also become organizational sponsors; to strengthen the community of practitioner researchers and build teachers' research capacity, for example, through its Practitioner-Initiated Communication and Mentoring Grants Program, the Spencer Foundation has supported individuals and group programs of teacher research, including research mentoring and conferences, publications, and electronic networks. Teachers and teacher educators have worked successfully through professional organizations to open new avenues for funding, dissemination and recognition of the work of teacher researchers. A number of states, school districts, and public education funds have provided a range of supports for inquirybased professional development. Notable efforts to publish teacher research locally over many years include the Madison Metropolitan School District, Madison, WI; the Alaska Teacher Researcher Network; the CRESS Center at UCDavis; the N. Virginia Writing Project; and the UCLA Writing Project. Countless numbers of colleges and universities have supported research communities of both preservice and inservice teachers through degree programs, collaborative partnerships with districts, and continuing education and research centers.
< previous page
page_706
next page >
< previous page
page_707
next page > Page 707
TABLE 37.2 Sponsorship of Literacy-Related Teacher Research: Social and Organizational Structures Types of Structure Examples of Organizations Federal government National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) Office of Educational Research and ImprovementU.S. Department of Education National professional American Educational Research Association (AERA) (Teacher organizations as Researcher SIG and Division K) International Reading Association (IRA) National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) National Reading Conference (NRC) Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) National networks Bread Loaf Rural Teachers Network Foxfire National Writing Project National centers Annenberg Institute for School Reform (Providence, RI) Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy (UCBerkeley) Center on English Learning and Achievement (SUNY Albany) National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning (UCSanta Cruz) National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy (Harvard) National Center for Restructuring Education, Schools, and Teaching (Teachers College, Columbia) National Center on Adult Literacy (UPenn) National Reading Research Center (UGa) National Research Center on Literature Teaching and Learning (SUNY Albany) National foundations DeWitt-Wallace Readers Digest Foundation Spencer Foundation UPS Foundation University Center X (UCLA) centers/networks Center for Educational Improvement Through Collaboration (UMichigan) Center for Literacy Studies (CUNY) Cooperative Research and Extension Services for Schools (UCDavis) Educators' Forum (Harvard) Jacob Hiatt Center for Urban Education (ClarkU) League of Professional Schools (UGa) Partnership Teacher Network (Univ. S. Maine) (Continues)
< previous page
page_707
next page >
< previous page
page_708
next page > Page 708
(Continued) Types of Structure Journals
TABLE 37.2 Examples of Organizations
English Education, English Journal, Language Arts, Research in the Teaching of English (NCTE) Harvard Educational Review New Advocate Teacher Research: A Journal of Classroom Inquiry Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy Teaching and Change (National Education Association and Corwin/Sage) Publishers Christopher Gordon Falmer Press Heinemann Boynton-Cook Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Stenhouse Publishers Teachers College Press Note. Table includes organizations known to have supported literacy-related teacher research at some time over the past 10 years; there are many other organizations supporting teacher research with other or more general foci. Within the community itself, how are relationships negotiated and represented? What are the implications when some participants in the community are funded as facilitators and others receive stipends for participation? What are the roles of university and teacher participants in decisions related to writing and publishing, and what happens, for example, when a group member pursues a project ''out of line" with the ethos or politics of the group's work? When some participants elect not to write? Whose stories get told and whose published, and how are decisions made about positioning jointly authored work in the world, that is, which publisher, who writes the forward, and what are the status and political implications of these choices for differently situated coauthors? Questions such as these move to the wider terrain of how the long-established research cultures of universities are shaping the newly emerging research cultures of teachers and vice versa, how the long-established but changing cultures of schools and school systems are shaping and/or being shaped by communities of teachers (Anderson & Herr, 1999; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1995). It is becoming increasingly important to understand how and to what extent these dimensions enhance teachers' agency and participation, through their research, in the wider discourse of policy and change. The profoundly social nature of teacher research in literacy suggests that we need to pay more attention to the structures that play a pivotal role in determining how and whether the work supports or interrupts the status quo. Directions Forward The metaphor of the contact zone suggests a "read" of teacher research as a site of struggle that probes and at least partially illuminates the deeply relational context for this work. It invites movement from unproblematized notions of insider and outsider to consider more complexly what is possible in a third spacewhere the various constituencies recognize complementarity as well as difference and open up the productive possibilities of what Pratt (1991) referred to as oppositional discourse, resistance
< previous page
page_708
next page >
< previous page
page_709
next page > Page 709
and critique. The goal here is neither contentiousness nor consensus, but rather acknowledging, understanding, and drawing on the richness of roles and identities and searching for new language with which to talk and think and new social practices with which to structure and support the work. The distinctive contribution of teacher research in literacy as at once a grass-roots movement, and not, suggests the need to interrogate the ways we envision the "local" and the terms we set against it. Usage of concepts such as "the wider academic community" and the "public sphere" implicitly depends on a margin and center framework that designates teachers' knowledge and action as local and the actions and ways of knowing in the academy as something broader, bigger, and by implication more significant. Contrasting the local with the public reifies these terms. An alternative would be to explore the possibilities of reimagining or redefining the local as what Moshenberg (1996) called a "neighborhood''a conceptual space or vicinity in which the salient concern is not an essentialized identity but rather one's location relative to others. What's important becomes not "who am I?" (or, "who are you?") but where, how, what, why and when [are we] (Trinh, 1992). From this perspective, what is more or less local, then, is relative to where one is. In this view, not only is the classroom or school local to teachers, for example, but the university is local to academics, and the American Educational Research Association (AERA) is local to both academics and teacher researchers who have elected to become part of that conversation. The local then is not a narrow given or solely the domain of the particular, but rather constructed and reconstructed to further a range of possibilities for the imaginative organization of new kinds of communities. A reenvisioned local invites other ways of thinking about the many texts of and about teacher research, and especially the socalled fugitive literatures (Zeichner, 1994), the publications of teacher groups that are not disseminated nationally. We need to inquire to whom these literatures are "fugitive"a term associated with the runaway or absconder, or alternately, a mischiefmaker or ruffianand to ask who writes and reads this work and for what purposes. Who is the literature about teacher research intended for? What happens when a "local group" reads and interprets the layered "public" conversation of the academy about the processes and meanings of teacher research? What happens when academics read into the locally disseminated literatures? How does one teacher research group reador reviewthe writing of another? What does it mean that many who write about this work do not read its texts or find them useful? What does it mean to "take this work seriously" and who are the "takers"? An extension of these issues related to the diverse literatures of teacher research is what might be called "the missing conversations"connections among the texts of teacher research and their linkages with other literatures. Envisioning the neighborhoods of teacher research raises questions about what it means that the literature of teacher research in literacy exists almost entirely as a collection of separate studies, essays, monographs, and so on without internal reference or citation to others whose research may inform the work at hand. In the literature about teacher research there are very different perspectives on how and whether the university's theoretical and analytic frameworks are needed or appropriate for this work (Calkins, 1985; Hubbard & Power, 1993). Although many agree that the task is not to make teacher research look more like university research, the question still remains as to how that issue is being taken up and interrogated and by whom. What would it mean to create more opportunities for the "constructive disruption of university culture" (Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1995) and who needs to be part of these conversations? When is the circle better narrowed than made wider? As teacher researcher Threatt (Threatt et al., 1994) pointed out, there are important questions about who is having what discussion and who is being rewarded for making sense of who's work. What conversation is going on among teachers that is not visible in the published textsand why does that matter? How and
< previous page
page_709
next page >
< previous page
page_710
next page > Page 710
with what consequences have the conversations about university-based research that take place in university courses, professional development seminars, and the many gatherings of teacher networks been altered by the appearance of this "other" writing? Are the systems of citation and documentation endemic to the academy relevant and useful to the work of teacher researchers? How would a system of lateral citation, defined as a "less hierarchical and less traditional method of citation . . . emphasizing collaboration and connection over argument and defense" (Franke, 1995, p. 376), reflect more accurately the real world relationships that inform the work? Engaging the concept of neighborhood has the potential to alter dramatically the bounded debate about "what counts as teacher research and to whom" and to embrace instead significant questions of use and value that are called up when such differently situated participants work together and separately for change. Acknowledgments Preparation of this chapter was supported in part by the Spencer Foundation. I am grateful for the important insights and critical assistance of Elizabeth Cantafio and Mollie Blackburn and to the many colleagues who read and reacted to this chapter, especially Bob Fecho and Kathy Schultz. References Ackerman, M. (1997). Can I speak Gussak? Using literature with a special education class. In M. Barbieri & C. Tateishi (Eds.), Meeting the challenges: Stories from today's classrooms (pp. 111). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Allen, A. M. A. (1997). Creating space for discussions about social justice and equity in an elementary classroom. Language Arts, 74(7), 518524. Allen, J. (1997). Exploring literature through student-led discussions. Teacher Research, 4(2), 124139. Allen, J. (Ed.). (1999). Class actions: Literacy education for democracy. New York: Teachers College Press. Allen, J., Buchanan, J., Edelsky, C., & Norton, G. (1992). Teachers as "they" at NRC: An invitation to enter the dialogue on the ethics of collaborative and non-collaborative classroom research. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives: The Forty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 357365). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Allen, J., Cary, M., & Delgado, L. (Eds.). (1995). Exploring blue highways: Literacy reform, school change, and the creation of learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Allen, S. (1992). Student-sustained discussion: When students talk and the teacher listens. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Students teach, teachers learn (pp. 8195). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Alvermann, D. E., Olson, J., & Umpleby, R. (1993). Learning to do research together. In S. J. Hudelson & J. W. Lindfors (Eds.), Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education (pp. 112124). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Anderson, G. L., & Herr, K. (1999). The new paradigm wars: Is there room for rigorous practitioner knowledge in schools and universities? Educational Researcher, 28(5), 1221, 40. Anderson, G. L., Herr, K., & Nihlen, A. S. (1994). Studying your own school: An educator's guide to qualitative practitioner research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Anzaldua, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: spinsters/aunt lute. Ashton-Warner, S. (1963). Teacher. New York: Simon & Schuster. Atwell, N. (1987). Everyone sits at a big desk: Discovering topics for writing. In D. Goswami & P. R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 178187). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. (Original work published 1987) Austin, T. (1994). Changing view: Student-led parent conferences. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Avery, C. (1993). . . . And with a light touch: Learning about reading, writing, and teaching with first graders. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Ballenger, C. (1996a). Learning the ABCs in a Haitian preschool: A teacher's story. Language Arts, 73(5), 317323.
< previous page
page_710
next page >
< previous page
page_711
next page > Page 711
Ballenger, C. (1996b). Oral preparation for literature: Text and interpretation in a Haitian preschool. Teacher Research, 4(1), 85103. Ballenger, C. (1997). Because you like us: The language of control. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 3343). Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review. (Original work published 1994) Ballenger, C. (1998). Language and literacy in a Haitian Preschool: A perspective from teacher research. New York: Teachers College Press. Banford, H. (1996). The blooming of Maricar: Writing workshop and the phantom student. In Cityscapes: Eight views from the urban classroom (pp. 324). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project. Barbieri, M. (1987). Writing beyond the curriculum: Why seventh grade boys write? Language Arts, 64(5), 497504. Barbieri, M. (1995). Sounds from the heart. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Baroz, R. (1998, Summer). Something invisible became visible. Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine, 3437. Baum-Brunner, S. (1993). Classroom and school studies: Stepping in and stepping out: The making of hindsight. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 203212). New York: Teachers College Press. Baumann, J. F. (1996). Conflict or compatibility in classroom inquiry? One teacher's struggle to balance teaching and research. Educational Researcher, 25(7), 2936. Baumann, J. F., Bisblinghoff, B. S., & Allen, J. (1997). Methodology in teacher research: Three cases. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 121143). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Belanger, J. (1992). Teacher research as a lifelong experiment. English Journal, 81(8), 1623. Berthoff, A. E. (1987). The teacher as REsearcher. In D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 2838). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Beyer, L. (1988). Knowing and acting: Inquiry and educational studies. New York: Falmer Press. Beyer, L. E., & Liston, D. P. (Eds.). (1996). Creating democratic classrooms: The struggles to integrate theory and practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Bianchi, L. L., & Cullere, B. A. (1996). Research as duet: Teachers with complementary literacies study orality's links to literacy. Language Arts, 73(4), 241247. Bissex, G. L., & Bullock, R. H. (Eds.). (1987). Seeing for ourselves. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Branscombe, N. A., Goswami, D., & Schwartz, J. (Eds.). (1992). Students teaching, teachers learning. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Branscombe, A., & Thomas, C. (1992). Student and teacher co-researchers: Ten years later. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Students teaching, teachers learning (pp. 518). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Britton, J. (1987). A quiet form of research. In D. Goswami & P. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 1319). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Brown, S. P. (1993). Essays: Lighting fires. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 241249). New York: Teachers College Press. Buchanan, J. (1993). Listening to the voices. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 212220). New York: Teachers College Press. Buchanan, J. (1994). Teacher as learner: Working in a community of teachers. In T. Shanahan (Ed.), Teachers thinking, teachers knowing: Reflections on literacy and language education (pp. 3952). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Buchanan, J., & Schultz, K. (1993). Looking together: Collaboration as an inquiry process. In S. J. Hudelson & J. W. Lindfors (Eds.), Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education (pp. 3752). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Bullock, R. H. (1987). A quiet revolution: The power of teacher research. In G. L. Bissex & R. H. Bullock (Eds.), Seeing for ourselves (pp. 2127). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Bullough, R. V., Jr., & Gitlin, A. (1995). Becoming a student of teaching: Methodologies for exploring self and school context. New York: Garland. Burton, F. R. (1991). Teacher-researcher projects: An elementary school teacher's perspective. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 226230). New York: Macmillan. Busching, B. A., & Slesinger, B. A. (1995). Authentic questions: What do they look like? Where do they lead? Language Arts, 72(5), 341351. Butler, S. (1992). DISKovery: Writing with a computer in grade one: A study in collaboration. Language Arts, 69(8), 633640. Calkins, L. M. (1985). Forming research communities among naturalistic researchers. In B. W. McClelland & T. R. Donovan
(Eds.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in composition (pp. 125144). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge and action research. London: Falmer Press. Carroll, P. S. (1994). Metamorphosis: One teacher's change/One class' reaction. English Journal, 83(6), 2228.
< previous page
page_711
next page >
< previous page
page_712
next page > Page 712
Chase, P., & Doan, J. (1996). Choosing to learn: Ownership and responsibility in a primary multiage classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chin, C. (1996). "Are you the teacher who gives parents homework?" In Cityscapes: Eight views from the urban classroom (pp. 145163). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project. Chinn, P. & Iding, M. K. (1997). High school chemistry students' self-concepts as writers and scientists. Teaching and Change, 4(3), 227244. Christian, S. (1997). Exchanging lives: Middle school writers online. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Christian, S. (1998, Summer). Becoming a network of teachers. Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine, 35. Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). The power of teacher research in education. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 142165). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1993). Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1998). Teacher research: The question that persists. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1(1), 1936. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). The teacher research movement: A decade later. Educational Researcher, 28(7), 1525. Cohen, J. (1993). Restructuring instruction in an urban high school: An inquiry into texts, identities, and power. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education. Colgan-Davis, P. (1993). Oral inquiries: Learning about learning diversity. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 163169). New York: Teachers College Press. Commeyras, M., & Sumner, G. (1995). Questions children want to discuss about literature: What teachers and students learned in a second-grade classroom (Instructional Resource 47). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Cone, J. K. (1990). Literature, geography, and the untracked English class. English Journal, 79(8), 6067. Cone, J. K. (1992). Untracking Advanced Placement English: Creating opportunity is not enough. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 712717. Cone, J. K. (1993). Using classroom talk to create community and learning. English Journal, 82(6), 3038. Cone, J. K. (1997). Appearing acts: Creating readers in a high school English class. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 6791). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. (Original work published 1994) Curtis, J. P. (1993). Balance the basics: Teaching and learning. Teacher Research, 1(1), 5863. Cziko, C. (1996). Dialogue journals: Passing notes the academic way. In Cityscapes: Eight views from the urban classroom (pp. 99110). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project. Daiker, D. A., & Morenberg, M. (Eds.). (1990). The writing teacher as researcher. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Deshon, J. A. P. (1997). Innocent and not-so-innocent contributions to inequality: Choice, power, and insensitivity in a first grade writing workshop. Language Arts, 74(1), 1216. Duckworth, E., & the Experienced Teachers Group. (1997). Teacher to teacher: Learning from each other. New York: Teachers College Press. Dudley-Marling, C. (1995). Uncertainty and the whole language teacher. Language Arts, 72(4), 252257. Duthie, C. (1996). True stories: Nonfiction literacy in the primary classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Dyson, A. H. (1997). What difference does difference make?: Teacher reflections on diversity, literacy, and urban primary school. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Edelsky, C., & Boyd, C. (1993). Collaborative research: More questions than answers. In S. J. Hudelson & J. W. Lindfors (Eds.), Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education (pp. 420). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Elliott, J. (1992). Action research for educational change. Philadelphia: Open University Press. (Original work published 1991) Ellison, V. L. (1997). Having students select spelling words. Teaching and Change, 4(1), 7789. Ellwood, C. (1992, April). Teacher research for whom? Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 119161). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F., & Christman, J. B. (1996). Taking stock/Making change: Stories of collaboration in local school reform. Theory Into Practice, 35(3), 149157. Evans, C. (1989, April). The educators' forum: Teacher-initiated research in progress. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
Fairbanks, C. M. (1995). Reading students: Texts in contexts. English Education, 27(1), 4052. Fecho, B. (1993). Reading as a teacher. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 265272). New York: Teachers College Press. Fecho, B. (1994). Language inquiry and critical pedagogy. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform (pp. 180191). New York: Teachers College Press. Fecho, B. (1996). Learning from Laura. In Cityscapes: Eight views from the urban classroom (pp. 5771). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project.
< previous page
page_712
next page >
< previous page
page_713
next page > Page 713
Fecho, B. (1998). Crossing boundaries of race in a critical literacy classroom. In D. E. Alvermann, K. A. Hinchman, D. W. Moore, S. F. Phelps, & D. R. Waff (Eds.), Reconceptualizing the literacies in adolescents' lives (pp. 75101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fecho, B., & Lytle, S. (1993). Working it out: Collaboration as subject and method. In S. J. Hudelson & J. W. Lindfors (Eds.), Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education (pp. 125141). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Feiman-Nemser, & Floden, R. E. (1986). The cultures of teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 505526). New York: Macmillan. Feldgus, E. G. (1993). Classroom and school studies: Walking to the words. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 170178). New York: Teachers College Press. Fenstermacher, G. (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. Darling Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 356). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Five, C. (1986). Fifth graders respond to a changed reading program. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 395405. Five, C. (1989). A garden of poets. In N. Atwell (Ed.), Workshop 1 by and for teachers: Writing and literature (pp. 6171). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fleischer, C. (1994). Researching teacher research: A practitioner's retrospective. English Education, 26(2), 86124. Fleischer, C. (1995). Composing teacher-research: A prosaic history. Albany: State University of New York Press. Florio-Ruane, S. (1990). The written literacy forum: Analysis of teacher/researcher collaboration. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22(4), 313323. Florio-Ruane, S., & Walsh, M. (1980). The teacher as colleague in classroom research. In H. Trueba, G. Guthrie, & K. Au (Eds.), Culture in the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 87101). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Franke, D. (1995). Writing into unmapped territory: The practice of lateral citation. In L. W. Phelps & J. Emig (Eds.), Feminine principles and women's experiences in American composition and rhetoric (pp. 375384). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Fraser, J., & Skolnick, D. (1994). On their way: Celebrating second graders as they read and write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Freedman, S. W., Simons, E. R., Kalnin, J. S., Casareno, A., & the M-CLASS Teacher Researchers. (1999). Inside city schools: Investigating literacy in multicultural classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallas, K. (1992). When the children take the chair: A study of sharing time in a primary classroom. Language Arts, 69(3), 172182. Gallas, K. (1994). The language of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their understanding of the world. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallas, K. (1997). Arts as epistemology: Enabling children to know what they know. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 93105). Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review. (Original work published 1991) Gallas, K. (1998). "Sometimes I can be anything": Power gender and identity in primary classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallas, K., Anton-Oldenberg, M., Ballenger, C., Beseler, C., Griffin, S., Pappenheimer, R., & Swaim, J. (1996). Focus on research: Talking the talk and walking the walk: Researching oral language in the classroom. Language Arts, 73(8), 608617. Gaughan, J. (1996). Taking a walk in the contact zone. Teacher Research, 4(1), 112. Gitlin, A., Bringhurst, K., Burns, M., Cooley, V., Myers, B., Price, K., Russell, R., & Tiess, P. (1992). Teachers' voices for school change. New York: Teachers College Press. Goldblatt, E. C. (1995). 'Round my way. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gonzalez, N., Moll, L. C., Floyd-Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1993). Teacher research on funds of knowledge: Learning from households. Santa Cruz, CA: National Center for Research on Cultural Diversity and Second Language Learning. Gore, J., & Zeichner, K. (1995). Connecting action research to genuine teacher development. In J. Smythe (Ed.), Critical discourses on teacher development (pp. 203214). London: Casell. Goswami, D., & Stillman, P. (Eds.). (1987). Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Green, J., & Dixon, C. (1993). Talking knowledge into being: Discursive and social practices in classrooms. Linguistics and Education, 5(3&4), 231239. Grimmett, P., & MacKinnon, A. (1992). Craft knowledge and the education of teachers. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 385346). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Hammack, F. M. (1997). Ethical issues in teacher research. Teachers College Record, 99(2), 247265. Hammersley, M. (Ed.). (1993). Controversies in classroom research (2nd ed.). Buckingham: Open University Press. Hankins, K. H. (1998). Cacophony to symphony: Memoirs in teacher research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(1), 8095. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times. New York: Teachers College Press.
< previous page
page_713
next page >
< previous page
page_714
next page > Page 714
Hargreaves, A. (1996). Transforming knowledge: Blurring the boundaries between research, policy, and practice. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 18(2), 161178. Harris, M. (1993). Journals: Looking back: 20 Years of a teacher's journal. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 130140). New York: Teachers College Press. Hartmann, W. (1994). A teacher-researcher's reflection. English Journal, 83(6), 5558. Headman, R. (1993). Classroom and school studies: Parents and teachers as coinvestigators. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 220230). New York: Teachers College Press. Henkin, R. (1995). Insiders and outsiders in first-grade writing workshops: Gender and equity issues. Language Arts, 72(6), 429434. Henson, K. T. (1996). Teachers as researchers. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 5364). New York: Macmillan. Hoffman, M. (1996). Chasing hellhounds: A teacher learns from his students. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions. Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Teacher research & urban literacy education. New York: Teachers College Press. Hollingsworth, S. (Ed.). (1997). International action research: A casebook for educational reform. London: Falmer Press. Hollingsworth, S., & Sockett, H. (1994a). Positioning teacher research in educational reform: An introduction. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 120). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hollingsworth, S., & Sockett, H. (Eds.). (1994b). Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Hubbard, R. S., & Power, B. M. (1993). The art of classroom inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Huberman, M. (1996). Focus on research: Moving mainstream: Taking a closer look at teacher research. Language Arts, 73(2), 124140. Hudelson, S. J., & Lindfors, J. W. (Eds.). (1993). Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education. Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers of English. Hunt, S. (1995). Choice in the writing class: How do students decide what to write and how to write it? Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 17(2), 711, 33. Johnson, J. A. (1997). Life after death: Critical pedagogy in an urban classroom. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 107125). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. (Original work published 1995) Johnston, P. (1992). Coming full circle: As teachers become researchers so goes the curriculum. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Students teach, teachers learn (pp. 6680). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Jumpp, D. (1996). Extending the literate community: Literacy over a life span. In Cityscapes: Eight views from the urban classroom (pp. 133143). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project. Jumpp, D., & Strieb, L. Y. (1993). Journals: Journals for collaboration, curriculum, and assessment. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 140149). New York: Teachers College Press. Juska, J. (1995). The wall. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 17(1), 4248. Kaltenbach, S. (1993). What do you think? A parent-child classroom study. Teacher Research, 1(1), 4957. Kanevsky, R. D. (1993). Oral Inquiries: Descriptive review of a child: A way of knowing about teaching and learning. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle (Eds.), Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 150163). New York: Teachers College Press. Keenan, J. A. W., Willett, J., & Solsken, J. (1993). Focus on research: Constructing an urban village: School/home collaboration in a multicultural classroom. Language Arts, 70(3), 204214. Keep-Barnes, A. (1994). Real teachers don't always succeed. Teacher Research, 2(2), 17. Kieffer, C. C. (1996). A class study of informal drama in the fourth grade (Instructional Resource 16). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Kincheloe, J. L. (1991). Teachers as researchers: Qualitative inquiry as a path to empowerment. London: Falmer Press. Knoblauch, C. H., & Brannon, L. (1993). Critical teaching & the idea of literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Krater, J., Zeni, J., & Cason, N. D. (1994). Mirror images: Teaching writing in black and white. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kucera, C. A. (1995). Detours and destinations: One teacher's journey into an environmental writing workshop. Language Arts, 72(3), 179187. Kutz, E. (1992). Teacher research: Myths and realities. Language Arts, 69(3), 193197. Lewis, C. (1993). "Give people a chance": Acknowledging social differences in reading. Language Arts, 70(6), 454461.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (1994). Problems and possibilities of institutionalizing teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 204220). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
< previous page
page_714
next page >
< previous page
page_715
next page > Page 715
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Education evaluation and policy analysis, 15(2), 129151. Little, J. W., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Teachers' work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. New York: Teachers College Press. Livdahl, B. S., Smart, K., Wallman, J., Herbert, T. K., Geiger, D. K., & Anderson, J. L. (1995). Stories from response-centered classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Locklear, G. (1994). Thinking for themselves: Students examine the writing group process. Teaching and Change, 2(1), 6172. Lott, J. G. (1994). A teacher's stories: Reflections on high school writers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Lytle, S. L. (1993). Risky business. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, 15(1), 2023. Lytle, S. L. (1998, April). Inquiry as a stance on teaching: The inservice case. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Diego. Lytle, S. L., Christman, J., Cohen, J., Countryman, J., Fecho, B., Portnoy, D., & Sion, F. (1994). Learning in the afternoon: When teacher inquiry meets school reform. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform (pp. 157179). New York: Teachers College Press. Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1990). Learning from teacher research: A working typology. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 83103. Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Harvard Educational Review, 62(4), 447474. Lytle, S. L., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1995, March). Teacher research and the constructive disruption of university culture. Paper presented at the Ethnography Forum, Philadelphia. Lytle, S. L., & Fecho, R. (1991). Meeting strangers in familiar places: Teacher collaboration by cross-visitation. English Education, 23(1), 528. Mackinson, J., & Peyton, J. K. (1993). Interactive writing on a computer network: A teacher/researcher collaboration. In S. J. Hudelson & J. W. Lindfors (Eds.), Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education (pp. 2136). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Macphee, J. S. (1997). "That's not fair!": A white teacher reports on white first graders' responses to multicultural literature. Language Arts, 74(1), 3340. Madigan, D., & Koivu-Rybicki, V. T. (1997). The writing lives of children. York, ME: Stenhouse. Mangiola, L., & Pease-Alvarez, L. (1993). Learning and teaching together. In S. J. Hudelson & J. W. Lindfors (Eds.), Delicate balances: Collaborative research in language education (pp. 5366). Urbana, IL: National Council for Teachers for English. Manning, A., & Harste, J. (1994). Teacher research: Demonstrations of possibilities. Reading, 28(1), 24. McMahon, S. I., & Raphael, T. E. (Eds.). (1996). The Book Club connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk. New York: Teachers College Press. Meier, D. (1997). Learning in small moments: Life in an urban classroom. New York: Teachers College Press. Meyer, R. J. (1996). Stories from the heart: Teachers and students researching their lives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meyer, R. J., Brown, L., DeNiro, E., Larson, K., McKenzie, M., Ridder, K., & Zetterman, K. (1998). Composing a teacher study group: Learning about inquiry in primary classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Michaels, S. (1998, Spring). Stories in contact: Teacher research in the academy. Association of Departments of English (ADE) Bulletin, 22, 5964. Mohr, M. (1987). Teacher-researchers and the study of the writing process. In D. Goswami & P. R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 94107). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Mohr, M. M. (1994). Teacher-researchers at work. English Journal, 83(6), 1921. Moore, R. (1998, Summer). Teaching standard English to African American students. Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine, 1215. Moshenberg, D. (1996). Standing in the neighborhood. In J. Slevin & A. Young (Eds.), Critical theory and the teaching of literature (pp. 7592). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Murphy, P. (1994). Antonio: My student, my teacher. My inquiry begins. Teacher Research, 1(2), 7588. Myers, M. (1985). The teacher-researcher: How to study writing in the classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Myers, M. (1987). Institutionalizing inquiry. National Writing Project Quarterly, 9, 14. Nagle, J. P. (1997). Looking inward: Reflections on gender identity. Teacher Research, 5(1), 7582. Newkirk, T. (1992). Silences in our teaching stories: What do we leave out and why? In T. Newkirk (Ed.), Workshop 4 by and
for teachers: The teacher as researcher (pp. 2130). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Newland, A. (1990). Teacher inquiry in the classroom: Broadening perspectives. Language Arts, 67(1), 7075. Newman, J. (Ed.). (1990). Finding our own way: Teachers exploring their assumptions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Newman, J. M. (1998). Tensions of teaching: Beyond tips to critical reflection. New York: Teachers College Press. Noffke, S. (1995). Action research and democratic schooling: Problems and potentials. In S. E. Noffke & R. B. Stevenson (Eds.), Educational action research: Becoming practically critical (pp. 110). New York: Teachers College Press.
< previous page
page_715
next page >
< previous page
page_716
next page > Page 716
Noffke, S. (1997). Professional, personal, and political dimensions of action research. In M. W. Apple (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 22, pp. 305343). Washington, DC: American Education Research Association. Noffke, S., & Brennan, M. (1997). Reconstructing the politics of action in action research. In S. Hollingsworth (Ed.), International action research (pp. 4960). London: Falmer Press. Noffke, S. E. & Stevenson, R. B. (Eds.). (1995). Educational action research: Becoming practically critical. New York: Teachers College Press. North, S. (1987). The making of knowledge in composition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Paley, V. G. (1995). Kwanzaa and me. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Pappas, C., & Zecker, L. (Eds.). (in press a). Teacher inquiries in literacy teaching-learning: Learning to collaborate in elementary classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pappas, C., & Zecker, L. (Eds.). (in press b). Working with teacher researchers in urban classrooms: Transforming literacy curriculum genres. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pappas, C. C., Oyler, C., Barry, A., & Rassel, M. (1993). Focus on research: Collaborating with teachers developing integrated language arts programs in urban schools. Language Arts, 70(4), 297303. Parker, D. (1997). Jamie: A literacy story. York, ME: Stenhouse. Philadelphia Teachers Learning Cooperative. (1984). On becoming teacher experts: Buying time. Language Arts, 61, 731736. Phillips, A., Ballenger, C., Black, S., Gallas, K., Griffin, S., Morton, C., Swaim, J., Williams, K. S., & Gee, J. P. (1993). Children's voices, teachers' stories: Papers from the Brookline Teacher Researcher Seminar (Tech. Rep. No. 11). Newton, MA: Literacies Institute. Pincus, M. R. (1993). Essays: Following the paper trail. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 249255). New York: Teachers College Press. Pratt, M. L. (1991). Arts of the contact zone. In Profession 91 (pp. 3340). New York: Modern Language Association. Ray, L. (1987). Reflections on classroom research. In D. Goswami & P. R. Stillman (Eds.), Reclaiming the classroom: Teacher research as an agency for change (pp. 219242). Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Ray, R. (1996). Afterwood: Ethics and representation in research. In P. Mortensen & G. Kirsch (Eds.), Ethics and representation in qualitative studies of literacy (pp. 287300). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Ray, R. E. (1993). The practice of theory. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Reilly, K. C. (1995). Making new audiences: Moving through classroom walls. Teacher Research, 2(2), 4960. Resnick, M. (1996). Making connections between families and school. In Cityscapes: Eight views from the urban classroom (pp. 115132). Berkeley, CA: National Writing Project. Richardson, V. (Ed.). (1994a). Teacher change and the staff development process. New York: Teachers College Press. Richardson, V. (1994b). Teacher inquiry as professional staff development. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform (pp. 186203). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Robinson, J. (1990). Conversation on the written word. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Root, C. H. (1996). Having art students use a journal. Teaching and Change, 3(4), 331355. Rudduck, J., & Hopkins, D. (Eds.). (1985). Research as a basis for teaching: Readings from the work of Lawrence Stenhouse. London: Heinemann. Sagor, R. (1992). How to conduct collaborative action research. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Schaafsma, D. (1993). Eating on the street: Teaching literacy in a multicultural society. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Schiller, L. (1996). Coming to America: Community from diversity. Language Arts, 73(1), 4651. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Schwartz, E. (1992). The round table: Emergent curriculum in a primary class. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Students teaching, teachers learning (pp. 2245). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Schwartz, J. (1990). On the move in Pittsburgh: When students and teacher share research. In D. A. Daiker & M. Morenberg (Eds.), Writing teachers as researchers (pp. 153166). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Seabrook, G. (1997). A teacher learns in the context of a social studies workshop. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 165177). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. (Original work published 1991) Sims, M. (1993). Essays: How my question keeps evolving. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 283289). New York: Teachers College Press.
Skelton, S. (1998, Summer). Watching and listening in and outside the classroom. Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine, 1823. Smythe, J. (1992). Teachers' work and the politics of reflection. American Educational Research Journal, 29(2), 267300. Snyder, I. (1992). "It's not as simple as you think!" Collaboration between a researcher and a teacher. English Education, 24(4), 195211. Stenhouse, L. (1983). Authority, education and emancipation. London: Heinemann.
< previous page
page_716
next page >
< previous page
page_717
next page > Page 717
Stevenson, R. (1995). Action research and supportive school contexts: Exploring the possibilities for transformation. In S. Noffke & R. Stevenson (Eds.), Education action research (pp. 197209). New York: Teachers College Press. Stock, P. L. (1995). The dialogic curriculum: Teaching and learning in a multicultural society. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. Strickland, D. S., Dillon, R. M., Funkhouse, L., Glick, M., & Rogers, C. (1989). Research currents: Classroom dialogue during literature response groups. Language Arts, 66(2), 192200. Strieb, L. (1985). A (Philadelphia) teacher's journal: North Dakota Study Group Center for Teaching and Learning. Grand Forks, ND: North Dakota Study Group Center for Teaching and Learning. Strieb, L. Y. (1993). Journals: Visiting and revisiting the trees. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle, Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 121130). New York: Teachers College Press. Stumbo, C. (1992). Giving their words back to them: Cultural journalism in Eastern Kentucky. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Students teaching, teachers learning (pp. 124150). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Swaim, J. (1998). In search of an honest response. Language Arts, 75(2), 118125. Swain, S. S. (1994). I can write what's on my mind. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Sylvester, P. (1997). Elementary school curricula and urban transformation. In I. Hall, C. H. Campbell, & E. J. Miech (Eds.), Class acts: Teachers reflect on their own classroom practice (pp. 179201). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Review. (Original work published 1994) Taylor, D. (1990). Teaching without testing: Assessing the complexity of children's literacy learning. English Education, 22(1), 474. Taylor, D., Coughlin, D., & Marasco, J. (1997). Teaching and advocacy. York, ME: Stenhouse. Taylor, J. B., & McIntyre, G. G. (1992). Negotiating the curriculum: Children, teaching intern, and university professor together. In N. A. Branscombe, D. Goswami, & J. Schwartz (Eds.), Students teaching, teachers learning (pp. 245273). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Temple, E. (1998, Summer). Observing student language in the classroom. Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine, 611. Thomas, S., & Oldfather, P. (1996). Enhancing student and teacher engagement in literacy learning: A shared inquiry approach (Instructional Resource 17). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Threatt, S., Buchanan, J., Morgan, B., Yermanock Strieb, L., Sugarman, J., Swenson, J., Teel, K., & Tomlinson, J. (1994). Teacher's voices in the conversation about teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 222244). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Trinh, M. T. (1992). Framer framed. New York: Routledge. Trotman, M. V. (1998). "Would Queenie be in our class?": Questioning social inequity in advanced classes. New Advocate, 11(1), 5565. Tuyay, S., Floriani, A., Yeager, B., Dixon, C., & Green, J. (1995). Constructed in integrated, inquiry-oriented approach in classrooms: A cross case analysis of social, literate and academic practices. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 30(2), 115. Udall, R. (1998, Summer). "Have you graded our essays yet?". Bread Loaf Rural Teacher Network Magazine, 1823. Vasquez, V. (2000). Seeking out possibilities in the lives of learners: Classroom inquiry into the incidental unfolding of social justice issues with young children from a critical literacy perspective. In B. Comber & S. Cakmac (Eds.), S. Boran & B. Comber (Eds.), Inquiry into What? Empowering today's young people, tomorrow's citizens using whole language. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English and Whole Language Umbrella. Vinz, R. (1996). Composing a teaching life. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Waff, D. (1995). Girl talk: Creating community through social exchange. In M. Fine (Ed.), Chartering urban school reform (pp. 192203). New York: Teachers College Press. Waff, D. (1995). Romance in the classroom: Inviting discourse on gender and power. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 17(2), 1518. Waff, D. (1996). Talking across boundaries: The collaborative construction of community. In Literacy Networks, 2. Mount Pleasant, MI: Central Michigan University. Wagner, J. (1997). The unavoidable intervention of education research: A framework for reconsidering researcher-practitioner cooperation. Educational Researcher, 26(7), 1322. Wells, G. (1993). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of inquiry. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wells, G. (1994). Changing schools from within: Creating communities of Inquiry. Toronto: Disc Press. Wells, G., & Chang-Wells, G. L. (1992). Constructing knowledge together: Classrooms as centers of inquiry and literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Whitin, P. (1996). Sketching stories, stretching minds: Responding visually to literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Whitmore, K. F., & Crowell, C. G. (1994). Inventing a classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Wigginton, E. (1985). Sometimes a shining moment: The Foxfire experience. Garden City, NY: Archer Press/Doubleday. Wilhelm, J. D. (1996). To make reading visible: The process of one teacher researcher. Teacher Research, 4(1), 5262.
< previous page
page_717
next page >
< previous page
page_718
next page > Page 718
Wunner, K. E. (1993). Classroom and school studies: Great expectations. In M. Cochran-Smith & S. L. Lytle (Eds.), Inside/outside: Teacher research and knowledge (pp. 230240). New York: Teachers College Press. Wyshynski, R., & Paulsen, D. (1995). Maybe I will do something: Lessons from coyote. Language Arts, 72(4), 258264. Yagelski, R. P. (1990). Searching for "Sloppy Trees": How research shapes teaching. In D. A. Daiker & M. Morenberg (Eds.), Writing teachers as researchers (pp. 142152). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Zeichner, K. (1992, April). Teacher research: Toward what end. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. Zeichner, K. (1994). Personal renewal and social reconstruction through teacher research. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 6684). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Zeichner, K. (1997, March). Action research as a professional development in one urban school district. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association. Zeichner, K., & Noffke, S. (in press). Practitioner research. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan. Zeni, J. (1996). A picturesque tale from the land of kidwatching: Teacher research and ethical dilemmas. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 18(1), 3035.
< previous page
page_718
next page >
< previous page
page_719
next page > Page 719
Chapter 38 Teaching Teachers to Teach Reading: Paradigm Shifts, Persistent Problems, and Challenges Patricia L. Anders University of Arizona-Tucson James V. Hoffman University of Texas-Austin Gerald G. Duffy Duffy 4 Education Consultants How should teachers be taught to teach reading? This question has received little attention from the reading research community. Reading researchers have attended to the reading process, drawing inferences and conducting studies to test their theories. Relatively few researchers have asked questions about the processes that teachers go through as they learn and continue to learn to teach reading. We sense, however, that reading researchers are beginning to turn their attention to this crucial question. Many reading researchers are involved in teacher education programs and are frustrated by the lack of empirical evidence to guide decisions about programs, curriculum, and instruction. Further, across the United States, schools of education and teacher education programs are the focus of policymakers and legislators, and educators need to respond to their pressures and queries with empirical knowledge. Moreover, researchers in teacher education have argued persuasively, and reading educators are beginning to listen, that teaching is more than using ''best practices," good classroom management, or certain material. Indeed, published research in reading teacher education has increased since the publication of the second Handbook of Reading Research (Barr, Kamil, Mosenthal, & Pearson, 1991), which, like the first volume of the Handbook (Pearson, Barr, Kamil, & Mosenthal, 1984), had no chapter dedicated exclusively to teacher education research.
< previous page
page_719
next page >
< previous page
page_720
next page > Page 720
To gauge interest in teacher education research, two Yearbooks of the National Reading Conference (Kinzer, Hinchman, & Leu, 1997; Zutell & McCormick, 1990) were sampled for articles about teacher education. In the Zutell and McCormick yearbook, 9 articles (2%) addressed teacher education, whereas in the Kinzer, Hinchman, and Leu yearbook, 17 articles (37%) dealt with teacher education. This is a dramatic increase and suggests powerfully that interest in teacher education research has become an important topic among reading researchers. We have organized this chapter to present a historical perspective and to provide a report of what little we think we know and what we need to know about how teachers should be taught to teach reading. To do this, we first present a "review of the reviews." This section reveals the focus of reading teacher education research over the decades and provides a picture of the way that teacher education has been conceptualized by reading researchers. Second, we summarize literature that relates to preservice education. Our analysis of this literature is presented in thesis statements representing our interpretation of the research. In a similar manner, we present the inservice education literature. We then discuss examples of problems that we face as teacher educators, about which we can find little empirical information. The chapter concludes with reflections about future directions of reading teacher education research. A Review of the Reviews The history of reviews about reading teacher education is short and corresponds conceptually to three trends in teacher education (Russell & Korthagen, 1995, pp. 187188). First, from roughly 1900 until the 1960s, the apprenticeship model was central. Second, from the 1960s to the early 1980s, the trend was to help teachers improve their knowledge base and to improve their application of knowledge about both content and methods. And third, from the mid 1980s through the 1990s, these older models were challenged. Issues were raised regarding the connection between formal, theoretical, and abstract knowledge, and informal, personal, and practical knowledge of the reflective practitioner (Fenstermacher, 1994; Schön, 1983). The reviews before the 1960s emphasized what teachers should learn in course work and from their mentors as apprentices. Reading researchers presented the content knowledge that teachers needed in two reviews (Gray, 1961; Russell & Fea, 1963). Emphasis on content knowledge was a theme occurring throughout the history of reading teacher education. Austin (1968) and Chall (1975) reviewed research on preparing classroom teachers to teach reading. Austin suggested an increase in practical experiences, and Chall concluded that elementary school teachers educated "during the 1960s and 1970s were not receiving adequate instruction" (p. 47). Artley (1978) agreed and, after reviewing the key survey studies of teacher preparation (e.g., Austin & Morrison, 1961), he recommended a teacher education program requiring future teachers to take an increased number of credit hours in reading and more preservice experiences teaching reading. Chall's and Artley's recommendations are consistent with the "apprenticeship" model of teacher education, which was dominant before the 1980s. The reviews of research about teaching reading during the 1980s (Barr, 1984; Calfee & Drum, 1986; Otto, Wolf, & Eldridge, 1984; Raphael, 1987; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984; Tierney & Cunningham, 1984) reflected the idea that if research-based effective practices were used properly by teachers, their students' learning would improve. Calfee and Drum's (1986) review illustrated this perspective. Their chapter reviewed what reading teachers needed to know, and it described learners' progress when they were taught. It did not, however, describe how teachers accomplished the teaching of reading. The authors noted the lack of attention to the teacher and instruction by writing: "the present study would have been more informative if grounded in a theoretical framework of the curriculum and the pedagogy of the task" (p. 819).
< previous page
page_720
next page >
< previous page
page_721
next page > Page 721
Rosenshine and Stevens (1984) reviewed research about classroom instruction in reading. Their purpose was to report on instructional procedures, the content covered, academic engaged time and allocated time, and the error rate. The first major section, "general instructional procedures," reviewed research related to student learning when teachers offered teacher-directed, academically oriented instruction to individuals, to small groups, and to the whole class. Their chapter concluded by recognizing the impact that teachers can have on students' achievement and by suggesting that teacher training manuals should be revised. They did not call for the study of how teachers learn to implement new methods, which typifies the low status of reading teacher education of the 1980s. "But what can I teach on Monday?" was the question posed by Raphael (1987) in the title of her review. One of several organizing questions in her study was, "What do teachers need to know about learning, reading, and instruction to improve what may already be a reasonable reading program?" The content knowledge promoted by Raphael represented the assumptions guiding the ''process-product" research paradigm. She suggested strategies and methods a teacher should use to cause increased student learning. She did not discuss the acquisition of this knowledge, nor did she discuss the ways that teachers might use it in practice. The question Barr (1984) addressed was, "How should children be taught to read?" She echoed the process-product paradigm by organizing her review around methods used to teach reading. Except for two studies, teachers were not participants in the studies. The first was a report of the Institute for Research on Teaching (IRT) on reading conceptions. She pointed out that the mental life and decision making of teachers were studied for their instructional consequences. The second study caused Barr to suggest that "it may be important to characterize the behavior or teachers . . . (A) general description of teaching may not adequately represent that received by different groups in a class" (p. 573). Like Barr (1984), Otto et al. (1984) called for more in-depth studies of teachers' behavior as indicators of their beliefs and perceptions. Their review reported on the management of reading instruction and on teachers' planning and decision making. They called for the study of teachers' personal perceptions and beliefs, predicting that perceptions and beliefs may be as influential in how one teaches as other considerations such as materials or methods. Tierney and Cunningham (1984) provided a review of the methods teachers might use to teach reading comprehension. They concluded their chapter with a plea to "reading-comprehension instructional researchers to have a vision of how the research being reported fits into a larger picture of a 'best' program" (p. 640). They suggested that two of the four components of such a vision were to have "a vision of teachers" and "a vision of teacher support and change" (p. 641). These reviews portray reading teacher education of the 1980s as translation of theory to practice. Shulman's (1986) description of the state of teacher education corresponded with the state of reading teacher education: "Teacher education programs . . . seem to be based on the view that teacher candidates will teach effectively once they have acquired subject matter knowledge, become acquainted with models of innovative curriculum, and have practiced using them" (p. 8). These reviews suggested, however, that "change was in the wind." Three of the studies implied that new questions about teachers' decision making, beliefs, and ways of learning and teaching needed to be studied (Barr, 1984; Otto et al., 1984; Tierney & Cunningham, 1984). These questions were also being asked by teacher education researchers. Russell and Korthagen (1995, pp. 187188) argued for a new approach to teacher education by analyzing the failure of the old process-product paradigm. This approach was characterized by emphasizing reflective teaching, and by introducing new methods such as action research by (student) teachers and reflective journal writing.
< previous page
page_721
next page >
< previous page
page_722
next page > Page 722
Despite changes in teacher education and in the writings of some reading researchers, the shift from process-product studies toward studies of teachers and their beliefs, understandings, and practices were not evidenced in the reading research reviews of the 1990s. Volume II of the Handbook of Reading Research (Barr et al., 1991) included nine chapters organized in a section called "Literacy and Schooling." Three of these chapters discussed the implications of the reviewed research for teacher education (Hoffman, 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Roehler & Duffy, 1991). Pearson and Fielding proposed "principles of comprehension instruction." One trend they discovered was the ''subtle but important" (p. 849) differences between the teacher's role in explicit instruction and in scaffolded instruction. They pointed out that scaffolded instruction requires the teacher to analyze the learner's developing understanding "online," so to speak, to decide the direction(s) the lesson should go (this is different from explicit instruction that relies on the teacher's predetermined plan for teaching). Further, Pearson and Fielding drew attention to another trend that considered the teacher a "facilitator of learning and as a co-equal with students in a literacy community" (p. 849). Roehler and Duffy's (1991) chapter described "teachers' instructional actions." They asked how teacher educators might help teachers learn to make the instructional moves that seem to promote learning. Their chapter concluded by postulating that not enough is known and that the next wave of reading teacher education research needs to inform the field. Hoffman (1991) ended his chapter similarly, decrying the paucity of research related to teacher and school effects on learning. He wrote that a breakthrough will come as "more researchers, without enormous resources but with a scientific model, move into schools to observe and systematically study reading instruction and learning to read in classrooms" (p. 948). Other chapters in the Handbook suggested similar new directions for teacher education research (e.g., Paris, Wasik, & Turner, 1991). The reviews published in The Teacher Educator's Handbook (Murray, 1996) about the teaching of reading (Ehri & Williams, 1996; Graves, Pauls, & Sallinger, 1996) represented the process-product paradigm rather than the "new directions" suggested by Paris, Wasik, and Turner (1991). Ehri and Williams pointed out that learning to teach reading is a process that develops over a teacher's career. They reported that preservice teacher education provides background knowledge about the "structure of written language, the nature of reading processes and reading disabilities, alternative methods of teaching reading, and how to assess students' reading capabilities" (p. 240). Little in this recommendation differed from the earliest goals of teacher education. Likewise, Graves et al. (1996) emphasized the content knowledge beginning teachers must have to launch their careers. Barr (in press) confirmed our sense of the reading research community's position on teacher education when she wrote: We do not gain an understanding from these global descriptions of how teachers using the same approach differ, or learn about how teachers think: what guides their participation and how they evolve instructional patterns that differ in unique ways from other teachers espousing similar philosophical perspectives. Studies that focus on learner response provide the basis for understanding learners, but they are not useful in developing an understanding of how teachers think and act. The descriptions of how children make sense of their instruction would be of interest to new and experienced teachers, but the description might be more informative with a more elaborated representation of teaching. The assumption that researchers must choose between a focus on teaching and learning can be questioned; we learn most when both aspects of this interactive whole are represented. (p. 23) Alvermann (1990) focused on both reading specialists and classroom teachers, and reviewed trends in certification and licensure. She framed teacher education by describing three dominant traditions: the traditional-craft, the competency-based,
< previous page
page_722
next page >
< previous page
page_723
next page > Page 723
and the inquiry-oriented. She described common themes among inquiry-oriented researchers: Nearly all of the studies reported have incorporated teacher decision making and reflection, either as part of an intervention or as a means for studying teachers' thought processes. Most have been long-term studies, some extending for a year or more. Thematically, the studies have been concerned with how teachers acquire knowledge of complex reading instructional strategies and what beliefs, or implicit theories of teaching they use to guide their reading instruction. (p. 689) Alvermann (1990) concluded her review by noting "a growing interest in the inquiry-oriented approach . . . [it] promises new perspectives on how preservice and inservice teachers acquire knowledge and how their beliefs influence practice." Barr (in press) concurred and noted that an important question remains: "How do teachers learn and how can teacher educators foster this process?" (p. 49). This "review of the reviews" reveals the focus of reading research over the decades: reading researchers have overwhelmingly devoted attention to the process of reading and to the learning of reading. Recent reviewers have suggested turning attention to how teachers learn and how that learning is enacted in their professional responsibilities. A nagging question for us is what teacher educators should do to promote that learning. We reviewed research to provide insights to these questions. Research in Teacher Education To summarize and interpret this literature, we looked first at research on preservice education. Our analysis of this literature resulted in thesis statements representing our interpretation of the research. Likewise, the inservice education literature suggested to us six generalizations, which represent the status of this research. Research in Preservice Teacher Education Austin and Morrison (1961) reported the results of their investigation into the preparation of elementary teachers to teach reading. The study employed a survey and a field study of teacher preparation institutions across the country. The authors criticized the lack of specific course offerings for prospective teachers, the lack of field/practicum experiences, and the qualifications of those teaching the teachers. Twenty-two recommendations were made, including the following: systematic screening of candidates; senior faculty playing a more active role instructing future teachers; and requiring the equivalent of three semester hours of credit in reading. Practice teaching was perceived to be at the heart of the teacher education experience. This study was replicated (Morrison & Austin, 1977) to determine if any changes were being made. Results suggested that 14 of the recommendations were in effect, and 2 recommendations were reported as somewhat implemented: More courses were being required, more courses were being taught in field-based settings, and more active use of simulations and practicums were reported. Little progress was found, however, in several areas (e.g., the recommendation to follow up on program graduates was lacking in most institutions). These two studies frame our understanding of the status of preservice teacher education. Although informative and valuable to those who have argued for fundamental changes in practice, they described reading teacher education superficially. The more interesting questions (e.g., What goes on in reading teacher preparation? Which students are being taught? How are they being taught? With what effects?) were unaddressed in survey studies.
< previous page
page_723
next page >
< previous page
page_724
next page > Page 724
To look closely at reading teacher education at the preservice level, we read and analyzed the studies between the original Torch Lighters study (Austin & Morrison, 1961; Morrison & Austin, 1977) and the present. We reviewed the preservice teacher education research published over this 30-year period to identify major findings, themes, and trends. The database for this review is represented in the Annual Summary of Investigations of Reading (19651996). In the past 30 years, 19,457 studies have been conducted in reading, and 140 studies have focused in preservice reading education. During the decade of 19651975, 3,716 studies were conducted in reading and 19 of those focused on reading education. Likewise, during the decade of 19751985, 8,941 studies on reading were reported and 37 of those were in preservice reading education. Finally, in the years between 19851995, 6,800 studies were reported and 84 of those related to preservice reading teacher education. The 140 studies identified through this search varied in methodology, factors investigated, and significance of findings. They also varied in the quality and rigor of the researcha caution and sometimes a lament, expressed often by those who have compiled the annual summary. At best, a review of these studies offers a general sense of the nature of the inquiry into teacher education. Based on this review, we have identified seven thesis statements regarding preservice teacher education in reading. These statements and supporting commentary reflect our interpretation of the status of research about teaching teachers to teach reading. 1. Preservice teacher education has not been a high priority within the reading research community. Representing less than 1% of the total studies conducted in reading over the past 30 years, we conclude that either preservice teacher education is lacking compelling questions, or it is such a difficult and undersupported area of study that researchers have shied away from systematic inquiry. We strongly suspect the latter to be the case. Few of the 140 studies suggest a program that builds on previous research or links to a theoretical basis. Further, few of the reported studies identify a major funding source or that the project is part of a supported research context (e.g., a research center). Most distressing is the finding that few of the studies have generated specific findings that have had a substantial impact on practice. We recognize there are exceptions to each of these claims, but in the context of less than 1% of the total, the exceptions are outliers in the field. 2. There has been an increase in teacher education research in the most recent decade. Consider that in the decade 1985 to 1995 more than four times the number of reading teacher education articles was published than in the decade between 1965 and 1975. This trend suggests an increased number of researchers who have been teaching, directing, or designing teacher education programs. For example, Gipe and her colleagues (Gipe, Duffy & Richards, 1989; Gipe & Richards, 1990) investigated the effects of journaling and two types of field experiences on students. Walker and Roskos (1994; Roskos & Walker, 1994) conducted numerous studies reflecting an inquiry stance. Risko (1992; Risko, McAllister, Peter, & Bigenho, 1994) studied the effects of video disk-based case methodology on preservice students' learning. Niles and Lalik (1987) studied their own program design with its emphasis on cooperative planning. These studies and others involve researchers studying practices in the context of their teaching environment (e.g., Whitmore & Goodman, 1996). 3. In recent years, diverse research methodologies have been used. We could locate few studies in the 19651985 period that drew on qualitative/interpretive research perspectives. There were numerous "questionnaire" studies, but these tended toward positivistic frames of reference. Between 1985 and 1995, we identified 20 studies (about 25%) that adopted an interpretive stance and used research methods ranging from
< previous page
page_724
next page >
< previous page
page_725
next page > Page 725
ethnographies, to sociolinguistic analyses of classroom interaction patterns, to case studies of students working through entire programs of study. Studies of students journaling in the context of course work and field work were conducted (e.g., Bean & Zulich, 1992; Moore, 1986); interviews with students were transcribed and analyzed (Kinzer, 1989); task/case analyses were developed (Comas & Farr, 1989; Roskos & Walker, 1993, 1994); simulations and microteaching were studied (e.g., Klesius, Zielonka, & LaFramboise, 1990; Phelps & Weidler, 1993); planning and reflection were investigated (Walker & Ramseth, 1993); individual case studies were developed (Mosenthal, 1994); and combinations of strategies were researched (O'Brien & Stewart, 1990). These qualitative-type studies represent a trend toward broadening the conception of "what counts" as research in the reading teacher education community. 4. We have no coherent, comprehensive data base, or reference point, for preservice teacher education programs. Attempts to describe the organization, content, and structure of preservice teacher education programs have been less than successful. The course hours required in reading have been a focal point for a number of survey type studies (e.g., Johnson, Phillips, & Sublett, 1974; Roeder, 1972; Roeder, Beal, & Eller, 1973; Smith, Fairbanks, & Saltz, 1984). In some cases, these surveys have focused on specific content issues such as the degree of attention given to second-language learners in courses (Gonzales, 1980), the preparation needed for early childhood education (Bailey, Durkin, Nurss, & Stammer, 1982), and clinical (i.e., disability) experiences and focus (Rogers, Merlin, Brittain, Palmatier, & Terrell, 1983). Outside the United States, similar studies have focused on teacher education programs in Canada (Start & Strange, 1980). Flippo and Hayes (1984) surveyed state departments of education to learn the reading course work required for elementary certification. They found a two-course requirement in 24 states, one course in 17 states, and 9 states leaving this decision to the local institutions. 5. We have continued to struggle with conceptions of teacher knowledge, beliefs, attitudes and habitshow they are formed, how they are affected by programs, and how they impact development over time. This is a ubiquitous trend but is difficult to unravel because the use of terms varies from study to study and from time period to time period. Throughout the 30 years of research, we found several studies looking at prospective teachers' own reading abilities/skills (e.g., Adams, 1967; Askov, Kamm, Klumb, & Barnette, 1980; Eckert & Wollenberg, 1984; Laine, 1984; Neal, Schaer, Ley, & Wright, 1990; Sullivan, 1976); their reading habits (Hawkins, 1967); their reading attitudes (Mikulecky & Ribovich, 1977; Smith, 1989); their own early literacy experiences at home (Lickteig, Johnson, & Johnson, 1994); and their experiences learning to read in school (e.g., Artley, 1975; Bush & Putnam, 1968; Moss, 1991; Warner, 1970). At their best, these studies have offered insights into the characteristics of those who hope to teach. At their worst, they have been used negatively to characterize those who aspire to teach as having poor reading habits and attitudes. In the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, we have found consideration of knowledge and beliefs focusing on issues such as: What is necessary to know as a teacher of reading? And how can this knowledge be measured? Studies have examined prospective teachers' knowledge in terms of performance on tests such as the National Teachers Examination (NTE). Barter (1974), for example, found no relationship between reading abilities and performance on the NTE. More specific to reading, investigators explored the validity of such instruments as the Mastery Assessment of Basic Reading Concepts (Pavlik, 1975), the Inventory of Teacher Knowledge of Reading (Kingston, Brosier, & Hsu, 1975), and the ArtleyHardin Inventory (e.g., Koenke, 1976). In most cases, studies investigating these instruments demonstrated limited validity for representing reading teacher knowledge. In the later 1970s and 1980s, reading teacher education research has followed general trends in cognitive psychologymoving away from knowledge as static to focus more on mental constructs, theoretical orientations, and beliefs about reading. Kinzer
< previous page
page_725
next page >
< previous page
page_726
next page > Page 726
(1989), for example, contrasted the mental models and frames used by preservice and experienced teachers based on structured interviews. Preservice teachers presented a limited frame of reference as contrasted with experienced teachers. Using the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (Deford, 1985), Stice, Bertrand, Leuder, and Dunn (1989) investigated the relationship between theoretical orientation and selected psychological characteristics. They found differences (e.g., teachers with a phonics orientation tended to be "judgers," whereas teachers with a whole-language orientation tended to be "perceivers"). In recent years, researchers have examined how this knowledge and these belief systems are constructed, how they are accessed and represented, and how they are lived in the context of instruction. Shefelbine and Shiel (1990), for example, studied preservice teachers' model of reading diagnosis as related to instructional decision-making. Some components of the model were useful to students, but others were notsix types of misinterpretations were identified that led to inappropriate decisions. Herrmann (1990) studied teachers' knowledge structures and how they developed over a series of course experiences. Preservice teachers' knowledge structures tended to be less extensive but more coherent over time. Progress in understanding knowledge representation and knowledge use has been slow, but no slower than in other areas of psychology. The driving questions are constantly being reshaped and new methodologies are explored. This is good news for the future of the inquiry, although criticisms may surround current efforts. 6. We can make few claims from our current research base on what is effective in reading teacher education at the preservice level. The "what works" question plagues our profession. Little empirical evidence is available to inform teacher educators about how certain educative experiences affect teachers' long-term development. Typically, research has been designed to map shortterm program components to the acquisition of attitudes, knowledge, and skills. A large portion of program "effectiveness" studies involve participants' retrospective introspections. Furr (1965) was one of the earliest investigators to survey and to interview graduates of a program regarding its perceived value. Smith, Otto, and Harty (1970) surveyed elementary teachers concerning their attitudes toward their preparation to teach reading. They found that primary teachers were more positive than intermediate grade teachers, and that the more experienced teachers were more positive than the more recent graduates. Britton (1973; 1975) surveyed graduates of a program that emphasized field and practicum experiences and found that the experiences were given high (or excellent) ratings by nearly all of the participants (see also, Cheek, 1982; Hyatt, Foster, Menter, & Riley, 1994; Wendelin & Murphy, 1986). Noe (1994), in one of the few reports of a program evaluation to follow up with students after their first year of teaching, investigated the influence of curriculum integration on beginning teachers' practices. Findings suggested that teachers were influenced, in both their teaching philosophies and practices, by their undergraduate preparation. Specifically, they reported that the program helped them to integrate reading and writing instruction. A number of studies evaluated program impact on students in specific areas. Some studies have looked at program impact on student beliefs (Bacharach, 1993; Lefever-Davis & Helfeldt, 1994; Shaw, 1994; Wham, 1993). In most cases, these studies suggested that students' changes in theoretical orientation are related to specific program features, contexts, or components. Investigations of program impact and focused training on student learning have been conducted in such areas as teacher questioning (Johnson & Evans, 1992), diagnosis (e.g., Shefelbine & Shiel, 1990; Walker & Roskos, 1994; Wedman & Robinson, 1988), teaching strategic reasoning (e.g., Herrmann & Sarracino, 1992), evaluating text materials and commercial programs (e.g., Comas & Farr, 1989; Miller, 1978), phonics instruction (e.g., Strickler, 1976), and portfolio assessment (e.g., Ford, 1993; Fox, 1996; Seaboard, Mohr, Fowler,
< previous page
page_726
next page >
< previous page
page_727
next page > Page 727
& Lyons, 1993). In almost every case, these studies have shown a positive impact for instruction and training. A number of researchers evaluated program context and its effects, focusing on the contribution of field and practicum experiences as part of the program (e.g., Boehnlein & Gans, 1975; Britton, 1975; Gipe et al., 1989). In all cases, the studies have shown a positive impact for the field-based settings and practicum components. The good news from these kinds of studies is that future teachers do learn what they are taught. The bad news is that questions of long-term effects and usesand overall program impact on career development or on teaching effectivenesshave not been adequately addressed. 7. Teacher education programs have become more complex, and the labels we use have become inadequate to describe practice. This is apparent as we look at the language used to describe certain components of programs. For example, the focus on "courses" that fills much of the early literature gives way more recently to descriptions of "course sequences" or "program phases." This suggests that teacher educators are developing coherent programs that pave the way for teachers to more easily integrate content knowledge and practice. They require that teacher educators' courses be coordinated and that students be provided experiences that build on each other. These programs are more integrated and complex than the programs of previous generations. This trend is also apparent in the conception of field-based instruction. What does field-based mean? Miller and Rand (1978) described a practicum experience totaling 22 hours. In the 1998 reading concentration program at the University of Texas, students spent a total of 1,000 hours in field and practicum settings. This difference suggests questions about when is a fieldbased program a field-based program, and what are expectations for the quality of the experience, the supervision involved, and the responsibilities of all concerned. Conclusions Based on the research just reviewed, what do we have to say to those who would question us regarding effective teacher education practices and programs, the status of preservice reading teacher education, or the relative contribution of the investment in teacher education and the performance of students in schools? Our sense is that we have much to say, but few of our claims stand on a solid research base rather as practice informed by practice. This is a dangerous position for a field that is so vulnerable to public opinion and political whim. What we need are the following: Case reports of excellence in programming. We could find none in our literature search that provides compelling evidence for their effectiveness. Where are the exemplary programs in reading teacher education? We have sufficient basic criteria to identify a core group that would demonstrate three important principles: It is possible to develop quality programs; quality programs make a difference in the lives of teachers and students; and excellent programs share commonalities with room for diversity and creativity. A national database on reading teacher education programs, clients, and practices. It is difficult to set goals, chart progress, and evaluate innovations without a sense of what exists. The American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education initiated the RATE (Research About Teacher Education) project in 1987. This project provides a national database on programs, program features, and participants and is being maintained. Researchers and policymakers in reading teacher education need this kind of information to do their work.
< previous page
page_727
next page >
< previous page
page_728
next page > Page 728
More researchers studying their own practice. Excellent strides have been made in this area; however, these efforts need support and encouragement by teacher education administrators. Also, outlets for publication related to this work need to be more available. Increased opportunities for professional dialogue. Special conferences and forums for critical reflection and collaboration are needed for change to occur. Ultimately, it will be through dialogue, critical reflection, and collaboration that changes will be made. Longitudinal studies of program effectiveness. The 'what works?' question will continue to plague the field. We must demonstrate the cost effectiveness of programs to speak clearly and persuasively to policy makers. The work of Linda DarlingHammond (1996, 1997) in teacher education has been exemplary in this area. We should be able to provide data and documentation showing to the public and to policy makers that an increased investment in teacher education will pay off directly in improved student learning. It is the only language the policy makers speak and we must become bilingual or we will continue to flounder and to talk only to one another. Research in Inservice Teacher Education We have read and analyzed the studies of inservice teacher education from the original First R (Austin & Morrison, 1963) study to the present and have identified major findings, themes, and trends. The data base for this review is essentially the same as that used in the review of preservice teacher education just reported. The total number of studies reported in reading education (n = 19,457) and the total number that focused on reading inservice for classroom teachers (n = 140) are represented in the following proportions by decade: 19651975, 3,716:19; 19751985, 8,941:37; and 19851995, 19,457:140. In many cases, it was challenging to identify inservice teacher education studies. We did not rely solely on the researchers' use of the term inservice or teacher education to achieve identification. We were interested in research promoting changes in practice by affecting the teacher but, this may not have been the researcher's primary goal. For example, in experimental studies involving classroom research, teachers may have been trained in some particular method or technique. Is this teacher education? Or, is this simply an experimental condition without regard for long-term effects on teacher thinking or practices? We attempted to focus on those studies that have the goal of affecting teacher knowledge and practices with a long-term effect in mind. When there was uncertainty or ambiguity, however, we tended to include rather than to exclude a particular study. As with our review of the preservice literature, the studies vary enormously in terms of methodology, factors investigated, rigor, and significance of findings. On the basis of this review, we have identified six thesis statements. 1. Inservice teacher education has not been a high priority within the reading research community, but interest may be increasing. As in the preservice arena, studies focused on inservice teacher education represent less than 1% of the total. One constant in the findings across the three decades has been that teachers want more and better inservice support. Marcus (1968) found a mismatch between what supervisors offered in terms of support (i.e., help with supplementary materials and reading lists) as contrasted with what teachers wanted (i.e., help with the diagnosis of disabled readers and the identification of goals and objectives). Interest in issues of disability has been strong over the years (e.g., Goodacre & Clark, 1973; Logan & Erickson, 1979; Smith et
< previous page
page_728
next page >
< previous page
page_729
next page > Page 729
al., 1970). In the 1980s, interest increased for inservice in the teaching of reading comprehension (e.g., Anders & Gallego, 1989; Bailey & Guerra, 1984), and interest in reading disabilities continued. Preferences and interests in the late 1980s and the 1990s shifted toward integrated instruction and thematic teaching (e.g., Erickson, Johnson & Logan, 1992; Hosking, 1991). 2. Inservice has been of use. This is not intended as an "anything goes/everything works" kind of assertion. Studies have suggested that resources committed to changes in teacher thinking and practices do affect change. Positive effects have been shown across a variety of areas ranging from targeted interventions on teacher questioning (e.g., Conley, 1986), to skills instruction (e.g., DeCarlo & Cleland, 1970), to comprehension instruction (e.g., Conley, 1983), to impact on general approaches and philosophies such as "whole language" (e.g., Nelson, Pryor & Church, 1990; Otto & Iacono, 1991). The impact of inservice has been shown on the development of teacher knowledge (e.g., Sawyer & Taylor, 1968), attitudes (e.g., Stieglitz & Oehlkers, 1989), beliefs (e.g., Bean, Bishop, & Leuer, 1981; Scheffler, Richmond, & Kazelskis, 1993), practices (e.g., Trickey & Crispin, 1982), and teacher satisfaction (e.g., Dworkin, 1979). The impact has even been demonstrated in terms of positive effects on student growth in decoding (e.g., Strickler, 1976), comprehension (e.g., Kurth & Stromberg, 1983; Mosenthal, 1987; Miller & Ellsworth, 1985), cooperation (e.g., Talmadge, Pascarella & Ford, 1984), and attitudes (e.g., Streeter, 1986). The impact has been shown across classroom-based (e.g., Kieffer & Morrison, 1994), school-based, and district-based efforts (e.g., Boehnlein, 1984; Conley, 1983); short-term and long-term projects (e.g., Chadwick & Chadwick, 1976; Raphael, 1984); and across research methodologies ranging from case studies (e.g., Brown & Coy-Ogan, 1993) to full experimental designs (e.g., Sanger & Stick, 1984). 3. The development of research in inservice teacher education has had important connections to the developments in research on teaching. As noted earlier in this chapter, this relationship was first apparent in the late 1970s as the process-product paradigm for research in teaching gained momentum. In the middle to late 1980s, the research in teaching literature embraced teacher knowledge, thinking, and decision-making as the "missing paradigm" in the quest to understand teaching (Shulman, 1986). Two programs of research exemplified this shift. Duffy, Roehler, and their colleagues conducted a series of studies in which they examined the impact of interventions focused on the development of explicit teacher "explanations" (Book, Duffy, Roehler, Meloth, & Vavrus, 1985; Duffy, 1983; Duffy, Roehler, & Putnam, 1987; Duffy, Roehler, & Rackliffe, 1986; Roehler, Duffy & Meloth, 1984; Sivan & Roehler, 1986). In these studies, teachers grew in their abilities to translate skills into strategies in the context of reading instruction. The growth in this ability and the associated "explicitness" of teaching led to positive gains in student achievement. Pressley and his colleagues (El-Dinary, Pressley, & Schuder, 1992; Pressley, Bergman, & El-Dinary, 1992) conducted a series of studies into the effectiveness of transactional strategies instruction. Comprehension instruction was promoted and student learning was enhanced through the application of transactional teaching strategies. Both programs of research shared the complexity of the instructional intervention, the complexity of teaching, and the complexity of reading. This complexity was further exhibited by programs of research in the early 1990s, when researchers began to look into the processes of teacher change as offering insight into effective teacher education practices. These investigations involved collaboration and interaction between teachers, teacher educators, and researchers. Hoffman, Roser and their colleagues (Hoffman, Roser, Battle, Farest, & Isaacs, 1990; Hoffman, Roser, & Farest, 1988) studied the changes in teacher insights and instructional strategies associated with the implementation of a literature-based program. Pace (1992) investigated the tensions associated with grass-roots change efforts as they moved from traditional
< previous page
page_729
next page >
< previous page
page_730
next page > Page 730
textbook-based instruction to a more learner-centered curriculum. Scharer (1991, 1992) critiqued teachers in transition as they moved from traditional to literature-based teaching. Lloyd and Anders (1994) observed and analyzed a collaborative staff development effort in which teachers worked to improve comprehension instruction. These efforts involved substantial collaboration among all participants, and also documented impact on students' learning to read. These studies also assumed a broader perspective on classroom reading instruction than merely a focus on a particular strategy, process, or type of student. Our sense is that the field has abandoned the simplistic idea that the findings from teacher effectiveness research (e.g., "teaching behaviors" that correlate with student gains) and treat that as the basis for the curriculum in teacher education. Rather, we are seeing the processes of teacher learning as a model for constructing more effective program contexts. This change in perspective suggests that the complexities of teacher change are constituted by shifting definitions of reading, of increased awareness of the contexts in which teachers teach, and of sensitivity to the possibilities of collaboration among educators. 4. There have been common features that could be used to characterize quality teacher education efforts at the inservice level. We found few studies comparing method A of teacher education with method B of teacher education. Hence, we extracted common elements or features that appear salient. We offer the following list. Intensive/extensive commitments. Most of the studies have suggested that intensive levels of support, with sustained and concentrated effort, are critical for success (e.g., Anders & Evans, 1994; Coladarci & Gage, 1984; Lamme & Hysmith, 1991; Miller & Ellsworth, 1985; Thistlewaite, Barclay, Castle & Lewis, 1991). Monitoring/coaching/clinical support. This follow-up and support have ranged in scope and focus from follow-up contact to supporting connections to actual practice (e.g., Moore, 1991), to oversight of strict implementation of key features of an innovation (e.g., Reay, Von Harrison, & Gottfredson, 1984). The salient point is that teacher change needs support in the context of practice. Reflection. The theme of reflection has appeared time and again in this literature. It appears that an important part of inservice teacher education is to provide opportunities and tools for teachers to reflect on their own practices systematically as they move toward change (e.g., Anders, 1991; Bos & Anders, 1994; Fleisher, 1992). Deliberation, dialogue, and negotiation. Many studies have suggested that conversation and discussion make up a critical element in supporting the change process (e.g., Anders & Richardson, 1991; Combs, 1994; Hollingsworth, 1994; Kraus, 1992; Shepperson & Nistler, 1991, 1992). Voluntary participation/choice. Most effective inservice teacher education programs have involved teachers who choose to participate. El-Dinary, Beard and Schuder (1993) demonstrated the differences in teacher patterns of adoption of "transactional" strategy instruction as a function of their "choice" to be involved. Collaboration. Several reports of successful programs have suggested collaboration among different role groups (e.g., universitybased researchers, school-based teacher educators, and teachers). Jennings, Hieshima, Pierce, Shapiro, and Ambardar (1994), for example, reported on a successful collaboration in the Chicago public schools to promote reading and writing activity (see also Nistler & Shepperson, 19931994; Paratore & Indrisano 1994; Short & Kauffman, 1992). These features of teacher education inservice suggest that teacher change is more than "trying a good idea." These programs involved participants who are in the classroom and those who influence the classroom. They also provided time and space for change to be considered, accepted or rejected, and reflected upon. 5. There have been strong forces working against initial change and the sustaining of change. Change is difficult. Teacher education involves change and must attend to the
< previous page
page_730
next page >
< previous page
page_731
next page > Page 731
individual who is changing to the context in which they work. Many studies offered insights into potential barriers to change, including the following: resource commitments, role confusion, stability (turnover) of personnel, and institutional constraints (Thomas & Rinehart, 1994); constraints within the school district (e.g., evaluation, parental questioning, personal risk, program organization); those imposed outside the school district (e.g., achievement test, professional outsiders); and those imposed by time (preparation time, scheduling, feeling of being overwhelmed) (Bergeron, 1994). In addition, Placier and Hamilton (1994) described the nature of the school culture and personal conflict (e.g., based on philosophy) issues as impediments to change. Even when change has occurred, it has not been necessarily sustainable (e.g., Morrison, Harris, & Auerbach, 1969) One of the more telling illustrations of this challenge was reported by Duffy, Roehler, and Putnam (1987). Through their work with a group of teachers, they were able to achieve positive changes in explicit teacher explanations, which had a positive affect on student learning. In follow-up conferences however, teachers reported that it was difficult to maintain their decision-making role due to constraints and pressures. We are only beginning to understand the context effects that affect and often constrain long-term teacher education efforts. 6. There have been noteworthy examples of long-term staff development efforts that have suggested positive features and valuable processes and frameworks to follow. Through our review of this literature we identified four plans for inservice reading teacher education that are distinct but not necessarily independent of one another. Inquiry. Teacher research (action research) has proven to be a rich path for teacher inservice. Gove and Kennedy-Calloway (1992) reported on a project in which teachers engaged in the study of the instructional support offered to "at-risk" students. These researchers concluded that the participation in the research itself was directly related to shifts in knowledge, beliefs, and practices. Similarly, Gray-Schlegel and Matanzo (1993) found that a teacher research project initiated in a graduate course focusing on classroom practices served as a positive force for change. Likewise, Hancock, Turbill, and Cambourne (1994) collaborated with teacher researchers South Australia. The findings suggested that new knowledge gained through research led to more effective teaching and gave inservice teachers greater ownership and trust in the practices adopted. Portfolios. This point of entry into teacher change has been useful across many contexts. Whether the usefulness has been rooted in portfolios as a specific process or in attention to assessment in general is difficult to unravel. At least for the present, portfolios are a productive focal point (Lyons, 1993). Kieffer and Faust (1994), for example, reported on the positive impact of an inservice project focused on the use of portfolios as opposed to traditional alternatives for assessment. Research with portfolios has been interesting in the way it has revealed the complex interaction between the "beliefs" of the participants (e.g., Lamme & Hysmith, 1991; Stewart & Paradis, 1993) and their success at implementation. When there is a mismatch, significant changes are less likely to occur. Journaling. Encouraging reflective practice through journaling has been a positive point for inservice activity. Moore (1991), for example, found positive effects for journaling and the analysis of journal entries on a group of elementary teachers enrolled in a graduate course. Botel, Ripley, and Barnes (1993) demonstrated the powerful mediating effect for journaling in the implementation of a "new" conception of literacy (constructive, social, learner-centered). Book clubs/literacy groups/study groups. Researchers have shown the positive effects for teachers working together in book clubs (reading and discussing literature). Flood, Lapp, Ranck-Buhr, and Moore (1995) found book-club reading and discussion among elementary teachers and their principal led to growth in understanding of multicultur-
< previous page
page_731
next page >
< previous page
page_732
next page > Page 732
alism, to increased insights into their pupils, and to changes in some teaching practices. Bealor (1992) demonstrated positive effects for a teacher book-club project focused on cultural issues and diversity. She found that the participating teachers gained insights regarding relationships between culture and teaching, and pupil interests. Study groups have shown similar benefits. Matlin and Short (1996) reported on groups organized to respond to a mandate for change from a basal series to a new literature program. The group voluntarily studied for three years, involving the principal as a colleague, and the group was responsible for setting the agendas. Comments, Conclusions, and Questions As with the preservice literature, there is much to be excited about here in terms of progress, but the challenges are many. We note the following: There are major gaps in this literature. For example, little is reported that examines the experiences of first-year or novice teachers. There is a mismatch between the amount of effort invested in inservice education and the amount of research being reported. Where is the research of those consultants who do this work as a full-time job? The distinction between training and teacher education needs to be examined. We know how to ''train" teachers (e.g., with specific behavioral outcomes targeted), but we need to know more about educating teachers (e.g., with the goal of conceptual change, enhanced decision-making capabilities, or strategic teaching). A "packaging mentality" is sweeping the country regarding teacher education and inservice. School districts are purchasing inservice packages for school districts. Why? And with what outcomes? We fear that such a movement might lead some to conduct research on inservice programs comparing "method A" to "method B" (e.g., Lyons, 1991). In the process of doing this kind of research, the teacher becomes subservient to the method. We have made this mistake too often, and we are in danger of going down this path again. On the basis of these reviews, the answers to questions about teacher education are unclear, at best. We have learned that there are two traditions in teacher education (preservice and inservice) and that neither explains how teachers of reading are created, how they teach, nor how they change. Unresolved Problems of Reading Teacher Education Despite evidence that the quantity of teacher education research has increased, the results leave reading educators with more questions than answers. The three authors of this chapter are illustrative. We are reading educators. Much of our professional time is spent planning and teaching reading methods courses and collaborating with teachers in schools. Nevertheless, research inadequately informs us about day-to-day problemslike the ones described next. What should the goal be? Research on teaching tells us that the best teachers are thoughtfully adaptive (e.g., Duffy, 1994; Hoffman et al., 1998; Pressley et al., 1998; Shanahan & Neuman, 1997). Dilemmas characterize the nature of classroom teaching generally and the teaching of reading in particular; creative responsiveness, rather than technical compliance, characterizes the nature of effective teachers. In short, classrooms are complex places, and the best teachers are successful because they are thoughtful opportunists who create instructional practices to meet situational demands. It follows that teacher education ought to focus on developing adaptive teach-
< previous page
page_732
next page >
< previous page
page_733
next page > Page 733
ers. Reading educators, in particular, should be trying to develop teachers who analyze reading instructional situations and then, in a thoughtful way, construct appropriate responses. In doing so, professional knowledge about reading is perceived not as an end in itself but as grist for thinking and problem solving. A constructivist model is often recommended (see Richardson, in press). But reading educators also know that there are some teaching problems that are technical, that we do have answers for some problems, and that teachers need to have some of these answers. So, like most thoughtful reading educators, we are torn. We encourage our teachers to become problem solvers who can live the uncertain and ambiguous life of classroom teaching. We worry, though, about whether our students are getting "essentials" that might ease their beginning teaching. What is the knowledge appropriate for beginning teachers? We reading educators are often fascinated with the subtle distinctions we discover about reading, and we love to talk about them. But do beginning teachers need to know these subtleties? Typically, the question is not whether we should teach a topic or not; the question is how far to go with it. Research does not tell us what or how much teachers need to know. Consequently, we decide by opinion or trial and error. How do we teach problem solving anyway? We have little research to guide us, particularly as it relates to teachers and teaching. For instance, much of the research on effective teaching suggests that ability to identify and reframe problems is crucial (Schön, 1983). Consequently, when we present teaching as a problematic endeavor, we should be teaching our teachers how to identify and re-frame problems. A small body of literature, identified as inquiry-based instruction, is emerging but it is not yet sufficient for addressing this issue (see Short & Burke, 1989). Similarly, it is assumed that problem solvers "think on their feet" or make "on-the-fly" decisions. At a still more subtle level, teachers must master the making of "imperfect decisions" in which one horn of a complex dilemma is dealt with immediately and another horn of the same dilemma is bypassed to be dealt with later (Buchmann, 1990). But research on teacher education offers us little guidance for teaching about these dilemmas. What about teacher beliefs? Beliefs have been researched (e.g., Clark & Petersen, 1986; Pajares, 1992; Richardson, 1996; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, & Lloyd, 1991), and Barr (in press) said that "exploration of belief is pivotal" and that changes cannot be incorporated into classroom practice "unless the teacher's conception of the work of the class supports such incorporation." Such views are sensible, but there are two problems. The first is that little agreement exists about the impact of beliefs, and the second is that we do not know enough about the construct to effect change (Duffy & Anderson, 1984; Hollingsworth, 1989). Consequently, reading methods professors are left with little guidance. How do we decide on assignments/activities for our classes? Research on academic work tells us that school children make sense of school work by noting what tasks are assigned and what the teacher is particularly interested in grading (e.g., Doyle, 1983; Winne & Marx, 1982). It is sensible that the academic work principle operates in the same way with teachers as with children, but we do not know. What should we do to develop mental strength? We hear that the best teachers display a certain spiritual strength, morality, or mental toughness that sustains them through the difficulties of teaching (e.g., Garrison, 1997; Purpel, 1989). We sense that the best teachers possess what Duffy (1998) calls a "moral compass," allowing them to navigate effectively through daily classroom dilemmas. It is an intangible attribute about which research is needed. What is happening outside my course? An enduring problem of teacher education is whether the left hand knows what the right hand is doing. Teachers in preparation are influenced by other professors and course work, work in the field, and early
< previous page
page_733
next page >
< previous page
page_734
next page > Page 734
on-the-job experiences. Each of these contexts is likely to be contradictory and to create conflicts for the neophyte teacher (Guilfoyle, 1996). Because we lack program-level research, teacher educators and teachers struggle to cope with these contradictions (Lampert, 1981). How can we prepare teachers for the students they will face? In an increasingly diverse society, we need teachers who can recognize, accept, and build on differences (Dahl & Freppon, 1995). This problem has two sides: One side is that teachers of color need to be recruited and retained in the field; and second, teachers who are middle class and White need to learn that students who are different from themselves are a source of vitality, growth, and strength (see Moll, 1998). This requires that teachers recognize the potential that differing cultures have for creating the classroom culture (McDiarmid, 1992). Teacher educators, most of whom are culturally similar to the majority of teachers, need knowledge to address this issue (see Zeichner, 1995). An emerging literature in social literacies (Street, 1995) may inform this problem, but its consideration in teacher education is unrealized (Anders & Whitman, 1998). Reflections Is our ambivalence about the state of research on teacher education evident? We expect it is. On the one hand, reading teacher education is getting more research attention; on the other hand, this attention has not provided answers to our most pressing questions. At this point in history, with teacher education under intense fire, we need some answers (Fenstermacher, 1993). Teacher education has long been a favorite "whipping boy" of educational critics. The past year, however, has produced an unprecedented attack. Politicians and pundits charge that teachers are poorly prepared to teach reading (Darling-Hammond, 1996); schools of education are threatened (Ducharme & Ducharme, 1996); and legislatures are making preparation of reading teachers a priority of the reform agenda (Farkas & Johnson, 1997). Even highly respected agencies, such as the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (Darling-Hammond, 1997), point out that the United States has no system for ensuring that teachers get access to knowledge; that preparation, licensing, and induction are often fragmented; and that professional development of teachers receives little emphasis. We have difficulty responding to these criticisms because we lack answers about how best to prepare reading teachers. Unlike most critics, however, Darling-Hammond (1997) does more than point out flaws. She also has established the importance of teacher education by providing compelling data about the benefits of investing in teacher education. Basing her conclusions in a variety of studies from around the country, she has argued that teacher education is the key to instructional improvement, saying, "spending on teacher education swamped other variables as the most productive investment for schools" (p. 9). Knowing that investment in teacher education pays off is not enough. We need empirical evidence regarding how to invest resources. We do not have that evidence. To gather that evidence and to respond to the questions posed in this chapter, teacher education research must be a priority. Like the state of research on teaching in the late 1960swhen a dormant agenda was transformed into a major force to improve classroom teachingresearch on reading teacher education could likewise surge and become a major force in the education of reading teachers. Accomplishing such a surge would require hard choices (Goodman & Short, 1996). We must commit our energies to studying our programs, our courses, our teaching, and our expectations and requirements. In short, it means consenting to be the subject of study ourselves. It will take courage and creativity. Now is the time to start.
< previous page
page_734
next page >
< previous page
page_735
next page > Page 735
References Adams, E. K. (1967). Reading performance of elementary teachers in a developing institution. In G. B. Schick & M. M. May (Eds.) Junior college and young adult reading programs: Expanding fields: Sixteenth yearbook of the National Reading Conference, (pp. 4757). Clemson, NC: National Reading Conference. Alvermann, D. E. (1990). Reading teacher education. In R. W. Houston, M. Haberman, & J. Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 687704). New York: Macmillan. Anders, P. L. (1991). The relationship between reading practices literature and teachers' talk about practices. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 211217). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Anders, P. L., & Evans, K. S. (1994). Relationship between teachers' beliefs and their instructional practice in reading. In R. Garner & P. Alexander (Eds.), Beliefs about text and instruction with text (pp. 137154). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anders, P. L., & Gallego, M., A. (1989). Adoption of theoretically linked vocabulary-reading comprehension practices. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 481487). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Anders, P. L., & Richardson, V. (1991). Research directions: Staff development that empowers teachers' reflection and enhances instruction. Language Arts, 68, 316321. Anders, P. L., & Whitman, R. (1998, December). "Everything's changing all the time": Lived experiences, conceptual change (and ideology?) in content area literacy. Presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Artley, A. S. (1975). Good teachers of readingWho are they? Reading Teacher, 29, 2631. Artley, A. S. (1978). The education and certification of elementary and secondary teachers of reading. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 11(3), 3443. Askov, E. N., Kamm, K., Klumb, R., & Barnette, J. J. (1980). Study skills mastery: Comparisons between teachers and students on selected skills. In M. L. Kamil & A. J. Moe (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction: Twenty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 207212). Washington DC: National Reading Conference. Austin, M. C. (1968). Professional training of reading personnel. In H. M. Robinson (Ed.), Innovation and change in reading instruction: Sixty-seventh yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, (Part II, pp. 357396). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Austin, M. C., & Morrison, C. (1961). The torch lighters: Tomorrow's teachers of reading. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Austin, M. C., & Morrison, C. (1963). The first R: The Harvard report on reading in elementary schools. New York: Macmillan. Bacharach, N. (1993). Facilitating emerging theories of reading in preservice students. Journal of Reading Education, 19, 816. Bailey, M. H., Durkin, D., Nurss, J. R., & Stammer, J. D. (1982). Preparation of kindergarten teachers for reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 36, 307311. Bailey, M. H., & Guerra, C. L. (1984). Inservice education in reading: Three points of view. Reading Teacher, 38, 174176. Barter, A. (1974). An analysis of the relationship between student performance on the National Teachers Examination and that on the Cooperative English Test, Form 1B, Reading. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 375378. Barr, R. (1984). Beginning reading instruction: From debate to reformation. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545581). New York: Longman. Barr, R. (in press). Research on the teaching of reading. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Barr, R, Kamil, M., Mosenthal, P., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Handbook of reading research (Vol. II). White Plains, NY: Longman. Bealor, S. (1992). Minority literature book groups for teachers. Reading in Virginia, 17, 1721. Bean, T. W., Bishop, A., & Leuer, M. (1981). The effect of a mini-conference on teacher beliefs about the reading process. Reading Horizons, 22, 8590. Bean, T. W., & Zulich, J. (1992). Teaching students to learn from text: Preservice content teachers' changing view of their role through the window of their student-professor dialogue journals. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigm: Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 171178). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Bergeron, B. S. (1994). Practitioners and curricular control: Exploring constraints to literacy change. Journal of Reading Education, 20, 2834. Boehnlein, M. M. (1984). Can all teachers really teach reading? Ohio Reading Teacher, 18(4), 1721. Boehnlein, M. M., & Gans, T. G. (1975). Competency in teaching reading of field based and on-campus university students.
Journal of Reading, 20, 2834. Book, C. L., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M. S., & Vavrus, L. G. (1985). A study of the relationship between teacher explanation and student metacognitive awareness during reading instruction. Communication Education, 34, 2936.
< previous page
page_735
next page >
< previous page
page_736
next page > Page 736
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1994). The study of student change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 181198). New York: Teachers College Press. Botel, M., Ripley, P. M., & Barnes, L. A. (1993). A case study of an implementation of the "new literacy" paradigm. Journal of Research in Reading, 16, 112127. Britton, G. E. (1973). Preservice reading methods instruction: Large group/on-site/individualized. Reading Improvement, 10, 2932. Britton, G. E. (1975). Assessing preservice reading methods courses. Reading Improvement, 10, 2932. Brown, R., & Coy-Ogan, L. (1993). The evolution of transactional strategies instruction in one teacher's classroom. Elementary School Journal, 94, 221233. Buchmann, M. (1990). Beyond the lonely, choosing will: Professional development in teacher thinking. Teachers College Record, 91, 481508. Bush, C., & Putnam, L. (1968). Student teachers' experiences in reading instruction at Newark State College. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 8(1), 36, 18. Calfee, R., & Drum, P. (1986). Research on teaching reading. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 804849). New York: Macmillan. Chadwick, E. H., & Chadwick, S. C. (1976). In Vermont, an inservice program worth noting. Reading Teacher, 30, 193196. Chall, J. (1975). The reading problem: A diagnosis of the national reading problem; a national strategy for attacking the reading problem; legislative and administrative actions. In J. Carroll (Ed.), Toward a literate society: The report of the Committee on Reading of the National Academy of Education (pp. 345). New York: The National Academy. Cheek, M. C. (1982). Preservice education in reading: What do the teachers say? Reading Psychology, 3, 2535. Clark, C., & Petersen, P. (1986). Teachers' thought processes. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255296). New York: Macmillan. Coladarci, T., & Gage, N. L. (1984). Effects of a minimal intervention on teacher behavior and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 539555. Comas, J. C., & Farr, R. (1989). Training preservice teachers to analyze and evaluate textbooks. Book Research Quarterly, 5, 515. Combs, M. (1994). Implementing a holistic reading series in first grade: Experiences with a conversation group. Reading Horizons, 34, 196207. Conley, M. W. (1983). Increasing students' reading achievement via inservice education. Reading Teacher, 36, 804808. Conley, M. W. (1986). The influence of training on three teachers' comprehension questions during content area lessons. Elementary School Journal, 87, 1727. Dahl, K. L., & Freppon, P. A. (1995). A comparison of inner-city children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 5074. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America's future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. DeCarlo, M. R., & Cleland, D. L. (1968). A reading in-service education program for teachers. Reading Teacher, 22, 163169. Deford, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351367. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53, 159199. Ducharme, E., & Ducharme, M. (1996). Development of the teacher education professoriate. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 691714). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Duffy, G. G. (1983). From turn taking to sense making: Broadening the concept of reading teacher effectiveness. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 134139. Duffy, G. (1994). Teachers' progress toward becoming expert strategy teachers. Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 109120. Duffy, G. (1998). Teaching and the balancing of round stones. Phi Delta Kappan, 79(10), 777780. Duffy, G., & Anderson, L. (1984). Teachers' theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology, 5(2), 97104. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Putnam, J. (1987). Putting the teacher in control: Basal reading textbooks and instructional decision making. Elementary School Journal, 87, 357366. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Rackliffe, G. (1986). How teachers' instructional talk influences students' understanding of lesson content. Elementary School Journal, 87, 316. Dworkin, N. E. (1979). Changing teachers' negative expectations. Academic Therapy, 14, 517531.
Eckert, M. S., & Wollenberg, J. (1984). Competency model for preservice teachers in a basic skills course. Reading Horizons, 24, 238242. Ehri, L., & Williams, J. (1996). Learning to read and learning to teach reading. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook (pp. 231241). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
< previous page
page_736
next page >
< previous page
page_737
next page > Page 737
El-Dinary, P. B., Pressley, M., & Schuder, T. (1992). Teachers' learning transactional strategies instruction. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 453462). Chicago: National Reading Conference. El-Dinary, P. B., & Schuder, T. (1993). Seven teachers' acceptance of transactional strategies instruction during their first year using it. Elementary School Journal, 94, 207219. Erickson, L., Johnson, M., & Logan, J. (1992). A survey of Illinois K8 teachers' reading and writing preservice and staff development perceptions. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 20, 3139. Farkas, S., & Johnson, J. (1997). Different drummers: How teachers of teachers view public education. New York: Public Agenda. Fenstermacher, G. D (1993). Where are we going? Who will lead us there? Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education. Fenstermacher, G. D (1994). The knower and the known: The nature of knowledge in research on teaching. In L. DarlingHammond (Ed.), Review of educational research, 20, 356. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Fleisher, B. M. (1992). Videotaping: A tool for self-evaluation. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 24, 4047. Flippo, R. F., & Hayes, D. A. (1984). Preparation in reading and educator certification: Requirements, needs, issues. In G. H. McNinch (Ed.), Reading teacher education: Fourth yearbook of the American Reading Forum (pp. 2729). Athens, GA: American Reading Forum. Flood, J., Lapp, D., Ranck-Buhr, W., & Moore, J. (1995). What happens when teachers get together to talk about books? Gaining a multicultural perspective from literature. Reading Teacher, 48, 720723. Ford, M. P. (1993). The process and promise of portfolio assessment in teacher education programs: Impact on students' knowledge beliefs, and practices. In T. V. Rasinski & N. D. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 145152). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Fox, D. L. (1996). The struggle for voice in learning to teach: Lessons from one preservice teacher's portfolio. In K. Whitmore & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Whole language voices in teacher education (pp. 285296). York, ME: Stenhouse. Furr, O. R. (1965). The effectiveness of a college course in the teaching of reading. In J. A. Figurel (Ed.), Reading and inquiry, Proceedings of the International Reading Association (pp. 370372). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Garrison, J. (1997). Dewey and eros: Wisdom and desire in the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press. Gipe, J. P., Duffy, C. A., & Richards, J. C. (1989). A comparison of two types of early field experiences. Reading Improvement, 26, 254265. Gipe, J. P., & Richards, J. C. (1990). Promoting reflection about reading instruction through journaling. Journal of Reading Education, 15, 613. Gonzales, P. C. (1980). Teacher preparation: Meeting the needs of the limited English speaking student. Reading World, 19, 375382. Goodacre, E. J., & Clark, M. M. (1973). Initial approaches to teaching reading in Scottish and English schools. Reading, 5(2), 1521. Goodman, Y. M., & Short, K. G. (1996). Heightening political awareness and action: Liberating our teaching. In K. Whitmore & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Whole language voices in teacher education (pp. 319329). York, ME: Stenhouse. Gove, M. K., & Kennedy-Calloway, C. (1992). Action research: Empowering students to work with at-risk students. Journal of Reading, 35, 526534. Graves, M. F., Pauls, L. W., & Sallinger, T. (1996). Reading curriculum and instruction. In F. B. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator's handbook (pp. 217230). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Gray, W. S. (1961). The role of teacher education. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), Development in an through reading: Sixtieth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (Part 1, pp. 144164). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Gray-Schlegel, M. A., & Matanzo, J. B. (1993). Action research: Classroom teachers' perception of its impact on the teaching of reading. In T. B. Rasinski & N. D. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 135142). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Guilfoyle, K. (1996). My journey through the land of transformation: Navigating uncharted territory. In K. Whitmore & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Whole language voices in teacher education (pp. 2536). York: ME: Stenhouse. Hancock, J., Turbill, J., & Cambourne, B. (1994). Assessment and evaluation of literacy learning. In S. W. Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, & P. P. Afflerback (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 4662). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hawkins, M. L. (1967). Are future teachers readers? Reading Teacher, 21, 138140, 144. Herrmann, B. A. (1990). A longitudinal study of preservice teachers' knowledge structures. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms: Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 145152). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Herrmann, B. A., & Sarracino, J. (1992). Effects of an alternative approach for teaching preservice teachers how to teach strategic reasoning: Two illustrative cases. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 331339). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_737
next page >
< previous page
page_738
next page > Page 738
Hoffman, J. V. (1991). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 911950). White Plains, NY: Longman. Hoffman, J. V., McCarthey, S., Elliott, B., Bayles, D., Price, D., Ferree, A., & Abbott, J. (1998). The literature-based basals in first-grade classrooms: Savior, satan or same-old, same-old. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 168197. Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., Battle, J., Farest, C., & Isaacs, M. E. (1990). Teachers' developing insights about the use of children's literature for language and literacy growth. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 8998). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Hoffman, J. V., Roser, N. L., & Farest, C. (1988). Literature-sharing strategies in classrooms serving students from economically disadvantaged and language different home environments. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Dialogues in literacy research (pp. 331337). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Hollingsworth, S. (1989). Prior beliefs and cognitive change in learning to teach. American Educational Research Journal, 26(2), 160189. Hollingsworth, S. (1994). Teacher research and urban literacy education: Lessons and conversations in a feminist key. New York: Teachers College Press. Hosking, N. J. (1991). A comparative study to determine appropriate implementation strategies for Saskatchewan's new elementary English language arts curriculum. Reflections on Canadian Literacy, 9, 8289. Hyatt, A., Foster, T., Menter, I., & Riley, S. (1994). Teaching students, learning reading. Reading, 28, 4549. Jennings, J. H., Hieshima, J. A., Pearce, D. L., Shapiro, S., & Ambardar, A. K. (1994). A staff development project to improve literacy instruction in an urban school. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 22, 4759. Johnson, C. S., & Evans, A. D. (1992). Improving teacher questioning: A study of a training program. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and practice: Foundations for the year 2000 (pp. 6570). Provo, UT: College Reading Association. Johnson, J. C., Phillips, G. O., & Sublett, H. L. (1974). An inventory of reading courses and practices in major black institutions. In P. L. Nacke (Ed.) Interaction: Research and practice for college-adult reading: Twenty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 293295). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Kieffer, R. D., & Faust, M. A. (1994). Portfolio process and teacher change: Elementary, middle, and secondary teachers reflect on their initial experiences with portfolio evaluation. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice. (pp. 8288). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kieffer, R. D., & Morrison, L. S. (1994). Changing portfolio process: One journey toward authentic assessment. Language Arts, 71, 411418. Kingston, A. J., Brosier, G. F., & Hsu, Y. (1975). The inventory of teacher knowledge of readingA validation. Reading Teacher, 29, 133136. Kinzer, C. K. (1989). Mental models and beliefs about classrooms and reading instruction: A comparison between preservice teachers, inservice teachers, and professors of education. In S. McCormick & J. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social perspectives for literacy research and instruction (pp. 489499). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kinzer, C. K., Hinchman, K. A., & Leu, D. J. (Eds.) (1997). Inquiries in literacy theory and practice: Forty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Klesius, J., Zielonka, P., & LaFramboise, K. (1990). Training preservice teachers to effectively implement the directed reading activity: Positive and negative influences. Journal of Reading Education, 15, 4050. Koenke, K. (1976). Ascertaining knowledge of reading with the Artley-Hardin Inventory. In W. D. Miller & G. H. McNinch (Eds.), Reflections and investigations on reading: Twenty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 141146). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Kraus, D. D. (1992). Changes in primary teachers' instructional practices after year 1 of a collaborative whole language project. In N. D. Padak, T. B. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and practice: Foundations for the year 2000 (pp. 7086). Provo, UT: College Reading Association. Kurth, R. J., & Stromberg, L. J. (1983). Improving comprehension instruction in elementary classrooms. In G. H. McNinch (Ed.) Reading research to reading practice, Third yearbook of the American Reading Forum (pp. 127131). Athens, GA: American Reading Forum. Laine, C. (1984). Reading and writing skills of prospective teachers. In G. H. McNinch (Ed.), Reading teacher education, Fourth yearbook of the American Reading Forum (pp. 5355). Athens, GA: American Reading Forum. Lamme, L. L., & Hysmith, C. (1991). One school's adventure into portfolio assessment. Language Arts, 68, 629640. Lampert, M. (1981). How teachers manage to teach: Perspectives on the unsolvable dilemmas in teaching practice. Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3122A. (University Microfilms No. 81-26, 203) Lefever-Davis, S., & Helfeldt, J. P. (1994). The efficacy of a site-based literacy methods course developed within the context of a school-university partnership. In E. G. Strurtevant & W. M. Linek (Eds.), Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn (pp. 183194). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association.
Lickteig, J., Johnson, B., & Johnson, D. (1994). Future teachers' reflections, perceptions, and anticipations about reading and writing. Journal of Reading Education, 19, 2243. Lloyd, C. V., & Anders, P. L. (1994). Research-based practices as the content of a staff development process. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case of reading instruction (pp. 6889). New York: Teachers College Press.
< previous page
page_738
next page >
< previous page
page_739
next page > Page 739
Logan, J., & Erickson, L. (1979). Elementary teachers' reading inservice preferences. Reading Teacher, 33, 330334. Lyons, C. A. (1991). A comparative study of the teaching effectiveness of teachers participating in a year-long or 2-week inservice program. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 367375). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Lyons, N. (1993). Constructing narratives for understanding: Using portfolio interviews to structure teachers' professional development. In P. H. Dreyer (Ed.), Learning from learners: Fifty-seventh yearbook of the Claremont Reading Conference (pp. 117). Claremont, CA: Claremont Graduate School. Marcus, M. (1968). The status of reading instructionGreater New Orleans area. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 7, 153163, 169. Matlin, M. L., & Short, K. G. (1996). Study groups: Inviting teachers to learn together. In K. Whitmore & Y. Goodman (Eds.), Whole language voices in teacher education (pp. 8592). York, ME: Stenhouse. McDiarmid, G. (1992). What to do about differences? A study of multicultural education for teacher trainees in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 8393. Mikulecky, L. J., & Ribovich, J. K. (1977). Reading competence and attitudes of teachers in preparation. Journal of Reading, 20, 573580. Miller, J. W. (1978). Teachers' abilities to judge the difficulty of reading materials. Reading Horizons, 19, 151158. Miller, J. W., & Ellsworth, R. (1985). The evaluation of a two-year program to improve teacher effectiveness in reading instruction. Elementary School Journal, 85, 484495. Miller, J. W., & Rand, D. C. (1978). Practical teaching experiences in reading for preservice teachers. Reading Improvement, 15, 305308. Moll, L. C. (1998). Turning to the world: Bilingual schooling, literacy, and the cultural mediation of thinking. In T. Shanahan & F. V. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National reading conference yearbook (pp. 5975). Chicago: The National Reading Conference. Moore, M. (1991). Reflective teaching and learning through the use of learning logs. Journal of Reading Education, 17, 3549. Moore, S. A. (1986). A comparison of reading education students, instructional beliefs and instructional practices. In J. A. Niles, & R. V. Lalik (Eds.) Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers: Twenty-fifth yearbook of The National Reading Conference (pp. 143146). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Morrison, C., & Austin, M. C. (1977). The torch lighters revisited. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Morrison, C., Harris, A. J., & Auerbach, I. T. (1969). Staff aftereffects of participation in reading research project: A follow-up study of the CRAFT project. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 366395. Mosenthal, J. H. (1987). Learning from discussion: Requirements and constraints on classroom instruction in reading comprehension strategies. In J. E. Readence & R. Scott Baldwin (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives: Thirty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 169176). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Mosenthal, J. (1994). Constructing knowledge and expertise in literacy teaching: Portfolios in undergraduate teacher education. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 407417). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Moss, B. (1991). Preservice teachers' reminiscences of positive and negative reading experiences: A qualitative study. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.), Literacy research and practice: Foundations for the year 2000 (pp. 2935). Provo, UT: College Reading Association. Murray, F. B. (Ed.). (1996). The teacher educator's handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Neal, K. S., Schaer, B. B., Ley, T. C., & Wright, J. P. (1990). Predicting achievement in a teacher preparatory course of reading methods from the ACT and Teale-Lewis Reading Attitude scores. Reading Psychology, 11, 131139. Nelson, O., Pryor, E., & Church, B. (1990). Process of change in teachers' beliefs, attitudes, and concerns during a series of whole language reading and writing workshops. In N. D. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.), Challenges in reading (pp. 5362). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Niles, J. A., & Lalik, R. V. (1987). Learning to teach comprehension: A collaborative approach. In J. E. Readence & R. S. Baldwin (Eds.), Research in literacy: Merging perspectives: Thirty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 153160). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Nistler, R. J., & Shepperson, G. M. (1993-1994). Negotiating change: Teachers and university professors working together. Journal of Reading Education, 19, 2945. Noe, K. (1994). Effectiveness of an integrated methods curriculum: Will beginning teachers teach as we have taught them? Journal of Reading Education, 19, 4549. O'Brien, D. G, & Stewart, R. A. (1990). Preservice teachers' perspectives on why every teacher is not a teacher of reading: A qualitative analysis. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 101129. Otto, B., & Iacono, M. (1991). Implementing changes in reading instruction. Illinois Reading Council Journal, 19, 2533. Otto, W., Wolf, A., & Eldridge, R. G. (1984). Managing instruction. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal
(Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 799828). New York: Longman.
< previous page
page_739
next page >
< previous page
page_740
next page > Page 740
Pace, G. (1992). Stories of teacher-initiated change from traditional to whole-language literacy instruction. Elementary School Journal, 92, 461476. Pajares, M. (1992). Teachers' beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307332. Paratore, J. R., & Indrisano, R. (1994). Changing classroom instruction in literacy. Journal of Education, 176(1), 4966. Paris, S. G., Wasik, B. A., & Turner, J. C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 609640). White Plains, NY: Longman. Pavlik, R. A. (1975). An assessment of undergraduate preparation available at the University of Northern Colorado for the teaching of reading in the elementary school. Colorado Journal of Educational Research, 14, 2228. Pearson, P. D., Barr, R., Kamil, M. L., & Mosenthal, P. (1984). Handbook of reading research (Vol. I). New York: Longman. Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 815860). White Plains, NY: Longman. Phelps, S., & Weidler, S. D. (1993). Preservice teachers' perceptions of effective teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 231246. Placier, P., & Hamilton, M. L. (1994). Schools as contexts: A complex relationship. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacher change and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 135158). New York: Teachers College Press. Pressley, M., Allington, R., Morrow, L., Baker, L., Nelson, E., Wharton-McDonald, R., Block, C., Tracey, D., Brooks, G., Cronin, J., & Woo, D. (1998). The nature of effective first-grade literacy instruction. Unpublished paper, National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, State University of New York, Albany. Pressley, M., Bergman, J. L., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1992). A researcher-educator collaborative interview study of transactional comprehension strategies instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 231246. Purpel, D. (1989). The moral and spiritual crisis in education. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Raphael, T. E. (1984). Teacher explanations and students' understanding of sources of information for answering questions. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Changing perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction: Thirty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 214222). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Raphael, T. E. (1987). Research on reading: But what can I teach on Monday? In V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), Educators' handbook: A research perspective (pp. 2649). White Plains, NY: Longman. Reay, D. G., Von Harrison, G., & Gottfredson, C. (1984). The effect on pupil reading achievement of teacher compliance with prescribed methodology. Reading in Education, 32, 1723. Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.), Handbook of research on teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102119). New York: Macmillan. Richardson, V. (in press). Teacher education and the construction of meaning. In G. Griffin (Ed.), Teacher education for a new century: Emerging perspectives, promising practices, and future possibilities, (NSSE Yearbook). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices in reading comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 28(3), 559586. Risko, V. J. (1992). Developing problem solving environment to prepare teachers for instruction of diverse learners. In B. L. Hayes & K. Camperell (Eds.), Developing lifelong readers: Policies, procedures and programs (pp. 113). Athens, GA: American Reading Forum. Risko, V. J., McAllister, D., Peter, J., & Bigenho, F. (1994). Using technology in support of preservice teachers' generative learning. In E. G. Sturtevant & W. M. Linek (Eds.), Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn (pp. 156167). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Roeder, H. H. (1972). Mississippi teachers better prepared to teach reading than California grads. California Journal of Educational Research, 23, 177181. Roeder, H. H., Beal, D. K., & Eller, W. (1973). What Johnny knows that teacher educators don't. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 7(1), 310, F 73. Roehler, L. R., & Duffy, G. G. (1991). Teachers' instructional actions. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 861883). White Plains, NY: Longman. Roehler, L. R., Duffy, G. G., & Meloth, M. S., (1984). The effects and some distinguishing characteristics of explicit teacher explanation during reading instruction. In J. A. Niles & L. A. Harris (Eds.), Changing perspectives on research in reading/language processing and instruction: Thirty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 223229). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Rogers, S. F., Merlin, S. B., Brittain, M. M., Palmatier, R., & Terrell, P. (1983). A research view of clinic practicum in reading education. Reading World, 23, 134146. Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 745798). New York: Longman.
Roskos, K., & Walker, B. J. (1993). Preservice teachers' epistemology in the teaching of problem readers. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 325334). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_740
next page >
< previous page
page_741
next page > Page 741
Roskos, K., & Walker, B. (1994). An analysis of preservice teachers' pedagogical concepts in the teaching of problem readers. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research theory and practice (pp. 418428). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Russell, D. H., & Fea, H. R. (1963). Research on teaching reading. In N. L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 865928). Chicago: Rand McNally. Russell, T., & Korthagen, F. (Eds.) (1995). Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Sanger, D. D., & Stick, S. L. (1984). A workshop to incorporate language development in teaching reading. Reading Horizons, 24, 266274. Sawyer, R., & Taylor, L. B. (1968). Evaluating teacher effectiveness in reading instruction. Journal of Reading, 2, 415418, 483488. Scharer, P. L. (1991). Moving into literature-based reading instruction: Changes and challenges for teachers. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick, (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research and instruction (pp. 409421). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Scharer, P. L. (1992). Teachers in transition: An exploration of changes in teachers and classrooms during implementation of literature-based reading instruction. Reading Psychology, 14, 113. Scheffler, A. J., Richmond, M., & Kazelskis, R. (1993). Examining shifts in teachers' theoretical orientations to reading. Reading Psychology, 14, 113. Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Seaboard, M. B., Mohr, K., Fowler, T. J. & Lyons, C. (1993). Preservice teachers' learning processes: A descriptive analysis of the impact of varied experiences with portfolios. In C. K. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 440447). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Shanahan, T., & Neuman, S. (1997). Conversations: Literacy research that makes a difference. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 202211. Shaw, P. A. (1994). The effects of teacher training on preservice elementary education majors' conceptual framework of reading. Reading Horizons, 34(3), 216233. Shefelbine, J., & Shiel, G. (1990). Preservice teachers' schemata for a diagnostic framework in reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 30, 3043. Shepperson, G. M., & Nistler, R. J. (1991). Whole language collaboration project: Three case studies to represent change. In T. V. Rasinski, N. D. Padak, & J. Logan (Eds.), Reading is knowledge: The yearbook of the College Reading Association (Vol. XIII, pp. 129137). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Shepperson, G. M., & Nistler, R. J. (1992). Whole language collaboration project: Implementing change in one elementary school. Reading Horizons, 33, 5556. Short, K. G., & Burke, C. (1989). New potentials for teacher education: Teaching and learning as inquiry. Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 193206. Short, K. G., & Kauffman, G. (1992). Hearing students' voices: The role of reflection in learning. Teachers Networking: The Whole Language Newsletter, 11(3), 16. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 414. Sivan, E., & Roehler, L. (1986). Motivational statements in explicit teacher explanations, and their relationship to students' metacognition in reading. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik, (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers: Thirty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 178184). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Smith, C. M. (1989). Reading attitudes of preservice education majors. Reading Horizons, 29, 231234. Smith, P. K., Fairbanks, M. M., & Saltz, M. (1984). Status and content of reading foundation courses. Reading Improvement, 21, 232239. Smith, R. J., Otto, W., & Harty, K. (1970). Elementary teachers' preferences for preservice and in-service training in the teaching of reading. Journal of Educational Research, 63, 445449. Start, K. B., & Strange, L. (1980). Primary reading and mathematics method in eight state colleges of Victoria. British Journal of Teacher Education, 6, 131138. Stewart, R. A., & Paradis, E. E. (1993). Portfolios: Agents of change and empowerment in classrooms. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 109116). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Stice, C. F., Bertrand, N. P., Leuder, D. C., & Dunn, M. B. (1989). Personality types and theoretical orientation to reading: An exploratory study. Reading Research and Instruction, 29, 3951. Stieglitz, E. L., & Oehlkers, W. J. (1989). Improving teacher discourse in a reading lesson. Reading Teacher, 42, 374379.
Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy in development, ethnography and education. New York: Longman. Streeter, B. B. (1986). The effects of training experienced teachers in enthusiasm on students' attitudes toward reading. Reading Psychology, 7(4), 249259. Strickler, D. (1976). A systematic approach to teaching decoding skills. In B. L. Courtney (Ed.), Reading interaction: The teacher, the pupil, the materials (pp. 4957). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
< previous page
page_741
next page >
< previous page
page_742
next page > Page 742
Sullivan, E. P. (1976). Functional literacy of teacher trainees. In W. D. Miller & G. H. McNinch (Eds.), Reflections and investigations on reading: Twenty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 147151). Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference. Talmadge, H., Pascarella E. T., & Ford, S. (1984). The influence of cooperative learning strategies on teacher practices, student perceptions of the learning environment, and academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 163179. Thistlethwaite, L., Barclay, K. D., Castle, M., & Lewis, W. J. (1991). Multi-session reading inservice: A step in the right direction. Reading Horizons, 31, 299311. Thomas, K. F., & Rinehart, S. D. (1994). Instituting whole language: Teacher power and practice. Reading Horizons, 35(1), 7188. Tierney, R. J., & Cunningham, J. W. (1984). Research on teaching reading comprehension. In P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. I, pp. 609655). New York: Longman. Trickey, G., & Crispin, L. (1982). A reading project in Barking. Special Education, 9(4), 69. Walker, B. J., & Ramseth, C. (1993). Reflective practice confronts the complexities of teaching reading. In T. V. Rasinksi & N. D. Padak (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 171177). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Walker, B. J., & Roskos, K. (1994). Preservice teachers' epistemology of diagnostic reading instruction: Observations of shifts during coursework experience. In E. G. Sturtevant & W. M. Linek (Eds.), Pathways for literacy: Learners teach and teachers learn (pp. 5971). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Warner, D. (1970). Future teachers look at reading instruction. Reading Horizons, 10(2), 5358. Wedman, J. M., & Robinson, R. (1988). Effects of a decision making model on preservice teachers' decision making practices and materials use. Reading Improvement, 23, 2126. Wendelin, K. H., & Murphy, C. C. (1986) Preservice teachers' perceptions of their reading methods preparation. Reading Improvement, 23, 2126. Wham, M. A. (1993). The relationship between undergraduate course work and beliefs about reading instruction. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 27, 917. Whitmore, K. F., & Goodman, Y. M. (1996). Whole language voices in teacher education. York, ME: Stenhouse. Winne, P., & Marx, R. (1982). Students' and teachers' views of thinking processes for classroom learning. Elementary School Journal, 82, 493518. Zeichner, K. M. (1995). Reflections of a teacher educator working for social change. In T. Russell & F. Korthagen (Eds.), Teachers who teach teachers: Reflections on teacher education (pp. 1124). Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Zutell, J., & McCormick, S. (Eds.). (1990). Literacy theory and research: Analyses from multiple paradigms: Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_742
next page >
< previous page
page_743
next page > Page 743
Chapter 39 Literacy and Technology: Deictic Consequences for Literacy Education in an Information Age Donald J. Leu, Jr. Syracuse University Change increasingly defines the nature of literacy in an information age. Literacy is rapidly and continuously changing as new technologies for information and communication repeatedly appear and new envisionments for exploiting these technologies are continuously crafted by users. Moreover, these new technologies for information and communication permit the immediate exchange of even newer technologies and envisionments for their use. This speeds up the already rapid pace of change in the forms and functions of literacy, increasing the complexity of the challenges we face as we consider how best to prepare students for their literacy futures. Today, continuous, rapid change regularly redefines the nature of literacy. This simple observation has profound implications for literacy education. Although some might deny the value of these changes for education (Oppenheimer, 1997; Roszak, 1994; Stoll, 1995) or for literacy (Birkerts, 1994; Rochlin, 1997), it is no longer possible to ignore them in a world of networked information resources. Simply visit one of many classrooms now accessible through a recent technology for information and communicationthe Internet. You might, for example, pay a visit to the K2 classrooms of Tim Lauer and Beth Rohloff at Buckman Elementary School in Portland, OR (http://buckman.pps.k12.or.us/room100/room100.html), Gary Cressman's U.S. History classroom at Enumclaw Junior High in Enumclaw, WA (http://www.learningspace.org/socialstudies/ejhs/), Maggie Hos-McGrane's fifthsixth-grade classroom at the International School of Amsterdam (http://www.xs4all.nl/~swanson/origins/intro.html), Sue Pandiani's third-grade classroom on Cape Cod (http://www.capecod.net/voyage/), the classrooms at Loogootee Elementary West in Indiana (http://www.siec.k12.in.us/west/), or one of thousands of other schools located at Web66: International School Web Site Registry (http://web66.coled.umn.edu/schools.html). Many of us will find that literacy, in these and many other classrooms, differs substantially from the literacy on which most of the research in our field is based. And, it is not just that literacy has changed; it is also that literacy continuously
< previous page
page_743
next page >
< previous page
page_744
next page > Page 744
changes in these classrooms. Return several months after your first visit and note the new forms of literacy as new technologies for information and communication, and new visions for using these technologies, are enacted by both students and teachers. Clearly, the literacy of yesterday is not the literacy of today, and it will not be the literacy of tomorrow. A Theoretical Perspective As we begin this review of research on the instructional applications of technology for literacy, recent theoretical work helps us to better understand the central relationship between literacy and technology. Our view of the relation between literacy and technology profoundly influences how we might view research on the inchoate patterns so characteristic of this area. One might, for example, take a transformative stance, observing that technology transforms the nature of literacy (Reinking, 1998). From this perspective, a review of research would seek to understand the new forms of literacy possible within new technologies. It would include studies of how multimedia, e-mail, and other technologies transform literacy and literacy learning in school classrooms and other contexts (e.g., Reinking, 1995; Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998; van Oostendorp & de Mul, 1996). Such an approach provides important insights into the many changes currently taking place in the nature of literacy and literacy learning. Alternatively, one might take a transactional stance, observing that technology and literacy transact in multiple ways, mutually influencing one another (Bruce, 1997b; Garton & Wellman, 1995; Haas, 1996). According to this view, technology transforms literacy but literacy also transforms technology as users envision new ways of using emergent technologies for literate acts. We see an example of how earlier technologies were transformed by literacy envisionments in work by Labbo, Phillips, and Murray (19951996). They found teachers transforming existing technology to meet their literacy envisionments as an IBM Writing to Read lab was transformed into a more student-directed context for literacy and learning. We can also find examples on the Internet where teachers and children transform the Internet every day and share these transformations with other teachers. Often, this takes place through Internet projects that teachers envision and post at locations such as Global SchoolNet's Internet Projects Registry (http://www.gsn.org/pr/index.cfm). Stories of these Internet envisionments are beginning to appear at locations such as EDs Spotlight on Effective Practice (www.EDsOasis.org/Spotlight/Spotlight.html) or What's Working (http://www.techlearning.com/content/working/articles/articles.html) and are beginning to be studied more formally by some (Karchmer, 1998; Leu, Karchmer, & Hinchman, 1999). From a transactional perspective, a review of research would focus as much on the new envisionments for literacy, as on the literacy transformations produced by changing technologies. One might explore the important transformations in literacy resulting from word processing, multimedia, e-mail, Internet, and other technologies. But one might also explore how and why teachers and children generate new envisionments for literacy with the use of new technologies (e.g., Bijker, Hughes, & Pinch, 1987; Bromley, 1997; Cuban, 1986; Labbo & Kuhn, 1998; Labbo et al., 19951996; Lemke, 1994, 1998; Leu et al., 1998; Leu, Karchmer, & Leu, 1999). Both of these views are useful and lead to important insights about literacy within new technologies. This chapter, however, argues that a comprehensive theory about the relationship between literacy and technology must also include a third view. It is not only that literacy has changed because of the introduction of new technologies and the envisionments for literacy that they initiate. In addition, it is essential to recognize that we have entered a period of rapid and continuous change in the forms and functions of literacy. Today, changing technologies for information and communication
< previous page
page_744
next page >
< previous page
page_745
next page > Page 745
and changing envisionments for their use rapidly and continuously redefine the nature of literacy (Leu, 1997a; Leu & Kinzer, in press; Leu, in press). Linguists and others have used the term deixis to capture the special qualities of words like today, tomorrow, and here whose meanings change quickly, depending on the time or space in which they are uttered (Fillmore, 1972; Murphy, 1986). For example, if I say ''today" at this moment in time, it means today; if I say "today" tomorrow, it means tomorrow. And, by the time you read this, the meaning of my "today" is many days in the past. In a world of rapidly changing technologies and new envisionments for their use, literacy appears to be increasingly deictic; its meaning is regularly redefined, not by time or space, but by new technologies and the continuously changing envisionments they initiate for information and communication (Leu, 1997a). It is the rapid and continuously changing nature of literacy, literacy as technological deixis, that requires our attention as we consider research in this area and the implications for literacy learning. In order to explore the essence of the transformative (Reinking et al., 1998), transactional (Bruce, 1997b), and deictic relationships between technology and literacy, I begin by briefly reviewing both the historical and the social context for the changing technologies and envisionments of literacy. This helps us to understand the unique situation in which we conduct research on the application of technology to literacy education. I then explore research on using the most recent technologies for information and communication, keeping in mind the special nature of literacy research in an era of rapid technological change and the changing envisionments for literacy that regularly occur. I conclude by exploring the consequences of viewing literacy as deixis for several areas: the nature of literacy, literacy research, literacy learning, teacher education, and public policy. In each area, the general principles at work in reshaping contemporary notions of literacy and literacy education are identified. Exploring the Historical Context Historically, the nature of literacy has always changed through different historical and cultural contexts as the technologies of information and communication have changed and as individuals have seen new possibilities within these technologies for literate acts (Boyarin, 1993; Diringer, 1968; Illera, 1997; Manguel, 1996). Thus, in a broad, historical sense, literacy has always been deictic, its meaning dependent on the technologies and envisionments within many historical, religious, political, and cultural contexts. The changing meanings for literacy have appeared as a variety of forces have influenced the development of new technologies and the literacy envisionments they prompt. In earliest societies, literacy was a way to record land, livestock, and crops, often for taxes or to record business transactions. In Mesopotamia, for example, Sumerians used cuneiform writing on clay tablets to keep these types of records (Boyarin, 1993; Diringer, 1968). In many religions, literacy has been used to enforce a common dogma. This was accomplished in medieval Europe, for example, through hand-copied religious texts and a literate priesthood established to read and interpret religious texts to others (Manguel, 1996). In post-Reformation Europe, literacy became a way to seek individual salvation, as Luther argued one need not rely solely on a priest to interpret religious texts. Instead, Luther and his Protestant followers believed individuals were responsible for their own salvation through independent reading and study of religious texts. Importantly, this changing envisionment for literacy occurred only after several new technologies, developed by Johann Gutenberg, made the Bible widely available (Mathews, 1966).
< previous page
page_745
next page >
< previous page
page_746
next page > Page 746
In a Jeffersonian democracy, literacy was viewed as central to the survival of government as informed citizens made reasoned decisions at the ballot box (Ellis, 1997; Sterne, 1993). The rise of this political form became possible, in part, because of important changes in printing and other technologies enabling greater distribution of news and information along with an important emphasis on universal public schooling and widespread literacy (Mathews, 1966; Smith, 1965). In an industrial world, literacy was seen as a means to accurately transmit production information from top to bottom in a hierarchically organized company. Memos, typewriting technologies, and large numbers of typists and stenographers became important to communicate information down the organizational structure to optimize production and sales. In the information age or post-information age (Negroponte, 1995) in which we live, literacy is essential to enable individuals, groups, and societies to access the best information in the shortest time to identify and solve the most important problems and then communicate this information to others. Accessing information, evaluating information, solving problems, and communicating solutions are essential to success in this new era (Bruce, 1997a; Mikulecky & Kirley, 1998). Clearly, literacy has always been deictic, its meaning changing in each of these contexts, and many others, as new technologies appeared and people envisioned new ways of using these technologies for information and communication. What is unique about the current period is that the technologies and envisionments for literacy repeatedly change within such short periods of time, affecting so many individuals. Our era is defined largely by repeated, rapid, and revolutionary changes in the technologies of information and communication (Harrison & Stephen, 1996; Johnson, 1997; Negroponte, 1995). Within just 20 years, we have seen the widespread appearance of, among others, word processing technologies, electronic database technologies, multimedia/hypermedia technologies, e-mail technologies, and Internet technologies. Each has helped to redefine the nature of literacy and each has seen new envisionments for its use redefine the technology itself. Moreover, the nature of literacy within each technology continuously changes as even newer technologies and newer envisionments regularly appear. Most of us, for example, have changed or upgraded word processing and e-mail software several times as new technologies regularly require us to develop new literacy skills appropriate for the communication software we use and the new possibilities we envision for its use. The same is also true for many other types of information and communication software including web-browser software, a technology that seems to change almost daily as upgraded browsers and new plug-ins appear with rapid regularity and as web pages are regularly redesigned to exploit newer technologies and envisionments for their effective use. Although literacy and literacy learning have always been intimately related to technology, never before have so many new envisionments for literacy been developed within so many new technologies that regularly change within such short periods of time. Increasingly, it appears that literacy is defined largely by change itself, its meaning dependent on rapidly changing technologies for information and communication and the envisionments for literacy they repeatedly inspire. The Social Context for Rapidly Changing Technologies and Literacies Why does rapid change characterize the technologies of information and communication and the envisionments for literacy we create in today's world? At least one answer to this question is related to the information economies and the global competition de-
< previous page
page_746
next page >
< previous page
page_747
next page > Page 747
fining the age in which we find ourselves. A number of recent analyses (Reich, 1992; Rifkin, 1995) demonstrate that we have moved from a time when land, labor, or capital defined power and influence, to one where power and influence accrue to those most effective at using information for solving important problems. Moreover, it is increasingly clear that networked, digital technologies provide rapid access to vast amounts of information, increasing the importance of effective information use (Harrison & Stephen, 1996). To succeed in an increasingly competitive global marketplace, many organizations have changed the way in which they work (Mikulecky & Kirley, 1998; Reich, 1992) as they transform themselves into "high-performance" workplaces. In most cases, this has required fundamental change in several areas. First, it requires change from a centrally planned organization to one that relies increasingly on collaborative teams at all levels in order to assume initiative for planning ways to work more efficiently. Second, problem-solving skills become critical to successful performance. As collaborative teams seek more effective ways of working, they identify problems important to their unit and seek appropriate solutions. To succeed in this task, it appears a third change is also taking place: Effective collaboration and communication skills become increasingly important. The changes from a centralized to a decentralized workplace require collaboration and communication skills so the best decisions get made at every level in an organization and so that changes at one level are clearly communicated to other levels. Finally, there is a fourth change taking place in many organizations: Effective information access and use become increasingly important to success. Individuals and organizations who can access information most rapidly and use it effectively to solve important problems become the ones who succeed in these challenging times. As a result, informational literacy within new technologies has become a crucial determinant of success in the age in which we live (Bruce, 1997a; Drucker, 1994; Mikulecky & Kirley, 1998). The continuously changing technologies of information and communication are largely driven by these global forces in the nature of work. As individuals or organizations identify problems, gather information, and seek solutions, digital bits become faster and cheaper than atoms (Negroponte, 1995), and in a highly competitive context, speed, information, and cost become paramount. Most of the technologies of literacy are driven by these three considerations. Successful information and communication technologies allow faster access to more information at a cheaper cost than alternatives. Moreover, the globally competitive context in which we find ourselves ensures that new technologies for information and communication will continually be developed, resulting in continuously changing literacies and envisionments for literacy. It is possible to view these changes strictly from an economic or political view, suggesting that new technologies and envisionments for literacy are derived solely for economic gain or political control (Selfe & Selfe, 1996; Virillo, 1986), often by those most economically advantaged with a hegemonic desire to maintain and expand political power. This would not be a new development, for, as many have observed, literacy typically serves those in power, not those out of power (Graff, 1981; Harris, 1989; Levi-Strauss, 1973; Shannon, 1996). At the same time, however, Giroux and Freire (1987) noted the emancipatory effects of acquiring literacy and the humanizing developments that result. Moreover, Stotsky (1996) demonstrated the important ways in which individuals exploit political structures, achieving personal ends that often run counter to prevailing political power structures through participatory writing. It is also but a short step to consider the historical example of samizdat in Russia, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe within the context of new electronic networks, such as the Internet, and expect these new electronic forms of literacy to provide potentially powerful opportunities for developing alternative views to prevailing political or economic forces.
