Cover-image not available
Literacy in America
Literacy in America An Encyclopedia of History, Theory, and Practice
Barbara J. Guzzetti, Editor Donna E. Alvermann and Jerry L. Johns, Editorial Advisors
Santa Barbara, California Denver, Colorado Oxford, England
Copyright © 2002 by Barbara J. Guzzetti All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Literacy in America : an encyclopedia of history, theory, and practice / Barbara J. Guzzetti, editor. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 1-57607-358-0 (set : hard : alk. paper) 1. Literacy—United States—Encyclopedias. 2. Reading—United States—Encyclopedias. I. Guzzetti, Barbara J. LC151 .L487 2002 302.2'244'0973—dc21 2002014350 06 05 04 03 02
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
This book is also available on the World Wide Web as an e-book. Visit abc-clio.com for details. ABC-CLIO, Inc. 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 This book is printed on acid-free paper I. Manufactured in the United States of America
Contents
Preface and Acknowledgments, ix Further Acknowledgments, xi Introduction: The Landscape of Literacy in Seven Portraits, xiii List of Contributors, xxxi
Literacy in America, 1 Classroom Writing Assessment, 66 Cloze Procedure, 72 College Literacy and Learning, 73 College Reading and Learning Association, 74 College Reading Association, 75 Comics, 76 Commercial Reading Programs, 77 Community Literacy, 80 Comparative Reading, 82 Comprehension Strategies, 85 Computer-Assisted Instruction, 88 Concept Instruction with Text, 90 Conceptual Change Learning and Texts, 93 Considerate Text, 97 Constructivism, 99 Content-Area Literacy, 101 Context in Literacy, 104 Cooperative Learning, 107 Critical Literacy, 108 Critical Media Literacy, 111 Critical Reading, 113 Criticisms of Reader Response, 115 Critique of the National Reading Panel Report, 118
Volume 1: A–M Ability Grouping, 1 Accountability and Testing, 5 Active Listening, 8 Activity Theory, 10 Adolescent Literacy, 13 Adolescent Literature, 15 Adult Literacy, 19 Adult Literacy Programs, 22 Adult Literacy Testing, 25 American Reading Forum, 29 Artists’ Books, 29 Assessment Interviews, 30 Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers, 31 At-Risk Students, 33 Authentic Assessment, 36 Automaticity and Reading Fluency, 40 Balanced Literacy Instruction, 43 Basal Readers, 45 Bibliotherapy, 48 Bilingual Education, 49 Bilingualism, 52 Biliteracy, 57 Book Clubs, 60
Deaf Students and Literacy, 121 Delayed Readers, 123 Developmental and College Reading, 127 Dialogic Responsiveness, 131 Dialogue Journals, 132
Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking, 63 Children’s Literature, 64 v
Contents Directed Reading Activity and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity, 133 Discourse Analysis, 135 Discursive Theory, 140 Discussion, 143 The Discussion Web, 146 Distance Learning, 147 Diversity, 150 Dynamic Assessment, 154 Dyslexia, 155
Inquiry-Based Instruction, 249 Instant Messaging, 251 Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy, 254 International Reading Association, 257 Intertextuality, 258 Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 259 Journal of Literacy Research, 260 Junior Great Books, 260 Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation, 263 Kinesthetic Methods, 266 KWL and KWL+, 267
Early Literacy, 157 Early Literacy Assessment, 160 Early Literacy Software, 165 Ebonics, 167 Ecological Literacy, 168 Economics of Literacy Development, 170 Effective Schools and Teachers, 173 Elders and Literacy, 175 Electronic Jigsaw, 177 English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment, 178 English Journal, 181 The Even Start Family Literacy Program, 182 Eye Movements, 183
Language Acquisition, 273 Language Arts, 276 Language Arts Instruction, 277 Language Attitudes, 281 Language Experience Approach, 287 Laubach Literacy, 290 Learning Centers, 291 Learning with Texts, 293 Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction, 298 Listservs in Literacy, 299 Literacy and Culture, 303 Literacy Autobiography, 308 Literacy Definitions, 310 The Literacy Dictionary, 313 Literacy in Informal Settings, 315 Literacy in Play, 318 Literacy Labs, 323 Literacy Motivation, 326 Literacy Volunteers of America, 330 Literature Circles, 330 Literature-Based Instruction, 334
Family Literacy, 185 Feminist Post-Structuralism, 187 Flexibility, 191 Fluency, 191 Gender and Discussion, 195 Gender and Post-Typographical Text, 199 Gender and Reading, 201 Gender and Writing, 205 Graffiti, 208 Graphic Aids, 212 Graphic Organizers, 213 Group Reading Inventories, 215
Mainstreaming, 339 Media Literacy, 340 Mental Modeling, 344 Metacognition, 345 Middle-School Literacy, 348 Minimum-Competency Testing, 351 Miscue Analysis, 352 Models of the Reading Process, 356 Multicultural Literacy, 364 Multicultural Literature, 368 Multimedia, 374 Multiple Literacies, 376 Multiple Texts, 380
The Handbook of Reading Research, 217 The Head Start Program, 218 Heritage-Language Development, 219 High-Stakes Assessment, 223 History of Reading Instruction, 224 History of the Book, 231 Hypertext, 233 Independent Reading, 239 Individualized Reading, 244 Informal Reading Inventory, 247
vi
Contents Reading Clinics, 502 Reading-Comprehension Instruction, 506 Reading-Comprehension Processes, 508 Reading Diagnosis, 515 Reading Excellence Act, 520 Reading Hall of Fame, 521 Reading-Interest Inventories, 522 Reading Is Fundamental, 523 Reading Online, 525 Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 526 Reading Readiness, 526 Reading Recovery, 527 Reading Research and Instruction, 530 Reading Research Quarterly, 530 Reading Specialists, 531 The Reading Teacher, 533 Reading Today, 534 Reading-Writing Relationships, 534 Reciprocal Teaching, 535 Recreational Reading, 539 Redundancy, 541 Refutational Texts, 542 Remediation, 545 Repeated Readings, 548 Research in the Teaching of English, 551 Resistant Reading, 552 Round-Robin Oral Reading, 553
Volume 2: N–Z Narrative and Expository Text, 385 Narrative Text, 388 National Assessment of Educational Progress, 392 National Commission on Reading, 395 National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy, 397 National Council of Teachers of English, 398 National Institute for Literacy, 399 National Reading Conference, 400 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 400 National Reading Panel, 401 The National Right to Read Foundation, 404 Oral Language, 407 Oral Language Development, 411 Oral Reading, 415 Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring, 419 Peer Discussion, 420 Peer Status and Literacy Development, 425 Phonics Instruction, 428 Phonological and Phonemic Awareness, 431 Policy Issues in Testing, 434 The Political Nature of Literacy, 437 Popular Culture, 440 Portfolios, 443 Post-Structuralism and Structuralism, 445 Post-Typographic, 448 Predictable Books, 450 Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions, 453 Prior-Knowledge Assessment, 456 Process Writing, 459 Programmed Instruction, 461 Psycholinguistics, 462 Public Opinion and Literacy, 464
Scaffolded Literacy Instruction, 555 Schema Theory, 556 Schema Theory Criticisms, 558 Secondary-School Reading Programs, 562 Semantic Feature Analysis, 566 Semantic Mapping, 572 Semiotics, 580 Sight Words, 581 Silent Reading, 583 Social Constructivism, 584 Social Justice and Literacies, 589 Social Nature of Literacy, 595 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, 599 Sociolinguistics and Literacy, 599 Software for Older Readers, 603 Speed Reading, 605 Spelling, 606 Standardized Test Score Decline, 610 Standardized Test Score Interpretation, 613 Standardized Testing, 615 Standards, 617 Story Grammar, 619
Questioning, 469 The RAND Reading Study Group, 475 Rauding Theory, 476 Readability, 480 Read-Alouds, 486 Reader Response, 488 Readers Theatre, 493 The Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 495 Reading Assessment, 495 Reading-Attitude Measures, 501
vii
Contents Transmission Instruction, 663
Storytelling, 622 Structural Analysis, 626 Study Guides, 628 Study Skills and Strategies, 631 Subjectivity, 632
Visual Literacy, 665 Vocabulary Instruction, 667 Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment, 673 Whole Language Umbrella, 677 Word Recognition, 678 Workplace Literacy, 682 Writing across the Curriculum, 686 Writing Assessment, 688 Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts, 693
Teacher Education in Literacy, 639 Teacher Research in Literacy, 643 Television and Reading, 647 Test Preparation, 650 Textbooks, 651 Thematic Organizers, 653 Think-Alouds, 655 Title I, 656 Trade Books, 657 Transactional Theory, 661
Zines, 699 List of Acronyms, 701 Bibliography, 705 Index, 751 About the Editor, 779
viii
Preface and Acknowledgments
This two-volume encyclopedia provides a comprehensive overview of the study and teaching of literacy in the United States. It addresses the learning and practice of multiple literacies, including reading, writing, listening, and speaking, and such “new literacies” as popular culture, media, and technology. Intended to fill a gap in extant resources on literacy, this work presents the major topics and issues in the field of literacy in language that is as nontechnical as possible. As Alan Purves, late author of the Encyclopedia of English Studies and Language Arts (1994), noted, editing an encyclopedia is a daunting task. The task here was made easier, however, by my collaboration as editor with the two editorial advisers. Together, we generated the initial list of entries by perusing related works, current textbooks and academic texts in the field, and past professional conference programs. We also surveyed subscribers to the National Reading Conference listserv (NRCEMAIL), an electronic discussion group for literacy researchers and professionals, for suggestions on entries. In addition, authors and contributors consulted a web site with a master list of entries and then suggested other entries important to such a reference. The editor, editorial advisers, and contributors collaboratively determined the titles of the entries. We planned for entries of 500 to 4,000 words, with most consisting of about 2,000 words, for a total of approximately 400,000 words in the two volumes. The entries in these volumes represent a range of perspectives, or “frames,” on literacy that explore historical topics along with current trends. Entries represent both the breadth and the depth of varying theories of literacy. If a topic has been the subject of well-known controversy, then it is counterbalanced with an entry representing an opposing view. Each entry begins with a defini-
tion of the construct and then elaborates on the issues and research surrounding the topic. In writing the entries, authors were cautioned to refrain from opinions or position statements as much as possible and were asked to document their sources. At the end of most entries, there are references designed to lead the reader to sources cited in the entry and to further reading. The number of citations and references was designed to be proportional to the length of the entry. Due to space constraints, fewer citations and references were permitted than most authors would have preferred. The entries represent five categories. The first is a general category of definitions, process, influences, issues, types, and theories of literacy. This category includes such topics as biliteracy, English as a second language (ESL), heritage-language development, and multicultural concerns. Four other categories include literacy assessment, literacy instruction, literacy resources and organizations, and literacy professional publications and reports. To save space, many general topics include specific terms not listed as entries. For example, the entry on reader-response theory contains explanations of the terms aesthetic and efferent reading. Although the entries can be grouped into five categories according to subject area, they are arranged in alphabetical order in the encyclopedia. Readers may wish to skim the list of entries and the index to find what they are seeking. In addition to the entry itself, most entries are crossreferenced by a “See Also” section at the conclusion. This section refers readers to related entries (along with references) that may be of interest. The entries in these volumes were written for a broad audience. Potential readers include academicians and students in universities and ix
Preface and Acknowledgments colleges, literacy specialists, and teachers and school administrators, as well as parents, policymakers, and interested citizens. Hence, contributors were asked to write in terms intelligible both to professionals and to those with little or no prior knowledge of the subject and to define professional jargon whenever possible.
ation to Jerry Johns, Distinguished Teaching Professor Emeritus of Northern Illinois University, my first mentor and adviser in literacy education. His guidance and friendship have sustained and enhanced the production of these volumes in both subtle and obvious ways. Third, I wish to thank the past and present staff at ABC-CLIO for their support and direction. It was a pleasure to work with and get to know Marie Ellen Larcada, the acquisitions editor who first interested me in taking on this extensive work and who has continued to provide feedback and support despite leaving her position. I also thank Kevin Downing, former senior acquisitions editor, Vince Burns, former developmental editor, and Melanie Stafford, senior production editor, for their direction and reminders that helped keep the project on schedule. Finally, I offer my gratitude to those who helped with behind-the-scenes tasks. I thank my research assistants, Septimia Filip and Margaret Gamboa, who created and maintained the project’s web site, kept clerical records of contracts and submissions, and contacted authors periodically via e-mail. I also appreciate the assistance of Donald Hutchins, media and technology director for the College of Education at Arizona State University, who worked extensively with me to transfer all entries to CDs. Theirs were no small tasks. My parting thoughts in completing these volumes are of the magnitude and magnificence of the knowledge base we have accumulated in the field of literacy. In these days of political attacks and critiques directed at education in the United States, literacy professionals, parents, and concerned citizens may become discouraged about the state of current affairs. These entries offer a more promising view of literacy in the United States by demonstrating how far we have come as a profession in our understanding of literacy processes, practices, and issues. It is my hope that these volumes will contribute to continual improvement of literacy learning and teaching. Barbara J. Guzzetti
Acknowledgments First, as editor of these volumes, I was struck by the depth of knowledge of the contributors, including scholars well known for their research topic, graduate students developing expertise in a particular area, and teachers, consultants, and literacy specialists with working knowledge in their area. I thank these approximately 250 contributors for sharing their unique insights into the myriad aspects of literacy. Without their expertise and dedication to the task, this reference work would not have been possible. I also appreciate their support in various forms—nominations of other authors, illustrations and photographs to accompany their entries, e-mails of moral support, positive feedback and good cheer, and, surprisingly, gifts that related to the project or represented the authors’ geographical regions. In particular, I want to take this occasion to acknowledge my dear friend and colleague Ann Watts Pailliotet, a contributor to the encyclopedia who suddenly and unexpectedly passed away during the production of these volumes. She will be remembered not only for her contributions to the field of technology and literacy but also for her shining spirit. Second, I want to thank my editorial advisers, all well known in the field of literacy as prolific and influential researchers. My thanks go to Donna Alvermann, Distinguished Research Professor at the University of Georgia, a longtime colleague and friend who recommended me as editor for this project. Her advice and support has once again seen me through another longterm effort and has enriched the quality of the product of that effort. I also extend my appreci-
x
Further Acknowledgments
one that focused primarily on reading practices and processes—to its current, more inclusive state, literacy education is in what many contributors to this encyclopedia would call a state of flux—a “becoming” rather than an “is” or a “has been.” It is this dynamic nature of literacy education that makes it such an exciting field in which to work. In compiling these two companion volumes, Barbara Guzzetti has attained what few before her can lay claim to having achieved. Through her knowledge of the field’s breadth and her ability to work with contributors who know its depth, she has assembled a remarkably comprehensive work. Also noteworthy is the fact that Literacy in America represents the thinking and writing of scholars new to the field as well as those who have seen it through several evolutions, if not revolutions. This blending of the socalled new and old is in keeping with the field’s history, present, and future. It is also in keeping with what I would expect that readers of these volumes would appreciate most—the opportunity to become more conversant in the issues and debates that surround literacy education, at least as interpreted by the contributors to this work. Donna E. Alvermann
Barbara Guzzetti deserves heartfelt recognition from all those interested in literacy for undertaking such a daunting endeavor. Anyone who has worked with coauthors on a project will quickly understand the added complexities of collaboration. When the collaboration involves the large number of authors who contributed to these volumes, it should be quite easy to recognize the challenges and frustrations that Barbara faced. The completion of such a huge undertaking should give Barbara an immense sense of satisfaction for an outstanding contribution to the profession. I was honored to participate in the project because of its potential significance to the field. Our work is done. Users of the encyclopedia will ultimately determine its value as they read, reflect, and use this tool to enhance their understanding, gain perspective, and pursue the task of promoting higher levels of literacy. Jerry L. Johns President, International Reading Association, 2002–2003 The field of literacy education is expanding on a scale that is sometimes difficult to comprehend. From its inception as a narrowly studied area—
xi
Introduction: The Landscape of Literacy in Seven Portraits
I Perhaps the most daunting challenge in producing this encyclopedia was planning and writing this Introduction. The developmental editor asked me for 10,000 words representing my thoughts on the field of literacy—its development, present status, and future directions. This Introduction was to be designed to be compatible with the mission of the encyclopedia by reflecting on historical aspects of literacy while emphasizing recent developments in the field. I found, however, that I could not bring myself to address only this request. My reasons for this rebellion of sorts stem from my beliefs about what constitutes quality in research. As a feminist qualitative researcher, I believe that it is necessary for researchers to be aware of and explicate their biases and experiences and to explain how those influence the conduct and production of their efforts. I celebrate the shift from an emphasis on cognitive research and experimental designs to ethnographic inquiries conducted from sociocultural frames. I am most interested in issues of social concern— topics, frameworks, and methods that address issues of social justice. My own recent work centers on the new literacies or multiple literacies practiced by those underrepresented in literacy research—adolescents of upper or lower social classes and those marginalized by their own subjectivities, such as their gender or social class. During the production of these volumes, I attempted to keep my own biases and views like these balanced with entries that represent frameworks and positions that I do not share. As a literacy researcher, however, I realize that I bring to this work my personal theoretical frames, my epistemologies and ideologies, as well my own ideas about what constitutes important work—
pedagogy and inquiry—in literacy. Therefore, to be the sole author in sketching a retrospective and perspective on the field of literacy would mean presenting only my ethnocentric views. Because I strove for representation of both historical and recent trends in the volumes’ entries, I also chose to obtain a broad representation in this essay, introducing and providing perspectives on those entries. Therefore, in collaboration with my editorial advisers, I invited seven scholars whose work represents diversity in perspective to join me in the Introduction. I charged these researchers with reflecting on historical and recent developments in the field of literacy from their own six frameworks and to identify how the entries in the encyclopedia represented those developments. By doing so, I anticipated giving readers a glimpse into the myriad ways in which multiple perspectives have been and are represented in shaping the field. The first of these scholars, Suzanne Wade, presents an instructional perspective on literacy from a framework of teacher education and scholarship. Her piece reminds us of changes in literacy at the classroom level and of the political nature of literacy instruction. Her perspective is particularly timely as literacy professionals begin to reflect on and address national reports on epistemology and pedagogy in literacy. A second perspective by Yolanda Majors presents a personal and community-based consideration of literacy. Writing from personal memories and reflective insights, she reminds us about the ways literacy learners are influenced by ritualized events outside the classroom. Her stories show how social and cultural expectations can influence literacy development and practice that may be at conflict with or estranged from literacy expectations inside the classroom. xiii
Introduction The third view by Allan Neilsen brings an international perspective to literacy. Although this encyclopedia focuses on literacy in the United States, many of its contributors are scholars and practitioners from other nations who face the same issues and research the same topics. Neilsen’s thoughts particularly challenge expanding notions of the literacy landscape in a global sense. His words direct us to refocus constructs of literacy so that literacy implies more than simply substituting the word literacy for the word education. Lorri Neilsen expands on this global theme with a fourth view—a feminist perspective that examines the influences of world events on literacy development and practice. In her essay, Neilsen examines power and access issues that can determine the literate behaviors and skills learners acquire. Her words direct us to those entries that examine underlying principles and consequences of literacy assessment and instruction. A fifth frame on literacy is offered by Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear. These researchers trace the field historically and provide a sociocultural perspective on literacy theory and instructional practice. Their words remind us of the diverse and sometimes conflicting directions in literacy. Their ideas question the unity of the rubric of a “field” of literacy and cause us to reexamine our ideas about shifting the centrality of literacy development and practice from the classroom to the outside world. Finally, Patricia Alexander presents a view of literacy as a landscape of changes. Her focus traces development of notions of literacy from a cognitive perspective with reading at the core of literacy to a social perspective that encompasses new terrain. Her view identifies the silences in the encyclopedia that represent uncharted territory for future work in literacy. When these views are taken together, it appears that literacy, with its myriad issues and directions, is more of a landscape than a field. It is also a landscape that is ever changing and becoming increasingly more inclusive. Like the world, literacy really is many landscapes or literacies, touched and reformed like the earth itself by the times in which we live. The contributors to these volumes have not only taken us on a journey through these landscapes, they have also assisted in identifying how
the territory of literacy may expand and evolve in the future. Together, we invite our readers to join us in extending this journey by perusing the geography represented in the entries of these volumes. We anticipate that your travels will be both engaging and enlightening. Barbara J. Guzzetti II The challenge of discovery lies not in seeking new landscapes but having new eyes. —Marcel Proust
When a first edition of a compendium such as the Literacy in America comes out, we might wonder what it tells us about the current state of literacy—in theory, research, practice, and policy. Looking back in time, we might then wonder, how have things changed? And have they really changed? How was literacy defined then—and now? Are the goals, assumptions, and accepted methods of literacy research different, and what paradigms influence how we think about literacy and research? What do we know today about students, both inside and outside of classrooms, that we did not know before? What makes a difference in student success, and who has access to the resources and benefits of literacy? What are accepted practices for literacy instruction, and how have they changed? How have methods and uses of assessment changed? Was literacy as politicized then as it is now? What is the role today of technology? What should it be? How have advances in technology changed what it means to be literate in schools and society? These questions are important because the ways in which they are answered have profound effects on teaching and learning in classrooms. First, these questions and their answers delimit the topics that get attention, the concepts that mark our discourse about literacy and education, and the assumptions that underlie what literacy researchers and educators do. Second, they influence the ways we view students, which literacies in students’ lives count, how we define achievement and success, and how we frame problems in literacy learning (in other words, where blame is placed when students do not succeed). Third, they influence our views of what texts are legitimate, and therefore sanctioned, and our views of what constitutes learning and how it can and should be assessed. xiv
Introduction Of course, change has different meanings for different people. A perusal of dictionary definitions illustrates how change can range from superficial differences such as “to put a fresh covering on” (as in “to change a bed”), to greater transformations or transitions from one state, condition, or phase to another (as in “She changed as she matured” or “the changing of the seasons”). Change can also mean substituting, or replacing of one thing for another (as in “change methods, change sides, a change of ownership”). Change is not neutral, but rather quite value laden. For example, it may be viewed in terms of progress and innovation, as with new directions and discoveries. Nevertheless, such a positive view is not always the case. Whereas one person may value an innovation, another may view it as a fad, a loss, or a reactive pendulum swing, which may (or may not) ultimately achieve a balance. Even the idea of balance is not a goal that everyone strives for, out of concern that a favored theory or instructional approach may become diluted. As you read Literacy in America, you will see topics, paradigms, and programs that have both long and short histories. On the topic of classroom instruction, for example, entries range from approaches that are as traditional as the ones we, and generations before us, experienced as schoolchildren (see, for example, Transmission Instruction) to more recent participatory approaches that include Book Clubs, Concept Instruction with Text, Cooperative Learning, Dialogue Journals, Inquiry-Based Instruction, Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy, Literature Circles, Peer Discussion, and Process Writing. Another change reflected in this encyclopedia is today’s emphasis on context, which is considered important for both literacy research and practice. A good deal of cognitive literacy research, which focused on students’ learning, took place in laboratories or settings outside the classroom. Results were aggregated in search of generalizable patterns that could presumably be applied across students and classrooms. Although student characteristics such as race, class, sex, ethnicity, and language may have been reported in the methods sections of research studies, these characteristics were largely ignored when results were presented and implications for instruction were drawn. Usually, the only variable of importance was ability level. Results were then used to inform classroom practice, translated into rec-
ommendations for instruction applicable to all settings. Literacy research today includes a much greater focus on students as unique individuals, whose identities are shaped by their linguistic and cultural backgrounds; the literacy practices in their homes and communities; and their class, sex, age, talents, future aspirations, and positioning in the social hierarchy of schools and society. These attributes have a profound influence on students’ learning, literacy goals, and practices; the texts they value; the strategies they use to learn and/or cope; their access to literacy; and whether they succeed in school. Case studies of individual learners are not new, of course. There have been many case studies that have served us well as teaching tools for assessing literacy difficulties and planning for instruction (we no longer tend to use words like diagnosis and remediation, which imply a medical model and the search for pathology). Many of the case studies today emphasize students’ strengths as well as their needs and seek to understand their lives and identities outside of school as well as in the classroom. Like many of today’s case studies, entries in this encyclopedia focus on the role of different literacies in family, peer, and community life (see Adolescent Literacy, Adult Literacy, Family Literacy, Literacy in Informal Settings, Literacy in Play, Recreational Reading, and Workplace Literacy). Other entries focus on the effects of labels such as “at risk” and “failing,” asking hard questions such as how students might be viewed differently if schools were different and conceptions of success were expanded. Entries that address issues of diversity in culture and language as well as social justice include: At-Risk Students, Bilingualism, Biliteracy, Diversity, Ebonics, Gender and Discussion, Gender and Post-Typographical Text, Gender and Reading, Gender and Writing, Literacy and Culture, Multicultural Literacy, The Political Nature of Literacy, and Social Justice and Literacies. Even the conception of “literacy” has changed from being viewed as a monolithic entity and has taken on its plural form—literacies—to reflect multiplicities of uses, forms, and subjectivities. Literacy in settings other than school and expanded views of learning also bring with them expanded views of text. Consider, for example, the entries on Graffiti, Popular Culture, Television and Reading, and Zines). The encyclopedia xv
Introduction also includes entries that suggest how texts in classrooms have expanded beyond basal readers and textbooks to include Multimedia, Post-Typographic, Refutational Texts, and Trade Books. Other entries emphasize today’s interest in technology, with topics such as Computer-Assisted Instruction, Distance Learning, Early Literacy Software, Hypertext, Instant Messaging, Listservs in Literacy, and Software for Older Readers. These new topics require an expanded repertoire of research approaches and theoretical perspectives, or new eyes, if you will, drawn from many different disciplines. Thus, in addition to cognitive approaches, we find entries in the encyclopedia on Activity Theory, Critical Literacy, Discourse Analysis, Discursive Theory, Feminist Post-Structuralism, Post-Structuralism and Structuralism, Semiotics, Social Constructivism, Sociolinguistics and Literacy, and Transactional Theory. Expanded views of research and theory and the emphasis on individual learners, with their linguistic, cultural, and personal histories, have paralleled changes in instructional research and practice. The earlier concept of research “informing” instruction in a unilateral direction has shifted to one in which research, theory, and practice inform one another in reciprocal ways. This iterative process is reflected in a growing interest in action research, teachers as researchers, and university-school partnerships. Concurrent with these trends are expanded views of knowledge as contextual, constructive, social, divergent, and open to continual reinterpretation. Further, research on instruction draws from other perspectives as well. Consider, for example, the renewed interest in Lev Vygotsky’s work that is one basis of instructional scaffolding. This brings us to the issue of what changes in the field of literacy have most directly affected teaching in classrooms—the topics, policies, curricular and instructional approaches and programs, and assessment practices that impact teachers and students in classrooms and that reflect teachers’ needs and concerns. One of the most profound changes at the school level is inclusive education (for a related topic, see Mainstreaming). Although focusing on individuals with disabilities, advocates of inclusion seek to change the philosophy and structure of schools so that all students, despite differences in language, culture, ethnicity, economic status, gender, and ability, can be educated with their peers
in the regular classroom in their neighborhood schools. To many, inclusive education represents a shift from changing individuals (who must become “ready” and earn the right to be in integrated settings) to changing the curriculum and pedagogy to meet students’ needs. Instead of locating literacy problems in students (or their families), many literacy educators emphasize changing the curriculum and instructional practices to meet the needs of students. Curricular and instructional approaches that promote the active, social construction of knowledge, that are interactive, experiential, and inquiry based, and that provide guided instruction have been recommended as ways to include and motivate students who have traditionally been excluded from success in the mainstream. Thus, the encyclopedia includes entries on Biliteracy, Bilingualism, Ebonics, Multicultural Literacy, Multicultural Literature, and various gender issues, all of which represent a shift from the “one-curriculum-fits-all” philosophy of the past. A large repertoire of specific approaches and practices that have been developed for all grade levels and for all facets of literacy are featured in the encyclopedia. Approaches for teaching beginning reading include the entries on Balanced Literacy Instruction, Individualized Reading, Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction, Phonics Instruction, and Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment. These approaches include and overlap with topics such as Comprehension Strategies, Fluency, Narrative Text, Oral Reading, Questioning, Read-Alouds, and Silent Reading, to mention only a few of the entries. Specific methods associated for the most part with helping students become motivated, independent learners in the content areas include Graphic Aids, KWL and KWL+, Mental Modeling, Reciprocal Teaching, Semantic Feature Analysis, Semantic Mapping, Structural Analysis, Study Skills and Strategies, Think-Alouds (used for instruction and assessment), and Vocabulary Instruction. Finally, because writing today is considered such an important and integral part of literacy, the encyclopedia includes entries on Dialogue Journals, Process Writing, ReadingWriting Relationships, and Writing across the Curriculum. Literacy has always been political in nature because it is so important in society, communities, and individual lives. How literacy is taught, what xvi
Introduction is taught (influenced by curriculum guidelines and standards), who gets the greatest resources, how special services are delivered (inclusion versus pullout), and how literacy and learning are assessed are high-stakes issues. Teachers, parents, administrators, children, and politicians all have different concerns and stakes in accountability, mainly through forms of high-stakes testing that include norm-referenced and criterion-referenced achievement tests, minimum competency testing, National Assessment of Educational Progress, and the English Language Arts Standards. At the same time that high-stakes testing stands at the forefront in federal funding and accountability, more informal authentic assessments are of great importance and value to teachers as part of the instructional assessment cycle. These types of assessment are included in entries such as Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers, Classroom Writing Assessment, Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation, Miscue Analysis, Portfolios, PriorKnowledge Assessment, Reading-Attitude Measures, and Reading-Interest Inventories. It is intriguing to wonder what literacy educators and researchers will be debating, researching, and teaching when the next encyclopedia of literacy is published. Will we look back on today’s changes as a steady progression or as old relics? What questions will we be asking? What should they be? Ideally, we will be open not only to new discoveries but also to seeing existing landscapes through new eyes, as Marcel Proust would have us do. This will entail open-mindedness, as well as reasoned critiques of past, current, and future views of literacy research, theory, and practice. Suzanne E. Wade
contributed to this encyclopedia see these and similar questions as intricately connected, both in complexity and in the various ways of responding to them. By its very nature, however, the practice of literacy leaves to those who wish to think about it the task of unmasking its technology, purposes, and contexts of use. These two volumes provide a range of foundational, comprehensive implements necessary for beginning to do just that. As a comprehensive resource, this encyclopedia enables those seeking an understanding of the various aspects of literacy to draw upon the wisdom and authority of experts from a variety of disciplines. Variety here is key and necessary, since today the dominant view of literacy characterizes it as an area of inquiry in which the parts make up the whole. Scholars cannot adequately address the consequences of the interactions between reader and text, writer and audience, teacher and student without taking into consideration the economic, social, functional, and cultural consequences of the act. None exists separately. Nonetheless, each of the parts making up the whole can be considered separately without losing track of their mutual interdependence. One part in particular—literacy outside the classroom—is addressed here through such entries as Ebonics (African American English), Family Literacy, Graffiti, Instant Messaging, Literacy in Informal Settings, Popular Culture, Workplace Literacy, and other entries within this category. From anthropologists to historians, sociologists to classroom practitioners, disciplined, probing minds interact here to provide the scholarship to interpret a picture of the social and cultural correlates of literacy. This picture is sometimes quite local and personal in both context and purpose for literacy. For instance, as a young girl I stood at the intersection where the politics of voice, power, class, and race meet. And, like many African Americans, I lived and learned in a place where grown folks communed at kitchen tables over cups of Sanka and packs of Pall Mall Golds in the morning hours or on front porches swept clean of dust, rocks, and fallen leaves at dusk. It was here where the adults told, shared, and reinvented stories and meanings about life before an echoing stage of young listeners. We—a peripheral audience of children—watched, listened, learned, and later imitated. As Shirley Brice
III The collection of entries in this encyclopedia constitutes a foundational tool kit essential to understanding literacy and its many manifestations, both inside and outside the classroom. Such a resource is essential, as there is growing concern among all levels of educators regarding the meaning of knowing and teaching, and the active role of reading, writing, and speaking in both endeavors. How is meaning created as a reader engages with a text, as a writer recounts personal history for an audience, as a teacher interacts with students during a discussion of metaphor in The Color Purple? Those who have xvii
Introduction Heath (1988) suggests, these ritualized events were an occasion for learning in a stream of stimuli, from which we the children would select, practice, and determine the rules of speaking and interacting with words. We learned at an early age how to listen to and perceive these interactions between adults as well as to determine how these interactions related to the world around and beyond. The rules of these verbal dances were not laid out per se. Instead, they were passed down in grown folks’ talk about things in their world. They did not ask or tell us what, how, and why. Rather, they detailed the responses of personalities to events; they praised, they derided, they questioned the reasons for events and compared new items and events to those with which they were familiar (Heath, 1988). They did not simplify their talk about the world for our benefit. They taught, and we learned in the landscape the meanings of their words. Around me stories came to life, and I was called on to create an imagined background for them. These were stories, in artifact and word, of our parents’ childhood at a time when African Americans were “colored” and a loaf of bread cost a dime. People I’d never met would be resurrected and bit by bit pieced together with the tongues of enchanted detail for my mind’s eye. From my mother’s lips, strangers were made familiar and were given the breath of life in words and gestures that shaped, colored, and lent meanings—meanings that played out within a scenery long since decayed. For long afternoons through late evenings we’d sit, listen, and learn. Here, functions of literacy outside the classroom are real and familiar. Unfortunately, however, they are all too often overlooked when we think about literacy, primarily because literacy is often associated with a specific purpose and form of language taught in classrooms. When the purposes of language in the classroom are too distant from those outside students’ lives, resistance and failure are most likely to result. By contrast, when the purposes of literacy in the classroom can be related in familiar socially and culturally situated ways, education is much more successful. Such socially and culturally situated ways of teaching and learning have traditionally been given little consideration within the educational world. Much of this oversight is because there are
few data that address such forms of literacy acquisition. In addition, there are also problems of inaccessibility and the lack of alternative points of view and critical reassessments. Such alternative points of view are necessary if we want to gain insight into how people experience learning and teaching beyond school settings. While offering invaluable insight within the field of literacy, the intellectuals who contributed to these volumes have committed themselves to broadening the landscape of education. As testimony to this, we have witnessed an expansion in recent years in the scholarship on literacy across community, classroom, and even workplace, a form of scholarship with univocal origins. Those who were once confined within their own domains of inquiry in anthropology, linguistics, psychology, and literary theory are converging, combining their expertise toward productive multidimensional ends. Through their contributions, these individuals endeavor to provide educators at all levels with a valuable resource, one that helps to dismantle old notions of a one-sizefits-all approach to literacy. In part or in whole, this encyclopedia provides tools useful in understanding the complicated relations among the dimensions of literacy. To the reader belongs the pleasure of investigating them. Yolanda J. Majors IV Museum literacy. Museum literacy? Many of us thought the literacy proliferation of the past decade had peaked with emotional literacy. Nevertheless, even a relatively small sample of the 2,520,000 “literacy” sites, unearthed by a web search engine in just a tenth of a second, suggests that this proliferation is just hitting its stride: visual literacy, numerical literacy, Jewish literacy, financial literacy, consumer literacy, health literacy, food literacy, dance literacy, film literacy, art literacy, wine literacy, sexual literacy, information literacy, environmental literacy, electronic literacy, digital literacy, nutrition literacy, geographic literacy, chemical literacy, biology literacy, library literacy, geoscience literacy, and museum literacy (see Ecological Literacy, Media Literacy, Multicultural Literacy, Multiple Literacies, and Visual Literacy). Perhaps it’s a lack of imagination that’s responsible for the current practice of baptizing such wide-ranging human endeavor and accomplishxviii
Introduction ment as “literacy.” For example, when we finally realized that sexual education involves more than technical understanding of reproduction systems, we weren’t quite sure how to name the new incarnation, so we just substituted literacy for education in the old name because it had worked already for computer education, art education, and so forth. Perhaps this apparent proliferation of literacies is the result of shrewd marketing of old wines in new bottles by educational entrepreneurs. The cultural cachet of literacy is undeniably desirable, and what better way to give biology or accounting a face-lift than to have them join the burgeoning family of literacies where, it seems, there’s always room for one more. Asking why there are suddenly so many new players in the literacy landscape isn’t prompted by concerns about professional turf. Nor is it motivated by a desire for a singular circumscription of the notion of literacy. Instead, the question arises from a very basic communication issue: when people use the term literacy, what do they mean? How are they understood? We need to determine what, if any, common conceptual ground these many new notions of literacy share—because if literacy means everything, it means nothing. Historically, in Western culture, literacy has meant the ability to read and write. More specifically, this has meant the ability to read and write words—the dominant sign system in Western culture—and assemblages of words, called texts, that have been configured to explain, persuade, entertain, and so on. Tacit in this notion of literacy is that words and, by extension, texts are the places in which meaning resides. In this scheme, the division of labor is clear. Writing is an act of text production by which an author uses personal knowledge of the world, the context, and linguistic conventions to choose and arrange words skillfully in an attempt to convey intended meanings precisely. Reading then becomes an act of text consumption by which a reader uses personal knowledge of the world, the context, and linguistic conventions in an attempt to discern the author’s meanings accurately. So how do we get from reading and writing word texts to wine literacy or visual literacy? Not easily; because the logocentric (word-centered) worldview that underwrites most of our cultural practices—including curriculum, pedagogy, and assessment in public schools—makes it very,
very difficult for us to think about reading or writing without reference to words. Imagine the responses you might get if, for example, you asked people on the street if they could read a shiraz (Australian grape) or write a seascape. Breaking the vicelike grip of logocentrism and expanding our notion of what it means to be literate depend on clarifying the nature of words and their epistemological function in our lives. Rather than seeing words as inherently meaningful we need to understand them as symbolically meaningful, as socially and culturally sanctioned signs that we configure in endless ways to codify our understanding of everyday experience across myriad contexts: the color red represents danger; a thumbs-up gesture represents approval; a downturned mouth represents sadness; the inability to read the printed word represents illiteracy. Of course, depending on the situation, red might represent passion; thumbs-up might represent a request; a downturned mouth might represent a sign of sexual interest. Realistically, given the privileged status of words in mainstream culture, the inability to read the printed word will continue to represent illiterateness in most contexts. Nevertheless, if we accept that the nature and function of words are symbolic and if we recognize that words are only one of many types of symbols or signs by which we make sense of our worlds, it becomes possible to reconceptualize literacy in more inclusive ways. Writing becomes an act of configuring culturally sanctioned signs—word, gesture, sound, color—in one or more medium, for instance, in print, film, paint, clay, fabric. Text becomes a configuration of signs—haiku, mime, symphony, photograph, tapestry. Reading becomes an act of interpreting configurations of culturally sanctioned signs (see Multimedia, and Semiotics). Implicit here is that all textual activity is agenda driven. Writing and reading are done for some reason: to develop theories, pursue relationships, sell products, defend the weak, placate the annoying, console the heartsick—but not just any theory, relationship, product, or weakness. The political innuendo implicit in the notion of agenda reminds us that our textual acts are not naively utilitarian but rather are underwritten by particular assumptions about the nature of reality and knowledge, by ideological beliefs, as well as by social and moral values. There are no neutral or innocent acts of writing or reading; there xix
Introduction are no neutral or innocent texts. We write, and read to clarify, preserve, disrupt, advance and resist what we know, believe, and value about our worlds and our places in them (see Critical Literacy, Critical Reading, Resistant Reading, and The Political Nature of Literacy). In this scheme, to write a painting becomes a process of configuring line, shape, hue, tone, texture to achieve some agenda—social commentary, aesthetic experimentation, cultural celebration, personal catharsis. Similarly, to read a painting becomes a process of interpreting a particular configuration of visual signs to satisfy some agenda—learn about technique, experience visceral response, appraise authenticity, psychoanalyze the artist. Mary Pratt’s painting Pomegranates—Open and Closed, for example, understood as an assemblage of signs configured to achieve some agenda, becomes a text in the same sense as Peter Carey’s novel True History of the Kelly Gang. Embodied in this revisionist notion of literacy is a subtle shift in the locus of meaning. If signs, and therefore texts, are not inherently meaningful but rather socially negotiated, the significance or meaning of any assemblage of words, paint, gesture, or sound can also be seen as indeterminate and socially negotiated—brokered in the contexts from which it emerges through the age, experiences, interests, needs, and agendas of those who engage with texts as authors or as readers (see Context in Literacy, Literacy and Culture, Social Constructivism, Social Nature of Literacy, and Subjectivity). Subtle, too, is the possibility that authors and readers can satisfy differing agendas through the same putative texts. With the constraints of intentional fallacy loosened considerably, authors and readers have more leeway in negotiating what they want or need from texts. Thus, although Pratt might have intended Pomegranates—Open and Closed as meditation on common objects, her text can be read plausibly as a comment on human relationships. And although Carey might have intended True History of the Kelly Gang as a recreational adventure tale, it can also be taken up as a chronicle of racism and class struggle in colonial Australia. This is not to say that authors or readers can operate unfettered; communal conventions and practices tend to prevent any descent into interpretive relativism. Finally, this particular revisionist scheme
brings new responsibilities. Writers need to become more critically reflexive in order to understand what and whose agendas their texts are intended to serve and whether they condone their own participation in the process. Readers need to monitor critically not only their own textual agendas but also those of the authors with whose texts they engage, asking “What’s going on here?” “For whom?” “What forms of representation are being privileged?” “Why?” (see Critical Literacy, Critical Media Literacy, Critical Reading, and Social Justice and Literacies). So, we return to our communication conundrum: what do we mean when we invoke the notion of literacy? What, if anything, do print literacy, wine literacy, and museum literacy have in common? The simple answer is that they are all semiotic processes; they are all concerned with learning to write and read—to make sense of— our lived and virtual experiences. Obvious? Maybe. But if it is obvious, we don’t act as if it is. In fact, we don’t act as though anything other than words are concerned with meaning-making. This is most blatant in the visual and performing arts, which many seem, at best, as interpretive acts performed with varying degrees of skillfulness and, at worst, as recreational or leisure activities used as a reward or change of pace—as “time off ” from the real curricular work of schools, working with words and numbers. In more subtle ways this epistemological marginalization is true of mathematics and the sciences, too. Rather than seeing numbers, equations, and theorems as ways of exploring and representing lived phenomena, students are groomed for seamless algorithmic performance and prodigious accretion of facts. This hegemony of words continues even at a time when cultural studies, and particularly media studies, have emboldened us to refer confidently to government, race, sex, disease, restaurants, and train compartments as text(ual); and, on a grander scale, to talk blithely about reading the world. These everyday metaphorical invocations of conventional literate activity “work” as conversational glosses because they allude to the primary analogical processes of reading and writing texts for meaning. To move beyond intellectual glibness, we need to use the underlying architecture of this analogy to scaffold our moves from conceptually familiar and comfortable ground to less certain but more promising xx
Introduction terrain: to make the familiar strange (e.g., words as signs), and to make the strange familiar again (e.g., painting as writing). The idea that meaning is socially constructed and symbolically mediated through multiple, culturally sanctioned sign systems has circulated among literacy educators and researchers for more than twenty years and has always held great promise for more broadly based conceptualizations of literacy. Yet this idea hasn’t had any sustained or widespread impact on literacy curriculum, pedagogy, or evaluation because we haven’t found ways to make it comprehensible or viable for teachers, parents, administrators, curriculum designers, and assessment specialists. In fairness, the obstacles to new notions of literacy are only partly conceptual; many teachers and teacher educators are working to transform curriculum and pedagogy in literacy education (as reflected in the entry Teacher Education in Literacy). The difficulties are also political and ideological. Conservative sensibilities and collective memories of previous innovations gone wrong have created resistance, among administrative and parent groups in many educational jurisdictions, to any seemingly radical reformulations of literacy and literacy pedagogy. The problems are also partly perceptual. Many teachers feel that they aren’t skilled enough in “alternative” sign systems to offer their students worthwhile experiences in different ways of knowing (“I can’t draw/sing/ dance/use Photoshop, so how could I ever help my students?”). Concerns about products and production values obscure the epistemological possibilities of alternative sign systems and different media. We need to remind ourselves that the overarching pedagogical agenda for new or multiple literacies is not to groom cinematographers, recording engineers, set designers, or other cultural experts; it’s to help us develop broader repertoires for experiencing and representing—knowing—our everyday worlds. In fact, when all is said and done, the most compelling reason for embracing more inclusive notions of literacy is to enable us to know our worlds in many ways. This is particularly urgent for those in our collective care who are “at risk” because they can’t participate fluently in cultures underwritten by conventional notions of literacy. If we think more inclusively about what it means to be literate—to embrace not just the notion but also the practice of multiple literacies—we
are more likely to create sanctioned spaces in which all of us can participate meaningfully and joyously in the worlds of ideas and feelings. Allan Neilsen V At this writing, three events coincide. From Signal Hill in Newfoundland, the world marks the one-hundredth anniversary of Guglielmo Marconi’s triumph, the first transatlantic radio transmission, a feat no one believed possible at the time. An international report conducted in 2000 by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) on the state of literacy across the world releases information that places North American adolescents at the top among their peers on the globe. And, from outside her country, an Afghan woman, Dr. Sima Samar, emerges in the wake of the post-September 11, 2001, conflict to become one of two women appointed to serve in the transitional government of post-Taliban Afghanistan. These are critical, and particular, conjunctions at the beginning of the new century in a time of uncertainty: what are we to make of these events in light of the scope of our work in literacy, education, and research? As the selections in this volume reveal, such seemingly disparate events in our local and larger worlds can be seen as important markers in literacy, particularly as we view our literacies through the many lenses we consider feminist. Just as there is no single perspective on literacy and literacy research, there is no single feminist perspective on what we know, how we know it, and how we presume to learn more to create and support just and democratic environments for teaching and learning. As Rebecca Luce-Kapler’s discussion of gender and writing illustrates so well, our ontologies and epistemologies both shape and are shaped by the cultural, political, social, and psycho-emotional contexts in which we live and work. We cannot step over them in order to speak of our positionings; we are inside them. Similarly, when we imagine more educative and socially just environments for education and research, we must understand that how students become literate—and what their literacy looks like or gives them the power (or not) to do—is shaped by the environments in which they learn. What does an eight-year-old Metis girl in a classxxi
Introduction room in Northern Alberta learn about reading, writing, agency, and life as she completes another worksheet on “ing” words, listens to a story about a Southern boy’s adventures, and uses her emergent literacy skills to fashion a form of survival in a classroom where the world she knows is only minimally represented, if at all? In what ways do the literate behaviors she acquires, or into which she is inducted, affect how she sees the world, and who she might become? Here, then, in such a question, we may reach for some common point of consensus—if that is the appropriate word—in feminist perspectives on literacy, learning, and research. As illustrated by the contributions to this volume, the questions feminist researchers ask are myriad: they concern the texts and discourses available or unavailable to students, teachers, and researchers; the educational environments, teaching behaviors, strategies, and practices inherited, perpetuated, applied, and resisted; and the ways and means we consider in a demonstration of what literacy is, how we measure literate behaviors, what values are implicit in these choices and decisions, and further, how we might investigate literacy practices, and who decides. But regardless of the diversity of these perspectives among feminist researchers, we seek—as we presume all educators and investigators in literacy seek—a greater understanding of the mysteries of reading, writing, and learning. Most feminist theorists, researchers, and educators seek to understand and re-vision the political, cultural, and social relations that privilege certain perspectives, voices, approaches, texts, research methods, or sets of discursive practices over another. The term feminist, whether or not it is accompanied by a descriptor such as liberal, post-structuralist, or radical, is necessarily a political word, used with political intent, and effecting political impact. In the last decade of the twentieth century, the field of literacy shifted and broadened to include notions of multiple literacies, issues of social justice, and multiple perspectives on literacy research. Without question, such a shift forced reassessment of what counts as literacy, what counts as research, and what matters in the teaching and learning enterprise. These are unquestioningly political issues, and as we push investigation of them further, we must necessarily tap into larger political and global dimensions of literacy and life. Reading the word,
as Paulo Freire reminded us, is reading the world. Writing the word, writing and reading texts and lives: these, too, are literacies of living. And now, early in this new century, with world events forcing our attention to larger global and humanitarian issues, our shifting understandings of literacy continue to broaden and deepen. Many voices from many disciplines have urged such a shift; the field of literacy, especially where feminist and social justice issues are concerned, has been informed by a number of theorists and writers. Maxine Greene has advocated an expansive and diverse approach to literacy as fundamental to democracy, Donna Haraway has influenced our understanding of technologies as gendered, Valerie Walkerdine and Pam Gilbert have reminded literacy educators that class and gender are critical factors regardless of a teacher’s best intentions, and Patricia Hill Collins and Cynthia Dillard, among other African American educators, have brought to the field a long-overdue recognition of the intersection of race and feminist epistemologies. Donna Alvermann has written extensively of feminist post-structuralism and literacies, JoBeth Allen of social justice issues, and Lorri Neilsen of feminist post-structuralist perspectives on research, particularly the role of alternative discourses and genres. What their works have in common has caused a reassessment of reading and writing in our lives: each reminds us we must keep the field open, diverse, and inclusive (see Social Justice and Literacies); that we must refuse fundamentalist and fractured notions of literacy and being; and that we are located in particular settings and positions, even as we attempt to work toward a common good. Several of the entries in these volumes, such as Resistant Reading, and Subjectivity, reflect these growing understandings of how we must balance local and larger visions. And whether the issue is agency, voice, class, culture/ethnicity, gender, or technologies, we recognize that literacy is the seed from which perspectives and power germinate. We recognize that we still have much to learn, and much to do. Less than 100 years ago, reading researchers devised a machine on which a subject-reader rested the chin so that the researcher might document eye movements and thus offer hypotheses about reading speed and comprehension (the entry Eye Movements provides an overview). In the not-sodistant past, researchers measured the circumferxxii
Introduction ence of male and female skulls in order to offer hypotheses about intelligence. In the late 1960s, we parceled language into manipulable bits of syntax—t-units and causal connectives, to name a few—and isolated these in our research in the hope that we could determine which units had salience and could thus create, for readers and teachers alike, texts that had a certain logic, linearity, or predictability, regardless of context. At the time, our questions were located in the individual as representative of a norm, and in the text, as representative of accepted cultural norms. As researchers, we did not consider that these norms may have supported a privileged, exclusive, and limited view of literacy. The notion that our entire enterprise was politically shaped—and that it shaped us, politically—was, wittingly or unwittingly, foreign. Politics was World War II or the Cold War; politics was a seat in the House of Representatives or in Parliament. These had nothing to do with teaching, learning, research, or literacy. However, as we see how our perspectives on literacy have changed, educators and researchers are increasingly able to recognize and inform one another on where the universal and the particular meet, exploring how these affect schooling and research. The one-hundredth anniversary of Marconi’s transmission calls to mind the breathtaking growth in technologies over the last century and, among other implications, reminds us of the remarkable ways in which our gendered social practices repeatedly reinforce and replicate themselves in emerging media, in spite of our attempts to resist (see Marion Fey’s entry, Gender and Post-Typographical Text). Such media are multiplying rapidly in the schools and from the outset have pressed us to consider countless questions about literacy, gender, and authority, as Donna Alvermann’s contribution to these volumes illustrates (see Critical Media Literacy). The OECD test results on literacy that rank North American adolescents higher than most (Canadian students at third, U.S. students at fifteenth, among thirty-two countries) do not necessarily prompt everyone to celebrate; rather, the results invite us to consider how we measure and assess literacy growth; whose values are implicit in those measures; which countries are “excelling” at the expense of others; which cultures and forms of literacy are going unnoticed or are being allowed to die, having been overtaken by the weight of other dominant cultural and political forces.
Finally, the selection of Sima Samar as interim deputy prime minister and minister responsible for women’s affairs in Afghanistan’s transitional government reminds a feminist researcher in literacy of several issues. First and most obviously, Samar’s tenuous and marginal role reminds us that women, regardless of education, continue to have a voice much more limited than their numbers in the population would suggest (and, although cultural practices and values differ, women in North America do not necessarily enjoy representation in greater degree). Further, her role as the minister responsible for women’s affairs reminds us that we, as a global culture, continue to struggle with issues of inclusion and representation. Do we hope for a time when women’s affairs do not need their own department? In schools, do we study African American poets, or do we study, simply, poets, looking carefully at our curricula to ensure that all voices are represented in ways that reveal our rich cultural landscape? Among many other implications, we might consider how this signal event, the circumstances surrounding it, and our awareness of those events have forever altered our perspective on a number of fronts: global, cultural, social, and personal. The glib phrase education for freedom has deeper and more resonant tones now than ever before. Literacy is our access and our angle on the aspects of our world. Our literacies are how we live inside and respond to our worlds. Although our literate behavior has its own fingerprint, we are ecological and global beings; we read and write in local and larger contexts and in communities that shift, that create us as we help to create them. We can resist these contexts, subvert them, reshape them, challenge them, and draw from them. In our increasingly expansive understanding of literacies, educators and researchers are recognizing that literacy is not only of the head, it is of the body, the senses, the heart. The gendered—some say patriarchal—assumptions that literacy is only of the mind and not written on the body are being questioned. Educators in greater numbers are abandoning miseducative and unsustainable literacy-learning activities and helping students and teachers to consider more holistic, embodied, community and globally directed approaches to text, whether the text is conventional print or a student-created multimedia production (see Media Literacy, and Gender and Discussion). xxiii
Introduction Students themselves are becoming authors of their own literacy learning, taking up roles that their teachers once held, demonstrating and stretching new conceptions of literacy in the process. Similarly, classroom teachers look to students and to each other for approaches and inspiration, not to an external authority they may once have relied upon, because they understand that the knowledge they create together creates connection and new possibilities. Such knowledge comes from both boys and girls, from diverse cultural and religious perspectives, from many subject positions, in many voices and in many keys. Educational researchers continue to push our notions of “research literacies” to include participant-shaped qualitative inquiry, narrative approaches, arts-based inquiry, among other research methods and texts. All of these shifts recognize and embrace the complexities we’ve spawned as we have redefined literacy in the last several decades. And all of these shifts are consistent with most conceptions of feminist perspectives on literacy and learning. If it is an equitable world we seek, then our search must, in practice, articulate the local with the global, particular people with universal connections, the word and the image with communities here and beyond. For every electronic text a student beams across the continent, there is a debt to Marconi and an opportunity to examine access and privilege. For every state-mandated literacy test, there arise questions of policy, values, and educating for a market economy. And for every instance of redressing gender imbalance, however minimal, there are millions of young girls across the world now hoping, through their literacy and schooling, to achieve a measure of human potential unlimited by culture or gender. Feminist researchers and educators see the connections among these and look for the possibilities to address them. Lorri Neilsen
and aimed at enabling nations and individuals to “progress” economically and socially (see Adult Literacy). At this time within First World countries like the United States, however, official statistics indicated that adult illiteracy was almost nil. Existing adult literacy initiatives in such countries were small-scale, largely voluntary endeavors. In the First World, “literacy” teaching occurred only in marginal spaces of nonformal education work intended to provide a “second chance” for those whose illiteracy was often seen as directly associated with other debilitating or dysfunctional conditions and circumstances—like unemployment, imprisonment, drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, inferior physical and psychic health, and so on. Three contemporaneous factors played key roles in literacy emerging as a new center of gravity within formal education. The first was the rise to prominence of Paulo Freire’s work within the larger context of the radical education movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s. His work with peasant groups in Brazil and Chile exemplified how literacy work could be central to radical approaches to education aimed at building critical social praxis. The second was the dramatic discovery—many called it an invention—of widespread illiteracy among adults in the United States during the early 1970s. This alleged literacy crisis coincided with early awareness of profound structural change in the economy as the country moved toward becoming a postindustrial society. Postindustrialism entailed far-reaching restructuring of the labor market and employment, as well as deep changes in the major organizations and institutions of daily life. Large numbers of people were seen as poorly prepared for these changes. This “literacy crisis” quickly spread to other emerging postindustrial societies. The third factor was the increasing prominence of a sociocultural perspective within linguistics and the social sciences that impacted strongly on conceptual and theoretical understandings of textual practices. Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole’s seminal work, The Psychology of Literacy (1981), followed by Brian Street’s Literacy in Theory and Practice (1984), provided strong research-based theoretical and conceptual bases from which to critique established approaches to the teaching of reading and writing in schools and an escalating emphasis on “basics” and “functional literacy” fueled by the “literacy crisis.” In this essay we adopt a sociocultural perspective.
VI A field of scholarly and pedagogical activity directly known as literacy emerged only comparatively recently in formal education. Before the 1970s, literacy was associated mainly with educationally disadvantaged adults and, in particular, with Third World settings. Beginning in the 1960s, numerous nonformal adult literacy programs were implemented in developing countries xxiv
Introduction The emergence of a literacy field within formal education was, of course, superimposed on an already long-established field known as “reading.” Psychology-dominated conceptions of reading became prominent in the 1800s. Language was conceptualized as a fixed system of communication, and reading as a discrete set of mental skills to be mastered in a simple-to-difficult progression. From this perspective, becoming a reader involves first learning the alphabet, then small words, larger words, entire sentences, and so on. Thanks largely to psychological conceptions of what people do with print, reading held dominion over writing in terms of research, theoretical development, and pedagogical focus within formal education for almost 200 years. Educationists in the United States and throughout the West have long regarded literacy as a largely psychological ability—an essentially private possession wired into our heads. Reading (and, secondarily, writing) means mastering decoding and encoding skills, involving cognitive capacities seen as integral to “cracking the alphabetic code,” word formation, phonics, grammar, comprehension, and the like. These skills serve as building blocks for accessing meaning, for communicating, and so on. According to this view, once people have literacy they can use “it” to learn, and to pursue many other benefits, including employment, knowledge, leisure and recreational pursuits, and personal development. With the turn to science that marked the 1950s through the 1970s, psychological approaches to understanding reading and writing became more attuned to individual differences. Educators began promoting the need for individual students to work at their own pace. A new emphasis on higher-order thinking brought related shifts in focus from reading accuracy to reading comprehension. This was also associated with a new emphasis on self-directedness and self-responsibility for learning to read (and, at times, learning to write) that culminated in stand-alone “kits” containing purpose-written texts, purpose-produced filmstrips, flashcards, and the like. Among the best-known artifacts here were the ubiquitous Science Research Associates (SRA) reading kits of the 1960s. Commercial reading schemes based on the principle of having students engage with simple-to-complex sequences of skills proliferated in the 1970s and quickly became “must-have” items in schools. By
the mid-1980s, researchers oriented by psychological theories—especially psycholinguistics— had further refined earlier studies of reading development into an exact science that focused particularly on understanding how children successfully encode, decode, and make meaning from printed texts. From the late 1960s on, the dominance of psychology within the field of reading was increasingly challenged by emerging humanistic theories of reading and writing. These confronted psychological theories that mainly attributed reading and writing failure to individuals, rather than taking into account home background, reading materials, teacher approaches to reading and writing instruction, and so forth. The humanistic perspective is characterized by concern with the child’s holistic development. This includes engaging in “authentic” or “naturalistic” learning experiences, attending to the aesthetic dimension of language use (including a new focus on oral language uses), and conceiving knowledge as being (best) built collaboratively rather than individually. It also regards language production as an art rather than as a set of discrete subskills to be mastered sequentially from the simple to the more difficult. From this perspective, reading and writing (and speaking) are referred to collectively as language arts. Theories of natural learning promote the idea that children should learn to read and write in the same way they learn to speak: via full immersion into and engagement with a textual world. This also resulted in a shift from teacher-directed pedagogy to child-centered pedagogies. Humanistic theories also underpinned the development of process approaches to learning to read and write that were influenced directly by analyzing what real (adult) readers and writers do when they read and write. The emphasis on authenticity encouraged a shift away from heavy reliance on lockstep basal reading programs toward using “real” children’s literature in classroom reading programs. Perhaps the best-known teaching approach to emerge from humanistic theories of language use is whole language, with its dual emphasis on social cooperation (e.g., communities of learners) and on individual differences in talents and backgrounds (see Authentic Assessment, Language Arts Instruction, Language Experience Approach, and Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment). xxv
Introduction The 1970s and 1980s also witnessed the emergence of sociocultural theories. These became increasingly popular during the 1990s, influencing pre-service and in-service teacher education courses and reading and writing instruction to a notable degree. This theoretical development had begun with the emergence of social cognition theories of language use derived from Lev Vygotsky and Alexsandre Luria (see Constructivism, and Social Constructivism), and the growth of Marxist/critical theories of language practices. This perspective has been influenced directly by anthropology, history, sociology, and philosophy as well and can be credited with bringing the term literacy into common use within education. Sociocultural theories promoted wider—although never predominant— recognition among educationists that “literacy” is inherently ideological, multiple, contested, dynamic, and contingent. Previously, the notion that reading and writing involved a singular, autonomous, neutral technology (alphabetic print) to be mastered through acquisition of cognitive skills and understandings had reigned supreme. From a sociocultural perspective, literacy is a matter of social practice. Literacies are bound up with social, institutional, and cultural relationships and can only be understood when they are situated within their social, cultural, and historical contexts. Moreover, they are always connected to social identities—to being particular kinds of people. Literacies are always embedded in discourses (see Sociolinguistics and Literacy). Texts are integral parts of innumerable everyday lived, spoken, enacted, value- and belief-laden practices that are carried out in specific places and at specific times (Gee, Hull, and Lankshear, 1996). Reading and writing are not the same thing within a youth zine culture, an on-line chat space, a school classroom, a feminist reading group, or different kinds of religious ceremonies. People read and write differently out of different social practices. These different ways with words are part of different ways of being a person and different ways and facets of life. From a sociocultural perspective, it is impossible to separate out from text-mediated social practices the “bits” concerned with reading or writing and to treat them independently of the “nonprint” bits like values and gestures, actions and objects, talk and interaction, tools and spaces (Gee, Hull, and Lankshear, 1996). They are all nonsubtractable
parts of integrated wholes. “Literacy bits” do not exist apart from the social practices in which they are embedded and within which they are acquired. If, in some trivial sense, they can be said to exist (e.g., as code), they do not mean anything. Hence, they cannot meaningfully be taught and learned as separate. From one angle, the future could scarcely be brighter for the literacy field. Reduced “welfarism”—requiring individuals to be more selfsufficient—intensified informationalism, the rich rewards attached to high-order symbolic analysis and manipulation in postindustrial economies, and the brave new world of global electronic communications have massively upped the ante for literacies. New literacies are being invented daily on the streets, in workplaces, and in cyberspace. So far as literacy scholars and educators are concerned, there are seemingly boundless new realms to be explored, understood, and taught. From other angles, however, the picture is less rosy. Two aspects seem especially noteworthy. First, the literacy “field” is deeply internally conflicted. From a sociocultural perspective, psychology-based approaches to teaching literacy as largely decontextualized skills offends the principles of efficacious learning. Moreover, it advantages those students for whom skills-based pedagogy confers opportunities to become increasingly fluent, using skills they have already acquired within authentic practices in their homes and communities. From this same standpoint, humanistic approaches privilege those social groups whose home and community-based discourses approximate more closely the comparatively narrow range of textual (book/literature-centered) practices that tend to dominate whole language and process reading and writing pedagogies under classroom conditions. Wholelanguage educators may well see themselves as operating out of a sociocultural perspective. Many sociocultural literacy educators, however, would deny this, on the grounds that the pedagogy does not immerse learners in mature versions of authentic social practices but, rather, often involves highly schoolish caricatures of a narrow and middle/professional class-oriented range of social practices. Meanwhile, official literacy education policies and classroom pedagogical responses incline more and more toward psychological skills-based approaches in pursuit xxvi
Introduction of encoding and decoding competence on the part of as many learners as possible. The second aspect concerns the role and place of the classroom within literacy education. Ultimately, the literacy field may be divided on this point. Although the classroom is suited to bookcentered learning and a range of drill and skill procedures and has spawned a repertoire of distinctive school discourses, its capacity to accommodate authentic practices in which diverse everyday literacies are embedded is strictly limited. In addition, many new and emerging literacies associated with social practices mediated by electronic communications and information technologies that are potentially capable of being engaged within classroom-like settings are seen as too risky or otherwise inappropriate for formal education. The internally conflicted “field” of literacy could actually split along a line that divides those educators, theorists, and researchers whose work continues to be predicated on the classroom as the principal and proper site for literacy education from those whose work presumes that literacy education belongs mainly elsewhere. Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear VII The benefits of a professional encyclopedia are many. It gives the user ready access to the theories, perspectives, and programs valued within a community of practice. Each term is thoughtfully overviewed, carefully explicated, and well contextualized by acknowledged experts who craft their explanations and descriptions for readers whose needs are varied and who may not be immersed within the culture or traditions of that community. And so it is for Literacy in America, the twovolume encyclopedia for the domain of literacy. Still, the editor and contributors for these volumes had loftier goals in mind than merely creating a compilation of literacy theories, perspectives, and programs. Their stated intentions were to emphasize recent orientations, influences, and approaches and, in so doing, reveal trends taking shape in the study and practice of literacy. Although each individual contribution may incorporate a sociohistorical framework, the uninitiated reader of this encyclopedia needs more guidance to discern trends within literacy’s complex realm. Such an accomplishment would be analogous to discerning the landscape of a geographic area by reading descriptions of various
cities or landmarks found there. Instead, when individuals desire a broad, integrated look at a physical terrain, they wisely turn to a topographical map that reveals the contours of that landscape. In a similar way, I want to create such a topographical profile based on the configuration and confluence of literacy terminology compiled within these two volumes. This topographical profile should make the trends and transformations referenced in the individual entries of these volumes more transparent to readers. However, rendering a topographical profile of the complex and abstract domain of literacy is not the same as creating a map of a physical terrain. In fact, it takes a massive undertaking like this two-volume encyclopedia with its hundreds of detailed, expertly crafted overviews to concretize the domain, thus allowing such a rendering. Therefore, using this encyclopedia as my guide, I want to take a critical look at the literacy landscape. Specifically, I want to discuss three general dimensions of the literacy landscape suggested by the contents of this informative encyclopedia and to compare those features to past chartings. First, I begin with an examination of the boundaries and regions of the literacy domain. I do so for the purpose of answering this critical question: What constitutes the field of literacy? In other words, how does this current assemblage demark literacy from other domains of research and practice? Such an exploration may also reveal how experts today and in the past have conceptualized this realm. Second, I look deeper inside the domain of literacy to identify regions of increasing activity and rapid expansion. Finally, I undertake a similar inspection to locate areas that appear fallow or seriously underdeveloped. Before proceeding, I must emphasize that areas of relative activity or inactivity are those of the domain of literacy and should not be perceived as shortcomings of this encyclopedia. In fact, the form of mapping I present here is only possible because of the richness of this encyclopedic work, which allows me to pinpoint these contours in literacy’s landscape. Several features of the overall landscape of literacy, as represented in these volumes, are immediately apparent. First, literacy is a vast and diverse domain that encompasses a range of linguistic, sociocultural, pedagogical, and communicative theories, processes, and approaches, from eye-movement research to discursive the-
xxvii
Introduction ory and from reader’s theater to reading clinics (see entries on these topics). Despite this scope and diversity, there are a few shared elements that distinguish literacy from surrounding domains. Fundamentally, literacy is concerned with language and the forces that influence its nature, acquisition, and use. Second, much of the territory now called “literacy” was once largely subsumed under the realm of “language arts.” Yet this transformation from language arts to literacy is far more than titular. It signifies a dramatic reconceptualization of the landscape. Specifically, under that older moniker, language arts, this territory fundamentally consisted of four rather discrete regions— reading, writing, speaking, and listening. There was little cross-fertilization of ideas from region to region, little in the way of shared features, and limited concern with the social, cultural, and political undercurrents that bind them together. Today, the landscape of literacy is noticeably more fluid and overlapping, particularly as it relates to the regions of reading and writing. As in the past, however, reading seemingly dominates the landscape, although writing is a realm of increasing significance and far more intertwined with reading. Speaking and listening, which have historically been areas of modest activity, have been reframed and increasingly absorbed into the realms of reading and writing. Nowhere is this transformation more evident than in dissolution of the old realm of speech. That is, we find that the formal area of speech has literally disappeared from the landscape. In its place, we find numerous entries in these volumes related to oral communication and verbal interaction linked to both reading (see Discussion, Oral Language, and Peer Discussion) and writing (see Dialogue Journals, and The Discussion Web). With only one entry to its credit (see Active Listening), the old realm of listening has experienced a similar dissolution and absorption. Further, it is evident that the boundaries of literacy have widened in recent years, spreading into new and uncharted territories. These new regions are often represented in these volumes by entries dealing with alternative literacies (see Critical Media Literacy, and Ecological Literacy). These entries also address the sociocultural forces shaping literacy processes in classrooms and the broader society (see Gender and Discussion, and Feminist Post-Structuralism).