< previous page
page_747
next page >
< previous page
page_748
next page > Page 748
Thus, it is possible to view these rapid and continuous changes in literacy as the result of the competition between nations for creating economically and politically powerful societies. Alternatively, one could view these changes as new potentials within which to create more "just" societies. In truth, it is probably a bit of both, because historical realities clearly demonstrate the former cannot long survive without the latter and the latter will not long exist without the former. In either case, however, information economies, global competition, and the changing nature of work are, perhaps, the most powerful forces driving the changing nature of literacy in school classrooms. They prompt very real consequences for literacy education as we seek to prepare our students for the futures they deserve. These consequences are increasingly clear to governments as they consider how best to prepare students for the changing demands of new electronic literacies in a globally competitive world. Policy decisions and discussions in many countries seek to ensure that students leaving school are able to use new electronic literacies in order to identify central problems, find appropriate information quickly, and then use this information to solve problems and effectively communicate the solutions to others. Consider just three examples: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Finland. In the United States, with a long history of local control over education and little federal influence, we now find federal agencies as diverse as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the Commerce Department, and the Justice Department initiating policy discussions and implementing decisions related to the new literacy needs of students and schools. The FCC, for example, has a major section of its web page devoted to educational policy initiatives, LearnNet (http://www.fcc.gov/learnnet/). Here you discover a federal program providing up to $2.25 billion annually in financial support to schools and libraries for Internet access, based on indicators of financial need. This revolutionary program (known formally as the Universal Service Support Mechanism for Schools and Libraries and informally as the "e-rate program") was established by Congress under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and is administered by the Schools and Libraries Division of the Universal Service Administrative Company (http://www.sl.universalservice.org/), a not-for-profit organization established by the FCC for this purpose. Although telecommunications companies seek to reduce the revenue stream for this programfinanced largely from a surcharge to their customersit appears that popular support for this program is strong and will continue. Public policy initiatives are also underway in Great Britain to prepare their children for a future in a world where effective use of information technology (IT) is the new touchstone for success. The Labour government, elected in 1990, is moving aggressively in this area. It has already implemented policies to provide free connections to the Internet and subsidized phone rates to all schools. Moreover, it has stated publicly the goals of connecting every school to the Internet by the year 2002, free of charge, and ensuring 500,000 teachers are trained in IT by that time. In addition, the government has established a "National Grid for Learning" (http://www.ngfl.gov.uk/ngfl/) to help identify and organize electronic information resources for use in the schools. Public policy initiatives to prepare students for their literacy futures are also underway in Finland. In 1996, the Ministry of Education launched a 3-year program to teach students effective use of information technology in schools. This program includes developing new teaching methods for the use of IT, connecting all schools to the Internet before the year 2000, providing new computers to schools, and providing teachers with a 5-week course of study in the effective instructional use of new information technologies (R. Svedlin, personal communication, January 8, 1998). These policy initiatives are being carried out by the National Board of Education (http://www.edu.fi/english/). Information economies, global competition, changes in workplace settings, and new national policy initiatives make solid research, especially in educational settings, criti-
< previous page
page_748
next page >
< previous page
page_749
next page > Page 749
cally important as we seek insights into preparing children for their literacy futures. We require useful data in order to prepare students for new technologies and new envisionments as we explore the boundaries of an information society, increasingly dependent on networked, digital technologies for information and communication. Using New Technologies for Literacy and Learning: The Research Base Recent reviews (e.g., Ayersman, 1996; Chen & Rada, 1996; Cochran-Smith, 1991; Mayer, 1997; Reinking, 1995; Reinking, Labbo, & McKenna, 1997; Scott, Cole, & Engel, 1992; U.S. Congress, 1995) and edited volumes (e.g., Flood, Heath, & Lapp, 1997; Reinking et al., 1998; Rouet, Levonen, Dillon, & Spiro, 1996; van Oostendorp & de Mul, 1996) provide a number of observations about the use of technologies to support literacy and learning. An important challenge arises, however, as one seeks to incorporate their conclusions into the use of even newer technologies for information and communication available today and the literacy envisionments they inspire. The challenge is closely related to the increasingly deictic nature of literacy within rapidly changing technologies of information and communication: As newer technologies of information and communication continually appear, they raise concerns about the generalizability of findings from earlier technologies. Mayer (1997) reminded us that it is important to be cautious about generalizing findings from traditional texts to different forms of hypermedia because each technology contains different contexts and resources for constructing meanings and requires somewhat different strategies for doing so. It is equally important to recognize that we must also be cautious about generalizing patterns from older digital technologies to newer digital technologies. Thus, we should be cautious about generalizing from word processing technologies to e-mail technologies, and from hypermedia within CD-ROM or videodisc technologies to hypermedia within various Internet technologies. In addition, we should also be cautious about generalizing from one iteration within a particular technology to a newer iteration where the interface, speed, and resources may differ substantially. To what extent does research from older e-mail software generalize to newer, more powerful e-mail software? The answer to this question is not clear. What is clear is that the two contexts will be substantially different, requiring new strategies to effectively exploit new resources, permitting different opportunities for communication. To further problematize the issue of generalizability, one must keep in mind that individuals often create different envisionments for literacy within each technology. I may envision the use of current e-mail technologies for helping students acquire information from knowledgeable, unfamiliar others. You may envision the use of current e-mail technologies to help students share literary responses with friends and colleagues. To what extent does research from my envisionment for using e-mail generalize to your envisionment when the pragmatic aspects of these communication tasks differ so substantially? Clearly the challenges are enormous as we consider the utility of literacy research from one technology to another, from one iteration of a technology to another, and from one envisionment of literacy to another. Issues of ecological validity caused by rapidly changing technologies for information and communication and the increasingly deictic nature of literacy are critically important as we explore the literacy potentials of digital environments. Although the focus of this review is on the use of newer technologies, including hypermedia/multimedia and Internet technologies, one must be extraordinarily cautious about generalizing from work in one specific context in which digital technologies are used to any other context that might appear in the future. The differences, to
< previous page
page_749
next page >
< previous page
page_750
next page > Page 750
draw on historical examples, may be as different as reading a cuneiform tablet in order to determine taxes versus viewing a television news program in order to make a reasoned decision at the ballot box. It is just that historical time has become compressed in an age when the technologies of literacy change so rapidly. Unfortunately, in addition to questions of ecological validity, there is a second general problem that one must recognize when reviewing work in this area: Only a small number of investigations have been published in traditional forums for reading and writing research. Kamil and Lane (1998) reported that during the period 19901995, only 12 out of 437 research articles appearing in the four major journals of reading and writing research studied technology issues of literacy. Although a number of investigations of new technologies for literacy and learning have appeared outside of the traditional literacy journals (Kamil, 1997), these are less likely to evaluate questions directly related to issues of literacy in classroom learning contexts. Often, this work evaluates adult performance, takes epistemological approaches less familiar to many in the literacy research community, focuses more on learning outcomes rather than literacy outcomes, or evaluates learning outside of classroom contexts. Previous reviews have tended to evaluate work from one of two research communities: the literacy research community (e.g., Cochran-Smith, 1991; Reinking, 1995; Reinking et al., 1997) or the information technology (IT) community (e.g., Ayersman, 1996; Chen & Rada, 1996; Mayer, 1997; U.S. Congress, 1995). This review attempts to integrate these two bodies of research, an approach we must increasingly attempt if we hope to maximize our understanding of literacy and learning within new technologies. It focuses on recent technologies and especially on the challenges we face in conducting and interpreting work in this area for classroom use. Although we face extraordinary challenges in interpreting the results of research on literacy within continually changing technologies, it is important to identify extant patterns at the same time that we are extremely cautious about their significance for new technologies, new iterations, and new envisionments that will regularly redefine the nature of literacy. Interest and Other Motivational Factors One of the more common patterns in research, within the greater interactivity and wider bandwidth media possible with newer technologies, is a generally high level of engagement, interest, or attitude (U.S. Congress, 1995) among both teachers and students when newer technologies are used. This appears to be the case among both preservice and inservice teachers who received instruction in the use of hypermedia for teaching and learning (Reed, Ayersman, & Liu, 1995a, 1995b). Teachers seemed to be most attracted by the learner-controlled nature of hypermedia learning environments and the potential of this feature for educational settings. This may suggest that hypermedia learning contexts will meet with less resistance in the classroom than previous technologies because they appear to be more consistent with concerns that teachers have for instructional relevance. On the other hand, this finding may be due to these teachers' beliefs about learning. This feature is more consistent with constructivist, student-directed beliefs about learning, and this study did not evaluate participating teachers' beliefs. Newer technologies, permitting greater control by both teachers and students as they navigate rich information resources and construct meanings appropriate to their teaching and learning needs, may permit us to overcome a fundamental paradox clear to many who have studied the use of previous technologies in classrooms: Although these technologies became more widely available, they were not always appropriated by teachers and systematically integrated into the curriculum (Anderson, 1993; Becker, 1993; Miller & Olson, 1994; Papert, 1993; Reinking & Bridwell-Bowles; 1991; U.S. Congress, 1995). Although not all teachers take a more student-centered,
< previous page
page_750
next page >
< previous page
page_751
next page > Page 751
constructivist stance, more open information and communication environments such as the Internet permit both teacher-directed and student-directed learning activities, thus inviting teachers from a wider spectrum of beliefs into this new learning context (Leu & Kinzer, 1998). The same is not true for earlier skill-oriented software, which is only consistent with more teacherdirected beliefs. Limited evidence also suggests that hypermedia's defining characteristic, the ability to respond to the needs of an individual learner for information, results in an increased sense of control over the learning environment and higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Becker & Dwyer, 1994). These aspects have related patterns in the research on locus of control within traditional reading contexts, where internal locus of control is associated with higher reading achievement in reading comprehension (Hiebert, Winograd, & Danner, 1984; Wagner, Sprat, Gal, & Paris, 1989). Thus, it may suggest the interactive features of hypermedia and the users' ability to control the direction they take within these rich information contexts may explain some of the learning gains in comprehension as users develop more intrinsic motivation and a greater sense of control over their own comprehension. Some work, albeit with earlier technologies, has begun to explore the nature of locus of control within electronic learning environments (Gray, 1989; Gray, Barber, & Shasha, 1991). Gray et al. found internal locus of control subjects performed better at information retrieval and retention than external locus of control subjects in an early hypertext system. It would seem logical to expect much more work in this area, especially in relation to newer hypermedia technologies, such as the Internet, exploring their potential to change locus of control from external to internal attributions. Because locus of control has been a useful construct and since the Internet is user driven, one would expect Internet use might enhance locus of control and this might lead to greater comprehension over time. Although the evidence in this area is merely suggestive, the potential for this explanatory mechanism seems especially important to explore with additional work. Locus of control and the potential of hypermedia to increase intrinsic motivation may also be important to explore in authoring studies using hypermedia authoring tools or newer forms of communication software. Finkelman and McMunn (1995), for example, found that sixth-grade language arts students reported an especially satisfying aspect of using hypermedia authoring tools was the greater control over the nature of their presentations. A similar pattern appears in the extensive data presented by Tierney and his colleagues (Tierney et al., 1997). In classroom studies such as these, however, it is difficult to separate out effects due to the technology from the instructional strategies used with the technology. As Brush (1996) discovered, students who used hypermedia from an Integrated Learning System, while working within collaborative learning groups, reported significantly more positive attitudes about both math and computer math lessons than did students who worked alone using the same computer software. This suggests that the positive effects on attitude demonstrated in the authoring studies by Finkelman and McMunn (1995) and Tierney and his colleagues (Tierney et al., 1997) may be an artifact of the instructional condition more than the consequence of the hypermedia authoring opportunities. Each contained elements of collaborative instructional strategies. In addition to the potential confounding of instructional condition, work on interest and other motivational aspects within recent technologies suffers from a tendency to use limited measures of interest, sometimes with only a few items presented in a simple Likert scale. Moreover, these data are often collected either before or after interactions with hypermedia software, never during the actual use of the software environment: data that would be especially important for evaluating the effects of multiple media forms and various design features typical of hypermedia and Internet technologies.
< previous page
page_751
next page >
< previous page
page_752
next page > Page 752
Finally, this work does not appear to evaluate distinctions between what Hidi (1990) referred to as situational interest and individual interest. Situational interest is transitory and specific to a learning situation. Often it is measured after a learning experience. Individual interest is a result of long-term experiences with a topic or a domain and is much more permanent. Often it is measured before a learning experience. This distinction may be important to explore within the new technologies of literacy because Garner and Gillingham (1992) observed that individual interest may actually impede learning. This may be especially true when students have extensive experiences with electronic games (Schick & Miller, 1992). Students who enter into hypermedia learning environments expecting to encounter a game may be less interested in exploring this context to acquire important knowledge and thus less likely to learn important information. As important as it is to evaluate the consequences of new digital literacies for interest and other motivational factors, clearly this work is in its early stages (Leu & Reinking, 1996). Richer theoretical constructs, more complex and sophisticated measures, more online assessment of motivational aspects, and more systematic attempts to distinguish between situational and individual interest will help us to develop richer, more comprehensive insights into the changing technologies for information and communication. Evaluating Individual Differences and Cognitive Learning Styles There are both intuitive and theoretical reasons for expecting newer technologies for information and communication to be especially sensitive to individual differences. Intuitively, one would expect individual differences to be accommodated better within the newer technologies for information and communication. Hypermedia, Internet, and other recent technologies combine multiple media forms within a dynamic and interactive information structure under the control of the user. One would expect these contexts to allow individuals to explore information resources most consistent with individual learning needs or styles, each using the particular information or media forms they require to optimize understanding. Recent work is consistent with this intuitive expectation, showing how students may travel different routes through a rich, digital information structure, using different media resources, allowing each to perform at similarly high levels (Hillinger & Leu, 1994; Horney & Anderson-Inman, 1994; Liu & Reed, 1994; Toro, 1995). Hillinger and Leu (1994), for example, found a hypermedia program led to similar high performance among both high and low prior knowledge adults on a variety of comprehension and performance tasks related to the repair and maintenance of a turboprop engine. Low prior knowledge participants achieved the same high level of learning with the hypermedia program as did high prior knowledge participants, suggesting that hypermedia may have the potential for overcoming limitations in prior knowledge for comprehension and learning, at least among adults. Theoretically, several perspectives have been used to direct work on individual learning style differences in the use of hypertext and hypermedia: locus of control (discussed earlier), the dual coding theory of Paivio (1979, 1986), and theoretical perspectives related to field independent and field dependent learners. Studies have explored each of these theoretical perspectives. Multimodal learning theories, such as the dual coding theory of Paivio, typically suggest that information presented within multiple modalities maximizes learning for a wider variety of students, some of whom optimize information presented within a verbal context and others who optimize information presented within an imaginal (visual) context. Some results appear to be consistent with this theoretical orientation. Daiute
< previous page
page_752
next page >
< previous page
page_753
next page > Page 753
and Morse (1994) reviewed much of the multiple modality research, concluding that appropriately combined images and sound may enhance both the comprehension and the production of text. Reinking and Chanlin (1994), however, reviewed many of the more problematic aspects of research exploring multimedia capabilities of electronic texts, especially early work in this area. Although the potential continues to remain promisingespecially with the greater variety and wider bandwidth media available in newer technologieswe are still waiting for more thoughtfully designed studies to systematically explore the utility of multimodal learning theories in this area. A few studies have explored field independence and field dependence within hypermedia technologies. Field-independent learners tend to be skilled at identifying useful information quickly from a complex context, whereas field-dependent learners perform less efficiently. Given the increasingly complex visual displays appearing within Internet and other newer technologies (Caroff, Fringer, & Kletzien, 1997; Tufte, 1997), one would expect field independence and field dependence theories to be useful to explore individual differences. Marrison and Frick (1994) evaluated this distinction among undergraduate economics students. Field-independent students found a hypermedia learning context easier to use and more exciting than field-dependent students. Leader and Klein (1994) reported a study in which field-independent students achieved at a level significantly higher than field-dependent students with certain search tools in a hypermedia program. Weller, Repman, and Rooze (1994) and Weller, Repman, Lan, and Rooze (1995) reported two studies in which field-independent, eighth-grade students learned computer ethics better than field-dependent students in a hypermedia program. A number of feminist scholars (Belenky, Clinchy, Goldberger, & Tarule, 1986; Gilligan, 1982) proposed that gender often determines learning style. As a result, an increasingly important area of exploration concerns gender differences in the use of newer technologies for information and communication (Grint & Gill, 1995; Lay, 1996; Selfe, 1990; Turkle & Papert, 1990). Work on the computer culture in general, and especially with older technologies among college students, suggested it was a greater challenge for women to become engaged with information and communication technologies than for men. A number of reasons were found for this pattern: a sense of isolation within the technology (Durndell, 1990), a lack of confidence in math skills Clarke (1990), and a dislike of competition and aggression (Clarke, 1990). Some suggest, however, that collaboration, conferencing, and networking experiencesall central characteristics of newer networked technologies such as the Internetmay be especially inviting to women and young girls (Eldred & Hawisher, 1995; Lay, 1996). This work only hints at possible opportunities to limit gender bias within the newer technologies. If we hope to provide optimal learning experiences for all children, exploring questions related to this issue will be an important challenge as networked communication technologies enter the classroom. Generally, the work on individual differences and learning styles within the newer technologies for information and communication has not yet produced a consistent body of results clearly demonstrating the primacy of a particular theoretical perspective or the clear-cut efficacy of hypermedia and newer technologies for accommodating varied individual differences or learning styles. In a meta-analysis of hypertext studies from 1988 to 1993, Chen and Rada (1996) found a generally small overall effect size for several cognitive styles on measures of either effectiveness or efficiency. Individual differences in spatial ability, though, consistently produced a large effect size on efficiency measures. It should be noted, however, that the studies in this review contained far fewer multimedia resources than are currently available in the newest technologies for information and communication. Thus, it is possible newer technologies, with more media resources, more sophisticated interface designs, and more opportunities for networking, may produce more substantial effects.
< previous page
page_753
next page >
< previous page
page_754
next page > Page 754
As this work moves forward, we need to pay attention to several methodological issues. First, much of the current work on individual differences only explores issues with adult participants. Research needs to include children in classroom contexts to better understand the variety of individual differences in relation to the newer technologies. This is especially important because these technologies provide greater opportunity for individual control and direction of information resources. Second, work on individual difference within the technologies of literacy often fails to ensure all students are equally familiar and skilled in navigating these environments. Thus, differences may be due to a potential confounding with navigational knowledge. In future studies, great care needs to be taken to ensure that participants possess sufficient metacognitive knowledge about navigational strategies to exploit insightfully the additional media resources and more complex interfaces. Although many studies of hypertext and hypermedia tend to assume strategic knowledge among participants about how best to navigate within a particular interface, this problem is especially important for studies that evaluate individual differences. Schroeder (1994), for example, found that students using a hypertext information environment performed at initially lower levels of achievement until they became more familiar and comfortable with the user interface. The failure to adequately demonstrate that participants can navigate effectively may be an explanation for studies that find little or no difference between learning-style groups in this literature. Literacy and Learning Tasks Not all tasks within the new technologies of information and communication are alike (Jonassen, 1993). Some require one to simply find a specific piece of information. Others are far more complex, requiring participants to gather and organize multiple information resources, evaluating their appropriateness as they work toward a vaguely defined goal that may change along the way. Within the information technology community, tasks have been analyzed in many ways, but they often cluster around polar constructs such as closed and open tasks (Chen & Rada, 1996; Marchionini, 1989), or search and browsing tasks (Carmel, Crawford, & Chen, 1992; Rada & Murphy, 1992). Closed or search tasks tend to focus on specific goals, often specific, factual information, within complex information environments. An example would be searching for the answer to a given question such as, "When is the scheduled departure for the next Space Shuttle?" Open or browsing tasks tend to have open goals, often requiring users to find, evaluate, and integrate information from several sources. An example would be to compare how several authors of children literature approach their work and write a book. In a review of earlier technologies, Chen and Rada (1996) found hypertext yielded significantly greater effect sizes for open tasks than closed tasks on measures of effectiveness. This suggests that the more complex and rich information resources characteristic of hypertext systems may be especially suited for effective completion of cognitively complex tasks. Hillinger and Leu (1994), however, reported a somewhat different pattern of results within hypermedia when individual differences in prior knowledge were evaluated. The hypermedia program developed for the study explained how a turboprop engine generated propulsion and showed how to take apart and put together the main components of this engine. The hypermedia program contained video, text, animation, digitized speech, and tools allowing the user to take apart the engine on the screen. Although all participants performed better on closed tasks than open tasks, this was largely due to low prior knowledge participants who performed significantly better on closed tasks than they did on open tasks. High prior knowledge participants performed at comparable levels for both closed and open tasks. These differences suggest
< previous page
page_754
next page >
< previous page
page_755
next page > Page 755
prior knowledge may interact with the nature of a comprehension task. It may also suggest that hypermedia technologies yield a different pattern of results from hypertext. In either case, it argues for additional work within the newer information technologies, exploring both individual differences and the effects of different types of tasks on learning outcomes. Specific Applications of Newer Technologies for Literacy and Learning Research in each of the preceding sections indirectly informs research on the use of new technologies in classrooms for literacy and learning. It is helpful as we seek to inform policymakers, teacher educators, and others about the optimal use of new technologies for teaching and learning. In addition, however, a number of other studies have looked at more specific applications of newer technologies for classroom literacy and learning. One area drawing recent attention has been the use of talking books among younger readers. Talking books are hypermedia texts with digitized pronunciations of words and larger textual units. Sometimes they also include animated illustrations and other features. Although talking storybooks are designed to improve comprehension and reduce the decoding difficulties experienced by beginning readers, most of this work has taken place among students 8 years of age or older, often with students experiencing difficulties learning to read (e.g., Farmer, Klein, & Bryson, 1992; Greenlee-Moore & Smith, 1996; Lundberg & Olofsson, 1993; Miller, Blackstock, & Miller, 1994; Olofsson, 1992; Olson, Foltz, & Wise, 1986; Scoresby, 1996; Wise & Olson, 1994; Wise et al, 1989). Less work has taken place to explore the potential of talking books for those at the very beginning stages of reading instruction, although some work has been done with this population (Hastings, 1997; Lewin, 1997; McKenna, 1998; Reitsma, 1988). Although much more work remains to more fully understand the supportive opportunities for multimedia software among younger readers, the results have been sufficiently promising to encourage additional work. Generally, this works shows that comprehension increases when children can access digitized speech support. There is some indication (Miller et al., 1994; Reitsma, 1988; Olson et al., 1986; Olson & Wise, 1992; Wise & Olson, 1994) that decoding ability may also increase, although the exact manner in which these two patterns are related within talking book software for different populations remains an open question. Future work needs to explore the relationship between these two patterns for different populations, as well as explore optimal interface designs and strategies to connect reading and writing within these contexts. The latter is especially important given recent work by Labbo (1996) showing the importance of early writing experiences within multimedia software. Other work within hypermedia software has focused more on comprehension and learning using ''responsive text" (Hillinger, 1992; Hillinger & Leu, 1994; Leu & Hillinger, 1994) and "supportive text" (Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998; AndersonInman, Horney, Chen, & Lewin, 1994). Generally, this work shows a positive effect on learning, although much more research on optimizing the interface of supportive structures appears to be necessary. Not all supposedly supportive aids always lead to increases in learning or comprehension. Scoresby (1996), for example, found that interactive animation within the pictures of a story actually impedes comprehension. The work by the literacy community on early reading, comprehension, or learning tends to suffer from an emphasis on comprehension or learning as an outcome measure. In a world where time is increasingly important and where busy classrooms and limited computer time are all too common, we also need to evaluate the amount of time it takes to achieve important outcome measures. Here, the literacy community might learn from the information technology (IT) community. Time is almost always in-
< previous page
page_755
next page >
< previous page
page_756
next page > Page 756
cluded as a dependent measure in work from the IT community; it is seldom included in work from the literacy community. In a recent study using a virtual world to help students learn a challenging scientific concept, for example, Hillinger and Leu (1997) found this hypermedia context achieved the same level of learning as a classroom approach using "hands-on" experiments but required one-third less time. We should begin to think about efficiency with these new technologies as much as we think about achievement levels. Another area of recent research is on the use of networked information environments such as Integrated Learning Systems (ILS) and the Internet. With a longer history of classroom use, ILS research is much more extensive than the use of the Internet in classrooms. ILS research does not provide conclusive evidence for its positive outcomes, despite studies showing positive satisfaction by students, teachers, and administrators (Sherry, 1990; Trotter, 1990). A meta-analysis of almost 100 ILS studies showed many methodological flaws and little conclusive evidence of ILS impact on achievement (Becker, 1992). The Internet has attracted much recent attention and a number of books and articles describing its use in classroom contexts (Garner & Gillingham, 1996, Leu & Leu, 1998; Peha, 1995). To date, however, we have little empirical evidence evaluating its effectiveness supporting literacy and learning in classrooms. The largest, most systematic work is a study, jointly funded by Scholastic Network, the Council of Great City Schools, and the Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST). Participants included 500 students in Grades 4 and 6 in seven urban school districts around the United States (CAST, 1996; Follansbee, Hughes, Pisha, & Stahl, 1997). Each classroom completed an integrated learning unit on civil rights using a common curricular framework and common activities. Each class was encouraged to use traditional library resources as well as technology resources, including computers and multimedia software. The experimental classes also used the Internet for online resources, activities, and communication. Each student completed a project as a result of their participation in the unit. Evaluation of the final project showed greater achievement on a number of measures for classrooms using Internet resources. This study provides important support for suggestions about the potential of Internet resources for classroom learning, but it is also clear that we require a larger, consistent body of work in this area before conclusive claims may be made. In addition, we require important new work evaluating how teachers optimize learning within the Internet, how new envisionments for literacy are initiated by this resource in the classroom, how the Internet may restructure traditional studentteacher relationships, and a host of issues related to the use of Internet technologies in classroom settings. It is likely that this will be the most important area of research in the near future as this powerful resource enters classrooms around the world. A central issue in the classroom use of Internet and other new technologies for literacy and learning is their integration into the classroom. The data on classroom integration with earlier technologies is instructive, revealing the important challenge we face. U.S. schools had 5.8 million computers in use for instruction during the spring of 1995, approximately 1 for every 9 students or 23 per classroom (U.S. Congress, 1995). Despite this, however, teachers reported minimal use of computers for instructional purposes. Reports from secondary schools indicated only 9% of students used computers for English class, 6% to 7% for math class, and only 3% for social studies class (U.S. Congress, 1995). In elementary schools, computers were seldom integrated into central areas of the curriculum; often they were used after assigned work had been completed, for games and game-like experiences (Becker, 1993; U.S. Congress, 1995). As technological change occurs more and more rapidly, redefining potentials for literacy and learning, how do we ensure that teachers fully exploit these potentials during classroom instruction? Part of the challenge will require far more teacher education
< previous page
page_756
next page >
< previous page
page_757
next page > Page 757
and staff development to continually support teachers as new technologies regularly appear and as resources become available for its purchase. Current levels of support appear inadequate if we expect the continuous progression of new technologies to become integrated into central locations of the curriculum (U.S. Congress, 1995). U.S. schools only spend about 20% of the amount recommended by the U.S. Department of Education for staff development with technology (CEO Forum, 1999). There is also increasing evidence that any new technology is not value free; its integration or resistance will be determined largely by the values and practices of the teacher and the organization into which it is placed (Becker, 1993; Cuban, 1986; Hodas, 1993; Miller & Olson, 1994). Thus, rapid revolutionary change is unlikely as new technologies enter school classrooms. Instead, it is more likely teachers will adopt those technologies that already fit existing practices or can be adapted easily. Some of the newer technologies for literacy and learning may make it more likely for teachers to integrate these into classroom instruction. The greater resources, interaction, and connectivity of the Internet, for example, make possible teaching and learning practices from a wider range of beliefs, accommodating teachers who take a specific skill perspective to literacy issues, those who take more of a holistic language perspective, and those who fall somewhere in between (Leu & Kinzer, 1998). Clearly, however, much support will continually be required for teachers as technologies for information and communication continue to change (Schrum, 1995). An important new solution to the challenge of classroom integration of new technologies, at least at the university level, may be literacy education that takes place within the technologies themselves. This is the approach taken recently in work completed at Vanderbilt University by Risko, Kinzer, and their colleagues (Kinzer & Risko, 1998; Risko, 1995; Risko, Peter, & McAllister, 1996; Risko, Yount, & McAllister, 1992) using multimedia, cased-based instruction. This approach, perhaps regularly extended to new technologies as they appear, may naturally enable new envisionments for their use and provide an important solution to the challenge of classroom integration. Even if adequate support appears and teachers are prepared for using new technologies in their classrooms, important equity issues, unless they are resolved, will impede our ability to prepare all children for their literacy futures. Although simple data on the number of computers raise concerns about equity between urban and suburban, rich and poor, small schools and large schools, the issue is much more complicated than these simple contrasts might suggest (Sutton, 1991; U.S. Congress, 1995). Increasingly, important equity issues revolve around the age of technology, how it is used, where it is located, and who uses it (Sayers, 1995; Sutton, 1991; U.S. Congress, 1995). Bold, new initiatives such as the recent Universal Service Support Mechanism for Schools and Libraries will need to be continually developed to ensure equity of access for all children as new technologies regularly appear, creating new and potentially harmful disparities in equity of access to future technologies and future literacies. Just as important will be local and even classroom solutions to access to technologies. Given the complexity of equity issues, individual decisions by districts, schools, and teachers may be just as important as state and national policy initiatives. Although many political obstacles may currently exist to Internet equity, this goal is important for all of us. As we provide access to the Internet for all children, we increase the potential of their contribution to our global community. Providing access to the Internet increases opportunities for each one of us as new discoveries are made and new advancements take place to improve the quality of everyone's life. Although perfect solutions to equity issues are seldom possible, nations, states, cities, and school districts must make every effort to help each child realize their literacy futures possible in a world with new and powerful sources of information and communication.
< previous page
page_757
next page >
< previous page
page_758
next page > Page 758
Lessons from the Research Literature Standing back for a moment and looking at the broad sweep of research, one notices several important lessons. Most obvious, perhaps, is the need to think systematically about work taking place from many different areas, with many different traditions. The clearest example of this problem is the work taking place within the IT and literacy communities. These studies almost never draw on the work taking place within the other community. We need to begin to explore one another's work, drawing important insights from the special perspective each brings to questions of literacy and learning within rapidly evolving technologies of information and communication. Most of the IT research, for example, explores the most recent technologies but often with adult users. Most of the research from the literacy community explores older technologies but often in wonderfully rich classroom contexts with children. At the very least, the IT community can provide useful insights into the latest technologies, whereas the literacy community can provide useful insights into the use of these technologies within classrooms. Collaborative work might find even more useful synergies. Another lesson to draw from this review is this: We have often focused more on the technology itself rather than how any technology is used in the classroom. Brush (1996), for example, reminded us that important differences in outcomes arise for any technology, depending on how it is used in the classroom. This is one of the few studies to vary instructional condition within the use of hypermedia, demonstrating clear differences due to instructional condition. More work such as this needs to be attempted in an effort to discover the instructional conditions that maximally exploit the learning potentials within various forms of digital literacies. As Owston (1997) pointed out, the potential of new technologies for learning, such as the World Wide Web, is likely to be found in the way in which these new technologies are exploited, not in the technologies themselves. To guide us in this work, we also require new theoretical perspectives and new research strategies to explore the continually changing technologies of literacy and learning. Some new theoretical work is beginning to appear, such as the work on anchored instruction and situated learning (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990) and work on cognitive flexibility theory (Spiro & Jeng, 1990). We need additional theoretical perspectives for literacy developed within new digital technologies as these are used in classroom contexts to support literacy and learning. New research strategies are also beginning to appear. One of the promising approaches is work using a formative experimental model initially proposed by Newman (1990) and currently being explored by Reinking and colleagues (Reinking & Pickle, 1993; Reinking & Watkins, 1997). Additionally, case studies are increasingly being used to explore the unique situational contexts of new technologies within individual classrooms (Garner & Gillingham, 1996). It is important that additional research models also emerge out of the new contexts and new envisionments possible within new technologies. Another lesson also exists in these studies: Often outcomes from traditional teaching and learning contexts are evaluated, rather than evaluating new outcomes that are becoming increasingly important in a global information environment where problem solving, information evaluation, speed, and communication are essential to success. Earlier I suggested that we begin to consider the speed it takes to acquire information as an important measure of success within various technologies. We also need to begin to explore how effective various technologies are for supporting collaboration, problem solving, information evaluation, and communication. All will be increasingly important literacy tasks in the years ahead. Although some work is taking place on electronic communication within networked environments, bringing new insights and new definitions to literacy (Eldred
< previous page
page_758
next page >
< previous page
page_759
next page > Page 759
& Hawisher, 1995; Tao, Montgomery, & Pickle, 1997), much more needs to take place, especially with children and in classroom contexts. It is likely that work on pragmatic aspects of effective communication within e-mail and new video conferencing technologies will be especially important in preparing children for the communication requirements in their futures. There is another important point to keep in mind as we explore research in these contexts. Roszak (1994) argued that we need to understand the important distinction between information and knowledge. Most of the research in this area has explored new ways of presenting and acquiring information. Little has explored new ways of acquiring knowledge, or using the information one acquires in productive ways. Much more attention should be paid to this distinction. Future work needs to include evaluations of how to optimize the underlying nature of knowledge, not merely how to optimize the acquisition of information. Finally, we need to understand better how new envisionments for literacy develop and are disseminated as new technologies for information and communication continually appear. It is clear that new envisionments appear with each new technology (Bruce, 1997b; Lemke, 1998), and it is clear that young children build these envisionments as they are engaged with digital literacy tasks with new technologies (Labbo, 1996; Labbo & Kuhn, 1998). Many new envisionments take place every day on the Internet as teachers construct new collaborative projects for classrooms and invite others to join (Garner & Gillingham, 1996; Leu & Leu, 1998). We know little about how this process develops and about the literacy and learning that develop from these encounters. This information will be essential to assist new teachers entering these powerful contexts for collaboration, communication, and learning. Literacy as Deixis: Redefining Literacy, Literacy Research, Classroom Learning, Teacher Education, and Public Policy Reviews of various technologies and their application to instruction serve to capture the state of our knowledge at a particular moment in time. They fail, however, to capture the larger view of changing technologies, changing literacies, and changing envisionments. As a result, they quickly lose their power to inform either instruction or research. In this chapter, I have argued that literacy is rapidly changing because information and communication technologies change quickly, as do the literacy envisionments that they inspire. Moreover, new technologies for information and communication, themselves, increasingly permit the immediate exchange of new technologies and envisionments for literacy. This speeds up the already rapid pace of change in the forms and functions of literacy as society regularly discovers new ways to exploit these technological means to accomplish new social ends. Changing technologies and concomitantly changing literacies and envisionments for literacy regularly redefine our instructional worlds. Fifteen years ago, students did not need to know word processing technologies. Ten years ago, students did not need to know how to navigate through the rich information environments possible in multimedia, CD-ROM technologies. Five years ago, students did not need to know how to search for information on the Internet, set a bookmark, use a web browser, create an HTML document, participate in a mailing list, engage in a collaborative Internet project with another classroom, or communicate via e-mail. Today, however, each of these technologies and each of these envisionments is appearing within classrooms forcing teachers, students, and researchers to continually adapt to new definitions of literacy.
< previous page
page_759
next page >
< previous page
page_760
next page > Page 760
As we consider the lessons we might draw from this observation, we must step back to consider the broader issues that come into focus when one views literacy as technological deixis. To simply review the research on the instructional applications of technology in our field would only serve to look back at what was. Its would provide only limited guidance about what might be in our literacy futures. Given the increasingly deictic nature of literacy, it would not be too extreme to draw an important conclusion: For the first time in our history, we are unable to accurately anticipate the literacy requirements expected at the time of graduation for children who will enter school this year. If, only 5 years ago, we were unable to anticipate the important role Internet technologies would play in our literacy lives today, how can we anticipate the nature of literacy in 13 years for children who are in kindergarten classrooms today? This observation has important consequences for thinking about the instructional applications of technology, because most of our research, instruction, and policies still assumes the literacy of tomorrow will be the same as the literacy of today. How do we plan for changes in technology and literacy that we cannot yet imagine? Although we cannot accurately define the nature of literacy in the future, we must begin to define the general principles at work in several areas, continuously reshaping contemporary notions of what it means to become literate. The Nature of Literacy First, let us consider the general nature of literacy in this new context. It is likely that reading and writing ability will become even more important in the future than they are today. This is due to the increasing need for acquiring and communicating information rapidly in a world of global competition and information economies. In this context, success will often be defined by one's ability to quickly locate useful information to solve important problems and then communicate the solution to others. Proficient readers can acquire many types of information more rapidly by reading than they can by listening to speech or viewing a video. In an age when speed of information access is central to success, reading proficiency will be even more critical to our children's futures. Writing will also become more important in our literacy futures. We can acquire information faster by reading a written text than by listening. In addition, the greater planning time possible with written communication enables skilled authors to make meaning more explicit and precise; greater planning time also allows skilled authors to make meaning more deliberately ambiguous when that purpose might suit their needs. Finally, written messages may be stored in a manner that permits faster retrieval when they are needed. Pragmatically, audiences will increasing find value in written texts over oral texts when time is essential to communicate information precisely. For all of these reasons, reading and writing will become even more important in an information age as we access information rapidly and as we communicate new solutions to important problems. As reading and writing become more important, a deictic perspective on literacy predicts that each will also change in important ways. First, strategic knowledge will become even more important to successful literacy activities than it is today. Navigating the increasingly complex information available within global information networks that continually change will require greater strategic knowledge than is required within more limited and static, traditional texts. It is likely, too, that new forms of strategic knowledge will be required (Gilster, 1997). Becoming literate will require our students to acquire new and increasingly sophisticated strategies for acquiring information within these complex and continually changing information contexts. Second, literacy within global information networks will require new forms of critical thinking and reasoning from all of us. Anyone may publish anything on open net-
< previous page
page_760
next page >
< previous page
page_761
next page > Page 761
works like the Internet. Traditional forces guaranteeing some degree of control over the accuracy of information in traditionally published works do not exist. As a result, we encounter web pages created by people who have political, religious, or ideological stances that profoundly distort the nature of the information that they present to others. In this type of information environment, we must assist students to become more critical consumers of the information they encounter. Such skills have not always been important in classrooms where textbooks and other traditional information resources are often assumed to be correct. Third, we need to help children become more aware of the variety of meanings inherent in the multiple media forms in which messages will increasingly appear (Flood & Lapp, 1995; Labbo, 1996; Labbo & Kuhn, 1998; Meyers, Hammett, and McKillop, 1998). Information resources now have the ability to combine many different media forms, making it possible to impart many new meanings, often in very subtle ways. This may either problematize or assist the construction of meaning. Within the area of communication and composition, new media are increasingly available in digital authoring tools. These also make for more complex communication skills. Clearly, the new meanings possible by combining multiple media sources create important challenges for us as we prepare students for their futures with new media and new literacies. Fourth, literacy will increasingly become a continuous learning task for each of us. Since new technologies and new envisionments for literacy will regularly appear, we will need to continually learn new ways to acquire information and communicate with one another. Increasingly, becoming literate will become a more precise term than being literate, reflecting the continual need to update our abilities to communicate within new technologies that regularly appear. Finally, changes in reading and writing will bring to the forefront the issue of language and cultural dominance. In the past, languages and cultures have been dominated by nations possessing superior military and economic power. In our digital futures, languages and cultures will be dominated by nations possessing superior information resources on global information networks such as the Internet. Currently, the vast majority of Internet sites and Internet traffic takes place to and from locations in the United States. One worries about the consequences of this for the rich heritage of diverse languages and cultures that characterize our world, permitting varied and unique interpretations of the reality we all inhabit. Will the Internet mean that English will become the only language of international communication? Will the Internet provide a vehicle for the dominance of U.S. culture? One hopes not, but the signs are already becoming clear that we may quickly lose our linguistic and cultural diversity if we all inhabit the same information and communication space on the Internet (Leu, 1997b). Literacy Research A deictic perspective about literacy within rapidly changing technologies and envisionments for their use generates two important paradoxes for the literacy community to carefully consider. These will require us to rethink several aspects of traditional approaches to research in literacy contexts. The first paradox is that technology often changes faster than we can effectively evaluate its utility for literacy and learning (Kamil & Lane, 1998). Because literacy is so intimately related to the technologies of information and communication as well as the envisionments they inspire, rapidly changing technologies make it difficult, if not impossible, to develop a consistent body of research within traditional forums before the technology on which it is based is replaced by an even newer technology. Unless this situation changes, and strategies for publishing research in traditional forums speed
< previous page
page_761
next page >
< previous page
page_762
next page > Page 762
up their processes or new forums appear, it is likely that traditional research will play an increasingly less important role in defining our understanding of new technologies and new literacies. Our understanding may be informed more often by individuals who use various technologies on a daily basis and less often by traditional forms of research. Perhaps, as Broudy (1986) suggested, we will have to depend increasingly on the credibility of advocates to different claims rather than on the truth of their claims. There is also a second paradox for research resulting from a deictic perspective about literacy and technology: It may become unimportant to demonstrate the advantages of new technologies for educational contexts if it is already clear those technologies will define the literacies of our students' futures. Technologies and the literacies they prompt are changing so quickly that their importance to our children's future is often clear before a consistent body of research evidence appears objectively demonstrating their efficacy. Several authors (Oppenheimer, 1997; Rochlin, 1997; Roszak, 1994; Stoll, 1995) recently criticized the educational community for committing enormous amounts of money to technology without providing a compelling body of research evidence demonstrating the learning gains that will result. On the other hand, who needs hard data on the beneficial outcomes of new technologies for literacy or learning when it becomes clear that these technologies, or their related successors, will be the technologies of our children's futures? Although some would argue we must wait until compelling data are available; I would argue that to wait for these data will make them useless because new technologies will have appeared by then. If it is already clear that workplaces and higher education have become dependent on networked information environments such as the Internet, who has the luxury of time to wait for a consistent body of research to appear, demonstrating its effectiveness? Research might be better spent exploring issues of how to support teachers' efforts to unlock the potentials of new technologies, not demonstrating the learning gains from technologies we already know will be important to our children's success at life's opportunities. If technologies continually change in the years ahead, it may become increasingly important to study teachers' envisionments of these technologies for literacy and learning. Teachers' envisionments, in a time of rapid technological change, may be one of the more stable components of literacy education in the future. Clearly, new envisionments for literacy and learning are taking place now, within current Internet technologies. We see these as teachers and educators develop a wide variety of keypal and Internet projects, many of which occur between students in different countries and cultures (El-Hindi, 1998; Iannone, 1998; Leu, Karchmer, & Leu, 1999; Leu & Leu, 1998). Unfortunately, there has been no work into how and why teachers envision and gravitate toward these new envisionments with this new technology. How do they emerge? What defines effective envisionments? How do teachers modify their envisionments over time? Why does this take place? All of these are important questions we must begin to address. Classroom Learning Contexts The rapidly changing nature of literacy predicted by a deictic perspective also has important consequences for designing classroom learning contexts. Because the technologies for information and communication are increasingly powerful, complex, and continually changing, no one person can hope to know everything about the technologies of literacy. As a result, literacy learning will be increasingly dependent on social learning strategies, even more than traditional contexts for literacy learning. I may know how to digitize video scenes from a classroom lesson, but you may know how best to design a web page for a class in literacy education. By exchanging information, we both discover new potentials for literacy and learning.
< previous page
page_762
next page >
< previous page
page_763
next page > Page 763
If literacy learning will become increasingly dependent on social learning strategies, socially skilled learners will be advantaged; "monastic learners," children who rely solely on independent learning strategies, will be disadvantaged. This may be an important change in many classrooms, because individual learning has often been the norm, privileging children who learn well independently. Increasingly, we must attend to this individual difference in classrooms, supporting children who are unfamiliar or ineffective with social learning strategies. Workshop experiences and cooperative learning activities may be especially useful with complex and continually changing technologies of literacy because they allow groups of students to share experiences and learn from one another. It may be the case that classroom use of new literacy technologies will increasingly be organized around these strategies for instruction. Teacher Education A deictic perspective of literacy and technology also generates important consequences for teachers. Traditionally, we have selected teachers who were already literate and could pass their literacy along to our children. Now, however, the very nature of literacy is regularly changing because of new information and communication technologies. Many teachers literate in older technologies quickly become illiterate as newer technologies of information and communication replace previous technologies. If educators fail to continually become literate with rapidly changing technologies, how will they help their students become literate? We must begin to develop strategies to help each of us keep up with the continually changing definitions of literacy that will exist in our world. School systems have never faced the amount of professional support and continual reeducation these new technologies will require. Determining the most effective ways to support teachers in new electronic worlds will be an important challenge for policymakers and educational leaders. Public Policy A deictic perspective on technology suggests there are at least three important public policy issues that will become important in a world where technologies and envisionments for literacy continuously change. We have already discussed the first: equity issues in a world of continually changing technologies and envisionments for literacy. Somehow, we must develop equal access to these continuously changing technologies for all students. We must be prepared to continually provide support for schools and children to ensure equity in these new worlds for each and every child. The second issue is related to the recent emphasis on setting national, state, and local standards for education in various subject areas. Current approaches to identifying specific literacy standards or benchmarks become somewhat meaningless if new technologies regularly redefine the very nature of literacy. Although these may be appropriate for some areas, a deictic perspective on literacy suggests they may be somewhat misguided, because standards and benchmarks assume the nature of literacy will remain constant. If we are unable to accurately anticipate the type of literacy expected at the time of graduation for children who enter school this year, how can we develop assessment tools to guide us on the journey? Clearly, if literacy is regularly redefined by new technologies and new envisionments, assessment must also be regularly redefined in the electronic futures our schools will inhabit. The challenge, however, is to develop assessment systems that keep up with the continually changing nature of literacy. A deictic perspective would suggest that the ability to learn continuously changing technologies and new envisionments for literacy may be a better target than literacy itself.
< previous page
page_763
next page >
< previous page
page_764
next page > Page 764
Finally, the financing of new technologies presents major new hurdles to any society. A deictic perspective would suggest that continually changing technologies of information and communication will require regular capital investments by schools if they wish to help their students keep up with the changing nature of literacy. We have never before been faced with the expenses of our literacy futures. Somehow, this challenge must be met if we hope to adequately prepare children for their literacy futures. Summary and Conclusions In this chapter, I have suggested that rapid changes in information and communication technologies have resulted in literacy becoming technological deixis, its meaning continuously changing as new technologies appear and as new envisionments for their use are crafted. Although literacy has always been deictic in an historical sense, the current period is unique because of the rapid changes in the technologies of information and communication as well as the envisionments they inspire. As a result, literacy is regularly being redefined within shorted time periods. This takes place as rapidly changing technologies for information and communication transform literacy and as users envision new ways of using these technologies for literate acts, transforming, in turn, the nature of these technologies. What is especially interesting about these changes is that they appear to be driven less by traditional research on the effectiveness of any technology to support literacy or learning, perhaps because changes in the new technologies of information and communication occur more rapidly than we can develop a traditional research base on which to draw conclusions. Instead, larger social and economic factors appear to exert a powerful force on the use of information and communication technologies in classrooms as we seek to prepare students for the literacies of their futures. In reviewing the recent literature on newer technologies, I have suggested that a deictic perspective makes it just as important to look forward into the consequences for our futures as it is to look backward to the research base. Because we cannot accurately define the nature of literacy in the future, I have suggested it is critical to define the general principles at work in reshaping contemporary notions of literacy. A central challenge is how to plan for education when the very heart of the system, literacy, will be changing regularly as new information and communication technologies continually appear and as teachers and students envision new ways to exploit these resources. To assist in this task, I identified a number of principles that might be drawn from a deictic perspective in several areas: the nature of literacy, literacy research, classroom learning contexts, teacher education, and public policy. These principles may be useful to help frame the exploration of issues in our literacy futures. Acknowledgments I thank Allyson J. Crawley for her research assistance in the preparation of this chapter. I also thank the following colleagues for the many important insights they graciously shared in response to an earlier draft: Maya Eagleton, Dana Grisham, Lee Gunderson, Michael Hillinger, Rachel Karchmer, Jamie Kirkley, Linda Labbo, Larry Mickulecky, David Reinking, Bob Rickleman, Victoria Risko, and William Valmont. Each has helped me to see these issues in new ways. None, however, should be held responsible for any of my errors.
< previous page
page_764
next page >
< previous page
page_765
next page > Page 765
References Anderson, R. E. (1993). The technology infrastructure of U.S. schools. Communications of the ACM, 36(5), 72. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. A. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer, (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 1544). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson-Inman, L., Horney, M. A., Chen, D. T., & Lewin, L. (1994). Hypertext literacy: Observations from the Electro Text project. Language Arts, 71, 279287. Ayersman, D. J. (1996). Reviewing the research on hypermedia-based learning. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28, 500525. Becker, H. J. (1992). Computer-based integrated learning systems in the elementary and middle grades: A critical review and synthesis of evaluation reports. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 141. Becker, H. J. (1993). Computer experience, patterns of computer use, and effectivenessAn inevitable sequence or divergent national cultures? Studies in Educational Evaluation, (19), 127148. Becker, D. A., & Dwyer, M. M. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner control Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 155172. Belenky, M., Clinchy, B. M., Goldberger, N. R., & Tarule, J. M. (1986). Women's ways of knowing: The development of self, voice, and mind. New York: Basic Books. Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., & Pinch, T. (1987). The social construction of technological systems. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, Birkerts, S. (1994). The Gutenberg elegies. New York: Ballentine Books. Boyarin, J. (Ed.) (1993). The ethnography of reading. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bromley, H. (1997). The social chicken and the technological egg. Educational Theory, 47, 5165. Broudy, H. S. (1986). Technology and citizenship. In J. Culbertson & L. L. Cunningham (Eds.), Microcomputers in education: Eighty-fifth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 234253). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bruce, B. C. (1997a). Current issues and future directions. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 875884). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Bruce, B. C. (1997b). Literacy technologies: What stance should we take? Journal of Literacy Research, 29, 289309. Brush, T. A. (1996, February). The effects on student achievement and attitudes when utilizing cooperative learning of ILSdelivered instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Educational Research Association, Cambridge, MA. Carmel, E., Crawford, S., & Chen, H. (1992). Browsing in hypertext: A cognitive study. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 865884. Caroff, S., Fringer, V., & Kletzien, S. (1997, December). Writing for publication in electronic media: Redefining authorship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. CEO Forum. (1999). Professional development: A link to better learning. [Online] Retrieved on March 1, 1999 from URL http://www.ceoforum.org/report99/99report.pdf. Center for Applied Special Technology. (1996). The role of online communications in schools: A national study. [Online]. Retrieved on January 1, 1997, from URL http://www.cast.org/stsstudy.html Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta analysis of experimental studies. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 125156. Clarke, V. (1990). Sex differences in computing participation: Concerns, extent, reasons, and strategies. Australian Journal of Education, 34, 5266. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107155. Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(3), 210. Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Daiute, C., & Morse, F. (1994). Access to knowledge and expression: Multimedia writing tools for students with diverse needs and strengths. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 221256. Diringer, D. (1968). The alphabet: A key to the history of mankind. New York: Funk and Wagnalls. Drucker, P. F. (1994, November). The age of social transformation. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 5380. Durndell, A. (1990). Why do female students tend to avoid computer studies? Research in Science and Technological Education, 8(2), 163170. Eldred, J. C., & Hawisher, G. E. (1995). Researching electronic networks. Written Communication, 12(3), 330359.
El-Hindi, A. E. (1998). Beyond classroom boundaries: Constructivist teaching with the Internet. Reading Teacher, 51, 694700. Ellis, J. E.. (1997). American Sphinx: The character of Thomas Jefferson. New York: Knopf. Farmer, M., Klein, R., & Bryson S. (1992). Computer-assisted reading: Effects of whole word feedback on fluency and comprehension in readers with severe disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 13, 5060.
< previous page
page_765
next page >
< previous page
page_766
next page > Page 766
Fillmore, C. J. (1972). How to know whether you're coming or going. In K. Huldgaard-Jensen (Ed.), Linguistik 1971 (pp. 369379). Amsterdam: Athemaiim. Finkelman, K., & McMunn, C. (1995). Microworlds as a publishing tool for cooperative groups: An affective study (Report No. 143). Charlottesville, VA: Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 384 344) Flood, J., Heath, S. B., & Lapp, D. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of Research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Flood, J. & Lapp, D. (1995). Broadening the lens: Toward an expanded conceptualization of literacy. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 116). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Follansbee, S., Hughes, B., Pisha, B., & Stahl, S. (1997). Can online communications improve student performance? Results of a controlled study. Journal of School Research and Information, 15, 1526. Garton, L., & Wellman, B. (1995). Social impacts of electronic mail in organizations: A review of the research literature. Communication Yearbook, 18, 434453. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1992). Topic knowledge, cognitive interest, and text recall: A microanalysis. Journal of Experimental Education, 59, 310319. Garner, R., & Gillingham, M. G. (1996). Internet communication in six classrooms: Conversations across time, space, and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Gilster, P. (1997). Digital literacy. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Giroux, H. A., & Freire, P. (1987). Series introduction. In D. Livingston (Ed.), Critical pedagogy and cultural power (pp. xixvi). South Hadley, MA: Bergin & Garvey. Graff, H. J. (Ed.). (1981). Literacy and social development in the West: A reader. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gray, S. H. (1989). The effect of locus of control and sequence control on computerized information retrieval and retention. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 459471. Gray, S., Barber, C., & Shasha, D. (1991). Information search with dynamic text vs. paper text: An empirical comparison. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 35, 575596. Greenlee-Moore, M., & Smith, L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children's reading achievement. Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 17, 4364. Grint, K., & Gill, R. (Eds.). (1995). The gendertechnology relation. London: Taylor & Francis. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies in the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harris, W. V. (1989). Ancient literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Harrison, T. M., & Stephen, T. (Eds.). (1996). Computer networking and scholarly communication in the twenty-first-century university. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hastings, E. (1997). Effects of CD-ROM talking storybooks on word recognition and motivation in young students with reading disabilities: An exploratory study. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University. Hidi, S. (1990). Interest and its contribution as a mental resource for learning. Review of Education Research, 60, 549571. Hiebert, E. H., Winograd, P.N., & Danner, F. W. (1984). Children's attributions for failure and success in different aspects of reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 11391148. Hillinger, M. L. (1992). Computer speech and responsive text. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 219229. Hillinger, M., & Leu, D. J. (1994). Guiding instruction in hypermedia. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society's 38th Annual Meeting, 266270. Hillinger, M. L., & Leu, D. J. (1997). Using multimedia to promote conceptual change. (SBIR Phase I Final Report. National Science Foundation: Grant No. 9660334). Sharon, VT: LexIcon Systems. Hodas, S. (1993). Technology refusal and the organizational culture of schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 366 328) Horney, M. A., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1994). The electrotext project: Hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 7191. Iannone, P. V. (1998). Just beyond the horizon: Writing-centered literacy activities for traditional and electronic contexts. Reading Teacher, 51, 438443. Illera, J. L. R. (1997). De la lectura en papel a la lectura multimedia. In Fundalectura (Ed.), Lectura y nuevas tecnologías: 3er congresso nacional de lectura (pp. 6988). Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación para el Fomento de la Lectura. Johnson, S. (1997). Interface culture: How new technology transforms the way we create and communicate. San Francisco:
HarperCollins. Jonassen, D. H. (1993). Acquiring structural knowledge from semantically structured hypertext. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 20, 18. Kamil, M. (1997, December). Qualitative trends in publication of research on technology and reading, writing, and literacy. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Research Conference, Scottsdale, AZ. Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. M. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of lit-
< previous page
page_766
next page >
< previous page
page_767
next page > Page 767
eracy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323342). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Karchmer, R. A. (1998). Understanding teachers' perspectives of Internet use in the classroom: Implications for teacher education and staff development programs. Unpublished manuscript, Syracuse University. Kinzer, C. K., & Leu, D. J. (1997). The challenge of change: Exploring literacy and learning in electronic environments. Language Arts, 74, 126136. Kinzer, C. K., & Risko, V. J. (1998). Multimedia and enhanced learning: Transforming preservice education. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 185202). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Labbo, L. (1996). A semiotic analysis of young children's symbol making in a classroom computer center. Reading Research Quarterly, 51, 356385. Labbo, L. & Kuhn, M. (1998). Electronic symbol making: Young children's computer-related emerging concepts about literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 7992). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Labbo, L. D., Phillips, M., & Murray, B. (19951996). Writing to read: From inheritance ti innovation and invitation. Reading Teacher, 49, 314321. Lay, M. M. (1996). The computer culture, gender, and nonacademic writing: An interdisciplinary critique. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 5780). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leader, L. F., & Klein, J. D. (1994, February). The effects of search tool and cognitive style on performance in hypermedia database searches. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 729) Lemke, J. L. (1994). Multiplying meaning: Literacy in a multimedia world. Paper presented at the 1993 annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC (December 1993). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 365 940) Lemke, J. L. (1998). Metamedia literacy: Transforming meanings and media. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 283302). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leu, D. J., Jr. (1997a). Caity's question: Literacy as deixis on the Internet. Reading Teacher, 51, 6267. Leu, D. J., Jr. (1997b). Internet en el aula: Nuevas oportunidades para la educación, el aprendizaje y la enseñanza. In Fundalectura (Ed.) Lectura y nuevas tecnologías: 3er congresso nacional de lectura (pp. 4768). Bogotá, Colombia: Fundación para el Fomento de la Lectura. Leu, D. J., Jr. (in press). The new Literacies: Research on reading instruction with the Internet and other digital technologies. In J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Leu, D. J., & Hillinger, M. (1994, December). Reading comprehension in hypermedia: Supporting changes to children's conceptions of a scientific principle. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, San Diego. Leu, D. J., Hillinger, M., Loseby, P. H., Balcom, M., Dinkin, J., Eckels, M., Johnson, J., Mathews, K., & Raegler, R. (1998). Grounding the design of new technologies for literacy and learning in teachers' instructional needs. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 203220). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leu, D. J., Jr., Karchmer, R., & Leu, D. D. (1999). The Miss Rumphius effect: Envisionments that transform literacy and learning on the Internet. Reading Teacher, 52, 636642. Leu, D. J., Jr., Karchmer, R., & Hinchman, K. A. (1999, April). Using the Internet to study Internet use in classrooms: Expanding individual e-mail data with collaboratively constructed listserv data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Leu, D. J., Jr., & Kinzer, C. K. (1998). Effective literacy instruction (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Leu, D. J., Jr., & Kinzer, C. K. (in press). The convergence of literacy instruction and communication. Reading Research Quarterly. Leu, D. J., Jr., & Leu, D. D. (1998). Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the classroom (2nd ed.). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Leu, D. J., Jr., & Reinking, D. (1996). Bringing insights from reading research to research on electronic learning environments. In H. van Oostendorp (Ed.), Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing (pp. 4375). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Levi-Strauss, C. (1973). Tristes tropiques (J. Weightman & D. Weightman, Trans.). London: Jonathan Cape. Lewin, C. (1997). Evaluating talking books: Ascertaining the effectiveness of multiple feedback modes and tutoring techniques. In C. K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (pp. 360371). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1994). The relationship between the learning strategies and learning styles in a hypermedia
environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 10, 419434. Lundberg, I., & Olofsson, A. (1993). Can computer speech support reading comprehension? Computers in Human Behavior, 9, 283293.
< previous page
page_767
next page >
< previous page
page_768
next page > Page 768
Manguel, A. (1996). A history of reading. New York: Viking. Marchionini, G. (1989). Information-seeking strategies of novices using a full-text electronic encyclopedia. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 40, 5466. Marrison, D. L., & Frick, M. J. (1994). The effect of agricultural students' learning styles on academic achievement and their perceptions of two methods of instruction. Journal of Agricultural Education, 35, 2630. Mathews, M. (1966). Teaching to read: Historically considered. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 119. McKenna, M. (1998). Electronic texts and the transformation of beginning reading. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 4560). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Meyers, J., Hammett, R., & McKillop, A. M. (1998). Opportunities for critical literacy/pedagogy in student authored hypermedia. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 6378). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mikulecky, L., & Kirley, J. R. (1998). Changing workplaces, changing classes: The new role of technology in workplace literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 303320). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miller, L., Blackstock, J., & Miller, R. (1994). An exploratory study into the use of CD-ROM storybooks. Computers in Education, 22, 187204. Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1994). Putting the computer in its place: A study of teaching with technology. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 26, 121141. Murphy, S. M. (1986). Children's comprehension of deictic categories in oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 118131. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Knopf. Newman, D. (1990). Opportunities for research on the organizational impact of school computers. Educational Researcher, 19(3). 813. Olofsson, A. (1992). Synthetic speech and computer aided reading for reading disabled children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 165178. Olson, R., Foltz, G., & Wise, B. (1986). Reading instruction and remediation with the aid of computer speech. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 18, 9399. Olson, R., & Wise, B. (1992). Reading on the computer with orthographic and speech feedback: An overview of the Colorado remediation project. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 4, 107144. Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 280 [Online]. Retrieved on January 1, 1998 from URL http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97jul/computer.htm Owston, R. D. (1997). The World Wide Web: A technology to enhance teaching and learning? Educational Researcher, 26(2), 2733. Paivio, A. (1979). Imagery and verbal processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press. Papert, S. (1993). The children's machine: Rethinking school in the age of the computer. New York: Basic Books. Peha, J. M. (1995). How K12 teachers are using computer networks. Educational Leadership, (3), 1833. Rada, R., & Murphy, C. (1992). Searching versus browsing in hypertext. Hypermedia, 4, 130. Reed, W. M., Ayersman, D. J., & Liu, M. (1995a). The effect of hypermedia instruction on stages of concern of students with varying authoring language and prior hypermedia experience. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 27, 297317. Reed, W. M., Ayersman, D. J., & Liu, M. (1995b). The effects of three different hypermedia courses on students' attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 495509. Reich, R, (1992). The work of nations. New York: Vintage Books. Reinking, D. (1995). Reading and writing with computers: Literacy research in a post-typographic world. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Reinking, D. (1998). Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. xixxx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reinking, D., & Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1991). Computers in reading and writing. In R. Barr, M. L., Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 310340). New York: Longman. Reinking, D., & Chanlin, L. J. (1994). Graphic aids in electronic texts. Reading Research and Instruction, 33, 207232.
Reinking, D., Labbo, L., & McKenna, M. (1997). Navigating the changing landscape of literacy: Current theory and research in computer-based reading and writing. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 7792). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Reinking, D., McKenna, M. Labbo, L., & Kieffer, R. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_768
next page >
< previous page
page_769
next page > Page 769
Reinking, D., & Pickle, J. M. (1993). Using a formative experiment to study how computers affect reading and writing in classrooms. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice (pp. 263270.) Chicago: National Reading Conference. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (1997). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students' independent reading (Research report). University of Georgia, University of Maryland: National Reading Research Center. Reitsma, P. (1998). Reading practice for beginners: Effects of guided reading, reading-while-listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 219235. Rifkin, J. (1995). The end of work: The decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons. Risko, V. J. (1995). Using videodisc-based cases to promote preservice teachers' problem solving and mental model building. In W. M. Linek & E. G. Sturtevant (Eds.), Generations of literacy (pp. 173187). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Risko, V. J., Peter, J., & McAllister, D. (1996). Conceptual changes: Preservice teachers' pathways to providing literacy transaction. In E. Sturtevant & W. Linek (Eds.), Growing literacy (pp. 103119). Commerce, TX: College Reading Association. Risko, V. J., Yount, D., & McAllister, D. (1992). Preparing preservice teachers for remedial instruction: Teaching problem solving and use of content and pedagogical knowledge. In N. Padak, T. V. Rasinski, & J. Logan (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy learning and instruction (pp. 178189). Pittsburg, KS: College Reading Association. Rochlin, G. I. (1997). Trapped in the Net: The unanticipated consequences of computerization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Roszak, T. (1994). The cult of information: A neo-luddite treatise on high tech, artificial intelligence, and the true art of thinking. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Rouet, J., Levonen, J., Dillon, A., & Spiro, R. (Eds.). (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sayers, D. (1995). Educational equity issues in an information age. Teachers College Record, 96, 769773. Schick, J. E., & Miller, R. M. (1992, April). Learner control in a hypertext environment with linguistic-minority students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Schroeder, E. E. (1994, February). Navigating through hypertext: Navigational technique, individual differences, and learning. Paper presented at the national convention of the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Nashville, TN. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 760) Schrum, L. (1995). Educators and the Internet: A case study of professional development. Computers and Education, 24, 221228. Scoresby, K. (1996). The effects of electronic storybook animation on third graders' story recall. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Scott, T., Cole, M., & Engel, M. (1992). Computers and education: A cultural constructivist perspective. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 18, pp. 191251). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Selfe, C. L. (1990). Technology in the English classroom: Computers through the lens of feminist theory. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teaching composition in the 21st century (pp. 118139). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, Heinemann. Selfe, C. L., & Selfe, R. J., Jr. (1996). Writing as democratic social action in a technological world: Politicizing and inhabiting virtual landscapes. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 325358). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Shannon, P. (1996). Poverty, literacy, and politics: Living in the USA. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 430439. Sherry, M. (1990). Implementing an integrated learning system: Critical issues. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 118120. Smith, N. B. (1965). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spiro, R. J., & Jeng, J. (1990). Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the non-linear and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In D. Nix & R. Spiro (Eds.), Cognition, education and multimedia: Exploring ideas in high technology (pp. 163205). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sterne, R. W. (1993). Thomas Jefferson: A life. New York: Holt. Stoll, C. (1995). Silicon snake oil: Second thoughts on the information highway. New York: Doubleday. Stotsky, S. (1996). Participatory writing: Literacy for civic purposes. In A. H. Duin & C. J. Hansen (Eds.), Nonacademic writing: Social theory and technology (pp. 227256). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sutton, R. E. (1991). Equity and computers in the schools: A decade of research. Review of Educational Research, 61, 475503. Tao, L., Montgomery, T., & Pickle, M. (1997). Content analysis in e-mail research: A methodological review. In C. K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice (pp. 474482). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
Tierney, R. J., Kieffer, R., Whalin, K., Desai, L. Moss, A. G., Harris, J. E., & Hopper, J. (1997). Assessing the impact of hypertext on learners' architecture of literacy learning spaces in different disciplines: Follow-up
< previous page
page_769
next page >
< previous page
page_770
next page > Page 770
studies. Reading Online. Available: http://www.readingonline.org/research/impact/index.html [1997, December 28]. Toro, M. A. (1995). The effects of Hypercard authoring on computer-related attitudes and Spanish language acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 633647. Trotter, A. (1990). Computer learning. American School Board Journal, 177, 1218. Tufte, E. R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images, quantities, evidence and narrative. Chesire, CT: Graphics Press. Turkle, S., & Papert, S. (1990). Epistomological pluralism: Styles and voices within the computer culture. Signs, 16, 128157. U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Assessment. (1995). Teachers and technology: Making the connection. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. van Oostendorp, H. & de Mul, S. (Eds.). (1996). Cognitive aspects of electronic text processing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Virillo, P. (1986). Speed and politics: An essay on domology (M. Polizzotti, Trans.). New York: Semiotext(e). Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., Gal, I., & Paris, S. G. (1989). Reading and believing: Beliefs, attributions, and reading achievement in Moroccan school children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 283293. Weller, H. G., Repman, J., & Rooze, G. E. (1994). The relationship of learning, behavior, and cognitive style in hypermediabased instruction: Implications for the design of HBI. Computers in the Schools, 10, 401420. Weller, H. G., Repman, J., Lan, W., & Rooze, G. E. (1995). Improving the effectiveness of learning through hypermedia-based instruction: The importance of learner characteristics. Computers in Human Behavior, 11, 451465. Wise, B., & Olson, R. (1994). Computer-based phonological awareness and reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 45, 99122. Wise, B., Olson, R., Anstett, M., Andrews, L., Terjak, M., Schneider, V., Kostuch, J., & Kriho, L. (1989). Implementing a longterm computerized remedial reading program with synthetic speech feedback: Hardware, software, and real-world issues. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 21, 172180.
< previous page
page_770
next page >
< previous page
page_771
next page > Page 771
Chapter 40 The Effects of Other Technologies on Literacy and Literacy Learning Michael L. Kamil Sam M. Intrator* Helen S. Kim Stanford University Reviewing the research on literacy and ''technology" is something of a conundrum, for literacy and literacy instruction are, themselves, technologies. Moreover, in current usage, technology typically refers to computer technology, disregarding other technologies. The use of computer technology in reading has a relatively short history, extending primarily to the work of Atkinson and Hansen (19661967). There was no review of reading (or writing) and other technologies in the first volume of the Handbook of Reading Research. Reinking and Bridwell-Bowles (1991) reviewed research on both reading and writing in the second volume. The NRC Yearbooks have contained three reviews of technology and reading (Kamil, 1982; Reinking, 1995; Spache, 1967). It is instructive to note that the emphasis on technology and reading differed among these three reviews. Spache focused on the use of reading machines to train students to read better and faster. His review was early enough that computer technology did not play as prominent a role except in the analysis of text. In 1982, the computer "revolution" was in full swing and the focus was on the capabilities of computers and software. Much of Kamil's emphasis was on the use of the computer as a tool in research and on the use of technology to teach reading. Reinking's review focused on the notion of text and how it has been, or will be, altered by computer technology. The concern was more with the shape of literacy in the future than it was for any concerns of the present. This review represented a clear disconnect from earlier perspectives, as Reinking suggested that new conceptions of literacy were needed. There was little emphasis on CAI or instructional processes. * Sam M. Inrator is now at Smith College.
< previous page
page_771
next page >
< previous page
page_772
next page > Page 772
A fourth review, Flood and Lapp (1995), dealt peripherally with issues of visual literacy. By its very nature, this topic overlaps substantially with technological developments, but the review did not isolate those effects. Neuman (1991) reviewed most of the research on television and literacy. She concluded that it would be best to incorporate television in literacy rather than trying to banish it or eliminate it from children's lives. However, as Kamil and Intrator (1998) pointed out, there is simply not a large body of research on these issues, and more systematic and programmatic research is needed to validate these speculations. There have been several reviews limited to writing and computer technologies. Cochran-Smith (1991) looked at classroom effects of word processing on writing, and Bangert-Drowns (1993) conducted a meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Hawisher, LeBlanc, Moran, and Selfe (1996) dated the history of teaching writing with computers to the early 1970s. By all accounts, at least the computer technologies have a history of some four decades or less. A recent volume (Reinking, McKenna, Labbo, & Kieffer, 1998) is devoted entirely to topics in literacy and computer technology. However, only a few chapters deal exclusively with research or research topics. Kamil and Lane (1998) examined research over the years 19901995. They found that there were only 12 research articles about technology and reading or writing in the four reading and writing journals (Written Communication, Research in the Teaching of English, Reading Research Quarterly, and Journal of Reading Behavior, since changed to Journal of Literacy Research) with the highest citation rates for literacy research (Shanahan & Kamil, 1994). There was a total of 437 articles published in those journals over the same time period. Out of a total of 256 articles in the two reading journals, only 3, a little more than 1%, dealt with technology issues directly. (One of these was about television, another about audio, and one was about computers.) The situation was somewhat better for the two writing journals. There were 9 articles dealing with writing and technology, out of a total of 181 articles, or approximately 5%. Combined, the total number of technology articles published in these four journals was 12 out of a total of 437 articles, or 2.7%. An important datum is that the bulk of the technology articles in the 5-year period was published in 1991 and 1992. These two years account for all but 2 of the technology articles across all of the four journals in the years between 1990 and 1995. Kamil and Intrator (in press) conducted a more complete review of the research in literacy and technology and found that between 1986 and 1996 there were only 350 research journal articles about reading and writing published. The proportion was relatively constant over that time period, ranging from 2% to 5% of the total of all research articles on reading and writing. Problem Selection Despite the paucity of research and the particular lack of research in mainstream reading and writing journals, there are definite trends and findings that can be represented in the limited dataset. In order to deal with the research in a systematic manner, we relied on the findings of Intrator and Kamil (1998) and Kamil and Intrator (1998) to categorize the problems that have been studied. They used a combination of quantitative and qualitative criteria to analyze the research. They found areas that had been the focus of intensive study, areas that seemed to be sparsely researched (but promising), and areas that were largely unresearched. For each of the areas, we attempt to summarize major findings and point to productive directions. Given the relatively small numbers of studies in many of these areas, the reviews are interpretive rather than quantitative. We do, however, refer to quantitative reviews where they have been conducted.
< previous page
page_772
next page >
< previous page
page_773
next page > Page 773
Computer and Composition Of all the uses of technology in literacy and literacy instruction, word processing seems tailor-made. Philosophically and practically, word processing fits with current educational thought and pedagogy. There is probably no other single technological application that seems to be as well designed for the educational purposes to which it is put. Simply, there is no other alternative that will allow students and teachers to operate in composing, editing, revising, and publishing with so little compromise. Process writing predates the advent of word processors, but the two concepts seem to be so matched that they seem to have sprung from the same intellectual root. Computer technology is the quintessential tool for process writing. Word processing studies fall into two of the categories that Intrator and Kamil (1998) used to classify research studies studying computer technology: those in which technology is a simple replacement, and those in which technology augments an older skill or practice. (There was also a third category which was an entirely new process. They found none of the word processing studies belonged in this category.) In some of the studies, word processing is simply being used to replace, rather than augment, the process of writing. Many studies (e.g., Rice, 1994; Snyder, 1993) simply compared word processing with using pen and paper. Indeed, this is similar to the basis for the meta-analysis that Bangert-Drowns (1993) conducted. He reviewed 32 studies where two groups of students received identical writing instruction but only one group was allowed to use word processing. The strong conclusion was that the quality of writing was higher for word processing groups, although the effect size was relatively small. Using word processing did not have an effect on attitudes toward writing, although students did produce longer documents. Although the evidence on revisions was difficult to interpret, there is other evidence to suggest that revisions may not automatically result from word processing (Daiute, 1986; Daiute & Kruideneir, 1985). In her work, Daiute added revision prompts and found that students did produce more revisions under such circumstances. This clearly forms the basis for recommendations (including that of Bangert-Drowns) that adapting word processing programs to instruction may make them even more effective. Cochran-Smith (1991) suggested that there was more known about the cognitive aspects of word processing than the social. In particular, she recommended that we needed to know much more about the implementations of technologies like word processing and how they interact with the social environment of classrooms. Since 1991, we have found little in the literature to put this issue to rest. The updated version of this concern is that, with networked and collaborative writing becoming more commonplace (e.g., Beach & Lundell, 1998), we need to extend our efforts to determine how the social aspects of collaborative networks affect writing and writing instruction. (We address this again later in this chapter.) We believe that writing with computers will continue to have a strong presence in the body of research literature on literacy and technology. It is also clear that word processing is one of the uses of computer technology that gets a strong recommendation for implementation from the currently available research. Hypermedia, Hypertext, and Literacy One of the interesting trends that Kamil and Intrator (1998) found was that there was only a small body of research on hypertext and hypermedia. Although there is a reasonable body of theory about hypertext, and promises of its importance to literacy (e.g., Rouet, Levonen, Dillon, & Spiro, 1996; Purves, 1998), we have few empirical studies of the cognitive consequences of reading this type of nontraditional text.
< previous page
page_773
next page >
< previous page
page_774
next page > Page 774
There seem to be at least three separate situations in which hypertext is used. There is a literary version of hypertext in which a reader is encouraged to create a unique story. A second use of hypertext is to add information to allow readers to explore text material in greater detail. A third use is to create study environments. Our review of the research shows so little work on each of these areas that it is difficult to reach a strong conclusion. This is in spite of the review of research by Chen and Rada (1996). They reviewed 23 studies for a meta-analysis in which an assortment of variables was examined. We believe that there were too few studies in each group to make strong conclusions. Further, Chen and Rada used very little in the way of theory to guide their classification of hypertext. Finally, not all of the studies were about reading, even if they involved hypertext. That is, in some of the studies, the issues at hand only involved hypertext in an incidental manner. There is, however, promising research in this area, and we would hope that there will be even more work. Of particular interest is Gillingham's (1993) study, which showed that hypertext slowed the search for the answer to a known question. Although this is not a typical use for hypertext, it does raise several considerations about computerized text in general and hypertext in particular. For example, how does having the capability to electronically search for material in a text affect comprehension and studying? For some purposes, the electronic search is clearly faster, provided the query can be appropriately structured. Horney and Anderson-Inman (1994) categorized the hypertext reading of middle school students as exhibiting six possible strategies: skimming, checking, reading, responding, studying, and reviewing. However, we still do not have general agreement in the field about how to line up these sorts of data with instruction in reading. One of the issues here is, as Kamil and Lane (1998) pointed out, that there is a conceptual problem that remains unaddressed. When a reader encounters a hyperlink in text, there is often no way to predict whether the information to be acquired by following that link is going to be useful. Anderson-Inman and her colleagues developed a system of "supported text" in which the reader can choose the information to be obtained by using a "link" (see, e.g., Anderson-Inman, 1991; Anderson-Inman & Horney, 1998). One more issue seems to be impeding the research on hypertext. We have no coherent account of the nature of hyperlinks, independent of the utilization of them. Kamil (1998) proposed a taxonomy of hyperlinks that classifies links on the basis of their uses and consequences for the reader. However, we still do not have comprehensive, usable, and testable theoretical accounts of hypertext against which to do empirical studies. Purves (1998) raised many important issues, but brought little empirical data to bear on those issues. With the increasing use of the Internet and its highly intricate set of hyperlinks, we need to address this issue with some urgency. As schools become wired and the Internet becomes an instructional tool (see Leu, this volume), we must dedicate ourselves to determining how best to teach students to read the sorts of materials they may encounter. Multimedia Effects on Literacy A recent line of research has explored the effects on literacy of using multimedia presentations that actively integrate text and visuals. Dynamically combining text and narratives with illustrations and sound, multimedia applications such as interactive CDROMS, videos, the Internet, and hypertext are offering new modalities for using and acquiring literacy. Reinking (1995, 1998) offered some insight into the societal implications of these new technologies that integrate text and visuals on literacy acquisition, and the challenges they pose to traditional conceptualizations of literacy. Flood
< previous page
page_774
next page >
< previous page
page_775
next page > Page 775
and Lapp (1995) further explored the impact of visual media on learning, and assessed the implications of expanding traditional notions of literacy on instructional design and student learning. A debate on whether or not learning is ultimately dependent on the medium used to deliver instruction has been rather lively (Clark, 1983, 1994; Kozma, 1991, 1994; Jonassen, Campbell, & Davidson, 1994). This debate among instructional designers is reflective of contrasting views across the entire spectrum of technology users in learning environments. There seems to be little hope for resolving the theoretical issues in favor of one side of the instructional design debate. Correspondingly, the issue of how best to facilitate comprehension using different modes of representation has recently been the subject of much empirical inquiry (e.g., Mayer, 1997; Mayer & Moreno, 1998; Sharp et al., 1995). This work draws heavily on visual representations, displays of information, and mental model building. Recent research in multimedia and literacy acquisition has examined the affordances of technology to create dynamic, interactive, and visually salient learning environments. Multimedia applications that integrate text/narratives with visual representations can confer unique learning advantages because they do not require knowledge of how to read or speak English. As discussed in a separate section, multimedia has also offered many instructional alternatives and unique learning opportunities for learners whose educational needs might not be sufficiently met through more traditional modes of instruction. Paivio's (1986) dual coding theory posits the existence of separate codes for processing visual and verbal material. One possible implication of this model is that when information is processed both visually and verbally, the information may be more memorable as there are two memory traces instead of one. Multimedia applications are replete with opportunities to test a possible facilitating effect of contiguous visual and verbal input. In this direction, Mayer and Moreno (1998) found preliminary support for augmented learning outcomes and a split attention effect, with subjects in treatment conditions of simultaneous visual and audio support outperforming subjects in simultaneous visual pictures and visual text conditions on learning measures such as recall and problem solving transfer. In assessing the effects of multimedia presentations, some recent studies have also emphasized the role that integrated support may have in facilitating the formation of mental models for comprehending information (e.g., Plass, Chun, Mayer, & Leutner, 1998; Mayer, 1997; Sharp et al., 1995). Rather than focusing solely on instructional effects, recent studies have also probed deeper into understanding the specific cognitive processes involved in how learners synthesize multimedia information, and analyzing the effects of learner and task characteristics. For example, in a review of six studies involving multimedia instruction and coordinated presentations, Mayer (1997) found differential strengths of instructional effects between low prior knowledge and high spatial ability students, as well as learning styles. He found that learners with little prior knowledge did better with multimedia learning. Learners who could be classified as visual or auditory also showed better learning in that modality. In a study of two above average fourth-grade classes, Greenlee-Moore and Smith (1996) found augmented comprehension from the reading of narrative texts on interactive CD-ROM software versus printed paper, but only for longer and more difficult passages. There is a paucity of research on the differential learning effects of multimedia instruction. The studies just described serve to underscore the need for further investigation of the circumstances of how, when, and for whom learning with multimedia occurs. As computer technology and multimedia videos continue to be integrated into educational instruction, the body of research is starting to reflect more specific lines of inquiry into the particular characteristics of multimedia applications that are most efficacious. For example, the role of dynamic visuals (in contrast to static images), such
< previous page
page_775
next page >
< previous page
page_776
next page > Page 776
as animations and computer simulations, has been suggested as a superior medium for mental model building and story comprehension (Sharp et al., 1995). Sharp et al. found that children in the treatment condition that included dynamic visual support had the highest ability to recall the ending of the stories and connect it with previous story elements in comparison to the static images and text only groups. One reason the researchers theorized that dynamic images were found to be superior is the augmented support for encoding visual and spatial information from the story. Dynamic videos may also enable children to see changes in spatial relationships, which can be difficult for younger children to imagine on their own. There is also an expectation that multimedia presentations of literacy material will motivate students more effectively than traditional presentations. We consider these issues in a separate section. Collectively, these trends in research underscore a cognitively based approach to understanding the effects of multimedia on literacy acquisition. In the literature, the study of visual representations has moved from merely assessing instruction effects of using a specific medium, to searching for a deeper understanding of the underlying cognitive mechanisms involved, and the circumstances of how and when individual learning occurs (Mayer, 1997). Concomitant with advances in visual learning theory and multimedia instruction, the need to devise new assessments of learning outcomes and measures comprises another important research direction that has not been sufficiently explored in the current literature. One emerging conclusion is that multimedia applications facilitate the construction of mental models and augment learning outcomes. Much more empirical inquiry is needed to uncover the underlying cognitive processes. Another unexplored, but important, research topic for literacy and technology is the role of cognitive strategies involved in the comprehension of graphics and text. The study of whether (and how) referential connections between visuals and text can be explicitly taught is particularly important. Finally, careful study of multimedia literacy learning, including determining whether developmental trends and differences exist, is critical for design and implementation of programs. Special Populations Another body of work in technology and literacy reflects the interventional use of technology to benefit individuals who may not learn as easily or effectively from traditional modes of instruction. These individuals may include the persons diagnosed with learning disabilities, persons facing physical challenges, and preliterate children. Relevant here is the use of technology with intentions to remediate specific difficulties in literacy acquisition or to facilitate more rapid literacy acquisition. As Ferrier and Shane (1987) attested, the computer can represent a diverse array of assistive tools because of its many functions and forms of output, including the visual representations, print, and voice/communication capabilities. In fact, the use of technology to assist persons with special learning needs has a rich history in the literature. Woodward and Rieth (1997) undertook a comprehensive review of the extant literature on technology research in special education since 1980, including a review of several divergent strands of research in the field. Recently, the literature on technology and literacy has begun to reflect several advances in the use of multimedia applications to address individual needs and learning styles. Many of the reported benefits have not been limited to literacy gains but encompass positive attitudinal and motivational aspects as well. Several advances have been made with the use of technology to help students diagnosed with learning disabilities. One area of literacy that is currently under investigation regards the role of enhanced word processing programs in helping to facilitate the writing process for students with learning disabilities. Conferring advantages beyond mere wordprocessing, advances in technology have included developments such as speech synthesis and word prediction. Speech synthesis, which allows the user to hear
< previous page
page_776
next page >
< previous page
page_777
next page > Page 777
the computer pronounce the words typed into the program, has rendered some promising results in allowing college students to detect a higher percentage of errors in their writing (Raskind & Higgins, 1995). Word prediction is another intervention that helps students by using the computer to predict and offer choices of words as users begin to type the letters. More recently, MacArthur (1998) explored the use of a word processing program with speech synthesis and word prediction with young students with learning disabilities and difficulties with writing. Although a small sample size precludes the ability to draw strong inferences, the study found that users of the special programs demonstrated increased spelling accuracy and legibility. However, major gaps in the research literature continue to exist regarding the efficacy of these programs in improving the length or quality of writing, as well as a deeper understanding of the learning styles and specific challenges that are best addressed through these programs. Another current trend found in the research involves the adaptive use of technology to help facilitate literacy acquisition with learners facing physical challenges. More conventional applications of technology to facilitate literacy acquisition for learners facing visual impediments have included using computers to increase the size of text, audio descriptions, Braille displays, and screen magnifiers. As multimedia increasingly offers new modes of representation and the versatility to create unique learning environments, studies continue to assess the best ways to utilize these benefits. Steelman, Pierce, and Koppenhaver (1993) highlighted several advantages of using computer technology to develop literacy in children with severe speech and physical impairments, including the flexibility to tailor programs to different learning styles, as well as allowing physical access to literacy materials. Nelson and Camarata (1996) underscored the potential benefits of using multimedia supports to help integrate sign, speech, and text for children facing severe to profound hearing impairments. With respect to future directions in the assistive use of technology and literacy, a growing body of literature reflects the extension and application of multimedia learning to benefit second-language learners, at-risk children, and very young, preliterate children. Much of the current research with multimedia support for second-language learners involves an emphasis on considering learning styles and individual needs. Preliminary findings in this domain appear to be quite promising. Plass, Chun, Mayer, and Leutner (1998) found augmented story comprehension and recall of word translations with the support of verbal and visual learning preferences to teach English to second language learners. Using a hypermedia-assisted second-language learning program, Liu and Reed (1995) also found positive gains in vocabulary and improvements in the correct use of words in context by a group of international students learning English. As mentioned earlier, the prospect of introducing multimedia literacy programs at increasingly earlier ages and to preliterate children has garnered much interest. Labbo, Reinking, and McKenna (1995) undertook an ethnographic case study to evaluate the potential of the computer as an informal tool for literacy development in kindergarten children and emphasized the importance of considering the facilitative role of the teacher in the process. Although there is still little research in this area, Boone, Higgins, Notari, and Stump (1996) found some positive implications for the further development of multimedia programs to teach prereading lessons to kindergarten students of differential abilities. As these preliminary findings suggest, with the new instructive possibilities rendered by advances in integrative multimedia, the time is especially auspicious for the study of how these technologies can be applied and tailored to accommodate special needs and learning styles. The study of technology and literacy for special populations has had a long history. It continues to show ever greater promise at bringing the promises of assistive technology to bear on what have been very difficult problems.
< previous page
page_777
next page >
< previous page
page_778
next page > Page 778
Motivation In the research on the impact of computer use on the classroom structure, the most consistently found effect is an increase in motivation and closely related constructs such as interest and enjoyment of schoolwork, task involvement, persistence, time on task, and retention in school (Hague & Mason, 1986; Kulik & Kulik, 1991; Kulik, Kulik, & Peter 1980; Schofield, 1997). Lepper and his research group have conducted the most complete series of investigations into the impact of computers on motivation. They concluded that computer-based educational activities can increase factors associated with the intrinsic motivation of students to the extent that they increase the opportunities to customize one's work and increase the control, curiosity, and challenge of the task (Lepper & Chabay, 1987; Lepper & Malone, 1985). Specifically related to literacy development, computer use by children can increase their involvement in and enjoyment of writing and reading, thereby, improving the quality of what they produce (Daiute, 1983; Montague, 1990; Papert, 1980; Sheingold, Kane, & Endreweit, 1983). The studies exploring the motivational attributes of technology and literacy fall into two distinct categories: the motivational effects on literacy tasks in technology environments, and the motivational effects of technology on the literacy learning of special populations of learners. Motivational Effects of Technology Environments One species of studies highlighting the motivational attributes of literacy and technology involved the comparison of tasks like essay writing with a pen and paper versus essay writing with a computer. These studies reported that students exhibited a higher level of motivational engagement when using technological tools (e.g., Daiute, 1983). Studies that compared word processing revision versus hand-written revision commonly found that students were more highly motivated to revise, which led to more time spent on the revision process. In a series of word processing studies, Daiute (1983) discovered that children found word processing more fun than hand revision because it dispensed with recopying their writings. Children also persisted on tasks longer when using word processing. Hague and Mason (1986) investigated whether the use of computer readability measures as a feedback mechanism to student writers would foster more effective revision processes. They found an increase in grade level from the original drafts to revised versions. They attributed this to a motivational effect. Baer's (1988) descriptive case study portrayed a seventh-grade classroom where computer composition heightened the enjoyment of writing assignments. McMillan and Honey (1993) conducted a year-long study with a class of 25 eighth graders who were given the use of laptop computers. Students used laptops as portable diaries to keep journals, write stories, and complete assignments. A holistic measure of writing scores for a randomly selected group of students indicated marked improvement in their ability to communicate persuasively, organize their ideas effectively, and use a broad vocabulary effectively. The researchers attributed this increase to the heightened motivation attached to using laptop computers. Other research explored how technology could be used to enhance student interest when learning "dry" material. For example, Becker and Dwyer (1994) found that students who used hypertext to learn technical information experienced an increased sense of control and an increased level of intrinsic motivation to learn among hypertext users. More extensive research in the motivational aspects of reading and studying in these types of environments is clearly desirable.
< previous page
page_778
next page >
< previous page
page_779
next page > Page 779
Motivating Special Populations Studies that have explored the motivational effects of technology environments on special populations of literacy learners have also encompassed the second category of studies. Scott, Kahlich, and Barker (1994) found that rich context of a technology environment can provide the incentive required to invite at-risk students into literacy experiences. The study noted that technology encourages at-risk students to persist at reading and writing by evoking self-interest and self-motivation. Miller (1993) found that students who seem passive and lethargic in conventional classroom settings may virtually come alive in the ENFI (Electronic Network For Information) environment. Smith (1992) studied a project designed to increase the historically low reading performance of Native American students. The project created a hypertext computer reading program to sensitively address Navajo learning styles and cultural content. Other studies explored how programs like MOST (Multimedia Environments that Organize and Support Text) from Vanderbilt's Learning Technology Center attempt to accelerate children's learn by organizing instruction around visually rich, meaningful "macrocontexts" that enhance student motivation. These literacy initiatives and research programs advance a theoretical case that context-specific learning activities will enhance learner motivation. Several studies have highlighted how heightened motivation in a technological environment can increase the sense of efficacy of students diagnosed with learning disabilities. Cutler and Truss (1989) investigated a program designed to help junior high school remedial reading students increase their reading motivation by immediately providing definitions for unknown words. The study concluded that the program helps to increase students' reading rates and actively engages students in reading novels. Another study (Elkins, 1986) found that learners with writing and spelling difficulties who used word processing and spell-checking programs were motivated to become more independent writers. Although the evidence suggests that technology environments can be more motivating than conventional environments, we still know very little about what specific factors contribute to levels of heightened motivation in the technology environment. Further, it was suggested that the motivational value of many computer learning activities may actually harm student learning (Balajthy, 1989; Postman, 1995). Others attributed the "motivational bounce" that comes with technology use to the novelty value (Schofield, 1997) of the experience. This line of consideration suggests that as computers continue to become more commonly used by learners, the "motivational bounce" derived from the nonroutine experience will dissipate. Lastly, further research that distinguishes between the approaches that attempt to motivate through fun, glitzy, arcade-like edutainment and those initiatives that attempt to increase motivation by focusing on authentic, educative work seems to be necessary in the future. Computers and Collaboration As the role of technology in literacy instruction becomes more prominent, the social milieu of the classroom and the interactional processes between learners and teacher will undergo change. Intrator and Kamil (1998) noted that research that has explored the role and impact of technology on literacy communities and on social interaction in the classroom has increased in the last 3 years. These studies have emerged from the social constructivist tradition and focus on the interactive complexities of teaching and learning in technologically rich environments. The studies exploring the dimensions of social interactions in literacy learning fall into three categories: the effects of collaborative literacy practices in the classroom; the effects of collaborative writing in the pro-
< previous page
page_779
next page >
< previous page
page_780
next page > Page 780
fessional environment; and the effects of technology on the interactional patterns and relationships between teachers and students. Collaborative Literacy Practice in the Learning Environment Eldred and Hawisher (1995) reviewed research that focused on some social aspects of composition, particularly with regard to communication among collaborative writers. They raised questions about the role of gender in light of reduced social cues in computer-mediated communication. They note that these roles may not reflect traditional models of gender interactions. More than anything else, however, they called for more extended research focusing on these issues. A long-standing concern involving the use of the computer as a tool for learning involved the fear that learners would work in solitude and be cut off from human interaction (Schofield, 1997). Ironically, research suggests that the use of computers fosters higher levels of interaction and collaboration, particularly in the domain of writing (Bump, 1990; Dickinson, 1986; Hawkins Sheingold, Gearhart, & Berger, 1982; Mehan, Moll, & Riel, 1985). Dickinson's (1986) study of the writing program of a firstsecond-grade classroom showed that collaborative work at the computer created a new social organization that affected interactional patterns. He found that during normal individual writing assignments, students rarely spoke to each other; however, during collaborative computer writing, students spoke to each other about plans, revision, and issues of meaning and style. Other studies have found that the variety and complexity of language use increased during collaborative writing projects on the computer. Kent and Rakestraw (1994) studied two first-grade boys interacting during writing with the computer. They concluded that the computer was a valuable tool for facilitating complex language use. Gonzalez-Edfelt's (1990) study of limited English speakers discovered that the quantity and quality of oral discourse were raised during collaborative computer activities. Still other studies have shown that collaborative work with computers can improve the error monitoring of handicapped students (Hine, Goldman, & Cosden, 1990). The potential for collaborative writing projects to include an authentic audience for the task also increased the quality of student work. Two promising lines of research have looked beyond global characterizations of the amount of interaction and systematically identified interaction components. Allen and Thompson (1995) found that when fifth graders knew they would be sending their writing to outside readers who gave prompt responses, there was a positive effect on the quality of writing. Forman (1990) investigated the interactional dynamics of the computer-supported group work of student project teams. Powerful individualsexperts and advocatesdetermined how the groups used technology to support their group writing. This demonstrates the need for care in constituting collaborative groups. Studies in the college classroom have found that technology use also alters the patterns of social interaction. Gruber's (1995) study of asynchronous communication in the classroom context found that patterns of social interaction were significantly altered by the use of networked computers. Bump's (1990) study of freshman and senior English literature students and graduate humanities students tested a synchronous local area computer network and found that the advantages of computer-assisted classroom discussion far outweighed disadvantages. Advantages included greater student participation and a sense of liberation among minority students. Romano's (1993) observational study similarly found that computer-networked composition provided conditions that allowed egalitarian narrative to flourish. Warschauer's (19951996) study of computer-mediated communication found more equal participation among students by
< previous page
page_780
next page >
< previous page
page_781
next page > Page 781
comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion. Findings revealed a tendency toward more equal participation in the computer mode. They also used more lexically and syntactically formal language in electronic than in face-to-face discussion. A series of studies that explored collaborative literacy practices in the classroom emerged from Gallaudet University's Electronic Networks for Interaction (ENFI) project, which began in 1985. ENFI was designed to allow computers to simulate spoken conversation and allow deaf people to directly experience and participate in a live group discussion of English (Batson, 1993b). Most of the studies point to positive developments in the patterns of social interaction around writing. However, several studies have highlighted ways that collaborative work in technology environments occasionally results in interactions that do not approximate what is normally considered literate discourse. Kremers (1990) observed that students often engage in off-topic and confused discussion. In a reflective research piece about his own classroom, Miller (1993) warned that the medium can occasionally encourages inappropriate ''flaming" that results in "cheap shots" and criticism. Miller and Olson (1995) found that some teachers often allowed students to work on programs with little supervision, and overlooked miseducative "mouse wars" between paired students. Kumpulainen (1996) explored the quality of primary-student language during the process of collaborative writing with the word processor. She discovered that children's verbal interactions were highly task related, procedural, and bound by context. Very little exploratory talk was found. The variable nature of these findings suggests the need for extensive work to understand how instructional practices should be designed to maximize collaborative learning in technology environments. Collaborative Literacy Practice in the Professional Environment The second set of studies explored how collaborative literacy practices affect professional environments. Plowman (1993) attempted to understand the process of collaborative writing by investigating the transcripts from a group of five authors working closely with a text. Plowman argued that the different modes of talk (procedural, executive, or substantive) would be exceedingly difficult to reproduce if face-to-face social interaction were replaced by electronic mediums. Writing about management training, McConnell (1997) pointed out that gender issues in interaction patterns in online group work become an issue and that participants must be careful about overloading the group with information. Researchers writing for business publications have examined the effects of computer use on collaborative processes in workplace settings. Although many of these studies were done with MBA (master's degree in business administration) students, the implications generated were intended for those concerned with communication in the workplace. Some studies focused on how collaborative processes mediated by technology could increase quality of presentation. Sormunen and Ray (1996) ran an experiment that compared the use of face-to-face collaboration with collaborations using group systems software. Posttest performance was significantly higher for both groups, but software users had significantly higher performance on the content and organization components of writing. Forman (1990) studied the performance of novice strategic report writers and novice users of technology that supported group writing. She highlighted how unfamiliarity with technologically supported collaborative writing processes could amplify uncertainty around new tasks in the business environment. Mabrito (1992) explored how business documents collaboratively planned over electronic mail enhanced the collaborative process.
< previous page
page_781
next page >
< previous page
page_782
next page > Page 782
TeacherLearner Interactions Many researchers have predicted that, despite the promising rhetoric about technology's potential for driving innovative practice in the classroom, dominant cultural beliefs about teaching, learning, and proper knowledge will inhibit computer use and deter shifts in both practice and in teacher-student relationships (Cuban, 1986, 1993; Oppenheimer, 1997). This category of studies has explored changing dynamics of interaction between teachers and learners when technology is a central tool in the practice. These studies have examined effects involving a shift in the teacher's role from the conductor of whole-class instruction to interacting with individual students or with small groups (Hativa, Shapira, & Navon, 1990; Schofield, 1997). Burnett's (1986) exploration of the writing process of elementary school students found that teacherstudent writing conferences involved more sophisticated interactions when a word processor was used, and this difference may have explained the enhanced writing of the word-processed compositions. Phenix and Hannan (1984) reported that when word processors were used the frequency of teacherstudent conferences increased. Other studies have reported that the teacher's role and pattern of interaction with students underwent little change with the infusion of computers into their literacy practices. Michaels (1986) observed that in the two primary classrooms she researched, the organization and pacing of instruction changed very little once word processing methods, programs, and instruction were introduced. In the college environment, Batson (1993b) described changes in the interactional pattern between student and teacher as the horizontality of the ENFI classroom and suggested that online interactivity literally and figuratively levels the traditional hierarchical teacher-student relationship. He found that the tension between verticality and hierarchiality was more acute in the writing classroom where developing a sense of audience for one's writing was critical (Batson, 1993a). D'Agostino and Varone (1991) described a classroom research project that explored verbal response to on-screen student texts and considered how teachers could work more effectively with basic writers in a computer classroom where writing practice and oral feedback were emphasized. Hartman (1991) examined the effects of computer network technologies on teacherstudent and studentstudent interactions. The study found that teachers in networked sections interacted more with their students than did teachers in regular sections and that these teachers communicated more electronically with less able students than with more able students. Palmquist's (1993) study of two sections of an introductory composition course found that students used the network to collaborate with professors in different ways, including submitting unsolicited rough drafts to the instructor and discussing course-related concerns. Some Recurrent Problems We have yet to come to grips with a few older problems that seem to have been neglected, but that still have important consequences. One of these is reading at computer screens compared to reading hard copy. There is a pervasive feeling that reading at a computer screen is less comfortable than reading from a page. This particular problem has a long history, although it seems to have been neglected recently. In short, the older conclusion is that reading at a computer screen is slower and less efficient (in terms of comprehension or proofreading) than reading from hard copy (Gould & Grischkowsky, 1984; Haas & Hayes, 1985). Although there is some counterevidence (e.g., Gambrell, Bradley, & McLaughlin, 1987; Reinking, 1988), current interpretations suggest that reading at a computer screen is less efficient than from hard copy (Kamil & Lane, 1998; Neilsen, 1998). Some evidence suggests that higher resolution screens may, in fact, alleviate these problems (Gould & Grischkowsky, 1984; Haas & Hayes, 1985;
< previous page
page_782
next page >
< previous page
page_783
next page > Page 783
Neilsen, 1998). This is a critical research issue given the new versions of electronic books being brought to market, as well as proposals to replace textbooks with laptop computers. A second unresolved problem is what we can use the computer to teach in reading and writing. Current research largely ignores the traditional questions about the effects on achievement of teaching reading by computer. In the past, it has clearly been shown that there were effects, often fairly substantial (Niemiec, 1987; Niemiec & Walberg, 1985). Although the trend in using computers has been to emphasize less comprehensive programs, there does seem to be evidence that teaching by computer raises achievement. Coupled with the issue of how effective computers can be in teaching reading is the more general question of the costeffectiveness of computers for teaching reading. This was an intense area of concern in the late 1980s (Levin, Glass, & Meister, 1987; Levin & Meister, 1986; Niemiec & Walberg, 1986). Now that computers have become far more powerful and far cheaper, the cost-effectiveness should be even greater. This has not been a concern of current research or implementation, even though there are often promises of improved achievement as a result of computer usage (see, e.g., Forcier, 1995; Mendels, 1998). For special populations, the notion of cost-effectiveness may be very different. Some nontechnological instructional environments may be very costly because a low student-to-teacher ratio is required. For these environments, computer technology can be cost-effective. In other applications, only computers can fulfill certain assistive functions. In these cases, cost-effectiveness considerations may not be meaningful. There is simply no other way to achieve the desired ends. Conclusions: The Future We view the research on other technologies and literacy as a tapestry under construction. The warp and woof of the fabric have not yet entirely come together. Rather, we have bits and pieces of an overall design. It is important that the lacunae be filled in if we are ever to make substantial progress in the application of other technologies to literacy. We have shown that, despite the paucity of research, there are clear areas in which one can currently make confident conclusions. We have elaborated on six of these: writing and composition, hypermedia, multimedia, work with special populations, motivation, and collaboration. We feel that there is even greater potential in the application of other technologies to literacy. What is the future likely to bring? First, there will be increasing pressure to produce implementations for literacy. There seems to be a groundswell of public opinion supporting the use of computers in education. Despite the contrary opinions about the efficacy of computers (e.g., Cuban, 1986; Oppenheimer, 1997; Wenglinsky, 1998), there are already many uses for computers in literacy and literacy instruction. What we need is programmatic researchresearch that will allow the discovery of transferable principles, not context-specific information. We may not see dramatic changes in the rate of adoption and integration in the reading curriculum until such research demonstrates the efficacy of computer technology for reading instruction. Although some may argue (e.g., Leu, this volume) that the technology changes too rapidly to conduct research, we see no reason to assume that research must be so closely identified with technological change. We suggest that the underlying principles of obtaining meaning from text will not and simply cannot change as rapidly as either hardware or software. It is relatively unimportant whether text is presented on a screen driven by a 100- or a 300-MHZ processor, or whether students use an ergonomic or conventional keyboard, for example. What is far more important is how the text is
< previous page
page_783
next page >
< previous page
page_784
next page > Page 784
laid out on a screen or how the ancillary aids to understanding are brought to the reader. Also critical is the need for more research on the interaction between and among students, teachers, and computers. These are elements that do not change with anything like the rapidity of hardware product cycles. Because of the low installed base of users for many literacy applications, we may have to learn to answer questions through the use of formative experiments (see, e.g., Reinking & Watkins, 1996). This approach seeks to ask questions about how many resources are required to produce a given result, rather than questions about whether an intervention works. This approach is most suitable to answer the sorts of questions we have in a rapidly changing technology environment. We found little research on what we consider to be some important, cutting-edge topics: the use of voice recognition technology instead of manual keyboarding; voice recognition as part of reading instructional software; the use of smaller, alternative computing devices; or the use of portable electronic books (see, e.g., Neilsen, 1998). Voice recognition is a vital necessity if software is to be useful in teaching oral reading. We believe these are important developments near the horizon of technology implementation. Concerted, programmatic research and conceptualization are required if pedagogical needs are to drive the market rather than technological capabilities. A particularly crucial (and largely unresearched) area is that of curricular integration. That is, we need to determine optimal combinations of other technology and conventional literacy instruction. We need research in ways to make implementation of technology appropriate, useful, and beneficial for students and teachers. Above all, we need ways to demonstrate that value can be added to the curriculum if other technologies are brought to bear on literacy. All of these may require new research areas in alternative forms of assessment to examine, for example, the effects of multimedia technology on literacy. The combination of text and graphics represents special challenges for which we have little or no guidance from the research literature. The popularity of multimedia applications makes this line of research crucial We also believe that the adaptive nature of software has been largely untapped. This is partially due to the state of the general technology of instruction. As we come to specify teaching and instruction in sufficient detail, we will develop "smarter" software that will adapt to the student. This may be even more critical for special populations. Finally, we believe that we need to know more about the interactions of users with other technologies. That is, we need to know what the effect of simply using other technologies has on literacy. Questions of engagement, self-efficacy, and cognitive strategies seem to be most urgent. We have a long way to go before the tapestry is filled in and the promise of the original application of computer technology to reading (Atkinson & Hansen, 19661967) is brought to complete fruition. We also believe that this will happen as other technologies become more adaptable. It is also important that these issues become part of the mainstream, lest they be determined by noneducational influences. References Allen, G., & Thompson, A. (1995). Analysis of the effect of networking on computer-situated collaboration writing in a fifthgrade classroom. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 6576. Anderson-Inman, L. (1991). Enabling students with learning disabilities: Insights from research. Computing Teacher, 8, 2629. Anderson-Inman, L., & Horney, M. (1998). Transforming text for at-risk readers. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 323341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_784
next page >
< previous page
page_785
next page > Page 785
Atkinson, R., & Hansen, D. (19661967). Computer-assisted instruction in initial reading: The Stanford project. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 526. Baer, V. E. H. (1988). Computers as composition tools: A case study of student attitudes. Journal of Computer-Based Instruction, 15, 144148. Balajthy, E. (1989). Computers and reading: Lessons from the past and the technologies of the future. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bangert-Drowns, R. (1993). The word processor as an instructional tool: A meta-analysis of word processing in writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 63, 6993. Batson, T. (1993a). ENFI research. Computers and Composition, 10, 93101. Batson, T. (1993b). The origins of ENFI. In J. K. Peyton, B. C. Bruce, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities (pp. 87105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Beach, R., & Lundell, D. (1998). Early adolescents' use of computer-mediated communication in writing and reading. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a posttypographic world (pp. 323341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Becker, D., & Dwyer, M. M. (1994). Using hypermedia to provide learner control. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 155172. Boone, R., Higgins, K., Notari, A., & Stump, C. S. (1996). Hypermedia pre-reading lessons: Learner-centered software for kindergarten. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 7, 3970. Bump, J. (1990). Radical changes in class discussion using networked computers. Computers and the Humanities, 24, 4965. Burnett, J. (1986). Word processing as a writing tool of an elementary school student. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park. Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human Computer Interaction, 11, 125156. Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53, 445459. Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 2129. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107155 Cuban, L. (1986). Teachers and machines: The classroom use of technology since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press. Cuban, L. (1993). Computers meet classroom: Classroom wins. Teachers College Record, 95, 185210. Cutler, R. B., & Truss, C. V. (1989). Computer aided instruction as a reading motivator. Reading Improvement, 26, 103109. D'Agostino, K., & Varone, S. D. (1991). Interacting with basic writers in the computer classroom. Computers and Composition, 8, 3949. Daiute, C. (1983). Writing and computers. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley. Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in revising: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 141159. Daiute, C., & Kruideneir, J. (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 307318. Dickinson, D. K. (1986). Cooperation, collaboration, and a computer: Integrating a computer into a first-second grade writing program. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 357378. Eldred, J. C., & Hawisher, G. E. (1995). Researching electronic networks. Written Communication, 12 330359. Elkins, J. (1986). Self-help for older writers with spelling and composing difficulties: Using the word processor and spelling checker. Exceptional Child, 33, 7376. Ferrier, L. J., & Shane, H. C. (1987). Computer-based communication aids for the nonspeaking child with cerebral palsy. Seminars in Speech & Language, 8, 107122. Flood, J., & Lapp, D. (1995). Broadening the lens: Toward an expanded conceptualization of literacy. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 116). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Forcier, R. C. (1995). The computer as a productivity tool in education. Paramus, NJ: Prentice Hall. Forman, J. (1990). Leadership dynamics of computer-supported writing. Computers and Composition, 7, 3546. Gambrell, L., Bradley, V., & McLaughlin, E. (1987). Young children's comprehension and recall of computer screen displayed text. Journal of Research in Reading, 10, 156163. Gillingham, M. (1993). Effects of question complexity and reader strategies on adults' hypertext comprehension. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 26, 115.
Gonzalez-Edfelt, N. (1990). Oral interaction and collaboration at the computer. Computers in the Schools, 7, 5390. Gould, J., & Grischkowsky, N. (1984). Doing the same work with hardcopy and with CRT terminals. Human Factors, 26, 323337. Greenlee-Moore, M. E., & Smith, L. L. (1996). Interactive computer software: The effects on young children's reading achievement. Reading Psychology, 12, 4364.
< previous page
page_785
next page >
< previous page
page_786
next page > Page 786
Gruber, S. (1995). Re: Ways we contribute: Students, instructors and pedagogies in the computer-mediated writing classroom. Computers and Composition, 12, 6178. Haas, C., & Hayes, J. (1985). Reading on the computer: A comparison of standard and advanced computer display and hardcopy (CDC Tech. Rep. No. 7.) Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie-Mellon University, Communications Design Center. Hague, S. A., & Mason, G. (1986). Using the computers readability measure to teach students to revise their writing. Journal of Reading, 30, 1417. Hartman, K. (1991). Patterns of social interaction and learning to write: Some effects of network technologies. Written Communication, 8, 79113. Hativa, N., Shapira, R., & Navon, D. (1990). Computer-managed practice: Effects on instructional methods and teacher adoption. Teacher and Teacher Education, 6, 5568. Hawisher, G., LeBlanc, P., Moran, C., & Selfe, C. (1996). Computers and the teaching of writing in American. higher education, 19791994: A history. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Hawkins, J., Sheingold, K., Gearhart, M., &, & Berger, C. (1982). Microcomputers in schools: Impact on the social life of elementary classrooms. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3, 361373. Hine, M., Goldman, S. R., & Cosden, M, A. (1990). Error monitoring by learning handicapped students engaged in collaborative microcomputer-based writing. Journal of Special Education, 23, 407422. Horney, M. A., & Anderson-Inman, L. (1994). The electrotext project: hypertext reading patterns of middle school students. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 3, 7191. Intrator, S., & Kamil, M. L. (1998, April). Qualitative trends in publication of research on technology and reading, writing, and literacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Jonassen, D., Campbell, J., & Davidson, M. (1994). Learning with media: Restructuring the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 3139. Kamil, M. L. (1982). Technology and reading: A review of research and instruction. In J. Niles & L. Harris (Eds.), New inquiries in reading research and instruction: Thirty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 251260). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Kamil, M. L. (1998, December). A taxonomy of hypertext links. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Kamil, M. L., & Intrator, S. (1998). Quantitative trends in publication of research on technology and reading, writing, and literacy. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez-Brown (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook 47 (pp. 385396). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Kamil, M. L., & Lane, D. (1998). Researching the relationship between technology and literacy: An agenda for the 21st century. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a posttypographic world (pp. 323341). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kent, J. F., & Rakestraw, J. (1994). The role of computers in functional language: A tale of two writers. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 329337. Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with media. Review of Educational Research, 61, 179211. Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42, 719. Kremers, M. (1990). Sharing authority on a synchronous network: The case for riding the beast. Computers and Composition, 7, 6977. Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1991). Effectiveness of computer-based instruction: An updated analysis. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 7594. Kulik, J. A., Kulik, C. C., & C., Peter A. (1980). Effectiveness of computer-based college teaching: A meta-analysis of findings. Review of Educational Research, 50, 525544. Kumpulainen, K. (1996). The nature of peer interaction in the social context created by the use of word processors. Learning and Instruction, 6, 243261. Labbo, L. D., Reinking, D., & McKenna, M. (1995). Incorporating the computer into kindergarten: A case study. In K. A. Hinchman, D. J. Leu, & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice: Forty-fourth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 459465). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Lepper, M., & Chabay, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and instruction: Conflicting views on the role of motivational processes in computer-based education. Educational Psychologist, 20, 217230. Lepper, M., & Malone, T. W. (1987). Intrinsic motivation and instructional effectiveness in computer-based education. In R. E. Snow & M. J. Farr (Eds.), Aptitude, learning and instruction (pp. 255296). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Levin, H. M., Glass, G., & Meister, G. (1987). Cost-effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 11, 5072.
Levin, H. M., & Meister, G. (1986). Is CAI cost-effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 67 745749. Liu, M., & Reed, W. M. (1995). The effect of hypermedia assisted instruction on second language learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 12, 159175.
< previous page
page_786
next page >
< previous page
page_787
next page > Page 787
Mabrito, M. (1992). Computer-mediated communication and high-apprehensive writers: Rethinking the collaborative process. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, 55, 2629. MacArthur, C. A. (1998). Word processing with speech synthesis and word prediction: Effects on the dialogue journal writing of students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 151166. Mayer, R. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational Psychologist, 32, 119. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312320. McConnell, D. (1997). Computer support for management learning. In J. Burgoyne & M. Reynolds (Ed.), Management learning: Integrating perspectives in theory and practice (pp. 283294). London: Sage. McMillan, K., & Honey, M. (1993). Year one of project pulse: Pupils using laptops in science and English (Tech. Rep. 26). New York: Center for Technology in Education. Mehan, H., Moll, L., & Riel, M.M. (1985). Computers in classrooms: A quasi-experiment in guided change (Final report NIE 683-0027). San Diego: University of California. Mendels, P. (1998, April 27). U.S. official calls for studies of technology in classrooms. The New York Times on the Web [Online]. Available: http://home.earthlink.net/~aske/education/technology1.htm Michaels, S. (1986, April). Computer as dependent variable. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Miller, J. D. (1993). Script writing on computer network: Quenching the flames or feeding the fire. In J. Kreeft Peyton, B. C. Bruce, & T. Batson (Eds.), Network-based classrooms: Promises and realities (pp. 124137). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Miller, L., & Olson, J. (1995). How computers live in schools. Educational Leadership, 53, 7477. Montague, M. (1990). Computers cognition, and writing instruction. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Neilsen, J. (1998). Electronic booksA bad idea. The Alertbox: Current Issues in Web Usability [Online]. Available: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/980726.html Nelson, K. E., & Camarata, S. M. (1996). Improving English literacy and speech-acquisition learning conditions for children with severe to profound hearing impairments. Volta Review, 98, 1741. Neuman, S. (1991). Literacy in the television age. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Niemiec, R. P. (1987). Comparative effects of computer-assisted instruction: A synthesis of reviews. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 3, 1937. Niemiec, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (1985). Computers and achievement in the elementary schools. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 1, 435440. Niemiec, R. P., & Walberg, H. J. (1986). CAI can be doubly effective. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 750751. Oppenheimer, T. (1997, July). The computer delusion. Atlantic Monthly, pp. 4562. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Palmquist, M. (1993). Network-supported interaction in two writing classes. Computers and Composition, 10, 2553. Papert, S. (1980). Mindstorms. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Phenix, J., & Hannan, E. (1984). Word processing in the grade one classroom. Language Arts, 61, 804812. Plass, J. L., Chun D. M., Mayer, R. E., & Leutner, D. (1998). Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in a secondlanguage multimedia learning environment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 2536. Plowman, L. (1993). Tracing the evolution of co-authored text. Language and Communication, 13, 149161. Postman, N. (1995). The end of education. New York: Alfred Knopf. Purves, A. C. (1998). The web of text and the web of god: An essay on the third information transformation. New York: Guilford Press Raskind, M. H., & Higgins, E. L. (1995). Special issue: Technology for persons with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 141158. Reinking, D. (1988). Computer-mediated text and comprehension differences: The role of reading time, reader preference, and estimation of learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 484498. Reinking, D. (1995). Reading and writing with computers: Literacy research in a post-typographic world. In K. Hinchman, D. Leu, & C. Kinzer (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 1733). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Reinking, D. (1998). Introduction: Synthesizing technological transformations of literacy in a post-typographic world. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of Literacy and Technology (pp. xixxx). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reinking, D., & Bridwell-Bowles, L. (1991). Computers in reading and writing. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II, pp. 310340). New York: Longman. Reinking, D., McKenna, M., Labbo, L., and Kieffer, R. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Reinking, D., & Watkins, J. (1996). A formative experiment investigating the use of multimedia book reviews to increase elementary students' independent reading (Reading Research Rep. No. 55). National Reading Research Center, University of Georgia, Athens. Rice, G. (1994). Examining constructs in reading comprehension using two presentation modes: Paper vs. computer. Journal of Educational Computer Research, 11, 153178
< previous page
page_787
next page >
< previous page
page_788
next page > Page 788
Romano, S. (1993). The egalitarianism narrative: Whose story? Which yardstick? Computers and Composition, 10, 528. Rouet, J., Levonen, J., Dillon, A., & Spiro, R. (Eds.). (1996). Hypertext and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Schofield, J. W. (1997). Computers and classroom social processesA review of the literature. Social Science Computer Review, 15, 2739. Scott, D., Kahlich, P., & Barker, J. (1994). Motivating at-risk students using a literature based writing unit with computers. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5, 311317. Shanahan, T., & Kamil, M. (1994). Academic libraries and research in the teaching of English. Champaign, IL: National Conference on Research in English and Center for the Study of Reading. Sharp, D. L. M., Bransford, J. D., Goldman, S. R., Risko, V., Kinzer, C., & Vye, N. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children. Educational Technology Research & Development, 43, 2542. Sheingold, K., Kane, J. H., & Endreweit, M.E. (1983). Microcomputer use in schools: Developing a research agenda. Harvard Educational Review, 4, 412432. Smith, K. (1992). Using multimedia with Navajo children: An effort to alleviate problems of cultural learning style, background of experience, and motivation. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 8, 287294. Snyder, I. (1993). The impact of computers on students' writing: A comparative study of the effects of pens and word processors on writing context, process and product. Australian Journal of Education, 37, 525. Sormunen, C., & Ray, C. (1996). Teaching collaborative writing with group support systems softwareAn experiment. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal, 38, 125138. Spache, G. (1967). Reading technology. In G. Schick & M. May (Eds.), Junior college and adult reading programsExpanding fields: Sixteenth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 178184). Milwaukee, WI: National Reading Conference. Steelman, J. D., Pierce, P. L., & Koppenhaver, D. A. (1993). The role of computers in promoting literacy in children with severe speech and physical impairments (SSPI). Topics in Language Disorders, 13, 7688. Warschauer, M. (19951996). Comparing face-to-face and electronic discussion in the second language classroom. CALICO Journal, 13, 725. Wenglinsky, H. (1998). Does it compute? The relationship between educational technology and student achievement in mathematics. Policy Information Reports. Princeton, NJ: ETS Policy Information Center. Woodward, J., & Rieth, H. (1997). A historical review of technology research in special education. Review of Educational Research, 67, 503536.