Because mappings are routinely influenced by social, cultural, and political factors of the time, they are typically biased renderings. The same can be said for the depiction of literacy based on this two-volume encyclopedia. Within this compilation, the aforementioned emergent regions have been somewhat exaggerated in scope relative to the entire domain of literacy. This enhancement is particularly apparent from the vantage point of everyday educational practice, where more traditional aspects of literacy (see Phonics Instruction, Predictable Books, and Questioning) still hold sway. However, according to the editor of this work, this enhancement was intentionally undertaken to highlight recent lines of inquiry within literacy for audiences that may be more familiar and absorbed with traditional dimensions of the domain. As with the concepts related to oral communication and verbal interactions, the clustering of theories, perspectives, and programs in these volumes is indicative of increasing activity or rapid expansion upon the theoretical, practical, and political landscape of literacy. In many ways, those regions of development reflect the changing society in which we live and in which literacy operates. For example, among the widespread theoretical transformations that have changed the global landscape of education, and thus literacy, is the apparent shift from strongly individualistic to social conceptions of knowledge and knowing. In essence, the nature of learning and development in past decades was described in terms of theories or models that dealt almost exclusively with cognition or changes in an individual’s mind. The goal was to improve the quantity and quality of one’s existing or prior knowledge or to enhance the efficiency with which one’s knowledge could be activated and applied. Today, by comparison, there is much more concern with the social nature of learning and development. This change is manifest in the growing interest in the influence of group membership on literacy achievement and practice (see Gender and Reading, and Social Nature of Literacy). It is also visible in the way that those groups construct shared knowledge through cooperation and collaboration (see Constructivism, Social Constructivism, and Social Nature of Literacy). Those transformations from individual to collective perspectives are reflected both explicitly and subtly in the literacy encyclopedia entries. For example, the encyclopedia includes an ex-
xxviii
Introduction plicit point-counterpoint discussion of schema theory. Schema theory was a theoretical model of individualistic knowledge structures that dominated the literacy domain for much of the 1970s and early 1980s. The premises and richness of that theory are considered herein (see Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions, Schema Theory, and Story Grammar), along with the limitations or shortcomings of that theory as seen from a sociocontextual vantage point. In addition, there are many subtle markers of the shift to more socially constructed, socially shared models of knowledge and knowing. The discussions of constructivism and context in literacy, for instance, address this theoretical shift within the literacy community, as do entries dealing with social orientations (see Gender and Writing, Graffiti, and Resistant Reading) and socially shared practices (see Book Clubs, The Discussion Web, and Scaffolded Literacy Instruction). Moreover, beyond social membership or orientation, there are clusters of entries in this encyclopedia that mirror the growing presence of computer-based technologies. Had I sketched literacy’s landscape in the 1970s, I would have seen scant evidence of technology—perhaps a few references to television or the media. In today’s mapping, however, the outcropping of computer-based terminology is distinctive and casts a large shadow over the domain of literacy. That shadow extends to pedagogical practice (see Computer-Assisted Instruction, Distance Learning, and Electronic Jigsaw) and student assessment (see Dynamic Assessment). It also embraces the basic conceptualization of text (see Multiple Texts) and modes of communication (see Instant Messaging, and Reading Online). Despite its visible presence, computer-based technology’s overall impact on the nature, acquisition, and practice of literacy remains ill-determined. That is largely attributable to the fact that these technological changes are occurring at such a rapid pace that the literacy community has been unable to extensively and thoroughly track their effects. It will be interesting to return to that dimension of the literacy landscape in the future to see whether the community has developed a richer, more sophisticated understanding of the impact of technology on the prevailing climate and culture of the domain. The areas of rapid expansion are also suggestive of powerful political and pedagogical under-
currents transforming the broader educational environment to which literacy belongs. The time and attention devoted to the topic of assessment is a monument to those powerful forces. Assessment has always been a component of the literacy landscape. In decades past, however, the conversations about assessment would have dealt primarily with individual diagnosis. Vestiges of those conversations still dot the current landscape (see Cloze Procedure, Informal Reading Inventory, Reading Diagnosis, and Reading-Interest Inventories). Alongside those more individual and more traditional assessment landmarks are new and imposing structures. These new monoliths represent efforts to broaden our assessment repertoire (see Authentic Assessment, and Portfolios). They are also markers of a dramatic shift away from assessment as a means of improving literacy instruction for individual students to a mechanism whereby the government and the public hold districts, schools, administrators, and teachers accountable (see Accountability and Testing, High-Stakes Assessment, National Assessment of Educational Progress, and Public Opinion and Literacy). Although there is much debate and speculation within the literacy community regarding these new assessment thrusts, we have yet to ascertain the long-term benefits or the potential risks they pose. There is no question that literacy is a domain of high activity and interest within the wider educational sphere. Yet there are still regions that remain undercultivated or suffer from neglect, as is to be expected in any complex domain. Two of these fallow areas can be identified by the lack of attention they garner within the extensive compilation in this encyclopedia. The first deals with the relative inattention given to successful or highly competent readers versus those perceived to be at risk or in need. The second considers the discontinuity between key ages and stages of literacy. Historically, the literacy domain, as with the broader educational community, has been deeply concerned with those children, youth, and even adults who have not experienced success or shared in the benefits and pleasures that linguistic competence affords. This focus is both understandable and warranted. The continuing interest in student assessment and the array of programs and interventions aimed at improving students’ performance provide ample evidence xxix
Introduction of this orientation (see Bilingual Education, The Even Start Family Literacy Program, The Head Start Program, Reading Recovery, and Title I). Yet logically, there would seem to be as many individuals with the potential to achieve competence in the domain of literacy as those who struggle or have identified needs. If the literacy community is committed to fostering individuals who not only possess minimum competencies but who also find pleasure and fulfillment in literacy acts throughout their lifetime, then it would be wise to reevaluate its consideration of this overlooked region of the landscape. Similarly, there are clusters of activity within the domain related to individuals at differing points in their literacy development. There are those young children just becoming acquainted with this awesome domain of literacy and all the power and potential it presents (see Early Literacy, and Early Literacy Assessment). Further, the experts in these volumes discuss students who have entered a new phase of life and schooling, and for whom the lure and value of literacy has changed for better and for worse (see Adolescent Literacy, and Middle-School Literacy). In addition, there are references within this encyclopedia to even more cognitively and physically mature populations—populations still struggling with the demands that a highly literate society poses (see Adult Literacy Testing, and Developmental and College Reading). Surprisingly, as in times past, when the regions of literacy—reading, writing, speaking, and listening—existed as separate, discrete areas of research and practice, I see limited attempts to integrate these ages and stages of literacy development. That is to say, what is conspicuously absent in the domain of literacy, as marked by this compilation, is any deep understanding of or reflection about the processes and conditions that allow for progression across these regions of growth and change. What confluence of factors and forces urge young children forward from a region of emerging literacy, where they are only becoming acclimated to this immense terrain, to the place where they are willing and able to delve more competently into the resources of the domain? How do their maturing abilities and evolving needs take root and expand into adulthood, ensuring that literacy remains fertile and productive ground throughout their life? These are clearly
questions that members of the literacy community are ill-prepared to answer. Further, this void in literacy’s landscape will persist until the community learns to draw on the vast resources of surrounding domains, such as development, motivation, and educational psychology, that can enlighten and inform our research and practice. Such cross-domain fertilization can only enhance the existing landscape and interject new vitality into the literacy domain. As this brief charting reveals, the domain of literacy is not only extensive and rich with resources but also alive with activity. By surveying the informative and well-chosen entries in this encyclopedia, as I have done here, areas of emergent development or undercultivation become more readily apparent. Indeed, this survey reveals the conscious efforts to integrate across regions within the landscape. The emerging areas of new exploration and the concern with literacy’s place within the broader educational, social, cultural, and political contexts are advances to be celebrated. Nevertheless, the literacy community cannot overlook the fact that there are still segments of this domain that it has failed to cultivate or has allowed to wither from neglect. As a community committed to the practice and processes of literacy for all individuals across the lifespan, literacy educators, administrators, and researchers must take this occasion, the landmark publication of Literacy in America, as an opportunity for self-reflection and reassessment. Only then can this community prepare for the next decade of literacy’s research and practice and ensure the continued health and prosperity of this critical domain. Patricia A. Alexander References Gee, J., G. Hull, and C. Lankshear. 1996. The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. Boulder: Westview Press. Heath, S. B. 1988. Protean Shapes in Literacy Events: Ever-Shifting Oral and Literate Traditions. In E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Moll, and M. Rose, eds., Perspectives on Literacy, pp. 348–370. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Scribner, S., and M. Cole. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Street, B. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
xxx
Contributors
Ira E. Aaron, Emeritus University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Patricia L. Anders University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona
Richard Beach University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
Martha A. Adler University of Michigan–Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, Michigan
Nicki L. Anzelmo-Skelton Southeastern Louisiana University Hammond, Louisiana
Thomas W. Bean University of Nevada–Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada
Peter Afflerbach University of Maryland– College Park College Park, Maryland
Bonnie B. Armbruster University of Illinois– Urbana-Champaign Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Patricia A. Alexander University of Maryland– College Park College Park, Maryland
Gwynne Ellen Ash University of Delaware Newark, Delaware
JoBeth Allen University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Richard L. Allington University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Janice F. Almasi State University of New York–Buffalo Buffalo, New York Marino C. Alvarez Tennessee State University Nashville, Tennessee Donna E. Alvermann University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Deborah J. Augsburger Lewis University Romeoville, Illinois R. Scott Baldwin Edinboro University of Pennsylvania Edinboro, Pennsylvania Diane Barone University of Nevada–Reno Reno, Nevada Rebecca Barr National-Louis University Evanston, Illinois James F. Baumann University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
xxxi
E. Jo Ann Belk University of Memphis Memphis, Tennessee Beth Berghoff Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana Roberta L. Berglund Independent Consultant Oak Brook, Illinois Camille L. Z. Blachowicz National-Louis University Evanston, Illinois Randy Bomer University of Texas Austin, Texas Connie A. Bridge University of Illinois–Chicago Chicago, Illinois Kathryn Brimmer Oakland University Rochester, Michigan
Contributors Lorelei R. Brush American Institutes for Research Washington, D.C. Robert C. Calfee University of California– Riverside Riverside, California Tracy Carman Literacy Volunteers of America Syracuse, New York Ronald P. Carver University of Missouri–Kansas City Kansas City, Missouri Marrietta Castle, Emerita Western Illinois University Rock Island, Illinois Earl H. Cheek Jr. Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana Meredith Rogers Cherland University of Regina Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada James Christie Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
Michelle Commeyras University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Henry T. Dunbar Reading Is Fundamental Washington, D.C.
Kathleen E. Cox University of Maryland– College Park College Park, Maryland
Pamela J. Dunston Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina
Jane L. Davidson, Emerita Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois
Jonathan Eakle University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Alan Davis University of Colorado–Denver Denver, Colorado
Jacqueline Edmondson The Pennsylvania State University University Park, Pennsylvania
Deborah J. Davis Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Laurie Elish-Piper Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois
Susan Deese-Roberts University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico
John Elkins University of Queensland Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Martha Dillner University of Houston– Clear Lake Houston, Texas Deborah R. Dillon University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
Cynthia B. Elliott Southeastern Louisiana State University Hammond, Louisiana Billie J. Enz Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
Caroline T. Clark Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio
Carol N. Dixon University of California–Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California
Karen S. Evans Marquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Kathy Cochran Furman University Greenville, South Carolina
Janice A. Dole University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah
Bettina Fabos University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa
Jill E. Cole Wesley College Dover, Delaware
Mark Dressman University of Illinois– Urbana-Champaign Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Mark Faust University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
John P. Comings Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts
Ann M. Duffy University of North Carolina–Greensboro Greensboro, North Carolina xxxii
Marion Harris Fey State University College of New York–Geneseo Geneseo, New York
Contributors Anna Figueira Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Margaret Finders Washington University St. Louis, Missouri Peter J. Fisher National-Louis University Evanston, Illinois Jill Fitzgerald University of North Carolina–Chapel Hill Chapel Hill, North Carolina Amy Seely Flint Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Rona F. Flippo Fitchburg State College Cambridge, Massachusetts James Flood San Diego State University San Diego, California Linda Flower Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Barbara J. Fox North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina Edward Fry, Emeritus Rutgers University Rutgers, New Jersey Lee Galda University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota Margaret Gamboa Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Linda B. Gambrell Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina
Georgia Earnest García University of Illinois– Urbana-Champaign Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Maryl Gearhart University of California– Berkeley Berkeley, California James Paul Gee University of Wisconsin– Madison Madison, Wisconsin MariAnne George Oakland University Rochester, Michigan Shawn M. Glynn University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Kenneth S. Goodman, Emeritus University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Yetta M. Goodman University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Judith L. Green University of California– Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, California
Ruth D. Handel Montclair State University Upper Montclair, New Jersey Violet J. Harris University of Illinois– Urbana-Champaign Urbana-Champaign, Illinois Jerome C. Harste Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Douglas K. Hartman University of Pittsburgh Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Kathy N. Headley Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina Harold L. Herber, Emeritus Syracuse University Syracuse, New York Alison H. Heron University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Elfrieda H. Hiebert University of Michigan–Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, Michigan Kathy Highfield Oakland University Rochester, Michigan
John Guthrie University of Maryland– College Park College Park, Maryland
Richard E. Hodges University of Puget Sound Tacoma, Washington
Barbara J. Guzzetti Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
Kerry A. Hoffman Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana
Margaret Carmody Hagood College of Charleston Charleston, South Carolina
Taylor Holt Rutgers University Rutgers, New Jersey
Diane Hamm Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
Stephen E. Hornstein St. Cloud State University St. Cloud, Minnesota
xxxiii
Contributors George G. Hruby University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Michele Knobel Central Queensland University Queensland, Australia
Cynthia Lewis University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa
Sarah Hudelson Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
Bethel H. Kogut Laubach Literacy International Syracuse, New York
Mitzi Lewison Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana
Cynthia R. Hynd University of Illinois–Chicago Chicago, Illinois
Kimi Kondo-Brown University of Hawaii–Manoa Honolulu, Hawaii
Jimmy D. Lindsey Southern University Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Gay Ivey University of Maryland– College Park College Park, Maryland
Susan P. Kornuta East Baton Rouge Parish Schools Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Laura R. Lipsett The Ohio Center for Essential School Reform Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Bob W. Jerrolds, Emeritus North Georgia College and State University Oahlonega, Georgia
Stephen Krashen University of Southern California Los Angeles, California
Rebecca Luce-Kapler Queens University Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Jerry L. Johns, Emeritus Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois
Linda D. Labbo University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Denise Johnson College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia
Missy Laine University of Cincinnati Cincinnati, Ohio
Mary Johnston Oakland University Rochester, Michigan
Colin Lankshear University of Ballarat Ballarat, Australia
Michael L. Kamil Stanford University Palo Alto, California
Diane Lapp San Diego State University San Diego, California
Wendy C. Kasten Kent State University Kent, Ohio
Christine Leland Indiana University/Purdue University Indianapolis, Indiana
Francis E. Kazemek St. Cloud State University St. Cloud, Minnesota Laurie Kingsley University of Missouri– Columbia Columbia, Missouri
Noma LeMoine Los Angeles Unified School District Los Angeles, California Susan Davis Lenski Illinois State University Normal, Illinois
xxxiv
Allan Luke University of Queensland Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Carmen Luke University of Queensland Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Jeff MacSwan Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Yolanda Majors University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Anthony V. Manzo California State University–Fullerton Fullerton, California Ula Manzo University of California– Fullerton Fullerton, California Peggy VanLeirsburg Marciniec University of Wisconsin– Superior Superior, Wisconsin
Contributors Howard Margolis Queens College of the City University of New York Queens, New York Katherine Maria College of New Rochelle New Rochelle, New York
Larry Mikulecky Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana Mary Jane Mitchell North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina
Prisca Martens Towson University Towson, Maryland
Elizabeth Birr Moje University of Michigan– Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, Michigan
Mona W. Matthews Georgia State University Atlanta, Georgia
Karla J. Möller Indiana University Bloomington, Indiana
Sandra McCormick, Emerita Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio
Charles Monaghan Independent Scholar Brooklyn, New York
Kathleen M. McCoy Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
E. Jennifer Monaghan Brooklyn College of the City University of New York Brooklyn, New York
Ann McGill-Franzen University of Florida Gainesville, Florida Michael C. McKenna Georgia Southern University Savannah, Georgia
Virginia R. Monseau Youngstown State University Youngstown, Ohio David W. Moore Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
Maureen McLaughlin East Stroudsberg University of Pennsylvania East Stroudsberg, Pennsylvania
Sharon Arthur Moore Peoria Unified School District Glendale, Arizona
Susan McMahon National-Louis University Evanston, Illinois
Gretchen Morrison Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona
Jeff McQuillan California State University–Fullerton Fullerton, California
Timothy G. Morrison Brigham Young University Provo, Utah
John Micklos Jr. Reading Today Newark, Delaware
Lesley Mandel Morrow Rutgers University Rutgers, New Jersey Jacqueline Y. Munyer University of Maryland College Park, Maryland xxxv
Donna M. Murphy Edinboro University of Pennsylvania Edinboro, Pennsylvania K. Denise Muth University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Allan Neilsen Mount Saint Vincent University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Lorri Neilsen Mount Saint Vincent University Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada Susan Neuman University of Michigan–Ann Arbor Ann Arbor, Michigan Sherrie L. Nist University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Stephen P. Norris University of Alberta Calgary, Alberta, Canada David G. O’Brien University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota Donna M. Ogle National-Louis University Evanston, Illinois Penny Oldfather University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Michael F. Opitz University of Northern Colorado Greeley, Colorado Nancy Padak Kent State University Kent, Ohio
Contributors †Ann Watts Pailliotet Whitman College Walla Walla, Washington
Gaoyin Qian Lehman College Bronx, New York
Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Michigan
Taffy E. Raphael University of Illinois–Chicago Chicago, Illinois
Jeanne R. Paratore Boston University Boston, Massachusetts
Timothy Rasinski Kent State University Kent, Ohio
Lavada Jacumin Parmer University of Mobile Mobile, Alabama
John E. Readence University of Nevada–Las Vegas Las Vegas, Nevada
P. Elizabeth Pate University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
Lynn Reddy National Institute for Literacy Washington, D.C.
P. David Pearson University of California– Berkeley Berkeley, California
David Reinking University of Georgia Athens, Georgia
M. Christina Pennington Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina Kay Pentzien Oakland University Rochester, Michigan Stephen Phelps Buffalo State College Buffalo, New York Linda M. Phillips University of Alberta Calgary, Alberta, Canada Gay Su Pinnell Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio Cheryl Pocius Oakland University Rochester, Michigan
Lynne Hebert Remson Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona D. Ray Reutzel Southern Utah University Cedar City, Utah Carole S. Rhodes Adelphi University Garden City, New York Victoria Gentry Ridgeway Clemson University Clemson, South Carolina Pat Rigg American Language and Literacy Tucson, Arizona Victoria J. Risko Peabody College of Vanderbilt University Nashville, Tennessee
Victoria Purcell-Gates Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan xxxvi
Richard Robinson University of Missouri– Columbia Columbia, Missouri Theresa Rogers University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Kellie Rolstad Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Jonathan Rose Drew University Madison, New Jersey Nancy L. Roser University of Texas–Austin Austin, Texas Kathleen Roskos John Carroll University University Heights, Ohio Martha Rapp Ruddell Sonoma State University Rohnert Park, California William H. Rupley Texas A&M University College Station, Texas Leslie S. Rush University of Wyoming Laramie, Wyoming Martha H. Rusnak Lewis University Romeoville, Illinois Terry Salinger American Institute for Research Washington, D.C. S. Jay Samuels University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contributors Amy C. Sass Rutgers University Rutgers, New Jersey
Norman A. Stahl Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois
Diane L. Schallert University of Texas–Austin Austin, Texas
Steven A. Stahl University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
Barbara R. Schirmer Miami University Oxford, Ohio
Patricia Lambert Stock Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
Judith A. Scott University of California– anta Cruz Santa Cruz, California
Jeanne Swafford Mississippi State University Starkville, Mississippi
Timothy Shanahan University of Illinois–Chicago Chicago, Illinois Kathy G. Short University of Arizona Tucson, Arizona Michele L. Simpson University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Yvonne Siu-Runyan University of Northern Colorado Greeley, Colorado Peter Smagorinsky University of Georgia Athens, Georgia Karen Smith Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona M. Cecil Smith Northern Illinois University DeKalb, Illinois Michael W. Smith Rutgers University Rutgers, New Jersey William Earl Smith Ohio University Athens, Ohio
Susan Swan Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Janet P. Swartz Abt Associates Cambridge, Massachusetts Anne P. Sweet U.S. Department of Education Washington, D.C. Joy Sweet Right to Read Washington, D.C. Barbara M. Taylor University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota Shane Templeton University of Nevada–Reno Reno, Nevada Robert J. Tierney University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Cheri Foster Triplett Virginia Tech University Blacksburg, Virginia Brenda Turnbull Policy Studies Associates Washington, D.C. xxxvii
Norman J. Unrau California State University– Los Angeles Los Angeles, California Richard T. Vacca Kent State University Kent, Ohio Sam Vagenas University of Phoenix Phoenix, Arizona Sheila W. Valencia University of Washington Seattle, Washington Johan W. van der Jagt Southeastern Louisiana University Hammond, Louisiana Suzanne E. Wade University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah Kenneth J. Weiss Nazareth College of Rochester Rochester, New York Mary Ann Wham University of Wisconsin–Whitewater Whitewater, Wisconsin Terrence G. Wiley Arizona State University Tempe, Arizona Arlette Ingram Willis University of Illinois–Chicago Chicago, Illinois Peter Winograd University of New Mexico Albuquerque, New Mexico Linda S. Wold Purdue University Calumet Hammond, Indiana
Contributors Carolyn F. Woods Harrison County Schools Gulfport, Mississippi
Crystal Marie Wooten Phoenix Parks, Recreation, and Library Program Phoenix, Arizona
xxxviii
A Ability Grouping
formed within classes also became more common during the 1920s and 1930s. Researchers in the 1930s asked whether the practice of ability grouping really led to the creation of a group of students who were similar in their knowledge. Upon investigation, they found that student performance in one area (e.g., reading) was not highly related to that in another (e.g., math) and that classes formed to be high ability and low ability in a particular area were, in fact, highly overlapping in that same area when measured by a different test. A second question pursued by researchers asked whether students grouped by ability learned more than comparable students in more heterogeneous groups. The literature includes two major waves of reviews on achievement outcomes, one in the 1930s and the other in the 1960s. Reviewers of both periods emphasize the equivocal and inconsistent results from study to study and criticize the quality of the quasi-experimental studies. Yet, basing their studies mainly on the same evidence, they draw quite different conclusions. Whereas early reviewers tended to conclude that ability grouping benefited “slow” students, many in the later group of reviewers discerned a tendency for ability-grouped high achievers to learn more than comparable students in heterogeneous groups but for abilitygrouped low achievers to do less well than those in heterogeneous groups. Concern about whether and how students should be organized for classroom instruction stimulated theoretical and ideological debate. One assumption underlying ability grouping and tracking strategies is that the content of instruction needs to be matched to the prior knowledge of students for them to realize optimal learning. Yet if ability groups were not as
Ability grouping refers to the division of students into groups on the basis of their intelligence or achievement. Within-class grouping occurs mainly in elementary-school classes and mainly for reading instruction. For within-class grouping, group membership can be modified over time since all groups are taught by a single teacher and different groups can be formed for other content areas. Further, in those subject areas in which the class is instructed as a unit, children have the opportunity to interact with classmates who vary in ability. Between-class grouping in elementary schools or tracking in high schools refers to the assignment of students to classes on the basis of achievement in an effort to increase the homogeneity among students within classes. In these classes, students interact only with other students of roughly similar achievement. Historical Literature on Ability Grouping The impulse to regularize education in the United States goes back at least to the time of Horace Mann in the 1830s. Ability grouping into classes was first documented somewhat later in 1862 in the St. Louis schools. Although it is more difficult to date the emergence of ability grouping within classrooms, one of the earliest references, found in the Story Hour Readers Manual (American Book Company, 1913) suggests separate groups for those who are “slow and need more assistance” and those who “progress rapidly.” Schools at the turn of the century expanded rapidly as new waves of immigration occurred. Educators responded with a variety of school reforms, including various grouping schemes identified with their respective cities (Detroit; Joplin, Missouri; Denver; Gary, Indiana; Winnetka, Illinois; Dalton, Georgia). Reading groups 1
Ability Grouping
Students in this picture are grouped by ability (Elizabeth Crews)
thing in different schools or even in the same school. The educational experiences of students vary markedly across tracks or groups, depending on the level and quality of the curricular materials used, the capabilities of teachers, and the aggregate characteristics of students from class to class. Reviews of this literature focus mainly on the results from case studies and surveys (Barr and Dreeben, 1991; Oakes, Gamoran, and Page, 1992). Concern with equality spawned several lines of inquiry, some going beyond narrow ideological concerns and leading to conceptualizations of ability grouping as part of the social systems of schools and classrooms. Some of the more interesting research of the 1970s and 1980s stems from concern with the mechanisms, such as curriculum differentiation and instructional quality, through which social background might influence education and life chances. Rebecca Barr and Robert Dreeben (1991), for example, argue that the rate of curricular presentation is responsive to average group ability, which in turn influences students’ learning.
homogeneous as generally assumed and if results concerning learning were equivocal, could the practice be justified? Questions focused not only on whether the practice of ability grouping was educationally sound but also on whether it violated the principle of equal educational opportunity. Were some children being discriminated against by being placed in low-level reading groups or in low-ability classes? The Moses v. Washington Parish School Board (1971) decision, for example, was based on the argument that the practice was not acceptable since educational research does not justify its use. Research on Ability Grouping in the 1970s and 1980s Research in the 1970s and 1980s reflects trends in educational research toward examining the processes through descriptive research methods. During this period, the research on ability grouping became more broadly conceptualized, focusing on the instruction that ability groups receive. It has become clear that membership in an ability group or track does not mean the same 2
Ability Grouping terest in such issues in the 1990s. A number of sociological studies have focused on tracking in the middle grades and high school (see, for example, Dauber, Alexander, and Entwisle, 1996). Relatively little recent research has focused on ability grouping within elementary-school classes, however. Three influences have combined to shape the practice of ability grouping in elementary-school reading instruction. First, as mentioned previously, constructivist theories of learning and views on “whole language” led in the 1980s and 1990s to experimentation with total-class instruction and more individualized and flexible forms of grouping. Second, immigration policies in the previous decades resulted in an increase of students from other nations in American schools. Third, initiatives to include students with special needs in regular classes are encouraged (mainstreaming, inclusion). Given this set of conditions, what might their impact be on ability grouping? Shifts away from grouping on the basis of ability for instruction in elementary schools have been striking. Sharon Kletzien (1996) examined the reading programs in 300 schools, nationally recognized by the Blue Ribbon School Recognition programs of the U.S. Department of Education. From the subset with clearly described grouping patterns, the dominant pattern of ability groups within heterogeneous classes decreased from 92 percent in 1985–1986 to 52 percent in 1991–1992. Increases showed during that same period for the use of heterogeneous and flexible groups in heterogeneous classes (6 percent to 36 percent). However, because these were “Blue Ribbon” schools, the shift would likely be somewhat less in schools more generally. Yet even for award winning programs, a decline from 92 percent to 52 percent in a well-established practice such as ability grouping is remarkable. An extensive case-study literature also documents the shift from ability-grouped reading instruction to total-class instruction and to more flexible forms of classroom grouping. Many reports describe approaches used by teachers to form heterogeneous and flexible groups (e.g., Radencich and McKay, 1995). Some case studies focus on the implementation of literature circles and reading workshops; others describe a combination of alternative formats. Similarly, analyses of frequently used basal-series manuals
reveal that suggestions are made for instruction in student-led groups, for students working in pairs and individually, as well as in teacher-led small groups. In addition to studies of grouping practices, more interpretive forms of research focus on teachers’ and students’ perceptions of ability grouping and more flexible forms of grouping. Sally Watson Moody, Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne Shay Schumm (1997), for example, interviewed twenty-nine third-grade teachers about grouping decisions and practices. The teachers reported feeling constrained by administrative demands for them to provide total-class reading instruction; most would have preferred using mixed-ability grouping arrangements. In a similar study involving teachers from grades three to five, most reported combining whole language with basal instruction. The most common grouping formats for reading instruction tended to be whole class, followed by small groups, and then pairs. For each of these formats, teachers tended to favor mixed-ability over same-ability membership. A somewhat different perspective on ability grouping was elicited from students about their work in mixed-ability groups. Third-grade students who were interviewed expressed concerns about the noise and other distractions in small groups and the difficulty in getting help from teachers. Lower-achieving students were concerned about being teased and embarrassed by peers; higher achievers focused on the slow pace and limited challenge of the work. Increases in immigration concurrent with increases in the number of special learners in regular classrooms have led to highly diverse classes. Unlike the first few decades of the twentieth century, when increased student diversity led to the adoption of ability grouping, the responses of educators are currently more mixed. Moreover, increased class diversity has occurred at a time when teachers are in the process of implementing total-class instruction and more flexible forms of classroom organization. This coincidence of forces has spawned a body of research, much of it conducted by researchers from the field of special education, to assess the effectiveness of alternative ways of organizing students for instruction. The implicit argument in this research is not that ability group represents a viable solution but that other forms of 4
Ability Grouping Concerning the structure of groups, the assertion is repeatedly made that ability groups, once established, are highly stable. Observational evidence, however, suggests some mobility between ability groups within classes, in the range of 20 to 35 percent in grades one to three and from 10 to 25 percent in grades four to seven. It also shows that teachers change the number and composition of groups over the course of the school year. Teachers show different patterns of group changes; more effective teachers tend to move more students up than down. There has been relatively little documentation of the stability of ability-group membership from year to year, but there appears to be a high degree of stability in group membership during the primary years, when ability grouping is employed. Along somewhat different lines, other researchers consider how individualized versus more traditional forms of teaching influence classroom authority, friendship among students, the attribution of status, and collaboration among teachers. They argue that traditional forms of instruction (restricted curricular tasks, ability grouping, and comparative grading) serve as the occasion for attributing low status to low achievers, thereby depressing their interaction and learning. Explanations based on case studies of classrooms and schools tend to focus on the quality of instructional interaction, the perceptions and attitudes of participants, and their interpretations of events. Rather than positing models in which events and activities are examined for their relationships, these researchers describe the intentions of participants and the constellations of factors that characterize the instructional experiences of low- and high-achieving groups and classes. Case studies in elementary and high schools examine the academic task characteristics of low and high groups. With respect to the curriculum, low-group members typically cover less material, complete simpler assignments, and perform more drill and skill work than students in higher-achieving groups. Although content differences have been emphasized, these differences may be of minor significance in relation to the similarities in curriculum that characterize U.S. elementary-school instruction: Most children in a grade in the same school use the same reading textbooks and related materials, and although
groups may proceed at somewhat different paces through the materials, the curricular tasks are essentially the same. Case studies also reveal the nature of the interaction during instruction. In elementary schools, low reading group members tend to experience a greater number of intrusions and less time on task than do students in higher-achieving groups. Lower-group members read orally more often, focus on smaller units of print, have decoding rather than meaning emphasized, are asked more questions that require recall of information rather than reasoning, receive different prompts from teachers, and are provided more structure through the provision of advanced organizers for lessons than their higher-group peers. Although some instructional researchers also claim that low-group members receive less instructional time, others have not found differential time allocations. Findings are similar in middle- and highschool classes. Interpretive studies at the secondary level link the instructional treatment of students to teacher assumptions about the potential learning of their students. Because they are perceived as being unwilling or incapable of completing academic work, they are given simplified tasks and learn correspondingly little. Similarly, it is typically concluded that low-achieving students are being treated unfairly and that their instruction is causing them to achieve poorly. It is assumed that low-group members would learn more if they participated in more challenging instruction. But before it can be concluded that the same instruction is appropriate, low groups and classes need to receive and respond positively to the same kind of instruction that their higherachieving peers receive. Only a limited number of reviewers have explored the results from survey studies and casestudy descriptions in combination. Adam Gamoran and Mark Berends (1987), for example, draw from both types of studies to explore how ability grouping works. They not only explore the mechanism intervening between group structure and learning but also provide rich descriptions of classroom events. Recent Research on Ability Grouping Researchers have shown intense interest in ability grouping during most of the twentieth century, but they have shown especially selective in3
Accountability and Testing Moody, Sally W., Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne S. Schumm. 1997. “Instructional Grouping for Reading: Teachers’ Views.” Remedial and Special Education 18 (6):347–356. Oakes, Jeannie, Adam Gamoran, and Reba N. Page. 1992. “Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings.” In P. W. Jackson, ed., Handbook of Research on Curriculum, pp. 570–608. New York: Macmillan. Radencich, Marguerite C., and Lyn J. McKay, eds. 1995. Flexible Grouping for Literacy in the Elementary Grades. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
grouping are more effective than total-class instruction. In one of the most comprehensive reviews of this literature, Batya Elbaum and colleagues (1999) employed the method of metaanalysis to statistically integrate the results from research that met specified criteria for inclusion. Using this approach, they summarized the findings from studies conducted between 1975 and 1995. The majority of studies (sixteen out of twenty) involved regular as well as special-education students (learning disability [LD] and behavioral disorder [BD]) working in pairs; the remaining studies involved students working in small groups or combined grouping formats. The results from this meta-analysis indicated that students working in pairs learned more than comparable students receiving total-class instruction. Some research on ability groups and tracking, then, continued into the 1990s, but this research focused mainly on ability grouping and tracking at the middle- and high-school level. In elementary schools, by contrast, there was little examination of the nature or consequences of ability grouping. Research focused instead on alternatives to total-class instruction such as learning in pairs and small groups and their effect on learning, particularly for groups of special learners. Rebecca Barr
Accountability and Testing Accountability, according to Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, means being responsible, being answerable. Educators have always been responsible for students’ success in school (however it may be defined), and students have always been responsible for their learning. In this sense, accountability in education is not new. The more pragmatic definition, however, and certainly the one that is common today, connotes serious consequences—assigning praise or blame, rewards or punishments—to the people and institutions responsible (see High-Stakes Assessment). Although many believe that such high stakes mark a new twist on accountability, high stakes can be traced back to the 1860s when inspectors in England and Wales toured the country examining children’s reading, arithmetic, and learning in other subjects and then used the results to allocate teachers’ salaries. More recent history locates accountability in the original Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965), which demanded that evaluation and accountability be tied to federal funds for the education of children in poverty (see Title I). This created an enormous need for normreferenced tests, and it cemented the link between testing and the accountability component of Title I; no other type of measure could have systematically provided information on the progress and achievement of thousands of students across the country. Later, in the 1970s and 1980s, the minimum competency testing (MCT) movement further strengthened the link between testing and accountability, and it reified high-stakes testing. During this time, students were required to pass a test of basic, minimallevel skills in order to graduate from high school. Along with the high-stakes concept, MCT also
See Also Context in Literacy; Cooperative Learning; Individualized Reading; Peer Discussion References Barr, Rebecca, and Robert Dreeben. 1991. “Grouping Students for Reading Instruction.” In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 885–910. New York: Longman. Dauber, Susan L., Karl L. Alexander, and Doris R. Entwisle. 1996. “Tracking and Transitions through the Middle Grades: Channeling Educational Trajectories.” Sociology of Education 69 (4):290–307. Elbaum, Batya, Sharon Vaughn, Marie Hughes, and Sally W. Moody. 1999. “Grouping Practices and Reading Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.” Exceptional Children 63 (3):399–415. Gamoran, Adam, and Mark Berends. 1987. “The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational Research 57 (4):415–435. Kletzien, Sharon B. 1996. “Reading Programs in Nationally Recognized Elementary Schools.” Reading Research and Instruction 35 (3):260–274.
5
Accountability and Testing introduced what is now a well-accepted view of testing—that testing can serve as both a measure and a lever of reform. Not only could tests provide information about students’ mastery of basic skills, but teachers and students could also use these tests to identify the content of instruction. The 1980s and early 1990s saw an expansion of the use of standardized tests for accountability, accompanied by concerns about their validity and negative effects on teaching and learning.
creased as well. For example, by 2008, students in twenty-four states will have to pass a state exam to graduate from high school, and by 2003, seven states will required children to pass state tests to be promoted in certain grades (“A Better Balance,” 2001). At the teacher level, test results are being used in some states to reward teachers monetarily for good student performance, and they are influencing the retention and recruitment of teachers. And at the school level, test results are increasingly being used for state governance of education. Schools are being accredited based on scores, and some states have even given their education departments the power to close, take over, or overhaul chronically low-performing schools. Some research suggests that in the current environment, there may be no “lowstakes” accountability, even when states try to minimize the consequences. Teachers in states with public reporting but low stakes seem to experience as much pressure as those teaching in states with high-stakes tests. States have responded to the accountability call in a wide variety of ways. For example, they have set different cut-off scores for acceptable performance, included different students in the testing program, used different measures for assessing performance (i.e., performance assessments, multiple-choice tests, classroom work), tested at different grades, and provided different levels of rewards, sanctions, and supports. Less apparent are the different ways that states have developed to report student progress and to rank schools. The most common method is to report absolute performance, or current status, often in terms of the average score for students at the tested grade levels or the percent of students who meet or exceed preestablished standards. Florida, for example, uses this method to grade schools from A to F, based on students’ performance on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test. Many states that report current status also include a measure of improvement, sometimes referred to as value-added. Some states compare scores for students at the same grade level over two years (i.e., fourth grade in 2000 compared with fourth grade in 2001); others compare school performance of groups of students across years (fourth grade in 2000, fifth grade in 2001). Some states track the performance of individual students across years, and still others measure the change in percent of students who fall in the
The Current Context The current situation with regard to testing and accountability, based in the standards movement of the 1990s, grows out of this long history (see Standards). Standards-based reform was conceptualized to address some of the problems of the past: overemphasis on basic, low-level skills; narrowing of the curriculum to fit the test; inflated test scores; test-like instructional methods; and differential expectations for students. Rather than having a test set the content of instruction, educators at state and local levels have defined demanding content standards (what students should know and be able to do) and performance standards (how good is good enough) that apply to all students, including those served by Title I. The indicator of success is students’ performance rather than district compliance with state regulations or other “inputs” such as course offerings, personnel qualifications, and the like. In addition, the standards movement calls for several other reforms: (1) assessments that are aligned with these standards, (2) student performance that is standards-based rather than norm-referenced, (3) development of new performance-based assessments, and (4) attention to providing high-quality opportunities for students to learn. Although these changes mark a dramatic shift in education, accountability remains the linchpin in the system, and state tests remain the primary source of data for accountability. In fact, as of 2001, forty-eight states publicly reported test scores, forty-five of them reported school-level data, and thirty-one set cutoff scores for student performance. Thirtythree states used, or planned to use, test scores to hold schools accountable, and fourteen of them relied solely on test scores; no other data were used (“A Better Balance,” 2001). In the current accountability environment, stakes for schools, students, and teachers have in6
Accountability and Testing lowest performing group. Finally, states also vary in the degree to which they include indicators other than test performance in the accountability system (e.g., dropout rate, mobility, socioeconomic status), but these indicators rarely carry enough weight to offset the test scores. With such variability in accountability systems, it is extremely difficult to evaluate the effectiveness of these accountability systems or of the standardsbased reform effort. Accountability models that include different factors and different ways of evaluating progress yield dramatically different results and lead to substantively different conclusions.
high-stakes accountability has replicated some of the concerns associated with earlier testing efforts (e.g., narrowing of the curriculum, inflated test scores, extended test preparation), in spite of the fact that content standards are supposed to drive instruction rather than a test. Furthermore, although many new tests tend to focus on higher-level understanding and include a combination of open-ended and multiple-choice items, there are concerns about the measures themselves (i.e., alignment with standards, reliability, validity). Second, many are concerned that policymakers underestimate how long it takes to implement new content standards and substantive changes in curriculum and instruction. In an effort to motivate change and set high expectations for all students, policymakers have often set performance standards on state tests that are unrealistic for students and teachers to reach in a short time. When the emphasis is on quick results, the tendency is to focus too much on boosting test scores and less on instigating deep and meaningful changes in teaching and learning. Some measurement experts have suggested that test scores might be better used as trailing indicators rather than as leading indicators of change. In other words, test scores are more likely to show change after schools have ample opportunity to put into place new instructional strategies and curriculum; that is, after opportunity to learn, for both teachers and students, has been assured. A third caution is related to the first two: schools, teachers, and students must be provided with needed support if they are going to be held accountable for improvement. That support may be in the form of professional development for teachers and administrators, additional resources for struggling students, higher pay for educators, materials and texts for instruction, and the like. Evidence is clear that simply implementing new assessments or accountability requirements will not, by itself, produce lasting and meaningful change. Yet recent research suggests professional development opportunities are inadequate to meet teachers’ needs. In 2001, forty-two states provided funds for professional development, but the funds didn’t necessarily go to all the schools and districts in a state, and the discrepancies across states were dramatic (e.g., less than $100 per teacher each year in Utah,
Concerns and Issues High-stakes testing and accountability are implemented by policymakers with the intention of improving education. Many believe that such accountability in a standards-based system can create incentives for educators to focus on important content outcomes, help policymakers allocate resources to schools in need, and inspire effort on the part of teachers, administrators, and students. Nevertheless, concerns about highstakes accountability are well documented in practitioner journals, scholarly journals and reports, and position statements by professional organizations (e.g., American Educational Research Association; International Reading Association). The issues are too complex and too numerous to present in this entry (for a review, see Fuhrman, 1999; Linn, 2000, 2001). I highlight three of the more pressing issues to give a sense of the difficult terrain. First, there are concerns about overreliance on test scores as the primary accountability indicator. Most educators and measurement experts caution against using any single test to make high-stakes decisions, especially about individual students, yet the evidence is clear that state test scores continue to dominate accountability efforts. One reason is that even though there is unequivocal support for using multiple measures, just what these other measures might be or how they would work is unclear. Furthermore, tests are relatively inexpensive, can be externally mandated, are quickly implemented, and yield results that are visible and accessible to the public. Against such forces, expanding accountability indicators will be difficult. This current overreliance on a single test for 7
Active Listening
Active Listening
$3,500 per teacher each year in Alaska). Similarly, although fifteen states required that students receive additional help if they failed to pass the test to earn a high-school diploma, only nine paid for such assistance (“A Better Balance,” 2001).
Active listening is the ability to listen constructively to make meaning from the utterances of others. It requires listening with interest and acceptance and has an empathetic component— being aware of the speaker’s feelings and being able to allow yourself to appreciate the speaker’s point of reference (Studer, 1993–1994). The listener’s attitude is critical in active listening and includes the following: (1) desire to understand what the speaker is saying, (2) desire to be helpful to the speaker, (3) desire to accept the speaker’s feeling regardless of his or her disclaimer of your own feelings, (4) knowledge that feelings can be transitory, not permanent, and (5) ability to perceive the speaker as having an identity separate from your own. Active listening is guided by the following rules: noticing attitudes and feelings conveyed in the message; telling speakers what you heard them say; using words in retelling that are different from the speaker’s without changing the meaning of the utterance; avoiding sending messages that are evaluative or questioning (unless clarification is needed); and paraphrasing the utterance to show your understanding of what was said. In active listening, there are four basic techniques that are used to help the speaking-listening process. First, active listeners encourage speakers in order to convey interest and keep the speaker talking. They do this by using noncommittal words or phrases with a positive tone, for example, “I see,” “Uh-huh,” “That’s interesting.” Second, active listeners restate the speaker’s utterance to show that they are listening and that they understand the facts of the utterance. They do this by restating the basic ideas and facts that they heard and say, for example, “If I understand your comments correctly, your idea is. . . .” Third, active listeners demonstrate that they understand the speaker’s feelings; they do this by restating the speaker’s basic feelings, for example, by responding, “You feel that . . . ” or “You were disturbed by . . . .” Finally, active listeners summarize by pulling important facts and ideas together. They do this by restating and summarizing both ideas and feelings that the speaker has expressed. Examples are “These seem to be the key ideas you mentioned” or “If I understand you, you feel this way about the situation.” Cognitive active listening
The Future Accountability and testing are guaranteed to be in our educational future. In fact, indications are that the role of both is increasing. In the face of such efforts, there is a pressing need to address existing concerns and issues. Kenneth Sirotnik and Kathy Kimball (1999) suggest that we need standards for standards-based accountability systems, and indeed, many knowledgeable and thoughtful people have offered strategies for dealing with the challenges. As might be expected, recommendations focus on many facets of the problem, including establishing a more comprehension accountability system; improving tests and models for evaluating progress; providing more resources for students, teachers, and schools; and supporting and elevating the role of classroom-based assessment. These recommendations are likely to focus the attention of educators, researchers, and policymakers in the coming years as accountability and testing continue to occupy a prominent place on the reform agenda. Sheila W. Valencia See Also High-Stakes Assessment; Reading Assessment; Standards; Title I; Writing Assessment References “A Better Balance: Standards, Tests, and the Tools to Succeed: Quality Counts.” 2001. Education Week 20:17. Fuhrman, Susan H. 1999. “The New Accountability: Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Brief.” Available: http://www.cpre.org. Linn, Robert L. 2000. “Assessments and Accountability.” Educational Researcher 29 (2):4–16. ———. 2001. The Design and Evaluation of Educational Assessment and Accountability Systems. CSE Technical Report 539. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Sirotnik, Kenneth A., and Kathy Kimball. 1999. “Standards for Standards-Based Accountability Systems.” Phi Delta Kappan 81 (3):209–214.
8
Children listen actively to taped messages (Elizabeth Crews)
Activity Theory requires the listener to construct meaning through synthesizing, analyzing, interpreting, and evaluating the messages of speakers. It is an active process that demands that the listener construct meaning through inferencing and questioning for clarification. James Flood and Diane Lapp
negotiate the values of the societies in which they grow. An example of how studying culture can inform educational practice comes from an ethnography conducted by Shirley Brice Heath (1983). Heath studied a set of small communities in the Carolina piedmont region, including a small African American neighborhood (Trackton), a small white Christian fundamentalist community (Roadville), and the middleclass community with which they shared a school district. She found that the three communities had distinctly different orientations to reading that affected their prospects for success in school. In Trackton, families encouraged high levels of sociability. Children were encouraged to go outside and play and otherwise interact with others in their community. A highly literate person was one who could perform verbally. In contrast, solitary and isolated activities such as quiet reading were viewed as antisocial and were thus discouraged. This community, then, enculturated its members with a belief that literacy is interactive and performative. In Roadville, reading was taught through Bible study. The Bible was treated as a revered text that revealed an absolute, literal truth that was not to be questioned. Children in Roadville, then, were deeply enculturated with a belief that written texts have an invariant meaning that is not open to question. The middle-class families fostered an orientation to reading that more closely matched that of the school. Quiet, solitary reading was encouraged, and discussions of texts allowed for interpretation. The consequences of these three different cultural orientations to reading were that the children from middle-class families had greater success in school. Heath’s study illustrates that understanding the development of whole cultures can help reveal how individuals within those cultures learn how to think over time. Activity theorists argue that it is particularly important to understand cultural differences when students perform differently in school and to rethink educational practice to allow for more equitable access to school success. Changing the context of education can provide people with different developmental trajectories with opportunities to use their culturally learned knowledge in their formal learning.
References Studer, Jeannie R. 1993–1994. “Listen So That Parents Will Speak.” Childhood Education (Winter):74–76.
Activity Theory According to activity theory, people’s thought patterns originate in the cultural life that surrounds them. In other words, people are born into cultures that have particular values, goals, ways of thinking and acting, and other factors that contribute to a cohesive and orderly society. By participating in the social practices of their cultures, people adopt the ways of thinking that are consistent with life within those cultures. Their thinking thus takes place in relationship with other people, both those who are immediately present and those who have helped to build the culture that they grow into. Activity theory is generally attributed to Aleksei Leont’ev (1981), a student of Lev Vygotsky’s. Vygotsky’s (1978, 1987) sociocultural psychology is thus central to an activity theory perspective. There are three important themes that are central to understanding human development from Vygotsky’s perspective: an emphasis on human development, an assumption that human consciousness has social origins, and a belief that mental processes are mediated by tools and signs. An Emphasis on Human Development Activity theorists are concerned with both the development of whole cultures and the development of individuals within those cultures. Understanding how a culture develops is central to understanding how societies structure life to shape how people within them learn to think and view the world. Activity theorists thus focus on development at several levels, including culture as a whole, the many subcultures that exist within them, the overlapping cultures that affect development in an increasingly global world, and individuals as they appropriate, resist, and 10
Activity Theory An Assumption That Human Consciousness Has Social Origins As Heath’s study shows, cognition has a cultural basis. People learn how to think by taking part in the life around them. In particular, they learn how to think by listening to and participating in the talk that surrounds them. This facet of activity theory helps to explain how people come to hold particular worldviews, and more specifically, how worldviews vary across different cultures. A clear example would be that of a child who grew up in Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. This child would have been surrounded by discourse and artifacts that offered genocide as a legitimate societal goal. Through participation in this culture, the child would have accepted this view and would have been considered a good citizen within the confines of this society for pursuing this goal, even while it was regarded by members of other cultures as heinous and criminal. An individual’s goal of perpetuating Aryan supremacy originates in the overriding goal of Nazi culture and is adopted by members of that society. Belief in Aryan supremacy might be taught directly by the society’s elders, or it might be more subtly suggested through the hidden ways in which the environment promotes development toward these goals. Social life in a Nazi culture is permeated with these beliefs, thus making Aryan supremacy appear to be a natural, unquestionable fact of life. From an educational standpoint, activity theorists attempt to reveal the norms—particularly those that appear to be natural, unquestionable facts of life—that prevail in educational settings and consider their consequences. The norms of the white middle class are so well ingrained in school culture that they appear to be the natural way for school to be conducted. Anyone who comes to school with a different cultural orientation to literacy, behavior, or other routines is judged as deficient, even if that person might be viewed as highly competent in another setting. Entering an environment, such as school, that recognizes and affirms only one way of solving problems creates disadvantages for those not enculturated to those modes of action. Luis Moll and James Greenberg (1990), for instance, were concerned with the poor performance of Hispanic students in U.S. schools. In particular, Moll was troubled that some educational psychologists argued that Hispanic stu-
dents were cognitively deficient because of their scores on standardized tests and their performance on school-based tasks. To provide a different perspective on the cognitive competence of Mexican American students, he conducted a community ethnography that documented extensively the cognitive tasks accomplished in everyday life. He found that families, many living on ranches, were skilled at repairing and maintaining sophisticated machinery, planning and operating budgets, extracting medicine from insects, and executing myriad other complex tasks in their home life. He also found that in the Mexican American community, most tasks were carried out in groups. People shared funds of knowledge so that goals could be reached collaboratively. These same students, however skilled at home, would perform poorly in school. Although the Mexican American community valued and encouraged collaboration, collaboration was discouraged and often punished in school. In contrast, schools operated according to traditional U.S. values and emphasized individualism. Mexican American students were thus mismatched with the middle-class values by which the school operated. Furthermore, rather than solving problems in situ, students were evaluated in school according to their ability to solve problems in abstract situations. Moll argued that instead of being incompetent at problem solving, these students were ill-matched with the school’s way of presenting problems to be solved. Moll’s research, like Heath’s, illustrates the ways frameworks for thinking exist first in culture. These frameworks are then adopted by people as they participate in cultural practices over time. From an educational standpoint, it is important to understand which value systems dominate school practice and to look at school failure as potentially a result of mismatches in cultural norms and expectations. A Belief That Mental Processes Are Mediated by Tools and Signs The notion that cognition is mediated by tools and signs refers to the ways people think by means of psychological tools. Many activity theorists focus on speech, believed to be the “tool of tools.” Others have argued that students have a “tool kit” that includes many ways of thinking that schools typically do not recognize. Those who study speech often focus on speech 11
Activity Theory genres, that is, the ways in which speech is orchestrated in whole systems of vocabulary, syntax, tone, and other factors. In an everyday example, a person might speak to a baby using soft tones, a simple vocabulary, repetition, and terms of endearment. This same person would probably switch to a different set of language codes while preparing a legal document. Each of these situations requires knowledge of the appropriate speech genre for successful communication. The speech genre of classrooms is typically associated with the discourse of the white middle class. One characteristic of this speech is its politeness, particularly its indirectness. When teachers want students to do something, rather than ordering them to do so, they suggest that they might do so; for example, they say, “Is this where your scissors belong?” Students from other cultures might find this baffling, expecting instead something along these lines: “Put those scissors on that shelf.” Such students are likely to be confused by the prevailing speech genre of school, and they become defined in school terms as uncooperative because they do not respond appropriately to the indirect imperative. Literacy researchers have found speech genres to be a rich source of study. Carol Lee (1993), for instance, has studied the African American speech genre of signifying—a form of verbal jousting—and finds it central to understanding important works of African American fiction, such as The Color Purple and Their Eyes Were Watching God. She developed instructional strategies to enable urban African American students to study their own language processes and identify their features, and then use that knowledge to inform their reading of sophisticated fiction. She argued that African American students use rich and imaginative figurative speech in their daily lives that is rarely applied to their school learning. Lee’s research illustrates one way that teachers can alter the kinds of speech genres allowed in their classrooms to enable a broader array of students to have access to success. Other researchers have focused on how to broaden not just the speech genres of classrooms but the variety of tools that students can use in their thinking. Peter Smagorinsky (1995) and his colleagues, for instance, have looked at ways teachers can open up students’ cultural tool kits to allow for drawing, music, drama, dance, and other media as means of interpreting literature.
These studies have found that when students are given their choice of interpretive media, they typically engage in the same kinds of cognitive processes they use when speaking or writing. Students relate literary characters to personal situations, go through an extensive process of composition (plan, compose, revise, edit, share), work collaboratively, and come to new realizations as they compose. These studies suggest that students’ thinking during literacy events may be enabled by using a variety of literacy tools. Furthermore, a greater range of students can have access to interpretive success than is possible when only written evaluation is provided. Contribution of Activity Theory to Literacy Research Activity theory serves as a useful framework for understanding how and why things happen in particular situations. It serves as a particularly valuable lens for studying issues of cultural diversity, especially when the institution of school must provide an arena in which learners from diverse backgrounds share facilities, spaces, texts, and experiences. When the assumptions that structure life in school are so ingrained and invisible that they appear natural, immovable, and unquestionable, then students enculturated to different ways of interacting and learning appear to be ill-adapted and are often assumed to be cognitively deficient. For educators interested in issues of equity for diverse populations, activity theory provides a perspective with great explanatory power. Furthermore, it suggests that changing the setting of schooling ought to be a key strategy in addressing educational inequity. This direction runs in sharp contrast to efforts to make students from diverse backgrounds more middle class in an effort to improve their school performance. Peter Smagorinsky References Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press. Lee, Carol D. 1993. Signifying as a Scaffold for Literary Interpretation: The Pedagogical Implications of an African-American Discourse Genre. Research Report No. 26. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Leont’ev, A. N. 1981. Problems of the Development of Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
12
Adolescent Literacy cohort will enter the adult world of the new millennium and be expected to read and write more than ever before in human history. Members of this generation will need advanced levels of literacy in order to perform their jobs, manage their households, carry out their roles as citizens, and conduct their lives. These adolescents will need advanced levels of literacy to deal with the plethora of information they will encounter everywhere they turn. Literacy will be needed for them to fuel their imaginations to mold the world of the future. In a complex world, their ability to read and write will be essential (Moore et al., 1999). Such sentiment validates the belief that literacy development beyond the early grades deserves attention. Students continue the process of learning to read, and some even continue to struggle with the basic processes of reading and writing, beyond the elementary years. Adolescents require support in the decoding, comprehension, and studying of the various texts they encounter in school and in their daily lives. There is still much to be learned about the practices unique to the different texts, disciplines, and unique situations of adolescence. The need for additional specialized literacy practices is further complicated by the demands of a changing and increasingly more technological world. Allan Luke and John Elkins (1998) have explained that in today’s world, adolescence and adulthood involve the constructing of communities and identities in relation to changing textual and media contexts. Becoming an adult also involves finding a way of moving forward in an increasingly explosive and uncertain job market, in a society that is by nature risky, where texts of any type are used to make, define, and position individuals at every point and in virtually every walk of life—in the mall, in school, on-line, and even face-to-face. In addition, the need to reexamine our focus on the literacy learning of adolescents seems clear, particularly if we look at how our current conceptualization of literacy in the middle and secondary schools, in secondary reading and content-area reading, has limited our thinking. Secondary reading, as it is generally understood, carries with it notions of reading in a lab setting. In this type of setting, students who have not learned to read are closeted and work individually with grade-leveled sets of materials supposedly designed to elevate them to the appropriate
Moll, Luis C., and James B. Greenberg. 1990. “Creating Zones of Possibilities: Combining Social Contexts for Instruction.” In L. C. Moll, ed., Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, pp. 319–348. New York: Cambridge University Press. Smagorinsky, Peter. 1995. “Constructing Meaning in the Disciplines: Reconceptualizing Writing across the Curriculum as Composing across the Curriculum.” American Journal of Education 103:160–184. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1987. Collected Works. Vol. 1. Edited by R. Rieber and A. Carton. Translated by N. Minick. New York: Plenum.
Adolescent Literacy Adolescent literacy refers to the effort to reconceptualize the literacy of adolescents by going beyond the school- and textbook-based definitions of literacy (e.g., secondary reading, content-area reading) and acknowledging that there are multiple literacies and multiple texts—texts that transcend the traditional adult-sanctioned conceptions and definitions of a text (Alvermann et al., 1998; Moje et al., 2000). The adolescent literacy movement acknowledges that the expanded definition of text now includes but is not limited to CD-ROMs, popular music, television, the Internet, films, and magazines. The cues that adolescents get from these texts and these literacies play a significant role in the development of their emerging individual and social identities. Further, adolescent literacy advocates that schools must provide the time and space for students to explore these multiple texts and the new literacies that are concomitant with them. Enough researchers and practitioners in the field of literacy have now supported the importance of adolescent literacy for it to be considered a hot topic for reading research and practice for the new millennium (Cassidy and Cassidy, 2000–2001). Cognizant of the importance of adolescent literacy and the serious attention it deserved, the International Reading Association established the Commission on Adolescent Literacy. The commission called for renewed attention to the literacy needs of adolescents by stating that this 13
Adolescent Literacy
Adolescent girl demonstrates the many literacies in her life with the posters on her wall (Barbara Guzzetti)
focus on adolescents was created as a means of moving away from the constraints imposed by current concepts of literacy to a broader and more generative view. To provide additional impetus for this more generative view of literacy, the Commission on Adolescent Literacy pointed out in 1999 that adolescents have not been given the same support as beginning-level readers in elementary schools. Although state and federal dollars allocated to literacy programs for younger readers had increased and federal funding for research was focused in the early grades with the Reading Excellence Act during the mid-1990s and federal funding for the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, the commission emphasized that monies for adolescent readers had actually decreased and research support was negligible. Thus, the commission advocated new programmatic efforts to develop adolescents’ literacy growth that revolved around the following seven principles: First, students need access to a wide variety of reading material that they both
grade level in reading so they can then be successful with their subject-matter materials. Such reading brings with it vestiges of remedial reading, which limits its usefulness, given the full range of adolescents’ reading needs. Content reading or content literacy, by contrast, carries with it an association that every teacher should be a teacher of reading. This notion makes sense to content-reading specialists, but not to subject-matter teachers. In fact, the saying that every teacher should be a teacher of reading has probably done more to influence teachers to object to reading instruction in their content areas than anything else, since they are trained to be teachers of content, not teachers of reading. Traditional definitions of content-area reading are usually confined to the in-school reading and writing of subject-matter materials, thus making reading instruction one-dimensional. As a consequence, with both secondary reading and content-area reading, instructional methods and materials might not match the literacy needs of individual adolescents. Thus, the 14
Adolescent Literature want to and are able to read. Second, students need instruction that builds both the skill and desire to read increasingly complex materials. Third, students need assessment that shows them their strengths as well as their needs and that guides their teachers to design instruction that will help them grow as readers. Fourth, students need expert teachers who model and provide explicit instruction in reading comprehension and study strategies across the curriculum. Fifth, students need reading specialists who will assist individual students having difficulty learning how to read. Sixth, students need teachers who understand the complexities of adolescent readers, respect their individual differences, and respond to their individuality. Finally, students need homes, communities, and a nation that will support their efforts to achieve advanced levels of literacy and provide the support necessary for them to succeed (Moore et al., 1999). One study that demonstrated this more generative view of literacy for adolescents was conducted by Thomas Bean, Shannon Bean, and Kristen Bean (1999). In this article, Bean and his two adolescent daughters described the multiple texts and multiple literacies the young women used over a two-week period. Not only did they use their various content-area textbooks, but they also used computers, conventional phones, cell phones, pagers, the Internet, electronic mail, art, music, drama, film, video games, and an assortment of digital aids, such as calculators and palm pilots. This study illustrated that these two adolescents wanted to participate in literacy practices that were suited to the way they viewed their daily lives, and they wanted to be viewed as competent literacy users who already possessed the knowledge, skills, and plans necessary for the world of the future. Thus, they moved far beyond the narrow confines of how literacy is currently conceptualized in our schools. The study also illustrates the notion that for adolescents to be literate in today’s society, they must become sociotechnically literate and skilled at multitasking —epitomizing the broader and more generative view advocated by adolescent literacy in which the role of the adolescent in the teaching and learning of literacy is central and highlighted. This more generative view of adolescent literacy can also be promoted in our middle and secondary classrooms. Elizabeth Moje and her colleagues (2000) have recommended that teachers
consider the following. First, watch and listen to adolescents in a variety of contexts; pay attention to what they can do and think about ways to bring that skill into the classroom. Second, use interdisciplinary project-based teaching strategies that engage students in group-based inquiry about questions or problems of interest to them in their daily lives. Finally, draw from the texts that adolescents value and offer them alternate text representations that contrast with the traditional school texts they typically encounter. All of these suggestions require a deep respect for adolescents and the creation of a challenging, responsive literacy curriculum that puts adolescents first. John E. Readence See Also Content-Area Literacy; Middle-School Literacy; Popular Culture; Secondary-School Reading Programs References Alvermann, Donna E., Kathleen A. Hinchman, David W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, and Diane R. Waff, eds. 1998. Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bean, Thomas W., Shannon K. Bean, and Kristen F. Bean. 1999. “Intergenerational Conversations and Two Adolescents’ Multiple Literacies: Implications for Redefining Content Area Literacy.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (March): 438–448. Cassidy, Jack, and Drew Cassidy. 2000–2001. “What’s Hot, What’s Not for 2001.” Reading Today 18 (3) (December/January):1, 18. Luke, Allan, and John Elkins. 1998. “Reinventing Literacy in ‘New Times.’” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (September):4–7. Moje, Elizabeth Birr, Josephine Peyton Young, John E. Readence, and David W. Moore. 2000. “Reinventing Adolescent Literacy for New Times: Perennial and Millennial Issues.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (February): 400–410. Moore, David W., Thomas W. Bean, Deanna Birdyshaw, and James A. Rycik. 1999. “Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (September): 97–112.
Adolescent Literature The term adolescent literature has been used over the years to describe literature for adolescents, junior teen novels, juvenile fiction, and most commonly as young adult literature, due to the 15
Adolescent Literature pejorative nature of the terms juvenile and adolescence (Bushman and Haas, 2001). Definitions of adolescent literature also vary. Some leaders in the field suggest it is literature that features adolescents as its major characters. Others say the determining criterion is the reader: if the reader is an adolescent, then the literature is adolescent literature (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). However, most academic scholars rely on the authors’ intentions and believe it is literature written by authors who envision adolescents as their primary audience, writing for youths between the ages of eleven and eighteen.
college campuses. Such a course is often required for certification to teach English-language arts or reading at middle and secondary levels. Middle and secondary teachers who once would not have considered using adolescent novels now regularly assign works by authors such as Robert Cormier, S. E. Hinton, Lois Lowry, and Walter Dean Myers (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). Scholarship has been productive as well: master’s theses and doctoral dissertations, critical studies of authors and themes, journal articles, textbooks, conference presentations, and workshops represent significant forms of literary research. Yet adolescent literature continues to have a historical stigma. Many teachers still consider it literature for younger or struggling readers, not literature worthy of critical study. It is often viewed as most appropriate for upper-elementary or middle-school reading (Monseau, 1996; Monseau and Salvner, 2000; Stover, 1996). In addition, the trend in the last fifteen years or so has been for publishers to market to younger and younger audiences (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). High-school curricula continue to reflect the “canon” of literary works that rarely impart adolescent experiences. Most teachers want students to learn to love literature but may not consider that this might never happen if students are required to read literature they do not understand and fail to have enjoyable, let alone critical, engagements. Such curricular choices may be slowly changing, perhaps due to students who simply refuse to read or cannot read the “classics.” Reading requirements may also change with growing teacher appreciation of the increased diversity and sophistication of this literature, along with the publication of books and the addition of college courses for teachers that reflect new curricula and practices. With the rise of reader response (see Reader Response) and other new literary theories, teachers are finding that students are more apt to engage with adolescent literature, which encourages them to have more meaningful experiences (Soter, 1999).
Historical Perspectives Contemporary adolescent literature has existed in various forms for more than fifty years. In the 1950s, fewer than sixty books published yearly focused on adolescents as their primary audience, whereas by the late 1960s, adolescent literature became known as the most rapidly expanding literary genre. During the 1970s, the majority of larger publishers did not have separate divisions devoted to adolescent literature, but by the 1990s, most did. From the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, financial and critical bases changed for many authors who were now earning a living exclusively by writing adolescent literature (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). This popularity was aided by television and movie industries that sought stories that would appeal to a youth-oriented society, helped by a publishing industry that discovered teenagers were willing to spend money on paperbacks. Most libraries today have separate young adult sections. Bookstores ranging from the large chains to the independently owned to those in cyberspace (e.g., Amazon.com) have extensive young adult literature sections, complete with book reviews and recommendations for readers. Criticisms The field of adolescent literature is ever-changing, just as young adults themselves are, and it reflects the society in which adolescents matriculate. This literature has undergone a continuous cycle of criticism, first for being formulaic, and more recently, for “too real-to-life situations” (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). It is a field that continues to gain respectability and commercial viability. Undergraduate and graduate courses in young adult literature are prominent on most
Style and Characteristic Features Adolescent literature is diverse in terms of style and content. This genre includes novels, short stories, poetry, drama, and nonfiction, as well as stories of adventure and accomplishment, romances, mysteries, tales of the supernatural, folklore, humor, fantasy, science fiction, history, 16
Adolescent Literature autobiography, series books, and informative nonfiction. The late 1960s gave rise to “new realism,” or “problem novels,” meaning coming-ofage stories about rites of passages from childhood to adulthood. Protagonists are written into difficult situations and settings, use language the way adolescents talk (e.g., profanity, slang, dialects), and exhibit adolescent attitudes (e.g., questioning of authority, alienation from adults, and so on) (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001). Problem novels demonstrate the philosophy that adolescents are more likely to be happy and successful when they have realistic expectations garnered from both good and bad in society. With realistic expectations, they are able to make better life decisions. Real-life problems include relationships, violence, war, race issues, AIDS, mental illness, pregnancy, death, and moral dilemmas. Proponents state that such books help adolescents to understand their own and other people’s feelings and behaviors. Sometimes referred to as bibliotherapy (see Bibliotherapy), the belief is that adolescents can benefit psychologically from reading and talking about problems of fictional characters. Discovering other people have problems provides adolescents with some comfort and opens avenues for communication. Many critics, however, are concerned with the “bleak” trend in adolescent literature that deals with such serious issues. Yet adolescent literature in this way is much like the classics, depicting adolescents in predicaments, often in contemporary settings. Of course, not all books are bleak. Many include humorous and lighthearted experiences. Typically, adolescent literature offers hope to readers and may encourage teens to read for efferent and aesthetic reasons when they otherwise may be uninspired to read.
in the past twenty years, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) has published numerous rationales for commonly challenged books that are available upon request. Awards and Honors Numerous awards and honors are presented annually to adolescent literature. These include the Newbery Medal sponsored by the American Library Association (ALA), awarded to the author deemed to have made the most distinguished contribution to literature published the preceding year. The Newbery Medal awards both gold and silver honors. The Coretta Scott King Award is presented annually by the ALA, given to a black author and black illustrator whose works encourage and promote world unity and peace and serve as inspiration to youths. The Scott O’Dell Historical Fiction Award is presented to a work of historical fiction set in the New World, written by a U.S. citizen and published in the United States. The ALA’s Best Picks list is published annually, and various other professional associations and journals also publish recommended books. Many authors are multiple honorees of various awards over multiple decades, including Walter Dean Myers, who was almost a solo voice in the 1980s when he began publishing about the experiences of African American youths (primarily males) and the dignity of their life experiences, told in realistic settings with authentic dialects. Authors Today’s writers include women and men from diverse socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds from all over the world. Many authors reflect themselves in their work, using autobiographical experiences to help them connect with their adolescent audience. Many writers come to this genre from other occupations. For example, Gary Paulsen lived in a variety of locations and held a variety of jobs before becoming a writer. Paulsen includes his own journeys in his adventure and survival stories about teens struggling to survive nature’s extremes. Many of these authors are prolific and have published vastly different books, strong proof of the literary excellence of their work. Numerous authors are favorites of adolescent readers and their teachers and librarians. Some who are repeatedly recognized include the aforementioned,
Censorship Censorship has been an issue with adolescent literature since the late 1960s. With the popularity of new realism or problem novels, adolescent literature was deemed by some as no longer “safe.” Censors come from liberal and conservative ends of the political spectrum. Books have been criticized for profane language, antisocial behavior, teen pregnancy, sex, biases on social issues, and religious or irreligious perspectives. The irony is that many censors assume that the classics have no objectionable words, actions, or ideas. In answer to the growing number of challenged books 17
Adolescent Literature as well as Richard Peck, Katherine Paterson, M. E. Kerr, Gary Soto, Francesca Lia Block, Angela Johnson, Paul Fleischman, Paul Janeczko, and Mel Glenn. Donald R. Gallo has anthologized multiple collections of diverse short stories written by a variety of authors. Paul Janeczko, both poet and anthologist, has been praised for his collections of poetry centered around connecting themes. Secondary English teacher and poet Mel Glenn’s collections include stories told in poem format and poems that present biographical sketches of wide-ranging teen perspectives and experiences.
1996); selecting and teaching adolescent literature (Bushman and Haas, 2001; Monseau and Salvner, 2000; Reed, 1994); reading with multicultural perspectives (Brown and Stephens, 1998); including adolescent literature in the middle-school curricula (Stover, 1996); using adolescent literature as a complement to the traditional secondary canon (Herz and Gallo, 1996; Kaywell, 1993); and using new literary theories when reading adolescent literature (Moore, 1997; Soter, 1999). The Twayne United States Young Adult Authors series is written by a variety of scholars in the field and presents critical biographies of established authors. Laura R. Lipsett
Professional Associations and Publications There are various professional associations and publications that promote and review adolescent literature. The NCTE, the International Reading Association (IRA), and the ALA feature presentations at their annual conferences and frequently ask authors to speak. Two national professional organizations grew dramatically during the 1980s and are still growing in popularity: the Assembly on Literature for Adolescents (ALAN) of NCTE and the Special Interest Group on Adolescent Literature (SIGNAL) of the IRA. ALAN publishes the ALAN Review, devoted solely to promoting adolescent literature. This journal offers articles written from a variety of perspectives along with interviews with authors, middle- and secondary-school teachers, librarians, publishers, and university professors. IRA publishes the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, featuring articles on reading interests, literature, and reviews of new books. The ALA publishes Booklist, which contains reviews to guide librarians’ purchases. The School Library Journal and Voice of Youth Advocates (VOYA) provide best-book lists and reviews. NCTE’s English Journal prints a column titled “Young Adult Literature,” featuring issues and trends as well as reviews. NCTE’s Voices from the Middle, aimed at middle-school teachers’ interests, publishes “Clip and File: Reviews of Books for Middle-Level Readers,” written by student readers in the same format as the ALAN Review’s “Clip and File: YA Books.”
See Also Adolescent Literacy; Bibliotherapy References Brown, Jean E., and Elaine C. Stephens. 1998. United in Diversity: Using Multicultural Young Adult Literature in the Classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Bushman, John H., and Kay Parks Haas. 2001. Using Young Adult Literature in the English Classroom. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/PrenticeHall. Herz, Sarah K., and Donald R. Gallo. 1996. From Hinton to Hamlet: Building Bridges between Young Adult Literature and the Classics. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Kaywell, Joan F. 1993. Young Adult Literature as a Complement to the Classics. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Monseau, Virginia R. 1996. Responding to Young Adult Literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Monseau, Virginia R., and Gary M. Salvner, eds. 2000. Reading Their World: The Young Adult Novel in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Moore, John Noell. 1997. Interpreting Young Adult Literature: Literary Theory in the Secondary Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Nilsen, Alleen Pace, and Kenneth L. Donelson. 2001. Literature for Today’s Young Adults. 6th ed. New York: Longman. Reed, Arthea J. S. 1994. Reading Adolescents: The Young Adult Book and the School. New York: Merrill. Soter, Anna O. 1999. Young Adult Literature and the New Literary Theories. New York: Teachers College Press. Stover, Lois Thomas. 1996. Young Adult Literature: The Heart of the Middle School Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Pedagogical and Reference Texts Several scholars have published books, some in revised editions, on the following subjects: field and genre (Nilsen and Donelson, 2001); responding to adolescent literature (Monseau, 18
Adult Literacy
Adult Literacy
Adult Literacy Learners Adult literacy learners are a diverse group in terms of their racial, ethnic, language, age, and even socioeconomic status. A large number of low-literate adults are over the age of sixty— products of a schooling system that was very different from the current educational system. In addition, many low-literate adults are also classified as low income. It is not possible to determine a causal relationship between literacy and income, but a strong correlation does exist. A growing number of low-literate adults are also English-language learners (ELL) who may or may not be literate in their native language. In addition to these demographic features, it is important to note that adult literacy learners also face affective issues in the process of becoming literate. First, many adult literacy learners have had negative experiences with schooling and must therefore overcome these feelings in order to become engaged in adult literacy education. In addition, many low-literate adults are faced with a number of stressful situations that result in little available time or energy to pursue literacy education. Some common challenges include working multiple jobs to “make ends meet,” single parenting, financial problems, housing problems, domestic violence, isolation, transportation problems, and child-care problems. The challenges faced by adult literacy learners often affect their engagement with adult literacy programs, persistence in programs, and educational progress in programs.