< previous page
page_788
next page >
< previous page
page_789
next page > Page 789
PART V LITERACY POLICIES
< previous page
page_789
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_791
next page > Page 791
Chapter 41 Second-Language Reading as a Case Study of Reading Scholarship in the 20th Century Elizabeth B. Bernhardt Stanford University This chapter discusses the conflation of factors surrounding the concept of second-language reading. Indeed, the term secondlanguage reading signifies different phenomena depending on the context in which the term is used. If one chooses to emphasize reading, then the term may refer to the interesting role that second languages have played as contributors to early theories of reading. At the same time, at the level of practice, the single purpose frequently cited for learning a second language is for reading it. Or, at the research level, the term may signify the process of reading in a language other than the mother tongue. If one chooses to emphasize the first part of the term, second language, other images are evoked. At the level of policy, the term may signify much of what became critical problems for public school educators, mainly reading educators, centered on the notion of immigrant children learning to read in English, their second language. Or, at the level of practice, the term may refer to the principle vehicle for learning a second languagereading material. At the level of research, the term may evoke notions of cross-lingual comparisons. Yet another dimension to the term is that of language. In the notoriously monolingual Anglophone world language is frequently synonymous with English and, therefore, second language refers to all languages other than English. This monolingualism, that is, English-language monolingualism, is such a dominant dimension in the Anglophone world that it is often difficult to get even the most astute scholars to think about the world in ways other than with an Anglophone view. Scholarship on language planning, referring to concepts such as linguistic imperialism (Phillipson, 1992; Tollefson, 1991), and on multiculturalism (McKay & Weinstein-Shr, 1993), documents this construction. Whatever the emphasis or whichever component is chosen for foregrounding, it is clear that all of these significations conflate to form a diverse, complicated, and frustrating landscape to traverse, let alone explain or predict. "Reading" as a field of scholarly inquiry contains interesting reflections of the multiple meanings of second-language reading as a part of the Anglophone world. "Reading
< previous page
page_791
next page >
< previous page
page_792
next page > Page 792
scholarship'' by and large exists in the English-speaking world of North America, England, Israel, Australia and New Zealand. The only real exception to this overgeneralization is reading scholarship in the Netherlands. The French and the Russians, who have had such an influence on literary reading and on late-20th-century text interpretation (e.g., Bahktin, 1981; Foucault, 1972) and the Spanish and the Germans, too, have no concept of reading (as in "learning to read") other than in the sense of reading difficulty and disability (Biglmaier, 1991). This chapter considers the extent to which these factors, Anglophilia in particular, have contributed to the construction of the field of reading and to reading research in the 20th century. The Historical Role of Second-Language Reading in Reading Research, Practice, and Policy Second Language and Early Reading Research Reading research, in its earliest inception, actually acknowledged reading in languages other than "the vernacular" as an important dimension of investigations into the reading process. Javal (1878) and Cattell (1886) each used foreign words in their studies on perception in the reading process. They found that the reading of a foreign language text was more cognitively fatiguing than the reading of a native language text. In the same time period, Huey (1909) cited the work of Erdmann and Dodge (1898), working in Germany, which uncovered similar evidence. By the close of the 19th century, it was generally accepted knowledge that foreign language reading is a case of effortful reading even among highly literate adult subjects. Huey (1909) used foreign language reading as examples and counterexamples to illustrate the psychology of reading. In a general explanation of the reading process, one eerily predictive of several late-20th-century findings, he stated: Our words are thoroughly organized according to these general associative habits of our language, and when any given series has occurred in our reading, the sort of words and the sentence forms that belong in sequence with these are subexcited in advance of their appearance on the page, and need but slight cues from the page to cause them to spring into perpetual consciousness. (p. 142) That the general meaning dawns upon the reader precedent to the full sentence-utterance is evidenced by the many cases in which variant words of equivalent meaning are read, and also by the comparative ease with which a reader may paraphrase the thought of what he reads. This is especially noticeable in the case of a person reading a foreign language which he does not pronounce easily but which he comprehends rather rapidly. Here the visual word and the phrase precepts touch off total meanings which clothe themselves, as the meanings become articulate, in English sentences, and we have as a result the mongrel reading which passes for French or German in so many modern language classes. (p. 148) In the final section of The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading, Huey turns to issues of curricular time, arguing that reading research will contribute to efficiency. In this arena, too, he uses the example of foreign language learning, writing that "the learning of foreign languages, ancient or modern, will in many quarters undergo considerable revision in the direction of economy, when the facts are clearly grasped as to what constitutes the essence of natural reading" (p. 428). This is an interesting concern on the part of Huey given that, as this chapter argues, that concern virtually disappeared from reading research in the century that followed. It did not disappear, however, without capturing the attention of two additional reading researchers, Judd and Buswell, who might be considered precursors of the modernist-psychological view of reading. In the justification for their watershed work
< previous page
page_792
next page >
< previous page
page_793
next page > Page 793
on investigating silent reading as a viable means of reading instruction, Judd and Buswell (1922) noted: "It was the purpose of this investigation to deal with the foreign languages as examples of reading for the purpose of throwing light on the general psychological and educational character of the reading process." They continued, "let it be said explicitly that this is an inquiry into reading. . . . it deals with these languages as specimens" (p. 91). Judd and Buswell were intent on understanding the subprocesses involved in reading silently for comprehension and for examining "reading attitude," meaning different dispositions toward text with regard to reading purpose and text type. They contrast the "mechanical approach" (p. 4) of the "grammatical attitude" (p. 5) with an active approach. They summarized their work with: A printed page turns out to be, as shown by this study, a source of a mass of impressions which the active mind begins to organize and arrange with reference to some pattern which it is trained to work out. . . . Given a printed book, a pair of eyes, an active brain, and it is assumed that whatever associations are being set up must be of the same general type as those set up when a book printed in the vernacular is similarly held before eyes and active brain. The fact is that a great variety of results can issue from the coming together of books, eyes, and brains. (pp. 45) In fact, the main conclusion to the second-language dimension of the study was indeed that most of the pupils who have had a corresponding amount [three years] of French show characteristic symptoms of reading, although their reading is of a labored type. . . . mature foreign-language records show that a foreign language can be read in a manner directly comparable to the reading of the vernacular . . . the manner of reading is fundamentally the same. (p. 91) In the study, Judd and Buswell contended there were significant differences between the reading of French and Latin; French showed characteristic symptoms of reading, and Latin did not. They noted, for example, "that in no case does a third-year student of the best grade in seven high schools in and around Chicago read Latin" (p. 91). Perhaps further archival research would reveal additional agendas behind their work. In the policy implications section of their report on the Chicago public schools, Judd and Buswell noted that the continuation of Latin in the schools is "preposterous" (p. 156) and seemed to conceive of the learning of French as school time relatively well spent. One wonders, of course, that if the JuddBuswell investigation was purely about reading, what actually motivated the vociferous attack on the learning of Latin? Judd and Buswell were highly visible advocates of a scientific approach to solving educational problems. Perhaps they simply wanted to begin pushing the educators making curriculum recommendations to base them on laboratory studies. Judd and Buswell were reflections of their own time, and their writings are clear artifacts of particular views of public schooling. Second Language and the Early Phase of American Public Education Languages other than English in the American school curriculum have a history as old as the curriculum itself. Major figures in American intellectual history such as Franklin, Jefferson, and Webster all weighed in on the issue as a part of the Puritan legacy. The Puritans, "although proud of unrestricted immigration, . . . wanted to ensure that such diversity would not destroy what . . . was freedom's prototype. To overcome the
< previous page
page_793
next page >
< previous page
page_794
next page > Page 794
heterogeneity that they feared threatened the unity and example of their country, they relied on education" (Carlson, 1975, p. 4). Puritan education focused on Protestant-based values and systems and dismissed as damnable (literally) and anti-Christian any alternative views. The Puritans were so focused on complete acceptance of their lifestyle that they held no compunction about massacring native peoples or of stockading even clergy whom they suspected of some degree of disloyalty. Acceptance and "the imperious quest for conformity" (Carlson, 1975, p. 11), characterized the 17th-century legacy handed to the Founders. The Puritan legacy of "educating for homogeneity" (Carlson, 1975, p. 14)based as it was on a religious agendafound its way into the 18th century as part of a secular political agenda embodied most clearly, but not exclusively, by Franklin (Carlson, 1975). In the guise of providing intellectual leadership, Franklin, for example, opened charity schools for German immigrants. The express purpose, however, was to eliminate the German language and German mentality from the colonies. Franklin considered the English system far superior. Franklin's writings also contain generally disparaging comments about students wasting time learning modern languages "often without Success" (Labaree, 1961, p. 108). It is, of course, true that other Founders such as Jefferson and Webster were not completely hostile to the notion of the learning of languages. Jefferson called for modern languages in his 1817 curriculum (Jefferson, 1955). Webster also included the study of modern languages other than English in his interest in vocational study (Rudolph, 1965). Yet dominant was the spirit of a standardized American language that would not only unify the country politically, but potentially out-English the English. Both Adams (1852) and Webster (1789) underlined the critical link between national unity and linguistic unity (Rudolph, 1965). Bernhardt (1998) commented that "early America can be characterized by the dialectic between a utilitarian view of language study and the messianic establishment of American English as a manifest destiny" (p. 43). This backdrop of the 18th and 19th centuries is particularly key in conceptualizing the relationship of second languages to American schooling and most specifically in confronting the role of second languages in reading research. Yet, it is, of course, the first 20 years of the 20th centurythe American centurythat make the case for the argument. These years, marked by major southern and eastern European immigrations, the American Industrial Revolution, and the First World War, critically influenced the beginnings of the public school bureaucracy. The major political movement of the time was known as "Americanization." It became particularly strong after the First World War, in which American sentiments for fighting for the world were high and so were feelings of suspicion toward foreigners. In 1918, the U.S. Commissioner of Education referred to Americanization "as a war measure" (Report of the Commissioner of Education, 1918, p. 132). The federal office charged with implementing Americanization programs was the Department of the Interior, due to its control over immigration matters. In a critical speech in New York City in 1919, Franklin Lane, Secretary of the Interior, laid out the philosophical groundwork of Americanization: There is no one thing so supremely essential in a government such as ours, where decisions of such importance must be made by public opinion, as that every man and woman and child shall know one tonguethat each may speak to every other and that all shall be informed. There can be neither national unity in ideals or in purpose unless there is some common method of communication through which may be conveyed the thought of the Nation. All Americans must be taught to read and write and think [emphasis from Lane] in one language; this is a primary condition to that growth which all nations expect of us, and which we demand of ourselves. (p. 11)
< previous page
page_794
next page >
< previous page
page_795
next page > Page 795
In order to meet this patriot demand, the Americanization Bill was forwarded to Congress in 1919. This bill called for a program in the education of "illiterates" and for persons "unable to understand, speak, read, or write in English" and in the "training and preparation of teachers, supervisors, and directors, for such educational work" (Department of the Interior, 1919, p. 3). The bill allocated $12,500,000 over 7 years for teacher salaries and an additional $750,000 over 7 years for teacher and supervisor preparation programs. Documents such as Suggestions for Americanization Work Among Foreign-Born Women (U.S. Naturalization Bureau, 1921), books such as Democracy and Assimilation: The Blending of Immigrant Heritages in America (Drachsler, 1920) and Adult Immigration Education: Its Scope, Content, and Methods (Sharlip & Owens, 1925), and studies such as Schooling of the Immigrant (Thompson, 1920), sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation, laid out the groundwork for effective Americanization programs in educational settings. The first principle in using "the school as the chief instrument of Americanization" (Thompson, 1920, p. 1) found in any of these documents is to insure the use of English as the sole language of the classroom. The descriptions of the receiving end of Americanization programs are generally dismal. Cavello (1958) wrote that "we soon got the idea that Italian meant something inferior, and a barrier was erected between children of Italian origin and their parents" (p. 43). Cavello's volume, a biography of an immigrant who became an educator, is a sad yet inspirational tale of the feelings surrounding the process of being "Americanized" in school. Jane Addams, in fact, concurred with Cavello's description. Addams (1930), noting the primary role of the American school in the Americanization process, indicated that There is a certain indictment which may be justly brought, in that the public school too often separates the child from his parents and widens that old gulf between fathers and sons which is never so cruel and so wide as it is between the immigrants who come to this country and their children who have gone to public school and feel that they have learned it all. (Lagemann, 1985, pp. 136137) Addams continued by arguing that while the numbers of incarcerations of immigrants were actually lower than of native-born Americans, arrests of immigrant children were twice as high as compared with the children of native-born Americans. She attributed these statistics to a failure of the schoolsthat the American public school was deliberately forcing a disconnection with parental values and, hence, sending children without proper guidance "into the perilous business of living" (p. 138). Immigrant organizations themselves were caught in the dilemma of participating in Americanization and in maintaining their own identities. An excellent example is that of Jewish immigration in New York City. In the summer of 1890 the Baron de Hirsch Foundation endowed classes in English for children and adults. Although hundreds of children and adults were supported by these schools, there was significant resistance to them because many children were schooled in Jewish schools known as "cheder." Joseph (1935) indicates that "the greatest difficulty experienced by visitors [leaders of the Jewish communityE. B.] was to persuade parents to remove their children from the 'cheder', and to impress upon them that the Baron de Hirsch schools were not a scheme for weaning the children from orthodoxy" (p. 254). Also established at the time was a library (which eventually became the Seward Park Division of the New York Public Library) containing books in Hebrew and Russian (Joseph, 1935). It would be inappropriate to interpret this portion of the essay as a political diatribe against the learning of English and in blind support of multilingualism. Immigrants arrived in America precisely to escape many of the horrors they lived with in their native countries. The price that they paid explicitly for the privilege of living in America
< previous page
page_795
next page >
< previous page
page_796
next page > Page 796
was to be Americanizeda process that entailed the leaving behind of a culture and language. The point for this essay is to uncover the political circumstances under which second-language speakers entered American schooling and to understand that the tensions surrounding the role of second language are more than 200 years old. Current Trends and Issues in Second-Language Reading Research Second-language reading has often been accused of being a slavish imitation of first-language reading research. In fact, in the Second Handbook, Weber (1991) characterized second language reading at several points in her essay as derivative: "research efforts in bilingual reading have to some extent reflected research trends in first-language reading, particularly in the turn to qualitative methods" (p. 104); "The direction of research on second-language reading in academic and laboratory settings follows recent trends in first-language reading, especially comprehension" (p. 108); "research on reading and learning to read more than one language can be seen largely as an extension of inquiry undertaken in first-language reading" (p. 114). All of these statements imply that the research area "as limited as it is'' (p. 115) has failed to do little more than replicate both the tasks and the findings of first-language research based in English. The Weber essay provides exceptional support for the Anglophilial thesis of the current essay. The word "English" is mentioned no less often than 136 times in her essay called "Linguistic Diversity and Reading in American Society"; Spanish is mentioned 31 times; French, 17; Chinese, 11; and German, Haitian Creole, Cantonese, Latin, Japanese, and Arabic in single digits. The essay, in fact, begins with "English is the paramount language of the United States" (p. 97) and ends with "The predominance of English in U.S. society is apparent from the research on reading in more than one language" (p. 114). The dictionary definition of paramount as "superior to all others" reflects the linguistic hegemony that characterizes the Weber essay as does the use of the word predominant, defined as "having superior strength, influence, or authority." Research Syntheses, 1990Present Indeed, although the negative spin on the area of research in second-language reading is unfortunate, it is probably deserved: the most substantial and comprehensive review of second-language reading research (Bernhardt, 1991) indicates that topics explored in the late 1970s and the 1980s (schema theory and its attendant background knowledge issues, text structure, word recognition, etc.) are all found in the second-language reading database with relatively little that could be identified as "unique." Many studies not only committed the sins of their fathers in first language reading research, but also used exactly the same textsonly in a translated version. This has led Bernhardt to comment that a lot is known about reading texts in a second language that would never actually be read in an authentic literacy setting. Weber separates second-language reading research into two areas: word recognition, which she decries as lacking in secondlanguage reading research, and comprehension studies. This is a curious duality. Bernhardt (1991) described the empirical base of second-language studies (principally referring to studies that examined adolescent and adult readersi.e., readers who generally possessed a first literacy) as consisting of nine categories. She acknowledged that these nine categories were constructed from theoretical models of reading such as Goodman (1968), LaBerge and Samuels (1974), and Spiro, Bruce, and Brewer (1980), as prototypic representatives of
< previous page
page_796
next page >
< previous page
page_797
next page > Page 797
the schema-theory movement. These models, along with Coady (1979), who made the first formal statement of variables entailed in the second-language reading process, isolated word recognition; background knowledge factors; text structure analyses; oralaural factors; syntactic features; cross-lingual processing strategies; testing; and instruction. A less extensive review published at approximately the same time provided validation for these groupings of second-language studies (Grabe, 1991). Grabe separated the field into five, rather than nine, categories: schema theory, automaticity, vocabulary, comprehension strategies, and reading/writing. Several years later, Fitzgerald (1995a, 1995b) focused her research synthesis exclusively on English in the United States, thereby eliminating a handful of studies included in Bernhardt (1991) and Grabe (1991). Her synthesis, nevertheless, delimited seven categories consistent with previous reviews. Finally, a synthesis focused explicitly on the concept of "professional reader" included five categories also consistent with previous reviews (Ulijn & Salager-Meyer, 1998). In her synthesis, Bernhardt relied on the authors' determination of independent and dependent variables. As Weber pointed out, there are not many word recognition studies, yet considerably more than she cites. Bernhardt argued that the studies themselves are fairly consistent, indicating that speed of processing is indeed related to fluency and that phonological factors are key to word recognition even in languages that are nonalphabetic and considered to be more conceptual in nature (Brown & Haynes, 1985; Favreau, Komoda, & Segalowitz, 1980; Favreau & Segalowitz, 1982; Hatch, Polin, & Part, 1974; Hayes, 1988; Haynes, 1981; Koda, 1987; Meara, 1984; Walker, 1983). The background knowledge studies, too, reflect general findings from the firstlanguage reading data set: The knowledge a reader brings influences comprehension, and manipulations of content can lead to differences in comprehension (Adams, 1982; Alderson & Urquhart, 1988; Campbell, 1981; Carrell, 1983, 1987; Carrell & Wallace, 1983; Connor, 1984; Hudson, 1982; Johnson, 1981, 1982; Lee, 1986; Mohammed & Swales, 1984; Nunan, 1985; Olah, 1984; Omaggio, 1979; Parry, 1987; Perkins & Angelis, 1985; Steffensen, Joag-Dev, & Anderson, 1979; Zuck & Zuck, 1984). A number of studies examined text structure. These studies found second-language readers sensitive to structural differences in texts (Carrell, 1984a; Cohen, Glasman, Rosenbaum-Cohen, Ferrar, & Fine, 1979; Davis, 1984; Davis, Lange, & Samuels, 1988; Flick & Anderson, 1980; Perkins, 1987; Stanley, 1984; Steffensen, 1988; Urquhart, 1984). Aural/oral factors, a fourth area, is diverse in its findings because this area includes any studies referring to oral reading (i.e., generally using miscue analysis) (Bernhardt, 1983; Connor, 1981; Devine, 1981, 1984; Ewoldt, 1981; Grosse & Hameyer, 1979; Hodes, 1981; Muchisky, 1983; Nehr, 1984; Neville & Pugh, 1975; Reeds, Winitz, & Garcia, 1977; Romatowski, 1981; Tatlonghari, 1984). Syntactic factors in second-language reading parallel a number of first language findings; syntactic complexity does not necessarily predict text difficulty for second-language readers (Barnett, 1986; Bean, Potter, & Clark, 1980; Bhatia, 1984; Guarino & Perkins, 1986; Jarvis & Jensen, 1982; Olshtain, 1982; Robbins, 1983; Strother & Ulijn, 1987). Metacognition and affect were investigated over the years in only a few studies. The studies isolated a set of strategies that are found among all readersgood readers keep the meaning of a text in mind as they read; they read in word groups; their motivation influences the types of strategies they use (Fransson, 1984; Hosenfeld, 1977; Neville, 1979; Shohamy, 1982). In summary, based on these studies, Weber is to a large extent justified in her commentary that there is considerable overlap between the first- and secondlanguage reading databases. Bernhardt (1991) attempted to synthesize these factors in order to get to a holistic picture of variables as they interact in the second language reading process. The synthesis was set against the backdrop of her literature review and included new data that used recall in the first language as a integrative measure of reading comprehension in a second language. That synthesis produced a developmental plot characterized as sets of curves: rapidly declining error rates in word recognition and phonographemic con-
< previous page
page_797
next page >
< previous page
page_798
next page > Page 798
fusions over time; increasing syntactic errors that then decrease over time; and the use of background knowledge and intratextual perceptions and impressions that seemed to be unrelated to length of learning time. Two features of the synthesis are not immediately intuitively obvious. First, the fact that syntactic errors actually increase with learning time is evidence that as learners become more sophisticated in their use of language they make more sophisticated errors. This finding is consistent with all of the language development literatureboth first and second. "U-shaped" developmental patternscorrect behaviors followed by overgeneralized incorrect patterns, followed by distinguished correct patternsare not uncommon. The second element that requires commentary involves metacognition. The synthesis revealed that knowledge and affect are linked to individual readers. Bringing knowledge to bear on some dimension of text context or choosing to respond to that text in a personal or aesthetic manner does not seem to be related to any particular learning phenomenon or to any proficiency level. This particular statement (Fig. 41.1) of the theoretical distribution of factors involved in second-language reading was never tested. It suffers from having been generated on cognate languages (namely, French, German, and Spanish) whose structures and vocabularies are more like English than not. It was also developed using one assessment techniquerecall in the first language. But, most importantly, it did not acknowledge what was to be discovered as the most critical variable in the second-language processthe first language (see following section). It nevertheless remains as the only fully articulated model of the secondlanguage reading process currently published. In the late 1990s, a number of areas remained consistent instances of research interest: affective factors, text structure, syntactic features, and word knowledge and instruction. A further area, relationships between other language modalities and reading, also emerged. Affective factors, for example, metamorphosed into an interest in literature and interpretation (Chi, 1995; Kramsch & Nolden, 1994; Davis, 1992; Davis, Caron-Gorell, Kline, & Hsieh, 1992; Tian, 1991). Chi, Kramsch and Nolden, Tian, and Davis all examined the manner in which readers' first-language general knowledge, literacy knowledge, and literature knowledge come into play in their learning of inter-
Fig. 41.1 Theoretical distribution of factors in second-language reading. Redrawn from Bernhardt (1991).
< previous page
page_798
next page >
< previous page
page_799
next page > Page 799
pretive skills in a second language. In an important attitude survey, Davis et al. examined the stance that foreign-language learners take toward the use of literature in its role as instructional text. They found that majors and minors in languages held very positive attitudes about the use of literature; interestingly, though, they found no relationship between foreign travel experience and attitudes toward literature and a negative relationship between knowledge of the other culture and an appreciation of its literature. Given that literary texts are the principle form of instructional text for almost all of foreign language instruction, it is critical that there be better understandings of the interactions of students and text within this context. The structure of texts, too, remained an active part of the database. Yano, Long, and Ross (1994) modified texts in three different ways and then posed multiple-choice questions. Because there were statistical interactions between the modifications and test items, the researchers concluded that "different kinds of text modification facilitate different levels of comprehension" (p. 190). They found that elaborated textstext with more language rather than lesswere more successful as learning tools for second language readers. Riley (1993) examined story structure. She found that naturally occurring structures in storiesrather than texts that were restructured in some fashionled to higher performance. She also found, however, a language proficiency effect. Tang (1992) found that presenting students with graphic organizers was a method to facilitate reading comprehension. Investigations of morphosyntactic features also remained. Three studies examined the effects of particular language features on second-language comprehension. Both Berkemeyer (1994) and Kitajima (1997) examined referential ties. Examining English readers of German as a second language, Berkemeyer found that the greater the ability of readers to identify anaphoric relations in German correctly, the higher was their general comprehension ability. Kitajima investigated learners of Japanese and, in corollary results, found that learners trained in understanding the coreferential system of Japanese attained higher comprehension scores. Takahashi and Roitblatt (1994) examined the understanding of Japanese learners of English reading indirect speech acts. By calculating reading speed, they found that learners do indeed seem to process both literal and nonliteral meanings during reading. Vocabulary actually became a more significant area of study throughout the late 1990s. Kim (1995) identified vocabulary as a key problem for second-language readers. Learners' dictionary use led to positive gains in vocabulary acquisition (also Knight, 1994), yet students were also frequently misled by dictionary entries. In addition, it appears that dictionary use significantly decreased reading speed (Luppescu & Day, 1993). Leffa (1992) found that electronic glossing (in contrast to a conventional dictionary) led to higher reading comprehension scores in reading English as a foreign language, although Davis (1989) did not. Laufer and Hadar (1997) also looked at dictionary use; they found no consistency in effect for bilingual, bilingualized or monolingual dictionaries on the performances of second language learners. Parry (1991) found students struggling to acquire vocabulary through academic reading. Using case studies of a number of learners, Parry found no consistently productive strategy to acquire new words. Zimmerman (1997) found that direct vocabulary instruction in conjunction with significant amounts of reading was more productive than simply relying on extensive reading. Chun and Plass (1996) found that multimedia presentations including advance organizers and vocabulary support enhanced the recall of propositions from a text. Hulstijn (1993) examined the conditions under which learners choose to look up words. He found that readers generally chose to look up words based on their perceived relevance to the text, and that this generalby no means universalbehavior was not particularly related to the word knowledge that a reader already had. De Bot, Paribakht, and Wesche (1997) examined the use of lexical processing strategies.
< previous page
page_799
next page >
< previous page
page_800
next page > Page 800
Finally, a concern with instruction remained. Two substantial reviews conducted in the mid 1990s reflect the conflation of issues in second language reading. Fitzgerald (1995a, 1995b) reviewed the practice/methodology literature, yet included studies involving only English as a second language. Investigations that examined literacy instruction in language other than English were not perceived to be germane to the issue of developing second-language literacy. Fitzgerald concluded, in parallel to Weber (1991), that there is little that is actually unique in the practice literature on second-language reading development. Another review of the practice literature, Bernhardt (1994), examined how the issue of second-language reading is considered in textbooks used in language arts and reading methods courses as well as in practice-oriented reading and language arts journals. Examining 75 textbooks published between 1980 and 1992 and issues of The Reading Teacher, Journal of Reading, and Language Arts indicated a minimal treatment of the topic. At the level of individual investigations, the 1990s provided a number of substantive studies that examined efficacious instructional approaches (Blum, Koskinen, Tennant, Parker, Straub, & Curry, 1995; Elley, 1991; Hudson, 1991; Lai, 1993; Mason & Krashen, 1997). These studies examined learners of different ages exposed to a variety of approaches to extensive, content-based (rather than grammar-focused) reading. These studies found that providing students extended reading experiences over time with authentic, not grammatically sequenced or altered, texts promoted the greatest gains in comprehension over time. A second approach to facilitating second-language reading comprehension focused on the use of strategies. Rusciolelli (1995) indicated that students self-reported the positive impact of skimming and word guessing practice on their reading comprehension; Stavans and Oded (1993) found, similarly, that students all seem to use a certain set of strategies, but some of them use them more effectively than others. Their study, which concluded that teachers need to rely on individual student's strategy use rather than the converse, is compatible with Auerbach and Paxton (1997). Subjects in the latter study were given the opportunity to reflect and articulate their individual use of strategies that had a facilitative impact on their comprehension processes. Filling a gap in the instruction literature are Johnson (1992) and Graden (1996). Each of these studies was conducted within the teacher beliefs paradigm. Each caution that teachers do not necessarily match what they believe to what they do instructionally and that they do not necessarily have research-based information about the second-language reading process at hand. Relationships with other language modalities, that is, reading/writing relationships (Carrell & Connor, 1991; Hedgcock & Atkinson, 1993), were new areas of investigation in the 1990s. Hedgcock and Atkinson found little relationship between the quantity and ability to read and writing proficiency in a second language. Carrell and Connor found that reading and writing are genre related and provided some developmental evidence for genre across reading, but not across writing. The corollary, listening/reading relationships (Lund, 1991), also remained areas of interest. Lund documented differences between comprehension performances based on modality, with readers recalling more detail, listeners able to comprehend more globally. Significant Challenges to the Present Database Two additional important and influential areas that received significant attention in the 1990s, testing and cross-lingual processing, deserve special consideration. They are key toward establishing (re)interpretations of the data base and for directing developments in it. In her 1991 synthesis, Bernhardt indicated that 50% of the studies in the second-language reading database relied on measures that are not considered to be appropriate measurescloze, because of its inability to assess passage integration; recall
< previous page
page_800
next page >
< previous page
page_801
next page > Page 801
in the second language, for its deliberate conflating of second-language writing abilities with comprehension abilities; and oral reading, for its inability to distinguish between miscues and mispronunciations. A handful of the testing studies that emerged in the 1990s actually address the issue of "appropriate measure." Found in the foreign language literature are Wolf (1993) and Riley and Lee (1996), each of which explored different methods of assessmentstudies that are corollary to Shohamy (1984). Each found that task and the language of response (native or nonnative) exert profound impacts on students' revealed performance. The majority of studies that use English-as-a-second-language populations focus on large-scale multiple choice testing. This focus is largely driven by the international TOEFL industry. Some focus specifically on the TOEFL test (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Pierce, 1992). Others examine statistical and other analysis techniques attached to multiple choice tests of various forms (Allan, 1992; Choi & Bachman, 1992; Lumley, 1993; Perkins, Gupta, & Tammana, 1995; Young, Shermis, Brutten, & Perkins, 1996). Two studies are of particular note in this regard: Anderson, Bachman, Perkins, and Cohen (1991), and Gordon and Hanauer (1995). Each used external evidenceprincipally think-aloud datafor interpreting the results of learner performance on multiple-choice tests. Each found an interaction of knowledge source and individual test item performance. Ironically, Anderson et al. (1991) suggested the following as a remedy: Of concern to the second language classroom teacher is how readers should be taught to take standardized tests so that their scores will more appropriately reflect their students [sic] language abilities. (p. 61) Gordon and Hanauer (1995) concluded differently: As we have seen in this study, responses to items were based on a number of knowledge sources including information in the test itself. Furthermore, the responses were at times correct for reasons that did not reflect reading ability. As a result, inferences made about a person's reading ability based upon the responses which are given on reading tasks may not be valid. Consequently, because much research on the reading process is based upon results of reading comprehension tests, invalid inferences might be made about the comprehension processes if the processing involved in performing those tasks was not analyzed well. (p. 320) A final thrust of assessment research continues to be the examination of cloze testinga topic that has virtually disappeared from the first-language scene. Jonz (1991) continued the debate of whether cloze measures only local-level syntactic sensitivity or whether it is indeed sensitive to intersentential processing. Jonz (1991) found the cloze procedure sensitive at an array of discourse levels. Given that the study used scrambled passages, it is still unclear whether the findings hold across authentic reading experiences. The validity of measures question is a concern in all of educational research. Why it is of particular concern in the secondlanguage domain is the foreknowledge that there exist two languages and two literacies within each subject. When studies use only one dependent variable, it is often unclear what precisely is being measured. This is the critical issue with using the second language as a response measure in a comprehension task. Given that there are always substantial distances between comprehension and productive abilities in a second language, distances that by and large do not exist in first languages, this is an absolutely crucial distinction that must be maintained in research. The second critical area, and in fact the area that bridges to the future, is the area that focuses on the relationship between first and second languages, cross-lingual processing
< previous page
page_801
next page >
< previous page
page_802
next page > Page 802
strategies. In the earlier state of the research area, studies that examined an array of readers at different proficiency levels reading in a particular language indicated developmental patterns (Barrera, Valdes, & Cardenes, 1986; Bernhardt, 1986; Block, 1986; Cziko, 1978, 1980; Devine, 1981; Kendall, Lajeunesse, Chmilar, Shapson, & Shapson, 1987; McLeod & McLaughlin, 1986; Rigg, 1978; Padron & Waxman, 1988). In other words, as readers increase in language proficiency, they acquire greater reading fluency and display sophisticated "symptoms of reading," to use Judd and Buswell's term. Such studies lend credence to statements about reading universals. The more critical set of studies, however, surrounds the relationship of one language to the otherthe absolute essence of the second-language experience. In the earlier iterations of the field of second-language reading, that set of studies argued for a transfer of reading behaviors from one language to another (Clark, 1979, 1980; Elley, 1984; Groebel, 1980; Roller, 1988; Sarig, 1987; Wagner, Spratt, & Ezzaki, 1989). Another set infers interference from one language to another (de Suarez, 1985; Irujo, 1986). A third argues that the first-language literacy behaviors are the principal control mechanism over second-language literacy (Dank & McEachern, 1979; Douglas, 1981; MacLean & d'Anglejan, 1986). Bernhardt (1991) commented: Transfer and interference data parallel a long-running debate in second language acquisition research in general. The extent to which first language strategies facilitate acquisition and the extent to which they impede acquisitionin this case, of second language reading skillsremains unclear. (p. 52) Distinguishing a second language process from a first language process is a powerful question. At some level, it is a Whorfian questionis there thought without language and language without thought? If there are phenomena known as literacy phenomena, how does one distinguish them? That is, does one tease them apart in the two, that is, first and second language, contexts? This has been a significant question in the history of all second language issues. To be succinct, when a measure is taken is it a measure of second language, of first language, or a hybrid of the two? The 1990s have seen a revisiting of the relationship between the processing of first-language (L1) texts and second-language (L2) texts. The term revisiting is used deliberately: In some sense the question of the L1/L2 relationship is precisely what Cattell and Buswell were after in the early part of the century. Research in the latter part of the century has returned to the issue after a series of studies that examined text processing in languages other than English. A significant question still remains about the role of the first language in text processing. Work in the 1990s has examined the role that cultural difference plays in strategy use (Abu-Rabia, 1996, 1998; Block, 1992; Parry, 1996); the extent to which second language readers rely on translation as a strategy (Kern, 1994); relationships between working memory and comprehension abilities (Barry & Lazarte, 1998; Harrington & Sawyer, 1992); and relationships between first-language and second-language syntactic and word recognition processing strategies (Chikamatsu, 1996; Everson, 1998; Everson & Ke, 1997; Horiba, 1996; Koda, 1993; Royer & Carlo, 1991; Tang, 1997). These studies, in parallel to those conduced earlier, indicate that there is a definite reliance on the first language (that both facilitates and interferes with) within second-language processing. In 1984 the question was fully articulated by Alderson (1984), and the 1990s witnessed a set of revelatory studies that displayed remarkable consistency across varied subject groups or language family. Hacquebord (1989), Bossers (1991), Carrell (1991), Brisbois (1995), and Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) all used regression techniques to get at the contribution of a first language literacy to a second. Two Turkish/Dutch studies, one French/English, and two Spanish/English studies estimated the contribution of first-language literacy to be between 14% and 21%. This
< previous page
page_802
next page >
< previous page
page_803
next page > Page 803
estimate is remarkably consistent considering that both children and adults were involved in the studies; that there is evidence from a noncognate language; and that a variety of measuresfrom traditional multiple choice through free recall in the first languagewere employed. The other reasonably consistent finding across the studies is the influence of basic second-language ability (crassly stated as "grammar") in second-language reading. Estimates hovered around 30%. Bernhardt and Kamil (1995) concluded, then, that second-language reading is a function of L1 reading ability and second-language grammatical ability. How are these findings to be reconciled with findings from the 1990s as well as with previous theoretical statements? Clearly, the theoretical distribution of factors discussed earlier (Fig. 41.1) should not be perceived in a generic fashion. That distribution is related to the level of first-language literacy and to actual language knowledge. At the same time, however, the relationship of factor to factor is probably also a function of the linguistic overlap between two languages (SpanishGerman, for example, sharing an overlapping orthographic system; SpanishThai, having virtually nothing in common linguistically). These recognitions mandate the formulation of a different view based on the interrelationships of languages, on the impact of linguistic and literacy knowledge, and on principles of learning. Fig. 41.1, for example, portrayed the snapshot of a reader at a particular point in time, yet we know that readers do get to be better comprehenders over time. An alternative conceptualization must capture these features. The alternative is displayed in Fig. 41.2. Figure 41.2 displays two axes: The x axis refers to time in learning, time in instruction, or to the concept of development; the y axis denotes the ability to understand con-
Fig. 41.2 Revised statement of a theoretical distribution of reading factors.
< previous page
page_803
next page >
< previous page
page_804
next page > Page 804
nected text or comprehension. Score 1, 2, and 3 refer to three points in time, either attained by one person or by three different persons at progressive developmental or learning stages. What the research referred to earlier indicates is the constitution of these scores: general literacy ability (about 20% of any given score), grammar (about an additional 30% of any given score, 27% of which is word knowledge and 3% syntax), and 50% of any given score at any particular point in time unexplained. This formulation has several significant advantages. First, this model acknowledges the significant contribution of first-language reading ability to second-language comprehension. Second, this model enables the conceptualization of comprehension scores as consisting of different elements and thereby facilitates new ways of thinking about the components of scores. Third, it concedes that in the reading of cognate languages there is no such thing as "no knowledge." Fourth, it promotes the consideration of unexplained variance in individual performance and after considerable time in instruction. Despite the advantages of the model in Fig. 41.2 over the model in Fig. 41.1, a significant disadvantage remainsthe representation of syntactic development. In part, Fig. 41.1 is an artifact of qualitative data analysis whereas Fig. 41.2 is influenced by quantitative analysis. Syntax is an extremely important component in the conceptualization of the second-language reading process illustrated in Fig. 41.1. In fact, it is the component that is most consistent with the bulk of second-language acquisition research. Yet, the operation of syntax cannot be reconciled in Fig. 41.2, which is by and large consistent with the bulk of literacy research. Within the chapter's theme of "case study," the building of second-language reading models is an excellent illustration of the tensions in the term second-language reading discussed in the initial pages. Implications of Second-Language Reading Research for Future Theory, Practice, Policy, and Research The theme of case study is used in this essay in order to underline that the field of second-language reading is simultaneously a subfield and a microcosm of literacy issues as they unfold into the next century. The issues that literacy in general faces are at play in the second-language arenaso much so that often the issues are easier to perceive and comprehend from the secondlanguage perspective than from a first. The simulation of early reading acquisition can be done convincingly within second-language contexts. On the one hand, it is possible to perceive a beginner reader's process through adult reading and therefore to achieve a picture of actual difficulty and effort, as well as having a highly articulate subject describe and have words for processes that children simply cannot yet describe. Cultural subtleties related to literacy are also much more visible through cultures that are distinctly different rather than through the lens of subcultures of the larger whole. To discuss literacy differences in rural versus urban America (clearly distinct cultural contexts in some sense) is possible, yet not always productive: Issues of socioeconomic status, level of education, and the influence of mass media inevitably intervene and bring the discussion to a stand-still. Discussing literacy differences between a Western/technological/North American Anglophone view and a Southeast Asian/rural/Hmong-speaking view leads to clearly capturable and productive distinctions. And processing issues, too, are far more discernible within secondlanguage contexts, particularly when languages are not overlapping. How does a strict view of "whole language" hold up within learning Mandarin, for example, in which learners clearly need to search for consistencies within the visual and phonological field? In like manner, how far will a phonics-based or any other strictly analytic approach take a learner who is learning Chinese? Not far, as we know from the millions of learners who have tried and failed because they could not gain access to the language because of the symbolic system.
< previous page
page_804
next page >
< previous page
page_805
next page > Page 805
At the level of literacy policy, too, second-language issues can be revelatory. Literacy, particularly as established by the American literacy industrial complex, is seated in a Western value system based in large part on notions of relatively unrestricted access to knowledge and of empowerment. Not all cultures accept these values; accepting these values inevitably means changes in cultural beliefs and practices. Writing down a language for those who are not literate (Hmong is the recent late-20th-century example) means expecting and inviting (and in some cases insisting) that speakers of Hmong become Western. The history of Western literacy has often been tied up with such conflicts, and yet, in the literacy establishment's zeal to provide literacy, it has inevitably destroyed some cultural features, leading toward homogenized literate culture. Second-language perspectives also liberate reading theory from the constraints of a single linguistic system, namely, English, as the single platform from which to build both cognitive and social models of reading. Given that the vast majority of the world receives its technical information through the mode of second-language literacy, it is arguable that no more critical issue exists than understanding the processing involved in using second-language texts. As noted earlier, current models of second-language reading acknowledge the impact of first-language literacy knowledge on the learning and the use of the second as well as the importance of grammatical knowledge of the second language. These findings fall short of providing satisfying explanations of the second-language process or of second-language reading instruction. They underline, for example, the vastness of the territory yet to be investigated. The role of affect and interest in second-language text processing is yet to be understood. The role of alternative conceptions of literacy (i.e., non-Western) and the impact such conceptions have on cognitive processes are critical toward understanding how persons read and learn to read when one oral language already exists in cognition. Finally, how instruction is to accommodate (rather than ignore) the array of first languages that come into play among learners of second-language literacy remains perhaps the most pressing practical issue that faces the field. The century began with restricting access to freedom in the United States by means of English-language literacy tests. The century ends with a covert version of the access question. Ninety-five percent of what appears on the Internet (personal communication, Michael Kamil, April 18, 1997), as well as the vast majority of published technical information available globally, is written in English. Whether the information is about building a better mousetrap, how to prevent communicable diseases, or how to construct a nuclear weapon, the information is written and must be read in English, a second language for the majority of the world's population. Having appropriate and, more importantly, accurate access to this informationaccess that one receives through substantive instructionis indeed one of the great challenges that faces the literacy community. Huey told us at the beginning of the century that reading research would lead to efficient instruction in all languages. After a 70-year hiatus, the time has returned to revisit and understand the variables involved in and that contribute toward comprehension in a second language. References Abu-Rabia, S. (1996). The influence of culture and attitudes on reading comprehension in SL: The case of Jews learning English and Arabs learning Hebrew. Reading Psychology, 17(3), 253271. Abu-Rabia, S. (1998). The learning of Hebrew by Israeli Arab students in Israel. Journal of Social Psychology, 138(3), 331341. Addams, J. (1930). The second twenty years at Hull House, September 1909 to September, 1929, with a record of a growing world consciousness. New York: Macmillan. Adams, S. J. (1982). Scripts and the recognition of unfamiliar vocabulary: Enhancing second language reading skills. Modern Language Journal, 66, 155159. Adams, J. (1852). The works of John Adams (Vol. 7). Boston: Little.
< previous page
page_805
next page >
< previous page
page_806
next page > Page 806
Alderson, J. C. (1984). Reading in a foreign language: A reading problem or a language problem? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 124). London: Longman. Alderson, J. C., & Urquhart, A. H. (1988). This test is unfair: I'm not an economist. In P. C. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 168182). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Allan, A. (1992). Development and validation of a scale to measure test-wiseness in EFL/ESL reading test takers. Language Testing, 9, 101122. Anderson, N., Bachman, L., Perkins, K. & Cohen, A. (1991). An exploratory study into the construct validity of a reading comprehension test: Triangulation of data sources. Language Testing, 8(1), 4166. Auerbach, E., & Paxton, D. (1997). ''It's not the English thing": Bringing reading research into the ESL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31(2), 237261. Bahktin, M. (1981). The dialogical imagination. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barnett, M. (1986). Syntactic and lexical/semantic skill in foreign language reading: Importance and interaction. Modern Language Journal, 70, 343349. Barrera, B. R., Valdes, G., & Cardenes, M. (1986). Analyzing the recall of students across different language-reading categories: A study of third-graders' Spanish-L1, English-L2, and English-L1 comprehension. In J. A. Niles & R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Thirty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 375381). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Barry, S., & Lazarte, A. A. (1998). Evidence for mental models: How do prior knowledge, syntactic complexity, and reading topic affect inference generation in a recall task for nonnative readers of Spanish? Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 176193. Bean, T. W., Potter, T. C., & Clark, C. (1980). Selected semantic features of ESL materials and their effect on bilingual students' comprehension. In M. Kamil & A. Moe, (Eds.), Perspectives on reading research and instruction: Twenty-ninth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 15). Washington, DC: National Reading Conference. Berkemeyer, V. (1994). Anaphoric resolution and text comprehension for readers of German. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 27(2), 1522. Bernhardt, E. B. (1983). Three approaches to reading comprehension in intermediate German. Modern Language Journal, 67, 111115. Bernhardt, E. B. (1986a). Cognitive processes in L2: An examination of reading behaviors. In J. Lantolf & A. Labarca (Eds.), Research in second language acquisition in the classroom setting (pp. 3551). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bernhardt, E. B. (1994). A content analysis of reading methods texts: What are we told about the nonnative speaker of English? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26, 159189. Bernhardt, E. B. (1991). Reading development in a second language: Theoretical, empirical, and classroom perspectives. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Bernhardt, E. B. (1998). Socio-historical perspectives on language teaching in modern America. In H. Byrnes (Ed.), Perspectives on research and scholarship in second language learning (pp. 3957). New York: Modern Language Association. Bernhardt, E. B., & Kamil, M. L. (1995). Interpreting relationships between L1 and L2 reading: Consolidating the linguistic threshold and the linguistic interdependence hypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 16, 1534. Bhatia, V. K. (1984). Syntactic discontinuity in legislative writing for academic legal purposes. In A. K. Pugh & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 9096). London: Heinemann. Biglmaier, F. (1991). Recent political changes in Germany and their impact on teaching reading. Reading Teacher, 44(9), 634637. Block, E. (1992). See how they read: Comprehension monitoring of L1 and L2 readers. TESOL Quarterly, 26(2), 319343. Blum, I., Koskinen, P., & Tennant, N., Parker, E., Straub, J., & Curry, C. (1995). Using audiotaped books to extend classroom literacy instruction into the homes of second-language learners. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(4), 535563. Bossers, B. (1991). On thresholds, ceiling, and short circuits: The relation between L1 reading L2 reading, and L1 knowledge. AILA Review, 8, 4560. Brisbois, J. (1995). Connections between first- and second-language reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(4), 565584. Brown, T. L., & Haynes, M. (1985). Literacy background and reading development in a second language. In T. H. Carr (Ed.), The development of reading skills (pp. 1934). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Campbell, A. J. (1981). Language background and comprehension. Reading Teacher, 35, 1014. Carlson, R. A. (1975). The quest for conformity: Americanization through education. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Carrell, P. L. (1983). Three components of background knowledge in reading comprehension. Language Learning, 33, 183207. Carrell, P. L. (1984a). Evidence of a formal schema in second language comprehension. Language Learning, 34, 87112. Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 2(3), 461481.
< previous page
page_807
next page > Page 807
Carrell, P. (1991). Second language reading: Reading ability or language proficiency? Applied Linguistics, 12, 159179. Carrell, P., & Connor, U. (1991). Reading and writing persuasive texts. Modern Language Journal, 75(3), 314324. Carrell, P., & Wallace, B. (1983). Background knowledge: Context and familiarity in reading comprehension. In M. A. Clarke & J. Handscombe (Eds.), On TESOL '82 (pp. 245308). Washington, DC: TESOL. Cattell, J. M. (1886). The inertia of the eye and the brain. Brain, 8, 295312. Cavello, L. (1958). The heart is the teacher. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chi, F.-M. (1995). EFL readers and a focus on intertextuality. Journal of Reading, 38(8), 638644. Chikamatsu, N. (1996). The effects of L1 orthography on L2 word recognition: A study of American and Chinese learners of Japanese. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(4), 403432. Choi, I.-C., & Bachman, L. (1992). An investigation into the adequacy of three IRT models for data from two EFL reading tests. Language Testing, 9, 5178. Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Facilitating reading comprehension with multimedia. System, 24(4), 503519. Clarke, M. A. (1979). Reading in Spanish and English: Evidence from adult ESL students. Language Learning, 29, 121150. Clarke, M. A. (1980). The short circuit hypothesis of ESL reading: Or when language competence interferes with reading performance. Modern Language Journal, 64, 203209. Coady, J. (1979). A psycholinguistic model of the ESL reader. In R. Mackay, B. Barkman, & R. R. Jordan (Eds.), Reading in a second language (pp. 512). Rowley, MA; Newbury House. Cohen, A., Glasman, H., Rosenbaum-Cohen, P., Ferrar, J., & Fine, J. (1979). Reading English for specialized purposes: Discourse analysis and the use of student informants. TESOL Quarterly, 3, 551564. Connor, U. (1981). The application of reading miscue analysis to diagnosis of English as a second language learners' reading skills. In C. W. Twyford, W. Diehl, & K. Feathers (Eds.), Reading English as a second language: Moving from theory (pp. 4755). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Education. Connor, U. (1984). Recall of text: Differences between first and second language readers. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 239255. Cziko, G. A. (1978). Differences in first- and second-language reading: The use of syntactic, semantic, and discourse constraints. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 34, 473489. Dank, M., & McEachern, W. (1979). A psycholinguistic description comparing the native language oral reading behavior of French immersion students with traditional English language students. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 35, 366371. Davies, A. (1984). Simple, simplified and simplification: What is authentic? In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language, (pp. 181195). London: Longman. Davis, J. (1989). Facilitating effects of marginal glosses on foreign language reading. Foreign Language Annals, 21(6), 547550. Davis, J. (1992). Reading literature in the foreign language: the comprehension/response connection. French Review, 65(3), 359370. Davis, J., Caron-Gorell, L., Kline, R., & Hsieh, G. (1992). Readers and foreign languages: A survey of undergraduate attitudes toward the study of literature. Modern Language Journal, 73(3), 320332. Davis, J. N., Lange, D. L., & Samuels, S. J. (1988). Effects of text structure instruction on foreign language readers' recall of a scientific journal article. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(3), 203214. De Bot, K., Paribakht, T., & Wesche, M. (1997). Toward a lexical processing model for the study of second language vocabulary acquisition: Evidence from ESL reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 19, 309329. de Suarez, J. (1985). Using translation communicatively in ESP courses for science studies. In J. M. Ulijn & A. K. Pugh (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Methods and materials in teaching languages (pp. 5668). Leuven, Belgium: Acco. Devine, J. (1981). Developmental patterns in native and non-native reading acquisition. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 10114). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Devine, J. (1984). ESL reader's internalized models of the reading process. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 95108). Washington, DC: TESOL. Douglas, D. (1981). An exploratory study of bilingual reading proficiency. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 93102). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Drachsler, J. (1920). Democracy and assimilation, the blending of immigrant heritages in America. New York: Macmillan. Elley, W. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effects of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375411. Elley, W. B. (1984). Exploring the reading difficulties of second language readers and second-languages in Fiji. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 281297). London: Longman. Erdmann, B., & Dodge, R. (1898). Psychologische Untersuchungen ueber das Lesen, auf Experimenteller Grundlage. Halle:
Niemeyer. Everson, M. E. (1998). Word recognition among learners of Chinese as a foreign language: Investigating the relationship between naming and knowing. Modern Language Journal, 82(2), 194204.
< previous page
page_807
next page >
< previous page
page_808
next page > Page 808
Everson, M., & Ke, C. (1997). An inquiry into the reading strategies of intermediate and advanced learners of Chinese as a foreign language. Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 32(1), 120. Ewoldt, C. (1981). Factors which enable deaf readers to get meaning from print. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 4553). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Favreau, M., Komoda, M. K., & Segalowitz, N. S. (1980). Second language reading: Implications of the word superiority effect in skilled bilinguals. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie, 34, 370380. Favreau, M., & Segalowitz, N. S. (1982). Second language reading in fluent bilinguals. Applied Psycholinguistics, 3, 329341. Fitzgerald, J. (1995a). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65(2), 145190. Fitzgerald, J. (1995b). English-as a second language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(2), 115152. Flick, W. C., & Anderson, J. L. (1980). Rhetorical difficulty in scientific English: A study in reading comprehension. TESOL Quarterly, 14, 345351. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock. Fransson, A. (1984). Cramming or understanding? Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on approach to learning and test performance. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 86115). London: Longman. Freedle, R., & Kostin, I. (1993). The prediction of TOEFL reading item difficulty: Implications for construct validity. Language Testing, 10, 133170. Goodman, K. (Ed.). (1968). The psycholinguistic nature of the reading process. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press. Gordon, C., & Hanauer, D. (1995). The interaction between task and meaning construction in EFL reading comprehension tests. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 299324. Grabe, W. (1991). Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly, 25(3), 375406. Graden, E. (1996). How language teachers' beliefs about reading instruction are mediated by their beliefs about students. Foreign Language Annals, 29(3), 387395. Groebel, L. (1980). A comparison of students' reading comprehension in the native language with their reading comprehension in the target language. English Language Teaching Journal, 35, 5459. Grosse, C., & Hameyer, K. (1979). Dialect and reading interferences in second language perception and production. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 12, 5260. Guarino, R., & Perkins, K. (1986). Awareness of form class as a factor in ESL reading comprehension. Language Learning, 36, 7782. Hacquebord, H. (1989). Reading comprehension of Turkish and Dutch students attending secondary schools. Groningen: RUG. Harrington, M., & Sawyer, M. (1992). L2 working memory capacity and L2 reading skill. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 2538. Hatch, E., Polin, P., & Part, S. (1974). Acoustic scanning and syntactic processing: Three reading experiments: First and second language learners. Journal of Reading Behavior, 6, 275285. Hayes, E. B. (1988). Encoding strategies used by native and non-native readers of Chinese Mandarin. Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 188195. Haynes, M. (1981). Patterns and perils of guessing in second language reading. In J. Handscombe, R. Oren, & B. Taylor (Eds.), On TESOL '83 (pp. 163176). Washington, DC: TESOL. Hedgcock, J., & Atkinson, D. (1993). Differing readingwriting relationships in L1 and L2 literacy development? TESOL Quarterly, 27(2), 329333. Hodes, P. (1981). Reading: A universal process. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 2731). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Horiba, Y. (1996). Comprehension processes in L2 reading: Language competence, textual coherence, and inferences. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18, 433473. Hosenfeld, C. (1977). A preliminary investigation of the reading strategies of successful and nonsuccessful second language readers. System, 5, 110123. Hudson, T. (1982). The effects of induced schemata on the "short circuit" in L2 reading: Non-decoding factors in L2 reading performance. Language Learning, 32, 132. Hudson, T. (1991). A content comprehension approach to reading English for science and technology. TESOL Quarterly, 25(1), 77104. Huey, E. B. (1909). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan. Hulstijn, J. (1993). When do foreign-language readers look up the meaning of unfamiliar words? The influence of task and
learner variables. Modern Language Journal, 77(2), 139147. Irujo, S. (1986). Don't put your leg in your mouth: Transfer in the acquisition of idioms in a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 20, 287304. Jarvis, D. K., & Jensen, D. C. (1982). The effect of parallel translations on second language reading and syntax acquisition. Modern Language Journal, 66, 1823. Javal, E. (1878). Essai sur la physiologie de la lecture. Annaels d'oculistique, 82, 242253. Jefferson, T. (1955). Notes on the state of Virginia. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
< previous page
page_808
next page >
< previous page
page_809
next page > Page 809
Johnson, K. E. (1992). The relationship between teachers' beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for nonnative speakers of English. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(1), 83108. Johnson, P. (1981). Effects on reading comprehension of language complexity and cultural background of a text. TESOL Quarterly, 15, 169181. Johnson, P. (1982). Effects on comprehension of building background knowledge. TESOL Quarterly, 16, 503516. Jonz, J. (1991). Cloze item types and second language comprehension. Language Testing, 8(1), 122. Joseph, S. (1935). History of the Baron de Hirsch Fund: The Americanization of the Jewish immigrant. New York: Jewish Publication Society. Judd, C. H., & Buswell, G. T. (1922). Silent reading: A study of the various types. Chicago: University of Chicago. Kendall, J. R., Lajeunesse, G., Chmilar, P., Shapson, L. R., & Shapson, S. M. (1987). English reading skills of French immersion students in kindergarten and grades 1 and 2. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(2). 135159. Kern, R. G. (1994). The role of mental translation in second language reading. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16, 441461. Kim, S.-A. (1995). Types and sources of problems in L2 reading: A qualitative analysis of the recall protocols of Korean high school EFL students. Foreign Language Annals, 28(1), 4970. Kitajima, R. (1997). Referential strategy training for second language reading comprehension of Japanese texts. Foreign Language Annals, 30(1), 8497. Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary: The tool of last resort in foreign language reading? A new perspective. Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 285299. Koda, K. (1987). Cognitive strategy transfer in second language reading. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 125144). Washington, DC: TESOL. Koda, K. (1993). Transferred L1 strategies and L2 syntactic structures in L2 sentence comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77(iv), 490499. Kramsch, C., & Nolden, T. (1994). Redefining literacy in a foreign language. Die Unterrichtspraxis, 27(1), 2835. Labaree, L. (1961). (Ed.). The papers of Benjamin Franklin (Vol. 4). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. LaBerge, D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293323. Lagemann, E. C. (Ed.). (1985). Jane Addams on education. New York: Teachers College Press. Lai, F.-K. (1993). The effect of a summer reading course on reading and writing skills. System, 27(1), 87100. Lane, F. K. (1919). Americanization speech at Hotel Astor, New York. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and "bilingualized" dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. Modern Language Journal, 81(2), 189196. Lee, J. F. (1986). Background knowledge and L2 reading. Modern Language Journal, 70, 350354. Leffa, V. (1992). Making foreign language texts comprehensible for beginners: An experiment with an electronic glossary. System, 20(1), 6373. Lumley, T. (1993). The notion of subskills in reading comprehension tests: An EAP example. Language Testing, 10, 211234. Lund, R. (1991). A comparison of second language listening and reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 196204. Luppescu, S., & Day, R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries, and vocabulary learning. Language Learning, 42(2), 263287. MacLean, M., & d'Anglejan, A. (1986). Rational cloze and retrospection: Insights into first and second language reading comprehension. Canadian Modern Language Review/La revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 42, 814826. Mason, B., & Krashen, S. (1997). Extensive reading in English as a foreign language. System, 25(1), 91102. McKay, S., & Weinstein-Shr, G. (1993). English literacy in the U.S.: National policies, personal consequences. TESOL Quarterly, 27(3), 399419. McLeod, B., & McLaughlin, B. (1986). Restructuring or automaticity? Reading in a second language. Language Learning, 36, 109123. Meara, P. (1984). Word recognition in foreign languages. In A. K. Pugh & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 97105). London: Heinemann. Mohammed, M. A. H., & Swales, J. M. (1984). Factors affecting the successful reading of technical instructions. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 206217. Muchisky, D. M. (1983). Relationships between speech and reading among second language learners. Language Learning, 33, 77102.
Nehr, M. (1984). Audio-lingual behavior in learning to read foreign languages. In A. K. Pugh & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 8289). London: Heinemann. Neville, M. H. (1979). An Englishwoman reads Spanish: Self-observation and speculation. English Language Teaching Journal, 33, 274281. Neville, M. H., & Pugh, A. K. (1975). An exploratory study of the application of time-compressed and time-expanded speech in the development of the English reading proficiency of foreign students. English Language Teaching Journal, 29, 320329.
< previous page
page_809
next page >
< previous page
page_810
next page > Page 810
Nunan, D. (1985). Content familiarity and the perception of textual relationships in second language reading. RELC Journal, 16, 4351. Olah, E. (1984). How special is special English? In A. K. Pugh & J. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 223226). London: Heinemann. Olshtain, E. (1982). English nominal compounds and the ESL/EFL reader. In M. Hines & W. Rutherford (Eds.), On TESOL 81 (pp. 153167). Washington, DC: TESOL. Omaggio, A. C. (1979). Pictures and second language comprehension: Do they help? Foreign Language Annals, 12, 107116. Padron, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1988). The effect of ESL students' perceptions of their cognitive strategies on reading achievement. TESOL Quarterly, 22(1), 146150. Parry, K. J. (1987). Reading in a second culture. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 5970). Washington, DC: TESOL. Parry, K. (1991). Building a vocabulary through academic reading. TESOL Quarterly, 25(4), 629653. Parry, K. (1996). Culture, literacy, and L2 reading. TESOL Quarterly, 30(4), 665692. Perkins, K. (1987). The relationship between nonverbal schematic concept formation and story comprehension. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 151171). Washington, DC: TESOL. Perkins, K., & Angelis, P. J. (1985). Schematic concept formation: Concurrent validity for attained English as a second language reading comprehension? Language Learning, 35, 269283. Perkins, K., Gupta, L., & Tammana, R. (1995). Predicting item difficulty in a reading comprehension test with an artificial neural network. Language Testing, 12, 3453. Phillipson, R. (1992). Linguistic imperialism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Pierce, B. (1992). Demystifying the TOEFL reading test. TESOL Quarterly, 26(4), 665691. Reeds, J. A., Winitz, H., & Garcia, P. A. (1977). A test of reading following comprehension training. IRAL, 15, 307319. Report of the Commissioner of Education. (1918). Washington: Government Printing Office. Rigg, P. (1978). The miscue-ESL project. In H. D. Brown, C. Yorio, & R. Crymes (Eds.), On TESOL 77 (pp. 109117). Washington, DC: TESOL. Riley, G. (1993). A story structure approach to narrative text comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77(4), 417430. Riley, G., & Lee, J. F. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as measures of second language reading comprehension. Language Testing, 12, 173187. Robbins, B. (1983). Language proficiency level and the comprehension of anaphoric subject pronouns by bilingual and monolingual children. In P. Larson, E. L. Judd, & D. S. Messerschmitt (Eds.), On TESOL 84 (pp. 4554). Washington, DC: TESOL. Roller, C. M. (1988). Transfer of cognitive academic competence and L2 reading in a rural Zimbabwean primary school. TESOL Quarterly, 22(2), 303328. Romatowski, J. (1981). A study of oral reading in Polish and English: A psycholinguistic perspective. In S. Hudelson (Ed.), Learning to read in different languages (pp. 2131). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Royer, J., & Carlo, M. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 450455. Rudolph, R. (Ed.). (1965). Essays on education in the early republic. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press. Rusciolelli, J. (1995). Student responses to reading strategies instruction. Foreign Language Annals, 28(2), 262273. Sarig, G. (1987). High-level reading in the first and in the foreign language: Some comparative process data. In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 105120). Washington, DC: TESOL. Sharlip, W., & Owens, A. (1925). Adult immigration education: Its scope, content, and methods. New York: Macmillan. Shohamy, E. (1982). Affective considerations in language testing. Modern Language Journal, 66, 1317. Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading comprehension. Language Testing, 1, 147170. Spiro, R. J., Bruce, B. C. and Brewer, W. F. (Eds.). (1980). Theoretical issues in reading comprehension. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stanley, R. M. (1984). The recognition of macrostructure: A pilot study. Reading in a Foreign Language, 2, 156168. Stavans, A., & Oded, B. (1993). Assessing EFL reading comprehension: The case of Ethiopian learners. System, 21(4), 481494. Steffensen, M. S. (1988). Changes in cohesion in the recall of native and foreign texts. In P. L. Carrell, J. Devine, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Interactive approaches to second language reading (pp. 140151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Steffensen, M. S., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. C. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 1029.
< previous page
page_810
next page >
< previous page
page_811
next page > Page 811
Strother, J. B., & Ulijn, J. M. (1987). Does syntactic rewriting affect English for science and technology text comprehension? In J. Devine, P. L. Carrell, & D. E. Eskey (Eds.), Research in reading in English as a second language (pp. 89100). Washington, DC: TESOL. Takahashi, S., & Roitblatt, H. (1994). Comprehension processes of second language indirect requests. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 475506. Tang, G. (1992). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 177195. Tang, H. (1997). The relationship between reading comprehension processes in L1 and L2. Reading Psychology, 18(3), 249301. Tatlonghari, M. (1984). Miscue analysis in an ESL context. RELC Journal, 15, 7584. Thompson, F. V. (1920). Schooling of the immigrant. New York: Harper & Brothers. Tian, G. S. (1991). Higher order reading comprehension skills in literature learning and teaching at the lower secondary school level in Singapore. RELC Journal, 22(2), 2943. Tollefson, J. (1991). Planning language, planning inequality: Language policy in the community. London: Longman. Ulijn, J. & Salager-Meyer, S. (1998). The professional reader and the text: Insights from L2 research. Journal of Research in Reading, 21(2), 7995. U.S. Naturalization Bureau. (1921). Suggestions for Americanization work among foreign-born women. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Urquhart, A. H. (1984). The effect of rhetorical ordering on readability. In J. C. Alderson & A. H. Urquhart (Eds.), Reading in a foreign language (pp. 160175). London: Longman. Wagner, D. A., Spratt, J. E., & Ezzaki, A. (1989). Does learning to read in a second language always put the child at a disadvantage? Some counter evidence from Morocco. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 3148. Walker, L. J. (1983). Word identification strategies in reading in a foreign language. Foreign Language Annals, 16, 293299. Weber, R. (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr (Ed.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 97119). New York: Longman. Webster, N. (1789). Dissertations on the English language. Boston: I. Thomas. Wolf, D. F. (1993). A comparison of assessment tasks used to measure FL reading comprehension. Modern Language Journal, 77(iv), 473489. Yano, Y., Long, M., & Ross, S. (1994). The effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44(2), 189219. Young, R., Shermis, M., Brutten, S., & Perkins, K. (1996). From conventional to computer-adaptive testing of ESL reading comprehension. System, 24(1), 2340. Zimmerman, C. (1997). Do reading and interactive vocabulary instruction make a difference? An empirical study. TESOL Quarterly, 31(1), 121140. Zuck, L. V., & Zuck, I. G. (1984). The main idea: Specialist and nonspecialist judgments. In A. K. Pugh & I. M. Ulijn (Eds.), Reading for professional purposes: Studies and practices in native and foreign languages (pp. 130135). London: Heinemann.
< previous page
page_811
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_813
next page > Page 813
Chapter 42 Bilingual Children's Reading Georgia Earnest García University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Many children throughout the world acquire a second language. A 1991 United Nations survey of 104 countries indicated that 46 countries provide elementary school children with instruction in at least two official languages (Cavicchiori & Erickson, 1991). Current U.S. demographics show that 9.9 million children, or 22% of the school-age population, live in homes where a language other than English is spoken (Anstrom, 1996; Crawford, 1997). According to the 1990 U.S. census, over 6.3 million children between the ages of 5 and 17 years actually spoke a language other than English at home. Two-thirds of these children were Spanish speakers. This chapter focuses on the reading of children (preschool to Grade 12) who speak two languages or who are in the process of acquiring two languages. A range of terms have been used to describe these childrenamong others, bilingual students, English language learners, learners of English-as-a-second-language (ESL), second-language learners, and students who are limitedEnglish-proficient. As Dworin (in press) explained, biliteracy refers to children's literate development in "two languages, to whatever degree, developed either simultaneously or successively." True bilinguals who are completely fluent in both languages are exceedingly rare. A problem in locating research on bilingual reading is that the topic historically has been ignored in the second-language field, and only recently addressed in the reading field. In 1989, Carrell observed that researchers in the field of second-language acquisition historically had focused on oral language development, neglecting the study of second-language students' literate development. Weber's 1991 chapter in the second volume of the Handbook on Reading Research was the first chapter on linguistic diversity to appear in the Handbook. Her chapter focused on the second-language reading of adults and children in bilingual, ESL, and foreign language contexts in the United States. As she noted, the research on second-language children's reading was limited in scope and quantity, with much of it evaluating the reading progress of children in U.S. bilingual education programs. Fitzgerald published a review of ESL learners' cognitive reading processes (1995a) and a review of ESL reading instruction (1995b). In both reviews, she collapsed the adult and children's findings and limited her focus to the ESL reading of limited-English-proficient students in the United States. To give a more complete interpretive account of bilingual children's reading I have included research from other countries and the United States. In addition, I have drawn from literature in bilingual education, education, ESL, linguistics, psychology,
< previous page
page_813
next page >
< previous page
page_814
next page > Page 814
reading, and second-language acquisition. Due to space limitations, my major focus is on research published between 1989 and 1997. Studies on bilingual writing or oral language are included if they report information related to bilingual reading. I have excluded research on deaf children or children who are learning a foreign language. I have organized the chapter so that I begin with a brief review of theoretical assumptions and sociocultural factors related to bilingual children's reading and a short overview of U.S. bilingual educational policy and evaluation findings. Next comes the heart of the chapter: a discussion of young (Preschool to Grade 2) bilingual children's reading acquisition and instruction, followed by a discussion of older bilingual children's (Grades 312) reading development and instruction. Under the heading of related issues, I review research on teacher attitudes and knowledge, reading and instructional materials, assessment, and student motivation. I end the chapter by summarizing the research on young and older bilingual children's reading development and instruction and by delineating various educational and research implications. Theoretical Assumptions and Sociocultural Factors Weber (1991) reviewed the major assumptions that underlie bilingual education. Most of these still hold, although not all researchers agree on the level of second-language oral proficiency that bilingual children must have before they optimally can learn to read and write in a second language (see August & Hakuta, 1997; García, Pearson, & Jiménez, 1994; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Cummins's interdependence and threshold hypotheses (1981, 1989), in which he proposed that the successful transfer of knowledge and expertise across languages was dependent on the development of cognitive proficiency in one languageusually the dominant languagestill is widely cited as a major reason for providing U.S. bilingual children with nativelanguage literacy instruction. Findings from Collier and Thomas's (1989) longitudinal study of the U.S. academic performance of immigrant children from advantaged families have substantiated Cummins's hypothesis. They reported that non-Englishspeaking immigrant children did best in American schools when they arrived in the United States at ages 8 and 9, with already developed literacy skills in their native languages, as compared to younger children who arrived at ages 5 and 6 without nativelanguage literacy skills. In fact, their findings revealed that it took more than 57 years of instruction in the United States for the 8-and 9-year-olds to perform at grade level in English, and 710 years of instruction for the 5- and 6-year olds. Hornberger's (1992) comparative analysis of biliteracy in Puerto Rican and Cambodian communities in Philadelphia illustrated the range of factors that can impact students' biliterate development. She argued that for students to become biliterate, they have to be supported along three continua: the macromicro continuum (political and economic factors that support or detract from the development and acceptance of biliteracy), the monolingualbilingual continuum (the use of both languages in school and societal contexts), and the oralliterate continuum (the use and support of oral and written language by the school and community). Hornberger explained that, despite an English-only legislative bias, the Puerto Rican community generated the institutional support necessary to provide its children with Spanish literacy instruction through the sixth grade. On the other hand, because the children's Spanish language development was not tied to their ethnic identity, and because they did not continue to receive instruction in Spanish after sixth grade, their attitude toward Spanish and their long-range use of it were adversely affected. In contrast, the Cambodian community provided institutional support for the maintenance of religious and traditional customs. There was no community or school
< previous page
page_814
next page >
< previous page
page_815
next page > Page 815
support for the Khmer language or literacy. The children only received ESL instruction, eventually losing their ability to communicate appropriately in Khmer. When school personnel used the children as translators to tell their parents about their school progress and performance, social disruption occurred due to the children's inappropriate language use and shift in roles between parents and children. Recognition that English fluency and literacy do not necessarily result in second-language students' academic success in the United States is a topic that has garnered attention. Cummins (1989) argued that language minority students' school success depends on whether the schools accept or redefine the power relations reflected in broader society. Necessary prerequisites include the incorporation of students' languages and cultures into the school culture, the implementation of pedagogical empowerment strategies, and parental and community involvement in the students' school experiences. Cummins (1996) also warned that the quality of teacherstudent interactions and peer interactions could be much more important to student success than specific teaching methods. U.S. Bilingual Educational Policy and Evaluation The passage of the first U.S. bilingual education act in 1968 marked the federal government's acknowledgment that children who were not proficient in English could benefit from instruction that addressed their second-language status (see Crawford, 1991). The Lau v. Nichols (1974) court case, brought against the San Francisco Unified School District because the district did not address Chinese-speaking children's limited English status, resulted in the Office of Civil Rights requirement that all school districts had to meet the needs of their second-language students. During the 1970s, the Office of Civil Rights recommended that districts meet the educational and ESL needs of limited-English-proficient students through bilingual/bicultural educational programs. Politics rather than program evaluation findings or research has stimulated many of the federal policy changes. Fitzgerald (1993) recounted how the federal attitude toward bilingual education changed between the 1970s and 1990s. In 1974, the wording in the Bilingual Education Act, Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, stated that programs receiving federal support had to include instruction that included students' native languages and cultures. However, in 1978, this wording was amended to state that the native language was to be used for the explicit purpose of transitioning students into English. By 1984, 25% of the funding under the Bilingual Education Act was available for Special Alternative Instructional Programs, which did not provide any native language instruction (Crawford, 1997). By 1988, programs that provided English-only instruction were accepted and funded along with bilingual education programs (Fitzgerald, 1993). A criticism of past bilingual program evaluations was that they did not take into account variations in instructional approaches or the amount of time spent teaching in the children's native language and English (García et al., 1994). In an attempt to control for this type of variation, Rámirez, Yuen, and Ramey (1991) conducted a longitudinal evaluation that carefully examined the language use and instruction that occurred in three types of programs serving predominantly low-income Spanish speakers: early-exit transitional bilingual educationa 3- to 4-year program in which children typically receive Spanish and ESL instruction until they are deemed capable of performing in English; structured immersiona 3- to 4-year program in which children are taught solely in English by a teacher who knows Spanish; and late-exit transitional bilingual educationa 5- to 6-year program, similar to the early-exit program, except that children are moved into English instruction at a slower pace and often continue to receive instruction in Spanish throughout the program. The authors found that children in the early-exit programs received considerably more instruction in English dur-
< previous page
page_815
next page >
< previous page
page_816
next page > Page 816
ing Grades K1 (about 66%) than they had expected. In addition, teachers in all three types of programs employed a passive instructional style that resulted in limited opportunities for student development of complex language and higher order thinking skills. Most importantly, Rámirez et al. (1991) reported that by the end of third grade, there was no significant difference in the standardized English language and reading test performance of Spanish-speaking students enrolled in the structured immersion and early-exit programs, even though students in the early-exit programs had received much less English instruction. They concluded that instruction in Spanish had not impeded the students' English language and reading performance. When they examined the performance of students in the late-exit programs, they discovered that those students who had the most opportunity to develop their Spanish between kindergarten and sixth grade actually increased their standardized English language and reading test performance at a significantly greater rate than students in the other late-exit classrooms or the normed sample from the standardized test. Rámirez et al. were surprised by this finding because it generally is difficult for lowincome children in poor schooling situations to gain on their middle-class peers. They estimated that if the projected growth rate were sustained, students who had received instruction in Spanish 40% of the time would eventually catch up with their Englishspeaking peers and perform at grade level in English. Early Reading Acquisition (Preschool to Grade 2) Few researchers have studied young children's biliterate development. Titone (1985) argued that young bilingual children should be given the opportunity to become biliterate, given the advantage they often display on metalinguistic tasks compared to monolingual children. He also reminded us that by the age of 3 most bilingual children, raised in dual language settings, have learned to differentiate the languages they hear around them (Arneberg & Arneberg, 1992; McLaughlin, 1984). Therefore, they should not be confused by the presence of different written languages. Metalinguistic Awareness In a review of the metalinguistic literature, García, Jiménez, and Pearson (1998) pointed out that bilingual children up to the age of 6 tend to outperform monolingual children on isolated tasks of metalinguistic awareness related to reading. For example, in a comparative study of Yugoslavian preschool and kindergarten children, Göncz and Kodzopeljic (1991) found that bilingual children were significantly better than monolingual children at explaining how words such as "mosquito" and "ox" differed in their length and referents. Bruck and Genesee (1995) reported that bilingual English-speaking kindergarten children enrolled in French immersion schools in Canada significantly outperformed their monolingual English-speaking peers on tests of onset-rime awareness. Galambos and Goldin-Meadow (1990) found that young SpanishEnglish bilinguals in El Salvador outperformed their monolingual Spanish counterparts on sentence grammaticality tests in Spanish. When the bilingual children's performance on sentence grammaticality tests in English was compared to that of U.S. English monolinguals, there was no significant difference in the two groups' performance even though the bilingual children's English language proficiency was significantly lower. Bialystok (1997) reported that 4- and 5-year-old bilingual preschoolers (FrenchEnglish and MandarinEnglish speakers) in Canada outperformed monolingual Eng-
< previous page
page_816
next page >
< previous page
page_817
next page > Page 817
lish-speaking preschoolers on a metalinguistic task specifically related to beginning reading: a moving word task, in which a word placed under its corresponding picture was accidentally moved to a different picture. She interpreted the superior performance of the bilingual children, and the fact that they performed the task equally well in both languages, to mean that they not only had a heightened knowledge of symbolic representation as encoded in text, but that they also could transfer this knowledge from one language to the other. On the other hand, only the 5-year-old MandarinEnglish speakers outperformed the other children on a word-size task, which involved matching the length of words with their phonological representations when conflicting pictures based on the word meanings (e.g., dandelionbus) were included. Bialystok hypothesized that the lower performance of the 4-year old MandarinEnglish speakers on the word-size task might have been due to the initial confusion that young bilingual children face when they first are exposed to two radically different writing systems. In contrast, the superior performance of the 5-year-old MandarinEnglish speakers seemed to indicate that once bilingual children figure out the differences, they develop more advanced awareness of specific representational properties than monolingual children. In explaining the metalinguistic advantage held by young bilingual children, Bruck and Genesee (1995) pointed out that bilingualism seems to provide a type of ''contrastive linguistics instruction which leads bilingual children to compare and analyze the structural aspects of language in more advanced ways than monolinguals" (p. 308). Why bilingual children's metalinguistic advantage generally seems to disappear after the age of 6 is not known, although García et al. (1998) speculated that it could be due to the predominant tendency to school bilingual children only in one language, effectively limiting their continued bilingual development. Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Reading Skills Very few researchers have investigated the specific types of reading skills and knowledge that young bilingual children transfer from one language to another (Durgunoglu *, Nagy, & Hancin-Bhatt, 1993; Verhoeven, 1994). This type of research predominantly has been informed by an information-processing paradigm, and has employed isolated tasks related to reading as well as multivariate analyses and regression techniques. For example, Durgunoglu et al. administered a letter naming test, an English word recognition test, a Spanish word recognition test, Spanish phonological tasks, and English and Spanish oral proficiency tests to U.S. Spanish-speaking first graders who were beginning readers. To test for transfer of phonological awareness, they taught the children to read English-like pseudo words and later asked them to identify English words that included the onsets and rimes of the pseudo words previously taught. Durgunoglu et al. (1993) reported that the children's Spanish phonological awareness and Spanish word recognition significantly predicted their English word recognition and pseudo word recognition, indicating cross-linguistic transfer. Children who had phonological awareness and Spanish word recognition skills performed better on the transfer tasks compared to those children who could read some Spanish words but who demonstrated low Spanish phonological awareness. Durgunoglu et al. concluded that the former children were able to transfer metalinguistic abilities related to phonological awareness in Spanish to English word recognition, without formal instruction in English phonological awareness, because similar types of word recognition processing underlie the two languages. In an attempt to test Cummins's interdependence hypothesis, Verhoeven (1994) compared the oral language and reading comprehension of first- and second-grade
< previous page
page_817
next page >
< previous page
page_818
next page > Page 818
Turkish students in the Netherlands. Three-quarters of the students had been taught to read in Dutch (a submersion approach with 3 hours of weekly Turkish instruction), whereas the other quarter had been taught to read in Turkish before being transitioned into Dutch reading (a transitional approach). Verhoeven (1994) found that the submersion students' performance on Dutch word reading efficiency and reading comprehension measures were good predictors of their Turkish performance; likewise, the transitional students' performance on Turkish word reading efficiency and reading comprehension measures were good predictors of their Dutch performance. He concluded that both groups of children applied reading skills learned in one language to their other language, providing support for a bidirectional interpretation of Cummins's interdependence hypothesis. Geva, Wade-Woolley, and Shany (1993) conducted one of the few studies to examine bilingual children's concurrent reading and spelling development in two languages. They reported that first-grade, English-speaking children in Canada who were acquiring Hebrew as a second language did not become confused when they were provided with concurrent literacy instruction in Hebrew and English. On the other hand, when they compared the children's first- and second-grade reading and spelling performance, they found that the children performed significantly better on Hebrew decoding tasks than on Hebrew spelling or English decoding tasks, reflecting the more consistent and regular graphemephoneme correspondence of Hebrew as compared to English. They also scored higher on the English spelling tasks than on the English decoding tasks. Geva et al. observed that learning to spell in Hebrew probably was more difficult than decoding because of orthographic complexities in Hebrew that are not phonologically based. Based on their findings, they proposed that the decoding and spelling development of bilingual children might vary according to the language structures being learned. The extent to which bilingual children need to be taught phonological or orthographic elements characteristic of their second language, but not that salient to their native language, is a topic that needs further investigation. Both Durgunoglu * et al. (1993) and Verhoeven (1994) interpreted young bilingual children's cross-linguistic transfer of skills to be indicative of their metalinguistic competence rather than their ability to use language specific skills. Fashola, Drum, Mayer, and Kang (1996) predicted that bilingual children learning to spell in their second language would temporarily rely on first-language phonological and orthographic processes to spell second-language words with unfamiliar phonemes or graphemes. They compared the English spelling of second-, third-, fifth-, and sixth-grade Spanish-speaking children who were learning to spell in English with that of English-speaking children. Although there were no significant differences in the two groups' random spelling errors, the Spanish-speaking children made significantly more predictable errors, based on their Spanish phonemic and orthographic knowledge, than the English-speaking children, supporting the Fashola et al. prediction. The Relationship between Oral Language Proficiency and Reading Almost all of the recent quantitative research, which has tested the relationship between young bilingual children's oral proficiency in their two languages and their performance on related reading tasks, has indicated that variables other than oral language proficiency were more powerful predictors of the children's reading task performance in either language (Durgunoglu et al., 1993; Geva et al., 1993; Verhoeven, 1994). A partial explanation for this finding is that not all young children (monolingual and bilingual) who are orally proficient in a language can read in that language. On the
< previous page
page_818
next page >
< previous page
page_819
next page > Page 819
other hand, the Geva et al. study on the concurrent literacy development of English-speaking children who were learning Hebrew as a second language revealed that the children's limited proficiency in Hebrew did not adversely affect their Hebrew spelling or decoding, which had been explicitly taught. The children were able to spell and decode at levels beyond their beginning second-language status as indicated on oral proficiency measures. The respective findings of Durgunoglu * et al. (1993) and Verhoeven (1994) implied that a key predictor of bilingual children's reading in the second language was their ability to transfer knowledge about reading from one language to another. In fact, Durgunoglu, et al. reported that tests of first-language word recognition were better predictors of her bilingual subjects' second-language performance on reading tasks than their second-language oral proficiency. Geva (personal communication, 1998) speculated that the oral proficiency measures used with young children did not capture the types of oral language knowledge and skills that predicted their reading. Although the Geva et al. (1993) findings and those of Verhoeven (1994) support the earlier claims of Barrera (1984) and Hudelson (1984) that bilingual children can learn to read and write in a second language as they develop their second-language oral competency, they do not mean that oral language development does not influence bilingual children's reading development. Other researchers, such as Seda and Abramson (1990) and Schmidt (1993), who have used qualitative methods to document the literacy progress of U.S. second-language learners enrolled in multilingual or all-English classroom settings, have shown that children who are not fluent in English do not develop aspects of their English literacy as quickly as their monolingual peers. In addition, Geva et al. warned that it was very likely that bilingual children's reading comprehension of second-language texts would be adversely affected by their limited second-language status. Early Reading Instruction (Preschool to Grade 2) Family Literacy Issues Several researchers have noted the cultural conflicts that often occur between U.S. teachers and second-language parents when shared expectations regarding the school and parents' responsibilities are not clear (Delgado-Gaitán, 1990; Godina, 1997; Valdés, 1996). Valdés's ethnographic account of 10 immigrant Mexican families showed that the parents did not understand why U.S. teachers wanted their children to know the alphabet. To them, the alphabet was meaningless because in Mexican reading instruction, it was far more important for children to know the sounds of key syllables. Godina's (1997) ethnographic account of literacy practices in a rural, Mexican-American migrant community and Teale's (1986) study of emergent literacy in low-income homes, including Latina/o homes, revealed that parentchild book reading was not a common activity. Because writing accounted for over half of the literacy events that Teale documented, he recommended that additional research examine the role of writing in young children's literacy development. Intergenerational literacy programs, usually based on a middle-class model of emergent literacy (Auerbach, 1989), have been developed in Spanish (Rodriguez-Brown & Mulhern, 1993; Shanahan, Mulhern, & Rodriguez-Brown, 1995) and English (Thornburg, 1993). The developers of Project FLAME (Shanahan et al., 1995) tried to offset a mainstream bias by focusing on what Latina/o parents deem important. Their program provides parents with Spanish literacy and ESL instruction, reading materials, book reading, and early literacy training. Despite the emphasis on
< previous page
page_819
next page >
< previous page
page_820
next page > Page 820
parents, Shanahan et al. reported that the children's knowledge of basic concepts, letter names, and print awareness in Spanish had improved significantly. Thornburg did not report an increase in the children's English literacy performance, but did report an increase in their English oral fluency. Reading Instruction in the First Language Concerns have been voiced about the type of Spanish reading instruction bilingual children receive. Spanish adaptations of Reading Recovery (Escamilla, Andrade, Basurto, & Ruiz, 1990, 1991) and Success for All, termed Bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (Calderón, Tinajero, & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1992), have been tried with U.S. Spanishspeaking children, but the results still have not been widely evaluated or published. In an experiment with Spanish-speaking kindergartners, Goldenberg (1994) reported that children who were taught to read through an academic code approach (which emphasized vowels, consonants, syllables, and words) outperformed children who received a reading-readiness or a storybook approach (where children took home books they had heard read at school). When Goldenberg added a code emphasis to the storybook reading approach, then there was no difference in performance between the two groups, leading him to question why early childhood educators were opposed to providing kindergartners with academic reading instruction. In subsequent observational research, Goldenberg criticized the slow pace of first- and second-grade reading instruction that was "weighted toward a phonics-based, bottom-up approach" (p. 187). He credited improvements in first- and second-graders' standardized reading test scores to the inclusion of an academic focus in kindergarten, a more balanced code-literature reading approach in first grade, and systematic efforts that involved the children's families in their early literacy development. Pérez (1994) used ethnographic methods to investigate the reading development of 20 low-income Hispanic children in four bilingual "whole-language" classrooms (kindergarten, first, second, and fourth grade). By the end of the school year, four children still had difficulty decoding. Although the teachers were relatively inexperienced whole-language teachers, Pérez criticized three of them for not providing the students with efficient decoding strategies or helping them with print-specific skills. In an interesting twist, Chang and Watson (1988) evaluated the use of predictable texts for the teaching of reading in Chinese to bilingual Chinese kindergartners enrolled in a weekend Chinese school in the United States. Their findings suggested that the kindergartners transferred what they knew about reading in English (their second language) to their reading in Chinese (their native/first language). In addition, after 15 weeks of weekly reading of predictable texts, the students recognized Chinese characters and were able to combine them to create new characters. Reading Instruction in a Second Language The extent to which second-language preschool children enrolled in ESL or all-English settings benefit from oral book reading in English has been questioned. In an ethnographic account of a multilingual preschool classroominvolving Chinese, Pakistani, Russian, and African childrenGarcía and Godina (1994) observed that the ESL learners had a difficult time paying attention to oral book reading in English. On the other hand, they were attentive during native-language book reading, responsive to English print in the classroom, and actively participated in literacy centers that allowed them to use their native languages and English (such as a post office, airport, restaurant). Thornburg (1993) reported that teachers involved in an intergenerational literacy program could not get ESL children to respond to English storybook reading when they used a cognitive approach that emphasized story grammar and prediction
< previous page
page_820
next page >
< previous page
page_821
next page > Page 821
questions. When the teachers asked the children to relate their personal lives to what was being read, then their participation increased. Other researchers have reported that storybook reading in English can work with ESL learners when native language support and sheltered English techniques, such as multiple modalities (seeing, hearing, touching) and structured repetition, are provided. For example, Battle (1993) described how a bilingual teacher used native-language support to structure daily storybook read alouds in English for her Mexican-American kindergartners. The teacher presented summaries of the books in Spanish, translated parts of the books during the read-aloud according to the children's responses, and allowed the children to participate in either language during group discussions. Blum et al. (1995) used single-subject reversal design with multiple baselines to study whether repeated home readings with audio tapes would improve five ESL first graders' reading fluency, monitoring, and motivation as compared to the home readings of books without the audio tapes. The authors concluded that the children improved their reading fluency when they used the audio tapes, but only made limited progress without the audio tapes. Reading Development in Older Children (Grades 312) Historically, two approaches have characterized the type of reading research conducted with older bilingual children. The first approach tends to compare the performance of bilingual readers with that of monolingual readers. The research design and interpretation generally are informed by monolingual research, and the bilingual students' reading performance in the secondlanguage is the basis for comparison. In the second approach, a bilingual perspective is employed. Researchers investigate and identify "findings unique to bilinguals at the same time that [they] carefully evaluate the application of monolingual findings to bilingual populations" (García, 1998, p. 253). Much of this research has examined the variation that occurs within bilingual reading and has focused on bilingual students' reading in two languages. Differences in Cultural Schemata and Vocabulary Knowledge Differences in bilingual and monolingual children's cultural schemata for reading have been documented, with bilingual children generally knowing less about topics included in second-language texts (Droop & Verhoeven, 1997; García, 1991; Jiménez, García, & Pearson, 1995, 1996). García reported that even when U.S. Spanish-speaking, Latina/o and monolingual Anglo (nonLatina/o White) fifth and sixth graders had been in the same English-speaking classrooms for 2 years, they significantly differed in their background knowledge for standardized reading test passages in English, with the Latina/o students knowing less about specific topics. When differences in prior knowledge were controlled, then there was no significant difference in the two groups of students' reading test performance, although the Latina/o students still scored significantly more poorly on questions that required them to use background knowledge. García wondered if the low- and average-performing Latina/o students' literal interpretation of the text was due to the type of instruction they had received. Delgado-Gaitán's finding (1989) that teachers of bilingual students do not always encourage them to use their personal knowledge to construct meaning from text suggested that there could be an instructional relationship.
< previous page
page_821
next page >
< previous page
page_822
next page > Page 822
Droop and Verhoeven (1998) reported that the linguistic complexity of a text could impede bilingual students' performance on culturally relevant text. They found that Turkish and Moroccan third-grade children who were learning Dutch as a second language in the Netherlands performed significantly worse than Dutch children on texts from the Netherlands reading curriculum that emphasized Dutch culture. When the texts reflected the Turkish and Moroccan children's culture and were linguistically simple, then these children performed significantly better than the Dutch children. When the texts were linguistically complex, then the differences were negated due to the Turkish and Moroccan children's lower proficiency in Dutch. García's (1991) comparison of the Latina/o and Anglo students' reading test performance in English also revealed that the Latina/o students knew significantly less of the English vocabulary in the test passages than the Anglo students. Interview data with a subsample of the students indicated that unfamiliar English vocabulary was the major linguistic factor that adversely affected the Latina/o students' reading test performance. Differences in Metacognitive and Cognitive Reading Strategies At least two sets of researchers have developed theoretical taxonomies to explain the types of strategies that monolingual and bilingual readers employ while reading (see Chamot & O'Malley, 1994; Jiménez et al., 1996). Chamot and O'Malley identified three types of interrelated strategies that they thought characterized the reading of monolingual and bilingual readers. In their framework, metacognitive reading strategies refer to students' conscious thinking about and reflections on reading (e.g., comprehension planning and monitoring). Cognitive reading strategies refer to how students accomplish reading (e.g., use of prior knowledge and inferencing), and social and affective strategies refer to how students interact with others during the act of reading (e.g., asking clarification questions). The Jiménez et al. framework included many of the same metacognitive and cognitive strategies as Chamot and O'Malley, but they categorized them as text-initiated strategies, interactive strategies, and reader-initiated strategies. Although Chamot and O'Malley listed linguistic transferbilingual students' recognition and use of similarities in their native language and second languageas a general cognitive reading strategy, Jiménez et al. specified the types of transfer strategies that bilingual students were observed using. I have chosen to discuss transfer strategies under the heading of cross-linguistic transfer. Most of the research on bilingual students' use of strategies has focused on their employment of metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. Very little research has examined their use of social and affective strategies. Previous research by Padrón, Knight, and Waxman (1986) with third- and fifth-grade bilingual Latina/o and monolingual Anglo students indicated that bilingual readers used fewer and less sophisticated metacognitive and cognitive strategies than monolingual readers. However, the Jiménez et al. (1995, 1996) think-aloud study of bilingual, Latina/o, middle school students' reading revealed similarities and differences in strategy use between 3 monolingual Anglo readers and 11 bilingual readers, depending on the bilingual students' reading level. The 3 less successful bilingual readers demonstrated the fewest and least sophisticated strategies, whereas, the 8 bilingual successful readers did not differ substantially from the monolingual successful readers in their comprehension monitoring, meaning construction, use of prior knowledge, or inferencing. On the other hand, similar to García's findings (1991), both the successful and less successful bilingual readers encountered more unknown English vocabulary and had less knowledge about the topics being read than the successful monolingual readers.
< previous page
page_822
next page >
< previous page
page_823
next page > Page 823
Cross-Linguistic Transfer of Knowledge and Strategies A number of researchers have attempted to determine the extent to which bilingual students use the same metacognitive and cognitive strategies while reading in their two languages. Findings from self-report surveys indicated that intermediate (CaleroBreckheimer & Goetz, 1993) and high school (Pritchard, 1990) bilingual Latina/o students reported using the same strategies while reading in English and Spanish, implying cross-linguistic transfer. Researchers who employed qualitative methodologies, using think-alouds, interviews, and retellings, documented similarities in SpanishEnglish bilingual students' (fourth to seventh grade) reading profiles across languages (García, 1998; Jiménez et al., 1995; Langer, Bartolomé, Vásquez, & Lucas, 1990). However, García observed that it was very difficult to determine whether fourth-grade bilingual readers used exactly the same strategies across languages because their use of strategies varied according to the text genre, text difficulty, their language dominance, and reading ability. In fact, text genre rather than language seemed to characterize their use of strategies; that is, the students demonstrated similar strategies while reading expository text compared to narrative text, regardless of the language. SpanishEnglish bilingual children's use of transfer strategies unique to their bilingual status also has been investigated. A crosslinguistic strategy that could help Latina/o children figure out unknown vocabulary in English is their recognition and use of SpanishEnglish cognates (words in Spanish/English with common ancestral roots that are similar in form and meaning). In a study with fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade Latina/o students, Nagy, García, Durgunoglu *, and Hancin-Bhatt (1993) found that when the students' English vocabulary knowledge was controlled, their Spanish vocabulary knowledge and post hoc ability to recognize cognates significantly predicted their English reading comprehension, indicating that they were making use of cognate relationships in their English reading. On the other hand, the fourth graders performed significantly more poorly than the fifth and sixth graders on the cognate recognition assessment, leading Nagy et al. to question whether the fourth graders' lower cognate recognition was due to developmental differences. In a content analysis of the cognate recognition data, García and Nagy (1993) discovered that a majority of the students at all grade levels had identified less than half of the cognates that they previously had reported knowing separately in both Spanish and English. They also tended to identify words that were very close in orthographic correspondence. García and Nagy concluded that the students had an emerging concept of cognates and had underutilized cognate strategies in their reading. Jiménez et al. (1995, 1996) and García (1998) argued that SpanishEnglish bilingual students' use of cross-linguistic strategies played a greater role in their reading comprehension than previously had been assumed. Jiménez et al. observed that what really differentiated the middle school bilingual successful readers from the less successful bilingual readers was their unitary view of reading across the two languages, use of knowledge across the two languages, occasional use of cognate strategies to figure out unknown vocabulary, code-switching (switching between languages at sentence boundaries to figure out what is being read), and translating (using one language to explain what was read in the other). Similar to the Nagy et al. (1993) findings, García found that her fourth-grade bilingual students made very little use of cognate strategies. On the other hand, they used code-switching, code-mixing (trying out a word from the other language within a sentence), and translating with much greater frequency than the middle school students in the Jiménez et al. (1996) study, who had much less experience in bilingual education. Paraphrased translating, where students put the translation into their own words, was more effective than direct or word-to-word translating. García argued that the students' code-mixing, code-switching, and paraphrased
< previous page
page_823
next page >
< previous page
page_824
next page > Page 824
translating should not be viewed as compensatory strategies, but as resources that reflected their bilingual identity. Interdependence between Oral Language Proficiency and Reading Several researchers (Langer et al., 1990; Peregoy & Boyle, 1991) have investigated the relationship between older bilingual children's second-language oral proficiency and their second-language reading performance in an attempt to determine whether bilingual students' reading ability in their second language is more dependent on their second-language oral proficiency or their first-language reading performance. In a think-aloud study that focused on the bilingual reading of 12 fifth-grade MexicanAmerican students, Langer et al. reported that beyond a need for basic English, what characterized the better English readers was their use of meaning-making strategies in Spanish and English reading, and not their English or Spanish oral proficiency. On the other hand, in a quantitative study, Peregoy and Boyle reported a strong and significant relationship between the English reading performance and English oral language proficiency of third-grade bilingual Latina/o students. The contradictory findings appear to be due to the variation in the students' ages, reading levels, types of assessments used, and the type of instruction the children received (see García et al., 1994). For example, the children in Peregoy and Boyle's study had received English instruction since kindergarten, but some of them were in bilingual educational programs; others were in all-English classrooms. Peregoy and Boyle acknowledged that there was wide variation in the low readers' performance, with some of the children demonstrating fairly high English proficiency but an inability to read in English. Miramontes's (1990) comparative analysis of the oral miscue and retelling performance of three types of Mexican-American students demonstrated the importance of acknowledging differences in students' instructional backgrounds and language and reading proficiencies. A factor analysis indicated that there were significant differences in the reading strategy profiles of "good English readers" (students who had always received instruction in English) and "good ESL readers" (students who had received ESL and Spanish literacy instruction since kindergarten). The good ESL readers were better at grammatical relationships than the good English readers or the "mixed dominant students" (students who were Spanish speakers but whose instruction always had been in English), implying that they had a heightened awareness of grammar/correct forms in English. Miramontes also reported that although the mixed dominant students' comprehension strategies were similar to those of the good ESL readers, and their story recalls were better than those of the good English readers, their reading fluency scores were significantly lower than both groups. She speculated that the teachers were not aware of the mixed dominant students' sophisticated reading strategies because they were fooled by their low reading fluency. Reading Instruction of Older Students (Grades 312) Because many U.S. bilingual children are enrolled in underfunded urban districts (Rámirez, et al., 1991), they frequently do not receive high-quality reading instruction. Padrón (1994) used the Classroom Observation Schedule to compare the type of reading instruction that an urban district provided to fourth and fifth graders in eight predominantly Hispanic schools (50% of the students were limited-English-proficient) with that of students from diverse populations in seven other schools. She found that the reading instruction in both types of schools was very passive, with most of the stu-
< previous page
page_824
next page >
< previous page
page_825
next page > Page 825
dents receiving instruction in whole-class settings. Neither group of students spent much time actually reading; instead, most of their time was spent listening or watching their teachers. Literature-Based and Whole-Language Approaches The use of book clubs, whole-language approaches, and storybook reading with second-language learners of English has been examined in a variety of settings: all-English, ESL, and ESL transitional (Brock & Raphael, 1994; Elley, 1991, 1994; Reyes, 1991). Whether these approaches help the children to improve aspects of their English reading performance seems to depend on the extent to which they explicitly address their second-language needs. Reyes used a case study approach to analyze the literacy performance of 10 sixth-grade Hispanic bilingual students, whose teacher ascribed to a whole-language approach. According to Reyes, the students did not receive explicit instruction on selecting, analyzing, and discussing books, and, as a result, their English reading comprehension suffered. In addition, the mini-lessons that the teacher gave on English writing did not appear to be effective. The only time that the students made corrections in their literature log or dialogue journal writing was when the teacher explicitly corrected their writing in the log or journal. Elley's (1991) findings showed that when literature-based activities were combined with quality ESL instruction they were effective with second-language learners who already were literate in their first language. He reviewed findings from two experiments conducted in the South Pacific (Niue, Figi) and Southeast Asia (Singapore) with 8- to 10-year-old, second-language learners of English, who already were literate in their first language but who were in their first year of English transition. In each of the experiments, the students who participated in a high-interest storybook approach, with a book flood, independent book choice, and silent reading, along with English instruction based on Krashen's (1985) comprehensible input theory, had significantly higher reading comprehension scores than students who participated in a controlled reading and audio-lingual approach or a structured reading and systematic oral instructional approach. Metacognitive and Cognitive Strategy Instruction Other researchers have tested the efficacy of monolingual interventions designed to improve students' metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies. Padrón (1992) found that third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade bilingual Latina/o students significantly improved their reported use of selected reading strategies in English after participating in a month of cognitive strategy instruction (30 minutes twice a week) that either emphasized reciprocal teaching or question-answer-response instruction. Muñiz-Swicegood (1994) reported that third-grade Latina/o students benefited from 6 weeks of Spanish metacognitive strategy instruction (90 minutes per day) that emphasized self-generating questions. In addition, the students significantly improved their standardized reading test performance in Spanish and English, implying that they transferred strategies learned in Spanish to their English reading. Based on their taxonomy of metacognitive and cognitive strategies, Chamot and O'Malley (1996) developed the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA) to aid ESL students in their English language development and comprehension of content area domains, such as mathematics, science, social studies, and literature. CALLA essentially provides students with content area ESL instruction that includes explicit strategy instruction to facilitate their comprehension of a specific content area. The rationale for CALLA is that (a) language is involved in all learning, and, therefore, teaching students vocabulary and linguistic structures relevant to a content
< previous page
page_825
next page >
< previous page
page_826
next page > Page 826
area domain provides them with an authentic context for learning and an opportunity to develop their academic English; and (b) to actually become strategic learners, students must be involved in a setting where they have an authentic purpose for using the metacognitive and cognitive strategies being taught. Although CALLA appears promising, Chamot and O'Malley acknowledged that the newness of the approach has meant that there is very limited information available on its effectiveness in terms of student achievement and ESL development. Jiménez (1997) used findings from his research with successful bilingual readers (Jiménez et al., 1996) to conduct a formative experiment with five low-literacy, seventh-grade, Latina/o students. In his cognitive strategy lessons, he emphasized reading fluency and word recognition skills; taught strategies for resolving unknown vocabulary, asking questions, and making inferences; and encouraged searching for cognates, translating, transferring knowledge, and reflecting on text in both languages. Jiménez reported that the use of culturally familiar text resulted in the students producing extended discourse about the text, which aided their inferencing. After 2 weeks of instruction, all of the students had increased their reading engagement. Vocabulary Instruction Although unknown vocabulary in the second language is a major problem for bilingual readers (García, 1991), few researchers have developed programs to improve students' second-language reading vocabulary. García (1996) reported that after receiving individualized scaffolded instruction on cognate recognition and use while reading, 10 out of 13 fourth-grade, MexicanAmerican students were able to access cognates to figure out unknown English vocabulary while reading. Neuman and Koskinen (1992) concluded that viewing captioned television provided seventh-and eighth-grade bilingual students (predominantly Cambodian) with the type of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985) they needed to significantly improve their acquisition of English reading vocabulary. On the other hand, when Neuman and Koskinen examined the students' oral English proficiency scores, they discovered that those students who were most proficient in English had the highest vocabulary scores. They cautioned that there might be a threshold level of second-language competency that students need before they can benefit from captioned television without explicit teacher help. Culturally Responsive Pedagogy Moll and González (González et al., 1995; Moll, 1990; Moll & González, 1994) questioned the educational emphasis placed on traditional literacy activities that are commonplace in many Anglo, middle-class homes. Instead, they have shown how teachers can tap into and build on the "cultural funds of knowledge" of working-class, Latina/o (predominantly Mexican) families. Their approach first gets teachers to serve as ethnographers, investigating the funds of knowledge in children's families and community; then they work with teachers to connect their literacy instruction to the cultural resources they have documented outside of the classroom. As Moll and González explained, a major implication of the teachers' research has been "debunking ideas of working-class, language minority households as lacking worthwhile knowledge and experiences" (p. 444). Writings by the teachers have demonstrated a positive shift in their attitudes and knowledge about Latina/o students, families, and community (González et al., 1995).
< previous page
page_826
next page >
< previous page
page_827
next page > Page 827
Related Issues Given the serious shortage of bilingual teachers in the United States (see August & Hakuta, 1997), it should not be too surprising to learn that many teachers who work with bilingual students lack relevant training. In a multischool instructional study that involved seven schools in California and Texas, Gersten (1996) reported that only 6 of the 19 third- to sixth-grade teachers, who worked with students transitioning into all-English instruction, had completed course work in ESL or sheltered English. Most of them knew that they should modulate the language-based curriculum that they implemented, but not all of them had effective strategies for doing so. Rueda and García's (1996) study on the attitudes and approaches of third- and fourthgrade teachers who worked with bilingual students revealed that certified bilingual teachers and temporary, emergencycredentialed bilingual teachers tended to view bilingualism and biculturalism more positively than special education teachers. However, none of the teachers fell at the constructivist end of the literacy or assessment continuum. Due to the pressure on them to teach English, all of them, even the bilingual credentialed teachers, said that they were reluctant to use native-language instruction. The general consensus of researchers who have analyzed the second-language content of teaching resource materials is that teachers are not given the information they need to work effectively with bilingual or ESL students in all-English classrooms (Bernhardt, 1994; García, Montes, Janisch, Bouchereau, & Consalvi, 1993; Schumm, Vaughn, Klingner, & Haager, 1992). According to Bernhardt, textbook authors generally categorized second-language children with dialect speakers or with handicapped children. Few of them discussed the role of native-language literacy. García et al. reported that less than 6% of the reading and language arts journals dealt with second-language topics. Examination of the basal reading materials revealed that most of them dealt with English oral language development rather than literacy development. Although several basal reading series now are published in Spanish, trade books in Spanish and reading materials in other native languages are in short supply. Pucci's (1994) case study of public and school libraries in the Los Angeles, California, area revealed a serious shortage of books in Spanish, as well as negative library practices that did not encourage the reading of Spanish books. Several researchers have voiced concerns about the shortage of multicultural children's literaturein English, Spanish, and other languagesthat allows children to learn about their histories, see themselves reflected in the pages, and experience what it is like to read culturally familiar material for which they have the appropriate schemata (Aloki, 1993; Barrera, Liguori, & Salas, 1993; Nieto, 1993). Fernández, Pearson, Umbel, and Oller's (1992) findings, along with those of García (1991), illustrate the difficulties involved in accurately assessing bilingual students' literacy development. Fernández et al. found that the word order difficulty on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestRevised, Form L (1981), and its Spanish version, Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody, Adaptacion Hispanoamericana (1986), differed substantially for Cuban preschoolers in Miami, compared to the norming samples for monolingual preschoolers in English and Spanish. Fernández et al. also warned that single-language vocabulary tests would underestimate bilingual children's conceptual knowledge because they do not capture what children know in the other language. García (1991) cautioned against overrelying on bilingual students' reading test scores in English to evaluate their English reading performance. She identified a number of testing factorsunfamiliar passage vocabulary, paraphrased vocabulary in test items, unfamiliar passage topics, scriptally implicit questions, limited time to complete the testthat adversely affected the standardized English reading test performance of Latina/o fifth and sixth graders compared to that of Anglo students.
< previous page
page_827
next page >
< previous page
page_828
next page > Page 828
Interviews with the Latina/o students, often in Spanish, revealed more information about their English reading comprehension than their actual test performance. The extent to which similar factors will adversely affect the performance assessment of bilingual students' reading in English has been discussed but not investigated (see García & Pearson, 1994). Few researchers have studied the influence of affective factors on bilingual students' reading. When this type of research has occurred, it tends to look at students' English reading achievement in terms of their U.S. acculturation (García-Vázquez, 1995). Rarely is information presented on how the students view their home cultural and language backgrounds or how their home culture and language were used in school, so it is not possible to know if the students who attained high levels of English reading achievement also viewed their home languages and cultures positively. Summary and Implications Although more researchers have directed their attention to bilingual children's reading since Weber's (1991) review, the level and quality of the research still have not kept pace with the numbers of bilingual children living in the United States and throughout the world. In many cases, only a few researchers have investigated a key issue. The inclusion of international findings has helped to expand what is known about bilingual children's reading, especially that of young bilingual children. On the other hand, it is important to remember that the applicability of findings to other bilingual groups may vary according to the language and instructional contexts, and social, economic, and political status of the group (Collier & Thomas, 1989; Cummins, 1989, 1996; Hornberger, 1992; Rámirez et al., 1991). Although researchers from other countries focused on children who were not Spanish speakers, most of the U.S. researchers focused on this group of children. Researchers who contributed to our knowledge of young bilingual children's reading focused on three interrelated topics: metalinguistic awareness, cross-linguistic transfer, and the relationship between oral language proficiency and reading. In addition, two of the international researchers provided some evidence in support of young children's biliteracy development. However, the metalinguistic topic is the only one for which there is considerable research. Previous researchers (among others, Ben-Zeev, 1997; Feldman & Shen, 1971; Ianco-Worrall, 1972) corroborated the finding that bilingual children younger than 6 years outperform their monolingual counterparts on isolated metalinguistic tasks related to reading. Why this advantage appears to disappear after the age of 6 needs to be researched. Miramontes (1990) was the only researcher who documented a metalinguistic advantage in older U.S. bilingual readers. Interestingly, these students had received Spanish and ESL instruction since kindergarten, supporting the García et al. (1998) contention that continued exposure to two languages throughout the schooling years might result in enhanced metalinguistic awareness. Although the ability of young bilingual children to transfer knowledge and strategies from one language to the other is a key assumption underlying bilingual education, only two sets of researchers actually specified the types of knowledge and strategies that young bilingual children (SpanishEnglish bilinguals) seemed to transfer across languages. Four sets of researchers concluded that young bilingual children from diverse language backgrounds (SpanishEnglish, FrenchEnglish, MandarinEnglish, TurkishDutch, HebrewEnglish) were able to transfer metalinguistic awareness related to reading. On the other hand, several of them thought that young bilingual children might need explicit instruction on structural features of the second language that were not characteristic of the first language. Whether this type of in-
< previous page
page_828
next page >
< previous page
page_829
next page > Page 829
struction actually is needed, what should be emphasized, and whether it can accelerate bilingual students' second-language reading development needs to be investigated. In addition, more attention needs to be devoted to identifying specific skills or strategies that transfer in young bilingual children's reading. This type of research needs to occur both in experimental settings (to see what is possible) and in natural, uncontrived settings (to see what actually happens). None of the oral proficiency measures used by the researchers predicted the young children's reading task performance. As mentioned earlier, this does not mean that oral proficiency does not play a role in bilingual children's reading. It could be that the measures do not accurately reflect aspects of oral knowledge that are important for reading. On the other hand, several of the researchers reported that measures related to first-language reading were better predictors of the children's second-language reading development than oral proficiency measures. Additional research needs to untangle the role of oral language and firstlanguage reading development in young bilingual children's second-language reading. Unfortunately, the instructional research on young bilingual children's reading does not help us to understand any of the issues just defined. Although intergenerational literacy programs have been developed in Spanish and English, very few researchers have examined how culturally relevant literacy activities in children's homes affect their emergent literacy development. Two researchers argued that beginning reading instruction in Spanish was more effective when explicit attention to decoding and print-specific skills was combined with literature-based activities. Others reported that young second-language learners of English had a difficult time participating in storybook reading in English when a cognitive approach was used or when nativelanguage support, multiple modalities, or structured repetition was not used. The Rámirez et al. (1991) evaluation of the reading instruction provided to Spanish-speaking students in structured immersion, early-exit, and late-exit transitional bilingual education classrooms revealed that all of the students, regardless of the language of instruction, received passive, teacherdirected instruction that did not promote their development of complex language and higher order thinking skills. Clearly, more researchers need to see what is possible when young bilingual children receive quality reading instruction in their first and/or second languages. How different types of reading instruction affect their bilingual reading development also needs to be explored. This type of research needs to focus on Spanish speakers as well as children from other diverse language backgrounds who usually are placed in an ESL or all-English setting. Even though more attention has focused on the reading development of older bilingual children compared to younger children, the research base still is limited, with only a few researchers investigating each of the topics. Two types of research approaches have contributed to our understanding of older bilingual students' reading. In the first approach, researchers compared the second-language reading performance of bilingual students with that of monolingual students, who were reading in their native language. Findings from this type of research suggested that bilingual students' second-language reading comprehension was adversely affected by their second-language status. They knew less about the topics included on reading tests and reading curriculum passages, had difficulty with questions that required them to use their background knowledge, had problems with unfamiliar vocabulary, and were adversely affected by linguistically complex text. The extent to which their problems with background knowledge were due to instruction was raised but not answered. Textual factors, such as textual cohesion or rhetorical structure, were not investigated. Additional research needs to explore the obstacles that bilingual readers face while reading in the second language as well as document how they react to and resolve such obstacles.
< previous page
page_829
next page >
< previous page
page_830
next page > Page 830
Researchers who employed the second approach, which I termed a bilingual perspective, sometimes compared the secondlanguage reading performance of U.S. Latina/o bilingual students to that of monolingual English-speaking students. However, they also examined the variation in performance that occurred among bilingual readers and often investigated their reading in two languages. Findings from this type of research suggested that comparative studies of monolingual and bilingual reading need to differentiate between successful and less successful bilingual readers. The Jiménez et al. (1996) qualitative study of successful and less successful middle school bilingual readers indicated that the less successful bilingual readers used fewer and less sophisticated metacognitive and cognitive strategies than the successful monolingual readers. In contrast, the successful bilingual and monolingual readers used similar metacognitive and cognitive strategies. The extent to which other successful and unsuccessful bilingual readers are characterized by similar reading profiles needs to be examined on a much larger basis. Cross-linguistic transfer in older bilingual students' reading was investigated by several researchers. Findings based on selfreport surveys indicated that bilingual readers reported using the same strategies while reading in their two languages. Qualitative studies also revealed that bilingual students generally had similar reading profiles across the two languages. However, as García (1998) noted, it was difficult to evaluate the cross-linguistic transfer of specific metacognitive and cognitive strategies because students' use of the strategies varied according to textual and reader features. The Jiménez et al. (1995, 1996) study of successful and less successful bilingual readers indicated that bilingual students' use of cross-linguistic transfer strategies was not automatic. Further research needs to examine to what extent, and under what conditions, bilingual readers utilize cross-linguistic transfer strategies. Findings regarding the relationship between older bilingual students' oral language proficiency and their reading in a second language seemed to depend on whether the study was qualitative or quantitative, the ages and reading levels of the students, their instructional backgrounds, and how oral language proficiency was measured. It could be that the oral language proficiency measures that are used with older bilingual students measure aspects of second-language proficiency (e.g., knowledge of vocabulary and linguistic complexity) that are more related to the second-language reading of older bilingual students than what is measured on the oral proficiency measures used with younger students. Nonetheless, additional research needs to examine the extent to which a range of factors, including first-language reading development, the use of cross-linguistic strategies, instructional experiences, and second-language oral proficiency, predict older bilingual children's second-language reading performance. The instructional research on older bilingual children's reading is meager. Limited evidence suggested that immersing secondlanguage children in second-language, literature-based activities, such as storybook reading or process writing, without taking into account their second-language status was not very effective. On the other hand, the few researchers who implemented and tested metacognitive and cognitive strategy instruction in the first- or second-language appeared to obtain positive results. Using captioned television to develop reading vocabulary and teaching bilingual students how to use cognates and employ strategies similar to those of successful bilingual readers seemed to be promising but need to be investigated on a much larger scale. Key topics, such as the extent to which bilingual children are taught how to use strategies and knowledge acquired in their first language in second-language reading or how students are transitioned into English reading and writing, received little attention. Although Rámirez et al. (1991) reported that continued exposure to Spanish language instruction through Grade 6 appeared to enhance low-income, U.S. Latina/o students'
< previous page
page_830
next page >
< previous page
page_831
next page > Page 831
English reading performance, how or why this instruction helped these students to develop their English reading has not been documented. In closing, it is clear that considerably more research needs to focus on investigating the reading development and instruction of bilingual children. Longitudinal studies need to be conducted that examine bilingual children's reading process development in their two languages, taking into account the different types of instruction they receive, the settings in which they are taught, and the influence of social and contextual factors, such as the support and use of children's home languages and cultures. The metalinguistic findings for young bilingual children and the findings of Rámirez et al. (1991) and Collier and Thomas (1989) suggest that such research needs to begin and extend beyond the grades in which most bilingual children typically receive second-language services. Finally, improved research on bilingual children's reading and instruction will require funds and commitment, two items that have been sorely missing in the United States and other countries where bilingual students often are a language minority. Acknowledgements I thank Rose-Marie Weber, Rosalinda Barrera, Robert T. Jiménez, and Michael Kamil for feedback on an early draft. I also thank Joan Primeaux and Jia-Ling Yau for their research assistance. References Aloki, E. M. (1993). Turning the page: Asian Pacific American children's literature. In V. J. Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K8 (pp. 109135). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Anstrom, K. (1996). Defining the limited-English-proficient student population. Directions in Language and Education, 1(9) (Summer). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Arneberg, L. N., & Arneberg, P. W. (1992). Language awareness and language separation in the young bilingual child. In R. J. Harris (Ed.), Cognitive processing in bilinguals (pp. 475500). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier. Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a social-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 165181. August, D., & Hakuta, K. (Eds.). (1997). Improving schooling for language-minority children: A research agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Barrera, R. (1984). Bilingual reading in the primary grades: Some questions about questionable views and practices. In T. H. Escobedo (Ed.), Early childhood bilingual education: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 164184). New York: Teachers College Press. Barrera, R., Liguori, O., & Salas, L. (1993). Ideas a literature can grow on. In V. J. Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K8 (pp. 203241). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Battle, J. (1993). Mexican-American bilingual kindergarten collaborations in meaning making. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 163169). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Ben-Zeev, S. (1977). The influence of bilingualism on cognitive strategy and cognitive development. Child Development, 48, 10091018. Bernhardt, E. B. (1994). A content analysis of reading method texts: What are we told about the non-native speaker of English? Journal of Reading Behavior, 26(2), 159189. Bialystok, E. (1997). Effects of bilingualism and biliteracy on children's emerging concepts of print. Developmental Psychology, 33(3), 429440. Blum, I. H., Koskinen, P. S., Tennant, N., Parker, E. M., Straub, M., & Curry, C. (1995). Using audiotaped books to extend classroom literacy instruction into the homes of second-language learners. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(4), 535563. Brock, C. H., & Raphael, T. E. (1994). Mei: Constructing meaning during a sixth-grade social studies unit. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 89100). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Bruck, M., & Genesee, F. (1995). Phonological awareness in young second language learners. Child Language, 22, 307324. Calderón, M. E., Tinajero, J. V., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Adapting Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC) to meet the needs of bilingual students. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 10, 79106.
< previous page
page_831
next page >
< previous page
page_832
next page > Page 832
Calero-Breckheimer, A., & Goetz, E. T. (1993). Reading strategies of biliterate children for English and Spanish texts. Reading Psychology, 14(3), 177204. Carrell, P. (1989). SLA and classroom instruction: Reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 9, 223242. Cavicchiori, V., & Erickson, A. (1991). Statistical issues. Special survey on primary education (STE-4). Paris, France: United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. (Microfiche 4110-D35.5) Chang, Y., & Watson, D. J. (1988). Adaptation of prediction strategies and materials in a Chinese/English bilingual classroom. Reading Teacher, 42, 3644. Chamot, A. U., & O'Malley, J. M. (1996). The cognitive academic language learning approach: A model for linguistically diverse classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 259273. Collier, V. P., & Thomas, W. P. (1989). How quickly can immigrants become proficient in school English? Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 16(12), 187212. Crawford, J. (1991). Bilingual education: History, politics, theory and practice (2nd ed.) Los Angeles, CA: Bilingual Educational Services. Crawford, J. (1997). Best evidence: Research foundations of the Bilingual Education Act. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 349). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering minority students. Sacramento, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Delgado-Gaitán, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's education. New York: Falmer Press. Delgado-Gaitán, C. (1989). Classroom literacy activity for Spanish-speaking students. Linguistics and Education, 1, 285297. Droop, M., & Verhoeven, L. (1998). Background knowledge, linguistic complexity, and second-language reading comprehension. Journal of Literacy Research, 30(2), 253271. Durgunoglu *, A., Nagy, W., E., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. J. (1993). Cross-language transfer of phonological awareness. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 453465. Dworin, J. (in press). Examining children's biliteracy in the classroom. In A. I. Willis, G. E. García, V. J. Harris, & R. Barrera (Eds.), Multicultural issues in literacy research and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Elley, W. B. (1991). Acquiring literacy in a second language: The effect of book-based programs. Language Learning, 41(3), 375411. Escamilla, K., Andrade, A., Basurto, A., & Ruiz, O. (1990, 1991). Descubriendo la lectura: An early intervention Spanish language literacy project. Annual Conference Journal, National Association for Bilingual Education, pp. 3143. Fashola, O. S., Drum, P. A., Mayer, R. E., & Kang, S. (1996). A cognitive theory of orthographic transitioning: Predictable errors in how Spanish-speaking children spell English words. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 825843. Feldman, C., & Shen, M. (1971). Some language-related cognitive advantages of bilingual 5-year olds. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 118, 235244. Fernández, M. C., Pearson, B. Z., Umbel, V. M., & Oller, D. K. (1992). Bilingual receptive vocabulary in Hispanic preschool children. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14, 268276. Fitzgerald, J. (1993). Views on bilingualism in the United States: A selective historical review. Bilingual Research Journal, 17, 3556. Fitzgerald, J. (1995a). English-as-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145190. Fitzgerald, J. (1995b). English-as-second-language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 115152. Galambos, S. J., & Goldin-Meadow, S. (1990). The effects of learning two languages on levels of metalinguistic awareness. Cognition, 34, 156. García, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 371392. García, G. E. (1996, December). Improving the English reading of Mexican-American bilingual students through the use of cognate recognition strategies. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Charleston, SC. García, G. E. (1998). Mexican-American bilingual students' metacognitive reading strategies: What's transferred, unique, problematic? National Reading Conference Yearbook, 47, 253263. García, G. E., & Godina, H. (1994). Bilingual preschool children's classroom literacy experiences: 'Once upon a time' and its
alternatives. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 381 770) García, G. E., Jiménez, R. T., & Pearson, P. D. (1998). Metacognition, childhood bilingualism, and reading. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 193219). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
< previous page
page_832
next page >
< previous page
page_833
next page > Page 833
García, G. E., Montes, J., Janisch, C., Bouchereau, E., & Consalvi, J. (1993). Literacy needs of limited-English proficient students: What information is available to mainstream teachers? In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 171177). Chicago: National Reading Conference. García, G. E., & Nagy, W. (1993). Latino students' concept of cognates. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 367373). Chicago: National Reading Conference. García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Assessment and diversity. Review of Research in Education, 20, 337391. García, G. E., Pearson, P. D., & Jiménez, R. T. (1994). The at-risk situation: A synthesis of reading research (Special report). Champaign, IL: Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois. García-Vázquez, E. (1995). Acculturation and academics: Effects of acculturation on reading achievement among MexicanAmerican students. Bilingual Research Journal, 19, 305315. Gersten, R. (1996). The language minority student in transition: Contemporary instructional research. Elementary School Journal, 96(3), 217244. Geva, E., Wade-Woolley, L., & Shany, M. (1993). The concurrent development of spelling and decoding in two different orthographies. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25, 383406. Godina, H. (1998). Mexican-American high school students and the role of literacy across homeschoolcommunity settings. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Goldenberg, C. (1994). Promoting early literacy development among Spanish-speaking children: Lessons from two studies. In E. H. Hiebert and B. M. Taylor (Eds.), Getting reading right from the start (pp. 171199). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Göncz, L., & Kodzopeljic, J. (1991) Exposure to two languages in the preschool period: Metalinguistic development and the acquisition of reading. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 12(3), 137163. González, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M. F., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1995). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Urban Education, 29(4), 443470. Hornberger, N. H. (1992). Biliteracy contexts, continua, and contrasts: Policy and curriculum for Cambodian and Puerto Rican students in Philadelphia. Education and Urban Society, 24, 196211. Hudelson, S. (1984). Kan yu ret an rayt en ingles: Children become literate in English as a second language. TESOL Quarterly, 18, 221238. Ianco-Worrall, A. D. (1972). Bilingualism and cognitive development. Child Development, 43, 13901400. Jiménez, R. T. (1997). The strategic reading abilities and potential of five low-literacy Latina/o readers in middle school. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 224243. Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1995). Three children, two languages, and strategic reading: Case studies in bilingual/monolingual reading. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 3161. Jiménez, R. T., García, G. E., & Pearson, P. D. (1996). The reading strategies of bilingual Latina/o students who are successful English readers: Opportunities and obstacles. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 90112. Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman. Langer, J. A., Bartolomé, L., Vásquez, O., & Lucas, T. (1990). Meaning construction in school literacy tasks: A study of bilingual students. American Educational Research Journal, 27(3), 427471. McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second-language acquisition in childhood. Vol. 1: Preschool children. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Miramontes, O. (1990). A comparative study of English oral reading skills in differently schooled groups of Hispanic students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 373394. Moll, L. C. (1990, February). Literacy research in community and classrooms: A sociocultural approach. Paper presented at the conference on Multi-disciplinary Perspectives on Research Methodology in Language Arts, National Conference on Research in English, Chicago. Moll, L. C., & González, N. (1994). Critical issues; Lessons from research with language-minority children. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 26(4), 439456. Muñiz-Swicegood, M. (1994). The effects of metacognitive reading strategy training on the reading performance and fluent reading analysis strategies of third grade bilingual students. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 8397. Nagy, W. E., García, G. E., Durgunoglu *, A., & Hancin-Bhatt, B. (1993). Spanish-English bilingual children's use and recognition of cognates in English reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(3), 241259. Neuman, S. B., & Koskinen, P. (1992). Captioned television as comprehensible input: Effects of incidental word learning from context for language minority students. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(1), 95109. Nieto, S. (1993). We have stories to tell: A case study of Puerto Ricans in children's books. In V. J. Harris (Ed.), Teaching multicultural literature in grades K8 (pp. 171201). Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.
Padrón, Y. (1992). The effect of strategy instruction on bilingual students' cognitive strategy use in reading. Bilingual Research Journal, 16, 3552. Padrón, Y. (1994). Comparing reading instruction in Hispanic/limited English-proficient schools and other inner-city schools. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 4966. Padrón, Y. N., Knight, S. L., & Waxman, H. C. (1986). Analyzing bilingual and monolingual students' perceptions of their reading strategies. Reading Teacher, 39(5), 430433.
< previous page
page_833
next page >
< previous page
page_834
next page > Page 834
Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (1991). Second language oral proficiency characteristics of low, intermediate, and high second language readers. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 13, 3547. Pérez, B. (1994). Spanish literacy development: A descriptive study of four bilingual whole-language classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 26, 7594. Pritchard, R. (1990, December). Reading in Spanish and English: A comparative study of processing strategies. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Pucci, S. L. (1994). Supporting Spanish language literacy: Latino children and free reading resources in California. Bilingual Research Journal, 18, 6797. Rámirez, J. D., Yuen, S. D., & Ramey, D. R. (1991). Executive summary: Final report: Longitudinal study of structured English immersion strategy, early-exit and late-exit transitional bilingual education programs for language minority children. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Reyes, M. de la Luz (1991). A process approach to literacy using dialogue journals and literature logs with second language learners. Research on the Teaching of English, 25, 291313. Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., & Mulhern, M. M. (1993). Fostering critical literacy through family literacy: A study of families in a Mexican-immigrant community. Bilingual Research Journal, 17, 116. Rueda, R., & García, E. (1996). Teachers' perspectives on literacy assessment and instruction with language-minority students: A comparative study. Elementary School Journal, 96, 311332. Schmidt, P. R. (1993). Literacy development of two bilingual, ethnic-minority children in a kindergarten program. In D. J. Leu & C. K. Kinzer (Eds.), Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 189196). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., & Haager, D. (1992). A content analysis of basal readers: Teaching suggestions for ESL/LEP students learning to read in English. In C. K. Kinzer & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives: Forty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 425434). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Seda, I., & Abramson, S. (1990). English writing development of young, linguistically different learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 379391. Shanahan, T., Mulhern, M., & Rodriguez-Brown, F. (1995). Project FLAME: Lessons learned from a family literacy program for linguistic minority families. Reading Teacher, 48(7), 586593. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Teale, W. H. (1986). Home background and young children's emergent literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Thornburg, D. (1993). Intergenerational literacy learning with bilingual families: A context for the analysis of social mediation of thought. Journal of Reading Behavior, 25(3), 321352. Titone, R. (1985). Early bilingual reading. Prospects, 15, 6775. Valdés, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools: An ethnographic portrait. New York: Teachers College Press. Verhoeven, L. T. (1994). Transfer in bilingual development: The linguistic interdependence hypothesis revisited. Language Learning, 44, 381415. Weber, R. M. (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 97119). New York: Longman.
< previous page
page_834
next page >
< previous page
page_835
next page > Page 835
Chapter 43 A Multicultural Perspective on Policies for Improving Literacy Achievement: Equity and Excellence Kathryn H. Au University of Hawaii From the perspective of multicultural education, the key cultures are considered to be ethnicity or national origin, social class, primary language, gender/sex, religion, age, geographic region, urbansuburbanrural, and exceptionality (Gollnick & Chinn, 1990). Three of these cultural variablesethnicity, social class, and primary languageare consistently related to schools' difficulties in serving students well and bringing them to high levels of literacy. In the United States, the students least well served by schools often are African American, Asian American, Latina/o, and Native American in ethnicity; come from poor and working-class families; and speak home languages other than standard American English. These students are referred to here as students of diverse backgrounds. Students of these ethnicities constitute a growing percentage of the U.S. school-age population, accounting for about 35% of the total enrollment in prekindergarten through Grade 12 (Nettles & Perna, 1997). Many of these children grow up in poverty. For example, in 1992, 44% of African American preschoolers lived in households with incomes under $10,000, a figure $5,000 below the poverty line for a family of four. At the same time, 2.3 million students in the United States spoke a first language other than standard American English and were considered to have ''limited English proficiency" (U.S. Department of Education, 1992). A gap between the literacy achievement of students of diverse background and students of mainstream backgrounds has long been recognized. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has monitored the literacy achievement of U.S. students at three grade levels for over 25 years. Results of the 1994 reading assessment for Grade 4 (9-year-olds) indicated the following percentages of students performing below a basic level of proficiency: Whites, 29%; African Americans, 69%; and Hispanics, 64% (Nettles & Perna, 1997). Comparable differences were observed at Grade 8 (13 year olds) and Grade 12 (17 year olds). Although the gap has narrowed somewhat over
< previous page
page_835
next page >
< previous page
page_836
next page > Page 836
the years, differences between the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds and mainstream students remain significant. Excellence and Equity Literacy is high on the policy agenda in the United States (Elliott, 1996). A well-educated, literate workforce is seen as key to America's continued prosperity and competitiveness in the global marketplace. Goal 3, on student achievement and citizenship, of the National Educational Goals (1995) reads: By the year 2000, all students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation's modern economy. (p. 11) Goal 6 proclaims that every adult American will be literate. Given these goals, a priority from a policy perspective is to see that the benefits of high levels of achievement in a demanding curriculum are extended to students of diverse backgrounds, and not just to mainstream students. One of the objectives under Goal 3 refers directly to equity: The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary level will increase significantly in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely reflect the student population as a whole. (National Education Goals Panel, 1995, p. 11) The twin goals of excellence and equity, or quality and equality, in students' achievement are evident. Excellence is defined as students using their minds well when faced with challenging subject matter. In terms of literacy achievement, this definition points to an emphasis on higher level thinking with text. Equity is framed in terms of improving the achievement of students of diverse backgrounds to a level similar to that of mainstream students. Elliott (1996) believed that the question for U.S. policymakers is that of implementation, knowing what government can and should do to achieve these goals. Considerable consensus among U.S. policymakers made the narrowing of the literacy achievement gap a priority. However, this consensus is by no means universal. Groups on the far right of the political spectrum attempted in the 1990s to dismantle affirmative action programs and to promote a meritocratic concept of equity, without regard to issues of cultural bias and community power. As Paquette (1998) noted, these groups argue from an economic perspective that educational resources should be concentrated on those most able to contribute to society in the future. In practice, of course, those judged most able are mainstream students who enter school with considerable cultural capital. In the view of the far right, equity and excellence are seen as competing goals, with excellence to be given priority and the low achievement of students of diverse backgrounds to be accepted as a given. Fortunately, this view has not yet prevailed. However, in Labaree's (1997) view, the trend is toward a social mobility, meritocratic view of education, and away from a democratic, egalitarian view. Given the twin goals of equity and excellence, and the question of implementation, what are the key findings from research on the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds? How are these findings related to issues of policy? The first section of this chapter presents an overview of research findings. The second section addresses equity policy and provides an understanding of existing efforts. In the final section, implications of research for policy, and implications of policy for research, are discussed.
< previous page
page_836
next page >
< previous page
page_837
next page > Page 837
Research on the Literacy Achievement of Students of Diverse Backgrounds Prior to the 1980s, reading researchers, often psychologists by training, gave scant attention to issues of equity, including the roles of ethnicity, social class, and primary language. As Willis and Harris (1997) pointed out, it is evident in hindsight that the omission of these issues in the large-scale First-Grade Studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967) and other work resulted in missed opportunities to challenge the status quo in the reading instruction of students of diverse backgrounds. Beginning in the 1980s, considerable research began to appear on the language and culture of students of diverse backgrounds and the role of these factors in students' learning to read. Conducted primarily by linguists and anthropologists, these studies reflected the shift from a cultural deficit to a cultural differences paradigm. Reviews of this research are presented next. Language Issues In Volume II of the Handbook of Reading Research, Weber (1991) discussed research on learning to read in situations where more than one language is involved for the reader. Weber's review highlighted the predominance of English in the United States and the preference for bilingual programs that promoted the teaching of English over the maintenance of the mother tongue (see also Pease-Alvarez & Hakuta, 1992). A policy issue growing from Weber's review is the value attached to literacy in languages other than English in the United States. The irony is that the speaking of a first language other than English is considered a liability in young students who are from immigrant or low-income families. Yet the learning of second or foreign languages is a goal later in school, especially at elite high schools and colleges. As a consequence of the emphasis only on English, research tended to focus on young students' limited proficiency in English rather than on their knowledge of other languages. Considerable research had been conducted on the effectiveness of bilingual programs, but at this time, Weber judged much of this research to be flawed and inconclusive. Weber concluded that reading in a second language is much like reading in the first, with many processes being transferable from the first to the second language. Fitzgerald (1994) reached a similar conclusion in a review of U.S. research on the cognitive reading processes of English-as-a-second-language (ESL) learners. Taken together, the findings of these reviews suggested that, on the whole, the effective reading instruction of ESL learners follows the same general principles as for native speakers of English. The nature of these general principles is summarized in Farr's (1991) review of studies of dialects, culture, and language arts instruction. Farr arrived at three principles of effective instruction for students of diverse backgrounds. The first and most important principle is that of "ethnosensitivity," that is, the need for teachers to understand and build upon students' home culture and language. The second principle involves emphasizing literacy activities that engage students in purposeful communication with a real audience, for example, exchanging thoughts with a teacher through dialogue journals. The third principle concerns the need for extensive involvement with written texts, such as novels, biographies, and poetry. Farr noted, "The more experience students have with such texts, the more easily they will acquire the particular linguistic devices and cultural orientation that they contain" (p. 369). This principle supports policy efforts to involve all students with challenging subject matter. Farr concluded by recommending instruction for all students consistent with these principles and coursework for current and future teachers to develop ethnosensitivity based on sociolinguistic research with students of diverse backgrounds. She also saw the need for further ethnographic research on community uses of language and literacy, so that classroom instruction can be modified to make connections to these practices.
< previous page
page_837
next page >
< previous page
page_838
next page > Page 838
Fitzgerald's (1995) review extended Farr's conclusions. Fitzgerald summarized studies of ESL reading instruction in the United States. The first topic addressed in her review was the usual nature of ESL classroom instruction. Research suggests that, at least in the primary grades, most instruction occurs in small groups and emphasizes lower level skills of word identification and oral reading, rather than higher level processes of comprehension and vocabulary meaning. In keeping with Farr's findings, Fitzgerald noted that the usual discourse patterns in reading lessons are incompatible with those of students' homes, although some teachers are able to adopt discourse patterns familiar to students. When working with ESL students in groups judged to be of lower ability, teachers place an even greater emphasis on low-level skills than when working with higher ability ESL groups. These patterns are of concern from a policy perspective, given the goal of moving all students toward higher level thinking about text. Fitzgerald's second topic had to do with the role and timing of native-language and ESL reading instruction and their effects on reading achievement. The programs evaluated ranged from transitional bilingual, in which high use was made of the native language, to submersion, in which no special measures were taken for ESL learners. No program was shown to be clearly superior to the others in terms of effects on English reading achievement. However, a report of the National Research Council (1998) concluded that research supported beginning reading instruction in the native language (see also Cummins, 1996). The third topic addressed in Fitzgerald's review concerns effective methods of ESL reading instruction. Systematic instruction directed at specific strategies or aspects of students' knowledge generally had positive effects. For example, such instruction helped students learn vocabulary and text structures and enabled them to acquire background knowledge related to text content. The final topic was professional materials for teachers, such as textbooks and journals. Fitzgerald's major finding was that these materials provide teachers with little information about theory and practice in the instruction of students in ESL reading. Cultural Responsiveness The importance to literacy achievement of teachers building on students' home language and culture, noted in Farr's and Fitzgerald's reviews, was further highlighted by Au and Kawakami (1994). These investigators summarized research on cultural congruence, or cultural responsiveness in instruction. The overall hypothesis in this research is that students of diverse backgrounds often do poorly in school because of a mismatch between their home culture and the culture of the school. Conversely, if lessons are conducted in a manner responsive to the home culture, students' learning opportunities will be improved. Culturally responsive instruction does not mean an exact match to home situations but a connecting to the patterns of participation and values expressed in such situations. Au and Kawakami found positive results when teachers accepted and built on students' home language; structured interaction with students in a manner consistent with their home values; kept expectations high and focused on meaning-making rather than lower level skills; recognized that storytelling and question answering may take different forms in different cultures; and capitalized on students' ability to learn from peers. Au and Kawakami noted that teachers who were outsiders to a culture could learn to teach in a culturally responsive manner, a finding reinforced in research by Ladson-Billings (1994). These findings point to the need for policies supporting teacher education programs designed to acquaint more teachers with the principles of culturally responsive instruction and to prepare them to use this type of instruction in their classrooms to improve students' literacy learning.
< previous page
page_838
next page >
< previous page
page_839
next page > Page 839
Although culturally responsive instruction may have a positive effect, other elements also appear important in closing the literacy achievement gap. Au (1998) reviewed research conducted from a social constructivist perspective on the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. From a social constructivist perspective, the literacy achievement gap is seen to be produced through the interactions of many systems and participants, including districts, schools, communities, teachers, students, and families. Au found this research to support seven recommendations for improving students' literacy learning. These recommendations are that educators: 1. Establish ownership of literacy as the overarching goal of the language arts curriculum. 2. Recognize the importance of students' home languages and promote biliteracy. 3. Increase the use of multicultural literature in classrooms. 4. Promote cultural responsiveness in classroom management and teachers' interactions with students. 5. Make stronger links to the community. 6. Provide students with authentic literacy activities and instruction in specific skills. 7. Use forms of assessment that reduce bias and more accurately reflect students' literacy achievement. The problem of improving the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds is complex, and the policy implication evident in Au's review is that multiple changes, rather than just one, will be required to make a difference. Typical School Patterns The need for deep, systemic changes to narrow the literacy achievement gap was demonstrated by Allington (1991). He summarized research that has looked at how schools typically respond to students of diverse backgrounds who find learning to read difficult. Instructional time is a major factor. Schools that serve large numbers of students of diverse backgrounds typically schedule less time for classroom literacy instruction than schools that serve middle-class, mainstream students. A disproportionate number of students of diverse backgrounds are placed in remedial and special education programs. Allington observes that these students, who struggle the most as readers, frequently miss the time allotted for classroom literacy instruction because they are removed from the classroom for these instructional support programs. Yet studies show that participation in these programs rarely leads to a net gain in time spent in literacy instruction. In the remedial or special education class, a higher proportion of time is devoted to nonacademic activities than in the regular classroom. Also, 50 or more hours per year are lost because time is needed for students to make the transition from one setting to the other. Allington identified the mismatch between the curriculum of the regular classroom and the curriculum of remedial and special education programs as another factor hindering the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds. The curricula students encounter in the two settings often reflect different philosophies about teaching, learning, and literacy, which lead to different instructional strategies and expectations for reading performance. Allington referred to the mismatch as "planned fragmentation" that only adds to the confusion and frustration students may already be experiencing in learning to read. According to Allington, the lack of coherence and consistency in the literacy curriculum is evident even within the regular classroom itself. Typically, teachers use sepa-
< previous page
page_839
next page >
< previous page
page_840
next page > Page 840
rate textbooks and instructional activities to teach reading, phonics, vocabulary, spelling, grammar, and other literacy skills. The more students are perceived to be struggling as readers, the greater the tendency to break the literacy curriculum into small bits. Students of diverse backgrounds, who tend to be categorized as poor readers, are likely to spend more time working on skills in isolation and less time actually reading and writing. They have less opportunity than their mainstream peers, who tend to be categorized as good readers, to understand and apply the full processes of reading and writing. Allington's finding that the instruction of students of diverse backgrounds is weighted in favor of low-level skills in isolation and against comprehension and higher level thinking about text reflects a broad pattern of bias that extends beyond the ESL learners in Fitzgerald's (1995) review. One reason that students of diverse backgrounds seldom receive the high-quality, intensive literacy instruction they need is because schools are not organized to see that they receive these services. Often students are underserved because arrangements that will promote literacy achievement cannot be made within existing structures. Allington points out that the same student may qualify for several support programs (e.g., remedial reading and special education) but receive services from only one. To participate in any program, students generally need to leave the regular classroom and, as a consequence, they may be excluded from the literacy instruction that occurs there. Even if students were to receive the full range of literacy instruction available in both support programs and the regular classroom, the chances are that these services would be fragmented rather than well coordinated. Allington argued that the key factor in creating and maintaining effective school literacy programs is the commitment of the school district to the education of all students. He emphasized the centrality of reforms at the district level, rather than at the school or classroom level, especially for students in remedial and special education programs. Allington's research suggested that principals and teachers are more likely to follow plans developed by the district than to create new plans themselves, and the attitudes of district administrators are passed on to principals, who, in turn, share these views with teachers. However, Allington noted, districts seldom allocate additional resources to schools with high numbers of students of diverse backgrounds, preferring to treat all schools as if they were the same. The final review presented in this section provides a broader context for the problems identified by Allington and shows how the literacy achievement gap is just one manifestation of the negative effects of the existing educational system on students of diverse backgrounds. Darling-Hammond's (1995) review of research shows how schooling is structured to limit the learning opportunities of these students. Money makes a difference, and school districts and schools with large numbers of students of diverse backgrounds receive lower levels of funding than other districts and schools. More affluent schools and districts are able to hire and retain highly qualified teachers (those with experience and master's degrees), to keep classes smaller, and to invest in the materials and equipment needed for instruction. According to Darling-Hammond, much of the lower achievement of African American students is attributable to inferior opportunities to learn in school and severely limited access to high-quality teachers and teaching. Districts with the highest concentrations of students of diverse backgrounds generally have the largest numbers of poorly prepared teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1990; Pascal, 1987). These teachers are often unaware of current teaching methods, research on child development, and strategies for assisting struggling learners. Year after year, as they progress through the grades, students of diverse backgrounds in urban schools may face a succession of inexperienced and unqualified teachers. The cumulative effect is devastating, Darling-Hammond argued, because teacher expertise is the factor that contributes the most to the achievement of students of diverse backgrounds. For example, elementary students taught by less
< previous page
page_840
next page >
< previous page
page_841
next page > Page 841
prepared teachers have lower achievement test scores in language arts than students taught by well-prepared teachers (Gomez & Grobe, 1990). Darling-Hammond cited numerous studies indicating that, in comparison to mainstream students in suburban schools, students of diverse backgrounds in urban schools have limited access to advanced and college preparatory courses, up-to-date textbooks and materials, and equipment such as computers. Students of diverse backgrounds, in disproportionate numbers, find themselves placed in remedial and low-level courses, or in the bottom groups for reading and mathematics instruction. This system of tracking denies students of diverse backgrounds access to high-quality teaching, because the most qualified teachers are usually assigned to the top-track classes. Once assigned to the remedial and bottom groups, students of diverse backgrounds receive a rote-oriented curriculum with little opportunity to develop higher level thinking. Lessons are as likely to focus on behavior as on academic content. As a result, students who are tracked achieve at lower levels than students with similar entering aptitude who are placed in academic programs or untracked classes. Darling-Hammond highlighted the role played by standardized tests, which are used to justify the placement of students of diverse backgrounds in remedial and low track programs, thus limiting the learning opportunities available to them. Darling-Hammond argued that a determined effort must be made to improve the quality of school learning opportunities for students of diverse backgrounds. Her recommendations for policy include equalizing the financial resources available to districts and schools with large numbers of students of diverse backgrounds, increasing the supply of highly qualified teachers, and changing curriculum and testing practices. According to her analysis, attention must be given to inequality at all levels of the educational system, because sources of inequality are apparent in the activities of states, districts, schools within districts, and classrooms and programs within schools. Darling-Hammond argued against current initiatives to categorize, or label, students and create special programs for students in the various categories. In her opinion, special programs, such as compensatory education, will never be effective in promoting the achievement of students of diverse backgrounds because these services are merely extensions of a larger system that is not designed to provide these students with a high-quality education. Taken together, these reviews summarize much of what the existing research base shows about why the literacy achievement gap exists and how the gap might be narrowed. The next section presents research on equity policy and the concerns of policymakers. An understanding of the policy context forms the foundation for deriving implications of literacy research for policy, as well as implications of policy for literacy research. Equity Policy at Three Levels of Government In the United States all three levels of governmentfederal, state, and local districthave developed policies to deal with problems of educational inequity. Wong (1994) reviewed research on equity policy efforts at each of these levels. In his analysis, the federal government is seen to have focused on social equity, or the needs of educationally disadvantaged students. These special populations are categorized according to factors such as poverty, ethnicity, language, and mental and physical challenges. State government has focused on interdistrict or territorial inequity, or the disparities in levels of funding among districts due to differences in taxable wealth. The local district has focused on distributive inequity, or the even distribution of resources among schools and classrooms within the district.
< previous page
page_841
next page >
< previous page
page_842
next page > Page 842
Federal Policy The federal government has aimed at the social redistribution of educational opportunity for students of diverse backgrounds through programs such as compensatory education and bilingual education. Wong pointed out that these programs allocate resources to address inequities that result largely from differences in social class and ethnicity. Over the years the federal government has spent billions of dollars on programs with the aim of social equity. For example, in the 1990s, more than 5 million students in Grades K12 were served by the Title I program of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a compensatory education effort targeting low-achieving students in schools in low-income communities. When socially redistributive programs were introduced by the federal government, policymakers focused on issues of compliance in the implementation of these programs by states and districts. Policymakers have moved toward a focus on program effectiveness, a shift that Wong attributed to increased public concern about student achievement and America's ability to compete in the global marketplace. An example of this concern for program effectiveness is the 1988 HawkinsStafford amendments, designed to improve the quality of the Title I program. These amendments required coordination between the Title I program and the school's regular instructional program, supported the increased involvement of parents, allowed funds to be used for schoolwide projects in schools with high levels of students of poverty, and instructed districts to make improvements to ineffective programs. As Wong demonstrated, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, federal policy sought to promote equity through an emphasis on instructional effectiveness. State Policy Wong's analysis showed that by the mid 1980s, states had become the major funders of public education. States set educational policy in a number of different areas, including teacher certification and textbook adoption. Beginning in the mid 1980s, states began to pay increasing attention to issues of classroom instruction and curriculum. For example, states have increased requirements for instructional time in the classroom and sought to assist prospective teachers. However, in contrast to the federal government, state legislatures pay scant attention to issues of social equity. Instead, states concentrate on correcting the disparities in school funding among districts. Wong (1991) found that 78% of state funding was used to address interdistrict disparities in funding, whereas less than 8% was targeted for disadvantaged students. States tend to spread aid across almost all districts, although the poorest districts do receive a higher percentage of state monies than affluent districts. Because few state funds are directed at programs for students of diverse backgrounds, these students continue to be underserved, especially when they are concentrated in the poorest urban school districts. In Wong's view, the main reason that state legislatures follow such a roundabout strategy is that it enables them to address inequity without interfering in local decision making about curriculum and instruction. Local District Policy Local policies tend to concentrate on the equal distribution of resources among schools and, unlike federal policies, do not specifically address the needs of students of diverse backgrounds. Wong (1994) found that many local districts have policies allocating resources on the basis of the number of instructional staff in a school, not the number of students of diverse backgrounds. Districts tend to provide identical resources to teachers in schools with mainstream students and to teachers in schools with many students
< previous page
page_842
next page >
< previous page
page_843
next page > Page 843
of diverse backgrounds. As a result, the latter do not receive the additional resources requiredin the form of instructional materials, instructional support programs, or additional teacher educationto improve the learning opportunities of their students. Wong argued that distributive equity policies result in severe inequity for students of diverse backgrounds, because they are deprived of access to high-quality curriculum and instruction. The school bureaucracy, especially in major urban districts, faces a complex task in coping with the demands of a large and disparate clientele. Wong examined the consequent dynamics within districts. On one hand, to make the task manageable, the school bureaucracy considers all students as equal in allocating resources, without attending to the greater educational needs of students of diverse backgrounds. On the other hand, the school bureaucracy has adopted policies to include rather than exclude participation by diverse ethnic groups. For example, since the 1980s, with the support of reform-minded community groups, businesses, and elected officials, schools with high enrollments of students of diverse backgrounds have sought to increase parental involvement (Jackson & Cibulka, 1992). The increased participation of African Americans in the running of schools was studied by Meier, Stewart, and England (1989). They found that African American school-board members were able to endorse the hiring of African American administrators. These administrators promoted the hiring of African American teachers. In turn, these teachers improved distributive equity by reducing discrimination against African American students. African American teachers played a key role in decreasing the number of African American students assigned to special education classes and referred for disciplinary action, and in increasing the number assigned to classes for the gifted. Efforts to develop policy to close the literacy achievement gap must take into account the complexities created by the differing strategies for promoting equity at the federal, state, and local levels. Taken together, these policies have not shown much success in giving less affluent districts and schools the resources needed to narrow the literacy achievement gap for students of diverse backgrounds. Yet although continuing difficulties are evident, Wong's review also points to some promising trends, to be discussed in the next section. Relationships between Research and Policy This section presents a discussion of the relationships between equity policy and research on the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds. What policy directions find support in the research? What implications does research hold for policy? What policy issues remain to be addressed by research? Resource Allocation A detailed discussion of the reform of governance structure and school finance is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, as Wong's (1994) review demonstrated, differences in funding must be corrected so that resources can be made available to support urgently needed reforms. As Allington (1991) and Darling-Hammond (1995) noted, districts and schools with large numbers of students of diverse backgrounds receive lower levels of funding than other districts and schools. This disparity in funding is the starting point for a complex and interrelated set of conditions that results in decreased learning opportunities for students of diverse backgrounds. At the same time, it is unlikely that large infusions of additional funding will automatically result in improved achievement for students of diverse backgrounds. The problem is that districts and schools must know how to apply funding for the specific purpose of narrowing the achievement gap. For example, the problem of "planned
< previous page
page_843
next page >
< previous page
page_844
next page > Page 844
fragmentation" identified by Allington (1991) results from the poor coordination of educational services, not a lack of funding for services. Elmore (1994) contended that public organizations, such as school districts, do not work according to principles of cost-benefit analysis, but think of budgeting in terms of past expenditures. This approach to budgeting prevents the district from knowing the cost components of a unit of service and how these components contribute to its performance. Without information on the relative contribution of these components, the district cannot know how additional funds should be spent to make a difference. For example, in the case of literacy achievement, it will be unclear whether monies are best spent on parent involvement programs, teachers' salaries, professional development workshops, books for classroom libraries, and so on. Elmore argued that educators will need to learn to think differently about the relationship between resources and student learning. He suggested that research in this area investigate the few situations in which schools and systems are starting to experiment with new models for using resources. This would appear to be a fruitful area for collaboration between literacy researchers and researchers with expertise in school finance. Standards and Accountability In the mid 1990s, federal efforts to narrow the literacy achievement gap through Title I were linked to the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Goals 2000 was an effort to strengthen public education through a framework of goals and assessments. National goals for education included those quoted at the start of this chapter, with the nation's progress toward these goals measured annually. Goals 2000 supported states in developing their own challenging standards, along with assessments to measure students' progress toward meeting these standards. Federal policy required states to develop and implement student performance standards at least in reading/language arts and mathematics. The research reviewed here (Allington, 1991; Au & Kawakami, 1994; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Farr, 1991; see also Oakes, 1992) indicates that the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds suffers when they are held to lower expectations than other students and do not have the opportunity to read and discuss challenging material. Students of diverse backgrounds benefit when teachers hold high expectations and provide them with the high-quality instruction to meet these expectations (Mehan, Villanueva, Hubbard, & Lintz, 1996). There should not be a different set of standards for students of diverse backgrounds, but there should be a recognition that these students may require more powerful instruction and additional time to meet the standards. For example, ESL students may need extra teaching and time to develop the necessary English language skills. There is some evidence that the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds can be improved through assessments based on standards, once high-quality instruction is in place (Au & Carroll, 1997). Much more research is needed to determine whether state standards and related assessments lead over time to a narrowing of the literacy achievement gap. There is, however, ample research showing the negative effects of existing standardized (norm-referenced) testing on students of diverse backgrounds (Ascher, 1990; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Smith, 1991). For example, low scores on standardized tests may channel students into low-track classes, where they receive poor-quality instruction. Programs of standardized testing can reduce the time available for instruction and lead to a narrowing of the curriculum (Smith, 1991). The danger is that challenging standards, like standardized tests, will not have a positive effect on the achievement of students of diverse backgrounds, but will simply serve as another means of identifying students of diverse backgrounds as losers in the
< previous page
page_844
next page >
< previous page
page_845
next page > Page 845
educational game. Elmore (1994) warned that the implementation of high-stakes performance measures merely rewards or punishes educators for results, without supporting them in developing new ways of thinking about how to raise student achievement. Placing a premium on achievement results alone may discourage schools from making a commitment to serve struggling learners of diverse backgrounds or to keep these students from leaving school. An implication for policy is that standards and related assessments must be accompanied by sufficient resources to improve instruction, so that students of diverse backgrounds have the literacy learning opportunities needed to read and write at the demanding levels required. Research conducted from a critical perspective calls into question the use of standards and the existence of a literacy achievement gap. The validity of the concept of a literacy achievement gap can be challenged for several reasons. First, an inherent problem is evident when the reference point for proficiency is determined by comparing one group to a second group. In this situation, students of diverse backgrounds will always be placed at a disadvantage, because of the assumption that the distribution of scores must follow the normal curve. Second, tests of reading proficiency, such as those used by NAEP, reflect an autonomous model of literacy. According to Street (1996), in an autonomous model, literacy is treated in technical and decontextualized terms as processes or practices to be valued in and of themselves. An autonomous model of literacy may be contrasted with an ideological model, in which literacy practices are believed to be embedded in and defined by particular social contexts shaped by cultural values and local ideologies. Heath (1983), for example, found differences in literacy contexts and practices among middle-class White, working-class White, and working-class Black communities. In an ideological model, literacy proficiency is examined in home and community as well as school contexts, and quite a different picture of students' performance emerges. Spanish-speaking students, for example, proved adept at translating English documents for their parents (Trueba, 1984), displaying literacy skills that went unrecognized in conventional reading tests. As this example suggests, multiple literacies in the lives of students of diverse backgrounds should be recognized (Gee, 1990). Tests such as those used by NAEP cannot provide the fuller picture of the literacies of students of diverse backgrounds that can be obtained through research in community contexts. Such research is necessary to an understanding of the role that literacy plays in students' everyday lives (Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). What the test results do show, however, is that schools generally have not been successful in helping students of diverse backgrounds to become as proficient as mainstream students in the literacy abilities valued by the larger society. These literacy abilities are essential if students are to have access to opportunities outside of their communities, including political influence and high-paying jobs. Furthermore, schools cannot restrict literacy instruction to skills measured by tests or tied to employment, but must involve students in critical literacy (Freire & Macedo, 1987), so that they will question inequities and work toward social justice. Amount and Nature of Instruction Substantial commitments of time must be made to literacy instruction, if students of diverse backgrounds are to progress well in developing higher level thinking about text. For example, the successful teachers in Grades K6 studied by Au and Carroll (1997) spent a minimum of 60 minutes for reading plus 45 minutes for writing, four to five times per week. Districts typically have policies about the number of minutes to be allocated for instruction in language arts and other subjects. Policies stressing an adequate amount of time for language arts instruction appear particularly important in districts serving large numbers of students of diverse backgrounds.
< previous page
page_845
next page >
< previous page
page_846
next page > Page 846
Of course, not just time but the nature of instruction is important, and research reinforces the need for federal and state policies to address the quality and effectiveness of instruction. As indicated in numerous studies (Allington, 1991; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Fitzgerald, 1995), schools tend to provide students of diverse backgrounds with rote instruction in isolated skills and little opportunity to develop higher level thinking about text. Constructivist approaches to literacy instruction offer the possibility of reversing this pattern (Au, 1998). These approaches emphasize higher level thinking about text, encouraging students to arrive at well-reasoned interpretations and to make connections between texts and their own lives. In constructivist approaches, the learner takes an active role in constructing his or her own understandings. This is in contrast to traditional approaches, in which the learner adopts a more passive role in absorbing knowledge transmitted by the teacher (Au & Carroll, 1996). Constructivist approaches include literature-based instruction (Raphael & Au, 1998; Roser & Martinez, 1995), the process approach to writing (Calkins, 1994; Graves, 1994), and balanced literacy instruction (Au, Carroll, & Scheu, 1997; Freppon & Dahl, 1998; Strickland, 19941995). A growing body of studies supports the effectiveness of constructivist approaches with students of diverse backgrounds (Au & Carroll, 1997; Dahl & Freppon, 1995; Guthrie et al., 1995; Morrow, 1992; Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith, 1997). These studies reveal several features of constructivist approaches relevant to discussions of policy. First, constructivist approaches are effective not only in improving students' higher level thinking about text but also in fostering their motivation and interest in literacy. This motivation is likely to sustain students in pursuing further learningfor purposes of employment, citizenship, and personal fulfillmentthat U.S. policy initiatives seek to promote (National Education Goals Panel, 1995). Research by Au (1997) indicates that motivation is a necessary but not sufficient condition for students to develop higher level thinking about text. Teacher-led instruction in higher level text processes, such as reading comprehension, vocabulary development, and the writing process, is also required. Research on constructivist approaches shows that the teaching of literacy can and should be motivating and responsive to children's backgrounds and interests, while at the same time providing them with systematic instruction in needed skills and strategies. Second, these approaches are complex and involve a number of different components. They provide a variety of learning opportunities, including teacher-directed lessons and tasks requiring students' independent application of skills and strategies. Teachers do not limit students' reading to a single textbook but provide them with the chance to read an assortment of texts. Clearly, these approaches must be implemented by well-prepared teachers in well-supplied classrooms. To provide students with maximum benefits, constructivist approaches should be implemented in instructional support programs as well as in the regular classroom. To obtain this consistency, a schoolwide plan is needed. Research supports changes in federal policies since 1994 directing Title I services away from pullout programs and toward schoolwide efforts (Allington, 1991; Allington & Johnston, 1989). Studies provide ample evidence showing that fragmentation in the literacy instruction of students of diverse backgrounds is all too common (Allington &McGill-Franzen, 1989; Johnston, Allington, & Afflerbach, 1985). However, research is needed on the programs developed by districts and schools that successfully restructure and coordinate literacy instruction for students of diverse backgrounds. Studies should document the gains in students' literacy achievement that result from exemplary programs, as well as the process by which these programs were developed and implemented.
< previous page
page_846
next page >
< previous page
page_847
next page > Page 847
Phonics Phonics, or instruction in lettersound correspondences, surfaces from time to time as the great debate in reading (Au, 1998; Chall, 1967; Taylor, 1998). An emphasis on phonics in beginning reading instruction was the focus of legislation in many states during the 1990s. If the overall goal is to improve the literacy achievement of students of diverse backgrounds, the issue of phonics must be approached with great caution. A repeated theme in the research is that students of diverse backgrounds benefit from instruction oriented toward higher level thinking and meaning making, rather than from instruction oriented toward lower level skills in isolation (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Farr, 1991; Guthrie et al., 1996). A greater emphasis on phonics might serve to subject these students to even greater amounts of instruction in low-level skills than they already receive. Au (1998) provided a detailed discussion of the relationships among phonics, constructivist approaches, and the literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds, organized around several understandings drawn from research. First, the literacy curriculum should be broadly defined to emphasize students' ownership of literacy, or valuing of reading and writing, reading comprehension, and the writing process. Maintaining a broad definition of literacy is essential to the successful education of students of diverse backgrounds, because these students typically receive a high degree of overly narrow skill instruction (Allington, 1991; Fitzgerald, 1995). Second, students of diverse backgrounds must be provided with instruction in comprehension and composition, processes requiring higher level thinking about text. Instruction in word identification or phonics is insufficient, because fluency in word identification does not lead automatically to improvements in comprehension (Anderson, Mason, & Shirey, 1984; Au, 1994). Third, systematic instruction in phonics should be properly timed, to occur when children have begun to attend to print and have gained a good understanding of the purposes for reading and writing. This timing is important, because an early overemphasis on phonics and other low-level skills tends to give students of diverse backgrounds the impression that reading is nothing more than sounds, letters, and word identification, and their reading achievement is likely to suffer (Strickland, 1994; Tharp, 1982). If the literacy achievement gap is to be narrowed, instruction must lead students of diverse backgrounds to the understanding that reading involves higher level thinking about text, not just accurate word calling. An implication to be drawn from the research is that states and districts should implement policies related to the quality of instruction, to ensure that the instruction provided to all students maintains a focus on higher level thinking about text. This emphasis is appropriate even in the primary grades, both for students of diverse backgrounds and others. Although systematic instruction in word identification should receive considerable attention at these grades, such instruction should not be isolated but should be directly connected to the development of students' higher level thinking about text. State and district policies related to the instruction of struggling readers of diverse backgrounds should have the aim of providing these students with highquality instruction, rather than a steady diet of skills in isolation. Other Policies Two other topics noted in the research should be mentioned. The first is teacher education and recruitment. Research points to the importance of helping teachers gain knowledge of cultural and linguistic differences and how these differences relate to the literacy learning and academic performance of students of diverse backgrounds (Au & Kawakami, 1994; Farr, 1991; Heath, 1983). Research also suggests that teachers can improve students' literacy achievement through culturally responsive instruction (Au &
< previous page
page_847
next page >
< previous page
page_848
next page > Page 848
Mason, 1981; Lipka & McCarty, 1994), although other means of improving relationships with students and building trust may also be beneficial (Ogbu & Simon, 1998). Research supports the development of policies for making these topics central in preservice teacher education programs, as well as in professional development programs for inservice teachers (Au & Maaka, 1998; Grant, 1994; Ladson-Billings, 1995). Because new attitudes and practices are difficult to instill (Tatto, 1996), studies are needed to assess the effectiveness of these programs and to identify the components critical to their success. Teacher recruitment issues are also important. Many studies indicate that increases in the proportion of students of diverse backgrounds have not been accompanied by increases in the proportion of teachers of diverse backgrounds (Gordon, 1994; King; 1993; Rong & Preissle, 1997). The positive contributions of teachers of diverse backgrounds to the education of students of diverse backgrounds have been noted in research (Ladson-Billings, 1994). For example, in addition to the study by Meier et al. (1989) discussed earlier, Foster (1994) summarized research indicating that African American teachers are likely to show solidarity and connectedness with students and the community, balance firmness and caring, engage in culturally responsive teaching, and demand high levels of achievement while also attending to students' social and emotional growth. Of course policies should not limit students' opportunities to benefit from the excellent literacy instruction and diverse perspectives that may be provided by well-prepared, committed teachers from mainstream or other cultural and linguistic backgrounds. However, the recruitment and preparation of teachers of diverse backgrounds is a key issue to be addressed in equity policies. The second topic is parent and community involvement, and family literacy programs in particular. Policies promoting stronger connections among schools, parents, and the community find considerable support in the research (Au, 1998; Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Goldenberg, 1987). The trend toward collaborative approaches is also reinforced by recent research (Keenan, Willett, & Solsken, 1993; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). An overview of key issues in the development of family literacy programs was presented by Auerbach (1996). She highlighted the broad base of research showing that low-income and lowliterate parents understand the importance of literacy, and that they can and do support their children's literacy learning in a variety of ways. She cautioned against intervention programs based on the assumption that literacy is absent in low-income homes or that parents do not care about their children's literacy. Auerbach advocates a multiple literacies perspective, based on the view that participants in family literacy programs already have literacy practices and ways of knowing rooted in their own cultures (cf. Gee, 1990). Educators should seek to understand these literacy practices and ways of knowing and collaborate with participants in the curriculum development process, as demonstrated in a project conducted by Neuman, Celano, and Fischer (1996). Auerbach suggested that family literacy programs will be effective to the extent that they include culturally relevant content, culturally familiar social contexts, and, in some cases, instruction in the first language. References Allington, R. L. (1991). Children who find learning to read difficult: School responses to diversity. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society: Perspectives, practices, and policies (pp. 237252). New York: Teachers College Press. Allington, R. L., & Johnston, P. (1989). Coordination, collaboration, and consistency: The redesign of compensatory and special education interventions. In R. Slavin, N. Karweit, & N. Madden (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 320354). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989). School response to reading failure: Chapter I and special education students in grades 2, 4, and 8. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529542. Anderson, R. C., Mason, J., & Shirey, L. (1984). The reading group: An experimental investigation of a labyrinth. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 638.
< previous page
page_848
next page >
< previous page
page_849
next page > Page 849
Ascher, C. (1990). Testing students in urban schools: Current problems and new directions. Urban Diversity Series No. 100. New York: ERIC Clearninghouse on Urban Education, Institute for Urban and Minority Education, Teachers College, Columbia University. Au, K. H. (1994). Portfolio assessment: Experiences at the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program. In S. W. Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities (pp. 103126). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Au, K. H. (1997). Ownership, literacy achievement, and students of diverse cultural backgrounds. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 168182), Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Au, K. H. (1998). Social constructivism and the school literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. Journal of Literacy Research, 20, 297319. Au, K. H. (1998). Constructivist approaches, phonics, and the literacy learning of students of diverse backgrounds. In T. Shanahan & F. Rodriguez Brown (Eds.), Forty-seventh yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 121). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Au, K. H., & Carroll, J. H. (1996). Current research on classroom instruction: Goals, teachers' actions, and assessment. In D. Speece & B. Keogh (Eds.), Research on classroom ecologies: Implications for inclusion of children with learning disabilities (pp. 1737). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Au, K. H., & Carroll, J. H. (1997). Improving literacy achievement through a constructivist approach: The KEEP Demonstration Classroom Project. Elementary School Journal, 97, 203221. Au, K. H., Carroll, J. H., & Scheu, J. A. (1997). Balanced literacy instruction: A teacher's resource book. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Au, K. H., & Kawakami, A. J. (1994). Cultural congruence in instruction. In E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 523). Albany: State University of New York Press. Au, K. H., & Maaka, M. J. (1998). Ka Lama O Ke Kaiaulu: Research on teacher education for a Hawaiian community. Pacific Educational Research Journal, 9, 6585. Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning of read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 115152. Auerbach, E. (1996). Critical issues: Deconstructing the discourse of strengths in family literacy. JRB: A Journal of Literacy, 27, 643661. Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5142. Calkins, L. M. (1994). The art of teaching writing (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGrawHill. Cummins, J. (1996). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Dahl, K., & Freppon, P. (1995). A comparison of innercity children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 5074. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Teacher quality and equality. In J. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds)., Access to knowledge: An agenda for our nation's schools (pp. 237258). New York: College Entrance Examination Board. Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Inequality and access to knowledge. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 465483). New York: Macmillan. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's education. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Elliott, E. J. (1996). Literacy: From policy to practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 590595. Elmore, R. F. (1994). Thoughts on program equity: Productivity and incentives for performance in education. Educational Policy, 8, 453459. Farr, M. (1991). Dialects, culture, and teaching the English language arts. In J. Flood, J. M. Jensen, D. Lapp, & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (pp. 365371). New York: Macmillan. Fitzgerald, J. (1994). English-as-a-second language learners' cognitive reading processes: A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145190. Fitzgerald, J. (1995). English-as-a-second-language reading instruction in the United States: A research review. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 115152. Foster, M. (1994). Effective Black teachers: A literature review. In E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge base (pp. 225241). Albany: State University of New York Press. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Bergin & Garvey. Freppon, P. A., & Dahl, K. L. (1998). Balanced literacy instruction: Insights and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly,
33, 240251. Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourses. London: Falmer Press. Goldenberg, C. (1987). Low-income Hispanic parents' contributions to their first-grade children's word-recognition skills. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18, 149179. Gollnick, D. M., & Chinn, P. C. (1990). Multicultural education in a pluralistic society (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
< previous page
page_849
next page >
< previous page
page_850
next page > Page 850
Gomez, D. L., & Grobe, R. P. (1990, April). Three years of alternative certification in Dallas: Where are we? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston. Gordon, J. A. (1994). Why students of color are not entering the teaching profession: Reflections from minority teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, 45, 346353. Grant, C. A. (1994). Best practices in teacher education for urban schools: Lessons from the multicultural teacher education literature. Action in Teacher Education, 16, 118. Graves, D. (1994). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Guthrie, J. T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A. D., Wigfield, A., Bennett, L., Poundstone, C. C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, B., & Mitchell, A. M. (1995). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 306332. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, B., & Cibulka, J. (1992). Leadership turnover and business mobilization: The changing political ecology of urban school systems. In J. Cibulka, R. Reed, & K. Wong (Eds.), The politics of urban education in the United States (pp. 7186). London: Falmer Press. Johnston, P. H., Allington, R. L., & Afflerbach, P. (1985). The congruence of classroom and remedial reading instruction. Elementary School Journal, 85, 465478. Keenan, J. W., Willett, J., & Solsken, J. (1993). Constructing an urban village: School/home collaboration in a multicultural classroom. Language Arts, 70, 204214. King, S. H. (1993). The limited presence of African-American teachers. Review of Educational Research, 63, 115149. Kirst, M. W. (1994). Equity for children: Linking education and children's services. Educational Policy, 8, 583590. Labaree, D. F.(1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 3981. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Multicultural teacher education: Research, practice, and policy. In J. A. Banks & C. A. M. Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 747759). New York: Macmillan. Lipka, J., & McCarty, T.L. (1994). Changing the culture of schooling: Navajo and Yup'ik cases. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 25, 266284. Mehan, H., Villanueva, I., Hubbard, L., & Lintz, A. (1996). Constructing school success: The consequences of untracking lowachieving students. New York: Cambridge University Press. Meier, K., Stewart, J., & England, R. (1989). Race, class, and education. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms, Theory Into Practice, 31, 132141. Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 251275. Morrow, L. M., Pressley, M., Smith, J. K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 5476. National Education Goals Panel. (1995). The national education goals report: Building a nation of learners 1995. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nettles, M. T., & Perna, L. W. (1997). The African American data book (Vol. II): Preschool thought high school education. Fairfax, VA: Frederick D. Patterson Research Institute. Neuman, S. B., Celano, D., & Fischer, R. (1996). The children's literature hour: A social-constructivist approach to family literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 499523. Oakes, J. (1992). Can tracking research inform practice? Technical, normative, and political considerations. Educational Researcher, 21, 1221. Ogbu, J. U., & Simon, H. D. (1998). Voluntary and involuntary minorities: A cultural-ecological theory of school performance with some implications for education. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 2, 155188. Paquette, J. (1998). Equity in educational policy: A priority in transformation or in trouble? Journal of Education Policy, 13, 4161. Pascal, A. (1987). The qualifications of teachers in American high schools. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Pease-Alvarez, L., & Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching our views of bilingualism and bilingual education. Educational Researcher, 21(2), 46, 19.
Raphael, T. E., & Au, K. H. (1998). Literature-based instruction: Reshaping the curriculum. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon. Rong, X. L., & Preissle, J. (1997). The continuing decline in Asian American teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 267293. Roser, N. L., & Martinez, M. G. (Eds.). (1995). Book talk and beyond: Children and teachers respond to literature. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
< previous page
page_850
next page >
< previous page
page_851
next page > Page 851
Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 811. Street, B. (1996). Social literacies: Critical approaches to literacy development, ethnography and education. New York: Longman. Strickland, D. S. (1994). Educating African American learners at risk: Finding a better way. Language Arts, 71, 328336. Strickland, D. S. (19941995). Reinventing our literacy programs: Books, basics, and balance. Reading Teacher, 48, 294306. Tatto, M. T. (1996). Examining values and beliefs about teaching diverse students: Understanding the challenges for teacher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 155180. Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science: The political campaign to change America's mind about how children learn to read. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner-city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Tharp, R. G. (1982). The effective instruction of comprehension: Results and description of the Kamehameha Early Education Program. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 503527. Trueba, H. T. (1984). The forms, functions, and values of literacy: Reading for survival in a barrio as a student. NABE Journal, 9, 2140. U.S. Department of Education (1992, June). The condition of bilingual education in the nation: A report to the Congress and the President. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of the Secretary. Weber, R. (1991). Linguistic diversity and reading in American society. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. II, pp. 97119). New York: Longman. Willis, A. I., & Harris, V. J. (1997). Expanding the boundaries: A reaction to the First-Grade Studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 439445. Wong, K. K. (1991). State reform in education finance: Territorial and state strategies. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 21, 125142. Wong, K. K. (1994). Governance structure, resource allocation, and equity policy. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 20, pp. 257289). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
< previous page
page_851
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_853
next page > Page 853
Chapter 44 Family Literacy Victoria Purcell-Gates Michigan State University Family literacy, as an educational construct considered relevant as a focus of research, is relatively new. Although the practice of literacy within families is recognized to have existed over the centuries, it is only within the past few decades that it has emerged from the background of schooling and literacy development to appear highlighted and foregrounded for educational theorists, policymakers, teachers, and researchers. Suddenly, the ordinary has become extraordinary and special, and the subject of family literacy has become a topic of national attention and concern. As we have begun to recognize and focus on the phenomenon of family literacy, its very definition has become elusive. At the moment, there is real lack of agreement as to what family literacy is, what it means for schooling, what it means for literacy development, and how, or if, we should go about researching it, instituting it, promoting it, or even ''doing it," whatever "it" may be! Given this ambiguity, however, I attempt in this chapter to characterize the construct of family literacy as it now is viewed by researchers in the field of literacy and to synthesize the research that has been done with it as its focus, across the different perspectives. The reader must be aware, however, that this topic is a constantly evolving one and this synthesis is only a snapshot of that evolvement at this moment in time. Review Procedures Certain parameters constrained this review of family literacy research. I considered all research reports available to me that included the following: (a) a clearly stated research question or focus; (b) a description of the research design; (c) a description of the participants; (d) a description of the data collection procedures; (e) a description of the analysis procedures; and (f) results and interpretations based on the foregoing. Research from both quantitative and qualitative paradigms, including ethnographic, was included in the review if the reports met these criteria. Not included, thus, were the many anecdotal and descriptive accounts of programs and success stories that constitute so much of the literature around the topic of family literacy, unless these descriptions and anecdotes were embedded in data-based research studies. I also include in this review theoretical writings that help to clarify the nature of the paradigm debates as to the "true" nature of family literacy as a construct.
< previous page
page_853
next page >
< previous page
page_854
next page > Page 854
I begin with the research that provides the foundations on which family literacy research is based. This research spans the disciplines of psychology, emergent literacy, beginning reading, anthropology, and sociology. I then describe the differing perspectives on the construct of family literacy and the resulting debates revolving around family literacy programs and their different instantiations within the field. This is followed by a synthesis of the research conducted so far on existing family literacy programs, along with a brief discussion of the difficulty of carrying out such research. I conclude with a summary of where we are presently as regards family literacy research and some critical implications for further systematic study. Family Literacy: The Foundational Research Family as Foundation for Learning Research on child development began to highlight the importance of early environment for later development and academic success in the 1960s as behavioral theories of learning receded and social learning theories ascended (Bradley & Caldwell, 1987). This research documented the role of specific transactions between child and environment in the shaping of crucial cognitive and linguistic abilities (Bell, 1969; Bloom, 1964; Hunt, 1961). From such research, a variety of early intervention projects such as Head Start emerged (Caldwell & Freyer, 1983). Building on this foundation, a number of studies began documenting the positive relationships between home environment and IQ and language development (Bee et al., 1982; Bradley & Caldwell, 1980, 1984, 1987). Embedded within most of these investigations were attempts to uncover causal links between socioeconomic status (SES) and academic underachievement by children from low-SES families. However, findings from study after study documented that SES, when examined as separate from specific home environment factors, was a weak or negative predictor (White, 1982). Rather, investigators identified specific home practices (mentioned earlier) that varied within SES and that were much more explanatory of academic achievement, IQ, and language development. From such beginnings, the focus of psychologists, linguists, and educators began to narrow onto literacy and literate practices, such as storybook reading, within the family and home as promising for a deeper understanding of language and literacy development as specific indices of academic achievement. Family as Foundation for Language and Literacy Development Correlational studies have repeatedly documented the significance of such factors as parents' educational level, the uses of print in the home, the number of books in the home, and the frequency of parentchild storybook reading events in children's reading achievement in school (Anglum, Bell, & Roubinek, 1990; Basic Skills Agency, 1993; Chaney, 1994; Downing, Ollila, & Oliver, 1975, 1977; Feitelson & Goldstein, 1986; Goldfield & Snow, 1984; Hiebert, 1980, 1981; Share, Jorm, Maclean, Mathews, & Waterman, 1983; Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991; Walberg & Tsai, 1985; Walker & Kuerbitz, 1979; Wells, 1979; Wells, Barnes, & Wells, 1984). In two influential early studies on home literacy experiences for young children and their literacy learning, Hiebert (1980, 1981) studied sixty 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds from middle-class homes. From data based on parent surveys and a series of tests for developing print knowledge, Hiebert concluded that home experiences with print, logical reasoning ability, and oral language comprehension accounted for .56 of the variance
< previous page
page_854
next page >
< previous page
page_855
next page > Page 855
on the measures of print awareness. The dimension of the home experiences variable that proved to be a significant predictor was that of parents involving their young children with print, such as pointing out words on signs, reading to the child, or actual instruction in letter naming. Based on her findings, Hiebert concluded that all children know something about print when they start school. Teale (1986) drew a similar conclusion based on his study of low-SES homes. Participant observers noted all literacy events experienced by focal children (ages 2.53.5) in 22 homes. This descriptive study documented literacy mediating social activity in the homes. Notable among the results were that by far the majority of the literacy events fell into the domain of daily living routines and the fewest were devoted to storybook time. Although noting his concern about the paucity of reading to children in these homes, Teale, as did Hiebert, concluded that "virtually all children in a literate society like ours have numerous experiences with written language before they ever get to school" (p. 192). This assertion, however, which quickly became a tenet of the emergent literacy perspective, was challenged by Purcell-Gates (1995) with her ethnographic case study of a nonliterate family living and working within this same "literate" society. Based on observational, interview, instructional, and assessment data collected over a period of 2 years of teaching and associating with the mother and young son of this family, Purcell-Gates concluded that print in the world is "phenomena" and must be experienced in use in order to be recognized as semiotic and used for concept and skill development. This study strengthens the conclusion that the home is an essential locus of learning about print for young children. Emergent Literacy Research Looking at the emergent literacy research through a sociocultural frame (Purcell-Gates, 1986, 1995), researchers have documented that what young children learn about written language before schooling is constrained by the ways in which important others in their families and social communities use print (Clay in Goodman & Goodman, 1976; Heath, 1983; PurcellGates, 1995, 1996; Schieffelin & Cochran-Smith, 1984; Taylor, 1985; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988; Teale, 1986). Within this, young children learn about the natures (e.g., different levels of decontextualization of language), the characteristics (e.g., the genre-related linguistic features of written text like syntax and wording), and the language forms (e.g., the form of personal letters, grocery lists, or written stories) that are used within their cultural environments (Butler & Clay, 1979; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Goodman, 1984; Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Holdaway, 1979; Purcell-Gates, 1988; Sulzby, 1985). Further, as young children participate in literacy events within their homes and communities, they learn that print is a language signifier, about the ways in which print represents meaning, the "code," and the conventions of encoding and decoding the print (Clay, 1975; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Goodman & Altwerger, 1981; Harste et al., 1984; Hiebert, 1980, 1981; Mason, 1980). Although some of the emergent literacy research strove to explore the differences in the early literacy experiences between children of high-literate and those of low-literate homes, a study by Fitzgerald, Spiegel, and Cunningham (1991) explored the perceptions of low- and high-literate parents of early literacy learning, a topic of central importance to the establishment and success of family literacy interventions. One hundred and eight parents of kindergartners were interviewed and given a test of literacy level. Analysis using multiple analysis of variance (MANOVA) and multiple regression revealed that all parents were positive about the notion that literacy learning can begin during the preschool years. Lower literacy level parents put more importance on the presence of literacy artifacts in the home, and the desirable artifacts were seen as more skills oriented than for higher literate parents, who saw early literacy
< previous page
page_855
next page >
< previous page
page_856
next page > Page 856
more as cultural practice and who placed more importance on modeling of literate behaviors. The Fitzgerald et al. conclusion of a theoretical gulf between those who view literacy learning as skills work, to be accomplished mainly in school, and those who see it as cultural transmission, accomplished more indirectly and implicitly within homes and communities as well as within school, is also suggested by Neuman's (1995) work with teenage, minority mothers, Baker, Fernandez-Fein, Scher, and Williams's (1998) research of middle- and low-income urban parents, and Heath's (1983) study of three different cultural and SES populations. Research from a variety of disciplines has specified particular concepts, skills, and attitudes relevant to learning to read and write that are learned within the family context as the result of specified literacy interactions. These are reviewed next. Knowledge of Written Registers The language one reads when reading books and written texts of different genres is not the same language one speaks or hears. Written language differs in specific and identifiable ways from oral (Chafe & Danielewicz, 1986). Thus, developing readers and writers need to learn the different linguistic registers of the written texts they will read and write. Written language differs from oral along a continuum reflecting degree of decontextualization and formality as well as genre-related style. Its differences from oral are marked primarily syntactically and lexically. Different syntax patterns and vocabulary are found in written texts as compared to the oral texts of speech. Some research has been done that documents what others have claimed: that young children learn these registers from being read to (Bus, Ijzendoorn, & Pelligrini, 1995; Pappas, 1991; Pappas & Brown, 1988; Purcell-Gates, 1988; Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, & Freppon, 1995; Sulzby, 1985). Storybook reading is the home literacy practice most widely perceived to be related to young children's later success in learning to read and write in school (Burgess & Lonigan, 1996; Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). It is also the one most often recommended to parents in the course of family literacy programs. The research documenting the complex language learning that emanates from such home practices expands the rationale for such practice beyond the affective domain and is reviewed in the following section. However, the magnitude of the effect of reading to young children has been questioned by Scarborough and Dobrich (1994) in a meta-analysis of 30 years of empirical research on the influence of shared reading on the development of language and literacy skills. Scarborough and Dobrich found evidence for this association but an overall effect size of only 8%. Vocabulary/Language Knowledge Several of the studies cited earlier (Pappas, 1991; Pappas & Brown, 1988; Purcell-Gates, 1988; Purcell-Gates et al., 1995) noted differential vocabulary knowledge as it was used in the rendering of written registers (i.e., pretend reading or rereading familiar text). Other studies, however, have looked at vocabulary from a general language development perspective, and vocabulary knowledge is generally measured in isolation on such assessments as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT), a receptive vocabulary measure. Most of these studies have noted positive relationships between vocabulary knowledge and home literacy practices, particularly shared reading (Crain-Thoreson & Dale, 1992; Payne, Whitehurst, & Angell, 1994; Senechal, Thomas, & Monker, 1995; Snow et al., 1991). Exposure to low-frequency words found in books and participation in the oral language that surrounds book reading are suggested as the operative factors in the positive relationship between being read to and vocabulary knowledge (Snow et al., 1991). Strengthening the causal implications of this research,
< previous page
page_856
next page >
< previous page
page_857
next page > Page 857
Crain-Thoreson and Dale found that there was no relationship between linguistic precocity and early reading. Rather, it was the frequency of story reading at 24 months that best predicted language ability, as measured by vocabulary and syntax knowledge, at 2 1/2 years. Several studies have examined qualitative aspects of the shared-reading event for differential effects on children's language development. Senechal et al. (1995) found significant effects for the level of involvement by the child during the reading. Children who only listened scored lower on comprehension and on production of new words than those children who participated actively by pointing and/or labeling. Whitehurst et al. (1988) found that children of parents who asked more open-ended questions, function/attribute questions, and expansions; responded appropriately to children's attempts to answer these questions; and decreased their frequency of straight reading and questions that could be answered by pointing had significantly higher mean length of utterances (MLUs), higher frequency of phrases, and lower frequency of single words. Both the Senechal et al. and the Whitehurst et al. studies support the practice of teaching parents more effective ways of reading to their children. Print Knowledge The documentation of young children's developing print knowledge during the preschool years (and thus assumed to have taken place in the context of the home) comprises a large proportion of the body of emergent literacy research (Bissex, 1980; Clay, 1975; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; Goodman & Altwerger, 1981; Harste et al., 1984; Hiebert, 1980, 1981; Lomax & McGee, 1987; Mason, 1980). Although it is assumed that this knowledge is gained through interactions with print, there has been relatively little research to directly explore this. What there is suggests that print knowledge results from explicit focusing on and/or teaching by parents within the context of home literacy activities (Baker et al., 1998; Hiebert, 1980). Beyond correlational results based on survey studies, Purcell-Gates (1996) collected participant observation data within the homes of 20 low-SES families and assessed the focal children in these homes on an array of emergent literacy tasks, including Clay's Concepts of Print (1979) and a Concepts of Writing task. Findings revealed that the children's print knowledge was significantly related to the frequencies with which others in their home read and wrote texts at a more complex written discourse levels and to the frequencies with which parents focused their children onto print during such activities as writing out invitations or greeting cards, reading stories, or helping their children learn to write their names or individual letters. Crain-Thoreson and Dale (1992), in their study of 25 linguistically precocious children, found significant relationships between exposure to home and school instruction (they were unable to sort these out) in letter names and sounds and children's knowledge of print conventions and invented spellings. Similarly, Hess, Holloway, Price, and Dickson (1982) found that children who receive instruction from parents in letter naming score higher on tests of letter recognition than those who do not. Phonological Awareness and LetterSound Knowledge The evidence is less compelling regarding the acquisition of phonological awareness in the home environment. Burgess (1997), studying variation in home literacy environments among 95 middle- to upper-middle-class children, found that the age at which children are first read to was moderately correlated with phonological awareness. However, other studies have failed to establish clear relationships between home experiences and phonological awareness (Baker et al., 1998).
< previous page
page_857
next page >
< previous page
page_858
next page > Page 858
Knowledge of lettersound relationships, however, is more clearly related to home experiences, particularly those that involve children in writing (Bissex, 1980; Purcell-Gates, 1996; Read, 1971). This knowledge was also significantly related to parents' explicit teaching about words and letters in the context of home literacy activity (Purcell-Gates, 1996). Motivation The relationship between home literacy experiences and reading attitude or motivation has been empirically investigated by several studies. Durkin's study of early readers (1966) concluded that early readers had (a) rich home literacy environments with many opportunities for interaction with print, and (b) high interest in learning to read and write. In a study of preschoolers from working-class families in Britain, Lomax (1976) concluded that those children with higher interest in books and stories were read to at home more often. In the United States, Morrow (1983) found that kindergartners with a high interest in books had parents who reported reading to them daily and who had more books in the home as compared to low-interest children. Scher and Baker (reported in Baker, Scher, & Mackler, 1997) examining 65 first-grade students from low- and middle-class homes, however, found that children's home literacy experiences did not predict their scores on a Motivations for Reading Scale. They suggest that early experiences might better predict motivation in the later grades. A few studies appear to confirm this prediction. Hansen (1969), exploring the relationships among IQ, achievement, and motivation among 48 fourth graders of mixed SES, found that only home literary environment was significantly related to motivation (defined as independent reading). Walberg and Tsai (1985), using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 19791980 data, found significant relationships between home literary environment and reading attitude. Conclusion: Home Literacy Practices Contribute to Literacy Learning In conclusion, the research documenting the many ways in which children experience and learn from home literacy practices suggests that these practices are facilitative of later literacy achievement in school. Further, the implication is there that at least some of the difference in literacy achievement among children can be explained by different experiences with print in their homes. Such thinking has led to a national focus on home literacy and to the establishment of family literacy programs around the country and abroad. It is at this point that real ideological differences emerge in the field, with some taking issue with the stance of family literacy programs that strive to change the behaviors of parents and family members and calling instead for (a) programs that place children's educational achievements in the context of restricted economic and political opportunities, and (b) collaborative approaches to working with parents, teachers, and schools to improve the academic performance of children, operating out of a posture of mutual respect of others' cultures and cultural practices (Auerbach, 1995; Cairney, 1997; Taylor, 1997). The Different Faces of Family Literacy Should the term and construct of family literacy be interpreted as primarily descriptive or pedagogical? And if pedagogical, what should the nature of that pedagogy be? There is real difference and disagreement among researchers and educators as to
< previous page
page_858
next page >
< previous page
page_859
next page > Page 859
the answers to these questions. There is general agreement that the term family literacy first emerged from descriptive ethnographies like Taylor's 1985 study of the same name. Her follow-up study, with Dorsey-Gaines (1988), of several innercity, economically disadvantaged families balanced her first study of highly educated mainstream families and established the fact that literacy is woven into the lives of marginalised families as well. These works and others (e.g., Barton, 1994; PurcellGates, 1995, 1996; Teale, 1986) were meant to be viewed as descriptive of the ways in which literacy does and does not mediate the lives of families. However, during the span of time in which this research was conducted, the term family literacy was appropriated by those whose purpose was to teach parents to incorporate mainstream literacy practices into their lives as a way of improving the academic performance of their children. Thus, family literacy became known as a type of instructional program, one aimed at parents and their children. And from this, another type of research emerged, that of documenting the outcomes of those instructional programs. So we now have another version of family literacy research, one that is related to program effectiveness. Within this, note should be taken of the ideological division between providers of family literacy instructional programs. On the one hand are those programs that appear to consider the goal of family literacy programs to teach, or train, parents to incorporate particular literacy and parenting practices into their homes and interactions with their children that are assumed to be related to the academic achievement of their children. Many of these assumptions rest, at least partially, on the body of literature synthesized and just described. Practices such as reading to their children, helping with their homework, and strategic communication with schools and teachers are among those commonly included in such family literacy programs. Underlying this stance is the belief that the targeted parents do not already practice these desirable behaviors, or that the literacy practices that are present in the home are not facilitative of academic success (Street, 1993), leading some to brand this stance as "deficitdriven." The commonly referred to exemplar of this type of program is the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL), directed by Sharon Darling and privately funded. Taylor (1997) and Auerbach (1995) have taken the lead in opposing these types of programs, asserting that research has documented that there are many ways of incorporating literacy into family life (Street, 1993), and that injecting academic, or school, literacy practices into homes in which they are viewed as "foreign" and from outside the culture is inadvisable, patronizing, and will not "work." As an alternative to the NCFL program standards which include indicators of effectiveness such as relevant content, balanced assessment design, and friendly intake procedures (cited in Taylor, 1997), Taylor and a group of family literacy researchers and providers have issued what they term "an international declaration of principles" (see Taylor, 1997). These principles, they believe, capture the need to view low-income, minority families as capable, cultural units, whose needs are the result of economic and political oppression and not the result of poor parenting or the failure to incorporate literacy into their lives. Family literacy programs must begin with a mutual respect and collaborative stance with families and view literacy as a vehicle for changing the oppressive forces in their lives, according to this perspective. Although many of the family literacy programs that have documented results through outcome research assert that they do respect the cultures from which their participating families come (e.g., Paratore, 1993), and that their programs result in the empowerment of the families for tackling the policies that disadvantage them (e.g., Rodriguez-Brown & Meehan, 1998; Rodriguez-Brown & Mulhern, 1992), there has been no empirical research to date that addresses the issues raised in this debate.
< previous page
page_859
next page >
< previous page
page_860
next page > Page 860
Family Literacy Programs: Do They Work? Types of Family Literacy Programs Nickse (1991) created a typology of family and intergenerational literacy programs to aid in description, research, and evaluation. She distinguished family and intergenerational programs by whether or not the relationships are between members of the same family or between unrelated adults and children (e.g., senior citizens reading to kindergarten children of the local school). Three of her four types of programs are family literacy-based and capture the array of programs currently in operation: 1. Instruction delivered directly to both adults and children, separately and together. 2. Instruction delivered directly to adults only with benefits expected to impact children. 3. Instruction delivered directly to children only, with expected indirect impact on parents. I use these types to structure within sections the following discussion of impact of existing programs. Evaluation Challenges and Issues Evaluation of family literacy programs is extremely problematic and challenging (Hayes, 1996; Hibpshman, 1989). Although increasing numbers of large-scale, as well as small single-program, evaluations are being conducted, the central difficulty of eliminating competing explanations for results remains and weakens virtually all attempts at establishing program effectiveness. Thus, all reports that claim to "show" that programs "work" must be read and interpreted with extreme caution. Evaluation Related to Goals of Family Literacy Programs Family literacy programs have multiple goals and ways of addressing those goals (see Nickse, 1991, cited earlier) and evaluation and research need to be explicitly tied to these (Hayes, 1996). The findings of the research in the following section are organized according to the following broad goal areas: (a) impact on children's skills, achievement, and/or attitudes; (b) impact on parents' achievement, literate behaviors, and confidence/self-esteem; and (c) impact on parent/child literacy interactions. Impact on Children's Skills, Achievement, and/or Attitudes By far the greatest amount of research has been done on the impact of family literacy programs on the academic achievement of children. The majority of the findings indicate that children of parents involved in some form of family literacy program did improve in areas relevant to school success. Most of these studies, however, lacked appropriate controls and must be taken as suggestive only. Two large family literacy programs in the United States exemplify Nickse's Type 1 programinstruction delivered to both adults and children, separately and together. These are the National Center for Family Literacy (NCFL) and the Even Start program. Evaluations of these two programs have made attempts to incorporate control groups or norm controls (Darling & Hayes, 1996; St. Pierre, Swartz, Gamse, & Abt Associates, 1995). NCFL, based in Louisville, KY, is a privately funded program with locations across the United States. An outgrowth of the Parent and Child Education Program
< previous page
page_860
next page >
< previous page
page_861
next page > Page 861
(PACE), it provides direct service to adults and children in a structured program designed to address literacy and educational needs of parents and children, personal and social needs of parents, family-development needs, parent needs for working with their children, and preemployment needs of the parents (Darling & Hayes, 1966). Studies have shown that NCFL children made significant gains in vocabulary, as measured by the norm-referenced PPVT, and gains three times what would be expected in the developmental domains on the normed Child Observation Record (COR). In an attempt to explore the children's school success, current teachers of children who had attended programs from 10 sites across the country were interviewed, usually by phone but some in person. Responses on 289 NCFL children and a randomly selected sample of 230 children from some of the same classes revealed the following areas in which the NCFL children were rated as average or above in their classes (areas where this criterion was not met were not reported): 78% on overall academic performance; 85% on motivation to learn; 86% on support from parents; 92% on relations with other students; 88% on attendance; 88% on classroom behavior; 81% on self-confidence; 86% on probable success in school. Follow-up studies are replicating these results, according to Darling and Hayes (1996). The Even Start Family Literacy Program is federally funded and intended to "improve the educational opportunities of the Nation's children and adults by integrating early childhood education and adult education for parents into a unified program" (P.L. 100-297, Sec. 1051 in St. Pierre et al., 1995). According to St. Pierre et al., Even Start has three interrelated goals: (a) to help parents become full partners in the education of their children, (b) to assist children in reaching their full potential as learners, and (c) to provide literacy training for their parents. Evaluation of the program involved (a) the National Evaluation Information System (NEIS) for all Even Start projects to provide descriptive information on participating families, (b) an InDepth Study of 10 purposively selected projects to document short-term outcomes, (c) other local evaluations by individual projects, and (d) data from local applications to enter the National Diffusion Network. The In-Depth Study included random assignment of participants to treatment and control groups. Finding from this evaluation reveal that on the Preschool Inventory (PSI, a 32-item inventory of basic concepts important for preschool children to know before entering school), children from the NEIS made significant gains. Children from the In-Depth Study gained significantly on the PSI as compared to the control group at the first posttest (9 months after starting program), but at 18 months their scores did not differ from the controls. On the PPVT, there was no difference between the experimental children and the controls, with both groups making significant gains. Similarly, on an assessment of emergent literacy concepts, including orientation and directionality of text, recognition of letters and punctuation, and purposes for reading, there was no program effect, with both experimental and control children making significant gains. Another Type 1 program whose evaluation used norm-referenced assessments as controls is the Basic Skills Agency's Family Literacy Program in Britain. Their evaluation has documented real gains for children. Funded by the government, the program holds as its overall aims to (a) raise standards of literacy among adults with difficulties and the children, and (b) to extend awareness of the importance of literacy and the role of family literacy (Brooks, Gorman, Harman, Hutchison, & Wilkin, 1996). Four demonstration programs were set up in low-income areas in England and Wales and provided the data for the evaluation. The delivery model was similar to both the NCAL and the Even Start ones: an adults-only component where the parents worked on their own literacy skills, learned about early literacy, and learned how they could help their children in this regard; a childrenonly component that blended nursery and infant (primary) school practices and approaches; and an adult-children component in which parents worked with their own children and applied what they had learned in
< previous page
page_861
next page >
< previous page
page_862
next page > Page 862
the separate sessions about helping them. Evaluation of the program documented gains to the children in vocabulary, reading, and writing. Neuman (1996) taught parents of preschoolers enrolled in Head Start classes to read and discuss children's books with their children. The parents went into the classes to read with their children following the adult-only sessions and then were given the books to take home. Neuman found significant increases on the PPVT and the Concepts of Print tests. However, there was no control group, nor were the PPVT norms used, only the raw scores. Type 2 family literacy programs target only parents directly, with indirect benefits expected for their children (Nickse, 1991). Fossen and Sticht (1991) conducted an evaluation of educational programs aimed at mothers. Information on benefits to the children of the women participants was gathered via questionnaires, interviews, and family case studies. Mothers rated their children's performance across a number of categories (e.g., grades, test scores, attendance, attitude toward school) after having been in a women's program. Fossen and Sticht calculated that 65% of the children showed at least one indicator of improvement, as judged by their mothers. However, there was no attempt to obtain comparison data from control groups. Another parent-only program, Project FLAME (Rodriguez-Brown & Meehan, 1998; Rodriguez-Brown & Shanahan, 1995), was designed for parents of children from 3 to 9 years old and serves primarily Hispanic parents in Chicago. The program encourages parents to use reading and writing around and with their children, to focus their children on uses of reading and writing, and to improve their own English proficiency and literacy skills. They are also shown how to more effectively read to their children and talk about the books. Further, they are given strategies for effectively interacting with schools and teachers. Effects on the children of FLAME parents are measured each year with pre- and posttests of letter recognition, print awareness, and the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts. Analyses show statistically significant gains on each of these (Rodriguez-Brown & Meehan, 1998). Yet a comparative study of program effects, using a class of preschoolers from one of the FLAME schools, revealed no significant differences between the FLAME children and the comparison group. Cairney and Munsie (1995) reported positive student outcomes of another parent-focused program. Talk to a Literacy Learner (TTALL) was developed in Australia to provide interactional strategies to parents to use with their children around literacy. Qualitative data (interviews, observations) indicated that children of TTALL parents were more positive about themselves as learners and more confident as readers and writers. Standardized achievement test results revealed that, as compared to a control group of randomly selected students, TTALL children had more positive attitudes toward reading more sophisticated vocabulary. Significant gains in comprehension were also reported for TTALL children, but no significant effects for spelling. Several programs in the United Kingdom, designed to teach parents explicit response strategies to use with their children during reading and writing, have shown impressive results. Glynn (1996), in a review of 12 Pause, Prompt, Praise tutoring programs, reported reading age gains ranging from 1.5 and 2.0 months per month of trained tutoring to between 10 and 11 months per month of trained tutoring. Gains were particularly strong in programs introduced concurrently at home and at school. Topping (1996) reported results of evaluations of at least 215 Paired Learning Projects (Paired Reading, Cued Spelling, and Paired Writing). Reading achievement gains (across 60 published studies) included an average of 4.1 months of growth in accuracy for each month tutored, 5.4 months gain in comprehension for each month tutored. Of those studies with control groups, paired reading groups on the whole outperformed the controls. Spelling gains were reported on norm-referenced tests, along with increased confidence and generalization to other spelling tasks, compared to controls.
< previous page
page_862
next page >
< previous page
page_863
next page > Page 863
Descriptive and anecdotal data on the paired writing programs are also positive. Kemp (1996) reported on the Parents, Teachers, Children program, which teaches parents prompts to use when listening to kids read. Evaluating readings of the same text across three spaced occasions, Kemp found improvement in most areas of response at significant levels, with parents demonstrating widening repertoires of responses. Another program in the United Kingdom, CAPER (Branston, 1996) was designed to encourage parents to read ''real books" with their children and thus to support their children's reading development. Workshops were delivered within schools where parents participated in structured activities intended to add to their knowledge about ways of responding to and reading with their children, all the while emphasizing the goal of having fun. Two evaluations were carried out, using control groups. The first, a small pilot of 20 nursery school children, found significant gains for the experimental group on the British Picture Vocabulary Scale, the Verbal Comprehension and Naming Vocabulary Scales from the British Ability Scales, and Clay's Concepts of Print Test. A larger study, though, of 80 children in four nursery classes found no program effect on children's abilities. Type 3 family literacy programs target children directly, with indirect impact on parent/home expected (Nickse, 1991). Morrow and Young (1997), in an example of this type of program, studied the effects on children's achievement and motivation of a school literacy program with a home component. Six first grades from two schools were randomly assigned to a treatment and control condition. Twelve children from each class were randomly selected for the data pool. Children in the experimental group received a home- and school-based program and those in the control group received only the school-based program. The home component included input from parents and contained materials and activities for storytelling, reading, and writing. Measurement outcomes revealed that children in the experimental group outscored the controls on all achievement measures and in teacher ratings of interest and motivation. Phillips, Norris, and Mason (1996) conducted an intervention with 325 kindergartners in Nova Scotia by sending little books (see McCormick & Mason, 1986) into the homes for parents to read with their children. This study was carefully designed with three treatment and one control group. Measurements used were the Metropolitan Readiness Test, the Circus Listen to a Story Test, and an Emergent Literacy Concepts Test. At the end of kindergarten, there was only a small treatment effect on the emergent literacy test and none on the more general tests. Results from a 5-year follow-up study (Phillips et al., 1996) indicated that this increase in knowledge of early literacy concepts improved students' reading achievement for the next 4 years. Significantly, however, for family literacy concerns, the effects were strongest and longest lasting for the in-school-treatmentonly group. In conclusion, an increasing body of literature is documenting clear benefits to children of family literacy programs of all types. There continues to be, however, a real need for controlled studies using comparative groups to differentiate between development that will occur anyway as children experience reading and writing over time and through regular instruction and that which is a direct effect of family literacy intervention. Impact on Parents' Academic Skills, Literate Behaviors, and Confidence/Self-Esteem Among parent/child instruction programs that have measured impact on parents, the NCFL, Even Start, and the Basic Skills Agency's Family Literacy Program evaluations all demonstrate modestly increased skills, as well as changed literate behaviors, and greater confidence by the parent participants. For the NCFL evaluation, Darling and Hayes (1996) reported that those adults who entered the program with the lowest levels of achievement on the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS) gained an average of 4.4 scale-score points while in the pro-
< previous page
page_863
next page >
< previous page
page_864
next page > Page 864
gram. According to Darling and Hayes, this gain is equivalent to slightly more than one grade level. One can infer that this gain was for people in the program for 1 year, but this is unclear, given the inclusion in the data pool of different evaluations from multiple sites. For adults who began the program reading at approximately a 6.7 grade level, the average gain was 1.2 months on the Test for Adult Basic Education (TABE). Darling and Hayes also reported that a higher percentage of adults in NCFL programs get the General Equivalency Degree (GED) as compared to those who attend adult-only programs. Self-report data documented increases in the amount of literacy-related activity in the home of parent participants and improvements in parents' self-confidence and confidence in parenting strategies. The Even Start evaluation (St. Pierre et al., 1995) similarly documented significant gains on the CASAS for parents. However, when the In-Depth Study data were analyzed, with its control group factored in, there was no program effect for academic improvement. There was a program effect, though, for attainment of the GED. No change in home literacy activities was noted. The Basic Skills Agency's Family Literacy Program evaluation (Brooks et al., 1996) documented an increase in the average reading test scores of 5% of the maximum score, and for writing, an increase of 10% of the starting level. Parents reported a growth in their confidence overall and especially as related to involving themselves in their children's schools. Programs delivered directly to parents only have also reported gains by the participating adults. Paratore (1993), reporting on nine parents, found an average decrease in miscues of 13% after 40 instructional hours. Parents who participated in the Englishas-a-second-language classes of the FLAME program for at least 10 months showed a significant gain in their English proficiency as measured by the BEST Test (Rodriguez-Brown & Shanahan, 1995). FLAME parents also reported increased confidence in their English-speaking abilities. Increased self-confidence was also reported by Branston (1996) as a result of the CAPER program, and by Cairney (1995) with regard to TTALL. In summary, most programs that provided direct skill instruction to parents documented effects of that instruction, given sufficient instruction time. The relative paucity of data reported on this impact factor probably reflects the primary and ultimate focus of family literacy programs (as compared to adult-only literacy programs) on the academic achievements of the children. The indirect influence of parents literacy levels and education (see Hayes, 1996, discussed earlier) on children's academic success renders it difficult to factor it in as a direct intervention feature of family literacy programs. Impact on Parent/Child Literacy Interactions The influence of parent/child interactions around print, however, is well supported by the foundational research (discussed earlier) and is thus present in virtually every family literacy program as a primary focus. Either directly, or indirectly, family literacy programs all aim to increase the frequency of parent/child interactions around reading and writing in the home, and many programs targeted the nature of those interactions. As discussed previously, this often means increasing storybook reading but may also include other print-related activities such as letter/note writing, attention to environmental print, and help with homework. Workshops, modeling, and in-class practice are all activities that are used by different family literacy programs to teach and/or support strategies for these literacy-related interactions. However, measuring outcomes for these instructional practices is extremely problematic, especially for programs with large numbers of participants. Direct observation of parent/child interactions in the home is often considered inappropriate and/or too labor-intensive. Direct observation within classes is more possible but raises issues of ecological validity and is still very labor-intensive. Thus, most data on home-based interactions around print come from self-report mea-
< previous page
page_864
next page >
< previous page
page_865
next page > Page 865
sures from the parent, sometimes prepost program participation, or sometimes at the end of the program as part of a participant evaluation procedure. The problems with self-report data, particularly if the respondents are well aware of what the questioners believe is important (as is the case with parents who have participated for a time in family literacy programs), are well known (Purcell-Gates, 1993). Not surprisingly, given this effect, almost all programs with published evaluations report increases along this dimension, as documented by parental report. Significant increases in the frequency of the following home literacy interactions have been reported: (a) parentchild bookreading (Branston, 1996; Brooks et al., 1996; Cairney & Munsie, 1995; Darling & Hayes, 1996; Fossen & Sticht, 1991; Gambrell, Almasi, Xie, & Heland, 1995; Hannon, 1996; Paratore, 1993; Rodriguez-Brown & Shanahan, 1995; Somerfield, 1995); increased help with homework (Brooks et al., 1996; Darling & Hayes, 1996; Paratore, 1994; Rodriguez-Brown & Meehan, 1998); and increased and more effective use of the library (Brooks et al., 1996; Cairney & Munsie, 1995; Darling & Hayes, 1996; Paratore, 1993). A notable exception is the Even Start report (St. Pierre et al., 1995), which reported no significant increases in home literacy environment, with the exception of more reading materials in the home. Regarding the nature of the print-related interactions occurring in the home, several studies report data that indicates a change toward "the better," but this is somewhat hazy and unspecified. For example, Darling and Hayes (1996) reported changes in "the patterns of language used in the home to be more consistent with patterns shown to be related to later school success of children" (p. 16). Brooks et al. (1996) reported that parents, in the course of interviews, indicated that they are more patient with their children now, pay more attention to their needs as regards school work, and have more fun with them. A few studies, however, have included interactional observations and thus have more interaction-specific data to document. Cairney, Lowe, and Sproats (1995) incorporated observations of class, group, and home interactions in his evaluation of the TTALL program. Analysis of videotapes and direct observation data suggested the following: By the end of the programs, parents were (a) offering more positive feedback; (b) providing a different focus when listening to children reading (e.g., less emphasis on phonics); (c) asking qualitatively different questions; and (d) providing qualitatively better responses to their children's writing and reading. Mulhern (1993) conducted in-home observational case studies of three FLAME parents in an attempt to triangulate the interview and testing data collected on the participants of the program. She found that the parents were incorporating the suggestions they had received from the program for reading with their children: They all read to their children; they read in ways that were appropriate to their reading levels; they involved their children in the reading through asking questions and relating the stories to experiences in the children's lives; and the children were active participants, asking questions and spontaneously commenting on the stories. Mulhern further noted that a problem seemed to exist around the fact that most of the storybooks were in English, which the parents would orally translate into Spanish as they read, rendering any print-specific learning that might come from the reading event problematic. She also noted that although FLAME parents were encouraged to involve their children in the home in writing events as well as reading events, none of the case-study families did so. Neuman and Gallagher (1994) conducted an intervention to change the nature of the interactions between six low-income White teenage mothers and preschool-age children during literacy play. Using a multiple-baseline, different-behaviors, single-subject design, they documented clear increases in the mothers' uses of labeling, scaffolding, and contingent responsivity with their children. These increases declined with transfer and across time but continued at frequencies greater than at baseline for
< previous page
page_865
next page >
< previous page
page_866
next page > Page 866
all but one of the mothers. The children's active turns increased and their unresponsive turns decreased, and their PPVT scores increased significantly from low average to high average. Spreadbury (1994), as part of an analysis of the effects of a program designed to help parents learn to read to their children in interactive ways, videotaped 12 parents reading to their children before and after involvement in the program. She conducted an interactional analysis of the readings and found twice as much interaction during the second reading. In summary, although parent/child interactions around print are at the heart of most family literacy programs, documentation of program impact on the frequency and nature of these interactions is difficult and thus insufficient at the present time. Further, except for the research of Neuman and Gallagher (1994), there is no documentation on the impact on children's literacy development of interventions that seek to change the nature of the interactions between parent and child around print. Given the critique of researchers like Taylor (1997) and Auerbach (1995), summarized earlier, it would behoove family literacy program researchers to explore directly the many issues arising from attempts to change the ways parents interact with their children. Summary Research in the area of family literacy is lagging behind policy and practice. Public perception about its role in children's learning, public and private funding, and program implementations are all outpacing empirically based knowledge about the conditions for its occurrence, the different forms family literacy can take, the actual impact of the practice of these different forms on children's school achievement, and the differential impacts of the various types of intervention on children's long-term success with schooling and academic tasks, and/or parents' increased agency and self-efficacy regarding their children's schooling. The following can be concluded based on the research that has been done: 1. Children do learn many concepts, skills, attitudes, and behaviors relevant to the acquisition of literacy in their homes to the degree to which they participate in naturally occurring literacy events. 2. Many of these concepts, skills, attitudes, and behaviors appear to stand them in good stead when they begin school and proceed through the grades. 3. Intervention programs that target specific strategies for parents to use with their children around reading and writing are effective in improving children's achievement in school in areas directly related to those strategies. Less well established are the following: 1. That family literacy interventions are effective in changing the ways in which print is viewed and operates within the culture of individual homes. 2. That the small gains documented so far for children of parents who have participated in family literacy programs will be sustained over time. 3. The optimal age of children for families to begin participation in family literacy programs. Virtually unexplored by research is the issue of compatibility among the cultures of schools, homes, and family literacy programs. Studies that have documented significant differences in the attitudes and beliefs of families from nonmainstream cultures and those of the mainstream schools (e.g., Delgado-Gaitan, 1990; Fitzgerald et al., 1991;
< previous page
page_866
next page >
< previous page
page_867
next page > Page 867
Goldenberg, 1987; Neuman, 1995) regarding the ways children learn and the kinds of roles parents should be expected to play in this learning suggest a powerful cultural factor that needs to be directly addressed through inquiry. Studies need to be done on the comparative effectiveness, regarding children's academic achievement over time, of programs that operate out of a mainstream perspective and those that craft their programs to include and build on the cultural perspectives of the participants themselves (see Different Faces of Family Literacy section). These studies must be ethnographic and descriptive to capture the relevant nuances of individuals and context as well as experimental to speak to the issue of effectiveness. Relatedly, family literacy research needs to expand to look at the ways in which schools do and do not/can and cannot build on whatever abilities and beliefs children bring with them to achieve educational parity across class, race, and ethnicity. References Anglum, B. S., Bell, M. L., & Roubinek, D. L. (1990). Prediction of elementary student reading achievement from specific home environment variables. Reading Improvement, 27, 173184. Auerbach, E. (1995). Deconstructing the discourse of strengths in family literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27, 643660. Baker, L. Scher, D., & Mackler, K. (1997). Home and family influences on motivations for reading. Educational Psychologist, 32, 6982. Baker, L., Fernandez-Fein, S., Scher, S., & Williams, H. (1998). Home experiences related to the development of word recognition. In J. Metsala & L. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 263287). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barton, D. (1994). Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Basic Skills Agency. (1993). Parents and their children: The intergenerational effect of poor basic skills. London: Adult Literacy and Basic Skills Unit. Bee, H. L., Barnard, K. E., Eyres, S. J., Gray, C. A., Hammond, M. A., Spietz, A. L., Snyder, C., & Clark, B. (1982). Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child performance, family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 53, 11341156. Bell, R. (1969). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization. Psychological Review, 75, 8195. Bissex, G. (1980). Gnys at wrk: A child learns to write and read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bloom, B. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York: Wiley. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1980). Home environment, cognitive competence, and IQ among males and females. Child Development, 51, 11401148. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The relation of infants' home environment to achievement test performance in first grade: A follow-up study. Child Development, 55, 803809. Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1987). Early environment and cognitive competence: The Little Rock study. Early Child Development and Care, 27, 307341. Branston, P. (1996). Children and parents enjoying reading (CAPER): Promoting parent support in reading. In S. Wolfendale & K. Topping, (Eds.), Family involvement in literacy (pp. 1832). London: Cassell. Brooks, G., Gorman, T., Harman, J., Hutchison, D., & Wilkin, A. (1996). Family literacy works: The NFER evaluation of the Basic Skills Agency's demonstration programmes. London: Basic Skills Agency. Burgess, S. (1997). The role of shared reading in the development of phonological awareness: A longitudinal study of middle to upper class children. Early Child Development and Care, 127128, 191199. Burgess, S. R., & Lonigan, C. J. (1996, April). A meta-analysis examining the impact of the preschool home literacy environment on reading development: Paper lion or king of the reading jungle? Paper presented at the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading. Chicago. Bus, A. G., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Pelligrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in learning to read: A metaanalysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational Research, 65, 121. Butler, D. & Clay, M. M. (1975). Reading begins at home. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Cairney, T. H. (1995). Developing parent partnerships in secondary literacy learning. Journal of Reading, 38, 520526. Cairney, T. H. (1997). Acknowledging diversity in home literacy practices: Moving towards partnership with parents. Early Childhood Development and Care, 127128, 6173. Cairney, T. H., Lowe, K., & Sproats, E. (1995). Developing partnerships: The home, school, and community interface (Vols. 13). Canberra: DEET. Cairney, T. H., & Munsie, L. (1995). Parent participation in literacy learning. Reading Teacher, 48, 392403. Caldwell, B., & Freyer, M. (1982). Day care and early education. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research in early childhood education (pp. 110117). New York: Free Press.
< previous page
page_867
next page >
< previous page
page_868
next page > Page 868
Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1986). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp. 81113). New York: Academic Press. Chaney, C. (1994). Language development, metalinguistic awareness, and emergent literacy skills of three year old children in relation to social class. Applied Psycholinguistics, 15, 371394. Clay, M. M. (1975). What did I write? Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Clay, M. M. (1979). Early detection of reading difficulties. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Crain-Thoreson, C., & Dale, P. S. (1992). Do early talkers become early reader? Linguistic precocity, preschool language, and emergent literacy. Developmental Psychology, 28, 421429. Darling, S., & Hayes, A. E. (1996). The power of family literacy. Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy. Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's education. London: Falmer Press. Downing, J., Ollila, L., & Oliver, P. (1975). Cultural differences in children's concepts of reading and writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 45, 312316. Downing, J., Ollila, L., & Oliver, P. (1977). Concepts of language in children from differing socioeconomic backgrounds. Journal of Educational Research, 70, 277281. Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College Press. Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and reading to young children in Israeli school-oriented and nonschool-oriented families. Reading Teacher, 39, 924930. Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship between parental literacy level and perception of emergent literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 191213. Fossen, S. V., & Sticht, T. G. (1991). Teach the mother and reach the child: Results of the Intergenerational Literacy Action Research Project of Wider Opportunities for Women. Washington, DC: Wider Opportunities for Women. Gambrell, L. B., Almasi, J. F., Xie, Q., & Heland, V. J. (1995). Helping first graders get a running start in reading. In L. M. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities (pp. 143154). Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Glynn, T. (1996). Pause Prompt Praise: Reading tutoring procedures for home and school partnership. In S. Wolfendale & K. Topping (Eds.), Family involvement in literacy (pp. 3344). London: Cassell. Goldenberg, C. (1987). Low-income Hispanic parents' contributions to their first-grade children's word-recognition skills. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18, 149179. Goldfield, B. A., & Snow, C. E. (1984). Reading books with children: The mechanics of parental influence on children's reading achievement. In J. Flood (Eds.), Promoting reading comprehension (pp. 204215). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goodman, K., & Goodman, Y. (1976, April). Learning to read is natural. Paper presented at conference on Theory and Practice of Beginning Reading Instruction. Pittsburgh, PA. Goodman, Y. (1984). The development of initial literacy. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 102109). Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Goodman, Y., & Altwerger, B. (1981). Print awareness in preschool children: A working paper. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona, Program in Language and Literacy. Hannon, P. (1996). School is too late: Preschool work with parents. In S. Wolfendale & K. Topping (Eds.), Family involvement in literacy (pp. 6374). London: Cassell. Hansen, H. S. (1969). The impact of the home literary environment on reading attitude. Elementary English, 1724. Harste, J., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Hayes, A. (1996). Longitudinal study of family literacy program outcomes. In L. A. Benjamin & J. Lord (Eds.), Family literacy: Directions in research and implications for practice. [Summary and papers of a national symposium sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement in collaboration with the Office of Vocational and Adult Education and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education's Even Start Program] (pp. 4554). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press. Hess, R. D., Holloway, S., Price, G. G., & Dickson, W. P. (1982). Family environments and acquisition of reading skills: Toward a more precise analysis. In L. M. Laosa & I. Siget (Eds.), Families as learning environments for children (pp. 87113). New York: Plenum. Hibpshman, T. (1989). A review of the parent and child education (PACE) program (Rep. No. PS019468). Lexington, KY: Kentucky Department of Education Office of Research and Planning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 329 366) Hiebert, E. H. (1980). The relationship of logical reasoning ability, oral language comprehension, and home experiences to
preschool children's print awareness. Journal of Reading Behavior, 12, 313324. Hiebert, E. H. (1981). Developmental patterns and interrelationships of preschool children's print awareness. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 236259. Holdaway, D. (1979). The foundations of literacy. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Hunt, J. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York: Ronald. Kemp, M. (1996). Parents, teachers, children: A whole literacy education system. In S. Wolfendale & K. Topping (Eds.), Family involvement in literacy (pp. 7588). London: Cassell.
< previous page
page_868
next page >
< previous page
page_869
next page > Page 869
Lomax, C. M. (1976). Interest in books and stories at nursery school. Educational Research, 19, 100112. Lomax, R. G., & McGee, L. M (1987). Young children's concepts about print and reading: Toward a model of word reading acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 237256. Mason, J. (1980). When do children learn to read: An exploration of four year old children's letter and word reading competencies. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 203221. McCormick, C., & Mason, J. (1986). Intervention procedures for increasing preschool children's interest in and knowledge about reading. In W. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 90115). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Morrow, L. M. (1983). Home and school correlates of early interest in literature. Journal of Educational Research, 76, 221230. Morrow, L., & Young, J. (1997). A collaborative family literacy program: The effects on children's motivation and literacy achievement. Early Child Development and Care, 127128, 1325. Mulhern, M. (1993, April). A further validation: An inside look at family literacy in the home. Paper presented at the symposium Expanding and Using "Funds of Knowledge": Family Literacy in the Latino Community at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Neuman, S. (1995). Toward a collaborative approach to parent involvement in early education: A study of teenage mothers in an African-American community. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 801827. Neuman, S. (1996). Children engaging in storybook reading: The influence of access to print resources, opportunity, and parental interaction. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 495513. Neuman, S., & Gallagher, P. (1994). Joining together in literacy learning: Teenage mothers and children. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 382401. Nickse, R. S. (1991, April). A typology of family and intergenerational literacy programs: Implications for evaluation. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago. Pappas, C. C. (1991). Young children's strategies in learning the "booklanguage" of information books. Discourse Processes, 14, 203225. Pappas, C. C. & Brown, E. (1988). The development of children's sense of the written story register: An analysis of the texture of kindergartners' "pretend reading" texts. Linguistics and Education, 1, 4579. Paratore, J. (1993). An intergenerational approach to literacy: Effects on the literacy learning of adults and on the practice of family literacy. ERIC Document. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Paratore, J. (1994). Parents and children sharing literacy. In D. F. Lancy (Ed.), Children's emergent literacy (pp. 193215). Westport, CT: Praeger. Payne, A. C., Whitehurst, G. J., & Angell, A. L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in the development of language ability in preschool children from low-income families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 427440. Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Mason, J. M. (1996). Longitudinal effects of early literacy concepts on reading achievement: A kindergarten intervention and five-year-follow-up. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 173195. Purcell-Gates, V. (1986). Three levels of understanding about written language acquired by young children prior to formal instruction. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems in literacy: Learners, teachers, and researchers (pp. 259265). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Purcell-Gates, V. (1988). Lexical and syntactic knowledge of written narrative held by well-read-to kindergartners and second graders. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 128160. Purcell-Gates, V. (1993). Issues for family literacy research: Voices from the trenches. Language Arts, 70, 670677. Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people's words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Purcell-Gates, V. (1996). Stories, coupons, and the TV Guide: Relationships between home literacy experiences and emergent literacy knowledge. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 406428. Purcell-Gates, V. McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P. A. (1995). Learning written storybook language in school: A comparison of lowSES children in skills-based and whole language classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 659685. Read, C. (1971). Preschool children's knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 134. Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., & Meehan, M. A. (1998). Family literacy and adult education: Project FLAME. In M. C. Smith (Ed.), Literacy for the 21st century: Research, policy, practices and the National Adult Literacy Survey (pp. 175193). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., & Mulhern, M. M. (1992, April). Functional vs. critical literacy: A case study in a Hispanic community. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association Annual Meeting, San Francisco, CA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 443) Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., & Shanahan, T. (1995). Exemplary program and practice: Request for nomination. Project Title: FLAME (Family Literacy: Aprendiendo, Mejorando, Educando). Unpublished paper, University of Illinois at Chicago, Center for Literacy. Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, H. S. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental Review, 14, 245302.
Schieffelin, B., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1984). Learning to read culturally: Literacy before schooling. In H. Goelman, A. Oberg, & F. Smith (Eds.), Awakening to literacy (pp. 323). Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
< previous page
page_869
next page >
< previous page
page_870
next page > Page 870
Senechal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children's acquisition of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 218229. Share, D. L., Jorm, A. F., Maclean, R., Mathews, R., & Waterman, B. (1983). Early reading achievement, oral language ability, and a child's home background. Australian Psychologist, 18, 7587. Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Somerfield, B. (1995). Parents and children reading together; The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy. In L. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities (pp. 184195). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spreadbury, J. (1994, July). Families matter: Adults reading aloud to children at home and at school and its implications for language education. Paper presented at the United Kingdom Reading Association, Coventry, England. St. Pierre, R., Swartz, J., Gamse, B., & Abt Associates Inc. (1995). National evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. Street, B. (1993). Cross cultural approaches to literacy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sulzby, E. (1985). Children's emergent abilities to read favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458481. Taylor, D. (1985). Family literacy: Children learning to read and write. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D. (Ed.). (1997). Many families, many literacies: An international declaration of principles. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Teale, W. (1986). Home background and young children's literacy development. In W. H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writing and reading (pp. 173206). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Topping, K. (1996). Tutoring systems for family literacy. In S. Wolfendale & K. Topping (Eds.), Family involvement in literacy (pp. 4560). London: Cassell. Walberg, H. J., & Tsai, S. L. (1985). Correlates of reading achievement and attitude: A national assessment study. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 159167. Walker, G. H., Jr., & Kuerbitz, I. E. (1979). Reading to preschoolers as an aid to successful beginning reading. Reading Improvement, 16, 149154. Wells, G. (1979). Language, literacy and educational success. New Education, 1, 2334. Wells, G., Barnes, S., & Wells, J. (1984). Linguistic influences on educational attainment. Final Report to DES Home and School Influences on Educational Attainment Project. Bristol, UK: University of Bristol. White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 461481. Whitehurst, G. J., Falco, F. L., Lonigan, C. J., Fischel, J. E., DeBaryshe, B. D., Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., & Caulfield, M. (1988). Accelerating language development through picture book reading. Developmental Psychology, 24, 552559.
< previous page
page_870
next page >
< previous page
page_871
next page > Page 871
Chapter 45 Intergenerational Literacy within Families Vivian L. Gadsden University of Pennsylvania Whereas, "Knowledge is power," and an educated and intelligent people can neither be held in, nor reduced to slavery: Therefore [be it] Resolved, That we will insist upon the establishment of good schools for the thorough education of our children throughout the State; that, to this end, we will contribute freely and liberally of our means, and will earnestly and persistently urge forward every measure calculated to elevate us to the rank of a wise, enlightened and Christian people. Resolved, That we solemnly urge the parents and guardians of the young and rising generation, by the sad recollection of our forced ignorance and degradation in the past and by the bright and inspiring hopes of the future, to see that schools are at once established in every neighborhood, and when so established, to see to it that every child of proper age, is kept in regular attendance upon the same. Black Men's Convention (Proceedings 910, Charleston, SC, 1865) The principle of schools, of education, is . . . to elevate our families. James White, a black minister, Union Army veteran, and delegate to the Arkansas Constitutional Convention in 1868 (see Gutman, 1987) When I first came to the [literacy] program, I just wanted to get my reading together to get a job and help my children . . ., but I see how knowing the things I'm learning about can make the difference for my children's whole life. It's not like I didn't know this before, but . . . when you get a little time to think about your skills, then you spend more time thinking about how you can really help your children, and then you start planning for the future, you know; you know you should know about what they're learning in school and how I can help. I know that what I teach them, . . . and what I show them, they'll do for their own children. Young participant mother in a family literacy program
< previous page
page_871
next page >
< previous page
page_872
next page > Page 872
Intergenerational literacy is associated often with deficit models and with the idea of "fixing" problems within families in order to create opportunity for future generations. Some analyses are as likely, if not more likely, to emphasize the lack of literate abilities that families pass on from one generation to another as to highlight the strengths that family members possess and share (Gadsden, 1994; Taylor, 1994; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). The perspectives that emerge from these analyses well might be labeled social-utilitarian or family-deficit. They deny the possibility and complexity of both intergenerationality and literacy as more than the simple production and transfer of knowledge within families and across different generations. However, as the Reverend White and the proclamation of the Black Men's Convention suggest, intergenerational literacy draws from beliefs about knowledge, its power, and its contributions to the future, but is not restricted by such beliefs and expectations. It houses vision and implicit meanings and purposes that are constructed and conveyed within families and communities, that are influenced by societal access and barriers, and that become a part of our own social and contextual historiography. At the same time, intergenerational literacy embraces far more than beliefs or historiography. The mother's commentary in the quotation just given implies that intergenerational literacy is represented by high levels of activity in the present: that is, the processes of learning and teaching; the engagement of children by their parents, family members, and teachers in the acts of reading, writing, and problem solving; and the inculcation of values and practices that sustain such engagement. These processes, acts of reading and writing, and beliefs about and valuing of literacy may be used as predictors or consequences of generational practices. Depending on how they are conceptualized, framed, studies, or understood, they can enable us to move past the inherent constrictions of focusing on consequences and singular outcomes alone; rather, they can help us to investigate more deeply what constitutes important knowledge within social and cultural contexts and with what implications for learners over the short and long term. This chapter focuses on conceptual and theoretical issues in intergenerational literacy within families by examining multiple stances within its primary domains of study. Drawing on work from a range of disciplines, the chapter explores fundamental issues related to future research in the field: that is, the degree to which reading research pushes the discourse of intergenerational literacy toward a deepening of knowledge and understanding of social, cultural, and gender factors that influence literacy within and across different generations; the extent to which it utilizes interdisciplinary knowledge about intergenerational learning within families; and the ways in which it can advance the construction of integrative frameworks that capture the nature and mode of literacy's transmission within diverse populations. Although the focus of this chapter is on families, the primary assumption that foregrounds the discussion is that intergenerational literacy is not exclusive to families. It may include a variety of individuals other than biological family members and contexts other than homes. Intergenerational literacy has become an increasingly significant domain in educational research and practice over the past decade. The role of intergenerational literacy and its effects are studied in relationship to children's schooling and psychosocial well-being; parentchild, family, and adult learning; and family welfare and social support. The presumption of intergenerational connectedness in children's literacy and cognitive development is threaded throughout most empirical studies of children's achievement in school. Mother's education, for example, has been used routinely as a predictor of children's school achievement, and studies regularly refer to parents as children's first socializers (Pellegrini, Brody, & Sigel, 1985). The basic premises of intergenerational literacy, and the encompassing concept of intergenerational learning, revolve around families, parents in particular, and the
< previous page
page_872
next page >
< previous page
page_873
next page > Page 873
transfer of behaviors, beliefs, practices, expectations, and potential to their progeny. The nature of these beliefs and practicesand the approaches and methods through which they are conveyed and sustainedare examined within an expanding complex of questions, ranging from what the relationship is between children's learning and parent and family involvement, to how schools build on literacy within the home, to whether an investment in the study of intergenerational literacy will result in positive change and effective practices. Despite increasing attention to these and other questions related to literacy learning and families, however, there is still relatively little work that connects intergenerational literacy to the larger scope of research on intergenerational learning or life-course family development, kinship and kin ties, or community relationships. Most research on intergenerational literacy and on intergenerational learning is appropriately and uniquely situated within inquiry about the social and cultural processes that contribute to knowledge acquisition. It explores the approaches and mechanisms through which both knowledge and the processes used to transfer or transmit knowledge become embedded in family practices and folklore over time and the relationships between different approaches to learning. Although intergenerational research acknowledges children's neurological and biological predispositions to learning, it attempts to move outside circumscribed boundaries of cognitive science. The most cogent discussions of intergenerational literacy focus on the presence of specific behaviors in different generations and the accompanying concept of life-course development. They examine the continuum of acquired abilities and social constructs that influence reading, writing, and problem solvingnot simply heritability of cognitive abilities within family lineage. Intergenerational research based on such discussions attends not only to the social and cultural contributions of families within the home but also to the influences of culture and social contexts that children experience outside of the home. Thus, it may center on a variety of relationships, such as, the impact of peers on learning; the reciprocal nature of transfer between different generations within and outside of families; the intersection of multiple settings that influence learning; and the ways in which these settings support, challenge, or thwart human development. This chapter is divided into two broad parts intended to provide some of the historical and contemporary images associated with intergenerational literacy. The first part focuses on the development of an expansive discourse and integrative frameworks for intergenerational literacy. The second part explores contextual issues that contribute to integrative frameworks, specifically conceptualizations of intergenerational literacy within parentchild book reading and family literacy and models from intergenerational learning and family life course development. In the concluding section, I consider some of the implications of intergenerational literacy within and outside of current discussions about family literacy. This chapter, like other writing on intergenerational literacy, draws heavily on issues examined within family literacy. The concepts family literacy and intergenerational literacy are often used interchangeably in reading research. In 1993, I suggested that rather than being synonymous with family literacy, intergenerational literacy should be considered a specific strand of inquiry, either parallel to or located within family literacy, because of its focus on the nature of the transmission of knowledge and behaviors (Gadsden, 1993). However, a broader and more global perspective on intergenerational literacy would consider a multiplicity of positions, including intergenerational literacy as a complement to family literacy, a strand of family literacy, or an overarching concept. I have developed this chapter around two assumptions that guide my thinking and research on families; that allow me to cross some of the traditional boundaries of research, practice, and policy; and that take seriously issues of culture, race, class, and
< previous page
page_873
next page >
< previous page
page_874
next page > Page 874
gender as defining features of the work with individual or collectives of learners. The first is that there is no appropriate, prototypical model of family structure. In fact, significant changes in family formation patterns have occurred, resulting in a vast range of family constellations. The second is that for all families, irrespective of ethnic background, their past and contemporary experiences have dictated or defined the family structures in which they function, with varying degrees of socially valued success. Each family brings a repertoire of beliefs, knowledge, skills, and experiences that are as likely to strengthen as to debilitate its members, depending on the family's access to resources and on the family's ability to rise above the constraints, social practices, and laws that circumscribe opportunities, whether our focus is literacy or other kinds of learning. Possibilities for an Integrative Framework Intergenerational literacy as an area of study holds potential for creating an inclusive framework in which the variety of literacy studies focused on children, parents, and other family members and their relationships can be examinedfrom the role of parents in children's reading to the impact of family beliefs. This framework should lead to the development of a critical discourse that enhances the study of intergenerational effects, examines specific literate abilities, and augments ''the sense of being literate." Heath (1991) describe this sense as deriving from "the ability to exhibit literate behaviors . . . through which individuals can compare, sequence, argue with, interpret, and create extended chunks of spoken and written language in response to a written text in which communication, reflection, and interpretation are grounded" (p. 3). In order to construct this expansive framework, however, several issues about its construction, its components, and the intersection of influencing factors should be considered. First, developing an integrative framework requires more than the combining of competing discourses and methodologies or the collapsing of related fields of knowledge and research. The simplistic approach to an integrative framework would be to seek out knowledge from intergenerational learning and literacy. Equally limited is focusing simply on how the two domains fit, demonstrating the oppositional philosophies that inform their development, or engaging in an intellectual power struggle over the value of cognitive domains over social, cultural, or contextual issues. An integrative framework for intergenerational literacy suggests a need to identify the different features of learning, literacy, families, human development, and intergenerationality. It is developed by examining the multiple layers of these domains in order to uncover the individual and social processes that define or dictate their salience in children and adults acquiring, using, and valuing literacy within families and from one generation to another. Second, fundamental to the development of an integrative framework is a recognition and exploration of formerly unexamined, or seemingly peripheral or marginalized, issues within traditional discourses in the field. The most critical of these is a focus on diverse families, diverse not only in ethnicity, race, and culture, but also in family form, class, age, and stage within the life course. As is true of psychological and sociological research on families, research on intergenerational issues within literacy often appears to be developed around comparative models in which the knowledge and experiences of children with the least access and resources as a function of class or race are mapped against those of children who have had considerably more advantages. The resulting analysis informs us of how well or poorly one groupusually African American and Latino children, or low-income children and familiescompares with another grouptypically White children, or middle-income children and families. The greatest limitation of this analysis is that it minimizes the full range of factors that contribute to literacy learning and reduces the significance of
< previous page
page_874
next page >
< previous page
page_875
next page > Page 875
the family's role in children's development past nominal investments. In short, the scope of issues related to families, the relationship of individual family members, and the factors that affect family life and families' interpretations of literacy's importance are left relatively unexplored. Third, intergenerational literacy, like other forms of intergenerational learning, is steeped in history and the continuum of knowledge, abilities, behaviors, and beliefs that are accrued within and outside of families. As a historical tool and artifact, intergenerational literacy complements all literacy studies in the potential it offers to understand the sources and derivations of beliefs and practices, the ways in which they prepare children for learning, and the opportunities they lend for literacy access and reading success. Attention to intergenerational literacy is more than the history of context. It should invite rigorous analyses of context which locate the learner, family members, and tasks of literacy within a time frame that is affected by life transitionsthat is, changes in class, sociopolitical factors, race, and gender. It should help in examining the responses to questions about whether children's literacy potential is a function of social statuses (Glass, Bengtson, & Dunham, 1986) in which children assume the social expectations of the previous generation, not only relative to familial access and ability but also relative to societal manipulations of opportunity. Are poor children, particularly poor children of color, confined to living out the imposed statuses of inequity and limited access? If the answer is no, then what do we need to know about the contributions of family members, and how do we reconcile the multiple streams of influence in children's reading and writing development? Fourth, lacking in most analyses that link families, literacy, and intergenerationality is an examination of the variations in familiesthat is, in family forms and structuresand the role of non-parent family members. Studies of intergenerational literacy more often than not have focused primarily on two-generational (parentchild) relationships. Yet, there are considerable data that suggest that children access and have available to them a wider circle of caregivers who are likely to make equally significant, if not more significant, contributions to children's cognitive and social development (Taylor, Chatters, Tucker, & Lewis, 1990). These data raise several questions: Who are the members of families? What has the role of these family members been in relationship to children's literacy? How have these roles changed intergenerationally, and how have they been affected by social changes, such as women's entry into the workforce and changing social mores? Fifth, even in two-generational (parentchild) studies, little research focuses on paternal roles and fatherchild reading patterns and relationships within intergenerational literacy and intergenerational learning. In my search for reading studies that include fathers, I was able to identify fewer than ten in the past 20 years. Through their presence or absence within the home, fathers play a role in children's preparation for learning literacy and valuing of literacy. They are both sources of knowledge about intergenerational literacy and vested recipients of information that can affect whether and how children access literacy, use literacy, and sustain interest in reading and writing. The current national attention to issues around fatherhood can serve as an impetus for intergenerational literacy research that joins other family research in focusing on both fathers and mothers. However, the emerging impetus around father involvement requires an analysis of the same issues that typify the study of mothers' expectations and family studies, particularly the diversity among fathers (e.g., fathers who are nonresidential, noncustodial; fathers who live in the home; poor and middle-class fathers; fathers limited by education; unemployed fathers; and fathers who differ by ethnicity, race, and culture; National Center on Fathers and Families, 1997; NICHD, 1998). In addition, an expansive framework for intergenerational literacy would move outside of familiar domains and examine more intensively work that helps to thread
< previous page
page_875
next page >
< previous page
page_876
next page > Page 876
together relevant issues. The research since the 1980s on homeschoolcommunity relations is a reasonable prototype to initiate the revisions. Epstein (1995) and Scott-Jones (1987; Scott-Jones & Clark, 1986), among others, offered a glimpse of the varied family backgrounds and conditions that children bring and the ways that schools accept, understand, and respond to them. Epstein (1990) provided a good summary of the variations in families who are hard to reach, which is useful to consider in relationship to intergenerational literacy study with certain populations of children and families. The most useful approach for intergenerational literacy research is an examination of the range of families and continuation of the focus on children and families who are at the greatest risk of low literacy. What such an approach acknowledges is the presence of strengths within all families, and it enables us to study the ways in which families with apparent success acquire literate abilities and those families with less success negotiate life demands across different generations. Rather than creating a template that can be uniformly applied to all families, research would develop frameworks that focus on the interactions among the multiple factors that contribute to literacy learning within and across generations: that is, cognition, social processes, culture, and contexts. Two basic questions persist in planning for intergenerational literacy research: (a) who are the families, and (b) how do they describe literacy in their own words and within their own family trajectories? Although we know more about intergenerationality and families in reading research than we did a decade ago, we are faced both with how much more there is to learn and with how to disentangle the complexities that arise from problems that interfere with learning, such as poverty and poor schools. With seemingly begrudging frequency, studies are beginning to focus on the entire familymothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, other adults, and children who are considered integral to the family structure (see Gadsden, 1998), families with limited English fluency (e.g., Quintero & Velarde, 1990), families whose children have special learning needs (e.g., Harry, 1995), and parents who while learning literacy have specific needs around parenting (e.g., Powell, 1991, 1990). As public forums around family support increase and welfare devolution to the states continues, the issue of literacy within and outside of families will be a critical part of the public discourse. Welfare reform and family support initiatives are tied to the ability of individuals to utilize existing literacies and to develop new ones. Social policies that structure opportunities for people to use and value such learning and support their families are fundamental to any national or local agenda of family support, as are policy investments in a developmental approach to strengthening families over time. Having evolved from previous work in reading, the current and future focus encompasses a much wider set of goals and populationsfrom intergenerational learning to life-span development. Intergenerational and family literacy has spurred a compelling movement in which literacy educators and researchers work together to develop programs that promote literacy activities between parents (and other adults in a family) and children. Research and programs that aim to link the concepts, intergenerational literacy and family literacy, might consider at least four broad questions: 1. How is intergenerational literacy conceptualized, and what characteristics of research and instruction in programs make them intergenerational? 2. What counts as knowledge and learning in intergenerational literacy, and how are changes charted and discussed? 3. What actually occurs in programs that promote reading, writing, and problem solving, and how are the activities around reading, writing, and problem solving integrated within the larger life issues of parenting, parentchild interactions, and family functioning?
< previous page
page_876
next page >
< previous page
page_877
next page > Page 877
4. How are issues around cultural difference, race, and poverty examined and addressed in research and practice? The next section focuses on these questions and the issues that they suggest within several contributing research contexts. Contributing Contexts to an Integrative Research Framework Intergenerational literacy research draws on theoretical constructs within and across a range of disciplines that share a common concern about learning, fostering learning, and teaching within diverse settings. Intergenerationality within family literacy research and practice has not found its way to the mainstream of work in the field. In a review of studies that focused on intergenerational and family literacy, more than half of the citations were located outside of refereed journals or edited works in literacy. Fewer than one fourth of the citations in journals or edited books are in journals or works that are not literacy or reading-related. The research that has been reported is a blend primarily of ethnographic and qualitative analysis to case studies. These analyses typically describe the inherent complexities of developing a program, implementing the concept gaining acceptance within diverse low-income communities, and identifying useful approaches in response to the needs of practice and the demands of policy. Research on intergenerational literacy may be linked to four domains of work: (a) parentchild book reading, (b) family literacy and parent (adult)child literacy, (c) intergenerational learning, and (d) family life course. Each provides important theoretical frameworks about the nature and basis for the transfer of information within different settings; yet each differs in the history and rigor of the theories, frameworks, and models that are associated with it. The study of intergenerational literacy as a formal area of inquiry is relatively recent, although reading research has focused for more than 30 years on two-generational issues, such as parents' influences on children's reading development and parentchild interactions around reading. However, there are few studies that provide in-depth analyses of direct relationships between children's acquisition of reading ability and parents' own development of literacy. That is, although many studies demonstrate the ways in which parents interact with children, there are few that provide a one-to-one analysis of the relationship between parent learning and child learning. Instead, studies that can be interpreted as intergenerational literacy have focused on the broad nature of practicesfor example, verbal interactions, frequency of adult reading, and problem-solving tasksthat appear to contribute positively to children's desire to read and their success at reading (Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, & Hemphill, 1991). Although a few longitudinal studies have been initiated (e.g., Gadsden, 1998; Purcell-Gates, 1995), and a proliferation of programs that are titled intergenerational exist, there is generally little research that makes any pronouncements about sustained effects of intergenerational literacy. Several studies in the 1960s set the stage for studying intergenerational literacy by examining the existence and applications of literacy practices in the home and suggesting that parents across cultural and ethnic groups, in fact, engage in a range of literate activities with their children. For example, by studying children and parents in lowincome homes, Durkin's (1966, 19741975) research provided one of the most poignant analyses on the contributions of parents to children's early reading and role of family practices in black children's reading. Durkin's work was noteworthy not simply because of its contributions to the study of black children's reading development and the
< previous page
page_877
next page >
< previous page
page_878
next page > Page 878
role of parents. It also engaged the field in a burgeoning discourse about how all children read and about how the field might rethink its approaches and the conduct of research on children's reading and parent support. Durkin and others whose work followed (e.g., Edwards, 1990, 1995; Strickland, 1981; Teale, 1981; Teale & Sulzby, 1986) contributed theoretical and pedagogical frameworks for the emerging family literacy. Their research and contributions to practice focused attention on familial derivations and sources of literacy practices and the influences of home and community as social contexts for two- and three-generational learners. ParentChild Book Reading Intergenerational literacy also examines a common activity for young childrenbook reading. Doake (1981) observed that when parents and children participated in shared reading, children assumed more of the reading, reenacting what their parents had read to them. Either as emergent literacy (Teale & Sulzby, 1986), in which children interpret stories that are read to them in ways that reflect the text of the book, or as parents reading to their children, book reading continues to be seen as a convenient, realistic way to examine children's facility with print. Both emergent literacy and parentchild book reading focus, in some measure, on reading readiness in young children, that is, moving children from infancy to formal instruction in school. They are developed around the notion that specific practices and parent involvement generally improve children's literacy performance in school. Home practices such as shared reading, availability of print materials, and reading aloud are but a few examples of activities or conditions that are thought to affect children's literacy development positively (Fitzgerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991; France & Meeks, 1987; Strickland & Morrow, 1989). The converse is an assumption that in homes where such behaviors and activities are not practiced, children's literacy development suffers a delay in the kind of active literacy engagement required to prepare for and perform well in school. There seems to be a kind of value assigned to routinized speech associated with storybook reading (Snow & Goldfield, 1983). Snow and her colleagues suggested that parents who were read to as children know how to read to their children; parents who have not been read to may experience difficulty in constructing or recreating the social routine. The story routine includes parents engaging in a series of labeling questions while reading, such as "What's that?" and interacting with the young child as though the parent and child are participating in a two-way discussion. The parent and child are thought to be engaging together in the routine for which the parent can shift the responsibility of reading eventually to the child. Several research studies were developed to examine the process by which children assume this responsibility for print (i.e., scaffolding) and the nature of mutual engagement that occurs for parents and children during the literacy event (Dickerson, 1994; Pellegrini, Perlmutter, Galda, & Brody, 1990). Although the research appears conclusive for many middle-class, mainstream families, it has not provided equally informative data about how children from families that do not engage in these routines succeed or whether the strength of the process is intrinsic to the routine itself. Family Literacy and ParentChild Interactions around Print Like parentchild book reading, there was attention to families within literacy studies long before current discussions. Several studies in the 1960s and 1970s, for example, were generated in disciplines outside of reading and in response to national policies, they were centered on issues affecting children in poor Black families or poor families across ethnic groups (e.g., Billingsley, 1968; Coleman, Campbell, Hobson, McPartland,
< previous page
page_878
next page >
< previous page
page_879
next page > Page 879
Mood, Weinfeld, & York, 1966; Stack, 1974). Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, most studies of children's literacy and family influence were limited to upper-income families and focused on the genetic bases for reading ability (Demos, 1970; Harari & Vinovskis, 1989; Monaghan, 1991). The attention to lower income children and families reflected social changes around educational equality and equity, renewed national attention to reading and literacy research, and opened new directions and pathways to understand the variety of influences on children's learning. Research began to examine the intersections between and among parent knowledge, literacy processes in the home, and the connections that existed or could be established between home and school. From the 1980s to the present, family literacy has become an active part of the lexicon within research, practice, and policy. The initial work was very much a part of the public discourse and acknowledged the presence of family relationships around literacy. Two, sometimes overlapping, lines of research emerged. One focused primarily on issues of context, culture, and social processes of literacy learning. Taylor's (1983) text offered both theoretical grounding and examples of literacy talk and activities within families. Heath (1982, 1983), whose work on parents' and children's uses of words highlighted intergenerationality in a variety of familial and community contexts and demonstrated the influences of culture, race, class, and dialect to enactments and meanings of literacy within home and community contexts. She described the ways in which literacy within these contexts cohered with or conflicted with school literacies. One of the most provocative accounts that begs the question of intergenerational transfer is Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines's (1988) research, in which alternative perspectives to deficit models are examined within the lives of parents and children in low-income families. In this work about four families and the young learners in them, the authors approached the research process by seeking to understand the nature of the context in which the children were learning, to identify the places and times in which literate events occurred, and to explore what the relationships were between these events and the acts of knowing, caring, and investing in literacy. By acknowledging the class and race issues that limit access and opportunity from the outset, Taylor and Dorsey-Gaines placed the emphasis on what could be learned from the literate strengths of the families as a means to providing them with the resources that the children and families needed. The anthropological and literacy framework that the authors used enabled them to transcend preconceived notions about how the poor behave and the inherent limitations of poverty in relationship to literacy development and to offer a rich analysis in which we are asked to think about the relationships between parents and children, children and schools, and parents and schools. In much the same way, Purcell-Gates (1995) challenged the prevailing race-centered analysis of low literacy by focusing on what Daisey (1991) would call the lack of intergenerational literacy transfer within low-income White families. Purcell-Gates's study of a poor, White Appalachian boy and his mother and Auerbach's (1989) and Paratore's (1992) work with Latino families have contributed to critical discussions that have helped to transform family literacy from a policy-defined line of inquiry to an increasingly research- and practice-rich area of study. A second line of research focuses on school-based literacy development and literacy within classrooms, particularly for children and parents from low-income homes, and contains two sublines, each representing different conceptualizations. One subline highlights skills approaches to help parents whose literate abilities are considered inadequate to ensure their children's success in school and to provide parents with strategies that support their children's literacy development (see Edwards (1990, 1993). The other subline refers implicitly to intergenerational learning but focuses primarily on classroom learning and practices and the bidirectionality of learning between home and school for low-income children (e.g., Morrow, 1994; Morrow & Young, 1997; Shanahan & Barr, 1995). Family literacy research has entertained divergent positions
< previous page
page_879
next page >
< previous page
page_880
next page > Page 880
and has faced the same issues and controversies with which reading research has wrestled. The importance of these controversies within the context of intergenerational literacy is noteworthy, particularly in relationship to the frequent use of deficit models to explain the needs of children and families who are served by family literacy programs. A disproportionate number of these children and families are low income and of color. Thus, the likelihood of perpetuating racially coded explanations for reading difficulties, and for the inability to serve these children and their families, is substantially increased and foreboding. Intergenerational Learning A common feature of the studies described in the previous section is the absence of a discussion about intergenerational learning and its relationship to parentchild book reading, family literacy, or intergenerational literacy. Researchers in the social sciences use the term intergenerational learning as an all-encompassing concept for several kinds of human relationships across different generations. Intergenerational learning aims to respond to the question: What do children's lives reveal about their parents (Fishel, 1991)? In educational research, the study of intergenerational learning focuses on the ways in which parents and other family members contribute to or affect children's academic performance, school attendance, discipline, and valuing of schooling and education (see Gadsden, 1995). Developmental psychologists focus on cognitive transfers that influence children's linguistic patterns or psycho-socio-emotional well-beingfrom the inheritability of intelligence to parenting and environmental factors (Coles & Coles, 1988). Although there is some agreement about the general uses of the concept, intergenerational learning researchers often have differing opinions about the definitions of generation itself. The term generation has been used to refer to a person's position in family lineage (Hagestad, 1981). Acock (1984) provides a useful framework and informative analysis on the commonly cited perspectives on generations: rank descent, cohort, developmental age, discrete time span, and zeitgeist. Rank descent is not a function of age; rather, an individual is placed in a generation based on his or her position in the family's hierarchy (Acock & Bengtson, 1975, 1978; Acock et al., 1982; Bengtson, 1975; Hill, Foote, Aldous, Carlson, & MacDonald, 1970; Troll, 1970). A self-sufficient, independent, adolescent parent is assigned the same status as a 60 year-old independent parent because of the ordering of their positions as parents in their respective families. Although rank descent makes it possible to study multiple generations, the age disparity does not address temporal or historical issues that affect family development or family members' perceptions. Cohort as a generational indicator is based on age-homogeneous groupings (e.g., Elder's 1974 study of the children of the Great Depression). Children who are of the same age are assumed to have experienced certain social events in similar ways. These social events are thought to contribute to the life views of individuals as family members, suggesting consistency within age cohorts. Two primary limitations of cohorts are, first, that the differential ways that families mediate social events and circumstances are not acknowledged, and, second, that behaviors are attributed to generations as a function of social change when in fact more immediate and personal reasons unique to a family may be better explanations (see Rosow, 1978). Acock (1984) suggested that the cohort concept is relied on often, when "more proximate causes of generational cleavage" should be considered, such as when parent and child share an important or difficult series of life events. In traditional perspectives on intergenerational learning, learning is discussed often as though all learning is unidirectional, that is, flowing from parent to child, and parents are the principal agents of socialization in childhood (Erikson, 1950; Freud,
< previous page
page_880
next page >
< previous page
page_881
next page > Page 881
1933; Heilbrun, & Gillard, 1966). The family is seen as the provider of stability and continuity to individual members and of the systematic socialization through which children come to understand the norms of the social order. Intergenerational similarity in attitudes is attributed to the socialization function and activities of the family (Glass et al., 1986). Children learn their parents' beliefs, values, and attitudes through both direct teaching and indirect observation; they actively seek out this information or passively accept it as a function of social conditioning. Implicit in traditional explanations is the assumption that childhood socialization is so powerful as to continue throughout adulthood (Campbell, 1969; Chodorow, 1978). Some of the most compelling research from the 1980s to the present challenges the traditional approach along two primary lines. The first examines issues of race, class, gender, religious affiliation, and what Glass et al. (1986) described as other social statuses that affect an individual's life experiences. Acock (1984) referred to these social statuses when he suggested that parents and children share a common location in the social structure. Social structural forces may produce continuity or conflict. The similarity between children and parents is seen as a result of these social and cultural statuses as much as parental socialization. Social statuses provide a comfortable context for beliefs to persist unchallenged because they cohere with or explain the life circumstances of individuals. Thus, an upper-middle-class, 30-year-old, white, Protestant male might well express basic beliefs that appear remarkably similar to those of his parents. These similarities would be seen as the result of the social statuses of privilege, maleness, race, and religion that allow for the perpetuation of certain behaviors and practices from one generation to another. The second line concerns the reverse direction or bidirectionality of intergenerational influence. Here, researchers examine children's influence on their parents and assume the occurrence of reciprocal learning from parent to child and from child to parent (Bronfenbrenner, 1986). Examples of this may be found in programs such as Head Start, which is designed for young children but results in significant changes in parents' behaviors and choices as well (Slaughter-Defoe & Richards, 1995). Proponents of this interactionist perspective argue that children increasingly influence their parents as both children and parents age and that the unidirectional flow from parent to child ignores the reciprocal relationships between children and parents (Bengtson & Troll, 1978; Featherman & Lerner, 1985; Glass et al., 1986; Hagestad, 1981, 1984; Lerner & Spanier, 1978). A third line addresses changes in social structural location across each generation. Such changes can produce different values, adaptive to the contingencies of the generation, such as the generational distance created when a working-class or low-income family sends a child to college or when a middle-class student works with low-income children. As these students enter college and are exposed to different values and practices, they may become increasingly estranged from their parents over their life span or return home to their families and parents with new information and experiences to share. They may experience a generation break within lineages initially but may rebuild the relationship over time. Family Life Course Intergenerational learning is not limited to discrete points in a person's life but examines individual learning within the wider relationships of the family's life course. Family research has relied on life-course frameworks to connote the constantly changing role of family members and the family structures to which they belong (Germain, 1994; Kreppner & Lerner, 1989). Life span and life course, although similar in many ways, differ in their emphases. The work on life-span development describes human development as occurring in isolated, separable, fixed stages. Life-span approaches trace
< previous page
page_881
next page >
< previous page
page_882
next page > Page 882
central phenomena such as sense of self or problem-solving abilities from infancy through old age to determine how they are transformed as a result of both psychological and social change (Baltes & Brim, 1979). Life-course perspectives, in contrast, offer a wider array of situations and conditions; they consider life transitions, life events, and other life issues as ongoing processes that are constantly changing. Life-course approaches examine the relationship between individual change and the timing of major life events, such as the onset of schooling, the time at which someone leaves home, the beginning of childbearing, and retirement from the labor force (Elder, 1973). Family life-course frameworks emphasize the continuity and reciprocity of life experiences and the ways in which new life experiences draw on others and are recycled over timefluid rather than laconic role transitions (Germain, 1994). Families are seen as units of individuals, and the events, episodes, and activities that affect individual family members are thought to influence the unit and the course of family life. Each family member in each generation has a space that he or she shapes, and that shaping therefore becomes a part of the way families construct themselves and adapt to change. Germain (1983, 1994) noted that these transitions and events are both predictable and unpredictable and may be experienced as stressors or challenges, depending on the relationships among personal, cultural, and environmental factors. Some transitions and events are experienced by all families, and others differentiate families. Any one transition for an individual or within the family can precipitate a change or transformation for the entire family unit. These and other issues in human development are embedded in a variety of disciplines that contribute to our understanding of human behaviorhistory (Hareven, 1977, 1982), sociology (Elder, 1985), and gerontology (Riley, 1985). In this interdisciplinary work, life changes and life events are seen as time specific rather than fixed. That is, the onset of these changes and events may occur within a specific period but may continue over time, is not always predictable, and may be affected by a variety of factors. Time may refer to historical and social changes that affect people born during a time period, such as gender role changes resulting from the women's movement; to individual time, reflecting how individuals shape and experience their lives; to social time, integrating individual human processes into collective activities within the family (Germain, 1990, 1994). Individual and family patterns of development vary as a function of gender, income, social class, culture, and the historical period of events and the way in which family members respond to events. However, life events and changes are experienced differently within different societies. Such contrasts are implied by comparisons of research such as that of Atchley (1975), who provided a picture of people in modern, industrialized societies, to that of Fry (1988), who found enormous cultural variability in socially accepted stages of adult development. Difficult life circumstances result in families sometimes changing their perspectives and self-perceptions, in their constructing a collection of behaviors and practices that are associated internally and externally with the family. Several frameworks are used to represent these changes. My own work with multiple generations of African American and Puerto Rican families is developed around a theoretical framework to study literacy that I call family cultures, cumulative life texts of individual family members that contribute to the life course of the family as cultural artifacts. Intergenerational practices and learning within families are formed around an interplay of accepted ethnic traditions, cultural rituals, sociopolitical histories, religious practices and beliefs, and negotiated roles within families over time. Issues of race and culture are deeply embedded in family cultures, which are manipulated by societal events and affected by shifts in family mobility. They seem to revolve around a family-defined premise that family members hold as central to their purpose and to the life trajectory of children. Families vary in their level of desire to adapt these cultures, which may be fluid
< previous page
page_882
next page >
< previous page
page_883
next page > Page 883
or static, depending on the degree to which family members adapt or accommodate change. In family cultures, family members construct traditions, practices, beliefs, and behaviors that they believe are critical to survival and achievement and that are embedded in their own family histories. Reiss's (1981) family paradigms, for example, are defined by family members and include the shared, implicit beliefs that families have about themselves, their social worlds, and their relationship to social structures. He wrote that "the family, through the course of its own development, fashions fundamental and enduring assumptions about the world in which it lives. The assumptions are shared by all family members, despite the disagreements, conflicts, and differences that exist within the family" (p. 1). The assumptions about family and the world, Reiss suggested, are rarely conscious. Rather, paradigms are influenced by family history, culture, and the values and meanings assigned to experiences and perceptions. They are affected by the life views of family members, that is, views of the world as ordered or disorganized, predictable or unpredictable, and fair or inequitable. Family rituals and spatial and temporal conditions arise from and maintain family paradigms (Hartman & Laird, 1983; Kantor & Lehr, 1975). When families face stresses, they may move from implicit assumptions to stated alternatives to individual and family survival (Germain, 1994). Stack and Burton (1993) expanded on their multigenerational research to focus on kinscripts. Kinscripts are developed on the premise that families have their own agenda, their own interpretation of cultural norms, and their own histories. Stack and Burton's model focuses on the temporal nature of the life course (e.g., lifetime, social time, family time, and historical time) and life-course independence (e.g., the ways that individual transitions and trajectories are affected by or contingent upon the life stages of others). The framework is developed around three critical issues: (a) temporal and interdependent factors in family role transitions, (b) creation and intergenerational transmission of family norms, and (c) negotiation, exchange, and conflict within families over the life course. Antonucci and Akiyama's (1991) concept, convoys of social support, builds on Hagestad's (1981) work, which argued that researchers need to keep in mind that historical changes affect individual development in and out of relationships across the life course. Antonucci and Akiyama's convoy is "the group with whom one moves through life" (p. 106) and incorporates the concepts of both cohorts and generations. The construction, negotiation, and destruction of family norms, values, beliefs, and bonds cannot be assessed through analysis of aggregate data nor strictly through quantitative research. The concept was used in the authors' empirical study of social support among adults over 50. Subjects in this study identified people in their social networks, level of closeness, and type of functions provided. The authors found more similarities between the structure and support functions in parents' and adult children's networks and fewer for grandparents and grandchildren. Although Antonucci and Akiyama contended that their study provided some empirical support for the positive attributes of the convoy model, they suggested that convoys could have a negative impact. Intergenerational learning issues may be described in terms of time, location, or social events. What is transmitted intergenerationally is as much a function of demographic features within a family line as direct socialization. How families respond to changes may be attributed in part to the family's solidarity (Roberts, Richards, and Bengtson, 1991). Associational solidarity is the amount of time a family spends together, either through face-to-face or distant interactions (e.g., letter writing and telephone conversations). It is related to parents' self-esteem (Small, Eastman, & Cornelius, 1988) and is predicated on the assumption that family members' participation in regularly shared activities results in the transmission of more elements of this family's cultural heritage than those of other families. Affective solidarity is based on
< previous page
page_883
next page >
< previous page
page_884
next page > Page 884
theories, such as symbolic interaction, in which affect and support lead to concordance. In affective solidarity, the stronger the bonds between parents and children, the more likely it is that the parents will be seen as significant others. The most beneficial aspects of intergenerational solidarity pertain to the cultivation of high self-esteem among children and adolescents and act as a force mobilizing family members to provide emotional and material support for one another over the adult life course. Conclusion Beneath the surface of the relationships that exist in families and that in one way or another affect learning and ultimately literacy is a tension. In literacy research, this tension is a salient part of our conceptualization of the field and in learners' everyday responses to teaching. For families trying to convey meanings and specific knowledge to children, this tension at one and the same time is emancipated through individual acts of invention that remove the boundaries imposed by society and families and represented by the new ideas and ways of thinking and doing that contribute to generational identity. It is reconciled through acts of reinvention, revisiting, reconstructing, and reenacting old ideas and ways of thinking and doing that blur lines of generational difference. Through these acts of reinvention, child and adult learners of literacy, those who teach them, and those who study them are reminded of the fundamental reality that ''little is new under the sun" and that the inherent possibilities imagined at the birth of a child will be transformed by history, innovation, and inattention to boundaries. The historical context of research on intergenerational literacy is so intermingled with family literacy that it is difficult, and some might argue useless, to tease them apart. The facility of examining intergenerational literacy and family literacy as separate concepts is related to the fact that intergenerational literacy, although focused on families in this chapter, does and should examine relationships outside of families as well. The relationships that are created and fostered within schools, between teachers and students, are a special and differently studied area of intergenerational literacy, usually investigated within the context of research on teaching, teacher research, or teacher education. We are still in the early stages of the fieldof conducting research, understanding the broad scope of issues, achieving modest coherence among research studies, and providing responses that can improve assessment, learning, and teaching. We know a little about what kinds of studies may need to be pursued and some of the ways that intergenerational literacy as intervention is or is not effective. Longitudinal studies offer us the most important information to understand the nature of outcomes and enable us to focus on problems, not symptoms. Within families, attention to intergenerational literacy should be expanded to capture the range of relationships, contributions, and contributors to literacy across ages. In addition, intergenerational literacy may be considered a tool or means to investigating and understanding individual learning, family influences to individual learning, or family learning and the effects of social change. Rather than connoting a specific domain in the way that we have come to think of family literacy, parentchild book reading, and emergent literacy, intergenerationality vacillates between being a subtext and an umbrella definition for all these and other studies in learning, literacy, and the processes involved in developing literacy. The issue facing the field is how to confront the complexity of conceptual issues that weaken the possibilities for the field, to project an agenda of rigorous research and practice that provides for intensive instruction and support to families, and to incorporate what has been learned about families to coordinate efforts for literacy learners across the life span and multiple generations.