Adult literacy is broadly defined as an adult’s ability to read, write, listen, and speak in order to accomplish daily events in society, in the family, and on the job. Traditional definitions of adult literacy focus on functional aspects of literacy and the acquisition and use of specific reading and writing skills. More recent definitions of adult literacy may include references to computing, solving problems, viewing, and visually representing. Other definitions describe adult literacy as a political and transformative process that is embedded in social, cultural, and power contexts. Adult literacy can also be defined in relation to the educational programs designed to teach adult learners, such as adult basic education, workplace literacy, family literacy, and English as a Second Language (ESL) programs. Definitions of adult literacy have changed significantly during recent years. Although in the early 1900s literacy was often defined as the ability to sign one’s name, expectations have increased steadily through the years in terms of what it means to be literate. In 1958, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) defined an adult as literate if he or she could to read and write a simple statement about daily life. The definition of functional literacy was first used as a result of the 1940 U.S. Census, which defined an adult as literate if he or she had completed at least five years of school and was able to pass an examination written at the fourth-grade level. In 1978, UNESCO defined literacy as the ability to use reading, writing, and calculation in activities necessary for effective participation in one’s group and community. The 1991 National Literacy Act defined literacy as an adult’s ability to read, write, speak English, compute, and solve problems at the level necessary to accomplish goals, function at work, and develop to one’s potential. Building on this definition, in 1992, the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) defined literacy in three areas: prose literacy (finding and using information from connected texts, including newspapers, stories, and poems); document literacy (understanding and using information from charts, tables, graphs, maps, and so on); and quantitative literacy (using information in prose and document texts to complete mathematical operations).
Adult Basic Education Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs focus on helping adults learn basic skills and prepare to earn the General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Most programs begin with adults who are reading at approximately the fourth-grade level (see Adult Literacy Programs). Adults who are reading at lower levels may be taught by volunteer tutors or in adult education programs. ABE programs are generally federally funded and are administered by the individual states. In the 1990s, it was estimated that 3 million adults were enrolled in ABE programs across the United States. Although some workplace literacy programs are criticized for not helping workers become literate, their real problem is that they focus on job-specific skills that are not easily transferred to other contexts. 19
Adult Literacy criticism of some family literacy programs is that they promote deficit views of low-literate and diverse families rather than building on the unique strengths and attributes of each family. English as a Second Language Adult Literacy With the increasing number of English-language learners (ELL), English as a Second Language (ESL) programs are being offered for adults in conjunction with ABE, workplace, family literacy, and other educational programs (see Adult Literacy Programs, The Even Start Family Literacy Program, and Family Literacy). These ESL adult literacy programs tend to retain many of the characteristics of the program in which they are housed (e.g., ABE, workplace literacy, family literacy). Most ESL adult literacy classes are divided into beginning, intermediate, and advanced levels. Beginning classes tend to focus on oral English proficiency and beginning reading/writing instruction. As students move into intermediate and advanced classes, the focus shifts to include more emphasis on reading/writing proficiency in English. Legislation, Policy, and Adult Literacy During the civil rights era in the 1960s and the Right to Read Campaign in the 1970s (see The National Right to Read Foundation), the public began to hear about the need to view literacy as a right for all. In addition, it was perceived that lack of literacy was a national shame. In 1981, a number of professional organizations and other groups formed the National Coalition for Literacy to work toward increasing literacy in the United States. This group supported a media blitz about adult literacy that increased public awareness of adult literacy issues and challenges. In 1982, the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education of the House Committee on Education and Labor convened hearings on adult literacy. The Adult Literacy Initiative (ALI) was passed in 1983 to provide limited funding to private volunteer groups interested in supporting adult literacy. In 1985, the National Adult Literacy Project (NALP) commissioned a study of adult literacy programs to determine effective instructional approaches for adult literacy learners. The results of the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) increased concern about adult literacy issues, as the numbers indicated that many adults in the United States scored in the
Woman reading a book on the University of Minnesota campus (Skjold Photographs)
Family Literacy The term family literacy was coined by Denny Taylor (1983) in her book Family Literacy (see Family Literacy). Another key work that laid the groundwork for the development of family literacy was Shirley Brice Heath’s (1983) book Ways with Words, which described the varied uses, approaches to, and conceptions of literacy within three different communities. In the 1980s, family literacy programs began to appear as a way to assist low-literate parents and their young children develop literacy skills. Such programs typically have four key components: adult literacy, early childhood education, parent education, and parent and child together-time. Support and funding for family literacy programs have been provided by the U.S. federal government through Even Start. In addition, much funding for family literacy has been provided by the National Center for Family Literacy, the Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy, and a number of private businesses and foundations. A common 20
Adult Literacy lowest levels of the assessment (see Adult Literacy Testing). All of these events resulted in increased awareness, concern, and priority for adult literacy in the United States. With the advent of the “Republican revolution” in the mid-1990s, federal legislation began to emphasize welfare reform in relation to adult literacy education. With the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in 1996, the nation’s welfare laws were reformed, and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) system was created to provide block grants to states. States were expected to move welfare recipients into work within a two-year period. PRWORA was then altered as a result of the Department of Labor’s 1997 Welfare-to-Work Program. This legislation provides money to states to prepare and support welfare recipients for the workforce. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 includes, as Title II, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, which replaced the Adult Education Act and the National Literacy Act as the basis for federal funding and involvement in adult literacy programs. Individual state policies may vary, but these pieces of legislation have had a significant impact on adult literacy. The overall result of the welfare reform legislation has been to put added pressure on adult literacy programs to provide education and training that will prepare all students to secure employment within a relatively short time frame. As a result, many adult literacy programs and educators find themselves struggling to reconcile competing viewpoints about adult literacy education: namely, how can beliefs about adult literacy education that focus on social action, change, and empowerment be pursued in light of the recent trend of emphasizing economic growth over other outcomes of adult literacy education?
ucation to female homesteaders in isolated areas of Canada. In 1911, Cora Stewart, a superintendent of schools in Kentucky started “Moonlight schools” for adults to attend in the evening after work. She wrote special materials for the schools and used volunteers to provide the instruction. The curriculum focused on basic language, history, civics, agriculture, rural life, and sanitation. As a result of World War I, the U.S. military discovered that thousands of soldiers could not read well enough to follow printed directions necessary for their jobs. The military played a key role in raising awareness of adult literacy problems, as well as in establishing functional literacy training programs to teach job-oriented literacy skills to military personnel. Although the U.S. military has been involved in adult literacy education for a number of years, its work has not been extended to the civilian population. Frank Laubach is best known for the worldwide initiative of “Each One Teach One” that he began in 1929. This approach to adult literacy was built on the belief that literate adults have a responsibility to help other adults become literate. As an educator, sociologist, and minister, Laubach sought to teach adults to read life skills materials and religious texts. His approach to reading instruction was based on phonics, using key words for vowel and consonant sounds. He developed literacy programs in over sixty countries and developed literacy charts and primers in over 150 languages. His approach resulted in the development of the Laubach Way to Reading series. In 1969, Laubach Literacy Action (LLA) was organized in the United States and Canada. In the 1990s, more than 80,000 volunteers and 100,000 learners were involved in Laubach Literacy Action programs. Paulo Freire, a radical social transformationist, worked with Brazilian peasants to demonstrate the political, sociocultural, and transformative aspects of literacy. He espoused a liberatory approach to literacy education in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), rather than the traditional model of education that he described as the “banking concept,” wherein the teacher dispenses knowledge and the learner is passively filled. His work established the political nature of literacy, as well as challenging traditional models of education commonly used with adult literacy learners (see The Political Nature of Literacy).
Early Influences on Adult Literacy The roots of adult literacy reach back several hundred years. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Alfred Fitzpatrick initiated a crusade in Canada to take education to the people. He developed the concept of the laborer-teacher who assisted his fellow workers with reading, writing, math, and citizenship. He founded the Reading Tent Association, later known as Frontier College. He also supported female “outriders” to provide ed21
Adult Literacy Programs Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Hull, Glynda, ed. 1999. Changing Work, Changing Workers: Critical Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Skills. Albany: State University of New York Press. Martin, Larry G., and James C. Fisher, eds. 1999. The Welfare-to-Word Challenge for Adult Literacy Educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Taylor, Denny. 1983. Family Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Issues and Challenges in the Field of Adult Literacy A number of critical issues and challenges face the field of adult literacy. One ongoing debate focuses on the need for adult literacy educators to obtain specific credentials. One side of the argument stresses the need for adult literacy educators to be well prepared to teach adults, whereas the other side advocates the current trend in adult literacy wherein volunteers and individuals who are interested in working with adults are able to do so. Another issue is the heavy reliance on grants and other “soft monies” to fund adult literacy programs. As a result of this funding approach, many adult literacy programs are developed and implemented, only to find they must dissolve when the grant funding ceases. In addition, the high percentage of low-literate adult learners with undiagnosed learning disabilities (LD) is a challenge for adult literacy educators who may not have any preparation for working with students with LD. Another related issue is the high cost of diagnosing learning disabilities for adult learners; to have modifications on the GED, however, they must have documentation of a disability. Questions about how to pay for the diagnosis and where the responsibility lies remain unsolved. Another challenge is the rapid growth in demand for ESL adult literacy programs that often outpaces the development of programs to serve these populations. Another ongoing challenge is the need for additional research about how adults acquire literacy and what the effective approaches to adult literacy instruction are. For much of its history, adult literacy has relied on research and instructional approaches used with school-age populations. With increasing knowledge about adult development and learning, research conducted with adult populations is needed to answer critical questions about how to educate diverse adult literacy learners effectively. Laurie Elish-Piper
Adult Literacy Programs Adult literacy programs are instructional programs that help adults, both immigrants and those who have not been successful in the K–12 system, to improve their ability to read, write, and speak English; to compute and solve problems at levels of proficiency necessary to function on the job and in society; to achieve their goals; and to develop their knowledge and potential. The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) estimated the population of adults who have very low literacy skills (NALS Level 1) at between 21 and 23 percent of all Americans over the age of sixteen (see Adult Literacy). The NALS estimated that an additional 25 percent of the adult population had literacy skills that were low in relation to the demands of contemporary society and its economy (NALS Level 2). More than half of the people who scored in NALS Level 1 do not speak English, are over age sixty-five, or have cognitive or physical handicaps. A large proportion of the remaining NALS Level 1 adults probably have learning disabilities or grew up in environments that did not support the acquisition of literacy skills. People who scored in NALS Level 2 are more likely to be native-born adults who did not do well in school and who have not been in jobs that required them to use literacy skills. The adult literacy programs that provide educational services to this population are funded by federal, state, and local government agencies and by private funding sources. Approximately 4 million adults participate in these programs each year, but half of these students stay in their program for less than thirty hours. Total expenditures for these services from all sources is estimated to be $1.2 billion annually.
See Also Adult Literacy Programs; Adult Literacy Testing; Family Literacy; Laubach Literacy References Askov, Eunice N. 2000. Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. Edited by Arthur L. Wilson and Elisabeth Hayes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
22
Adult Literacy Programs History of Adult Literacy Programs Adult literacy programs have a long history in the United States. Colonial newspapers published advertisements for private tutors who taught adults to read. The first commitment of government funds took place during the Revolutionary War, when General George Washington directed chaplains to teach soldiers to read and write at Valley Forge. The U.S. Army and Navy continued to teach literacy to soldiers and sailors during the nineteenth century, but government support did not expand until the twentieth century. In the early part of the twentieth century, services were targeted at the large influx of immigrants who did not speak English. Military testing during World War I found that a large number of native-born Americans were illiterate or had low literacy skills. Several state and national efforts supported adult literacy programs during the 1920s, and then in the 1930s, the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) and the Works Progress Administration (WPA) provided adult literacy programs as a way to educate adults and employ educated unemployed workers as teachers. After World War II, military testing again identified adult illiteracy and low literacy as a significant problem. The Eisenhower administration was concerned about this issue and established the National Commission on Adult Literacy to look for a solution through a government program, but no program was established until Congress passed Lyndon Johnson’s Economic Opportunity Act in 1964. This act included, as Title IIB, the Adult Basic Education program. In 1966, federal funding for adult literacy programs was moved to the Office of Education and then to the Department of Education. By the middle of the twentieth century, adult literacy programs began serving three distinct populations, and these services have continued to the present day. Adult English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) programs help immigrants learn to speak, read, and write English. Adult Basic Education (ABE) programs help adults improve their literacy and math skills. Adult Secondary Education (ASE) programs help adults acquire a high-school credential, usually by passing the General Equivalency Diploma (GED) test. All three programs include the improvement of reading, writing, and math skills. In 1999, federal funding for adult literacy programs became part of the Workforce Investment
Adult immigrants in an English as a Second Language (ESL) class (Michael Siluk)
Act (WIA) as Title II, the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. The new law consolidated over fifty employment, training, and literacy programs into three block grants to states to be used for adult education and family literacy, for disadvantaged youth, and for adult employment and training services. Although WIA is focused on preparing people for employment, it also supports services geared toward adults pursuing their education for other purposes, such as citizenship, parenting, or their own personal improvement. At the state level, WIA funds may be administered by an education agency or an employment and training agency. Each state is required to match WIA funds, but a handful of states provide funds that are five to ten times as great as the federal share. Approximately 30 percent of funding comes from federal sources and 60 percent from state sources. The remaining 10 percent comes from local governments, corporations, foundations, individuals, and local institutions (libraries, for example). Structure of Adult Literacy Program Services Program formats vary widely. Some programs follow a classroom format, some use one-on-one tutoring, and some provide one-on-one tutoring to several adults working individually within a class. In recent years, computer technology and electronic media have been integrated into instruction and used for self-study. Large programs offer classes at different skill levels, whereas smaller programs often form classes of students who are at different levels. Most students are involved in 23
Adult Literacy Programs instruction for three to five hours a week, though some attend for only a few hours a month and others for up to twenty hours per week. Some programs run in closed cycles of a few months to a year, whereas others have ongoing classes with an open-entry admission policy. Instruction takes place in a variety of venues, including community centers, workplaces, libraries, prisons, community colleges, churches, homeless shelters, and schools. Several specialty programs that focus on the needs of specific populations have developed out of an expressed need by students and through legislative mandates. Family literacy programs support learning among several generations in the same family with the goal of helping both adults and children improve their reading skills. Workplace literacy programs take place at a student’s place of employment, and the content of instruction is drawn from work tasks. Corrections education takes place in prisons and jails and is focused on helping inmates improve their employability so that they will be less likely to return to prison. Transitional education programs help adults who pass the GED test to gain the academic literacy skills needed to be successful in post-secondary education and training programs. Student proficiency levels are usually assessed with one of several standardized tests upon entry into a program. This information is used to assign students to a class, but it is also used as a baseline assessment that is then matched later with a second test score for program accountability purposes. The most commonly used tests are the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), the Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE), and the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS). All three are norm-referenced tests developed to measure the reading comprehension of adults. Adult literacy program students are either recent immigrants or adults who, as children, failed to acquire strong literacy skills in school. Although no national study has examined the skills of adult literacy program students, a study of several hundred ABE students found that almost 85 percent had weak print skills, low reading fluency, and limited oral vocabularies and background knowledge. ESOL students who are literate in their own languages stay in programs longer than other groups of students and appear to make progress. High-school dropouts with
ninth-grade literacy skills or higher stay in ASE programs for a short period of time before taking the GED test. GED students are usually successful. ESOL students who are not literate in their own languages and ABE students drop out early and usually make slow progress. Most program participants are between the ages of eighteen and sixty-five. An analysis of 1990 census data and the 1992 NALS data estimates that among this age group, approximately 7 million adults do not speak English well, 25 million do not have a high-school diploma, and 35 million speak English and have a high-school diploma but have NALS Level 1 or 2 skills. These are unduplicated counts. This latter group rarely participates in adult literacy programs. Evaluations and Reform of Adult Literacy Programs Evaluations of adult literacy programs have identified a number of weaknesses, including low retention rates, lack of full-time staff, inadequate teacher preparation and support, and little research available to inform program design. These weaknesses are the result of low funding levels. Although the national average funding is approximately $300 per participant each year, the range is probably between $100 and $1,500. With this level of funding, adult literacy programs find it difficult to serve students who need well-trained teachers and long-term services. In 2000, a reform movement began with the publication of From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda for Literacy. This document has set the following goal: by 2010, a system of high-quality adult literacy, language, and lifelong learning service that will help adults in every community make measurable gains toward achieving their goals as family members, workers, citizens, and lifelong learners. To meet this goal, the document sets three priorities. The first is to increase resources by both changing existing policies to support higher quality programs and expanding federal, state, and private funding. The second is to increase access by providing: better outreach to potential students, support service to make it possible for them to study, and more convenient ways to learn, including the use of technology. The third is to focus on improving the quality of instruction by supporting programs to develop goals and standards that reflect the concerns of all stakeholders and that address 24
Adult Literacy Testing
Adult Literacy Testing
systematic program quality issues, provide better-trained staff, and expand research and development efforts. Several national organizations and agencies support the implementation of adult literacy programs and are contributing to the reform agenda. The U.S. Department of Education’s Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL) administers state block grants under Title II of WIA, manages the WIA accountability system, the National Reporting System (NRS), and supports several research and development efforts. The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), which is funded through the Department of Education but overseen by a board that is appointed by the president, promotes improvement of services through research and development, communications, and consensus-building activities. The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy pursues research and disseminates research findings. The National Coalition for Literacy is a consortium of institutions interested in adult literacy that advocates policies that improve and expand services. Laubach Literacy and Literacy Volunteers of America support volunteer and community-based literacy programs. The National Center for Family Literacy promotes family literacy and provides funding, training, and technical assistance to programs. These institutions and the many adult literacy programs they support constitute a third education system that fills the gaps left by the K–12 and post-secondary education systems. John P. Comings
Adult literacy testing refers to the assessment of adults’ reading, writing, and arithmetic skills through the uses of different kinds of measures. Adult literacy testing is conducted for two broad and largely unrelated purposes. First, it is used to measure the literacy skills of adults enrolled in adult education programs, such as Adult Basic Education (ABE), English as a Second Language (ESL), and General Equivalency Diploma (GED), or high-school equivalency programs. Standardized tests are frequently used to determine adults’ reading, writing, and math skills prior to entry into these programs and to measure gains in their literacy skills following instruction. The second purpose pertains to recent federally mandated efforts to determine the literacy skills of adults in the United States—and by extension, adults in comparable nations. The tests that are used for these purposes consist of two types: standardized tests (which are norm referenced) and competency-based tests (which are criterion referenced). Standardized tests are widely used in adult literacy programs because state and federal agencies overseeing adult education mandate their use for reporting student achievement. These tests assess reading and listening comprehension, oral responses to visual and verbal prompts, knowledge of the mechanics of writing (e.g., grammar, spelling, punctuation), and math. Competency-based tests are growing in popularity because they are presumed to better meet students’ needs. They are relatively easy to administer and score but more difficult to interpret. Assessing adults’ literacy skills is a vexing problem in basic education, for several reasons. First, there is little consensus on the definition of literacy (Venezky, Wagner, and Ciliberti, 1990). How adult education programs define literacy determines the kinds of instruction offered and the tests used to measure literacy skills. There is little uniformity in curricula or instructional methods across the spectrum of literacy programs. Second, many of the measures used to assess adults’ literacy skills have questionable validity, as several have been normed on populations that are different from the population of adults having low literacy skills (i.e., school-age children and youth). Third, standardized measures of adult literacy are often administered by instructors with little knowledge about appropriate test adminis-
See Also Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Testing References Comings, John, Barbara Garner, and Cristine Smith, eds. 2000. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 2001. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 2002. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Kirsch, Irwin S., Ann Jungeblut, Lynn Jenkins, and Andrew Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. National Institute for Literacy. 2000. From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda for Literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
25
Adult Literacy Testing tration procedures. Frequently, test-giving procedures are violated (e.g., too much time is given), thereby invalidating the tests. Fourth, the test results are often misinterpreted. It is largely assumed that adults who participate in literacy programs are illiterate, that is, lacking in literacy ability to such an extent that they cannot read, write, or do math. However, it is more accurate to say that many, if not most, of the adults in these programs have low literacy skills. That is, they have some reading, writing, and arithmetic skills, but these are not sufficient for them to function well at home, in their communities, and at work. Some adults have learning disabilities that affect their ability to adequately read and write. Other adults may be competent readers or writers but have poor math skills. Participants in ESL programs may be literate in their native language, but not in English. Or they may be low-literate in their native language and unable to read and write in English.
1994), however, each state sets its own benchmark for passing the tests. Although reading is not assessed, much reading is required and individuals need to have high-school-level reading skills to be successful on the GED tests. Most test-takers participate in a GED preparation program prior to taking the tests, but participation is generally not required, and many people prepare for the GED tests on their own. Standardized Literacy Skills Tests There are a number of commercially available tests that have been adopted by adult literacy programs around the United States. The most commonly used tests are the Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE), Basic English Skills Tests (BEST), Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), English as a Second Language Oral Assessment (ESLOA), Reading Evaluation Adult Diagnosis (READ), and Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). Standardized reading-achievement tests from batteries such as the Wide-Range Achievement Test are also used. The tests that are most frequently used in adult literacy programs, the TABE and the CASAS, will be briefly described.
Tests of Adult Literacy Adult literacy programs are usually required by individual states to adopt specific tests for program accountability and data-reporting purposes. The U.S. government also requires that states receiving federal funds for adult education report student achievement data for basic education programs. The assessment of students’ literacy skills before and after literacy instruction is often secondary to program accountability. There is no single test used to assess the literacy skills of adults in basic education programs, with the exception of high-school equivalency programs. Here, the GED tests are used.
The TABE This is a norm-referenced test that only recently has been normed on adults rather than children. The TABE is designed to measure reading, mathematics, language, and spelling skills. Both English- and Spanish-language versions are available. The TABE has two forms (versions 5/6 and 7/8) covering grade levels from 0.0 to 12.9. A locator test can be used to help literacy instructors with placement of students into appropriate programs by matching learners’ test performance to level of instruction. There is some evidence, however, that few literacy programs actually use the locator test to appropriately place students or to plan instruction (Inman and Trott, 1999). A limitation of the TABE is its focus on determining grade-level reading ability rather than identifying learner competencies.
High-School Equivalency Examination The GED tests are sponsored by the American Council on Education and are generally administered by community colleges and university testing centers to adults who lack a high-school diploma. The GED tests are norm referenced. They require adults to demonstrate competence in five formal categories that represent a typical high-school curriculum: Interpreting Literature and the Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and Writing Skills. The test questions are multiple choice, except for Writing Skills, in which examinees write essays. Passing scores are set so that 70 percent of graduating high-school seniors would obtain passing scores (Lowe,
The CASAS The Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System of California has developed learner competencies, assessment tools, and training manuals for adult basic education programs. A major revision of the CASAS was completed in 1994. 26
Adult Literacy Testing The CASAS focuses on a large set of adult competencies that closely match those identified by the U.S. Department of Labor as the skills necessary for work (Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, 1991). Adult competencies in real-life contexts are assessed by the CASAS. These competencies go well beyond traditional literacy skills and include: basic communication (e.g., writing a letter), consumer economics (e.g., using catalogs to order consumer goods), community resources (e.g., using maps), health (e.g., filling out medical-history forms), employment (e.g., interpreting wage and benefits forms), government and law (e.g., interpreting a ballot), computation (e.g., arithmetic and measurement skills), learning to learn (e.g., using thinking skills), and domestic skills (e.g., home care). The CASAS is used in California and several other states by federally and state-funded adult literacy programs. States using CASAS also require the TABE for reporting adults’ progress.
Adult Literacy Testing for National Assessments As noted earlier, the second purpose of adult literacy testing is to determine the literacy skills of the populations of adults in the United States and Canada, and to a somewhat lesser extent, in other Western developed nations, such as Germany and the United Kingdom. There have been a number of efforts devoted to assessing adults’ literacy skills in the United States over the past three decades. The most recent efforts occurred in 1985 and 1992. Another national assessment is planned for 2002. The assessment method used was developed by the Educational Testing Service (ETS). ETS defined three purportedly distinct forms of literacy skill: prose, document, and quantitative (PDQ) literacy. Each type was measured by a separate scale, an approach thought to better reflect the multifaceted nature of literacy than a single scale. The PDQ assessment results in a profile of literacy skills. The advantage of this approach is that it eliminates the arbitrary use of a cut point or single standard to distinguish “illiterate” from “literate” adults. The three skill domains encompass the predominate types of text materials and literacy tasks that “typical” adults encounter in everyday life. Prose literacy is the ability to understand and use information from texts that include editorials, news stories, poems, and fiction. Examples of prose tasks include finding information in a newspaper article or inferring a theme from a poem. Document literacy is the ability to locate and use information contained in materials such as job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps, tables, and graphs (Kirsch and Jungeblut, 1985). Examples include locating an intersection on a street map and entering personal information on a job application form. Quantitative literacy means being able to apply arithmetic operations by using numbers embedded in printed materials (Kirsch and Jungeblut, 1985). Examples include balancing a checkbook and summing purchases on a catalog order form. Item response theory (IRT) is used to estimate adults’ literacy abilities from their responses to a small number of tasks that are administered. IRT is a statistical method for scaling individual test items for difficulty in such a way that a given test item has a known probability of being correctly completed by an individual performing at a given
Limits of Standardized Tests Standardized adult literacy tests are not useful for diagnosing adult learners’ skill deficits, particularly at the lowest literacy levels (Burt and Keenan, 1995). Tests such as the TABE, for example, determine grade-level reading ability rather than identifying learner competencies. These tests are also not achievement tests in the sense of determining what students have learned in their literacy classes (Lytle and Wolfe, 1989). The information that the tests provide is generally not useful to students themselves as the scores don’t translate into tangible learner goals or indicate what adults need to learn. Because practitioners in adult literacy programs are often not well trained in standardized test administration, their uses of these tests may invalidate the results (Business Council for Effective Literacy, 1990). Greater efforts need to be devoted to training adult literacy educators in the proper administration and interpretation of standardized assessments. Despite the limitations of standardized measures, it is certain that they will continue to be used in adult literacy programs. The data derived from such measures are assumed to be objective, and the tests are relatively easy to administer and can be given quickly to large groups of students. The results can be readily reported in a manner familiar to most people (e.g., mean scores or grade levels). 27
Adult Literacy Testing level of proficiency. An 80-percent probability of correct response was the criterion used by ETS. The difficulty level of each literacy task was then placed along a scale. The resulting performance of groups of test-takers was also plotted along the same scale. Thus, scoring of the PDQ measures was based on the difficulty of each scale item, the probability of correct responding, and respondent and task characteristics. ETS adopted a 500-point scale, with five “levels” of literacy ability, for the purposes of reporting the results of adult literacy assessments. Level 1 (0–225) is the lowest level. Adults who perform at this level are able to locate single pieces of information in brief texts and can accomplish relatively simple arithmetic operations. In contrast, adults at Level 5 (376–500) are able to make high-level inferences, using their background knowledge, when reading densely packed and complex texts and are able to perform multiple quantitative operations sequentially. There is some evidence that rather than assessing three dimensions of literacy ability, the PDQ approach actually taps into a single, general literacy ability. Stephen Reder (1998) has shown high intercorrelations among the three scales. The PDQ approach was first used for the Young Adult Literacy Survey (Kirsch and Jungeblut, 1985). This survey was conducted in 1985 to assess the literacy skills of a nationally representative sample of American adults age twentyone to twenty-five. The 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) was the first nationwide assessment of adults’ literacy abilities in the United States. More than 26,000 adults, age sixteen and older, participated in the NALS, completing both the PDQ tests and an extensive background interview that gathered data on demographic characteristics, language, labor-force participation, education background, civic participation, and literacy practices. The NALS results showed that about one-half of the adult population (estimated at 90 million adults) scored at the two lowest proficiency levels on the PDQ tests. Less than 5 percent scored at the highest level. These findings led to greater public attention to the problems of adult literacy in the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics plans to conduct its National Assessment of Adult Literacy in 2002 to evaluate the “state” of adult literacy at the beginning of the twenty-first
century. Data from this study will be compared to the NALS in order to examine trends in adult literacy over a ten-year period and determine whether the United States has been successful in improving adult literacy. M. Cecil Smith See Also Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Programs References Burt, Miriam, and Fran Keenan. 1995. Adult ESL Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 386 962. Business Council for Effective Literacy. 1990. “Standardized Tests: Their Use and Misuse.” BCEL Newsletter for the Business Community 22 (January):6–9. Inman, Patricia, and Charles E. Trott. 1999. Pre-GED Assessment and Certification in Illinois: Final Report and Recommendations. De Kalb: Center for Governmental Studies, Northern Illinois University. Kirsch, Irwin S., and Ann Jungeblut. 1985. Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults. Final Report. Washington, DC: National Assessment of Educational Progress, U.S. Department of Education. Kirsch, Irwin S., Ann Jungeblut, Lynne Jenkins, and Andrew Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Lowe, Jean H. 1994. “Assessment of Adult Learners: Purpose and Context.” Mosaic: Research Notes on Literacy 4:2. Lytle, Susan L., and M. Wolfe. 1989. Adult Literacy Education: Program Evaluation and Learner Assessment. Columbus, OH: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 315 665. Reder, Stephen. 1998. Dimensionality and Construct Validity of the NALS Assessment. In M. C. Smith, ed., Literacy for the Twenty-First Century: Research, Policy, Practices, and the National Adult Literacy Survey, pp. 37–57. Westport, CT: Praeger. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Venezky, Richard L., Daniel A. Wagner, and Barrie S. Ciliberti, eds. 1990. Toward Defining Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
28
Artists’ Books
American Reading Forum
tack. In its mentoring program and in other sessions, graduate students are provided an opportunity to meet with leaders of their field without being cast into the role of sycophants. Small stipends are made available by members of the organization to help defray conference expenses for some of the organization’s most promising graduate-student members. Over the years, the organization has refined its goals to include the following: to provide a true forum for reading education where new research can be generated, research in progress can be refined, completed research can be reported, and reported research can be evaluated; to provide for the translation of reading research, theory, and philosophical deliberations into sound practice, but with no research, discussion, or contemplation to be discarded because its implementation is not immediately apparent; and to insure that in the field of reading, no idea is too bold or new to be given a hearing and none too old to be given consideration. More information can be found on the ARF web site: www.fd.appstate. edu/arfonline. Bob W. Jerrolds
The American Reading Forum (ARF) is composed of a small group of scholars who seek to submit reading research and instructional practices to intense empirical scrutiny. The ARF was organized in 1980 and held its first annual conference in Sarasota, Florida, in December of that year under its original name, the American Reading Conference. The formation of the group grew out of concern that the papers presented at reading conferences and in reading journals were not subject to sufficient review and discussion. As reading programs expanded rapidly in the late twentieth century, an examination of those programs revealed too many instances in which individuals had six or seven minutes to present their research or scholarly papers. Since these conferences usually ran from two and a half to four days with several hundred presenters scheduled, there was little to no scholarly exchange regarding the presentations. The charter members of the organization were chiefly leaders in the reading fields, joined by some of their graduate students. A high percentage of the charter members had been presidents and members of the boards of other reading organizations. From its founding, the ARF has restricted its membership to 100–125 people. Its three-day conferences are always held in Florida at or near the end of the first semester of the school year. The programs continue to be limited to about forty papers, thus allowing time for reaction and discussion. One of several innovative aspects of the organization is that the papers are not submitted for consideration for publication in the organization’s yearbook until several weeks after the presentation at the annual conference. Thus, the authors can profit from criticism and suggestions received at the conference. Members of the audience are invited to submit reaction papers for possible publication in conjunction with the papers that are accepted for publication. The yearbook is peer reviewed and is indexed with major reference sources. The ARF has always sought to encourage and support graduate students who show the promise of becoming outstanding researchers and leaders in the reading field. The organization has tried to provide a forum in which researchers in training can present their research and ideas about research, receiving helpful criticisms and suggestions without being subjected to savage at-
References Jerrolds, Bob W. 1990. “History of the American Reading Forum.” Yearbook of the American Reading Forum 10:193–198.
Artists’ Books An artist’s book is a work of art in a book or booklike form that incorporates or exploits visual, tactile, structural, or textual elements. This sort of book can vary from mass-produced copies to limited editions with hand-set printing to one-of-a-kind books with painted embellishments. Artists’ books can assume many forms, ranging in style from the artist’s taking preexisting books and altering them to books made from nontraditional materials such as metal, beads, scraps of unusual paper, and natural objects like sticks or leaves. Some books are made to conceal all within; the pages may be glued, nailed, or fastened together in some manner so that the book may never be opened. Other books have smaller books hidden within so that there are several books to open. Some artists’ books are handbound with special bindings, whereas others have pages that are loosely held together or are not bound together at all. 29
Assessment Interviews
Assessment Interviews Assessment interviews are oral questionnaires. They are conversations between a teacher and a student that are guided by predetermined questions and goals but allow for open-ended queries and spontaneous discussion when appropriate. Although assessment traditionally includes written tests, individual student work, portfolios, and grades, assessment interviewing provides an additional dimension. Emelie Lowrey Parker and her colleagues (1995) explain that when oral interviews are used, educators can gain insight into a child’s perspective and gather important information at a personal level. The child is then an active part of the assessment process. Assessment interviews can show that an educator values students’ voices, and this simple fact can motivate students to continue in their literacy development. The goal of assessment is to determine students’ instructional needs. Assessment should permeate the literacy curriculum daily so appropriate curriculum can be created to meet those needs. Terry Salinger (1998) lists three types of assessment: standardized, observation, and interviews. Although all three should be used to gain a full picture of a student’s abilities, interviews can supply an educator with students’ own views of their preferences, attitudes, strengths, and weaknesses. Assessment interviews show not just a product but a reflection about that product as well. An example of an assessment interview is included in the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP) developed by Linda Gambrell and her colleagues (1996). The MRP has two parts: a written reading survey and a conversational interview. The three sections of the conversational interview consist of factors related to narrative text, informational material, and reading motivation and habits. These educators realized that although the written survey was an important part of the profile, the conversational aspect of the assessment made it even more valuable. The purpose of the conversational interview is to gain insight into what motivates a student to read, to reveal interests that may inform the curriculum, and to elicit authentic knowledge about a student’s reading experiences and abilities. The assessment can follow a predetermined script, but tangents are anticipated and encouraged in order to provide a depth of understanding between teacher
Crystal Wooten, author of artist books, displaying one of her books (Barbara Guzzetti)
As more and more people became interested in handcrafted books in recent decades, the form of the book led artists to a new nontraditional format for expression. The book format has offered artists countless avenues for expression. Each artist’s book varies greatly. Hence, the definitions of an artist’s book are numerous, and somewhat controversial. Some of the controversy arises from the idea that a book has to behave like book; otherwise, it becomes sculpture. Also, artists’ books do not always conform to all aspects of a traditional book. Often, artists’ books are dangerously close to crossing the border between book and sculpture. When viewing such books, one important aspect to take into consideration is the artist’s intent. The intent of the artist makes an artist’s book different from other books because it was conceived and executed from the beginning as a work of art and as an artist’s book. Crystal Marie Wooten See Also Children’s Literature References LaPlantz, Shereen. 1995. Cover to Cover. Asheville, NC: Lark Books.
30
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers and student. Specific questions from the MRP ask students to tell about interesting things they have read or learned, how they found out about these materials, and what was important about what they read. The questions probe what the students have read recently and what they think they need to learn to become a better reader. Although these questions were developed to apply to a majority of students and educators, teachers should always feel free to adjust, expand, or revise the questioning to fit the students’ needs or the teacher’s concerns. Thomas Gunning (1996) also suggested some interview questions that would be appropriate to assess reading, adapted from Mary Jett-Simpson (1990). These questions ask students to reflect upon how they get ready to read, what they do when reading is difficult, and how they understand what they have read. Questions similar to these could be constructed for other areas of literacy learning such as writing, listening, speaking, and spelling. Sharon Martens Galley (1996) recommends video- or audiotaping some interviews in order to show evidence of a student’s literacy progress. These tapes can then be revisited for further reflection or self-assessment purposes. Conducting assessment interviews takes patience and expertise. The interviews need to be informal and friendly, but also productive and efficient (Salinger, 1998). Interviews do not need to take place very often or be held for too long. Two or three questions asked monthly may work best for young children, whereas longer interviews held twice yearly may suit older students. The keys to successful assessment interviewing are well-chosen, thought-provoking questions and a probing, caring interviewer. The advantages of assessment interviews are clear. Although students may be able to participate successfully in other forms of assessment, the interview allows the educator to extend and adapt the questions to obtain a wider range of information, especially from the student’s perspective. For the student who is not proficient at more traditional types of assessment, the interview format may be even more crucial. The educator can conduct an interview to determine strengths, weaknesses, and curriculum needs when other forms of assessment do not produce the necessary results. However, weaknesses in the assessment interview are present as well. The usefulness of the interview depends on the will-
ingness and ability of the students to discuss their literacy habits and beliefs (Gunning, 1996). Sometimes, information received from an interview may need to be verified by other assessment methods. A combination of assessment techniques—standardized, observational, written, and oral—may provide the best representation of a student’s literacy progress. Jill E. Cole See Also Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers; Classroom Writing Assessment; Reading Assessment; Writing Assessment; Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts References Galley, Sharon Martens. 1996. “Talking Their Walk: Interviewing Fifth Graders about Their Literacy Journeys.” Language Arts 73:249–254. Gambrell, Linda, Barbara Martin Palmer, Rose Marie Codling, and Susan Anders Mazzoni. 1996. “Assessing Motivation to Read.” Reading Teacher 49:518–533. Gunning, Thomas G. 1996. Creating Reading Instruction for All Children. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Jett-Simpson, Mary, ed. 1990. Toward an Ecological Assessment of Reading Progress. Schofield: Wisconsin State Reading Association. Parker, Emelie Lowrey, Regla Armengol, Leigh Baxley Brooke, Kelly Redmond Carper, Sharon Cronin, Anne Cooper Denman, Patricia Irwin, Jennifer McGunnigle, Tess Pardini, and Nancy P. Kurtz. 1995. “Teachers’ Choices in Classroom Assessment.” Reading Teacher 48:622–624. Salinger, Terry. 1998. “How Do We Assess Young Children’s Literacy Learning?” In Susan B. Neuman and Kathleen A. Roskos, eds., Children Achieving: Best Practices in Early Literacy, pp. 223–249. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers Interviewing can be defined as having a conversation with a definite purpose. Once the purpose for the interview is established, questions are generated to assist the interviewer in obtaining the desired information. Interviews of parents and teachers yield information that can be used to study a variety of attributes related to reading or writing, such as attitudes, perceptions, and feelings about the causes of a particular problem 31
Assessment Interviews for Parents and Teachers
Teacher discussing a student with the student’s parents (Laura Dwight)
tinent information about the children’s health and family history, and information about their children’s previous school experiences. To begin such an interview, parents might be asked a question such as, “Tell me about what your child reads at home.” If the child is struggling with reading, the parents might be asked to tell about their child’s reading or writing problem areas. Simply asking parents to talk about their children can be an excellent way to build credibility with them, garnering their support and assistance with the activities that will be performed by their children both in and out of school. Other sample questions are: “How do you think your child learned to read?” “How is reading used in your family?” “How is writing used in your family?” and “Do you visit the library?” Parents’ cultural backgrounds will most likely influence the interview. It is necessary to know how authority figures are viewed within the parents’ culture in order to ensure that appropriate conversational rules are used. There are some guidelines that can be used to enhance the chances of a successful interview. These include meeting in a private setting, avoiding educational
area. Current research has revealed that interviews can provide reliable and valid information that cannot be obtained from other assessment measures. Further, because they can be very informal, much like having a conversation, interviews can be an excellent way to begin a more comprehensive assessment of children. At other times, the interview can be made more structured through the development and use of an interview guide. In these instances, a tape recorder is often used so that responses can be further analyzed. When thinking about using interviews to assess reading or writing behaviors, several different individuals need to be considered. Parents and teachers are valuable information sources that can shed light on how children approach and think about literacy-related events. Interviewing Parents One of the goals of interviewing parents is to obtain their assistance in understanding their children. Parents can yield information about the reading habits of the family such as the parents’ view of reading, parent-child relationships, parents’ attitudes about their children’s reading, per32
At-Risk Students jargon, listening actively, keeping note taking to a minimum, asking open-ended questions to get parents to talk, and assuring parents that the information they provide will be kept confidential.
that as valuable as it can be, information from previous teachers is just that. When using an interview to access their perceptions of students, we have to guard against absorbing any preconceived ideas about individual children. For this reason, interviews with teachers are best used after the new teacher has had some time to get to know the children. Michael F. Opitz
Interviewing Teachers Teachers who have worked with students are able to provide additional information about students that cannot be gained from other sources. For example, an interview with a teacher can reveal the teacher’s perception of learners and how the children have adjusted to the school environment. Identifying a teacher’s perception of learners is necessary because this information can then be used in selecting teaching strategies for specific lessons that will make students’ success more likely. Discovering teachers’ perceptions of the children’s ability to adjust to the school environment and expectations can reveal specific behaviors that may be interfering with learning. Once identified, these behaviors can be replaced with those that facilitate academic growth. How children’s reading and writing was assessed and diagnosed as well as the specific type of reading instruction that was given to children can also be revealed during an interview. Information such as this can often be a contributing factor to how children perform as they read and write. For example, if children appear to rely on using visual cues at the expense of using meaning, the interview could very well reveal that the children were taught with a phonics approach. As with interviews with parents, these teacher interviews should have a definite purpose, and specific questions must be established to reveal the information that is sought. Questions such as “How would you describe this child’s reading?” “What did you use to determine what the children needed to learn?” “What kinds of reading materials did you use?” “How do you make decisions about what children need from day to day?” “Did you have any concerns about any of the children that are now in my classroom?” are but a few of the questions that can be asked of teachers. Asking these questions in sincere, genuine ways makes for the best possible interview. The teacher being interviewed senses that there is a sincere desire to know rather than an attempt to obtain information to pass judgment on what has occurred in the past. Information from these interviews needs to be held in confidence. We also need to keep in mind
See Also Assessment Interviews
At-Risk Students At-risk is a term that entered the educational vernacular as a result of the widely read and often quoted study A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Central to this study’s findings was the conclusion that thencurrent educational policy and practice, specifically with regard to reading instruction, caused substantial numbers of U.S. children to be at-risk for failure in learning to read and, ultimately, for being successful in school. In the nearly two decades since its initial use, at-risk has acquired many diverse meanings and has become a common expression used by educators, policymakers, the media, and the public alike to describe children and adolescents who exhibit one or more of a broad range of social, familial, economic, linguistic, cultural, and educational conditions associated with school failure. Thus, the term in its popular usage has evolved from its initial focus on educational policies and practices that place learners at-risk to a description of the learners themselves; during the 1980s and 1990s, it very nearly replaced the labels traditionally used to refer to the student experiencing reading problems—the “remedial reader,” “disabled reader,” “delayed reader,” and the like (see Delayed Readers). Along the way, at-risk has achieved common use with little or no agreement as to its exact meaning. Essentially, those who use it have their own definition in mind: Some assume a rather specific definition limited to an urban, innercity, poor and marginalized student population, whereas others use a broad-based definition of the term to refer to any student whose academic success is in jeopardy or who may be in danger of 33
At-Risk Students dropping out of school, whether the origin of the perceived risk is sociocultural or educational. Dorothy Strickland and Leslie Mandel Morrow (2000) identify factors that place young children at risk for failure in learning to read: (1) children with a history of preschool language impairment or delay, (2) children with limited proficiency in English or whose home English dialect is different from the dialect of instruction, (3) children whose parents had difficulty learning to read, (4) children with attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, (5) children who lack motivation to learn to read or have few experiences with purposeful, pleasurable reading, (6) children from poor neighborhoods whose families lack sufficient resources for adequate housing, health care, and nutrition, and (7) children who attend schools in which classroom practices are deemed ineffective, regardless of community socioeconomic status. Richard Vacca and Nancy Padak (1990) give a definition of at-risk, older students: (1) students who are alienated from a system that has failed them, who never learned to read and rarely attempt to do so, (2) students who learned to read but whose participation in school is marginal, who can read but only do so under duress, and (3) students who demonstrate characteristics of “learned helplessness,” who feel they do not have the resources for overcoming failure and are further limited by low self-image and negative attitudes.
learning to read when provided regular classroom reading instruction” (Klenk and Kibby, 2000) and these difficulties frequently follow them throughout their academic careers and sometimes throughout their lives. Interventions The question then becomes: How do we meet the needs of this small but significant portion of schoolchildren who struggle with literacy and are at-risk for school failure? The predominant approach throughout the twentieth century, which continues today in practice, was a medical model in which a specialist diagnosed the student’s reading problem and provided remediation. For the most part, Title I remedial reading programs in public schools, which were intended to serve at-risk students (see Title I), were and still are based on this medical deficit model in which the goal is to find out which of the skills taught in regular classroom reading instruction are missing for each student and then apply teaching to correct for those missing skills (Ruddell, 2001). To accommodate for this medical model, since their inception Title I remedial reading programs have predominantly been “pullout” programs in which, at the elementary level, children leave their regular classrooms at specified times and go to the remedial-reading class to work individually or in small groups with a reading specialist for the purpose of filling in or catching up on reading skills that were missed or not learned in regular instruction. For middlelevel and high-school students, Title I instruction is substituted for one elective class during a semester or year and may occur in small-group or individualized instruction in a resource- or remedial-room setting. Although it is difficult to assess Title I pullout programs with any accuracy because of the many nuanced differences in Title I remedial programs across the country, the general finding of studies conducted over the past twenty years is that the instruction these programs offer, for many complex and varied reasons, appears to assist students toward higher reading achievement but rarely promotes them to a level comparable to their mainstream peers (Klenk and Kibby, 2000). It is important to point out, however, that for many individual children, Title I remedial-reading instruction has provided much-needed and very successful support toward academic success.
Criticisms of the Label Of concern to some educators is that we may be labeling too many students as “at-risk” by including students who exhibit any difference from the mainstream or who have talents not traditionally acknowledged in schools (Ruddell, 2001) and that our use of such labels as “at-risk” (or “disabled” or “remedial”) lead to the implicit conclusion that something is wrong with the students themselves (Klenk and Kibby, 2000). As a result, many educators seriously question the inclusion of linguistically and ethnically diverse students as a group into the category of at-risk and prefer terms for students who are experiencing difficulty with literacy that describe a situation rather than label the learner: “readers in trouble,” “struggling readers,” “delayed readers,” and the like. But whatever label or term is used to identify the situation, the fact is that “a small but significant portion of otherwise normal American children encounter major difficulties in 34
At-Risk Students Another approach for assisting at-risk learners that gained widespread acceptance in the 1990s was “early intervention,” in which the goal was to identify at-risk students—students scoring below the twentieth percentile on reading tests— very early in the learning-to-read stage of first grade and provide systematic, intensive one-onone instruction to prevent reading problems. Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery program (1979) was the primary model for early intervention programs and was used or adapted in many schools throughout the United States (see Reading Recovery). As with the Title I programs, Reading Recovery was predominantly a pullout program that provided systematic skill instruction and practice, writing experience, silent and oral-reading practice, and reading for pleasure.
ing problems in learning to read and write are not missing out on large blocks of regular classroom instruction. Title I and regular classroom teachers are now frequently joined by America Reads volunteers who work one-on-one to tutor primary-grade children identified as at-risk in in-school and after-school programs. No research is currently available to evaluate the usefulness of the volunteer programs. Currently, instruction for at-risk children and older students remains centered in Title I and early intervention programs, and as can be imagined, these programs vary widely according to specific school and district characteristics and needs. A recent trend by policymakers and politicians is to address the many complex of issues associated with risk of school failure by setting higher academic standards, administering more and more high-stakes tests (see HighStakes Assessment), and retaining students in grade until they pass the tests. Schools responding to such policy and legislative mandates are attempting to provide various forms of Saturday-school, after-school (called “Cool School” in some districts), and summer-school programs that offer alternative experiences and instruction for students at-risk rather than simple repetition of grades that students have already failed (Posnick-Goodwin, 2001). “Pre-classes” or “halfclasses,” in which students do not repeat a grade but are placed in a class between two grade levels (e.g., pre-seventh grade between sixth and seventh grades), are considered to be intervention rather than retention or remedial instruction. “Pre-kindergarten” classes are for children who have not yet started school and who exhibit characteristics or meet criteria deemed to place them at-risk. There is still little or no evidence to determine the usefulness of these forms of intervention. Previous experience with mandatory minimumcompetence testing in the 1970s cautions that “intervention” based on high-stakes testing may cause dropout among older at-risk students to increase significantly. Thirty-five years of experience with Title I remedial programs cautions us further about the effectiveness of remedial programs in isolation from regular classroom instruction. The overwhelming evidence about the negative effect of school retention must give us pause in instituting wholesale retention programs for students who do not pass high-stakes tests.
Recent Intervention Approaches Toward the end of the 1990s, Title I regulations changed to allow greater freedom for schools and districts to develop remedial-reading programs. Concurrently, there was a shift in philosophy regarding the usefulness of pullout programs and the role of the reading specialist. Specifically, educators began to question the value of removing students from their regular classroom instruction for the purpose of providing intensive remedial instruction. The concern was that by so doing, educators systematically deprived them of the very important developmental instruction that composes the content of the regular classroom, thus compounding students’ difficulty in acquiring age- and grade-appropriate literacy skills. This, in turn, called into question the medical model of diagnosis and treatment of reading problems, as well as the role of the reading specialist to provide stand-alone instruction outside of the regular classroom literacy curriculum. These influences produced new Title I remedial programs in which the reading specialist works alongside the classroom teacher in the regular class to provide services for children identified as at-risk. In such programs, remedial instruction is contextualized by and is a part of regular literacy instruction; the remedial teacher may teach non–Title I and Title I students together, giving special attention to the Title I children in a small group and designing instruction collaboratively with the classroom teacher to coincide with regular instruction. Of special benefit in this model of Title I instruction is that children experienc35
Authentic Assessment Shearer, Brenda A., Martha Rapp Ruddell, and MaryEllen Vogt. 2001. “Successful Middle School Reading Intervention: Negotiated Strategies and Individual Choice.” In Timothy Shanahan and Flora V. Rodriguez-Brown, eds., National Reading Conference Yearbook 50, pp. 558–571. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Strickland, Dorothy S., and Leslie M. Morrow. 2000. Beginning Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vacca, Richard, and Nancy D. Padak. 1990. “Who’s at Risk in Reading?” Journal of Reading 33 (7):486–488.
Alternatives to Remediation and Intervention An alternative to the remedial and intervention approaches above is typified by the accelerated school movement led by Henry Levin (1993) in which the approach to at-risk learners is not to slow down their progress but rather to accelerate it, that is, to enrich instruction as one would for gifted students. Such an approach would result in instruction that (1) treats at-risk students as able, eager learners capable of learning from each other as well as from the teacher, (2) builds on students’ strengths instead of focusing on their weaknesses, (3) connects explicitly with students’ prior knowledge, previous experience, and the own lived worlds, and (4) involves many experiences in which students have the opportunity to reflect on their own literacy learning and development (Ruddell, 2000). Limited evidence (Shearer, Ruddell, and Vogt, 2001) suggests that such instruction is, indeed, beneficial for at-risk learners and, further, that their literacy accomplishment can, even in middle grades, place them at a level comparable with their mainstream peers. Martha Rapp Ruddell
Authentic Assessment Two important features characterize authentic assessment. The first is the proximity of authentic assessment to valued classroom literacy routines. What a student does in the assessment situation is clearly related to the learning and achievement that are goals of schooling. Authentic assessment emanates from classroom practice, and it is conducted during regular activities of the classroom. As authentic assessment is embedded in classroom materials, routines, and instruction, the inferences made from the authentic assessment data may be more directly connected to curriculum, instruction, and learning. A second meaning for the term authentic assessment focuses on the relationship of the assessment to learning and performances inside and outside the classroom. In this sense, authentic assessment involves students’ performance of a variety of tasks in social contexts that anticipate the use of reading in the lives of students as related to personal fulfillment, creativity, and work. Combining these two related but distinct ideas describes authentic assessment in which students engage in representative and possibly complex tasks that are connected with regular and valued literacy activities inside and beyond the classroom. Authentic assessment may describe the diverse ways in which students grow and develop in the literacy curriculum. Although the two meanings are related, they reflect the broad and different manner in which authentic assessment may be conceptualized. They also hint at the confusion that may arise from assigning a single meaning to the term. For example, if a student spends classroom reading time practicing multiple-choice test items, then a multiple-choice test may be an authentic assessment, since it reflects
See Also Delayed Readers; High-Stakes Assessment; Remediation; Title I References Clay, Marie M. 1979. The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. Klenk, Laura, and Michael W. Kibby. 2000. “Re-Mediating Reading Difficulties: Appraising the Past, Reconciling the Present, Constructing the Future.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 667–690. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Levin, Henry M. 1993. “Prologue.” In Wendy S. Hopfenberg et al., The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide, pp. xi–xvi. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Posnick-Goodwin, Sherry. 2001. “Intervention and Retention: Schools Get Tough on Students Who Don’t Make the Grade.” California Educator 5 (7):6–11. Ruddell, Martha R. 2000. “Just a Closer Look: The Current Political Climate of Literacy Education in the USA.” WSRA Journal 43 (2):1–10. ———. 2001. Teaching Content Reading and Writing. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
36
Authentic Assessment classroom practice and instructional goals. This is an altogether different notion of authentic assessment—one in which students use reading strategies in a complex reading performance assessment that relates to their learning of reading strategies and content-domain knowledge. The authentic assessment of students’ literacy development may be conducted with various assessment materials and procedures. Following from the two definitions given previously, authentic assessment may include running records and reading inventories (see Informal Reading Inventory). These are conducted as students read, with teachers observing and recording the detail of students’ accomplishments and miscues. From this, teachers use on-line information about students’ oral reading and silent reading to develop an account of the processes students use to decode words and construct meaning. Other authentic assessment, including performance assessments, portfolios, interviews, and observation forms, allows for the examination of students’ literacy processes and products at varying degrees of complexity and in the social context of the classroom. In addition, teacher questioning and students’ answers and retellings are also authentic when they help determine the nature of students’ understanding. Such an array of authentic assessments can help describe students’ growth and achievement as they relate to the complex act of reading. Acting with the knowledge gained from reading, students may be involved in performance assessments. Sharing of rubrics in performance assessment helps demonstrate the relationship of instruction and assessment: the means by which students will be evaluated serve as a map for how to perform well. In this sense, performance assessment rubrics may serve as a guide to both instruction and assessment. Literacy portfolios may be authentic assessments, serving as repositories for students’ work and contexts for students’ reflection and self-assessment. Adept use of portfolios also helps students and teachers conduct authentic assessment of complex and long-term projects, such as writing in relation to reading. The ability to document and organize the progression of work within the portfolio contributes to the unique contributions possible with portfolios. The popularity of authentic assessment is fueled, in part, by the preponderance of large-scale
multiple-choice tests and their limited ability to describe students’ complex literacy growth (Valencia, Hiebert, and Afflerbach, 1994). Such tests are criticized because they provide little or no formative assessment information and no immediately useful information, and they do not reflect the breadth and depth of learning that occur in a rich literacy curriculum. If complex learning is specified in standards documents (see Standards) and curriculum guides, the measures used to assess it must be capable of reflecting and accurately measuring this complexity. Authentic assessment materials and procedures reflect the complexity of the literacy growth they are intended to describe. Authentic assessment is often teacher- and student-centered, which may allow for the immediate and effective use of assessment information in the classroom. Authentic assessment may serve a formative purpose, as teachers use the information to shape instruction and provide feedback for students. Some consider authentic assessment to be an optimal means of measuring and describing the progress of students, teachers, and schools. It is also a means of revealing epistemologies, theories of what teaching is, how children learn, and what they might learn. For example, an authentic assessment that requires students to read two texts and then write an original account of how the texts are similar and how they differ does not mesh with the view of the reader as a passive recipient of information from text. The characteristics of particular assessment materials and procedures are not the sole determinants of whether the assessment is authentic. Rather, it is how these materials and procedures connect with the curriculum, how information from the assessment is used, and what the assessment demands of students that signifies an assessment as authentic. Reading assessments must be considered not as isolated instruments and procedures but as parts of the complex world of schooling (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Education Association, 1997). The promise of authentic assessment is realized, in part, when it is developed and selected according to complex criteria. Historically, assessment is judged by the psychometric standards of validity and reliability. It is imperative to augment this important information through the identifica37
Authentic Assessment tion of the potential benefits and demands of any authentic assessment. Diane Leipzig and Peter Afflerbach (2000) developed the CURRV (consequences, usefulness, roles and responsibilities, reliability, and validity of assessment) framework for examining the suitability of assessment for measuring and describing students’ literacy growth. Applied to authentic assessment, the framework can be used to anticipate and examine the consequences of assessment, its usefulness, and the roles and responsibilities it creates. This information complements the important aspects of the reliability and validity of the assessment.
questions such as: How appropriate is my lesson? Should I change the learning goals and targets? How are individual students doing in their small groups? and How can I accommodate each learner in this diverse classroom? Similarly, students may receive feedback from authentic assessment that provides details on the ways they are succeeding or on the ways they need to improve on a particular literacy strategy or skill. Authentic assessment can provide detailed information on students’ performance at complex tasks. For example, the innovative curriculum that asks students to perform tasks that reflect the complexity of work inside and outside the classroom must be accompanied by sophisticated assessment that is capable of describing that complexity. Quality, detailed information that guides instruction, that informs students and their families, that demonstrates good learning and teacher ability to conduct such assessment is useful in building goodwill throughout the school community.
The Consequences of Assessment The potential consequences of a successful authentic assessment program include effective use of school time and resources and teachers’ and students’ participation in the culture of assessment. Authentic assessment may take place during the course of regular classroom literacy activities. Thus, the need to take valuable classroom time from instruction and learning to prepare students to take an assessment is lessened. A related consequence is that time and money may be saved because authentic assessment information is generated in situ. A further consequence is that students may not have to learn complex routines of transforming their procedural and content knowledge for a specific testing scenario, because authentic assessment is conducted as teaching and learning occur. Enhanced motivation may be a further consequence: students who learn to become invested in reading assessment may be more motivated to learn. Reading assessment that is clearly aligned with instruction and conducted within instruction may provide teachers and students with the opportunity to better understand and use assessment. Students may develop independence in the important task of self-assessment, which is central to success in literacy endeavors.
Roles and Responsibilities As described by Scott Paris and his colleagues (1992), authentic assessment is the result of a complex process of determining learning goals, relating assessment materials and procedures to those goals, and developing the expertise to develop, administer, and interpret authentic literacy assessment results. Each of these key areas demands that clear and specific roles and responsibilities be determined, assigned, and fostered. Teachers must become assessment experts (Johnston, 1997) and must develop the ability to effectively collect, interpret, and use assessment information. This is especially the case in an era of high-stakes assessments: advocates of authentic assessment must demonstrate that alternatives to multiple-choice machine-scored tests meet psychometric standards of validity and reliability (see High-Stakes Assessment). To help teachers meet the challenge presented by such new roles and responsibilities, school districts must provide the extensive professional development that is needed—authentic assessment done well is a challenging task. Students must adopt a more active approach to assessment, moving from the passive state that is often fostered by assessments that are removed considerably in time and space from literacy learning events. In addition, the pertinent characteristics of authentic
Usefulness of Authentic Assessment Authentic assessment proves useful as it provides detailed information related to current instruction and complex learning tasks and accomplishments. It is characterized by its close proximity to instruction and learning and by the immediacy with which it can provide formative feedback in the midst of teaching and learning. This information can help teachers frame and answer 38
Authentic Assessment assessment should be supported by the communication of results to all stakeholders, including students, teachers, parents and families, administrators, board members, legislators, the business community, and other interested parties. This information may include the specific nature of a new assessment, the benefits it offers in relation to an existing assessment, and examples of the detail and usefulness of the information that the new assessment yields.
expertise in developing, conducting, and interpreting authentic assessment information is crucial. As standardized tests are framed by aspirations of the equivalent treatment of each student who is taking a test, it is imperative that teachers develop the ability to assess authentically in a reliable manner. That is, they must build a set of predictable and fair assessment routines to conduct authentic assessment. Further, teachers must strive to develop reliable means for analyzing the authentic assessment information they collect. As authentic assessments often involve examination of students’ written and spoken work, it is imperative that teachers regularly reflect on how bias for or against a particular language, performance, or student may be present and held in check. The complexity of tasks and performances that students undertake in authentic assessment create a corresponding complexity for teachers gathering and interpreting this assessment information. Peter Afflerbach
Validity of Authentic Assessment Authentic literacy assessment must meet rigorous standards of validity (Messick, 1994). Construct validity, or the accurate relation of an authentic assessment to the construct of reading, is made possible because authentic assessment can more fully represent the learning and growth that result from effective reading instruction. Ecological validity may be guaranteed when authentic assessment is done well because assessment takes place around instruction and learning and does not involve a knowledge-transformation task. It does not seek to describe reading achievement with means that are not reflective of typical classroom literacy acts, and there is little or no perturbation of the learning environment in the service of the assessment. Similarly, content validity, or the relation of the authentic assessment to the curriculum and instruction, may be enhanced as the assessment comes from instruction and learning. Concurrent validity of authentic assessment may pose a challenge because it hinges on the degree to which an authentic literacy assessment relates to other measures of literacy. Authentic assessment may be used because there is strong agreement that existing high-stakes assessments are not sensitive to the breadth and depth of student learning. In such instances, high positive correlations between the results of two assessments that focus on literacy but differ substantially in how assessment is conceptualized and measured should not be expected.
See Also High-Stakes Assessment; Informal Reading Inventory; Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation; Portfolios; Standards References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Education Association. 1997. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Education Association. Johnston, Peter. 1997. Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Leipzig, Diane, and Peter Afflerbach. 2000. “Determining the Suitability of Assessments: Using the CURRV Framework.” In L. Baker, M. Dreher, and J. Guthrie, eds., Engaging Young Readers: Promoting Achievement and Independence, pp. 159–187. New York: Guilford Press. Messick, Sam. 1994. “The Interplay of Evidence and Consequences in the Validation of Performance Assessments.” Educational Researcher 23 (2):13–23. Paris, Scott, Robert Calfee, Nicola Filby, Elfrieda Hiebert, P. David Pearson, Sheila Valencia, and Kenneth Wolf. 1992. “A Framework for Authentic Literacy Assessment.” Reading Teacher 46:88–98. Valencia, Sheila, Elfrieda Hiebert, and Peter Afflerbach. 1994. Authentic Assessment: Practices and Possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Reliability of Authentic Assessment The determination that authentic assessment is reliable remains a final goal of determining the suitability of authentic assessment. There must be confidence that the authentic assessment materials and procedures that are used with twenty or twenty-five different students within a single classroom are fair and consistent. Here, teacher 39
Automaticity and Reading Fluency
Automaticity and Reading Fluency
Gay Sue Pinnell and her colleagues in 1995) on a national sample of fourth graders (see National Assessment of Educational Progress). In this study, the National Assessment of Educational Progress found that 44 percent of the fourth graders were not fluent readers. There were high correlations between fluency and comprehension. Fourth graders who were not fluent at word recognition tended to have difficulty with comprehension. As the body of knowledge about automaticity and fluency has increased, there is growing recognition of its importance.
Although the terms automaticity and fluency are often used interchangeably, there is a subtle difference in how these two terms are used. Automaticity is the more general term; it refers to a wide variety of highly skilled behaviors and thought processes that can be executed with little conscious effort or attention as the result of long periods of practice. Reading fluency, by contrast, although similar to the definition of automaticity, has its use limited to skilled reading performance. Fluency refers to the ability to comprehend a text with little conscious effort or attention as the result of long periods of practice. Fluent readers can read orally from a text they have never seen before with expression, accuracy, speed, and comprehension. Although most teachers recognize the importance of reading fluency, unfortunately, little is done specifically to help students reach this goal. D. Ray Reutzel and Paul Hollingsworth (1991) found that instruction in reading fluency has been a neglected part of reading instruction, despite the fact that many reading authorities consider it to be important. When David LaBerge and Jay Samuels first wrote their article in 1974 on automatic information processing in reading, they focused only on word recognition, but in the last twenty years, the concept of fluency has enlarged so that it now includes comprehension processes as well word recognition. Reading educators use the term reading fluency in referring to a highly developed level of skill attainment that may range from ease of decoding printed material to complicated inferential operations used in constructing meaning from the printed material on the page. For example, when fluent readers read a text such as the following, they make numerous automatic inferences: “The man was puffing away absentmindedly while walking through the woods. Many animals and trees were destroyed in the ensuing fire.” In reading this text, the reader automatically infers that the man was puffing on a lit cigarette, that he dropped it on flammable material on the ground, and thus caused a fire.
Stages of Reading Development In the development and assessment of automatic complex skills such as reading, it is useful to know what stages the beginning student passes through on the road to fluency. Knowledge of the characteristics of each of the stages can be useful to teachers in their diagnosis and remediation of reading difficulties. The three stages from beginning to fluent reading are: nonaccurate, accurate but nonfluent, and accurate and fluent. During the nonaccurate beginning stage of reading skill, when students are asked to read a new text orally, reading speed is slow, with many word-recognition errors, and expression and comprehension are poor. With considerable instruction and practice, the student enters the accurate but nonfluent stage. When accurate but nonfluent students are asked to read a new text orally, wordrecognition accuracy is high, speed of reading is still slow, and oral-reading expression and comprehension are poor. Again, after considerable practice reading, the student enters the third stage, which may be termed the accurate and fluent stage. When fluent readers are asked to read orally from a new text, their word recognition, speed, expression, and comprehension are good. Property Lists for Determining Automaticity There are still other ways to determine when a student is automatic, or fluent, in reading. Researchers have put together property lists that can be used to distinguish automatic from nonautomatic processes. The reason for the property lists is that some nonautomatic processes can masquerade as automatic. Property lists help to determine if the execution of a complex skill was done automatically or not. For example, a student may be able to read a text orally with high word-recognition accuracy and
Importance of Reading Fluency The importance of reading fluency is underscored by a study done by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (as reported by 40
Automaticity and Reading Fluency speed, and a teacher might mistakenly assume the student is fluent when in fact the student is not. The reason for good word recognition coupled with poor comprehension is that if the decoding task consumes considerable amounts of the student’s cognitive resources, comprehension suffers. Two additional properties must be exhibited before identifying the student as a fluent reader. The oral reading should have good expression and the student should be able to recall some of the major points in the reading passage. Appropriate expression is important because it is an indicator that the student comprehends the passage while decoding it. Lack of expression is not the sign of an uncooperative student, but of a student who has difficulty understanding a text while decoding. If a student can engage in two complex tasks at the same time, then at least one of them is automatic. In the case of reading, where decoding and comprehension are complex tasks, if the student can perform both simultaneously, as is the case in oral reading with comprehension, then at least one of the tasks is automatic. We can assume that it is the decoding that is automatic. Additional properties of complex skills learned to the automatic level include the ability to perform the skill with minimal attention, without conscious awareness, and without interfering with other processes that are occurring at the same time. The last characteristic is critical, especially as it pertains to reading. As stated earlier, the decoding task should not interfere with the comprehension task. If it does, then the student is not yet at the fluent reading stage. To this property list, we can add additional characteristics, such as the complex skill that comes about as the result of long periods of practice; once it is activated, the automatic skill is difficult to suppress. For example, we know that when we are driving an automobile, we should focus attention on the traffic and we should try to suppress our desire to read the words on a billboard. Nevertheless, when fluent readers see words on a billboard, they have difficulty suppressing their desire to read them.
istics of automaticity and fluency may be considered to be on a continuum rather than as bipolar traits. To illustrate the importance of considering automaticity and fluency on a continuum rather than as bipolar traits, consider reading speed. Reading speed for the beginning reader is characteristically slow. With practice, however, the speed of reading increases, but the shift to fast reading is not abrupt. Instead, it is gradual. Data gathered on reading speed for students over time reveal a gradual, continuous improvement in speed in which only the beginning and end points can be identified as “slow” or “fast.” Reading speed, like other aspects of fluency, such as accuracy of word recognition or ability to read a text orally with expression, show gradual and incremental improvement resulting from practice. Word Recognition Several researchers, such as Robert Calfee and Dale C. Piontkowski (1981) and Keith Stanovich (1985), reported that development of automaticity in word recognition is associated with improved comprehension. To understand why automatic word-recognition skills can influence comprehension, three basic components of the reading process must be considered. First, in order to read a text, attention is needed to perform the decoding and comprehension processes. Unfortunately, the amount of attention that is available for performing these tasks is limited. Second, the words in the text must be decoded, or recognized. Third, the reader must comprehend the text. For the beginning reader, the decoding act is so difficult that all of the available attention is used up just for that one task, leaving an insufficient amount of attention for the comprehension process. To comprehend the text, the beginning reader resorts to the strategy of switching attention back and forth from decoding to comprehension, but this strategy places a considerable load on memory. Thus, by switching attention back and forth, the beginning reader manages to understand the text, but only with great effort. As the result of extended time spent in reading practice, the decoding task becomes automatic. When the decoding becomes automatic, the word-recognition task can be done with minimal attention, leaving the reader free to focus attention on the task of comprehension. At this stage of reading development, when both the decoding and comprehension tasks are per-
Caveats Having presented this property list as a binary dichotomous state—that is, either one is automatic or not—there is a caveat worth stating. A strong argument can be made that the character41
Automaticity and Reading Fluency formed simultaneously, we can say the reader is fluent. One of the reasons that fluency is so important as a reading goal is that automatic word recognition allows the reader to concentrate on constructing meaning from the text. Being a fluent or automatic reader should not be thought of as a stage in which all text can be processed with ease. At times, the reader may encounter texts where uncommon words, such as epistrophe, anfractuous, and contralesional may appear. If this occurs, the reader is usually not automatic at recognizing these words, and then effortful decoding strategies will have to be used. The highly skilled automatic reader has the option of either recognizing words in an effortless, automatic manner or in a style that uses high levels of attention and effort. The beginning reader, however, does not have these options available. Virtually all word recognition engaged in by beginning readers uses large amounts of attention and requires considerable effort, thus impeding comprehension.
points made in the passage that the student is reading. What makes this simple procedure such a good diagnostic tool for reading fluency is that the procedure requires the student to decode and comprehend it at the same time. Those students who are not automatic at word recognition will find their ability to comprehend while reading orally to be severely compromised.
Diagnosing Reading Stages An important aspect of the teacher’s knowledge of reading instruction should be the ability to assess the stage the reader has reached. A simple procedure for diagnosing a student’s reading stage involves selecting a text of one to two pages in length from the books that the student uses at school and having the student read the text orally to the teacher. The text must be one that the student has not read before. Instructions to the student are to read the text orally, and when the reading is completed, the student must recall as much of the text as possible. As the student reads orally, the teacher keeps a record of word-recognition errors, expression, and reading speed. If the student makes more than 10-percent wordrecognition errors, if the reading speed is less than eighty-five words a minute, or if there is lack of oral-reading expression, there is a high probability the student is not automatic at word recognition. Of critical diagnostic importance is the student’s ability to capture some of the
See Also Comprehension Strategies; National Assessment of Educational Progress; Word Recognition References Calfee, Robert C., and Dale C. Piontkowski. 1981. “The Reading Diary: Acquisition of Decoding.” Reading Research Quarterly 16:346–373. LaBerge, David, and S. Jay Samuels. 1974. “Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading.” Cognitive Psychology 6 (2):293–323. Pinnell, Gay Sue, Jean J. Pikulski, Karen K. Wixson, John R. Campbell, Phil B. Gough, and Adrian S. Beatty. 1995. Listening to Children Read Aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Reutzel, D. Ray, and Paul M. Hollingsworth. 1991. “Reading Comprehension Skills: Testing the Distinctiveness Hypothesis.” Reading Research and Instruction 30:32–46. Samuels, S. Jay. 1979. “The Method of Repeated Reading.” Reading Teacher 32:403–408. Stanovich, Keith. 1985. “Concepts in Developmental Theories of Reading Skill.” Developmental Review 10:72–100.