< previous page
page_884
next page >
< previous page
page_885
next page > Page 885
References Acock, A. C. (1984). Parents and their children: The study of inter-generational influence. Sociology & Social Research, 68(2), 151171. Acock, A. C., & Bengtson, V. L. (1975). Transmission of religious behavior and beliefs. Victoria, Canada: PacificSociological Association Meetings. Acock, A. C., & Bengtson, V. L. (1978). On the relative influence of mothers and fathers: A covariance analysis of political and religious socialization. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 40(3), 519530. Acock, A. C., Barker, D., & Bengtson, V. L. (1982). Mother's employment and parentyouth similarity. Journal of Marriage & the Family, 44(2), 441455. Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1991). Convoys of social support: Generational issues. Marriage & Family Review, 16(12), 103123. Atchley, R. C. (1975). Adjustment to loss of job at retirement. International Journal of Aging & Human Development, 6(1), 1727. Auerbach, E. R. (1989). Toward a socio-contextual approach to family literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 59, 165187. Baltes, P. B., & Brim, O. G., Jr. (1979). Life-span development psychology: Personality and socialization (Vol. 8). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bengtson, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Sociological Review, 40(3), 358371. Bengtson, V. L., & Troll, L. (1978). Youth and their parents: Feedback and intergenerational influence in socialization. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective, (pp. 215240). New York: Academic Press. Billingsley, A. (1968). Black families in White America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 723742. Campbell, E. Q. (1969). Adolescent socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and research (pp. 821859). Chicago: Rand McNally. Chodorow, N. (1978). The reproduction of mothering: Psychoanalysis and the sociology of gender. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J. M., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Coles, M., & Coles, R. (1988). The development of children. New York: Freeman. Daisey, P. (1991). Intergenerational literacy programs: Rationale, description, and effectiveness. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 20, 1117. Demos, J. (1970). A little commonwealth: Family life in the Plymouth Colony. New York: Oxford University Press. Dickerson, D. K. (Ed.). (1994). Bridges to literacy: Children, families and schools. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Doake, D. B. (1981). Book experience and emergent reading behavior in preschool children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Alberta, Canada. Durkin, D. (1966). Teaching young children to read. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Durkin, D. (19741975). A six year study of children who learned to read in school at the age of four. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 961. Edwards, P. (1990). Talking your way to literacy: A program to help non-reading parents prepare their children for reading. Chicago: Children's Press. Edwards, P. (1993). Connecting African-American parents and youth to the school's reading curriculum. In V. L. Gadsden & D. A. Wagner (Eds.), Literacy and African American youth: Issues in learning, teaching, and schooling. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Edwards, P. A. (1995). Empowering low-income mothers and fathers to share books with young children. Reading Teacher, 48, 558564. Elder, G. H. (Ed.). (1973). Linking social structure to personality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Elder, G. H. (1974). Children of the Great Depression. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Elder, G. H. (1985). Household, kinship, and the life course: Perspectives on Black families and children. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The social and affective development of Black children (pp. 2943). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Epstein, J. L. (1990). What matters in the middle gradesGrade span or practices? Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 438444. Epstein, J. L. (1995, May). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan,
701712. Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton. Featherman, D. L., & Lerner, R. M. (1985). Ontogenesis and sociogenesis: Problematics for theory and research about development and socialization across the lifespan. American Sociological Review, 50(5), 659676. Fishel, E. (1991). Family mirrors: What our children's lives reveal about our selves. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship between parental literacy level and perceptions of emergent literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 191213.
< previous page
page_885
next page >
< previous page
page_886
next page > Page 886
France, M., & Meeks, J. W. (1987). Parents who can't read: What schools can do. Journal of Reading, 31(3), 222227. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. New York: W. W. Norton. Fry, C. L. (1988). Theories of age and culture. In J. Birren & V. Bengtson (Eds.), Emergent theories of aging (pp. 447481). New York: Springer. Gadsden, V. L. (1993). Literacy, education, and identity among African Americans: The communal nature of learning. Urban Education, 27, 352369. Gadsden, V. L. (1994). Understanding family literacy: Conceptual issues facing the field. Teachers' College Record, 96, 5896. Gadsden, V. L. (1995). Representations of literacy: Parents' images in two cultural communities. In L. M. Morrow (Ed.), Family literacy: Connections in schools and communities (pp. 287303). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers. Gadsden, V. L. (1998). Family cultures and literacy learning. In J. Osborn & F. Lehr (Eds.), Literacy for all: Issues in teaching and learning (pp. 3250). New York: Guilford Press. Gadsden, V. L. (1998). Black families within intergenerational and cultural perspective. In M. L. Lamb (Ed.), Parenting and child development "nontraditional" families. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Germain, C. B. (1983). Time, social change, and social work. Social Work in Health Care, 9(2), 1523. Germain, C. B. (1990). Life forces and the anatomy of practice. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 60(2), 138152. Germain, C. B. (1994). Emerging conceptions of family development over the life course. Families in Society, 75(5), 259268. Glass, J., Bengtson, V. L., & Dunham, C. C. (1986). Attitude similarity in three-generational families: Socialization, status inheritance, or reciprocal influence? American Sociological Review, 51(5), 685698. Gutman, H. (1987). Historical consciousness in contemporary America. In I. Berlin (Ed.), Power and culture: Essays on the American working class (pp. 395412). New York: Pantheon. Hagestad, G. O. (1981). Problems and promises in the social psychology of intergenerational relations. In R. Fogel, E. Hatfield, S. Kiesler, & E. Shanas (Eds.), Aging, stability, and change in the family (pp. 1146). New York: Academic Press. Hagestad, G. O. (1984). The continuous bond: A dynamic multigenerational perspective on parent child relationships between adults. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.), Parentchild interaction and parentchild relations in child development: Vol. 17. The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (pp. 129158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Harari, S. E., & Vinovskis, M. A. (1989). Rediscovering the family in the past. In K. Kreppner & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Family systems and life-span development (pp. 381394). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hareven, T. K. (1977). Family time and historical time. Daedalus, 106, 5770. Hareven, T. K. (1982). American families in transition: Historical perspectives on change. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family processes (pp. 446465). New York: Guilford Press. Harry, B. (1995). Communication versus compliance: African-American parents' involvement in special education. Exceptional Children, 61, 364377. Hartman, A., & Laird, J. (1983). Family-centered social work practice. New York: Free Press. Heath, S. B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 4976. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heath, S. B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (Vol. II, pp. 325). New York: Longman. Heilbrun, A., & Gillard, B. (1966). Perceived maternal childrearing behavior and motivational effects of social reinforcement in females. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23(2), 439446. Hill, R., Foote, N., Aldous, J., Carlson, R., & MacDonald, R. (1970). Family development in three generations. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. Kantor, D., & Lehr, W. (1975). Inside the family. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Kreppner, K., & Lerner, R. M. (Eds.). (1989). Family systems and life-span development. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lerner, R. M., & Spanier, G. B. (1978). Child influences on marital and family interaction: A life-span perspective. New York: Academic Press. Monaghan, E. J. (1991). Family literacy in early 18th-century Boston: Cotton Mather and his children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 34270. Morrow, L. M. (1994). Family literacy: New perspectives, new opportunities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Morrow, L. M., & Young, J. A. (1997). Collaborative family literacy program: The effects on children's motivation and literacy achievement. Early Child Development & Care, 127128, 1325.
National Center on Fathers and Families. (1997). Fathers and Families Roundtables: Discussions on the seven Core Learnings. Philadelphia, PA: Author.
< previous page
page_886
next page >
< previous page
page_887
next page > Page 887
National Institute on Child Health Development. (1998, June). Nurturing fatherhood: Improving data on research on male fertility, family formation, and fatherhood. Washington, DC: Author. Paratore, J. (1992) An intergenerational approach to literacy: Effects of literacy learning on adults and on the practice of family literacy. In Examining central issues in literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-second yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 8392). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Pellegrini, A., Brody, G., & Sigel, I. (1985). Parent's book-reading habits with their children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 332340. Pellegrini, A., Perlmutter, J., Galda, L., & Brody, G. (1990). Joint reading between Black Head Start children and their mothers. Child Development, 61(2), 443453. Powell, D. (1991). Strengthening parental contributions to school readiness and early school learning. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Child Development and Family Studies. Powell, D. (1990). The responsiveness of early childhood initiatives to families: Strategies and limitations. Marriage and Family Review, 15(1-2), 149170. Purcell-Gates, V. (1995). Other people's words: The cycle of low literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Quintero, E., & Velarde, C. (1990). Intergenerational literacy: A developmental, bilingual approach. Young Children, 45, 1015. Reiss, M. W. (1981). The family's construction of reality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Riley, M. W. (1985). Women, men, and the lengthening of the life course. In A. S. Rossi (Ed.), Aging and the life course (pp. 333347). New York: Aldine. Roberts, R. E. Richards, L. N., & Bengtson, V. L. (1991). Intergenerational solidarity in families: Untangling the ties that bind. Marriage and Family Review, 16, 1146. Rosow, I. (1978). What is a cohort and why? Human Development, 21(2), 6575. Scott-Jones, D. (1987). Mother-as-teacher in the families of high and low-achieving low-income Black first graders. Journal of Negro Education, 56, 2134. Scott-Jones, D., & Clark, M. L. (1986). The school experiences of black girls: The interaction of gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Phi Delta Kappan, 67, 520527. Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading recovery: An independent evaluation of the effects of an early instructional intervention for at-risk learners. Readers Research Quarterly, 30(4), 958996. Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., & Richards, H. (1995). Literacy as empowerment: The case of African American males. In V. L. Gadsden & D. A. Wagner (Eds.), Literacy among African American youth: Issues in learning, teaching, and schooling (pp. 125147). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Small, S. A., Eastman, G., & Cornelius, S. (1988). Adolescent autonomy and parental stress. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17(5), 377391. Snow, C. E., Barnes, W. S., Chandler, J., Goodman, I. F., & Hemphill, L. (1991). Unfulfilled expectations: Home and school influences on literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Snow, C., & Goldfield, B. (1983). Turn the page please: Situation-specific language acquisition. Journal of Child Language, 10, 551569. Stack, C. B. (1974). All our kin: Strategies for survival in the Black community. New York: Harper and Row. Stack, C. B., & Burton, L. M. (1993). Kinscripts Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 24(Summer), 157170. Strickland, D., & Morrow, L. (1989). Family literacy and young children (emerging readers and writers). Reading Teacher, 12, 530531. Strickland, D. S. (1981). The role of literature in reading instruction: Cross-cultural views. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: The social context of learning to read and write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, D. (1994). The trivial pursuit of reading psychology in the "real world": A response to West, Stanovich, and Mitchell. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 276288. Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., Tucker, M. B., & Lewis, E. (1990). Developments in research on Black families: A decade review. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 52, 9931014. Teale, W. H. (1981). Parents reading to their children: What we know and what we need to know. Language Arts, 58, 902912. Teale, W. H., & Sulzby, E. (Eds.). (1986). Emergent literacy: Writing and reading. Writing research: Multidisciplinary inquiries into the nature of writing series. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Troll, L. E. (1970). Concepts of generation: Definitions and issues. Detroit, Ml: Wayne State University, Department of Psychology.
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_889
next page > Page 889
Chapter 46 Policy and Instruction: What Is the Relationship? Anne McGill-Franzen National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement and the University of Florida The present is a time of unprecedented public and governmental interest in reading instruction, "more interest . . . than at any time in the last 20 years" (Hart, 1996, p. 600). Not only are policymakers and researchers at a critical point in time, but Hart insisted, "a golden opportunity is presenting itself for all of usresearchers and policymakers aliketo join forces and influence one of the most important educational policy debates to present itself in quite some time" (p. 601). For better or for worse, federal and state policymakers are scrutinizing reading education as rarely before. Further, such policy is intruding on the "core technology" of teaching and learning (Cohen & Ball, 1997; Elmore, 1996). In this chapter, I describe the recent policy history of reading education, its place on the public policy agenda, and, relatedly, the research that relates reading policy to reading instruction. Although time periods and themes may overlap, the chapter is organized along a loose chronology of reading policy with an emphasis on contemporary issues. Background and Organization Early federal education policy has its roots in the social reforms of the 1960s. The first generation of educational reform had as its purpose equal educational opportunity for children of the poor. The first of the sections that follow provides a brief recent history of federal education policy. In this section, I summarize what we know about the influence of federal policy on teaching and learning. Most often federal reading policy is associated with Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title 1 (or Chapter 1), but Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and earlier legislation establishing special education and the category of learning disabilities have profoundly affected the practice of reading education as well. The overidentification of learning disabled students with reading difficulties led to the National Institute of Child Health (NICHD) research agenda, one that now competes with that of the Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI) and the national research centers for the attention of the U.S. Congress. The second generation of educational reform was led by the states. Initially, states responded to the National Commission on Excellence in Education (1983) and the fa-
< previous page
page_889
next page >
< previous page
page_890
next page > Page 890
mous "tide of mediocrity" rhetoric by mandating higher standards for teachers and students in unprecedented state policymaking activity, the "first wave" of reform (McLaughlin, 1992). I revisit compensatory education, formerly Title 1, now Chapter 1, in the next section. I describe systemic reform, the theoretical underpinning of current state education policy, and review the effects of the so-called second wave of policy, that is, policy that deals with the harder issues of implementation and capacity building. Within this section I describe the effects of school organization on practice, with contrasting portraits of reading instruction in two restructured schools. The third section emphasizes the research on implementation in Michigan, an early entrant into ambitious reading pedagogy and one whose implementation process has been carefully researched. I review the relation between school restructuring and reading instructionin particular, whether changing school structures changes teaching and learning. Next, I describe the research on the nonmonolithic character of policy responses by teachers and administrators. Even among teachers using the same materials and curriculum guides within the same district, there is profound variability in the quality of the tasks and discourse of instruction. In the fourth section I discuss the demise of constructivist reading policy in California. National attention to the crisis in California put literacy policy on the public agenda. I suggest an agenda-setting process that culminated with current federal reading policy initiatives. Finally, I close with a brief summary. The First Generation of Policy for Practice A Federal Role to Ensure Equity Until the mid 1960s, Lyndon Johnson's Great Society, and the passage of Title 1 and Head Start of the ESEA, there was little state or federal involvement in education policy. Title 1 marked the federal government's first attempt to influence local practice, what McLaughlin (1992) called the "first generation" of education policy. Title 1 distributed much money to local districts, based on the level of district poverty, to fund compensatory education programsmostly in readingthat would supplement the regular classroom reading instruction of disadvantaged children. These first-generation policies were designed to redistribute educational opportunities, such as the opportunity to learn to read and preschool, more equitably, and to compensate for the lack of resources in impoverished school communities. Title 1 funds were ear-marked for particular categories of services, such as supplemental reading instruction, and oversight initially focused on ensuring that federal dollars were actually spent on services within these categories. Implicit in these regulations was the assumption that lack of resources, not lack of professional knowledge on the part of teachers, was holding back low-income children (McLaughlin, 1992). Early evaluations of Title 1 showed marginal gains, if any, for participating children, and demonstrated that policy alone, without local "will" and organizational capability, cannot bring about the intended change (Kennedy, Birman, & Demaline, 1986; McLaughlin, 1992; Timar, 1994), in this case, sustained reading achievement for disadvantaged children. Besides these marginal effects on children's achievement, Title 1 brought about other changes, most notably an infrastructure at the state and local levels for program disbursement, development, and oversight. Thus Title 1 created a separate administrative bureaucracy and a supplemental, and also separate, program of instructional services (mostly reading) for low-income children who were behind in school. By 1981 the federal government had embarked on a campaign to decentralize federal functions, including education responsibilities. Under Ronald Reagan and the
< previous page
page_890
next page >
< previous page
page_891
next page > Page 891
New Federalism, federal education programs were consolidated under block grants and given to the states to administer and support. Title 1 aid was reduced, and barely maintained (and until 1994, was known as Chapter 1 of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act, ECIA) even as poverty among children was increasing at an alarming rate. Title 1 funds were reduced under the assumption that state deregulation would lower the cost of oversight. Many provisions of Chapter 1 of ECIA remained the same, including the "supplement not supplant" requirement for reading services, and the emphasis on regulatory compliance rather than on the quality of the instructional services (Education Consolidation & Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. 2701-2891 1965, as amended 1981; Timar, 1994). Title 1 was reauthorized in 1988, and again in 1994. I discuss these authorizations in a section that follows. Special Education: An Underfunded Mandate Responding to increasingly influential special education advocates, in 1976 Congress passed into law PL 94-142, thereby entitling disabled children to free and appropriate public education. Similar to the bureaucracy created by the passage of Title 1, PL 94-142 established the institution of special education and a concomitant bureaucracy to administer programs and certify service providers. This legislation was significant for the field of reading education because PL 94-142 set up a new category of children with reading problems (McGill-Franzen, 1987). As in compensatory education, the majority of children in special education were referred because they were experiencing reading difficulties. Unlike children in compensatory education who were provided reading services to presumably help them catch up, struggling readers referred to special education were assumed to have an organic disability that impaired their ability to learn to readhence the label learning disabled (Spear-Swerling & Sternberg, 1996). Between 1976 and 1993 the number of children placed in special education skyrocketed and overwhelmingly the growth was attributed to children who were labeled learning disabled. By 1995, approximately 10% of all school-aged children were classified as learning disabled (National Research Council, 1998), primarily because they could not read (Birman, 1981; Lyon, 1996). As funding for compensatory services in reading declined under ECIA and pressure for high standards and accountability for all students increased, as in the more recent waves of education policy, the demand for special education services continued to increase (McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1991). Public accountability raised the stakes for low-performing schools, motivating the placement of low-performing students in special education, outside the accountability stream (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1992; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1993). Because the federal initiative for handicapped students was an underfunded mandate (i.e., providing less than half of the cost of implementation), rising numbers of learning disabled students caused a substantive burden on the resources of local districts (Cohen & Spillane, 1992). The Center for Special Education Finance (Chambers, Parrish, Lieberman, & Wolman, 1998) estimated the 19951996 special education expenditures to be approximately $32.6 billion, or about 128% more than the cost of regular education. A recent survey of local district expenditures indicated that the extra resources allocated to education during the last decade or so were spent almost exclusively on services for handicapped students, with little resources allocated to improving the general education programs (Rothstein & Miles, 1995). The high cost of special education and increasing demand for learning disability services for children with reading problems prompted a research agenda by the National Institute for Child Health (NICHD) funded by the federal government (Health Research Extension Act of 1985; Lyon, 1996). In order to identify research critical to the classification, causes and treatment of learning disabilities, NICHD in 1987 established the Learning Disability Research Network. The NICHD network promulgated the
< previous page
page_891
next page >
< previous page
page_892
next page > Page 892
findings of major NICHD-funded studies, which consistently demonstrated that disabled readers had deficits in phonological processing. Several of the studies indicated that the difference between struggling readers and disabled readers lay on a continuum from proficiency to disability, and that learning disabled readers were not qualitatively different from other readers experiencing difficulty (Lyon, 1996). Further, intervention studies, such as that conducted by Scanlon and Vellutino (1996), demonstrated that phonological deficits can be remediated in all but 1% of young children. When 1990s reading policy faltered in California, Lyon (1995; 1997) was ready with the major findings of the NICHD-sponsored studies of the etiology and treatment of children with reading difficulties. The Second Generation of Policy for Practice Toward Excellence and Accountability The period of time between 1980 and the present may be considered the "second generation of reform" (McLaughlin, 1992) marked by unprecedented education policy activity by the states. The federal presence in education policymaking waned somewhat during the 1980s, becoming more symbolic than substantive, as is suggested by the emergence of national commissions (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983; U.S. Department of Education, 1984; and so on). These commissions urged policymakers to establish accountability and excellence within the educational system. States responded with higher standards for curriculum and materials, more rigorous certification requirements for teachers, and new testing programs. All states but Nebraska, for example, now administer tests at different grade levels, about a third require a test for graduation, and Texas is moving toward a test to pass from grade to grade (Greene, 1998). The National Governors' Association took the lead in coordinating these state efforts; their work led to the Education Summit in 1989, the establishment of the National Education Goals by George Bush, and the bipartisan support of the Goals 2000 legislation in 1994. Three of the National Goals relate to literacy1: All children will start school ready to learn. All students will leave Grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship. The National Goals then provided a framework for evaluating federal and state reading programs as well as redefining expectations for learning and achievement. Compensatory Education Revisited During this time period, a number of empirical research studies described Title 1, now Chapter 1, as traditional, basic skills instruction that was neither congruent with the new intellectually rigorous standards nor related to children's achievement gains in the regular classroom (Allington & McGill-Franzen, 1989a & b; Jenkins, Pious, & Peterson, 1988). In 1988, Congress reauthorized Chapter 1, part of the HawkinsStafford El1 Emerson Elliot (1996) noted that two National Goals related directly to literacy. I added the first goal to Elliot's two goals.
< previous page
page_892
next page >
< previous page
page_893
next page > Page 893
ementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments, and changed the program in fundamental ways. No longer viewed as separate from the academic program of the regular classroom, Chapter 1 effectiveness was measured in terms of regular academic achievement. No longer targeting basic skills, Chapter 1 now emphasized mastery of advanced skills, andrather than the "add on" program of the pastChapter 1 resources could be used for school-wide classroom improvement (HawkinsStafford Elementary & Secondary School Improvement Amendments, PL 206-297, 1988; Timar, 1994). However, the Prospects: The Congressional Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity (Puma et al., 1997) found 1990s Chapter 1 programs did not look that different from descriptions of earlier evaluations. At that time, Chapter 1 served 6 million children each year in most elementary schools in the country and half of the secondary schools. With funding of about $7 billion, Chapter 1 served 25% of all first through third graders, about 20% of children in the middle grades, and between 5% and 8% of secondary students. Most Chapter 1 students were primary grade children receiving reading instruction. But unlike earlier, highly regulated Title 1 programs, local school districts had many options for spending Chapter 1 funds so that services could look very different from school to school, depending on local context and need. Nonetheless, Prospects researchers found that Chapter 1 was a marginal intervention. Like earlier Title 1 programs, Chapter 1 instruction in the 1990s added only 19 minutes of extra instructional time each day and typically consisted of pull-out instruction, often during reading and language arts instruction in the regular classroom. Half the staff hired with Chapter 1 funds were aides, not certified teachers, and these aides were most likely hired to work with students in push-in whole-class instruction in high poverty schools. Instructional assistance was weak, Prospects concluded, compared to the level of need. Regardless of the form of the intervention or the staff hired, Chapter 1 did not seem to influence student achievement, just as earlier studies had found (Rowan & Guthrie, 1988). The average achievement of all students in high-poverty schools was approximately the same as the achievement of Chapter 1 students in low-poverty schools. Prospects found that the program had not closed the gap in academic achievement between advantaged and disadvantaged students. In fact, "the observed lockstep pattern of student growth clearly demonstrated that where students started out relative to their classmates is where they ended up in later grades" (Puma et al., 1997, p. vi). The longer students received Chapter 1 services, the further they lagged behind their peers. Nonetheless, unlike earlier longitudinal evaluations of Title 1, the Prospects study found small school effects: Data from Prospects confirm the earlier findings by Coleman et al. (1966) that the characteristics of an individual student and his/her family account for the largest part of the overall variation in student achievement as measured by test scores. However, relatively smaller school factors do make an important contribution to student academic achievement and growth. (Puma et al., 1997, p. vi) Other studies confirmed that schools have made a difference in the educational achievement of students from poor communities. Even though the scores of minorities on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) are now stable or in decline, the achievement gap in reading between Whites and minorities was reduced by one third during the previous two decades, a time of increasing poverty for many families. This phenomenon has been attributed in part to federal educational interventions like Chapter 1 (Grissmer, Kirby, Berends, & Williamson, 1994).
< previous page
page_893
next page >
< previous page
page_894
next page > Page 894
The 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), again Title 1, substantively changed the program to make it more congruent with the national move toward excellence and accountability (Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New Directions, U.S. Department of Education, 1993). According to the provisions of IASA, Title 1 students were expected to achieve the same rigorous standards and participate in the same challenging curriculum as all other students. Keeping with its historic mission to provide opportunity to disadvantaged students, Title 1 was to allocate more resources to the neediest schools and to initiate more school-wide programs to improve curriculum and instruction in high-poverty schools. Finally, in recognition of the emerging research on teacher development and the central role of teachers in the success of any reform, Title 1 provided resources to support professional development so that Title 1 service providers could themselves learn how to make challenging curriculum accessible to a range of learners. Policymakers and the constituents of Title 1 are now preparing for upcoming reauthorization hearings. The National Center on Education in the Inner Cities, for example, recently held an invitational conference on Title 1. Conference participants identified a lack of information on effective and innovative strategies for implementing challenging curriculum in high-poverty schools. The most pressing need identified by service providers was opportunities for themselves to learn how to implement the Title 1 mandates for systemic reform (Wang, 1997; p. 16). States Take the Policy Initiative: Ambitious Teaching and Learning The early reforms requiring high standards for students and teachers have been called the "first wave" (of the second generation of reform) and, as such, represent the "easy" reforms to implement (Kirst, 1990; McLaughlin, 1992). It is easier to count course requirements for teacher certification or student requirements for graduation than to ensure that ambitious teaching and learning is in place, for example. Nonetheless, requirements for teacher education and certification, curriculum requirements, textbook adoption, and assessment of student achievement certainly constitute powerful and popular policy structures (Cohen & Spillane, 1992). Such policies may guide classroom instruction and mediate the influence of any other policy. However, "instructional guidance" (p. 11) may be consistent or not across domains, prescriptive or not, and mandated or not, leading to recognition by some policymakers that top-down, systemic reform needed to be in place for substantive educational change to take place. Systemic Reform Although some local sites across the country reported successful reforms, few states had developed coherent educational policy in reading. In 1988, policy analysts O'Day and Smith (Under Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education during Bill Clinton's presidency) promulgated the concept of systemic reform. Smith, who had written extensively on effective schools in the early 1980s, was a believer that schools can make a difference and that government can and should intervene with a combination of mandates and incentives to promote education policy (Purkey & Smith, 1983; Vinovskis, 1996). Early, wideranging, and ambitious initiatives by California and other states and the emerging research on teaching had convinced Smith and O'Day that top-down, state-wide curriculum frameworks aligned with assessments and teacher development were needed to effect substantive change:
< previous page
page_894
next page >
< previous page
page_895
next page > Page 895
We did not expect to suggest these policy directions when we started reviewing the research literature on teachers and teaching. The rationale for a state curriculum framework which structures the knowledge needed by the teacher, the content of the schools' curriculum, and student assessment instruments grows out of the research on the importance of content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers. (Smith & O'Day, 1988, in Vinovskis, 1996, p. 77) Systemic reform holds that all children can achieve high academic standards, a new tenet of educational policy, and further, that schools must provide students with access to ambitious curriculum in the form of appropriate materials and effective teachers. That is, if students are to be held accountable for high standards of achievement, then they must have ''opportunity to learn" (Vinovskis, 1996). Starting with the publication of the report "A Time for Results" (National Governors' Association, 1986), and with input from the educational community, states began to talk about building local capacity to implement more rigorous curriculum and just what that might take (McLaughlin, 1992). What has been called the "second wave" of instructional policy thus deals with improving practice by developing teacher knowledge and enhancing teacher control of curriculum and instruction (McLaughlin, 1992). Policymakers looked to site-based management and alternative governance and organizational structures so that teachers would have more authority along with more responsibility for student learning. School Structures and Practice In the late 1980s the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE) undertook a 3-year study to look at the processes and effects of school restructuring (Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthy, 1996). The basic premise of the school restructuring movement was that changing the organization of schools would improve the way teachers teach, providing support for more ambitious pedagogy and higher achievement on the part of students. CPRE researchers studied in depth the teachers in three restructured elementary schools, each with different structures to promote new ways of teaching, each at different stages of development, and each experiencing varying success. I consider here the reading instruction of two of those teachers from two different schools, one teacher (and school) involved for a few years with organizational and curricular change, and the other for over a decade; both schools were adequately supported in their efforts by the central administration. Multigrade Classrooms, Teacher Teams, Cross-Age Single Classrooms, Professional Development: Do Organizational Structures Matter? Mrs. Hancock was a member of a team of teachers who taught primary grades students in a school that was reorganized into multiage units. One of her responsibilities was to teach reading to first through second graders. For the past 2 years, Mrs. Hancock had been teaching reading by using literature instead of the basal reading program. She did not group students by ability. Instead, each week she introduced three books (from which each child could choose) and she used activity sheets developed at the district's teacher center: In September, Hancock introduced three books in the "Miss Nelson" series. Each group had a different worksheet to accompany each book: One had a "detective map" consisting of features to be filled in such as characters . . . a second had an "activity sheet" of questions: "You are walking to school. Suddenly a dog runs up and pulls your lunchbox out of your hand. What would you do?"; and a third had a sheet to list characteristics of Miss Nelson. (p. 121)
< previous page
page_895
next page >
< previous page
page_896
next page > Page 896
Before introducing a writing activity, Mrs. Hancock had the children guess a long/I/mystery item hidden in a bag. She randomly selected a student to wear the puppet High Hat (from the High Hat program) while she read a story with long/I/. Next, she found the long/I/vowel on a vowel finder chart, and had children supply words with long/I/, which she wrote on the board and discussed with them. Hancock explained her instruction to the researchers as needing to do phonics: I have beginning readers and I also have second graders in there too, that I felt needed some extra work on phonics. We're really building hard on a phonics program for them, some word attack skills. . . . It gives them something to work with, when they come to unfamiliar words, besides context clues. (p. 123) To a reading professional, it is clear that Mrs. Hancock probably did not know the subject matter of reading well enough to make a transition to teaching without the basal. As pointed out in the CPRE study, she tried to blend the old with the new and unsuccessfully adapted activities she had probably used in the past (p. 125). Rather than basing her practice on what children needed to learn, she seemed to depend on what she called a "teaching kit" for phonics unrelated to children's developmental levels, story starters for writing, and a selection of books that must have been too difficult for some and too easy for others. By contrast, Mrs. Brezinski taught a self-contained classroom of fifth- and sixth-grade students in the most traditional of the restructured schools in the study. Each teacher there was responsible for a single cross-age class, an organization that the teachers ultimately selected because it was the most comfortable fit with their professional beliefs and pedagogy. Individual children were the focus of faculty meetings there, and Mrs. Brezinski kept a journal so that she could take notes and record her reflections on the learning of individual children, and in doing so, know them better. In the following example of part of a conversation between teacher and student, Mrs. Brezinski asks Chudney, a reluctant reader, what the quote (from Chudney's book), "She had to find herself, and she was still working on it," meant to her. Chudney responds, "She had to get away for awhile, and she had to fix herself. . . . I think she was in control of herself. She probably didn't yell at the kids, but she had to fix herself up. I think that is why she went away" (p. 174). Later, Mrs. Brezinski wrote in her journal: This is how Chudney translates or paraphrases "find herself"reading into it her own understanding of the mother's behavior. She's also clear about the various relationships among characters and the sources of tension or dramatic conflict. . . . All this is very close to home as far as Chudney's own family relationships are concerned. (p. 174) In this case, the researchers argue, Mrs. Brezinski interpreted "learning in her class primarily through the lens of individual students' developing knowledge" (p. 180). What concerned Mrs. Brezinski was how much she should control what her students read. Should she allow students like Chudney to always choose books close to their experiences, or should she insist that they read, for example, Iliad, because "myths like fairy tales are stories that have immense meaning and different meanings to different individuals. Reading them and knowing them is a way of putting that meaning inside your head so you can draw on it when you need to" (p. 183). Elmore et al. (1996) referred to this as the "constructivist dilemma"how to bring expert knowledge to bear on children's learning without "displacing'' the knowledge of children (p. 182). Additionally, Mrs. Brezinski's school was affiliated with a well-regarded alternative school in Vermont, where she and her colleagues met with the Vermont faculty each summer to discuss students, subject matter concerns, and issues of constructivist pedagogy.
< previous page
page_896
next page >
< previous page
page_897
next page > Page 897
In spite of the substantive differences between Mrs. Hancock and Mrs. Brezinski in their knowledge of reading and reading development, all teachers and administrators in each of the schools studied actually were doing what policy had asked them to doto change teaching by changing school structures. They had initiated new grouping practices, more opportunities for professional development and team collaboration among teachers, more decentralized decision making at schools (p. 236). What was the problem? CPRE researchers concluded that there is only a "weak, problematic, and indirect" relationship between changing school structures and changing teaching practice (p. 237). A new kind of structure will unlikely lead to particular teaching practices. Teachers interpret new policy or new ideas about teaching in terms of their own variable experiences. It is unlikely that creating multiage structures, or cross-age classrooms, or any other organizational change will transform practice. Rather, the researchers argued, it is just as likely that practice should change structure (p. 238). In order to transform teaching, they argued, first enhance the knowledge and skills of individual teachers, then ask what kind of structure will support their work (p. 240). Participative Decision Making and Practice: Does Governance Matter? Besides changing the organization of classrooms, as in the CPRE study, policy can alter school governance, giving teachers more authority over the administration of school. Smylie, Lazarus, and Brownlee-Conyers (1996) studied the various ways teachers participated in school governance over a 4-year period in a mid-sized urban district and found a relationship between certain kinds of teacher participation and gains in reading achievement. Using survey, observations, and test score data, the researchers found that governance in schools reporting high and low teacher participation operated in fundamentally different ways. In governance councils with the highest participation, teachers studied curriculum and instruction issues, not just management issues. Within these high-participation councils, teachers' work was oriented toward instructional issues: Teachers selected literature-based textbooks, developed alternative assessments, integrated instructional units with language arts. Not only did teachers on these councils feel more pressure for accountability and report greater access to organizational learning opportunities, but students' reading achievement test scores improved significantly in these schools. Teachers on councils with low-participative decision making, in contrast, were not focused on issues of academic content or instruction. The authors argue that participative governance structures may have negative influence on student outcomes if such governance is not well implemented, does not promote opportunities for professional development, and distracts teachers from their central mission of classroom instruction (p. 194). Therefore, it is the type of decisions that involve teachers, not the process of participative decision making itself, that has potential to improve classroom instruction (p. 193). Thus, even with higher standards, new school structures to accommodate new ways of teaching and learning, materials, assessments and other top-down reforms in place, without attention to teacher development and the local context within which policy is interpreted, many analysts thought the reforms would be for naught. Referred to as "the problem of the bottom over the top" (Elmore, 1983), this paradigm recognizes teachers (and administrators) are more than a "conduit" for instructional policy (Darling-Hammond, 1990): "Teachers teach from what they know," and thus new policy must attend closely to the support of teacher knowledge through professional development. Policies ''land on top of other policies" (p. 240), and teachers understand new policy in terms of their experiences with other policy, and within the context of their own knowledge, beliefs and teaching circumstances (p. 235). In the fol-
< previous page
page_897
next page >
< previous page
page_898
next page > Page 898
lowing sections, I present research on the implementation of reading policy in two states, Michigan and California. The unexpected effects of state reading policy in California put reading on the national policy agenda, and that story is preceded by the section on policy implementation in Michigan. The research that follows suggests the ways local contexts, especially the knowledge, beliefs, and experiences of policy participants, shape state reading policy and its actualization in practice. Michigan Redefines Reading but Local Contexts Transform State Policy The state of Michigan was an early entrant into curriculum reform in reading. In 1985 the State Board of Education, under advisement from the Michigan Reading Association and a small group of university researchers, approved a new definition of reading: Reading is the process of constructing meaning through dynamic interaction among reader, the text, and the context of the reading situation. (Michigan State Board of Education, 1985) Because the revised definition differed substantively from the previous definition, which emphasized word recognition, this step represented a shift in state reading policy. The State Department of Education (SDE) formed a Curriculum Review Committee (CRC) of innovative practitioners, sponsored conferences to help educators learn the concepts behind the new definition of reading and strategies for practice, and designed materials for staff developers to use locally. Next, the SDE revised the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) to better align test items with the new definition of reading. The revised MEAP was administered in 1989 with the intention of "driving instruction," that is, as an inducement for teachers to change their practice in order to improve the test scores of their students. Central Office Administrators Interpret Policy Several policy analysts and researchers involved in the Educational Policy and Practice Study (EPPS), a longitudinal study of Michigan reading policy, followed its implementation at the local level. Spillane (1994, 1998) described how the state reading policy influenced the reading curriculum in two central Michigan school districts, one urban, one suburban, and conversely, how the central office and school level administrators' responses to the policy shaped the policy itself. District office administrators in the suburban district revised curriculum guides, criteria for new textbooks, and report cards so that they were aligned with new state policy and allocated considerable resources for teacher development. In addition to promoting many of the main strategies of the reform, the district office included ideas, such as developmental education, that were not part of the state policy but important to central office staff, who were very involved with the Michigan Reading Association and National Association for Educators of Young Children. When later staff development was taken over by central office staff not originally involved, however, the focus of the training was much more narrow, reflecting the professional affiliations of this administrator with the Effective Schools Movement. Schools also responded differently, depending on the beliefs about reading instruction held by key staff. Where school administrators believed that decoding was as important as comprehension, the state reading policy was not supported to the same extent as in schools where administrators' beliefs were congruent with state policy. For example, it was clear that not all schools had banned basal readers and workbooks, as directed by central office. Instead, some combination of basal and literature was used in these schools because, in
< previous page
page_898
next page >
< previous page
page_899
next page > Page 899
the words of one principal, "literature books don't have that same kind of controlled vocabulary" needed to increase sight vocabulary (Spillane, 1998, p. 46). In the urban district, there was the same variable support for the state reading policy. Unlike the suburban district, however, administrative authority at the central office level here was segmented into the subunits of elementary, assessment, staff development, and Chapter 1, each with responsibilities that did not overlap. The only subunit that was cognizant of the new state reading policy was that of Chapter 1, the unit charged with oversight of reading teachers in the district. Chapter 1 administrators not only were aware of the state reading policy, but they felt it was consistent with their professional beliefs, affiliations, and experiences, as well as consistent with the 1988 reauthorization of Chapter 1, which was the source of funding for their program. Chapter 1 administrators fully supported the implementation of the state policy within the remedial reading program. The elementary division did not. They believed that the district-adopted basal reading program and the curriculum-referenced assessment that they used to monitor instruction were more suited to needs of an urban district than the instructional guidance offered by the state reading policy. The staff development subunit was primarily associated with the effective schools movement and geared the district's professional development toward that framework. The assessment division agreed with this view insofar as the two standardized tests administered by the District emphasized knowledge of discrete skills and comprehension of short passages over comprehension that was more interpretive. Even though the state MEAP test was aligned with the new definition of reading, the administrators overseeing the district assessment did not think that the MEAP provided them with valuable information. Not all school-level administrators, however, thought that the MEAP was irrelevant. Although most of the urban communities served by the district were not concerned about MEAP scores, one of the schools, located in a suburban community, was very concerned because the parents kept close track of the school's performance. Within this school, the administrators went out of their way to understand and implement the new state reading policy so that the students were prepared for the state test. Thus, neither the suburban nor urban districts responded in a "monolithic" way (Spillane, 1998). Individual beliefs, knowledge, and professional affiliations of the administrators were the most important variables in how they implemented Michigan's reading policy. Teachers Learn from Policy Jennings (1996) examined implementation during the early years of Michigan reform from the teacher's perspective as a learner. Jennings held that policy implementation had two facetsopportunities provided for teachers to learn about the policy, and what teachers actually learned from the opportunities presented. Based on interviews and classroom observations, Jennings constructed case studies of teacher learning, looking at where these teachers started in terms of their knowledge, beliefs and experiences, and what changed. She argued that, ultimately, policy implementation was "an incident of teaching and learning rather than a process by which ideas are filtered though the educational system and enacted by practitioners" (p. 109). Policy implementation was teaching within this view, and policymakers should do what good teachers do, and that was "provide multiple paths to get to the ideas" (p. 108). In another study, Spillane and Jennings (1997) argued that tasks and discourse of instruction must changenot just materials and activitiesin order to implement ambitious reading pedagogy. They defined task as the "questions and exercises students engage with" and discourse as the interaction between teacher and students around task (p. 460). As evidence for their view, the researchers closely analyzed the reading
< previous page
page_899
next page >
< previous page
page_900
next page > Page 900
and writing instruction of a number of Michigan teachers. The district itself had developed coherent policy that aligned materials, curriculum and assessment. All teachers used literature to teach reading (no basal textbook or practice workbook was allowed); all teachers had students read and discuss novels or nonfiction. There was little variation in the materials or activities across teachers, yet the researchers found great variation in the opportunities to learn that these teachers offered students. Consider, for example, the following description of interaction in a fifth-grade reading lesson: Mrs. Camps' students were reading a biography of Paul Revere as their reading text. The class had been studying the Revolutionary War and Camps chose this book to connect reading and social studies. . . . Camps asked students another question on the study sheet she had given them, whether Paul Revere wanted to be put on trial for cowardliness or not. One boy argued that he would have wanted to so that he could clear his name. This discussion went on for a long time and students vehemently argued their positions. No students, though, used the text to support their arguments. After quite a long time, a girlShirleysaid that she thought the question asked if Revere wanted to be put on a trail and she said no because the British would have followed him too easily. Camps responded, "Now that's very interesting. That's one possible answer." When the girl asked if she was correct, Ms. Camps responded that she was because "that's how you interpreted the question." (pp. 465466) As this vignette illustrates, coherent policy environment was not enough to improve Mrs. Camp's instruction. Top-down reading policy usually does not help teachers to learn how to do ithow to get from policy to practice. External efforts to improve instruction, like aligned curriculum, materials, and assessment, rarely can make a difference because they rarely get to the core of teaching and learning (Cohen & Ball, 1997; Elmore, 1996). As Cohen and Ball argued, capacity to improve instruction resides in the "interactions among teachers and students around educational material" (p. 3), which comprise the tasks and discourse of the Spillane and Jennings work. Thus, beyond developing consistent reading policy, policymakers must find ways for policy to educate, not simply put policies into practice. Teachers need opportunities to learn from policy. But what they take from these opportunities depends also on what they bring to policytheir own knowledge and beliefs. The research on policy implementation in Michigan may help inform our understanding of the failure of California reading policy to promote ambitious pedagogy and curriculum. The California Story: Reading Policy Gone Awry? Throughout the 1980s, California was out in front of educational reforms, leading the way with content-driven, systemic state education policy (Carlos & Kirst, 1997). Over a decade or so, California enacted a series of policies designed to change teaching and learning in California. The Senate in 1983 required the State Department of Education (SDE) to develop model curriculum standards, established regional centers at universities to help teachers put the new standards into practice, established the California School Leadership Academy for administrators, and initiated changes in California's state assessment system from a focus on facts to a focus on application of knowledge (Chrispeels, 1997). In 1987 California adopted the English Language Arts Framework, which, consistent with the reform agenda of the time, emphasized the personal meaning-making function of literacy and literature-based instruction in reading. To help build teacher capacity, the California Literature Project and other subjectmatter projects were founded and housed on university campuses for summer professional development for teachers with school-year follow-up. These professional development
< previous page
page_900
next page >
< previous page
page_901
next page > Page 901
activities emphasized "whole-language" or constructivist approaches described in the English Language Arts Framework. A long-time observer of professional development in California, Chrispeels (1997) longitudinally analyzed two dimensions of policymaking activity in California: 10 years of policy and policy implementation including mandates, inducements, capacitybuilding policy and hortatory policy developed by legislators, curriculum and instruction experts, and local and state leaders, and 3 years of local implementation by hundreds of participants in San Diego County. Within this analysis, policy inducements, such as textbook adoption, helped create a coherent, interrelated network of policies. Textbook adoption criteria were aligned with the frameworks, inducing schools to select from the state approved list in order to receive state funding for textbook purchase. In 1989, the Senate passed the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS), an assessment and accountability system to be aligned with the curriculum frameworks. The involvement of teachers in the piloting and scoring of CLAS, the involvement with the Literature Project, and local school improvement programs helped build local capacity and high levels of teacher satisfaction with the frameworks. Teachers in San Diego Unified, for example, responded in the K8 English Language Arts Evaluation Report that they routinely used "literature-based curriculum, variation in grouping, and open-ended questioning" and "endorsed the philosophy of integrating language arts through core literature and teaching vocabulary and writing in context" (Finley, Forest, Ferrer, & Dozier, 1994, in Chrispeels, 1997, p. 463). Even after CLAS had been eliminated, 87% of the district's K8 teachers said that they had incorporated CLAS-like instruction and assessment into their classroom program (Finley et al., 1994, in Chrispeels, 1997), demonstrating, Chrispeels suggested, that local educators could sustain the direction of the state language arts policy even without state leadership. After state politicians shifted against CLAS, local educators continued to implement alternative assessments, Chrispeels argued, because they had developed the capacity to do so. State policy adopted over the course of 10 years constituted a coherent policy system in literacy with a variety of policy instruments. As local educators interpreted and implemented the policies, they were themselves constructing their own policies and capacity to sustain them. As is known from the CPRE and EPPS studies of reading policy implementation in Michigan (Spillane & Jennings, 1997; Elmore et al., 1996), however, the policies teachers construct may bear little resemblance to those of intended by the state. Cohen and Ball (1997) suggested that the new California state curriculum frameworks reform were enacted in an isolated and typically superficial way. Only a minority of teachers in California had the opportunity, like teachers in Chrispeels's San Diego study, to coordinate professional development with curriculum and assessment, and curriculum and assessment with teaching and learning. At least in math, teachers who did so had students with higher math achievement test scores. So, outside of teachers who participated in professional development (like that described by Chrispeels, 1997), few teachers had opportunities to deepen their knowledge of subject matter or work with the new materials or learn more about student response and capability (Cohen & Ball, 1997). By 1995, new reading "policy texts" emerged in California, using the same variety of policy instruments to induce change in reading instruction, but in a different direction (Chrispeels, 1997; Carlos & Kirst, 1997). When NAEP results revealed that California children were last in the nation in reading achievement in 1992, and then again in 1994, the English Language Arts Framework, in particular, and "whole language" in general were blamed. According to NAEP, 87% of the teachers in California indicated that they had used the new approaches. California's newly developed state assess-
< previous page
page_901
next page >
< previous page
page_902
next page > Page 902
ment, CLAS, supposedly aligned with the new curriculum frameworks, showed a similarly dismal performance in reading in 1994. In the view of some observers of California's education policy, systemic curriculum reform had indeed changed reading instruction, but the reform itself was flawed (Carlos & Kirst, 1997). The chronic low test scores and accompanying media attention prompted an inquiry by state officials that led to the dismantling of California's state reading policy and the initiation of another. Policy analysts Carlos and Kirst (1997) provided the following detailed story of California's shifting reading policy in the 1990s. After the media attention following the release of the 1994 NAEP scores, the California legislature, with the Governor's support, passed sweeping legislation "aimed at literacy and basic instruction, unprecedented in the history of the state" (p. 9), called ABC bills because of their intent to restore traditional instruction in reading and the last names of their sponsors (Assemblymen Apert, Burton, & Conroy). Assembly Bill 170 required that instructional materials be based on the "fundamental skills" including "systematic, explicit phonics, spelling'' (p. 13), whereas Assembly Bill 1504 required that the materials be "reflective of current and confirmed research" (p. 14). During the following legislative session, after 8 hours of public hearings on reading pedagogy and practice, in which the professional literacy associations squared off with advocates of NICHD research on the importance of "phonics," the Assembly passed three bills (Assembly Bills 3482, 3075, and 1178) to authorize K3 instructional materials and teacher training to implement the revised state reading policy. In the aftermath of the NAEP reading scores, the head of NICHD, who had been floating that research program for years, suddenly had an audience. In addition, research on the importance of the phonological component of learning to read had been steadily accumulating (Adams, 1990; Juel, 1994; Share & Stanovich, 1995), and these studies were getting finally getting the attention of policymakers and the media. During that same session, the Senate passed legislation to support class size reduction in Grades K3 from 30 students to 20 in service of reading improvement and authorized the use of Goals 2000 funds to educate teachers in the basic reading and phonics instruction proposed by the state. In contrast to previous lean times of state support for education, substantive resources were allocated to reduce class size, train teachers, and improve reading practice. Also in 1995, the legislature established the Commission for the Establishment of Academic Content and Performance Standards, an advisory board appointed by the governor and legislature (and including the state superintendent), to oversee the development of new curriculum standards and an aligned assessment. In 1998 the state adopted the new Reading/Language Arts Curriculum Frameworks, a document that explicitly lays out what students are expected to know and be able to do grade by grade. The Framework, unlike the broad approach taken in the 1987 Framework, which expected teachers to be able to fill in the details, is more similar to the California Department of Education (CDE) documents of the 1970s and 1980s in both form and content. The California Reading Association (CRA) criticized the document for presenting reading as a "series of hierarchical tasks with an emphasis on one focused delivery system. . . . [I]t reflects strong bias toward direct instruction . . . and decoding as the exclusive means by which students are taught . . . Little emphasis is placed on reading aloud, partner reading, independent silent reading . . . shared and guided reading" (Schulz, 1998, p. 2). The International Reading Association sharply denounced the framework for "imposing a deficit or special education model on every student in California" (Board of Directors, IRA, 1998, p. 3). In the aftermath of the state reading policy shift, Carlos and Krist noted that the CDE lost ground in the conflict over reading policy, having been criticized for putting into place policies that were "experimental" and without a basis in research. Of course,
< previous page
page_902
next page >
< previous page
page_903
next page > Page 903
the research to which the analysts referred is that of the NICHD. Recently, policy analysts at the National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA) noted that much of the research conducted under the auspices of NICHD is not adequate to support the reading policy recommendations by the director (Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998). Policy analysts hold that the 1990s intervention by the legislature into curriculum policy represented a break from the past. Topdown curriculum policy by elected officials, as in the reform of reading instruction, was unusual in the history of California's schools. Carlos and Krist attributed much of the responsibility for the policy shift in reading, and activity by the legislature, to the press, particularly the education reporter for the Los Angeles Times, who widely reported on declining test scores and the activities of parent coalitions that objected to what they called "outrageous" state policy. Not only has the California legislature transformed state reading curriculum in California from a constructivist perspective to an emphasis on traditional teaching and basic curriculum, but by mid 1996, 18 so-called "phonics" bills had been introduced into 11 other state legislatures (Paterson, 1998). These bills mandated a type of "back to the basics" methodology that their sponsors claim is backed by researchthe NICHD research program. Current Issues: Early Literacy on the Policy Agenda How it happened is the subject of some discussion (see Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998; Elliot, 1996; Hart, 1996; Smith, Levin, & Cianci, 1997; Taylor, 1998). The literature on agenda setting (Kingdon, 1984; McGill-Franzen, 1993) suggests that for issues to reach the "decision" stage (i.e., when the government takes action on them), several things have to happen. The issue needs to be defined as a problem that government should address and labeled in a way that the public will support. Researchers often "soften up" the policy process by floating their ideas long before the issue is perceived as a problem, so that policymakers are more likely receptive to their solutions. Policy action depends on the convergence of a feasible solution to a pressing problem and the right political climate, creating an open window for an issue whose "time has come." Clearly, the perceived crisis in California, precipitated by the low NAEP test scores, created the sense of a pressing literacy problem that needed the attention of government. The NICHD research program had been around for years (Sweet, 1997), as had the research on phonemic awareness. Once the window opened for potential solutions to California's literacy crisis, the policy entrepreneursadvocates, researchers, publishers, bureaucrats, so onwere ready. Bitter debate continues over whether the state curriculum frameworks caused the decline in reading test scores as well as over whether the reading achievement of California youngsters did in fact decline (see, for example, The Literacy Crisis: False Claims, Real Solutions, McQuillan, 1998). The policy shift in California was transformed into a national policy debate on how to teach children to read, what proportion of the school population cannot read (and how is this defined), and what is research. On the President's Agenda: NAEP Scores President Clinton himself kept literacy an important policy issue in his 1996 campaign. As Clinton and other policymakers have pointed out, 40% of American fourth graders scored below the "basic" level on the 1994 NAEP. Clinton's goalfrom the bully pulpitis that all fourth-grade children be able to read at the basic level, and, to this end, he established the volunteer tutoring program America Reads. In 1997, with Republi-
< previous page
page_903
next page >
< previous page
page_904
next page > Page 904
can control of Congress, Clinton made America Reads the centerpiece of his education program and one of the first examples of policymaking through a public campaign to develop awareness and mobilize support (Smith et al., 1997). As most policymakers know, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) developed a new framework for assessing reading, beginning in 1992. Instead of strictly multiple-choice items, NAEP changed its format to keep in step with the move toward more ambitious teaching and learning. The 1992 NAEP reading test included the dimension of reader's purpose (reading for literary response, information, to perform a task) as well as the dimension measuring depth of understanding, using authentic texts and extended responses (initial understanding, interpretation, personal reflection, and critical stance) (Elliot, 1996). To say that 40% of children read below a basic level on the NAEP is not to say that they can not read in absolute terms but, rather, that they may not be able to read well enough to participate fully in the technological society of tomorrow (National Research Council, 1998). Research-Based Reading Pedagogy: What Counts as Research? What Counts as Reading? Not only did the polemic surrounding beginning reading take over the education profession in California, but nationally as well (Taylor, 1998). The apparent lack of consensus on research-based reading curriculum and pedagogy prompted the U.S. Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to ask the National Academy of Science to establish a committee to determine how reading difficulties can be prevented. The purpose of this committee was to synthesize the empirical research base on early literacy and present recommendations in an format accessible to parents, educators, publishers, and policymakers. The National Research Council (NRC) circulated a (prepublication) copy of the report (Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children) in 1998 that confirmed that reading ability is "determined by many factors": Many factors that correlate with reading fail to explain it; many experiences contribute to reading development without being prerequisite to it; and although there are many prerequisites, none by itself is considered sufficient. (p. 3) The report identified reading for meaning and comprehension strategies as being essential to reading development, as well as understanding the nature of the alphabetic system, spellingsound relationships, and the "structure" of spoken words. Further, the report claimed that all children experiencing difficultyeven children with learning disabilitiesneed the same high-quality instruction but more intensive support (p. 3). In addition, the report recognized preschool education as an untapped resource for the development of literacy. The Joint Policy Statement of the IRA and National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) issued in 1998, affirmed the commitment of these professional organizations to educate early childhood teachers about their responsibility to promote literacy development. In order to build on the findings by the NRC, Congress requested that NICHD establish a National Reading Panel, in consultation with the Secretary of Education. The National Reading Panel is to review the research literature, including the effectiveness of different approaches to teaching children to read; to determine whether there can be classroom application of these findings; to develop a strategy for disseminating the findings; and to identify gaps in the research on reading instruction. In early 1998, both the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives considered a literacy bill that narrowly defined the research base for teacher development and provided for limited use of vouchers for reading tutors. The Reading Excellence Act (REA), sponsored by Rep. Goodling, Chair of the House Education and Workforce
< previous page
page_904
next page >
< previous page
page_905
next page > Page 905
Committee, passed the House but died a week before its self-imposed deadline as the Senate declined to act on it and recessed without approving a compromise bill (Sack, 1998). The $210 million (and perhaps an additional $260 million from Clinton's 1999 request for literacy) that was allocated to support reading initiatives under the literacy bill then reverted to special education state grants, a goal that some Republicans in Congress had all alongto find some money for this underfunded mandate. Some policy observers embraced the REA and others opposed it. For example, Carnine and Meeder (1997), of the National Center for Improving the Tools of Educators argued in the media that the REA was exactly what teachers needed to get back on track. On the other hand, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) adamantly opposed the bill and worked to defeat its passage (Sack, 1998). What the NCTE opposedcontrol of reading pedagogythe proponents of the bill applauded, believing that NICHD research program had "proven" that direct instruction was the appropriate methodology. As Cohen and Barnes (1993) pointed out, education policy is most often didactic itself but not often educative. Ultimately, in the fall of 1998, Congress passed a revised Reading Excellence Act (REA), hailed by the Education Secretary as "the most significant law on child literacy passed by Congress in more than 30 years" (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, p. 1). By mid-1999, Congress had awarded more than $230 million to 17 states to support professional development for teachers, transition programs for kindergartners, family literacy and tutoring for struggling learners. The International Reading Association (IRA), representing more than 300,000 reading professionals, responded positively to aspects of the new version (1998). The IRA was pleased with the national emphasis on literacy instruction. Nonetheless, the IRA felt that the total allocation of funds was not enough to make a difference at the local level. Furthermore, the association expressed concern with the grant approval process, noting that it could diminish local control of education. IRA stated that the approval process was cumbersome, too dependent on government agencies, and vulnerable to voucher proposals. Summary and Conclusions Over the brief history of education policy that I have presented here, it is clear that problems were framed in different ways at different points in time. For example, Title 1 was originally framed as issue of insufficient resources, to an issue of regulation and compliance, and finally, it has been transformed into an issue of teaching and learning. The knowledge required of teachers today is complex, encompassing not only subject matter knowledge or curriculum expertise, but knowledge of children's development and the interactional competence to support children's learning and emerging control of their own literacy. But can policy facilitate this learning? Instructional capacity, as Cohen and Ball (1997) reminded us, is the interaction of teachers with students around educational materials, and policy rarely targets all three components. What teachers do with curriculum, of course, influences what students learn, and teachers' knowledge of both content and development shapes the discourse of instruction. However, as implementation research in Michigan and California illustrated, educational policy does not tell teachers how to translate standards or assessments into instruction, often leading to superficial enactments of the intended policy (Cohen & Ball, 1997; Spillane & Jennings, 1997; see also Bridge, 1994, Miller, 1995, Miller, Hayes, & Atkinson, 1997, and Winograd, Petrosko, Compton-Hall, & Cantrell, 1997, for implementation research in other states). It does not help that state reading policy shifts, as in California, created unstable contexts for teaching and learning and contributed to teacher cynicism about reform efforts (Cohen & Ball, 1997). Nonetheless, media attention to low performance on NAEP, the perception of rapidly increasing numbers of children with reading difficul-
< previous page
page_905
next page >
< previous page
page_906
next page > Page 906
ties, increased costs associated with their education, and the NICHD research agenda have made literacy a national priority. The recent National Research Council (NRC) report on preventing reading difficulties, as well as the small research on implementation and instruction, emphasized substantive teacher development in the core technology of teaching and learning. As a California educator told a CELA researcher, "Teachers are independent and you cannot tell them how to think and feel. . . . Because if you don't believe in a program whatever it happens to be, I can tell you whatever I want [but] it's not going to happen. Because when you go in that classroom and you close that door, you're going to teach what you feel and believe is right and what you feel and believe you can do" (McGill-Franzen, Machado, Jiron, & Veltema, 1998). To paraphrase policy analyst McLaughlin (1992), teaching may be too complicated, too embedded in context, and too tied to individual beliefs and knowledge for policy to have a predictable and consistent effect. That is not to say that policy has no effect, because it does, but it does so as one of myriad influences that make up the context of teaching and learning (p. 381). References Adams. M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning abut print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989a). Different programs, indifferent instruction. In A. Gartner & D. Lipsky (Eds.), Beyond separate education: Quality education for all (pp. 7598). Baltimore, MD: Brookes. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1989b). School response to reading failure: Chapter 1 and special education students in grades 2, 4, & 8. Elementary School Journal, 89, 529542. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York State. Educational Policy, 6, 396413. Allington, R., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1998). 30 Years of research . . . : When is a research summary not a research summary? In K. Goodman (Eds.), In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about the reading wars. (pp. 143157). York, ME: Stenhouse. Birman, B. F. (1981). Problems of overlap between Title I and P. L. 94-142: Implications for the federal role in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Development, 3, 519. Board of Directors, International Reading Association. (1998). International Reading Association's Response to CA Reading/Language Arts Curriculum Framework. [Online]. www.reading.org bridge, C. (1994). Implementing large-scale change in literacy instruction. In C. K. Kinzer and D. J. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 257265). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Carlos, L., & Kirst, M. (1997). California curriculum policy in the 1990's: "We don't have to be in front to lead." San Francisco: WestEd/PACE. Carnine, D., & Meeder, H. (1997, September). Reading research into practice. Education Week, pp. 41, 43. Chambers, J. G., Parrish, T. B., Lieberman, J. C., & Wolman, J. M. (1998). What are we spending on special education in the U.S.? (8) Palo Alto, CA: Center for Special Education Finance. Chrispeels, J. H. (1997). Educational policy implementation in a shifting political climate: The California experience. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 453481. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1997). Instruction, capacity and improvement. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. McLaughlin & J. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 207240). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cohen, D. K. & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In G. Grant (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (pp. 349). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: "The power of the bottom over the top." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 233241. Elliott, E. J. (1996). Literacy: From policy to practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 590595. Elmore, R. (1983). Complexity and control: What legislators and administrators can do about implementing policy. In L. S. Shulman & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of Teaching and Policy. New York: Longman. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 126.
< previous page
page_906
next page >
< previous page
page_907
next page > Page 907
Elmore, R. F., Peterson, P. L., & McCarthy, S. J. (1996). Restructuring in the classroom: Teaching, learning, and school organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Grissmer, D., Kirby, S. N., Berends, M., & Williamson, S. (1994). Student achievement and the changing American family. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Institute on Education and Training. Greene, R. (1998, August 25). States use more standardized tests. AOL News [Online]. Available: www.aol.com. Hart, G. K. (1996). A policymaker's response. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 596601. International Reading Association. International Reading Association responds to the Reading Excellence Act at www.reading.org, October 1998. Jenkins, J., Pious, C., & Peterson, D. (1988). Categorical programs for remedial and handicapped students: Issues of validity. Exceptional Children, 55, 147158. Jennings, N. E. (1996). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Juel, C. (1994). Learning to read and write in one elementary school. New York: Springer-Verlag. Kennedy, M., Birman, B., & Demaline, R. (1986). The effectiveness of chapter 1 services. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown. Kirst, M. W. (1990). Accountability: Implications for state and local policy makers. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Lyon, G. R. (1995). Research initiatives in learning disabilities: Contributions from scientists supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Journal of Child Neurology, 10, 120126. Lyon, G. R. (1996). Learning disabilities. Futures of Children, 6, 5476. Lyon, G. R. (1997). Statement of G. Reid Lyon, Ph.D before the Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health. McGill-Franzen, A. (1987). Failure to learn to read: Formulating a policy problem. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 475490. McGill-Franzen, A. (1993). Shaping the preschool agenda: Early literacy, public policy and professional beliefs. Albany: State University of New York Press. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1991). The gridlock of low-achievement: Perspectives on policy and practice. Remedial and Special Education, 12, 2030. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1993). Flunk'em or get them classified: The contamination of primary grade accountability data. Educational Researcher, 22, 1922. McGill-Franzen, A., Woodside-Jiron, H., Machado, V., & Veltema, J. (1998, December). A study of state education policymaking and implementation in English language arts curriculum and assessment in four states. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Educational policy, impact on practice. In M. Aiken (Ed.), American Educational Research Association encyclopedia of educational research (pp. 375382). New York: Macmillan. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Teaching. McQuillan, J. (1998). The literacy crisis: False claims, real solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Michigan State Board of Education. (1985). Michigan essential goals and objectives for reading education. Lansing, MI: Author. Miller, S. D. (1995). Teachers' responses to test-driven accountability: "If I change, will my scores drop?" Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 332351. Miller, S. D., Hayes, C. T., & Atkinson, T. S. (1997). State efforts to improve students' reading and language arts achievement: Does the left hand know what the right is doing? Reading Instruction, 36, 267286. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Governors' Association. (1986). Time for results. Washington, DC: National Governors' Association. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy. Paterson, F. R. A. (1998). Mandating methodology: Promoting the use of phonics through state statute. In K. Goodman (Ed.), In defense of good teaching: What teachers need to know about the "reading wars" (pp. 107125). York, ME: Stenhouse. Puma, M. J., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuti, A., Thompson, W., & Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997). Prospects: Final report on student outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Services. Purkey, S. & Smith, M. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary School Journal, 83, 427454.
Rothstein, R., & Miles, K. H. (1995). Where's the money gone? Changes in the level and composition of education spending. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Rowan, B. & Guthrie, L. F. (1989). The quality of chapter 1 instruction: Results from a study of twenty-four schools. In R. E. Slavin, N. Karweit, & N. Madden (Eds.), Effective Programs for Students at Risk (pp. 195219). Boston: Allyn-Bacon. Sack, J. L. (1998, August 21). Time runs out for literacy legislation. AOL News [Online]. Available: www.aol.com.
< previous page
page_907
next page >
< previous page
page_908
next page > Page 908
Scanlon, D. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities: Research and Review, 2, 5463. Schulz, A. R. (1998). California Reading Association response to CA Reading/Language Arts Curriculum Framework [Online]. www.californiareads.org Share, D., & Stanovich, K. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions from Cognitive Psychology, 1, 157. Smith, M. S., Levin, J., & Cianci, J. E. (1997). Beyond a legislative agenda: Education policy approaches of the Clinton administration. Educational Policy, 11, 209226. Smylie, M. A., Lazarus, V., & Brownlee-Conyers, J. (1996). Instructional outcomes of school-based participative decisionmaking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 181198. Spear-Swerling, L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1996). Off track: When poor readers become "learning disabled." Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Spillane, J. P. (1994). How districts mediate between state policy and teachers' practice. In R. Elmore & S. H. Fuhrman (Eds.), The governance of curriculum (pp. 167185). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and Professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 3364. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449481. Sweet, R. W. (1997). Don't read, don't tell: Clinton's phony war on illiteracy. Policy Review, 3842. Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science: The political campaign to change America's mind about how children learn to read. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Timar, T. (1994). Federal education policy and practice: Building organizational capacity through Chapter 1. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 16, 5166. U.S. Department of Education. (1984, May). The nation responds: Recent efforts to improve education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Education. (1993). Reinventing Chapter 1: The current Chapter 1 program and new directions. Washington, DC: Office of Policy and Planning. U.S. Department of Education. Riley announces $231.8 million in grants to states to improve children's reading at www.ed.gov, October 1998. Vinovskis, M. A. (1996). An analysis of the concept and uses of systemic educational reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 5385. Wang, M. C. (1997). Improving our capacity for achieving student success: Recommendations from a national invitational conference on the Title 1 program. Philadelphia PA: National Center on Education in the Inner Cities. Winograd, P., Petrosko, J., Compton-Hall, M. & Cantrell, S.C. (1997). The effects of KERA on Kentucky's elementary schools: Year one of a proposed five-year study. University of Kentucky/University of Louisville Joint Center for the Study of Education Policy. Kentucky Institute for Education Research.
< previous page
page_908
next page >
< previous page
page_909
next page > Page 909
Chapter 47 Policy-Oriented Research on Literacy Standards and Assessment Sheila W. Valencia University of Washington Karen K. Wixson University of Michigan This is the first edition of the Handbook of Reading Research to include policy chapters. During the 1980s and 1990s, instruments of policy reached into every facet of our educational lives. The "tools" of policy include everything from new content standards or instructional frameworks to teacher certification requirements, systems of assessment, Title I allocations and requirements, and textbook adoption guidelines. This chapter is focused on a discussion of policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment, as other literacy policy matters are addressed elsewhere in this Handbook. How policy instruments such as standards and assessments have risen to such high levels of prominence in subject matter learning is part of the story we must tell in this chapter. Historically, state policymakers have delegated their authority over public education to local school districts, particularly in matters of curriculum and instruction. Districts, in turn, have entrusted the curriculum to teachers or indirectly to textbook publishers, and have done little to develop or provide instructional guidance (Massell, Kirst, & Hoppe, 1997). Since the publication of the now-famous report A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), however, states and districts have made unprecedented forays into curriculum and instruction (Massell et al., 1997). This modern reform movement has been characterized by efforts to create new "policy instruments" to elicit, encourage, or demand changes in teaching and learning and reduce the tangles of regulation, bureaucracy, proliferating policy, and incoherent governance that would impede reform (Smith & O'Day, 1991). Included among the new policy instruments are the standards and assessments that are the subject of the research we examine in this review. As we considered what literature to include in this review, we were conscious of how current reform efforts have resulted in an increased interest in policy research. For
< previous page
page_909
next page >
< previous page
page_910
next page > Page 910
example, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) funded the Consortium for Policy Research in Education in 1985 and the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy in 1998, and the American Educational Research Association established Division L on politics and policymaking in 1997. In addition to the growing number of policy researchers, researchers in the area of measurement and evaluation have also become interested in policy because many reform initiatives have focused on assessment as a primary vehicle for improving student achievement. Similarly, the many reform efforts aimed at improving the literacy levels of young Americans have led literacy researchers to become more interested in research on policy-related issues. The realization that policy-oriented research is being conducted from a variety of perspectives led us to approach this review on two levels. On one level, we characterize the nature of policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessments. On another level, we review what research tells us about the impact of literacy standards and assessment on practice and student learning. To characterize the nature of literacy policy research, we examine the literature on standards and assessment in relation to the policy, measurement, and literacy contexts from which it arises. As a result, we review three fairly distinct sets of literature. Policy researchers set out to address policy issues head-on, but are less concerned with subject matter specifics. Measurement researchers are also more concerned with general findings than with subject-matter specifics; however, they tend to focus on the qualities and influence of assessment policy tools rather than on policy questions per se. Similarly, literacy researchers rarely take the policy questions or issues as the driving force for their work; they are primarily interested in subject matter teaching and learning. Differences in perspective result in differences in research questions, conceptual frameworks, methodologies, perspectives on literacy, and audiences for publications, which, in turn, result in differences in what is learned about literacy standards and assessment. To present these different perspectives and findings clearly, this chapter is organized into four sections. The first three sections present our review of the policy-oriented literature related to literacy standards and assessment in terms of the three research perspectivespolicy, measurement, and literacy. Each of these sections has two partsa brief background related to the context in which research from each perspective has arisen, and a review of the literacy policy research within each perspective. The fourth section focuses on what we have learned from these bodies of research with regard to the nature of the research and the results of policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessment. The Policy Perspective Following the publication of A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), two "waves" of school reform emerged (Lusi, 1997). The first wave consisted of state efforts to accomplish three goals: (a) raise coursework standards for high school graduation, (b) implement and/or expand assessment programs, and (c) raise standards for prospective teachers (Goertz, Floden, & O'Day, 1995). The second wave of reform came in the form of school restructuring, and combined three complementary elements: (a) a call for higher and common expectations for all students, (b) an emphasis on new and more challenging teaching practices, and (c) dramatic changes in the organization and management of public schools (Elmore, 1990). These initial waves of reform in the 1980s did little to change the content of instruction, especially with their focus on basic skills; nor did they result in the desired changes in teaching, learning, and student achievement (Cuban, 1990; Firestone, Fuhrman, & Kirst, 1989). Fragmented and contradictory policies diverted teachers' attention, provided little or no support for the type of professional learning necessary,
< previous page
page_910
next page >
< previous page
page_911
next page > Page 911
and made it difficult to sustain the very promising reforms taking shape in individual schools or clusters of schools (Cohen & Spillane, 1992; Goertz et al., 1995). Growing concerns about the educational preparation of the nation's youth prompted President Bush and the nation's governors to call an education summit in Charlottesville, VA, in September 1989. This summit resulted in six broad goals for education to be reached by the year 2000 (National Education Goals Panel, 1991). In pursuit of the National Education Goals, the bipartisan National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST) issued a report in January 1992, recommending national content standards and a national system of assessments based on the new standards. Precedent for and guidance in developing national standards was to be found in the work of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), published as Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics in 1989. The logic was that once broad agreement had been achieved on what is to be taught and learned, then everything else in the system including tests, professional development, textbooks, software, and so on could be redirected toward reaching those standards. This view has come to be known as systemic reform. Systemic reform has, as its aim, changes in teaching as the most direct route to changes in students' learning (Cohen, 1995), and it is posited as a means of providing top-down support for bottom-up instructional improvement in classrooms, schools, and districts. The key question for reformers has been how to get therehow to foster (or mandate) changes in learning and teaching. Many systemic reformers have viewed government as their chief vehicle, although state and federal policies are not the only ways to pursue improved instruction, as demonstrated by efforts such as the Coalition for Essential Schools, the Accelerated Schools Network, and the New Standards Project, which operate largely outside the framework of governmental policy, although still with substantial resources. Systemic reformers have generally focused on creating new policy instruments such as content standards or curricular frameworks, assessments that are aligned with new content standards and changes in both preservice and inservice teacher education (Cohen, 1995). According to McLaughlin (1987), policy research into the late 1980s generated a number of important lessons for policy, practice, and analysis by acknowledging the role of contextual factors such as local priorities, individual beliefs and motivation, and the balance between support and pressure to change. Furthermore, she saw these lessons as framing the conceptual and instrumental challenge for the next generation of policy analysts: one that described a model of implementation that highlighted individuals rather than institutions and viewed implementation issues in terms of individual actors' incentives, beliefs, and capacity. Darling-Hammond (1990) added that top-down policies could "constrain but not construct" change. She focused on policy enactment, arguing that local leadership and motivations for change are critical to policy success; that local agencies must adapt policies rather than adopting them, because local ideas and circumstances always vary; and "that teachers' and administrators' opportunities for continual learning, experimentation, and decision making during implementation determine whether policies will come alive in schools or fade away when the money or enforcement pressures end" (p. 235). At a deeper level, though, Darling-Hammond (1990) argued that we knew little yet about the meaning of specific policies for educational life within classrooms. She indicated that advances in policy analysis during the 1980s made it possible to ask a number of new questions. For example, What differences do such advances actually make to teachers' and student's work together? How do teachers understand and interpret the intentions of new policies in the context of their knowledge, beliefs, and teaching circumstances? How and under what circumstances do policies intended to change teaching actually do so? These observations were presented in Darling-Hammond's introduction to a special issue of Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) fo-
< previous page
page_911
next page >
< previous page
page_912
next page > Page 912
cused on case studies of California reform in K12 mathematics education. These case studies were seen as leading the way toward a next generation of policy analysis that recognized ''the importance of understanding the transformation of policy into teacher actions from the vantage point of the teachers, themselves, as well as from that of the policy system" (p. 175). Our review of the policy research in the 1990s revealed relatively few studies that clearly addressed literacy standards and assessment. Of those that did, there were two types. First, there were large-scale investigations of state reform efforts that began to link macro and micro levels of analysis using classroom artifacts such as lesson assignments and interviews with teachers and administrators to get at the classroom perspective. Second, there were investigations, often case studies, that explored more deeply the impact of policy instruments on teachers, schools, and districts. In limiting our review to policy research related to literacy standards and assessments, we saw increased efforts to examine policy initiatives with what Darling-Hammond called a "pedagogical eye," but little attention to the role that different subject areas might play in implementation, although this too may be changing (see Ball & Cohen, 1995). Research A study by Goertz et al. (1995) provides an example of how large-scale policy research projects in the 1990s began to link macro and micro levels of analysis. The stated purposes for this study included expanding our knowledge of state approaches to education reform, examining district, school, and teacher responses to state reform policies in a small number of reforming schools and districts, and studying the capacity of the educational system to support education reform. The findings are based on case studies of 12 reforming schools located in six reforming school districts in three states that have taken somewhat different approaches to systemic reformCalifornia, Michigan, and Vermont. The researchers interviewed educators, administrators and policymakers at the school, district, and state levels. They also surveyed and interviewed 60 teachers in each school. Because it was too early in the reform movement to assess the impact of any particular state, district, and/or school strategy, this study was intended more as a description of what was happening than "what works." It is noteworthy that not until half-way through the seven-page Executive Summary did Goertz et al. mention that this research focused on reform in mathematics and language arts. Because we are concerned here with literacy-related policy research, we summarize only the section of the report that focuses specifically on language arts policy. From a policy researchers' perspective, however, we should remember that this report is not about mathematics or language arts reform. Rather, it is about systemic reform, and the attention given to mathematics and language arts merely provides some specificity to the findings. The portion of the report dealing directly with language arts examines the degree to which teachers' reports on their instruction were consistent with explicit or implicit curriculum recommendations in policies, such as curriculum frameworks and state assessments. For example, some of the aims of California's "meaning-centered" English-language arts reform were reflected in survey data on reading instruction. Elementary teachers reported that during reading instruction, their students spent 3 1/2 hours per week on comprehension strategies and responding to what they read. The least amount of time was spent on word recognition skills (30 minutes) and phonics (19 minutes). The California English Language Arts Framework (California Department of Education, 1987) also emphasized a literature-based curriculum that "engaged students with the vitality of ideas and values greater than those of the marketplace or video arcade" (p. 7). Elementary teachers indicated that 80% of instructional time was
< previous page
page_912
next page >
< previous page
page_913
next page > Page 913
spent using literature trade books, with the remaining time distributed among reading or subject basals, workbooks or worksheets, or something else. As in California, Michigan teachers emphasized content matching the "meaning-centered" view of Michigan's Essential Goals and Objectives in Reading (Michigan State Board of Education, 1986). For example, both elementary and secondary teachers reported spending over 3 hours per week on comprehension strategies and having students respond to what they read, and barely over one-half hour per week on basic skills, such as phonics and word recognition. Both California and Michigan teachers reported spending roughly the same amount of time per week on reading instruction. However, California teachers spent over 4 1/2 hours per week with students engaged in small-group reading activities, such as working in pairs or teams and small-group discussion. In contrast, Michigan teachers spent less than 2 1/2 hours per week engaging in these kinds of activities. These differences in instructional practices reported by Michigan and California teachers are consistent with the emphasis given to dissimilar aspects of the language arts reform policies in the two states. Goertz et al. (1995) concluded that there is evidence of general patterns that incorporate new directions in both state and national reforms but also retain attention to more traditional topic areas. Teachers believed that they had been influenced by state policy instruments, such as assessments and curricular frameworks, but that these state influences were by no means the only influences on practice, or even the most important influences. Teachers reported that their own knowledge and beliefs about the subject matter and their students, for example, generally had a larger influence than state policies. Other examples of policy research that reflect initial efforts to link macro and micro levels of analysis include the work of McDonnell (McDonnell, 1997; McDonnell & Choisser, 1997), Smith and colleagues (Smith et al., 1997), and the Kentucky Institute for Education Research (Lindle, Petrosko, & Pankratz, 1997), all of whom studied state reforms that included a literacy component. For example, McDonnell and Choisser examined the extent to which policymakers' expectations about the curricular effects of testing in Kentucky and North Carolina proved valid in local schools and classrooms. Their analysis was based on telephone and on-site interviews with teachers and administrators, and examinations of assignments and daily logs gathered from 23 teachers in each state. They concluded that transforming instruction through assessment was not a self-implementing reform because the tests alone lacked sufficient guidance for how teachers ought to change. Smith et al. took a different methodological approach, conducting a 4-year, multimethod approach to study the effects of the now suspended Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP). They observed in classrooms and interviewed teachers and principals in four schools, and they used a survey approach to collect data from educators across the state. The results, reported as generalizations across subject areas, indicated that although educators knew about ASAP, their responses to it varied depending on how they understood it and how it fit with their underlying beliefs and the local conditions (material and knowledge resources, existing beliefs and ideologies about teaching, culture of accountability and authority). Smith et al. also concluded that having a dual focus on accountability and instructional improvement together with insufficient attention to capacity building resulted in marginal effects of the ASAP reform agenda. In contrast to the large-scale investigations represented by the Goertz et al., McDonnell, and Smith et al. studies, some policy researchers have conducted more in-depth studies of the impact of policy instruments on teachers, schools, and districts. For example, Standerford (1997) studied two small districts in Michigan from 1988 until 1991. Both districts formed reading curriculum committees in an effort to interpret the state reading policy and design an official district response. To understand what happened in these districts, Standerford observed both the curriculum committees
< previous page
page_913
next page >
< previous page
page_914
next page > Page 914
and the classroom practices of the teachers on these committees. Her results indicated that the district rules, objectives, players, audiences, and time frames made participation in the district effort quite separate from the state policy or from the classroom changes that individual teachers were making. Districts' responses to state reading reform were influenced by their need to reduce uncertainty, use standard operating procedures to effect change, advertise change by producing documents and plans, and respond selectively to policies based on the incentives attached. In contrast, the teachers made changes based on their individual professional development activities, but were often unsure just how those changes fit with the state policy. Standerford concluded that state and district policies had influenced the teachers' efforts by making them aware that changes were expected in reading instruction, but had not made clear for the teachers what those instructional changes were, nor offered much support for their efforts to figure that out for themselves. As teachers learned more about the new ideas, they gradually changed the enacted curriculum in their classrooms. Yet those instructional changes were minimally represented in the written curriculum that they produced as members of the district committees because their roles and objectives were defined differently at the district and classroom levels. In another series of studies, Spillane (1996, 1998), Spillane and Jennings (1997), and Jennings (1995) examined the impact of the reading policy in Michigan on both a racially and economically diverse urban district and a relatively affluent suburban district, as well as on a small group of teachers within the suburban district. Spillane's (1996) study revealed that state and local policies do not always support similar notions about instruction. The suburban district used the revision of the state reading test as a lever to move in another direction the central administrators, who preferred a basic skills curriculum. Within a short period of time, district administrators had developed a new curriculum guide for reading, adopted new curricular materials, revised their student assessment policies, and organized an extensive professional development program about reading that went beyond state policy. In contrast, the state's reading policy did not figure prominently in the reading program developed in the urban district. Curriculum guides supported traditional ideas about teaching reading such as encouraging teachers to teach isolated bits of vocabulary, decoding skills, and comprehension skills. A new basal reading program was mandated, accompanied by a traditional workbook that provided students with drill in reading skills, and central administrators made no effort to revise district policy on student assessment despite significant revisions of the state's reading test. When Spillane and Jennings (1997) looked more closely at nine second- and fifth-grade teachers in the suburban district, they found that the extent to which teachers' practices reflected the district's literacy initiative depended on how well the reforms were elaborated by the district. Their initial data analysis suggested significant uniformity in language arts practice among the nine classrooms and offered striking evidence that the district's proposals for language arts reform were finding their way into practice. For example, they found that all nine teachers were using literature-based reading programs and trade books, engaging in activities such as Writer's Workshop, and focusing on comprehension over skills-based instruction. However, early discussions of the observation data revealed other differences that weren't being captured by the analytical framework. This led to a revised analytical frame focused on classroom tasks and discourse patterns that helped track these "below-the-surface" differences in pedagogy. Comparing results using the two analytical frameworks, Spillane and Jennings showed that it is relatively easy to arrive at very different conclusions about the extent to which reforms that call for more ambitious pedagogy have permeated practice. They argued that if reforms are meant to help all students encounter language arts in a more demanding and authentic manner, then policy analysts cannot rely solely on in-
< previous page
page_914
next page >
< previous page
page_915
next page > Page 915
dicators such as the materials and the activities teachers use. Rather, they must sit in classrooms and figure out what type of knowledge is supported by classroom tasks and discourse patterns. We would add that to be able to explore these issues effectively, one needs to understand a great deal about the subject matter instruction that is the focus of the reform. Spillane and Jennings amassed a great deal of knowledge about language arts and language arts instruction over their years of studying reform in this area, and we would argue that without this knowledge, they might never have even seen the differences that led them to revise their analytical framework and uncover these important differences in classroom practice. Collectively, these studies provide insight regarding both policy research related to literacy standards and assessments, and the impact of literacy standards and assessments on district and teacher practices. On the one hand, very few policy studies provide sufficient subject matter information to warrant inclusion in this review. On the other hand, several studies probe deeply into the details of the classroom discourse and tasks related to language arts instruction, revealing important differences in teachers' implementation of reform efforts. In terms of the impact of literacy standards and assessments, it is clear that policy tools such as conceptual frameworks, curriculum guides, and assessments can and do influence district and classroom practice. It is also evident that the relations between language arts policy and practice are complex and at least partly dependent on the knowledge, beliefs, goals, and experience of the administrators and teachers working with these types of policy tools. These findings speak clearly to the need to understand thoroughly the context of policy implementation from both the system perspective and the dayto-day lives of teachers and students. They also suggest that without some form of professional development the effects of such policies are highly variable. The Measurement Perspective Assessment has been part of educational reform efforts for the past 40 years (Linn, 1998), initially serving as an indicator of reform or progress and more recently serving as a lever for reform. In the 1960s, testing increased substantially to meet the demands of evaluation and accountability for Title I. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, measurement researchers became intimately involved in policy-related issues during the minimal competency testing (MCT) movement when high stakes were attached to test performance. In Florida, for example, where MCT graduation requirements gained a great deal of attention, test results revealed gains for low-achieving students but differential passing rates for African American, Hispanic, and White students. In addition, the Federal District Court decision in the landmark Debra P. vs. Turlington (1981) case directed that students must be provided with ample opportunity to learn the material tested when high stakes, such as high school graduation, are in place. Events such as these quickly propelled assessment and assessment researchers into the policy arena. Following this trend, a new movement, measurement-driven reform (Popham, Cruse, Rankin, Sandifer, & Williams, 1985), gained in popularity, emphasizing large-scale assessment as a "catalyst to improve instruction" (p. 628). Measurement-driven reform expanded the role of assessment into the policy arena in two important ways: (a) It focused attention on what students should learn (outcomes) and (b) it made teaching toward the test a valued instructional strategy. Many measurement researchers explored the effects of early high-stakes assessments on student performance, curriculum, and teachers' instructional practices. In general, studies indicated that high-stakes standardized basic skills tests led to narrowing of the curriculum; overemphasis on basic skills and test-like instructional methods; reduction in effective instructional time and an increase in time for test preparation; inflated test scores; and pressure on teachers to improve test scores (Herman &
< previous page
page_915
next page >
< previous page
page_916
next page > Page 916
Golan, 1993; Nolen, Haladyna, & Haas, 1992; Resnick, 1992; Shepard, 1991; Shepard & Dougherty, 1991; Smith, 1991; Smith, Edelsky, Draper, Rottenberg, & Cherland, 1990). These studies led educators and the public alike to question the effectiveness of educational reform efforts and the assessments themselves (Linn, Grau, & Sanders, 1990). As a result of this line of research and renewed interest in the intended and unintended consequences of assessment (Messick, 1989), the "alternative" or "authentic" assessment movement was launched. From past research it was clear that assessment could be a lever for reformthat what gets tested, gets taught, and what doesn't get tested, doesn't get taught. Therefore, it was reasoned that if better, more authentic assessments could be created to measure the "thinking curriculum" (Resnick & Resnick, 1992), then better teaching and learning would follow. Publicly acknowledged content standards in specific subject areas would guide the content of the new assessments, and high performance standards, rather than norms, would guide goals for student achievement learn (NCEST, 1992). Furthermore, it was argued that if teachers were more involved in the development, administration, and scoring of the assessments, there would be a greater chance that teaching would be enhanced. Performance assessment, portfolios, and projects (Resnick & Resnick, 1992) were advanced by both educators and measurement experts as assessment models that might foster effective teaching, learning and measurement of worthwhile outcomes (Shepard, 1989; Simmons & Resnick, 1993; Wiggins, 1993). In many respects, the authentic assessment movement is an extension of the measurement-driven reform of the 1980s, only now the form of the assessment, criteria for content selection and student performance, focus on opportunity to learn, and people involved in assessment development have changed. The measurement community cautioned that the field would require new models and methods of determining the technical merit of new assessments (Linn, Baker, & Dunbar, 1991; Moss, 1994), many of which were not yet in place. Furthermore, many argued that it was impossible to test the logical assertion that these new measures would yield more positive results until the assessments were in place for some time. Nevertheless, pressure for new, better assessments and for public accountability placed new assessments on a fast track. By 1997, 46 out of 50 states had some form of statewide assessment, and 36 of those included extended responses typical of performance assessments (Roeber, Bond, & Braskamp, 1997). Linn (1998) suggested that policymakers have placed enormous emphasis on assessment reform because it is relatively inexpensive and easy to mandate, can be implemented rapidly, and is easily reported by the press, when compared to the type of professional development and restructuring/reculturing of schools that is needed for deep, second-order educational change (Fullan & Miles, 1992). So in the 1990s, we witnessed an enormous growth in new assessments as the levers for reform. The research we review in this section falls into two general categories: on-demand forms of performance assessments, and classroom-based assessments such as portfolios. We use the term on-demand performance assessments to define uniform assessments administered under controlled conditions; they are usually given on a particular day or days under standard conditions across classrooms, schools, and districts. Most statewide assessments in reading and writing are on-demand assessments. Recent efforts have focused on improving the quality of the assessment tasks and expanding response modes while, at the same time, trying to maintain high levels of reliability and validity. In this section of the review, we include research on the on-demand performance assessments that require students to demonstrate higher order cognitive processes and to provide some extended responses to comprehension questions or to write in response to a prompt. We do not include research on more traditional assessments, which are comprised only of multiple-choice items. For the second category, classroom-based assessments, we include assessment evidence that is systematically
< previous page
page_916
next page >
< previous page
page_917
next page > Page 917
collected as an ongoing part of the instructional program. In some cases, the evidence is scored and then reported for accountability purposes either at the state or school district level. Because we are focusing on policy-related research, we do not include research on individual classroom assessment projects. Research On-Demand Performance Assessment First attempts at performance assessment in literacy can be traced back to the 1960s and the use of direct writing assessment instead of indirect measures such as multiple choice tests (cf. Freedman, 1993). Direct writing assessment requires students to write in response to an assigned topic under timed conditions; papers are scored using a standard rubric. Many statewide assessments (Roeber et al., 1997) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) still use this approach with considerable success. Measurement researchers have focused on issues of interrater reliability and generalizability with respect to scoring writing samples. Interrater reliability is generally high, although studies indicate it can vary from .3 to .91 (Dunbar, Koretz, & Hoover, 1992; Hieronymus, Hoover, Cantor, & Oberley, 1987; Welch, 1991). Measurement researchers seem to have a good understanding about how to raise reliability to an acceptable level by implementing more extensive training of carefully selected scorers, more specific scoring guidelines, and the like (Mehrens, 1992; Miller & Legg, 1993). Issues of generalizability across modes of writing or even topics within modes are not as clear, however, and continue to present challenges for measurement experts (Dunbar et al., 1992; Herman, 1991; Hieronymus et al., 1987). Language arts educators, however, are now raising questions regarding the authenticity of direct writing assessment and the validity of the results when students are required to write under these unnatural, on-demand conditions (e.g., constrained by time, topic, audience, and process) (Freedman, 1993; Lucas, 1988a, 1988b). Although these criticisms are appealing on the surface, Messick (1994), a noted measurement researcher, pointed out that concerns about both authenticity and directness need to be supported empirically rather than simply claimed. This is a good example of how differences in perspective shape the questions and the nature of the evidence sought. Although direct writing assessment is still a mainstay of many assessment programs, more recent efforts at performance assessment in reading and writing go further; many include longer and more complex reading selections from a variety of genres, higher level comprehension questions, extended written responses, and cross-text analyses. The few studies from a measurement perspective that are available on new statewide assessments (e.g., Maryland, Kentucky, Arizona) do not distinguish among reading, language arts, and mathematics in design or analyses, making it difficult for literacy educators to interpret the implications for curriculum, instruction, or research. For example, in two parallel studies, researchers at RAND (Koretz, Barron, Mitchell, & Stecher, 1996; Koretz, Mitchell, Barron, & Keith, 1996) used telephone and written surveys to examine the influence of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP) and the Kentucky Instructional Information System (KIRIS)both of which had assessments in several subject areas. By focusing only on responses of elementary teachers included in these reports, we can get some idea of language arts-related results. Across both studies, teachers supported the new assessments, even in terms of encouraging reluctant teachers to change; however, they did not support the use of test results for accountability. On the positive side, teachers aligned curriculum with the assessments, especially spending more time on writing (a dominant response mode for both assessments), although they felt that more specific curriculum frameworks would be helpful. On the negative side, teachers reported spending considerable time in test preparation activities and a tendency to
< previous page
page_917
next page >
< previous page
page_918
next page > Page 918
deemphasize untested material. Data from both studies indicated that teachers' expectations rose for high-achieving students rather than low-achieving students and that teachers credited student gains to specific test practice and test familiarity rather than to true improvements in capabilities. These findings led the researchers to call for further research on issues related to the specificity of the frameworks, effects on equity, inflated test scores, and the validity of the measures. One of the few studies of on-demand assessment to report specifically by subject area is based on data from the New Standards Project, a multistate effort designed to involve educators in the creation of state and district performance-based assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics (Resnick, Resnick, & DeStefano, 1993). This shared emphasis on new assessments and professional development involved teachers in the development, piloting, and scoring of the assessments. Researchers found "moderate" interrater reliability for both the reading and writing sections of the testtoo low to use for judging students or educational programs. More interesting, reliability varied depending on the task being scored, the approach to calculating reliability (correlation or agreement), and the scoring method used (holistic or a combination of analytic and holistic); moreover, individual students' scores varied depending on the scoring method used. The researchers suggested that more intensive training, a more selective scoring team, clearer rubrics, and better exemplars might improve interrater agreement. These findings mirror the findings discussed earlier related to direct writing assessment. Classroom-Based Assessment The classroom-based measurement research has largely been conducted on portfolios. Interest in portfolios and policy stemmed from an attempt to join the advantages of classroom-embedded assessment with the need for large-scale public accountability. From the beginning, many were leery of trying to accomplish both purposes with one instrument, but the advantages in terms of teacher development, instructional practice, and student engagement motivated educators to try (Aschbacher, 1994; Haney, 1991; Mehrens, 1998; Valencia, 1991). The most widely studied of the large-scale portfolio projects is the Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program, although more measurement researchers have studied the mathematics portfolio than the writing portfolio (Koretz, McCaffrey, Klein, Bell, Stecher, 1993; Koretz, Stecher, Deibert, 1992; Koretz, Stecher, Klein, & McCaffrey, 1994; Koretz, Stecher, Klein, McCaffrey, & Deibert, 1993). Because statewide assessment was new in Vermont, this project was conceptualized as a system that would take hold graduallyit would be decentralized and would require "a very long effort" (Mills & Brewer, 1988, in Koretz et al., 1994). According to state officials, it was designed to support sound educational practice, encourage professional development of education, encourage local autonomy, and provide comparable information across schools. The writing assessment was designed to be administered in Grades 4 and 8 (in 19941995, the writing assessment was moved to Grades 5 and 8) and is comprised of two main components in writing: (a) a portfolio of student work, which includes a set number and specified types of pieces of writing collected over the course of a year, and (b) a "uniform test" of writing (i.e., a standard prompt to which all students respond using standard procedures). The portfolio contents and the Uniform Test are scored by a wide range of Vermont teachers other than the students' own, using an analytic scoring rubric. Studies of reliability indicated interrater correlations ranging from .46 to .63 (45% agreement based on exact match) depending on how the scores were aggregated (e.g., within or across scoring dimensions; by individual piece or across sections of the portfolio), a finding that led researchers to conclude that the state could not report on the percentage of students scoring at each point on each of the writing traits, nor could it provide comparative data across districts and schools (Koretz, Stecher, Klein, McCaffrey, & Deibert, 1993). Researchers suggested that inadequate rubrics, insuffi-
< previous page
page_918
next page >
< previous page
page_919
next page > Page 919
cient training of scorers, and lack of standardization of portfolio tasks most likely contributed to the lack of reliability. In terms of validity, the Vermont results were "not persuasive" (Koretz, Stecher, Klein, & McCaffrey, 1994). The correlation between the portfolio scores and the Uniform Writing assessment was moderate, as one might expect from other research; however, these same levels of correlations were found between writing portfolios and a multiple-choice math test. In addition, researchers found little difference between scores on papers students selected as "best pieces" and scores for the rest of the writing portfolio, a finding that is inconsistent with other evidence suggesting lack of generalizability across different writing tasks (Dunbar et al., 1991). Validity was also brought into question in terms of portfolio implementation. In keeping with local autonomy, researchers found great variability in teachers' implementation of portfolios, resulting in a wide range of types of work included in the portfolios, as well as a wide range of teacher support for the work, all of which would raise validity questions. Principals reported that although the assessment system placed sizable demands on schools for resourcesespecially in the area of time and supportthey thought it was a worthwhile burden (Koretz, Stecher, Klein, McCaffrey, & Deibert, 1993). Because they felt the burden fell primarily on the teachers, the majority of principals provided release time to help ease the stress. In contrast to statewide initiatives on portfolios, several school districts tried to implement literacy portfolios with the dual focus of accountability and improvement of instruction. Measurement researchers have studied both the ARTS PROPEL middle/high school writing portfolios in Pittsburgh and early literacy portfolios in Rochester, NY. Portfolios from Pittsburgh Public Schools (LeMahieu, Eresh, & Wallace, 1992) grew out of the ARTS PROPEL project, a privately funded project to design instructionbased assessment in visual arts, music, and imaginative writing. The writing portfolios were compiled by students in Grades 612 from a folder of their classroom writing. Using a set of guidelines, students selected four pieces (including drafts as well as final copies) and provided several written reflections on their writing processes, rationale for their selections, and the criteria they used for judging their work. As a result, there was less required commonality across portfolios than in the Vermont Portfolio Assessment. Portfolios were scored by a small group of highly trained district teachers and administrators using a rubric that reflected a decade-long district-wide history of professional development in writing. Judges assigned identical scores for 45% to 56% of the portfolios. Interrater correlations ranged from .80 to .84 across three scoring dimensions (accomplishment, processes/strategies, growth). In addition, researchers found that portfolio scores were highly related to the classroom opportunities students had in writing. Students in classrooms judged to have teachers with an "intense" writing practice scored significantly better than those in classrooms judged to be moderately intense or not intense at all. Interestingly, portfolio scores were most strongly correlated with a standardized reading test rather than with a standardized direct writing measure. The Rochester portfolios grew out of curriculum reform initiated 3 years before portfolios were sequentially implemented in the primary grades. The portfolios were designed by teachers to be scored by classroom teachers rather than by external scorers. They include both required (e.g., writing samples, lettersound assessments, observations, and anecdotal records) and optional pieces for reading and writing collected on a regular schedule. Teachers scored the portfolios and then assigned each child to a developmental stage specified in a "rubric." Supovitz, MacGowan, and Slattery (1997) compared the ratings given by Rochester classroom teachers and outside evaluators. They found interrater correlations between .58 and .77 with more consistency in reliability for writing than for reading. They found that external reviewers had difficulty scoring "thin" evidence found for reading both because few reading
< previous page
page_919
next page >
< previous page
page_920
next page > Page 920
pieces were required in the portfolios and because teachers rarely included the required (or any additional) reading evidence. When reading evidence was included, they found that outside raters had difficulty judging the work and applying judgments to developmental levels. Findings also suggest that classroom teachers scored students significantly higher than outside raters did in the area of reading, where the lack of portfolio evidence was most likely supplemented by teachers' knowledge. There were no significant differences across scorers in writing. In a second study, Supovitz and Brennan (1997) found that gender, socioeconomic, and racial inequities existed when portfolio performance was compared to standardized test performance, although the Rochester portfolios closed the gaps between Blacks and Whites and widened the gaps between boys and girls. Questions about the variability in portfolio contents across students have been raised with respect to the influence on reliability, but the issue is pertinent with respect to validity as well. If students receive different levels of support or if evidence is simply not available, then judgments about students' abilities will be open to question. Two studies shed light on this point. In one, Herman, Gearhart, and Baker (1993) were able to get satisfactory levels of interrater agreement for portfolios containing only narrative and summary writing, but they discovered that students' scores were substantially different across different contexts (standard writing prompt vs. portfolio work; analytic vs. holistic rubrics; scoring of individual pieces vs. the total portfolio; narrative vs. summaries). In fact, two-thirds of the students classified as competent using portfolio scores were not judged competent on the standard writing assessment. This led the researchers to question the validity of portfolio scores and to look further behind the actual work. So, in another study, Gearhart, Herman, Baker, and Whittaker (1993) asked, "Who's work is it?" that is contained in students' writing portfolio. Teachers were asked to rate the level of instructional support for writing assignments in students' portfolios (Grades 16). They found variability in the amount of support that teachers provided to students, time students spent on assignments, and extent to which work was copied. Furthermore, students received different levels of support depending on whether they were low or high achieving, and teachers with more portfolio experience provided more teacher support. Not only was student work influenced by the level of teacher support, but this support was provided differentially across students and classrooms. In an effort to look more closely at classroom-embedded performance assessment, Shepard and her colleagues (Shepard et al., 1996) examined the effects of a professional development project to help teachers use performance assessments as part of regular instruction in reading and mathematics. They reasoned that embedded performance assessments would improve learning by introducing challenging tasks that were consistent with curricular goals and by helping teachers clarify their understanding of their students, thereby informing their instruction. This study represents a shift from the other studies in this section in two important ways: (a) It integrates expertise in subject matter, teacher change, and assessment in the design, implementation, and analysis; and (b) it integrates professional development with a study of new assessments and student learning. Although the authors reported no gains in student learning in reading on the outcome measure (Maryland School Performance Assessment Program), they offered explanations that are consistent with other studies in both the policy and literacy sections. Specifically, they found that although teachers were familiar with the district curricular framework before the project began, their motivation and instructional practices were not congruent with the framework. So what the researchers thought was a professional project to introduce classroom performance assessment, evolved into more of a project on literacy instruction and assessment. They concluded that performance assessments themselves are not enough to improve teachinglong-term professional development is also needed.
< previous page
page_920
next page >
< previous page
page_921
next page > Page 921
Measurement researchers tend to focus on the feasibility of new assessments from a technical perspective (reliability and validity) and on their desirability (consequential validity), often relying on statistical procedures and self-reports. Like policy researchers, measurement researchers generally have not distinguished among different subject areas either in their targets for study or in their conclusions and recommendations, even though Linn (1998), a prominent measurement researcher, has found differences in student performance across subject areas as well within subscales of the same subject area. Overall, the measurement research on literacy assessment reform suggests that there is still uncertainly about the ability of performance assessments to provide reliable and valid data for accountability. As we might expect, contextual factors such as the nature of the classroom instruction and support provided to students are difficult to control across classrooms. Another source of difficulty is the degree of teacher involvement and teacher choice in the assessment. Several studies suggest that if there were more standardization in the assessment artifacts, more expertise in the scorers, or more specificity in the outcomes, problems of reliability and validity could be addressed. However, these suggestions fly in the face of an important rationale for new standards and assessmentthe professional development of teachers that is fostered through their involvement in the development and scoring of new assessments. In terms of consequential validity, data indicate that new assessments and standards have some influence on teachers' practices but that the accountability factor introduces stress for teachers and raises questions about how well they implement new assessments. Whether we look at issues of feasibility or desirability of new assessments, the studies in this section highlight the tension between assessment for accountability and assessment for instructional improvement, and they raise questions about the quality and the influence of assessment as a policy tool (see Linn, 1998, and Mehrens, 1998, for more in-depth measurement perspectives across subject areas). The Literacy Perspective Literacy has been a centerpiece in efforts to push ambitious reforms in teaching and learning. National reports such as A Nation at Risk noted the failure of schools to provide the nation with a more literate populace as evidenced by allegedly declining verbal SAT scores and less than encouraging results of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading assessments. At the same time, the research community expressed concern about the skills-based conceptualizations that were guiding assessment and instruction in reading (see Curtis & Glaser, 1983; Guthrie & Kirsch, 1984; Linn, 1986); they were less concerned with writing because, as we noted previously, writing process and direct assessment of writing had gained popularity in the 1970s. These concerns led the National Academy of Education's Commission on Reading to issue the report entitled Becoming a Nation of Readers (BNR) (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985). The essence of BNR was that reading is a holistic, constructive process rather than the aggregate of a series of isolated subskills and that curriculum, instruction, and assessment should reflect this view of reading. In many respects, BNR represented a subject-matter-specific version of the national reports calling for more attention to higher order thinking, and it became a conceptual framework for literacy researchers who were becoming involved in local, state, and national policy initiatives. A constructivist view of reading was also evident in a number of state efforts to develop curriculum frameworks, objectives, and assessments in reading and language arts. For example, in 1984, Michigan put forward a "new" definition of reading as "the process of constructing meaning through the dynamic interaction among the reader, the text, and the context of the reading situation" (Wixson & Peters, 1984). This definition then served as the basis for new state Essential Goals and Objectives in Reading
< previous page
page_921
next page >
< previous page
page_922
next page > Page 922
(Michigan State Board of Education, 1986). Given that BNR was written in Illinois, and Michigan was promoting a similar conceptualization of reading through its new definition, it is not surprising that these two states led the way in developing statewide reading assessments that better reflected constructivist reading theory and knowledge (Valencia, Pearson, Peters, & Wixson, 1989; Wixson, Peters, Weber, & Roeber, 1987). Literacy researchers and state curriculum specialists worked together with measurement specialists in Michigan and Illinois to develop a new generation of reading assessments consistent with new views of reading and new student outcomes (Peters, Wixson, Valencia, & Pearson, 1993). Although there was precedent for this type of collaboration in the development of the NAEP tests, NAEP had little impact on the development of curriculum, instruction, and assessment at state, district, and school levels because it had been designed to provide information only at the national level. Rather, it was the large-scale reform efforts of the 1980s described previously in this chapter that brought together literacy researchers and curriculum and measurement specialists to effect the types of changes being called for by the research community, policymakers, and the public at large. The constructivist perspective on reading being promoted in various national and state policy documents also influenced the development in of a new Reading Framework for NAEP reading tests. The 1992 Reading Framework, which was also used in 1994 and 1998, indicated that, ''Reading for meaning involves a dynamic, complex interaction among three elements: the reader, the text, and the context" (National Assessment Governing Board, p. 10). Although NAEP continued to use direct writing assessment as it had done in the past, it now included some open-ended reading items to address the new definition of reading and recommendations for new forms of reading assessment. The first year this Reading Framework was in effect was also the first year of the voluntary, trial program to administer NAEP in a way that allowed for state-by-state comparisons, and the year in which the NAEP special study on oral reading fluency was conducted (Pinnell et al., 1995). Both of these innovations came in response to demands by many that NAEP respond to higher levels of accountability in general and specifically in the area of reading. With the publication of the California English-Language Arts Framework in 1987, the treatment of reading and writing as separate subject areas began to give way to the idea of integrated language arts consisting of listening, speaking, reading, and writing. "Language arts became a discipline concerned with major universal themes, the human condition, exploring life experiences, and social agendas introduced through quality literature" (Gonzales & Grubb, 1997, p. 696). The California Framework pushed the definition of reading and language arts beyond a purely constructivist perspective to a more socialconstructivist perspective with its emphasis on "transactions" as opposed to interactions with text and considerations of the sociocultural experiences students bring to text. Prominent among the policy initiatives adopted by the California State Department of Education to support its framework was the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS). The CLAS reading assessment was designed to evaluate the success of the language arts curriculum, and to help districts and schools understand how well students were internalizing the strategies that encourage them to construct understandings beyond the school setting. CLAS took seriously the call for integration of the language arts by including open-ended written responses to reading selections, having students work collaboratively on some sections of the assessment, and tying some of the direct writing prompts to reading selections (Weiss, 1994). In 1992, when the new CLAS assessments were being implemented, the contract to develop national English language arts standards was let by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) to the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois in collaboration with the International Reading Association (IRA) and the National
< previous page
page_922
next page >
< previous page
page_923
next page > Page 923
Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). Before these standards were completed, however, the contract was terminated by the U.S. DOE for lack of satisfactory progress reflecting differences in perceptions about what constitute appropriate standards in English language arts. The project continued under the auspices of IRA and NCTE and concluded with the publication of the Standards for English Language Arts in 1996. Consistent with the California Framework, the NCTE/IRA standards defined English language arts as listening, speaking, reading, writing, viewing, and representing. By the time the NCTE/IRA standards were published in 1996, there was widespread concern about the direction in which constructivist and sociocultural views of teaching and learning were taking curriculum, instruction, and assessment in all subject areas including reading. Legislation to continue funding for CLAS was vetoed by Governor Wilson in 1994 after yielding to pressure from conservative groups (Gonzales & Grubb, 1997), and the results of the 1992 and 1994 NAEP state-by-state comparisons placed California close to the bottom of the rankings in reading (Campbell, Donahue, Reese, & Phillips, 1996; Mullis, Campbell, & Farstrup, 1993). The "whole-language" California framework was blamed for the failure of many California children to learn to read, fueling a nationwide resurgence of the "reading wars" that have surfaced every 10 or 20 years since the turn of the century (e.g., Chall, 1967; Flesch, 1955). Most recently, there has been a shift away from attention on comprehension, writing, and integrated language arts to early reading, especially phonemic awareness and phonics. In 1998, some policymakers and educators promoted a return to skillsbased definitions of reading that emphasized decoding as the only or primary concern of reading instruction. At the state level, there was a virtual firestorm of legislation focused on early reading that included new curriculum frameworks and standards, assessment mandates, textbook adoption guidelines, and mandates for teacher credentialing and professional development. For the first time since its inception in the mid 1970s, the U.S. DOE funded the National Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA) in 1997. At the same time, the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science commissioned a blue-ribbon panel report on preventing reading difficulties (National Research Council, 1998) and the National Institute for Child Health Development (NICHD) impaneled a group of experts to point educators and policymakers to the best research in reading instruction. With these most recent events, national involvement in standards, assessment, and instructional strategies gained momentum. The policy-oriented research we review in this section focuses on three areas related to literacy standards and assessmentsondemand reading and writing assessments, classroom-based assessments such as portfolios, and statewide language arts standards. What distinguishes policy-oriented research conducted by literacy researchersin comparison with policy and measurement researchersis a primary emphasis on the subject-matter content of standards and assessment as well as their validity and consistency with current literacy theory and research. Literacy researchers also focus on ways that policies shape classroom literacy practices, frequently gathering direct evidence of teaching and of student learning as well as self-reported responses to policy. Literacy researchers tend to be less interested in the overall, or more systemic, effects of policy and reform. Research On-Demand Performance Assessments Several literacy researchers have explored the influence of on-demand literacy assessments. In a series of studies, literacy researchers at NRRC (Afflerbach, Almasi, Guthrie, & Schafer, 1996; Almasi,
< previous page
page_923
next page >
< previous page
page_924
next page > Page 924
Afflerbach, Guthrie, & Schafer, 1995; Guthrie, Schafer, Afflerbach, & Almasi, 1994) investigated the effects of the Maryland State Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), a multipronged reform that includes learning outcomes, a performance assessment, guidelines for school decision making, and suggestions for staff development. Using semistructured interviews, similar to those used by measurement researchers, they found that, 1 year after implementation, there was some limited understanding of the Maryland learning outcomes among country/district language arts administrators but no widespread consensus on the reading/language arts outcomes included in the MSPAP. Nevertheless, the administrators believed that the performance assessment was moderately aligned with their local curricula. Although there was little-to-no reported change in school governance or teacher decision-making, administrators did report some change in instructional practices, including integrating reading and writing within content areas and the use of more trade books. In schools nominated as implementing positive innovations in response to MSPAP, teachers and administrators reported changes in instructional tasks, methods, materials, and learning environments that reflected the nature of the MSPAP and learner outcomes in literacy. They also reported administrative support for change, including professional development, and a positive influence on students' motivation for reading and writing. The researchers also identified several barriers to the implementation even in these schools that were identified as successful implementors: lack of alignment between classroom instruction and assessment and the MSPAP assessment; insufficient resources such as time and money for professional development; testing logistics; and communication between the state and schools about the rationale and nature of the assessment program. They suggested that better communication and support is needed between state and local school districts if implementation is to be effective; change, they argued, requires more than development of assessment materials and procedures. Other researchers examined more directly the relationship between new statewide writing assessments and classroom instruction. Two studies highlighted the difficulties in achieving effective reciprocity between instructional practice and assessment. Goldberg, Roswell and Michaels (1995/1996) examined whether the Maryland School Performance Assessment (MSPAP) in writing, which required students to engage in the writing process (including drafting, peer response, revision, and writing a final draft), produced improved performance. Specifically, researchers were interested in the extent to which students engaged in effective peer response, revision, and final drafts during testing. Using results from the MSPAP and observations from test taking in Grades 3, 5, and 8, they found that students did not use revision or peer response to improve their final writing; their changes were minimal and focused on surface-level features, and their peer responses were unengaged. Goldberg et al. suggested that the constraints of large-scale assessment (i.e., assigned topics, limited and prescribed time blocks, use of revision and response worksheet, collaboration with assigned partners rather than classmates) may inhibit students' motivation and ability to engage in revision and peer response. They concluded that testing situations may not be able to mirror some aspects of good instructional practice. Similarly, Loofbourrow (1994) conducted a case study of how two eighth-grade teachers interpreted and enacted the California Assessment Program (CAP) in writing into their classroom instruction. This study was conducted at a time when CAP was a high-stakes assessment and when it was not aligned with California curriculum guidelines for teaching writing. She found that when there was misalignment between a high-stakes test and statewide recommendations for curriculum and instruction, teachers attended more to the form and content of the assessment. In this case, although middle school teachers had students write across a wider variety of genres (an emphasis of both CAP and instructional recommendations), most of their writing assignments mir-
< previous page
page_924
next page >
< previous page
page_925
next page > Page 925
rored the test-like setting of CAP (e.g. limited time, one- to two-page writing assignments, teacher-assigned topic, focus on one of the eight CAP modes, emphasis on form over function). Many sound curricular and instructional recommendations were put aside as teachers attended to the specific form and content of the assessment. Allington and his colleagues took a different approach to on-demand assessments, exploring the effects of on-demand assessment policies on special needs students and on the system as a whole. In several studies, Allington and McGill-Franzen (1992a, 1992b; McGill-Franzen & Allington, 1993) highlighted the changes in the incidence of retention, remediation, and identification of students as handicapped across a 10-year period when New York State increased high-stakes assessment and accountability. An increasing proportion of elementary children were retained or identified as handicapped in Grades K2, the grades that preceded the Grade 3 high-stakes reading assessment. There was no corresponding trend for remediation. The researchers suggested that although it was unlikely that the reform was intended to increase numbers of children retained or placed in special education, the net effect was that these low-achieving students were removed or delayed from the accountability stream. As a result, scores at the targeted grades were likely to rise without improved learningthe sample of students tested was simply limited. In fact, these researchers found that across all grades, schools that had been historically lowperforming, but since the implementation of high-stakes assessment seemed to be improving, had three times the number of students identified for special education or retained as compared with historically high-performing schools. Retention and identification, they argued, are expensive and ineffective ways to produce real gains. Classroom-Based Assessment Most studies of classroom-based assessment literacy have investigated the effects of portfolio assessment; some have focused on statewide policies, and others on district-wide efforts. Two interesting lines of research have come from literacy researchers who have examined effects of statewide writing portfolio assessments in Vermont and Kentucky. Studies of the Vermont writing portfolio (Lipson, 1997; Lipson & Mosenthal, 1997; Mosenthal, Lipson, Mekkelsen, Daniels, & Jiron, 1996, Mosenthal, Mekkelsen, & Jiron, 1997) examined teachers' perspectives on the influence of the portfolio mandate and how they used the portfolios in classroom instruction and assessment. Unlike the research on Vermont portfolios cited in the previous assessment section, this work focused specifically on the writing portfolio and used a combination of surveys, interviews, and in-depth case studies and observations of 12 teachers. In addition, these researchers analyzed their findings in terms of teachers' different theoretical perspectives and beliefs about writing instruction. Surveys were administered to fifth-grade teachers before and after the first year of implementation. The majority of teachers reported that their writing instruction had improved; they incorporated more writing into their classrooms and, once more writing was in place, they used the portfolio scoring criteria as part of their instructional talk with students. Although teachers embraced portfolios for instructional purposes, they did not seem to use portfolios or the criteria for assessing writing in the classroom, which suggested that they may not have a "shared standard" for student performance. What's more, teachers were strongly opposed to the scoring and public reporting of results. Most interesting, surveys and observations revealed that teachers with different beliefs about teaching writing changed in different ways. Those who already emphasized writing processes in their instruction felt most positively about the state assessment but changed very little because they had little need to change. In contrast, those teachers who were more dependent on curriculum and less child centered used portfolios for organizing writing, but didn't integrate them into their teaching. Finally, those teachers who paid little attention to writing processes or portfolios were most negative and changed their practices very little.
< previous page
page_925
next page >
< previous page
page_926
next page > Page 926
The Kentucky writing portfolios also have been studied by literacy researchers. Bridge, Compton-Hall, and Cantrell (1997) replicated a 1982 study to determine changes in the amount and type of writing elementary students were engaged in and the nature of writing instruction provided by teachers. They studied changes in one school district using written surveys of more than 200 teachers and classroom observations of teachers' instruction and writing activities of targeted students in 12 classrooms. Across both observations and surveys, they found a twofold increase in amount of time students spent engaged in writing as compared to 1982; the biggest increase occurred at Grade 1. This finding confirms results of other studies of reform in Kentucky (Bridge, 1994; Raths & Fanning, 1993). Bridge et al. also looked closely at quality of the writing. They found a sizable increase in the amount of time spent on higher level writing tasks such as crafting and revising and a decrease in the time students spent filling in words on worksheets or copying, which were dominant in 1982. In addition, teachers reported major changes in the way they responded to students' writing, shifting to greater use of teacher and group conferences and a decrease of assigning grades to students writing. Teachers reported that, in large part, changes in their writing instruction could be attributed to the Kentucky assessments, although the authors acknowledged that most teachers were more knowledgeable about the writing process in 1995 than in 1982. Although more than 50% of teachers reported substantive changes in their writing instruction since the Kentucky Education Reform Act (KERA), about one third of them reported little change because their instruction was already in line with the new assessments. Like the Vermont studies, this study highlights the increase in amount of writing and the differential impact of policy on teachers whose instruction is more or less aligned with new assessments. A slightly different perspective on the Kentucky reform comes from a case study of nine high school English teachers faced with implementing the state portfolios in the second year of the mandate (Callahan, 1997). This study found that teachers had not yet received much professional development regarding the assessment and that they viewed the portfolio as a "test of their competence." Consequently, although the assessment did change the amount and kind of writing students did to fit with portfolio requirements and prompted teachers to internalize and use scoring criteria during instruction, teachers put their energy into "the visible, procedural elements of the assessment," rather than integrating it into their instruction. It remained a separate and intimidating burden to them. This lack of attention to professional development is also reported in studies by Gooden (1996) and by Miller, Hayes, and Atkinson (1997). Their work suggests that in some states, having a high-stakes assessment in place was assumed to be sufficient to promote teacher change or to encourage local districts to provide support for change. Unfortunately, this didn't happen. Several literacy researchers have focused on classroom-based assessment at the district level (Hoffman et al., 1996; Salinger & Chittenden, 1994; Valencia & Au, 1997). In all three of these studies, the researchers were interested in whether assessments could serve the dual purpose of improving instruction and providing accountability information. And in all cases, the researchers worked directly with teachers and school districts in ongoing professional development activities focused on literacy curriculum and instruction as well as assessment implementation. Two studies focused early literacy assessment at the district levelthe South Brunswick Early Literacy Portfolio (Salinger & Chittenden, 1994) and the Primary Assessment of Language Arts and Mathematics (PALM) (Hoffman et al., 1996). The South Brunswick portfolio included specific contents aimed at early literacy (K2), and specific procedures and timelines for data collection. Using a developmental scale, teachers rated students on one component, strategies for making sense of and with print. The PALM model was somewhat different in that it combined three assessment elements: classroom-embedded
< previous page
page_926
next page >
< previous page
page_927
next page > Page 927
assessments, a week-long on-demand assessment, and "taking a closer look" assessments, which teachers used to gather additional information on particular students. The on-demand assessment and a developmental profile based on classroomembedded and "take a closer look" information were scored. Using a combination of artifacts, interviews, and documents as data sources, Hoffman et al. and Salinger and Chittenden combined qualitative and quantitative analyses. In both studies, teachers reported that they were able to use assessment information for instructional purposes and that using these assessments was consistent with and enhanced their practice. Although teachers at both sites struggled with management and time issues, they all felt that the results justified the effort Teachers viewed participation in professional development as critical to their success. Student data from both sites were able to be reliably scored, making the assessments useful for accountability purposes at a district level. In addition, statistical analysis of the PALM data revealed that all three components of PALM (classroomembedded, on-demand, taking a closer look) contributed significantly to the prediction of students' scores on a norm-referenced reading test. The third example in this group of district-level efforts involved a cross-district study (Au & Valencia, 1997; Valencia & Au, 1997). This approach is different from others in that it addressed the question of whether common but not identical curriculum standards and portfolio structures could produce effective cross-site analysis and cross-site teacher learning. In addition, it examined the contextual factors that influenced portfolio implementation and used a portfolio model in which students chose a substantial number of pieces. Valencia and Au found that classroom portfolios contained artifacts consistent with the constructivist literacy curriculum frameworks at both sites. Although teachers were expected to include several required or "ondemand" pieces, some portfolios were missing needed evidence. This was a result of different emphases in different classrooms and teachers' difficulty documenting particular aspects of reading, yet once teachers were aware of what was missing, they were confident they could include it. Teachers reached a high level of agreement when rating portfolios from both sites, and they enhanced their knowledge of teaching, learning, and assessment through the scoring process. Valencia and Au suggested that results were a function of a supportive system for implementation that included district support, low-stakes, long-term professional development focused on assessment and instruction, and gradual implementation with an emphasis first on curriculum and instruction. They also suggested that the combination of required and optional pieces and the scoring process encouraged the flexibility of implementation and specificity of performance standards needed for portfolios to address both accountability and improved instruction. Stephens et al. (1995) also addressed contextual influences in their study of the relationship between assessment and instruction. Using in-depth case studies of elementary schools in four school districts, they examined how decisions were made and how that process influenced the relationship between assessment and instruction. Qualitative analysis revealed that the relationship was not straightforward; the unique decision-making model in each district influenced the relationship. When the teachers had little authority or power over instructional decision making, or when administrators were controlled by district staff, "assessment-astest" drove instruction. In other words, when responsibility and accountability were to external forces, tests did drive instruction, and not necessarily in positive ways. When the culture of the district was one of responsibility to individual learners and decisions were based on individual or collective perspectives of teachers, "assessment as test" did not appear to drive instruction. Stephens et al. raised the question of whether reform aimed at teacher empowerment can coexist with external accountability when school culture exerts such a strong force on teachers' practice.