Instructing for Reading Fluency If the diagnostic test of reading fluency indicates that the student is not automatic at the decoding task, one of the best methods for helping beginning readers become fluent is to use the method of repeated reading (Samuels, 1979). There are numerous experimental studies showing the efficacy of this method. The other way to help students become fluent readers is to have them spend considerable time reading enjoyable books and stories that are at their recreational level of ability. S. Jay Samuels
42
B Balanced Literacy Instruction
effective than any single one. H. Alan Robinson (1977) noted that during the 1920s and 1930s, reading-skill sequences and activities predominated but were often accompanied by supplemental materials that contained “realistic” reading passages. He further reported that in the 1940s and 1950s, skill charts broke word identification and comprehension down into teachable parts, but basal-reader selections were often integrated into the other language arts. Although heavy reliance on basal materials and skill instruction continued into the 1960s, recommendations for balanced or eclectic literacy instruction were not uncommon. For example, following their research on elementary reading instruction, Mary Austin and Coleman Morrison (1963) concluded that multiple approaches should be utilized rather than a single method. A balanced view also appears to represent more contemporary teachers. A mid-1990s survey revealed that 89 percent of elementaryschool teachers identified with a “balanced approach” and 76 percent concurred that they adhered to an “eclectic” perspective toward reading instruction (Baumann et al., 2000).
Balanced literacy instruction involves a combination of instruction in literacy skills and strategies and immersion in literature and literary experiences. The instructional component typically includes teacher-initiated or guided lessons in reading and writing strategies in the context of authentic literature and composition tasks. The immersion component includes daily reading and writing activities such as teacher read-alouds, self-selected independent reading, written composition, oral expression, and literature response (Ivey, Baumann, and Jarrard, 2000). Although current conceptions of balanced literacy vary in focus and emphasis, most involve some combination of teaching reading and writing strategies and holistic literacy experiences, with teacher decisionmaking a central tenet. The future of balanced literacy depends upon teachers’ abilities to orchestrate the multiple instruction and immersion structures required to implement an effective balanced literacy program. It also requires the support of administrators who will provide teachers with the freedom to initiate balances that address students’ unique literacy instructional needs.
Current Conceptions Recent research and writings on balanced literacy instruction have been generated by researchers and writers such as James Baumann, Susan BlairLarsen, James Cunningham, Ann Duffy, Laurie Elish-Piper, Jill Fitzgerald, Gay Ivey, Jerry Johns, Ellen McIntyre, P. David Pearson, Michael Pressley, Taffy Raphael, D. Ray Reutzel, Dixie Lee Spiegel, Ruth Wharton-McDonald, and Kathryn Williams, among others. Their ideas and work ground the following description. Writers such as Jill Fitzgerald and Michael Pressley have noted that balanced literacy is not
Historical Precedent Use of the terms balanced reading or balanced literacy is a recent phenomenon, but there is historical precedent for combining skill instruction and literary experiences. Although there has never before been a balanced era in American reading instruction, early in the twentieth century several prominent figures in literacy education advocated a version of a “balanced,”“eclectic,”“combination,” or “composite” reading program. For example, William S. Gray (1925) argued that a combination of reading methods would be more 43
Balanced Literacy Instruction a monolithic concept but instead comes in multiple manifestations. Dixie Lee Spiegel’s (1998) characterization, however, has captured many of the common features of balanced literacy. She has argued that balanced literacy is research based and flexible, grounded on the view of teachers as thoughtful informed decisionmakers, and built upon a comprehensive view of literacy. This comprehensive view includes word identification, meaning construction through efferent and aesthetic stances, expressive written composition, and the development of an appreciation and lifelong pursuit of literacy for self-fulfillment and learning. Balanced literacy is not without its critics, however. Frank Smith and Constance Weaver, for example, have warned of the danger of providing children with an eclectic mix of methods and materials devoid of focus or philosophy. Further, David Pearson and Taffy Raphael (1999) have cautioned that balanced programs may oversimplify the complexities of literacy instruction; instead, they have argued, teachers must exercise multiple balances of contextual and curricular factors in order to provide effective literacy instruction. Spiegel (1998) has made clear that teacher decisionmaking is central to a balanced literacy approach, which helps teachers become reflective when determining how to accommodate students’ individual needs through the reading curriculum and instruction.
ing the school day. These teachers reported that what they learned from working with one student at a time helped them to reconsider the needs of all students in their classes. Similarly, Randy Bonner (1999) has described some of the subtleties of teaching reading that teachers learned as they tutored individual struggling readers, developed case studies of their students, and exchanged their experiences with peer teachers in a study group. We view professional development opportunities such as these as crucial to the future of balanced literacy instruction. Ann M. Duffy, Gay Ivey, and James F. Baumann See Also Reading-Comprehension Instruction References Austin, Mary C., and Coleman Morrison. 1963. The First R: The Harvard Report on Reading in Elementary Schools. New York: Macmillan. Baumann, James F., James F. Hoffman, Jennifer S. Moon, and Ann M. Duffy-Hester. 2000. “The First R Yesterday and Today: U.S. Elementary Reading Instruction Practices Reported by Teachers and Administrators.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:338–377. Bonner, Randy. 1999. “Conferring with Struggling Readers: The Test of Our Craft Knowledge, Courage, and Hope.” New Advocate 12 (1):21–38. Broaddus, Karen, and Janet W. Bloodgood. 1999. “We’re Supposed to Already Know How to Teach Reading: Teacher Change to Support Struggling Readers.” Reading Research Quarterly 34:426–451. Duffy, Gerald G., and James V. Hoffman. 1999. “In Pursuit of an Illusion: The Flawed Search for a Perfect Method.” Reading Teacher 53:10–16. Gray, William S. 1925. Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ivey, Gay, James F. Baumann, and Dora Jarrard. 2000. “Exploring Literacy Balance: Iterations in a Second-Grade and a Sixth-Grade Classroom.” Reading Research and Instruction 39 (4):291–310. Pearson, P. David, and Taffy E. Raphael. 1999. “Toward an Ecologically Balanced Literacy Curriculum.” In Linda B. Gambrell, Lesley Mandel Morrow, Susan B. Neuman, and Michael Pressley, eds., Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, pp. 22–33. New York: Guilford Press. Robinson, H. Alan. 1977. “Reading Instruction and Research: In Historical Perspective.” In H. Alan Robinson, ed., Reading and Writing Instruction in the United States: Historical Trends, pp. 44–58. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Spiegel, Dixie Lee. 1998. “Silver Bullets, Babies, and Bath Water: Literature Response Groups in a
The Future Consistent with current conceptions about the complexity of balanced literacy, Gerald Duffy and James Hoffman (1999) recently argued that the teacher, not the particular method or combination of methods, is the key to effective reading instruction. The future of balanced literacy depends on teachers cultivating expertise in teaching individual children and then applying that one-on-one mentality when teaching an entire class. Cultivating this expertise will undoubtedly be a complicated process of professional development, particularly when juxtaposed against the more common, single-session, methods-oriented workshops; however, there are examples that hold much promise. For example, Karen Broaddus and Janet Bloodgood (1999) have documented the changes in the philosophy and practice of experienced teachers who were given the opportunity to tutor struggling readers dur44
Basal Readers Balanced Literacy Program.” Reading Teacher 52 (2):114–124.
Bible and its teachings was the earliest impetus for reading instruction. Nevertheless, the notion of universal literacy is an American creation linked to the establishment of free public-school education. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the work of German educators influenced the thinking, materials, and methods used for instructing American children (Hoffman, 2001). In the earliest American method of teaching reading, the student learned the names of the individual letters, then repeating syllables using those letters. This “alphabet method,” going back to Greek and Roman reading instruction methodology, assumed that learning the names of letters by rote would lead to reading words. Letter names were considered to be the basic unit. Reading materials for the youngest students often consisted of several pages of alphabet letters and syllables to recite. It was considered an educational breakthrough when reading instruction began to use the “word method” as a way to teach reading rather than beginning with individual letter names (Betts, 1957). In the word method, famously promoted by Horace Mann in the first half of the nineteenth century, students were taught whole words first. It was assumed that words, rather than letters, were the basic unit. Because little was known at the time about helping students learn whole words and how to apply the words taught in isolation to larger pieces of text or to transfer the skills to other words, students struggled with this method. Even though the word method received a lot of attention in the professional papers of the time, it never supplanted the alphabet method in the mid-nineteenth century for teaching beginning reading and had no effect at all on how reading was taught to older students. Later on, reading would blend the word method with the phonetic method for a more successful approach. Using an entirely different perspective, a sixteenth-century (or nineteenth, depending upon sources) German educator named Valentin Ickelsaomer experimented with teaching young children to read using a “phonetic method” in the early 1500s (Matthews, 1966). This approach viewed the sounds of letters as the basic unit and recognized that letters represented multiple sounds in different words. It was assumed that teaching beginning readers those sounds would lead to earlier reading success for more children.
Basal Readers The most common method of introducing and practicing reading in the United States is still to use basal readers, a series of graded passages in book sets that students read, sometimes moving through their grade-level text as a class and sometimes moving through the text in ability groups that are paced differently. Although the overall structure looks very much like that of three-quarters of a century ago, the reading selections and strategies included today have morphed into a different genre—basal anthologies with selections from children’s trade books (literature) and magazines used to teach reading. The majority of current basals still use an analytic (learning sound-symbol relationships in context and through spelling patterns) rather than a synthetic (learning sound-symbol relationships through systematic, explicit instruction of individual phonemes) approach to word learning. The morphing continues, with impetus from “the reading wars” (public debates of the synthetic versus analytic phonics proponents) of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, both with the addition of strong phonics strands in the basal anthologies and with newer basals using reading texts that recycle linguistic approaches from the past. The Beginnings of Basal Readers “See Spot. See Spot run. Run, Spot, run!” Many who read these words will experience a flash of recognition from first grade. Others will only recognize the words as the butt of jokes on greeting cards or in comedy sketches. Your reaction probably depends upon when you learned to read. Indeed, until Sally, Dick, and Jane “died” in the early 1970s, roughly twenty-five years after their introduction on the American reading scene, an overwhelming number of American primary-grade children learned to read with Scott, Foresman basal readers. But how did children learn to read before Sally, Dick, and Jane? The history of reading instruction in this country is a fascinating amalgam of sociology, psychology, and the American fascination with innovation and expediency. Teaching people to read so they could access the 45
Basal Readers In America’s earliest years, reading was viewed as a highly utilitarian activity. The main purpose for teaching reading was to encourage access to biblical teachings. Nationalism dominated in the early days of the United States, and reading materials such as Noah Webster’s eighteenth-century An American Spelling Book (the blue-back speller) were used to promote patriotism and moral behavior that would lead to an ethically strong country (Smith, 1965). Indeed, it was a breakthrough to introduce the concept of using connected text whose purpose was as much to influence the moral well-being of the reader as to teach reading skills rather than syllables for early reading. Pleasure reading, however, was not a goal of schools until much later. Although the word method was not the predominant way of teaching reading, it exerted some influence by leading to sentence reading followed by story reading. With stories as reading materials in the first set of “graded readers,” reading texts became increasingly more difficult as the reader progressed through them. Children might continue with the same reader for more than one school year as they worked their way through the reading selections. As a result, several different ages of students could be reading from the same book. As the materials were very difficult for beginning readers, with very little repetition of vocabulary, it took considerable time for students to learn the material. Learning material meant memorizing it and reciting the memorized text verbatim to the teacher. Only when students had “learned the lesson” could they progress to the next selection. Meaning was not checked. The assumption was that if students could repeat the words, they knew the meaning of the text, an assumption today’s educators know to be false. Although there were other graded reading materials, McGuffey’s Eclectic Readers dominated the American scene for nearly 100 years, into the twentieth century.
ing, the Europeans, particularly the Germans, produced a great deal of professional literature. American educators of the time read this literature and sought changes in American schools and materials that would reflect the advances of such European educators as Johann Pestalozzi. Graded readers—the early basals (1840s to 1860s)—were produced partly to fill the recognized need for materials that became gradually more difficult, but they were mainly introduced to accommodate readers’ needs in the new system of organizing schools in the cities into grade-level groupings (Smith, 1965). America set out to educate its entire populace with public funds. This challenge brought a wide range of reading abilities into the school system. The materials needed to reflect the range. Evolution also occurred as companies producing basal readers proliferated and competed for market share. The influence on how teachers instructed students began to change with the advent in 1839 of the first “normal school” preparing teachers. The early basals typically included letter naming and syllable production, along with spelling, for the youngest readers. The syllables became words, which then evolved into sentence-level reading. Those sentences moved into a loose story from a collection of sentences. Through the reading of the words in sentences, students were taught to decode the sounds of English. Readers for older students included not only stories but lessons in grammar and spelling. Spelling words was the major decoding strategy employed. The stories in the earliest reading materials were very didactic. Basals remained largely the same until the early twentieth century, when stories were made more appealing to children with the introduction of continuing characters whose daily lives played out in basal selections. Contemporary Basal-Reading Materials Forty years ago, arguments similar to today’s, though not as intensely followed by the press, were expressed about analytic versus synthetic approaches to reading instruction. Nila Banton Smith’s American Reading Instruction (1965) pushed that argument back to the nineteenth century. Teaching the youngest students to read has garnered the majority of attention in the field almost since reading instruction became a separate subject. Proponents of analytic approaches thought
Changes to Basal Readers The change from teaching reading via hornbooks (a primer in which the alphabet and religious material were affixed to a wooden frame underneath a transparent sheet of horn) to the blue-back speller to McGuffey’s readers was in response to several forces. Even though America generated scant professional material about teaching read46
Basal Readers the whole process of learning to read ought to be slowed down so that children learned more reallife skills and explored firsthand academic subjects such as science. Slowing down the process involved teaching letter names and sounds as needed by the texts selected rather than apart from the texts. Analytic approaches allowed more focus on developing appreciation for reading and for comprehending text, features missing from early instruction with synthetic approaches. Proponents of synthetic reading showed that with systematic and explicit instruction, children learned letter names and sounds more quickly than with analytic approaches. They also argued that the stilted, unnatural language of the earlier era’s basal readers for young children did not allow for comprehension anyway, so why not just get to the core of the language—letter names and sounds—and be done with it. This would allow children to explore more difficult, and more interesting, texts earlier than was possible with analytic reading. An early emphasis on comprehension was misplaced, advocates believed. Also, learning to read ought to be inherently interesting, so there was no need to stimulate interest artificially through text. Over the past 300 years, there is evidence of both analytic and synthetic approaches having ascendance in the materials provided to students. The “reading wars” of the late twentieth century, however, polarized and politicized the discussion more than in any other era, led by Rudolph Flesch’s 1955 best-seller, Why Johnny Can’t Read—and What You Can Do about It. The battles are largely waged around beginning reading issues (and not in the teaching of reading to students who are fluent) and largely concern word-identification issues rather than the teaching of comprehension. The last fifty years has seen the ebb and flow of linguistic approaches to reading. Basal readers from the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and into the 1960s show a stronger influence from a controlled vocabulary and the analytic approach than from synthetic phonics. Workbooks and work sheets dominated the era, allowing additional practice with high-frequency vocabulary and, largely, analytic phonics skills. During these decades, more attention was paid to developing attitudes and interests around reading than ever before. Beginning in the late 1960s, reading materials show the influence of psycholinguistics. With the
advent of the application of psycholinguistics, vocabulary control was largely lost as language in readers became more natural. At the same time, companies produced supplemental linguistic readers or phonics programs and workbooks that focused on spelling patterns or isolated phonics instruction (Aukerman, 1984). Some of these linguistically influenced materials were altered or provided augmented alphabet systems that used color or alternative alphabets to regularize the irregularities in English orthography. Although the reading materials of the 1970s and 1980s were more interesting than recounts of bland events in the daily lives of Alice and Jerry or Sally, Dick, and Jane, they were still largely stories and still written by the publishing company as reading instructional materials. It was not until the 1980s that companies began the shift toward using actual selections from children’s literature, and the 1990s saw wholesale inclusion of informative texts into the basals. During the 1980s and 1990s, publishers began to call their materials basal anthologies, reflecting the new variety in both genre and sources. These materials included reading and writing workshop structures, flexible reading groups, and reading and writing across the curriculum. Workbooks and work sheets were downplayed as authentic reading, and writing dominated. In the 1990s, publishing companies also began providing crosswalks between their materials and the emerging state standards. The 1990s and 2000s also show effects from the reading wars. Although synthetic phonics instruction never truly disappeared from classrooms except in pockets across the country, the campaign to make explicit, systematic, sequential phonics part of nearly every reading program is underway. Publishers are resorting again to creating texts for young readers. These decodable texts reinforce and practice the synthetic phonics skills that are taught in the resurgence of workbooks and work sheets. Publishers, responding to the demands of lucrative adoption states like California and Texas, find it difficult to appease the forces controlling the purchase of materials. Sharon Arthur Moore See Also History of Reading Instruction; Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction; Phonics Instruction; Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
47
Bibliotherapy References Aukerman, Robert C. 1984. Approaches to Beginning Reading. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Betts, Emmett Albert. 1957. Foundations of Reading Instruction. New York: American Book Company. Flesch, Rudolph. 1955; 1986 reissue. Why Johnny Can’t Read. New York: HarperCollins. Hoffman, James V. December 2001. “Words (on Words in Leveled Texts for Beginning Readers).” Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Matthews, Mitford M. 1966. Teaching to Read, Historically Considered. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Smith, Nila Banton. 1965. American Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
tellectually, attain better understanding of their own motivation, or achieve awareness of something applicable to their own life. Classroom implementation of bibliotherapy consists of a series of sequenced steps. First, the teacher selects a book, taking into consideration the needs of students. Second, the students read the book—and this can be completed either through read-alouds or totally through independent silent reading. Third, students are given time for reflection. In the last step, the students and the teacher discuss the book within a group, which may range from small to large. Heidi McCarty and Lynn Chalmers (1997) suggest that the discussion stage of bibliotherapy in the classroom should be highly structured, following a specific sequence that is usually led by the teacher. The steps are as follows: (1) the teacher asks students to retell the plot, highlighting the feelings, characters, and situations that occurred, (2) teacher asks the students probing questions about their feelings and their identification with characters and events in the story, (3) students transfer the situation from the book to real-life situations that will lead them to explore the effects of certain feelings and behaviors, and (4) students draw conclusions and generalizations from events depicted in the book. Bibliotherapy has been found to be effective in many studies across disciplines. For specific information on the results, see the literature on bibliotherapy and the education of children (Nelms, 1993); special education (McCarty and Chalmers, 1997); counseling (Myers, 1998); and teacher education (Morawski, 1997). Diane Lapp and James Flood
Bibliotherapy Bibliotherapy is an instructional process in which readers are guided through reading texts to help them grow in self-awareness (Harris and Hodges, 1995). Bibliotherapy has been described by many educators and counselors as a phenomenon that permits children and adults to see how others confront and solve problems similar to their own. More broadly, bibliotherapy is a tool in which students read books that deal with different situations that parallel situations in their own lives, for example, coping with divorce, losing of a loved one, feeling rejected, or feeling isolated. By reading these works, children and adults are able to see how others encounter anxiety and frustration and how they apply their insight in real-life situations. With the help of a supportive person like a teacher or parent, children and adults may gain insight into alternative solutions to their problems and thereby alleviate their emotional and mental pressure. Bibliotherapy has the potential not only to solve problems but also to prevent them. Bibliotherapy usually consists of three stages of self-development: (1) identification, (2) catharsis, and (3) insight. In the identification stage, students affiliate some real or fictional character with themselves or with associates. In the catharsis stage, students emote in response to compassionate writers who describe progress they have made in their own painful struggle to know themselves. In the insight stage, students become more open to solving their problems in-
See Also Adolescent Literature; Children’s Literature; Multicultural Literature References Harris, Theodore, and Richard Hodges, eds. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. McCarty, Heidi, and Lynn Chalmers. 1997. “Bibliotherapy Intervention and Prevention.” Teaching Exceptional Children 29 (6):12–13, 16–17. Morawski, C. 1997. “A Role for Bibliotherapy in Teacher Education.” Reading Horizons 37 (3):243–259. Myers, J. 1998. “Bibliotherapy and DCT: Co-Constructing the Therapeutic Metaphor.”
48
Bilingual Education
Children reading books in English and Spanish (Elizabeth Crews)
For discussion of the second goal, see the entry Heritage-Language Development. Confusion about English-language development in bilingual children is understandable. How can they acquire English, their second language, while being taught in their first language? Bilingual education can help English-language development in two ways. First, when we give a child quality education in the primary language, we give the child a form of knowledge that makes English input more comprehensible. A child who understands history—thanks to history instruction in the first language—will have a better chance of understanding history taught in English than a child without this background knowledge; and more comprehensible English input means more acquisition of English. Second, there is strong evidence that literacy transfers across languages, that building literacy in the primary language is a shortcut to English literacy. The argument is straightforward: If we learn to read by understanding the messages on
Journal of Counseling and Development 76:243–250. Nelms, Ben. 1993. “Teachers and Teaching in Novels, Biographies, Film, and Song.” English Journal 82:96–98.
Bilingual Education It is helpful to distinguish two goals of bilingual education. The first is the development of “academic English” and school success, and the second is the development of the child’s first language (the “heritage” language). The development of academic language needs to be distinguished from the development of conversational language; academic language means the ability to understand demanding texts, write compositions and reports, and do story problems. The development of academic language takes considerably longer than the development of conversational language (Cummins, 1989). The focus here is on a crucial aspect of goal one: the development of academic English. 49
Bilingual Education the page (Smith, 1994), it is easier to learn to read if we understand the language. And of course, once we can read, we can read—the ability transfers to other languages. The empirical support for the claim that literacy transfers across languages comes from studies showing that both the reading process and the reading development process are similar in different languages. Studies also show that correlations between literacy development in the first language and the second language are positive, when length of residence in the host country is controlled. All the above is true even when the writing systems of the two languages are very different (Krashen, 1996). Effective bilingual programs thus have three characteristics. First, they provide background knowledge through subject-matter teaching in the first language. This should be done to the point that subsequent subject-matter instruction in English is comprehensible. Second, they provide literacy in the first language, which transfers to the second language. Third, they provide quality instruction in the second language, beginning with second-language classes on the very first day. In properly organized programs, subject matter is taught in the second language as soon as it can be made comprehensible.
cation. Second-language acquirers who do well in English academic language development and do well in school in the United States have frequently had a solid education in their primary language before coming to the United States. Such children have had “de facto” bilingual education, subject-matter and literacy development in the primary language, and in some cases extensive formal instruction in English as a second language. In addition to case histories (Krashen, 1996), studies also report positive correlations between years of education in the home country and English proficiency among immigrants (e.g., Chiswick, 1991; Espenshade and Fu, 1997). Financial Success without Bilingual Education A popular argument against bilingual education is the fact that many immigrants have succeeded economically without it. This is largely the case for those who arrived in the United States in the first part of the twentieth century. It is established, however, that immigrants did not do well in school during this time. But in fact, very few native speakers of English did well in school in those days: In 1910, only 13.5 percent of the total population had graduated from high school; today that figure is around 83 percent. If immigrants did so poorly in school, how did they succeed economically? In the first part of the twentieth century, education was not a prerequisite to economic success. It is now. Years ago, there was reasonably well-paid work in manufacturing and agriculture that did not require a high school diploma or college degree. Today, nearly all work that leads to a decent living requires education: U.S. government figures show that the earnings of those who are not high-school graduates are below poverty level, on average (Krashen, 1999).
The Evidence for Bilingual Education: Program Evaluations In all published studies in which the above three conditions are met, bilingual education has been a winner. Children in properly organized bilingual programs acquire at least as much of the second language as children in comparison programs and typically acquire more (e.g., Mortensen, 1984; Appel, 1984), in some cases doing as well as native speakers of the second language on reading tests. Several critics have claimed that in some evaluations, “English immersion” programs were found to be superior to bilingual education. In each case, however, programs labeled “immersion” were really bilingual education, with a substantial part of the day’s work taught in the primary language. In other studies, little or no description of “bilingual education” is provided, sample sizes are small, and program durations are short (Krashen, 1996).
Public Opinion Surveys reveal considerable agreement with the principles underlying bilingual education. In a series of studies, Fay Shin (reviewed in Krashen, 1996) reported that most minority parents, along with teachers and administrators, agreed that “developing literacy through the first language facilitates literacy development in English” and that “learning subject matter through the first language helps make subject matter study in English more comprehensible.” In addition, two-
Effect of Previous Education The framework presented here helps to explain cases of apparent success without bilingual edu50
Bilingual Education thirds of respondents to polls conducted by the Los Angeles Times (October 15, 1997) and Dallas Morning News (May 28, 1998) agreed that some use of the child’s first language in school was desirable: Only one-third preferred “English only.” If this is so, why did anti-bilingual education measures pass in California in 1998 (Proposition 227) and Arizona in 2000 (Proposition 203)? Research confirms that the public was not fully aware of what these initiatives contained. In one study, 57 percent of voters said they would support California’s Proposition 227 when presented with the version printed on the ballot. When given details of the actual initiative (dismantling successful programs, limiting special help in English to only one year, allowing teachers to be sued if they violated the new policy), only 15 percent said they would support it (Krashen, 1999). In addition, according to the Los Angeles Times, two-thirds of those who supported Proposition 227 did so because “English is so important” (Los Angeles Times, April 13, 1998). They were unaware of the fact that English-language development is an important goal of bilingual education and that properly organized bilingual programs succeed in teaching English.
there is no evidence that Proposition 227 succeeded. Kenji Hakuta (2000) concluded that (1) districts that kept bilingual education improved, and (2) districts that never offered bilingual education improved. A major problem is that nearly all the media focus has been on one district in California—Oceanside. After Proposition 227 passed in 1998, the Oceanside district dropped bilingual education and enthusiastically embraced English immersion, and test scores increased. Hakuta (2000) has shown, however, that gains for Oceanside’s English learners were similar to gains made in many California schools that retained bilingual education. In addition, the bilingual program that Oceanside dropped was a poor one. In an article in the September 2, 2000, Washington Post, Oceanside superintendent Ken Noonan stated that Oceanside’s “bilingual” program was actually taught only in Spanish for four years or longer. It was therefore not a bilingual program but a monolingual Spanish program. As noted above, properly organized bilingual programs introduce English the first day, and teach subject matter in English as soon as it can be made comprehensible. The San Diego Union Tribune (October 5, 2000) confirmed suspicions that Oceanside’s pre-Proposition 227 efforts were dismal, pointing out that before it went into effect, one bilingual school had a severe shortage of books.
Has Proposition 227 Worked? It has been claimed that the increase in test scores in California is evidence that Proposition 227 worked, that dismantling bilingual education was a success. It is true that test scores increased throughout California since Proposition 227 passed but there is no evidence linking this increase to dropping bilingual education. As Proposition 227 went into effect during 1998, new tests (the SAT9) were introduced in California. When new tests are introduced, test scores typically increase, which is why tests need to be recalibrated every few years. Typical test-score inflation is about 1.5 to 2.0 points per year. This increase accounts for about half of the gains seen in reading scores for second and third graders in the SAT9 reading test in California since 1998 and for all of the increase in grades four through seven, and it suggests that SAT9 reading scores have actually declined slightly in grades eight through eleven. Test scores are affected by a number of factors that have nothing to do with student learning, such as testing only selected students and coaching on test-taking strategies. Even if the use of SAT9 scores were legitimate,
Improving Bilingual Education Bilingual education has done well, but it can do much better. The biggest problem for students in these programs is the absence of books, in both the first and the second language. It is now established that reading for meaning, especially free voluntary reading, is a major source of our literacy competence and that those with more access to books read more (see Recreational Reading). Free voluntary reading can help all components of bilingual education: It is a source of comprehensible input in English and a means for developing knowledge and literacy in the first language, as well as a way of continuing first-language development. Many children with limited English proficiency have little access to books in any language. The average Hispanic family in the United States with limited-English-proficient children has about twenty-six books in the home, about onesixth the U.S. average (Ramirez et al., 1991). 51
Bilingualism Literacy: Latino Children and Free Reading Resources in Schools.” Bilingual Research Journal 18 (1–2):67–82. Ramirez, J. David, Sandra Yuen, Dena Ramey, and David Pasta. 1991. Final Report: Longitudinal Study of an English Immersion Strategy and an Early-Exit Transitional Bilingual Education Program for Language-Minority Children. Vol. 1. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Smith, Frank. 1994. Understanding Reading. 5th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
School is not helping to solve this problem. Sandra Pucci (1994) investigated school libraries in schools with strong bilingual programs in Southern California and found that books in Spanish were very scarce. Those that were available, though often of high quality, were usually short and for younger children. The access problem is also present with respect to books in English. Children from low-income families have little access to books in school libraries, public libraries, and in their communities (see Recreational Reading). Enriching the print environment is not the only recommendation that can be made in discussing improvement of bilingual education, but it is an excellent place to begin. If it is true that learning to read in the primary language is in fact beneficial, then children need something to read. Stephen Krashen
Bilingualism Bilingualism refers to the ability, in an individual or a society, to speak two languages. Bilingualism can develop simultaneously, as when two languages are acquired in infancy (simultaneous bilingualism), or sequentially (sequential bilingualism), as in the case of second-language acquisition (SLA). The field of bilingualism generally concerns simultaneous bilingualism, with SLA or sequential bilingualism largely regarded as a separate field (see Language Acquisition).
See Also Heritage-Language Development; Recreational Reading References Appel, René. 1984. Immigrant Children Learning Dutch. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. Burnham-Massey, Laurie, and Marilyn Pina. 1990. “Effects of Reading Instruction on English Academic Achievement of LEP Children.” Reading Improvement 27:129–132. Chiswick, Barry. 1991. “Speaking, Reading, and Earnings among Low-Skilled Immigrants.” Journal of Labor Economics 9:149–170. Cummins, Jim. 1989. Empowering Minority Students. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Espenshade, Thomas, and Haishan Fu. 1997. “An Analysis of English-Language Proficiency among U.S. Immigrants.” American Sociological Review 62:288–305. Hakuta, Kenji. 2000. “Points on SAT-9 Performance and Proposition 227.” Available: http://www.s tanford.edu/~hakuta/SAT9/SAT9_2000/bullets. htm. Krashen, Stephen. 1996. Under Attack: The Case against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. ———. 1999. Condemned without a Trial: Bogus Arguments against Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Mortensen, Eileen. 1984. “Reading Achievement of Native Spanish-Speaking Elementary Students in Bilingual vs. Monolingual Programs.” Bilingual Review 11 (3):31–36. Pucci, Sandra. 1994. “Supporting Spanish Language
Separate versus Unified Systems Researchers in bilingualism have long been interested in whether children who grow up with two languages initially develop a unified linguistic system that later separates or whether these children begin with two separate linguistic systems from the earliest stages of acquisition. Earlier research on bilingual language acquisition proposed that children initially use both linguistic systems in an undifferentiated manner and that a gradual process of separation begins with the lexicon (vocabulary), then moves on to morphology (rules of word formation), and finally to syntax (rules of word order). However, critics of this perspective charged that on close analysis, there is no compelling evidence for the presence of an undifferentiated language system in early bilinguals. Indeed, nearly all of the evidence appears to have relied on the observation that infant bilinguals frequently do not have “translation equivalents” for items in their lexicon, an observation true of many adult bilinguals as well. More recently, research has focused on grammatical (rather than lexical) aspects of bilingual language development, and it has been found that the two systems appear to be differentiated from the earliest stages. For instance, Jürgen Meisel (1990) found that French and German 52
Bilingualism
Bilingual Cantonese-English teacher quizzing students (Elizabeth Crews)
some milk”), with the sentence beginning in English, switching to Spanish, then moving back to English again. Codeswitching within a single sentence like this is called intrasentential codeswitching; codeswitching between sentences is termed intersentential codeswitching. In the past, educators and others often assumed that codeswitching was indicative of a language disability of some kind. It was often alleged that bilinguals used codeswitching as a “coping strategy” for incomplete mastery of both languages. However, recent research into the social and linguistic characteristics of codeswitching strongly suggest otherwise. John Gumperz, whom many credit with inventing the term codeswitching, discovered six major functions of conversational codeswitching: (1) quotation, (2) addressee specification, (3) interjection, (4) reiteration, (5) message qualification, and (6) personification versus objectification. Gumperz (1982) analyzed codeswitching as a discourse strategy and found that participants in his study were able to use it effectively to convey meaning and build group identity. In an analysis of a bilingual community in Great
bilingual infants differentiated syntax and morphology as soon as functional categories emerged, an indication that the two systems had separated at the syntactic level. Satomi Mishina (1998) studied tense marking, negation, and question formation in two Japanese-English infant bilinguals and found that for these children the two systems were properly differentiated throughout their linguistic development and that both learners followed the developmental stages individually associated with the two languages in monolingual children. Although simultaneous bilinguals appear to have separate grammatical systems for their two languages from the earliest stages of development, they often mix their languages in a variety of ways—codeswitching, borrowing, and calques among them. Codeswitching Codeswitching is a speech style in which fluent bilinguals move in and out of two (or conceivably more) languages. For instance, a SpanishEnglish bilingual might say, “This morning mi hermano y yo fuimos a comprar some milk” (“This morning my brother and I went to buy 53
Bilingualism Britain, Li Wei, Lesley Milroy, and Pong-Sin Ching (1992) have more recently developed a social network theory of bilingual codeswitching. In addition to the social aspects of bilingual codeswitching, much attention has been given to the study of its linguistic structure. Like monolingual language, bilingual codeswitching is highly structured and rule governed. Specifically, language mixture appears to be constrained by the interaction of subtle grammatical principles in bilingual speech. For instance, simultaneous bilinguals commonly codeswitch between subjects and verbs, as in “Mis amigos finished first” (“My friends finished first”) but would judge codeswitches between a subject pronoun and a verb (like “Ellos finished first,” “They finished first”) to be ill-formed or ungrammatical. (“Ungrammatical” here means that simultaneous native bilinguals presented with this sentence have a negative psychological reaction similar to the reaction English speakers have to sentences like “Martin built a barn red,” in contrast to our positive reaction to “Martin painted a barn red”; our subconscious knowledge of grammar tells us that the first sentence is structurally flawed but the second is fine.) A number of linguists have formulated theories about the underlying structure of codeswitching. Shana Poplack’s equivalence constraint and free morpheme constraint are among the most widely known. Poplack’s equivalence constraint postulates that codeswitches will tend to occur where word orders are similar in the two languages. For instance, in English, object pronouns follow the verb, whereas in Spanish they precede the verb. Thus, although bilingual codeswitchers regard “I saw la muchacha” (“I saw the girl”) as well-formed, “Yo her ví” or “Yo ví her” (“I saw her”) is judged to be ill-formed. In Poplack’s view, the difference in psychological judgment is explained by the equivalence constraint: The first example (“I saw la muchacha”) is well-formed because the English and Spanish word orders are the same at the junction of the switch, but the second example (“Yo ví her”) is ill-formed because English and Spanish word orders differ in this instance. Poplack’s free morpheme constraint posits that codeswitches cannot occur between a free morpheme (a word that can stand alone, like walk or eat in English) and a bound morpheme (a meaningful part of a word that cannot stand alone, like -ed in the En-
glish word walked or -ó in the Spanish habló, “He spoke”). This constraint is intended to explain the ungrammaticality of examples like “He eat-ó” (“He ate”), where a Spanish bound morpheme (-ó, past tense marker) is attached to an English free morpheme (“eat”). Although Poplack’s work, carried out in the early 1980s, is illustrative and perhaps most accessible to nonspecialists, considerable work has been done on the grammatical structure of codeswitching since her initial studies. For instance, emphasizing that ungrammaticality in codeswitching results from the interaction of the mixed grammars, not from any codeswitchingspecific rules. Jeff MacSwan (1999) proposed a theory of codeswitching that applies recent work in syntactic theory (Chomsky, 1995) to the data of language mixture. In addition, Pieter Muysken’s (2000) recent work divides codeswitching into three different types (insertion, alternation, and congruent lexicalization) and analyzes these in terms of contrasting grammatical properties of the languages involved as well as other factors. (See Romaine [1995], MacSwan [1999], and Muysken [2000] for detailed discussion of research on codeswitching.) Contrary to early impressions, the linguistic study of bilingual codeswitching has revealed that simultaneous bilinguals, just like monolinguals, are sensitive to extremely subtle requirements of their linguistic systems and use their languages creatively to satisfy a variety of social purposes and to achieve a sense of identity as part of a bilingual or multilingual community. This program of research has shown that codeswitching may not be used as an indicator of language disability. Borrowings and Calques Words are often borrowed from one language by another in situations of language contact. Similarly, language contact often results in calquing, the use of expressions that appear to use the grammar of one language but the vocabulary of another. Although borrowing is common in contact situations, the degree to which speakers are aware of the non-native character of borrowed words may differ with each borrowed item. For instance, a monolingual English speaker might use the term pork without the slightest awareness that it was borrowed from French during the Norman conquest. In contrast, a 54
Bilingualism speaker might use the expression tour de force fully aware that the expression is of French origin. In this latter case, the English speaker may have some grasp of the grammatical structure of the phrase without having full knowledge of French grammar. An English speaker who encounters the French word genre may also have difficulty pronouncing the word (because the first sound of the word introduces a sequence that English phonology does not readily permit). Borrowing should be carefully distinguished from codeswitching. Borrowed words are usually marked by what has been called “morphological nativization.” For instance, Nahuatl, an indigenous language in Mexico that has borrowed heavily from Spanish, marks Spanish verbs incorporated into the language with the thematic suffixes -oa (transitive), -(i)hui (intransitive), and -lia (applicative). Thus, a Nahuatl speaker might say “Costarihui in neca trabajo” (“That work is costly”), where the Nahuatl intransitive suffix has been affixed to the Spanish word costar (“cost”). So marked, these Spanish words have been morphologically nativized and can no longer be regarded as Spanish words, except in an etymological sense (just as the English word “pork” is etymologically French, but an English speaker who uses it is not necessarily a FrenchEnglish bilingual). Another indication that a word has been borrowed is “phonological nativization.” Here, the “loan item” (the word borrowed from another language) is pronounced using the sound system of the language into which it has been borrowed, as when English speakers pronounce the Spanish-origin word “taco” with aspiration following the “t” and a [w]-off glide following the “o,” among other features characteristic of English phonology. Most speakers of English who use the word “taco,” then, use it as an English word and could not be said to be bilingual simply because they incorporated this word into their vocabulary. Such speakers are borrowing words from other languages, but they are not codeswitching. Codeswitching involves the use of more than one language in a single sentence or block of discourse and can only be done by bilinguals. It is also possible to borrow only pragmatic or morphosyntactic properties while using the phonetic material of the native language; this is the case of calques, also called loan translations. These are special instances of borrowing in
which the phonetic properties of words from one language are used in combination with pragmatic or morphological properties of words from another. For instance, Nahuatl speakers in the towns around the Malinche volcano use Nimayana (“I am hungry”); however, while conducting research on Nahuatl in Mexico, Jane and Kenneth Hill observed a Spanish-Nahuatl bilingual who used the expression Nicpia apiztli, which literally means “I have hunger,” apparently modeled after the Spanish equivalent Tengo hambre (“I have hunger”). Thus, although Nicpia apiztli is well-formed from the point of view of grammar (just as English “I have hunger” is wellformed), we might think of this loan translation as pragmatically, or perhaps stylistically, disfavored. (See Kenji Hakuta’s [1986] excellent overview of research on bilingualism for further examples and discussion.) Language contact is a complex and fascinating topic that leads to instances of borrowing, calquing, and codeswitching. A unified account of calquing and codeswitching might view “loan translation” as a kind of codeswitching at the level of abstract grammatical features. Borrowing, by contrast, takes lexical items of one language and accommodates them to the linguistic requirements of another. (Words that are borrowed “on the spot” are referred to as “nonce borrowings.”) Crucially, codeswitching and calquing involve the interaction of two (or more) distinct linguistic systems, whereas borrowing takes specific lexical items (their phonetic and semantic features, primarily) from another language for use in a single linguistic system. Bilingual Language Proficiency and the Education of Linguistic Minorities In a famous and oft-quoted definition of bilingualism, Einar Haugen said bilingualism began at the point where the speaker of one language could produce complete meaningful utterances in another language. Although others have insisted that “true bilinguals” are equally capable of discussing any topic in either language (“ambilingualism”), a more common view is that because bilinguals typically use their languages in different domains of interaction, they should be expected to develop nonoverlapping vocabularies. Indeed, Joshua Fishman has argued that this “diglossia,” or use of separate languages in distinct domains, has the effect of preserving bilin55
Bilingualism gualism in communities where social and political forces may discourage it. (See Romaine [1995] for a detailed review of research on societal bilingualism and language preservation.) School is a domain of language use, so it is expected that children will develop school vocabulary in whatever language or languages happen to be used at school. Research has shown that language-minority children, who speak a nonmajority language that is generally stigmatized in the larger community, benefit from instruction in their native language at school (August and Hakuta, 1998). Bilingual instruction allows these children to develop school-related vocabulary in their native language while learning English. More important, however, it allows them to keep up academically with other children because they are able to understand instruction during the years it takes to master English. Some researchers concerned with the education of linguistic minorities have characterized school-related language as a special stage of linguistic development that evidences “complex syntax” and “expanded vocabulary.” Nevertheless, although there certainly are vocabulary, speech styles, and other aspects of language that are peculiar to the school environment, there is no empirical or theoretical justification for the claim that these forms constitute a stage of greater linguistic sophistication. The language of school is peculiar, like the language of farms or the language of fast-food restaurants, but the presumption that it is more sophisticated derives from social and political values, not empirically grounded linguistic analysis. Nonetheless, the view is widespread and has been extremely influential in the scholarly literature on bilingual education. Jim Cummins (1979), for instance, proposed the Threshold Hypothesis, in which he hypothesized that negative cognitive and academic effects result from low levels of competence in both languages. Following Scandinavian researchers, Cummins referred to this presumed “low ability” in both languages as semilingualism but later changed the term to limited bilingualism. Although the Threshold Hypothesis has been widely publicized, evidence presented in support of the associated idea of semilingualism has not been persuasive. Christina Bratt Paulston (1983), for instance, reviewed numerous Scandinavian studies that sought linguistic evidence for the ex-
istence of semilingualism in Sweden and found no empirical evidence to support that such a thing exists. Jeff MacSwan (2000) reviewed reputed evidence from studies of language variation, linguistic structure, school performances, and language loss and concluded that it was all either spurious or irrelevant to the basic proposal. A concept related to semilingualism in Cummins’s framework is the distinction between Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP). Again, critics have been uncomfortable with equating the language of school, and hence the language of the educated classes, with language that is said to be inherently more complex and richer and that places greater demands on cognitive resources. (See Cummins [2000] for detailed discussion of his views on language proficiency.) Although much has been learned, the study of bilingualism is still very much in its infancy. Nevertheless, the field appears to be growing and to be attracting great interest throughout the world. The social and linguistic analysis of bilingual speech is an exciting field with implications for linguistics, psychology, education, and a host of other areas of inquiry. Jeff MacSwan See Also Biliteracy; Heritage-Language Development; Language Acquisition References August, Diane, and Kenji Hakuta, eds. 1998. Educating Language-Minority Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Cummins, James. 1979. “Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children.” Review of Educational Research 49:221–251. ———. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hakuta, Kenji. 1986. Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. MacSwan, Jeff. 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Codeswitching. New York: Garland. ———. 2000. “The Threshold Hypothesis, Semilingualism, and Other Contributions to a Deficit View of Linguistic Minorities.” Hispanic Journal of Behavior Sciences 20 (1):3–45.
56
Biliteracy proficiency in a foreign language for advancement to candidacy to advanced degrees, and well-educated biliterate individuals are often held in esteem for their facility in languages other than English. Members of language minorities who achieve functional literacy in English are often held in lower esteem despite their biliterate abilities. Although only a fraction of the world’s estimated 5,000–6,000 languages are used as mediums of school and societal literacy, many societies routinely use more than one language for governmental, educational, and social purposes. Canada is officially bilingual and uses French and English as languages of literacy. India has two national official languages and fifteen regional languages that coexist with them. Even in the English–dominant United Kingdom, Wales has a dual-language policy that encourages the use of Welsh along with English and now actively promotes Welsh bilingualism and biliteracy (Baker and Jones, 2000).
Meisel, Jürgen. 1990. “Grammatical Development in the Simultaneous Acquisition of Two First Languages.” In J. M. Meisel, ed., Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. Mishina, Satomi. 1998. “Language Separation in Early Bilingual Development: A Longitudinal Study of Japanese/English Bilingual Children.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Los Angeles. Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paulston, Christina Bratt. 1983. Swedish Research and Debate about Bilingualism. Stockholm: National Swedish Board of Education. Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Wei, Li, Lesley Milroy, and Pong-Sin Ching. 1992. “A Two-Step Sociolinguistic Analysis of CodeSwitching and Language Choice.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (1):63–86.
Biliteracy
Functions of Biliteracy Biliteracy serves a number of functions, including developing the ability to read sacred texts in classical languages, which are no longer used for other purposes. Muslims learn classical Arabic to read the Koran, and orthodox Jews learn Hebrew to read the Torah. Christian religious scholars must learn Latin, classical Greek, and Aramaic and Hindu Sanskrit. Biliteracy in English and the native language is often an educational goal for language-minority students and their parents. Language minorities refers to language speakers in a society who have a smaller population or less power than the dominant-language group. Biliteracy is necessary in order to have access to employment and to participate in the social, political, and economic life of the dominant society as well as in local communities. Many communities in the United States are bilingual and biliterate. In the United States, native-language newspapers serve immigrant and other language-minority communities, allowing native-language literacy to exist alongside English literacy. Foreign-language newspapers provide a means for first-generation immigrants to use their stronger language of literacy as they acquire English literacy. Native-language literacy also allows them to maintain connections with their countries of origin and
Biliteracy refers to the ability to use two or more languages of literacy. There is no consensus on a definition of literacy. The definition used here entails the ability of people to use reading and writing to meet their pragmatic needs and achieve their goals. Most societies, even those like the United States in which one language is the dominant medium of communication, are multilingual and multiliterate. Although biliteracy and bilingualism are related, they are not identical because a person may be orally bilingual but not literate or may be orally bilingual and literate in only one language. Perspectives on Biliteracy Biliteracy may be considered from the point of view of individuals, communities, or societies. Literacy in more than one language has both pragmatic and status value. International trade, globalization, and the need to access and exchange knowledge across languages make bilingualism and biliteracy valuable assets. Historically, in early modern Europe and the early years of the American Republic, biliteracy was an expectation for those of the educated elite. People were not considered fully literate if they had not learned to read Latin or Greek, even if they could read and write in their vernacular language. Today, some university majors still require reading 57
Biliteracy
Chinese volunteer working with recent immigrant (Elizabeth Crews)
use literacy. Years of schooling are problematic because merely attending school does not ensure that a person will become truly literate. Self-assessments are also unreliable because people may either inflate or depreciate their actual abilities. Despite their limitations, surrogate and self-assessment data often are the only easily accessible data. The 1992 NALS provides some useful biliteracy data that were derived from all three types of measures. Fifteen states participated, including California and Texas, which have large Hispanic populations. Although the methodological design of the direct-measurement portion of the NALS is somewhat controversial, the schooling and self-assessment data provide an interesting profile of the extent of biliteracy among adults. Biliteracy is most prevalent among language minorities. Reynaldo Macías (1990) noted that there are three patterns of literacy among language minorities: (1) native-language literacy, (2) second-language literacy, typically in English, which denotes no native-language literacy, and
follow news within their communities that is not covered in English-language newspapers. Reliance on non-English presses is not new. In 1910, there were 540 German-language newspapers in the United States. Spanish, Chinese, and Vietnamese newspapers serve similar functions in biliterate communities today. Assessing and Measuring Societal Biliteracy It is difficult, though not impossible, to assess and measure biliteracy in the U.S. population. There are three types of literacy measures: direct measures, such as the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), which directly test individuals; surrogate measures, which are based on years of schooling (equating six or eight years of schooling with literacy); and self-assessments, which derive from surveys such as the U.S. Census, wherein individuals are asked to judge how well they read and write. Direct measures are always preferable but are costly and may lack ecological validity; that is, they may not accurately simulate real-world literacy tasks or how people actually 58
Biliteracy (3) biliteracy, typically in one’s native language and in English. Nonliteracy, meaning no literacy in any language, is also a possibility. According to the 1992 NALS findings based on self-reported data, approximately 7 percent of the adult population in the United States was biliterate. Among whites, the biliteracy rate was only 3 percent. Only 2 percent of African Americans were biliterate. Biliteracy rates were much higher for Hispanics, 35 percent of whom were biliterate, compared to 33 percent who were literate only in English and 27 percent only in Spanish. Biliteracy was most prevalent among Asians and Pacific Islanders, among whom nearly half (47 percent) were biliterate. Higher biliteracy rates among Hispanics and Asians are not surprising, given that immigration rates are higher for these groups (Greenberg et al., 2001). NALS data indicated that biliterates tended to have higher levels of education than monoliterates. Among biliterates, 48 percent acquired some post-secondary education, compared to only 43 percent for those literate only in English. Most biliterates do not have balanced abilities in two or more languages, because their language experiences and contexts for learning are usually not parallel across languages. NALS data are important because most national literacy estimations focus solely on English. Their failure to acknowledge literacy among those who are literate in languages other than English inflates the magnitude of a perceived “literacy crisis.” The extent to which language minorities become biliterate in English and their native language is contingent on several factors. For those born in the United States, biliteracy is largely determined by whether they have access to a quality bilingual education program or, later in high school or college, to a quality foreign- or nativelanguage program that develops literacy in their home language. For immigrants, the development of biliteracy in their native language and English is dependent on whether they have had access to quality education in their native language and whether they have had literacy instruction in English as a foreign language prior to coming to the United States. In many countries, English is now being taught in primary schools; however, the quality of instruction varies greatly. More Hispanic immigrants come from Mexico than any other country. Many Mexican immigrants have not
had formal education beyond the primary grades, although literacy rates and education levels are rising. Basic Spanish literacy rates for the years 1995–1999 are reported as 92 percent for Mexican males and 87 percent for females; however, only about 64 percent of the population reached secondary school (Dutcher, 2001). English literacy is often a requirement for job training. Undereducation makes it difficult for many Mexican and Central American adult immigrants to compete for better-paying jobs, and many are unable to participate in programs that would give them skills for job mobility. As a result, some adult-education policymakers are now advocating training programs that build from Spanish literacy to allow marginalized immigrants to gain job skills while they develop oral English and English literacy. Promoting Biliteracy For those who value languages, biliteracy presents both challenges and opportunities. Today, the majority of the world’s estimated 5,000–6,000 languages are endangered. In the United States, many Native American languages are likewise being threatened even as their speakers have acquired English and English literacy. Although writing systems have been developed for many of these languages, thus ensuring that they are recorded before they completely disappear, more proactive measures are needed to ensure their survival. Historically, Cherokee provides an example of a language that was saved through the development of a writing system and the promotion of the language in schools. By the mid-nineteenth century, biliteracy in Cherokee and English was common. Unfortunately, the imposition of English-only policies in the latter part of the nineteenth century led to a decline in both Cherokee and English literacy. For the past several decades, federal bilingual education policy has sanctioned transitional bilingual education but has stopped well short of endorsing maintenance bilingual education. In transitional approaches, only initial literacy is developed in the minority language to allow students to keep pace academically while they make the transition to English literacy. Transitional models usually wean students away from nativelanguage literacy within three to five years and are not effective in promoting biliteracy. Among educational models, maintenance 59
Book Clubs programs are more effective than transitional programs in promoting the retention of native language while developing English literacy for language minorities. For monolingual Englishspeaking students, immersion programs, which begin with instruction in foreign languages and gradually introduce English literacy, have proven effective. So-called dual immersion, or two-way bilingual programs, have proven effective when English-speaking language-majority and language-minority children are brought together in the same program. These programs divide the use and development of literacy in two languages. There is a need to ensure that special consideration is given to language-minority students, because some evidence suggests that these programs advantage English speakers more than language-minority students (Valdés, 1997). Foreign-language instruction provides another path for attaining biliteracy. Unfortunately, in the United States, opportunities for foreignlanguage instruction are usually delayed until middle or high school. Goals of foreign-language instruction do not always promote the goal of biliteracy. Consequently, many who study foreign languages fail to acquire more than a very rudimentary knowledge of them. Recently, national attention has been drawn to developing students’ heritage languages. Heritage-language learners are those who grow up in a home where a non-English language is used. They may either have a passive understanding of the language or be partially bilingual, and they may participate in a variety of program types (Peyton, Ranard, and McGinnis, 2001). Heritage-language literacy is now being promoted in a number of languages. Mandarin and Japanese are frequently taught in Asian American immigrant communities, and a number of universities offer courses in literacy for native speakers of Spanish, Chinese, and Cambodian, just to name a few. The promoting of heritage-language literacy offers a promising means for increasing the number of biliterate people in the United States. Despite these efforts, given the dominance of English as a national and international language, many in the United States lack the motivation to learn other languages and acquire literacy in them. Nevertheless, the development of literacy in languages other than English can have useful benefits for the monolingual, monoliterate, English-speaking population in trade, cross-cultural
understanding, diplomacy, and national security. In an age of increasing global interdependence, it is to be hoped that more people will come to appreciate the value of acquiring literacy in other languages and that more policymakers will support educational programs that promote this. Terrence G. Wiley See Also Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Testing; Bilingual Education; Bilingualism; Diversity; English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment; Heritage-Language Development; Language Acquisition; Language Attitudes; Literacy Definitions; Policy Issues in Testing; Social Justice and Literacies; Social Nature of Literacy; Sociolinguistics and Literacy References Baker, Colin, and Sylvia P. Jones. 2000. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Dutcher, Nadine. 2001. Expanding Educational Opportunities in Diverse Societies. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Greenberg, Elizabeth, Reynaldo F. Macías, David Rhodes, and Tsze Chan. 2001. English Literacy and Language Minorities in the United States. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2001–464. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Research and Improvement. Macías, Reynaldo F. 1990. “Definitions of Literacy: A Response.” In Robert L. Venezky, David A. Wagner, and B. S. Ciliberti, eds., Toward Defining Literacy, pp. 17–23. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Peyton, Joy K., Donald A. Ranard, and Scott McGinnis. 2001. Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Valdés, Guadalupe. 1997. “Dual-Language Immersion Programs: A Cautionary Note concerning the Education of Language Minority Students.” Harvard Educational Review 67 (3):391–429.
Book Clubs Since 1989, ongoing collaboration between university-based researchers and classroom-based practitioners has resulted in the evolution of the original Book Club model. Initially, the program was constructed to teach reading comprehension and critical thinking to elementary children. The design revolved around promoting support and instruction for student-led discussions related to the literature students were reading. Although 60
Book Clubs this was the focal point, the program included suggestions for varied contexts for reading; multiple types of responses, both oral and written; and instruction to foster independent reading and higher-order thinking. Thus, the design included five components: (1) reading, (2) writing, (3) instruction, (4) small-group discussions (book clubs), and (5) total-class discussions (community share). Although all components were essential, the exact order and amount of time devoted varied, depending on student needs and the instructional focus. Further, teachers’ experiences with Book Club often led to their merging instruction with community share so that instruction in the form of brief, mini-lessons could be provided on content relevant to the curriculum or student needs. Even though Book Club is evolving, some elements are key to its basic foundation. One fundamental concept is that students need the time and opportunity to talk among themselves about topics related to books, for several reasons: (1) talk helps develop thinking, (2) engagement is predicated on interest and students are more interested in topics they select, and (3) students’ talk enables teachers to assess their learning. Since most classes are too large for all students to have occasion to express their developing thought, small groups provide the context for this. Further, this frees teachers to monitor students’ thinking and concept development because they can circulate among the groups, noting both individual student growth and class-level development. Instruction can then be better focused on students’ needs, either individual, group, or total-class. Although the small, student-led discussions are pivotal to the program, they are not the sole component. Teachers provide instruction on multiple ways of responding to texts so that students can foster varied ways of comprehending texts. Further, teachers stress not only personal responses but also reactions that enable learners to engage in critical thought. That is, students respond in ways that help them compare and contrast texts or parts of texts (such as characters, plots, and settings), evaluate what they have read, and synthesize ideas across texts. Students respond both orally and in writing and in both rough draft and polished formats. Because this is an integrated literacy program, reading is essential. The key need is for authentic
texts (that is, texts written to communicate meaning and not to teach reading) that students find engaging but that also promote independence. Further, instruction emphasizes this movement toward independence with multiple types of texts and begins with learners’ needs. The specifics of all the components have been elaborated in The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. Therefore, this entry will focus next on growth of the Book Club model by describing how two researchers have taken the concepts developed initially and continue to work with them in different contexts, exploring other questions. Susan McMahon and her colleagues proceeded by examining how the Book Club format can support student learning and talk through integrated language-arts and social-studies curricula. From 1995 to 2000, in the Language Arts and Social Studies Integration Project (LASSI), researchers collaborated with teachers to investigate student responses related to both fictionnarrative and nonfiction-expository texts that are connected by an integrated theme. Using the original components as a framework to develop integrated units, the project expanded it to include additional concepts related to social-studies learning. That is, Book Club focused on developing reading independence, particularly fostering comprehension and higher-order thinking. Although these concepts are related to learning other content areas, researchers on this project found that teachers needed additional support in understanding how to incorporate concepts, skills, and strategies essential to particular content areas. Therefore, research on this elaboration of Book Club has led to an expansion that supports teachers’ efforts to plan, implement, and assess student learning during integrated instructional units. In addition to expanding the original framework, LASSI also investigated how students’ discussions can support their learning of social studies content by examining the differences between student commentary associated with nonfiction-expository texts versus fiction-narrative texts. Students across several grade levels and classrooms clearly talk differently about nonfiction texts, often accepting ideas without challenge. This has led to developing instructional approaches that foster more critical stances among students reading nonfiction. 61
Book Clubs autobiographical book clubs, teachers experience and discuss narrative texts in order to understand their lives and those of their students. Book Club began as an integrated literacy program that responded to students’ need to discuss among themselves the books they were reading. As a literacy program, it included reading, writing, speaking, and listening. The original model proved successful in helping teachers and students explore multiple ways of understanding the books they were reading, and it was so successful that the model has served as a basis for continued research and staff development. Susan McMahon
Taking an alternative approach to further exploration of the original Book Club model, Taffy Raphael and her colleagues developed Book Club Plus in 1997. The goal for this project was to support diverse classrooms of learners as they engage in age-appropriate texts. With increasing diversity in American classrooms, students enter the discourse with varied prior experiences, cultural lenses, and reading abilities. Book Club Plus has taken on exploration of this topic in order to identify ways of helping teachers provide suitable instruction for these students. The premises for this project are: (1) learning takes time, (2) learning involves multiple interactions with texts, (3) skills and strategies are learned in communities of practice, and (4) narrative is pivotal in understanding and sharing this with others. Book Club Plus also includes another component—professional development. This aspect of the project encourages teachers to participate in learning contexts that help them focus on culture and identity. Through graduate course work and
See Also Gender and Reading References McMahon, Susan I., Taffy E. Raphael, and Virginia Goatley, eds. 1997. The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. New York: Teachers College Press.
62
C Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking
support groups in Canada and the United States. A coalition of these groups and individuals led to the organization of the Whole Language Umbrella (available: http://www.ncte.org/wlu/), now an affiliate of NCTE. The organization is committed to teachers’ sharing successful practices and supporting each other as they develop classroom curricula focused on equity and social justice. CELT members (teacher educators, language researchers, teachers and administrators in public and private K–12 schools, authors and book publishers, members and staff of professional organizations) individually and in combination offer consultation, workshops, and long-range professional development. Topics include whole-language pedagogy in language and sign systems across the curriculum, miscue analysis, inquiry curriculum, democratic classrooms, multicultural, multilingual, and multidialectical issues, children’s and adolescent literature, the evaluation of reading and writing programs, and other current trends and issues. A recent collaborative project by CELT members culminated in a publication on teacher education: Whole Language Voices in Teacher Education, published by Stenhouse (available: http://www.stenhouse.com) (Whitmore, Goodman, and Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking, 1996). For additional information, write to: CELT, 100 Heritage Road, Bloomington, IN 47408, or visit CELT’s web site (available: http://www.coe.missouri.edu/~celt/). Yetta M. Goodman
The Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking (CELT), founded in 1972, is an international nonprofit educational corporation grounded in the principles of education for democracy with the emphasis on language learning and inquiry. It is dedicated to improving education through a dynamic curriculum based on theoretical understandings about the social nature of language, thinking, learning, and teaching. CELT was initiated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, when Kenneth S. Goodman, then professor at Wayne State University, was engaged in research on readers’ patterns of miscues during the oral reading of whole texts. While miscue researchers (scholars who focus on deviations in oral reading from the text) were studying the reading of students in Detroit, they formed a study group to further their understanding of language and its relationship to reading and writing processes and instruction. As they moved away from Detroit to other academic institutions and school districts, they recognized the need for a professional organization; hence, CELT was born. CELT, an invitational organization, promotes continuing professional development by holding rejuvenation conferences for its members. Members meet and present their work at conferences of the International Reading Association (IRA), the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and the Whole Language Umbrella. They also organize professional development opportunities for teachers, teacher educators, and researchers focusing on how the use of language is applied in classroom settings. CELT members have been active in the conceptualization of whole-language pedagogy and have been integral to the development of teacher
See Also Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment References Whitmore, Kathryn F., Yetta M. Goodman, and Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking. 1996. Whole Language Voices in Teacher Education. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
63
Children’s Literature
Children’s Literature
trator of the best American picture book published the preceding year. The award committee considers excellence in the art itself and in how that art interprets the text (Peltola, 2000).
Children’s literature is the corpus of books written expressly for children, from birth through age twelve. Adolescent literature, sometimes subsumed under the category children’s literature, is written for an audience between the ages of twelve and eighteen. Publications in both children’s and adolescent literature are often referred to as “trade books,” meaning books written for a general audience (as opposed to textbooks). As in books for adults, these trade books span many topics, themes, and audiences within their range. These books may be fiction or nonfiction and are structured as narratives, poetry, exposition, or descriptive texts. Trade books for children may be picture books, illustrated books, or full-length texts. They span the genres of folklore, fantasy, science fiction, contemporary realistic fiction, historical fiction, biography, and nonfiction (Galda and Cullinan, 2002).
Poetry and Folklore Poetry, a literary form in which experiences and ideas are brought to our attention in a unique fashion through precise, distilled language, is another genre of children’s literature. From the earliest cradle songs to the complexities of metaphoric comments on life in haiku, poetry for children is available in single-volume picture books, subject-specific anthologies, author-specific anthologies, and general anthologies that are structured in various ways. Poetry is a thriving genre, and the National Council of Teachers of English sponsors an award given every three years to an outstanding poet for children in honor of the body of that poet’s work. Folklore, stories, and songs that began in the oral traditions of various cultures compose another extremely popular genre of children’s literature. Folklore consists of folktales, fairy tales, legends, myths, fables, folk songs, nursery rhymes, and religious tales. In a picture-book format, folklore is often beautifully illustrated by artists who use these time-honored stories to express their artistic interpretations. Folklore is also presented in anthologies that may be organized around tale types, such as trickster tales or lore from a particular culture. The oral nature of folklore makes it excellent material for storytelling and drama. The Newbery Medal is given annually by the American Library Association to the author of the most distinguished contribution to literature for children that was published the preceding year. Although this award can and has been given to writers of picture books, poets, and biographers, it is most often awarded to writers of fantasy, science fiction, contemporary realistic fiction, or historical fiction.
Picture Books Unique to children’s literature is the picture book, in which the illustrations are of equal or greater importance than the text in conveying meaning. This genre, based on format rather than content, contains books that range from fiction to nonfiction and from fantasy to realism, addressing historical to contemporary subjects. A majority of picture books are for younger readers, with some geared toward the older child or adolescent reader. Picture books for babies are often printed on cardboard stock, have only a few pages, and are dominated by the illustrations rather than the text. Some of these books tell a story or present a concept important to young children. Others try to involve young children by asking them to participate in certain actions or gestures. Although many picture books are intended to be read aloud to children, some are created to be read by children themselves. These generally contain fewer words, carefully selected, and rely heavily on the illustrations to convey meaning. Some are “wordless,” using the illustrations to convey a story or information. In picture books, authors and illustrators tell stories, create poems and songs, and present information that interests children. All genres of children’s literature can be found in picture-book format. The most prestigious award for picture books is the Caldecott Award, given annually by the American Library Association (ALA) to the illus-
Fantasy and Science Fiction In fantasy, things that could not happen, characters who could not exist, and places that could not exist in the real world are made believable through precise description, engaging characters, logical plot, and a compelling theme. This genre is presented in picture-book format for young children. In this form, both the illustra64
Children’s Literature tions and the text create a believable fantasy world. Many books for preschool children are fantasy in that they have animal characters behaving as a real child would. In books for older readers, fantasy writers explore conflicts between good and evil, asking eternal questions about life. Animal fantasy, in which animals think, talk, and act, is popular with many readers. So, too, are fantasies in which a miniature world is created to explore issues of our real world. Some fantasies are the classic quest tale in which a hero leaves home to seek something—an object, a fate, a future—and returns home changed, and usually wiser. Other fantasies are literary lore, using traditional folktales and motifs as the basis for fully elaborated stories. Many fantasies use fantasy devices such as time slips and magic. Science fiction is an extrapolation from scientific principles, a logical extension of scientific possibilities. It explores this question: “If this scientific premise or promise is possible, then what might the world look like in the future?” Some science fiction is geared toward younger readers, presenting a story in which some type of space travel or alien adventure is a main plot element. The majority of the books in this genre, however, are for older readers. They pose engaging questions about ecology, survival, mind control, and social conditions.
Grandmother reading a children’s book to her granddaughter (Skjold Photographs)
who created our history, demonstrating how people’s lives are influenced by their historical period. Although most of the historical fiction available today is written by contemporary authors who have deliberately set their stories in the past, some books, often called historical realism, were actually written as contemporary realism in the past and have become historical by virtue of the passage of time.
Contemporary and Historical Fiction Fiction that is both contemporary and realistic is very popular with children and adolescents, and this genre is presented in many guises. Although fantasy creates alternative worlds and science fiction introduces possible worlds, contemporary realistic fiction attempts to mirror the actual world as we know it today. In realistic fiction we find animal stories, adventure stories, mysteries, sports stories, humorous stories, romances, stories about relationships with others and about growing up. Contemporary realistic fiction includes many popular series books that focus on one character or group of characters across several books. Historical fiction, by contrast, seeks to recreate a world that existed in the past. The setting for historical fiction can range from prehistory to almost yesterday, and these renditions are usually presented in great detail in order to make the contents both believable and interesting. Books in this genre often trace the lives of the people
Biography, Autobiography, and Memoir Biographies tell the story of the life or part of the life of a particular person, usually paying special attention to that person’s achievements. Autobiography recreates the story of the author’s own life. Biographies can be chronological, recounting events in the order in which they actually occurred; or episodic, highlighting a certain period of a person’s life; or interpretive, in which events are selected and arranged to create a certain effect, a particular understanding of the subject’s life. Although most biographies available for 65
Classroom Writing Assessment children focus on a single individual, there are some excellent collective biographies available in which authors present the lives of several people who share a commonality with others in the same volume. Biographies range from almost entirely fictional to authentic biographical nonfiction based entirely on documented fact. Memoirs have become increasingly available in trade books for children and young adults. A memoir focuses on particular experiences in life that were especially significant. True memoir is entirely nonfiction, but many writers have blurred the boundaries of memoir with fictional accounts of real-life experiences.
ment of visual literacy. Nonfiction trade books offer students the opportunity to explore subject matter deeply and widely. In the second half of the twentieth century, children’s literature became big business, expanding to fill the needs of parents and teachers. As the corpus of trade books grew, children’s literature began to develop multicultural variety. Although still a literature of the mainstream, there are an increasing number of outstanding books that present the experiences and histories of diverse cultures, present cultural practices, and explore culture itself (Yokota, 2001). As the United States becomes a more international community, its literature for children will also reflect global diversity. Lee Galda
Nonfiction Nonfiction is the largest genre of children’s literature. Trade books in this genre consider topics that range across the full spectrum of information available to adults, but the author shapes the coverage of those topics to reach a particular audience. Nonfiction today contains excellent, vivid writing, artistically beautiful illustrations that are also appropriate for the subject matter, and an array of organizational aids that enable readers to find information efficiently. Recently, special awards have been established to honor those who write nonfiction. The first such award is the Orbis Pictus Award, sponsored by the National Council of Teachers of English. The award is based on excellence in four areas: accuracy, organization, design, and style.
See Also Adolescent Literature; Bibliotherapy; Book Clubs; Critical Literacy; Discussion; Family Literacy; Gender and Reading; Independent Reading; Literature Circles; Literature-Based Instruction; Multicultural Literature; Read-Alouds; Reader Response; Trade Books References Galda, Lee, and Bernice Cullinan. 2002. Literature and the Child. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Peltola, Bette J. 2000. “Newbery and Caldecott Awards: Authorization and Terms.” In Association for Library Service to Children, ed., The Newbery and Caldecott Awards: A Guide to the Medal and Honor Books, pp. 1–9. Chicago: American Library Association. Yokota, Junko, ed. 2001. Kaleidoscope: A Multicultural Booklist for Grades K–8. 3rd ed. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Children’s Literature Then and Now Literature written expressly for children has been available for about 400 years. The earliest forms of children’s literature were designed to instruct and inform, especially regarding proper behavior. The publication of the fairy tales collected by Charles Perrault in 1697 marked the beginning of a new purpose of children’s books—to delight. Over the years this has continued to be a central function of literature for children. Today’s children have available a vast array of choices in literature, including many genres and subgenres. Trade books support the teaching of virtually any school subject, be it composition, reading, science, social studies, mathematics, art, or music. Poetry and fiction are often used as material for exploration of themes; picture books are often resources for art education and play an extremely important role in the develop-
Classroom Writing Assessment Classroom writing assessment is a topic of importance to educators concerned with the development of young writers. From the etymology of the word assessment, we learn that someone who assesses has the role of assisting in a process of judgment. If we extend that definition, we can view writing assessment in its social context, as an event in which someone helps writers judge their own writing. The purpose here is to consider how classrooms can provide these assessment opportunities to young writers of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds (see Authentic Assessment). 66
Classroom Writing Assessment What Is Being Assessed? Written Language and Its Development Educators’ views of writing as rhetoric and technical skill have been replaced with views of writing as composing meaning (International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English, 1994). Writing is a process of establishing a purpose for written communication, which draws on resources, models, and invention to accomplish that purpose. When composing text, writers may use or adapt other writers’ genres and styles, and thus a writer’s previous practice with established rhetoric has value in that sense. Indeed, humans have invented distinctive genres of writing to accomplish recurring purposes: Expository genres are for description or argumentation; narrative, poetic, and theatrical genres explore human experience. But we need to recognize the cultural functions of genres as well as their continual evolution, and we must resist prescribing their value. At times, reproduction of an established genre fits a writer’s purpose. But at other times, a writer feels the need to build upon, play with, or abandon the inventions of the past, and those departures are crucial to the empowerment of students whose literacies differ from cultures in power. It is the writer’s communicative purpose that determines choices of content, text structure, formality, language, and mechanics. The implication for writing assessment is that assessors must consider the author’s intended purpose for the writing.
tegrate or omit steps, or recycle through phases multiple times. But no matter how writers work, to accomplish their goals, they must coordinate strands of reasoning and make choices among many aspects of language and the complex conventions of the print medium. As writers develop ideas and compose, they solicit either real or imagined readers to respond to their emerging text. Indeed, writing and reading can be viewed as transactions between those who compose text and those who construct meaning from text (Rosenblatt, 1969); writers consider their readers, and readers raise issues for writers (see Transactional Theory, and Reading-Writing Relationships). If we define assessment as responses from a helpful reader and ensuing dialogues between writer and reader, we see that assessment plays a critical role in the writing process. Writing Development and Writing Instruction Long before children can make interpretable marks on paper, they compose texts that respond to and reflect their cultural and linguistic experience. Children tell tales, invent songs, make lists, compose messages, and create images with language. As young children develop conceptions of the conventions of written language, they invent marks or graphics to represent their communicative acts or ask someone to transcribe for them. At the same time, they develop understandings of written genres as they listen to others read and begin to read themselves. Once children can write in a more conventional sense and have opportunities to accomplish goals with their writing, they are positioned to develop understandings of the structure and function of different genres, including those they invent themselves (Hall, 1997). Initially, they may interweave multiple forms of representation into their composing, including graphics on the page, as well as talk and action that do not make it to the page. From this point on, writing development is a lifelong process. Developing writers construct understandings of rhetorical possibilities from what they read and hear, and from readers’ responses to their texts. Although young writers benefit from composing text modeled on culturally valued genres, the goal of writing instruction and writing assessment is neither rhetorical skill nor mastery of writing mechanics. Skills are essential resources
Writing Process Composing meaning requires writers to orchestrate a complex set of activities (see Process Writing). The writing process is commonly described as a series of phases. Writers begin with an idea, consult resources, and brainstorm possible approaches to implementation. As their purpose solidifies, they construct a working outline in graphic or text form. They then draft the piece, consulting their resources and outline as they write, perhaps revising the outline and resources as they work. Before writers revise the draft, they ask for feedback and then reread the piece, imagining how readers might interpret or misinterpret their text. They revise, then polish the piece, editing mechanics and readying the piece for publication. This characterization of writing as a sequence of phases is simplistic; writers often in67
Classroom Writing Assessment for students, but mastering them does not assure that students will become writers who can compose text for a variety of purposes and a range of audiences. Students need to master genres of writing that have currency in a range of cultural contexts and need to take creative risks at the same time, fashioning text in new ways for new purposes. Young writers need to envision the possibility of creating new meanings, even new genres. In classrooms where students establish their own goals for their writing, the function of classroom assessment is not to wield the mighty red pen but to provide a readership able to make meaning of developing writers’ work and contribute helpful, formative perspectives.