< previous page
page_927
next page >
< previous page
page_928
next page > Page 928
Language Arts Standards Few literacy researchers have conducted research aimed directly at either state or national English language arts and, as we noted previously, policy researchers interested in standards often analyze them in terms of larger reforms efforts, without specific regard for subject area. Three types of studies characterize the nature of standards research from a literacy perspective: document analysis, study of teachers' practices, and the alignment of standards with assessment. Wixson and Dutro (1999) conducted a document analysis of 42 state standards in early reading/language arts as a way to gauge how the variability in standards might influence their translation into local curriculum, instruction, and assessment. They found that the majority of state documents did not provide specific benchmarks or outcomes at Grades K3, that they varied in the way they conceptualized and organized the area of reading, and that many included inappropriate content and/or ignored important content. When documents did provide benchmarks, many did not provide a logical developmental progression across grades, and many of the benchmarks themselves were overly specific or overly broad. In the former case, Wixson and Dutro concluded, districts are provided insufficient guidance; in the later, the curriculum becomes prescriptive without much flexibility for local interpretation. They recommended balance between specificity and generality if standards are to help local educators engage in conversation needed to advance teaching and learning. In a different approach to examining standards, McGill-Franzen and Ward (1997) first reviewed documents to determine the fit between New York State Language Arts and Social Studies frameworks with national standards; then they conducted case study interviews with K4 teachers in four districts to determine how state standards were incorporated into teachers' practices. All the participants in their case studies had been involved in some sort of school-wide language arts curriculum development projects aimed at helping teachers reconceptualize teaching. Consistent with Wixson and Dutro's (in press) recommendations, they found New York State standards reflected the national standards in orientation to reading process and learning, and actually went beyond national standards to provide a level of specificity that helps teachers know what students should know and be able to do at different developmental levels. However, they also found that teachers interpreted the state standards differentially. If teachers were under pressure to improve scores on tests (which were not aligned with the standards), and worked under conditions that restricted their authority and responsibility for instructional decision making, they were less likely to reconceptualize curriculum and evaluation in their schools. Since this study, New York State has restructured its assessments to align with its curriculum. We do not yet have data to know if the results of McGill-Franzen and Ward (1997) will be replicated with the new assessments. The last approach to research on standards is found in a study by Bruce, Osborn, and Commeyras (1993) in which they examined the alignment between NAEP Reading assessment items and the NAEP reading framework (standards). Using data from interviews, expert panels, and surveys of hundreds of literacy educators, Bruce et al. concluded that although most literacy experts agreed that the NAEP framework reflected current research and practice, the experts judged the alignment between framework and test items to be "murky." Items could not be mapped clearly onto the framework and, in practice, the items often failed to capture the intent behind the framework. Even with a sound framework, the translation into large-scale assessment items was problematic. Literacy researchers bring a deliberate subject-matter focus to bear on questions of standards and assessment. For the most part, they look more deeply at literacy than either policy or measurement researchers by examining specific aspects of literacy instruction (e.g., writing process, qualities of writing, alignment of assessment with constructivist curriculum frameworks in literacy, specificity of state standards) and by
< previous page
page_928
next page >
< previous page
page_929
next page > Page 929
situating much of their work in classrooms or in direct interactions with teachers. The studies in this section suggest that instructional change in language arts does occur with reform but that it is mediated by teachers' beliefs, knowledge, and their sense of accountability pressure. In studies that integrate professional development with assessment reform, results are most positive both in terms of teachers' learning and attitudes toward change, and in terms of useable assessment information; reform without this support seems to produce more surface-level change and questionable assessment practices. At the same time, the work on standards and implementation of new assessments suggests that the translation from literacy research to standards and from standards to assessment is not straightforward. Overall, an emerging theme is one of tension between the need for accountability and specificity on the one hand, and teacher decision making and flexibility in interpretation on the other. Conclusions and Future Directions Throughout this review we have attended to both the nature of policy-oriented research on literacy standards and assessments and the impact of standards and assessment on literacy practice and student learning. Our conclusions address both of these issues. With regard to the nature of policy-oriented research, it is clear that the research differs with regard to questions, methods, and audience as a function of the perspective from which it arises. In general, we see policy researchers concerned with broad reforms involving standards, assessments, reorganization, governance, and the like; literacy is simply one of the subjects, and standards and assessment are two of "tools" or levers of reform they study. Policy researchers' questions focus on the system, and their data are gathered through teachers' reported and actual practices. For the most part, we found few policy researchers distinguishing among subject areas within policy or spending extended time in literacy classrooms. Measurement researchers, as we might expect, are most interested in the assessment components of reform and are particularly concerned with validity issues and with the psychometric qualities of new assessments that are needed for accountability and policy purposes. For the most part, they rely on statistical analysis and, to some extent, self-reports, interviews, and artifacts to address their questions. And literacy researchers generally ask questions about instruction and learning in relation to research and theory. Do new standards and assessments result in better reading and writing instruction? Do they advance teacher understanding? Are the reforms consistent with sound research and theory on literacy learning? Just as literacy is the vehicle for many policy studies, policy is the vehicle for many literacy studies. Literacy researchers typically look closely at actual classroom practices, teachers' understanding, and artifacts of students literacy learning, and they work more directly with teachers than either policy or measurement researchers. For the most part, their new assessments are not subjected to the rigor of measurement researchers' criteria, and the policy contexts for their work are not considered in a systemic way. The picture that emerges is a trade-off between general and in-depth understandings. Studies that address general questions provide information that is useful for understanding the larger issues of systemic reform such as restructuring, governance, standards, and assessment, and the contexts in which these reforms are implemented. In contrast, research that addresses questions about classroom practice in relation to specific subject matter provides insight into what happens at the individual teacher and student levels. It attends to teacher understanding and practice, and student learning, often without specific attention to the policy environment in which change is enacted. As policy-oriented research grows and matures, we see a greater need to attend to both the macro and micro view of reform, practice, and learning, and we sus-
< previous page
page_929
next page >
< previous page
page_930
next page > Page 930
pect there will be more crossover among the studies representing policy, measurement, and literacy perspectives. With respect to the influence of policy, it is clear that literacy standards and assessment do have an influence on teachers' beliefs and practice, but the influence is not always in the expected or the desired direction. The effect is mediated by a large number of factors such as teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and existing practices; the economic, social, philosophical, and political conditions of the school or district; the stakes attached to the policy; and the quality of the support and lines of communication provided to teachers and administrators. It is equally clear that policy by itself is not sufficient to promote desired change; simply implementing new assessments or creating new standards does not insure improved teaching or learning. What is less clear, however, is just what it would take to promote change in the desired direction or to insure improved teaching and learning. To be sure, discipline-specific professional development is implicated in many studies, but we need to know more about both professional development processes and the quality of those processes. How, for example, do teachers and districts learn about new literacy standards and assessments? How are districts and teachers supported to understand the theory and research that underlie new assessments or new content standards? How do these experiences shape teachers' understanding and practices? What are effective models for professional development? Not only are these important questions for educators but they are critical to policymakers who are being asked to support professional development as part of reform (Elliott, 1996; Hart, 1996). Among the factors mediating the effects on literacy teaching and learning, the research suggests that more specificity in standards and assessment promotes changes in the desired direction. A caution we would offer in this regard, however, is that many of the deeper levels of change in teacher beliefs and practices associated with literacy learning do not lend themselves to simple directives. There is a very fine line between offering sufficient guidance for teachers and districts to undertake substantive change and being prescriptive in ways that work against teacher learning, decision making, and flexibility. Similarly, the influence of standards and assessments is likely mediated by teachers' and administrators' stance toward policydo they see policy as a means for monitoring, controlling, or helping educators do their work? Why, for example, would teachers bring impoverished understandings of assessments and standards to policy work in their districts yet demonstrate deep understanding in their classrooms? How do the messages teachers receive about standards and assessments fit or conflict with other policies in their environments such as mandated curriculum and materials, alternative teacher certification programs, site-based decision making, and the like? And finally, there is still uncertainty about the quality of the new literacy assessments and standards that must stand the test of scrutiny of policymakers outside education as well as educators themselves. It seems that if the tools themselves are problematic, political credibility and deeper order change are highly improbable. That said, we also suggest that although there is a move in 1998 away from the more elaborate forms of performance assessments (i.e., California, Arizona, Kentucky), these decisions are rarely based on psychometric qualities alone; policy, resources, and politics weigh heavily in decisions about the feasibility and desirability of new assessments and new standards. We conclude from our synthesis that there is a pressing need to conduct research on policy issues, such as standards and assessments, with specific attention to subject matter. There has been an almost tacit assumption among policy and measurement researchers that whatever holds true for one subject matter will likely be the case for others. When there are possibilities to look across subject areas such as mathematics and literacy, the analyses are rarely done. More important, however, is attention to depth of understanding of literacy processes, learning, and instruction. At the heart of this issue
< previous page
page_930
next page >
< previous page
page_931
next page > Page 931
are questions about what it means to read and write with understanding; what teaching for understanding looks like in different classrooms; and what constitutes the domain of English language arts curriculum. Future research must look both across and within the subject matter of literacy; this requires subject-matter expertise and it requires more than self-report data. Issues of student achievement will need to be confronted as well. Few studies we reviewed included direct measures of student learning. In one sense, this is understandable because most reform is fairly new and change is a long-term process. Nevertheless, pressure is mounting on educators to show results in terms of achievement. Future researchers will need to address the challenge, finding meaningful ways to document student achievement while at the same time documenting formative measures of progress such as parents' understanding of instructional goals, teachers' priorities and their practice, teacher understanding, and even more surface level changes in materials and activities. As we write this chapter in the late 1990s, there continues to be a groundswell of new policies related to literacy standards and assessment, and there is new interest in policies related to instructional strategies. Whether we like it or not, literacy researchers have been drawn into policy. At worst we will be recipients of policy; at best we will be informers of policy. In our opinion, the best way to influence policy and teacher development is for policy, measurement, and literacy researchers to work together and to communicate the findings of their collaborative work in a wide range of journals and reports, and through participation in state and national councils. Literacy researchers need to become knowledgeable about policy research and about the policy contexts in which their research is conducted. At the same time, we must reach out to policy researchers and measurement researchers, bringing to their work a deep understanding of the subject matter of literacy and the pedagogical content knowledge needed to teach well. Without this collaborative commitment, policy will not reflect or inform meaningful changes in literacy teaching and learning; measurement will not encourage substantive instructional change or provide useful assessment information to literacy educators; and literacy educators will not have a voice in policy and measurement arenas. With a collaborative research agenda and a wider audience, we can improve the lives of children and the lives of teachers. References Afflerbach, P. P., Almasi, J., Guthrie, J. T., & Schafer, W. (1996). Barriers to implementation of a statewide performance program: School personnel perspectives (Reading Research Rep. No. 51). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992a). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6, 397414. Allington, R. L., & McGill-Franzen, A. (1992b). Does high stakes testing improve school effectiveness? Spectrum, 10, 312. Almasi, J. F., Afflerbach, P. P., Guthrie, J. T., & Schafer, W. D. (1995). Effects of a statewide performance assessment program on classroom instructional practice in literacy (Reading Research Rep. No. 32). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers: The report of the commission on reading. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education. Aschbacher, P. R. (1994). Helping educators to develop and use alternative assessments: Barriers and facilitators. Educational Policy, 8, 202223. Au, K. H. & Valencia, S. W. (1997). The complexities of portfolio assessment. In D. Hansen & N. Burbules (Eds.), Teaching and its predicaments (pp. 123144). Boulder, CO: Westview. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1995, April). What does the educational system bring to learning a new pedagogy of reading or mathematics? Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Bridge, C. A. (1994). Implementing large scale change in literacy instruction. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research, theory, and practice: Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 257265). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_931
next page >
< previous page
page_932
next page > Page 932
Bridge, C. A., Compton-Hall, M., & Cantrell, S. C. (1997). Classroom writing practices revisited: The effects of statewide reform on writing instruction. Elementary School Journal, 98, 151170. Bruce, B., Osborn, J., & Commeyras, M. (1993). Contention and consensus: The development of the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress in reading. Educational Assessment, 1, 225254. California Department of Education. (1987). English-language arts framework for California public schools. Sacramento, CA: Author. Callahan, S. (1997). Tests worth taking?: Using portfolios for accountability in Kentucky. Research in the Teaching of English, 31, 295336. Campbell, J. R., Donahue, P. L., Reese, C. M., & Phillips, G. W. (1996). NAEP 1994 reading reports card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cohen, D. K. (1995). What is the system in systemic reform? Educational Researcher, 24(9), 1117. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. In G. Grant (Ed.), The review of research in education (pp. 349). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(1), 313. Curtis, M. E., & Glaser, R. (1983). Reading theory and the assessment of reading achievement. Journal of Educational Measurement 20, 133148. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: ''The power of the bottom over the top." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 233241. Dunbar, S. B., Koretz, D. M., & Hoover, H. D. (1992). Quality control in the development and use of performance assessments. Applied Measurement in Education, 4, 289303. Elliott, E. J. (1996). Literacy: From policy to practice. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 590595. Elmore, R. F. (1990). Introduction: On changing the structure of public schools. In R. F. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 128). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Firestone, W. A., Fuhrman, S. H., & Kirst, M. W. (1989). The progress of reform: An appraisal of state education initiatives. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University. Flesch, R. (1995). Why Johnny can't read. New York: Harper & Brothers. Freedman, S. W. (1993). Linking large-scale testing and classroom portfolio assessments of student writing. Educational Assessment, 1, 2752. Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn't. Phi Delta Kappan, 73, 744752. Gearhart, M., Herman, J. L., Baker, E. L., & Whittaker, A. K. (1993). Whose work is it? A question for the validity of largescale portfolio assessment (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 363). Los Angeles: National Center for the Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. Goertz, M. E., Floden, R. E., & O'Day, J. (1995). Studies of education reform: systemic reform (Vol. 1): Findings and conclusions. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University. Goldberg, G. L., Roswell, B. S., & Michaels, H. (1995/1996). Can assessment mirror instruction? A look at peer response and revision in a large-scale writing test. Educational Assessment, 3(4), 287314. Gonzales, P. C., & Grubb, M. (1997). California's literature-based curriculum and the California literature project. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching and communicative and visual arts (pp. 695703). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gooden, S. (1996). A comparison of writing assessment portfolios in two states: Implications for large-scale writing assessment. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 8899). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Guthrie, J. T., & Kirsch, I. (1984). The emergent perspective on literacy. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 351355. Guthrie, J. T., Schafer, W. D., Afflerbach, P. P., & Almasi, J. F. (1994). Systemic reform of literacy education: State and district-level policy changes in Maryland (Reading Research Rep. No. 27). Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Haney, W. (1991). We must take care: Fitting assessments to functions. In V. Perrone (Ed.), Expanding student assessment (pp. 142163). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hart, G. K. (1996). A policymaker's response. Journal of Literacy Research, 28, 596601. Herman, J. L. (1991). Research in cognition and learning: Implications for achievement testing practice. In M. C. Wittrock & E. L. Baker (Eds.), Testing and cognition (pp. 154165). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Herman, J. L., & Golan, S. (1993). The effects of standardized testing on teaching and schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(4), 2025, 4142.
Herman, J. L., Gearhart, M., & Baker, E. L. (1993). Assessing writing portfolios: Issues in the validity and meaning of scores. Educational Assessment, 1, 201224. Hieronymus, A. N., Hoover, H. D., Cantor, N. K., & Oberley, K. R. (1987). Writing supplement teacher's guide: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Chicago: Riverside. Hoffman, J. V., Worthy, J., Roser, N. L., McKool, S. S., Rutherford, W. L., & Strecker, S. (1996). Performance assessment in first grade classrooms: The PALM model. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 100112). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
< previous page
page_932
next page >
< previous page
page_933
next page > Page 933
Jennings, N. E. (1995). Interpreting policy in real classrooms: Case studies of state reform and teacher practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Koretz, D. M., Barron, S., Mitchell, K. J., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Koretz, D., McCaffrey, D., Klein, S., Bell, R., & Stecher, B. (1993). The reliability of scores from the 1992 Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 355). Los Angeles: RAND Institute on Education and Training, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996). Final report: Perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 409). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., & Deibert, E. (1992). The Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program: Interim report on implementation and impact, 199192 school year (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 350). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., & McCaffrey, D. (1994). The Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program: Findings and implications. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 13(3), 516. Koretz, D., Stecher, B., Klein, S., McCaffrey, D., & Deibert, E. (1993). Can portfolios assess student performance and influence instruction? The 19911992 Vermont experience (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 371). Los Angeles: National Center for the Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. LeMahieu, P. G., Eresh, J. T., & Wallace, R. C. (1992). Using student portfolios for a public accounting. School Administrator, 49(11), 815. Lindle, J. C., Petrosko, J., & Pankratz, R. (1997, May). 1996 Review of research on the Kentucky education reform act. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Institute for Education Research. Linn, R. L. (1986). Educational testing and assessment: Research needs and policy issues. American Psychologist, 41, 11531160. Linn, R. L. (1998, April). Assessments and accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Dunbar, S. B. (1991). Complex, performance-based assessment: Expectations and validation criteria. Educational Researcher, 20(8), 1521. Linn, R. L., Grau, E., & Sanders, N. M. (1990). Comparing state and district test results to national norms: The validity of claims that "Everyone is above average." Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(3), 514. Lipson, M. Y. (1997, April). Teacher diversity as an influence on change: Capturing the multiple dimensions of teacher beliefs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Lipson, M. Y., & Mosenthal, J. (1997, April). The differential impact of Vermont's writing portfolio assessment on classroom instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Loofbourrow, P. T. (1994). Composition in the context of the CAP: A case study of the interplay between composition assessment and classrooms. Educational Assessment, 2, 749. Lucas, C. K. (1988a). Toward ecological evaluation. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 10(1), 13, 1217. Lucas, C. K. (1988b). Recontextualizing literacy assessment. Quarterly of the National Writing Project and the Center for the Study of Writing, 10(2), 410. Lusi, S. F. (1997). The role of state departments of education in complex school reform. New York: Teachers College Press. Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-based reform in nine states. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania. McDonnell, L. (1997, February). The politics of state testing: Implementing new student assessments. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. McDonnell, L., & Choisser, C. (1997, September). Testing and teaching: Local implementation of new state assessments. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1993). Flunk'em or get them classified: The contamination of primary grade accountability data. Educational Researcher, 22(1), 1922. McGill-Franzen, A., & Ward, N. (1997, April). Teachers' use of new standards, frameworks, and assessments for English language arts and social studies: Local cases of New York State primary grade teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. McLaughlin, M. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 171178. Mehrens, W. A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence? Education Policy Analysis Archives [Online serial], 6(13). Available http://olam.ed.asu.edu/epaa/
Mehrens, W. A. (1992). Using performance assessment for accountability purposes. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(1), 39, 20. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13103). New York: Macmillan.
< previous page
page_933
next page >
< previous page
page_934
next page > Page 934
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 1323. Michigan State Board of Education. (1986). Essential Goals and Objectives for Reading Education. Lansing, MI: Author. Miller, M. D., & Legg, S. M. (1993). Alternative assessment in a high-stakes environment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(2), 915. Miller, S. D., Hayes, C. T., & Atkinson, T. S. (1997). State officials' efforts to improve students' reading and language arts achievement with their newly designed end-of-grade assessments. In C. K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. J. Leu (Eds.), Inquiries in literacy theory and practice: Forty-sixth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 91100). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Mosenthal, J., Lipson, M. Y., Mekkelsen, J., Daniels, P., & Jiron, H. W. (1996). The meaning and use of portfolios in different literacy contexts: Making sense of the Vermont Assessment Program. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Forty-fifth yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 113123). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Mosenthal, J. H., Mekkelsen, J. E., & Jiron, H. W. (1997). Agents of their own instruction: The teacher's perspective on the influence of the Vermont Assessment Program. In D. J. Leu, C. K. Kinzer, & K. A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Forty-fifty yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 113123). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Moss, P. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability. Educational Researcher, 23(2), 512. Mullis, I. V. S., Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. E. (1993). NAEP 1992 reading report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Assessment Governing Board (ND). Reading framework for the 1992 and 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: Author. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. (1992). Raising standards for American Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Educational Goals Panel. (1991). National educational goals report: Building a nation of learners. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Nolen, S. B., Haladyna, T. M., & Haas, N. S. (1992). Uses and abuses of achievement test scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 11(2), 915. Peters, C. W., Wixson, K. K., Valencia, S. W., & Pearson, P. D. (1993). Changing statewide reading assessment: A case study of Michigan and Illinois. In B. R. Gifford (Ed.), Policy perspectives on educational testing (pp. 295391). Boston: Kluwer. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Popham, J. W., Cruse, K. L., Rankin, S. C., Sandifer, P. D., & Williams, P. L. (1985). Measurement-driven instruction: It's on the road. Phi Delta Kappan, 66, 628634. Raths, J., & Fanning, J. (1993). Primary school reform in Kentucky revisited. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence. Resnick, L. B., & Resnick, D. L. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. In B. R. Gifford & M. C. O'Connor (Eds.), Future assessments: Changing views of aptitude, achievement, and instruction (pp. 3775). Boston: Kluwer. Resnick, L., Resnick, D., & DeStefano, L. (1993). Cross-scorer and cross-method comparability and distribution of judgments of student math, reading and writing performance: Results from the New Standards Project Big Sky Scoring Conference. Los Angles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing. Roeber, E., Bond, L. A., & Braskamp, D. (1997). Trends in statewide student assessment programs, 1997. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory and Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC. Salinger, T., & Chittenden, E. (1994). Analysis of an early literacy portfolio: Consequences for instruction. Language Arts, 71(6), 446452. Shepard, L. A. (1989). Why we need better assessments. Educational Leadership, 46(7), 49. Shepard, L. A. (1991). Will national tests improve student learning? Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 232238. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Shepard, L. A., Flexer, R. J., Hiebert, E. H., Marion, S. F., Mayfield, V., & Weston, J. T. (1996). Effects of introducing classroom performance assessments on student learning. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(3), 718.
Simmons, W., & Resnick, L. (1993). Assessment as the catalyst of school reform. Educational Leadership, 50(5), 1116. Smith, M. L. (1991). Put to the test: The effects of external testing on teachers. Educational Researcher, 20(5), 811. Smith, M. L., Edelsky, C., Draper, K., Rottenberg, C., & Cherland, M. (1990). The role of testing in elementary schools (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 321). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. Smith, M. L., Noble, A. J., Heinecke, W., Seck, M., Parish, C., Cabay, M., Junker, S. C., Haag, S., Taylor, K., Safran, Y., Penley, Y., & Bradshaw, A. (1997). Reforming Schools by Reforming Assessment: Consequences of the
< previous page
page_934
next page >
< previous page
page_935
next page > Page 935
Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP): Equity and Teacher Capacity Building (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 425). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, University of California. Smith, M. S., & O'Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. Furhman (Ed.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the Politics of Education Associations (pp. 233267). Philadelphia: Falmer. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10, 6387. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 3363. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449481. Standerford, N. S. (1997). Reforming reading instruction on multiple levels: Interrelations and disconnections across the state, district, and classroom levels. Educational Policy, 11, 5891. Stephens, D., Pearson, P. D., Gilrane, C., Roe, M., Stallman, A. C., Shelton, J., Weinzierl, J., Rodriguez, A., & Commeyras, M. (1995). Assessment and decision making in schools: A cross-site analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 478499. Supovitz, J. A., & Brennan, R. T. (1997). Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest test of all? An examination of the equitability of portfolio assessment relative to standardized tests. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 472506. Supovitz, J. A., MacGowan, A., III, & Slattery, J. (1997). Assessing agreement: An examination of the interrater reliability of portfolio assessment in Rochester, New York. Educational Assessment, 4, 237259. Valencia, S. W. (1991). Portfolios: Panacea or Pandora's box? In F. Finch (Ed.), Educational performance testing (pp. 3346). Chicago: Riverside. Valencia, S. W., & Au, K., H. (1997). Portfolios across educational contexts: Issues of evaluation, professional development, and system validity. Educational Assessment, 4, 135. Valencia, S. W., Pearson, P. D., Peters, C. W., & Wixson, K. K. (1989). Theory and practice in statewide reading assessment: Closing the gap. Educational Leadership, 47(7), 5763. Weiss, B. (1994). California's new English-Language Arts assessment. In S. W. Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, & P. P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Authentic reading assessment: Practices and possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Welch, C. (1991, April). Estimating the reliability of a direct measure of writing through generalizability theory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago. Wiggins, G. P. (1993). Assessing student performance. New York: Jossey-Bass. Wixson, K. K., & Peters, C. W. (1984). Reading redefined: A Michigan Reading Association position paper. Michigan Reading Journal, 17, 47. Wixson, K. K., & Dutro, E. (1999). Standards for primary-grade reading: An analysis of state frameworks. Elementary School Journal, 100, 89110. Wixson, K. K., Peters, C. W., Weber, E. M., & Roeber, E. (1987). New directions in statewide reading assessment. Reading Teacher, 40, 749754.
< previous page
page_935
next page >
< previous page
page_1
next page > Page 1
PART I LITERACY RESEARCH AROUND THE WORLD
< previous page
page_1
next page >
< previous page
page_937
next page > Page 937
AUTHOR INDEX A Abbott, J., 612, 625, 732, 738 Aboitiz, F., 230, 241, 247 Abouzeid, M., 536, 537, 541 Abramson, S., 819, 834 Absher, J. R., 232, 249 Abt Associates Inc., 860, 861, 864, 870 Abu-Rabia, S., 802, 805 Ackerman, J. M., 292, 306, 609, 623, 700, 710 Acock, A. C., 880, 881, 885 Adams, C. S., 438, 449 Adams, E. K., 725, 735 Adams, M. J., 212t, 292, 303, 348, 354, 455, 479, 481, 483, 493, 494, 495, 496, 529, 539, 546, 551, 557, 673, 685, 902, 906 Adams, M. L., 195, 204, 204 Adams, S. J., 797, 805 Addams, J., 794, 795, 805 Adler, M., 588, 604 Adorno, T., 144 Afeaki, V., 10, 16 Afflerbach, P. P., 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 175, 177, 178, 324, 329, 408, 415, 418, 420, 550, 554, 560, 846, 850, 923, 924, 931, 932 Agee, J., 364, 375 Ahlbrand, W. P., Jr., 121t Ahmad, M., 656, 657, 665 Ajibola, O., 672, 685 Akiyama, H., 883, 885 Alao, S., 404, 409, 411, 416, 420, 637, 643 Albert, M. I., 244, 246 Alcoff, L., 128, 137 Alderson, J. C., 797, 802, 806 Aldous, J., 880, 886 Alegria, J., 266, 353 Alexander, A., 231, 247 Alexander, A. W., 486, 496 Alexander, F., 565, 581 Alexander, G., 539 Alexander, P. A., 287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 310, 316, 322, 323, 325, 329, 330, 404, 405, 418, 510, 517, 612, 616, 625, 631, 634, 635, 639, 643, 648, 650, 651, 654, 661, 662, 665 Alfonso, I. A., 43, 50 Allal, L., 537, 539 Allan, A., 801, 806 Alleman, J., 604
Allen, A. M. A., 701, 710 Allende, I., 41, 50 Allen, G., 780, 784 Allen, J., 77, 79, 81, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95, 125, 137, 445, 450, 691, 694, 695, 698, 700, 701, 705, 710, 711 Allen, S., 81, 85, 88, 90, 94, 700, 710 Allen, V. G., 373, 374, 375, 377, 378, 564, 565, 566, 583 Alley, G. R., 189, 194 Allington, R. L., 413, 418, 566, 580, 581, 587, 588, 606, 671, 672, 674, 675, 676, 681, 683, 684, 685, 687, 729, 732, 740, 839, 843, 844, 846, 847, 848, 850, 891, 892, 903, 906, 907, 925, 931, 933 Allison, D. T., 429, 431, 447 Allison, J., 641, 643 Alloway, N., 7, 13 Almasi, J. F., 169, 176, 297, 304, 349, 350, 351, 354, 356, 373, 375, 404, 418, 574, 575, 581, 618, 623, 865, 868, 923, 931, 932 Almasi, J. G., 581 Almasi, L., 101, 103, 108, 555, 556, 560 Almy, M., 91, 94 Aloki, E. M., 827, 831 Altieri, J., 370, 379 Alton-Lee, A., 170, 177 Altwerger, A., 569, 581 Altwerger, B., 576, 582, 855, 857, 868 Alvermann, D. E., 78, 90, 92, 94, 95, 103, 107, 128, 135, 137, 304, 324, 329, 349, 350, 351, 352, 354, 356, 406, 420, 513, 518, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 618, 623, 629, 630, 631, 638, 639, 642, 650, 654, 661, 683, 688, 698, 710, 722, 723, 735
< previous page
page_937
next page >
< previous page
page_938
next page > Page 938
Amabile, T. M., 302, 304 Amanti, C., 598, 606, 701, 713, 826, 833, 848, 850 Amaya-Williams, M., 345, 355 Ambardar, A. K., 730, 738 American Association for the Advancement of Science, 576, 581 American Primers, 116, 119 American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychology in Education, 295, 304 American Research Institutes, 456, 481 Ames, C., 296, 299, 304, 407, 418 Amory, H., 119 Anaya, R., 632, 642 Anderman, E. M., 407, 415, 418 Andersen, H., 231, 247 Anderson, A., 234, 246 Anderson, D. K., 293, 299, 309 Anderson, E., 349, 350, 356, 404, 409, 411, 416, 418, 420 Anderson, G. L., 143, 150, 692, 694, 698, 704, 708, 710 Anderson, H. G., 486, 496 Anderson-Inman, L., 752, 755, 765, 766, 774, 784, 786 Anderson, J. L., 3, 13, 295, 304, 438, 447, 700, 715, 797, 808 Anderson, L., 733, 736 Anderson, L. M., 673, 686 Anderson, N., 801, 806 Anderson, R., 351, 356 Anderson, R. B., 102, 108 Anderson, R. C., 64, 73, 73, 74, 101, 103, 107, 165, 168, 175, 199, 204, 212t, 269, 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 281, 282, 291, 304, 305, 308, 318, 329, 369, 378, 413, 418, 455, 482, 503, 507, 510, 518, 521, 523, 527, 541, 548, 549, 551, 552, 555, 557, 558, 559, 563, 567, 581, 797, 810, 847, 848, 921, 931 Anderson, R. E., 750, 765 Anderson, T. H., 290, 302, 305, 318, 324, 329, 554, 557, 612, 613, 614, 623, 649, 653, 656, 661 Anderson, V., 291, 298, 307, 515, 518, 556, 557 Anders, P. L., 53, 65, 72, 74, 103, 294, 304, 505, 508, 513, 518, 519, 591, 604, 729, 730, 733, 734, 735, 740, 736, 738 Anders, T. D., 656, 662 Andrade, A., 820, 832 Andreason, P., 233, 240, 241, 244, 245, 248 Andrews, L., 755, 770 Angelis, P. J., 797, 810 Angell, A. L., 428, 444, 453, 856, 869 Anglin, J. M., 275, 279, 281 Anglum, B. S., 854, 867 Anstett, M., 755, 770 Anstrom, K., 813, 831 Antil, L. R., 678, 679, 689 Anton-Oldenberg, M., 695n, 701, 713 Antonucci, T. C., 883, 885
Anweiler, O., 35, 38 Anzaldua, G., 699, 710 Apicella, A. M., 233, 240, 244, 247 Applebee, A., 397, 570, 616, 623 Applebee, A. N., 381, 389, 391, 393, 394, 396, 397, 581, 613, 625 Appleby, J., 111, 119 Apple, M., 142, 150 Appleman, D., 390, 399 Apple, M. W., 611, 623 Aquino, T., 233, 240, 241, 244, 248 Arboleda, J., 48, 50 Arbreton, A. J. A., 409, 422 Archer, J., 407, 418 Archwamety, T., 547, 560 Arendale, D., 658, 663 Armbruster, B. B., 289, 290, 292, 302, 305, 318, 324, 329, 554, 557, 612, 613, 614, 623, 649, 653, 656, 661 Armstrong, E., 485, 498 Armstrong, J. O., 612, 613, 614, 623 Arneberg, L. N., 816, 831 Arneberg, P. W., 816, 831 Arnold, D. H., 428, 447 Arnold, D. S., 428, 444, 453 Arnold, H., 21, 22, 28 Arnold, M., 383, 384, 397 Aronoff, M., 532, 539 Aronowitz, S., 145, 150, 619, 623 Aronson, E., 289, 303, 305 Arter, J., 271, 282 Artley, A. S., 720, 725, 735 Arya, P., 673, 685 Asam, C. L., 413, 415, 418 Asbury, E., 350, 357 Aschbacher, P. R., 918, 931 Ascher, C., 844, 849 Asher, N., 314n, 329, 332 Asher, S., 142, 151 Asher, S. R., 406, 422 Ashkenazi, M., 231, 247 Ashton-Warner, S., 705, 710 Askov, E. N., 725, 735 Asselin, M., 279, 283, 507, 522 Association of American University Presses, 119, 119 Atchley, R. C., 882, 885 Athanases, S. Z., 389, 391, 397, 398 Athanassoula, A., 34, 38 Athey, I., 406, 418
Atkinson, D., 800, 808 Atkinson, J., 393, 400 Atkinson, R., 771, 785 Atkinson, T. S., 905, 907, 926, 934 Atkins, P., 239, 246 Atwell, N., 81, 85, 88, 93, 95, 616, 619, 621, 623, 692n, 697, 700, 710 Auerbach, E. R., 800, 806, 819, 831, 848, 849, 858, 859, 866, 867, 879, 885 Auerbach, I. T., 731, 739 August, D., 106, 107, 340, 354, 814, 827, 831 Au, K. H., 125, 137, 142, 150, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 351, 354, 370, 375, 403, 413, 415, 418, 455, 482, 631, 639, 642, 838, 839, 844, 845, 846, 847, 848, 849, 850, 926, 927, 931, 935 Austin, M. C., 720, 723, 724, 728, 735, 739 Austin, S., 20, 27 Austin, T., 701, 710 Ausubel, D. P., 512, 518 Avery, C. S., 81, 85, 88, 89, 95, 700, 710 Axelrod, R. B., 290, 305 Axelrod, S., 194 Ayers-Lopez, S., 338, 355
< previous page
page_938
next page >
< previous page
page_939
next page > Page 939
Ayersman, D. J., 749, 750, 765, 768 Ayres, L. R., 457, 458, 471, 481 B Bacharach, N., 726, 735 Bacher, B. A., 634, 643 Bachman, L., 801, 806, 807 Baddeley, A., 257, 258, 264 Baer, D. M., 182, 193 Baer, V. E. H., 778, 785 Baghban, M. J. M., 567, 581 Bagshaw, N., 338, 358 Bakhtin, M. M., 196, 197, 204, 289, 305, 342, 354, 388, 398, 619, 623, 792, 806 Bailey, J., 547, 552, 559 Bailey, M. H., 25, 28, 725, 729, 735 Bailyn, B., 112, 120 Bajaj, A., 652, 665 Baker, C. D., 7, 13 Baker, E. L., 117, 121, 236, 246, 916, 920, 932, 933 Baker, I., 168, 175, 413, 515, 520 Baker, J. N., 676, 690 Baker, K., 374, 376, 566, 580, 581 Baker, L., 406, 407, 409, 418, 438, 448, 557, 574, 576, 581, 650, 661, 729, 732, 740, 856, 857, 858, 867 Baker, S. K., 503, 510, 516, 518 Balajthy, E., 324, 335, 510, 512, 518, 779, 785 Balcom, M., 744, 767 Baldwin, R. S., 270, 277, 283, 392, 399, 506, 518, 522, 630, 644, 646, 661 Baldwin, S., 53, 73 Bales, R. J., 554, 558 Ballard, K., 5, 11, 14, 675, 687 Ball, D. L., 287, 293, 305, 479, 481, 616, 624, 889, 900, 901, 905, 906, 912, 931 Ball, E. W., 457, 481, 486, 488, 489, 490, 494, 496 Ballenger, C., 437, 448, 695n, 696, 700, 701, 705, 710, 711, 713, 716 Balmuth, M., 113, 114, 120 Balow, B., 671, 686 Baltes, P. B., 882, 885 Bamman, H., 530, 532, 540 Banaszak, R. A., 633, 642 Bandura, A., 407, 418 Banford, H., 700, 711 Bangert-Drowns, R., 772, 773, 785 Barber, C., 751, 766 Barber, L., 130, 139 Barbieri, M., 695, 700, 711 Barclay, K. D., 730, 742
Barker, D., 880, 885 Barker, J., 111, 120, 779, 788 Barker, K., 166, 174, 176 Barker, T. A., 485, 493, 494, 501 Barker, W. W., 231, 233, 240, 244, 246, 247 Barlow, D. H., 184, 187, 193 Barnard, K. E., 854, 867 Barnes, C., 905, 906 Barnes, D., 394, 398 Barnes, L. A., 731, 736 Barnes, S., 854, 870 Barnes, W., 531, 539 Barnes, W. E., 438, 452 Barnes, W. S., 854, 856, 870, 877, 887 Barnette, J. J., 725, 735 Barnett, J., 6, 14 Barnett, M., 797, 806 Barnhart, J., 391, 401 Barocio-Quijano, R., 49, 50 Barone, D., 442, 448, 537, 539 Baron, J., 485, 486, 501, 554, 557 Baroz, R., 694, 700, 711 Barratt-Pugh, 6, 13 Barrera, B. R., 802, 806, 819, 827, 831 Barrett, M., 407, 414, 415, 418, 419 Barron, S., 917, 933 Barr, R., xiv, 102, 108, 141, 142, 150, 151, 211, 212t, 213t, 214, 224, 226, 288, 305, 308, 369, 375, 378, 455, 481, 482, 503, 509, 518, 563, 564, 581, 587, 604, 683, 684, 686, 688, 689, 719, 721, 722, 735, 740, 879, 887 Barry, A. L., 115, 119, 120, 371, 378, 599, 606, 698, 716 Barry, S., 802, 806 Barsalou, L. W., 198, 199, 205 Barter, A., 725, 735 Barthes, R., 609, 623 Bartholomae, D., 211, 226 Bartlett, B. J., 324, 329 Bartlett, F. C., 17, 27 Bartolome, I., 149, 150 Bartolome, L., 823, 824, 833 Barton, D., 27, 27, 156, 160, 197, 205, 859, 867 Basic Skills Agency, 854, 867 Bassir, D., 404, 419 Bassiri, D., 555, 558 Bass, L., 169, 175 Basso, K., 156, 160 Basurto, A., 820, 832 Bateman, J. A., 314, 329
Bates, E. A., 197, 198, 205 Batson, T., 781, 782, 785, 786 Battle, J., 394, 399, 729, 738, 821, 831 Bauer, P. J., 549, 557 Baumann, J. F., 77, 78, 79, 88, 90, 95, 274, 281, 316, 329, 411, 418, 503, 518, 572, 574, 580, 581, 592, 594, 604, 683, 688, 691, 697, 711 Bauman, R., 156, 160, 395, 398 Baum-Brunner, S., 697, 700, 711 Bayles, D., 732, 738 Bazerman, C., 167, 175, 197, 203, 205, 289, 290, 305 Beach, J. D., 370, 375 Beach, R. W., 165, 167, 168, 170, 175, 175, 361, 366, 368, 375, 378, 385, 386, 389, 391, 398, 400, 554, 560, 773, 785 Beal, D. K., 725, 740 Bealor, S., 732, 735 Beals, D. E., 432, 438, 448, 507, 518 Beane, J. A., 589, 591, 605 Bean, R. M., 676, 686 Bean, T. W., 554, 557, 629, 630, 631, 632, 635, 637, 639, 640, 642, 644, 725, 729, 735, 797, 806 Beard,, 730? Bear, D. R., 531, 532, 536, 537, 539, 542, 673, 686 Beardsley, M., 167, 178 Beasman, J., 350, 358 Beason, L., 290, 305
< previous page
page_939
next page >
< previous page
page_940
next page > Page 940
Beattie, J. R., 102, 108, 121, 189, 194 Beatty, A. S., 922, 934 Beck, I. L., 103, 107, 163, 164, 165, 169, 174, 175, 177, 213t, 253, 255, 266, 270, 277, 279, 281, 282, 287, 290, 294, 297, 299, 300, 304, 305, 307, 309, 313, 318, 329, 354, 404, 418, 486, 493, 494, 495, 496, 499, 503, 508, 509, 518, 548, 552, 557, 559, 596, 605, 613, 623, 626 Becker, B. J., 222, 223, 224, 516 Becker, D. A., 751, 765, 778, 785 Becker, H. J., 750, 756, 757, 765 Becker, L. B., 344, 354 Becker, W. C., 503, 518 Beckett, S. L., 362, 365, 375 Beckstrom, S., 677, 689 Beck, U., 197, 205 Bee, H. L., 854, 867 Beers, C., 531, 539 Beers, J., 531, 536, 539, 540 Behar, R., 154, 160, 160 Behrmann, M., 241, 244, 246 Belenky, M., 415, 418, 753, 765 Belensky, M., 173, 175, 765 Bellack, A. A., 614, 623 Bellack, L., 182, 193 Bell, L., 253, 255, 266, 486, 494, 499 Bell, M. L., 854, 867 Bell, M. S., 656, 662 Bell, N., 288, 308 Bell, R., 854, 867, 918, 933 Bell, R. Q., 555, 557 Belmont, M. J., 412, 416, 422 Beltrán-Rueda, M., 48, 50 Bem, D. J., 223, 224, 224 Benally, A., 621, 626 Bengoa, J., 47, 50 Bengtson, V. L., 875, 880, 881, 883, 885, 886, 887 Bennett, L., 101, 107, 287, 297, 303, 307, 349, 356, 403, 404, 406, 413, 420, 577, 583, 617, 620, 625, 846, 847, 850 Bennett, V., 32, 33, 38 Bennett, W., 398 Benson, D. F., 241, 244, 246 Benson, I., 81, 85, 91, 96 Benson, N. J., 486, 499, 674, 688 Bentler, P. M., 231, 247 Benton, S. L., 648, 663 Ben-Zeev, S., 828, 831 Bereiter, C., 101, 107, 169, 175, 287, 288, 293, 296, 305, 309, 334, 413, 418 Berends, M., 893, 907
Berger, C., 780, 786 Bergeron, B. S., 344, 354, 589, 605, 731, 735 Berglund, R. L., 505, 522 Bergman, J., 101, 103, 108, 555, 556, 560 Bergman, J. L., 404, 421, 729, 740 Berian, C., 317, 331 Berkemeyer, V., 799, 806 Berkenkotter, C., 197, 205, 289, 305 Berkowitz, S. J., 554, 557 Berliner, D. C., 403, 419, 667, 686 Bernal, E., 42, 49, 52 Bernard, I., 78, 98 Bernard, R. M., 656, 661 Bernhardt, E. B., 509, 514, 518, 794, 796, 797, 798f, 800, 802, 803, 806, 827, 831 Berry, S. L., 650, 663 Bertelson, P., 486, 497 Berthoff, A. E., 693, 711 Bertrand, N. P., 726, 741 Beseler, C., 695n, 701, 713 Besse, J., 435, 448 Bestgen, Y., 315n, 318, 329 Bethune, N., 5, 11, 14, 675, 687 Bettencourt, B. A., 210, 225 Betts, E. A., 509, 518 Beyard-Tyler, K. C., 366, 375 Beyer, L. E., 694, 701, 711 Beyersdorfer, J. M., 512, 518 Bhabha, H. K., 154155, 160 Bhatia, V. K., 797, 806 Bialystok, E., 816, 831 Bianchi, L. L., 698, 711 Bianco, L., 187, 193 Biber, D., 347, 354 Biddle, B. J., 403, 419, 667, 686 Bielaczyc, K., 650, 661 Bigenho, F., 724, 740 Biggs, H. J., 653, 662 Biglmaier, F., 792, 806 Bijeljac-Babic, R., 262, 267 Bijker, W. E., 744, 765 Billig, M., 196, 205 Billingsley, A., 878, 885 Binder, J., 437, 448 Bird, M., 101, 107, 169, 175 Birkerts, S., 385, 398, 765 Birman, B. F., 675, 687, 890, 891, 906, 907
Birtton, B. K., 317, 330 Bisanz, G. L., 256, 266 Bisblinghoff, B. S., 601, 711 Bisesi, T. L., 189, 193 Bishop, A., 729, 735 Bishop, D. V. M., 347, 349, 354 Bishop, R. S., 390, 394, 398 Bissex, G. L., 77, 84, 95, 693, 695, 711, 857, 858, 867 Bizzell, P., 197, 205 Bjaalid, I. K., 254, 255, 265, 485, 492, 498 Blachman, B. A., 348, 354, 457, 481, 483, 485, 486, 488, 489, 490, 491, 493, 494, 495, 496, 497, 500 Blachowicz, C. L. Z., 503, 507, 508, 518, 519 Black, J. B., 317, 329 Black, R., 486, 489, 496 Black, S., 700, 705, 716 Black, S. E., 241, 244, 246 Blackstock, J., 755, 768 Blackstone, T., 279, 283 Bland-Stewart, L., 340, 358 Blanton, L., 533, 536, 537, 541 Blanton, W. E., 508, 518, 533, 536, 537, 541, 567, 583 Bleakley, M., 375 Bleich, D., 381, 387, 391, 398, 563, 565, 581 Bliesmer, E. P., 646, 661 Bliss, L. S., 344, 358 Bloch, J., 514, 515, 520 Block, C. C., 573, 574, 581, 592, 594, 605, 729, 732, 740 Block, E., 802, 806
< previous page
page_940
next page >
< previous page
page_941
next page > Page 941
Bloom, B. S., 685, 686, 854, 867 Bloom, H., 383, 384, 398 Bloom, W., 21, 27 Bloome, D., 142, 143, 149, 150, 156, 160, 338, 354, 389, 395, 398, 569, 571, 581, 610, 616, 624, 638, 642 Bloor, D., 196, 205 Blues, A., 391, 400 Blumenfeld, P. C., 297, 307, 407, 409, 410, 419, 420, 422, 616, 620, 621, 624, 625 Blumenthal, S. L., 116, 120 Blum, I. H., 673, 688, 800, 806, 821, 831 Blumstein, S. E., 236, 246 Bluth, G. J., 321, 322, 324, 333 Board of Directors, International Reading Association, 902, 906 Boehnlein, M. M., 727, 729, 735 Boggiano, A. K., 407, 414, 415, 418, 419 Boggs, S. T., 157, 161, 162 Bol, L., 648, 666 Bolliger, C. M., 321, 331 Bolter, J. D., 296, 305 Bomkamp, E. M., 508, 509, 518 Bond, G. L., 102, 107, 682, 686, 837, 849 Bond, L. A., 916, 917, 934 Bond, S. J., 313, 330 Book, C. L., 404, 419, 555, 558, 729, 735 Book, W. F., 661 Boone, R., 777, 785 Boorstin, D. J., 630, 642 Boothe, T., 233, 240, 244, 247 Booth, W. C., 91, 95 Borchardt, K. M., 655, 662 Borden, L., 674, 688 Borden, S. L., 486, 499 Bordieu, P., 205 Boring, E., 163, 176 Borman, G. D., 675, 686 Borstrom, I., 495, 497 Boru, K., 143, 150 Boschert, S., 167, 178 Bos, C. S., 505, 513, 518, 519, 730, 736 Bosquet, D., 644, 644 Bossers, B., 514, 519, 802, 806 Botel, M., 731, 736 Bouchereau, E., 827, 833 Bourdieu, P., 150, 197 Bowen, G. M., 404, 421
Bower, G. H., 168, 176, 317, 329 Bowers, P. G., 493, 497, 673, 690 Bowey, J. A., 5, 13, 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 262, 264, 265, 278, 281 Bowlby, M., 258, 266 Bowles, S., 141, 145, 150 Boyarin, J., 745, 765 Boyce, L. N., 592, 593, 607 Boyd, C., 698, 712 Boyd, F. B., 373, 378 Boylan, H. R., 646, 662 Boyle, O. F., 824, 834 Boyle, R. A., 416, 421 Boynton, G., 234, 246 Brackstone, D., 486, 499, 674, 688 Bradley, H., 526, 539 Bradley, L. L., 18, 19, 27, 252, 253, 254, 264, 265, 485, 487, 489, 497, 499, 531, 541 Bradley, R. H., 854, 867 Bradley, V., 782, 785 Bradshaw, A., 913, 935 Brady, S. A., 230, 246, 249, 257, 264, 266, 483, 485, 493, 495, 497, 500 Braithwaite, J. A., 189, 193 Bramlett, R., 350, 354 Brandt, D. M., 289, 305, 321, 322, 324, 333 Brannon, L., 147, 151, 696, 702, 714 Branscombe, A., 701, 711 Branscombe, N. A., 436, 448, 692n, 697, 711 Bransford, J. D., 344, 345, 354, 554, 558, 775, 776, 788 Branston, P., 863, 864, 865, 867 Branz, C. M., 442, 453 Braskamp, D., 916, 917, 934 Braslavsky, B. P., 44, 49, 50 Brassell, D., 438, 450 Brause, R. S., 79, 95 Braverman, M., 169, 174, 177 Breen, M., 6, 13 Breetveldt, I., 174, 176 Breisach, E., 111, 120 Brengelman, S., 515, 520 Brennan, M., 147, 148, 151, 716 Brennan, R. T., 920, 935 Brett, A., 507, 519 Brewer, W. F., 318, 333, 796, 810 Breznitz, Z., 547, 558 Bridge, C. A., 166, 176, 905, 906, 926, 931, 932 Bridwell-Bowles, L., 750, 768, 771, 787 Briggs, C., 395, 398
Briggs, P., 20, 27 Brim, O. G., Jr., 882, 885 Bringhurst, K., 701, 705, 713 Brisbois, J., 514, 519, 802, 806 Briscoe, C., 656, 662 Bristor, V. J., 595, 605 Brittain, M. M., 725, 740 Britten, T., 166, 174, 176 Britt, M. A., 641, 643 Britton, B. K., 172, 176, 292, 295, 305, 312, 313, 330, 641, 644 Britton, G. E., 693, 726, 727, 736 Britton, J., 89, 95, 367, 375, 695, 711 Britzman, D., 125, 137 Brock, C. H., 104, 107, 156, 160, 161, 575, 578, 579, 583, 590n, 592, 594, 605, 606, 825, 831 Broderick, D., 363, 375 Brodkey, I., 134, 137 Brody, G., 438, 452, 872, 878, 887 Bromley, H., 744, 765 Bronen, R. A., 237, 239, 241, 248, 249 Bronfenbrenner, U., 881, 885 Bronk, G., 564, 565, 585 Brooks, G., 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 729, 732, 740, 861, 864, 865, 867 Brophy, J. E., 410, 414, 419, 456, 467, 481, 600, 604 Brosier, G. F., 725, 738 Broudy, H. S., 762, 765 Brown, A. L., 12, 16, 105, 107, 165, 166, 168, 169, 175, 176, 177, 189, 194, 198, 205, 288, 289, 300, 303, 305, 308, 338, 342, 343, 344, 345, 354, 357, 413, 418, 419, 467, 479, 482, 554, 556, 557, 558, 559, 568, 581, 603, 605, 650, 653, 655, 659, 661, 662, 664, 673, 688
< previous page
page_941
next page >
< previous page
page_942
next page > Page 942
Brown, C., 514, 515, 519, 520 Brown, E., 371, 378, 507, 519, 856, 869 Brown, G. P., 211, 225 Brown, H., 3, 13 Brown, I., 165, 166, 170, 176 Brown, L., 101, 108, 430, 452, 701, 705, 715 Brown, P. J., 657, 662 Brown, R., 101, 103, 108, 167, 170, 179, 287, 306, 531, 539, 555, 556, 558, 560, 650, 651, 662, 729, 736 Brown, S. P., 700, 711 Brown, T. L., 797, 806 Brownlee-Conyers, J., 897, 908 Bruce, B. C., 166, 176, 639, 641, 642, 744, 745, 747, 759, 765, 796, 810, 928, 932 Bruce, L. J., 485, 497 Bruck, M., 230, 239, 246, 249, 262, 264, 266, 347, 354, 485, 493, 494, 496, 497, 816, 831 Bruhn, P., 232, 247 Bruner, J. S., 58, 124, 135, 137, 169, 170, 176, 199, 201, 205, 287, 305, 555, 561, 569, 570, 571, 584, 594, 605 Bruning, R., 405, 412, 421 Brush, T. A., 751, 758, 765 Brutten, S., 801, 811 Bryan, L. H., 81, 85, 88, 95 Bryant, P. E., 18, 19, 20, 27, 249, 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 263, 264, 265, 483, 485, 487, 489, 497, 498, 499 Bryk, A. S., 463, 464, 467, 478, 482 Bryson, S., 755, 765 Buchanan, J., 78, 98, 696, 698, 700, 701, 705, 709, 710, 711, 717 Buchman, M., 576, 585, 607 Buchmann, M., 733, 736 Buchsbaum, M. S., 232, 233, 247, 249 Buckingham, B. R., 79, 95 Buell, 437, 448 Buhle, R., 442, 453 Buikema, J., 276, 281, 506, 519 Bullock, R. H., 77, 95, 693, 695, 711 Bullough, R. V., Jr., 695, 711 Bump, J., 780, 785 Burdge, J. L., 505, 523 Burgess, C., 328, 332 Burgess, S. R., 485, 493, 494, 500, 501, 856, 857, 867 Burke, C., 576, 583, 733, 741, 855, 857, 868 Burnett, J., 782, 785 Burns, J. M., 440, 448 Burns, M. S., 211, 220, 226, 347, 348, 359, 478, 479, 482, 668, 683, 684, 689, 701, 705, 713, 814, 834 Burns, S. M., 437, 448 Burrell, K. I., 649, 652, 654, 662, 666 Burroughs, M., 567, 581
Burton, F. R., 78, 95, 691, 711 Burton, L. M., 883, 887 Bus, A. G., 428, 430, 448, 568, 581, 856, 867 Busching, B. A., 589, 605, 698, 711 Bush, C., 725, 736 Bush, G., 911 Buss, R., 169, 174, 177 Buswell, G. T., 793, 809 Butler, C. E., 279, 283, 507, 508, 509, 522 Butler, D. L., 647, 650, 654, 659, 662, 855, 867 Butler, K. G., 340, 349, 359 Butler, S., 698, 711 Butterfield, H., 110, 120 Butterworth, B., 262, 267 Byrd, D., 238, 248 Byrne, B., 485, 486, 488, 494, 497 Byrne, J., 416, 419 Byrne, M., 5, 6, 13 Byrnes, J. P., 654, 664 C Cabay, M., 913, 935 Cahen, L. S., 529, 539 Cai, M., 364, 375 Cain, M. T., 254, 264 Cairney, T. H., 858, 862, 864, 865, 867 Cake, H., 101, 107, 213t Calculator, S., 338, 351, 360 Calderón, M. E., 820, 831 Caldwell, B. M., 854, 867 Caldwell, J., 189, 194 Caldwell-Wood, N., 364, 378 Calero-Breckheimer, A., 823, 832 Calfee, R. C., 211, 226, 271, 273, 281, 485, 497, 503, 519, 587n, 607, 720, 736 Calhoon, A., 262, 265 Calhoun, E. F., 79, 95 California Department of Education, 912, 932 Calkins, L. M., 77, 95, 528, 539, 616, 619, 624, 702, 709, 711, 846, 849 Callahan, S., 926, 932 Calle-Gruber, M., 131, 137 Calvert, C., 652, 665 Camarata, S. M., 340, 355, 777, 787 Cambourne, B., 3, 13, 403, 419, 731, 737 Cameron, W., 81, 85, 91, 96 Camitta, M., 621, 622, 624 Campbell, A. J., 797, 806 Campbell, D. T., 100, 101, 106, 107, 182, 183, 190, 193
Campbell, E. Q., 878, 885 Campbell, J. R., 404, 419, 564, 584, 611, 613, 616, 624, 626, 667, 686, 775, 786, 922, 923, 932, 934 Campione, J. C., 198, 205, 289, 300, 303, 305, 343, 344, 345, 354, 357, 363, 554, 558, 653, 659, 662 Campos, M. A., 48, 50 Campos-Saborio, N., 49, 50 Cancini, H., 279, 283 Cannell, J. J., 684, 686 Cantlon, D. J., 344, 345, 346, 353, 358 Cantor, N. K., 917, 932 Cantrell, S. C., 905, 908, 926, 932 Cantwell, D. P., 672, 687 Capey, A., 26, 28 Caravolas, M., 347, 354 Cardenes, M., 802, 806 Cardoso-Martins, C., 485, 497 Carey, M., 694, 695, 701, 705, 710 Carey, S. P., 270, 281, 672, 689 Carger, C. L., 515, 519 Carlisle, J., 274, 281
< previous page
page_942
next page >
< previous page
page_943
next page > Page 943
Carlo, M., 802, 810 Carlos, L., 900, 901, 902, 903, 906 Carlsen, G., 366, 375 Carlsen, W. S., 612, 614, 624 Carlson, R. A., 794, 806, 880, 886 Carmel, E., 754, 765 Carmine, D., 187, 193 Carnine, D. W., 508, 520, 905, 906 Carnine, R. C., 271, 282 Caroff, S., 753, 765 Caron-Gorell, L., 798, 807 Carpenter, B., 327, 332 Carpenter, P., 172, 177 Carraher, D. W., 293, 305 Carraher, T. N., 293, 305 Carrell, P. L., 322, 330, 514, 519, 797, 800, 802, 806, 807, 813, 832 Carr, E. M., 506, 511, 519 Carr, M., 293, 309 Carroll, J. B., 351, 354, 685, 686 Carroll, J. H., 157, 160, 844, 845, 846, 849 Carroll, P. S., 698, 711 Carr, S., 143, 150, 694 Carr, T., 6, 13 Carr, W., 694, 711 Carson, J. G., 648, 649, 662 Carspecken, P., 143, 150 Carter, B., 252, 265, 485, 499 Carter, K., 91, 95, 124, 137, 137 Carter, R., 510, 514, 519 Carver, R. P., 254, 264, 506, 519 Cary, L., 492, 497 Casareno, A., 696, 700, 705, 713 Casbergue, R., 437, 448 Casey, K., 124, 129, 130, 134, 137 Cason, N. D., 694, 700, 714 Cassar, M., 347, 354 Cassidy, J., 269, 281 Casteel, C. P., 595, 605 Castle, J. M., 11, 13, 486, 497 Castle, M., 730, 742 Castro, I., 45, 50 Cataldo, S., 531, 540 Cattell, J. M., 210, 225, 792, 807 Catto, S., 463, 464, 467, 470, 476, 477, 479, 480, 481
Catts, H. W., 347, 348, 349, 354, 357 Caulfield, J., 81, 85, 91, 95 Caulfield, M., 553, 560, 870 Caul, J. L., 576, 585, 607 Cavanaugh, G. J., 111, 120 Cavello, L., 795, 807 Cavicchiori, V., 813, 832 Cazden, C. B., 10, 13, 153, 156, 161, 197, 202, 205, 337, 338, 342, 343, 346, 354, 393, 398, 577, 581, 582, 614, 615, 619, 624 Celano, D., 438, 439, 451, 848, 850 Center for Applied Special Technology., 765 Center, Y., 5, 13 Centro de Estudios Educativos (CEE), 47, 48, 50 CEO Forum., 757, 765 Cerva, T. R., 102, 108 Cetrulo, R., 45, 50 Chabay, R., 778, 786 Chadwick, E. H., 729, 736 Chadwick, S. C., 729, 736 Chafe, W., 279, 281, 856, 868 Chafouleas, S. M., 494, 497 Chall, J. S., 60, 68, 69, 73, 100, 142, 150, 212t, 363, 375, 493, 495, 497, 551, 558, 576, 582, 683, 686, 720, 736, 847, 849, 923, 932 Chambers, J. G., 891, 906 Chambliss, M., 292, 305, 324, 330 Chamot, A. U., 822, 825, 832 Champion, T., 340, 354, 355 Champion, T. B., 340, 341, 355 Chandler, J., 438, 452, 854, 856, 870, 877, 887 Chaney, C., 854, 868 Chang, J. -Y., 233, 240, 244, 247 Chang, L., 492, 494, 499 Chang-Wells, G. L., 444, 453, 695, 717 Chang, Y., 820, 832 Chanlin, L. J., 753, 768 Chapman, C. A., 231, 246 Chapman, J. W., 11, 12, 13, 16, 262, 265, 414, 419 Chapman, M. L., 436, 437, 448 Chapman, S., 655, 665 Charney, D., 167, 176 Chartier, R., 112, 120 Chase, N. D., 648, 649, 655, 662, 663 Chase, P., 698, 700, 712 Chasen, S. P., 566, 582 Chassan, J. B., 182, 193 Chatters, L. M., 875, 887 Cheek, M. C., 726, 736 Chen, A. H., 317, 319, 332
Chen, C., 327, 330, 749, 750, 753, 754, 765, 774, 785 Chen, D. T., 755, 765 Chen, H., 754, 765 Chen, R. S., 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 493, 501 Cherland, M. R., 393, 398, 916, 934 Chern, C.-L., 515, 519 Cherry, L., 340, 341, 344, 355 Chesla, L. G., 316, 331 Cheung, P., 407, 421 Chevalier, M., 637, 643 Cheyney, M., 433, 450 Chiat, S., 258, 266 Chicago Manual of Style, 119, 120 Chiesi, H. L., 313, 334 Chi, F. M., 798, 807 Chikamatsu, N., 802, 807 Child, D. A., 554, 558 Chi, M. T. H., 174, 178, 291, 305 Chin, C., 697, 700, 701, 712 Chinn, C., 73, 73 Chinn, P. C., 698, 712, 835, 849 Chiseri-Strater, E., 649, 662 Chittenen, E., 926, 927, 934 Chiu, L., 231, 247 Chmilar, P., 802, 809 Chodorow, N., 881, 885 Choi, I. C., 801, 807 Choisser, C., 913, 933 Chollet, F., 237, 249 Chomsky, C., 528, 530, 532, 535, 539, 567, 582 Chomsky, N., 526, 530, 539 Cho, N. K., 231, 248 Chrispeels, J. H., 900, 901, 906 Christensen, I., 81, 85, 87, 95 Christian, C., 612, 625 Christian, S., 692n, 700, 701, 712
< previous page
page_943
next page >
< previous page
page_944
next page > Page 944
Christian-Smith, L., 364, 375, 392, 398 Christie, F., 5, 13 Christie, J. F., 431, 432, 433, 434, 435, 448, 453 Christman, J. B., 701, 706n, 712, 715 Chronis, A. M., 503, 523 Chun, D. M., 775, 777, 787, 799, 807 Church, B., 729, 739 Churchland, P. M., 197, 198, 205 Cianci, J. E., 903, 904, 908 Cianciolo, P., 576, 585, 607 Cibulka, J., 843, 850 Cipielewski, J., 404, 419 Cirilo, R. K., 317, 330 Cixous, H., 131, 137 Cizek, G. J., 129, 137 Clandinin, D. J., 91, 96 Clark, A., 197, 198, 199, 205 Clark, B., 854, 867 Clark, C., 733, 736, 797, 806 Clark, C. H., 506, 513, 523 Clark, E. V., 270, 281 Clark, H. H., 199, 205 Clark, K. F., 456, 476, 482 Clark, L. F., 312, 331 Clark, M. L., 876, 887 Clark, M. M., 567, 582, 728, 737 Clark, R. E., 775, 785 Clarke, M. A., 802, 807 Clarke, V., 753, 765 Clay, M. M., 3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 18, 23, 24, 27, 212, 349, 355, 435, 436, 448, 455, 463, 481, 485, 548, 558, 567, 582, 672, 673, 674, 683, 684, 686, 855, 857, 867, 868 Clayton, J., 6, 14 Clegg, L. B., 113, 115, 120 Cleland, D. L., 729, 736 Clement, P. W., 672, 685 Clifford, J., 127, 132, 137, 154, 161, 386, 398 Clift, R. T., 393, 398 Clinchy, B. M., 173, 175, 415, 418, 753, 765 Cline, D. M., 81, 85, 91, 95 Clinton, B., 903, 905 Clyde, J. A., 81, 85, 91, 95 Coady, J., 269, 281, 510, 514, 515, 519, 520, 797, 807 Coalition of Essential Schools, 589, 605 Cobalies-Vega, C., 175, 178
Cochrane, K. F., 257, 266 Cochran-Smith, M., 77, 78, 79, 88, 93, 95, 97, 125, 137, 570, 571, 582, 692, 694, 695, 696, 699, 702, 703, 704, 705, 708, 709, 712, 715, 749, 750, 765, 772, 773, 785, 855, 869 Cocking, R. R., 344, 345, 354 Coggins, K. A., 505, 519, 548, 558 Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 287, 292, 305, 758, 765 Cohen, A., 797, 801, 806, 807 Cohen, D., 568, 582 Cohen, D. K., 479, 481, 616, 624, 889, 891, 894, 900, 901, 905, 906, 911, 912, 931, 932 Cohen, E., 338, 351, 355 Cohen, J., 698, 701, 712, 715 Cohen, P. A., 679, 686 Cohen, R. M., 233, 240, 241, 244, 248 Coladarci, T., 730, 736 Colbert, V., 48, 50 Cole, M., 156, 158, 161, 196, 202, 205, 207, 286, 288, 294, 305, 342, 344, 355, 616, 624, 681, 686, 749, 769 Coleman, J. S., 878, 885 Coles, G. S., 671, 686 Coles, M., 26, 27, 880, 885 Coles, R., 384, 398, 880, 885 Colgan-Davis, P., 701, 706n, 712 Collier, V. P., 814, 828, 832 Collins, A., 104, 107, 165, 166, 169, 170, 176, 198, 205 Collins, C., 344, 355, 556, 558 Collins, H. M., 196, 205 Collins, P., 349, 359 Colomb, G. G., 91, 95 Coltheart, M., 239, 246, 486, 494, 500 Colt, J. M., 463, 464, 467, 470, 476, 477, 479, 480, 481 Comas, J. C., 725, 726, 736 Comber, B., 6, 7, 15 Combs, M., 730, 736 Commeyras, M., 81, 85, 89, 92, 95, 128, 137, 373, 375, 509, 523, 698, 712, 927, 928, 932, 935 Comparative Education Society in Europe, 36, 38 Compton-Hall, M., 905, 908, 926, 932 Conant, F., 621, 627 Condon, M. W. F., 85, 91, 95 Cone, I. K., 81, 85, 88, 96 Cone, J. K., 696, 700, 712 Conley, M. W., 729, 736 Conlon, A., 430, 440, 454 Connell, J. P., 407, 416, 421, 422 Connelly, F. M., 91, 96 Conner, B., 416, 419 Connor, U., 797, 800, 807 Conrad, K., 679, 684, 688 Conrad, S. S., 576, 582
Consalvi, J., 827, 833 Constable, R. T., 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 248, 249 Constable, T. R., 241, 248 Constas, M. A., 124, 137 Consuelo, R. M., 366, 375 Content, A., 253, 266, 486, 497 Cooke, N. L., 673, 690 Cook, G., 391, 401 Cook, L. K., 320, 333 Cook, T. D., 103, 106, 107, 223, 225 Cook-Gumperz, J., 197, 205 Cooley, V., 701, 705, 713 Cooley, W. W., 676, 686 Coombs, W. T., 390, 399, 573, 577, 579, 583 Coomer, J. W., 366, 375 Cooper, C. R., 290, 305, 338, 355, 381, 389, 398, 400 Cooper, D., 276, 283 Cooper, F. S., 484, 498 Cooper, H. M., 210, 214, 217, 218, 224, 225 Cooper, J. O., 187, 193, 194 Cooter, R. B., Jr., 195, 201, 206, 572, 580, 584 Cope, B., 199, 205 Coppock, J., 394, 401 Cordova, D. I., 411, 419 Corey, S. M., 79, 96 Corkill, A. H., 320, 330 Corman, B. R., 79, 96 Corman, L., 612, 625 Cornelius, S., 883, 887
< previous page
page_944
next page >
< previous page
page_945
next page > Page 945
Cornell, E. H., 507, 523, 568, 585 Corno, L., 295, 296, 306, 309 Corson, D., 337, 355 Cortazzi, M., 125, 131, 137 Cosden, M. A., 780, 786 Cossu, G., 253, 264 Costa, M., 507, 518 Coté, N. C., 313, 314, 318, 320n 321, 322, 323, 328, 330, 331 Coughlin, D., 701, 702, 717 Coulson, R. L., 293, 299, 309, 328, 329, 334 Coulthard, R. M., 394, 401, 614, 627 Council for Exceptional Children., 680, 686 Countryman, J., 701, 715 Couthino, M., 676, 690 Cox, B. E., 431, 435, 448 Cox, C., 367, 370, 377 Cox, K. E., 405, 408, 409, 416, 420 Coy-Ogan, L., 729, 736 Craig, C., 442, 448 Craigie, W., 526, 539 Crain, S., 230, 249, 493, 500 Crain-Thoreson, C., 856, 857, 868 Cramer, B. R., 253, 255, 266, 485, 494, 500 Cramer, R. J., 537, 539 Cramer, S. C., 71, 74 Cramond, B., 470, 471, 477, 482 Cranney, A. G., 113, 120 Cranny-Francis, A., 201, 205 Craun, M. J., 529, 539 Crawford, J., 813, 815, 832 Crawford, P. A., 426, 448 Crawford, S., 754, 765 Cremin, L. A., 112, 120, 588, 605 Cress, C., 348, 356 Cressy, D., 112, 120 Crevola, C. A., 5, 14 Crispin, L., 729, 742 Croll, V. J., 187, 194, 554, 559 Cronbach, L. J., 100, 107, 271, 273, 281, 511, 519 Crone, 428, 444, 453 Cronin, J., 729, 732, 740 Cronin, V., 254, 264 Crookall, D., 515, 522 Crooks, T., 5, 9, 11, 14, 675, 687
Cross, D. R., 657, 663 Cross, S., 279, 283 Crossland, J., 18, 27, 254, 264, 485, 497 Crowell, C. G., 700, 717 Cruickshank, W. C., 670, 686 Cruickshank, W. M., 669, 687 Cruse, K. L., 915, 934 Csikszentmihalyi, M., 403, 410, 419 Cuban, L., 288, 306, 611, 624, 744, 757, 765, 782, 783, 785, 910, 932 Cubberley, E. P., 112, 120 Cubillas, D., 438, 450 Cukras, G., 650, 665 Cullere, B. A., 698, 711 Culler, J., 387, 398 Culliman, R., 391, 398 Cullinan, B. E., 361, 371, 376, 563, 565, 566, 567, 582 Cullum-Swan, B., 124, 138 Cull, W. L., 503, 523 Cummings, D. W., 526, 530, 538, 540 Cummins, J., 514, 519, 616, 624, 814, 815, 828, 832, 838, 849 Cunicelli, E. A., 101, 103, 107, 343, 345, 356, 555, 558 Cunningham, A. E., 253, 255, 264, 266, 413, 419, 485, 486, 494, 497, 500, 503, 519, 537, 542, 553, 560 Cunningham, J. W., 427, 438, 446, 447, 448, 449, 513, 523, 720, 721, 742, 855, 856, 866, 868, 878, 885 Cunningham, P. M., 537, 540, 580, 581, 676, 683, 685, 686 Curry, C., 612, 625, 800, 806, 821, 831 Curtis, B., 239, 246 Curtis, J. P., 697, 712 Curtis, M. E., 212t, 503, 521, 921, 932 Cutler, R. B., 779, 785 Cziko, C., 700, 712 Cziko, G. A., 802, 807 D D'Agostino, J. V., 675, 686 D'Agostino, K., 782, 785 Dahl, K. L., 103, 107, 403, 409, 414, 421, 441, 448, 451, 455, 482, 572, 579, 582, 673, 687, 734, 736, 846, 849 Dahl, P., 547, 560 Dahmus, J. H., 111, 120 Daiker, D. A., 694, 712 d'Ailly, H., 101, 107, 213t Dail, R., 340, 341, 355 Daisey, P., 879, 885 Daiute, C., 765, 773, 778, 785 Dalby, J. T., 231, 247 Dale, E., 270, 281, 503, 519, 530, 532, 540 Dale, P. S., 856, 857, 868 Daly, P., 438, 439, 451
Damasio, A. R., 244, 246 Damkoehler, D., 597, 605 Damon-Moore, H., 115, 120 D'Andrade, R., 196, 199, 201, 205 Daneman, M., 277, 281 d'Anglejan, A., 802, 809 Danielewicz, J., 279, 281, 856, 868 Daniel, K., 85, 91, 95 Danielsen, D., 520 Daniels, P., 925, 934 Dank, M., 802, 807 D'Anna, C. A., 279, 281, 503, 523, 552, 558 Danner, F. W., 323, 330, 751, 766 Danoff, B., 187, 193 Dansereau, D. F., 656, 657, 662, 663 Dansereau, D. J., 655, 664 Darling-Hammond, L., 480, 481, 728, 734, 736, 840, 843, 844, 846, 849, 897, 906, 911, 912, 932 Darling, S., 859, 860, 861, 863, 864, 865, 868 Darnton, R., 112, 120 Davey, B., 614, 624 Davidson, C., 383, 398 Davidson, M., 775, 786 Davidson, M. L., 652, 663
< previous page
page_945
next page >
< previous page
page_946
next page > Page 946
Davies, A., 797, 807 Davies, B., 149, 150 Davies, F., 23, 27 Davis, C. E., 255, 266, 457, 482, 486, 491, 495, 501, 511, 523 Davis, F. B., 212t, 269, 281 Davis, J. H., 123, 124, 138 Davis, J. N., 797, 798, 799, 807 Davison, A., 318, 330 Davis, P. M., 43, 51 Davis, R. L., 511, 523 Dawkins, J., 4, 14 Day, J. D., 165, 166, 176, 554, 558, 653, 655, 662 Day, R., 799, 809 DeBaryshe, B. D., 437, 448, 553, 560, 857, 870 De Bot, K., 799, 807 DeCarlo, M. R., 729, 736 de Castell, S. C., 611, 625 Deci, E. L., 301, 302, 306, 405, 407, 408, 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 419 Deegan, D., 170, 176 Dee-Lucas, D., 326, 327, 330 Deering, P., 350, 355, 357 Defee, M., 676, 686 Deffner, G., 165, 176 Deford, D. E., 463, 464, 467, 478, 482, 678, 686, 726, 736 DeForest, M., 323, 332 Defty, N., 485, 500 de Garciá, M. C., 44, 51 de Groot, A., 164, 176 Deibert, E., 918, 919, 933 Dejerine, J., 244, 246 De Jong, P. F., 438, 450 de la Luna, L., 124, 137 de la Luna, L. C., 625 Delaney, H. D., 506, 522 De la Paz, S., 276, 283 Deleuze, G., 127, 137 Delgado-Gaitán, C., 819, 821, 832, 848, 849, 866, 868 Delgado, L., 694, 695, 701, 705, 710 Dellinger, L., 125, 138 Delpit, L. D., 340, 355, 621, 624 DeLuca, T., 486, 499, 674, 688 Demaline, R., 675, 687, 890, 907 DeMaria, R., 382, 398 Demb, J., 234, 246
Demonet, J. F., 236, 237, 241, 246 Demos, J., 879, 885 de Mul, S., 325, 334, 744, 749, 770 Denby, D., 383, 398 Denckla, M. B., 231, 246, 248, 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 493, 497, 501 DeNiro, E., 701, 705, 715 Dennison, R. S., 291, 309, 651, 661, 662 Deno, S., 676, 690 Deno, S. L., 516, 521 Denton, P. H., 189, 194 Denzin, N. K., 78, 96, 123, 125, 131, 133, 134, 138, 427, 448 Department for Educational Science,, 27 de Romero, A. T., 44, 51 Derrida, J., 111, 120, 133, 134, 138, 610, 624 Derwing, B. L., 531, 533, 540 Desai, L., 751, 769 Desberg, P., 531, 532, 541 Deshler, D. D., 189, 193 Deshon, J. A. P., 697, 700, 712 DeStefano, L., 918, 934 de Suarez, J., 802, 807 De Temple, J. M., 429, 438, 448, 507, 518 de Tocqueville, A., xiv, xi, ix Devine, J., 797, 802, 807 Devlin, B., 5, 13 DeVogler-Ebersole, K., 391, 398 Dewar, A., 25, 28 Dewey, J., 34, 38, 79, 96, 286, 297, 298, 306, 565, 588, 601, 603, 605 Dey, I., 92, 96 Diakidoy, I., 274, 275, 282 Diamond, B., 576, 585, 607 Diaz, R. M., 345, 355 Dickerson, D. K., 878, 885 Dickinson, D. K., 372, 375, 429, 430, 432, 439, 448, 553, 558, 568, 582, 780, 785 Dickson, W. P., 857, 868 Diehl-Faxon, J., 569, 581 Diekhoff, G. M., 657, 662 Dierking, D., 661, 666 DiGisi, L. L., 612, 613, 614, 624 Dilena, M., 5, 14 Dillon, A., 325, 333, 749, 769, 773, 788 Dillon, C., 391, 398 Dillon, D. R., 78, 90, 92, 94, 95, 103, 107, 118, 121, 614, 624, 631, 634, 635, 638, 639, 643 Dillon, J. T., 614, 624 Dillon, R. M., 700, 717 Diment, K., 516, 521
Dimino, J., 187, 193 Dinkin, J., 744, 767 Dinnel, D. H., 320, 330 DiPardo, A., 619, 624 Dippo, D., 143, 151 Dirección de Educacion Primaria de Nicaragua/UNESCO, 49, 51 Diringer, D., 745, 765 diSessa, A. A., 286, 306 Dixon, C., 611, 626, 695, 700, 713, 717 Dixon, D. W., 271, 282 Dixon, R., 509, 520 Doake, D. B., 878, 885 Doakes, D., 567, 582 Doan, J., 698, 700, 712 Döbert, H., 29, 31, 38 Dobrich, H. S., 856, 869 Dobrich, W., 428, 439, 452 Dobson, D., 576, 585, 596, 607 Dochy, F. J. R. C., 292, 304 Dockstader-Anderson, K., 569, 581 Doctorow, M. J., 505, 523 Dodge, R., 792, 807 Dole, J. A., 295, 306, 313, 318, 329, 413, 419, 507, 519, 545, 554, 560, 613, 624, 650, 662 Dolomon, D., 576, 585 Donahue, J., 485, 493, 494, 501 Donahue, M. L., 338, 347, 355 Donahue, P. L., 404, 419, 613, 616, 624, 667, 686, 923, 932 Donahue, Z., 77, 81, 85, 89, 96 Donald, J. G., 648, 649, 662 Donley, J., 655, 666
< previous page
page_946
next page >
< previous page
page_947
next page > Page 947
Donnelly, K., 348, 356 Donohue, B., 233, 245, 247, 248 Dool, C. B., 246 Door, N., 210, 225 Dorfman, A., 50, 51 Dorsey-Gaines, C., 437, 438, 453, 845, 851, 855, 859, 870, 872, 879, 887 Dorwart, R., 231, 248 Dougherty, K. C., 916, 934 Dougherty, W., 364, 375 Douglas, D., 802, 807 Dowd, F. S., 364, 376 Dowhower, S. L., 371, 372, 375, 673, 686 Downing, J., 854, 868 Doyle, W., 566, 582, 649, 662, 733, 736 Drachsler, J., 795, 807 Draper, K., 916, 934 Dreeben, R., 509, 518 Dreher, M. J., 443, 449 Dressel, J. H., 370, 375, 390, 394, 398 Dressel, P. L., 589, 590, 601, 605 Dressman, M., 368, 375, 612, 615, 621, 624, 625 Dreyer, L., 230, 249 Drislane, F. W., 230, 247 Droop, M., 821, 822, 832 Drucker, P. F., 747, 765 Druggish, R., 125, 138 Drum, P. A., 271, 273, 281, 503, 519, 720, 736, 818, 832 D'Souza, D., 384, 398 Duara, R., 231, 233, 240, 244, 246, 247 DuBois, N. F., 661, 662 DuBois, P., 170, 175, 176 Duchan, J. F., 338, 357 Ducharme, E., 734, 736 Ducharme, M., 734, 736 Duchein, M. A., 637, 640, 643 Duckworth, E., 701, 712 Dudley-Marling, C., 697, 712 Duffelmeyer, F. A., 506, 519 Duffy, A., 79, 96, 166 Duffy, C. A., 724, 727, 737 Duffy, G. G., 295, 306, 404, 413, 419, 555, 558, 560, 722, 729, 731, 732, 733, 735, 736, 740 Duffy-Hester, A. M., 79, 96, 411, 418 Duffy, S., 166, 177 Dugid, P., 198, 205
Duhon, K. E., 298, 300, 304 Duin, A. H., 508, 513, 519 Dumais, S., 272, 282, 328, 332 Dunbar, S. B., 916, 917, 919, 932, 933 Duncan, J. S., 231, 248 Duncan, L. G., 257, 264 Duncker, K., 164, 176 Dunham, C. C., 875, 881, 886 Dunkin, M. J., 212, 214, 220, 224, 225 Dunlosky, J., 650, 662, 666 Dunning, D., 568, 570, 582, 584 Dunn, M. B., 726, 741 Dunston, P. J., 101, 108 Duran, R. P., 313, 315, 330 Duranti, A., 195, 202, 205 Durgunoglu, A., 275, 282, 817, 818, 819, 823, 832, 833 Durkin, D., 725, 735, 858, 868, 877, 885 Durkin, D. D., 61, 74, 287, 306, 344, 355, 457, 458, 477, 481, 519, 564, 567, 582, 611, 624 Durndell, A., 753, 765 Durso, F. T., 270, 272, 281, 505, 519, 548, 558 Duthie, C., 695, 700, 712 Dutro, E., 928, 935 Dweck, C. S., 296, 297, 306, 407, 419 Dworin, J., 832 Dworkin, N. E., 729, 736 Dwyer, M. M., 751, 765, 778, 785 Dyck, J. L., 320, 333 Dykstra, R., 102, 107, 211, 225, 682, 686, 837, 849 Dyson, A. H., 125, 138, 435, 436, 437, 448, 449, 700, 712 E Eagleton, T., 382, 385, 386, 387, 390, 398 Earthman, E., 167, 176, 392 East, M., 259, 262, 265 Eastman, G., 883, 887 Ebersole, P., 391, 398 Eccles, J. S., 296, 297, 306, 310, 405, 408, 409, 419, 422 Echevarria, J., 345, 355 Echevarria, M., 557, 560 Eckels, M., 744, 767 Eckert, M. S., 725, 736 Eco, U., 176, 609, 624 Edelsky, C., 148, 149, 150, 576, 582, 698, 705, 710, 712, 916, 934 Eden, G. F., 234, 240, 244, 246 Eder, D., 338, 355 Education Review Office, 12, 14 Edwards, D., 196, 202, 205, 596, 603, 605
Edwards, P. A., 597, 598, 605, 878, 879, 885 Eeds, M., 104, 107, 340, 343, 351, 355, 372, 375, 395, 398, 566, 575, 582 Egan-Robertson, A., 389, 395, 398, 610, 624 Ehri, L. C., 262, 264, 280, 283, 348, 355, 356, 479, 481, 486, 488, 489, 494, 495, 497, 498, 499, 529, 531, 532, 534, 535, 540, 546, 551, 553, 558, 559, 560, 568, 585, 671, 686, 722, 736 Eichelberger, R. T., 676, 686 Eisenhart, M., 155, 161 Eisenstein, E., 383, 398 Eisner, E. W., 103, 104, 107, 132, 133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 609, 624, 641, 643, 683, 686 Elbaum, B., 676, 688 Elbow, P., 290, 306 Elbro, C., 258, 259, 264, 495, 497 Elder, G. H., 880, 882, 885 El-Dinary, P. B., 101, 103, 108, 167, 170, 179, 404, 421, 555, 556, 560, 729, 730, 737, 740 Eldredge, J. L., 470, 471, 481 Eldredge, N., 428, 449 Eldred, J. C., 753, 758, 765, 780, 785 Eldridge, R. G., 720, 721, 739 El-Hindi, A. E., 762, 765 Eliopulos, D., 231, 247 Elkins, J., 3, 15, 16, 779, 785 Elkonin, D. B., 486, 489, 498 Eller, G., 507, 519 Eller, W., 720, 740 Elley, W. B., 9, 10, 14, 413, 419, 519, 553, 558, 568, 582, 668, 686, 800, 802, 807, 825, 832 Elliot, B., 612, 625, 738 Elliot, T., 413, 419
< previous page
page_947
next page >
< previous page
page_948
next page > Page 948
Elliott, B., 612, 625, 732, 738 Elliott, E. J., 836, 849, 892n, 903, 904, 906, 930, 932 Elliott, J., 79, 96, 694, 712 Ellis, A., 589, 605 Ellis, A. W., 20, 23, 24, 28, 470, 481, 486, 498 Ellis, J. E., 398, 746, 765 Ellis, M. V., 223, 225 Ellis, N. C., 19, 27, 254, 264, 531, 540 Ellison, V. L., 698, 712 Ellis, W., 71, 74 Ellsworth, E., 147, 150 Ellsworth, R. A., 405, 409, 420, 578, 579, 580, 584, 636, 637, 640, 643, 729, 730, 739 Ellwood, C., 698, 704, 712 Elman, J. L., 197, 198, 205 Elmore, R. F., 621, 624, 844, 845, 849, 889, 895, 896, 897, 901, 906, 907, 910, 932 Elster, C., 430, 431, 449 Emihovich, C., 134, 138 Emmanuelli, J., 50, 51 Enciso, P., 368, 376, 618, 624 Endreweit, M. E., 778, 788 Engel, M., 271, 284, 749, 769 Engel, R., 364, 375 Engestrom, Y., 196, 205, 288, 294, 305 England, R., 843, 848, 850 Englert, C. S., 322, 330, 345, 353, 355, 442, 443, 449, 673, 686 Enright, G., 646, 662 Enz, B. J., 434, 435, 448 Epstein, J. L., 876, 885 Epstein, J. N., 428, 444, 447, 453 Erdmann, B., 792, 807 Eresh, J. T., 919, 933 Erickson, A., 813, 832 Erickson, F., 91, 94, 96, 153, 156, 159, 161, 339, 355, 427, 449, 695, 706n, 712 Erickson, L., 592, 606, 728, 729, 737, 739 Ericsson, K., 163, 166, 167, 172, 175, 176 Erikson, E., 880, 885 Ervin, C., 679, 684, 688 Ervin-Tripp, S., 340, 355 Escamilla, K., 820, 832 Estice, R. M., 683, 684, 688 Evans, A. C., 236, 249 Evans, A. D., 726, 738 Evans, C., 705, 712 Evans, D., 350, 358
Evans, E. D., 295, 308 Evans, H. M., 257, 266 Evans, K., 618, 624 Evans, K. S., 294, 304, 730, 735 Evans, P., 167, 170, 179 Everson, M. E., 802, 807, 808 Ewers, C. A., 257, 266 Ewoldt, C., 797, 808 Exceptional children, 54, 55, 56, 70, 71, 74 Experienced Teachers Group, 701, 712 Eyres, S. J., 854, 867 Ezzaki, A., 802, 811 F Faibisch, F. M., 101, 107, 297, 307, 349, 356, 406, 413, 420, 577, 583, 617, 620, 625, 846, 847, 850 Faigley, L., 197, 205 Fairbanks, C. M., 698, 712 Fairbanks, M. M., 222, 226, 273, 280, 283, 503, 508, 523, 725, 741 Fairclough, N., 27, 27, 143, 149, 150, 197, 203, 205 Falco, F. L., 553, 560, 857, 870 Fang, Z., 431, 435, 448 Fanning, J., 926, 934 Farcone, V., 113, 121 Farest, C., 576, 583, 729, 738 Farkas, S., 734, 737 Farmer, M., 755, 765 Farrell, D. M., 299, 304, 457, 458, 463, 478, 481 Farrell-Stroyan, S., 597, 605 Farr, M., 837, 844, 847, 849 Farr, R., 667, 686, 725, 726, 736 Farstrup, A. E., 564, 584, 611, 626, 923, 934 Fashola, O. S., 818, 832 Fassio, K., 617, 619, 621, 624, 626 Fassler, R., 433, 449 Faust, M. A., 392, 401, 731, 738 Faust, M. E., 313, 330 Favat, F. A., 367, 376 Favreau, M., 797, 808 Fawcett, A. J., 485, 498 Fayen, B. R., 320, 333 Fay, L., 667, 686 Fayol, M., 525, 541 Fea, H. R., 720, 741 Fear, K. L., 673, 686 Featherman, D. L., 881, 885 Feathers, K. M., 612, 613, 627 Featherstone, J., 138
Febvre, L. P. V., 112, 120 Fecho, B., 695, 698, 700, 701, 712, 713, 715 Fecho, R., 698, 715 Federal Register, 478, 481 Feiman-Nemser, 713 Feitelson, D., 371, 376, 378, 429, 449, 452, 553, 558, 560, 568, 582, 854, 868 Fekete, I., 33, 38 Feldgus, E. G., 81, 84, 85, 88, 96, 700, 713 Feldman, C., 828, 832 Felton, R. H., 493, 498 Feltovich, P. J., 291, 293, 299, 305, 309, 328, 334 Feltovich, P. L., 328, 329, 334 Fenstermacher, G. D., 129, 138, 694, 696, 713, 720, 734, 737 Fergusson, D. M., 9, 14 Fernandez-Fein, S., 856, 857, 867 Fernández, M. C., 827, 832 Fernie, D., 437, 449 Ferrara, R. A., 554, 558 Ferrar, J., 797, 807 Ferree, A., 732, 738 Ferreira, F., 256, 266 Ferreiro, E., 46, 49, 51, 855, 857, 868 Ferrier, L. J., 776, 785 Ferroli, L., 490, 498 Fetterley, J., 388, 392, 398 Feuerstein, R., 169, 176 Fey, M. E., 349, 354 Fideler, E., 677, 687 Fiedler, L., 385, 398 Field, C., 5, 15 Fielding-Barnsley, R., 5, 13, 485, 486, 488, 494, 497
< previous page
page_948
next page >
< previous page
page_949
next page > Page 949
Fielding, L., 169, 177, 324, 333, 510, 518, 545, 554, 560, 722, 740 Fiez, J. A., 235, 237, 248 Filipek, P., 231, 246 Fillmore, C. J., 745, 766 Finders, M., 395, 399, 619, 621, 622, 624 Fine, E. M., 672, 689 Fine, J., 797, 807 Finesilver, M., 505, 519 Finkelman, K., 751, 766 Firestone, W. A., 910, 932 Fischel, J. E., 428, 444, 453, 553, 560, 857, 870 Fischer, F., 531, 533, 540 Fischer, F. W., 252, 265, 485, 499 Fischer, R., 848, 850 Fischer, U., 277, 278, 281 Fishel, E., 880, 885 Fisher, C. W., 455, 481, 563, 566, 582 Fisher, J. H., 669, 686 Fisher, P. J. L., 503, 507, 518, 519, 520 Fishman, A., 125, 138 Fish, S., 167, 176, 306, 381, 382, 384, 387, 388, 390, 399 Fitzgerald, J., 128, 138, 427, 438, 446, 447, 448, 449, 797, 800, 808, 815, 832, 837, 838, 840, 846, 847, 849, 855, 856, 866, 868, 878, 885 Five, C., 700, 713 Fivush, R., 429, 449, 549, 557 Flanagan, N., 21, 23, 24, 27 Fleet, J., 295, 308 Fleischer, C., 695n, 701, 713 Fleisher, B. M., 730, 737 Fleisher, L., 547, 553, 558 Flesch, R., 923, 932 Fletcher, C. R., 172, 178, 231, 318, 334 Fletcher, J. M., 71, 74, 230, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 248, 249, 443, 449, 455, 481, 485, 493, 498, 580, 582, 674, 687 Flexer, R. J., 920, 934 Flick, W. C., 797, 808 Flihan, S., 588, 604 Flink, C., 414, 415, 419 Flint-Ferguson, J., 592, 606 Flippo, R. F., 725, 737 Flockton, L., 9, 14 Floden, R. E., 713, 910, 911, 912, 913, 932 Flood, D., 325, 330 Flood, J., 210, 215, 225, 325, 330, 569, 582, 587, 595, 605, 606, 731, 737, 749, 761, 766, 772, 774, 785 Flor, D., 433, 451
Flores, B., 576, 582 Flores, F., 55, 74, 197, 207, 601, 607 Flores-Marcías, R. C., 49, 51 Floriani, A., 700, 717 Florio-Ruane, S., 154, 155, 156, 160, 161, 695, 701, 713 Florio, S., 339, 355 Flowerday, T., 412, 421 Flower, L., 170, 174, 176 Flowers, D. L., 232, 240, 244, 246, 247, 249 Floyd-Tenery, M., 701, 713 Flynn, E., 391, 392, 399 Flynn, J. R., 677, 686 Foertsch, M. A., 613, 625 Fogarty, R., 591, 595, 605 Follansbee, S., 756, 766 Foltz, G., 493, 755, 768 Foltz, P. W., 328, 330, 332 Fonzi, J. M., 101, 108 Foorman, B. R., 443, 449, 455, 481, 537, 540, 580, 582, 674, 687 Foote, N., 880, 886 Forcier, R. C., 783, 785 Ford, C., 350, 358 Ford, M. P., 726, 737 Ford, M. S., 511, 521 Ford, S., 729, 742 Forman, E., 577, 582 Forman, E. A., 619, 624 Forman, J., 780, 781, 785 Forness, S. R., 669, 672, 687 Forster, M., 5, 15 Foss, D. J., 317, 330 Fossen, S. V., 862, 865, 868 Foster, D., 9, 14 Foster, M., 848, 849 Foster, T., 726, 738 Foucault, M., 55, 74, 111, 120, 147, 150, 197, 205, 792, 808 Fountas, I. C., 673, 687 Fouts, J., 589, 605 Fowler, A. E., 158, 230, 246, 249, 258, 259, 264, 280, 283. 485, 493, 495, 498, 531, 533, 540 Fowler, L. A., 651, 665 Fowler, S. B., 317, 330 Fowler, T. J., 676, 687, 726, 741 Fox, B., 253, 255, 264, 485, 486, 491, 498, 633 Fox, D. L., 399, 632, 639, 643, 726, 737 Fox, P. T., 236, 237, 241, 248 Frackowiak, R. D. J., 236, 237, 241, 246, 249
Frackowiak, R. S. J., 233, 235, 236, 240, 244, 245, 246, 248 Fractor, J. S., 611, 625 France, M., 878, 886 Francis, C. D., 364, 378 Francis, D., 348, 359 Francis, D. J., 71, 74, 230, 246, 359, 443, 449, 455, 481, 485, 493, 498, 580, 582, 674, 687 Francis, H., 22, 27, 349, 355 Francis, W. N. 526, 540 Franke, D., 710, 713 Fransson, A., 797, 808 Fraser, J., 700, 713 Frazier, L., 316, 330 Frederiksen, D., 167, 170, 176 Frederiksen, N., 294, 306 Freebern, G., 645, 649, 655, 665 Freebody, P., 5, 13, 15, 142, 149, 151, 269, 281, 548, 557 Freedle, R., 801, 808 Freedman-Doan, C., 409, 422 Freedman, S. W., 619, 624, 696, 700, 705, 713, 917, 932 Freeman, E. B., 373, 374, 375, 377, 378, 565, 566 Freeman, E. V., 564, 565, 566, 583 Freeman, L., 5, 13 Freeman, Y., 612, 625 Freire, P., 41, 45, 46, 49, 50, 51, 146, 150, 747, 766, 845, 849 French, M. P., 504, 505, 522 French, V., 363, 375
< previous page
page_949
next page >
< previous page
page_950
next page > Page 950
Freppon, P. A., 103, 107, 441, 448, 450, 572, 579, 582, 584, 673, 687, 734, 736, 846, 849, 856, 869 Freschi, R., 508, 520 Fresch, M. J., 537, 540 Freud, S., 880, 886 Freund, E., 385, 399 Freyer, M., 854, 867 Frick, M. J., 753, 768 Friedland, E. S., 506, 520 Friedman, F., 649, 665 Friedman, M., 531, 532, 541 Friedman, R. F., 244, 246 Fried, M. D., 683, 684, 688 Fringer, V., 753, 765 Friston, K. J., 235, 237, 238, 245, 246, 248, 249 Frith, C. D., 233, 235, 240, 244, 245, 246, 248 Frith, U., 233, 240, 244, 248, 485, 498, 531, 532, 535, 540 Frost, J., 253, 255, 265, 486, 487, 499 Fry, C. I., 882, 886 Frye, B., 463, 464, 467, 470, 480, 482 Frye, N., xiv, x Fry, M. A., 349, 355 Fuchs, D., 676, 690 Fuchs, L. S., 676, 690 Fuhrman, S. H., 910, 932 Fulbright, R. K., 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 248, 249 Fullan, M. G., 68, 74, 916, 932 Funkhouse, L., 700, 717 Furjaeva, T., 35, 36, 38 Furr, O. R., 726, 737 G Gaa, J. P., 414, 419 Gadsden, V. L., 872, 873, 876, 877, 880, 886 Gaffney, J. S., 70, 74, 351, 356 Gage, N. L., 74, 730, 736 Gagne, E. D., 656, 662 Gagnon, R., 109, 120 Galaburda, A. M., 230, 231, 241, 246, 247 Galambos, S. J., 816, 832 Galda, J., 351, 357 Galda, L., 361, 367, 368, 371, 376, 391, 398, 431, 432, 433, 451, 553, 560, 566, 567, 568, 582, 584, 591, 605, 878, 887 Gal, I., 751, 770 Gallagher, A. M., 233, 240, 244, 248, 485, 498 Gallagher, D. J., 68, 72, 73, 74, 190 Gallagher, M. Y., 291, 308
Gallagher, P., 187, 189, 194, 865, 866, 869 Gallas, K., 436, 449, 695, 695n, 700, 701, 705, 713, 716 Gallego, M. A., 351, 356 508, 518, 729, 735 Gallegos, B. P., 113, 119, 120 Gallienne, G., 9, 16 Gallimore, R., 196, 207, 343, 344, 345, 356, 359, 438, 449, 681, 687, 689 Gallo, D. R., 366 376 Gamas, W. S., 520 Gambrell, L. B., 169, 176, 349, 350, 354, 356, 414, 419, 554, 558, 564, 565, 566, 572, 574, 582, 683, 688, 782, 785, 865, 868 Gamez, A., 578, 583 Gamoran, A., 351, 357, 373, 378, 395, 400 Gamse, B., 675, 688, 860, 861, 864, 870 Ganske, K., 531, 532, 534, 537, 540 Gans, T. G., 727, 735 García, G. E., 275, 282, 814, 815, 816, 817, 820, 821, 822, 823, 824, 826, 827, 828, 830, 832, 833, 834 García, P. A., 797, 810 García, T., 651, 657, 662, 664, 665 García-Vazquez, E., 828, 833 Gardner, H., 271, 284, 292, 306 Gardner, M., 565, 583 Gardner, W., 21, 22, 23, 28 Garfield, E., 213, 225 Gariglietti, G., 652, 665 Garmon, A., 442, 443, 449 Garner, R., 166, 176, 287, 293, 294, 295, 296, 299, 302, 306, 317, 322, 323, 330, 620, 625, 648, 650, 651, 654, 655, 659, 662, 752, 756 758, 759, 766 Garofalakis, M., 231, 247 Garofalo, K. M., 512, 520 Garon, T., 485, 493, 494, 501 Garrett, A. S., 232, 249 Garrett, A. W., 641, 644 Garrison, B. M., 392, 399 Garrison, J., 733, 737 Garrison-Harrell, L., 350, 351, 357 Garton, L., 744, 766 Garvey, W. D., 219, 225 Gaskins, I. W., 101, 103, 107, 108, 343, 345, 348, 356, 413, 416, 419, 555, 556, 558, 560 Gast, D., 184, 190, 194 Gatenby, C., 238, 245, 249 Gates, A. I., 509, 520, 529, 540 Gates, A. R., 667, 687 Gates, H. L., 384, 394, 399 Gathercole, S. E., 257, 258, 264 Gaughan, J., 697, 700, 713 Gavelek, J., 344, 356, 575 Gayle-Evans, G., 597, 605
Gay, P., 111, 120 Gearhart, M., 780, 786, 920, 932 Geary, D., 239, 247 Gee, J. P., 142, 143, 147, 149, 150, 156, 161, 197, 198, 199, 201, 204, 205, 206, 399, 404, 419, 700, 705, 716, 845, 848, 849 Geertz, C., 128, 132, 133, 138 Geiger, D. K., 700, 715 Geisler, C., 168, 176 Gelman, R., 287, 299, 306 Genesee, F., 347, 354, 816, 817, 831 Genishi, C., 91, 94 Gensemer, E., 343, 345, 356 Gentry, J. R., 531, 540 Georgi, M. C., 641, 643 Gerla, J. P., 394, 399, 575, 579, 583 Germain, C. B., 881, 882, 883, 886 Gernsbacher, M. A., 312, 313, 315, 315n, 316, 317, 318, 321, 330, 331 Gersten, R., 187, 193, 515, 520, 827, 833 Geschwind, N., 230, 241, 244, 247 Geva, E., 818, 819, 833 Ghatala, E. S., 650, 665 Gianotti, M. A., 78, 98 Gibbs, G., 659, 662 Gibson, E. J., 671, 687
< previous page
page_950
next page >
< previous page
page_951
next page >
Document Page 951 Gibson, S. U., 648, 649, 662 Giddens, A., 197, 205, 206 Gifford, A. P., 506, 520 Gilbert, P., 7, 13, 14, 131, 136, 138, 149, 150 Gil, D., 670, 683, 687 Gildea, P., 271, 277, 282, 548, 559 Gillard, B., 881, 886 Gill, C. E., 531, 540 Gill, C. H., 537, 540 Gilles, C., 372, 376 Gillespie, C. W., 431, 449 Gillespie, G., 320, 333 Gillet, G., 128, 138, 196, 202, 206 Gilligan, C., 753, 766 Gillingham, A., 669, 687 Gillingham, M. G., 287, 290, 296, 306, 620, 625, 650, 651, 662, 673, 690, 752, 756, 758, 759, 766, 774, 785 Gill, J. T., 531, 534, 535, 536, 537, 540, 541 Gill, R., 753, 766 Gilmore, L., 135, 138 Gilrane, C., 927, 935 Gilroy, A., 12, 14 Gilster, P., 760, 766 Ginsberg, M., 667, 686 Ginther, D. W., 508, 523 Gintis, H., 141, 145, 150 Gipe, J. P., 508, 520, 724, 727, 737 Giroux, H. A., 34, 38, 145, 150, 619, 623, 747, 766 Gitlin, A., 143, 150, 695, 701, 705, 711, 713 Givón, T., 313, 328, 330 Gjedde, A., 236, 249 Glaessner, B., 613, 627 Glaser, B. G., 79, 80, 96 Glaser, R., 291, 305, 921, 932 Glasman, H., 797, 807 Glasman, L. D., 506, 521 Glass, G. V., 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225, 520, 783, 786 Glass, J., 875, 881, 886 Glass, W. L., 429, 453 Glasswell, K., 11, 14 Glazier, J., 160, 161 Gleitman, L. R., 484, 485, 498 Glenn, C. F., 321, 334 Glick, J., xiv, xiii
Glick, M., 700, 717 Globerson, T., 296, 309 Glover, J. A., 320, 330 Glynn, S. M., 172, 176, 293, 309, 317, 330 Glynn, T., 5, 11, 14, 675, 687, 862, 868 Goatley, V. J., 373, 378, 575, 578, 579, 583, 592, 594, 605 Godina, H., 637, 640, 643, 819, 820, 824, 832, 833 Goertz, M. E., 910, 911, 912, 913, 932 Goetz, E. T., 291, 295, 297, 300, 305, 308, 310, 549, 557, 648, 665, 823, 832 Goffman, I., 195, 206, 395 Golan, S., 915, 932 Goldberger, N. R., 173, 175, 415, 418, 753, 765 Goldberg, G. L., 924, 932 Goldblatt, E. C., 694, 695, 700, 713 Golden, J. M., 615, 625 Goldenberg, C., 103, 107, 338, 344, 345, 346, 353, 356, 438, 449, 820, 833, 848, 849, 867, 868 Goldfield, B., 878, 887 Goldfield, B. A., 571, 585, 854, 868 Golding, J. M., 290, 306, 317, 330 Goldin-Meadow, S., 816, 832 Goldman, S., 158, 161 Goldman, S. R., 158, 288, 292, 296, 302, 306, 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320n, 321, 322, 323, 325, 327, 328, 330, 331, 333, 334, 616, 617, 620, 621, 622, 625, 775, 776, 780, 786, 788 Goldstein, D. M., 485, 498 Goldstein, H., 338, 358 Goldstein, Z., 371, 376, 378, 429, 449, 452, 471, 553, 558, 560, 568, 582, 854, 868 Gollnick, D. M., 835, 849 Gombert, J. E., 256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 278, 282 Gomez, D. L., 841, 850 Gómez-Palacio, M., 44, 51 Göncz, L., 816, 833 Gonzáles, N., 598, 606, 621, 622, 626, 833, 850 Gonzáles, P. C., 279, 283, 725, 737, 922, 923, 932 Gonzáles, R., 713, 826, 833 González-Edfelt, N., 780, 785 González-Lima, F., 245, 248 González, N., 598, 606, 617, 618, 701, 713, 826, 833, 848, 850 Goodacre, E. J., 17, 27, 728, 737 Goodchild, F., 295, 308 Gooden, S., 926, 932 Goodglass, Y., 236, 246 Goodlad, J. I., 592, 594, 599, 605, 611, 613, 614, 625 Goodman, I. F., 438, 452, 854, 856, 870, 877, 887 Goodman, J. R., 433, 449 Goodman, K. S., 18, 27, 291, 306, 349, 356, 547, 551, 552, 557, 558, 612, 617, 625, 796, 808, 855, 868 Goodman, M. S., 317, 333 Goodman, Y. M., 291, 306, 349, 356, 436, 440, 444, 447, 449, 450, 563, 576, 583, 589, 590n, 605, 724, 734, 737, 742, 855,
857, 868 Good, R., 612, 627 Goodridge, M. J., 11, 14 Good, T. L., 456, 467, 481 Goodwin, C., 195, 202, 205 Goodwin, M. H., 195, 206 Gordon, B., 237, 247 Gordon, C., 801, 808 Gordon, D. A., 154, 160, 160 Gordon, I., 8, 14 Gordon, J. A., 537, 540, 840, 848 Gore, J. C., 146, 147, 150, 151, 231, 234, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 248, 249, 704, 713 Gorman, T. P., 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 861, 865, 867 Goswami, D., 77, 88, 89, 96, 692, 692n, 695, 697, 711, 713 Goswami, U. C., 18, 20, 27, 253, 255, 259, 260, 262, 263, 265, 266, 483, 498, 546, 558 Gottardo, A., 257, 265, 276, 282 Gottfredson, C., 730, 740 Gottfried, A. E., 409, 419 Gottfried, S. S., 612, 625 Goudvis, A., 291, 308 Gough, P. B., 17, 28, 253, 255, 265, 275, 282, 498, 546, 547, 551, 558, 559, 922, 934 Gough, P. D., 547, 558 Gough, P. H., 253, 265 Goulandris, N., 258, 266, 485, 500, 532, 540
< previous page
page_951
next page >
< previous page
page_952
next page > Page 952
Goulden, R., 279, 282 Gould, J., 782, 785 Gould, S. J., 428, 449 Gove, M. K., 731, 737 Grabe, W., 514, 515, 520, 797, 808 Graden, E., 800, 808 Graesser, A. C., 168, 172, 176, 177, 266, 290, 306, 312, 313, 314, 321, 330, 331, 335, 419, 549, 558, 655, 662 Graff, G., 384, 386, 387, 396, 399 Graff, H. J., 142, 150, 383, 399, 747, 766 Graham, S., 187, 193, 295, 300, 304, 307, 345, 356, 673, 687 Graney, J., 514, 515, 519 Grant, C. A., 840, 848 Grant, L., 351, 356 Grant, M., 110, 120 Grattan, K. W., 81, 85, 88, 96 Grau, E., 667, 916, 933 Graue, M. E., 667, 688 Graves, B., 167, 170, 176, 271 Graves, D., 528, 540, 617, 619, 625, 846, 850 Graves, M. F., 274, 276, 281, 282, 294, 306, 324, 334, 503, 506, 508, 513, 516, 519, 520, 522, 523, 609, 722, 737 Gray, C. A., 854, 867 Gray, S., 751, 766 Gray, S. H., 751, 766 Gray, W. S., 210, 211, 225, 405, 420, 720, 737 Gray-Schlegel, M. A., 731, 737 Greaney, K. T., 262, 265 Greaney, V., 366, 376 Green, B. F., 4, 14, 57, 214, 218, 221, 225 Green, G. M., 271, 282 Green, I., 277, 281 Green, J.L., 74, 142, 150, 161, 225, 338, 356, 404, 419, 568, 570, 583, 611, 616, 624, 626, 695, 700, 713, 717 Green, L. J., 340, 358 Green, P. A., 485, 499 Green, T., 23, 27 Greenberg, A., 598, 606 Greenberg, J., 598, 616, 617, 622, 626 Greene, E., 319, 332 Greene, M., 137, 138 Greene, R., 892, 907 Greene, S., 292, 306 Greenewald, M. J., 430, 449 Greenlaw, M. J., 374, 378 Greenlee, A., 595, 606 Greenlee, A. A., 371, 376
Greenlee-Moore, M., 755, 766, 775, 785 Greeno, J., 170, 176, 198 Greeno, J. G., 287, 299, 306, 408, 420 Greenwald, A. G., 217, 225 Greenway, B., 364, 376 Grenno, J. G., 198, 206 Gretter, M. L., 322, 332 Griffin, M., 338, 356 Griffin, P., 211, 220, 226, 347, 348, 359, 478, 479, 482, 668, 683, 684, 689, 814, 834 Griffin, S., 695n, 700, 701, 705, 713, 716 Griffith, B. C., 219, 225 Griffith, P. L., 255, 265, 371, 376, 551, 559 Grimmett, P., 702, 713 Grimm, N., 81, 85, 89, 96 Grindler, M. C., 578, 579, 584 Grint, K., 753, 766 Grischkowsky, N., 782, 785 Grisham, D., 590, 591, 605 Grissmer, D., 893, 907 Grobe, R. P., 841, 850 Groebel, L., 802, 808 Grolnick, W. S., 407, 412, 420, 421 Gromoll, E. W., 287, 305, 318, 329, 613, 623 Grosse, C., 797, 808 Gross-Glenn, K., 231, 233, 240, 244, 246, 247 Grossman, F., 506, 513, 523 Grossman, P. L., 393, 396, 399, 612, 627 Grove, W. M., 73, 74 Grubb, M., 922, 923, 932 Gruber, S., 780, 786 Gruendel, J., 549, 559 Grumet, M., 130, 136, 138 Grumet, M. R., 125, 139 Guarino, R., 797, 808 Guattari, F., 127, 137 Guba, E. G., 80, 97, 103, 104, 107 Gudbrandsen, B., 318, 329 Guerra, C. L., 725, 729, 735 Guice, S., 349, 356, 374, 376, 413, 418, 566, 580, 581 Guilfoyle, K., 734, 737 Guillory, J., 384, 399 Gülgöz, S., 313, 330 Gumperz, J. J., 196, 202, 206 Gunn, S., 4, 14 Gupta, L., 801, 810 Gurney, D., 187, 193
Gury, E., 463, 464, 467, 470, 476, 477, 480, 481 Guthrie, J. T., 101, 107, 161, 166, 174, 176, 211, 213, 225, 287, 296, 297, 303, 307, 315, 331, 349, 350, 356, 366, 376, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 411, 412, 413, 416, 419, 420, 422, 577, 578, 583, 617, 620, 625, 637, 643, 683, 688, 846, 847, 850, 921, 923, 924, 931, 932 Guthrie, L. F., 142, 151, 153, 156, 157, 893, 907 Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., 340, 356 Gutierrez, K., 148, 151 Gutman, H., 871, 886 Guza, D. S., 187, 193 Guzdial, M., 620, 621, 624 Guzzetti, B. J., 53, 65, 72, 74, 103, 107, 293, 307, 520, 573, 576, 579, 583, 596, 605 H Haager, D., 676, 689, 827, 834 Haag, S., 913, 935 Haas, C., 170, 176, 766, 782, 786 Haas, N. S., 916, 934 Haastrup, K., 172, 176 Haberlandt, K., 317, 331 Hacquebord, H., 802, 808 Hadar, L., 799, 809 Hade, D. D., 370, 371, 376 Haden, C. A., 429, 449 Hadwin, A. F., 653, 654, 656, 657, 662 Haeger, D., 234, 246 Haenggi, G., 321, 331 Hagedorn, T., 438, 439, 451 Hager, M., 439, 452
< previous page
page_952
next page >
< previous page
page_953
next page > Page 953
Hagestad, G. O., 880, 881, 883, 886 Haggard, M. R., 507, 520 Hagman, J. O., 233, 247 Hague, S. A., 322, 331, 510, 523, 778, 786 Haines, C. F., 485, 498 Haines, L. P., 262, 266, 551, 560 Haith, M. M., 485, 499 Hajovy, H., 324, 334 Hakuta, K., 106, 107, 340, 354, 814, 827, 831, 837, 850 Haladyna, T. M., 916, 934 Hallahan, D. P., 669, 687 Hall, C., 26, 27, 363, 375 Hall, D. D., 112, 120 Hall, D. P., 676, 686 Hall, J. A., 218, 225 Hall, J. W., 279, 281, 552, 558 Hall, N., 433, 449 Hall, R., 174, 176 Hall, W., 142, 151, 153, 157 Hall, W. S., 161 Halle, M., 526, 530, 539 Haller, E. P., 554, 558 Haller, M., 239, 246 Halliday, M. A. K., 3, 14, 204, 206, 312, 315, 331, 603, 605 Halpain, D. R., 320, 330 Halpern, D. F., 238, 247 Halpern, E. S., 80, 96 Hamburger, S. D., 233, 244, 248, 340, 341 Hameyer, K., 797, 808 Hamilton, M., 27, 27, 197, 205 Hamilton, M. L., 731, 740 Hammack, F. M., 697, 713 Hammersley, M., 696, 713 Hammett, R., 761, 768 Hammond, K., 471, 482 Hammond, M. A., 854, 867 Hampson, J. M., 557, 560 Hampston, J. M., 480, 482 Hananhan, A. P., 248 Hanauer, D., 801, 808 Hancin-Bhatt, B. J., 275, 282, 817, 818, 819, 823, 832, 833 Hancock, G. R., 404, 411, 416, 420 Hancock, J., 392, 731, 737 Hancock, M. R., 399
Haney, W., 918, 932 Hankins, K. H., 125, 138, 695, 695n, 713 Hanks, W. F., 202, 206 Hanna, G. L., 672, 687 Hanna, J. S., 530, 540 Hannan, E., 782, 787 Hanna, P. R., 530, 540 Hannon, P., 21, 28, 865, 868 Hansen, D., 771, 785 Hansen, E., 392, 399 Hansen, H. S., 858, 868 Hansen, J., 5, 13, 96, 255, 256, 257, 258, 262, 265 Hansis, R., 293, 306 Hanson, B. E., 679, 689 Hanson, R. A., 255, 457, 458, 463, 478, 481 Harangi, L., 29, 31, 38 Harari, S. E., 879, 886 Haraway, D. J., 130, 138 Hardar, U., 237, 249 Hare, V. C., 165, 177, 292, 293, 295, 304, 316, 322, 323, 330, 331, 510, 517, 654, 655, 662, 666 Hareven, T. K., 882, 886 Hargreaves, A., 106, 107, 703, 713, 714 Hargreaves, D. J., 316, 330 Harker, J. O., 568, 570, 583 Harman, J., 21, 23, 24, 27, 861, 865, 867 Harold, R. D., 297, 310, 409, 422 Harre, R., 128, 138, 196, 202, 206 Harrington, M., 802, 808 Harris, A. J., 731, 739 Harris, D., 25, 28 Harris, J. E., 655, 662, 751, 769 Harris, K. R., 100, 108, 169, 178, 187, 193, 295, 300, 304, 307, 345, 356, 409, 420, 659, 665, 673, 687 Harris, M., 701, 705, 714 Harris, T. L., 215, 225, 566, 583, 672, 687 Harris, V. J., 102, 108, 364, 376, 837, 851 Harris, W. V., 747, 766 Harris-Sharples, S., 576, 582 Harrison, C., 17, 24, 25, 28 Harrison, T. M., 746, 747, 766 Harry, B., 876, 886 Harste, J. C., 404, 420, 436, 450, 576, 583, 696, 715, 855, 857, 868 Harter, J., 413, 420 Harter, S., 408, 413, 420 Hart, G. K., 889, 903, 907, 930, 932 Hart, J., 237, 247 Hart, L. A., 232, 249
Hartman, A., 883, 886 Hartman, D. K., 109, 113, 121, 392, 399, 509, 523, 609, 621, 622, 625, 641, 643 Hartman, K., 782, 786 Hartmann, D., 170, 177 Hartmann, W., 697, 714 Harty, K., 726, 728, 741 Harvey, C., 364, 376 Harvey, S., 81, 85, 91, 96 Harwood, K., 391, 398 Hasan, R., 3, 14, 199, 206, 312, 315, 331 Haselkorn, D., 677, 687 Haslam, R. H., 231, 247 Hastings, E., 755, 766 Hatch, E., 514, 520, 797, 808 Hatcher, P. J., 20, 23, 24, 28, 470, 481, 486, 498 Hativa, N., 782, 786 Hattie, J., 653, 662 Havel, V., 37, 38, 38 Hawisher, G. E., 753, 759, 765, 772, 780, 785, 786 Hawkins, J., 780, 786 Hawkins, M. L., 725, 737 Hawley, W. D., 288, 307 Hayes, A. E., 860, 861, 863, 864, 865, 868 Hayes, C. T., 905, 907, 926, 934 Hayes, D. A., 279, 282, 623, 725, 737 Hayes, E. B., 797, 808 Hayes, J. R., 174, 176, 313, 330, 782, 786 Hayes-Roth, B., 550, 558 Hayes, S. C., 184, 193 Haynes, J. B., 516, 521 Haynes, M., 510, 514, 515, 520, 797, 806, 808 Haywood, L., 26, 28 Hazenburg, S., 514, 520 Headman, R., 697, 701, 714
< previous page
page_953
next page >
< previous page
page_954
next page > Page 954
Healy, N. A., 503, 523 Hearne, B., 361, 376 Heath, S. B., 43, 44, 46, 51, 125, 138, 156, 161, 197, 206, 210, 215, 225, 325, 330, 347, 356, 433, 437, 449, 454, 516, 569, 570, 583, 598, 605, 618, 621, 622, 625, 749, 766, 845, 847, 850, 855, 868, 874, 879, 886, 891 Heath, S. G., 389, 398 Heaton, R. M., 294, 308 Hecht, S. A., 485, 493, 494, 501 Heck, M., 351, 357 Hedgcock, J., 800, 808 Hedges, L. V., 214, 225 Hiebert, E., 563, 567, 581, 921, 931 Heilbrun, A., 881, 886 Heilman, P. C., 486, 496 Heimlich, J. E., 504, 505, 520, 522 Heinecke, W., 913, 935 Heland, V. J., 865, 868 Held, D., 144, 151 Helfeldt, J. P., 726, 738 Helfgott, J., 485, 486, 498 Hemphill, L., 200, 201, 206, 438, 452, 854, 856, 870, 877, 887 Henderson, E. H., 528, 531, 533, 535, 536, 539, 540 Henderson, V. W., 241, 247 Hendricks, A., 10, 16 Hendricks-Lee, M. S., 292, 310 Hendriksen, I., 232, 247 Henkhuzens, Z., 21, 23, 24, 27 Henkin, R., 698, 714 Henk, W. A., 118, 121 Henry, M. K., 536, 537, 540 Henry, N. B., 211, 225 Henry, S., 279, 283 Henry, S. K., 507, 522 Henson, K. T., 691, 714 Henson, N., 12, 15 Hepler, S., 349, 356, 566, 583 Herber, H., 512, 520, 630, 643 Herbert, T. K., 700, 715 Herman, J. L., 915, 917, 920, 932 Herman, P. A., 270, 277, 282, 507, 521, 548, 559 Herman, R., 479, 482 Hermanson, C., 641, 643 Hernández, G., 49, 52 Hernández, I. B., 637, 643 Herodotus, 154
Herold, C., 503, 522 Heron, T. E., 187, 193 Herr, K., 692, 694, 698, 704, 708, 710 Herrenkohl, L. R., 595, 606 Herriman, M., 274, 275, 283 Herrmann, B. A., 726, 737 Herschell, P., 5, 15 Hersen, M., 187, 193 Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., 820, 831 Hesselink, J. R., 231, 247 Hess, G. A., 156, 158, 161 Hess, R. D., 857, 868 Hester, E. J., 340, 356 Heubach, K., 470, 471, 477, 482 Heuback, K. M., 81, 95 Heward, W. L., 187, 193 Hewison, J., 21, 28 H., H. E., 920, 934 Hibpshman, T., 860, 868 Hickman, J., 104, 107, 349, 356, 367, 376, 566, 583 Hicks, D., 340, 356 Hidi, S., 291, 297, 298, 307, 309, 576, 584, 651, 663, 752, 766 Hiebert, E. H., 102, 107, 212, 212t, 318, 322, 329, 330, 426, 438, 449, 455, 463, 464, 467, 470, 476, 477, 479, 480, 481, 563, 566, 580, 582, 584, 674, 687, 751, 766, 854, 855, 857, 868 Hier, D. B., 231, 247, 248 Hieronymus, A. N., 917, 932 Hieshima, J. A., 730, 738 Higgins, E. L., 777, 787 Higgins, K. M., 595, 602, 607, 777, 785 Hillinger, M., 744, 767 Hillinger, M. L., 752, 754, 755, 756, 766 Hillocks, G., 389, 399 Hill, P. W., 5, 14 Hill, R., 880, 886 Hill, S., 6, 7, 15, 257, 264 Himenez, R., 509, 523 Hinchman, K. A., 350, 351, 352, 354, 513, 518, 612, 613, 614, 615, 623, 625, 629, 631, 633, 635, 638, 639, 642, 643, 720, 738, 744, 767 Hine, M., 780, 786 Hines, M., 231, 247 Hines, M. B., 391, 399 Hinshelwood, J., 669, 687 Hinson, D., 128, 137 Hirsch, E. D., 384, 399 Hirschfelder, A., 364, 376 History of Reading Special Interest Group, 119, 120 Hite, C., 673, 687
Hittleman, D. R., 113, 121 Hobson, C. J., 878, 885 Hockett, C., 526, 540 Hodas, S., 757, 766 Hodes, P., 797, 808 Hodgens, J., 4, 14 Hodge, R., 206 Hodges, R. E., 215, 225, 530, 536, 540, 541, 566, 583, 672, 687 Hodgkinson, H. L., 79, 96 Hofer, B. K., 649, 652, 663 Hoffman, E., 154, 161 Hoffman, J. V., 113, 120, 394, 399, 411, 418, 567, 576, 583, 612, 625, 700, 722, 729, 732, 738, 926, 927, 932 Hoffman, L., 351, 357 Hoffman, M., 714 Hoffman, S. J., 583 Hoffmyer, E., 670, 683, 687 Hoffner, E., 237, 249 Hofius, B., 101, 108, 430, 452 Hogan, V., 570, 585 Hohepa, M., 10, 15 Hohn, W., 488, 498 Hoien, T., 231, 247, 254, 255, 265, 485, 492, 498 Holdaway, D., 569, 571, 583, 855, 868 Holland, D., 196, 201, 206 Holland, N., 387, 388, 391, 399 Holligan, C., 254, 265 Hollindale, P., 365, 366, 376 Hollingsworth, P. M., 470, 471, 481 Hollingsworth, S., 79, 96, 692n, 694, 696, 701, 703, 714, 730, 732, 733, 738
< previous page
page_954
next page >
< previous page
page_955
next page > Page 955
Holloway, S., 857, 868 Holt, J., 589, 605 Holt, K., 297, 298, 307, 415, 420 Homan, S. P., 673, 687 Honey, M., 778, 787 Honeyman, J., 231, 247 Hoo, D., 169, 175 Hooks, B., 123, 138 Hootstein, H., 410, 414, 420 Hoover, H. D., 917, 919, 932 Hoover, M. L., 319, 331 Hopkins, D., 79, 96, 366, 693, 716 Hopkins, K., 375 Hopkins, T. K., 103, 107 Hoppe, M., 909, 933 Hopper, J., 751, 769 Horiba, Y., 802, 808 Horkheimer, M., 144, 151 Hornberger, N. H., 814, 828, 833 Horn, D. G., 322, 332 Horn, E., 529, 530, 541 Horner, S., 25, 28 Horney, M. A., 752, 755, 765, 766, 774, 784, 786 Horn, T., 529, 530, 533, 541 Horowitz, B., 245, 247 Horowitz, R., 347, 357, 650, 664 Horwood, J., 9, 14 Hosenfeld, C., 797, 808 Hosking, N. J., 738 Houghton, D. M., 447, 454 Houghton, G., 262, 267 Houser, N. D., 637, 643 Howard, D., 236, 248 Howe, K., 595, 606 Howe, M. J. A., 655, 663 Howell, P., 258, 266 Hoyle, R. H., 297, 307, 410, 420 Hruby, G. G., 135, 136 Hsieh, G., 798, 807 Hsu, Y., 725, 738 Hubbard, L., 844, 850 Hubbard, P., 514, 515, 519 Hubbard, R. S., 79, 88, 96, 695, 709, 714 Huberman, A. M., 91, 97
Huberman, M., 694, 696, 698, 714 Huck, C. S., 566, 583 Huckin, T. N., 269, 281, 289, 305, 510, 514, 515, 520 Hudelson, E., 211, 225 Hudelson, S., 819, 833 Hudelson, S. J., 698, 714 Hudson, J. A., 549, 558, 559 Hudson, T., 797, 800, 808 Huey, E. B., 170, 177, 210, 225, 630, 792, 808 Hughes, B., 756, 766 Hughes, C., 187, 194, 255, 266, 353, 486, 494, 499 Hughes, C. E., 592, 593, 607 Hughes, J. R., 232, 247 Hughes, M., 531, 533, 534, 536, 537, 541, 676, 688 Hughes, R., 384, 399 Hughes, T. P., 744, 765 Hugo, V., xiv, ix Hulme, C., 20, 23, 24, 28, 253, 256, 258, 266, 470, 481, 486, 492, 495, 498, 499, 500 Hulstijn, J. H., 514, 520, 799, 808 Humphreys, P., 230, 247 Hunniford, R. M., 390, 402 Hunt, B., 101, 107, 297, 307, 349, 356, 406, 413, 420, 577, 583, 617, 620, 625, 846, 847, 850 Hunt, J., 854, 868 Hunt, L., 111, 119 Hunt, R., 389, 391, 399, 401 Hunt, S., 700, 714 Hurd, D., 634, 643 Hurley, M., 507, 519 Hurn, C., 141, 145, 151 Hurry, J., 23, 28 Husman, J., 661, 666 Hutchin, T. N., 197, 205 Hutchins, E., 196, 198, 206, 555, 559 Hutchison, D., 21, 23, 24, 27, 861, 865, 867 Hutter, R., 652, 665 Huxford, L., 531, 541 Hyatt, A., 726, 738 Hyman, H. H., 103, 107 Hyman, R. T., 614, 623 Hymes, D., 153, 154, 155, 156, 161, 196, 206, 337, 338, 354 Hynd, C. R., 293, 307, 309, 641, 644, 650, 652, 654, 655, 661, 663, 666 Hynd, G. W., 231, 247 Hynde, C. R., 118, 121, 231, 353, 357 Hynds, S., 165, 168, 175, 175, 389, 390, 392, 398, 399 Hyönä, J., 322, 323, 331, 335 Hysmith, C., 730, 731, 738
I Iacono, M., 729, 739 Ianco-Worrall, A. D., 828, 833 Iannone, P. V., 762, 766 Idling, M. K., 698, 712 Idol, L., 187, 194, 554, 559 Idrisano, R., 730, 740 Ijzendoorn, M. H., 568, 581, 856 Ikeda, M. J., 672, 689 Illera, J. L. R., 745, 766 Infante, M. I., 46, 51 Inman, W. E., 320, 332 International Reading Assocation, 687, 905, 907, 922 Intrator, S. M., 215, 225, 296, 307, 325, 772, 773, 786 Invernizzi, M., 531, 532, 534, 536, 537, 539, 541, 542, 673, 686 Invernizzi, M. A., 534, 578, 586 Iraqi, J., 429, 449 Iraqi, U., 568, 582 Irujo, S., 802, 808 Irvin, J. L., 503, 504, 520 Irwin, O., 567, 583 Isaacs, M. E., 729, 738 Isáis-Reyes, J. M., 51, 86 Isakson, R. L., 547, 552, 559 Iser, W., 387, 392, 399, 563, 565, 583 Isom, B. A., 595, 605 Ivanic, R., 27, 27 Iversen, S. J., 115, 120, 485, 486, 498 Iverson, S., 11, 15 Ivey, M. G., 78, 79, 95, 440, 450, 499, 572, 574, 581, 592, 594, 604 J Jackson, A. W., 288, 307
< previous page
page_955
next page >
< previous page
page_956
next page > Page 956