There are several features of the scenario that highlight the limitations of testing for assessment of writing. Although writers can draw from outside resources and reader feedback as they compose, students take only a test. Multiple-choice item formats provide only an indirect measure of students’ competence with composing. The test answers are predetermined, unlike the surprises we expect and value from each new piece of writing. Summary scores provide little information to guide improvement in a student’s writing or a teacher’s methods of writing instruction. In the minds of many, a traditional test cannot provide a measure of the complex craft of writing, nor can it provide writers with useful information about the quality of their work.
Assessment and Testing: Situating Classroom Writing Assessment in the Debate Writing assessment in the classroom both builds upon and departs from assessment practices used in other contexts. This section situates classroom assessment within the debate between assessment and testing (Wiggins, 1998). Although the contrast simplifies the complexities, it is a springboard for discussion of the special role of classroom assessment (Winograd, Martinez, and Noll, 1999) (see Accountability and Testing, High-Stakes Assessment, and Policy Issues in Testing).
Direct Writing Assessment Direct writing assessment is evaluation of students’ competence from a writing sample. The term direct captures concerns about indirect assessment of writing inferred from students’ performance on multiple-choice test items, as just described. In a typical direct assessment, students are given a writing prompt and a time limit, and trained raters assign scores capturing the overall quality of the samples. Direct writing assessment addresses central criticisms of traditional testing in that students compose, and assessors make judgments of their completed texts. It places authority in the scorers, who are almost always classroom teachers specially trained for the task. However, concerns have been raised about the authenticity and value of this method of assessment as well (Wiggins, 1998; Winograd, Martinez, and Noll, 1999). The prompt is imposed, and students have limited resources and limited opportunity to revise. Scorers must use a prescribed rubric in prescribed ways to achieve adequate reliability. When direct assessment is used for sorting and ranking students, those purposes inevitably press for efficiency and technical quality, and the result may be a writing experience that is not educative for either students or teachers (Wiggins, 1998) and is likely to be particularly problematic for students writing in their second language or students from cultures where collaboration is the norm. Critics worry that students and teachers may view these brief, solitary assessments and the accompanying scoring procedures as models for good writing and good classroom assessment.
Testing Testing evokes a formal occasion of evaluation and a specific kind of evaluation activity. Consider the following scenario. Students bend over their desks, responding to items written by outside testing experts. The test is designed to measure students’ achievement in a subject area, and the scores are used for summative reporting or for admissions requirements. Students are asked to demonstrate knowledge of what they have been taught; the format of the items is multiple choice, leaving students no opportunity to choose how to demonstrate what they know. Students have little understanding of the scoring criteria and later receive summary scores containing limited information about their performance. This image of testing captures how testing can feel external to the student and the teacher, and scenarios like this one are often invoked to set off the advantages of classroom assessments deeply integrated with ongoing processes of teaching and learning. 68
Classroom Writing Assessment Rubrics Although there are controversies about direct assessment as a model for classroom assessment, the rubrics used for scoring writing samples have been widely adapted for classroom use. Rubrics are scales for evaluating the relative quality of a piece of writing or a collection of writing, and they focus the assessors’ attention on content. Red-ink corrections of spelling, grammar, and punctuation are replaced with judgments on the effectiveness of the writing. The content and structure of writing rubrics vary considerably, and space permits only illustrations of the variations. A rubric might be structured as holistic, containing one scale for overall quality, or as analytic, with several dimensions such as content, organization, style, and mechanics. The content of a rubric may be generic and designed to capture the qualities of good writing, or it may be specific to particular genres or even particular assignments. Rubrics were developed to support objective evaluation of writing samples, but several decades of research have demonstrated that scorers’ judgments may be biased and fail to consider the writer’s intent or the full complexity of the written piece (Maylath, 1997). Classroom teachers who appropriate rubrics for classroom use need to be aware of these risks. For example, assessors may be influenced by aspects of language use such as vocabulary, dialect, grammatical correctness, and complexity—aspects that may not be crucial to the effectiveness of the writing; they may be influenced by surface features of the text, such as length, mechanical accuracy, or neatness. These biases are technical challenges when rubrics are used for large-scale testing programs. Fortunately, in the classroom, teachers’ awareness of these possible biases can become entry points for assessment conversations.
nities for learning and improvement. In culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms, teachers can use rubrics and other tools to guide assessment conversations but should be prepared to be surprised by the texts students compose. The classroom may be best positioned to realize this vision of educative writing assessment (Wiggins, 1998). Methods of Assessing Writing in the Classroom This section provides an overview of assessment methods used in the classroom. Although the section is organized as a list, these practices should be conceptualized as a coherent assessment system (Spandel and Stiggins, 1997). Developing writers benefit from multiple opportunities for analysis of their writing, and their teachers benefit from multiple sources of evidence of student learning (see Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation). Written Comments Pen in hand, a reader responds to text, making comments about what feelings and insights the text evokes, and what seems missing or misleading. In the classroom, a teacher who is committed to the benefits of reader response writes comments as a reader, not as a grader, and engages students in responding to one another’s writing in much the same way. The students and the teacher comment at various points in the writing process, expanding the reader’s role to include suggestions for strengthening the writing. Since the writer may not agree with a reader’s perspective, written comments should be entry points for assessment conversations that allow both writer and reader opportunities to clarify their interpretations. Writers benefit from comments that consolidate what the writing accomplishes and what it does not, along with suggestions for strengthening the piece. Teachers often speak of the importance of providing both commendations and recommendations, linking both to criteria for good writing that have been discussed and illustrated repeatedly in class discussions (Wolf and Gearhart, 1994).
Lessons Learned from the Debate Assessments are designed for particular purposes, and any given method affords certain insights about students’ writing but limits others. An important theme in the recent testing-assessment debate is that writing assessment tasks and the criteria used to judge students’ writing should reflect what teachers want writers to be able to do. Assessments should inspire young writers to write with purpose and invention, and the assessments themselves should be opportu-
Assessment Criteria: The Special Role of Writing Rubrics Students need to develop understandings of the techniques that make writing effective, and as69
Classroom Writing Assessment sessment criteria provide a technical language that captures the qualities of effective writing. Criteria are a framework for class discussions of writing samples and a guide for student writers as they compose. To help students evaluate their progress, rubrics can represent the characteristics of developing writing along performance continua, with higher levels more closely fitting the criteria for effective writing. Consider two examples of rubrics designed for classroom assessment, the first a generic rubric, the second a genre-specific rubric for narrative writing.
that to my sister,’ Lou cried, moving to shield Tasha with her body.”). Rubrics should be resources for student reflection and analysis, not prescriptions for formulaic texts. Rubrics can inform and act as a scaffold for a young writer’s work, but they can also constrain and limit the composing process. Completion criteria—for instance, that a piece must have five paragraphs or that each paragraph must begin with a topic sentence—may not fit a particular genre of writing or a particular writer’s intention. Generic rubrics obscure genre differences and may discourage a young writer’s choice and innovation. Vague rubrics provide little guidance, for example, when they define levels in quantitative and comparative terms, perhaps requiring “some supporting detail” or “few transition words.” Students and teachers are left to puzzle out where and why these features are needed in any given piece of writing. However a rubric is constructed, it should not stand alone. Teachers can use rubrics to guide students in analysis of published texts and their own writing, so criteria become part of the interpretive process in the classroom. To enhance students’ understandings of the rubric and their perceptions of ownership, teachers can engage students in the very construction of the rubric itself (Ainsworth and Christinson, 1998).
A Generic Rubric Vicki Spandel and Richard Stiggins (1997) developed a model of analytical writing assessment that contains six traits: ideas, organization, voice, word choice, sentence fluency, and conventions. Each trait is defined using a technical language to capture the components of the construct, and teachers are encouraged to integrate this language in their writing instruction. To support judgments of these writing traits, the authors developed performance continua that can be organized as a rubric. For example, for organization, writing at the beginning level has no real lead or conclusion, the sequence is confusing, and pacing is too fast or too slow. At higher levels, a piece demonstrates progressively more effective introductions and conclusions, sequencing, pacing, and appropriate use of transitions.
Portfolio Assessment A writing portfolio contains a body of writing, and portfolio assessment is the process of judging the work (see Portfolios). There are many models of portfolios and portfolio assessment (Calfee and Perfumo, 1996). A portfolio can range from a simple compilation of writing to an organized presentation of a writer’s work and its evolution; it can span work from one unit of study, an entire course, or several grade levels. Evaluation of the portfolio (often structured as a rubric) can focus on the range of work, the quality of work, the development of the work, or all of these; it can be reported as a rubric score or as written comments. The portfolio may be assembled and evaluated for the purpose of summative assessment or may be integrated in ongoing work in the classroom as students review their portfolio on a regular basis and reflect on their growth. Students prepare a typical portfolio as follows. The writer selects work samples to provide evi-
A Genre-Specific Rubric Shelby Wolf and Maryl Gearhart (1994) developed a rubric for the assessment of narrative writing containing five dimensions: theme, character, setting, plot, and communication. The rubric constructs are drawn from literary analysis, and teachers are provided with instructional resources to guide class discussions on literature and students’ narrative writing. Each dimension of the rubric contains six levels that reflect what is known about pathways to the development of narrative writing. For example, the theme dimension at the second level is represented in a child’s text as a series of simple statements (“I like my Mom. I like my Dad.”) or in the coherence of the action itself (“He blew up the plane. Pow!”). At the fifth level, the child’s writing displays beginning use of secondary themes, and the main theme is increasingly revealed through discovery rather than delivery (“‘You can’t do 70
Classroom Writing Assessment dence of growing competence along a number of dimensions. For example, to demonstrate competence with the writing process, the student selects artifacts from all phases of a writing assignment, including brainstorming, outlining, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing. To demonstrate writing in a range of genres, the student writer selects a poem, a personal narrative, a persuasive letter, and a science report; to convey growth during the academic year, the selections would reflect early and later pieces or samples that show growth within a one- to twomonth poetry unit. Student writers make these choices, organize the samples, and then write a letter of introduction to the reader, contextualizing the collection in an autobiographical account of their development as a writer. They prepare a table of contents to guide the reader, bind the portfolio, and decorate the cover to produce a polished presentation of their accomplishments. Portfolio assessment is more than the process of collecting and evaluating the portfolio. Portfolios support reflection when students review their work and confer with teachers or parents to discuss their growth and set goals for further work.
Conferences are contexts for student writers and their readers to negotiate their understandings of texts face-to-face. Each participant comes away with a clearer understanding of what the writer has accomplished, what needs to be worked on, and what resources and strategies will enable the student to improve. Self-Assessment Effective writers try to anticipate the possible ways that readers may interpret their writing, particularly when writing for a focused purpose. A persuasive letter must do more, for example, than express the writer’s frustration; it must convince critical readers that the issue is worthy of their consideration. In classrooms where writing is viewed as a transaction between the writer and reader, teachers encourage students to read their own writing as readers. Students may find a quiet corner where they can read their piece aloud, or they may assess their draft using the class rubric. Students may reflect on their learning and growth in their journal or in their autobiographical portfolio letter of introduction. The goal is to help students internalize the kinds of assessment dialogues between writers and readers that occur every day in the classroom (Wiggins, 1998). Maryl Gearhart
Conferences Developing writers benefit from many and varied opportunities for someone to help them evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of their writing. Conferences range in formality, purpose, and participation. A teacher might rove through a classroom as students write, conducting miniconferences with students informally about the progress of a piece. Or the teacher may arrange lengthier and more formal times to confer with each student about writing progress, and those events may focus on the development of a particular piece of writing or a student’s portfolio. A peer may read a student’s writing and respond in person or in writing to strengths and weaknesses; the process benefits both students, because it illustrates ways that someone’s writing may be interpreted in unexpected ways. In student-led conferences, students present a prepared portfolio to their parents, showcasing their best writing and their progress and setting goals for further improvement (Davies et al., 1992). These conferences provide teachers with valuable opportunities to see how students’ writing reflects their parents’ cultural and linguistic practices.
See Also Authentic Assessment; Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation; Portfolios; Process Writing; Writing across the Curriculum References Ainsworth, Larry, and Jan Christinson. 1998. Student Generated Rubrics: An Assessment Model to Help All Students Succeed. Orangeburg, NY: Dale Seymour. Calfee, Robert, and Pam Perfumo, eds. 1996. Writing Portfolios in the Classroom: Policy and Practice, Promise and Peril. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Davies, Anne, Caren Cameron, Colleen Politano, and Kathleen Gregory. 1992. Together Is Better: Collaborative Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Peguis. Hall, Nigel. 1997. “Young Children as Authors.” In Vic Edwards and David Corson, eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 2, Literacy, pp. 69–76. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. 1994. Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing.
71
Cloze Procedure should be typed using blank lines to represent the omitted words. All blank lines should be the same length. Depending on the teacher’s purpose, a dash representing each letter of the omitted word can be used. However, this will yield a significantly higher score than using blank lines of equal length. Before they attempt to fill in the missing words, students should read the entire cloze passage. After filling in the missing words, students should reread the passage. A lengthy period of time is usually needed for students to complete the cloze passage. Younger students and less successful readers will find the cloze a difficult and frustrating task. These students may not be able to finish an entire cloze passage. In scoring the cloze, the words that are supplied by the student are compared with the original words in the original text. Only exact matches are considered correct answers. Synonyms should only be counted as correct answers if the cloze is being used as a teaching strategy for improving students’ use of context clues and comprehension of individual sentences. When teachers use the cloze to assess text readability, they employ the following criteria to evaluate the likelihood of students’ success when reading the text. Students scoring above 50 percent can read the text independently (without teacher assistance). Students scoring 34–50 percent correct are within the instructional level (the student can be successful with teacher assistance) but may need enrichment activities in conjunction with the text to ensure success. Students scoring below 34 percent will be frustrated by the difficulty of the text. If the cloze procedure indicates students are at the frustration level (text is too difficult), an easier text should be used. There are no criteria for determining functional reading levels when synonyms are accepted. There are several modifications to the traditional cloze procedure. The Maze is sometimes used as an introduction to a traditional cloze procedure. It differs from the cloze in that it provides three answer choices for each deleted word. Answer choices usually follow a pattern: the correct word, a word signifying the same part of speech, a word signifying a different part of speech. Some Maze procedures provide students with a word bank rather than placing words beneath blanks. ESL students may find this type of cloze procedure easier. Criteria for evaluating students’ per-
Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Maylath, Bruce. 1997. “Assessors’ Language Awareness in the Evaluation of Academic Writing.” In Leo van Lier and David Corson, eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6, Knowledge about Language, pp. 195–204. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Rosenblatt, Louise. 1969. “Toward a Transactional Theory of Reading.” Journal of Reading Behavior 1 (1):31–51. Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. 1997. Creating Writers: Linking Writing Assessment and Instruction. 2nd ed. New York: Longman. Wiggins, Grant. 1998. Educative Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Winograd, Peter, Rebecca Blum Martinez, and Elizabeth Noll. 1999. “Alternative Assessments of Learning and Literacy: A U.S. Perspective.” In Daniel A. Wagner, Richard L. Venezky, and Brian V. Street, eds., Literacy: An International Handbook, pp. 203–209. Boulder: Westview Press. Wolf, Shelby A., and Maryl Gearhart. 1994. “Writing What You Read: A Framework for Narrative Assessment.” Language Arts 71:425–445.
Cloze Procedure The cloze procedure is an informal assessment that requires the reader to supply words that have been systematically deleted from a passage (Harris and Sipay, 1990). The cloze can be used for several purposes—as an assessment of a student’s ability to construct meaning of individual sentences using context clues, syntax, and other information from a specific text (Tierney and Readence, 2000), as a measure of a text’s readability level, or for placement of students for instruction. The cloze procedure can be used with readers of all ages, as well as with English as a second language (ESL) students. To create a cloze, a teacher chooses a passage from the middle of a text that is typical of the material students would be expected to read. The passage should be 250–350 words in length. The passage should be one that students have not read or studied previously. No words are deleted from the first and last sentences of the passage. Beginning with the second sentence of the passage, the teacher deletes every nth word (usually every fifth word). A minimum of fifty deletions is recommended for high reliability. Generally, proper nouns are not omitted. The passage 72
College Literacy and Learning Reading to Every Child. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. Nurss, Joanne R., and Ruth A. Hough. 1992. Reading and the ESL Student: In What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction. 2nd ed. Edited by S. Jay Samuels and Alan E. Farstrup. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Tierney, Robert J., and John E. Readence. 2000. Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
formance on the Maze are more stringent than the cloze due to students’ ability to recognize rather than supply correct answers. Students scoring 60–70 percent are within their instructional level when reading the text. Above 70 percent, students can read the material independently, but below 60 percent, students become frustrated (Harris and Sipay, 1990). Teachers should analyze why students made errors and design instruction to meet their needs (Lapp and Flood, 1992). The Opin is another modification of the cloze procedure. This assessment requires the use of only one or two sentences with one or two important words deleted. Students read the sentences, fill in the blanks, and explain their word choices. ESL students’ explanations for answers allow the teacher to determine whether the student has learned the rules of language. As with the Maze, the Opin does not provide specific information about grade-level reading ability (Lapp and Flood, 1992). Teachers focus on the students’ word choices to evaluate comprehension. The cloze procedure has several advantages. First, it is easier and quicker to construct, administer, score, and interpret than some other informal reading assessments. Second, it can be group administered. Third, it provides a measure of students’ ability to use semantic (word and sentence meaning) and syntactic (word-order relationships) cues (Nurss and Hough, 1992). However, like most reading assessments, the cloze procedure has limitations. First, students’ prior knowledge of the topic and their ability to use language will influence their performance on the cloze (Harris and Sipay, 1990). Second, the cloze provides only limited diagnostic information. Little can be determined from the cloze concerning students’ decoding strategies or comprehension. Although some teachers believe that cloze activities help students focus on meaning rather than pronunciation of words, there is little research to support the use of cloze as a means for improving comprehension. Pamela J. Dunston and M. Christina Pennington
College Literacy and Learning College Literacy and Learning (CLL) is a special interest group (SIG) of the International Reading Association (IRA), as revised May 2, 1973, and serves the same international membership the IRA encompasses. The CLL’s purpose is to provide for an exchange of ideas and techniques concerning remedial and developmental reading and study-skills programs indigenous to twoand four-year colleges and universities in the areas of methods, diagnosis of students’ reading, and evaluation of effectiveness of programs, textbooks, and teaching materials. The mission of CLL is to propose and encourage the adoption of certain specific qualifications for educators in college reading and study programs and to act as a resource body to aid colleges and universities in implementing or improving reading and study programs for their students. CLL’s conference and business meeting is held during the IRA annual conference, which is scheduled during the final days of April and into the beginning of May. For CLL to maintain a SIG status with IRA, a minimum of 100 CLL members who are also IRA members must be present. In order to extend CLL’s exchange of ideas and techniques, educators and researchers in the fields of college developmental literacy and study skills are encouraged to submit articles to the following publications: Journal of College Literacy and Learning, Innovative Learning Strategies (ILS), and NewsNotes. The Journal of College Literacy and Learning is an annual, refereed publication related to college and post-secondary reading and writing improvement. Four copies of fifteen- to twenty-page manuscripts are submitted to the journal’s editor. Copies of the Journal of College Literacy and Learning are distributed at the annual CLL meeting. Innovative Learning Strategies is a biennial, refereed yearbook. Authors are encouraged to submit four
See Also Informal Reading Inventory References Harris, Albert J., and Edward R. Sipay. 1990. How to Increase Reading Ability: A Guide to Developmental and Remedial Methods. 9th ed. New York: Longman. Lapp, Diane, and James Flood. 1992. Teaching
73
College Reading and Learning Association given biannually in the following categories: Outstanding Dissertation, Outstanding Service, Outstanding Writing, and Dedication and Commitment to the Field of College Reading and Study Skills. Nominations are submitted to the awards chair for committee review. Plaques are distributed to the winners at the CLL conference business meeting. Contact information for the organization is available through the listserv and on the web site (available: http://www.ucollege. uc.edu/cll). Missy Laine
College Reading and Learning Association The College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA) was founded in 1966 and is the oldest learning-assistance association in the United States. CRLA is an organization of student-centered professionals (faculty, staff, and administrators) active in the fields of reading, learning assistance, developmental education, and tutorial services at the college/adult level. The goals of CRLA are to provide media for dialogue among professionals, to cooperate and coordinate with related professional organizations, to increase the tools available to improve student learning, to act to ensure an environment where effective learning can take place, and to provide information and consultants to bodies enacting legislation directly related to college reading, learning assistance, developmental education, and tutorial services. Participation in CRLA activities promotes the sharing of ideas and concerns through networking with those in the field. Membership in the organization is international, with most members in the United States and Canada. CRLA holds an annual fall conference, which provides opportunities for networking and professional development through participation in preconference institutes, concurrent sessions, round tables, and special interest group (SIG) activities. These conferences bring in keynote speakers who are leaders in the related fields. The conferences provide opportunities to interact with experts in the field during structured events such as Lunch with a Mentor and preconference institutes with featured speakers and during lessstructured social events such as the Newcomers Reception and the nightly hospitality suite.
College Literacy and Learning aids colleges and universities in setting up reading programs for their students (Planetworks)
copies of their articles pertinent to college-level reading programs and strategies that enhance students’ academic success and to include: a description of program models, a discussion of successful instructional strategies/materials, and a research report, if available. This journal may be purchased at the CLL annual conference or by contacting the ILS editor. NewsNotes is the College Literacy and Learning newsletter, which includes information on contacting administrative officers and committee chairs, announcements, important events notices, CLL conference information, and short articles on ideas for the college classroom that cover such topics as strategies, activities, and assistance for struggling students. Presenters from the CLL conference are encouraged to submit a brief summary of their conference presentation. NewsNotes is mailed to the membership biannually. To submit information, contact the NewsNotes chair. College Literacy and Learning Awards are 74
College Reading Association for the group was college developmental reading and study skills; its original members were located in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Since then, however, CRA’s scope has expanded to include literacy professionals interested in one or more of its four divisions. Membership has expanded as well; most of CRA’s approximately 500 individual members and 800 institutional members are located in North America. CRA achieves its purposes in three major ways. First, the organization sponsors an annual conference lasting two and a half days, usually Thursday through Sunday in late October or early November. The conference agenda always includes featured sessions led by respected literacy-education scholars, along with symposia, workshops, and many individual sessions. CRA also sponsors several scholarly publications. Its quarterly journal, Reading Research and Instruction, is found in many college libraries. (In 1970–1984, the journal was called Reading World. Prior to 1970, its title was Journal of the Reading Specialist.) Conference Proceedings were published in 1961–1970. In 1989, CRA decided to begin publishing papers from its conferences again; an annual Yearbook has been published since that time. The organization has sponsored occasional monographs over the years as well. (Yearbooks and many of the monographs are available to nonmembers via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service.) Finally, CRA’s awards program helps to achieve its overall purposes. The organization currently gives annual awards for outstanding dissertation, outstanding master’s research, lifetime achievement, research and scholarship, and service to the organization. Any student may submit work for the dissertation or master’s research awards, which are adjudicated by the Research Committee. CRA members nominate people for the other awards, a process overseen by the Awards Committee. CRA’s web site provides general information about the organization, a list of current officers, information about conferences, and more. Resources also include Literacy Cases On-Line, available at http://literacy.okstate.edu. Nancy Padak
CRLA annually publishes three newsletters and two editions of the Journal of College Reading and Learning (JCRL). CRLA has also published The Tutor Training Handbook and, in conjunction with H and H Publishing, Starting a Learning Center Monograph. CRLA established the International Tutor Certification Program in 1989 to provide professional standards for tutor training as well as a coherent tutor-training curriculum. Over 400 programs have been certified at up to three levels, resulting in increased tutor motivation, rewards for tutor accomplishments, and visibility for the certified program. More recently, CRLA established the International Mentoring Certification Program. Both programs provide a framework for those institutions beginning or revamping tutoring or mentoring programs. CRLA encourages its members to form state or regional associations; some groups elect officers and are formally organized as chapters, whereas other groups are led by CRLA-appointed directors. More information about the College Reading and Learning Association, including contacts for state and regional associations, can be accessed via the web site (available: http://www.crla.net). Susan Deese-Roberts
College Reading Association The College Reading Association (CRA) is a professional, educational, not-for-profit organization devoted to the purpose of fostering and promoting directly or indirectly the growth and development of the teaching and learning processes related to reading at all levels (CRA, Constitution and Bylaws, 1993). CRA sponsors four divisions: Adult Learning, Clinical Education, College Education, and Teacher Education. Members may be affiliated with one, several, or no divisions. CRA began in 1958 when a group of college reading professors met at Temple University in Philadelphia to explore the possibility of forming a professional organization for colleagues in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. The professors decided to survey colleagues, and when they learned that others shared their interest, they organized CRA’s first conference, drew up a constitution for the fledgling organization, and sought not-for-profit status, which was granted in 1963 (Alexander and Strode, 1999). The original focus
References Alexander, J. Estill, and Susan L. Strode. 1999. History of the College Reading Association, 1958–1998. Carrollton, GA: College Reading Association.
75
Comics College Reading Association. 1993. Constitution and Bylaws. Carrollton, GA: College Reading Association.
Comics Two types of comics are addressed in the literature in literacy—cartoon or comic strips, such as those found in daily newspapers, and comic books, presenting action or adventure stories in cartoon format. Both comic strips and comic books have been recommended as alternative texts to motivate and instruct students. Comics and cartoons have been used as instructional materials to foster language skills, provide values clarification, and promote critical thinking. Comic books have also been recommended as a way to teach students the techniques found in narrative, such as Spider-Man episodes that can be analyzed to study foreshadowing, dramatic fiction narration, flashback, irony, symbolism, metaphor, and allusion (Palumbo, 1979). John Elliott (1985) pointed out that comics are a powerful medium as they combine the verbal and the pictorial. Students can be taught how the comic conveys its message, thereby enhancing their understanding of the techniques of other media. Research on the benefits of using comic books to enhance vocabulary and comprehension has shown mixed results. John Guthrie (1978) found that good readers made similar gains on a standardized reading test when they read either books or comics, but that poor readers did not. Richard Campbell (1977) tested the effects of using high-interest comic books with fourth graders and found some gains in the students’ vocabulary and comprehension compared to those who did not read comic books. Comic books and their readers have also been studied as a recreational or informal literacy practice. Jeffrey Brown (1997) identified preadolescent and adolescent boys as the primary readers of comic books. Brown interviewed boys at comic book stores, shopping malls, and comic book conventions. He found that young males read comic books for social reasons, for a sense of community with the characters and the narrative world or with other comic book readers. Boys read comic books to gain prestige among other boys, to feel a sense of kinship with comic book artists and their characters, to emulate
Comics are among the types of literature that can motivate children to read (Michael Siluk)
moral codes of conduct, and to find comfort in a world of family turmoil. Boys had intense emotional involvement with the characters they followed and used these characters as role models for forming their gender identity. Comics have been criticized for their sex role stereotyping of both males and females. Females appear less frequently than males in comics and often remain within the home in stereotypical roles (Brabant and Mooney, 1986). Comic book superheroes present stereotypical representations of society’s notions of what a man should be—powerful, tough, independent, resourceful, and dashing. Hence, teachers may wish to teach students who read comics to read them critically, and deconstruct their gendered messages. Barbara J. Guzzetti See Also Critical Literacy; Gender and Reading; Popular Culture References Brabant, Sarah, and Linda Mooney. 1986. “Sex Role Stereotyping in the Sunday Comics: Ten Years Later.” Sex Roles 14 (3):412–418. Brown, Jeffrey. 1997. New Heroes: Gender, Race, Fans, and Comic Book Superheroes. Ph.D. diss.,
76
Commercial Reading Programs University of Toronto, Canada. Diss., Abstracts International 59 (06) 1818. (AAT NQ27882). Campbell, Richard W. 1977. Using Comic Books as an Alternative Supplement to the Basal Reading Program at Albert Sidney Johnston Elementary School. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 141 797. Elliott, John. 1985. The Study of, and through, Comic Books in the Language Classroom. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 263 747. Guthrie, John. 1978. “Research Views: Comics.” The Reading Teacher 32 (3):376–378. Palumbo, Donald. October 1979. “The Use of Comics as an Approach to Introducing the Techniques and Terms of Narrative to Novice Readers.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Popular Culture Association in the South, Louisville, Kentucky.
letter names and each accompanying sound as well as groupings of letters into syllables. In addition, there were often alphabet verses, with each one illustrating a specific letter. Sentences from the Bible were also frequently included as an aid to teach a variety of moral principles. During the latter part of the nineteenth century, a large number of graded commercial reading series were developed and published. Of these, easily the most famous and most influential was the McGuffey reader (Westerhoff, 1978). These distinctive reading books were among the first commercial reading materials to be both grade-level specific and organized according to increasing difficulty of the material. The contents were generally oriented toward moralistic themes and provided information that was intended to inspire patriotic feelings in students. The McGuffey readers are also noted for their first extended use of various types of the emerging genre of American literature. The early part of the twentieth century saw increased interest in the teaching of reading as well as the beginning of the professional training of classroom teachers in reading. The literacy work by such individuals as Edmund Huey, Arthur Gates, and William S. Gray began to be reflected in the commercial reading materials of this period. Most notably, these changes included a new emphasis on the integration of reading with various other school subjects, the need to teach silent versus oral reading, and the adjustment of reading instruction to meet individual differences in students. Following World War I, a number of factors strongly influenced the development of commercial reading materials. Of particular note was the development of a variety of standardized reading tests that could measure in a very direct manner the relative effectiveness of various types of reading materials. To a large degree, the results of these tests affected both the format and the content of many commercial reading programs. Whereas authors of classroom reading materials had previously felt little constraint over how they organized and developed their products, they now began to see test results as a clear determiner of their products. In addition, the work of educational philosophers such as John Dewey began to shape the format and content of many commercial reading materials. Emphasis shifted from the use of a series of readers toward a wider
Commercial Reading Programs Commercial reading programs can be defined as those published literacy materials that are specifically designed for the teaching of reading. Traditionally, commercial reading programs have included a wide range of components, such as student readers, workbooks, and supplemental instructional aids, that is, arts and craft activities, library books, and various types of technology aids. The intended use of these commercial reading programs varies, ranging from a complete reading curriculum to a supplemental part of the total reading program. Controversial issues associated with commercial reading programs have involved their content, their use in the classroom, and their cost. Historical Background of Commercial Reading Materials The use of commercial reading materials has had a long and storied history in reading education. Almost since the earliest formal teaching of reading, there have been some types of commercially developed reading books available (Smith, 1934). In the latter part of the seventeenth and into the eighteenth century, commercial reading materials were already evident in the public schools. These early commercial reading materials were almost always based on religious or moral themes. The dominant reading textbook of this period was the New England Primer, which, in a variety of editions and formats, was eventually published in more than twenty-five editions. The lesson format consisted of learning individual 77
Commercial Reading Programs
Advice books were a kind of commercial reading material common in the nineteenth century (John Frost, Easy Exercises, 1839, p. 21)
basic readers, or basals, these commercial reading materials often centered on events that occurred in the lives of typical middle-class children and their families. Of particular importance during this time was the introduction and development of teacher’s manuals that frequently contained detailed instructions on the teaching of reading. This period also saw a significant increase in the supplemental materials developed for the reading teacher. Along with the basic reader, supplements frequently included workbooks, skill exercises, library materials, and various arts and crafts activities. This trend of increasing diversity in supplemental reading materials continues in today’s commercial reading programs. If a common theme could be identified in current reading programs, it would be the emphasis on the use of a wide variety of both traditional and contemporary literature. Typically, these commercial reading materials have been influenced by the latest developments in technology, such as the personal computer and the Internet. Controversial issues related to current
variety of reading materials. These included library books, magazines, and other types of popular literature. Commercial reading materials were selected according to the individual interests of students, and thus a wide range of reading resources was found in the typical classroom reading program. Problems with the use of commercial reading materials in this manner were quickly evident. Of particular concern was the lack of available reading materials, especially those related to a single topic or individual student interest. In addition, teachers were concerned about the adequate provision of needed reading skills and related opportunities for meaningful assessment procedures. There was also the added burden of higher cost associated with this approach. Although most schools gradually moved back to a basic reading series for primary instruction, this concept was to reemerge in a variety of forms, most notably in the “individualized” approach to reading. The period surrounding World War II saw the emergence of reading programs most typified by the “Dick and Jane” readers. Also referred to as 78
Commercial Reading Programs commercial reading materials involve the appropriate use of ethnic literature, whether to use complete or altered text material, and the basic role of these textbooks in an effective classroom literacy program.
teacher’s guide, the result is a fast-paced teaching model that doesn’t take into account whether students have actually learned the information. Teachers are assumed to have taught well if they have taught the lesson, and students are assumed to have learned if they have responded with the predetermined answers (position taken by the National Council of Teachers of English, 1989, cited in Issues and Trends). Other content issues include concerns regarding whether images and information about women and minorities are presented accurately. Many of the basal anthologies used in classrooms contain literature that is not equally affirming for all social groups and in fact tends to represent traditional white middle- and upper-class families. It has also been suggested that publishers’ attempts to be more multiculturally inclusive have resulted in new updated illustrations that give the illusion of ethnic representation while maintaining a story line that is culturally biased toward middle-class white America’s values and ideas. Adding to the questions regarding content of commercial reading programs is concern about whether the typical excerpts found in basals are actually faithful to the intended meaning and integrity of the original unabridged versions. More recently, the emergence of several computer-based commercial reading programs has given rise to more question and controversy. Many educators feel that these programs, which are usually based on an extrinsic reward system, are not giving students a solid foundation for lifelong reading. Frequently, these programs provide motivational push by rewarding students as they move up levels and accumulate points by reading as many books as possible. Many educators feel that students are reading just carefully enough to answer the basic knowledge and content questions that typically accompany each book and are not reading with the depth that is required for higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and interpretation. Other controversial issues regarding computer-based reading programs include cost to schools and book availability. Students are required to choose literature that is supported by the program because it comes with an accompanying computer-based assessment tool. Other books go unread, and decisions to purchase new books are based on whether they are supported by the program rather than on qualities of good literature.
Controversial Issues Related to Commercial Reading Materials Controversial issues continue to surround the use of commercial reading programs, among them questions about their content, their use in the classroom, ethics in publishing, and high costs to schools. The basal reader, one of the most commonly used types of commercial reading programs, has long been at the center of the controversy. More recently, the rise of computerbased commercial reading programs has only added to the controversy over effective use of commercial reading materials in the classroom. Some believe that the basic role of the teacher as an instructional leader is being seriously challenged today by various forms of technology, especially the personal computer. Recent advances such as the development of books on computers and sophisticated search techniques related to the Internet have only added to this current controversy over the primary role of commercial reading materials in an effective classroom reading program. Much of the controversy has been caused by the content and sequence of lessons included in many of the teacher guides that are designed to accompany basal-reading anthologies. Suggested instructional plans tend to dramatically limit the volume of actual in-school reading, despite evidence that extensive time spent reading and writing is what nourishes the development of literacy. Basal-reading programs tend to limit student reading time in order to allow more time for extension activities that include workbook pages and skill sheets. A six-week unit might focus on just one single book. It is argued that basal-reading anthologies just don’t contain enough reading material to develop high levels of reading proficiency in children (Allington, 2001). It has also been suggested that the sequencing of skills in a basal-reading series exists not because this is how children learn to read but simply because of the logistics of developing a series of lessons that can be taught in sequence. Many educators feel that when teachers attempt to complete each lesson as presented in the 79
Community Literacy
Community Literacy
More controversy stems from the fact that the basal industry is big business, producing sales of more than $400 million annually (Shannon and Goodman, 1994). This fact raises ethical issues regarding whose interests are being met. In the hopes of meeting the needs of many different schools with many different philosophies, commercial reading programs tend to include an eclectic assortment of components. Although this inclusivity attempts to meet the needs of differing beliefs and pedagogies, it is not necessarily based on sound research or theoretical underpinnings. Because they are eager to make a difference in reading education, parents, teachers, administrators, and politicians tend to purchase and implement commercial reading programs long before the ideas contained therein have been sufficiently tested or validated (Mosenthal and Kamil, 1996). Richard Robinson and Laurie Kingsley
Community literacy refers to adult literacy programs in which members of the community work with literacy mentors (who are usually university based) to resolve personal economic, social, or political problems through written and spoken methods. Such problem solving (focused on, for example, issues of youth and respect or problems of urban unemployment) may result in several different kinds of texts, including performative scripts, poetry and narratives, and highly polished brochures geared toward wide audiences. Distinguished from the discourses of advocacy and selfexpression, community literacy is designed to link personal and public action with probing reflection. In creating a “local public” around community questions, it continues a tradition of democratic discourse (Hauser, 1999). The practice of community literacy, as described by Wayne Peck, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins (1995), is also a hybrid discourse (a discourse that uses several dialects or multimedia to serve its purpose). Community literacy can be defined by four critical features: It is focused on intercultural dialogue, motivated by a vision of social change, supported by a strategic view of writing, and shaped by a process of inquiry. Community literacy is a view to literate action that stems from Deweyan pragmatism, Freirian calls for justice, and a rhetorical, social-cognitive research-based form of problem solving; it is also a form of inquiry that focuses on the consequences of intercultural, hybrid literate acts. Differing from functional literacy (the ability to read and write), which asks participants to gain expertise in the dominant discourse to survive in the world at large, community literacy focuses on literate acts (booklets, letters, performances, web pages, and so on) that solve problems within a specific community context. Although knowledge of the dominant discourse can be helpful in this goal, it is not the primary focus. Differing from expressivist literacy, which focuses on the free communication of feelings and perceptions, community literacy is an inquiry-driven problem-solving process that asks participants to make tough rhetorical choices in the face of complex and diverse audiences. Expressing feelings and opinions is a necessary part of this process, but it leads to negotiation and revision of ideas and texts to effect change. Community literacy asks participants to go beyond their given knowledge by collaborating with oth-
See Also Basal Readers References Allington, Richard C. 2001. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers. Mosenthal, Peter B., and Michael L. Kamil. 1996. “Epilogue: Understanding Progress in Reading Research.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 1013–1046. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. National Council of Teachers of English, Commission on Reading. 1989. “Basal Readers and the State of American Reading Instruction: A Call for Action.” Reprinted in 2000, in Richard D. Robinson, Michael C. McKenna, and Judy M. Wedman, eds., Issues and Trends in Literacy Education, pp. 157–159. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Shannon, Patrick, and Kenneth Goodman, eds. 1994. Basal Readers: A Second Look. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers. Smith, Nila Banton. 1934. American Reading Instruction. New York: Silver Burdett. Westerhoff, John H. 1978. McGuffey and His Readers: Piety, Morality, and Education in Nineteenth-Century America. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
80
Community Literacy ers whose (intercultural) expertise is different from theirs. Therefore, community literacy is an intercultural, situated form of problem solving that draws on multiple kinds of nontraditional expertise stemming from inner-city teens, single mothers, and struggling workers (among others). An example of community literacy in action is Pittsburgh’s Community Literacy Center. The Community Literacy Center (CLC) began as a collaboration between Carnegie Mellon University and Pittsburgh’s Community House (a historic settlement house on the North Side—an urban, largely African American community). Plagued by persistent problems of racism, unemployment (resulting in part from the collapse of the steel industry), poor schooling, police brutality, and gang violence, the North Side was a good choice for performing situated, intercultural inquiries that used literate acts to enact social change. At the CLC, mentors from Carnegie Mellon University and local community-based organizations worked with urban teenagers from local high schools to address problems that have negatively impacted the youths’ lives. Past issues have included the police-enforced curfew, the school-suspension policy, gangs and respect, and youth unemployment. Teens and mentors collaborate (often across large cultural gaps) to create hybrid rhetorical texts (texts that use their own home discourse and language but that also use Standard English to reach a larger audience) with the goal of effecting positive change. The culmination of this process is twofold: first, a publication that is geared both toward those living in the problem and those who have the power to make changes with the problem; and second, an exercise called community conversation in which teens perform their texts to a diverse audience to open a problem-solving dialogue as a way to receive feedback on their work and to move the problem-solving process past the walls of the CLC. Community literacy is an intercultural process. The diverse participants in these literate acts must learn to cross boundaries of experience, geography, gender, age, discourse, ethnicity, and class (among other things). The intercultural nature of community literacy is more than a byproduct of its participant base: widely varied experience and hybrid discourse are seen as a vital part of the practice and process of problem analysis and solution. The participants’ goals are
more likely to be reached when everyone’s diverse expertise is considered in the process of creating their finished texts. Difference, then, becomes part of the knowledge from which to build rhetorically persuasive texts that have a good chance of affecting the problems they address. When a mentor and teen work together, this difference can have a generative affect. For example, teens writing about an experience with gang violence may just wish to tell their story, but the response of the college mentor who fails to get it pushes such writers to deal with interpretations they didn’t anticipate. For example, the mentor could ask: “It seems as if you are saying gangs are OK. Is that the job you want your text to do?” The teen could then respond with a different interpretation: “I don’t want people to think that gangs are good but that kids join gangs for important reasons like respect and protection.” This process includes further levels of expertise at the community conversation, where government officials, parents, community workers, academics, and adults from the community react to the teens’ texts. Community literacy is also a strategic process. Drawing from the theory and research of socialcognitive rhetoric, community literacy helps writers see their literate acts as a process of goals, plans, arguments, construction, and negotiation. As a rhetorical process, community literacy strives to create texts that are sensitive to audience, context, persuasiveness, and the real possibility of consequences. As a social-cognitive process, community literacy focuses on the agency of individual writers who must negotiate among competing claims, goals, evidence, plans, and experiences. To help participants navigate such stormy waters, rhetoric brings strong strategies to the table. For example, mentors and teens learn to “rival”—to take a rival hypothesis stance to problems, seeking diverse interpretations that situate their ideas and literate acts in the complex contexts of social problems. When teens come to the CLC with their necessarily bounded experience (which also holds true for the mentors), rival hypothesis thinking can add depth to their argument. For example, when thinking about the police-enforced curfew issue, mentors and teens hypothesized about how diverse people would see the situation. How did the police interpret the curfew? Teachers? Parents? Ministers? Local government? Consideration of rivals both widened 81
Comparative Reading the experience base of the CLC participants and helped the teens to create stronger arguments that addressed the viewpoints and experience of multiple stakeholders in their final text. Community literacy also focuses on agentdriven writing. Teens and mentors work to create rhetorical artifacts that are then used as persuasive documents geared toward changing problematic situations. Moreover, this writing both affects and is affected by the understandings of the teens and the mentors. Writing then becomes a task on which to focus activity, a process that engenders learning for teens and mentors, and an important consequence of the process itself. Community literacy doesn’t end at open discussions or with personal writing that never aims at a wider audience. Instead, the texts the teens and mentors produce are a type of rhetorical praxis. For example, the written recommendations about school-suspension policies actually affected the suspension policy for the school district in question. Moreover, for teens to have the tangible rhetorical product in their hands is evidence of their own growing expertise in using rhetorical strategies to solve problems in their own lives, as well as in their communities. Community literacy is also an inquiry. It is in part a reflective and active process that closely analyzes the problematic situation with focus on what it will take to enable more positive consequences. Inquiry is also a process of understanding—of seeing open questions, realizing that social problems are far more complex than our partial representations grasp, that it is difficult to engage people in a hybrid discourse and even more difficult to build understandings that cross those differences. Part of the inquiry that community literacy supports is not about what to do, but about how someone else sees the world—and about what a teen, mentor, or adult can come to understand through the processes of writing, collaboration, and dialogue. In an inquiry, diverse literacies are not seen as “bad” or “good” (for example, dominant discourse is not necessarily bad and oppressive, nor is home dialect always good and liberating). Rather, these diverse discourses are seen as vital tools to be used in the teens’ and mentors’ collaboration to meet given goals. These inquiries are also situated in local contexts, and their data are the lived experience of the participants. At the same time, inquiries need
diverse expertise, and collaboration becomes both a necessity and a process of learning for all participants. Community literacy is, in the end, about public deliberation, social change, and praxis. Sharing the ethical and philosophical imperatives of William James’s and John Dewey’s pragmatism, Cornel West’s prophetic pragmatism, and Paulo Freire’s radical critical literacy, community literacy is geared toward real consequences and multidimensional understandings in a complex world. In this sense, community literacy has grown from the imperative question of how to learn across differences of culture, experience, and values. It is a type of observation-based theory building: given the data, given what we know, what is the best way to go forward? Susan Swan and Linda Flower See Also Constructivism; Critical Literacy; Diversity; InquiryBased Instruction; Multicultural Literacy; Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Social Justice and Literacies References Deans, Thomas. 2000. Writing Partnerships: ServiceLearning in Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Flower, Linda. 1997. Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing in Classroom and Community. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Flower, Linda, Eleanor Long, and Lorraine Higgins. 2000. Learning to Rival: A Literate Practice for Intercultural Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Peck, Wayne, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins. 1995. “Community Literacy.” College Composition and Communication 46 (2):199–222.
Comparative Reading Comparative reading is the scholarly field in which researchers and theorists undertake the comparison of reading and related variables across national and cultural groups. John Downing may be given credit for coining the term comparative reading in 1969, although William S. Gray’s earlier work for the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) might be identified as the seminal, although not the first, comparative-reading re82
Comparative Reading search in the modern era of literacy pedagogy. As we begin the twenty-first century, the field of comparative reading will focus initially on two large multinational comparative-reading achievement studies: the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) undertaken by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) and the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA) as sponsored by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Yet given past responses by politicians, journalists, and even educators to such large-scale projects, literacy educators need to be fully aware of the acceptable uses of comparative-reading research as well as potential abuses of such research. Comparative reading has its roots in the birth of the field of comparative education. In the 1800s, with the development of national education systems, educators started to examine systems and curricula in other countries. Such a utilitarian endeavor was designed to inform and improve local programs and instruction through the importation and integration of the best pedagogical practices and organizational structures from prestigious countries such as Switzerland and Prussia. With the coming of the 1900s, education was viewed as a touchstone for a nation; hence, comparative education became a method by which scholars could study the social, economic, and political dynamics of a country as well as the commonalties and differences between national and cultural groups. Through the period of World War II, comparative education continued to focus on the nation-state. The field of comparative reading traces its modern history back to the issuance of The Teaching of Reading by UNESCO in 1949. This International Bureau of Education survey asked forty-five national ministries of education to respond to questions about the teaching of reading. Not surprisingly from today’s perspective, the descriptive responses to the sixteen openended questions seemed to suggest that the definitions of reading and associated variables were often viewed from different theoretical, cultural, and practical perspectives from nation to nation. Cross-national standards for comparative activities did not yet exist. It was with William S. Gray’s 1953 pamphlets, “Preliminary Survey on Methods of Teaching Reading and Writing” (parts 1 and 2), and his pioneering 1956 text, The
Teaching of Reading and Writing, based on his cross-national interviews, content analyses, and eye-movement research that a scholarly foundation for the field evolved. In addition, these publications for UNESCO were designed to help literacy leaders, particularly those in developing nations, to design programs and curriculum for the delivery of effective reading instruction. Six years later in 1962, Arthur Foshay and colleagues reported on the UNESCO Institute of Education project, in which the assessment of reading achievement of thirteen-year-olds from twelve nations was one component of what might be identified as the first carefully designed comparative study. In 1966, representatives from around the world came to Paris to attend the first International Reading Association (IRA)–sponsored World Congress on Reading. Then in 1973, the IEA released its ten-nation comparative literature study report by Alan Purves, Arthur Foshay, and G. Hanson, along with its comparative reading-comprehension study of fifteen countries, reported by Robert Thorndike. Also in this watershed year, Downing edited Comparative Reading: Cross-National Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading and Writing, a book that was to become the first comprehensive text in the field of comparative reading. This critical and empirical analysis of reading around the world presented both theoretical and methodological underpinnings for the field of comparative reading, along with case studies of reading instruction in thirteen countries. With the high visibility provided by the IEA investigations, the ongoing success of the World Congresses on Reading and the accompanying proceedings, and Downing’s resolute support for the field in chapters and journal articles, comparative reading began to take on the nature of an academic specialty. During the 1980s, the growth of the field can be observed through the review of the evergrowing number of investigations and case reports covered in Eve Malmquist’s 1982 annotated bibliography for the IRA, John Hladczuk and William Eller’s book-length bibliography on comparative reading in 1987, and in another work by John Hladczuk, William Eller, and Sharon Hladczuk in 1989 on worldwide literacy and illiteracy, as well as annotations in the Annual Summary of Investigations relating to reading. Also in the 1980s, scholars such as Eve 83
Comparative Reading Malmquist and Hans Grundin, as well as John Downing, presented models for comparativereading research and theory. The 1990s saw the release of several monographs and texts on a new cross-national study by the IEA (Elley, 1994) with the participation of thirty-two school systems from around the world. In addition, the OECD sponsored the International Assessment of Adult Literacy in twenty countries or regions, which for the first time provided reliable cross-national data on adult literacy. Finally, the in the spirit of Downing’s earlier work, case studies continued, such as Margaret Harris and Giyoo Hatano’s (1999) edited work covering cross-linguistic factors in learning to read and write in nine countries and John Hladczuk and William Eller’s (1992) portrayal of instructional systems in twenty-six nations. Now, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, two major cross-national studies of “reading literacy” are underway: the Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA), under the auspices of the OECD in 2000, and the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), under the sponsorship of the IEA in 2001. PISA will focus on fifteen-year-olds who are about to make the transition from the world of school to the world of work. PIRLS will focus on fourth graders (nine- and ten-year-olds) who are moving from the learning-to-read stage to the reading-to-learn stage. Although there are differences in the design of each study and the developmental levels of the individuals being tested, there are similarities in assessment procedures, content of the assessment devices, and perhaps most important, the belief that reading is an interactive, constructive process. Technical reports will be issued on a regular basis, and information on the progress of these two endeavors can be found by visiting the education section or the links in the OECD’s web site (www.oecd.org). With a growing body of cross-national comparative studies, national case studies, and other reports, it becomes ever more important that the consumers of such literature understand that there are both positive uses and common problems associated with the academic and pedagogical writings on the topic. Norman Stahl, Bonnie Higginson, and James King have drawn upon writings in the field to describe both in depth. Their recommendations for appropriate uses of comparative reading include: describing various
approaches to reading instruction, understanding both similarities and differences in national and educational cultures, remedying misperceptions and developing alternative conceptions of a national or cultural group, making decisions based on “parallel phenomena” observed in other nations, developing broad-based generalizations of literacy pedagogy across national boundaries, and training future teachers and reading professionals. These writers have also warned against misuses of comparative-reading data, including: the inappropriate use of case building for or against a local system based on comparative research, the misinterpretation or misrepresentation of crossnational or cross-cultural findings, the treatment of the results of a nation’s literacy assessment as an “Olympic” event in worldwide pedagogical games, and the practice of either ethnocentrism or overidentification with another educational system or culture. Downing saw the role of comparative reading as employing cross-cultural research and comparative study to expand both our theoretical and practical knowledge of the processes of literacy behavior. With this perspective in mind and with the careful study of comparative-reading research, literacy educators may come to understand that any well-defined theory of reading should be formulated, as appropriate, on constructs that cross traditional national, linguistic, gender, or cultural boundaries. Further, so as to promote a more fluid pedagogical worldview in the profession, both the theory and research of comparative reading should be an important cornerstone of both the formal graduate and undergraduate preparation of future teachers and literacy specialists and the in-service or certification renewal programs for practicing teachers. Norman A. Stahl See Also Reading Assessment; Writing Assessment References Downing, John, ed. 1973. Comparative Reading: Cross-National Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading and Writing. New York: Macmillan. Reissued 1979. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Elley, Warwick B. 1994. The IEA Study of Reading Literacy: Achievement and Instruction in ThirtyTwo School Systems. Cambridge: Pergamon. Gray, William S. 1956. The Teaching of Reading and Writing. Paris: UNESCO.
84
Comprehension Strategies Traditional Comprehension Skills and the New Comprehension Strategies Twenty years ago, comprehension was taught as a sequence of separate skills identified in the basal-reading programs that dominated American reading instruction. Scott Paris and his colleagues (1991) identified skills as automatic procedures that readers used without being aware of them. Comprehension skills were traditionally “taught” by having students complete workbook pages in which they chose “the main idea” of a paragraph from one of four alternatives or reorganized sentences in the correct sequence of a paragraph they had just read. It was expected or assumed that through repeated practice, students would learn these skills and apply them to the new texts they read. There was no assumption of flexibility in the use of the skills for different texts, tasks, and purposes. There was no assumption that readers thought about what they were doing or reflected on whether the skill was the appropriate one to use. Nevertheless, a classic study by Dolores Durkin (1978–1979) demonstrated that students were not taught the skills effectively. Durkin showed that by following the directions in the basal-reading programs, teachers mostly “tested” the skills rather than “taught” them. In other words, students were directed to “find the main idea” and to “create a summary of a story,” but there was no help or assistance for students who could not complete these activities on their own. Further, even if students did complete the activities appropriately, it was often through unconscious awareness or luck rather than through conscious and deliberate planning and implementation. There was nothing intentional in either the teacher’s instructions or the students’ behaviors. Thus, Durkin convinced a generation of reading researchers that many students were unlikely to learn comprehension skills well enough to apply them to their daily reading. Durkin concluded that the “mentioning” rather than teaching of skills was a major problem in comprehension instruction in American schools. Durkin’s research presaged work on strategy instruction, in which students are explicitly taught how to use a number of strategies to improve their comprehension of text. Unlike skills, strategies are defined as “conscious, intentional procedures under the control of readers.” Research conducted over the past twenty years sug-
Harris, Margaret, and Giyoo Hatano, eds. 1999. Learning to Read and Write: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hladczuk, John, and William Eller. 1987. Comparative Reading: An International Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ———. 1992. International Handbook of Reading Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hladczuk, John, William Eller, and Sharon Hladczuk. 1989. Literacy/Illiteracy in the World: A Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Malmquist, Eve. 1982. Handbook on Comparative Reading: An Annotated Bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Stahl, Norman A., Bonnie C. Higginson, and James R. King. 1993. “Appropriate Use of Comparative Literacy Research in the 1990s.” Journal of Reading 37 (2):104–113.
Comprehension Strategies Comprehension strategies are procedures that active readers use to improve their comprehension of text (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). For example, readers may make predictions about an upcoming text, they may ask themselves questions about what they are reading, or they may summarize a text they just read. Each of these procedures or activities is considered to be a comprehension strategy that readers use to help them deepen their comprehension. Most researchers refer to strategies as conscious processes under the direct control of readers. They are deliberate, goal directed, and open to inspection in the sense that readers are aware of what they are doing and why they are doing it. Over time, however, and with practice, comprehension strategies can become automatic procedures that readers use without conscious planning. A number of strategies have been researched thoroughly and have been shown to improve comprehension. These include strategies such as identifying existing prior knowledge, visualizing, inferring, summarizing, synthesizing, predicting, determining importance, generating questions, monitoring comprehension, and repairing comprehension breakdowns. The value of these strategies is that they are useful for developing instructional procedures and help readers become independent of the teacher (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000). 85
Comprehension Strategies gests that readers benefit from being taught the conscious and intentional use of strategies. Strategies are always goal directed. They are applied thoughtfully and with consideration of better comprehension. In addition, strategies emphasize reasoning, problem solving, and critical-thinking abilities. Strategies are also flexible and adaptable. Readers must learn when and where to apply a particular strategy. If that strategy does not work, readers try another. Finally, strategies imply metacognitive awareness. Effective strategy users are aware of the strategies they are using, and they reflect on their reading and their level of understanding.
Still another contribution to developing notions of comprehension strategies comes from a body of research on metacognitive strategies. Linda Baker and Ann Brown (1984) summarized research that demonstrated convincingly that skilled readers are aware of whether they understand what they are reading. Further, skilled readers know what to do when they do not understand. They have developed a number of strategies that they effectively employ when comprehension breaks down for them. They use these strategies flexibly, and they adapt them when needed for different tasks and purposes. Less-skilled readers, by contrast, are not aware of whether they understand or not, and they do not have a set of metacognitive strategies to use when comprehension breaks down. However, an important finding from this body of work is that less-skilled readers can be taught to be metacognitive when they read. When they are taught, their comprehension improves significantly.
Genesis of Comprehension Strategies The term comprehension strategies comes from an amalgamation of related bodies of research on cognitive and metacognitive strategies. The foundational body of theory and research for both cognitive and metacognitive strategies is drawn from cognitive psychology. This theory and research emphasizes the active, as opposed to the passive, nature of the comprehension process. Beginning in the 1970s, researchers concluded that comprehension was not a passive process in which readers simply “take in” the exact meaning in a text. Cognitive theory and research suggested that readers construct mental representations of what they read. These representations result from an interaction between readers’ prior knowledge and the new knowledge derived from the text. The resulting mental representations are not exact replications of the author’s intended message but are instead representations based on the range of meanings included in the text. Another important body of research informing comprehension strategies is work conducted in the 1980s on cognitive strategies. This work was designed to identify strategies that improve attention, memory, and learning. Claire Weinstein and Richard Mayer (1987) identified several cognitive or learning strategies that improve learning. These strategies determine how much is learned and how well what is learned is organized in memory. These strategies range from basic rehearsal strategies such as repetition to complex elaboration strategies such as summarizing. Thus, there is a clear overlap between comprehension strategies and cognitive or learning strategies identified by researchers.
Comprehension Strategy Instruction According to the National Reading Panel (2000), an important finding of reading research is that comprehension strategies can be effectively taught. When teachers successfully teach comprehension strategies, students’ comprehension improves. This is especially true for less-skilled readers. The seminal work on comprehension strategy instruction was a series of studies conducted and summarized by Ann Palincsar and Ann Brown (1984). These researchers developed an instructional program consisting of the teaching of a set of four strategies: predicting, summarizing, asking questions, and clarifying hard parts of text. They taught these strategies directly to lessskilled middle-school students. As part of the instruction, teachers modeled the use of the strategies and provided students with abundant help and support as they learned the strategies. Students worked in peer teaching groups and practiced the use of the strategies until they could use them independently. The Report of the National Reading Panel (2000) reviewed several additional studies using these reciprocal teaching strategies. Evidence from their integrative review suggested that students who learned reciprocal teaching strategies were able to transfer their use of the techniques to other texts they read. In general, the research showed that teaching comprehen86
Comprehension Strategies sion strategies improved students’ comprehension of text. Other studies also tested the effectiveness of other kinds of comprehension strategy instruction. Gerald Duffy and his colleagues (1987) taught teachers to explicitly discuss the mental processes and cognitive strategies involved in comprehension. Specifically, they explicitly taught students what strategy they were learning, why they were learning it, why it was important, and how and when they could use it as they read. They found that this type of direct explanation of the reasoning and problem-solving nature of strategic reading improved students’ awareness of their strategy use and their comprehension. Another approach to comprehension strategies is identified as transactional strategy instruction (Pressley and Woloshyn, 1995). This instruction is similar to the direct explanation of comprehension strategies used by Duffy and his colleagues in that the reasoning and problemsolving nature of strategies are discussed. In transactional strategy instruction, however, strategies are learned not through the direct explanation of the teacher but through the dialogue that goes on between the teacher and students and among the students themselves. Thus, transactional strategy instruction is collaborative; learning about the strategies primarily takes place through the interactive transaction among students in the classroom. Despite the differences in the instructional programs using comprehension strategies, some common elements of comprehension strategy instruction can be gleaned. The method occurs when teachers: (1) model or directly explain the strategies, (2) provide students with guided practice in the use of the strategies through teacherstudent and student-student discussions, (3) provide students with independent practice in the use of the strategies, and (4) discuss the flexible and adaptable use of the strategies for different purposes.
sion strategies to describe not only what readers do to help them comprehend texts but also what teachers do to help students comprehend texts. Thus, there is more than one use of the term comprehension strategies in the literature and in educational settings. Usually, comprehension strategies refer to specific strategies such as predicting, summarizing, visualizing, monitoring comprehension, and so forth. These strategies are under the direct control of readers. Readers learn how to apply the strategies to their reading of a text. However, sometimes authors use the term comprehension strategies to refer to specific activities or procedures that teachers use to help their students improve their comprehension of particular texts. Some examples of such strategies include the group-constructed KWL (Know, Want to Know, and Learned), story maps, graphic organizers, and cooperative learning. These are more like comprehension aids and instructional activities than strategies in the cognitive sense. The teacher completes the activity directly with students. As a result of completing the strategy or activity, students understand a particular text better. What is the difference between the two kinds of comprehension strategies? Reader or learner strategies are taught so that the students themselves control the strategies. Students learn how to use the strategies and apply them to different texts they read. There is an assumption that students can transfer the strategies from one text to another. By contrast, teacher strategies are activities that teachers complete with their students. Most often, there is no assumption or expectation that students will learn how to use these strategies on their own when they are reading without the teacher’s help. Recently, a proliferation of books has come on the market to help teachers teach reading comprehension to their K–12 students. These books often include both reader and teacher strategies under the term comprehension strategies. However, there is a difference in who controls the use of the strategy. The advantage of reader or learner strategies is that the reader or learner exercises the control, as opposed to teacher strategies controlled by the teacher. So long as teachers understand the purposes and uses of the two kinds of strategies, they can design appropriate comprehension strategy instruction for their students. Janice A. Dole
Differences between Comprehension Strategies and Teacher Strategies in the Teacher-Practice Literature Comprehension strategies have been defined in much of the cognitive literature as strategies readers use to actively process text to improve comprehension. The educational literature is also replete with the use of the term comprehen87
Computer-Assisted Instruction grams or on-line resources that are designed to teach skills to students (CAI as teacher), to tutor students as they practice skills (CAI as tutor), or to serve as a resource tool (CAI as tool) as students engage in literate acts.