Jackson, B., 843, 850 Jackson, D. III., 295, 309 Jackson, G. B., 214, 215, 217, 223, 224, 225 Jackson, P., 587, 605 Jacob, E., 156, 161 Jacob, M., 111, 119 Jacobs, H. H., 594, 605 Jacobson, M. G., 511, 523 Jacobson, M. J., 328, 329, 331, 334 Jaeger, J., 239, 247 Jaeger, R. M., 93, 94, 96 Jaggar, A. M., 372, 378, 588, 606 Jallad, B., 231, 246, 247 James, J. H., 587n, 607 James, M. O., 515, 520 James, S. L., 485, 496 James, W., 163, 177, 286, 295, 297, 307 Janisch, C., 612, 613, 614, 623, 827, 833 Jansen, G., 129, 130, 138 Jarvis, D. K., 797, 808 Jaszczak, S., 54, 74 Javal, E., 792, 808 Javal, F., 210, 225 Jawitz, P. B., 554, 558 Jay, M., 144, 145, 151 Jefferson, T., 793, 794, 808 Jehng, J. C., 293, 309, 328, 334 Jeng, J., 758, 769 Jenkins, J., 350, 357, 547, 553, 558, 676, 690, 892, 907 Jenkins, J. J., 286, 303, 307, 647, 663 Jenkins, J. R., 276, 277, 282, 491, 499, 507, 508, 509, 520, 522, 678, 679, 689 Jenkins, K., 10, 15 Jenkins, L., 350, 357, 676, 690 Jenkins, S. J., 578, 579, 584 Jenner, A., 245, 248 Jennings, J. H., 730, 738 Jennings, N. E., 899, 900, 901, 905, 907, 908, 914, 933, 935 Jensen, D. C., 797, 808 Jensen, J. M., 210, 215, 225, 587, 605 Jensen, Y., 279, 283 Jernigan, T. L., 231, 247 Jetton, T. L., 288, 290, 291, 292, 293, 298, 302, 304, 307, 316, 325, 329, 404, 405, 418, 612, 613, 614, 616, 625, 631, 634, 635, 639, 643, 651, 661 Jett-Simpson, M., 577, 583
Jewell, M., 350, 357 Jiménez, R. T., 583, 814, 815, 816, 817, 822, 823, 826, 828, 830, 832, 833 Jiminez, R. J., 513, 515, 520, 578, 821 Jipson, J., 374, 376 Jiron, H. W., 906, 925, 934 Joag-Dev, Z. C., 64, 74, 369, 378, 797, 810 Johannessen, L. R., 364, 376 Johns, R. D., 231, 247 Johnson, B., 725, 738 Johnson, C. J., 545, 554, 560 Johnson-Crowley, N., 294, 308 Johnson, C. S., 349, 355, 726, 738 Johnson, D., 351, 357, 390, 392, 399, 725, 738 Johnson, D. D., 503, 505, 508, 516, 520, 522 Johnson, D. T., 592, 593, 607 Johnson-Feelings, D., 364, 376 Johnson, J., 734, 737, 744, 767 Johnson, J. A., 700, 714 Johnson, J. C., 725, 738 Johnson, K. E., 800, 809 Johnson, Lyndon, 890 Johnson, M., 196, 206, 601, 602, 606, 729, 737 Johnson, M. C., 498, 499 Johnson, M. H., 197, 198, 205 Johnson, N. J., 319, 321, 333 Johnson, P., 797, 809 Johnson, R., 351, 357 Johnson, S., 21, 22, 28, 86, 746, 766 Johnson, S. K., 529, 539 Johnston, F., 673, 686 Johnston, J. M., 187, 194 Johnston, P. H., 12, 15, 81, 90, 92, 96, 164, 165, 166, 169, 170, 175, 177, 291, 308, 374, 376, 681, 687, 697, 700, 714, 846, 848, 850 Johnston, R. S., 11, 16, 254, 257, 265 John, V., 337, 338, 354 Jonassen, D. H., 327, 331, 754, 766, 775, 786 Jones, A., 279, 283 Jones, H. J., 390, 399, 573, 577, 579, 583 Jones, I., 553, 560 Jones, R. S., 554, 558 Jones, W. P., 511, 521 Jonz, J., 801, 809 Joram, E., 174, 178 Jordan, C., 156, 159, 160, 161 Jorm, A. F., 5, 15, 257, 265, 485, 500, 854, 870 Joseph, S., 795, 809 Judd, C. H., 793, 809
Judy, J. E., 295, 299, 304, 650, 661 Juel, C., 5, 15, 253, 255, 265, 479, 481, 484, 485, 493, 494, 495, 496, 498, 551, 552, 559, 678, 687, 902, 907 Jumpp, D., 697, 701, 714 Junker, S. C., 913, 935 Juska, J., 700, 714 Juskowitz, S., 338, 358 Justice-Swanson, K., 679, 689 Just, M., 172, 177 K Ka'ai, T., 10, 15 Kaderavek, J. N., 442, 453 Kaestle, C. F., 115, 120, 383, 399 Kahlich, P., 779, 788 Kain, D. L., 589, 606 Kalantzis,, 199, 205 Kalnin, J. S., 696, 700, 705, 713 Kaltenbach, S., 701, 714 Kamberelis, G., 124, 137, 368, 369, 377, 625 Kameenui, E. J., 269, 271, 274, 281, 282, 503, 504, 508, 510, 516, 518, 520, 668, 687 Kamhi, A. G., 347, 348, 349, 357 Kamil, M. L., xiv, xiv, 57, 74, 141, 142, 150, 151, 182, 189, 194, 211, 219, 224, 225, 226, 288, 296, 305, 307, 308, 325, 331, 369, 375, 378, 455, 481, 503, 514, 518, 587, 604, 719, 722, 735, 740, 750, 761, 766, 771, 772, 773, 774, 779, 782, 786, 788, 802, 803, 806 Kamm, K., 725, 735 Kamps, D., 350, 351, 357
< previous page
page_956
next page >
< previous page
page_957
next page > Page 957
Kane, J. H., 778, 788 Kanevsky, R. D., 701, 714 Kang, S., 818, 832 Kantor, D., 883, 886 Kantor, R., 437, 449 Kapinus, B. A., 512, 523 Kaplan, E., 164, 170, 178, 276, 284 Karchmer, R. A., 744, 762, 767 Karegianes, M. L., 463, 467, 482 Karmiloff-Smith, A., 197, 198, 205, 206, 256, 265 Karsten, S., 29, 30, 31, 38 Karweit, N., 675, 688, 893, 907 Kaspar, V., 656, 663 Kass, H., 612, 625 Kattke, M. L., 486, 498 Katz, L., 230, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 248, 248, 249, 253, 264, 340, 341, 355, 485, 493, 498 Katz, P. A., 414, 415, 419 Katz, R., 495, 498 Katz, W., 231, 247 Kauffman, G., 730, 741 Kauffman, L. S., 32, 129, 138, 230 Kaufman, C., 32, 38 Kaufmann, W. E., 230, 247 Kavale, K. A., 175, 177, 669, 671, 687 Kavims, D. S., 442, 449 Kawakami, A. J., 838, 844, 847, 849 Kazdin, A. E., 187, 194 Kazelskis, R., 729, 741 Kear, D. J., 405, 409, 420, 578, 579, 580, 584, 636, 637, 640, 643 Keating, C., 78, 98 Ke, C., 802, 808 Keebler, R., 372, 375, 429, 448 Keenan, J. A. W., 317, 332, 698, 714, 848 Keenan; J. W., 848, 850 Keep-Barnes, A., 697, 714 Keith, S., 917, 933 Kellogg, R. T., 289, 307 Kelly, M., 12, 15 Kelsey, J., 8, 15 Kemelfield, G., 6, 14 Kemmerer, D., 239, 247 Kemmis, S., 694, 711 Kemmis, W., 143, 150 Kemper, T. L., 230, 246
Kemp, M., 863, 868 Kempton, S., 81, 85, 91, 96 Kendall, J. R., 802, 809 Kennedy-Calloway, C., 731, 737 Kennedy, D., 276, 282 Kennedy, M., 74, 675, 890, 907 Kennedy, M. M., 687 Kent, J. F., 780, 786 Keogh, B. K., 338, 359 Kerfoot, J., 641, 643 Kerin, A., 10, 15 Kernan, A., 385, 399 Kern, R. G., 802, 809 Kerr, B., 509, 523 Kerslake, J., 9, 15 Kerstiens, G., 646, 662 Ketterling, T., 82, 86, 90, 97 Keyser, E. L., 365, 376 Kibby, M. W., 667, 669, 673, 683, 685, 687, 688 Kibler, D., 174, 176 Kicheloe, J., 144, 151 Kidder, L. H., 84, 96 Kidston, P., 3, 15 Kieffer, C. C., 701, 714 Kieffer, R. D., 296, 309, 325, 333, 729, 731, 738, 744, 745, 749, 751, 768, 769, 772, 787 Kieras, D. E., 316, 317, 318, 322, 331, 332 Kier, L. E., 231, 248 Kiesila, P., 232, 240, 241, 244, 248 Kiewra, K. A., 324, 333, 648, 656, 663 Kigar, D. L., 238, 249 Kile, R. S., 637, 640, 642 Kim, D., 516, 521 Kim, S. A., 799, 809 Kim, S. L., 648, 663 Kincheloe, J. L., 78, 79, 96, 694, 695, 714 King, A., 553, 560, 648, 655, 663 King, C., 233, 240, 241, 244, 248 King, J. R., 118, 120, 121 King, K. S., 652, 663 King, S. H., 848, 850 Kingdon, J. W., 903, 907 Kingston, A. J., 725, 738 Kinneavy, J. E., 289, 307 Kinnunen, R., 319, 335, 412, 420 Kintgen, E., 167, 170, 177 Kintsch, E., 313, 320, 326, 328, 332, 333
Kintsch, W., 165, 168, 178, 290, 291, 298, 307, 312, 313, 315, 317, 318, 319, 320, 320n, 322, 326, 328, 329, 330, 332, 333, 334, 335, 549, 550, 559, 560 Kinzer, C. K., 720, 725, 738, 745, 751, 757, 767, 775, 776, 788 Kirby, S. N., 893, 907 Kirley, J. R., 725, 746, 747, 768 Kirsch, I., 921, 932 Kirst, M. W., 850, 894, 900, 901, 902, 903, 906, 907, 909, 910, 932, 933 Kirtley, C., 252, 265 Kispal, A., 25, 26, 27 Kita, B., 371, 376, 378, 452, 553, 558, 560, 568, 582 Kitajima, R., 799, 809 Kitchener, P. M., 652, 663 Klass, D., 637, 643, 6409 Kleiman, G. M., 574, 585 Klein, J. D., 753, 767 Klein, R., 755, 765 Klein, S., 918, 919, 933 Klenk, L., 340, 345, 358 Klesius, J. P., 371, 376, 673, 687, 725, 738 Kletzien, S., 753, 765 Kliebard, H. M., 614, 623 Kline, R., 798, 807 Klingner, J. K., 53, 73, 646, 661, 676, 688, 689, 827, 834 Klumb, R., 725, 735 Knapp, M. S., 675, 688 Knight, S. L., 288, 302, 304, 799, 809, 822, 833 Knoblach, C., 147, 151, 702 Knoblauch, C. H., 696, 714 Knost, P., 29, 30, 32, 36, 39 Knott, G., 338, 354 Koda, K., 797, 802, 809 Kodzopeljic, J., 816, 833 Koehler, V., 156, 161 Koeller, S. A., 563, 583
< previous page
page_957
next page >
< previous page
page_958
next page > Page 958
Koenke, K., 725, 738 Koivu-Rybicki, V. T., 700, 715 Kolinsky, R., 486, 497 Komada, M. K., 797, 808 Konjevic, C., 78, 98 Konopak, B. C., 53, 73, 508, 509, 512, 513, 520, 521, 631, 632, 633, 639, 643, 644, 646, 661 Konopak, J. P., 53, 73, 646, 661 Koorland, M. A., 187, 194 Koppenhaver, D. A., 777, 788 Koretz, D. M., 917, 918, 919, 932, 933 Korkeamaki, R. L., 443, 449 Korthagen, F., 720, 721, 741 Koskinen, P. S., 350, 357, 673, 688, 800, 806, 821, 826, 831, 833 Kostin, I., 801, 808 Kostuch, J., 755, 770 Kovarsky, D., 338, 357 Kowalinski, B. J., 573, 576, 579, 583, 596, 605 Kowal, M., 78, 98 Kowalski, P., 408, 420 Kozma, R. B., 775, 786 Kozminsky, E., 319, 322, 332 Krajcik, J. S., 617, 620, 621, 624, 625 Krall, F. R., 91, 96 Kramsch, C., 798, 809 Kranzer, K. G., 277, 282 Krapp, A., 297, 309, 576, 584 Krashen, S., 507, 514, 521, 800, 809, 825, 826, 833 Krater, J., 694, 700, 714 Kratochwill, T. R., 182, 187, 189, 194 Kraus, D. D., 730, 738 Kremers, M., 781, 786 Kreppner, K., 881, 886 Kress, G., 197, 204, 206, 436, 446, 449 Kriegler, S., 443, 449 Kriho, L., 755, 770 Kruesi, M. J. P., 231, 248 Kruideneir, J., 773, 785 Kucan, L., 103, 107, 163, 164, 165, 169, 174, 175, 177, 354, 404, 418, 596, 605 Kucera, C. A., 607, 714 Kucera, J., 194 Kuerbitz, I. E., 567, 586, 854, 870 Kuhn, D., 663 Kuhn, M., 276, 282, 744, 759, 761, 767 Kuiken, D., 389, 400
Kulig, R., 430, 449 Kulik, C. C., 679, 686, 778, 786 Kulik, J. A., 679, 686, 778, 786 Kulikowich, J. M., 287, 288, 290, 293, 294, 298, 299, 302, 304, 306, 325, 329, 404, 405, 418, 650, 651, 661, 662 Kumpulainen, K., 781, 786 Kurita, J. A., 545, 554, 560 Kurth, R. J., 729, 738 Kushch, A., 231, 246 Kutas, M., 232, 249 Kutno, S., 673, 685 Kutz, E., 697, 714 Kyle, W. C., Jr., 612, 625 Kyselka, W., 641, 643 L Labaree, D. F., 836, 850 Labaree, L., 794, 809 Labbo, L. D., 296, 309, 325, 333, 436, 437, 442, 443, 449, 679, 688, 744, 745, 749, 750, 755, 759, 761, 767, 768, 772, 777, 786, 787 LaBerge, D., 547, 552, 553, 559 672, 673, 688, 796, 809 Lacadie, C., 238, 239, 245, 248, 249 Lacerenza, L., 486, 499, 674, 688 Ladson-Billings, G., 838, 848, 850 Lafer, S., 598, 607 Laflamme, J. G., 513, 521 LaFramboise, K., 725, 738 Lagemann, E. C., 795, 809 Laham, D., 328, 332, 333 Lai, F. K., 800, 809 Laine, C., 725, 738 Laird, J., 883, 886 Lajeunesse, G., 802, 809 Lakoff, G., 196, 206 Lalik, R. V., 125, 138, 724, 739 Lambiote, J. G., 656, 657, 663 Lamme, L. L., 730, 731, 738 Lamon, M., 287, 309 Lampert, M., 294, 307, 734, 738 Lancia, P. J., 371, 376 Landauer, T. K., 272, 282, 328, 330, 332, 333 Landerl, K., 254, 267 Landy, S., 366, 376 Lane, D., 307, 750, 772, 774, 782, 786 Lane, D. M., 217, 225, 325, 331, 397, 761, 766 Lane, F. K., 794, 809 Lange, D., 8, 15 Lange, D. L., 797, 807
Langer, J. A., 167, 177, 290, 307, 349, 357, 367, 369, 376, 390, 391, 397, 399, 566, 570, 581, 583, 587, 588, 606, 613, 625, 823, 824, 833 Langston, M. C., 318, 321, 332, 335 Langston, M. D., 786 Lankshear, C., 15, 144, 147 Lansdown, S. H., 508, 513, 521 Lantz, O., 612, 625 Lan, W., 753, 770 Lapp, D., 210, 215, 225, 587, 595, 605, 606, 731, 737, 749, 761, 766, 772, 775, 785 Large, B., 19, 27, 254, 264 Larkin, J. H., 326, 327, 330 Larkin, K., 165, 166, 170, 176 Larrick, N., 115, 120, 363, 376 Larry, C. E., 366, 377 Larsen, J. P., 231, 247 Larson, J., 148, 151 Larson, K., 701, 705, 715 Larson, M. L., 43, 51 Lartz, M. N., 431, 449, 450 Lascarides, A., 332 Lash, S., 197, 205 Lather, P., 78, 96, 125, 130, 138 Latour, B., 196, 203, 206 Lauer, J., 407, 421 Laufer, B., 271, 282, 514, 521, 799, 809 Laughon, P., 257, 266 Lave, J., 196, 201, 206, 207, 210, 286, 309 Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., 123, 124, 131, 132, 135, 138 Laxon, V., 485, 498 Lay, M. M., 753, 767 Lazar, M. K., 676, 686
< previous page
page_958
next page >
< previous page
page_959
next page > Page 959
Lazarte, A. A., 802, 806 Lazarus, V., 897, 908 Leader, L. F., 753, 767 Leal, D. J., 351, 357, 373, 377 Learner-Centered Principles Revision Work Group, 295, 307 LeBlanc, P., 772, 786 LeCompte, M. D., 80, 97 Lee, C. D., 394, 399, 797 Lee, J. F., 801, 809, 810 Lefever-Davis, S., 726, 738 Le Fevre, D., 12, 15 LeFevre, D., 478, 482 Leffa, V., 799, 809 Leggett, B., 407, 419 Leggett, E. L., 296, 297, 306 Legg, S. M., 917, 934 Lehman, B. A., 368, 373, 374, 375, 377, 378, 564, 565, 566, 583 Lehr, S., 370, 377, 391, 399 Lehr, W., 883, 886 Lehrer, R., 332 Lehtinen, E., 412, 420 Lehto, M. R., 327, 332 Leicester, N., 350, 357 Leinhardt, G., 167, 170, 177 Leisman, G., 231, 247 Leland, C. H., 436, 450 LeMahieu, P. G., 919, 933 LeMaster, S. U., 656, 662 LeMay, M., 231, 246, 247 Lemke, J. L., 344, 357, 614, 625, 744, 759, 767 Lenneberg, E., 530, 541 Lennon, D., 103, 108 Lensmire, T., 615, 619, 625 Lentz, R., 512, 521 Lenz, B. K., 187, 194 Lenzo, K., 125, 131, 138 Leonard, B., 350, 351, 357 Leonard, D., 231, 247 Leong, C. K., 485, 498 Lepper, M., 778, 786 Lepper, M. R., 411, 419 Lerner, R. M., 881, 885, 886 Leseman, P. P. M., 438, 450 Lesgold, A. M., 471, 482
Leslie, L., 262, 265 Leu, D. D., 744, 756, 759, 762, 767 Leu, D. J., Jr., 296, 720, 738, 744, 745, 751, 752, 754, 755, 756, 757, 759, 761, 762, 766, 767 Leuder, D. C., 726, 741 Leuer, M., 729, 735 Leutner, D., 775, 777, 787 Levesque, M., 236, 249 Levie, W. H., 512, 521 Levin, B., 231, 246 Levine, J. M., 288, 309 Levine, L., 388, 399 Levin, H. M., 671, 687, 783, 786 Levin, J. R., 182, 187, 189, 194, 506, 521, 522, 554, 559, 650, 654, 663, 665, 903, 904, 908 Levin, K. M., 505, 508, 516, 520, 522 Levin, M. E., 506, 521 Levinson, S. C., 196, 202, 206 Levins, R., 601, 606 Levi-Strauss, C., 747, 767 Leviton, L. C., 223, 225 Levonen, J., 325, 333, 749, 769, 773, 788 Levstick, L. S., 596, 606 Levy, A., 187, 194 Lewandowski, L. J., 494, 497, 516, 521 Lewin, C., 755, 767 Lewin, L., 755, 765 Lewis, C., 351, 357, 395, 399, 700, 714 Lewis, E., 875, 887 Lewis, M. J., 578, 579, 585 Lewis, W. J., 730, 742 Lewkowicz, N. K., 486, 498 Lewontin, R. C., 601, 606 Ley, T. C., 725, 739 Li, S., 566, 580, 581 Liberman, A. M., 230, 238, 245, 247, 248, 249, 252, 484, 486, 494, 495, 498, 499, 703, 714 Liberman, I. Y., 230, 246, 252, 257, 265, 266, 483, 484, 485, 486, 493, 494, 495, 498, 499, 500, 531, 533, 540, 1230 Liberman-I. Y., 253, 264 Licheter, J. H., 390, 399 Lickteig, J., 725, 738 Liddle, P. F., 235, 246 Lie, A., 486, 499 Lieberman, J. C., 891, 906 Light, R. J., 214, 216, 220, 223, 226 Liguori, O., 827, 831 Lin, Y. G., 653, 654, 664 Lincoln, Y. S., 78, 80, 96, 97, 103, 104, 107, 125, 139, 427, 448 Lindamood, C., 485, 497
Lindamood, P., 485, 497 Lindberg, S. W., 115, 120 Linden, M., 569, 583 Linderholm, T., 318, 334 Lindfors, J. W., 698, 714 Lindle, J. C., 913, 933 Lindsay, G., 21, 28 Linn, R. L., 429, 450, 568, 584, 667, 688, 915, 916, 921, 933 Lintz, A., 844, 850 Lipcamon, J., 231, 247 Lipka, J., 848, 850 Lipsey, M. W., 221, 226 Lipson, M. Y., 169, 177, 194, 292, 308, 590, 600, 606, 647, 650, 656, 663, 664, 925, 933, 934 Liston, D. P., 701, 711 Little, J. W., 694, 703, 715 Liu, M., 750, 752, 767, 768, 777, 786 Livdahl, B. S., 700, 715 Livingstone, M. S., 247, 321 Lloyd, C. V., 508, 521, 631, 633, 635, 636, 643, 730, 733, 738, 740 Lloyd, S., 6, 13 Lockhard, M., 597, 605 Locklear, G., 694, 715 Lockridge, K. A., 112, 120 Lockwood, A., 239, 247 Loewenstein, D. A., 231, 246 Logan, J., 728, 729, 737, 739 Loman, N. L., 320, 332 Lomax, C. M., 858, 869 Lomax, R. G., 324, 333, 444, 450, 587n, 607, 857, 869 Lombardino, L., 231, 247 Long, D. L., 290, 306
< previous page
page_959
next page >
< previous page
page_960
next page > Page 960
Long, M., 799, 811 Lonigan, C. J., 340, 347, 360, 426, 428, 447, 453, 553, 560, 856, 857, 867, 870 Loofbourrow, P. T., 924, 933 Lopez-Reyna, N. A., 347, 355 Lorch, E. P., 315, 317, 319, 320, 322, 332 Lorch, R. F., Jr., 312, 314, 315, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 332, 408, 420 Lorys, A. R., 231, 247 Loseby, P. H., 744, 767 Lott, J. G., 700, 715 Louden, W., 6, 7, 13, 15 Lou, H. C., 232, 247 Lovett, M. W., 486, 499, 674, 688 Lowe, K., 865, 867 Lowenstein, D., 233, 240, 244, 247 Low, L. Y., 486, 498 Loxterman, J. A., 169, 177, 294, 300, 307, 313, 329, 613, 626 Lubs, H., 231, 246 Lubs, H. A., 247 Lucas, C. K., 917, 933 Lucas, T., 823, 824, 833 Lucido, P., 650, 664 Ludlow, L., 389, 399 Lukasevich, A., 367, 368, 379 Lukatela, B. J., Jr., 236, 248 Luke, A., 4, 5, 7, 13, 14, 15, 113, 120, 142, 143, 147, 148, 149, 151, 393, 400, 611, 625 Luke, C., 611, 615, 625 Lumley, T., 801, 809 Lundberg, I., 231, 247, 253, 255, 265, 485, 486, 487, 499, 755, 767 Lundberg, L., 254, 255, 265, 485, 492, 498 Lundeberg, M., 166, 170, 172, 175, 177, 178 Lundell, D., 773, 785 Lund, K., 328, 332 Lund, R., 800, 809 Lundquist, E., 230, 249 Lunzer, E. A., 21, 22, 23, 28 Luppescu, S., 799, 809 Lusche, P., 81, 85, 91, 96 Lusi, S. F., 910, 933 Lynch-Brown, C., 366, 377 Lynch, M., 206 Lynch, R. H., 621, 626 Lyon, G. R., 493, 498, 891, 892, 907 Lyons, C. A., 463, 464, 467, 478, 482, 678, 686, 726, 731, 739, 741 Lyons, N., 732, 739
Lysynchuk, L. M., 101, 107, 213t Lytle, S. L., 77, 78, 79, 88, 93, 95, 96, 125, 137, 177, 692, 694, 695, 696, 697, 698, 699, 701, 702, 704, 705, 708, 709, 712, 713, 715 M Maaka, M. J., 848, 849 Maat, H., 167, 177 Mabrito, M., 781, 787 MacArthur, C. A., 516, 521, 777, 787 MacCann, D., 115, 120 MacDonald, B., 236, 249 MacDonald, R., 880, 886 Macedo, D., 45, 46, 51, 845, 849 Madden, J., 26, 28 MacGillivray, L., 430, 431, 437, 440, 450, 454 MacGinitie, R. K., 667, 688 MacGinitie, W. H., 667, 687, 688 MacGowan, A., III., 919, 935 Machuga, M. B., 505, 523 MacIver, D., 409, 422 Mack, R., 166, 177 MacKinnin, A., 702, 713 MacKinnon, G. E., 673, 690 MacKinnon, J., 505, 521 Mackinson, 698, 715 Mackler, K., 858, 867 MacLean, M. M., 18, 27, 79, 97, 252, 254, 264, 265, 485, 497, 499, 802, 809 Maclean, R., 485, 500, 854, 870 Maclure, M., 25, 26, 27 Macotela-Flores, J. M., 49, 51 Macphee, J. S., 700, 715 Madden, L., 350, 351, 357 Madigan, D., 368, 369, 377, 700, 715 Madrigal, P., 438, 450 Maehr, M. L., 407, 415, 418, 420 Magliano, J. P., 160, 166, 172, 177, 178, 313, 321, 335 Magoto, J., 514, 515, 519 Maher, A., 78, 82, 84, 86, 89, 97, 98 Mahiri, J., 622, 625 Mahoney, T., 368, 369, 377 Maiguashca, R. U., 510, 514, 521 Mailloux, S., 385, 387, 400 Main, D. S., 414, 415, 419 Maisog, J. M., 233, 234, 240, 244, 245, 246, 248 Majoor, D., 29, 30, 31, 38 Maki, R. H., 650, 663 Malinak, J., 220, 222, 226
Mallow, J. V., 511, 521 Malone, J., 374, 376 Malone, T. W., 778, 786 Mandel, T. S., 319, 322, 332 Mandler, J. M., 58, 317, 319, 321, 323, 332, 333 Mangiola, L., 698, 715 Manguel, A., 383, 400, 630, 643, 745, 768 Mann, V. A., 253, 255, 257, 265, 485, 490, 495, 499 Mann, W. C., 314, 333 Mannes, S. M., 329, 333 Manning, A., 696, 715 Manning, G., 366, 379 Manning, M., 366, 379 Manning, P. K., 124, 131, 138 Manning, S., 29, 31, 38 Mansaray, H. A., 515, 521 Many, J. E., 367, 370, 377, 379, 392, 394, 400, 402, 575, 583, 618, 625 Mao, J., 231, 247 Marasco, J., 701, 702, 717 Marbe, K., 164, 177 Marchione, K. E., 238, 245, 248, 249 Marchionini, G., 754, 768 Marckwardt, A. H., 211, 226 Marcus, G. E., 123, 124n, 132, 137, 138, 154, 161 Marcus, M., 728, 739 Marcuse, H., 144 Margolis, H., 198, 206 Mariage, T. V., 345, 353, 355, 442, 443, 449 Maring, G. H., 641, 642, 643
< previous page
page_960
next page >
< previous page
page_961
next page > Page 961
Marini, R. M., 42, 44, 46, 51 Marion, S. F., 920, 934 Marks, C. B., 505, 523 Marks, M. B., 169, 178, 659, 665 Marmolejo, A., 516, 521 Marniak, B., 414, 419 Marquis, A., 338, 355 Marrison, D. L., 753, 768 Marrou, H. I., 109, 120 Marshall, J. D., 104, 107, 386, 389, 394, 396, 400 Marshall, N., 650, 663, 664 Marsh, G., 486, 499, 531, 532, 541 Marston, D., 516, 521 Martens, P., 430, 436, 450 Marteski, F., 190, 194 Martin, D. C., 658, 663 Martin, H. J., 112, 120 Martin, J. R., 3, 5, 13, 16, 201, 204, 206, 314n, 333 Martin, V., 553, 559, 560 Martinez, A., 437, 450 Martinez, M., 570, 571, 585, 846 Martinez, M. G., 361, 366, 372, 377, 391, 400, 429, 430, 433, 450, 611, 625, 850 Martinez, W. G., 429, 453 Martinez-Pons, M., 299, 310 Marx, R. W., 416, 421, 616, 620, 621, 624, 625, 733, 742 Marzano, R. J., 588, 606 Masiello, T., 342, 358 Mason, B., 800, 809 Mason, G., 567, 583, 778, 786 Mason, J. M., 160, 428, 444, 445, 450, 451, 458, 482, 568, 570, 582, 583, 584, 847, 848, 849, 855, 857, 863, 869, 921 Massell, D., 909, 933 Masterman, M., 220, 226 Masters, G., 5, 15 Masterson, J., 19, 28 Matanzo, J. B., 731, 737 Matherne, D., 612, 625 Mathes, P. G., 495, 501 Mathews, K., 744, 767 Mathews, M., 768 Mathews, R., 854, 870 Matlin, M. L., 732, 739 Matlock, B., 276, 282 Matson, B., 668, 688 Mattelart, A., 50, 51
Matthews, M. R., 293, 294, 307, 745, 746, 768 Matthews, P. D., 319, 322, 332 Matthews, R., 485, 500 Matthewson, G. C., 406, 420 Mattingly, I. G., 252, 486, 494, 499 Maturana, H. R., 601, 606 Mautte, L. A., 428, 450 Mavrogenes, N. A., 113, 121 Maxson, S. P., 673, 688 Maxwell, G. S., 5, 15 Maxwell, J. A., 103, 108 Maxwell, M., 645, 663 May, J. P., 366, 377 Mayer, C., 78, 98 Mayer, R. E., 295, 310, 312, 320, 325, 332, 333, 645, 647, 653, 654, 657, 659, 660, 663, 749, 768, 775, 776, 777, 787, 818, 832 Mayer, R. F., 647, 660, 666 Mayfield, V., 920, 934 Mayher, J. S., 79, 95 Mazonni, S., 409, 420 Mazur-Stewart, M., 506, 511, 519 McAdams, L. A., 231, 247 McAllister, D., 724, 740, 757, 769 McAllister, J., 164, 177 McArthur,, 547, 552, 559 McAuliff, S., 81, 85, 91, 96 McBride-Chang, C., 492, 494, 499 McCaffrey, D., 918, 919, 933 McCagg, E. C., 656, 657, 663 McCann, A. D., 101, 107, 297, 307, 349, 356, 404, 406, 411, 413, 416, 420, 583, 617, 620, 625, 846, 847, 850 McCann, D., 364, 377 McCann, D. A., 577, 583 McCarthey, S. J., 612, 619, 621, 624, 625, 732, 738, 895, 896, 901, 907 McCarthy, M., 269, 283, 510, 514, 519 McCarthy, S., 351, 357, 732, 738 McCartney, K. A., 549, 559 McCarty, T. L., 621, 626, 848, 850 McCarville, K. B., 506, 521 McCaslin, E. S., 277, 279, 281, 509, 518 McClelland, J. L., 199, 207 McClelland, S. M., 633, 642 McClure, K. K., 256, 266 McCollum, J., 431, 450 McCombs, B. L., 411, 415, 420, 651, 664 McConkie, G. W., 317, 324, 333 McConnell, D., 781, 787 McCormick, C., 343, 346, 358, 428, 450, 863, 869
McCormick, K., 386, 388, 400 McCormick, S., 102, 108, 183, 187, 193, 194, 447, 451, 720, 742 McCurdy, B. R., 190, 194 McCutchen, D., 299, 307 McDaniel, M. A., 506, 522, 656, 657, 665 McDermott, R. P., 158, 161, 616, 622, 626 McDiarmid, G., 734, 739 McDonald, J., 239, 248 McDonnell, L., 913, 933 McEachern, W., 802, 807 McFalls, E., 270, 283 McFarland, K. P., 77, 79, 97 McGaw, B., 6, 15, 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225 McGee, L. M., 322, 324, 333, 372, 377, 426, 439, 440, 444, 446, 450, 452, 563, 565, 566, 567, 575, 584, 586, 857, 869 McGill-Franzen, A., 675, 688, 846, 848, 891, 892, 903, 906, 906, 907, 925, 928, 931, 933 McGinley, W., 368, 369, 377, 575, 584 McGoldrick, J. A., 545, 554, 560 McGough, K., 287, 303, 307, 403, 404, 413, 420 McGowan, T. M., 573, 576, 579, 583, 592, 596, 605, 606 McGraw, C. K., 490, 496 McHoul, A., 326, 333 McIntosh, A. R., 245, 248 McIntyre, E., 431, 441, 450, 572, 584, 856, 869 McIntyre, G. G., 698, 717 McKay, S., 791, 809 McKeachie, W. J., 294, 307, 651, 653, 654, 657, 664, 665 McKee, P., 530, 541
< previous page
page_961
next page >
< previous page
page_962
next page > Page 962
McKee, T. K., 320, 330 McKenna, M. C., 296, 309, 325, 333, 405, 409, 420, 578, 579, 580, 584, 585, 636, 637, 640, 643, 744, 745, 749, 750, 755, 768, 772, 777, 786, 787 McKenzie, M., 701, 705, 715 McKeown, M. G., 107, 169, 177, 193, 269, 270, 276, 277, 279, 281, 282, 287, 290, 294, 297, 299, 300, 304, 305, 307, 309, 313, 318, 329, 350, 351, 354, 373, 375, 404, 418, 503, 508, 509, 518, 521, 548, 552, 557, 559, 596, 605, 613, 623, 626 McKillop, A. M., 761, 768 McKinney, C. W., 390, 399, 573, 577, 579, 583 McKool, S. S., 926, 927, 932 McKoon, G., 550, 559 McLaren, P., 144, 147, 151 M-Class Teacher Researchers, 696, 700, 713 McLaughlin, B., 802, 809, 816, 833 McLaughlin, C. W., 634, 643 Mclaughlin, E., 782, 785 McLaughlin, H. J., 405, 409, 415, 421 McLaughlin, M. W., 621, 625, 703, 715, 890, 892, 894, 895, 907, 911, 933 McLaughlin, T. F., 187, 193 McLean, J., 103, 108 McLean, M. M., 431, 453 McLean, R. S., 296, 309, 334 McLeod, B., 802, 809 McLoyd, V., 412, 420 McLuhan, M., 384, 400 McMahen, C. L., 655, 662 McMahon, S. I., 104, 108, 358, 373, 378, 618, 626, 700, 715 McMillan, K., 778, 787 McMunn, C., 751, 766 McNamara, D. S., 313, 320, 326, 328, 333 McNaught, M., 5, 13 McNaughton, S., 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 McNeil, L., 611, 626 McNinch, G. H., 439, 452 McNish, M. M., 641, 644 McPartland, J. M., 878, 885 McPhail, J. C., 340, 342, 345, 358 McQuillan, J., 903, 907 McReynolds, L., 190, 194 McTague, B. K., 572, 579, 585, 673, 689 McVee, M., 160, 161 McWhorter, J. Y., 653, 664 Mead, F., 162, 265 Mealey, D. L., 513, 521, 637, 640, 643, 650, 664 Means, B., 675, 688 Meara, P., 514, 521, 797, 809
Medina-Ureña, G., 46, 51 Meece, J. L., 297, 298, 307, 407, 409, 410, 415, 420, 421 Meeder, H., 905, 906 Meehan, M. A., 859, 862, 865, 869 Meehl, P. E., 73, 74 Meeks, J. W., 878, 886 Mehan, H., 195, 206, 338, 339, 343, 344, 357, 393, 400, 780, 787, 844, 850 Mehrens, W. A., 917, 918, 921, 933 Mehta, P., 443, 449, 455, 481, 582, 674, 687 Meier, D., 695, 700, 702, 715 Meier, K., 843, 848, 850 Meister, C., 338, 358, 507, 513, 522, 555, 560, 655, 665 Meister, G., 783, 786 Mekkelsen, J. E., 925, 934 Meloth, M. S., 350, 355, 357, 404, 419, 555, 558, 729, 735, 740 Memory, D. M., 513, 521 Mencl, W. E., 238, 245, 248, 249 Mendels, P., 783, 787 Mendez-Burreuta, H., 649, 662 Mendoza, A., 371, 377 Menke, D., 553, 560 Menn, L., 259, 266 Menter, I., 726, 738 Menyuk, P., 259, 266 Mercado, C., 617, 621, 626 Mercer, N., 603, 605 Meredith, K. S., 32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 Merlin, S. B., 725, 740 Merriam, S. B., 92, 97 Merritt, M., 338, 357 Mervar, K., 580, 584 Messer-Davidow, E., 128, 138 Messick, S., 916, 917, 933 Metcalf, J., 650, 664 Meter, P. V., 577, 583 Metsala, J. L., 258, 259, 266, 405, 408, 420, 495, 499, 546, 559 Meyer, B. J. F., 200, 291, 307, 308, 313, 315, 317, 321, 322, 324, 333, 576, 648, 664 Meyer, D. K., 651, 665 Meyer, E., 236, 249 Meyer, J., 592, 606 Meyer, L. A., 429, 450, 568, 584, 612, 613, 614, 623 Meyer, R. J., 695, 700, 701, 705, 715 Meyers, J. L., 316, 333, 761, 768 Meyerson, M. J., 511, 521 Mezynski, K., 503, 521 Miall, D. S., 389, 400
Michael, B., 678, 688 Michaels, H., 924, 932 Michaels, S., 340, 357, 597, 606, 615, 626, 705, 715, 782, 787 Michalove, B., 77, 81, 85, 90, 94, 125, 137 Michelson, N., 374, 376, 566, 580, 581 Michigan State Board of Education, 898, 907, 913, 922, 934 Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project Group, 408, 420 Midgley, C., 407, 409, 415, 418, 420, 421, 422 Mieszalski, S., 34, 39 Miklusáková, E., 33, 34, 39 Mikulecky, L. J., 725, 739, 746, 747, 768 Miles, K. H., 891, 907 Miles, M. B., 91, 97, 916, 932 Milis, K. K., 314, 331 Miller, C., 506, 513, 523 Miller, D., 81, 85, 91, 96 Miller, G. A., 271, 277, 279, 282, 547, 548, 559 Miller, J. A., 113, 120 Miller, J. D., 779, 781, 787 Miller, J. W., 547, 552, 559, 726, 727, 729, 730, 739 Miller, K., 174, 177 Miller, L., 703, 714, 750, 755, 757, 768, 781, 787 Miller, M. D., 917, 934 Miller, P. D., 476, 482
< previous page
page_962
next page >
< previous page
page_963
next page > Page 963
Miller, R. M., 752, 755, 768, 769 Miller, S. D., 407, 409, 421, 437, 449, 905, 907, 926, 934 Millet, K., 388, 392, 400 Millsap, M. A., 675, 688 Mills, R. C., 651, 664 Milsap, M. A., 479, 482 Mineo, R. J., 486, 499 Ministry of Education, 8, 9, 11, 15, 748 Mintun M., 236, 237, 248 Miramontes, O., 824, 828, 833 Mistretta, J., 345, 358 Mitchell, A. M., 101, 107, 297, 307, 349, 356, 406, 413, 420, 577, 583, 617, 620, 625, 846, 847, 850 Mitchell, C., 148, 151 Mitchell, K. J., 917, 933 Mitchell, M., 298, 302, 308 Mitter, W., 29, 30 Moats, L., 534, 536, 537, 541 Modiano, N., 43, 52 Moffett, J., 384, 400 Moffitt, M. A., 392, 400 Mogan, A. M., 322, 332 Mohammed, M. A. H., 797, 809 Mohr, K., 726, 741 Mohr, M. M., 79, 97, 697, 701, 715 Moje, E. B., 288, 310, 612, 613, 614, 617, 619, 621, 622, 624, 626, 629, 631, 633, 634, 635, 636, 638, 639, 640, 643 Mokhtari, K., 514, 515, 519 Moll, L. C., 158, 161, 446, 450, 596, 598, 602, 606, 618, 620, 621, 622, 626, 701, 713, 734, 739, 780, 787, 826, 833, 848, 850 Momigliano, A., 110, 121 Monaghan, C., 114, 115, 121 Monaghan, E. J., 109, 113, 121, 879, 886 Money-Senior, H., 637, 642 Monker, J., 568, 585, 856, 857, 870 Monroe, M., 669, 688 Monroe, R., 405, 420 Monson, D. L., 361, 363, 366, 367, 369, 371, 376, 377, 442, 451, 595, 606 Monson, J. A., 576, 585, 596, 607 Montague, M., 778, 787 Montali, J., 516, 521 Montero-Sieburth, M., 47, 48, 51 Montes, J., 827, 833 Monteverde, F. E., 641, 644 Montgomery, T., 759, 769 Mood, A. M., 879, 885 Moody, S. W., 676, 679, 689
Moon, J., 411, 418 Moore, B. H., 572, 585 Moore, C., 238, 248 Moore, D. W., 12, 14, 15, 109, 113, 115, 121, 213t, 324, 329, 350, 351, 352, 354, 513, 518, 576, 584, 611, 612, 613, 614, 615, 616, 623, 626, 629, 630, 631, 635, 638, 639, 641, 642, 643, 654, 661 Moore, J., 731, 737 Moore, M., 725, 730, 731, 739 Moore, R., 700, 715 Moore, S. A., 576, 584, 739 Moorman, G. B., 508, 518 Morais, J., 253, 266, 486, 494, 497, 499 Moran, C., 772, 786 Morani, R., 435, 436, 451 Morenberg, M., 694, 712 Moreno, R., 775, 787 Morgan, B., 78, 98, 709, 717 Morgan, S., 255, 266 Morgan, S. T., 457, 482, 491, 501 Morgan, W. P., 210, 226, 668, 688 Morris, D., 470, 477, 482, 490, 499, 531, 533, 535, 536, 537, 541, 679, 684, 688 Morris, M., 231, 247 Morris, R., 493, 498 Morrison, C., 720, 723, 724, 728, 731, 735, 739 Morrison, L. S., 729, 738 Morrow, L., 729, 732, 740, 878, 887 Morrow, L. M., 101, 108, 340, 345, 348, 350, 357, 359, 361, 370, 371, 372, 377, 407, 408, 413, 414, 421, 429, 433, 434, 450, 553, 559, 564, 565, 567, 568, 571, 573, 574, 576, 577, 579, 580, 584, 590, 592, 593, 595, 597, 606, 846, 850, 858, 863, 869, 879, 886 Morse, F., 753, 765 Morton, C., 700, 705, 716 Morton, J., 233, 244, 248, 340 Mosberg, L., 213, 225 Moscoe, T., 78, 98 Mosenthal, J. H., 82, 86, 97, 725, 729, 739, 925, 933, 934 Mosenthal, P. B., xiv, xiv, 136, 138, 141, 142, 150, 151, 211, 224, 224, 226, 288, 305, 308, 369, 375, 405, 421, 447, 450, 455, 481, 503, 518, 587, 604, 719, 722, 735, 740 Moshenberg, D., 709, 715 Moss, A. G., 751, 769 Moss, B., 725, 739 Moss, M., 675, 688 Moss, P., 916, 934 Mosteller, F., 907 Moustafa, M., 262, 266 Moutray, C., 393, 401 Mouzaki, A., 348, 359 Mowder, L., 364, 377 Muchisky, D. M., 797, 809 Mudre, L. H., 187, 194
Muehl, S., 349, 355 Mulcahy, N. L., 324, 334 Muldrow, R., 340, 341, 355 Mulhauser, P., 6, 14 Mulhern, M. M., 439, 450, 819, 820, 834, 859, 865, 869 Mulkay, M., 196, 206 Mullennix, J., 262, 267 Mullis, I. V. S., 397, 564, 584, 611, 613, 625, 626, 923, 934 Muñniz-Swicegood, M., 825, 833 Munsie, L., 862, 865, 867 Munsterman, K., 438, 452 Murphy, B., 238, 247 Murphy, C. C., 327, 333, 726, 742, 754, 768 Murphy, P., 82, 85, 89, 91, 92, 97, 694, 700, 715 Murphy, P. K., 287, 291, 297, 298, 299, 300, 304, 308 Murphy, S. M., 612, 625, 745, 768 Murray, B. A., 255, 266, 439, 440, 450, 452, 486, 494, 495, 499, 500, 722, 744, 767 Murray, F. B., 739 Murray, H. G., 650, 665
< previous page
page_963
next page >
< previous page
page_964
next page > Page 964
Murray, J. D., 321, 331 Musai, B., 33, 39 Muspratt, S., 15 Muter, V., 20, 28, 256, 262, 266 Myers, B., 701, 705, 713 Myers, G., 197, 202, 203, 206 Myers, J., 621, 622, 626, 667, 686 Myers, J. L., 318n, 333 Myers, K. S., 641, 642, 643 Myers, M., 79, 97, 692n, 693, 715 N Nace, K., 233, 245, 248 Nagel, J. A., 46, 51 Nagle, J. P., 697, 715 Nagy, W. E., 270, 271, 273, 274, 275, 277, 279, 281, 282, 283, 503, 504, 507, 518, 521, 527, 541, 548, 552, 559, 817, 818, 819, 823, 832, 833 Nahmad, S., 43, 51 Naidu, S., 656, 661 Namo de Mello, G., 42, 51 Narens, L., 650, 664 Nash, D., 82, 86, 88, 90, 92, 97, 980 Naslund, J. C., 253, 266 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 389, 400, 508, 521, 904, 917, 921 National Assessment Governing Board (ND), 934 National Center for Education Statistics, 679, 688 National Center on Fathers and Families, 875, 886 National Center for Learning Disabilities, 71, 74 National Commission on Excellence in Education, 892, 907, 909, 910, 934 National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, 68, 74 National Council on Education Standards and Testing, 916, 934 National Education Goals Panel, 846, 850, 911, 934 National Governors' Association, 892, 907 National Institute on Child Health Development, 887, 889, 891, 923 National Research Council, 838, 850, 891, 904, 907, 923, 934 Nation, I. S. P., 271, 275, 282, 503, 509, 514, 515, 521 Nation, K., 256, 266, 492, 499 Nation, P., 279, 282 Navon, D., 782, 786 Naylor, C. E., 232, 240, 244, 246, 493, 498 Neal, C. J., 345, 355 Neal, K. S., 725, 739 Neff, D., 598, 606, 848, 850 Negroponte, N., 746, 747, 768 Nehr, M., 797, 809
Neilsen, J., 783, 787 Neilsen, L., 126, 132, 138 Nelson, C., 384, 400 Nelson, E., 729, 732, 740 Nelson, K., 549, 559, 606 Nelson, K. E., 777, 787 Nelson, L., 531, 541 Nelson, N., 211, 226 Nelson, O., 729, 739 Nelson, R. C., 366, 377 Nelson, T. O., 650, 662, 664 Németh, A., 31, 39 Nesdale, A. R., 253, 255, 267, 274, 275, 283 Nespor, J., 130, 139 Nettles, M. T., 835, 850 Neufeld, J. A., 592, 606 Neuman, S. B., 53, 65, 72, 74, 102, 103, 108, 187, 189, 194, 429, 433, 434, 435, 438, 439, 447, 451, 452, 599, 600, 607, 732, 741, 772, 787, 833, 848, 850, 856, 865, 866, 869 Neumeyer, P. F., 365, 377 Neutelings, R., 167, 177 Neville, H. J., 232, 249 Neville, M. H., 797, 809 Newby, R. F., 187, 194, 414 Newby, T. J., 414, 421 Newell, A., 164, 166, 177 Newell, G. E., 638, 643 Newkirk, T., 697, 715 Newland, A., 700, 715 New London Group, 158, 161, 620, 626 Newman, D., 104, 105, 108, 758, 768 Newman, J. M., 700, 715 Newman, S., 862, 865, 867, 869 Newmann, A., 103, 108, 139 Newton, M., 82, 86, 88, 90, 91, 97 Nezworski, T., 319, 323, 334 Ng, M., 411, 412, 422 Nicholls, J. G., 297, 308, 407, 421, 422 Nichols, J. G., 411, 414, 415, 421 Nicholson, T., 9, 11, 13, 15, 16, 348, 357, 486, 497, 547, 552, 559, 560 Nickerson, R. S., 554, 559 Nickse, R. S., 860, 862, 863, 869 Nicolson, R. I., 485, 498 Niederhauser, D. S., 613, 624 Nielsen, D. C., 429, 451 Nielson, D. C., 442, 451 Niemiec, R. P., 783, 787 Niemi, P., 158, 266, 323, 335
Nieto, S., 364, 377, 827, 833 Nihlen, A. S., 604, 692, 698, 704, 710 Nikolajeva, M., 366, 377 Nikola-Lisa, W., 366, 377 Niles, J. A., 724, 739 Niles, O., 211, 226 Nilsen, A. P., 368, 377 Ninio, A., 569, 570, 571, 584 Nippold, M. A., 349, 357 Nisbett, R., 165, 177 Nistler, R. J., 730, 739, 741 Nist, S. L., 508, 521, 648, 649, 650, 652, 654, 655, 657, 659, 664, 666 Nixon, J., 79, 97 Noble, A. J., 913, 935 Noblit, G., 128, 138 Nocerino, M. A., 91, 97 Noddings, N., 34, 39 Nodelman, P., 365, 366, 373, 378 Noe, K., 726, 739 Noel, R. W., 240, 248 Noffke, S. E., 143, 151, 691, 692, 694, 696, 704, 715, 716, 718 Nolden, T., 798, 809 Nolen, S. B., 294, 308, 411, 414, 415, 421, 916, 934 Nomanbhoy, D., 274, 281 Noordman, L. G. M., 314, 315n, 320, 326, 333, 334 Nordwall, M. B., 506, 521
< previous page
page_964
next page >
< previous page
page_965
next page > Page 965
Norris, S. P., 170, 175, 177, 428, 451, 458, 482, 863, 869 North, S., 694, 716 Norton, G., 698, 705, 710 Notari, A., 777, 785 Notari-Syverson, A., 486, 499 Novey, E. S., 231, 247 Novoa, L., 240, 244, 247 Nowacek, J., 533, 536, 537, 541 Nunan, D., 797, 810 Nurss, J. R., 725, 735 Nuthall, G., 170, 177 Nystrand, M., 280, 308, 351, 357, 373, 378, 395, 400 O Oakes, J., 844, 850 Oakhill, J., 547, 561 Oates, S., 609, 623 Oberley, K. R., 917, 932 Oberlin, K. J., 579, 584 O'Brien, D. G., 92, 94, 103, 107, 613, 614, 624, 626, 631, 634, 635, 639, 643, 725, 739 O'Brien, E. J., 33, 312, 316, 318n, 322, 332, 333 O'Brien, G., 103, 108 Ochs, E., 195, 206 O'Conner, R. E., 678, 679, 689 O'Connor, E., 576, 584 O'Connor, R., 350, 357 O'Connor, R. E., 486, 491, 499 Oda, L. K., 572, 585 O'Day, J., 895, 904, 909, 910, 911, 912, 913, 932, 935 Oded, B., 800, 810 Odegaard, H., 231, 247 O'Dell, L., 84, 90, 97 Odell, L., 381, 400 O'Donnell, A. M., 655, 664 O'Donnell-Allen, A., 394, 401 Oehlkers, W. J., 729, 741 Office of Compensatory Education Programs, 688 Office of Policy and Planning, 478, 482 O'Flahavan, J., 351, 357, 683, 688 Ogbu, J. U., 848, 850 Ogens, E., 576, 584 O'Hara, C., 343, 345, 348, 356 Ohmann, R., 384, 386, 400 Ohtsuka, K., 318, 333 Oka, E. R., 101, 108
Olah, E., 797, 810 Oldenquist, A., 29, 39 Oldfather, P., 82, 86, 91, 97, 296, 308, 403, 405, 409, 414, 415, 421, 694, 717 Olejnik, S., 508, 521, 650, 656, 664, 666 Olhausen, M. M., 313, 324, 333 Oliver, J., 368, 369, 377 Oliver, P., 854, 868 Olkinuora, E., 420 Oller, D. K., 827, 832 Ollila, L., 854, 868 Olofsson, A., 253, 255, 265, 485, 486, 487, 499, 755, 767, 768 Olshavsky, J., 164, 167, 177 Olshtain, E., 797, 810 Olson, D. K., 206, 262, 267, 383, 400 Olson, G. A., 127, 139, 166, 177 Olson, J., 698, 710, 750, 757, 768, 781, 787 Olson, K., 436, 451 Olson, M. W., 79, 94, 97 Olson, R., 280, 283, 493, 499, 755, 768, 770 Oltheten, T., 43, 50 Omaggio, A. C., 797, 810 O'Malley, J. M., 822, 825, 832 Omanson, R. C., 270, 282, 290, 305, 548, 552, 559 Ong, W. J., 383, 400 Ooijens, J., 43, 50 Open Society Institute, 33, 39 Oppenheimer, T., 743, 762, 768, 782, 783, 787 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 29, 39 O'Rourke, J. P., 503, 519, 530, 532, 540 Ortíz-Cáceres, M., 47, 48, 51 Ortíz, J. C., 50, 51 Ortony, A., 271, 282 Orwin, R. G., 221, 222, 226 Osborn, J., 928, 932 Ossen, V. M., 515, 522 Ostertag, F., 416, 419 Ostertag, J., 324, 329, 554, 557 Otto, B., 729, 739 Otto, B. W., 429, 431, 435, 448, 451, 729, 739 Otto, W., 720, 721, 726, 728, 739, 741 Outhred, L., 5, 13 Owens, A., 795, 810 Owston, R. D., 758, 768 Oxer, T., 345, 353, 355 Oxford, R., 515, 522 Oyler, C., 353, 357, 371, 378, 599, 600, 606, 698, 716
Ozechowska, E., 78, 98 P Paap, K., 239, 240, 248 Pace, A. J., 650, 664 Pace, G., 729, 740 Padrón, Y. N., 802, 810, 822, 824, 825, 833 Paget, M. A., 132, 139 Pagnucco, J. R., 81, 95, 349, 359, 578, 585 Painter, C., 3, 16 Paivio, A., 752, 768, 775, 787 Pajares, M., 733, 739 Paley, N., 374, 376 Paley, V. G., 82, 86, 91, 97, 700, 716 Palinscar, A. S., 12, 16, 169, 177, 184, 189, 192, 194, 288, 308, 340, 341, 343, 344, 345, 347, 350, 354, 357, 360, 467, 479, 482, 554, 556, 559, 595, 606, 620, 621, 624, 655, 664, 673, 688 Palmatier, R., 725, 740 Palmer, B., 571, 582 Palmer, D. J., 300, 308 Palmer, D. R., 651, 666 Palmer, R. G., 641, 643 Palmquist, M., 782, 787 Panagos, J. M., 344, 358 Pankratz, R., 913, 933 Pany, D., 508, 522, 547, 553, 558 Papert, S., 750, 753, 768, 770, 778, 787 Pappas, C. C., 369, 371, 378, 430, 451, 507, 519, 586, 599, 600, 606, 698, 703, 705, 716, 869 Pappenheimer, R., 695n, 701, 713 Paquette, J., 836, 850 Paradis, E. E., 578, 579, 585, 731, 741 Paratore, J. R., 353, 358, 673, 689, 730, 740, 859, 864, 865, 869, 879, 887 Pardo, L. S., 373, 378
< previous page
page_965
next page >
< previous page
page_966
next page > Page 966
Parecki, A. D., 184, 192, 194, 340, 342, 345, 358 Paribakht, T. S., 270, 283, 515, 522, 799, 807 Paris, S. G., 7, 16, 101, 108, 169, 177, 292, 308, 404, 421, 650, 651, 647, 650, 654, 664, 722, 740, 751, 770 Parish, C., 913, 935 Parisi, D., 197, 198, 205 Parizek, K., 34, 39 Parker, D., 298, 300, 304, 697, 701, 702, 716 Parker, E. M., 800, 806, 821, 831 Parkins, R., 231, 248 Parrish, T. B., 891, 906 Parr, J., 11, 14 Parry, K. J., 507, 512, 515, 522, 797, 799, 802, 810 Part, S., 797, 808 Pascal, A., 840, 850 Pascal, S., 231, 233, 240, 244, 246, 247 Pascarella, E. T., 729, 742 Passeron, J., 145, 150 Patashnick, M., 407, 421 Pate, P. E., 299, 304 Paterson, F. R. A., 903, 907 Patterson, I., 77, 96 Patterson, K., 236, 248 Patterson, L., 78, 93, 97 Patthey-Chavez, C., 338, 345, 346, 353, 356 Patton, M. Q., 103, 106, 108 Paulesu, E., 233, 240, 244, 248 Paulsen, D., 700, 718 Paulsen, G., 640, 643 Pauls, L. W., 722, 737 Pavlik, R. A., 725, 740 Pawley, C., 115, 121 Paxton, D., 800, 806 Payne, A. C., 428, 444, 453, 856, 869 Payne, D. G., 327, 335 Payton, S., 570, 584 PDP Research Group, 199, 206 Peale, J., 656, 657, 663 Pearce, D. L., 730, 738 Pearson, B. Z., 827, 832 Pearson, P. D., xiv, 102, 108, 141, 142, 150, 151, 165, 168, 169, 170, 175, 176, 177, 199, 204, 211, 224, 226, 288, 291, 295, 302, 305, 306, 308, 324, 333, 347, 359, 361, 369, 375, 378, 413, 418, 419, 455, 456, 476, 481, 482, 503, 509, 518, 520, 522, 523, 545, 549, 551, 554, 557, 560, 563, 580, 581, 584, 587, 591, 597, 600, 604, 606, 719, 722, 735, 740, 814, 815, 816, 817, 821, 822, 823, 826, 828, 830, 832, 833, 922, 927, 934, 935 Pease-Alvarez, L., 698, 715, 837, 850 Peer, G., 392, 399
Peha, J. M., 756, 768 Pellegrini, A. D., 428, 431, 432, 433, 448, 451, 553, 560, 568, 584, 867, 872, 878, 887 Pelletier, L. G., 301, 306, 407, 411, 413, 415, 416, 419 Pelosi, P. L., 669, 688 Peltola, B. J., 361, 363, 369, 377 Penley, Y., 913, 935 Pennac, D., 385, 400 Pennington, B. F., 236, 249, 485, 499 Penno, J., 9, 16 Pennypacker, H. S., 187, 194 Peregoy, S. F., 824, 834 Pérez, B., 515, 522, 820, 834 Perfetti, C. A., 230, 248, 253, 255, 266, 270, 281, 282, 313, 319, 333, 483, 486, 493, 494, 499, 500, 525, 529, 535, 537, 541, 548, 552, 557, 559, 641, 643, 671, 688 Perkins, D., 201, 206 Perkins, D. N., 201, 206, 296, 309, 554, 559, 654, 657, 664 Perkins, K., 797, 801, 806, 808, 810, 811 Perlmutter, J., 553, 560, 878, 887 Perlo, V. P., 231, 247 Perna, L. W., 835, 850 Perney, J., 470, 477, 482, 490, 499, 531, 533, 536, 537, 541 Perret, J., 288, 308 Perret-Claremont, A., 288, 308 Perry, R. C., 126, 139 Perry, W. G., 652, 664 Peshkin, A., 129, 130, 138 Peskin, J., 167, 177 Peter, A., 778, 786 Peter, C. W., 607 Peter, J., 724, 740, 757, 769 Peterman, C. L., 568, 570, 584 Peters, C. W., 590, 600, 606, 921, 922, 934, 935 Peters, D., 344, 351, 353, 358, 391, 394, 401 Petersen, D. K., 495, 497 Petersen, O., 253, 255, 265, 387, 486, 499 Petersen, P., 733, 736 Petersen, S. E., 235, 236, 237, 241, 248 Peterson, D., 892, 907 Peterson, M. E., 262, 266, 551, 560 Peterson, P. L., 103, 108, 139, 169, 174, 177, 621, 624, 895, 896, 901, 907 Peterson, R., 368, 377 Peters, W., 400 Petrie, H., 589, 606 Petrosko, J., 905, 908, 913, 933 Petrosky, A. R., 211, 226, 389, 400 Petty, W., 503, 519, 522 Peyton, J. K., 698, 715
Pflaum, S. W., 463, 467, 482, 482 Phelps, S., 725, 740 Phelps, S. F., 350, 351, 352, 354, 513, 518, 615, 623, 638, 642 Phenix, J., 782, 787 Philadelphia Teachers Learning Cooperative, 695n, 705, 716 Phillips, A., 700, 705, 716 Phillips, D. C., 293, 308 Phillips, G., 9, 10, 16 Phillips, G. O., 725, 738 Phillips, G. W., 923, 932 Phillips, L. M., 166, 177, 428, 451, 458, 482, 863, 869 Phillips, M., 744, 767 Phillipson, R., 791, 810 Phinney, M. Y., 82, 86, 90, 97 Piaget, J., 278, 283, 428, 431, 444, 451 Piche, G. L., 324, 334 Pichert, J. W., 291, 305, 308 Pickering, A., 196, 206 Pickle, J. M., 105, 108, 758, 759, 769 Piekarz, J., 164, 177 Pierce, B., 801, 810 Pierce, K. M., 372, 378 Pierce, P. L., 442, 449, 777, 788 Piggot, T. D., 221, 226
< previous page
page_966
next page >
< previous page
page_967
next page > Page 967
Pikulski, J. J., 680, 688, 922, 934 Pikus, A., 233, 240, 241, 244, 248 Pillemer, D. B., 214, 216, 220, 223, 226 Pils, I. J., 82, 86, 90, 91, 97 Pinar, W. F., 125, 129, 130, 139 Pinch, T., 196, 205, 744, 765 Pincus, M. R., 701, 716 Pines, A. L., 293, 310 Pinnell, G. S., 372, 378, 463, 464, 467, 478, 482, 588, 606, 673, 678, 683, 684, 686, 687, 688, 922, 934 Pintrich, P. R., 296, 297, 298, 308, 409, 416, 421, 422, 651, 652, 653, 654, 657, 663, 664, 665 Pious, C., 892, 907 Pirolli, P., 174, 177, 650, 661 Pisha, B., 756, 766 Pitman, M. A., 103, 108 Pittelman, S. D., 504, 505, 508, 516, 520, 522 Placier, P., 731, 740 Plass, J., 799, 807 Plass, J. L., 775, 777, 787 Plato., 383, 400 Plowman, L., 781, 787 Plunkett, K., 197, 198, 205 Pogrow, S., 456, 482 Polacco, P., 271, 283 Policastro, M., 321, 323, 334 Polin, P., 797, 808 Polin, R. M., 683, 688 Polkinghorne, D. E., 123n, 124, 131, 134, 135, 139 Pollatsek, A., 536, 541 Polya, G., 164, 178 Pontecorvo, C., 435, 436, 451 Popham, J. W., 915, 934 Popkewitz, T., 143, 147, 148, 151 Pople, M. T., 270, 282, 548, 552, 559 Poremba, K. J., 440, 452 Portnoy, D., 701, 715 Posner M. I., 236, 237, 248 Postman, N., 287, 288, 308, 779, 787 Potter, J., 196, 202, 205 Potter, S. A., 607 Potter, T. C., 797, 806 Potucek, J., 350, 351, 357 Poundstone, C. C., 101, 107, 297, 307, 349, 356, 406, 413, 420, 577, 583, 620, 625, 846, 847, 850 Powdril, L., 661, 666 Powell, D., 876, 887
Powell, J. S., 277, 283 Powell, R., 591, 606 Power, B. M., 79, 88, 96, 695, 709, 714 Power, B. P., 437, 451 Pozzi, M., 507, 518 Pratt, A. C., 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 493, 500, 501 Pratt, M. L., 133, 139, 692, 708, 716 Pratt, S., 202, 207 Prawat, R. S., 292, 294, 308 Preissle, J., 848, 850 Pressley, G. M., 100, 101, 103, 107, 108, 163, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 175, 178, 179, 212t, 213t, 295, 308, 343, 344, 345, 346, 348, 349, 358, 404, 411, 421, 480, 482, 506, 522, 545, 546, 550, 553, 554, 555, 556, 558, 559, 560, 561, 567, 573, 576, 577, 579, 584, 590, 595, 606, 645, 647, 648, 649, 650, 654, 655, 656, 657, 659, 665, 666, 673, 685, 729, 732, 737, 740, 846, 850 Price, C., 236, 237, 238, 241, 246, 248, 675, 688, 893, 907 Price, D., 732, 738 Price, G. G., 673, 690, 857, 868 Price, K., 701, 705, 713 Priessle, J., 80, 97 Pritchard, R., 163, 165, 175, 178, 308, 823, 834 Pritchard, T. G., 591, 604 Probst, R., 381, 400 Prochnow, J., 11, 12, 16 Proper, E. G., 102, 108 Protherough, R., 393, 400 Prutting, C. A., 338, 358 Pryor, E. 729, 739 Pucci, S. L., 827, 834 Pugh, A. K., 797, 809 Pugh, K. R., 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 248, 249 Puiggrós, A., 44, 51 Pukánsky, B., 31, 39 Puma, M. J., 675, 688, 893, 907 Purcell-Gates, V., 426, 437, 438, 439, 441, 444, 446, 450, 451, 455, 482, 572, 584, 855, 856, 857, 858, 859, 865, 869, 877, 879, 887 Purdie, N., 653, 662 Purkey, S., 894, 907 Purpel, D., 733, 740 Purves, A. C., 211, 226, 308, 361, 366, 378, 381, 386, 389, 393, 394, 397, 400, 773, 774, 787 Putman, J., 555, 558 Putman, K., 25, 28 Putnam, J., 404, 419, 729, 731, 736 Putnam, L., 725, 736 Putnam, R. T., 294, 308 Q Qian, G., 101, 108 Qualitative Solutions and Research, 56, 74 Quantz, R., 143, 151
Quinlan, K. M., 300, 309 Quinn, N., 196, 201, 206, 207 Quintero, E., 876, 887 Quint, S., 136, 139 R Raban, B., 17, 28 Rabin, M., 231, 246 Rabinowitz, P., 381, 390, 400 Rach, L., 409, 420 Rack, J., 495, 500 Rackliffe, G., 404, 419, 555, 558, 729, 736 Rada, R., 327, 330, 333, 749, 750, 753, 754, 765, 768, 774, 785 Rademaker, A. W., 231, 247 Radvansky, G. A., 313, 315n, 318, 321, 335 Radway, J., 388, 390, 392, 400 Radwin, E., 363, 375 Radziszewska, B., 288, 306, 308, 342, 358 Raegler, R., 744, 767 Rafoth, B. A., 290, 308 Raichle, M. E., 236, 237, 241, 248 Rakestraw, J., 780, 786 Ramarumo, M., 443, 449
< previous page
page_967
next page >
< previous page
page_968
next page > Page 968
Ramey, D. R., 815, 816, 824, 828, 829, 830, 834 Rámirez, J. D., 815, 816, 824, 828, 829, 830, 834 Ramseth, C., 715, 742 Ranck-Buhr, W., 731, 737 Randall, S., 128, 137 Rand, D. C., 727, 739 Rand, M., 429, 434, 450 Random House., 688 Rankin, J., 411, 421 Rankin, S. C., 915, 934 Ransom, J., 167, 178 Raphael, T. E., 156, 160, 161, 189, 193, 212t, 344, 356, 358, 373, 378, 426, 449, 455, 482, 505, 522, 575, 578, 579, 583, 590n, 592, 594, 605, 606, 618, 626, 673, 686, 700, 715, 720, 721, 729, 740, 825, 831, 846, 850 Rapoport, J. L., 231, 233, 240, 241, 244, 248 Rasher, S. P., 463, 467, 482 Rashotte, C. A., 255, 267, 485, 486, 493, 494, 501, 673, 688 Rasinski, T. V., 372, 378, 463, 482, 534, 543, 673, 688 Raskind, M. H., 777, 787 Rassel, M., 599, 606, 698, 716 Ratcliff, R., 550, 559 Raths, J., 926, 934 Rauch, S., 343, 345, 356 Ravenette, A. T., 182, 194 Ray, C., 781, 788 Ray, L. C., 82, 84, 86, 88, 97, 700, 716 Ray, R. E., 694, 696, 697, 698, 702n, 716 Rayner, K., 536, 541 Rayner, R., 194 Razik, T., 503, 519 Read, C., 435, 452, 490, 500, 530, 533, 535, 536, 541, 858, 869 Readence, J. E., 53, 73, 113, 121, 293, 304, 630, 631, 632, 633, 637, 639, 640, 642, 643, 644, 646, 661 Reading Recovery Staff at Ohio State University., 482 Read, J., 279, 282 Reagan, R., 890, 891 Reay, D. G., 730, 740 Recht, D., 189, 194 Recker, M., 174, 177 Reeder, R. R., 113, 121 Reed, J. H., 297, 308 Reed, W. M., 750, 752, 767, 768, 777, 786 Reeds, J. A., 797, 810 Reese, C. M., 923, 932 Reese, D., 364, 378 Reese, E., 429, 449
Reese, L., 438, 449 Rehder, B., 328, 332, 333 Reich, R., 747, 768 Reichardt, C. S., 103, 106, 107 Reid, J., 6, 7, 15 Reilly, K. C., 697, 700, 716 Reimer, K., 509, 523 Reinarz, S. J., 231, 248 Reinking, D., 78, 81, 89, 90, 95, 105, 108, 174, 178, 296, 309, 325, 333, 516, 522, 744, 745, 749, 750, 752, 753, 758, 767, 768, 769, 771, 772, 774, 777, 782, 786, 787 Reisetter, M. F., 412, 421 Reis, R., 166, 176, 322, 323, 330 Reiss, M. W., 883, 887 Reitsma, P., 755, 769 Remillard, J., 294, 308 Rendon, P., 701, 713, 826, 833 Rengger, N. J., 37, 39 Renninger, K. A., 297, 309, 576, 584 Rényi, J., 34, 39 Repman, J., 753, 770 Report of the Commissioner of Education, 794, 810 Resnick, D. L., 916, 918, 934 Resnick, L. B., 288, 309, 471, 482, 597, 607, 916, 918, 934 Resnick, M., 697, 701, 716 Reuman, D., 409, 422 Reutzel, D. R., 195, 201, 206, 470, 471, 481, 572, 580, 584, 585 Revel, J. F., 39 Rexer, K., 239, 248 Rex, L., 611, 626 Reyes, M. de la Luz, 825, 834 Reynolds, R. E., 271, 282, 291, 297, 305, 309, 549, 557 Reynolds, S. B., 657, 663 Rhodes, L. K., 567, 585 Rhydwen, M., 6, 13 Riach, J., 11, 13, 486, 497 Ribovich, J. K., 725, 739 Ricciuti, A., 675, 688, 893, 907 Rice, E., 290, 308, 324 Rice, G. E., 648, 664, 773, 787 Rice, J. M., 408, 421 Rice, M. E., 101, 107, 287, 297, 303, 307, 349, 356, 403, 404, 406, 413, 420, 577, 583, 617, 625, 846, 847, 850 Rich, A., 168, 178 Richards, H., 881, 887 Richards, I. A., 385, 389, 401 Richards, J., 82, 86, 89, 97, 271, 273, 283 Richards, J. C., 724, 727, 737 Richards, L. N., 883, 887
Richardson, I., 123, 124, 131, 132, 133, 139 Richardson, V., 478, 482, 694, 703, 716, 730, 733, 735, 740 Richek, M. A., 506, 507, 523, 572, 579, 585, 673, 689 Richgels, D., 436, 440, 441, 442, 452, 534, 541 Richgels, D. J., 324, 333, 440, 448, 541 Richgels, D. L., 324, 333 Richmond, M., 729, 741 Richmond-Welty, E. D., 262, 267 Rickards, J. P., 320, 333, 649, 665 Rickelman, R. J., 113, 121, 629, 630, 643 Rickman, S. S., 516, 522 Ridder, K., 701, 705, 715 Ridgeway, V. G., 101, 108 Rieben, L., 230, 248, 483, 493, 500, 525, 541 Riel, M. M., 780, 787 Riessman, C. K., 124, 131, 135, 139 Rieth, H., 776, 788 Rifkin, J., 747, 769 Rigg, P., 802, 810 Riijaarsdam, G., 174, 176 Riley, G., 799, 801, 810 Riley, M. W., 882, 887 Riley, S., 726, 738 Rinehart, J. M., 411, 420, 637, 643 Rinehart, S. D., 731, 742
< previous page
page_968
next page >
< previous page
page_969
next page > Page 969
Ring, J., 493, 499 Ripich, D. N., 344, 358, 359 Ripley, P. M., 731, 736 Rippere, V., 381, 386, 389, 400 Risch, N., 648, 663 Risden, K., 172, 178, 334m, 318 Risko, V. J., 724, 740, 757, 767, 769, 775, 776, 788 Risley, T., 182, 193 Rist, R., 136, 139 Rivalland, J., 6, 7, 13, 15 Rivera, A., 701, 713, 826, 833 Rivera-Pizarro, J., 44, 49, 51 Robart, R., 464, 482 Robbins, B., 797, 810 Robbins, C., 262, 264, 551, 553, 558, 560, 568, 585 Roberts, B., 231, 278, 280, 283, 440, 441, 452 Roberts, R. E., 883, 887 Roberts, R. J., 231, 248 Robinson, D. H., 324, 333 Robinson, H. M., 113, 121, 211, 226, 669, 671, 689 Robinson, J., 692n, 716 Robinson, R., 726, 742 Robinson, R. D., 117, 121 Robinson, V. M. J., 103, 108 Robinson, V. M. K., 68, 74 Rochlin, G. I., 762, 769 Rockwell, E., 44, 45, 48, 49, 51, 52 Rodríguez, A., 927, 935 Rodríguez, E., 46, 51 Rodriguez, K., 348, 359 Rodríguez, P. G., 41, 42, 45, 46, 49, 52 Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., 819, 820, 834, 859, 862, 864, 865, 869 Roeber, E., 916, 917, 922, 934, 935 Roeder, H. H., 725, 740 Roehler, L. R., 295, 306, 344, 345, 346, 353, 358, 404, 413, 419, 555, 576, 558, 560, 585, 591, 607, 722, 729, 731, 735, 736, 740, 741 Roe, M., 927, 935 Roe, P., 326, 333 Roeper, T., 340, 358 Roeser, R. W., 409, 421 Rogers, C., 700, 717 Rogers, D., 516, 521 Rogers, L. M., 340, 358 Rogers, S. F., 725, 740
Rogers, T., 167, 170, 178, 368, 378, 391, 392, 401, 618, 626 Rogoff, B., 186, 196, 207, 288, 308, 309, 342, 343, 358, 616, 626 Rohl, M., 6, 13 Rohrkemper, M., 296, 306 Rohwer, W. D., 647, 649, 652, 653, 666 Roitblatt, H., 799, 811 Roit, M., 515, 518, 556, 557 Rojas-Drummond, S., 49, 52 Roller, C. M., 313, 324, 333, 511, 522, 802, 810 Romance, N. R., 411, 416, 421, 595, 607 Romano, S., 780, 788 Romatowski, J., 797, 810 Rondhuis, J. K., 314, 329 Rong, X. L., 848, 850 Root, C. H., 696, 716 Rooze, G. E., 753, 770 Rosaldo, R., 154, 161 Rosch, E., 601, 607 Rosebery, A., 621, 627 Rose, J., 102, 112, 121, 189 Rose, M., 622, 626 Rose, T. L., 108, 194 Rosenbaum-Cohen, P., 797, 807 Rosenberger, P., 231, 248 Rosenberger, P. B., 231, 247 Rosenblatt, L. M., 34, 39, 167, 168, 178, 291, 309, 361, 362, 378, 381, 382, 385, 386, 388, 392, 401, 551, 555, 560, 563, 565, 585 Rosen, G. D., 230, 231, 241, 247 Rosenhouse, J., 371, 378, 452, 553, 560 Rosenshine, B., 213t, 338, 358, 507, 513, 522, 554, 555, 560, 655, 663, 665, 720, 721, 740 Rosenthal, R., 210, 217, 218, 222, 225, 225, 226 Roser, N., 113, 120, 394, 570, 571, 585, 846 Roser, N. L., 361, 366, 372, 377, 391, 399, 400, 576, 583, 729, 738, 850, 926, 927, 932 Roska, L., 661, 666 Roskos, K., 433, 434, 451, 452, 599, 600, 607, 724, 725, 726, 740, 741, 742 Rosner, J., 485, 486, 500 Rosow, I., 880, 887 Ross, B. D., 578, 579, 585 Ross, E., 576, 585 Ross, G., 555, 561 Ross, J. A., 411, 421 Ross, S., 799, 811 Roswell, B. S., 924, 932 Roszak, T., 743, 759, 762, 769 Rothenberg, J., 351, 356 Roth, F., 276, 283 Rothlein, L., 507, 519
Rothstein, R., 891, 907 Roth, W., 404, 421 Rottenberg, C., 916, 934 Rottenberg, C. J., 442, 452 Roubinek, D. L., 854, 867 Rouet, J., 325, 333, 749, 769, 773, 788 Rourke, B. P., 246 Rouse, J., 388, 401 Routh, D. K., 253, 255, 264, 485, 486, 491, 498 Routman, R., 566, 585 Rowan, B., 479, 481, 893, 907 Rowe, D., 430, 433, 435, 436, 437, 452 Royer, J., 802, 810 Rozendal, M., 442, 443, 449 Rozin, P., 484, 485, 498 Rubin, A., 166, 176 Ruddell, M. R., 269, 283 Ruddick, J., 692, 716 Ruddock, G., 25, 28 Rudel, R. G., 493, 497 Rudell, M. R., 503, 522 Rudolph, R., 794, 810 Rudorf, H., 530, 540 Rueda, R., 827, 834 Ruffin, L., 82, 86, 88, 90, 92, 97 Rugg, M. D., 257, 265 Ruiz, N. T., 340, 358 Ruiz, O., 820, 832 Rumelhart, D. E., 199, 207, 317, 334 Rumsey, J. M., 231, 233, 234, 240, 241, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248 Rupley, W. H., 292, 307 Rusciolelli, J., 800, 810
< previous page
page_969
next page >
< previous page
page_970
next page > Page 970
Russell, D. H., 720, 741 Russell, R., 701, 705, 713 Russell, T., 720, 721, 741 Rust, V. D., 29, 30, 32, 38, 39 Rutherford, W. L., 926, 927, 932 Ryan, E. B., 274, 284, 554, 560 Ryan, H., 11, 12, 16 Ryan, M. P., 652, 665 Ryan, R. M., 301, 302, 306, 309, 405, 407, 411, 412, 413, 415, 416, 419, 420, 421 Ryan, S. M., 254, 264 Rybicki, V., 368, 369, 377 Ryder, R. J., 508, 509, 522 Ryle, G., 292, 295, 309 Rymes, B., 148, 151 S Sabey, B., 533, 537, 541 Sable, P. H., 508, 509, 522 Sack, J. L., 905, 907 Safer, D. J., 672, 689 Safran, Y., 913, 935 Sagor, R., 79, 97, 694, 716 Saint Augustine., 681, 689 St. Pierre, E. A., 127, 139 St. Pierre, R. G., 102, 108, 860, 861, 864, 870 Salager-Meyer, S., 797, 811 Salas, L., 827, 831 Salinger, J. D., 618, 626 Salinger, T., 917, 926, 934 Salk, S., 613, 627 Sallinger, T., 722, 737 Sallow, E., 101, 103, 107 Salmelin, R., 232, 240, 241, 244, 248 Salomon, D., 607 Salomon, G., 296, 309, 654, 657, 664 Salonen, O., 232, 240, 241, 244, 248 Salonen, P., 412, 420 Salt, S., 25, 28 Salz, M., 725, 741 Samuels, S. J., 319, 322, 324, 334, 347, 357, 547, 552, 553, 559, 560, 672, 673, 688, 689, 796, 797, 807, 809 Samway, K. D., 372, 378 Sanaoui, R., 515, 522 Sanders, N. M., 667, 688, 916, 933 Sanders, T. J. M., 314, 315n, 334 Sandi, A. M., 34, 39
Sandifer, P. D., 915, 934 Sandora, C. A., 103, 107, 354, 404, 418, 596, 605 Sandson, J., 317, 331 Sanger, D. D., 729, 741 Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group, 611, 618, 626, 695n Santa, C. M., 94, 97, 416, 421 Santa, J. L., 94, 97 Sarig, G., 802, 810 Sarracino, J., 726, 737 Sartre, J. P., 136, 139 Satlow, E., 416, 419, 555, 558 Saul, E. U., 312, 313, 314, 315, 317, 320n, 321, 322, 323, 328, 330, 331 Saul, W., 576, 581 Saumell, L., 614, 627 Saunders, L., 82, 86, 88, 90, 92, 97 Saunders, W., 103, 108 Savin, H. B., 484, 485, 500 Sawyer, M., 802, 808 Sawyer, R., 729, 741 Saxe, G. B., 309 Sayers, D., 757, 769 Scanlon, D. M., 255, 267, 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 493, 494, 495, 501, 671, 689, 802, 908 Scarano, F. A., 43, 52 Scarborough, H. S., 280, 283, 428, 439, 452, 485, 500, 856, 869 Scarborough-Franks, L., 531, 532, 542 Scardamalia, M., 288, 296, 305, 309, 334, 413, 418 Schaafsma, D., 128, 139, 698, 700, 716 Schaer, B. B., 725, 739 Schafer, W. D., 405, 408, 420, 923, 924, 931, 932 Schaffer, S., 196, 203, 207 Schagen, I., 25, 28 Schallert, D. L., 291, 292, 293, 295, 297, 304, 305, 308, 510, 517, 549, 557, 574, 585, 648, 651, 665 Schank, R. C., 287, 309 Scharer, P. L., 344, 351, 353, 358, 373, 374, 375, 378, 393, 394, 401, 537, 540, 565, 566, 567, 585, 730, 741 Schatschneider, C., 443, 449, 455, 481, 580, 582, 674, 687 Schatz, E. I., 270, 277, 506, 518, 522, 646 Schatz, E. K., 270, 283 Scheffler, A. J., 729, 741 Scheglogg, E. A., 195, 206 Schellings, G. L. M., 169, 178, 298, 302, 309, 511, 522, 649, 665 Schenck, E. A., 677, 689 Scher, D., 858, 867 Schermer, N., 324, 334 Scher, S., 856, 857, 867 Scheu, J. A., 846, 849 Scheuer, N., 437, 454
Scheurich, J. J., 134, 139 Schewel, R., 505, 522 Schickedanz, J., 436, 452 Schick, J. E., 752, 769 Schiefelbein, E., 42, 46, 50, 52 Schiefele, U., 291, 296, 297, 298, 306, 309, 405, 408, 409, 412, 419, 421 Schieffelin, B., 855, 869 Schiffrin, D., 195, 207 Schiller, L., 696, 700, 716 Schlagal, R. C., 531, 532, 541 Schleicher, A., 9, 14 Schliemann, A. D., 293, 305 Schmalhofer, F., 167, 178 Schmelkes, S., 46, 48, 49, 52 Schmid, H. J., 196, 207 Schmidt, P. R., 819, 834 Schmidt, W. H., 576, 585, 607 Schmitt, N., 269, 272, 283 Schneider, V., 755, 770 Schneider, W., 253, 254, 266, 267 Schockey-Bisplinghoff, B., 77, 79, 88, 95 Schoenfeld, A., 167, 170, 176, 178 Schoenfeld, A. H., 652, 665 Schofield, J. W., 778, 779, 780, 782, 788
< previous page
page_970
next page >
< previous page
page_971
next page > Page 971
Schofield, W. N., 21, 28 Scholes, R., 607 Schommer, M., 73, 73, 648, 652, 659, 665 Schön, D. A., 49, 52, 80, 89, 97, 694, 716, 720, 733, 741 Schrader, C., 434, 452 Schrauben, B., 416, 421, 651, 665 Schraw, G., 172, 178, 291, 309, 405, 412, 421 Schreiner, M. E., 328, 332, 333 Schreiner, R., 175, 177 Schroeder, E. E., 754, 769 Schroeder, J., 81, 85, 91, 96 Schrum, L., 757, 769 Schuder, T., 101, 103, 108, 404, 421, 555, 556, 558, 560, 729, 730, 737 Schuele, C. M., 339, 359 Schulte, A. C., 651, 666 Schultz, J., 339, 355 Schultz, K., 698, 711 Schultz, R. T., 231, 248 Schulz, A. R., 902, 908 Schulze, S. K., 287, 293, 298, 304, 650, 661 Schumaker, J. B., 189, 194 Schumm, J. S., 537, 540, 614, 627, 646, 661, 676, 679, 688, 689, 827, 834 Schunk, D. H., 297, 308, 309, 405, 408, 413, 415, 421, 422, 651, 665 Schvaneveldt, R., 240, 248 Schwab, J. J., 288, 309 Schwanenflugel, P., 270, 283 Schwartz, A. J., 411, 419 Schwartz, E., 694, 696, 697, 700, 716 Schwartz, J., 692n, 697, 700, 711, 716 Schwartz, J. I., 589, 605 Schwartz, L. S., 385, 401 Schwartz, R. M., 505, 522 Schwegler, R., 167, 178 Scollon, R., 197, 207 Scollon, S. B. K., 197, 207 Scoresby, K., 755, 769 Scott, C. J., 374, 378 Scott, C. M., 278, 339, 340, 347, 349, 358 Scott, D., 779, 788 Scott, J. A., 212t, 275, 277, 279, 282, 283, 318, 329, 503, 507, 508, 509, 522, 563, 567, 581, 921, 931 Scott-Jones, D., 876, 887 Scott, T., 257, 265, 343, 345, 356, 749, 769 Scragg, D. G., 526, 542 Scribner, S., 156, 158, 161, 196, 202, 207
Seaboard, M. B., 726, 741 Seabrook, G., 700, 716 Seale, D., 364, 378 Searfoss, L. W., 368, 377, 442, 452 Searle, D., 531, 533, 534, 536, 537, 541 Sebesta, S. L., 361, 366, 367, 377 Seck, M., 913, 935 Secretaría de Educatión Pública (SEP), 43, 44 Seda, I., 819, 834 Seda-Santana, I., 43, 44, 49, 51, 52 Sega, D., 82, 86, 89, 97 Segalowitz, N. S., 797, 808 Seidenberg, M. S., 239, 249 Seifert, M., 213, 225 Selfe, C. L., 747, 753, 769, 772, 786 Selfe, R. J., Jr., 747, 769 Seltzer, M., 463, 464, 467, 478, 482 Semrud-Clikeman, M., 231, 247, 446, 452 Senechal, M., 523, 856, 857, 870 Senechall, M., 507, 568, 585 Sergent, J., 235, 236, 248, 249 Serpell, R., 438, 446, 448, 452 Service, E., 232, 240, 241, 244, 248 Sevush, S., 233, 240, 244, 247 Seymour, H. N., 340, 355, 358 Seymour, P., 531, 532, 542 Seymour, P. H. K., 257, 264, 266 Shaffer, G. L., 439, 452 Shamoon, L., 167, 178 Shanahan, T., 102, 108, 213t, 214, 215, 219, 220, 223, 226, 349, 358, 482, 490, 498, 570, 585, 587, 587n, 588, 592, 607, 683, 689, 732, 741, 772, 788, 819, 820, 834, 862, 864, 865, 869, 879, 887 Shane, H. C., 776, 785 Shankweiler, D. P., 230, 231, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 252, 253, 257, 264, 265, 266, 483, 484, 485, 486, 493, 494, 497, 498, 499, 500, 531, 533, 540 Shannon, P., 32, 38, 78, 93, 97, 116, 121, 141, 143, 148, 151, 563, 585, 611, 612, 625, 627, 747, 769 Shany, M., 818, 819, 833 Shapin, S., 196, 203, 207 Shapira, R., 782, 786 Shapiro, A. M., 326, 328, 334, 659, 662 Shapiro, E. S., 190, 194 Shapiro, J., 438, 452 Shapiro, L. R., 549, 559 Shapiro, M. B., 182, 194 Shapiro, S., 730, 738 Shapson, L. R., 802, 809 Shapson, S. M., 802, 809 Share, D., 348, 358, 441, 442, 444, 495, 568, 582, 902, 908
Share, D. J., 485, 500 Share, D. L., 5, 15, 230, 240, 249, 257, 265, 429, 449, 452, 483, 500, 854, 870 Sharlip, W., 795, 810 Sharman, S. J., 648, 666 Sharp, D. L. M., 775, 776, 788 Shasha, D., 751, 766 Shaw, B., 470, 477, 482 Shaw, P. A., 726, 741 Shaywitz, B. A., 71, 74, 230, 231, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 248, 249, 485, 493, 498 Shaywitz, S. E., 71, 74, 230, 231, 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 246, 248, 249, 483, 485, 493, 498, 500 Sheard, C., 324, 333 Shearer, B., 175, 178, 463, 464, 467, 470, 480, 482 Shefelbine, J., 726, 741 Sheil, G., 726, 741 Sheingold, K., 778, 780, 786, 788 Sheinman, L., 411, 419 Sheldon, J., 231, 246 Shelton, J., 927, 935 Shenkman, H., 650, 665 Shen, M., 828, 832 Shepard, L. A., 916, 920, 934 Shepperson, G. M., 730, 739, 741 Sherman, G., 670, 683, 687 Sherman, G. F., 230, 241, 247
< previous page
page_971
next page >
< previous page
page_972
next page > Page 972
Shermis, M., 801, 811 Sherry, M., 756, 769 Sherzer, J., 156, 160 Shimamura, A., 650, 664 Shinn, M., 672, 689 Shirely, L. L., 297, 309 Shirey, L., 847, 848, 921 Shirey, L. L., 291, 305, 309 Shockley, B. B., 77, 78, 79, 81, 85, 88, 90, 94, 95, 125, 137 Shoemaker, B. J. E., 589, 590, 607 Shohamy, E., 797, 801, 810 Shore, B., 196, 201, 207 Shore, W. J., 270, 272, 281 Short, E. J., 554, 560 Short, K. G., 361, 363, 372, 378, 730, 732, 733, 734, 737, 739, 741 Short, R. A., 463, 464, 467, 470, 480, 482 Shotter, J., 196, 202, 207 Showalter, E., 388, 401 Shriberg, E., 279, 283 Shu, H., 507, 523 Shugarman, S. L., 579, 584 Shulman, L. S., 78, 90, 94, 97, 300, 309, 600, 607, 721, 729, 741 Shultz, J., 339, 355 Shumm, J. S., 53, 73 Shumway, D., 384, 396, 401 Shuy, R., 338, 356 Shymansky, J. A., 612, 627 Sicherman, B., 112, 121 Sidman, M., 194 Siegal, L. S., 257, 265, 276, 282 Siegel, L. S., 230, 239, 249, 255, 486, 494, 501 Siegel, M., 101, 108, 143, 150, 609, 627 Sigel, I., 872, 878, 887 Silberman, C. E., 589, 607 Silfies, L. N., 320, 335, 648, 666 Silliman, E. R., 338, 343, 344, 347, 348, 350, 353, 358, 359, 360 Silven, M., 258, 266 Silver, M., 634, 643 Silvern, S., 432, 452 Silvern, S. B., 432, 433, 453 Silverstein, J. E., 344, 354 Simmons, D. C., 503, 510, 516, 518 Simmons, K., 257, 266 Simmons, W., 916, 934
Simon, D., 174, 178, 485, 486, 500 Simon, H., 163, 164, 165, 166, 172, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 Simon, H. D., 848, 850 Simon, R., 143, 151 Simons, E. R., 696, 700, 705, 713 Simons, H. D., 673, 689 Simplified Spelling Board., 526, 542 Simpson, A., 373, 378, 393, 401 Simpson, M. L., 648, 649, 650, 652, 654, 655, 656, 657, 659, 662, 663, 664, 666 Sims, M., 696, 700, 716 Sims, R., 364, 378, 401 Sinatra, G. M., 287, 294, 299, 300, 307, 309, 313, 329, 587n, 607, 613, 626, 650, 662 Sinclair, J. M., 394, 401, 614, 627 Singer, L., 655, 663 Singer, M., 312, 331, 419 Sion, F., 701, 715 Sipay, E. R., 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 495, 501 Sirvent, M. T., 47, 52 Sivan, E., 404, 419, 555, 558, 729, 741 Six, L., 343, 345, 356, 416, 419 Sizer, T., 589, 607, 614, 627 Skaalvik, E., 407, 422 Skelton, S., 700, 716 Skinner, E. A., 412, 416, 422 Skjelfjord, V. J., 486, 500 Skobel, B., 279, 283 Skolnick, D., 700, 713 Skoog, G., 591, 606 Skudlarski, P., 237, 238, 239, 241, 245, 248, 249 Slackman, E. A., 549, 559 Slapin, B., 364, 378 Slater, W. H., 322, 323, 324, 330, 334, 508, 516, 522, 523 Slattery, J., 919, 935 Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., 881, 887 Slavin, R. E., 68, 74, 219, 226, 456, 482, 577, 585 Slesinger, B. A., 698, 711 Sloan, C., 507, 519 Slocum, T. A., 276, 282, 491, 499 Slotta, J., 174, 178 Smagorinsky, P., 167, 168, 173, 175, 178, 347, 359, 386, 394, 400, 401, 510, 523 Small, S. A., 883, 887 Small, S. G., 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 493, 501 Smart, K., 700, 715 Smieja, A., 78, 98 Smith, A., 253, 266 Smith, B. D., 506, 513, 523
Smith, C., 537, 541 Smith, C. M., 725, 741 Smith, C. R., 494, 497 Smith, D., 338, 356, 359 Smith, D. A., 651, 653, 654, 657, 664, 665 Smith, E., 169, 170, 172, 176, 266 Smith, E. E., 554, 559 Smith, E. R., 100, 108 Smith, F., 18, 28, 567, 585 Smith, F. L., Jr., 614, 623 Smith, F. R., 612, 613, 627 Smith, G. H., 10, 15 Smith, H., 29, 39 Smith, J., 3, 5, 11, 14, 16, 400, 429, 450, 567, 576, 584, 585, 675, 687 Smith, J. A., 506, 567, 573, 576, 579, 585, 607 Smith, J. C., 507, 519 Smith, J. K., 101, 108, 132, 139, 345, 357, 371, 377, 553, 559, 567, 571, 573, 576, 577, 579, 584, 590, 595, 606, 846, 850 Smith, K., 779, 788 Smith, L. C., 293, 304, 755, 766, 775 Smith, L. L., 775, 785 Smith, L. T., 10, 15 Smith, M., 101, 107, 108, 174, 178, 213t, 428, 444, 453, 553, 559, 573, 576, 577, 579, 584, 590, 595, 606, 846, 850, 894, 907 Smith, M. L., 214, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 225, 531, 533, 540, 844, 851, 913, 916, 934, 935
< previous page
page_972
next page >
< previous page
page_973
next page > Page 973
Smith, M. S., 903, 904, 908, 909, 935 Smith, M. W., 386, 390, 392, 394, 395, 396, 400, 401, 429, 430, 448, 510, 523, 553, 558, 568, 582 Smith, N. B., 113, 114, 115, 121, 366, 378, 746, 769 Smith, N. J., 374, 378 Smith, P. E., 9, 16 Smith, P. K., 725, 741 Smith, R. J., 726, 728, 741 Smith, S., 169, 175 Smith, S. D., 485, 499 Smith, S. S., 439, 447, 452 Smith, T., 322, 323, 330 Smithies, C., 125, 130, 138 Smolkin, L. B., 101, 108, 370, 378, 430, 440, 452, 454 Smylie, M. A., 897, 908 Smythe, J., 695, 704, 716 Snider, V., 495, 500 Snow, C. E., 211, 220, 226, 279, 283, 347, 348, 359, 438, 452, 478, 479, 482, 507, 523, 571, 585, 668, 683, 684, 689, 814, 834, 854, 856, 868, 870, 877, 878, 887 Snowling, M. J., 20, 28, 233, 240, 244, 248, 253, 255, 256, 258, 260, 266, 485, 495, 500, 533, 542 Snow, R. E., 295, 309 Snyder, A. Z., 237, 241, 248 Snyder, B. L., 650, 656, 665 Snyder, C., 854, 867 Snyder, I., 698, 716, 773, 788 Snyder, T. E., 520 Sockett, H., 79, 96, 694, 703, 714 Soder, R., 29, 34, 39 Sohn, D., 214, 217, 226 Soloway, E., 617, 620, 621, 624, 625 Solsken, J. W., 439, 452, 698, 714, 848, 850 Soltow, L., 115, 121 Somerfield, B., 865, 870 Sommer, M. K., 85, 91, 95 Songer, N. B., 313, 320, 326, 333 Sonnenschein, S., 438, 448, 452 Sormunen, C., 781, 788 Soter, A., 391, 401 Soukhanov, A. H., 127, 139 Soundy, C., 429, 451 Southgate, V., 21, 22, 28 Sowell, E., 231, 247 Spache, G., 771, 788 Spanier, G. B., 881, 886 Spear-Swerling, L., 680, 689, 908
Speece, D. L., 276, 283, 338, 359 Spencer, E., 26, 28 Spiegel, D. L., 438, 449, 668, 689, 853, 855, 866, 868, 878, 885 Spietz, A. L., 854, 867 Spiker, T. M. W., 115, 121 Spilich, G. J., 313, 334 Spillane, J. P., 891, 894, 898, 899, 900, 901, 905, 906, 908, 911, 914, 932, 935 Spinelli, F. M., 338, 351, 359, 360 Spinelli, J., 368, 378 Spires, H. A., 655, 666 Spiro, R. J., 293, 299, 309, 325, 328, 329, 331, 333, 334, 347, 359, 749, 758, 769, 773, 788, 796, 810 Spivey, N. N., 587n, 607 Spooren, W. P. M., 314, 315n, 321, 334 Spratt, J. E., 751, 770, 802, 811 Spreadbury, J., 866, 870 Sproats, E., 867, 895 Squire, J. R., 142, 150, 167, 170, 178, 210, 211, 215, 225, 226, 381, 386, 389, 401, 587, 605 Stack, C. B., 879, 883, 887 Stafford, C., 260, 266 Stage, S., 495, 500 Stahle, D., 612, 625 Stahl, J., 683, 688 Stahl, N. A., 118, 120, 121, 213t Stahl, S. A., 155, 222, 226, 255, 266, 270, 273, 276, 277, 280, 282, 283, 293, 309, 349, 359, 429, 439, 440, 450, 452, 470, 471, 476, 477, 482, 486, 494, 495, 499, 500, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 511, 512, 513, 523, 568, 578, 584, 585, 641, 644, 673, 689, 756, 766 Staib, L. H., 231, 248 Stake, R. E., 103, 108 Staley, R., 661, 662 Stallings, J., 102, 108, 456, 482 Stallman, A., 277, 283 Stallman, A. C., 347, 359, 509, 523, 927, 935 Stammer, J. D., 725, 735 Standerford, N. S., 913, 935 Stanley, J. C., 100, 106, 107, 182, 183, 190, 193 Stanley, P. D., 508, 523 Stanley, R. M., 797, 810 Stanne, M., 351, 357 Stanovich, K. E., 20, 28, 230, 239, 249, 254, 255, 265, 265, 266, 276, 282, 287, 291, 292, 309, 348, 358, 404, 405, 413, 419, 422, 442, 444, 452, 483, 485, 486, 492, 493, 494, 495, 498, 500, 503, 519, 537, 542, 548, 553, 560, 650, 666, 668, 681, 689, 902, 908 Stansell, J. C., 77, 79, 97 Stark, H. A., 317, 319, 334 Start, K. B., 725, 741 Statistics New Zealand, 8, 16 Stavans, A., 800, 810 Stearns, P., 196, 206 Stebbins, L. B., 102, 108
Stecher, B. M., 917, 918, 919, 933 Stech, S., 29, 30, 31, 39 Stecyk, S., 505, 523 Stedman, I. C., 115, 120 Steele, J. L., 33, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39 Steelman, J. D., 777, 788 Steenwyk, F. L., 554, 557 Steet, B., 28 Steffensen, M. S., 64, 74, 369, 378, 797, 810 Steiglitz, E. L., 729, 741 Steig, W., 373, 378 Steimack, R. M., 246 Stein, J., 234, 249 Stein, M. L., 277, 282, 507, 520 Stein, N. L., 319, 321, 323, 334 Stein, S., 167, 170, 179 Stenhouse, I., 79, 97 Stenhouse, L., 692, 716 Stephens, D., 927, 935 Stephens, J., 365, 366, 368, 378 Stephen, T., 746, 747, 766 Sternberg, R. J., 277, 283, 548, 552, 560, 680, 689, 908 Sterne, R. W., 746, 769 Steubing, K. K., 71, 74, 493, 498
< previous page
page_973
next page >
< previous page
page_974
next page > Page 974
Stevens, E., 115, 121 Stevens, R., 720, 721, 740 Stevenson, D., 370, 378 Stevenson, R. B., 694, 696, 703, 704, 716, 717 Stever, E., 531, 542 Stewart, I., 294, 309 Stewart, J., 843, 848, 850 Stewart, R. A., 578, 579, 585, 613, 614, 624, 626, 627, 631, 634, 635, 639, 641, 643, 725, 731, 739, 741 Stice, C. F., 726, 741 Sticht, T. G., 587n, 607, 862, 865, 868 Stickland, D., 585 Stick, S. L., 729, 741 Stigler, J., 174, 177 Stillman, B. W., 669, 687 Stillman, P., 77, 88, 89, 96, 692, 695, 713 Stipek, D., 411, 415, 422 Stock, P. L., 692n, 700, 702, 717 Stock, W. A., 221, 226 Stodolsky, S. S., 611, 612, 613, 614, 627 Stohl, E., 503, 522 Stoll, C., 743, 762, 769 Stone, B., 257, 266 Stone, C. A., 338, 343, 346, 359 Stone, G. O., 236, 249 Stoner, G., 672, 689 Stone, S., 434, 453 Stotsky, S., 747, 769 Stott, J. C., 364, 378 Strange, L., 725, 741 Stratton, B. D., 578, 579, 584 Straub, J., 800, 806 Straub, M., 821, 831 Strauss, A. I., 79, 80, 96 Strauss, C., 196, 201, 205, 207 Strecker, S., 926, 927, 932 Street, B. V., 26, 28, 143, 149, 151, 197, 207, 616, 627, 734, 741, 845, 851, 859, 870 Streeter, B. B., 729, 741 Strickland, D. S., 564, 565, 566, 567, 582, 585, 700, 717, 846, 847, 851, 878, 887 Strickler, D., 726, 729, 741 Strieb, I. Y., 78, 98 Strieb, L. Y., 697, 700, 701, 705, 714, 717 Stringfield, S., 479, 482 Strode, S. L., 655, 666 Stromberg, L. J., 719, 738
Strother, J. B., 797, 811 Stuart, M., 19, 28, 486, 494, 500 Studdert-Kennedy, M., 259, 266, 484, 498 Stuebing, K. K., 230, 246, 249, 485, 493, 498 Stumbo, C., 700, 717 Stump, C. S., 777, 785 Sturtevant, E. G., 629, 631, 633, 634, 635, 639, 644 Sublett, H. L., 725, 738 Sugarman, J., 78, 98, 709, 717 Sullivan, D. P., 114, 121 Sullivan, E. P., 725, 742 Sullivan, H. J., 366, 375 Sullivan, J. F., 320, 333 Sullivan, M. A., 392, 401 Sullivan, S. E., 220, 222, 226 Sulzby, E., 425, 426, 427, 429, 431, 435, 436, 440, 442, 444, 447, 451, 453, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 585, 586, 689, 855, 856, 870, 878, 887 Summers, E. G., 367, 368, 379 Sumner, G., 373, 375, 698, 712 Supattathum, S., 656, 666 Supovitz, J. A., 919, 920, 935 Sutton, M. H., 567, 585 Sutton, R. E., 757, 769 Su, Z., 592, 594, 599, 605 Svecova, J., 33, 39 Svoboda, C., 412, 421 Swafford, J., 510, 518, 523 Swaim, J., 695n, 700, 701, 705, 713, 716, 717 Swain, S. S., 697, 701, 702, 717 Swales, J. M., 197, 207, 290, 309, 603, 607, 797, 809 Swallow, J., 296, 309, 334 Swan, D., 258, 259, 260, 266 Swanson, H. L., 257, 266 Swanson, J. M., 672, 687 Swanson, L. B., 493, 497 Swartz, C. W., 651, 665 Swartz, I., 78, 98 Swartz, J., 860, 861, 864, 870 Sweeney, J. C., 641, 644 Sweet, A., 411, 412, 422 Sweet, R. W., 903, 908 Swenson, J., 78, 98, 709, 717 Swick, D., 232, 249 Swift, K., 82, 86, 87, 97 Swing, S., 169, 174, 177 Sylva, K., 23, 28 Sylvester, P., 700, 717
Sylvester, P. S., 596, 603, 607 Symons, S., 545, 554, 560, 656, 665 Szebenyi, P., 31, 39 T Taba, H., 512, 523 Tabors, P. O., 429, 439, 448 Taft, M., 536, 542 Tagoilelagi, F., 10, 16 Takahashi, S., 799, 811 Talbert, J. E., 907 Tallal, P. A., 231, 232, 247, 249 Talmadge, H., 729, 742 Talwalkar, S., 143, 149, 150 Tam, A., 438, 450 Tam, A. Y., 656, 666 Tammana, R., 801, 810 Tan, A., 547, 552, 560 Tancock, S. M., 675, 689 Tangel, D. M., 486, 489, 490, 491, 495, 496, 500 Tang, G., 799, 811 Tang, H., 802, 811 Tanzman, M. S., 493, 494, 495, 501 Tao, L., 649, 662, 759, 769 Tapia, J., 617, 620, 621, 626 Tarrant, K. L., 345, 353, 355 Tarule, J., 173, 175, 415, 418 Tarule, J. M., 753, 765 Tatlonghari, M., 797, 811 Tatto, M. T., 848, 851 Tawney, J., 184, 190, 194 Taxel, J. A., 363, 379 Taylor, B. M., 319, 322, 334, 347, 359, 371, 376, 455, 456, 463, 464, 467, 470, 476, 480, 482, 554, 560, 674, 679, 687, 689
< previous page
page_974
next page >
< previous page
page_975
next page > Page 975
Taylor, D., 437, 438, 453, 569, 585, 700, 701, 702, 717, 845, 847, 851, 855, 858, 859, 866, 870, 872, 879, 887, 903, 904, 908 Taylor, J., 436, 448 Taylor, J. B., 698, 717 Taylor, K., 913, 935 Taylor, L., 514, 523 Taylor, L. B., 729, 741 Taylor, M., 618, 627 Taylor, M. B., 316, 334 Taylor, R. J., 875, 887 Taylor, R. L., 438, 453 Taylor, S., 7, 14, 20, 28, 256, 262, 266 Tchudi, S., 598, 607 Teaching Exceptional Children, 55, 74 Teale, W. H., 372, 377, 425, 426, 427, 429, 430, 433, 435, 440, 442, 443, 444, 445, 449, 450, 453, 567, 568, 569, 570, 571, 572, 585, 586, 611, 625, 679, 688, 819, 834, 855, 859, 870, 878, 887 Teasley, S. D., 288, 309 Teberosky, A., 49, 51, 441, 453, 855, 857, 868 Tedesco, J. C., 42, 50, 52 Tedlock, B., 160, 162 Teel, K., 78, 98, 709, 717 Temple, C. A., 33, 39, 349, 359, 531, 542 Temple, E., 700, 717 Templeton, W. S., 527, 531, 532, 533, 535, 536, 537, 538, 539, 540, 542, 673, 686 Templin, M., 567, 586 Tenery, M. F., 826, 833 Tennant, N., 800, 806, 821, 831 Tennyson, S. P., 324, 334 Terjak, M., 755, 770 Terkel, S., 118, 121 Terrell, B. Y., 345, 359 Terrell, C., 531, 541 Terrell, P., 725, 740 Tessmer, K. M., 366, 375 Tharp, R. G., 196, 207, 340, 343, 344, 345, 356, 359, 681, 687, 689, 847, 851 Thatcher, M., 21, 25 Thatcher, R. W., 232, 249 The mother of all reformers, 8, 15 The Reading Teacher, 54, 60, 74 Thiede, K. W., 650, 666 Thistlethwaite, L., 730, 742 Thomas, C., 701, 711 Thomas, E., 568, 585, 856, 857, 870 Thomas, J., 253, 266 Thomas, J. W., 646, 647, 648, 652, 653, 666
Thomas, K. F., 731, 742 Thomas, S., 82, 86, 91, 97, 694, 717 Thomas, W. P., 814, 828, 832 Thompsom, C., 190, 194 Thompson, A., 621, 626, 780, 784 Thompson, E., 601, 607 Thompson, F. V., 795, 811 Thompson, G. B., 11, 16 Thompson, J., 10, 16 Thompson, S. A., 195, 206, 314, 333 Thompson, W., 675, 688, 893, 907 Thorkildsen, T., 407, 422 Thornburg, D., 819, 820, 834 Thorndike, E. L., 529, 542 Thorndyke, P. W., 319, 334, 550, 558 Thorne, F. C., 194 Thorton, R., 230, 249 Thrash, E. C., 513, 518, 615, 623, 638, 642 Thrash, S., 350, 351, 352, 354 Threadgold, T., 5, 13 Threatt, S., 78, 98, 709, 717 Thurlow, R., 318, 334 Thybergin, A., 43, 50 Tian, G. S., 798, 811 Tidwell, D., 733, 740 Tierney, R. J., 57, 74, 349, 358, 513, 523, 576, 584, 587n, 588, 607, 720, 721, 742, 751, 769 Tierney, W. G., 125, 135, 139 Tiess, P., 701, 705, 713 Tillman, M. H., 317, 330 Timar, T., 890, 891, 893, 908 Tinajero, J. V., 820, 831 Tincoff, R., 348, 359 Tinsley, K., 115, 120 Titchener, E., 164, 178 Titone, R., 816, 834 Tizard, J., 21, 28 Tobin, K., 403, 422 Tobin, P., 490, 495, 499 Tola, G., 253, 264 Tolchinsky, L., 441, 453 Tollefson, J., 791, 811 Tomblin, J. B., 349, 354 Tomlinson, J., 78, 98, 709, 717 Tompkins, G. E., 565, 566, 567, 586 Tompkins, J., 381, 387, 388, 401 Toms-Bronowski, S., 508, 520
Tonkin, E., 135, 139 Topping, K., 21, 28, 862, 870 Torgesen, J. K., 213t, 255, 257, 266, 267, 348, 359, 457, 482, 483, 485, 486, 491, 493, 494, 495, 496, 500, 501, 673, 688 Toro, M. A., 752, 770 Torres-Novoa, C. A., 45, 47, 52 Toth, J. S., 29, 31, 38 Toulmin, S., 324, 334 Trabasso, T., 169, 178, 312, 318, 321, 331, 332, 334, 413, 419 Tracey, D. H., 345, 348, 359, 729, 732, 740 Trapman, S., 554, 560 Trathen, W., 172, 178, 507, 519 Travis, M., 388, 401 Treiman, R., 253, 262, 264, 266, 267, 347, 348, 354, 359, 485, 486, 494, 495, 501, 531, 533, 542, 673, 685 Trepanier-Street, M., 595, 607 Trickey, G., 729, 742 Trimble, C., 391, 401 Trinh, M. T., 709, 717 Trinh, T. M-ha., 135, 139 Trites, R. S., 365, 379 Troike, R. C., 43, 52 Trolinger, W. V., Jr., 115, 120 Troll, L., 881, 885, 887 Trotman, M. V., 695, 698, 717 Trotter, A., 756, 770 Trousdale, A. M., 364, 379, 390, 401 Troutner, N., 350, 357 Troyer, C. R., 437, 453 Trueba, H. T., 845, 851 Truss, C. V., 779, 785
< previous page
page_975
next page >
< previous page
page_976
next page > Page 976
Truxaw, C., 174, 176 Tsai, S. L., 854, 858, 870 Tuck, B. F., 9, 12, 14, 15 Tucker, M. B., 875, 887 Tufte, E. R., 753, 770 Tunmer, W. E., 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 253, 255, 262, 265, 267, 274, 275, 278, 281, 282, 283, 414, 419, 485, 486, 498, 546, 547, 558 Turbill, J., 731, 737 Turkle, S., 753, 770 Turner, F. J., xiv, xi Turner, G. C., 651, 654, 664 Turner, J. C., 403, 404, 411, 415, 421, 422, 722, 740 Turnure, J. E., 656, 657, 665 Turpie, J. J., 673, 689 Turrant, K., 442, 443, 449 Turvey, M. T., 236, 248 Tuyay, S., 700, 717 Twardosz, S., 431, 449 Tyler, A., 275, 283 Tyler, R. W., 100, 108 Tyson-Bernstein, H., 612, 627 Tzeng, Y., 318, 334 U Udall, R., 697, 700, 717 Ulijn, J. M., 797, 811 Umbel, V. M., 827, 832 Umen, L., 338, 358 Umpleby, R., 698, 710 Underwood, G., 20, 27 Underwood, N., 5, 13, 262, 264 UNESCO, 44, 49, 52 Ungerer, F., 196, 207 UNICEF, 44, 45, 52 Unruh, E, 113, 121 Urba, J., 442, 443, 449 Urdan, T. C., 409, 421 Urquhart, A. H., 797, 806, 811 U.S. Congress, 455, 482 U.S. Congress, Office of Congressional Assessment, 749, 750, 756, 757, 770 U. S. Department of Education, 675, 689, 851, 894, 905, 908, 922, 923 U. S. Naturalization Bureau, 795, 811 Uutela, K., 232, 240, 241, 244, 248 V Vacca, J. L., 630, 644
Vacca, R. T., 623, 627, 630, 644 Vachek, J., 526, 542 Vadasy, P. F., 486, 499, 678, 679, 689 Vaden-Kiernan, M., 675, 688, 893, 907 Valdés, G., 802, 806, 819, 834 Valdez-Menchaca, M. C., 428, 453, 553, 560, 857, 870 Valencia, S. W., 590, 600, 606, 918, 922, 926, 927, 931, 934, 935 Valeri-Gold, M., 506, 513, 523 Valerio, P. C., 635, 637, 642 Vallerand, R. J., 301, 306, 407, 411, 413, 415, 416, 419 Vancil, S., 513, 523 van den Bergh, H., 174, 176 van den Broek, P., 172, 178, 318, 321, 334 van den Broek, R., 408, 420 Van der Ryst, M., 443, 449 Vandervelden, M. C., 486, 494, 501 van der Westhuizen, G., 650, 664 Vandevier, R. J., 506, 507, 523 van Dijk, T. A., 165, 168, 178, 290, 291, 307, 312, 317, 332, 334, 549, 550, 560 Van Etten, S., 645, 649, 655, 665 van Hout-Wolters, B. H. A. M., 169, 178, 291, 298, 302, 309, 316, 334, 511, 522, 649, 665 van Ijzendoorn, M. H., 428, 430, 448, 867 van Kleeck, A., 340, 359 van Kraayenoord, C. E., 5, 7, 14, 15 van Kraayenoord, D. C., 5, 16 van Leeuwen, T., 197, 204, 206 Van Maanen, J., 128, 139 VanMeter, J. W., 234, 240, 244, 246 van Meter, P., 101, 107, 297, 303, 307, 349, 356, 404, 406, 411, 413, 416, 420, 556, 558, 617, 625, 645, 648, 649, 655, 665, 666, 846, 847, 850 Van Niekerk, K., 443, 449 van Oostendorp, H., 312, 320n, 325, 331, 334, 744, 749, 770 Van Orden, G. C., 236, 249, 485, 499 van Pellegrini, A. D., 568, 581 VanRoekel, J., 670, 683, 687 VanSledright, B. A., 169, 170, 174, 175, 178, 293, 294, 310 Van Tassel-Baska, J., 592, 593, 607 Van Tassell, M. A., 77, 96 Vanvalin, R., 239, 247 van Wagtendonk, B., 260, 266 Varela, F. J., 601, 602, 606, 607 Varenne, H., 616, 622, 626 Varma, S., 292, 302, 306, 314, 318, 319, 331 Varney, N. R., 231, 248 Varnhagen, C. K., 323, 331 Varnhagen, V. W., 531, 542 Varone, S. D., 782, 785
Vasquez, O., 823, 824, 833 Vasquez, V., 701, 717 Vaugham, L., 5, 13 Vaughn, S., 537, 540, 565, 614, 627, 676, 679, 688, 689, 827, 834 Vauras, M., 319, 323, 335, 412, 420 Vaurus, L., 404, 419 Vavrus, L. G., 555, 558, 729, 735 Velarde, C., 876, 887 Velez, E., 48, 52 Velez, M., 49, 52 Velez-Ibanez, C. G., 598, 606, 617, 627 Vellutino, F. R., 213t, 255, 267, 463, 464, 467, 470, 477, 479, 482, 485, 486, 493, 494, 495, 501, 671, 689, 892, 908 Venezky, R. I., 117, 121, 142, 151 Venezky, R. L., 44, 52, 59, 74, 106, 112, 113, 116, 121, 526, 527, 528, 530, 542 Verhaeghe, A., 492, 497 Verhoeven, L. T., 817, 821, 822, 818, 819, 832, 834 Vermess, M., 231, 248 Vermunt, J. D., 291, 309, 649, 665 Vesonder, G. T., 313, 334 Viise, N. M., 534, 542 Villagrán, G., 49, 52 Villanueva, I., 844, 850 Villaume, S., 351, 359
< previous page
page_976
next page >
< previous page
page_977
next page > Page 977
Vincent, D., 25, 28, 121 Vine, H., 392, 401 Vinovskis, M. A., 879, 886, 894, 895, 908 Vinsonhaler, J. F., 670, 683, 687, 689 Vinz, R., 695n, 696, 717 Vipond, D., 389, 391, 399, 401 Virillo, P., 747, 770 Visweswaran, K., 127, 139 Vitale, M. R., 411, 416, 421, 595, 607 Voekl, K. E., 667, 686 Voelkl, K., 613, 616, 624 Voelkl, K. E., 404, 419 Voeller, K., 231, 247 Voeller, K. K. S., 486, 496 Voeten, M., 158, 266 Von Dras, J., 82, 86, 91, 98 von Glaserfeld, E., 293, 310 Von Harrison, G., 730, 740 Vonk, W., 318, 320, 326, 329, 333 von Wright, J., 319, 335 Vosniadou, S., 293, 310 Voss, J. F., 313, 320, 334, 335, 648, 666 Vukelich, C., 434, 435, 453 Vye, N., 775, 776, 788 Vygotsky, L. S., 158, 162, 169, 178, 196, 201, 207, 286, 292, 310, 341, 343, 359, 361, 379, 388, 393, 401, 431, 444, 445, 453, 479, 482, 569, 574, 577, 586, 601, 607, 616, 627, 681, 689, 690 W Wack, D., 238, 247 Wade, S. E., 172, 178, 213t, 288, 299, 310, 614, 626 Wade-Woolley, L., 818, 819, 833 Waern, Y., 165, 178 Waff, D., 696, 700, 705, 717 Wagemaker, H., 9, 16 Waggoner, M., 73, 73 Wagner, C. C., 670, 683, 687 Wagner, D. A., 751, 770, 802, 811 Wagner, J., 698, 717 Wagner, R. K., 213t, 255, 257, 266, 267, 483, 485, 486, 492, 493, 494, 495, 499, 500, 501 Wakefield, P., 279, 282 Walberg, H. J., 463, 467, 482, 554, 558, 783, 787, 854, 858, 870 Walker, B. J., 85, 87, 95, 724, 725, 726, 740, 741, 742 Walker, C. A., 430, 449 Walker, G. H., 567, 586, 854 Walker, G. H., Jr., 870
Walker, J. R., 118, 121 Walker, K., 652, 665 Walker, L. J., 797, 811 Wallace, B., 797, 807 Wallace, J., 611, 627 Wallace, R. C., 919, 933 Wallace, S., 160, 161, 592, 606, 621, 626 Wallach, G. P., 247, 340, 349, 359 Wallat, C., 338, 356 Waller, R., 312, 335, 512, 523 Walley, A. C., 258, 259, 267, 495, 499 Wallman, J., 700, 715 Wall, S., 253, 255, 265, 485, 499 Walmsley, B., 564, 565, 585 Walmsley, S. A., 585, 590, 592, 593, 599, 607 Walpole, S., 456, 476, 482 Walp, T. P., 590, 592, 593, 599, 607 Walsh, C., 148, 151 Walsh, D. J., 673, 690 Walsh, M., 498, 695, 713 Walsh, V., 234, 249 Walter, S., 33, 39 Walton, C., 5, 13 Walton, P. D., 254, 262, 267 Wang, M. C., 894, 908 Wang, Y. Y., 408, 420 Wanous, J. P., 220, 222, 226 Ward, M. A., 511, 521 Ward, N., 928, 933 Wardrop, J. L., 429, 450, 568, 584 Warkentin, R. W., 648, 666 Warner, D., 725, 742 Warner, M., 532, 539 Warner, M. M., 189, 194 Warren, B., 621, 627 Warren-Leubecker, A., 274, 283 Warschauer, M., 780, 788 Wartella, E., 392, 400 Wasik, B. A., 404, 421, 456, 482, 650, 654, 664, 678, 690, 722, 740 Waterman, B., 854, 870 Waters, B., 432, 452 Waters, G., 239, 249 Watkins, J., 105, 108, 758, 769, 787 Watson, D. J., 820, 832 Watson-Gego, K. A., 157, 162 Watson, J., 164, 178, 236, 248
Watson, J. A., 429, 431, 447 Watson, J. B., 194 Watts, S. M., 273, 284, 509, 523, 679, 689 Waxman, H. C., 802, 810, 822, 833 Wayne, S. K., 678, 679, 689 Weaver, C., 547, 551, 557, 560 Weaver, C. A. III, 313, 315, 322, 335 Weaver, D., 350, 351, 352, 354, 513, 518, 615, 623, 638, 642 Weaver, J., 81, 85, 91, 96 Weaver, P., 276, 284 Webb, N., 341, 350, 360 Webb, N. M., 351, 360 Weber, E. M., 922, 935 Weber, R. M., 113, 115, 121, 796, 800, 811, 813, 814, 828, 834, 837, 851 Webster, N., 794, 811 Wedman, J. M., 393, 401, 726, 742 Weener, P., 276, 282 Ween, J. E., 244, 246 Weidemann, C., 656, 662 Weiderholt, J. L., 669, 690 Weidler, S. D., 725, 740 Weiler, K., 147, 148, 151 Weiner, B., 406, 422 Weinfeld, F. D., 879, 885 Weinshank, A., 670, 683, 687 Weinstein, C. E., 295, 310, 647, 651, 653, 657, 659, 660, 666 Weinstein, G., 673, 690 Weinstein-Shr, G., 791, 809 Weinzierl, J., 927, 935 Weisberg, R., 324, 335, 512, 518
< previous page
page_977
next page >
< previous page
page_978
next page > Page 978
Weiss, B., 922, 935 Weiss, C. H., 103, 108 Weiss, K., 58, 564, 565, 585 Weiss, L., 169, 175 Welch, C., 917, 935 Welch, V., 531, 532, 541 Wellborn, J. G., 416, 422 Weller, H. G., 753, 770 Wellman, B., 744, 766 Wells, D., 104, 107, 343, 349, 351, 355, 372, 375, 395, 398, 455, 575, 582 Wells, G., 21, 28, 78, 98, 344, 360, 444, 453, 576, 586, 695, 700, 704, 717, 854, 870 Wells, J., 279, 283, 854, 870 Welty, E., 132, 139 Wendelin, K. H., 726, 742 Wendler, L., 391, 398 Wenger, E., 174, 176, 196, 201, 206, 207, 603, 607 Wenger, M. J., 327, 335 Wenglinsky, H., 783, 788 Wenrich, J., 269, 281 Wentzel, K. R., 297, 299, 310, 408, 414, 422 Werner, H., 164, 170, 178, 276, 284 Wertsch, J. V., 169, 178, 196, 202, 207, 342, 360, 388, 393, 401, 616, 627 Wesche, M., 270, 283, 515, 522, 799, 807 Wesselman, R., 404, 419, 555, 558 Westby, C. E., 347, 349, 360 Westerberg, V., 375 West, L. H. T., 293, 310 West, M., 515, 523 Weston, J. T., 920, 934 West, R. F., 20, 28 Wexler, P., 145, 147, 149n, 151 Whalin, K., 751, 769 Wham, M. A., 391, 401, 726, 742 Whang, G., 372, 378 Wharton-MacDonald, R., 480, 482 Wharton-McDonald, R., 345, 358, 557, 560, 729, 732, 740 Wheaton, A., 537, 540 Wheldhall, K., 5, 13 Whipple, G. M., 211, 226 Whistler, J. S., 411, 415, 420 White, C. S., 287, 306 White, F., 637, 642 White, H. D., 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 226 White, J., 25, 26, 27
White, K. R., 854, 870 White, R. A., 41, 45, 52 White, S. H., 298, 307 White, T. G., 516, 523 Whitehead, A. N., xiv, x, 287, 292, 310 Whitehead, F., 26, 28 Whitehurst, G. J., 340, 347, 360, 426, 428, 444, 447, 453, 553, 560, 856, 857, 869, 870 Whiten, P. E., 394, 402 Whitesell, N. R., 408, 420 Whitin, P., 700, 717 Whitman, R., 734, 735 Whitmore, K., 617, 621, 626, 628 Whitmore, K. F., 700, 717, 724, 742 Whittaker, A. K., 920, 932 Whitten, S. N., 318, 335 Whyte, B., 9, 16 Wichmann, J., 29, 30, 32, 36, 39 Wiebe, G. E., 531, 533, 540 Wieder, D. L., 202, 207 Wigfield, A., 101, 107, 142, 151, 296, 297, 306, 307, 308, 310, 349, 356, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 413, 418, 419, 420, 422, 577, 583, 617, 625, 846, 847, 850 Wiggins, G. P., 916, 935 Wigginton, E., 705, 717 Wightman, J., 495, 500 Wilce, L., 489, 497, 535, 540 Wilde, S., 528, 531, 542 Wildy, H., 611, 627 Wilhelm, J. D., 394, 402, 695, 700, 717 Wilkin, A., 861, 864, 865, 867 Wilkinson, I. A. G., 8, 16, 73, 73, 212t, 318, 329, 563, 567, 581, 921, 931 Wilkinson, L. C., 338, 339, 343, 344, 347, 348, 351, 353, 358, 359, 360 Willes, D. J., 617, 619, 626 Willett, J., 698, 714, 848, 850 Willett, J. B., 612, 613, 614, 624 Williams, C. L., 431, 442, 453 Williams, G., 199, 206 Williams, H., 856, 857, 867 Williams, J., 722, 736 Williams, J. M., 91, 95 Williams, J. P., 316, 334, 484, 486, 493, 501, 502, 550, 560 Williams, K. S., 700, 705, 716 Williams, L., 169, 175 Williams, N. L., 508, 509, 520 Williams, P. L., 915, 934 Williams, W. O., 103, 107 Williamson, P., 432, 452 Williamson, P. A., 432, 433, 453
Williamson, S., 893, 907 Willinsky, J., 149, 151, 383, 386, 390, 402 Willis, A. I., 102, 108, 619, 627, 837, 851 Willis, P., 145, 151 Willoughby, T., 656, 666 Willows, D., 274, 284 Willows, H. A., 447, 454 Willson, V. L., 292, 307 Wilson-Bridgeman, J., 683, 690 Wilson, E. K., 631, 632, 633, 639, 642, 643, 644 Wilson, P., 219, 226, 510, 518 Wilson, R., 490, 495, 499 Wilson, T., 165, 177 Wimmer, H., 254, 267 Wimsatt, W., 167, 178 Wineburg, S., 167, 170, 178, 179, 648, 661, 666 Wineburg, S. S., 294, 308, 310 Winer, Y., 443, 449 Winitz, H., 797, 810 Winne, P. H., 295, 310, 553, 561, 647, 650, 651, 653, 654, 656, 657, 659, 662, 666, 733, 742 Winner, E., 271, 284 Winograd, K., 595, 602, 607 Winograd, P. N., 166, 176, 654, 666, 751, 766, 905, 908 Winograd, T., 55, 74, 197, 207, 601, 607 Wise, B. W., 262, 267, 493, 499, 755, 768, 770 Wise, D., 233, 248 Wise, M. A., 612, 613, 614, 623 Wiseman, B. J., 641, 642, 643 Wiseman, D. C., 394, 402
< previous page
page_978
next page >
< previous page
page_979
next page > Page 979
Wiseman, D. L., 370, 377, 379, 400, 575, 583 Wise, R., 236, 237, 241, 246, 248, 249 Wise, S. L., 320, 330 Witelson, S. F., 238, 249 Wittrock, M. C., 505, 523, 569, 583, 586, 649, 655, 666 Wixson, K. K., 169, 177, 184, 194, 292, 308, 590, 600, 606, 607, 647, 650, 664, 921, 922, 928, 934, 935 Wlodkowski, R., 414, 422 Woehler, C., 302, 304 Wolcott, H. F., 194 Wolf, A., 720, 721, 739 Wolf, D. F., 801, 811 Wolf, M. M., 129, 139, 182, 184, 193, 194, 267, 493, 502 Wolf, R. M., 99, 108 Wolf, S., 433, 454 Wolfe, M. B. W., 328, 333 Wolfgang, C. H., 187, 194 Wolfgramm, E., 10, 15, 16 Wolfson, B. J., 366, 379 Wollenberg, J., 725, 736 Wollman-Bonilla, J. E., 372, 379, 394, 402 Wolman, J. M., 891, 906 Woloshyn, V. E., 344, 345, 346, 358, 553, 560, 656, 666 Women on Words and Images, 115, 121 Wong, K. K., 841, 842, 843, 851 Woo, D., 729, 732, 740 Wood, E., 553, 560, 561, 656, 657, 663, 665, 666 Wood, F. B., 232, 233, 240, 244, 246, 247, 249, 493, 498 Wood, K., 82, 86, 90, 98 Woodman, D. A., 373, 378 Wood, P. K., 652, 663 Woodruff, E., 296, 309, 334 Woodruff, M. C., 611, 625 Woods, B. S., 287, 298, 300, 304 Woodside-Jiron, H., 674, 685, 903, 906 Woods, R. P., 234, 240, 244, 246 Wood, S. S., 555, 561 Woodward, A., 648, 666 Woodward, J., 776, 788 Woodward, V., 576, 583, 855, 857, 868 Woolgar, S., 196, 206 Worden, T., 351, 359 Worthy, M. J., 103, 107, 354, 404, 418, 534, 542, 578, 586, 596, 605, 926, 927, 932 Wortman, P. M., 219, 221, 226 Wright, A. D., 274, 283
Wright, C. R., 103, 107 Wright, J. P., 725, 739 Wright, N. L., 299, 304 Wunner, K. E., 701, 718 Wurtenberg, C., 271, 282 Wyatt, D., 167, 170, 179 Wylie, C., 8, 10, 16 Wyshynski, R., 700, 718 Wysocki, K., 277, 282, 507, 520 X Xie, Q., 865, 868 Y Yaden, D. B., Jr., 101, 108, 194, 430, 438, 440, 450, 452, 454, 535, 542, 571, 586 Yagelski, R. P., 695, 700, 718 Yano, Y., 799, 811 Yeager, B., 700, 717 Yermanock-Strieb, L., 709, 717 Yinger, R. J., 292, 310 Yochum, N., 324, 335 Yokoi, L., 411, 421, 645, 648, 649, 655, 665, 666 Yoon, K. S., 409, 422 Yopp, H. K., 257, 267, 494, 502 Yore, L. D., 612, 613, 627 York, R. L., 879, 885 Yoshii, F., 233, 240, 244, 247 Youga, J., 592, 606 Young, A. J., 415, 418 Young, A. R., 673, 690 Young, J. A., 863, 869, 879, 886 Young, J. P., 127, 128, 137, 139, 141, 350, 351, 352, 354, 513, 518, 615, 623, 638, 642 Young, K., 167, 170, 177 Young, M., 318, 334 Young, M. F., 290, 306 Young, M. F. D., 151 Young, R., 230, 249, 801, 811 Yount, D., 757, 769 Youpa, D., 672, 687 Yuen, S. D., 815, 816, 824, 828, 829, 830, 834 Yuill, N., 547, 561 Z Zahorik, J., 410, 414, 422 Zajchowski, R., 295, 308 Zalewkis, E., 350, 351, 352, 354 Zalewski, P., 513, 518, 613, 615, 623, 625, 629, 631, 633, 635, 638, 639, 642, 643 Zalpa-Ramírez, G., 50, 52 Zametkin, A. J., 233, 241, 248, 340
Zancanella, D., 393, 402 Zarrillo, J., 580, 586 Zatorre, R. J., 236, 249 Zechmeister, E. B., 279, 281, 503, 523, 552, 558 Zecker, L., 703, 705, 716 Zeffiro, T. A., 234, 240, 244, 246 Zeichner, K. M., 691, 692, 694, 704, 706n, 709, 713, 718, 734, 742 Zeni, J., 694, 697, 700, 714, 718 Zetterman, K., 701, 705, 715 Zhang, H., 507, 523 Zhang, X., 349, 354 Zhurova, L. Y., 485, 486, 502 Zhu, W., 327, 332 Zielonka, P., 725, 738 Zifcak, M., 485, 502 Zigmond, N., 676, 686, 690 Zimet, S. F., 366, 379 Zimmerman, B. J., 295, 299, 310, 413, 422 Zimmerman, C., 799, 811 Zimmerman, C. B., 515, 523 Zimmermann, B. J., 405, 408, 413, 415, 422 Zito, J. M., 672, 689
< previous page
page_979
next page >
< previous page
page_980
next page > Page 980
Zorzi, M., 262, 267 Zubrick, A., 349, 360 Zucchermaglio, C., 437, 441, 451, 454 Zuck, E., 236, 249 Zuck, I. G., 797, 811 Zuck, L. V., 797, 811 Zukowski, A., 253, 267, 485, 501 Zulich, J., 632, 639, 642, 725, 735 Zutell, J., 531, 532, 534, 536, 537, 542, 543, 720, 742 Zwaan, R. A., 313, 314, 315n, 319, 321, 322, 331, 335
< previous page
page_980
next page >
< previous page
page_981
next page > Page 981
SUBJECT INDEX A Ability, 50, 184, 191, 854, 864. See also Cognitive abilities; Decoding; Literacy; Reading; Spelling metacognitive, 650651 phonological processing, 493494 student, 299300 Abstracts, 218, 365, 503, 646 Academic achievement, 352. See also Student achievement communicative competence and, 339340 emergent literacy research and, 437439 family literacy and, 860864 family literacy research and, 854867 parent, 863864 Academic community, 135136 Academic domain, 292293, 301, 649 Academic research, xii, 30, 3536 Academics, 48, 125, 135, 293 Academic tasks, 649650, 658660 Academic writing, 124, 127 Accelerated Schools Network, 911 Acción Popular Cultural Hondurena, 45 Accountability, 352, 897. See also Standards and excellence, 892, 894 policy research and, 913, 918, 921 Achievement, 18, 20, 184, 300, 756, 890. See also Academic achievement; Literacy achievement focus, 2426 gains, 11, 23, 892, 897 patterns, 456t466t, 459t, 465t466t, 471, 472t variation, 9, 11, 682 Acoustics, 441, 445, 484 Acquisition. See Knowledge; Language; Reading acquisition; English Active learning, 32, 344, 352, 617 college studying and, 645, 647, 654 vocabulary instruction and, 504506 Adaptation, 504, 882 teacher, 732734 vocabulary learning and, 510517 Administrators, 33, 413, 843, 898, 899, 924 Adolescents, 366, 392, 577, 622, 623, 637, 856
Adult, 434, 570, 877 education, 44, 46, 861, 864, 963 literacy, 3, 4, 9, 54 readers, contextual effects and, 2021 styles, storybook reading, 429430 young, literature, 638, 640 Aesthetics, 131133 Affect, 66, 163, 165, 167, 797, 798. See also Reading processes Affective solidarity and, 883884 African-Americans, 142, 148, 340, 618, 621 children's literature and, 363, 364 intergenerational literacy and, 874, 877879, 882 literature response research and, 390, 394, 397 multicultural education and, 835, 840, 843, 845 Age, 339, 366, 404, 673, 680, 830, 835 reading motivation and, 408409 reading preference and, 367, 368 Alan Duff Charitable Foundation, 10 Albania, 37 Alfabetización, 4546, 4850 Alliteration, 18, 262, 263 Alphabet, 229, 255, 326, 347, 484, 531. See also Alfabetización; Letter code, 490, 495 knowledge, 5, 11 principle, 352, 464, 467, 488 recognition, 673 and speech, 483484 Alternative education, Latin America, 4446, 4850 American Association of Colleges of Teacher Education, 727 American Heritage Dictionary, 127 American Psychological Association (APA), 119 Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), 352 America Reads, 903904 Analysis, 49, 328, 505. See also Content analysis; Critical analysis: Data analysis; Meta-analytic procedures; Protocol analysis; Single-subject experiments; Textual analysis computer aided, 55, 58, 71
< previous page
page_981
next page >
< previous page
page_982
next page > Page 982
discourse, xi, 27, 149 multiple, 341, 817 narrative inquiry and, 124, 127 policy, 5457, 72, 143, 911913 procedures, 5557, 72, 82, 853 protocol. See Verbal reports research methodology, 111112 research synthesis, 210, 214, 222223 syllable, 484, 485 task, 515, 516 teacher research methodology, 8083, 695 techniques, 78, 79 themes/categories emerging from, 8384 units of, 101, 102, 342 visual, 187, 189 Analytic science, 100, 105 A Nation at Risk, 921 Annotation, 655 Anthropologists, xi, 142, 153, 154, 330 Anthropology, 64, 214 ethnograpic approaches, 153155, 159 Aotearoa. See New Zealand Applied research, 103, 156 Apprenticeship model, 633, 720 Arabic, 429 Aristotle, 163, 385 Arizona Student Assessment Program (ASAP), 913 Artifacts, 113, 197, 574, 927, 929 Asian American literature, 397 Asian Americans, 835 Assessment, 175, 339, 374, 612, 827. See also Classroom assessment; National Assessment of Educational Progress; Portfolios; Reading; State educational policy; Writing by teachers, 353, 633 educational policy, 2526, 900 language, 428429 language arts, 924, 926927 literacy outcomes, 428429 measurement perspective, 915916 phonological awareness, 494495 program, 613, 910, 913, 924, 925 research, 56, 801, 802 single-subject experiments, 183184, 190192 word knowledge, 270271
Association for Children with Learning Disailities, 70 Association for Retarted Children, 70 Attention-deficit syndrome, 670 Attitude, 368, 370, 391, 799. See also Reading; Student Audio-lingual approach, 825 Auditory discrimination, 215 Australia, 3, 693, 792 cultural approaches, 67 literacy learning and, 4, 7, 8, 10 substantive/methodological observations, 78 trends/issues, 45 Austria, 36 Authenticity, 117, 348, 373, 826, 839. See also Integrated instruction instruction, 675676 Author's chair, 160 Authorship, 131 Autobiography, 118, 125, 129, 130, 160, 634, 695 Automaticity, 797. See also Reading fluency Autonomy, 301303, 411412 B Basal children's literature, 373374 Basal and literature-based instruction, 573, 579580, 898899 Basal reading programs, 573, 827 historical perspectives, 563565 integrated instruction, 593, 595, 600 word knowledge and, 490491 Basal texts (readers), 490, 676, 986 text learning and, 609, 611612 Basic Skills Agency Family Literacy project, 24, 863, 864 Beginning reading, 128, 535, 854, 857. See also Emergent literacy achievement development and, 56, 255256 invented spelling and, 436, 535 Reading Recovery and, 547548 Beginning reading instruction kindergarten, 459t463, 471, 477 methods, 11, 100, 102104, 546 Beginning Reading Program (BRP), 457, 478 Behavior, 429. See also Reading; Student Behaviorism, 5759, 72, 119, 164, 646 Beliefs, 632. See also Student; Teacher beliefs about remedial reading, 682685 family, 872875 Bias, 102, 118, 129. See also Research synthesis multicultural education and, 839, 840
Bibliography, 110, 113, 118, 381, 646 Bilingual education, 44, 45, 46, 837, 842 evaluation, 815816 Bilingualism, 728, 796, 799. See also Multilingualism; Spanish-English bilingualism Latin America, 4345, 49 of parents, 6, 36 Bilingual reading, 837. See also Cross-linguistic transfer; Elementary level; English, and second-language acquisition; Family literacy; Latino/a students; Monolingual reading: Policy research; Storybook reading coding and, 823824 cognitive processes and, 823, 825, 826 decoding and, 818, 829 development and, 819822, 824826, 829, 831 early reading interventions and, 815817 instruction and, 818821, 824, 826, 829, 831, 837 metalinguistic awareness and, 816817, 831 oral language proficiency and, 818819 performance and, 816, 821822, 827828, 827829 qualitative methods and, 823, 830 research implications, 828831 second-language acquisition and, 813, 814, 827 sociocultural perspectives, 814815, 831 Biliteracy, 814, 839 Biography, 114, 116, 118, 126, 131, 132, 291, 365, 366 Black Men's Convention, 872 Book. See also Literature; Storybook reading; Trade books
< previous page
page_982
next page >
< previous page
page_983
next page > Page 983
based programs, 910 clubs, 575, 578, 731 reading, parent-child, 873, 878, 880 scholarship, 112, 113 Books in Homes program, 10 Boolean searches, 216 Boston Globe Horn Book Award, 368 Brain imaging. See also Functional brain imaging structural, 231 Brazil, 42, 145146 Bread Loaf School of English, 693 C California Assessment Program (CAP), 924, 925 California, educational reform and, 898, 905, 924 language arts and, 900, 912, 922, 923 policy research and, 911912 reading policy and, 900903 California Learning Assessment System (CLAS), 922, 923 Cambodian, 814815 Canada, 816, 818 Case study research, xi, 125, 132, 181182, 439, 567, 567568, 693, 927 Category, 171. See also Teacher research methodology; Think-aloud response, 168, 389 CD-ROM, 759, 774 CEE. See Central and Eastern Europe Censorship, 31, 384 Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (leTUS), 620 Center for Special Education Finance, 891 Center for the Study of Reading, 61 Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, 910 Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) educational reform and, 3138 the Soviet legacy, 2934, 37 Centralization, 8, 3133. See also Decentralization Cerebral blood flow, reading outcomes and, 232234 Certification. See also Teacher service providers, 891 Change, 145, 911, 924. See also Curriculum; Social change; Teacher research literacy and, 743744 processes of, 49
technological, 743748, 761, 784 theoretical perspectives, 5758, 158 Chapter 1, 890, 899 compensatory education and, 892894 Character development, 362, 370, 575 Child. See also Children; Parent-child interactivity characteristics, 430 development, 854, 875, 880 Child Development Associate Credential, 678 Child Health and Human Development, 674 Childhood socialization, 880881 Child Observation Record (COR), 861 Children's Choices awards, 368 Children. See Children's literature; Disabled children; Responsive reading; Bilingual reading Children's literature, 114, 116, 361, 564, 612. See also Critical theory; Literature-based reading instruction; Research methodology; Research practice; Storybook reading; Text use African-Americans and, 363, 364 basal, 373374 children reading, research, 366367 classroom discussion research, 369, 372373 content analysis, 363365 ethnicity and, 363, 364 literary analysis, 362363, 365366 literature response research and, 366373 multicultural, lack of, 827 multidisciplinary nature, 361, 362, 374 preference/interest research and, 366368 read-aloud research, 369, 371372, 374 reading instruction research, 369371 sociocultural perspectives, 363365, 368, 371, 372, 375 Children's Literature Association Quarterly, 365 Children's Literature in Education, 365 Chile, 48, 50 Chinese, 804, 820 Chomskian linguistics, 387 Citation, 119, 213, 218, 219, 223 Citation Index to Journals in Education, 646 Class, 65, 66, 113, 116, 611, 873. See also Social class critical theory and, 145147 intergenerational literacy and, 873, 879 Classroom, 6, 22, 191, 288, 349. See also Classroom related topics; Content area classroom; Discourse; Discussion activities; Social processes; Teacher research; Whole class experience; Writing activities, 441442
content, 612, 631, 639 discourse, 10, 153, 338, 341, 342, 346, 349, 614, 826, 915 discussion, 128, 342, 343, 368, 369, 372373, 394395, 629630 environment, 412, 413, 574, 700t interactivity, 4, 338, 340, 343, 404, 699, 725 learning disabled, 679680 oral language, 339, 441 organization, 10, 33, 215, 588, 611, 700t, 895897 outcomes, 416417 talk, 393395 teacher dominated, 33, 409, 633, 638 Classroom assessment, 5, 25. See also Policy research Classroom communication. See Classroom language; Integrated classroom communication; Communicative competence Classroom inquiry. See also Teacher inquiry reflexive nature of, 80, 8789, 92 uniqueness of, 9394 Classroom instruction, 92, 94, 189, 191, 700t, 721, 730, 897, 924. See also Integrated instruction; Interactive approach; Literature-based reading instruction; Transmission model engaged reading and, 369371 reflective, 8889 student engagement and, 10, 34, 338 technology for, 755759 Classroom language. See also Classroom communication; Discourse engagement and, 341, 349353 literacy learning and, 337338
< previous page
page_983
next page >
< previous page
page_984
next page > Page 984
reading comprehension and, 345349 research, sociolinguistic origins, 338341 Classroom learning, 44, 157. See also Whole class experiences role of community in, 616, 620, 621 text use and, 609, 611116, 620623 Classroom Observation Schedule, 824 Classroom participation, 184, 395, 611, 615 literacy processes and, 339, 340, 344, 346, 349 Classroom practice, 7, 10, 101, 136, 782, 915, 923 critical approaches and, 146, 148 literature response and, 393394, 396397 text learning and, 610612, 615622 Classroom research, 73, 136, 381, 721. See also Children's literature classroom language and, 338341 Cloze testing, 220, 800, 801 Coalition for Essential Schools, 911 Coding, 80, 171, 192, 219, 224, 240, 363 bilingual reading and, 823824 processes, 221222 theory, dual, 775 Cognate language, 798 Cognate recognition, 823, 826 Cognitive abilities, 516, 552, 854 Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), 825 Cognitive development, 367, 368, 814 sociodramatic play and, 431432 Cognitive learning. See Learning Cognitive processes, 55, 195, 604. See also Dyslexia; Language use; Learning; Literature-based reading instruction; Metacognition related topics; Reading processes; Situated cognition; Sociocognitive perspectives bilingual reading and, 823, 825, 826 intergenerational literacy and, 872, 875, 880 metacognitive ability and, 650651 and motivation, 296, 406, 408, 651 multimedia information and, 775, 776 phonological processes and, 252, 257 protocol analysis and, 163165 reading and, 61, 165 text learning and, 293, 296, 298, 299, 404 Cognitive psychology, 197, 534, 631, 725. See also Protocol analysis reading research trends and, 5758, 61, 72
Cognitive skills, 36, 159 Cognitive strategies, 822. See also Metacognitive strategies; Protocol analysis historical contexts, 164165 strategic instruction and, 825826, 830 Collaboration, 34, 352, 759, 848. See also Collaborative related topics and computers, 779783 literature-based, 567, 575 teacher, 702, 728, 730 and text learning, 413414 transmission model, 615, 616 Collaborative learning, 34, 288, 350 Collaborative research, 124, 931 teacher research methodology and, 83t, 87t, 89, 91, 93 Collaborative writing, 773, 779780 College, 588, 780, 841, 881. See also Higher education; Universities College studying, 645. See also Academic tasks; Active learning course characteristics and, 648649, 660 course/program research implications, 658659 current research implications, 658659 future research directions, 660661 historical background, 646647 motivation and, 651, 652 performance and, 652, 653, 655, 660661 research methodology, 653, 660 strategic, 648, 650, 651, 654659 strategic learning and, 651, 653654 student beliefs and, 652, 660661 student characteristics and, 649652 text use and, 648649, 655, 660 Colonialism, 146, 154, 159 curriculum and, 793, 794 in Latin America, 4143 Communication, 118, 214, 441, 837, 930. See also Classroom communication; Dialogue; Discourse; Discussion; Talk content area and, 629630 functions, 195, 338 technology, 743, 745, 747, 749, 751754, 757762, 764 Communicative competence, 58, 214. See also Development academic achievement and, 339340 decontextualized language and, 278279 literacy achievement and, 339340 scaffolding and, 343, 345, 346