See Also KWL and KWL+; Metacognition; National Reading Panel; Reading-Comprehension Processes References Baker, Linda, and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Metacognitive Skills and Reading.” In P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 353–394. New York: Longman. Duffy, Gerald G., Laura Roehler, Eva Sivan, Gary Rackliffe, Cassandra Book, Michael S. Meloth, Linda G. Vavurs, Roy Wesselman, Joyce Putnam, and Dina Bassiri. 1987. “Effects of Explaining the Reasoning Associated with Using Reading Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 22:347–368. Durkin, Dolores. 1978–1979. “What Classroom Observations Reveal about Reading Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 14:518–544. National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. Report of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Palincsar, Ann S., and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities.” Cognition and Instruction 2:117–175. Paris, Scott G., Barbara A. Wasik, and Julianne C. Turner. 1991. “The Development of Strategic Readers.” In Rebecca Barr, P. David Pearson, Michael Kamil, and Peter Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 609–640. New York: Longman. Pressley, Michael, and Vera Woloshyn. 1995. Cognitive Strategy Instruction That Really Improves Children’s Academic Performance. Cambridge: Brookline Books. Weinstein, Claire F., and Richard F. Mayer. 1987. “The Teaching of Learning Strategies.” In Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 315–327. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
CAI as Teacher Some early and current versions of CAI teaching applications are based on behaviorist learning theories that rely on direct instruction and students’ mastery of a scope and sequence of performance-based learning objectives. Students are expected to work their way independently through progressively difficult levels of skills mastery until they have successfully completed and mastered all of the skills included in a course of study. This approach is based on the assumption that students will learn basic literacy skills and strategies in an on-screen instructional environment that provides them with initial instruction followed by a learning stimulus (learning task) and a performance response (feedback on correctness). Early versions of CAI teaching drill-and-practice applications were primarily print based and resembled a series of successively more difficult worksheets on the screen. Indeed, all aspects of the programs, from instruction to practice and assessment, were print based. Programs were also designed to branch or recycle students through screens that presented various levels of worksheets in response to their scores on learning tasks. For example, if a student demonstrated a below-mastery score (less than 80 percent) on a Level 5 phonics practice worksheet designed to teach initial consonant blends, the program would automatically re-present an instructional sequence or cycle of remedial lessons on initial consonants at Level 4. Programs were designed to provide additional practice and assessment until students demonstrated mastery at a targeted level. Educators could periodically check students’ progress as reported in printouts of whole-class or individual-student scores. CAI drill-and-practice teaching programs are primarily designed to serve as stand-alone programs that do not intersect with classroom instruction. Many programs are housed in a computer lab that students are scheduled to visit on a weekly or monthly basis. Therefore, the lessons are more likely to be aligned with a preprogrammed scope and sequence or with state
Computer-Assisted Instruction Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is based upon the notion that computer applications can be used in ways that support K–12 students’ learning. Educators first began to consider the role of computers and computer-assisted instruction with the advent of portable and affordable microcomputers such as the Apple II during the 1970s (Alessi and Trollip, 1991). The activities included in CAI programs have changed over the years to reflect the prevalent learning theories of different educational eras. The majority of literacy-related CAI applications involve pro88
Computer-Assisted Instruction
Students using a computer in the library (Elizabeth Crews)
about the /at/ family”). Special-needs students are frequently able to use computer-tutoring programs to help in their academic development. Features of elementary-grade programs are likely to include various types and levels of tutoring support in key literacy areas such as decoding, automatic word recognition, spelling, vocabulary acquisition, and comprehension (see Early Literacy Software).
learning standards than with daily classroom literacy lessons. CAI as Tutor CAI tutoring applications are based on constructivist and sociocognitive learning theories that rely on features of the program to provide support for student learning (see Constructivism). The purpose of tutoring-oriented CAI applications is to furnish students with additional practice with literacy skills that have been previously taught by the teacher in the classroom. For example, many tutoring applications for primarygrade children rely on a game-playing format that involves an animated cartoon figure that appears on-screen. The figure provides information, offers prompts, or reminds students about how they may navigate through the program. Feedback on students’ choices as they play literacy-related games is offered through special multimedia effects such as music, animations, or verbal comments (e.g., “That’s wrong. Think about the first sound you hear” or “Try again, but think
CAI as Tool CAI serves as an effective tool when it is used to link students with interactive resources that are available on demand. When viewed from a sociocognitive perspective, CAI applications are designed to scaffold student learning. For example, intermediate-level students may utilize CAI tool supports that involve a variety of resources such as supplemental text frames or help menus that pop up on screen. Lynn Anderson-Inman and Mark Horney (1998) examined a multimedia version of a science textbook that offered hearing-impaired students with various re89
Concept Instruction with Text References Alessi, Stephen M., and Stanley R. Trollip. 1991. Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Anderson-Inman, Lynn, and Mark Horney. April 1998. “Profiles of Hypertext Readers: Case Studies from the ElectroText Project.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
sources that were designed to support their comprehension. Students clicked on buttons that linked technical or concept-rich words within on-screen text passages to supplemental screen animations (e.g., the word orbit is linked to an animation of a planet orbiting around the sun), definitions, additional print-based examples, or an American Sign Language video translation of text passages. Text reader utility programs allow students who are trying to read difficult materials to download pages of novels or textbooks onto a computer screen and have the passages read aloud on demand. Students thinking about a book may enrich their perception by participating in e-mail or on-line literature discussion groups. Students’ writing skills are improved when they use resource tool features of word processing programs to compose essays. Teachers who have adequate resources and training in using computers in the classroom can bring their enthusiasm to class and create opportunities for CAI in everyday instruction for students of various literacy abilities. CAI tools are designed to complement and enrich the classroom literacy curriculum for below-average, average, and above-average students. Successful implementation is likely to depend upon the classroom teacher to integrate CAI into the overall literacy program. Successful teachers may model (demonstrate how to use the program), mentor (support students’ initial encounters with the program), manage (make sure that all students have access to the program), and monitor (make sure that students are all benefiting from the program) students’ use of applications. Computer technologies are continually becoming more sophisticated, so it is inevitable that the role of computer-assisted instruction will continue to evolve. On-screen learning environments are likely to become more complex, interactive, and responsive to students’ demonstrated literacy learning strengths and needs. CAI is also likely to demand increasingly complex learning theories, carefully crafted design interface, and robust connections to literacy instructional programs within classrooms and in extended online learning communities. Linda D. Labbo and Denise Johnson
Concept Instruction with Text Concept instruction with text refers to three central aspects of instruction that foster in-depth conceptual learning of expository text (informational text). Concept instruction with text is defined as providing extensive opportunities for students to interact with multilayered knowledge, to transform meaning by manipulating information, and to experience optimal challenge during reading. Conceptual learning from text occurs when students have formed a mental representation consisting of four elements. Those elements include basic propositions about the domain (facts), relations among the propositions (facts), concepts or generalizations that broadly relate propositions to each other, and a network of concepts. Students with conceptual knowledge can use this network flexibly to solve problems or to serve as an analogy for new learning. This flexible network and all its parts constitute an explanatory understanding of the domain (a network of interrelated concepts that serve as a critical component in a discipline of knowledge). For example, when reading an expository text about an ecological science theme, it is important for students to distinguish among various features of an animal (e.g., the beak or the foot of a bird [propositional level]). It is equally important for students to understand how the beak and the foot are related (both aid in feeding [relational knowledge]) and how a concept such as feeding (concept level) relates to other ecological principles, such as defense, predation, or reproduction (network of concepts). To acquire a domain of richly elaborated knowledge, students must encounter and interact with all these levels of knowledge. In concept instruction with text, teachers rely on texts that contain all levels of knowledge (e.g., propositional, relational, and conceptual levels). Students read, discuss, and write about such texts
See Also Constructivism; Software for Older Readers
90
Concept Instruction with Text in a setting in which this material is relevant and useful. Some examples of this sort of context might be: a thematic unit, a project, or a set of student-generated learning goals that establish a role for the text as an information source. In content areas such as science and history, learning from text is accelerated by “hands-on” experiences or vivid activities, such as historical enactments. These experiences benefit concept learning by providing concrete referents for the basic propositions (they see the bird’s beak up close) and by creating opportunity for spontaneous questioning (“Why are some beaks so curved?”). Such interactions foster the process of building multitiered knowledge. Concept instruction with text is designed to increase this kind of knowledge by giving students opportunities to manipulate information and transform their knowledge. There is evidence that when students create new representations of text, such as concept mapping, constructing projects, building models, or drawing graphical representations, they rely on deep structural knowledge of a domain. Thus, they build knowledge structures to represent domain principles. For example, through drawing, readers can induce and generate a new and coherent representation of text because it directs their attention to specific concepts in the text passage. Finally, concept instruction with text enables students to experience optimal challenge during reading. Optimal challenge in reading refers to the alignment of reading skill with appropriately difficult text. Motivation theorists posit that when challenges are slightly ahead of skills, a tension is created that stimulates concentration and effort (see Literacy Motivation). Optimal challenge is a function of prior knowledge and competence as well as task difficulty (see Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions). For instance, when students of high competence and prior knowledge are confronted with a difficult task or text, they are likely to experience optimal difficulty. However, when students of low competence and prior knowledge face a difficult task, they will likely report frustration. Optimally challenging reading events will be those that are at a student’s intermediate level of difficulty. That is, they are neither too easy nor too hard. Optimally challenging reading activities heighten conceptual learning from text because students learn to be devoted to deep thinking and concerted atten-
tion. When students can meet increasingly difficult goals, they see concrete evidence of their growth. This evidence, in turn, increases their perceptions of competence and willingness to persist in the face of difficulty. Further, optimal challenge supports the positive relationship between competence and task value. If students feel competent in completing a challenging reading task, they will also be interested in reading and find reading to be important and useful. Supporting Competence for Learning from Text Concept instruction can be utilized in multiple domains, including social studies/history or science. For instance, the multiple tiers of conceptual knowledge in history include political themes such as conflict (and diverse viewpoints about those themes); evidence of the conflict in the form of protests or rebellion; particular events such as the Boston Massacre; and features of the events, such as persons or their actions. Exposing students to variegated texts with these tiers, expecting students to transform the information, and identifying optimally challenging tasks to perform with these texts is concept instruction with text in history. For example, Bruce VanSledright and Christine Kelly (1998) examined the reading practices of fifth graders who were studying the Boston Massacre. The students, who were asked whether they thought it was important to use more than one book when studying a colony, realized that multiple texts would have different information, which would be important in understanding the Boston Massacre. Evaluating the credibility, bias, and political persuasion of the historical writer is a prominent strategy in history reading. The students’ interest in text was related to their motivation to understand the historical time period and its conflicts. Multiple texts increase the likelihood that texts will be optimally challenging and that students will cognitively engage in building a critical understanding. Several programs have also used conceptual instruction in science with beneficial results on reading engagement and conceptual learning from text. John Guthrie and his colleagues (1998) implemented a classroom intervention called concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI) to emphasize conceptual instruction in reading and science. CORI teachers were trained 91
Concept Instruction with Text to provide multilayered instruction, knowledgetransformation activities, and optimal challenge during an integrated reading/science unit. CORI teachers used conceptual themes to organize central disciplinary principles in a multilayered fashion. The conceptual theme was accessible to all students and allowed for an ebb and flow between the facts and principles of the domain. Using the theme “birds around the world,” teachers helped their students to embrace nine ecological principles (such as defense and predation). CORI teachers enabled students to search through multiple trade books to integrate information about the theme. After reading, students often summarized, made graphic organizers (student construction of a spatial representation of text-based knowledge, such as a concept map or Venn diagram) (see Graphic Organizers), drew and labeled illustrations of the text information, and created models and artifacts based on their new understandings gleaned from the multiple texts. In terms of optimal challenge, CORI teachers used a wide array of interesting texts to accommodate a range of ability levels in order to ensure students worked at the edge of their competency. In a typical CORI classroom, students conduct science activities within a conceptual study theme. In the midst of a conceptual theme on aquatic life, a science activity might be to visit a freshwater habitat for students to collect pond water and specimens. Students would then ask personal questions about the animals and plants they observed. Next, they would search through multiple texts to find the answers to their questions, and they would choose from an abundance of books ranging in level of difficulty. For example, students may have begun with an easy text when the topic was new and knowledge relatively fragmented. As students gain knowledge, they become increasingly able to read and gain information from more challenging texts. Students use multiple knowledge-transformation activities to learn from the text. This includes concept mapping, illustrating and labeling text ideas, or conducting experiments based on text information. Finally, students present a display of their knowledge to classmates. This, too, is accomplished using a variety of knowledge-transformation activities, ranging from poster presentations to the creation of artifacts. In several quantitative studies of CORI, John Guthrie and
his associates have documented the benefits of concept instruction on conceptual learning from text, reading strategy use, and reading motivation (Guthrie and Cox, 2001). Among other classroom intervention programs that have also emphasized concept instruction with text, Marlene Scardamalia and her colleagues (1994) implemented a classroom intervention called Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE). CSILE classrooms contained networked computers connected to a communal database. During a typical day in a CSILE classroom, students researched topics using the computers for thirty minutes per day. They browsed through experts’ and classmates’ notes and information, attached notes and graphics found in databases, and recorded information found through other avenues. Students simultaneously used multiple text sources to gather information (see Multiple Texts). Personal inquiries were posted in the database to which other students responded; thus, an ongoing communication among students provided the impetus for knowledge growth. A series of studies reported the effects of CSILE on students’ ability to construct knowledge from multiple texts and other sources. For instance, CSILE students exhibited their ability to represent knowledge in multiple forms, including graphics, and to better comprehend expository text (see Narrative and Expository Text). One study analyzed students’ cognitive actions in order to examine whether student usage of the computer system resulted in differential conceptual learning from text (Oshima, Scardamalia, and Bereiter, 1996). Indeed, students who treated information flow from computer to self as a unidirectional exchange learned relatively few principles and higher-order relations. In contrast, students who sought to construct meaning in a bidirectional interchange of textual information with other students and sources gained higher levels of knowledge. These students questioned and rebutted information and acted as co-creators of the knowledge. In addition, high conceptual learners took notes that were coordinated with the principles of the domain, whereas low conceptual learners wrote many fragmented notes. Ann Brown (1997) designed a curriculum called Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL), to be used in second- to fifth-grade sci92
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts ence classrooms. Her general philosophy was that students develop their knowledge through dialogue in a social learning community. Students were expected to research some subset of a topic and produce an artifact based on the content. One study compared three groups of students with regard to conceptual learning outcomes. One group received instruction characterized by a jigsaw approach, in which teams of students studying various subthemes of a topic shared their subset of expertise with classmates so that all students could integrate subtheme information with the overall conceptual theme and learn the subthemes of a conceptual unit. During various phases of learning, students were involved in three participant structures: composing on the computer, conducting research using multiple texts, and interacting with the teacher. In these structures, jigsaw groups worked simultaneously on the subtopics of a conceptual theme. Students gathered and presented findings to each other and engaged in asking questions of peers and clarifying concepts. A summary of the FCL studies showed that students gained deep-level understandings about the scientific topics of study as expressed in problem solving by analogy tasks. Some educators advocate teaching for text recall in content areas. They place a high premium on recall of important facts in domains such as history or science. The subject matter is thought to compose a fixed structure of many facts and concepts that are to be learned and remembered. Amount of factual recall is viewed as a good test of amount of understanding. This view of knowledge acquisition is thought to be encouraged with a read-and-reproduce model. Although one goal of concept instruction with text is to assure propositional recall, an equally important goal is to impart principled understanding. In contrast to instruction that emphasizes accuracy and static “possession” of text information, knowledge in a concept instruction classroom is viewed as multilayered and dynamic. Taken together, the CORI, CSILE, and FCL studies show the powerful effects of a conceptual emphasis in instruction. In each of these programs, students were given multiple opportunities to create relations between the facts and principles of the conceptual domain, to experience optimal challenge, and to manipulate information in order to transform meaning. It has been shown that concept instruction helps stu-
dents understand that there are multiple, often rival, viewpoints within a domain of knowledge. Students should learn to create their personal understandings based on text and to reconcile discrepancies among diverse texts and their own knowledge. Thus, searching for information in multiple trade books or original documents, being presented with diverse viewpoints, and manipulating incoming information into a variety of forms is instrumental. Kathleen E. Cox and John Guthrie See Also Graphic Organizers; Literacy Motivation; Multiple Texts; Narrative and Expository Text; Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions References Brown, Ann. 1997. “Transforming Schools into Communities of Thinking and Learning about Serious Matters.” American Psychologist 52 (3):399–413. Guthrie, John, and Kathleen Cox. 2001. “Classroom Conditions for Motivation and Engagement in Reading.” Educational Psychology Review 13 (3):283–302. Guthrie, John, P. Van Meter, G. Hancock, S. Alao, E. Anderson, and A. McCann. 1998. “Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase Strategy Use and Conceptual Learning from Text?” Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (2):261–278. Oshima, J., Marlene Scardamalia, and Carl Bereiter. 1996. “Collaborative Learning Processes Associated with High and Low Conceptual Progress.” Instructional Science 24:125–155. Scardamalia, Marlene, Carl Bereiter, and Mary Lamon. 1994. “The CSILE Project: Trying to Bridge the Classroom into World 3.” In Kate McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, pp. 201–228. Cambridge: MIT Press. VanSledright, Bruce, and Christine Kelly. 1998. “Reading American History: The Influence of Using Multiple Sources on Six Fifth Graders.” Elementary School Journal 98:239–265.
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts Conceptual change learning (CCL) involves students in perceiving the inconsistency between their preconceptions and a new conception to be learned. To learn the new conception, students may need to reorganize or replace their incom93
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts plete knowledge structure. Conceptual change text refers to a type of text that is designed to help students to see the conflict between their preconceptions and the new conception by providing scientific explanations of a natural phenomenon. Such text includes the refutational text and text that is integrated in computer simulations to facilitate conceptual change. Despite the variations in forms, conceptual change text explicitly contrasts or challenges intuitive understandings of natural phenomena with scientifically accepted theories. Conceptual change text is designed in accordance with the four necessary conditions (i.e., dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness) specified in a theoretical model of conceptual change (Posner et al., 1982). George Posner and his colleagues argued that conceptual change is based on the conditions that students should feel dissatisfied with their preconceptions, that they should understand the new scientific conception, that the new conception should solve problems that old concepts cannot solve, and that students should have an opportunity to apply the newly learned conception to a different situation.
tional goals such as self-efficacy and levels of interest, are related to the depth of text processing in conceptual change learning. Conceptual Change Text Research during the 1980s During the 1980s, researchers in reading education examined effects for a review of different texts on conceptual change (see Guzzetti et al., 1993, for a review). Research on conceptual change texts established that refutational text, in general, has a positive effect on eradicating students’ misconceptions. Specifically, its effectiveness is shown when it is combined with strategies like demonstration and the Discussion Web, which directly challenge students’ misconceptions. Two variations of refutational text are: refutational considerate expository text and considerate soft expository text. Refutational considerate expository text enables students to gather appropriate information with minimal effort, whereas considerate soft expository text is a hybrid text that combines narrative with expository structures. Both refutational considerate expository text and considerate soft expository text have also been found to be effective in facilitating students’ conceptual change. As Guzzetti and her colleagues (1993) pointed out, researchers in reading education have been more interested than researchers in science education in exploring alternative types of text and text-based strategies in their misconception studies. That is why the studies investigating the effects of different types of text were conducted by researchers in reading education.
Conceptual Change Learning Research Conceptual change learning has been a focus of research in reading and science education since the 1980s. The theory that undergirds conceptual change learning was originally developed using Jean Piaget’s cognitive model and schema theory. Researchers since the early 1990s have begun to acknowledge the important role played by students’ motivational goals, their epistemological beliefs, and various social factors in conceptual change learning. Using a Vygotskian perspective, some researchers have stressed that conceptual change learning is socially constructed. Conceptual change learning in science involves both personal and social processes rather than a purely cognitive process that can be stimulated simply by challenging students’ commonsense conceptions through discrepant events. Students’ commonsense conceptions should be examined in different social contexts. Other researchers have emphasized the importance of students’ epistemological beliefs and motivational goals in their levels of cognitive engagement in classroom academic tasks, particularly in their willingness to persist at these tasks. Epistemological beliefs, together with motiva-
Conceptual Change Text Research during the 1990s Since the 1990s, new focuses have emerged in research on conceptual change texts. Researchers have started to examine text structures that are designed for conceptual change and that investigate students’ responses to the different kinds of texts used in the process of conceptual change learning. In addition, a few researchers have begun to use computer simulations that integrate texts to help students to make conceptual change. A large body of research on conceptual change learning (Chambers and Andre, 1997; Hynd, Alvermann, and Qian, 1997; see also Guzzetti et al., 1993, for a review) has documented the effec94
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts tiveness of refutational text. Researchers have become interested in examining students’ responses to various kinds of refutational texts (e.g., expository versus narrative refutational texts) when they are engaged in conceptual change learning (Guzzetti et al., 1997); researchers are also evaluating the quality of texts in science textbooks on the complex concepts that require conceptual change (Shiland, 1997). Barbara Guzzetti and her research team (1997) involved high-school students taking science courses in discussing their preferences for and reactions to the different kinds of text structures, also asking them to comment on which texts were more credible or helpful in learning the science concept and to recommend how physics texts be written to be most helpful and effective. In conceptual change learning, students preferred refutational text in general and refutational expository text in particular. Students liked refutational text because that sort of text was easier to understand, enabled them to see why their naive conceptions were at variance with the scientific conceptions, and helped them to effectively learn the scientific concept. Students reported that they did not use science textbooks much to learn science concepts. In contrast, they learned the science concepts through experiments and labs or hands-on activities and from other sources by studying their notes and using rote memory. Students with different kinds of prior knowledge about the concept to be learned responded differently to the refutational text. Students who demonstrated a certain amount of prior knowledge but were not familiar with the terms and concepts found that refutational text was helpful in providing them with new concepts and terminology, allowing them to better understand explanations of counterintuitive ideas. However, students who had no prior knowledge of related concepts found that supplementing refutational text with teacher discussion was particularly helpful. Students also offered their insight into revising textbooks. They recommended that the refutational section in the text be highlighted to alert students to the important information and avoid confusion. Students complained that they were confused by ambiguous statements in the text. Therefore, they suggested that refutational text should directly and unambiguously refute the
wrong, unscientific conceptions. Students’ criticism of expository text commonly found in textbooks included using extraneous, unfamiliar concepts, citing complex examples rather than simple ones, and describing in imprecise language. Thomas Shiland (1997) applied the theoretical model of conceptual change offered by George Posner and his colleagues (1982) to evaluate the quality of textbook materials. By operationalizing the four conditions (i.e., dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness), Shiland examined six modern secondary chemistry textbooks on quantum mechanics. He found that the texts did not provide a sufficient basis for students to accept the quantum mechanical model over the Bohr model because none of the conditions of dissatisfaction, intelligibility, plausibility, and fruitfulness were met. The limitations of the Bohr model were not adequately discussed in the texts. The quantum model was not intelligibly presented. The texts did not clearly show how the quantum mechanical model can correct the shortcomings of the Bohr model. Students did not have ample opportunity to apply the quantum model in problem-solving situations. Since the 1990s, several studies (Biemans and Simons, 1995, 1996; Carlsen and Andre, 1992) have focused on the role of the computer simulation in conceptual change learning. Some researchers (Carlsen and Andre, 1992) were interested in combining a computer simulation with refutational text, while others (Biemans and Simons, 1995, 1996) examined the effects of a computer simulation integrated with text on conceptual change learning. These researchers believed that a computer simulation allowed students to actively test out their preconceptions and that an active test was more effective for students than reading refutational text. Although the computer simulation helped college students overcome misconceptions about electric circuits and acquire a more developmentally advanced model of series circuits, its combined effect with refutational text and its expected advantage over refutational text was not found (Carlsen and Andre, 1992). The nonsignificant result might be related to the technical difficulties in using the simulation. Based on the four conditions of conceptual change, Karen Sheila Ali (cited in Biemans and Simons 1995, 1996) developed a computer simulation model called CONTACT strategy 95
Conceptual Change Learning and Texts (CONTinuousACTivation) to facilitate conceptual change. Ali’s CONTACT strategy consists of five steps that include searching for preconceptions, comparing and contrasting preconceptions with the new information, formulating new conceptions, applying new conceptions, and evaluating the new conceptions. The activity of “studying the text” is integrated after searching for one’s own preconceptions or after evaluating the new conceptions. Students are required to compare and contrast their preconceptions with the scientific information after they study the text. Feedback is given to ensure that students learn the correct conceptions. Finally, students have to evaluate the new conception by comparing it with their answer to the practice question. Students have to state whether both answers are in concordance with each other or not. If not, the students have to study the most important part of the text again. This procedure has to be followed until students learn the correct conception. Biemans and Simons (1996) have revised the CONTACT strategy in order to increase the efficiency and flexibility of the strategy and solve the problem of selective attention. Two major adaptations are related to the text used in the strategy. One adaptation concerns the use of visual presentation of the concept. When students are engaged in searching for their own preconceptions, formulating new conceptions, or applying the new conceptions, they can ask for a corresponding picture. Both text information and visual presentation are used to optimize the students’ opportunities to activate their conceptions. The other adaptation concerns highlighting the most important information in the text. When students are comparing and contrasting the preconditions with the new information and evaluating the new conceptions, crucial concepts are accentuated in different colors to focus the students’ attention on essential elements in the text. Additional adaptations have been made to spread students’ attention by stressing the comprehension of the whole text in the training process, accentuating all the important information from the text, optimizing scrolling options so that students can search for information on other text screens, and reducing procedural steps so that students can pay more attention to the text itself. The studies by Biemans and Simons (1995, 1996) involved fifth- and sixth-
grade students in conceptual change learning. They found that the original and revised CONTACT strategies had different effects on conceptual change learning among students who had different degrees of familiarity with the subject matter. Research on text with computer simulations has demonstrated that integration of text into computer simulations yields some encouraging results in conceptual change learning as compared to the use of refutational text as a separate strategy or discrete part of the computer simulation. Refutational text as an integral part of the computer simulation appears to have some advantages over the traditional use of refutational text. Researchers could easily accentuate the important information, optimize the scrolling options that help students search for information in other text screens, and present in multiple ways the scientific conception in both textual and visual modes. Gaoyin Qian See Also Narrative and Expository Text; Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions; Prior-Knowledge Assessment; Refutational Texts References Alvermann, Donna E., and Cynthia R. Hynd. December 1989. “The Influence of Discussion and Text on the Learning of Counterintuitive Science Concepts.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Biemans, Harm J. A., and P. Robert-Jan Simons. 1995. “How to Use Preconceptions? The Contact Strategy Dismantled.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 10:243–259. ———. 1996. “Contact 2: A Computer-Assisted Instructional Strategy for Promoting Conceptual Change.” Instructional Science 10:57–176. Carlsen, David D., and Thomas Andre. 1992. “Use of a Microcomputer Simulation and Conceptual Change Text to Overcome Student Preconceptions about Electric Circuits.” Journal of ComputerBased Instruction 19:105–109. Chambers, Sharon K., and Thomas Andre. 1997. “Gender, Prior Knowledge, Interest, and Experience in Electricity and Conceptual Change Text Manipulations in Learning about Direct Current.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:107–123. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tonja E. Snyder, Gene V. Glass, and Warren S. Gamas. 1993. “Promoting Conceptual Change in Science: A Comparative Meta-Analysis of Instructional Interventions from
96
Considerate Text learning. Two features of text that help readers make such connections are coherence and audience appropriateness.
Reading Education and Science Education.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:117–159. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Wayne O. Williams, Stephanie A. Skeels, and Shwu Ming Wu. 1997. “Influence of Text Structure on Learning Counterintuitive Physics Concepts.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:701–719. Hynd, Cynthia, Donna Alvermann, and Gaoyin Qian. 1997. “Preservice Elementary School Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Projectile Motion: Refutation Text.” Science Education 81:1–27. Pintrich, Paul R., Ronald W. Marx, and Robert A. Boyle. 1993. “Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Belief and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change.” Review of Educational Research 63:167–199. Posner, George J., Kenneth A. Strike, Peter W. Hewson, and William A. Gertzog. 1982. “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change.” Science Education 66:211–227. Shiland, Thomas W. 1997. “Quantum Mechanics and Conceptual Change in High School Chemistry Textbooks.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:535–545.
Coherence The more coherent the text is, the more the reader will be able to make internal connections and construct a coherent cognitive model of the information in the text. Texts cohere both globally and locally. Global coherence refers to text characteristics that facilitate the integration of high-level, important ideas across the entire text. Local coherence refers to several kinds of links or ties that connect ideas together within and between sentences. Global coherence is achieved by the overall structure or organization of the text. Structure refers to the system of arrangement of ideas in a text and the nature of the relationships connecting the ideas. A few basic text structures found in informational text include simple listing, compare and contrast, temporal sequence, cause and effect, and problem and solution. Research has shown that the better organized the text, the greater the learning. Also, the reader’s ability to identify and use the organization of the text enhances learning from reading. Therefore, a considerate text has a clear, easily identifiable organization. Clear text organization can be accomplished in several ways, for example, through the use of headings and subheadings, introductions and summaries, topic sentences, and signal words and phrases that announce the text structure. In considerate text, headings and subheadings provide information about upcoming content and how it is organized. For example, “Problems of the New Government” suggests a problem and solution structure, whereas “Distinguishing Poisonous from Nonpoisonous Snakes” indicates a compare and contrast structure. In considerate text, introductions and summaries provide clear, succinct information about the content and organization of an extended text segment. For example, a chapter introduction may announce a cause and effect structure by beginning: “This chapter describes how glaciers form and how they change the shape of the land . . .” Topic sentences can provide similar information for a single paragraph. The paragraph beginning with the topic sentence “There were four presidential candidates in the election of
Considerate Text Considerate, or friendly, text is readable, understandable, and memorable. The concept was developed in the early 1980s (Armbruster, 1984; Kantor, Anderson, and Armbruster, 1983) in response to the perception that some informational texts used in classrooms, especially content-area textbooks, were too difficult for students to read, understand, and remember. Considerate text is characterized by features such as coherence and audience appropriateness, which were suggested by cognitive theory and research to facilitate learning from reading. The notion of considerateness thus goes beyond readability, as measured by readability formulas. The concept of considerate text can be helpful in evaluating, revising, and writing informational text. According to cognitive theory, readers form a representation of what is read by making internal connections (connections among information within the text) as well as external connections (connections between text information and the reader’s prior knowledge and experience). Texts that help readers make internal and external connections enhance comprehension and 97
Considerate Text 1824” tells the reader to expect the paragraph to contain a simple listing of the four candidates, presumably including some descriptive information about each. Certain words and phrases also signal, or announce, the structure of considerate text. Most text structures have related signal words and phrases. For example, “because,” “therefore,” “as a result,” and “consequently” signify a cause and effect structure, whereas “similarly,”“both . . . and,” “in contrast,” and “on the other hand” denote a compare and contrast structure. A text is considerate if these signal words and phrases are used explicitly rather than left for the reader to infer. In addition to global coherence, considerate texts also have local coherence. Local coherence is achieved by means of several kinds of cohesive ties that help carry meaning across phrase, clause, and sentence boundaries. Examples of common cohesive ties include pronoun reference, or the use of a pronoun to refer to a previously mentioned noun (e.g., “The photocopy machine is down now. It will be repaired tomorrow.”); substitution, or the replacement of a word or words for a previously mentioned noun phrase, verb phrase, or clause (e.g., “The starlet, her male companion, and a cadre of reporters entered the hall. The party proceeded to the ballroom.”); and conjunctions or connectives (e.g., “Insect sounds are used to warn of danger or to woo a mate.”). A rather large body of research has established the importance of cohesive ties in understanding and remembering text. In addition to explicit and unambiguous pronoun references, substitutions, and conjunctions, considerate text also contains a clear, logical flow of information and transition statements that help the reader move easily from topic to topic. In short, considerate text helps readers make internal connections among textual ideas, which is necessary for forming a coherent representation of the text’s meaning.
A considerate text describes and explains information adequately for the target audience. A text is considerate if the author has explained the material using content, vocabulary, and language structure at a level appropriate to the reader’s background knowledge. If the text contains too much explanation, the reader may become bored; if too little, the reader will not understand. Unfortunately, some content-area textbooks present topics in such a superficial manner that readers often fail to grasp the concept or follow the explanation. Or the textbooks overwhelm the reader with too much new information, such as too many new vocabulary words. If the information load is too great, readers can become frustrated and abandon the task of trying to make sense of the text. In short, there must be an adequate match between what the reader knows before reading and what the author chooses to write down. Considerate texts also engage the reader. Readers must be actively engaged in the reading process to comprehend and learn. Of course, other factors besides the text influence the reader’s engagement, such as the reader’s interest in the topic and the situation in which the text is read (for example, whether it is self-selected and read for pleasure or assigned by a teacher). Aspects of the text, however, can affect the reader’s attention to and engagement in reading. Two aspects that have been investigated in research are interestingness and voice. Interesting features of text include inherently interesting topics, novelty, unexpectedness, character identification, lively anecdotes, fast action, and concrete and vivid detail. Research has shown that such intuitively appealing features of a text will not necessarily promote comprehension (e.g., Graves et al., 1991; Garner et al., 1991). For example, readers may recall more interesting details rather than less interesting important information. A related aspect of text that might affect engagement is voice. Voice refers to the qualities of text that help it speak to the reader or form a relationship between the author and the reader. For example, authors may add voice to text by using language that resembles oral language, by making events seem more real or immediate, or by describing the emotional reactions of the people in the text. Research has shown that comprehension can be enhanced by text that exhibits
Audience Appropriateness In addition to making internal connections, readers must also make external connections between the information in the text and their background knowledge and experience. Considerate text is appropriate to the needs of the reading audience in that it provides adequate explanation and elaboration of information and engages the reader. 98
Constructivism Textbooks.” Remedial and Special Education 9:47–52. Beck, Isabel L., Margaret G. McKeown, and Jo Worthy. 1995. “Giving a Text Voice Can Improve Students’ Understanding.” Reading Research Quarterly 30 (2):220–238. Garner, Ruth, Patricia A. Alexander, Mark G. Gillingham, Jonna M. Kulikowich, and Rachel Brown. 1991. “Interest and Learning from Text.” American Educational Research Journal 28 (3):643–659. Graves, Michael F., Maureen C. Prenn, Jason Earle, Marty Thompson, Vivian Johnson, and Wayne H. Slater. 1991. “Commentary: Improving Instructional Text: Some Lessons Learned.” Reading Research Quarterly 26 (2):110–122. Kantor, Robbie N., Thomas H. Anderson, and Bonnie B. Armbruster. 1983. “How Are Children’s Textbooks Inconsiderate? Or, of Flyswatters and Alfa.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 15 (1):61–72.
both coherence and voice; voice without coherence does not seem to enhance comprehension (Beck, McKeown, and Worthy, 1995). In sum, considerate text is appropriate to the reading audience for which it is intended in that it provides adequate explanation and elaboration of information and is able to engage the reader, perhaps by providing interest or personal connection to the reader. Beyond Readability Although readability is part of the concept of considerate text, the concept of considerateness goes beyond the traditional notion of the “readability” or difficulty of a text. Readability is typically measured by readability formulas, which are mathematical methods of estimating the grade level for which a text is suited. Readability formulas typically involve measures of word familiarity or difficulty and sentence length. Although the familiarity or difficulty of words and the length of sentences do contribute to the readability of a text, they are not the only, or even the most important, factors that affect readability.
Constructivism The term constructivism refers to a philosophical stance that emphasizes the generative, dynamic nature of communication and of other intellectual and social processes. Nancy Spivey Nelson (1997) defines constructivism as a theoretical metaphor that likens meaning-making to acts of construction, or acts of building, in which humans are the constructors, meaning or knowledge is their construction, and prior knowledge and experience are the constructive materials that are used. With respect to literacy, constructivists maintain that meaning is not located in texts and is not “taken” from texts by readers. Instead, meanings for texts are generated by readers in response to textual cues provided by writers, who had themselves engaged in the generative process of meaning construction that is known as composing. Since reading and writing are both active, creative processes, they have similarities, and one is not the inverse of the other. Scholarly work taking a constructivist perspective began to flourish in the late 1970s, although many of the principal tenets were articulated earlier during the nineteenth century by such philosophers as Immanuel Kant, Giambattista Vico, and Friedrich Hegel. The empirical and theoretical work from the twentieth century, which continues on into the twenty-first century, has tended to cut across disciplinary boundaries, coming from education, psychology, artificial in-
Usefulness of the Concept of Considerate Text The concept of considerate text can be helpful to educators, authors, and editors. Educators may wish to consider the features of considerate text when evaluating instructional materials. For example, textbook adoption committees may evaluate the relative considerateness of the textbooks they are considering (Armbruster and Anderson, 1988). Teachers may use the concept of considerate text to shed light on some of the reading comprehension problems of their students or to plan instruction that helps students read and understand inconsiderate text. Authors may use the concept to help them write considerate text, and editors may benefit from the notion in revising text. Bonnie B. Armbruster See Also Readability; Textbooks References Armbruster, Bonnie B. 1984. “The Problem of ‘Inconsiderate Text.’” In Gerald G. Duffy, Laura R. Roehler, and Jana Mason, eds., Comprehension Instruction: Perspectives and Suggestions, pp. 202–217. New York: Longman. Armbruster, Bonnie B., and Thomas H. Anderson. 1988. “On Selecting ‘Considerate’ Content Area
99
Constructivism telligence, linguistics, sociology, anthropology, and English studies. There are various forms of constructivism, and they can be differentiated, in part, by the notion of agency that they present: whether the constructive agent is portrayed as an individual, as a small group or pair of people, or as a large society or community. The various forms of constructivism to be discussed here, regardless of the nature of the constructive agent, are those that have had the most significant impact on literacy research and education.
A constructivist orientation has also guided research into cognitive aspects of composition. The focus for composition, as for reading, has been on operations of organizing, selecting, and connecting. For years, educators and scholars in composition had attended to the nature of the written product, but constructivists brought new attention to the mental product that is created when writers compose. In considering the nature of the mental product—meaning—they pointed out interesting and recursive changes that transpire over the course of composing. In accordance with these perspectives, writing instruction began to give greater attention to the process of composition. Besides this large body of work dealing with comprehension and composition, constructivist scholarship has dealt with the nature of cognition. Some of this work has been based on Piagetian cognitive-developmental constructivism, which focuses on, among other things, people’s ability to take the perspective of others. Other research has been grounded in George Kelly’s (1955) personal construct theory, which addresses the mental categories through which individuals perceive experiences and other people.
Cognitive Constructivism In cognitive constructivism, the individual is the primary agent for construction of knowledge. As the constructive agent, a person brings his or her own background, knowledge, and experience to the act of composing or comprehending and draws on them in organizing, selecting, and connecting mental material cued by the text. This constructivist perspective is shaped largely by the works of Frederic Bartlett, a British psychologist who published Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology in 1932. He examined the meaning-making processes of individuals through a series of studies that were to influence constructivist research in future decades. The best-known study in this collection is his work with the story “The War of the Ghosts,” in which Bartlett analyzed the recall processes of readers and theorized about their meaning-making processes. Four decades after Bartlett’s book was published, researchers began to follow Bartlett’s lead and appropriated aspects of his approach: considering people’s prior knowledge (of the topic, of the discourse pattern, of the genre, and so on) and analyzing the kinds of selections and additions they make when integrating their textual understandings with their own worldviews or putting them to their own uses. From the late 1970s into the 1990s, numerous constructivist studies focused on the following topics: knowledge frameworks (e.g., schemas, scripts); text organization, particularly stories but also expository patterns; and the types of inferences, or additions, that people make when they read. Literacy educators took these new understandings about reading and developed strategies for enhancing and monitoring comprehension through active reading processes that drew from students’ prior experiences.
Social Constructivism In recent years there has been a growing interest in the social aspects of meaning-making (Bruffee, 1984), in which groups of people serve as collaborative constructive agents. Some groups, which tend to be relatively small, are composed of people who interact directly with one another, such as students in a classroom, members of a book discussion group, or participants in an online listserver. The group engages in shared literary practices, such as discussing a text or authoring a story, and, in doing so, constructs knowledge that is shared—knowledge that can be said to be socially constructed. When working together, group members follow spoken or unspoken discourse conventions. Much of the work taking this perspective on literate practices is grounded in the Vygotskian view that intrapsychological development derives from interpsychological interactions with others. These new perspectives on learning and comprehension altered literacy instruction, as the nature of classrooms became more collaborative than didactic. However, larger discourse communities or even societies may also be seen as constructive 100
Content-Area Literacy agents, collectively building knowledge. Social constructivism taking this more macro perspective is sometimes labeled constructionism. Communication in large collectives, whose members do not necessarily come in direct contact or even know one another, often takes place through written discourse. An example would be a disciplinary discourse community, communicating largely through its journals and books and sharing its knowledge through those forums (Porter, 1986). Potential scholarly contributions go through a review, or gatekeeping, process and are judged socially in accordance with community norms before they are considered “knowledge.” Even in large communities, individual members still identify with one another in terms of shared values, practices, and language, and individuals are connected through common goals and interests. Deborah J. Davis
texts, represent sets of potential meanings for students who study a subject. To be literate in a given subject area, students must use reading, writing, and speech to construct meaning as they engage in text-related learning. The ability to use literacy to learn, however, varies from subject area to subject area. Content-area literacy is always situational. A variety of learner-related, text-related, and classroom-related factors influence content literacy in a given subject area. Some of these situational factors include the learner’s prior knowledge of, attitude toward, and interest in the subject; the learner’s purpose for reading and writing; the language and conceptual difficulty of the instructional material; the way ideas are organized in text; the assumptions authors make about their audience of readers; and the beliefs and attitudes teachers have about the use of texts in their instructional routines. Cognitive and metacognitive principles undergird many of the content-area literacy practices evident in classrooms today. Cognitive processes permit students to think with texts. Metacognitive processes, in a similar vein, allow students to be aware of their own cognitive processes as they read and to engage in self-monitoring activity during meaning construction. Teachers who hold constructivist beliefs recognize that students learn with text, not necessarily from texts. The expression “learning from text” suggests that the flow of meaning is from text to reader. Learning with text, however, implies that a transaction takes place between the reader and the text rather than the transmission of knowledge from text to reader. Within a constructivist framework, students have much to contribute to their own learning as they negotiate meaning and socially construct knowledge through learning situations that require reading, writing, and discussion. Content-area literacy requires that learning be strategic. Strategic readers and writers are not only knowledgeable about their own reading and writing processes but also in control of reading and writing activities. Strategic learners develop and use a repertoire of strategies to make sense of text during reading and writing. They know what, how, when, and why it is important to monitor what they are reading and writing and to regulate their use of comprehension and composing strategies. As a result, content-area literacy practices depend on the teacher’s ability to
See Also Social Constructivism References Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruffee, Kenneth A. 1984. “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind. College English 46:635–662. Kelly, George A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Nelson, Nancy Spivey. 1997. The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning. San Diego: Academic Press. Porter, James E. 1986. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5:34–47.
Content-Area Literacy Content-area literacy reflects the ability to use reading, writing, and discussion to learn in a given subject area. It is often defined as the level of reading, writing, and discussion skill that learners need in an academic subject to comprehend and respond to ideas in texts used for instructional purposes. In today’s content-area classrooms, instructional materials are typically fixed in typesetter’s ink on printed pages or appear on a computer screen in an electronic environment. More often than not, students encounter these texts as reading assignments made from textbooks, the Internet, CD-ROMs, trade books, magazines, newspapers, reference materials, and the like. Instructional materials, like all 101
Content-Area Literacy scaffold instruction. Scaffolded instruction allows content-area teachers to provide the level of support that students need to develop and use reading and writing strategies to learn subject matter.
of content-area reading practices. The irony behind their resistance toward reading is that content-area teachers genuinely value the role that reading plays in learning but fail to attend to reading in their own practices. The RICA movement has experienced a major paradigmatic shift since Gray’s time. From the early 1900s through the 1960s, the predominant paradigm was skills based. Early on in the RICA movement, reading researchers were as interested in the identification of reading and study skills associated with each of the content areas as they were in the effects of various instructional variables on the acquisition of reading/study skills and learning in content areas. As a result, a popular practice in the 1920s and 1930s was to list specific reading and study skills unique to a given content area. Some researchers compared students’ performance on general tests of reading with performance on content-specific achievement tests. Typically, they found that the ability to read generally is related to the ability to read in a given content area, but not perfectly. As a result, they concluded that there are skills common to different subject areas, but some of these skills hold special relationships to achievement in each of the subject areas. A recurring issue related to the skills paradigm—locus of instruction—dominated the research on content-area reading (Moore, Readence, and Rickelman, 1983). Locus of instruction refers to the configuration of instructional variables that affect reading and subject-matter learning: for example, the appropriate teacher to deliver reading skills (reading teacher or content teacher); the appropriate location in which instruction takes place (reading classroom or content classroom); and the appropriate instructional material (general reading materials or subject-matter textbooks). As a result, reading researchers studied the effects of teaching reading and study skills from two fundamentally different instructional approaches: (1) the “direct” instructional approach, in which the teaching of reading and study skills is separate from the content classroom, is based on the assumption of transfer to content areas, and (2) the “functional” instructional approach, in which the teaching of reading is embedded within the context of content learning, using content course materials. The functional approach is based on the assumption that reading
A Historical Perspective Content-area literacy is of critical importance in the academic lives of students because it helps to shape the learning strategies by which they construct knowledge and think critically about texts. Like most instructional concepts, the term content-area literacy has evolved over time. It has its historical roots in two distinct but related educational movements: reading in content areas (RICA) and writing across the curriculum (WAC). However, it is only in the past two decades that content-area literacy has been used consistently as a descriptor to characterize students’ ability to use reading and writing to learn in academic contexts. Since the beginning of the twentieth century, when researchers and scholars first became interested in the relationship between reading and learning, interest focused almost exclusively on reading in content areas, with very little attention focused on the role that writing plays in learning. William S. Gray, preeminent among first-generation reading educators, is often credited with having forged the beginnings of the RICA movement. Today, RICA is a well-established area of inquiry and study in the literacy field—so much so that one would hardly think of it as a movement. Yet at the onset of the twentieth century, there was little concerted activity within the educational community to champion the relationship between reading and learning in content areas. Beginning in the early 1900s, however, Gray and others argued that effective teaching must provide for the improvement and refinement of the reading, attitudes, habits, and skills that are needed in all school activities involving reading. He is often associated with what has become an ill-fated cliché in education, “Every teacher is a teacher of reading.” The saying did not go over well with teachers in Gray’s time and continues to be misunderstood, if not rejected, by today’s contentarea teachers. Often cultural and school organizational forces work against the use of contentarea reading practices and exert enormous influence on the way content-area teachers view their roles, think about instruction, and resist the use 102
Content-Area Literacy is best facilitated by content-area teachers in authentic-learning situations. The shift away from a skills paradigm to a cognitive learning paradigm occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. Reading researchers focused their energy on better understanding the role of cognitive and metacognitive processes in reading and on validating learning strategies grounded in cognitive and metacognitive principles. As a result, numerous reading research studies related to prior knowledge, text structure, metacognition, and strategic learning have had a major influence on today’s content-area reading practices. Early in the shift away from a skills paradigm, Harold Herber (1970) wrote the first textbook exclusively devoted to reading in content areas. His seminal work resulted in a renaissance within the RICA movement. Herber developed an instructional model based on a functional approach to reading in content areas. He argued that skills taught in reading classes are applicable to content materials, but students must adapt the skills to meet the peculiarities of each subject they study. For nearly two decades, Herber and his research associates sought to refine and validate promising instructional strategies and procedures designed to guide reading and learning, some of which form the basis for content-area literacy practice today. Since the publication of Herber’s textbook, numerous other books have been written on content-area reading practices, all of which reflect a cognitive learning perspective. The proliferation of content-area reading textbooks in the 1980s and 1990s has extended the RICA movement into the twenty-first century. But more important, these books recognized the powerful bonds between reading and writing. The term content-area literacy came into play in the mid1980s and 1990s as literacy scholars sought to better understand and explain how reading and writing relate to learning. Moreover, they drew substantively on writing-process research and the WAC movement to explore the role that writing plays in subject-matter learning. Because so much of what students write about is tied to what they are reading, writing across the curriculum is more likely to result in students reading text material on a regular basis rather than delaying reading until it is time to take a test on the material. When students write about what they have read, both the writing task and the dif-
ficulty of the text material contribute to the kind of learning that takes place. Writing tasks, in which students connect personal experiences, thoughts, and opinions, often produce better results than study questions on various measures of student performance such as time on task and the recall of information from text. The WAC movement emerged from groundbreaking writing theory and research conducted in the 1970s in England by James Britton and his research team. The researchers were mainly concerned with understanding the types of writing used by adolescents in various school-related situations. They discovered that writing to learn centered around the distinction between expressive and transactional functions of language. A transactional writing function is academic and formal in nature. It serves to inform, persuade, and instruct. Transactional discourse is not the discourse of students’ everyday use of language, which is more expressive and informal. Transactional functions of writing dominated all school subjects and were most evident in learning tasks where students were required to report and record information being studied (Britton et al., 1975). Today, the WAC movement has made its presence felt in middle and high schools as well as on college campuses. Leading advocates of writing across the curriculum encourage teachers in all disciplines to use writing to improve student learning. They argue that students can use writing to interact personally with ideas and information without the pressure of producing polished, finished products. Teachers assign writing not to produce excellent pieces of writing but to get students to explore ways of making sense of text material. The WAC movement underscores the importance of the expressive functions of writing, which are best suited for exploration and discovery. When school-related writing practices encourage informal, everyday language to express thoughts, feelings, and opinions, students are more likely to think about and explore new ideas encountered in learning situations. The expressive function is often missing in students’ writing in content-area classrooms, especially in situations where teachers have not been exposed to the theory and practice of writing as an instrument of learning, reflection, and discovery. Richard T. Vacca 103
Context in Literacy See Also Constructivism; Metacognition; Multiple Texts; Study Skills and Strategies; Transmission Instruction; Writing across the Curriculum References Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen. 1975. The Development of Writing Abilities (11–18). London: Macmillan Education. Herber, Harold. 1970. Teaching Reading in the Content Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: PrenticeHall. Moore, David, John Readence, and Robert Rickelman. 1983. “An Historical Exploration of Content Area Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 18:419–438.
text, the linguistic context, or the interpersonal context). Sometimes the term was used in multiple ways within a single article. The researchers also found that in some areas of study, the term was theoretically defined in initial research studies (e.g., the linguistic context) but in later studies was assumed by other authors to be understood, and thus left undefined. This assumption that a particular term is commonly understood is at the center of the problem. Alessandro Duranti and Charles Goodwin (1992) provide insights into why context has become so problematic and why it is important to understand what counts as context for particular researchers, readers, and speakers. They present a view of context as crucial to both qualitative and quantitative studies and as having a shifting set of definitions as new perspectives and research traditions have been developed. In the fields focusing on language study, context has become viewed as a product of language use (an interactionally accomplished phenomena) rather than as functioning as a set of constraints on linguistic performance or predefined sets of forms and contents. Duranti and Goodwin view the concept of context as key to understanding the relationships among language, culture, and social organization, as well as in the study of how language is structured. They argue that currently, with the broad range of paradigms concerned with the study of language in context, a single definition may not be possible or even desirable. Rather, what is necessary is the understanding of how context is used, what it means within a particular situation or study, and how its definition influences what can be known. If we adapt Duranti and Goodwin’s argument to the study of context in literacy, and the converse, literacy in context, the definition of the term context must be seen as tied closely to theoretical positions on what counts as literacy and the units of analysis resulting from different theoretical stances to the study of literacy. These relationships vary from traditional views of context as given to views of context as the product of interactions.
Context in Literacy What counts as context in literacy is one of the key issues facing educators and researchers alike. This was made visible by two comparative studies of the way the term context is viewed across research programs both within literacy studies and across fields concerned with language in use. Lesley Rex, Judith Green and Carol Dixon (1998) conducted a review of all uses of the term context in literacy studies published in major literacy research journals—Reading Research Quarterly and Research in the Teaching of English (1989–1993) and Journal of Literacy Research (1996). These years were reviewed to provide a profile of publications across editorial teams and to insure that work across theoretically different periods of time was covered. The 1996 journal review was conducted to make certain that the patterns in the earlier review were present at the time of publication and in the journal in which the publications would occur. Rex and her colleagues found little consistency in how the term context was used, few attempts to operationally or theoretically define it, and little to no overlap in citations in articles. These inconsistencies were due to a range of factors such as differences in the object of study (e.g., the society, a classroom, people interacting, a printed text, and linguistic features of a text), in theoretical perspectives (e.g., linguistic, sociocultural, behaviorist, feminist, and structuralist), and in the view of the phenomena studied (e.g., literacy, reading, writing, and in some recent cases, speaking). Often the term context was preceded by another term (e.g., the political context, the school con-
Traditional or Predefined Views of Context The traditional view of literacy often equates to a single reader with a single text, defining context as the words around the particular word or bit of text that readers draw on to make meaning from 104
Context in Literacy the text. The text is viewed as the container and boundary in which the meaning is held. The units of analysis for this definition of context are the printed words in a sentence, a page, a paragraph, or in some instances, larger segments of the text. Underlying this view of context are a set of assumptions about what readers use to make meaning and what meanings it is possible to make. From this perspective, meaning is in the words in the text, both in individual words and in strings of words. A brief review of language arts and reading textbooks shows that contextual surround, the words around a particular word or bit of text, commonly defines the meaning of context in such textbooks. Nevertheless, if we reconsider the findings reported by Rex, Green, and Dixon (1998), context has also been equated with setting, often treated as a variable (i.e., social context is defined in terms of socioeconomic status) or a physical place (e.g., home context, classroom context, or community context). From this perspective, context is a source of influence, but what constitutes context is represented by surrogates. Often context is reduced to a single aspect and is assumed to remain the same in all ways it is used. For example, even when home context is a variable, differences in the amount of space available to a child at home to read or do his or her work, the number of people living in the space, the relationships of the child to those in the home or other space, and other aspects of the home situation may not be considered. A similar argument can be made for terms such as linguistically or culturally diverse classrooms, bilingual speakers, biliterate readers, gifted and talented students, special-needs students, as well as traditional classrooms or regular education students. The variation within each category and the complexity of populations and places makes the use of these descriptors as definitions of context or even the population problematic.
ity) as contexts for each other, and of contexts as a product of interactions between and among people or between a person and the object (artifact) with which she or he is interacting (see Constructivism, and Social Constructivism). For example, Fredrick Erickson and Jeffrey Shultz (1981) argue that context is not given in the setting (e.g., the dinner table) but in what people are doing with each other. From this perspective, people read the contextualization cues (e.g., pitch, stress, intonation, gesture, eye gaze), kinesics (movements or gestures of participants), and proxemics (the distance between participants), as well as objects that accompany the lexical items (i.e., words) in a speech event. They then select among the possible ways of reading the activity (speech) those that are socially appropriate to what is being proposed and negotiated and then take action in relationship to those interpretations. Mikhail Bakhtin (1986) argues that speakers and writers speak/write with an implicated other in mind, whether physically present or not, and hearers/readers hear/read with the speaker/writer in mind. Thus, the context of speaking/writing is a dialogic event with context represented in the choices of lexical items and speech genres between and among hearers/readers. Research from this perspective examines how people in interaction socially organize and accomplish the work of interacting by examining the moment-by-moment accomplishment of context. What counts as context is signaled in participants’ discourse and actions, what they hold each other accountable to and for, what they orient to, and how they take up and respond to what is occurring (see Discourse Analysis, and Discursive Theory). Context, from this perspective, is not static or given but is constantly being constructed and reconstructed by participants in a given event. By extension, what counts as literacy and literacy in context is also produced by participants of the event (see Discourse Analysis).
Context as Socially Accomplished The conceptualization of context as socially constructed or accomplished is grounded in work across a number of disciplines, including anthropology, pragmatics, sociohistorical psychology, sociolinguistics, and sociology (see Sociolinguistics and Literacy). Across these traditions is the understanding of the social construction of everyday life, of people and their actions (activ-
Intertextuality as Interacting Contexts In the 1980s and 1990s, the importance of the concept of intertextuality (linking two texts within a single context) for literacy studies has been recognized (see Intertextuality). Intertextuality has been examined in two principal ways. For some, it is present in the citations across articles or other texts, linking one text to another, 105
Context in Literacy not merely one author to another. In this approach, intertextuality has been used as an analytic tool to explore how texts are informed by and related to others across time, and in some instances, across languages. This perspective is the more traditional way in which intertextuality, seen as interacting text, has been examined. The second way that intertextuality has been conceptualized draws on the work on social construction and the understanding that words are not mere lexical items but represent concepts and bring with them the historical context in which the concepts were used. David Bloome and Ann Egan-Robertson (1993) argue that intertextuality is not reflected in the mere juxtaposition of texts but in the actions of people in everyday life. They provide five criteria that reveal the intertextual nature of everyday life. For them, intertextuality is (1) proposed, (2) recognized, (3) acknowledged, (4) interactionally accomplished, and (5) socially significant to participants in an event, whether that event includes multiple people or a single reader with a text. That is, participants in events, in the choices of lexical items, the discourse practices they use, the actions they take, and the speech genres they use with each other signal what counts as an intertextual link across contexts. This view of intertextuality provides an expanded view of text. It goes beyond the view of text as a written document to include people as texts for each other, historicity of texts, the world as text, and other dimensions of discourse and actions, among others. From this perspective, context is both developing in the moment and brought to the moment by participants. One way to view these types of intertextual links is through the concepts of vertical and horizontal intertextuality. Horizontal intertextuality refers to the developing context and links between and among texts in the moment. Vertical intertextuality refers to the historical linking of texts over time. These distinctions provide a way of viewing context as not merely what is present in the here and now; multiple contexts are always present in any interactions between and among members of a social group.
working across theoretical perspectives or cultural groups. Joanne Golden (1988) asked: If a text exists without a reader, is there any meaning? In reviewing structuralist, phenomenological, and rhetorical perspectives on reader-response theory, she explored how these theories conceptualized the relationships among real readers, ideal readers, and authors. From this comparative study, she argued that theories view meaning as in the text, as in the head of the reader, or as between the text and the reader, and that each view brings a different set of relationships among author(s), reader(s), and text(s). Her comparative analysis suggested that to understand context in literacy, it is also important to understand how the theoretical position of the researcher inscribes a particular set of relationships from the outset, thus implicating particular views of context and its influence in what counts as reading, author, reader, and text. Another important conceptualization of the relationship between context and literacy comes from sociocultural studies of literacy within and across local, national, and international contexts. From a sociocultural perspective, a distinction is made between traditional views of literacy and more grounded or socially oriented views of literacy. Traditional conceptualizations of literacy view it as a set of skills or processes that a person develops within his or her own head. In contrast to this view is the conceptualization of literacy as a sociocultural phenomenon. From this perspective, people learn and develop literacy practices within a community. The practices are constructed by members as they interact across time and events, and from these moments of participation, individual members acquire, develop, and construct the practices that define what counts as literacy within a classroom, a local community, a nation, and across national boundaries. The potential impact of these two conceptualizations can be seen in the ways in which different views of literacy reflect perspectives in the research field when we need to understand what counts as literacy when literacy is counted. From this perspective, when researchers want to count instances of literacy for national and cross-national studies, it is crucial to identify clear units of analysis, the boundaries of those units, and the perspectives guiding the research. Without criteria for understanding the differences, what
Context in Literacy as Culturally Constituted These views of context and intertextuality suggest that it is important to understand how context in literacy has been viewed by researchers 106
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative Learning
counts as context in literacy will be invisible, the aggregation of knowledge across studies will be constrained, and policy implications of work will be difficult to ascertain. These differing views of context show that without an understanding of what each researcher means by context or what each group reading the research understands context to be, the influence or role of context in literacy will remain invisible. Any research program has a language that influences what questions are appropriate to ask, what methods are used, and what can be known. Each of the conceptions of context in literacy presented previously can be understood as one possible representation, not the representation. Viewed in this way, the importance of understanding and making explicit what counts as context in literacy studies becomes crucial to understanding the policy and practice implications of literacy research. Judith L. Green and Carol N. Dixon
Cooperative learning is a process to actively engage students in their own learning through structured group participation. Cooperative groups can be formed in pairs but are more commonly arranged in small groups. Students interact with each other, exchange information and ideas, and are held accountable for their own learning. Perhaps the most well-known advocate of cooperative learning is Robert Slavin (1983). Slavin conducted a two-year study of cooperative learning in reading and language arts instruction. Students were engaged in reading and process-writing activities related to stories they read in heterogeneous learning teams (Stevens and Slavin, 1995). These students were compared in achievement to students who had not experienced cooperative learning. Those elementary students who were exposed to cooperative learning as well as the other strategies demonstrated higher achievement in reading vocabulary, comprehension, and language expression than those who were not. Cooperative learning has also been used as an instructional approach in content areas such as mathematics, social studies, and science. It is an approach that is complementary to inquiry learning in subject areas. Students in inquiry form their own questions and in cooperative groups often use multiple texts to find the answers to their queries. Research on cooperative learning in subject areas has had mixed results. For example, some researchers in literacy, like Nancy Marshall (1991) and Cynthia Hynd and her colleagues (1994) found that when students were placed into cooperative learning groups for science instruction, those who were the most powerful or influential speakers persuaded others to accept their nonscientific conceptions. In other words, students in cooperative learning groups convinced each other of their misconceptions. Hence, cooperative learning needs to be carefully structured and monitored with teacher guidance. Barbara J. Guzzetti
See Also Constructivism; Discourse Analysis; Discursive Theory; Intertextuality; Social Constructivism; Sociolinguistics and Literacy References Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Bloome, David, and Ann Egan-Robertson. 1993. “The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.” Reading Research Quarterly 28 (4):304–334. Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin. 1992. Rethinking Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Erickson, Fredrick, and Jeffrey Shultz. 1981. “When Is a Context? Some Issues and Methods in the Analysis of Social Competence.” In Judith Green and Cynthia Wallat, eds., Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings, pp. 147–150. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Golden, Joanne. 1988. “The Construction of a Literary Text in a Story Reading Lesson.” In Judith Green and Judy Harker, eds., Multiple Perspective Analyses of Classroom Discourse, pp. 71–106. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rex, Lesley, Judith Green, and Carol Dixon. 1998. “What Counts When Context Counts: The Uncommon ‘Common’ Language of Literacy Research.” Journal of Literacy Research 30 (3):405–433.
See Also Inquiry-Based Instruction; Multiple Texts References Hynd, Cynthia, Melinda McNish, Gaoyin Quian, Mark Keith, and Katherine Lay. 1994. Learning Counter-Intuitive Science Concepts: Effects of Text
107
Critical Literacy
Groups of students studying together (Michael Siluk)
also critically read a work of art, a movie, a popular toy, or a television news broadcast. Critical literacy focuses on the issue of power and how people use language (or art, or math, and so on) to question and confront injustices both locally and in the larger society. Critical-literacy practices teach people how to gain a greater understanding of the ways social and cultural forces shape their choices and their lives. These practices are rooted in the belief that although democratic principles are regularly voiced in cultural discourse, they are often not enacted in daily life. Critical literacy offers a way to analyze, understand, and confront the social practices that afford power to certain groups and deny it to others. Critical linguists argue that power is exercised through language and that language study reveals how power supports or disrupts dominant systems of meaning (Fairclough, 1989). People who adopt a critical-literacy perspective question the everyday world, challenge the legitimacy of socially constructed power relationships, interrogate the relationship between language and power, and consider actions that
and Educational Environment. Research report no. 16. Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Marshall, Nancy. December 1991. “The Effects of Social Pressure and Personal Belief on Overcoming Science Misconceptions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL. Slavin, Robert E. 1983. Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman. Stevens, Robert, and Robert Slavin. 1995. “The Cooperative Elementary School Effects on Students’ Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations.” American Educational Research Journal 32 (2):321–351.
Critical Literacy Critical literacy is an approach to literacy that focuses on creating readers who are aware that texts position people in certain ways and serve some interests but not others. Critical literacy goes beyond narrow definitions of text, using a variety of sign systems as lenses to examine how power and privilege operate in the world. Just as people can read a piece of text critically, they can 108
Critical Literacy can be taken to promote social justice. They analyze popular culture and media and build an appreciation of multiple realities and viewpoints. Influenced by the work of Paulo Freire (1972), critical theorists and literacy educators have advocated these practices over the past thirty years. Although critical-literacy practices are slowly gaining acceptance by classroom teachers, many still consider them to be out of the mainstream and radical. Critical literacies are rooted in principles of democracy and justice, questioning and analysis, resistance and action—all uncommon in the traditional pedagogy that defines a teacher as a transmitter of knowledge. In addition, these practices are substantively different from what are commonly referred to as critical-thinking approaches. Although critical-thinking practices have focused more on logic and comprehension, critical literacies have focused on identifying social practices that keep dominant ways of knowing in place. Five dimensions of critical literacy can be discussed separately, but they are actually interdependent. These include: interrogating the everyday world, questioning power relationships, appreciating multiple realities and viewpoints, analyzing popular culture and media, and taking action to promote social justice.
grammar, and cultural discourses work in terms of agency, passivity, and power. Another aspect of interrogating the everyday world is for individuals and groups to examine how cultural and historical influences have shaped all aspects of life, including the experience of schooling. Using education as an example, it is possible to open up pedagogy and curricular content for critique by asking why some groups benefit from current forms of education more than others. Critical educators encourage investigation of a wide range of commonly held assumptions like beliefs that boys are better at sports (or math) than girls, students who live in poverty don’t have many cultural resources to bring to school, and competitive sports build character. In an environment where teachers focus on expanding critical literacies, students are also encouraged to interrogate classroom and environmental texts by asking questions about authors’ intentions and what they want readers to believe (Luke and Freebody, 1997). As a way of interrogating the commonplace, Paulo Freire calls for a problem-posing rather than a problem-solving curriculum where classroom engagements are grounded in the lives and interests of students. He urges educators to present information to students that is directly related to questions raised in the classroom community and not in a prescribed curriculum. In this model, teachers and children negotiate curriculum, allowing space for real-life issues and popular culture to become topics of study. Students play a major role in planning, gathering resources, and assessing learning. The goal is for teachers to become partners with students in meaningful inquiry.
Interrogating the Everyday World Routines, habits, beliefs, and theories about how the world works and what it takes to be successful guide all aspects of people’s lives. These factors impact the social groups people join, how they spend their time, and the careers they pursue. Without a critical perspective, these assumptions are seen as sensible and innocent, often just the way things are, and not in need of examination. A critical stance requires a step outside of one’s usual modes of perception and comprehension using new frames to understand experience. Patrick Shannon (1995) argues for the development of a language of critique. This language can then be used to disrupt what is considered to be normal by asking new questions, seeing everyday issues through new lenses, demystifying naturalized views of the world, and visualizing how things might be different. One way a language of critique can be developed is through the study of language itself. This includes analyzing how language is socially situated, how it shapes identity, and how words,
Questioning Power Relationships Advocates of critical literacy suggest that although teaching is a non-neutral form of social practice, it often takes place with no conscious awareness of the sociopolitical systems and power relationships that are part of every teaching episode. Studying how language works can be a productive tool for deconstructing and reconstructing the relationships between language and power. Taking a critical-literacy perspective requires an analysis of how language is used to maintain domination, how nondominant groups can gain access to dominant forms of language without devaluing their own language and 109
Critical Literacy culture, how diverse forms of language can be used as cultural resources, and how social action can change existing discourses (Janks, 2000). As a result of researching and analyzing language and power, educators with critical perspectives challenge the legitimacy of unequal power relationships, question existing hierarchies, and examine social structures that keep power in the hands of a few. They interrogate privilege and status, not just in lives of others but in their own lives as well. They investigate oppression—especially forms of oppression that appear to be natural or part of the status quo. This means that their students study a wide scope of power relationships ranging from issues of why some children are marginalized on the playground to why some groups of people are marginalized in the larger society. Through these investigations, participants gain an understanding of the complexities surrounding power relationships and begin to imagine how things might be different. Students and teachers explore the use of resistance, dialogue, and public debate as tools to engage in the politics of daily life.
points of others. They provide examples of the self as multilayered, fragmented, or fluid. Tensions arise as the same event is interpreted or understood in different ways by different characters. The issues in these books are often messy, complex, and not easily resolved. Advocates of critical literacy examine competing narratives that describe social and political “realities” and construct counternarratives that challenge the dominant discourses. In paying attention to multiple perspectives and realities, they seek to make difference visible—creating a curriculum that honors and highlights difference rather than one that strives for consensus and conformity. Analyzing Popular Culture and Media People in today’s world are bombarded with powerful images from television, radio, computer games, the Internet, and various forms of print media. Taking a critical stance involves an examination of how social norms are communicated through the various arenas of popular culture and how identities are shaped by these experiences. Critical-literacy practices lead to an examination of how individuals and groups are positioned and constructed by popular culture and media. Cultural icons like Pokémon and Barbie are studied in terms of the messages they convey about what is or should be valued. This leads to an analysis of how the media and consumer culture are shaping our collective perceptions, responses, and actions.
Appreciating Multiple Realities and Viewpoints When people adopt a critical stance, they attempt to stand in the shoes of others in order to understand experience and text not only from personal experience but also from the viewpoints of others. Individuals with a critical perspective consider various views concurrently as they seek to gain a richer and more complete understanding of the issue at hand. This often means juxtaposing multiple and contradictory textual accounts of an event (Luke and Freebody, 1997). Readers interrogate texts in terms of which voices are heard and which are missing and consider how a story would be different if it was told from a different perspective, for instance, from that of the slave rather than the slave owner. In selecting materials for classroom use, educators who are attempting to develop a criticalliteracy curriculum seek out texts that give voice to those who have been silenced or marginalized—the migrant farmworker, the unemployed father, the ridiculed child, the genocide victim (Harste et al., 2000). They also seek out multiview books where the story is told using a variety of voices. These books show how identities are constructed socially, emanating from the view-
Taking Action to Promote Social Justice Taking a critical stance means using language and other sign systems to get things done in the world. This is exemplified by Paulo Freire’s call for people to become actors in the world rather than spectators. He also stresses the importance of praxis—reflection and action that transforms the world. This sense of agency can be strengthened by reading books and viewing accounts of the struggles that occur when people take action to right injustices. Individuals compose their own narratives, counternarratives, letters, essays, reports, poems, commercials, posters, plays, and web pages to promote social change. They participate in discussions that focus on issues of oppression, fairness, and transformation. They use a variety of literacies to conduct surveys and gather data to explain, expose, and find solutions for real-world problems. They use the arts to ex110
Critical Media Literacy press critical understandings and to get messages of justice and democracy out into the world. Instead of being positioned as helpless victims, people use critical literacy to rewrite their identities as social activists who challenge the status quo and demand changes. They use cultural resources and critical literacies to develop powerful voices and speak out collectively against injustice. Mitzi Lewison and Christine Leland
the perceived evils of popular media are often criticized for their heavy-handed tactics, including censoring, boycotting, or blaming the media for society’s ills. Such approaches are not what is meant by critical media literacy. More typically, critical media literacy is seen as simply being concerned with helping students develop an awareness of the power of media messages so that informed, or empowering, decisions can be made about their use. This awareness is taught in various ways. Some literacy educators, especially those working from a media-studies perspective (e.g., Semali and Pailliotet, 1999), advocate identifying the various ideological positions that different media texts afford readers, viewers, and listeners. For this group of educators, knowing the ways in which individuals are marked by race, class, and gender is central to pursuing critical media literacy. Generally speaking, although educators working from a media-studies perspective acknowledge that the process of teaching critical media literacy will vary according to the text under consideration and the context in which an individual finds herself or himself when attempting to make meaning of that text, they adhere to the belief that it is important to help students identify the biased and stereotyped messages conveyed through mass-media production. A major pedagogical objective from a media-studies perspective is to assist readers (viewers, listeners) in becoming adept at resisting any attempt by the media to manipulate their worldviews. The potential for such manipulation is seen as a threat to personal freedom, and ultimately to society at large. Other literacy educators, and in particular those who view critical media literacy from a cultural-studies perspective, are concerned not so much with countering the media’s so-called threatening and manipulative hold on audiences as they are with striking a balance between pleasure and critique. For this group of educators (e.g., Luke, 1997; Morgan, 1997), allowing individuals little or no freedom to explore their pleasures in constructing meaning from media texts is tantamount to missing opportunities for developing within those same individuals a healthy skepticism of the textual messages. Instead of forcing students to critique the very texts they find pleasurable, educators who take a cultural-studies approach to critical media literacy look for ways to guide readers, viewers, and lis-
See Also Critical Media Literacy References Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. New York: Longman. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Harste, Jerome C., Amy Breau, Christine Leland, Mitzi Lewison, Anne Ociepka, and Vivian Vasquez. 2000. “Supporting Critical Conversations in Classrooms.” In Kathryn Mitchell Pierce, ed., Adventuring with Books: A Booklist for Pre-K— Grade 6, 12th ed., pp. 506–554. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Janks, Hilary. 2000. “Domination, Access, Diversity, and Design: A Synthesis for Critical Literacy Education.” Educational Review 52 (2):175–186. Luke, Allan, and Peter Freebody. 1997. “Shaping the Social Practices of Reading.” In Sandy Muspratt, Allan Luke, and Peter Freebody, eds., Constructing Critical Literacies, pp. 185–225. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Shannon, Patrick. 1995. Text, Lies, and Videotape. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Critical Media Literacy Theoretically speaking, critical media literacy may be defined broadly in one of two ways: (1) it is emancipatory, or empowering, in that it seeks to free people from coercive practices, and (2) it recognizes that knowledge constitutes power. Educators who teach critical media literacy within an emancipatory frame typically focus on creating communities of active readers, viewers, and listeners capable of identifying the various ideological positions that print and nonprint texts offer them. They also focus on teaching people how to make informed decisions about which ideological position they will accept or take up, which they will resist, and which they will attempt to modify. A few extreme emancipatory approaches to instruction that attempt to free students from 111
Critical Media Literacy cupy within it is only half the story. The other half is understanding how the meanings that audiences make of media texts are negotiated in relation to people’s different social circumstances and positioning (e.g., adult, child, teenager, male, female, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic class) as well as the cultural contexts in which such texts are consumed (Luke, 1997). As Storey (1996) explained, texts are never inscribed with meaning that is guaranteed once and for all to reflect the intentions of production; instead, such meaning is negotiated by audiences (readers) and expressed differently within specific contexts and at specific moments in time. Researchers in the 1960s and 1970s, influenced as they were by Marxist theory of a society divided along race, class, and gender lines, focused primarily on how print and nonprint textual images reflected certain ideological stances believed to be oppressive to some groups of people (e.g., women and blacks) while maintaining the status quo, or even furthering the goals, of other more powerful groups. By the 1980s, researchers began to shift their attention from analyzing the texts themselves to studying the audiences for those texts. To understand audience consumption of popular media texts (e.g., rap lyrics, films, video games, celebrity magazines), it is necessary to analyze the historical and social conditions in which such texts are constituted. From a cultural-studies perspective on critical media literacy, audiences are not passive. They do not merely reflect the images, language, and sounds of commercially produced media texts; rather, they actively engage in producing their own meanings that then become part of the historical and social conditions in which future media texts are constituted and consumed (Alvermann and Hagood, 2000). It is this interactivity, coupled with the fact that the same text may evoke different meanings from people thought to share common cultural understandings, that can make analyzing audience consumption such an unpredictable process. Just as studying audiences’ responses to a particular media text is fraught with uncertainties, so too is the teaching of critical media literacy. To reduce such teaching to a focus on audience consumption without also considering the coercive forces at work in media production is thought to have potentially serious consequences. For example, it could blind both teachers and students
Students learn how to read and listen critically by the time they are adolescents (Elizabeth Crews)
teners through a self-reflective process aimed at teaching them to question their own pleasures within their own set of circumstances and with texts of their own choosing. In today’s media culture, texts are often hybrids of the images, language, and sounds they incorporate. They are commonly associated with television, video, multimedia, hypermedia, the Internet, and other forms of new communication technologies such as instant messaging and e-mailing. Less commonly thought of as media texts are the symbolically rich structures through which people make meaning when they engage in music, film, dance, drama, art, and other nonprint forms of communication. Becoming literate in a world that increasingly mingles print and nonprint texts is part and parcel of living in the twenty-first century. It is also a function of learning how to identify coercive power arrangements within the media establishment and what strategies are available for resisting them. But understanding from a media-studies perspective how the intentions of producers of various media texts may construct people’s knowledge of their everyday world and the social, economic, and political positions they oc112
Critical Reading to how the media works on and through them as subjects of a textual authority that is linked to larger economies of power and privilege (McLaren and Lankshear, 1993). Another potential danger in focusing on audience consumption at the expense of media production is that by privileging meaning that is constructed at the point of reception, teachers could run the risk of inscribing even further the stereotyped thinking and biases that students bring to their understanding of popular media texts. This tension between a cultural-studies perspective (with its emphasis on audience consumption) and a media-studies perspective (with its concern for what texts do to audiences, that is, how they produce meanings that readers take up) is reflected in much of the debate surrounding modernist pedagogical discourse. From the latter perspective, teachers and students are viewed as inhabiting stable membership categories that permit little or no movement from one category to the other. Moreover, individuals within those categories are perceived as possessing fairly stable characteristics. Thus, from a media-studies perspective, teachers are perceived as knowledgeable (the knowers) and students as learners (the naive ones). However, from a cultural-studies perspective, it is quite possible to imagine situations in which some border crossing between the categorical teacher-student “divide” might occur. For example, it is conceivable that students are not as naive as some teachers might imagine. In fact, to attribute a certain naïveté to them—to suggest that they do not recognize the coercive nature of the media that teachers are trying to make them aware of (in an empowering sense)—is to suggest that power is something teachers own, a piece of property of sorts, that can be given away or withheld at will. According to Australian educator Wendy Morgan (1997), this view of empowerment is problematic in that it is arrogant and can lead to selfdefeating pedagogical practices. Working from the perspective that binary oppositions, such as those between domination (power) and subordination (powerlessness), are suspect, Morgan argues for classroom practices that abandon the search for villains or heroes in media texts, for oppressors or emancipators, and for the general labeling of oppositional categories such as “us” and “them.” Doing away with such overtly sim-
plistic binaries, Morgan argues, would give teachers and students alike the opportunity to explore how people act provisionally—sometimes this way, sometimes that way—at particular times, given particular circumstances. It would also give rise to challenging pedagogically the notion that power is a possession to be distributed at will (as, for example, by media producers) and substitute in its place the idea that power is socially negotiated between audiences and producers of various media texts. Donna E. Alvermann See Also Critical Literacy; Media Literacy; Visual Literacy References Alvermann, Donna E., and Margaret C. Hagood. 2000. “Critical Media Literacy: Research, Theory, and Practice in ‘New Times.’” Journal of Educational Research 3:193–205. Luke, Carmen. 1997. “Media Literacy and Cultural Studies.” In Sandy Muspratt, Allan Luke, and Peter Freebody, eds., Constructing Critical Literacies: Teaching and Learning Textual Practice, pp. 19–49. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. McLaren, Peter L., and Colin Lankshear. 1993. “Critical Literacy and the Postmodern Turn.” In Colin Lankshear and Peter L. McLaren, eds., Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis, and the Postmodern, pp. 379–419. Albany: State University of New York Press. Morgan, Wendy. 1997. Critical Literacy in the Classroom: The Art of the Possible. New York: Routledge. Semali, Ladislaus, and Ann Watts Pailliotet, eds. 1999. Intermediality: The Teachers’ Handbook of Critical Media Literacy. Boulder: Westview Press. Storey, John. 1996. Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
Critical Reading Emmet Betts has been credited for introducing the term critical reading. Betts viewed critical reading as the process of making judgments in reading by evaluating the relevancy and adequacy of what is read in terms of some norms or standards. A valuable resource for anyone interested in critical reading from a historical perspective is the edited volume Critical Reading (King, Ellinger, and Wolf, 1967), a compendium of conceptual, empirical, and instructional literature from a wide variety of sources. The editors 113
Critical Reading of that volume defined critical reading as an analytical and evaluative process that requires the reader to make rational judgments about both the content and style of writing based upon valid criteria. In the literature circa 1960, critical reading is often referred to as the application of critical thinking to reading printed texts. It has also been proposed that critical reading is a prerequisite for, as well as an end product of, critical thinking. In everyday usage, critical thinking is reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do (Ennis, 1987). Taking into account and weighing evidence to decide what to believe is critical thinking, whereas defending unexamined beliefs is rationalizing. Critical thinking is based on Western philosophical thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, who heralded the transcendental power of reasoning over superstitious thinking. Interest in critical thinking and critical reading has historically represented a search for a normative theory of correct reasoning. Although never explicitly stated in the literature of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, critical thinking/reading was viewed as a way of superseding ideology, politics, and power relations through a logical, rational analysis of text. What remained uncontested was that critical thinking itself is an ideological construct with historical roots in ancient Greece. The critical thinker was assumed to be an autonomous individual able to impartially reflect, critique, and discover what to believe. One of the educational challenges with critical reading has been find a way to test it. Janice Dole (1977) conducted a multitrait-multimethod analysis to examine the validity of both the construct of critical reading and several instruments designed to measure critical reading. Specifically, she wanted to determine if critical reading, the ability to interpret information, could be differentiated from literal reading, the ability to derive information explicitly stated. An empirically distinguishable difference was not found between critical and literal reading. Dole concluded that further examination was needed on the operationalization of critical reading to examine its relation to other dimensions of reading comprehension. Measuring critical reading remains an unsolved educational issue. Helen Crossen (1948) published one of the earliest empirical studies of critical reading. Crossen’s study provides an interesting backdrop
for considering the trajectory of the term critical reading from then to now. Crossen set out to determine what relationship, if any, exists between a reader’s attitude toward a topic and the ability to read critically material about that topic. Her ninth-grade subjects read about the Negro (sic) people and the German people (World War II was in progress). The results gave rise to two questions. Why did an unfavorable attitude affect the pupils’ reading about the Negro (sic), but not about the Germans? And why did pupils who held unfavorable rather than favorable attitudes obtain lower scores on the critical reading test? Crossen’s findings of yesteryear are poignant for those who are critiquing contemporary teacherpreparation curricula for paying little or no attention to race relations, ethics, and ideology. Today, there is an educational divide that must be considered with regard to critical reading. There are those who seek all-encompassing normative, generalizable theories of reasoning, reading, and critical reading. However, others assume that literacy practices operate within a sociopolitical context—a context defined and legitimated by those who have the power and authority to do so. From a sociopolitical perspective, critical readers are engaged in detecting and handling ideological dimensions of literacy and the role of literacy in enactments and productions of power (Lankshear et al., 1997). One finds among the multidisciplinary studies of literacy challenges to the presumption that learning to read and write invariably contributes to social progress, to personal improvement and mobility, perhaps to better health, almost certainly to cognitive development. Critics reject the autonomous or instrumentalist approach in which learning reading and writing is divorced from a critical analysis of the political and social order. More than anyone else, the Brazilian educator Freire is credited with drawing attention to literacy as the practice of power. Freire and others write about a critical reading of the world and propose that a semiliterate person is one who can identify words but is unable to read the world. Reading the world for Freire and those who embrace his project of emancipatory political praxis through critical literacy involves understanding the politics of oppression in totalitarian regimes and in liberal democracies. In 1961, Francis Chase offered a related vision of critical reading when he faulted teaching 114
Criticisms of Reader Response Measure Critical Reading Ability. Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 7808892. Ennis, Robert H. 1987. “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities.” In Joan B. Baron and Robert J. Sternberg, eds., Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, pp. 9–26. New York: W. H. Freeman. King, Martha L., Bernice D. Ellinger, and Willavene Wolf, eds. 1967. Critical Reading. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Lankshear, Colin, James P. Gee, Michele Knobel, and Chris Searle. 1997. Changing Literacies. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
methods for treating reading primarily as a process of discerning rather quickly what the author had written. Chase promoted the idea that teaching reading must also involve developing the capacity to understand ourselves in the world in which we live (King, Ellinger, and Wolf, 1967). There can be little doubt that the term critical remains educationally viable, but some recognize it as a “contested concept” (Lankshear et al., 1997). Educating for critical thinking/reading is claimed by various discourse communities in education, each one adhering to a set of values—to different ideologies. When encountering the term critical reading, we must consider the author’s ideological perspective. In retrospect, it seems clear that Crossen’s ninth-grade readers of the 1940s could not engage in a critical reading text about Negroes or Germans without first examining the ideologies of race and ethnicity that they ascribed to, explicitly or implicitly. A sociopolitical perspective on critical reading explicitly acknowledges this. In the 1960s, the focus was more or less on how to read a particular printed text using established criteria based on principles of logic. Critical reading, like other literacy practices, was under the influence of Frederick Taylor’s scientific management, wherein education was about acquiring skills and content that could be measured for competency. That treats critical reading as technocratic rationality. It leads to critical reading in a narrow sense. Today, the imperative is to critically read the self and the world, which in turn makes possible a critical reading of the word—the text. A broader or wider sense of critical reading has developed since the days of Helen Crossen’s study. To read critically in the wider sense is to respond to a particular text as an embodiment of a larger discursive logic (Lankshear et al., 1997). Today, when one comes across the term critical reading, it is best to consider the term in light of what can be discerned about the literacy ideology of the person using the term. Michelle Commeyras
Criticisms of Reader Response Reader response refers to a number of different critical theories and practices that share an emphasis on the role of the reader and the act of reading in the interpretation of literary texts (Beach, 1993) (see Reader Response). Reader response is both a school of literary theory and a type of classroom practice in the teaching of literature. Criticisms of reader-response theory critique the idea that literary experience exists only in the mind of the reader and has little to do with the literary text or the social worlds that surround it. Criticisms of reader-response teaching practice critique the idea that only the student’s responses to a literary work matter and suggest that teachers do more than ask young people to look within themselves for meaning. Teachers, the critics argue, should expand the focus to include political, social, and cultural factors that shape the act of reading. At this point in history, most new and recently established language arts and literature curricula are grounded in reader-response theory and espouse reader-response teaching methods. Criticisms of reader-response theory and practice can help to keep teachers and others aware of the need to balance respect for the reader’s response through literature instruction that also does justice to the artistry of the author’s text and to the influence of the social world.
See Also Critical Literacy; Resistant Reading References Crossen, Helen J. 1948. “Effects of the Attitudes of the Reader upon Critical Reading Ability.” Journal of Educational Research 42:289–298. Dole, Janice A. 1977. A Validation of the Construct of Critical Reading and of Three Tests Designed to
Criticisms of Reader-Response Theory Literary theory, the foundation for our literature teaching practices, is always a dialogue, a constant exchange of ideas that look at literature first from one perspective and then from another. In considering the reading process, literary theorists are most often interested in one or 115
Criticisms of Reader Response more of its aspects—the reader, the author, the text, the social world. Although reader-response theory does not represent one clearly unified theoretical perspective, all reader-response theories focus on the mind of the reader during the act of reading. Most critiques of reader-response theory respond to one of two schools of thought—phenomenology and reception theory—each of which has influenced literature teaching and curriculum development over the last thirty years.
factors that shape the reading “self ” and the reader’s mind. Criticisms of phenomenology and of reception theory have flourished within the turbulent postmodern intellectual milieu in which we are now living, in which no theory is to be considered balanced, and in which no meanings can ever be fixed. Assuming that language can never be stable and that history must be considered in every intellectual endeavor, postmodern (or post-structuralist) theorists of identity formation show us how readers’ identities are constructed.
Phenomenology and Philosophical Critiques Phenomenology, a philosophy articulated by the German philosopher Husserl (1970), reduces reality to the contents of human consciousness alone. It proposes the human mind as the source and origin of all meaning. It provides an ideal philosophical foundation for reader-response practices that consider only what happens in the mind of the reader during the act of reading. Critics of phenomenology (for example, Gadamer, 1982) ask how the consciousness of the human subject came into being in the first place. They assert that human consciousness is produced by social conditions, even as it in turn produces them. They see phenomenology as essentialist, antihistorical discourse because it proposes a consistent, unchanging human self that stands alone outside of history. Critics of phenomenology argue that the experience of human consciousness is exactly that: human experience. They point out that all experience involves language and that language is inherently social, created by and operating within human society. Pure consciousness, and the unified reading subject, do not exist.
Political Theory and Ideological Critiques Another branch of criticism of reader-response theory is rooted in political theory. Terry Eagleton (1996) has said that the political has to do with how human beings organize their social life together and the power relations that this involves. He argues that the history of modern literary theory is part of the political and ideological history of our time. No one can find a vantage point outside the social world where it is possible to read and interpret literature. “The reader” is a social entity with political and ideological (as well as aesthetic) dimensions. Literary theory can be used for political purposes. Several schools of literary theory develop this idea (Marxist, feminist, and postcolonial are among them). Unlike reader-response theory, each begins with certain ideas about the nature of power relations. Marxist literary theory concerns itself with class struggle, feminist theory with power and gender in literature and reading, and postcolonial theory with the ways in which literary constructions of the cultural Other work to preserve relations of dominance. These theories represent quite different ways of looking at the world, at reading, and at literature. Political literary theorists, who are concerned with educating youth to change the world for the better through the study of literature, critique reader-response theory for failing to take account of power in politics and the social world. They argue that reader-response theory itself is not apolitical. When it assumes a unified, rational, essential self and ignores the impact of the social world upon the human mind, it promotes a conservative view of the world as fixed, unchanging, and unchangeable. This is the critique from the Left. There have also been ideological critiques of
Reception Theory and Psychological Critiques Reader-response theorist Wolfgang Iser (1978) described meaning as the result of an interaction between reader and text, as an effect to be experienced, not a message to be found. The “reception theorists” also examine the reader’s role in literature, seeing text as potential, as something to be realized in the mind of the reader. Critics of reception theory see it as a liberal humanist ideology. Grounded in phenomenology, it presupposes the unity of the reading subject and fails to place the reader in history. It ignores the social 116
Criticisms of Reader Response reader-response theory and practice from the political Right. Those who understand education as a form of transmission, in which the knowledge of the teacher is deposited into the heads of students, do not accept the idea that students are capable of producing knowledge for themselves. If “knowledge” of authors, literary historical periods, and literary devices is what must be transmitted from teacher to student, and if this knowledge is a shared “cultural literacy” that unites the nation (see the work of critic E. D. Hirsch), then reader-response teaching practices are an abnegation of scholarly authority and educational standards.
Or if many students in a class express impatience with Hamlet and his failure to act, the teacher can choose to explore with them the psychology of masculinity with which they have grown up. The teacher can help them find evidence in film, advertising, and music videos of contemporary cultural discourses that mark violence and action as expectations for masculinity. Students can be helped to understand that they have come to think and feel as they do through interaction with what they read, view, and hear. Students should have the opportunity to learn something about the forces that have shaped their attitudes and their minds. A second approach to criticizing reader-response teaching practices asks teachers to help students become aware of the cultural and historical forces that surround the politics of reading. The work of Louise Rosenblatt (1978) pointed out that the meaning of a response varies according to differences in specific social contexts, which are in turn embedded in certain historical and cultural contexts. Teachers should encourage young readers to think about political categories like race, gender, and social class in order to raise questions about how these social positions exert a powerful influence over the reading and writing of literature. Teachers ought to discuss with the students the literary canon, and how and why the works they read in school have been selected for them. When young men read works written from the point of view of a woman, when Euro-American students read works written from the point of view of an AfroAmerican, when gay and lesbian students read works written from the point of view of a heterosexual person, what happens and how do they respond? How have their identities been constructed in interaction with cultural beliefs about these social categories? Students need to consider explicitly the nature of the resistance they may feel in encountering other points of view. Power relations are involved and should not be ignored. Many alternatives to strictly response-based teaching practices are now being proposed, all of them theoretically grounded in other views of what literature is and what happens when we read. Some alternatives are text centered, but not in any narrow way. They rely on postmodern assumptions about language and history and remain sensitive to the world beyond the text.
Criticisms of Reader-Response Practice Critics of reader-response-based practice say that it is too individualistic and personal, that it fails to make explicit the many ways in which the social world shapes reading and the identity of the reader (Cherland, 2000). It teaches young people to look only within themselves for meaning. Teaching literature is more than arranging for a dualistic interaction between reader and text, and more than accepting student responses. Yes, teaching practice should respect what may be happening in the mind of the reader. But there is much more that teachers and students ought to be aware of. There are two important ways to criticize reader-response teaching practices. One takes a psychological approach, seeking to correct the assumption that the young reader has an essential, unified, rational “self ” that responds to literature in a cultural vacuum. It suggests that readers need to understand themselves as people who construct their own identities in interaction with the cultural discourses that surround them. A second category takes a cultural/historical approach, seeking to help young readers understand not themselves, but rather the cultural and historical forces that surround the politics of the act of reading. Psychological critics of reader-response teaching practice ask teachers to make young readers aware of the cultural discourses that have helped to shape their minds and their responses. If, for example, a young reader reports feeling anger with and disgust for Celie upon reading about incest on the first page of The Color Purple by Alice Walker, the teacher can provide information about incest taboos in this and other cultures, and the culture’s tendency to blame the victim. 117
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report Subject English, pp. 104–116. Toronto: Irwin Publishing. Eagleton, Terry. 1996. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1982. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroads. Harper, Helen. 1998. “Dangerous Desires: Feminist Literary Criticism in a High School Writing Class.” Theory Into Practice 37:220–228. Husserl, Edmund. 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Translated by David Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Leggo, Carl. 1998. “Open(ing) Texts: Deconstructing and Responding to Poetry.” Theory Into Practice 37:186–192. Moore, John Noell. 1998. “Street Signs: Semiotics, Romeo and Juliet, and Young Adult Literature.” Theory Into Practice 37:211–219. Rosenblatt, Louise. 1978. The Reader, the Text and the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Singh, Michael Garbutcheon, and James Greenlaw. 1998. “Postcolonial Theory in the Literature Classroom: Contrapuntal Readings.” Theory Into Practice 37:193–200.
Other alternatives are centered not on the text but on power relationships and the politics of literature study. Contemporary text-centered approaches to literature teaching include deconstruction (Leggo, 1998), feminist demonstration readings (Harper, 1998), and semiotic analysis (Moore, 1998). Each begins with the student’s responses but then attempts to link them to the psychology and the structures of the literary text. Moore, for example, shows students how to find the signs and codes in the text that have called forth their responses and then explores with students similar systems of signs in other texts and in wider cultural patterns of meaning. Other alternatives to response-based teaching practices are oriented to the study of power relations in the social world. Feminist approaches may suggest that students read several works by female authors who are not often included in the traditional curriculum. Marxist approaches may suggest that students remain aware of the role of money and economic power in, say, To Kill a Mockingbird, as poor people are silenced in court and denied in school. Postcolonial approaches may suggest “contrapuntal readings” (Michael Singh and James Greenlaw, 1998, first suggested in the work of literary critic Edward Said) in which two works that deal with the same time and place in history are read together, one representing the point of view of the dominant culture and one representing the point of view of the Other. In working with alternatives to reader-response instructional practices, the teacher’s struggle will be to continue to engage students with literature on a personal level while remaining committed to readings that are sensitive to the culture. Literature teaching must recognize that reading is not just a psychological or an aesthetic practice. It is also a social practice that has political consequences. Meredith Rogers Cherland
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report Although reports of national commissions on reading research are not new, these efforts have increased over the past decade with two national reports in short succession: Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998) and Teaching Children to Read (National Reading Panel, 2000). The speed with which these national endeavors are following one another reflects changes in the literacy demands of the digital age. At the same time, economic, linguistic, and cultural diversity has increased in American schools. The rapid succession of national reports demonstrates efforts to understand these changes. The charge of the National Reading Panel (NRP) was to assess the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read. For top-
See Also Reader Response References Beach, Richard. 1993. A Teacher’s Introduction to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Cherland, Meredith. 2000. “Teaching Beyond Reader Response: Reading the Culture to Know the Self.” In Barrie R. C. Barrell and Roberta F. Hammett, eds., Advocating Change: Contemporary Issues in
118
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report ics such as alphabetics and fluency, their answers are comprehensive enough to be useful in the arenas of practice. For the topics of comprehension, teacher education, and computer technology, the panel repeats the educational researchers’ mantra that “more research is needed.” This critique considers topics that were not considered by the NRP and does not revisit the conclusions of the panel. Specifically, the following topics are considered: the definition of scientific research, exclusion of topics raised in the panel’s regional hearings, and the need to mark a clear course for future research.
go hand in hand with qualitative analyses that describe the problems that effective teachers encounter and solve as they implement methods with particular groups of children. Exclusion of Particular Topics Alan Farstrup (2000), executive director of the International Reading Association, has cautioned against criticizing the report for neglecting certain topics. After all, choices need to be made in selecting literatures for any review. The panel failed, however, to explain why it focused on some topics and ignored others. By listing the selected topics right after the list of prominent topics in the regional hearings, the panel makes the exclusion of particular topics obvious, particularly the use of literature-based approaches to reading instruction, the role of community and family in students’ reading development, and reading development of students learning English as a second language. The panel’s failure to attend to literaturebased instruction means that the practices that dominate American classrooms were left unaddressed. The large reading textbook programs that are used in the majority of American classrooms continue to be literature based, despite mandates for phonetically decodable texts from America’s two largest states that adopt textbooks centrally. Programs have addressed the mandate by Texas and California for phonetically decodable texts through ancillary components and modifications in the first and second of the five anthologies that form the first-grade program. The findings of the panel regarding the length of effective phonemic awareness treatments and the integration of letter and phoneme manipulation can do much to direct the proliferation of policies and materials in ways that can support children’s literacy levels and teachers’ interest and skill in providing appropriate instruction. Without examining the larger context in which instruction of alphabetics and fluency occurs—the massive textbook programs that continue to dominate American schools—the connection of these findings to practice remains uncertain. By not considering whether and how the texts of literature-based programs promote fluency, the findings regarding fluency are unlikely to make a dent in the reading speed and comprehension of the sizable proportion of an American age cohort that reads slowly and infrequently.
Definition of Scientific Research The panel identified experimental studies as the highest standard of evidence. Since few experimental studies were located in the research, studies of a quasi-experimental design were included in the meta-analyses (statistical integration of research) that provided the basis for the panel’s findings on topics of phonemic awareness, phonics, and fluency. Differences in findings related to the rigor of studies, including the use of random assignment, were not found to be critical in any of the meta-analyses. Throughout the report, however, reading research is evaluated on the presence of experimental studies and, based on this criterion, is found wanting. Such a characterization is unfortunate for the teachers and teacher educators who use this research and also relays an incorrect perception about the role of current reading research in educational reform to policymakers and the public. A substantial body of scientific research that uses designs other than experimental and quasiexperimental designs is available to guide practice. Further, the panel fails to discuss the reasons many classroom studies do not use random assignment or have the characteristics of those conducted in laboratory settings. For example, a critical component in high-poverty schools with high student achievement is teachers’ commitment to particular reading programs (Adler and Fisher, 2001). Such a conclusion was obtained through qualitative investigation—interviews and observations. Not only would such a finding not be uncovered in an experiment, but it raises questions about the random assignment of teachers to methods. Quantitative analyses are useful in designing and modifying instructional materials and methods. These analyses need to 119
Critique of the National Reading Panel Report The panel also failed to explain why the topic of community and family programs was not reviewed. Wide-scale federal efforts such as Title I and the Reading Excellence Act have tied family literacy efforts to school programs. Extending children’s literacy into home contexts and involving families and community organizations in literacy makes sense. How school-based educators attain the expertise to accomplish these goals requires substantiation. The panel’s reason for omitting this topic may well have been that the research base is inadequate. As with teacher education and computer technology, that conclusion itself would have been useful. The reason given by the panel for eliminating reading by students learning English from their agenda was a recently initiated research program by the federal government on the topic. A new research program by federal agencies and attention to a topic in a national report are two very different issues. Overlap of scholars who focus on reading and who focus on second-language learning has been limited. For American teachers, the children who require their expertise most in reading instruction are often children who are learning to speak English. It is all well and good to recommend that children learn to read in their native languages, as Catherine Snow and her colleagues (1998) urge, but the exigencies of many instructional situations require teachers to deal with new or multiple-language groups. By relegating the literacy learning of English-language learners beyond the purview of reading educators, the panel has contributed to maintaining the status quo, in which this population is likely to remain challenged in attaining literacy standards.
Reading Study Group (RRSG) began its deliberations as the NRP was finalizing its report. The RRSG refers to Report of the NRP and Preventing Reading Difficulties in its introduction. The RRSG chose to focus on proficient reading, particularly on comprehension and knowledge acquisition through reading. In making this choice, the RRSG built on the NRP conclusions regarding comprehension and vocabulary. Connections between the findings of the previous reports on alphabetics and fluency and the research agenda proposed by the RRSG are less explicit. The Report of the NRP includes a number of critical findings on alphabetics and fluency— findings at a level of specificity for practice that have not previously been reported by a national panel. In order for these findings to make their way into teachers’ practices and into the texts that most children read daily, a follow-up panel to examine the critical topics left unexplored by the NRP would be required. By recognizing needs in particular areas rather than ignoring them, the panel could have fostered a broader view of research that would support teachers and children in America’s classrooms at the beginning of the twenty-first century. These classrooms demand a view of literacy for diversity. Elfrieda H. Hiebert and Martha A. Adler See Also National Reading Panel; The RAND Reading Study Group References Adler, Martha A., and Charles W. Fisher. 2001. “Early Reading Programs in High Poverty Schools: A Case Study of Beating the Odds.” Reading Teacher 54 (6):616–619. Farstrup, Alan E. 2000. “What the Panel Really Said—and Didn’t Say.” Reading Today 18(1):8. National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, eds. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
The Research Agenda Neither handbooks nor reviews of particular topics in journals provide cross-literature integration or weigh the needs or importance of one form of research over another. The identification of a research agenda should be the role of a national panel, and in this regard the NRP comes up short. Had the panel advised Congress that evaluations of research to inform practice should be extended to other topics, it would have rendered a service to the profession. The Rand
120
D deaf community). The importance of deafness to literacy development lies in the child’s ability to acquire enough knowledge of language to understand its written form.
Deaf Students and Literacy Deafness in children is defined as a hearing loss severe enough to adversely affect a child’s spoken communication and educational performance. For medical purposes, deafness is typically categorized as a severe or profound hearing loss. For educational purposes, language acquisition and educational performance, rather than degree of hearing loss, are the factors used in identifying deafness. The extent to which hearing loss influences reading and writing development depends on the type and cause of the loss, the degree of loss, and the child’s ability to learn language via visual and auditory modalities. Although hearing loss is medically classified as slight, mild, moderate, moderate-severe, severe, and profound, in reality no two individuals have the same pattern of hearing even within these categories. The ability to functionally use hearing for learning and using language differs from individual to individual. Deafness is a low-incidence disability. It is estimated that 0.10 percent of children are severely and profoundly deaf. Approximately 25 percent of students who are deaf have one additional disability, and 9 percent have two or more other disabilities (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Most individuals with a hearing loss are able to benefit from some form of amplification, although some deaf students prefer not to use hearing aids. Many deaf children have received cochlear implants, which are surgically implanted electronic devices that directly stimulate the auditory nerve fibers in the cochlea. Children with hearing aids or cochlear implants tend to learn and use spoken English (or the language of the child’s country or region). Children who do not rely on amplification tend to learn and use sign language (or the language of the
Literacy Achievement Children who are deaf begin to develop as readers and writers from the point in early childhood when they become aware of print in their environment and the uses of print by significant individuals in their lives, just as hearing children do. Preschool deaf children have been found to demonstrate developmentally appropriate knowledge and understanding of written language and uses of literacy even when language acquisition is delayed in comparison to hearing children (Williams and McLean, 1997). However, when deaf children become engaged in formal reading and writing instruction in school, their literacy development typically lags behind their hearing peers. The average reading level of deaf students who graduate from high school is fourth grade (Gallaudet Research Institute, 2001). Achievement of the average deaf student provides no basis for predicting the achievement of any single child. Many children who are deaf achieve at reading levels commensurate with hearing children, and many deaf adults read proficiently. Deaf children have the same cognitive ability to learn language as children with hearing, and they have the cognitive ability to become proficient readers and writers. Instructional Practices Instructional challenges center around the deaf child’s language ability, prior knowledge and experiences, vocabulary, and word recognition. To understand written material, the deaf student 121
Deaf Students and Literacy
Deaf student in class (Associated Press/The New Mexican)
the child’s particular knowledge of the many topics included in a given text passage. The child’s vocabulary knowledge is also connected to background knowledge. Literacy instruction that incorporates vocabulary instruction recognizes that the deaf child often does not have the same breadth and depth of vocabulary as hearing children. Knowledge of genre depends on the child’s reading experience. The young deaf child tends to have less experience with storybook reading by parents because of language delays, and the deaf child often reads less than hearing peers because of the challenges inherent in reading. Thus, literacy instruction must also involve building the child’s experience with genre. It is an open question whether deaf readers can effectively use letter-sound relationships for identifying words in print. Certainly, those children with profound hearing losses who do not benefit from amplification may not develop phonemic awareness, which is the awareness of the sounds within spoken words. The reader who
must understand the sentence structures, text cohesion devices, and figurative language that the author uses. The deaf student needs background knowledge of the text topic, experience with the genre, and familiarity with the vocabulary. The deaf student must also be able to recognize words in print. The deaf child’s access to spoken English is limited, regardless of whether the child uses amplification, has a cochlear implant, or signs. Thus, understanding the grammatical structures and meanings of written English is a daunting task for most deaf children. Literacy instruction must always take into account the difficulties inherent in reading and writing a language that is not native to the child. Hearing loss not only directly affects language development but also limits the individual’s ability to take in incidental information, such as through overhearing conversations and listening to the television while carrying out another activity. Literacy instruction, therefore, must also take into account 122
Delayed Readers cannot distinguish the distinct sounds made by letters and letter combinations is not likely to use letter-sound relationships for word recognition. Thus, the word-recognition strategy of phonic analysis should not be emphasized with deaf students. Literacy instruction for the deaf reader should be aimed at the word-recognition strategies of structural cues, word analogies, context, and automaticity. Promising research into improving the literacy instruction of deaf students has involved cognitive strategies. This research is based on the assumption that systematic instruction in vocabulary and word recognition must be balanced with instruction in applying comprehension strategies consciously during reading. Deaf students must be taught to monitor the successful use of word-recognition skills and application of background knowledge and vocabulary. Among the cognitive strategies investigated, it has been found that mental imagery, self-questioning, summarizing, predicting, and think-aloud approaches enhance comprehension and stimulate higher-level thinking in deaf readers (Strassman, 1997). Barbara R. Schirmer
age learners—even if at a slower rate (e.g., Ehri and McCormick, 1998). Current perspective holds that reading behaviors of poor readers are not unexplained abnormalities but instead reflect reading responses that would be typical for average students at an earlier stage of learning. Associated with this view is the conclusion that with appropriate interventions, it is possible for these learners ultimately to attain reading success. The approach to eliminating struggles with literacy has centered on two key factors: searching for the cause(s) of reading difficulties (with the related hope of finding preventive measures) and instituting various instructional interventions and programs. Past Contributions to Our Understanding From the 1800s through the 1970s, a number of hypotheses specifying conditions believed to be causes of low reading achievement proved to be faulty. Among those conditions were congenital word blindness, lack of cerebral dominance, inefficient eye movements, common eye defects such as nearsightedness, and inappropriate diet. Mild emotional disorders were suggested as a casual factor during this time period; the theory of “multiple causation” was also proposed. There were two aspects to this hypothesis, both of which are still believed valid: first, that more than one cause may lead to reading delays and that the cause may differ from person to person, and second, that multiple causes may at times affect a single individual.
References Gallaudet Research Institute. 2001. Available: http://gri.gallaudet.edu/literacyindex.html. National Center for Education Statistics. 2001. Available: http://www.nces.ed.gov. Strassman, Barbara K. 1997. “Metacognition and Reading in Children Who Are Deaf.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:140–149. Williams, Cheri L., and Mari M. McLean. 1997. “Young Deaf Children’s Response to Picture Book Reading in a Preschool Setting.” Research in the Teaching of English 31:337–366.
Current Views During the 1980s and 1990s, one crucial step forward in understanding causal factors took place. Research converged from a number of countries indicating that low phonemic awareness—characterized by reduced skill in recognizing separate sounds in spoken language—is a major factor distinguishing delayed readers from average achievers. These findings led to today’s robust trend to institute training programs to increase phonemic awareness, with generally positive results reported from investigations of this instruction. However, why some individuals have low phonemic awareness remains unclear, with both “nature” and “nurture” arguments still under consideration. A second currently prevalent theory, advanced by Keith Stanovich (1986), is labeled “Matthew
Delayed Readers Delayed readers are individuals who, despite average intelligence and adequate instruction, exhibit significant difficulties in learning to read. They have also been referred to as disabled readers or remedial readers—and, in some disciplines and some countries, dyslexics. In the United States, the designation delayed reader is gaining favor as result of current theory and research indicating that poor readers, no matter the severity of their difficulties, progress through the same phases of reading development as aver123
Delayed Readers effects,” a term that refers to the statement in the biblical book Matthew about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. The Matthew-effects hypothesis blames the tenacity of reading delays on a cycle of unfortunate situations: for example, low phonemic awareness leads to difficulty in word learning, which in turn leads to fewer words learned than is the norm; fewer words learned results in less text read than the amount read by average students. Less text read means less practice with words and thus less automatic response to text; less automatic response means slow reading, which means—once again—less text covered, which in itself means less practice with words, and so on. In addition, since words are learned from context as well as from explicit instruction, less text read also means that the avenue for reading development is considerably narrowed for poor readers. Further, less automatic response can be deleterious to comprehension. Currently, this tangled sequence is cited to suggest implications for programming, for example, in support of early intervention. (For more details on causation, see McCormick [1999].)
kinesthetic approach to word learning in which words were traced and written as well as practiced through sight recognition and phonics applications. Also during this decade, the first U.S. textbook on methods for remedial-reading programs was authored by Clarence T. Gray. In the 1930s, Marion Monroe popularized a combination phonics-kinesthetic method for delayed readers, and in response to one causal theory of the day, machines were employed to measure and train eye movements. The mid-twentieth century saw universities instituting programs to train reading specialists (especially after U.S. government–subsidized Title I reading programs were established in the nation’s low-income schools); allied to this trend, many states began offering certification for reading teachers. There was interest in teaching to a student’s “strongest modality” and in perceptual/motor training (both notions were eventually discounted by research). The learning disability (LD) field was given impetus by passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act; this increased the number of LD classes in schools, with the majority of referred students sent to these classes because of reading delays. Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching, characterized by detailed use of assessment information to plan every facet of instruction, enjoyed some popularity. In tandem with this trend, there was proliferation of criterion-referenced tests in which all aspects of reading responses were quantified, but the Reading Miscue Inventory was also widely advocated to allow qualitative judgments about delayed readers’ reading behaviors.
Interventions and Programs: Past Trends In past decades, interventions for delayed readers have in part followed instructional trends for average readers. In addition to submitting to the same pendulum swings between phonics programs and whole-word programs, interventions for low-achieving readers have incorporated the language-experience approach, that is, instruction based on psycholinguistic principles, linguistic approaches, and computer-based instruction. Moreover, most assessment procedures, formal and informal, have been similar to those used with students in general. The reading disabilities field also has a history of its own. The early part of the twentieth century ushered in many “firsts.” In 1916, the Elementary School Journal published the first article on disabled readers, the article featuring a discussion on use of test results to plan remedial work. At about the same time, the first program for nonreaders was described, with recommendations for stories structured to highlight phonics understandings (an early call for decodable text), plus dramatization of words to aid recall. The first reading clinic was begun at UCLA in the 1920s, where Grace Fernald introduced a
Present Trends and Issues The two final decades of the twentieth century witnessed a number of changes. Some of these are still ongoing as instructional interventions for delayed readers. Others are on the wane as the twenty-first century begins. During those last decades, the whole-language movement, noted for deemphasizing certain types of traditional skills instruction in favor of text immersion, exercised an impact on remedial instruction. Generally, however, this impact was somewhat less than that seen in regular classroom programs. Currently, in both settings, that approach to literacy has been replaced to a substantial degree with “balanced reading instruction,” which aims 124
Delayed Readers to attend equally to direct teaching of skills and provision of ample practice in reading authentic texts.
struction of the nation’s children be based on research, not opinion. In the studies examined, positive effects are found for the use of synthetic phonics with delayed readers (as opposed to lessstructured approaches) and phonemic awareness instruction. In addition, these reports spotlighted the value of repeated oral reading of the same text, the teaching of a variety of comprehension strategies, and the provision of multiple exposures to words to deepen understandings of meanings. However, for delayed readers, negative results were reported for the use of silent reading alone to develop strategies, the incidental teaching of phonics, and phonics approaches that avoid explicitly highlighting sounds in isolation. In some cases, these findings confirm the conventional wisdom about how to instruct delayed readers; in other cases, they are stimulating new views.
Specific Instructional Techniques The emphasis on comprehension research in the 1980s, which shaped rich strategies for students who have difficulties understanding text meanings, has given way to revived interest in word recognition/word identification processes, partly the result of an influential book published in the 1990s, Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (Adams, 1990). This book comprehensively reviewed research on factors leading to word-recognition growth for average readers and for delayed readers and, among other contributions, confirmed the positive role of phonics as part of a larger word-learning program. Research evaluated in this book popularized instruction on word identification through analogies and further fueled the enthusiasm for phonemic awareness training. Other programmatic changes resulted from interest in linkages between reading and writing in the 1980s, which led to inclusion of writing and spelling as part of word-learning instruction in remedial programs of the 1990s, a trend that continues. Also generating interest at present is a powerful line of research specifying naturally occurring phases of word learning (Ehri, 1994). These studies, originally detailed to examine behaviors of average students, have excited attention among educators of delayed readers because they show promise for addressing the most prevalent problem of these learners—word recognition/word identification difficulties. These data hold potential for preventing misunderstanding of low achievers’ reading responses and can assist teachers in framing appropriate, effective instruction for delayed learners at each phase. Recent attention has also been given to research reviews sponsored by U.S. government agencies such as the National Research Council and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Report of the National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998). These provide support for specific instructional procedures relevant to general reading achievement, but they also include much of interest for delayed readers. The commissions preparing these reviews were formed in response to a currently prevalent issue: concern that in-
Organized Programmatic Efforts Title I programs and LD classes remain the largest providers of special reading instruction in the United States. Several other distinctive initiatives for at-risk readers begun during the late twentieth century such as Success for All (a wellknown schoolwide prevention and remedial effort) and Reading Recovery (an early intervention program) also continue in schools as we move into the early years of a new century. Despite documented effectiveness of one-to-one instruction (Wasik and Slavin, 1993), concern about costs and budgets in some quarters has led to development of several other projects that have shown successes in delivering instruction in small-group settings to readers at-risk for failure, for example, the Cunningham Blocks Program and Early Intervention in Reading. In addition, the America Reads program has captured interest but has also stirred issues. This widespread U.S. Office of Education endeavor to enlist college-age work-study students as tutors of poor readers has been applauded by many, but it has also generated controversy about placing the instruction of delayed readers in the hands of minimally trained individuals. Some evidence has been presented, however, that young at-risk readers are able to make gains under such guidance, if they participate fully throughout the program (Fitzgerald, 2001). Although not in evidence nationwide, there is a promising trend toward the growing closeness 125
Delayed Readers of the reading-disabilities and the learningdisabilities fields. Over time, many comparisons have been made between those individuals who have been labeled “reading delayed” (or “reading disabled”) and those labeled “learning disabled”—when the learning disability is reading related. Consistently, research and practice have failed to discern any differences in either the instructional needs of these individuals or in the causes of their difficulties. As a result, in many parts of the United States, programming for students receiving learning-disabilities services is increasingly undifferentiated from that provided in remedial-reading classes. An issue confronting both the reading-disabilities field and the learning-disabilities field, however, is neglect of those individuals with the most severe delays. Delayed readers are not all cut from the same cloth; some have mild delays, whereas others experience moderate or severe impediments to learning. Students with mild reading difficulties are most often instructed by regular classroom teachers, whereas those with moderate and severe delays more frequently receive services from specially trained reading teachers or LD teachers. In some circumstances, where available, instruction for those with moderate or severe delays may occur in university-based reading clinics. Although the most serious cases are included in such special programs, their needs are often different from the majority of students enrolled in these classes. Unfortunately, only minimal research attention has been given to amelioration of severe reading difficulties, only infrequently are teachers trained to provide instruction known to address the learning problems of these individuals, and only occasionally are their issues confronted in journal articles or conference programs—and this is the case in both the readingdisabilities and the learning-disabilities fields. A second immediate concern is failure to harness the burgeoning promise of technology to upgrade instruction of the nation’s delayed readers. Creative uses of the tools of this science are in everyday evidence in regular classrooms, but programs formulated specifically to resolve the problems of poor readers are still surprisingly limited. Drill and practice have been made more palatable, word processing activities link writing with reading, and speech capabilities have been fiddled with, but basically, the best we can say is that these programs are better than they used to
be. New ideas and “out-of-the-box” thinking are called for—as well as teacher training for the most efficacious use of technology. Another current issue relates to dissemination of research findings. Often, existing solutions to instructional problems are slow to reach those educators best situated to provide direct assistance to delayed readers, that is, teachers in the schools. The trail of dissemination from university researcher to classroom teacher, reading teacher, or LD teacher can be murky, convoluted, prolonged, or simply curtailed. Information may be poorly communicated or, if well presented, communicated through outlets infrequently accessed by teachers. A matter to be confronted is the illogicality of research funding most often being granted for producing new research, whereas few funds—or influential delivery methods—are to be had for distributing helpful data that are already available but not widely known. Lack of attention to research findings may also be one of the answers to another contemporary question: why are major nationwide efforts to help poor readers—Title I programs and learning-disability programs—only modestly successful? Admittedly, student-achievement data for these programs have been conflicting at times, but even so, major successes have not been in great evidence. It is likely that many students are more capable readers than they would have been without the programs, but there are also many who, despite years of enrollment, remain well below the average for their classes. When data are available to explicate answers for students with learning problems, again the question is: how do we make this information available to teachers on the firing lines? A related subject is the question of the best type of education for teachers of delayed readers. It is a truism that methods don’t teach, materials don’t teach, and classroom organizations don’t teach—teachers teach. The quality of a program is only as good as the quality of the teaching in evidence. It may be more than coincidental that states where budgets limit certification of highly trained reading teachers often concomitantly see reading scores fall. Clinical education of reading teachers at the university level is regaining popularity and evidencing success (Evensen and Mosenthal, 1999). In addition, intensive training, as in the Reading Recovery model, has been advocated. As can be seen from the five preced126
Developmental and College Reading ing issues, many concerns of the time relating to educating delayed readers are in some way related to educating their teachers. Sandra McCormick
the reading tasks in which college students engage differ from those required in either elementary- or secondary-school settings, approaches to text reading also differ. That is, college students have learned how to read; now they must read to learn. As such, they must use generative and active reading strategies that embody cognitive, metacognitive, and self-regulatory processes, selecting such strategies based on the task, the text, and students’ own characteristics as learners. Students enrolled in post-secondary institutions have needed assistance in developing stronger reading and studying practices almost since the inception of these techniques. As early as 1927, researchers and university presidents bemoaned the fact that students had great difficulty in adjusting to the academic demands of college, particularly tasks that involved reading and studying. Subsequently, post-secondary institutions designed courses or entire programs to improve college students’ abilities to learn from text. In the United States, the growth of programs to promote improved reading at the college level has been strongly tied to particular landmark events, mostly through federal legislation. Events such as the G.I. Bill of Rights in 1944, the National Defense Act of 1958, the civil rights movement, and the Higher Education Act of 1968 all spurred greater enrollment in post-secondary institutions, thus causing a trickle-down effect of programs for college students with less than adequate reading skills. Although legislation dictated student population, two early movements—behaviorism in the 1940s and 1950s and humanism in the 1960s— influenced the types of programs and instruction available for college students, as well as the types of studies that were conducted. Research efforts focused on program effectiveness and materials for aiding students’ reading rate, comprehension, and study skills. Researchers such as George Spache and Alton Raygor led the way with college reading studies that were presented at the Southwest Reading Conference for Colleges and Universities, a precursor to the National Reading Conference. In the 1960s, humanism also became evident in practice and pedagogy, although behaviorism continued to influence research. Two overriding conclusions can be drawn from the history of college reading. First, whether the need for assistance was because students lacked basic skills or because the transfer
See Also National Reading Panel; Reading Clinics; Reading Recovery; Remediation; Title I References Adams, Marilyn J. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge: MIT Press. Ehri, Linnea Carlson. 1994. “Development of the Ability to Read Words: Update.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 323–358. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ehri, Linnea Carlson, and Sandra McCormick. 1998. “Phases of Word Learning: Implications for Instruction with Delayed Readers and Disabled Readers.” Reading and Writing Quarterly 14 (2):135–164. Evensen, Dorothy H., and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds. 1999. Advances in Reading/Language Research. Vol. 6, Reconsidering the Role of the Reading Clinic in a New Age of Literacy. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Fitzgerald, Jill. 2001. “Can Minimally Trained College Student Volunteers Help Young At-Risk Children to Read Better?” Reading Research Quarterly 36 (1):28–46. McCormick, Sandra. 1999. Instructing Students Who Have Literacy Problems. Columbus, OH: PrenticeHall. National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Children to Read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Snow, Catherine, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Stanovich, Keith E. 1986. “Matthew Effects on Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy.” Reading Research Quarterly 26:360–407. Wasik, Barbara A., and Robert E. Slavin. 1993. “Preventing Early Reading Failure with One-toOne Tutoring: A Review of Five Programs.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:179–200.
Developmental and College Reading Developmental/college reading is broad term that refers to the academic literacy skills necessary to be successful in post-secondary settings. Because 127
Developmental and College Reading
Japanese exchange student studying with host (Skjold Photographs)
learning proposes that four factors interact to maximize the characteristics of learners, including their beliefs, motivation, and background; the characteristics of the task; the characteristics of the texts; and the strategies selected. According to Jenkins, 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. Jenkins’s model and similar models developed by John Bransford and Ann Brown and her colleagues, and later by John Thomas and William Rohwer, enabled researchers studying college readers to examine the variety of contextual variables that can influence how the reading process is viewed. These investigations altered the way research on learning from text was conducted. Especially influential, particularly in light of the flood of strategy research that took place in the 1980s and early 1990s, was Merlin Wittrock’s theory of generative processing. According to Wittrock (1974, 1986), generative strategies are behaviors that students choose to employ in order to influence their reading comprehension.
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 simply described effective reading or study-skills courses. However, with the development of reading and learning models, researchers began to base their investigations on stronger theoretical grounds. This theory draws on the early contributions of John Bransford, Ann Brown, James Jenkins, Michael Pressley, John Thomas, William Rohwer, David Rumelhart, and Merlin Wittrock. Theoretical Assumptions Since the late 1970s, both interactive and generative theoretical models have driven research focusing on reading to learn. Interactive models, though diverse, share the common assumptions that there are a number of variables that interact to impact students’ learning from text and that context is crucial to understanding text. Such models focus on the importance of the role the reader plays in text understanding, and they were crucial in advancing the study of college learners. James Jenkins’s (1979) interactive model of 128
Developmental and College Reading Thus, generative strategies require students to be active and effortful in their reading rather than passive. That is, students are generating meaning from their reading assignments by seeking links between the text and what they already know, by assimilating knowledge into their existing schemata or constructing new schemata to incorporate the new information, and by employing strategies that embody a variety of cognitive and metacognitive processes. From these theoretical models of reading and learning, several important generalizations can be drawn. First, the models imply that there are no generic best strategies or methods of reading to learn. Rather, strategies must be generative in nature and are considered appropriate when they match the demands of the texts and tasks and the beliefs and background knowledge of the learner. Second, reading to learn involves more than a knowledge of the possible strategies. Students must understand the what, when, how, and why of strategies and apply them consciously to their own tasks and texts. Third, these models suggest that there is a core of essential cognitive and metacognitive processes that cut across domains and must be embedded in the strategies selected. The cognitive processes include selecting and summarizing, organizing, and elaborating; the metacognitive processes include monitoring, evaluating, and planning. Influential researchers who studied specific strategies that embody these processes include Donald Dansereau (and numerous colleagues), Alison King, Marjorie Lipson, Richard Mayer, Sherrie Nist, Michael Pressley, Michele Simpson, and Claire Ellen Weinstein.
Pressley and his colleagues, college students tend to have difficulty selecting or isolating key information and summarizing that information using their own words. Some of the most widely used strategies for selecting key ideas are text-marking strategies such as underlining and highlighting. Although the research on underlining and highlighting is extensive, the findings are very inconsistent, given the wide array of materials and methodologies used in the various studies. Moreover, highlighting and underlining do not meet Wittrock’s definition of generative strategies because they do not require students to transform and organize ideas as they do if they are summarizing the information using their own words. Researchers such as King, and Dansereau and his colleagues, suggest that when students are taught the steps involved in summarizing, their reading comprehension and ability to monitor improve. Summarization as a reading strategy has taken a variety of forms. Nist and Simpson have investigated one such form, textbook annotation, a cognitive and metacognitive strategy that involves students in writing brief summaries in the margins of their texts and in organizing key ideas. Once students have written their annotations, they read what they have written and ask themselves these questions: Do my annotations make sense? Do they coincide with what I already know? What ideas still confuse me? How will I mark these confusing ideas so I can refer back to them? These questions help the students monitor and evaluate their comprehension, using metacognitive processes they typically overlook in their reading and studying. Annotation studies have typically found that students can be trained to annotate narrative and expository text and that annotation has an impact on their test performance and summary-writing abilities. However, as a generative reading strategy, textbook annotation does have some drawbacks. Most notably, students perceive annotation as costly because they view it as time intensive.
Selecting and Summarizing When students select, they are making decisions about which text information they should target for further study, usually through some form of generative text marking such as text annotation. Being able to select key information from the text that matches the task set forth by the instructor is central to this process. Summarizing is the reader’s ability to put information in his or her own words. It involves transforming text into a written form that is precise, succinct, and sensible. Both selecting and summarizing have a large influence on how much and what text information is learned. As noted by Nist and Simpson, as well as by
Organizing Once text information is selected for further study, students must organize it into a form that makes sense to them so that it can be more easily retained. Some texts are considerate and well organized. Other texts, however, require students to transform the important material in a more 129
Developmental and College Reading efficient and effective way. Organizing strategies encourage students to select key ideas and subordinate ideas, to form links across those ideas, and then to choose a way to visually represent those relationships in an abbreviated spatial format. Although there are many spatial formats that help students to organize what they have read, most of these are teacher-provided (e.g., graphic organizers) rather than student-generated strategies. The one exception, however, is concept mapping. When students create concept maps, they are attempting to represent complex interrelationships between and across ideas. Maps sometimes look like flow charts, depicting a hierarchy or linear relationship, or they can look like charts, representing complex interrelationships among ideas. Studies on mapping by Dansereau and his colleagues as well those by Lipson have found that at-risk college learners performed better on recall and recognition tasks when they received explicit instruction on the use of mapping. Mapping appears to be especially effective in situations where students must read complex expository materials, such as in the sciences, and then demonstrate their understanding on measures requiring higher levels of thinking. As such, mapping seems to benefit those students who have extensive background knowledge about the topics they are reading.
by generating “why” questions and then answering those questions. Because the teacher is responsible for inserting the elaborative questions into the student’s reading, this strategy does not fully satisfy Wittrock’s definition of a generative strategy. However, elaborative questions can be the stimulus for students learning the types of questions they should be asking themselves as they read. Several important findings have emerged from these studies. Most important for college students, it appears that the quality of the generated elaboration does not have an impact on students’ understanding when the targeted topic is one about which they have some prior knowledge. Simpson and her co-researchers engaged students in another type of elaborative strategy. Elaborative verbal rehearsals involve students in rehearsing aloud the important ideas that emerge from their reading. An effective elaborative rehearsal consists of relating ideas across text and to prior knowledge, incorporating personal reactions or opinions about ideas, including appropriate text examples, and creating new examples or applications. Simpson and her colleagues found in their training study that college students who used elaborative verbal rehearsals performed significantly better on immediate and delayed recognition and recall measures than their counterparts who used rote-level verbal rehearsals (i.e., repeating key ideas and details). One of the drawbacks to this elaboration strategy is that students must have a good understanding of the content before it can readily be used.
Elaborating In elaborating, students personalize the information to be learned from text. They use their existing knowledge to add information that is not explicitly stated in the text as a way of making the text easier to learn. As Simpson and her colleagues suggest, they may create analogies or examples, draw inferences, generate images or word associations, or explain the relationships among two or more concepts. Pressley and his collaborators, however, suggest that many college students do not spontaneously elaborate as they read their textbook assignments. There are two different strategies that address the task of elaboration, a challenging but very necessary reading process: elaborative interrogation and elaborative verbal rehearsals. Pressley and his colleagues have conducted numerous studies on elaborative interrogation, which involves students in making connections between ideas they have read and their prior knowledge
Monitoring and Evaluating Readers engage in monitoring in order to evaluate their level of understanding and the appropriateness of the strategies they use to learn from text. According to Weinstein and Mayer, when students monitor their comprehension, they establish goals and consciously assess the degree to which those goals are being met. If necessary, they modify the strategies they are using to meet the goals. Monitoring is perhaps the most difficult process to observe and describe. Although many college students are not metacognitively aware as they read, studies have shown that they can be trained to monitor their text understanding by using a variety of techniques and generative reading strategies. The most common approach taken by researchers is 130
Dialogic Responsiveness
Dialogic Responsiveness
to teach students how to self-test and create meaningful questions before they read, while they read, or after they read (e.g., King, 1992). By monitoring in this manner, students identify gaps or errors in their reading comprehension, thus improving their reading comprehension as well. To teach students to create task-appropriate and meaningful questions that elicit higher levels of thinking, researchers have typically provided students with generic question stems that encourage them to analyze, explain, compare, contrast, and create new applications (e.g., “What is an example of . . .?”). Other research studies have capitalized on the power of collaborative learning, in which students work cooperatively in dyads or small groups, asking each other questions and answering them in a reciprocal manner. Such findings suggest that answering the questions is as important as asking the questions because students are encouraged to clarify their understanding of concepts when they are explaining an answer to another student or to themselves. Sherrie L. Nist and Michele L. Simpson
A synthesis of the multiple interpretations of Lev Vygotsky’s theories in literacy research suggests that teachers can be responsive to a student’s complex literacy needs through supportive dialogue. This phenomenon of support is referred to as dialogic responsiveness. Social constructivist theories, research, and practice revolve around the common assumption that human thought is shaped in communicative activities. Although they share this common assumption, social constructivist literacy researchers have focused on varied and often competing aspects of literacy learning because of competing interpretations of Vygotsky, including sociolinguistic, sociocognitive, sociocultural, socioemotional, and sociomotivational interpretations. For example, sociolinguistic interpretations take into account Vygotsky’s (1978) idea that human learning is mediated by our communicative symbol systems (i.e., oral and written language). Thus, sociolinguistic literacy research has focused on the natural language acquisition of children as they communicate with others using both oral and written language. Teachers and parents are encouraged to be responsive to the literate acts of young children as they use scribbles to write a narrative or use storybook language to read a story. Sociolinguistic interpretations suggest that teachers can have collaborative conceptual conversations with young children as they read and write to encourage their continuing language acquisition and that teachers can encourage peer interaction as another means of verbal support for young literacy learners. Sociocognitive interpretations in literacy learning focus on Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Countering Jean Piaget’s idea of a set developmental level, Vygotsky’s ZPD presented the idea that a child’s developmental potential is even greater with the assistance of an adult. Sociocognitive literacy research has described how the instructional dialogue, between a child and an adult, influences the child’s cognitive development. Verbal scaffolding (a term used to describe the supportive dialogue provided by the adult/teacher) is encouraged in both code and comprehension aspects of meaning-making from text. This requires a teacher’s or tutor’s constant attentiveness to a reader’s developing literacy concepts and supported instruction that
See Also Metacognition; Study Skills and Strategies References Bransford, John D. 1979. Human Cognition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Brown, Ann L., Joseph C. Campione, and Jeanne D. Day. 1981. “Learning to Learn: On Training Students to Learn from Text.” Educational Researcher 10:14–21. Jenkins, James J. 1979. “Four Points to Remember: A Tetrahedral Model of Memory Experiments.” In Fergus Craik and Laird Cermak, eds., Levels of Processing in Human Memory, pp. 429–446. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. King, Allison. 1992. “Comparison of Self-Questioning, Summarizing, and Note-Taking Review as Strategies for Learning from Lectures.” American Educational Research Journal 29:303–323. Rumelhart, David. 1977. “Toward an Interactive Model of Reading.” In S. Dornic, ed., Attention and Performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Thomas, John W., and William Rohwer. “Academic Studying: The Role of Learning Strategies.” Educational Researcher 21:19–41. Wittrock, Merlin C. 1974. “Learning as a Generative Process.” Educational Psychologist 11:87–95. ———. 1987. “Students’ Thought Processes.” In M. C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 297–314. New York: Macmillan.
131
Dialogue Journals is slightly ahead of the reader’s instructional level. Although Vygotsky (1978), who is often viewed as the father of social constructivism, argued that motivation and emotion are integral aspects of learning and criticized a history of research that focused solely on cognition, social constructivists have only recently begun to investigate both the motivational and emotional aspects of literacy learning. Socioemotional and sociomotivational traditions suggest that personal conversations between teachers and students can create an emotionally safe verbal environment in which students are more apt to take risks. When students do not feel motivated in literacy contexts, teachers are encouraged to express empathy and genuine interest in their feelings. These types of personal conversations also provide teachers with the opportunity to get to know students well enough to help them make personal connections to literacy. Sociocultural interpretations of Vygotsky emphasize the complexities of thought and language development in the communicative experiences of culture. There are two Vygotskian ideas that have influenced sociocultural literacy research, including the notion that there is a reciprocal relationship (each influences the other) between everyday concepts and schooled concepts in cognitive development and the notion that the development of higher mental processes is mediated by symbols and tools (Moll, 1990). Thus, sociocultural literacy research has focused on the everyday language and literacy practices (symbols and tools) of particular cultural groups and how these everyday practices are valued and utilized in the institution of school. Sociocultural interpretations reveal that being responsive to young literacy learners requires that teachers know and value students as unique individuals, including valuing the students’ own literacy values and literacy practices. Through child-relevant instructional conversations and supported interaction, teachers can help students make connections with their own experiences, construct new cognitive knowledge, and develop literacy skills in the unfamiliar discourse taught in schools. A synthesis of these multiple interpretations of Vygotsky suggests that educators can be responsive to the complex components of learning to read, including language acquisition, cognition, culture, emotion, and motivation—
through active participation in dialogue. A synthesis of social constructivist literacy research suggests that teachers can meet the complex needs of literacy learners through “dialogic responsiveness.” Cheri Foster Triplett See Also Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Social Constructivism References Moll, Louis. 1990. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tharp, Roland, and Ronald Gallimore. 1998. Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dialogue Journals Dialogue journals are a journal form in which an ongoing written conversation takes place between two (or more) persons on a regular basis. In school situations, dialogue journals normally occur between the teacher and a student or between two students. Outside the school, dialogue journals are often kept by parents and their children. Teachers (and parents) who become partners with their students (children) in the ongoing and recursive reading and writing encourage literacy development and share in a more personal side of their children that may not otherwise be possible (Rasinski and Allen, 1988). The primary purpose of the dialogue journal is communication and relationship building between the journalists. Jana Staton (1984) noted that dialogue journals provide a vehicle for focused and continuing conversations in which two participants bring about new understandings, new ideas, and new meaning. Karen Bromley (1993) has noted that dialogue journals in schools serve a variety of instructional purposes. They individualize the learning experience, provide accurate and authentic models of writing for students to emulate and authentic audiences for student writing, develop writing fluency through authentic application, provide a nonthreatening and open context for 132
Directed Reading Activity and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity writing, validate self-expression and build motivation and self-confidence for writing, nurture interpersonal connections, and integrate reading, writing, and thinking naturally. Dialogue journals may be particularly useful in the literacy development of students of limited English proficiency (Peyton and Reed, 1990) and students with significant learning difficulties (Gaustad and Messenheimer-Young, 1991). Timothy Rasinski and JoBeth Allen (1988) also noted that dialogue journals provide teachers and parents with a vehicle for conversing with children in a much more personal and intimate manner than would normally be seen in oral conversation. Educators have identified several principles that are key to successful dialogue journals. An authentic and intrinsic purpose for the keeping of a journal between journalists—to get to know one another better, to overcome problems in the classroom, and so on—is critical to the success of a dialogue journal partnership. Recognition that the journalists are equal partners in the dialogue journal is essential. Dialogue journalists must allow for freedom of topic; either partner may freely choose a topic for discussion in the journal. Written communications between journalists should be frequent and continuous over an extended period of time. Journals are private communications between the journalists, and because of the personal nature of many of the communications, journalists should allow for reflection on and rereading of journal entries. The process of keeping a dialogue journal involves one journalist making and dating a journal entry and then physically passing the journal to the partner. After the second journalist records his or her entry, the journal is returned to the first journalist. Journal entries can include observations, questions, statements of problems and concerns, and responses to entries made by the journalist’s partner. Conversational topics can range from student performance in specific academic areas to the general classroom climate to personal concerns, at school or home, experienced by the student. Keeping a dialogue journal, especially when a teacher keeps dialogue journals with several students, can be time consuming. Bromley (1993) recommends that teachers initially keep dialogue journals with only a few students and read and respond to a limited number of journals each day. More students can be added by the teacher
as comfort and routine in keeping and responding to students are developed. Timothy Rasinski References Bromley, Karen. 1993. Journaling: Engagements in Reading, Writing, and Thinking. New York: Scholastic. Gaustad, Martha Gonter, and Trinka MessenheimerYoung. 1991. “Dialogue Journals for Students with Learning Disabilities.” Teaching Exceptional Children 23 (3):28–32. Peyton, Joy Kreeft, and Leslee Reed. 1990. Dialogue Journal Writing with Non-Native English Speakers: A Handbook for Teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Rasinski, Timothy V., and JoBeth Allen. 1988. “Parent-Child Dialogue Journals: Family Learning.” Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Learning 2:3–13. Staton, Jana. 1984. “The Power of Responding in Dialogue Journals.” In Toby Fulwiler, ed., The Journal Book, pp. 47–63. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1985. “Using Dialogue Journals for Developing Thinking, Reading, and Writing with Hearing-Impaired Students.” Volta Review 87:127–153.
Directed Reading Activity and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity Directed Reading Activity (DRA) and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) are two teaching strategies used to guide students as they read text. DRA is one of the oldest and most widely used frameworks for reading instruction. DRA is designed to assist teachers in providing systematic group-reading instruction, in guiding and engaging students in reading texts, and in providing students with direct instruction in word recognition and comprehension (Tierney and Readence, 2000). DRA is commonly associated with basal-reading instruction in the elementary grades but can be used with students at all grade levels and with a variety of texts. DRA is a three-step teaching process that involves prereading, during-reading, and postreading activities. In the prereading step, students’ prior knowledge of the topic or concept is activated, or background knowledge developed, and vocabulary words are introduced. Vocabulary is presented both orally and visually in the context of sentences. Students’ purposes for reading are usually established by the teacher during pre133
Directed Reading Activity and Directed Reading-Thinking Activity reading. Based on students’ needs and abilities, silent reading of the text is conducted in one of two ways: First, students read the text in its entirety and then orally respond to literal, inferential, and interpretive questions posed by the teacher during postreading discussion; or, second, the teacher divides the text into three or four sections and then guides students as they silently read through one section at a time. After a section of the text has been read, the teacher orally poses questions and engages students in discussion before continuing on to the next section. Once each section has been read and discussed, the teacher poses summative questions related to the entire selection, thereby integrating each part of the text into a more comprehensible whole. The postreading comprehension check and discussion may be followed by oral rereading or extension activities that connect the text with writing, the arts, or other curricular areas such as math, science, and social studies. Direct instruction in comprehension and word recognition is provided during the postreading step. Robert Tierney and John Readence (2000) caution teachers to engage in ongoing evaluation of DRA’s effectiveness in meeting students’ needs. Instruction should be meaningful to students, related to the reading task, and explained and modeled by the teacher. Teachers should be aware that DRA is teacher centered and places students in passive reading roles. Unlike DRA, Directed Reading-Thinking Activity engages students in active reading and thinking and places the teacher in the role of facilitator. DR-TA is an instructional approach that requires students to predict, set purposes for reading, and actively seek evidence in the text to support predictions (Stauffer, 1969). DR-TA is designed to help students establish purposes for reading, to generalize, analyze, induce, assimilate, and integrate information, to read critically and reflectively, and to engage in higher levels of cognitive reasoning (Widomski, 1983). DR-TA is a two-part teaching strategy. In the first phase, the teacher guides and directs students’ thinking as they read the text. During the second phase, the teacher provides instruction in identified areas of need, enrichment, and extension. Teachers prepare to use DR-TA by selecting a text that students will be interested in reading. Based on the teacher’s familiarity with the text,
four to six stopping points are selected for prediction and discussion. The teacher formulates open-ended questions to accompany each stopping point. The questions should encourage students to predict what the upcoming reading will be about, what will happen, or what will be learned. Teachers encourage students to provide reasoning for predictions by asking, “Why do you think that?” Stopping points are usually after the title, after the first few paragraphs, at points of high interest, action, or possible confusion, and just before the end. At each stopping point, students predict what will happen or what will be learned based on information from the text and prior knowledge, confirm or adjust predictions based on new information learned from reading, and provide proof or support of predictions using the text or prior knowledge. The process of predicting, confirming, and refuting predictions helps students connect prior knowledge with information from the text. The DR-TA lesson begins with the teacher reading the title of the text aloud and asking students to predict what the story or lesson will be about. Teachers should note that students’ predictions are listed on the board or overhead at each stopping point. Students then read the first few paragraphs silently. At the first stopping point, the teacher asks students to confirm or adjust their predictions. Following discussion at the second stopping point, the teacher asks students to formulate predictions about the next segment of text. This discussion-prediction pattern is followed throughout the reading of the text. At the final stopping point, students develop predictions as they decide upon the selection’s ending. Finally, students relate how evidence within the text influenced their decisions. The heart of DR-TA lies in students’ formulation of responses to the questions “What do you think will happen next?” and “Why do you think so?” The first question elicits prediction, and the second requires explanation and reasoning. The second phase of DR-TA involves instruction based on student needs that were identified in phase one. For example, the teacher may offer vocabulary instruction if students had difficulty understanding specific terms. A variety of enrichment and extension activities may be presented at this point, but activity selection should be based on the teacher’s observation of students’ needs. 134
Discourse Analysis sentence, it is better to define discourse as language in use. She views language in use as discourse used to mean and do something in realworld contexts that are read and interpreted by hearers/readers. Regardless of the definition used, a review of studies purporting to use discourse analysis in education shows confusion about what counts as discourse analysis. Some educational researchers reduce discourse to talk, and they record talk merely to identify repeated terms or behaviors or to code the talk using predefined categories, ignoring the disciplinary roots of traditions that gave rise to discourse analysis. Often such studies decontextualize discourse from its context, equating one instance of talk as equivalent to other instances of the same term, phrase, sentence, or connected sequences of utterances. Most of these approaches are grounded in behavioral theories, not theories of language in use, pragmatics, semiotics, or linguistics, and with the exception of recent work from a social behaviorist perspective, they ignore the context of use and the connected nature of talk. For example, in preset category systems, the lexical item OK is often coded as praise, ignoring contextual differences in what is intended by the use of the term or what is accomplished through its use. When the context of use is considered, the term OK can have a variety of meanings depending on how it is spoken, when it is used, what it refers to, and how members respond to its use. It can be praise (“OK! That was great!”), a way of holding your turn at speaking (“Mmmm, okaaaayyy, ummm, it was Bobbie who did that, wasn’t it?”), or a way of signaling a change in direction of the activity being undertaken (“OK, let’s go on now.”), among other uses. (For discussions of different systems for observing interaction see Evertson and Green, 1986; and for context, see Duranti and Goodwin, 1992.) In contrast, approaches grounded in work on language in use and in social construction of everyday life in and through discourse take as a given that the meaning of each use can only be understood in the context of occurrence, by considering what precedes it and what follows. Just how much text preceding or following the bit of discourse being examined is necessary to establish the context of use differs again by theoretical perspective, research tradition, analysts’ questions and purpose(s), and types of data available.
The major differences between DRA and DR-TA are the instructional point for vocabulary, the emphasis placed on students’ active engagement in the reading-thinking process, and the teacher’s role. DRA is teacher centered and depends on teacher-formulated purposes for reading and questions for comprehension building. DR-TA engages students in active reading and formulation of predictions and places the teacher in the role of facilitator. When using DRA, vocabulary terms are introduced prior to reading, whereas vocabulary instruction does not occur until after reading when DR-TA is used. Pamela J. Dunston and Kathy N. Headley See Also Critical Reading References Stauffer, Russell G. 1969. Reading Maturity as a Cognitive Process. New York: Harper and Row. Tierney, Robert J., and John E. Readence. 2000. Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Widomski, Cheryl L. 1983. “Building Foundations for Reading Comprehension.” Reading World 22:306–313.
Discourse Analysis Any discussion of discourse analysis must start by defining the term discourse and understanding how analysis works into the definition. To understand the contribution of discourse analysis to the study of literacy in schools, other institutions, and communities, it is necessary to distinguish discourse analysis from other approaches to the study of talk and interaction in social groups and educational settings. Examination of approaches to discourse analysis across disciplines provides a picture of diverse theoretical languages used and variation in the objects of study, purposes, and methodological tools and processes, resulting in differences in understandings and in what can be known through each approach. Adam Jaworski and Nikalos Coupland (1999) provide multiple definitions, arguing that most approaches to discourse analysis are based on the understanding that, at a minimum, discourse refers to connected talk or written text above (longer than) the level of the sentence. These perspectives vary on other dimensions of language in use and context. Deborah Cameron (2001) argues that rather than using the definition connected text greater than a 135
Discourse Analysis To illustrate these differences and to examine how variations in approach contribute to the knowledge available through different traditions of discourse analysis, five of the most widely used approaches in education will now be discussed: conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, ethnographically framed approaches, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics. We will present these approaches, beginning with those focusing more specifically on language use (form and function) and then present those that focus more specifically on what is accomplished in and through language in use, realizing that these distinctions are for heuristic purposes. In actuality, these distinctions can be, and often are, blurred within individual studies. Central to these traditions is a view of discourse as socially constructed in and through actions and interactions of members of a social group. Discourse, therefore, emanates from a group and not solely from an individual, although individuals can and do contribute to the discourse among participants, make choices about which discourse practices and processes to use, and through discourse define what counts as socially appropriate actions. Differences among these perspectives are related to the level of context considered (macro society or local moments, or combinations thereof) and whether they focus on oral or written discourse or the relationship between the two. These approaches also differ in their views of historicity (the relationship of particular moments of use to previous ones) and intertextuality (the relationship of present contexts to previous or future actions, times, places, or events) (see Intertextuality).
formance, and institutional language demands. These studies examined differences among systems of language and their uses in schools and in local communities, suggesting a difference model rather than the then dominant deficit model, which viewed dialect speakers as deficient in language when entering school. These sociolinguistic approaches led to the construction of new understandings of differences in language use and the need to examine closely academic genres and language demands of the classroom. Such studies demonstrated ways in which language variation is ordinary and occurs across events, actors, groups, and purposes. Sociolinguistic studies led to the need to understand language that resources students (teachers and others) bring and how these resources are, or are not, supported in classrooms. One approach, interactional sociolinguistics, expanded the object of study and, concurrently, the ways in which data are collected, segments of talk are selected, and the units of analysis are chosen. This approach requires use of analytic units that involve the ways members construct extended stretches of interaction, patterns of interaction, demands for participating, and responses to what is said and done. This latter aspect entails examination of chains of action rather than individual instances of language use. Authors associated with sociolinguistics include: Joshua Fishman, Dell Hymes, William Labov, Peter Trudgill, and Walt Wolfram; interactional sociolinguists include Michelle Foster, Erving Goffman, John Gumperz, Monica Heller, Sarah Michaels, Cathleen O’Connor, Celia Roberts, Deborah Schiffren, Michael Stubbs, and Deborah Tannen.
Traditions of Discourse Analysis Pragmatics Discourse approaches associated with pragmatics have their roots in philosophy of language and focus on how members use language to mean and do things in the world. Although the pragmatics approach shares some goals with sociolinguistic approaches, pragmatics has in the past focused on what speakers do and how they convey meaning, by examining units such as speech acts and pragmatic and discourse principles (e.g., conversational cooperation and felicity of contributions to topic). Historically, this work has drawn heavily on the philosophical work of John Austin, John Searle, and H. P. Grice. For ex-
Sociolinguistics Sociolinguistic approaches to discourse analysis were some of the earliest used to study language in use in educational settings (see Sociolinguistics and Literacy). These studies examined such issues as: language use and its relationship to race, gender, ethnicity, and class; how such variations in use influenced assessment of the ability of students; students’ communicative competence and performance; and how schools meet the needs of linguistically different speakers. Sociolinguistic studies examine differences in language as a system, grammatical use, speech per136
Discourse Analysis ample, work drawing on Austin tends to analyze three interrelated aspects of speech acts. It examines locution (actual words used), illocutionary force (how it was meant to be heard), and perlocution (the effect) of speech acts used by a speaker to accomplish a particular intention (e.g., to state something, command someone to do something, and request something). This work has importance when issues of form, intention, and effect on hearers are examined. Central to this work is the distinction between syntax and extralinguistic or prosodic features of language in use that signal to others how something is meant to be heard (e.g., pitch, stress, intonation, and pause). Analysis of speech acts (utterances) often entails marking of prosodic features of talk as a basis for identifying illocutionary force and for interpreting meaning, both intended and read by the other. Using the example of OK, a pragmatic analysis would view a rising pitch in American English to signal a question or a request for confirmation; whereas, oh-kay, with even stress on each syllable and a higher pitch than the preceding talk, could be heard as praise. Because of its focus on language in use, pragmatics is often seen as overlapping some approaches to sociolinguistics.
tion to identify mechanisms that members of a social group use to construct the social organization of actions. Analysis has examined mechanisms such as turn taking, use of names, and ways members orient to and hold each other accountable to what is occurring. For example, the IRE sequence (Initiate-Respond-Evaluate) often found in traditional classrooms is viewed as constituting a key mechanism, the product of which is a particular type of schooling as experienced by students. One turn in a sequence is viewed as placing a demand for a response on the next, and through the reflexive actions of participants, the constituent elements of the interaction are identified. Patterns of interaction (e.g., I-R-E sequences) are examined to understand how the social organization of actions is structured, in and through the interactions among members in the moment. Conversation analysts and ethnomethodologists ask the question “What counts as ———?” (e.g., literacy, text, gendered actions, or opening of a conversation) to construct locally situated understandings of the mechanisms used and the social organization of actions constructed through their use. Activities are products of interactions among members. Analysts seek to construct an answer to this question from a member’s perspective by observing closely the sequence of actions among participants in a particular setting. This approach entails a situated perspective, and claims are grounded in the social accomplishment of actions. Analysts look for isolated, clearly bounded sequences and then treat these sequences as units of analysis (e.g., a sequence of instructions; the sequence used to close a lesson; and 911 calls).