student differences in, culture and, 340341 Communism. See Marxist ideology Community. See also Classroom learning; Professional community academic, 135136 contexts, 597598 development, 45, 620 discourse, 404, 603 educational, 44, 762 literacy, 755756 resources, 89, 620 sponsorship, 705708 teacher research and, 694, 700t, 702 Comparative research, 36, 79 Compensatory education, 91, 842 educational policy and, 890, 892894 interactive model, 20, 632 Competence, 409, 528, 836, 915. See also Communicative competence; Reading; Teacher learner, 300302 strategic processes and, 300301 student, 299300, 339 subject-matter, 836837 Complementary Methods, 94 Component and process model, 647 Comprehension, 9, 164, 493, 511, 593, 617, 775, 796. See also Oral language; Reading comprehension; Strategic comprehension; Text comprehension context and, 20, 276 discussion and, 469t, 555 focus on, 61, 80
< previous page
page_984
next page >
< previous page
page_985
next page > Page 985
gains, 12, 23, 568 improvement in, 23, 191, 637 influences on, 192, 371 listening, 5, 429 sociodramatic play and, 431433 Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), 863, 864 Computational models, 328 Computer, 117, 516, 620, 733, 778. See also Internet aided analysis, 55, 58, 71 and collaboration, 779783 recurrent problems and, 782783 search, 216218, 296 technology, 771, 775 Computerized tomography (CT), 231, 232 Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (COR), 620 Congressional Mandated Study of Educational Growth and Opportunity, 893 Connectionism, 58, 197 Connectives, 314315 Conservatism, 143 Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 910 Constructive processes, 61, 165 Constructivist perspectives, xi, 12, 55, 272, 382, 602, 846, 896, 901. See also Social constructivism; Vygotskian theory literacy learning and, 337, 341, 346 reading theory/knowledge and, 921922 Constructs, 114, 361 Content, 119, 199, 339, 413, 437, 566, 612. See also Content related topics; Learning; Text content curriculum, 59, 514 educational policy and, 910911 subject-matter, 566, 923 text learning and, 298300 Content analysis, 574, 699 children's literature and, 363365 historical research and, 113116 literature response research and, 385, 389 written response and, 385386 Content area, 113, 164. See also Content area related topics; Integrated content area; Literacy learning, strategic, 629, 631 Content area classroom, 612, 631, 639. See also Content area reading qualitative methods and, 629, 632634
Content area reading. See also Content knowledge; Domain; Instruction; Literature-based reading instruction; Reading practice; Secondary level; Social constructivism; Sociocultural perspectives; Text-processing; Transmission model definition of, 627628 historical background, 630 multicultural education, 637638 research, 529, 629631, 638642 strategic instruction, 621, 629630, 632, 635, 640 teacher beliefs/practices and, 631636, 639 vocabulary instruction and, 507, 511, 517, 631 Content knowledge, 293, 600, 720, 931. See also Text-processing electronic hypertexts and, 326329 knowledge-processing and, 321, 325 text content and, 326329, 549550 Context, 48, 58, 166, 181, 276, 635, 879. See also Historical context; Integrated instruction; Learning; Professional context and cognition, 164165, 195 community, 597598 and comprehension, 20, 276 influences of, 209210, 611 knowledge, 415, 648 literature response research and, 393395 making choices within, 404 and meaning, 142, 196 use, 164, 187, 505506, 516 word knowledge and, 11, 2021, 270272, 275277, 279 Contextual cues, 196, 506 Contextualized language, 196, 199, 278 Conversational instruction, 345, 346, 353 Core teacher leaders (CTL's), 34 Correlational methods, 115, 429, 567, 652, 854, 857 phonological awareness, 485486 Council on Anthropology and Education (CAE), 155 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), 5354, 680 Course, 723 characteristics, 648649 research implication, 658659 Criteria, 80, 213, 220, 223, 231, 699 Critical analysis, 27, 143, 165, 684 Critical approaches, 168, 381, 611, 621, 698. See also Critical related topics; Critical theory; Cultural issues; Literature response research; Political issues; Reading; Sociocultural perspectives; Socioeconomic issues critical literacy and, 145146 and the discourse on reading, 142143 literacy learning and, 141149 literature response research and, 385388, 396
schooling and, 141143, 145, 148, 149 theoretical perspectives, 147148, 386 understanding, difficulties, 143144, 604 Critical conscience, 45, 46 Critical disciplinarity, 603604 Critical discourse, 142143, 147, 149, 874 Critical research, 47, 49 Critical scholarship, 141, 147, 149, 396 Critical theory, xi, 7, 141 children's literature and, 363, 365, 369 critical approaches and, 144145, 148 Marxist ideology and, 145148 Critical thinking, 33, 34, 349, 616 literacy achievement and, 573575 Cross-cultural perspectives, 7, 153, 154, 156 Cross-linguistic processing, 800802 Cross-linguistic transfer of knowledge and strategies, 822824, 828830 of reading skills, 817818, 822 Cubans, 827 Cueing, 547, 555. See also Genre cueing Cues, 187, 328, 512, 552. See also Graphemic-phonemic cues; Graphic cues; Linguistic cues; Structural cues; Typographical cues contextual, 196, 506
< previous page
page_985
next page >
< previous page
page_986
next page > Page 986
Cultural diversity. See also Curriculum; Ethnicity; Higher-level thinking; Linguistic diversity educational equity and, 89, 12 ethnographic approaches, 153160, 196 literature response and, 383, 391, 393 multicultural education and, 412, 37, 288, 835847, 839 performance and, 845, 847 research, 80, 89, 92, 362, 364 student, 125, 338, 340341, 352, 619620 Cultural identity, 125126, 159 Cultural responsiveness, 838839, 847848 Culture, 26, 112, 170, 384, 603, 700t, 731, 761. See also Cross-cultural perspectives; Cultural related topics; Intergenerational literacy communicative competence and, 340341 Latin American, 4142, 44 school, 37, 731 Curriculum, 536, 693. See also Development; Integrated curriculum; Language arts; Literature-based curriculum; Reading changes, 100, 841, 895 colonial American, 793, 794 congruence, 682683 construction, 694, 696 content, 59, 514 cultural diversity and, 387, 390, 839840, 842843 features, 458, 467, 471 guide, 113, 612, 613 literacy, 555, 839840, 926 national, 18, 21, 24, 25, 32, 50 reform, 3133, 125, 198, 898890, 901902, 912 remedial reading and, 676, 677 standards, 892, 927 structure, 612613 teacher research and, 693, 699, 700t Curriculum Review Committee (CRC), 898 Cursos Communitarios, 45 D DARTs (Directed Activities Related to Texts), 22, 23 Data, 132, 164, 166, 198, 259, 381, 508. See also Information group, 181, 182 incomplete, 114, 214 recording, 117118 representation, 127, 135137, 641, 642 source of, 221, 574
Data analysis, 80, 82, 105, 118, 155, 183 literature reviews and, 210, 221 narrative inquiry, 127, 128 research synthesis and, 210, 214 single-subject experiments and, 181, 187, 192 Database, 115, 218, 290 integrated curriculum, 587588 integrated instruction, 567568 second-language, 800804 Data collection, 80, 103, 127, 155, 210, 441, 853, 926 historical research and, 117118 research synthesis and, 210, 214 Deaf, the, 431 Death of Literature, The, 385 Debating, 353 Decentralization, 8, 3132, 50, 890891, 897 Decision making, 34, 47, 144, 639. See also Judgment; Teacher Decoding, 44, 146, 429, 464, 480, 493, 617, 752, 818, 855. See also Reading comprehension ability, 467, 486, 568 bilingual reading and, 818, 829 changing conceptions of, 6061 early, 57 graphic-phonemic cues and, 547548 skills, 548, 551552 word-level, 546548, 573 Deconstructionism, 58 Decontextualization, 196, 198, 349, 439 written language and, 278279, 855 Deficit models, 872, 879 Definition use. See also Metalinguistic demands Democracy, 146, 746 educational reform and, 29, 3435, 37 Demographic issues, 44, 197, 221, 340, 813 Descriptive studies, 157158, 855, 859 Design, 621. See also Research design sciences, 104105 task, 235237 Development. See also Beginning reading; Bilingual reading; Cognitive development; Language development; Lexical development; Literacy development; Phonological development; Professional development; Reading development; Spelling development; Vocabulary character, 362, 370, 575 child, 678, 854, 875, 880 communicative competence and, 338, 343, 345, 347 community, 45, 620
curriculum, 37, 699, 921 human, 881, 882 instruction and, 478479 metalinguistic, 256, 257, 262, 264 oral language, 4, 369 program, 21, 49, 99, 100, 104, 877 proximal zones and, 343, 345, 681 research, 4950, 69, 485486 staff, 68, 509, 732, 757, 898 text learning, 296, 298303 written language, 433, 533, 592 Dialect, 65, 66, 837, 879 differences, 340341 Dialogue, 88, 146, 158, 160, 370, 388, 404, 429, 555, 569 instruction and, 342, 345 journal, 91, 837 professional, 728 scaffolding and, 342, 343, 345 Diaries, 113, 114, 118 Dictionary, 127, 215, 508 Digit span task, 257, 258 Directed Activities Related to Texts (DARTs), 22 Directionality, 460t, 861, 881 Disability. See also Disabled children; Learning disabilities associations, 70, 71, 891 legislation, 352, 889
< previous page
page_986
next page >
< previous page
page_987
next page > Page 987
Disabled children, 442, 486, 513. See also Disadvantaged children; Handicapped; Learning disabled; Special populations diagnosis, 728729 reading workshops and, 8788 special education and, 7071, 891892 Disadvantaged children, 103, 158, 503, 841 educational policy and, 890, 894 Disciplinarity, 638. See also Interdisciplinary related topics; Multidisciplinarity critical, 603604 Disciplinary knowledge, 603, 614 Discourse, 48, 197, 826. See also Critical discourse; Literacy analysis, xi, 27, 149 community, 404, 603 connected, 290, 439 definition, 197 genre, 311, 313, 339, 342 level, 136, 316 oppositional, 708709 patterns, 353, 838 processing, 313317, 349 public, 876, 879 on reading, 142143 research, 195, 389 student, 340, 611, 620 text-processing, 313317, 321 Discussion, 113, 469t, 555, 630, 781. See also Classroom; Discussion activities Discussion activities, 612 group, 22, 349, 353, 574575 literature-based, 349, 395, 568, 569, 574575, 618619, 638 peer-led, 615, 618619, 621 Dissertation Abstracts, 218, 503, 646 Dissertations, 115, 117, 218 DISTAR, 64 Documentation, 37, 210, 693 experimental, 102104 purpose of, 118119 Documents, 113114, 117, 170, 759 Domain, 595, 638, 657, 680. See also Academic domain content area reading, 300, 328, 825826 interest, 300, 301 intergenerational, 872, 874
knowledge, 293, 612, 650, 660 novel, 299300 specificity, 652, 658659 Dutch, 818, 822 Dyslexia. See also Orthographic processing cognitive processes and, 229230, 232, 239, 243, 245 magnetic resonance imaging and, 240245 neuroanatomic studies in, 230231, 245 phonological awareness and, 229230, 260 pronunciation and, 233234 E EARLI, 36 Early Intervention in Reading (EIR), 464 Early reading interventions, 2324, 455. See also First-grade interventions; Head Start; Kamehameha Early Education Program; Kindergarten interventions; Reading comprehension research; Reading fluency bilingual reading and, 815817 current research conclusions, 476478 future research nature/focus, 478480 invented spelling and, 458, 674, 857 long-term effects, 479480 phonological awareness and, 457458, 460t, 467469t, 474t, 492 reading acquisition and, 456, 458, 463, 470, 476479, 815817, 923 reading comprehension research, 467470, 473t, 475t reading development and, 458, 464, 467 reading instruction research, 476480 United Kingdom, 2324 Economic concerns, technological change and, 746748, 761 Economic issues. See also Socioeconomic issues Education. See also Adult; Alternative education; Bilingual education; Educational related topics; General education; Grade level; Instruction; Learning; Pedagogical knowledge; Reading; School; Special education democratic, 701t, 702 formal, 48, 49, 112, 156, 292, 348 general, 676677 goals, 8, 11, 25, 48, 352, 836, 911 for liberation, 45, 146 opportunity, 8, 352, 842, 889, 890 practices, 49, 147, 157, 425, 503 problems, 143, 588, 601 programs, 156, 338, 815, 840, 918 researchers, 124, 153, 155, 156 schools of, 113, 141, 389 study of, 211, 213, 601 system, 32, 41, 42, 892 vocational, 31, 640
wholistic, 44, 45, 348 Educational anthropology, ethnographic approaches, 155158 Educational equity, 4. See also Cultural diversity; Education, opportunity access and, 701t, 702 instructional processes and, 1011 multicultural education and, 836, 837 reading policy and, 890891 of resources, 10, 12, 841 state educational policy, 841842 Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA), 911912 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 70 Educational policy, 36. See also Centralization; Compensatory education; Educational equity; Educational reform; Local educational policy; Multicultural education; Policy; Reading policy; Student achievement; United Kingdom; U. S. educational policy achievement focus, 2426 assessment, 2526, 900 content and, 910912 disadvantaged children, 890, 894 elementary level, 893, 895, 912913
< previous page
page_987
next page >
< previous page
page_988
next page > Page 988
implementation issues, 890, 894, 898899 intergenerational literacy and, 873, 877, 879 learning and, 889, 890, 911, 921 literacy learning and, 4, 7, 8 national standards and, 890892, 910911, 918, 923 professional development and, 894, 895 reading pedagogy and, 890, 899 second-language acquisition, 792796, 805 Educational Policy and Practice Study (EPPS), 898 Educational practice, 49, 147, 425, 503, 898. See also Classroom practice; Policy for practice ethnographic approaches, 154, 157160 Educational psychology, 300, 649 Educational reform, 33, 381, 694, 705. See also Curriculum; Democracy; Policy research; State educational reform; Systemic reform; Universities Central and Eastern Europe, 3138 instruction research and, 157158 local v. central administration and, 8, 32 school restructuring and, 890, 895, 910, 929 socioeconomic issues, 30, 32 systemic, 890, 894895, 911 Educational research, 58, 132, 137, 154, 157, 182, 213. See also Instruction research; Policy research; Schooling; Special Education; Teacher research Latin America, 4750 review of, 210, 646 Educational Resources Information Clearinghouse (ERIC). See ERIC Education Consolidation and Improvement ACT (ECIA), 891 Education Summit, 892, 911 Educators. See Literacy; Teacher Effect, 22, 191, 239, 930. See also Task effects contextual, 2021 long-term, 479480 size, 221223, 429, 470, 753, 754 Effective schools Movement, 898 Egyptian society, 630 Elaboration, 101, 353, 389, 656 paridign, 5758 Electronic hypertexts, 311, 617, 620. See also Learning; Text-processing content knowledge and, 326329 graphic display properties, 325, 326 hypertext-enabled structures, 325327 linking capacity, 325, 327
meaning construction and, 325, 326, 329 recall and, 327328 Electronic technology, 747, 748, 751, 758759, 781, 783 Elementary level, 22, 25, 44, 71, 89, 101, 349, 366, 926. See also Educational policy; Elementary and Secondary Education Act; First-grade interventions; Kindergarten; Primary grades; Second-grade interventions bilingual reading and, 813, 815816 literature-based reading instruction and, 563565, 572576, 579 reading comprehension and, 533, 556, 557 reading motivation and, 408410, 413, 414 reading preferences and, 366, 368 reading teacher education and, 723, 725 remedial reading and, 673675, 677, 685, 925 text learning and, 612, 615616, 620 Elementary School Journal, 210 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), 674, 676, 842, 889, 890, 894 El Salvador, 45 Emergent literacy achievement, 45, 220, 362, 630, 819, 878. See also Beginning reading; Early reading interventions; Emergent literacy research; Literacy programs; Sociocultural perspectives development, 341343, 428, 431435, 439, 447, 829 family literacy and, 819821, 855, 863 growth, metalinguistic awareness and, 432, 440442 literacy learning and, 347348, 431432, 436, 444, 446 oral language component, 435436, 441, 442 phonological awareness and, 486, 494, 564 print and, 437, 439, 440, 443 reading acquisition and, 428429 word knowledge and, 347348, 443 Emergent literacy research, 425426, 438. See also Emergent related topics; Process measures; Sociodramatic play academic achievement and, 437439 definitional crossroads, 445446 definition/background, 425426 definitions, 425426, 445446 epistemological perspectives, 427428, 446447 future reflections, 443444 and the home, 437439 methodological issues, 431, 446447 policy research and, 903906 research methodology and, 446447 review framework, 427428 theoretical perspectives, 444445 Emergent writing, 441, 535 theoretical perspectives, 435437 Empirical approaches, 31, 36, 55, 60, 71, 100, 190, 193, 337, 386, 576, 594, 719, 775, 872, 892. See also Research synthesis
literature response research, 385, 386, 388, 389396 literature review, 209, 210 research synthesis, 213, 216, 224 Encoding, 855 Encyclopedias, 54, 210 Endnotes, 119 Engaged reading, 673. See also Engagement; Instruction; Reading acquisition; Reading comprehension; Reading motivation; Text learning classroom context/student outcomes and, 416417 classroom discussion and, 369, 372373 reading motivation and, 349350, 353, 403410, 417 reading processes and, 403404 research, now/future, 417418 strategic, 404, 410, 415, 826 teacher beliefs/practices, 369, 373374 Engagement, 750, 872. See also Classroom language; Motivation; Student active, 394, 505506 content area, 637638
< previous page
page_988
next page >
< previous page
page_989
next page > Page 989
literacy, 598, 620, 878 mediated, 416417 processes, 164, 409 reader, 403, 637 social processes and, 349350, 403, 404 England, 693, 792. See also United Kingdom English, 263, 394, 616, 864. See also English related topics acquisition, 254, 262, 791 instruction, 815, 826 oracy, 6, 820, 864 English language, 43, 274, 275, 484, 837, 844 English, and second-language acquisition, 791794, 798, 805. See also ESL; Spanish-English bilingualism bilingual reading and, 813817, 820823, 829831 English spelling, 262263, 525528, 531532 Environment, 8, 409, 507, 800, 854, 880, 882. See also Classroom; Learning; Setting print, 84, 439 Epilinguistic knowledge, phonological awareness and, 257, 260, 262, 264 Epistemology, 78, 652, 658659, 750. See also Emergent literacy research teacher research and, 694696 Equity. See Educational equity ERIC indexes, 57, 60, 64, 646 research synthesis and, 211, 215, 217219 ESL (English as a second language), 4, 9. See also Bilingual reading bilingual reading and, 813, 815, 820, 821, 825827 reading instruction, 837838, 844 vocabulary instruction and, 512, 514516 Ethnicity, 66, 154, 159, 339, 439, 640 children's literature and, 363, 364 cultural diversity and, 44, 49, 156158 intergenerational literacy and, 875, 883 multicultural education and, 835, 837 Ethnographic approaches, 78, 214, 439, 598, 636, 694, 725, 820. See also Family literacy research; Literature-based activities critical approaches and, 142, 143 cultural diversity and, 153160, 196 discourse and, 195, 196 educational practice and, 154, 157160 feminism and, 157, 159 instruction research, 156159
language and, 153, 155, 156 literacy learning and, 153160 literature-based reading instruction and, 368369, 568 narrative inquiry and, 132, 133 transactional aspects, 157, 159 Europe, 383, 745. See also Central and Eastern Europe colonialism and, 4243 European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI), 36 European Confeence of the International Reading Association, 29 Evaluation, 9, 340, 614, 861. See also Evaluation research bilingual education, 815816 goal-related, 103, 860 individual differences, 752754 Evaluation research, 48. See also Journals; Policy research; Program evaluation historical overview, 99100 Even Start, 677, 860, 861, 863 Excellence, 836. See also Policy research and accountability, 892, 894 Exceptional children, 5356, 7072, 680, 843 Exceptionality, 835 Experimental design program evaluation and, 99106 storybook reading and, 428429, 567568 Experimental methods, 48, 440, 487, 629, 854. See also Program evaluation; Single-subject experiments documentation and, 102104 historical research and, 115, 117 reading research trends and, 58, 60, 72 research synthesis and, 222, 255 Expertise, 301, 460 teacher, 840841 Eye movement investigations, 210 F Family, 880 beliefs, 872875 life course, 873, 881885 Family literacy, 597, 884. See also Emergent literacy achievement; Family literacy research; Intergenerational literacy; Literacy practice; National Center for Family Literacy; Socioeconomics issues academic achievement and, 860864 bilingual reading and, 819821, 829 different faces of, 858859, 867
funding and, 861, 866 learning, 854, 855, 858 parent-child interactivity and, 857, 858, 864866 project, 24, 863, 864 review procedures, 853854 sociocultural perspectives, 855856 socioeconomic issues, 854857, 859 United Kingdom, 862863 writing and, 856, 858 Family literacy research, 187, 858. See also Literacy programs academic achievement and, 854867 emergent literacy research, 855856 ethnographic approaches, 853, 855, 859, 877 literacy/language development and, 853855 phonological awareness, 857858 vocabulary/language knowledge, 856857 Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 748 Feedback, 408, 513, 555 Feminism, 147, 149, 365, 392, 753 ethnograpic approaches, 157, 159 Field, 105, 293, 753 Finland, 668, 748 First-grade interventions, 676. See also Instructional components achievement patterns, 465t466t reading development and, 464, 467
< previous page
page_989
next page >
< previous page
page_990
next page > Page 990
Reading Recovery and, 463, 464, 470, 476 First Grade Reading, 100, 102 First-language reading, 796798, 802, 820, 835. See also Primary language second-language acquisition, 802805, 819, 829831, 837 Fluency. See Reading fluency Follow through interventions, 65, 102, 456 Footnotes, 119, 217, 218 Foreign language reading, 792, 799. See also Second-language acquisition Formative research, 99, 105 France, 668, 792 Frankfurt School, 141, 144145 Freirian thought, 45, 47, 50 French, 792, 793, 798, 816 Functional brain imaging, 232234. See also Magnetic Resonance Imaging Functionalism, 141, 147 Functionality, 4, 50, 190 Funding, 45, 50, 134, 478, 630, 724, 748, 815, 910. See also Chapter 1; Multicultural education; Title 1' family literacy and, 861, 866 literacy learning and, 45 remedial reading and, 674677 special education and, 891892 G Gender, 7, 9, 48, 128 children's literature and, 363, 366 historical research and, 113, 115, 116 intergenerational literacy and, 874, 882 Gender differences, 26, 173, 753 literature response, 392, 393 in MRI studies, 237240 reading preferences and, 366368, 392 text comprehension and, 404405 General education, 70, 676677, 891 General Equivalency Degree (GED), 864 Generality, 182, 192, 199, 928 Generalization, 101, 118, 144, 198, 338, 389, 647, 917. See also Research; Research synthesis narrative inquiry and, 131132 Genetics, 879 Genre, 3, 7, 167, 199, 291, 413, 437, 699, 856. See also Discourse; Knowledge-processing; Text genre blurring of, 132, 133 expository, 315, 322, 324
knowledge, 323324 literary analysis and, 362, 365, 370 narrative, 132, 133, 153, 604 structure, 323325 teacher research, 9394 Genre cueing, text-processing and, 311313, 315, 322, 323 Geographic issues, 42, 49. See also Literacy achievement research German, 794, 798, 799 Gifted children. See Exceptional children Globalization, 36, 149, 746748, 760, 836, 873 Global studies, 635636 Goal. See also Education; Instruction; Learning evaluation, 103, 860 knowledge, 409411 reading, 296298, 406407, 921922 text learning and, 296298 Goal orientation. See Learning; Performance Grade level, 610, 684685. See also College; Elementary level; High school level; Secondary level Grapheme-phoneme relations, 262, 797798, 818 Graphemic-phonemic cues, 11, 292, 546, 547548 Graphic cues, text-processing and, 314316, 323, 325, 326 Graphic devices, 312, 313 Graphic display properties, 325, 326 Graphic symbols, 341, 483 Gray, W. S., 113, 210211 Great Depression, 100 Great Society programs, 65 Greeks, 110, 154, 163 Group, 48, 371, 634, 732. See also Discussion activities; Minority groups; Small-group activities experimentation, 181183, 191, 192 instruction, 458, 463 Guide material, 636. See also Curriculum study, 614, 616 Gutenberg Elegies, The, 385 H Haiti, 45 Handbook of Reading Research, 141, 142, 153, 157, 211, 213, 215, 361, 437, 629, 813, 909 Handbook of Research Synthesis, 214 Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, 215 Handicapped children, 70, 670, 780, 827, 891, 925 Harvard Educational Review, 148, 503 Hawkins-Stafford Amendments, 676, 892893 Head Start, 65, 100, 677, 678, 854
Hearing impairments, 777 Hebrew, 429, 818 Higher education, 48, 646, 693 Higher-level thinking, 574, 575 cultural diversity and, 838, 840, 841, 845847 High school level, 89, 349, 353, 620, 622, 667 content area reading and, 633, 636, 640 Hispanics, 142, 148, 397. See also Latino/a students Historical context cognitive strategies, 164165 spelling, 528529 technology and, 745746 United Kingdom, 1718 Historical research, 44, 363, 365, 384. See also Gender; Literacy history; Race; Text use content analysis and, 113116 data collection and, 117118 qualitative methods, 112115 Historiography, 110111, 115, 363 Home literacy, 8, 10. See also Family literacy emergent literacy research and, 437439 integrative perspectives, 596597 intergenerational, 877879 language and, 837839 reading pedagogy and, 2123 talk and, 438439 Homework, 22, 613 Humanism, 646
< previous page
page_990
next page >
< previous page
page_991
next page > Page 991
Hungary, 32, 33, 36 Hypermedia. See also Multimedia; Technology literacy learning and, 750753, 758, 773774 Hypertexts, 752, 754, 773774. See also Electronic hypertexts Hypotheses, 182, 550 Hypothesis testing, 210, 259260 I Idea, 345, 403, 657 identification, 316319 Identity, 196, 197. See also Cultural identity ethnic, 640, 814 Ideology, 44, 48, 142, 368, 611, 693. See also Democracy; Marxist ideology Illinois, 922 Illiteracy, 41, 44, 146 Immersion programs, 394, 815, 829 Implementation, 68, 102, 621. See also Educational policy; Program policy research, 901, 911, 917, 924, 927 Improving America's Schools (1993), 352 Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), 676, 894 Index to Social Sciences and Humanities Proceedings, 218 Indigenous education, 4, 6, 12 Latin America, 4246 Individual agency, 633, 635636 Individual differences, 367, 763. See also Prior knowledge evaluating, 752754 in language use, 337, 338 prior knowledge and, 752, 754755 Individualism, 128, 143 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 352, 889 Individual, the, 144, 183, 191, 195 Industrialization, 42, 147, 386, 794 Industrialized nations, 41, 47 Inequality, 146, 841 Infant school movement, 589 Inference, 165, 166, 192, 215, 272, 373 questions and, 182, 184 student, 346, 347, 575 Information accumulation, 286287 Information economies, 746749, 760 Information-processing, 58, 165, 291, 817
Information synthesis, 617, 620, 637 Information technology, 24, 286287, 743, 745, 747, 749, 751754, 757, 759, 762764 Initiation-response evaluation (IRE), 614 Inquiry, 353, 362, 694, 731, 877. See also Classroom inquiry; Narrative inquiry; Teacher Instruction, 9, 88, 339, 343, 878. See also Classroom instruction; Instruction related topics; Intervention; Literacy instruction; Strategic instruction; Transactional theory; Writing authentic, 675676 content area reading, 575576, 580, 595, 614, 631, 636, 647 conversational, 345, 346, 353 development and, 478479 dialogue and, 342, 345 effectiveness, 192, 574, 580 effects, 182, 187, 190192, 775 engaged reading and, 349350, 369371, 409417 explicit, 11, 12, 22, 347, 506, 516, 722 features, 458, 467, 471 future emphases, 352353 goals, 205, 345, 468t, 510, 588 instrumental/functional, 4849 intergenerational literacy, 872, 877 methods, 712, 19, 64, 100, 102104, 353, 546, 682 narrative inquiry, 125, 126, 136, 137 nature/amount of, 845846 planned, 683684 policy. See Reading policy print-based, 672673 processes, 1011, 156, 338, 409410, 413, 414, 416 programs, 4, 36, 4849, 65, 303, 370, 859, 917 and questioning, 553, 555, 569, 571, 575 reading teacher education, 726727, 731 reciprocal, 12, 64, 187, 218, 288, 344, 554555, 881 scaffolding, 342344, 513, 555 text learning and, 286288, 291, 301302, 611 theoretical perspectives, 508509 United Kingdom, 19, 21, 22, 33, 34, 36 Instructional components first-grade interventions, 467470t, 480 kindergarten interventions, 458, 460t462t second-grade interventions, 470, 471, 473t475t Instructional materials, 4, 55, 68, 302, 433 commercial, 508, 509, 658 selection of, 118, 214, 383 Instruction research. See also Reading instruction research; Teacher beliefs educational reform and, 157158
ethnographic approaches, 156159 interdisciplinary, 595596 literacy learning and, 343346, 349, 352, 353, 369371, 396, 691 spelling, 187, 536539 teacher beliefs and, 369, 373374, 631636, 639640 Integrated classroom communication. See also Scaffolding literacy learning and, 343, 345349, 347348, 352 oral/written language and, 347349 sociocultural perspectives, 341343, 345347 Integrated content area, 576, 577, 598, 924. See also Integrated curriculum; Integrated language arts Integrated curriculum, 352, 604, 750, 924. See also Integrated content area construction, 600, 601 database, 587588 interdisciplinary, 589, 591, 594596 professional development and, 598599 Integrated instruction, 592, 604, 757. See also Basal reading programs; Literacy development authenticity and, 587, 601, 602
< previous page
page_991
next page >
< previous page
page_992
next page > Page 992
contexts, 591, 596598 database, 567568 history, 588591 integrated curriculum and, 594596 integrated language arts and, 599600 interdisciplinary research, 595596 literature, 595596 theoretical perspectives, 600604 Integrated language arts, 80, 576, 604, 897, 922 instruction, challenges to, 599600 interdisciplinary research, 589593, 595596 language processing and, 592595 Integrated learning, 24, 337, 341, 591, 756 Integrated Learning Systems (ILS), 756 Integrative intergenerational research, 876 contributing contexts, 877878 family life course and, 873, 881885 intergenerational literacy, 874877, 880881 parent-child print interactivity and, 878880 Integrative perspectives, 24. See also Research synthesis; Written language home literacy, 596597 reading research and, 195197 Integrative reviews, 221, 587588, 604 Intelligence, 18, 669, 880 Interaction, 24, 195, 410411, 877. See also Interactive approach Interactive approach, 505, 646, 822. See also Interactivity compensatory model, 20, 632 process, computers and, 779, 780 real-world, 570571 technology and, 750 verbal, 195, 877 Interactivity. See Social interactivity Interdisciplinary curriculum. See Integrated curriculum Interdisciplinary research, 589592, 595596 Interest, 291, 298. See also Student college studying and, 651652 content area literacy, 636637 domain, 300, 301 reader, text learning and, 296298 reading preferences and, 366368 research synthesis and, 210, 215, 221
technology and, 750752 Intergenerational literacy, 871. See also African American's; Educational policy; Integrative intergenerational research; Literacy learning; Literacy practice; Race; Reading; Socioeconomic issues cognitive processes and, 872, 875, 880 conceptual issues, 762, 876 consequences/predictors of, 872 culture and, 872, 873, 875, 876, 877, 879, 882, 883 environmental factors, 880, 882 ethnicity and, 875, 883 instruction and, 872, 877 parent-child interactivity, 872873, 875881, 883884 problem solving and, 876, 877, 882 programs, 819820, 829, 860, 876 reading and, 872, 876, 878 social processes and, 873875, 878883 theoretical issues, 872, 879 transfer of, 872873, 879 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 9 International Council for the Improvement of Reading and Instruction, 54 International Education Association, 668 International Phonetic Alphabet, 527 International Reading Association, 269, 368, 677 International Reading Association (IRA), 53, 677, 678, 680, 902, 905, 922923 International Research Society for Children's Literature, 362, 365 Internet, 117, 620, 639 technology and, 748, 752, 753, 756, 761, 762 Interpretation, 292, 353, 621. See also Text of literature, 575, 683 procedures, 78, 813 social science and, 118, 124, 131, 142 Interpretive research, 99, 153, 724 methodology, 694695 program evaluation and, 104106 research synthesis and, 209, 222223 Interpretive skills, 798799 Intertextuality, 362, 392 Intervention, 181, 184. See also Early reading interventions; Follow through interventions effectiveness, 189, 191 instructional, 101, 101103, 156, 184 research, 19, 101, 187, 190, 411, 486491 Interviews, 36, 134, 366, 406, 417, 612, 620, 657, 674, 823, 862, 925, 929 Invented spelling, 495 beginning reading, 436, 535 early reading intervention and, 458, 674, 857
metalinguistic awareness and, 440441 spelling development and, 530532 IQ, 19, 20, 667669, 684685, 854, 858 J Japanese, 799 John Newbery Medal, 368 Journal of Educational Psychology, 57 Journal of Educational Research, 210 Journal of Literacy Research, 53, 66, 148 Journal of Reading Behavior, 53, 66, 7172 Journal of Research in Reading, 17 Journals, 210, 216, 338, 365, 385, 503, 508, 574, 617, 646, 691. See also Journal related topics evaluation research, 101, 114, 115, 116, 119 Journal writing, 464, 615, 731 Judgment, 316, 392. See also Lexical decision/judgment tasks, 235, 252253, 276 Junior high school level, 22, 409 K Kamehameha Early Education Program (KEEP), 157, 158, 413 Kindergarten interventions, 31, 33, 84, 88, 255, 348, 371, 667, 820. See also Beginning reading instruction; Instructional components emergent literacy achievement and, 424, 426, 429, 443 literature-based reading instruction and, 564, 572
< previous page
page_992
next page >
< previous page
page_993
next page > Page 993
phonological awareness and, 457458, 487491 Knower, developmental history, 603604 Knowing, 601602, 692 Knowledge, 5, 11, 7273. See also Domain; Epilinguistic knowledge; Knowledge-processing; Language; Letter-sound knowledge; Orthographic knowledge; Pedagogical knowledge; Print; Prior knowledge; Subject-matter; Teacher; Vocabulary; Word accumulation, 209, 224, 619 acquisition, 348, 404, 516, 650, 668, 759 background, 58, 299, 797 conceptual, 292, 293, 299, 538 construction, 616, 617, 638, 693, 696 contextual, 415, 648 declarative, 169, 512 disciplinary, 603, 614 generation, 617, 649650 goals, 409411 lexical, 60, 535 and power, 147148 reading, 896897 schooled/unschooled, 292293 social processes and, 196198, 616 strategic, 754, 760 transfer of. See Cross-linguistic transfer Knowledge-processing. See also Electronic hypertexts; Rhetorical devices content knowledge and, 321, 325 genre structure/learning and, 323325 meaning construction and, 321324, 328 memory and, 321, 323, 324 mental representation and, 311313, 321322 text learning and, 291294 text structure and, 311313, 321324 L Labeling, 83, 670, 841, 878 Language. See also Classroom language; English language; Language related topics; Linguistic related topics; Oral language; Primary language; Second-language acquisition; Spanish language; Whole language perspectives; Written language acquisition, 155, 340, 804 activities, 406, 489, 598, 600 assessment, 428429 children's literature and, 363, 371 contextualized, 196, 199, 278 decontextualized, 278279 development, 6, 340, 371, 428, 574, 814, 853855 ethnographic approaches, 153, 155, 156
home literacy and, 837839 issues, around the world, 6, 9, 12, 4244 knowledge, 292, 526, 604, 856857 learning, 160, 352, 441, 514, 692 practices, 196, 602603 primary, 158, 159, 835 processing, 58, 244, 568, 592594, 800802 research, 55, 58, 60, 70, 71, 136, 693 skills, 432, 439, 588, 595, 818819, 856 structure, 339, 818 units of, 6061, 69 Language arts, 595, 615. See also California; Integrated language arts; Literature-based reading instruction assessment, 924, 926927 curriculum, 592, 839 standards, 923, 928929 Language use, 55, 146, 158, 160, 429, 507, 527 cognitive processes, 196, 337, 406, 408, 805 everyday language, 339, 341 individual differences in, 337, 338 parent, 6, 8, 36 situated, 199, 202204 Latent Semantic Analysis (LSA), 328 Latin, 793 Latin America. See also Alternative education; Political issues; Socioeconomic issues; Theoretical perspectives bilingualism and, 4345, 49 culture and, 4142, 44 educational research and, 4750 language/literacy and, 4244 literacy programs in, 4347 Latina/o students, 835. See also Hispanics bilingual reading and, 821823, 825, 830831 intergenerational literacy and, 874, 879 Lau v. Nichols, 815 Learner, 190, 343, 537, 601. See also Learning acclimated, 299300, 302, 303 autonomy, 301303 competence, 300302 performance, 189, 801 Learning, 251, 720. See also Active learning; Educational policy; Integrated learning; Knowledge-processing; Language; Literacy learning; Selfregulated learning; Strategic learning; Text learning; Vocabulary learning; Word learning cognitive, 36, 156, 657, 671, 752754
collaborative, 34, 288, 350 content, 164, 352, 410, 412, 619 contexts, 517, 758, 762763 cooperative, 58, 67f, 350, 634, 636, 763 electronic hypertexts and, 326, 328, 329 environmental, 296, 775, 780781, 924 experiential, 598, 752 goal orientation, 297, 301, 406410 goals, 47, 300, 611, 621 incidental, 515, 556 long-term effects, 479480 modes, current research and, 639640 opportunities, 104, 775, 838 outcomes, 102, 103, 343, 352, 755, 924 policy research, 910, 920, 923, 929, 930, 931 processes, 73, 90, 103, 273, 338, 872 reading acquisition and, 20, 251, 262, 347, 837, 856 reading motivation and, 407410 social processes, 337, 338, 341342, 575, 854 and spelling instruction, 531, 537538 student, 589, 634, 728, 844, 920, 923, 929 styles, 36, 338, 752754, 753, 777 tasks, 754755 text-processing and, 319320 theory, 88, 291, 854 Learning disabilities, 55, 338, 345. See also Disability; Reading difficulties/disability
< previous page
page_993
next page >
< previous page
page_994
next page > Page 994
Learning Disabilities Association of America, 70 Learning Disability Research Network, 891 Learning disabled (LD), 669, 670, 676, 891 classrooms, 679680 Learning and Study Strategies Inventory (LASSI), 651 Legitimacy. See Narrative inquiry Letter, 60. See also Alphabet; Letter related topics naming, 460t, 468t, 820 recognition, 857, 861 sequences, 348 Letter-phoneme correspondences, 262, 274, 348 Letter-sound correspondences, 10, 11, 12, 44, 104, 468t, 490, 527, 551, 847 Letter-sound knowledge. See also Phonological awareness family literacy and, 857, 858 Lexical decision/judgment, 60, 233235, 240241 Lexical development. See also Lexical related topics; Reading development and orthographic analogies, 260262 phonological processing and, 240, 251, 258259, 264 Lexical knowledge, 60, 535 Lexical processing, 235, 799, 856 Lexical representation, 526527, 535 Lexicon, 527, 528, 603 Libraries, 54, 116, 117, 289, 413, 630, 827, 844 Linguistic cues, 196, 314315 Linguistic diversity, 4, 42, 44, 49, 156, 677, 799, 847 Linguistic knowledge. See Language; Epilinguistic knowledge Linguistic processes, 8, 21, 264, 527, 854, 855, 857, 880. See also Cross-linguistic transfer; Metqalinguistic awareness Linguistic processing, cross, 800802 Linguistics, 196, 365, 387, 813. See also Language; Psycholinguistics; Sociolinguistics Linguistic units, 313, 484. See also Language, units Linguists, 7, 8, 338, 745, 854 Listening, 5, 197, 429, 922 Literacy, 4, 41, 49, 53, 919. See also Adult; Emergent literacy achievement; Language; Literacy related topics abilities/skills, 337, 352, 371, 373, 531, 568, 597, 856, 874, 875 activities, 160, 529, 573, 829, 837, 839 community, 755756 conceptualizations of, 774775 content area, 630, 635637, 642 critical, 145146 dimensions of, 142, 429
discourse-based view of, 195, 197, 204 education. See Technology educators, 7, 145146, 148 engagement, 598, 620, 878 nature of, 9, 744, 745, 750, 760764 situated view of, 195, 204 sociocultural perspectives, 27, 113, 195, 197, 204, 597, 598, 734 tasks/definitions, 12, 34, 42, 44, 156, 758759 Literacy achievement. See also Academic achievement; Emergent literacy achievement; Literacy achievement related topics; Literature-based reading instruction communicative competence and, 339340 critical thinking and, 573575 effects of multimedia on, 774776 Literacy achievement gap, 835836. See also Literacy achievement research resource allocation and, 843845 school patterns and, 839841 standards/accountability and, 844845 Literacy achievement research. See also Cultural responsiveness; Emergent literacy research; Family literacy research geographic region and, 835, 841, 842, 898, 913914 instructional, 845846, 845847 language issues, 837838 teacher education/recruitment and, 847848 teacher expertise and, 840841 Literacy development, 372, 538, 819. See also Emergent literacy achievement; Literature-based reading instruction; Reading development family literacy research and, 853855 integrated instruction and, 594, 596, 598 issues, around the world, 6, 11, 25, 50 storybook reading and, 567569, 571 Literacy history. See also Historical research methods of study, 110111 research methodologies, analysis of, 111112 research methods, 114119 research sources, 113114 values of studying, 109110 Literacy instruction. See also Instruction; Literacy achievement research; Multicultural education; Reading instruction; Technology technology for, 744, 750751, 755762, 772, 773, 776, 784 Literacy learning, 49, 79, 135. See also Australia; Constructivist perspectives; Critical approaches; Cultural responsiveness; Educational policy; Emergent literacy achievement; Hypermedia; Instruction research; Integrated classroom communication; Sociodramatic play; Writing classroom language and, 337338 critical approaches, 141149
current conceptualization, 193 ethnographic approaches, 153160 family, 854, 855, 858 funding and, 45 intergenerational, 872874, 876, 877, 879881, 884 research, contemporary, 154, 155 sociocognitive/sociocultural dimensions, 436, 444 technology for, 744746, 752755, 758, 759, 762763 Literacy outcomes, assessment, 428429 Literacy policy. See Educational policy Literacy practice, 923, 929. See also Education; Language; Practice; Reading practice; Reading research; Spelling; Teacher collaborative, 780781 family/intergenerational literacy and, 6, 439, 856, 873, 877, 879 teacher research and, 693695, 699703, 705, 709
< previous page
page_994
next page >
< previous page
page_995
next page > Page 995
writing, 6, 124 Literacy processes, 595, 879, 930. See also Literacy practice understanding and, 929931 Literacy programs, 102. See also Intergenerational literacy programs; Reading programs emergent literacy and, 157, 158, 413, 427, 442443, 457, 478 family literacy research, 2324, 855, 859864, 862864 Latin America, 4347 Literacy research, 72, 103, 125, 189, 291, 345, 621, 745, 884, 923. See also Educational research; Ethnographic approaches; Integrative intergenerational research; Literacy achievement research; Literacy related topics; Literature response research; Narrative inquiry; Practice; Reading research; Single-subject experiments; Technology; Writing, research policy research and, 923929 Literacy researchers, 99, 100, 103, 155 Literacy standards, 352. See also Policy research Literacy theory, 99, 167, 385, 394, 396, 610, 923 Literacy analysis, 49, 167, 370, 575. See also Children's literature genre and, 362, 365, 370 journals, 216, 365 Literature, 49, 100, 367. See also Children's literature; Discussion; Literature related topics; Multicultural literature; Reading activities activities, 566567, 573575 functions, 368369 interpretation, 575, 638 popular, 49, 50 quality, 370371 reading, 102, 217, 392 roles of, 637639 study of, 396397. See also Literature study circles young adult, 638, 640 Literature-based curriculum, 361, 394, 396, 632, 912 Literature-based reading instruction, 220, 393, 396, 570, 632, 825, 829, 846. See also Basal and literature-based instruction; Elementary level; Ethnographic approaches; Quantitative methods; Reading activities; Reading performance children's literature and, 361, 362, 369371, 374 children's responses to, 566, 575 cognitive processes and, 566, 574, 575 content area reading and, 575577, 637641 effects of, studies evaluating, 567, 573574 historical perspectives, 563565 integrated, 595596 language arts, 567, 574, 576, 580, 837, 845
literacy achievement and, 567, 572574 literacy development and, 569, 576, 580 practice/policymaking implications, 580581 qualitative methods, 568, 574, 575, 579, 581 reading attitudes and, 577580 responsive reading and, 563, 565566 social interactivity, 574575 special populations, 577578 strategic, 572575 theoretical perspectives, 565566 v. traditional programs, 566577, 572, 578579 Literature Lost, 385 Literature response, 362, 632. See also Classroom practice; Literature response research; Responsive reading gender differences and, 392, 393 responsive reading and, 80, 91, 104, 167, 618 text structure and, 386387 Literature response research, 365, 374, 381, 614. See also African Americans; Classroom practice; Empirical approaches; Multicultural education; Sociocultural research children's literature, 366373 content analysis and, 385, 389 context, 393395 critical approaches, 385388, 396 political tradition, 382385, 396 theoretical perspectives, 386, 389, 396 unanswered questions, 396397 Literature review, 36, 88, 117. See also Research synthesis data analysis and, 210, 221 empirical approaches, 209, 210 listings of, 212213 narrative, 210, 222 selectivity and, 220, 224 Literature study circles (LSC's), 372, 507, 637638 Local educational policy, 8, 32, 842843, 891, 926927 Locus of control, 184, 751 Logic, 144 Logical-positivist ideology, 48 Longitudinal studies, 417, 439, 728, 877, 893, 901 phonological awareness and, 487, 493 M Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), 231, 232. See also Dyslexia; Phonological processing gender differences in, 237240 Magnetoencephalography (MEG), 232 Mainstreaming, 44, 70, 621, 675, 836, 839, 848, 866
Mandarin-English speakers, 816817 Manuscripts, 114, 116, 118, 119 Mapping, 270, 274, 512 Maps, 614, 657 Marginalization, 619 Latin American, 4950 Marxist ideology, 3033, 37, 42, 47, 58 critical theory and, 145148 Maryland State Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), 924 Materials, 191, 215, 218, 595, 612. See also Guide material; Instructional materials reading, 7, 148, 302 Matthew effect, 405, 681 Meaning, 142, 348, 387, 602. See also Meaning construction; Situated meaning; Spelling; Text; Word based instruction, 4, 7 and context, 142, 196 reader's creation of, 365, 367 and skills, 195, 342 socially constructed. See Social constructism
< previous page
page_995
next page >
< previous page
page_996
next page > Page 996
vocabulary learning and, 505, 513 Meaning construction, 167, 295, 299, 571. See also Electronic hypertexts; Knowledge-processing; Reading comprehension; Reading, for meaning; Text-processing; Understanding Measurement, 189, 191 phonological awareness, 494495 research relevance and, 220221 Measurement perspective, policy research, 909, 910, 915921, 923, 924, 929931 Measures, 11, 102, 184, 192, 210, 429, 568, 620, 819. See also Process measures; Word knowledge Medical model, 669, 670 Memoirs, 114, 125 Memorization, 31, 630, 653 rote, 33, 529530 word learning and, 269, 274 Memory, 18, 125, 286, 535, 547, 566. See also Knowledge-processing; Memorization; Phonological memory; Recall; Text-processing living, 115, 118 tasks, 258, 276 verbal, 275, 493 working, 171, 276, 493 Mental constructs, 726727 Mental models, 775 Mental processes, 58, 164, 295, 342. See also Mind social interactivity and, 195199 Mental representation. See Text-processing; Knowledge-processing Mental retardation, 669 Meta-Analysis in Social Research, 214 Meta-analytic procedures, 189, 210, 221, 508, 517, 856 Metacognition, 58, 59, 212, 276, 440, 443, 567, 657, 797 Metacognitive ability and, 650651, 657 Metacognitive research, college studying and, 650651 Metacognitive strategies, 101, 191, 299, 825826, 830 Metalinguistic awareness, 59, 262, 673. See also Bilingual reading; Emergent literacy achievement Metalinguistic demands (on word learning), 270, 273 context use and, 275277 definition use and, 273, 274, 277278, 280 memorization and, 269, 274 reading ability and, 274276 word parts/morphological awareness and, 273275 Metalinguistic development. See Development Methods, 78, 222, 381, 671, 721. See also Correlational methods; Experimental methods; Instruction; Naturalistic methods; Practice; Qualitative methods; Research; Research methodology; Statistical methods; Study classes, 629630, 632 v. methodology, 7879
Mexicans, 364, 819, 826 Mexico, 42, 47, 48 Michigan educational policy, 913 educational reform and, 898899, 912 reading, 898900, 921922 teacher education, 899900 Middle school, 89, 353, 404, 413, 578, 620, 638 Mini-lessons, 160, 825 Minimal competency testing (MCT), 915 Minimally brain damaged (MBD), 669, 670 Minority groups, 10, 102, 826, 856 Minority students, 89, 102, 158, 370, 646 Modality matching, 671 Modeling, 346, 372, 417, 555, 573, 673, 681 Modern composition theory, 197 Modernism, 116, 128, 147 Monolingual reading, compared to bilingual reading, 816817, 821, 822, 829 Morality, 382, 383, 733 Morphological awareness, 273275 Morphological processes, 527, 532533, 799 Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ), 651 Motivation, 36, 89, 118, 279, 577, 821, 846. See also Cognitive processes; Protocol analysis; Reading motivation college studying and, 651, 652 critical approaches and, 141, 142 extrinsic, 405, 406, 407, 409, 417 intrinsic, 302, 403409, 411, 413, 414, 417 multimedia literacy and, 778779 research, 6667 technology and, 750752 text learning and, 296298, 301 Motivations for Reading Scale, 858 Multicultural education, 791. See also African Americans; Cultural diversity; Multicultural literature; Skills-based instruction bias and, 839, 840 children's literature and, 364, 368, 372 content area reading and, 637638 educational equity and, 836, 837 ethnicity and, 835, 837 funding and, 840844, 846 literacy instruction and, 838840, 845 literature response research, 390391, 397 reading teacher education and, 731732 social class and, 835, 837, 842 socioeconomic issues, 835, 841, 842 title 1 funding, 842, 844, 846
Multicultural literature, 390391, 839 Multidisciplinarity. See Children's literature Multilingualism, 6, 8, 43, 795796 Multimedia literacy. See also Computer future research and, 784785 literacy achievement and, 774776 motivation and, 778779 special populations and, 776778 Multiple modalities research, 752753, 829 Mythic criticism, 365 N Narration, 389 Narrative, 159, 199, 290, 318, 362. See also Genre; Text oral, 124, 131 production research, 340341
< previous page
page_996
next page >
< previous page
page_997
next page > Page 997
style, 84t, 87t, 91, 155, 340341 theory, 365, 369 written, 124, 127, 129, 130, 131, 134, 135, 160 Narrative inquiry, 127, 157. See also Autobiography; Autoethnographies; Biography; Instruction; Life histories; Literacy research; Literary journalism; Memoirs; Oral history; Personal narratives; Storytelling analysis, 124, 127, 128 critiques of, 124125, 129130 ethnographic approaches and, 132, 133 postmodernism and, 123124, 134, 136, 137 practice and, 135137 representation and, 123, 124, 129, 132135, 137 research, 124128, 134136 subjectivity/reflexive self and, 123124, 129130, 134 truth claims (legitimacy) and, 123125, 129132, 134137 Narrative reviews, 210, 222 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 381, 389, 564, 616, 845, 903, 905906, 917, 921, 922, 928 National Association for the Education of Young Children, 678 National Association for Remedial Teachers, 54 National Center on Education in the Inner Cities, 894 National Center for Family Literacy (NCAL), 859, 860, 861, 863 National Center on Fathers and Families, 875 National Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), 923 National Center for Learning Disabilities, 71 National Commission on Excellence in Education, 889, 892, 909, 910 National Council on Education Standards and Testing (NCEST), 911 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 905, 923 National Curriculum. See Curriculum National Educational Association, 588 National Educational Goals, 836, 911 National Evaluation Information system (NEIS), 861 National Foundation for Educational Research, 25 National Goals 2000, 352, 911 National Governors' Association, 892 National Institute of Child Health (NICHD), 889, 891892, 902, 905, 923 National Reading Conference, 218, 646 National Reading Research Center (NRRC), 67, 923 National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement (CELA), 903 National Research Council, 771, 906 National Society for the Study of Education (NSSE), 211, 213, 601 National standards, 25, 71. See also Educational policy National Teachers Examination (NTE), 725 National Writing Project, 693 Native Americans, 364, 835
Native language, reading/instruction, 814, 815, 818, 822, 827, 829, 837838 Naturalistic methods, 7, 71, 72, 144, 433 Nazism, 144 Neurobiology. See Brain imaging Neutrality, 48, 142, 143 New literacy studies, 27 New science and technology studies, 196197 New Standards Project, 911, 918 New York State, 928 New Zealand, 668 improving equity in, 1012 instruction methods, 912 trends/issues, 89 Node Acquisition and Integration Technique (NAIT), 657 Novels, 169, 170, 290 Nucleos Educativos Comunales (NED), 45 O Observational studies, 36, 417, 508, 509, 612 Oddity task, 252254, 256, 258 Office of Education Research and Improvement (OERI), 889, 910 Onset-rime awareness, 20, 485, 492 phoneme and, 251252 phonological awareness and, 20, 253, 258261, 264 reading development and, 254256 Open school movement, 44, 589 Oral history, 113, 114, 115, 118 Oral language, 805. See also Emergent literacy achievement; Spoken language; Written language classroom, 339, 441 comprehension, 345, 347349, 899 development, 4, 369 proficiency, 818819, 824826, 829, 830 research, 341, 372 vocabulary processes, 279280 Oral narrative, 124, 131 Oral reading, 102, 192, 470, 613, 672, 820, 838. See also Read-aloud activities Oral text, 614615, 620 Organization, 46, 48, 212, 291, 321, 361. See also Classroom; Professional oragnizations reading policy, 899900 school, 890, 895897 text, 290, 313 Orthographic analogies, phonological development and, 260262 Orthographic knowledge, 818 developmental phases, 531, 532 spelling and, 528, 529, 531, 532, 534, 535, 537
Orthographic processing, 235237 dyslexia and, 235237, 240241 Orthography, 229, 261, 263, 441, 483 Outcomes. See also Learning; Reading classroom, 416417 literacy, assessment and, 428429 P Paired reading, 21, 24 Paradigm elaboration, 5758 Paragraph, 60, 598
< previous page
page_997
next page >
< previous page
page_998
next page > Page 998
functions, 312313 knowledge-processing and, 321, 323 text-processing and, 311, 315319 Parent, 25, 33, 54, 70, 105. See also Parent-child interactivity academic achievement, 863864 bilingualism, 6, 36 involvement, 21, 844, 878 language use, 6, 8, 36 perceptions, 438, 880 Parent and Child Education Program (PACE), 860861 Parent-child interactivity, 21. See also Book, reading; Family literacy; Intergenerational literacy; Storybook reading Parenting, 876, 880 Participation, See Classroom participation; Text learning; Pedagogy Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, 827, 856, 861, 862 Pedagogical knowledge/educational issues, 3536, 291, 363, 528, 600, 602, 610, 635, 699, 931 Pedagogical processes, 4, 12, 33, 45, 48, 148, 199, 391, 699, 826, 896 Pedagogical research, 3537 critical, 146, 147 teacher research and, 692, 696, 700t Pedagogy. See also Reading; Text learning literacy, 34, 149 participatory, 610611, 616621 transmission, 610617 Peer, 21, 89, 349, 437, 441. See also Discussion activities learning, 350351 Perception, 535, 565. See also Student parent, 438, 880 Perceptual disability, 670671 Performance. See also College studying; Reading performance; Spelling assessment, 916918, 923925 crisis of representation and, 132134 cultural diversity and, 845, 847 goal orientation, 407410 learners, 189, 801 student, 37, 71, 393, 573, 727, 921 writing, 918, 920 Peru, 45 Philosophy, 49, 88, 124, 125, 839 Phoneme, 19, 347, 527.
See also Grapheme-phoneme relations; Phoneme related topics blending, 20, 256 deletion, 20, 483, 494 manipulations, 494495 onset-rime awareness and, 251252 segmentation, 20, 483485, 490, 492 Phoneme-letter correspondences, 262, 274, 348 Phoneme level, 262 phonological awareness and, 255256, 258, 260, 263264 Phonics, 115. See also U.S. Educational policy instruction, 11, 104, 467, 564, 580, 669, 820, 847, 896, 903 Phonological awareness, 7, 12. See also Early reading interventions; Epilinguistic knowledge; Kindergarten interventions; Onset-rime awareness; Phoneme level; Phonological related topics analogy requiring, 261262 assessment/measurement methods, 485492, 494495 bilingual reading and, 817, 818 dyslexia and, 229230, 260 emergent literacy achievement and, 486, 494, 580 family literacy research, 857858 letter-sound knowledge and, 1920, 348, 488489, 535 reading acquisition and, 11, 18, 24, 428, 483488, 493, 495, 902 reading comprehension and, 486, 488 reading development and, 18, 24, 251258, 260264, 276, 483 reading difficulties and, 251, 254, 276, 486, 493, 495, 892 reading instruction and, 11, 352, 486, 487, 488, 490492 socioeconomic issues, 457, 489490 sound/print connection, 484, 487491, 494 speech/alphabet connection, 483484 spelling and, 19, 254, 261, 489491 word knowledge and, 485, 486, 488493, 495 writing and, 469t, 474t Phonological development. See also Lexical development; Phonological processing early/emergent, 440, 463464 and orthographic analogies, 260262 sequence of, 252253 studies, 24, 485486 Phonological memory, 257258, 276, 493 Phonological processing, 11, 229, 797. See also Coding; Lexical development; Morphological processes; Orthographic related topics abilities, relationships among, 493494 clinical perspective, 245245 cognitive processes and, 252, 257 MRI and, 234237, 240241, 243244 Phonological recoding, 11, 276
Phonological representation, 258. See also Phonological knowledge hypothesis, testing, 259260 phonological awareness and, 256260, 264, 495 of speech, 251, 258 Phonological skills, 24, 253 Phonological structure, 348, 483, 486 Phonological training, 19, 23 Phonology, 24, 240, 532 Piagetian theory, 367, 531 Picture storytelling, 429, 572 Plato, 163, 384, 385 Play, dramatic, 92. See also Sociodramatic play Poetry, 169, 170, 383, 385 Poland, 33 Policy, 106. See also Analysis; Educational policy; Policy related topics; Public policy; United Kingdom program evaluation and, 99, 105106 Policymakers, 100, 103, 381, 674, 719, 755, 763, 842, 889, 909, 923 Policymaking educational, 890, 892, 901, 904
< previous page
page_998
next page >
< previous page
page_999
next page > Page 999
implications, 580581 Policy for practice, 18, 99, 209, 929 assessment and, 926, 927 first generation of, 890892 second generation of, 892894 state educational policy and, 890892, 895, 898900 U. S. educational policy, 54, 6870 Policy research, 659, 748, 836, 889906. See also Educational policy; Implementation; Learning; Literacy achievement research; Measurement perspective; Professional development; Teacher education accountability and, 913, 918, 921 around the world, 4, 17, 2526, 3031, 36, 47 bilingual reading and, 815816, 820, 821 classroom assessment and, 910927, 930931 early public education and, 793796 educational equity and, 836, 837, 841843, 890891 educational reform, 352, 889890, 909914, 921, 929 emergent literacy research, 903906 evaluation, 910, 915, 928 excellence and, 836, 889, 892, 903905, 909, 910 federal, 841842, 889, 890891 literacy research and, 923929 literacy standards and, 910, 915, 929931 performance assessment and, 916918, 923925 reading policy and, 841843, 921923 reliability, 917, 918, 921 review of, 910912 special populations and, 841843 state educational policy and, 900903 subject-matter, 910, 913, 928, 930 validity, 917, 921, 923, 929 Policy Research in Education (CPRE), 895, 897 Political issues, 32, 36, 391, 446. See also Literature response research children's literature and, 363364 critical approaches and, 141143, 146149 Latin America, 4244, 4850 standards and, 56 technological change and, 747748 U. S. educational policy, 58, 59, 70 Popular education, 44, 46, 47 Popular literature, 49, 50 Portfolios, 160, 415, 731 assessment of, 918920, 923, 925, 926
Portugese language, 42 Positivism, 5859, 124, 446 critique of, 144145 Positron Emission Tomography (PET), 137, 233235 Postmodernism, 58, 72, 111, 147, 197. See also Narrative inquiry discourse and, 197 educational ethnology and, 157 influence of, 363 Postmortem studies, 231 Poststructuralism, 149 Poverty. See Economic concerns Power, 141, 147148, 197 Practice. See also Classroom practice; Educational practice; Instruction; Language; Literacy practice; Policy for practice; Research practice impacts on, 21, 30 implications for, 99, 136, 580581 narrative inquiry and, 135137 and policy, 18, 54, 6870 program evaluation and, 99, 105106 and research, connection, 6870 and research, gap, 68, 103 and theory, 78, 88, 99, 195, 693, 721 Pragmatism, 71, 84t, 87t, 90 Praise, 414415 Prediction, 192, 575, 820821 questions, 820821 Prefix, 60 Preschool Inventory, 861 Preservice teacher, 393, 750. See also Teacher education beliefs/practices, 631633, 639 education, 4, 158 literature study, 637638 Primary Assessment of Language Arts and Mathematics (PALM), 926927 Primary grades, 12, 338, 509, 672. See also Elementary level Primary language, 210, 220, 224. See also First-language reading; Native language multicultural education and, 835, 837 Print. See also Emergent literacy achievement; Sound awareness, 820, 829 based-instruction, 672673 environmental, 84, 439 information, 115, 439, 484, 609, 617 interactivity around, 878880
knowledge, 347348, 440, 820, 829, 854855 texts, 115, 132, 134, 609, 615, 617, 620 word knowledge, 347348 Prior knowledge, 72, 215, 216, 413, 431, 511, 857. See also Reading comprehension individual differences in, 752, 754755 research, college studying and, 649650 technology and, 752, 775 text content and, 549550 text learning and, 290, 291, 293, 612, 616 text-processing and, 312, 313, 319, 392, 549551 Problem definition, 223 selection, 772 Problem solving, 68, 164, 174, 294, 534, 616, 670, 733, 775. See also Intergeneational literacy Process. See also Processes; Processing; Process measures model, 647 writing, 64, 66, 149, 693 Processes, 49. See also Cognitive processes; Instruction; Interactive approach; Learning processes; Literacy processes; Mental processes; Pedagogical processes; Reading processes; Social processes; Strategic processes; Writing coding, 221222 constructive, 61, 165 Processing. See also Information-processing; Knowledge-processing; Language; Lexi-
< previous page
page_999
next page >
< previous page
page_1000
next page > Page 1000
cal processing; Literacy processes; Phonological processing; Processes; Semantic processing; Text-processing; Visual processing; Word-processing discourse, 313317, 349 evaluative feedback, 408 schematic, 549550 Process measures, 171 emergent literacy research and, 433435, 439, 443, 444 Professional community, 111, 113, 702 Professional context, 462t, 469t, 471, 475, 781 Professional development, 54, 174, 476, 538, 844. See also Development, staff; Teacher education educational policy and, 894, 895 features, 458, 463, 467 integrated curriculum and, 598599 opportunities, 470, 580 policy research, 900901, 910, 911, 918, 920921, 924, 927, 930, 931 Professional organizations, 5354, 693 Program, 671, 837. See also Assessment; Development; Education; Immersion programs; Instruction; Literacy programs; Program evaluation; Teacher education book-based, 910 college studying and, 658659 commercial, 2122 effectiveness, 100, 102, 104, 726728 implementation, 5, 2324, 49, 103, 105 research implications, 658659 Program evaluation, 21, 338, 657, 661, 877. See also Reading Recovery Program; Research practice; Theory experimental design and, 99106 experimental documentation and, 102104 instructional programs, 4849 interpretive approaches, 104106 qualitative methods and, 99, 102103 traditional, 100103 Progressive Education Movement, 588589 Progressivism, 149 Project-based pedagogies, 620621 Project FLAME, 862, 864 Project READ, 443 Pronunciation, 240, 263, 495, 527 spelling and, 527, 532 tasks, dyslexia and, 233234 Protocol analysis. See also Reading acquisition; Responsive reading; Text-processing; Text use cognitive processes and, 163165
cognitive psychology and, 165, 166, 168, 174 cognitive strategies, 163170, 172175 future foci of, reading and, 173175 motivation and, 167, 169, 173, 174 research methodology, 165173 social aspects, 163, 169, 170, 172175 Psycholinguistics, 3, 18, 58, 60, 214 Psychological Bulletin, 210 Psychological processes, 7, 142, 367, 681, 882 Psychologists, 8, 17, 23, 26, 54, 58, 100, 144, 338, 445, 854, 880 Psychology, 48, 58, 105, 142, 144, 158, 163, 182, 196, 211, 602, 854 PsycInfo, 216 Public education, 44, 383, 669, 746, 791, 909, 910 second-language acquisition and, 793796 Public Law 94142, 891 Public policy, 763764, 889 Puerto Ricans, 43, 364, 621, 814, 882 Punctuation, 7, 861 Q Qualitative methods, 100, 153, 363, 418, 437, 660, 724, 823, 853. See also Content area classrooms; Literature-based reading instruction; Policy research; Quantitative methods; Single-subject experiments; Teacher research methodology; U. S. educational policy around the world, 7, 21, 47, 48 bilingual reading and, 823, 830 content area classrooms, 629, 632634 Exceptional Children and, 7071 family literacy research and, 853, 877 historical research and, 112115 program evaluation, 99, 102103 protocol analysis and, 166, 173 research synthesis, 210, 223 Quantitative methods, 7, 49, 58, 72, 91, 100, 189, 210, 223, 363, 418, 428, 437, 660, 677, 830, 853. See also Hierarchical regression; Item response theory historical research and, 112115 literature-based instruction and, 574, 575, 579, 581 protocol analysis and, 166, 173 and qualitative methods, 103, 112, 113, 210, 927 Question, 192 evolution, 83t, 8788 formulation, 214215 framing, 115, 592 from within, 83t, 84 generation, 655, 825 inferential, 182, 184 prediction, 820821 relevant/appropriate, 346, 349
research, 155, 210, 361, 443444, 704705, 708 selecting materials for, 118, 214 Questioning, 353, 404, 614. See also Instruction teacher, 681, 729 Questionnaires, 366, 406, 620, 657, 724, 862 R Race, 65, 66, 147, 369, 489, 490, 611, 873, 875 historical research and, 113, 115, 116 intergenerational literacy and, 873, 875, 877, 879, 881 Random assignment, 100, 101 Rasch scaling, 5 RATE (Research About Teacher Education), 727 Rationality, 143144 Read-aloud activities, 9, 340. See also Children's literature intergenerational literacy and, 878 literature-based reading instruction and, 566569 storybook reading and, 568569, 571
< previous page
page_1000
next page >
< previous page
page_1001
next page > Page 1001
Reader, 388, 546, 565 characteristics, 165, 167 contextual effects and, 2021 engagement, 403, 637 importance, 291, 365 interest, 296299 poor, instruction and, 515517 response, 367368, 391393 Reading. See also Bilingual reading; Book; Content area reading; Oral reading; Strategic reading ability, 4, 1819, 165, 274275, 683, 879 assessment, 921923, 928 attitudes, 10, 105, 369, 577580, 636637 behaviors, 53, 66, 7172, 429, 570, 613 close, 22, 365, 386, 393 competence, 190, 262, 352, 392, 412, 480, 495, 528, 564, 845 comprehensive, 404, 410, 415 conceptions of, changes in, 5967 as a constructive process, 61, 165 conventional, 425426, 445, 458 critical approaches, 142143, 167, 215, 621 curriculum, 7, 563565 definitions, 921923 education, 54, 59, 72, 91, 215 failure, 11, 12, 345, 347, 352, 483, 673, 682 frequency, 636637 independent, 371, 567, 573 interactivity, 24, 125, 361, 563, 564, 864865, 878880 intergenerational literacy and, 872, 876, 878 knowledge, 896897 literature, 102, 217, 392 materials, 7, 148, 302 for meaning, 34, 365, 367, 445, 467, 572, 630, 900 measures of, 11, 443 outcomes, 8, 167, 232234, 405, 416 out-of-classroom, 621622 pedagogy, 2123, 476, 792, 890, 899, 904905 preferences, 366368, 392 progress, 18, 2022, 253, 263, 676, 680 purposes, 6, 861 readiness, 425, 428, 878 repeated, 371372, 430, 470, 504, 571, 613, 673 scores, 258, 569 specialists, 680, 722
and spelling, 263, 264, 533, 534536, 537, 538 study of, 68, 142 styles, 10, 371, 372, 569, 570 theory, 168, 173, 189, 791, 921922 types of, miscellaneous, 132, 387, 567 understanding, 165, 169, 173, 403 vocabulary, 26, 262, 263 workshops, 8788, 619621 and writing, 5, 78, 44, 211, 563, 800 Reading acquisition, 9, 142, 148, 262, 371, 572, 918. See also Early reading interventions; Learning; Phonological awareness; Reading comprehension; Second-language acquisition; Word knowledge emergent literacy acquisition and, 428429 engaged reading and, 404405, 416 English, 254, 262, 791 funds for study of, 478 intergenerational, 863, 877 protocol analysis and, 168169, 173175 reading research and, 4, 340 remedial reading and, 672, 677, 682683 responsive reading and, 168169, 173 text learning and, 296298 Reading activities, 350, 371. See also Book; Read-aloud activities; Shared-reading experiences; Silent reading; Small-group activities home/school, 2123 Reading comprehension, 5, 220, 276, 362, 575, 646. See also Instruction research; Reading comprehension research; Reading development; Reading instruction; Reading skills; Vocabulary instruction; Word, level classroom language and, 344349 conscious/controllable processing and, 550551 decoding and, 546548, 551552, 556 elementary level, 533, 556, 557 engaged reading and, 403405, 411 meaning construction and, 321326, 328, 329 phonological awareness and, 486, 488 prior knowledge and, 549550, 649650 reading teacher education and, 721, 729 second-language, 796, 797, 800, 803, 805, 818, 819, 823 strategic reading and, 554556, 572574 teacher-student interactivity and, 570571 Reading comprehension research, 187, 374, 443. See also Early reading interventions; Reading instruction research U. S. policy and, 6163, 69 Reading development, 89, 458, 533, 575, 682, 818. See also Beginning reading; Bilingual reading; Literacy development; Phonological awareness; Rhyme; Word learning African Americans, 877878 causal connections in, 263, 264
early reading interventions and, 458, 464, 467 educational policy and, 896897 first-grade interventions and, 464, 467 lexical development and, 251, 259260 and nonsense word repetition, 257, 258 older children, 821822 onset-rime awareness and, 254256 programs, commercial, 2122 reading comprehension and, 22, 556557 reading instruction and, 680, 685 responsive reading and, 367368 Reading difficulties/disability, 446, 456. See also Phonological awareness; Special education causes, hypotheses about, 668669 prevention, 673, 676, 904, 906 research, 727728 Reading Excellence Act (REA), 904905 Reading fluency, 192, 371, 493, 556, 797, 821 early reading interventions and, 467, 468t, 470, 473t print-based instruction and, 672673 Reading instruction. See also Beginning reading instruction; Bilingual reading; ESL; In-
< previous page
page_1001
next page >
< previous page
page_1002
next page > Page 1002
struction; Literature-based reading instruction; Native language; Phonics; Phonological awareness; Reading instruction research; Remedial reading comprehension, 549551 emergent, family literacy and, 819821 older students, 824826, 830 reading development and, 680, 685 reading motivation and, 409416 reading teacher education, 726727, 731 second-language acquisition, 797800, 805, 820821 Reading instruction research, 923. See also Reading comprehension research children's literature, 369371 early reading interventions, 476480 reading comprehension and, 101, 169, 545546, 553557, 729 reading policy, 53, 64, 65, 72, 889895, 901, 904906, 912 research synthesis and, 211212 Reading motivation, 165, 340, 362, 383, 566, 682, 858. See also Elementary level; Engaged reading; Self-efficacy; Social processes age and, 408409 learning, 407410 nature of, 406408 reading instruction and, 409416 shifts/declines in, 408409 Reading performance, 26, 173, 839. See also Bilingual reading literature-based reading instruction and, 566, 574, 579 self-efficacy and, 407408 Reading policy, 838, 844. See also Reading instruction research; U. S. educational policy background/organization, 889890 educational equity and, 890891 educational reform and, 900903 policy research and, 1718, 841843, 921923 state, 898903, 905, 921922 Reading practice, 6, 142, 393, 673 content area reading, 631636, 639 engaged reading, 369, 373374 literature instruction and, 580581 sociocultural perspectives, 68, 384385 Reading processes, 20, 534, 681. See also Responsive reading; Social processes; Text learning affect and, 403404, 563, 822 cognitive, 36, 61, 163166, 403404, 555 research, 1720, 26, 48, 59, 101, 166170, 235
Reading programs, See Basal reading programs; Literacy programs; Reading recovery program Reading Recovery program, 3, 18, 64, 820. See also First-grade interventions; Reading programs beginning reading and, 547548 doubts about, 1112 effectiveness, 213, 463 evaluation of, 5, 2324, 102 lower-ability students and, 910, 24 remedial reading and, 672, 674, 685 Reading research. See also Academic research; Australia; Content area reading; Early reading interventions; Latin America; Literacy research; Methods; New Zealand; Reading related topics; Research; Second-language reading research; United Kingdom content area, 629631 literacy practice and, 1718, 2627 trends, 4, 89, 26, 53, 5758, 61, 72 Reading Research Quarterly, 5461, 64, 66, 69, 72, 148, 210 Reading skills, 71, 87, 612. See also Cross-linguistic transfer reading comprehension, 545, 546, 548, 551, 556 Reading teacher education. See also Teacher education; Theoretical perspectives dominant traditions, 722723 elementary level, 723, 725 history of reviews about, 720723 methodology, 721, 729, 732 multicultural education, 731732 reading instruction, 726727, 731 unresolved problems of, 729730, 732734 Reading teachers. See Reading teacher education; Remedial reading; The Reading Teacher Reasoning, 36, 45, 144, 170, 300 Recall, 17, 192, 657, 775, 803 competent learners and, 300301 electronic hypertexts and, 327328 knowledge-processing, 322, 323 second-language, 800801 text-processing, 318320, 322, 575, 612, 616 Reciprocal teaching. See Instruction, reciprocal Recording, 191, 341, 366 Reductionism, xi, 144, 269 Reductionist perspectives, 269270 Reference information, 119, 224, 371, 646 Reflection, 728, 730, 734 Reflexive processes, 23. See also Classroom inquiry; Narrative inquiry methodological, 129130 subjectivity and. See Narrative inquiry teacher research, 8889
Regression procedures, 18, 20 Relativism, problems of, 137 Reliability, 25, 171, 222, 660. See also Policy research single-subject experiments, 183, 192 Religious issues, 835, 881 American public education and, 794, 795 literature response and, 382383 Remedial reading, 667, 671, 839. See also Elementary level; Reading acquisition; Reading Recovery program; Special education beliefs about, 682685 cultural diversity and, 839 current issues/trends, 673674 funding and, 674677 historical perspective, 668670 paraprofessionals and, 677679 print-based instruction and, 672673 reading instruction and, 668, 672, 679, 682685 reading progress and, 676, 680 services, effectiveness of, 675676 teachers, 679680, 682684 turning point in, 680682 volunteer reading tutors and, 678679 Remediation. See Remedial reading
< previous page
page_1002
next page >
< previous page
page_1003
next page > Page 1003
Replication. See Research synthesis; Single-subject experiments Reporting, 155, 220. See also Classroom inquiry; Reports Reports, 110. See also Self-reports; Verbal reports; Written reports research findings, 220224, 925 Representation, 291. See also Data; Lexical representation; Mental representation; Narrative inquiry; Phonological representation crisis, performance and, 132134 miscellaneous types of, 48, 240, 488, 775 of sound, 527528 word, 236, 251, 270 written, 488, 526 Representative studies, 82, 252 Rereading, 191, 312, 467, 550, 551, 856 Research, 103, 141, 417. See also Academic research; Cultural diversity; Development; Reading research; Research related topics; Socioeconomic issues; Writing agenda, xii, xiv, 32, 133, 136, 341, 704, 889, 931 applied, 103, 156 changing conceptions of, 5759 focus, 80, 118, 166, 341, 629, 853 generalizations, 68, 72, 73, 114, 366, 749 methods, 106, 155, 389, 693, 694 traditional, 26, 78, 93, 695, 762, 873 Research design, xi, 36, 60, 171, 853. See also Design; Experimental design; Single-subject experiments; Time-series design Research literature, 49, 100, 405, 732, 758759 Research methodology, 36, 68, 92, 124, 164, 195, 338, 341, 729, 754, 913. See also Analysis; Assessment; Evaluation; Intervention; Methods; Research synthesis; Teacher research methodology children's literature, 361363, 365, 366 college studying, 653, 660 emergent literacy research and, 446447 narrative inquiry, 134135 protocol analysis and, 165167 reflexive processes, 129130 Research practice. See also Picture storytelling; Practice; Storytelling applications. See Vocabulary instruction children's literature and, 369, 373374 program evaluation and, 99, 101, 105106 second-language acquisition and, 792793, 804805 Research synthesis, 853, 930. See also Analysis; ERIC indexes; Search techniques bias and, 214217, 219, 224 family literacy research, 853, 854
formulating questions for, 214215 generalization and, 210, 211, 214 history, 209214 interpretive issues, 209, 222223 knowledge accumulation and, 209, 224 literature review and, 209210, 212213, 215, 219224 methodology, 209210, 212214, 216, 219222, 224, 225 reading instruction research, 211212 replication and, 209, 213, 215, 224 second-language research and, 796800 social processes and, 195197 validity and, 214, 221, 224 Resources, 45, 68, 117, 595, 601, 743, 913 allocation of, 840, 842844, 905 community, 89, 620 equity of, 10, 12, 841 limited, 33, 890, 905 Response. See also Literature response; Responsive reading; Written response category, 168, 389 single-subject experiments and, 182184, 187 Responsive reading 84, 365, 385, 638, 640. See also; Literature response; Reading competency; Literature-based reading instruction; Reader, response children and, 566, 571572, 575 processes, 391393 protocol analysis and, 164, 167168 reading acquisition and, 168169, 173 reading development and, 367368 storybook reading and, 571572 Results, 171, 234 bias of, 214, 215 generality of, 182, 192 reporting of, 223224, 925 task effects on, 327328 Rethinking Schools, 148 Review of Educational Research, 210, 646 Review of Research in Education, 210 Rhetorical devices knowledge-processing and, 321, 322, 324 text-processing and, 311, 313, 315 Rhyme, 236, 464, 487. See also Rime detection, 1820 reading development and, 254, 256, 263 sensitivity/awareness, 1820, 492, 494 Rime, 256, 257, 262
awareness, reading/spelling and, 262, 263 Ritalin, 672 Romans, 110111 Rorschach symdrome, 136 Russian, 148, 820 Russia. See Soviet Union S Sampling, 221 SAT scores, 381, 921 Scaffolding, 434, 722, 878. See also Dialogue; Instruction process, storybook reading and, 569570 sequences, 346347 supportive, 344346 Schema, 199. See also U. S. educational policy contextualized version of, 199 cultural, 64, 821822 processing, 549550 theory, 196, 796797 Scholars, 99, 117, 129, 135, 148, 214, 362, 363, 383, 385, 389, 588 Scholarship, 58, 134, 149, 160, 362, 364, 375, 381, 691. See also Critical scholarship literacy history and, 111113
< previous page
page_1003
next page >
< previous page
page_1004
next page > Page 1004
second-language, 791792 School, 53. See also Grade level; Schooling management, 12, 32, 37 organization, 890, 895897 patterns, 839841 restructuring, 32, 36, 890, 895, 910, 929 Schooling, 88, 115, 339, 404, 610, 794, 853, 880. See also Classroom; Critical approaches; Education foreign, literacy research and, 6, 8, 2224, 31, 3738 formal, 48, 112, 347 histories of, 111112 roles of, 20, 112, 141 Scientific Studies of Reading, 57 Search techniques, 224, 646. See also Computer; ERIC indexes bias and, 216, 217 comprehensiveness and, 217219 Secondary level, 22, 31, 43, 100, 513, 815, 893. See also Elementary and Secondary Education Act; High school level content area reading and, 632, 635, 636, 638, 639 literature study and, 396397 remedial reading and, 674675 text learning and, 609, 612, 616 Second-grade interventions, 673, 676. See also Instructional components reading development and, 471 Reading Recovery and, 470, 476 Second-language acquisition, 18, 280, 340, 777. See also English, and second-language acquisition; First-language reading; Reading comprehension; Reading instruction; Research practice; Second-language reading research; Word knowledge bilingual reading and, 813, 814, 827 educational policy, 792796, 805 public education and, 793794 scholarship and, 791792 text structure and, 797799 Second-language reading research database, 800804 early, 792796 implications, 804805 synthesis, 796800 Self-assessment, 184, 190192 Self-efficacy, reading motivation and, 405408 instruction processes and, 409410, 413, 414, 416
learning goal orientation and, 409410 reading performance and, 407408 Self-esteem, 24, 574, 883884 Self-regulated learning, 299, 571, 650 Self-reports, 437, 508, 579, 823, 830, 864865, 921, 923, 929 Semantic content, 315, 366, 445, 526 Semantic processing, 235, 236, 328, 505, 552, 561 Semiotics, 365, 609, 610, 855 Sentence, 7, 11, 60, 258, 276, 458, 493, 816. See also Text-processing Service providers, 4, 891 Setting, 7, 165, 193, 221, 362, 370. See also Environment; Teacher research methodology educational, 441, 697, 748748 instructional, 441 Shared-reading experiences, 9, 21, 387, 428, 470, 620, 856, 878 Signaling devices, 315 Signature/mark approach, 112, 113 Silent reading, 191, 192, 593, 793, 825 Simon, Herbert, 58 Single-subject experiments, 71, 196, 199, 204, 220. See also Assessment; Research practice analysis and, 182184, 187, 189, 192, 193 baseline v. treatment conditions, 182183, 187 compared to group experimentation, 181183, 191 effects, transfer of, 182, 183, 187, 190192 experimental control and, 183, 189191 generality of results and, 182, 192 independent/dependent variables and, 181183, 189191 internal validity and, 183, 184, 189 literacy research and, 187191 qualitative methods, 183, 189, 192193 reliability and, 183, 192 replication and, 182184, 187, 190, 192193 research design, 180, 182192 response and, 182184, 187 social processes and, 182, 184 subject variability and, 184, 190191 Situated cognition, 58, 173, 196 Situated literacy, 195, 204 Situated meaning cultural models, 201202 language use and, 199, 202204 reading and, 195, 199200 sociocultural perspectives, 197199, 200204 Situational factors, 102, 103 Skills.
See also Decoding; Language; Literacy; Reading comprehension; Reading skills; Skills-based instruction; Study skills; Writing basic, 24, 647, 863, 864, 893, 910 cognitive, 36, 159 compared to strategies, 295296 discrete, 349, 611, 899 interpretive, 798799 and meaning, 195, 342 phonological, 24, 253 Skills-based instruction, 47, 673, 676 compared to whole language approach, 103104 multicultural education and, 838, 840, 846, 847 word knowledge and, 547, 552 Skinner, B. F., 58 Slovakia, 33, 34 Small-group activities, 23, 571, 574, 632, 636, 674, 838 Social change, 9, 10, 880, 882 Social class, 156, 158, 339, 881, 882. See also Class multicultural education and, 835, 837, 842 Social constructivism, 58, 405, 839 content area reading and, 629, 631, 636 Social historical theory, 157, 158, 681 Social interactivity 403, 617, 640, 780; Parent-child interactivity; Teacher-student interactivity; Classroom; Reading literature-based reading instruction and, 574575
< previous page
page_1004
next page >
< previous page
page_1005
next page > Page 1005
mental processes and, 195197 Socialization, 364, 880881 Social justice, 4, 845 Social mind, the, 197199 Social processes, 874. See also Engagement; Intergenerational literacy; Knowledge; Learning; Social interactivity; Sociocultural perspectives classroom, 338, 349353, 602, 639 reading motivation, 403, 404, 406, 408, 413414, 417 reading processes, 142143, 157, 163, 169, 170, 172175 research synthesis, 195197 single-subject experiments, 182, 184 technology and, 746747 thinking and, 197198 Social science, 141, 381, 389. See also Interpretation historical research and, 113, 115, 118 narrative inquiry and, 123, 124 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI), 219 Social variables. See Gender; Ethnicity; Class; Age Society, 47, 65, 362, 365, 630 Central and Eastern Europe, 2930, 32, 3438 text learning and, 286288 Sociocognitive perspectives, 436, 444, 609 Sociocultural perspectives. See also Bilingual reading; Culture; Integrated classroom communication; Literacy; Reading practice; Situated meaning; U. S. educational policy content area reading, 363, 629, 631632, 634, 638 critical approaches, 141, 142, 142149 education in transition and, 2930 emergent literacy achievement, 433, 436437, 441, 444 ethnographic approaches, 158, 159 family literacy, 855856 individual agency, 633, 635636 literacy learning, 436, 444 prior knowledge, 649650 text learning, 197, 203, 286289, 293, 294, 610, 617622 theoretical changes and, 5758 Sociocultural research, 437, 692. See also Situated meaning converging areas, 195199 cultural models, 201202 literature response, 386388, 393, 395, 396397 Sociodramatic play, and emergent literacy research literacy learning and, 431432
literacy related play and, 433435 Socioeconomic issues, student achievement and, 456, 480, 570, 676, 816 background/family factors, 6, 437439, 619, 890, 894 critical approaches and, 142144, 149 educational reform and, 30, 32 family literacy and, 854857, 854858, 859, 861, 863, 880 intergenerational literacy and, 835, 875, 877879 Latin America, 42, 44, 46, 4950 multicultural education, 835, 841, 842 phonological awareness and, 457, 489490 research concerns, 5759, 6566, 457 Sociolinguistic research, 142, 338341 Sociolinguistics, 58, 64, 153, 195, 610, 621 Sociology, xi, 142, 145, 197, 211, 214, 338 Socrates, 383 Sound, 348, 535. See also Letter-sound related topics; Spelling; Word, sounding out categorization, 487488 phonological awareness and, 251252 and print, 484, 487491, 494 representation of, 527528 shared, 483, 488 symbol associations, 487, 538 and word segments, 348, 440, 489 Sound Foundations, 5 Source, 224, 801. See also Bibliography; Biography; Books; Documents; Library; Manuscripts; Narrative content, scrutiny of, 118119 of data, 221, 574 identifying/locating, 116117 primary, 113114, 116, 118, 290, 658 secondary, 113114, 117, 290, 658 Southeast Asia, 825 Soviet Union, 2934, 37 Spanish colonialism, 43 Spanish-English bilingualism, 813, 818, 820, 821, 823, 825, 829831, 845 Spanish language, 4244, 275, 516, 798, 814, 817, 827 Spanish speakers, 428, 438, 825 Spatial processing, 235, 241 Speaking, 5, 196, 197, 342, 864, 922. See also Speech; Talk Special education, 37, 343, 527, 839. See also Disabled children; Reading difficulties; Remedial reading; Special populations; U. S. educational policy funding and, 891892 literature-based instruction and, 577578 reading difficulties and, 71, 669670, 679, 685, 891892 research, 7072, 338, 669, 891892, 925
U. S. educational policy, 54, 68, 7072 Special populations, 442. See also Exceptional children; Handicapped children; Learning disabled literature-based reading instruction and, 577578 multimedia and, 776778 policy research and, 841843 Specificity, 214. See also Domain and generality, 928 Speech, 134, 229, 262, 347, 353, 527, 681, 776, 856, 878. See also Speaking and alphabet, 483484 phonological representations of, 251, 258 Spelling, 6, 80, 191, 269, 345, 528529. See also English spelling; Invented spelling; Orthographic knowledge; Phonological awareness; Reading; Spelling development; Word learning ability, 19, 264, 274, 441, 483, 525, 533, 534 historical context, 528529
< previous page
page_1005
next page >
< previous page
page_1006
next page > Page 1006
and meaning, 274, 526, 531, 538 morphological awareness and, 527, 532533 performance, 232233, 818 predictors, 18, 20, 251 and pronunciation, 527, 532 and rime awareness, 262, 263 rote memorization and, 529530 and sound, 274, 525, 527528, 530, 533, 535536, 538 system, 525528, 537 and writing, 529, 534, 537, 538 Spelling development, 818. See also Spelling instruction invented spelling and, 530532 phonological awareness and, 489491 processes, 529532, 536 Spelling instruction, 492, 528, 529, 530, 532. See also Learning research, 187, 536539 spelling development and, 533544, 536 vocabulary instruction and, 537, 539 and words, 536537 Spoken language. See Oral language; Word Sponsorship, 705708 SRL models, 650651 Staff development. See Development Standardized tests, 23, 210, 353, 415, 467, 529, 588, 595, 667, 820, 821, 841, 844, 899 Standards, 26, 220. See also Language arts; Literacy standards; National standards and accountability, 844845, 891 adequacy, 56, 2526 content, 910, 911, 923 curriculum, 892, 927 and instruction, 905 politicizing, 56 research, 214, 928 for teachers, 890, 910 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, 669 State educational policy, 615, 928. See also Policy for practice; Reading policy; State educational reform assessment and, 913, 921925, 925, 928929 classroom organization and, 895897 educational equity and, 841842 instructional, 895, 897898 policy research and, 900903
school governance and, 897898, 924, 929 teacher education, 899900 State educational reform, 894895. See also California; Michigan Statistical methods, 48, 73, 100, 102, 115, 189, 210, 220, 362, 418, 801 Story, 21, 187, 615 Storybook reading, 431, 440, 442, 567. See also Experimental design adult styles, 429430 bilingual reading and, 820821, 829, 830 children's responses, 571572 family literacy and, 854, 855 language/literacy outcomes assessment and, 428429 literacy development and, 567569, 571 parent-child interactivity, 569571, 854, 878 read-aloud activities and, 568569, 571 teacher interactivity, 570571 Story grammar, 58, 61, 187, 820 Storytelling, 125, 136, 863. See also Talk aside and, 127128 biography and, 126 critiques of, 129130, 136 representation crisis and, 132, 133 research practice and, 124, 136137 Strategic comprehension, 344, 352, 353, 413, 797, 912 Strategic instruction, 413, 915, 923. See also Cognitive strategies; Content area reading multicultural education and, 839840 reading, literature-based, 572575 vocabulary, 516517 Strategic knowledge, 754, 760 Strategic learning, 36, 191, 345, 352, 505. See also College studying content area, 629, 631 text, 294296, 298 Strategic processes, 196, 294295, 299301, 797 Strategic reading, 101, 374, 822, 915, 923. See also Engaged reading; Reading comprehension; Rereading; Responsive reading; Strategic instruction Strategic studying. See College studying Strategies. See also Metacognitive strategies; Text learning compared to skills, 295296 organizing, 656657 research-validated, 654655, 659 selection of, 648, 650 transfer of. See Cross-linguistic transfer validation of, 629, 631, 639
whole language, 6, 349 word knowledge, 463464 Structural cues, text-processing and, 312, 316317, 319 Structuralism, 147, 365 Student, 340. See also Cultural diversity; Latina/o students; Learning; Minority students; Performance; Reading instruction; Reading Recovery program; Student related topics; Teacher-student interactivity; Vocabulary learning ability, 299300 attitudes/interests, 636637, 651652 behavior, 100, 182, 187, 190192, 861 beliefs, 652, 660661 choice, 411, 506507, 511512, 659 competence, 299300, 339 critical disciplinarity, 603604 differences in, 340341 discourse, 340, 611, 620 engagement, 10, 34, 338, 416417, 505506 inference, 346, 347, 575 perception, 184, 611, 649 teacher-ratio, 461t, 470, 474t understanding, 105, 343, 346, 634 variability, 184, 190 Student achievement, 931. See also Socioeconomic issues educational policy and, 893, 895, 910, 915 Student characteristics, 165, 167, 189, 286, 513514 college studying and, 649652 metacognitive ability and, 650651, 657 prior knowledge and, 649650
< previous page
page_1006
next page >
< previous page
page_1007
next page > Page 1007
volition-related, 647 Study, 293, 362, 732, 827. See also Literature; Reading guides, 614, 616 Studying, 615. See also College studying Study skills, 187, 646, 647 Subject, 102, 193, 204, 221, 334 characteristics, 171, 231 searches, 217218 variability, 184, 190191 Subject-area, 612614, 616, 928 Subjective measures, 184 Subjectivity. See Narrative inquiry Subject-matter. See also Policy research competence, 836837 content, 566, 923 knowledge, 293294, 299301, 603, 604, 721 Success for All, 64, 685 Success for All for Australian schools (SWELL), 5 Summarization, 55, 165, 166, 220, 224, 389, 551, 655 Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading, 210 Surveys, 36, 367, 374, 437, 564, 671, 677, 799, 857, 925 Sweden, 668 Syllable, 60, 146, 257, 261, 441, 527, 820 analysis, 484, 485 awareness, 251, 252, 254, 492, 535 juncture stage, 532, 536 level, 259, 260 vowel patterns in, 532 Syntactic awareness, 11, 276, 547 and reading comprehension, 276 Syntactic features, 505, 797799 Syntactic processing, 258, 856 Syntax, 339, 526, 804, 855 Systemic reform. See also Educational reform policy research, 912913, 929 T Tabula rasa (Locke), 529 Talk, 349, 372, 594, 879. See also Speaking classroom, 393395 home, 438439
story style, 125126, 159 Talking books, 755 Talk to a Literacy Learner (TTALL), 862 Task. See also Academic tasks; Digit span task; Judgment tasks; Literacy; Oddity task; Writing analysis, 515, 516 design, 235237 learning, 754755 memory, 258, 276 pronunciation, 233234 Task effects, 327328 Teacher, 93, 372, 538, 750. See also Preservice teacher; Reading teachers assessment by, 353, 633 certification, 33, 725, 842 collaboration, 702, 728, 730 competence, 68, 352, 840841 decision making, 165, 174175, 373, 470, 721, 733, 897, 924 educators, 27, 68, 124, 154 focal issues for, 2223 inquiry, 79, 83, 87, 8990, 694, 723 knowledge, 725, 726, 905, 920, 930 literacy practice, 633636, 640, 927, 930 recruitment, 633, 847848 standards for, 890, 910 student-ratio, 461t, 470, 474t Teacher beliefs, 393, 508, 612, 671, 897, 925. See also Teacher education children's literature and, 369, 373374 content area reading, 631636, 639 engaged reading, 369, 373374 Teacher education, 137, 158, 215, 478, 598, 600, 633. See also Professional development; Reading teacher education foreign countries, 3537, 45, 54 in-service, 25, 158 policy research, 847848, 899900 preservice, 4, 158 programs, 5, 720, 721, 726727, 729 research, programs, 49, 719720, 723732 state educational policy and, 899900 teacher beliefs and, 721, 722, 725, 726 technology and, 756757, 763 U. S. policy, 847848, 899900 Teacher research, 7879, 125, 884. See also Community; Curriculum; Literacy practice; Pedagogical research; Teacher education change and, 692, 702705
classroom, 189, 699703, 705 epistemology, 694696 future directions, 708709 genre, 9394 legacy, 692694, 705 literature, 691692, 694695, 699, 702703 orientation, 699705 purpose of, 702703, 705 questions, 704705, 708 reflexive processes, 8889 sponsorship, 705708 Teacher research methodology, 77. See also Collaborative research analysis, 8083, 695 interpretive, 694695 overall findings, 9293 qualitative, 79, 80, 82, 84t, 91, 93, 694 quantative, 91, 9394 setting, 695696, 705 themes/categories, 80, 8392 theoretical perspectives, 7882t, 87, 88, 92 Teacher roles, 36, 93, 198, 353, 722 text learning and, 611, 614615, 617 Teacher-student interactivity, 159, 343, 782 reading comprehension and, 570571 teacher involvement and, 415416, 921 text learning and, 611, 614, 615 Teaching Exceptional Children, 5455 Technology, 45, 296, 611, 620, 641. See also Communication; Computer; Electronic technology; Hypermedia; Information technology; Internet; Literacy instruction; Literacy learning; Teacher education applications, 754756, 759761 change and, 743747, 784 for classroom instruction, 755759 historical context, 745746
< previous page
page_1007
next page >
< previous page
page_1008
next page > Page 1008
and interest, 750752 literacy research and, 749752, 758759, 761762 motivation and, 750752 prior knowledge and, 752, 755 public policy and, 763764 reviews, 691692, 749750, 759, 764, 771772 social processes and, 746747 specific applications of, 755757 studies, 196197 and text learning, 286288 theoretical perspectives, 744755, 758 transactional nature of, 744, 745 Test for Adult Basic Education, 864 Tetrahedral model, 647 Text. See also Print; Text related topics; Written text expository, 31, 290, 315, 322, 324325, 404 interpretation, 203, 403, 550, 551, 555, 575, 617, 821 literary, 373, 592, 615, 799 meaning, 403, 551, 553554, 609610, 615 narrative, 132135, 291, 314, 322, 404 organization, 290, 313 selection, 613, 631, 901 traditional, 289, 576577, 615 unacknowledged/unsanctioned, 621622 understanding, 403, 556, 571, 803804 Text comprehension gender differences, 404405 instruction, 545, 548550, 554, 556 remedial reading and, 673, 683 text-processing and, 311, 314316, 318, 320, 328 Text content. See also Content knowledge; Text-processing Text genre, 321, 324. See also Genre cueing text learning and, 290292 Text learning. See also Basal texts; Classroom practice; Cognitive processes; Development; Elementary level; Instruction; Motivation; Prior knowledge; Sociocultural perspectives; Teacher roles; Teacher-student interactivity; Text content; Text-processing; Theoretical perspectives collaboration and, 413414 combining perspectives in, 622623 complexity, 285286 early reading interventions, 467 engaged reading and, 403405, 411 knowledge-processing and, 291294
participatory approaches, 610611, 615621 pedagogical approaches, 610611, 617, 620623 reading acquisition and, 296298 reading processes, 285, 550551 research, 203, 297, 298 semiotic theories and, 609, 610 strategies, 294296, 298, 344, 352, 413 technology and, 286288 text genre and, 290292 text quality and, 289290 transmission model, 610617, 621 Text-processing, 58, 372, 802. See also Genre cueing; Graphic cues; Paragraph; Prior knowledge; Recall; Structural cues; Text comprehension compared to knowledge-processing, 311313 content area reading and, 630, 631, 638 content knowledge and, 312, 313, 319321, 326329 discourse and, 313317, 321 electronic hypertexts and, 325327 idea identification and, 316319 learning and, 319320 linquistic cues, 314315 meaning construction and, 311, 314316, 318, 320, 328 memory and, 300, 312, 316, 317 mental representation and, 312314, 317, 321 protocol analysis and, 168, 171173 research, 300, 319320 rhetorical devices and, 311, 313, 315 sentence structure and, 311313, 315319, 326, 328 surface structure and, 313, 314, 318, 320 text content, 290294, 298300 Text structure, 58, 61, 313, 648. See also Knowledge processing; Text-processing formal, literature response and, 386387 second-language acquisition and, 797799 text genre and, 290, 291 Textual analysis, 374, 393. See also Content analysis; Literary analysis Text use, 620. See also Classroom learning; College studying children's literature, 364, 369, 373 historical research and, 113117, 119 issues, around the world, 6, 22, 23, 3133 literature response research and, 390391, 395 multiple, 639, 641 protocol analysis, 164, 165, 167, 170 restructuring, 610 single, content classrooms, 631, 639
variations in, pedagogical approaches, 610 The Educational Index, 218 The Encyclopedia of English Studies and Language Arts, 215 The Literacy Dictionary, 215 Theme, 345, 367, 370, 404, 575. See also Teacher research methodology Theoretical perspectives, 142, 153, 165, 172, 221, 338, 495, 647, 720, 753, 925. See also Behaviorism; Change; Cognitive science; Critical approaches; Literature response research; Sociocultural perspectives; Teacher research methodology; Technology; Theory; U. S. educational policy bilingual reading, 814815 emergent literacy research and, 444445 emergent writing, 435436 historical research, 115116 instruction, 508509 integrated instruction, 600604 intergenerational literacy, 872, 879 Latin America, 41, 49, 50 literature-based reading instruction and, 565566 reading teacher education and, 720, 725726 sociocultural perspectives and, 5758 task design and, 235237 text learning and, 609610, 621 Theory, 5, 92, 101, 163, 197, 199, 224, 381, 446, 752, 775, 929. See also Critical theory; Ideol-
< previous page
page_1008
next page >
< previous page
page_1009
next page > Page 1009
ogy; Learning; Literacy theory; Piagetian theory; Practice; Reading; Schema; Social historical theory; Transactional theory; Vygotskian theory future, 804805 narrative, 365, 369 program evaluation and, 99, 105106 The Reading Teacher, 54, 60, 61, 66, 68, 69, 72, 210 Thesaurus of ERIC Descriptors, 215 Thesaurus of Psychological Index, 215 Thesaurus of Sociological Indexing, 215 Think-aloud activities, 171, 175, 392, 550, 801, 823 category, 171, 175, 392 Thinking, 405, 604, 673. See also Critical thinking; Higher-level thinking; Think-aloud activities social processes and, 197199 Time-series design, 105 interrupted, 101102 single-subject experiments and, 182, 190 Title 1 funding, 674, 685, 890, 905. See also Multicultural education limited success of, 675676 paraprofessionals and, 677678 reauthorizations of, 891, 894 Topic identification, 115118 Topic knowledge, 11, 293 Totalitarian regimes, 29. See also Marxist ideology Trade books, 611, 827. See also Basal texts Transactional theory, 362, 369, 405. See also Technology conception of knowing and, 601602 ethnographic approaches, 157159 instructional, 555556, 603, 632, 730, 744, 755 Transfer, 5, 34, 649, 775, 837. See also Cross-linguistic transfer; Intergenerational literacy; Single-subject experiments, effects Transmission model. See also Text learning collaboration, and, 615, 616 content area reading and, 632633, 639 Turkish, 818, 822 Tutoring, 10, 12, 21, 89, 215, 220, 463 volunteer, 678679, 903904 Tyographical cues, 314, 317 U Understanding. See also Comprehension; Meaning construction; Reading; Student; Text
conceptual, 404, 636 critical approaches, 143144, 604 deep-level, 574, 929931 difficulties, 143144 vocabulary, 164, 278281 United Kingdom, 589, 748. See also Instruction early reading intervention and, 2324 family literacy programs and, 862863 historical context, 1718 new literacy studies, 2627 policy issues and, 21, 2426 reading pedagogy research, 2123 reading processes research, 1821 United States. See also U. S. related topics professional organizations and, 5354 technological change and, 745, 748 United States Agency for International Development (USAID), 32 United States Information Agency (USAI), 32 Universities, 362, 691, 694, 696 educational reform and, 32, 33, 3537 literature study and, 396397 U. S. Bilingual Education Act, 815 U. S. Comparative and International educational Society (CIES), 47 U. S. Department of Education (DOE), 757, 904, 905, 922923 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, 904 U. S. educational policy. See also Compensatory education; Educational policy; Elementary and Secondary Education Act; Funding: Head Start; Policy research, federal; Special education; State educational policy; Teacher education phonics, 6162, 69, 72 policy for practice and, 54, 6870 political issues, 58, 59, 70 qualitative methods, 5456, 58, 7072 reading, 54, 58, 59, 63f, 69, 72, 897, 903 reading comprehension research, 6163, 69 schema research and, 5864, 69, 72 sociocultural perspectives and, 6466, 69, 72, 340 theoretical perspectives, 5759, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72 whole language perspectives, 6162, 64, 69, 72, 103104 V Validity, 25, 130, 131, 165, 235, 290, 631, 660, 671, 725, 801, 845. See also Policy research; Research synthesis; Single-subject experiments concerns, 101, 132 ecological, 631, 639, 750 internal, 101, 102, 183
Variability. See Subject Variables, 221, 339, 369, 418, 440, 610, 797. See also Single subject experiments; Social variables Verbal communication, 195, 339, 877 Verbal memory, 275, 493 Verbal reports, and protocol analysis. See Protocol analysis Verbal working memory. See Phonological memory Veridicality, 164, 165, 174 Vermont, 912, 918919 Visual analysis, 187, 189 Visual processing, 234235, 241, 244, 671, 775 Visuals, 772, 775776 Vocabulary, 259, 272, 470, 512, 528, 568, 593, 797. See also Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test development, 19, 508, 537, 579 growth, 279280, 484, 503, 861 knowledge, 9, 18, 19, 292, 503, 822, 823, 830, 856857 processes, oral language, 279280 reading, 26, 262, 263 understanding, 164, 278281 Vocabulary instruction, 270, 273, 825. See also Content area reading; Reading comprehen-
< previous page
page_1009
next page >
< previous page
page_1010 Page 1010
sion instruction; Vocabulary learning; Word learning active learning and, 504506 bilingual reading and, 825, 826 ESL and, 512, 514516 reading comprehension and, 548, 552, 556, 557 research history, 503504 research-to-practice, 504, 508509, 517 spelling instruction and, 537, 539 Vocabulary learning. See also Understanding; Word knowledge adaptation and, 510517 content, adapting instruction for, 510514 meaning and, 505, 513 processes, 269270 student, 506507, 511514 word use/retention and, 512513 Vocational education, 31, 640 Voice. See Speaking Vygotskian theory, 341, 345, 575, 681 W Western Europe, 383 Western society, 29, 35 What was Literature, 385 Whole class experiences, 458, 463, 571, 618, 676 Whole language perspectives, 3, 80, 90, 149, 455, 480, 547, 563, 589, 673, 805, 901. See also U. S. educational policy bilingual reading and, 820, 825 classroom strategies, 6, 349 compared to skills-based program, 103104 Whole-word/phonics debate, 115 Wholistic education, 44, 45, 348 Wisconsin Design, 60 Word. See also Representation; Word related topics blindness, congenital, 668669 concepts of, 7, 278, 280 level, reading comprehension, 546548, 552, 556 meaning, 164, 270, 271, 272, 274, 280, 505506, 513 order, 314, 326, 328 prediction, 776, 777 recognition. See Word knowledge retention, 512513 segmentation, 348, 440, 489 sight, 463, 552, 556
sounding out, 104, 546, 548 spoken, 274, 284, 483485, 494 use, 270, 512513 Word knowledge, 187, 574, 672, 819, 838, 898. See also Context; Phonological awareness activities, 458, 462t464, 467, 469t, 470, 473t basal reading programs and, 490491 emergent literacy achievement and, 347348, 443 model, 239240 oral, 347348 reading acquisition and, 59, 61, 347, 486 second-language, 269, 796799, 804, 817 skills, instruction, 547, 552 tests/measures, 5, 485, 488 Word learning, 41, 280. See also Metalinguistic demands; Vocabulary instruction complexity, 269273 incrementality, 270272 interrelatedness, 270, 272273 memorization and, 269, 274 morphological awareness and, 273275 personalizing, 504, 506507 reading ability and, 274275 reading development and, 257259, 261 research, 270272 spelling and, 529, 534, 535, 538 vococabulary instruction and, 270275, 507, 508, 512, 513, 515517 Word-processing, 11, 269, 348, 744, 772, 773, 782. See also Decoding; Vocabulary Word sorts intervention, 184 Working memory, 171, 276, 493 Workshops, 763, 844. See also Writing reading, 8788, 619621 teacher education, 633 World Bank, 32, 33 World War II, 30, 37, 130 Writing, 760. See also Collaborative writing; Emergent writing; Journal writing; Process; Reading; Spelling academic, 124, 127 activities, 566, 567, 573, 574 assessment, 917, 918, 920, 921, 923926 classroom, 83, 84t, 9192, 441442, 615, 621, 622 conventional, 425426, 445, 458 family literacy and, 856, 858 instruction, 103, 154, 773, 900, 925 literacy learning and, 340, 342, 345, 347, 348
literacy practice, 6, 124 performance, 918, 920 phonological awareness and, 469t, 474t processes, 48, 187, 365, 437 research, 3, 53, 118, 693 self-assessment, 184, 190, 192 skills, 630, 673674 tasks, 441, 778, 857 workshops, 160, 619621 Written language, 133, 195, 292, 468t, 505, 525, 816, 855. See also Development; Narrative awareness, 440, 441 decontextualized, 278279, 855 development, 433, 533, 592 ethnographic approaches, 155156 integrated perspectives, 104, 347349, 592594, 922, 924 oral language and, 435436, 856 Written register, 431, 856 Written reports, 83, 84t, 9192, 115 Written representation, 488, 526 Written response, 370, 917 content analysis and, 385386 Written text, 115, 132, 342, 837, 855 student-generated, 615616, 620 teacher-generated, 614615 Y Yugoslavia, 33, 816
< previous page
page_1010