Conversation Analysis Conversation analysis (CA) also focuses on language in use. However, the goal and methodological practices of CA differ. Conversation analysis has its sociological roots in the work of Harold Garfinkel. It is related to work in ethnomethodology and includes work by Carolyn Baker, Aaron Cicourel, James Heap, John Heritage, Gene Lerner, Hugh Mehan, Doug McBeth, Alex McHoul, Emmanuel Schegloff, and Don Zimmerman. CA constructs its arguments from data, and analysts are enjoined from using evidence or theories from outside of the talk-in-interaction. Among others, issues of context, activity, and gender are viewed as constituted in and through the talk-in-interaction; they do not draw on information, beliefs, or theory external to these interactions. The analyst looks for observable evidence and must be able to point to a particular utterance (or place) when making a claim about something in the interaction. The analytic focus of CA is not conversation or discourse, but talk-in-interaction. Analysts examine the sequential work of people in interac-
Critical Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis Critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis (CDA) studies language in its relationship to power and ideology. Power is viewed in two ways: in terms of asymmetries that exist between participants in discourse events and in terms of unequal capacity to control the production of texts and how they are distributed and consumed. Texts are both those constructed in a local discursive event (oral or written, or both) and those created beyond that event (e.g., media, technological, graphic, and others). CDA is both a theoretical perspective and a methodological 137
Discourse Analysis approach used to examine power-ideology relationships in particular sociocultural contexts; like CA, CDA entails a situated perspective. What differs is the level of situation under examination (both the sequential production and larger units of text) and what lens is brought to the analysis. For example, Norman Fairclough (1993) argues that a bit of discourse is simultaneously a text, a discourse practice, and a social practice through which a larger text or discourse activity or event is being constructed. Local discourse choices of speakers/writers are drawn from discourses within the broader sociocultural contexts. A range of properties of discourse practices and texts is regarded as potentially ideological, including features of vocabulary, metaphors, genres, grammatical conventions, style, and discourse strategies (e.g., turn taking, politeness conventions, and topic appropriateness). Choices that writers or speakers make in constructing texts begin to shape and then are shaped by the connected text(s) being constructed. Through this process, the writer/speaker/group inscribes an ideological position within the local sociocultural context. In some approaches to CDA, the issue of consciousness of decisions is of concern and has led to ways of addressing the issue of naturalization of language. Roz Ivanic (1998) used CDA to develop approaches that show students (and others) how the linguistic choices they make in constructing texts are not natural but are shaped by other texts (intertextuality) or discourse within their sociocultural ecology. Choices among discourses (and discourse features) also inscribe identities of the speaker/writer that are then available to others to read and interpret. CDA examines discourse choices and issues about who has access to these choices, for what purposes, and in what ways. Authors associated with critical linguistics and critical discourse analysis include Frances Christie, James Gee, Michael Halliday, Gunter Kress, Jay Lemke, Jim Martin, Teun Van Dijk, and Theo Van Leeuwen.
settings), with sociolinguistic and other forms of discourse analysis. The oldest of these is ethnography of communication, sometimes referred to as the ethnography of speaking. This approach examines how patterns of language use, in particular communities, or sustaining groups, occur and what the consequences of their use are for speakers; how language use marks one as a member of a particular speech group; and how members of one speech community act, interpret, evaluate, and respond to speakers of other languages or dialects. These approaches to discourse analysis require overtime examination of who can speak in what ways, when, where, under what conditions, and for what purposes. Analysts also explore the outcomes of these ways of speaking for a particular speaker in relation to the event in which the interaction occurred (see Muriel Saville-Troike, 1989, for a comprehensive discussion of this approach; other authors include Elinor Ochs, Patricia Duff, Candy Goodwin, John Gumperz, Dell Hymes, Marilyn Martin-Jones, and Bambi Schieffelin). Studies of the ethnography of communication have examined differences in speech styles among groups, language socialization processes, institutionally framed expectations for language use, miscommunication among speakers of the same language or different languages, and contrasts between language of home, school, and community, as well as between first- and secondlanguage learners. In educational settings, studies drawing on the ethnography of communication have examined, among other topics, interethnic communication and the relationships between language and identity and between language and perceived ability. More recently, a second area of focus has developed that brings a broader focus on language and literacy as socially accomplished. This approach seeks to answer questions about what counts as language use and literacy within and across local events, groups, and settings. Such study views language as primary to the conduct of everyday life, with literacy and discourse practices as the outcomes of the interactions among members of the group. Discourse analysis, from this perspective, views discourse as both a process and a product of local interactions and sees it as intertextually tied to past and future events constituting human activity. Language is both a resource for communication and an outcome of communica-
Ethnographically Framed Discourse Analysis In the past four decades, traditions have developed that bring together ethnographic studies of the social construction of everyday life within and across sustaining groups, sometimes called speech communities (e.g., families, peer groups, ethnic groups, classrooms, and other institution 138
Discourse Analysis tion across time and events. Prior uses of language (and literacy) are material resources that members draw on to construct new interactions, communicate with others, and read and interpret what is occurring in the present event under construction. Authors associated with this perspective include David Bloome, David Barton, Carol Dixon, Michele Foster, Judith Green, Shirley Brice Heath, Judith Kalman, Greg Kelly, Elsie Rockwell, Brian Street, and Gordon Wells. Two traditions have emerged as new theoretical and methodological directions within this group: new literacy studies (David Barton, Mary Hamilton, Brian Street, and colleagues in the United Kingdom) and interactional ethnography (Theresa Crawford, Maria Lucia Castanheira, Carol Dixon and Judith Green [2001], and their colleagues in the United States).
words but the related actions (nonverbal), contextual cues, and historical ties (intertextual referents). These directions provide new challenges for authors. Given theory-method relationships, it is imperative that the logic of discourse analysis used be included in published works as part of the evidence trail. The richness of this approach brings both challenges and resources to the study of literacy and language in educational settings. Judith L. Green and Carol N. Dixon See Also Feminist Post-Structuralism; Intertextuality; PostStructuralism and Structuralism; Sociolinguistics and Literacy References Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage. Crawford, Theresa, Maria Lucia Castanheira, Carol Dixon, and Judith Green. 2001. “What Counts as Literacy: An International Ethnographic Perspective.” In Joy Cunning and Claire Wyatt Smith, eds., Literacy and the Curriculum: Success in Senior Secondary Schooling, pp. 32–43. Camberwell, Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research. Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin. 1992. Rethinking Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. Evertson, Carolyn, and Judith Green. 1986. “Observation as Inquiry and Method.” In Meryl Wittrock, ed., The Handbook for Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., pp. 162–213. New York: Macmillan. Fairclough, Norman. 1993. “Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 3 (2):193–218. Ivanic, Roz. 1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Jaworski, A., and N. Coupland. 1999. The Discourse Reader. New York: Routledge. Ochs, Elinor. 1979. “Transcription as Theory.” In Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schefflin, eds., Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic. Saville-Troika, Muriel. 1989. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell.
Implications for Analyzing and Reporting Data The five approaches described above represent some of those available. Others include feminist and post-structural approaches and theories as well as cognitive, symbolic interactionist, and narrative analysis approaches (see Feminist PostStructuralism, and Post-Structuralism and Structuralism). These approaches differ in theoretical orientations and in the ways they lead to construction of transcripts, analysis practices, and the conclusions or claims that can be drawn from the data. Recently, work by sociocultural/ sociohistorical theorists (e.g., Lev Vygotsky and Mikhail Bakhtin and their intellectual descendants) has raised questions about relationships between speakers and hearers and about the roles and relationships among participants across time and events. These frameworks have led researchers to explore the relationships between text and talk, speech genres and other forms of literate practices, identity formations and their relationships to discourse practices, among other subjects. These new perspectives confirm Elinor Ochs’s (1979) argument that a transcript inscribes the analyst’s theory of the relationships between and among actors (speakers) and that the linear transcription inscribes assumed hierarchical/power relationships rather than representing actual relationships. Many new approaches have explored ways of representing the interactions among speakers in ways that represent not only the 139
Discursive Theory
Discursive Theory
ernment offices, or social groups with certain sorts of genres, such as baseball cards, comic books, chess, politics, novels, or movies. A person has to be socialized into a practice to learn to read texts of type X in way Y, a practice other people have already mastered. Since this is so, we can turn literacy on its head and refer specifically to the social institutions or social groups that have these practices, rather than to the practices themselves. When we do this, we realize that the practices of such social groups are never just literacy practices. They also involve ways of talking, interacting, thinking, valuing, and believing. Researchers who take a sociocultural approach to literacy believe that literacy in and of itself, abstracted from historical conditions and social practices, has no definitive set of predictable effects, for example, causing people to be more intelligent, more analytical, or more modern (Graff, 1987). Rather, literacy has different effects in the context of different historically varying social and cultural practices. For example, schoolbased writing and reading leads to different effects than reading and writing as they are embedded in various religious practices around the world. Of course, there are multiple and different school-based practices and multiple and different religious practices, each with multiple effects.
A Sociocultural Perspective on Literacy Research that views literacy in its social, cultural, economic, and historical contexts often uses the term discourse as a higher-order concept within which literacy is situated. Before delineating the range of meanings the concept of discourse has come to have in this research, it is important to contrast traditional views of literacy with viewpoints that take a sociocultural and sociohistorical perspective. Traditionally, literacy has been viewed as the psychologically defined ability to read and write, often with an emphasis on basic reading skills (e.g., decoding and literal comprehension). A sociocultural perspective (Gee, 1996) starts with the assumption that reading always has to do with being able to read something. This something will always be a text of a certain type. Different types of texts (e.g., newspapers, comic books, law books, poems) call for different types of background knowledge and require different skills in order to be read meaningfully. In turn, no one would say anyone could read a given text if he or she did not know what the text meant. But there are many different levels of meaning that can be given to or taken from any text, many different ways in which any text can be read. A person can read a friend’s letter as a mere report, an indication of her state of mind, a prognosis of her future actions; a person can read a novel as a typification of its period and place, as vicarious experience, as art, as a guide to living, and so on and so forth. Given this perspective of reading as reading a certain type of text in a certain way, we can ask: How does a reader acquire the ability to read a certain type of text in a certain way? Here proponents of a sociocultural approach to literacy argue that a person acquires a way of reading a certain type of text by being apprenticed as a member of a social practice wherein people not only read texts of this type in this way, but also talk about such texts in certain ways, hold certain attitudes and values about them, and socially interact over them in certain ways. Thus, a person does not learn to read texts of type X in way Y unless he or she has had experience in settings where texts of type X are read in way Y. These settings are various sorts of social institutions, like churches, banks, schools, gov-
Discourses In an influential work, the linguist Norman Fairclough (1995) has developed a critical sociocultural approach to language, along the lines detailed above, in which the notion of discourse plays a prominent role. Fairclough views both oral and written language as modes of action in terms of how people act upon the world and upon each other. He uses the term “discourse,” when it is used (in phrases such as “the discourse of neoliberal economics” or “radical feminist discourses of sexuality versus patriarchal discourses of sexuality”) as a term for distinctive ways of using language to construe the material and social world from a particular perspective. Fairclough goes on to define the notion of an order of discourse, by which he means the set of discursive practices associated with a particular social domain or institution as well as the boundaries and relationships between them (Fairclough, 1995). For example, an academic draws on a variety of ways of using oral and writ140
Discursive Theory ten language: lectures, discussions, research publications, committee reports, and so forth. Traditionally, businesspeople have drawn on a different order of discourse containing different sorts of oral and written text types and ways with words. However, it is common today to see some elements of the business order of discourse get imported into the academic one, as colleges and universities operate more like entrepreneurial enterprises in the so-called new economy. In his use of the terms discourse and order of discourse, Fairclough was influenced by Michel Foucault’s widely known work (1981). Foucault was interested in the ways in which, at particular historical periods, alignments and relationships among particular types of texts, practices, and institutions in a society set limits to what is “sayable” and “thinkable.” He was also interested in how particular and historically distinctive ways of talking, thinking, and seeing the world spread across various linked, but independent, institutions. For example, Foucault studied how, in the eighteenth century, institutions such as prisons, hospitals, and schools began to replace the use of physical force to discipline people with forms of discipline based on constant observation (surveillance) and professional or specialist knowledge about human development and deviance. The prisoner, the patient, and the student became “clients” of “professionals.” The linguist James Paul Gee (1996) has also appealed to the notion of discourse, though he uses the term in a somewhat different way. He distinguishes between “Discourse” with a “big D” and “discourse” with a “little d.” By discourse with a little d, he means any instance of language-in-use to communicate. Discourse with a “big D” is a way in which people get recognized (and recognize themselves and others) as distinctive “kinds of people” through engaging in distinctive and partially repeatable social practices, whether they are members of a Los Angeles street gang, lawyers, or biologists of a certain sort, mental patients of a certain type, or members of a particular first-grade classroom. A Discourse is composed of (and integrates) distinctive ways speaking, acting, interacting, thinking, believing, dressing, valuing, as well as using various sorts of tools, and technologies at the right times and places, so as to get recognized as a particular socially distinctive “kind of person” doing a particular socially distinctive kind of action.
For Fairclough and Gee, literacy is always a particular way of using written language within a specific (and historically changing) order of discourse or “Discourse” connected to specific cultures or institutions. Since orders of discourse or Discourses always involve people’s socially situated identities and are always integrally connected to values and beliefs about what counts as “acceptable,” “appropriate,” or “normal” kinds of people, texts, language, and meanings, they are inextricably “political” in the sense that viewpoints about the distribution of social goods (such as status, possessions, credentials, or social worthiness) are always at stake. Communication across Discourses The work of Ron and Suzzane Scollon (1981), in their now classic study of communication between Athabaskans (a group of aboriginals found in the United States and Canada) and AngloAmericans and Canadians, exemplifies these perspectives in a powerful way. The Scollons believe that patterns of language-in-use (“discourse patterns” in the “little d” sense of discourse) in different cultures reflect particular “reality sets” or worldviews adopted by these cultures. Such patterns are among the strongest expressions of personal and cultural identity. The Scollons argue that changes in a person’s discourse patterns—for example, in acquiring a new form of literacy— may involve changes in identity. For example, Athabaskans differ from many mainstream Canadian and American English speakers in how they engage in communication. They have a high degree of respect for the individuality of others and carefully guard their own individuality. Thus, they prefer to avoid conversation except when the point of view of all participants is well known. On the other hand, English speakers feel that the main way to get to know other people’s points of view is through conversation with them. Furthermore, for Athabaskans, people in subordinate positions do not display their talents; rather they observe the person in the superordinate position. For instance, adults as either parents or teachers are supposed to display abilities and qualities for the child to learn. However, in mainstream U.S. society, children are supposed to show off their abilities for teachers and other adults. Anglo-Canadian and American schools have adopted a model of literacy based on the values 141
Discursive Theory of essayist prose style that is problematic for many Athabaskans. The essay took on this role in history (in fact, in the seventeenth century) and the role of the essay is changing in current times under pressure from new media and technology. In essayist prose, the important relationships to be signaled are those between sentence and sentence, not those between speakers, nor those between sentence and speaker. For a reader this requires a constant monitoring of grammatical and lexical information. With the heightened emphasis on truth value rather than social or rhetorical conditions, comes the necessity to be explicit about logical implications. A further significant aspect of essayist prose style is the fictionalization of both the audience and the author. The reader of an essayist text is not an ordinary human being, but an idealization, a rational mind posited by the rational body of knowledge of which the essay is a part. By the same token, the author is a fiction, since the process of writing and editing essayist texts leads to an effacement of individual and idiosyncratic identity. For the Athabaskan, writing in this essayist mode can constitute a crisis in ethnic identity. To produce an essay would require the Athabaskan to produce a major display, which would be appropriate only if the Athabaskan was in a position of dominance in relation to the audience. But the audience, and the author, are fictionalized in essayist prose and the text becomes decontextualized. This means that a contextualized, social relationship of dominance is obscured. Where the relationship of the communicants is unknown, the Athabaskan prefers silence. The paradox of prose for the Athabaskan then is that if it is communication between known author and audience it is contextualized and compatible with Athabaskan values, but not good essayist prose. To the extent that it becomes decontextualized and thus good essayist prose, Athabaskans are less likely to seek to communicate through this method. The Athabaskan set of discourse patterns are to a large extent mutually exclusive of the discourse patterns of essayist prose. The Scollons describe how Athabaskans use words, actions, interactions, values, and beliefs to enact and get recognized as a certain type of Native American or aboriginal people. This is a Discourse in Gee’s sense. Of course, many
Athabaskans can enact and recognize other socially situated identities; that is, engage in other Discourses. On the other hand, schools want students to use words, actions, interactions, values, and beliefs to enact and get recognized as “educated” or “literate” people. This also is a Discourse (one that has, like all Discourses, changed through time). The Scollons point out that at the level of socially situated identities these two Discourses can conflict with each other. Furthermore, the Scollons argue that the Discourse of school-based literacy is connected to an order of discourse, in Fairclough’s sense, that is a set of different, but related practices with print, for example, essays, reports, stories, literature, and so forth. However, in this order of discourse one form—the essay—stands out as the paradigm instance of the values behind schoolbased literacy (which is why the Scollons refer to school-based literacy as “essayist literacy”). Instead of the terms “discourse” or “Discourse,” other theorists have used the term culture. However, culture has a great many different meanings. The terms discourse and order of discourse for Foucault and Fairclough are meant to single out the ways in which texts and institutions set limits to meaning at particular times and places, often across various cultural groups in a society. The term “Discourse” for Gee is meant to single out the ways in which people at all different levels integrate words, actions, interactions, values, beliefs, and the use of objects, tools, and technologies to enact and recognize multiple, changing, sometimes conflicting, socially situated identities, some of which are “culture like” and others of which are not (e.g., a member of the Green Party may be affiliated with people across the world via the Internet without sharing much culture with these other people). James Paul Gee References Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Foucault, Michel. 1981. History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. Gee, James P. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 2d ed. London: Taylor and Francis. Graff, Harvey J. 1987. The Legacies of Literacy: Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture and Society. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press.
142
Discussion Scollon, Ronald, and Suzzane W. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
the role that social interaction with others plays in shaping thought. In addition, Mikhail Bakhtin’s dialogic principle shows that as students share ideas within a discussion, these ideas are not only combined but are transformed to provide new understandings that are greater than the sum of the individual contributions. Thus, discussion can effectively act as a tool for critical thinking, provide students with the chance to socially construct meaning, and allow teachers to observe, analyze, and shape students’ learning in meaningful ways. In addition to aiding students in the development of thought, discussion serves as a motivator for students’ learning. This motivational aspect occurs, in part, because discussions allow students to contribute their own ideas and beliefs, interact more substantively with peers, and receive instant feedback about these same contributions. Actively participating in the learning process and receiving quality responses from peers and teachers are important conditions that play a key role in learning. Although other conditions are equally important, the ability to participate in a discussion as a learning activity and to receive feedback that is constructive but nonthreatening is essential. As noted, effective discussions are planned in advance, yet they are flexible. This dynamic balance between planning and flexibility ensures that discussions are used thoughtfully as tools for learning and that they are efficient and focused. This balance ensures that teachers adapt to individual students’ needs and to the direction that learning processes dictate during discussion sessions. Planned discussions require that teachers identify instructional purposes for the discussion, analyze texts or activities to determine what content is amenable to discussion, select strategies that match the goal and content of the material or problem to be discussed, organize how students will work together in small groups or as a whole class while still allowing some student choice in these matters, work with students to learn appropriate discussion interactions patterns, and design evaluation tools that can be used before discussions commence, during the activity, and afterward. These evaluation tools should include ways for teachers, individual students, and peers to assess not only the process of learning during discussion but also what was learned and by whom.
Discussion Teachers have long used discussions as an instructional tool to promote students’ active processing of ideas to improve learning. Although discussion serves a number of purposes, the most compelling reason for its use is the direct connection between discussion and thought. Traditionally, teachers have used discussion as a way to impart information and to assess what students have learned from the presentation, previously read texts, or activities students engaged in within larger classroom lessons. For example, what many teachers refer to or enact as a discussion is often a teacher-directed conversation that follows the Initiate-Respond-Evaluate format (IRE). In such cases, teachers typically initiate a question or topic, students respond, and teachers evaluate such responses. Students are not given the opportunity to socially construct meaning as they might in authentic conversations or dialogues, nor do they learn to analyze and solve problems or offer evidence for their responses (Alvermann, O’Brien, and Dillon, 1990). In contrast, effective discussions are characterized as planned activities in which students contribute at least half of the talk, interact with other peers rather than solely with the teacher, and present multiple views with exchanges longer than the two- to three-word responses typical of the IRE format. Wilbert McKeachie (1986) noted that effective discussions allow students to critically analyze their own and other group members’ logic, rationale, and evidence associated with particular stances toward a topic. In this process, students learn to use the ideas and products of group interactions as they formulate their own viewpoints and support for such stances. Moreover, because discussions are generated and supported through language, students learn to use language to generate thought—a crucial component of learning. This concept is directly supported by Lev Vygotsky’s stance, which characterizes discussions as opportunities to not only use language to foster thought but to see what students are thinking and how they process ideas and to understand 143
Discussion
Students and teacher involved in a discussion (Elizabeth Crews)
points of view or increase awareness of a perspective, or to actively engage students in identifying a problem and the processes and actions required to solve it. To initiate a discussion, it is important that both teachers and students be adequately prepared. A requisite knowledge base from which to begin might include readings, activities, experiences, and a variety of other sources other than the teacher. Students need to draw upon these resources; how well students process these preliminary sources impacts directly upon the quality of discussions. Hence, teachers need to see discussions as part of larger instructional planning, including what occurs prior to and after the session proper. Further, the appropriate selection of strategies to guide discussions is crucial. Teachers may select graphic aids that present central ideas or questions that students may use to prepare for discussion sessions. These same aids may be used to amend or expand ideas during interactions or after the discussion. Structures such as these enable open discussions and
Teachers have struggled to plan effective discussions, primarily due to a lack of understanding of the components and characteristics that make discussions work. Claude Goldenberg (1992–1993) asserted that there are no explicit steps that teachers should follow to ensure successful discussions because student learning is less clearly defined and organized during these events. Nevertheless, instructionally beneficial discussions do have common characteristics, including teachers who: pose questions that do not readily have answers, are responsive to student contributions and seek to keep the conversation connected, design and maintain challenging yet nonthreatening environments, and promote broad student participation, for example, by allowing students to select when they contribute to the interactions. The achievement of goals and the success of a discussion are attributable to differences in discussion formats. For example, the goal of the discussion may be to clarify ideas, to grapple with a particular issue, to allow students to see multiple 144
Discussion contributions, focusing students’ efforts and ensuring that ideas presented are supported with relevant evidence instead of generalizations or emotional arguments. James Dillon (1984) proposed alternatives to the teacher’s asking questions, which often lead to IRE sessions. Instead of this, teachers are encouraged to use the following techniques: make a declarative or factual statement to start a discussion, make a reflective statement related to a previous comment, describe a student’s state of mind or the reasons that student might have for contributing particular statements to the conversation, seek student elaboration on a statement made by another peer, encourage students to ask questions generally or ask questions of one another, and maintain a deliberate silence to encourage reflection. Teachers have also used the devil’s advocate strategy to help generate discussions and explore various perspectives on an issue or point of view. The strategies outlined are ones that promote active learning and student talk; they also promote comprehension of texts. McKeachie (1986) asserted that when teachers select the format needed for a discussion, their choice also directly affects the type of discussion that ensues and who controls it. For example, teachers are often unwilling to relinquish control of the discussion to allow students to socially construct meaning. Rather, control is maintained through the selection of content, the pace of the interactions, and teacher selection of which students can contribute and which cannot. Thus, goals that are solely teacher-centered reflect discussion activities that are teacher-centered as well. Likewise, student-centered goals reflect activities that allow students to control the content and flow of discussion. Note that teacher-centered discussions are usually ineffective because teachers are not using discussion as a vehicle for social construction of meaning. Clearly, the actions of teachers within a discussion are critical. Teachers are required to step out of their traditional roles, in which they often dispense information and evaluate learning, and assume a collaborative role with students. For example, in the revised role, teachers do not control the content and flow of discussions but rather facilitate actions, refocus the conversation, and possibly clarify issues when required. Often, teachers determine that they need to take a more active role with difficult texts or when communi-
cation between peers breaks down. During these moments, teachers scaffold students’ responses, guiding them to richer contributions and making connections that were not readily apparent to the students. Also, teachers who successfully conduct classroom discussions are able to build on students’ prior knowledge and make efforts to draw all students into the discussion, helping to curb incidents in which a few students monopolize the discussion. Key to involving all students as effective contributors during discussion activities is the teacher’s role in helping students learn effective discussion-interaction patterns. Students do not naturally learn appropriate discussion interactions. Rather, they require support from teachers who can help them analyze the course of the discussion when roles are taken up by particular group members in useful or in less effective ways, also finding ways to include all students. Teachers can also support student learning by modeling effective discussion actions or strategies; demonstrating how to monitor interactions to determine who is seizing power, silencing others, or monopolizing interactions; and helping students reflect on which students are not actively engaged in conversations and why. The interactions between the teacher and students and between peers are crucial to whether discussions promote learning. Assessment is key to ensuring that discussions are used to enhance student learning and that students have positive experiences during interactions. What has historically made discussion sessions challenging is the teacher’s ability to develop ways to assess learning, to take these assessments and use them in future planning, and to use the findings to show what students have achieved. In planning discussions, teachers and students must consider all possible outcomes and contributions prior to the discussion, as well as appropriate follow-up activities that will help assess the effectiveness of the discussion and students’ learning. Teachers will want to consider both individual and group assessments; equally important are self-assessments and peer assessments. All assessments should focus on content elements (Gambrell and Almasi, 1996) as well as on the processes that facilitated learning. Evaluating the actions or strategies used by students during discussions allows teachers to scaffold students’ learning about the purposes of discussions and the actions that allow them to work ef145
The Discussion Web fectively and efficiently. In addition, Karen Evans (2001) noted that content-element assessments could be generated by thinking about the literacy skills and strategies that students need to develop and creating grids of indicators that document these learnings. The grids can be used in a routine manner, with students being regularly observed during discussions and the evidence of their learning recorded, accompanied by noting areas for growth. Similarly, teachers can develop tools for students to use in order to assess their own learning, the processes they use, and their peers’ contributions. Considerable coaching will be required to help students move beyond surface-level analyses of their own and their peers’ contributions toward focusing on substantive interactions and products. Effective discussions are possible when teachers consider essential components that must be addressed, including careful planning, opportunities for constructive and ample student talk, and ongoing assessment of the interactions and contributions of all participants. When the conditions are optimal, discussion sessions offer students the experience of using language to generate thought and to create new ideas. An additional benefit to using discussions is that students learn in a way that they find meaningful and motivating. Deborah R. Dillon and Kerry A. Hoffman
REASONS NO
YES
CENTRAL QUESTION
CONCLUSION
Figure 1. Discussion Web
The Discussion Web The Discussion Web is a graphic aid embedded in a discussion format that encourages students to look at opposing viewpoints before determining their own conclusions. It gives all students the ability to form opinions and share them with a peer. Too often, classroom discussions involve the teacher and only a few willing participants. The Discussion Web, which can be used across grade levels and content areas, enables students to work initially in pairs as they work out their shared response to a question posed by the teacher. The Discussion Web was created by Donna Alvermann, who combined the WebOutline created by James Duthie (1986) and the think-pairshare technique by Jay McTighe and Frank Lyman (1988). The Discussion Web is formatted as a dialogue that teaches students to efficiently discuss topics presented in texts. A central question posed to the students appears in a box in the middle of a handout page; the students write their opinions, representing one side or the other of the issue, on the lines provided on either side of the box. After oral discussion in small groups, they record their final conclusion. There are several steps to a Discussion Web. First, students think individually about the ideas they want to contribute to the discussion and then discuss these ideas with a partner and reach consensus on their opinions. Next, the partners pair up with a different set of partners to work toward a consensus by eliminating any inconsistencies and contradictions in their own thinking. Then, the two sets of partners, working as a group of four, come to a decision and join with another group of four. Finally, the group of eight decides which ideas a spokesperson from the group will share with the entire class in the whole-group discussion that follows.
See Also The Discussion Web; Gender and Discussion; Graphic Aids References Alvermann, Donna E., David G. O’Brien, and Deborah R. Dillon. 1990. “What Teachers Do When They Say They’re Having Discussions of Content Area Reading Assignments: A Qualitative Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly 25:296–322. Dillon, James T. 1984. “Research on Questioning and Discussion.” Educational Leadership 42:50–56. Evans, Karen S. 2001. Literature Discussion Groups in the Intermediate Grades: Dilemmas and Possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gambrell, Linda B., and Janice F. Almasi, eds. 1996. Lively Discussions! Fostering Engaged Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goldenberg, Claude. 1992–1993. “Instructional Conversations: Promoting Comprehension through Discussion.” Reading Teacher 46:316–326. McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1986. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher. 8th ed. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
146
Distance Learning By talking with partners and pairs of partners prior to engaging in whole-class discussions, students have multiple opportunities to interact (Alvermann, 1991). The Discussion Web allows students to defend their point of view with details from the text that support their opinions. At first, many students may need guidance from the teacher, along with the structure of the Discussion Web. Later, students may be able to devise their own topics and manage their own discussions. The Discussion Web allows those who are typically less prone to talk in whole-class discussions, particularly females (who generally aren’t called on enough in a teacher-led discussion), to develop their opinions and feel confident discussing them in small groups and then sharing within the larger context of the classroom. The Discussion Web offers a symmetrical discussion for both males and females; it gives students confidence by requiring all of them to base their opinions on evidence provided in the text. The Discussion Web incorporates all four of the language arts (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). It can function as a postreading strategy or as a prereading or prewriting device. It allows students to work alone, in pairs, in small groups, and then as part of a whole-class interaction. Adaptations can be made to use the Discussion Web in math with word problems, in science with experiments, and in social studies for debating viewpoints. Its flexibility for use across a wide variety of other subjects and grade levels makes it a usable tool for any curriculum. Gretchen Morrison
do not have to be physically present at the same location as the instructor. Thus, learning may take place at one or more remote sites. The two basic modes of instructional delivery are asynchronous and synchronous. Synchronous refers to instruction in which all participants must be active at the same time. Synchronous delivery systems are often referred to as “real-time” delivery systems. Asynchronous learning does not require the simultaneous participation of the instructor or the participants. In asynchronous learning, students can choose the time during which they wish to receive instruction. Asynchronous learning is often referred to as “anytime, anywhere” learning. Although a key aspect of distance-learning environments is that students do not have to be physically present, there are additional distance-education classes that are conducted in tandem with face-to-face instruction. In this manner, the distance learning takes place as an adjunct to traditional class instructional modes. This additional instructional time can be either asynchronous or synchronous. A key element of the use of all such technologies is the ability to enhance communication between a teacher and learners. Delivery Systems The original forms of distance-learning delivery systems were correspondence courses in which students were given tasks to perform; their work was then evaluated by an instructor and returned to them. The instructional vehicle was via either print text or television. In either case, the mode of communication and learning was one-way, that is, student to teacher with no interaction from others. Distance learning today tends to be more interactive, and the path of communication is most often between a teacher and several students as well as among students. Current delivery systems are built on several technological options. There are four basic forms of such technologies: video-based, audio-based, databased, and computer-based. Each has a different degree of interactivity, depending on the manner in which it is delivered. All can be conducted either in a synchronous or asynchronous forum. Video-based delivery of instruction can be conducted through broadcast television, closedcircuit transmissions, and videotape. It often involves only one-way transmission. When video-
See Also Discussion References Alvermann, Donna. 1991. “The Discussion Web: A Graphic Aid for Learning across the Curriculum.” Reading Teacher 45:92–98. Duthie, James. 1986. “The Web: A Powerful Tool for the Teaching and Evaluation of the Expository Essay.” The History and Social Science Teacher 21:232–236. McTighe, Jay, and Frank Lyman. 1988. “Cueing Thinking in the Classroom: The Promise of Theory-Embedded Tools.” Educational Leadership 45 (7):18–24.
Distance Learning Distance learning involves students participating in an instructional delivery system in which they 147
Distance Learning based instruction takes place in a synchronous environment, if multiple-mode communication is desired, it is necessary to have audio hookups that allow students to communicate with each other and with the instructor. When instruction is conducted in an asynchronous environment, interaction can take other forms, such as communication via e-mail or listservs. Recently, many schools have developed means for two-way interactive video hookups by using cameras, microphones, and monitors. This two-way interactive learning necessitates the connection via satellite dishes, cable connectivity, or fiber optic linkages to connect multiple sites. Many feel that this very closely replicates face-to-face instruction. Audio-based delivery systems are easier to transmit since they are less costly and more easily reach a wide audience. Little special equipment is necessary for the transmission of information to the student. The modes of delivery center on either radio broadcasts or audiocassettes. Audio communication is also being advanced via the Internet, with radio broadcast capabilities that extend well beyond the traditional radio broadcast frequencies. Radio broadcasts mandate synchronous learning, whereas audiocassettes can be used in asynchronous learning contexts. Radio is a one-way communication medium in which only the instructor communicates with the learner. Increasingly, the use of audio teleconferencing is used to counteract the one-way communication dilemma. In audio teleconferencing, individuals or groups at multiple sites can interact. In a literacy program, for example, teachers can use this technology to arrange for students to “meet” an author of a book they are reading with little more technology necessary than using a conference-call option. Databased technologies are designed to teach or manage specific aspects of instruction. Computer-assisted instruction (CAI) is the term used when a hardware system or software program helps deliver instructional content. It helps the teacher teach and helps the student learn. Applications for literacy classes are many. Word processing is an example of a basic, fundamental mode of CAI practice in a literacy program. It is vital for students to read, write, and develop good communication skills. Writing with a computer facilitates text modification and is often found to encourage written communication that might not otherwise take place.
Databases, a form of CAI, are designed to help the user generate files that may contain hundreds of pieces of information, store it on a disk, and arrange and sort it. Students can use databases to catalog books they’ve read and cross-reference them by genre, theme, author, or many other categories. Software programs that help students draw or chart are valuable additions to a literacy program, as are presentation packages that help foster outlining skills, information processing, and overall communication ease. Kenneth Hinze (1989) and Edward Tufte (1990) have investigated the use of graphics as an aid in conveying meaning and enhancing communication and have found them to be beneficial. Computer-managed instruction (CMI) is a means for instructors to manage the instruction delivered to and worked on in their classes. CMI can be useful to traditional face-to-face instructors and also to those using distance-education technologies. Computer-based technologies can provide instruction and also be an adjunct to audio and video telecommunication. With additional hardware and software such as modems, a microphone, speakers, and an individual video hookup, they can provide desktop video conferencing. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to using the computer to mediate communication between and among instructor and students. E-mail, computer conferencing, and Internet-based communication make up the most common CMCs. Computer conferencing is a text-only asynchronous technology that permits conferencing between two or more individuals. The information is maintained on a web site, and like conversation, messages are shown in threads. Students can read what others have written and either respond or not. Computer conferencing is similar to a “chat” room (chat rooms are like telephones, except that words are written rather than spoken), but the communication does not occur in “real” time. Additional modes of interclass communication can involve listservs or newsgroups. A listserv is a mailing list in which topic-specific information is sent to the participants. This information is sent to all who subscribe to the listserv, and these participants can respond (referred to as “posting”) to all on the list or to individuals on the listserv. Newsgroups are also topic specific, but unlike listservs, a user does not have to subscribe to the newsgroup and it is open to all who wish to access the group. 148
Distance Learning Implications of Distance Learning for the Student and the Instructor There is a limited body of research on the effectiveness of distance learning. Thus far, research suggests that the most successful distance learners are those who voluntarily seek further education, have post-secondary education goals with expectations for higher grades, and are highly motivated and self-disciplined. When distance education is combined with face-to-face instruction, students seem to benefit more. Several key themes pervade the current body of research regarding distance learning from a student perspective, including: the need for interaction among students, the need for student-teacher interaction, and the role of this pedagogy on student learning. These and other studies also point out that good distance-learning practices follow traditional teaching practices, and the conditions that influence effective instruction may be common across different environments and populations (Russell, 1992). The implementation of distance education in both K–12 schools and in higher education can be a very costly and controversial endeavor. Audio telecommunications involve minimal implementation with low costs, but more advanced modes of delivery such as two-way interactive communication are much more costly. Regardless of the technology, distance education involves a great deal of planning on the part of the instructor and often requires almost three times the planning time of traditional face-to-face instructional delivery. The planning time decreases with repetition of courses. The curriculum often needs to be redesigned, and special activities need to be created in order to facilitate active participation by the learners. Teachers need to be taught about the use of this technology and have to learn how to use it in the most effective way. Teachers must be able to assist those learners who encounter problems with the learning context and with the technological aspects of the learning environment. Interactive web sites and distance-learning environments can provide powerful additions to classes. It has been reported that less than 10 percent of teachers are actively engaged in the use of these resources, and those who do use them tend to be very experienced with computers in general. Particularly in literacy, the use of distancelearning environments can be beneficial. To access
information via distance, particularly if the mode of instruction is web-based, participants must be able to communicate effectively. Thus, the importance of reading and writing is paramount to access the content or participate in discussions in a chat room or in a threaded discussion. The rationale and need for expertise in reading and writing thus becomes more meaningful and relevant, especially to reluctant readers. Trade-book publishers offer abundant materials that can be integrated into distance-learning environments. Numerous authors have web pages with interactive components that can then be incorporated in a distance-learning environment by a teacher. In this manner, teachers “share” expertise with others, and students benefit from the knowledge that is shared by other instructors. Educators can enhance their regular teaching with the inclusion of some of the elements of distance learning. Students can find e-pals (electronic pen pals) to learn about other schools, countries, or cultures. Teacher-education students in college classes can be paired up with students in elementary or high-school classes to form e-pal connections with benefits to both constituencies. Students studying a particular country might interview other students from that country via e-mail and thereby learn much more about the mores and culture. Scientific experiments can be conducted at a distance, with students sharing and comparing data. As with all educational endeavors, the focus of distance learning should be on the effect on the learner. Meeting the instructional goals of the program and the instructional needs of the learner should be foremost. Good pedagogy is vital whether students are engaged in face-toface instruction or are learning at a distance. In both contexts, the principles of effective teaching are critical, but with distance-learning situations, instructors need to be even more organized, thoughtful, methodical, and mindful of students beforehand. Since feedback from learners is not as immediate as in face-to-face instruction, modifications in the instructional plan and in the tasks given to learners or the simulations presented may be made, but they will often occur at a slower pace. Educators, then, must be more proactive than reactive. The convergence of technology and education benefits and empowers learners in new and extraordinary ways. Educators and students are increasingly viewing learn149
Diversity ing at a distance as a viable means of instructional delivery. More and more demands are being placed on both learners and educators, and the lightning speed of access to information and communication via technology is having a positive effect on literacy education. Although distance learning is currently in its infancy, the potential and power of this mode of instruction is burgeoning. Carole S. Rhodes
is considered the cultural and linguistic mainstream in the United States will continue to increase. The educational and literacy needs of culturally and linguistically diverse children in these groups may go unaddressed as they are encouraged to assimilate into mainstream discourse. It is imperative for educators to understand the connection between culture and literacy learning. Sonia Nieto (1999) has argued that the concept of culture was created by societies to account for the influence of a broad array of factors. She also noted that as a concept, culture is multidimensional and learned. Some literacy educators have been challenged to include the cultural, linguistic, and literacy experiences of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in the curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Understanding how to make meaning is at the heart of literacy. How people learn to make sense of their world, or learn to make meaning, is affected by the culture and language into which they were born. Literacy theories and strategies that are effective with mainstream groups will not magically work as well with culturally and linguistically diverse children. Literacy theories, methods, materials, and assessment techniques must be informed by the research of cultural and linguistic insiders whose area of expertise has identified culturally responsive and respectful approaches to literacy education. Moreover, to improve the academic achievement of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, educators must acknowledge the disparities of the past, the discursive practices of the present, and the need to affirm and value individual and group cultural and linguistic differences. The diversity of students in today’s literacy classrooms underscores the importance of developing curricula, teaching strategies, and policies to help all students succeed in school. Efforts to welcome and understand all students—and to treat their cultural and linguistic backgrounds as equally valid and important—are paramount in literacy classrooms. Effective literacy instruction builds upon the cultural and linguistic backgrounds, ways of making meaning, and prior knowledge that each child brings into the classroom. Such instruction acknowledges the indivisibility of culture in language and literacy learning. Understanding and respecting the array
See Also Computer-Assisted Instruction; Critical Media Literacy; Early Literacy Software; Electronic Jigsaw; Hypertext; Instant Messaging; Software for Older Readers References Hinze, Kenneth. 1989. “PC Datagraphics and Mapping.” Social Science Computer Review 7(1):72–75. Rhodes, Carole S. 1998. “Multiple Perceptions and Perspectives: Faculty/Students Responses to Distance Learning.” Proceedings from the Ninth International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Russell, Thomas. 1992. “Television’s Indelible Impact on Distance Education: What We Should Have Learned from Comparative Research.” Research in Distance Education (4) 4:2–4. Tufte, Edward. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
Diversity Diversity refers to differences among groups as well as individuals. In the late twentieth century, many educators used the term to acknowledge ethnic/racial, linguistic, and economic differences. The term diversity has also been used in reference to differences of gender, age, religion, intellect, and sexual orientation. Schools and school curricula have not always welcomed, affirmed, or valued diversity as equally valid, important, or desirable as mainstream experiences. The literacy needs of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds are becoming increasingly important in the new millennium as more children of color enter schools. The rapidly shifting demographics of schoolage children and projections for the future both suggest that the enrollment of children who are culturally and linguistically different from what 150
Diversity
Classroom of racially diverse students (Elizabeth Crews)
nicity or racial backgrounds of students in public elementary and secondary schools as follows: 63.5 percent are European Americans (non-Hispanic), 17 percent are African Americans (nonHispanic), 14.4 percent are Latino/a Americans, 3.9 percent are Asian Americans or Pacific Islanders, and 1.2 percent are American Indian or Alaska Natives. Based on 2000 U.S. Census data, it has been estimated that school-age children will be compsed of the following racial/ethnic groups: 49.6 million Whites, 10.9 million African Americans, 12.3 Latino/Latina Americans, 2.5 million Asian Americans, and 840,000 Native Americans. Within each ethnic/racial group there are commonalties of language and culture as well as distinct dialectal, religious, class, and geographical differences. Georgia Garcia and Arlette Ingram Willis (2001) have observed that there are many differences between and within each racial category identified by the U.S. Census Bureau. In addition, Ogbu (1987) has argued that the type of entry into the country, whether voluntary or involuntary, and a group’s educa-
of different cultures and languages represented in classrooms helps educators adopt strategies for teaching literacy that encourage and support student achievement. Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Learners The U.S. Census Bureau has recognized five major racial groups and asks respondents to selfidentify as: White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. People who identify as being of Hispanic or Latino/a origin may be from any race that is part of the Spanish culture. Respondents who wish to selfidentify as being of mixed race, or multiracial, are given the option to claim “some other race,” with sixty-three possible choices. Children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds currently compose more than 36 percent of the total elementary and secondary U.S. school population. The social constructs of race and class are used by the National Center for Educational Statistics (2000) to estimate the eth151
Diversity tional history prior to entry are important elements to keep in mind. In the twentieth century, the largest group of people of color in the United States was African American, descendants from Africa, the West Indies, and Haiti. Currently, there are increasing numbers of Latinos and Latinas in schools. These students trace their cultural or linguistic backgrounds to Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and a variety of Caribbean and Central and South American countries. In addition, there has been an increase in Asian Pacific Islander groups, mostly Hawaiians but also including Pacific Islanders, Samoans, and Guamanians; Southeast Asians, from Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, Burma, and the Philippines; and East Asians, from China, Japan, and Korea. Many recent immigrants from all groups differ significantly from former immigrant groups in their levels of education, literacy, social class, religion, and geographical homeland. They may also have differences in communication patterns, expectations, and sense of time (Haung, 1993). Children from 280 different Native American nations are enrolled in public, private, and tribal schools. Students in these schools may differ in terms of their language, traditions, economics, and social interactions. Finally, the 2000 census created opportunities for individuals to acknowledge more than one racial category. Not surprisingly, millions of Americans elected to self-identify as biracial (with each parent being from a different racial background) or multiracial (with generations of mixed-race forebears). Educating children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and from mixed-race backgrounds requires understanding the distinction between cultural group identity and individual identity. John Berry (1986) has encouraged us to remember that group and individual acculturation may differ significantly. Therefore, it is imperative to acknowledge and address difference, while not generalizing notions of difference to each individual.
requisite for school success. In a similar manner, Nieto (1999) has written that students’ language and culture may often interfere with schooling because they do not conform to the expectations of schools. Several literacy researchers have maintained that there are specific teacher knowledge bases that are necessary to acquire before instructing children in culturally and linguistically diverse classrooms. A teacher’s culture, language, social interests, goals, cognition, and values—especially if different from the students’—could conceivably create a barrier to understanding what is best for children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (Orange and Horwitz, 1999). This barrier—what Rosalinda Barrera (1992) has identified as a “cultural gap”—affects how teachers respond to children of different cultures. Teachers can break through this barrier by reflecting on their self-knowledge and by learning to acknowledge and respect the languages, literacies, literatures, and cultural ways of knowing of their students. When teachers become aware of their own cultural backgrounds and values, they have an opportunity to recognize and address biases, those preconceived notions that make it difficult for them to accept, understand, and effectively teach their students. It is also important for literacy teachers to acknowledge and challenge ideologies and policies that privilege one cultural way of knowing, language, or literature over others. There are numerous studies that have documented examples of the relationship between culture and literacy development and examples of best practice for a variety of cultural groups: Native Hawaiian communities, families, and children; African American and European American children and their families; inner-city African American families; and many Native American nations. Cultural and linguistic differences may include the forms of questions that children are asked as well as expectations about when and how to respond to questions about the uses of reading and writing or the styles of oral narration. There may be differences in language use and patterns of interactions between adults and children that differ between diverse cultural groups and the mainstream. There may also be culturally specific rules or expectations with regard to behavior and interpersonal interactions along gender lines.
Literacy Teachers in Diverse Classrooms Multicultural proponent Geneva Gay has observed that schooling has been narrowly defined and drawn from one cultural way of knowing to the near exclusion of all others, forcing some culturally and linguistically diverse children to relinquish their cultural ways of knowing as a pre152
Diversity Understanding each child’s culture will influence the way teachers frame literacy instruction and create and use assessment. Literacy instruction should explicitly build upon the cultural knowledge, ways of making meaning, and prior knowledge that children bring with them to the classroom. In this manner, children feel that their culture, language, and literature are important and valued at school.
ing. Similarly, Eileen Craviotto and Ana Heras (1999) have identified characteristics of culturally relevant classrooms: (1) using families as resources, (2) reading multicultural literature, (3) regarding students as active learners, (4) emphasizing classroom dialogue, (5) providing opportunities for exploration, and (6) using multiple languages in the classroom. The authors stress that these strategies can enhance students’ literacy learning. The literacy needs of children from diverse backgrounds cannot be divorced from the importance of addressing the linguistic, emotional, and psychological needs that accompany literacy learning. Researchers have observed that children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, as well as immigrant children, often seek to develop relationships of caring and respect with classroom teachers. The long-term cumulative effects of cultural insensitivity may be hard to measure using traditional forms. The literacy curriculum can be an important venue to help students understand the relationships among culture, power, and literacy. There is no one best way to teach all students; instead, a variety of instructional strategies should be incorporated. Diversity training should be a continuous process requiring a long-term commitment because building cultural knowledge and sensibilities is a lifelong proposition. According to feminist Adrienne Rich (1979), students and teachers should enter into an agreement whereby they will all do their best to respect, educate, and learn from each another. Arlette Ingram Willis
Culturally Informed Teaching Literacy approaches that appear to support the language and literacy of children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds must be coupled with teacher knowledge and commitment. If not, the result is a “tourist approach” that focuses on celebrating holidays and festivals, glorifying heroes or exceptional people, and adding culturally sensitive and appropriate literature. These shallow approaches assume that the inclusion of multicultural materials is all that is needed to address diversity in school settings. Multicultural materials and activities alone are insufficient for social change. In order to address issues of cultural and linguistic difference, substantive changes must be made to the curriculum and instruction. Literacy studies have shown that students are more academically successful when they feel welcomed, valued, and challenged by material that builds upon their prior knowledge, experiences, and interests. Dorothy Strickland (1998) identified several characteristics of relevant literacy instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: (1) variability exists within and across linguistic and cultural communities, (2) a student’s conceptual framework and background experiences are critical to literacy learning, (3) both learning and teaching are enhanced when context is acknowledged and used, (4) the use of language for real communication enhances learning, (5) the use of materials and experiences to which student can relate helps establish and expand their conceptual framework, and (6) a focus on high-level thinking and problem solving is critical for all children. She also emphasized the existing variability across students’ home communities, the construction of meaning from different perspectives, the acknowledgment of context in literacy learning, the use of language for real communication, the use of relevant literacy materials, and a focus on high-level thinking and problem solv-
See Also Ebonics; Multicultural Literature References Barrera, Rosalinda. 1992. “The Cultural Gap in Literature-Based Literacy Instruction.” Education and Urban Society 24 (2):227–243. Berry, John. 1986. “Multiculturalism and Psychology in Plural Societies.” In Lars Ekstrand, ed., Ethnic Minorities and Immigrants in a Cross-Cultural Perspective, pp. 35–51. Berwyn, NY: Swets North America. Craviotto, Eileen, and Ana Heras. 1999. “Cultures of the Fourth-Grade Bilingual Classroom.” Primary Voices 7 (3):25–35. Garcia, Georgia, and Arlette Willis. 2001. “Frameworks for Understanding Multicultural Literacies.” In Peter Mosenthal and Patricia Schmidt, eds., Reconceptualizing Literacy in the
153
Dynamic Assessment teaching and learning that chronicles students’ development.
Age of Pluralism and Multiculturalism. Vol. 9, Advances in Reading/Language Research, pp. 3–32. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Gay, Geneva. 1994. A Synthesis of Scholarship in Multicultural Education. Urban Monograph Series. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/ leadrshp/le0gay.htm. Haung, Gary. 1993. “Beyond Culture: Communicating with Asian-American Children and Families.” ERIC Digest (on-line). Available: http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed366 673.html. National Center for Educational Statistics. 2000. Digest of Educational Statistics: 1999. NCES 2000–031. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Nieto, Sonia. 1999. The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Ogbu, John. 1987. “Variability in Minority Responses to Schooling: Non-Immigrants vs. Immigrants.” In G. Spindler and L. Spindler, eds., Interpretive Ethnography of Education, pp. 225–280. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Orange, Carolyn, and Rosalind Horowitz. 1999. “An Academic Standoff: Literacy Task Preferences of African American and Mexican American Male Adolescents versus Teacher-Expected Preferences.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (1):28–39. Rich, Adrienne. 1979. “Claiming an Education.” In On Live Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978. New York: W. W. Norton. Strickland, Dorothy. 1998. “Principles of Instruction.” In Michael Opitz, ed., Literacy Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Collection of Articles and Commentaries, pp. 50–52. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Theoretical Framework The dynamic approach to assessment reflects constructivist theory and offers a more authentic expression of current cognitive-developmental theory than traditional standardized procedures (Lidz, 1995). Constructivists espouse that students create meaning by connecting what they know and have experienced with what they are learning. They construct meaning through these connections when educators pose relevant problems, encourage student inquiry, structure learning activities around primary concepts, value students’ points of view, and assess student learning in the context of the teaching. Because of the continuous, ongoing nature of dynamic assessment, it is viewed not as a separate event but rather as a natural, purposeful component of the educational process. Students are assessed naturally within the context of lessons and activities. Teachers then analyze student performance to inform future practice (Brooks and Brooks, 1993). From a theoretical perspective, Lev Vygotsky’s thinking embodies the essence of dynamic assessment: elements of social transaction and discourse, contextual embeddedness, and creation of a zone of proximal development (Lidz, 1995). The social nature of the learning process affords students and teachers frequent, inherent opportunities to negotiate meaning in multiple contexts. Contextual embeddedness encourages participants to view assessment as an integral part of the teaching and learning process. The zone of proximal development offers a context for scaffolded learning experiences at students’ instructional levels. Vygotsky’s work suggests that assessment practices that focus entirely on the child’s unaided performance fail to tap important information that can be identified by analyzing the child’s dynamic performance in the zone of proximal development, in which the child responds with adults or more experienced learners. Opportunities to assess in such scaffolded contexts, in which the student responds with adults or more experienced peers, reveal both the learner’s fully matured and emerging abilities. Such emerging abilities may not be evident without the scaffolds provided by more competent sources (Minnick, 1987).
Dynamic Assessment Dynamic assessment is a more authentic alternative than the traditional practice of focusing on products to assess student knowledge. It is characterized as dynamic because it is interactive, ongoing, and focused on process. It is distinctive because it evinces the responsiveness of the learner, offering not a snapshot but an ongoing view of student performance. It demonstrates that assessment is not an educational add-on but a natural, continuous component of 154
Dyslexia
Dyslexia
Role in Portfolio Assessment Dynamic assessment is characteristic of the types of measures often compiled to show growth over time in portfolio assessment. Such assessment is goal based, authentic, multifaceted, and reflective, a continuous process that chronicles development. It is the ongoing nature of dynamic assessment that demonstrates its value in documenting the learning process, as opposed to using a onetime, summative assessment to document a learning product. A completed story or research report, written using the various steps in the process, is an appropriate summative or product assessment to support such a goal. In contrast, dynamic assessments are formative in nature and delineate the process in which the student engaged to create the product. Evidence of such ongoing assessment might include the student’s prewriting activity, first draft, peer-review comments, teacher observations, and revisions. These dynamic assessments also offer both the students and the teacher more insightful views of learning. For example, knowing how well they performed in various stages of the process facilitates future goal setting for students and gives direction to the teacher’s future planning. Robert Tierney (1998) values the alignment of dynamic assessment with classroom practices. He suggests that assessments should emerge from classrooms rather than be imposed upon them. The formative nature of dynamic assessment contributes to this alignment because the measures used are often more informal (see Portfolios). Maureen McLaughlin
Dyslexia, the most common type of learning disability, refers to an inability to acquire functional reading skills despite the presence of normal intelligence, exposure to adequate educational opportunities, and motivation. Dyslexia affects an estimated 5 to 10 percent of the school-age population (Feifer, 1998). Dyslexia is a complex, multifaceted syndrome characterized as a learning disability that impairs the ability to read words. A prototypical person with dyslexia could be described as having an underlying neuropsychological deficit in basic reading skills that has led to secondary problems with reading comprehension, written expression, and math computation (Padget, 1998). Dyslexia has been studied since the beginning of the twentieth century and was referred to as word blindness or congenital word blindness. Although over seventy terms have been used synonymously for the condition—for example, developmental reading disability or specific reading disability—dyslexia is the historically preferred term. A variety of neurobiological mechanisms related to dyslexia, including analysis of specific brain regions, hemispheric shifting, and genetic predisposition, have been proposed as the cause of the condition. Subtle anatomical and functional deviations in the brain correlate with specific types of reading disorders. Analysis of specific brain regions associated with dyslexia have focused on neural systems serving language primarily in the perisylvian cortex in the left hemisphere. Findings based on electrophysiological studies, regional cerebral blood-flow profiles, positron emission tomography (PET) studies, and postmortem examinations have shown deviations in the cortex and underlying temporal lobe dysfunction, as well as anatomical lesions in people with dyslexia. Hemispheric shifting, based on the specific strategy used by readers to decode words, appears to be at the forefront of most research involving cerebral processing and dyslexia (Feifer, 1998). Clinical studies have led to the emergence of two distinct subtypes of dyslexia: surface dyslexia and phonological dyslexia. Surface dyslexia is characterized by reading totally by sound, that is, an overreliance on a phonological route in which words can be decoded sequentially using grapheme to phoneme conversions, but words are not recognized on the basis of
See Also Authentic Assessment; Portfolios; Scaffolded Literacy Instruction References Brooks, J. G., and M. G. Brooks. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Lidz, Carol S. 1995. “Dynamic Assessment and the Legacy of L. S. Vygotsky.” School Psychology International 16:143–153. Minnick, Norris. 1987. “Implications of Vygotsky’s Theories for Dynamic Assessment.” In C. S. Lidz, ed., Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach for Evaluating Learning Potential, pp. 116–140. New York: Guilford. Tierney, Robert J. 1998. “Literacy Assessment Reform: Shifting Beliefs, Principled Possibilities, and Emerging Practices.” Reading Teacher 51:374–390.
155
Dyslexia
Dyslexic student and teacher (Associated Press/The Tennessean)
cent of children who have a parent with reading disability have the same difficulty. When a child is identified as dyslexic, there is a 40-percent chance that one or more siblings will also be dyslexic (Lyon, 1998). Kathleen McCoy
meaning or by accessing the semantic lexicon. People with surface-level dyslexia have poorly developed sight vocabulary. In contrast, people with phonological dyslexia have an almost total inability to apply grapheme to phoneme rules. They produce errors for derivational paralexias (e.g., running for run) and read content words better than function words (e.g., nouns better than adjectives) (Newby, Recht, and Caldwell, 1993). Oral reading indicates that they can comprehend the general meaning of a word but cannot pronounce it correctly (e.g., girl is pronounced she, and money as dollar). Surface-level dyslexia may result from an overreliance on the left hemisphere, thus suppressing the right hemisphere to detect perceptual features of the text. Conversely, phonological dyslexia may be an overreliance on the right hemisphere, thus suppressing the phonetic strategies of the left hemisphere. Investigations leading to identification of subtypes and the causes of dyslexia remain one of the most significant and persistent problems in the field of reading for researchers and practitioners. Genetic evidence for some types of reading disabilities with deficits in phonemic awareness is emerging. One of the most important risk factors is family history. An estimated 23 to 65 per-
See Also Delayed Readers References Feifer, Steven G. April 1998. “Neurological Features of Dyslexia.” Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual National Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL. ED 421 810. Lyon, Reid G. 1998. “The NICHD Research Program in Reading Development, Reading Disorders and Reading Instruction: A Summary of Research Findings. Keys to Successful Learning: A National Summit on Research in Learning Disabilities.” New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. ED 430 366. Newby, Robert F., Donna R. Recht, and JoAnne Caldwell. 1993. “Validation of a Clinical Method for the Diagnosis of Two Subtypes of Dyslexia.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 11 (1):72–83. Padget, S. Yancey. 1998. “Lessons from Research on Dyslexia: Implications for a Classification System for Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities Quarterly 21 (2):167–178.
156
E read to frequently; others, only occasionally. Still others have received some direct instruction from their caregivers rather than only informal assistance. Similarly, some children express great interest in literacy, learning about letters and words on their own, in contrast to other children who are more content with building blocks and play. This suggests that some children already exhibit some of the skills associated with literacy achievement when they enter the primary grades but that others will need more intensive instruction. A central goal during the preschool years is to enhance children’s exposure to and concepts about print (International Reading Association/National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1998). In the course of being read to by their parents or caregivers, children learn to distinguish many print features. They learn that print (rather than pictures) carries the meaning of the story, that the strings of letters between spaces are words and in print correspond to an oral version, and that reading in English progresses from left to right and from top to bottom. Children also learn about print from the labels, signs, and logos they see around them. Highly visible print labels on objects, signs, and bulletin boards in classrooms demonstrate the practical uses of written language. These everyday experiences expose children to print in a variety of forms and to its functions in many different contexts. A fundamental insight developed in children’s early years is the alphabetic principle, the understanding that there is a systematic relationship between letters and sounds. Through instruction, children learn that the alphabet comprises a limited set of letters and that these letters stand for the sounds that make up spoken words. Children learn about the shapes of letters by distin-
Early Literacy Early literacy is defined as the beginning forms of early reading and writing that become increasingly conventionalized over the early years between infancy and age eight with high-quality instruction. Today, unlike in previous decades, it is acknowledged that even in the first few months of life, children begin to experiment with language. In the midst of gaining facility with oral language and through interactions with others, children acquire the insight that specific kinds of marks on pages—print—can also represent meaning. At first, children use the physical and visual cues surrounding print to determine what something says. But as they develop an understanding of the match between speech and print, they begin to process letters, translate them into sounds, and connect this information with a known meaning. These understandings represent the roots of early literacy development. For many children, the beginnings of literacy appear in activities such as pretend play, drawing, conversations about books with their closest relatives, their family. Parents serve as models, provide rich experiences, and offer help and encouragement to their young children. They engage them in day-to-day activities where they see, use, and experience the purposes of print and its use in daily living. Literacy development is said to begin in these relationships, and it becomes extended and elaborated through quality instruction in the preschool, kindergarten, and primary years. There is considerable variation in patterns of early literacy development. Some children come to the primary grades having encountered a wide range of home-based literacy experiences, whereas others do not. Some children have been 157
Early Literacy guishing one character from another according to spatial features. Teachers often help children to differentiate letters visually and involve them in comparing letter shapes. Alphabet books and alphabet puzzles in which children can see and compare letters may be a key to efficient and easy learning. By kindergarten, children can discern these letter shapes with increasing ease and fluency. Children’s proficiency in letter naming is a well-established predictor of their end-of-year achievement, because it mediates the ability to remember sounds. At the same time, children begin to learn about the sounds of language through exposure to games, nursery rhymes, and word games. Research by Morag MacLean and her colleagues (1987) indicates that knowledge of nursery rhymes specifically relates to the more abstract phonological knowledge later on. According to the National Reading Panel report (Neuman, 2000), children’s ability in phonemic awareness has been shown to strongly relate to later reading achievement. Phonemic awareness refers to a child’s understanding and conscious awareness that speech is composed of identifiable units, such as spoken words, syllables, and sounds. Children develop a great deal of knowledge of the alphabetic system through their beginning attempts at writing. A classic study by Charles Read in 1971 found that even without formal spelling instruction, preschoolers use their tacit knowledge of phonological relations to spell words. Phonic spelling refers to beginners’ use of the symbols they associate with the sounds they hear in the words that they wish to write. For example, a child may initially write b or bk for the word book, to be followed by more conventionalized forms later on. Although children’s phonic spelling may not comply with correct spellings of words in the beginning, the process allows them to think actively about letter-sound relations. As children engage in writing, they are learning to segment the words they wish to spell into constituent sounds. During these early years, children’s vocabulary develops at a rapid pace. Vocabulary increases through listening to stories. Children, therefore, need to be exposed to vocabulary from a large variety of book genres, including informational texts as well as narratives. In addition, it is widely recognized that some explanation of vocabulary prior to listening to a story is related significantly
to children’s learning of new words. For example, David Dickinson and Miriam Smith (1994) found that asking predictive and analytic questions before and after the readings produced positive effects on vocabulary learning and comprehension. Repeated readings appear to further reinforce the language of the text and familiarize children with the way different genres are structured. Understanding the forms of informational and narrative texts seems to distinguish those children who have been read to well from those who have not. In one study, for example, Christine Pappas (1991) found that after multiple exposures to a story (three readings), children’s retelling became increasingly rich, integrating their knowledge about the world, the language of the book, and the message of the author. Thus, considering the benefits for vocabulary development and comprehension, the case is strong for interactive storybook reading. Increasing the volume of children’s playful, stimulating experiences with good books is associated with accelerated growth in reading competence. Best Practices in Early Literacy Quality programs in early literacy build on a set of research-based principles about how young children learn and develop (Neuman and Roskos, 1998). They emphasize the importance of integrated learning, motivation, teaching skills in content-rich settings, and high levels of teacher guidance. These principles form the foundation for classroom organization and management, instructional decisionmaking, and the selection of learning experiences to promote children’s capabilities. Children’s Learning Benefits through Integrated Instruction Effective teachers use integrated learning to organize large amounts of content into meaningful concepts. Since integration is more efficient than teaching subjects in isolation, integrated learning provides more time and opportunity for repeated practice with familiar concepts. Further, children are likely to learn and apply skills, increasing the likelihood of their interest and motivation. Skillful teachers recognize that thematic instruction must have coherence and depth. Cafeteria-style approaches that teach a little of this 158
Early Literacy and a little of that give only spotty attention to content and make only limited connections between subjects. Instead, effective teachers specify what is to be learned in each subject area in order to ensure that young children gain sufficient knowledge and mastery of skills.
dependent and make possible the “art and science” of effective teaching. Play Supports Children’s Learning Effective teachers recognize that the exploration and manipulation of objects, make-believe play, and games make important contributions to children’s development. In play, children express and represent their ideas, learn to interact with others, and practice newly acquired skills and knowledge. Teachers provide conditions to affect what children will choose to play and which materials will influence how they play. They construct learning and playful environments that involve children in literacy and other symbolic activities. At times, teachers take on roles and actively engage children in language activities that are first imitated, then expanded upon, and later integrated into children’s developing language repertoire. These teachers seek to enhance language and play while leaving children in control of it.
Learning Requires That Children’s Minds (Not Just Their Bodies) Be Active From the very beginning, education in a democracy must allow children not only to acquire knowledge but also to make reasoned decisions and choices. Effective teaching actively engages children in mastering both content and learning processes, helping children connect new learning to what they already know and can do. Effective teachers strike a balance between structure and choice in their instructional planning. Sometimes, teachers present a concept or a skill that is planned and directed to ensure that knowledge is thoroughly understood, not superficially absorbed. At other times, they recognize that children need to explore, manipulate, and use ideas, working in centers of their choosing that have been carefully prepared with teacher guidance. Both are necessary for young children’s learning and development.
Developing Competence Enhances Motivation and Self-Esteem Rather than directly teaching “self-esteem,” effective teachers recognize that learning experiences and practices that help children to become skillful at doing many things are far more effective than those designed to be highly motivating or “cute.” Children thrive in classrooms where they develop real friendships and are in the company of teachers who combine nurturance and support with high, but realistic, standards and expectations. Self-esteem grows when children are challenged and begin to develop a history of achievement through reasonable effort. These instructional principles that engage children in learning skills in contentrich contexts, play, integrated across subject domains with high levels of teacher support and guidance, provide opportunities for all children to achieve while ensuring that individual children will receive the extra support they need to progress. As children’s capabilities develop in these early years and they become more fluent readers, instruction will turn from a central focus on helping children learn to read and write to helping children read and write to learn. Increasingly, the emphasis will be on engaging children to become independent and productive in their reading, helping to extend their reasoning and comprehension abilities in learning about their world. Susan Neuman
High Levels of Teacher Interaction Optimize Children’s Learning Teachers are greatly influential in helping children to reach their potential. They assist and guide children’s learning, involving them in experiences that are slightly more difficult than what they can master on their own. Scaffolding is an especially descriptive term for understanding how teachers enable children to move toward higher levels of learning, with the level and amount of assistance gradually decreasing as the children become able to perform tasks independently. Teachers encourage children to express their ideas through language and raise questions that enable them to develop more complex ideas and concepts. Effective teachers work on the edge of children’s current competence, providing learning experiences that are challenging but achievable. These teachers use a wide range of teaching strategies. Modeling and demonstrating provide standards of practice; explicit instruction, questioning, and ongoing feedback help to challenge and expand children’s ideas and skills. All of these strategies are inter159
Early Literacy Assessment settings. The effects of parenting and environmental events were largely ignored. The belief was that children were not “ready” to read until they were six years old or so. Assuming average physical development, a child would then be more capable of visual demands such as matching letters and determining directionality and of auditory demands like hearing the small differences between sounds. Reading, some believed, consisted of a bottom-up hierarchy in which a child had to learn letters and sounds before being challenged by the printed word, only then moving on to text and eventually to meaning. Thus, assessments have reflected that ideal and measured reading readiness, a hierarchy of skills including visual and auditory discrimination, letter recognition, color recognition, and the ability to compare same and different shapes. Significant research since the 1970s reflects a paradigm shift. Literacy skills, both reading and writing, are now seen to be intertwined, beginning with infants’ hearing and reproducing phonemes, or sounds, that represent speech. The speech/language match to print is an amazing development that occurs as parents read to their children on a regular basis and as children are exposed to print in their environment. Toddlers can recognize the written and pictorial symbols that represent McDonald’s, Pizza Hut, and Target. In our society, rich with print and language, children are exposed to a variety of literacy experiences before beginning formal schooling. This exposure to the form and function of print, it is currently believed, forms the basis for literacy learning. Emergent literacy, then, reflects the paradigm on which the content of many current assessments of early literacy are based. The International Reading Association cautions against the use of high-stakes assessments for young children. First of all, a formal testing situation may put undue pressure on a child, resulting in inadequate and invalid results. Literacy skills and abilities develop at a differential rate. Many children find it very hard to sit still and focus on one task for a long period of time. In short, one must use the testing results with an eye toward the assessment situation; although the results may be helpful, the information may lack some amount of validity. It is also true that testing offers a picture of one student on one day in one situation. Results may vary accordingly on a different day and in a different setting.
See Also Literacy in Play; Phonological and Phonemic Awareness References Dickinson, David, and Miriam Smith. 1994. “LongTerm Effects of Preschool Teachers’ Book Readings on Low-Income Children’s Vocabulary and Story Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 29:104–122. International Reading Association and National Association for the Education of Young Children. 1998. “Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children.” Reading Teacher 52:193–216. McLean, Morag, Peter Bryant, and Lynette Bradley. 1987. “Rhymes, Nursery Rhymes, and Reading in Early Childhood.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33(3):255–281. Neuman, Susan B. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neuman, Susan B., and Kathleen Roskos, eds. 1998. Children Achieving: Best Practices in Early Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pappas, Christine. 1991. “Young Children’s Strategies in Learning the ‘Book Language’ of Information Books.” Discourse Processes 14:203–225. Read, Charles. 1971. “Pre-School Children’s Knowledge of English Phonology.” Harvard Educational Review 41:1–34.
Early Literacy Assessment The purpose of educational assessments, including those that measure the progress of emergent and beginning readers, is to gather data. Areas of both strength and need can be determined in order to make effective instructional decisions based on these data. Through both standardized and informal assessments, educators can determine a child’s growth toward independent reading and writing. The assessment of emergent literacy generally refers to preschool and kindergarten students who are exploring and experimenting with reading and writing. Beginning readers are often in late kindergarten through first or early second grade. Therefore, the age measured by early assessments spans a continuum from approximately age three through seven. A paradigm shift in the 1970s and 1980s reflects the assessments that have widely been used by educators. Prior to this time, learning to read was viewed as a process fixed in formal school 160
Early Literacy Assessment Using both standardized and informal assessments, educators can determine a variety of factors that represent a child’s growth toward independent reading and writing. When selecting early literacy assessment, educators must be purposeful: What do I need to discern? Which instrument can satisfy that aim?
(five to eighteen hours of instruction), are taught in small groups, and are combined with letter instruction. Exposure to and success with various aspects of phonemic awareness is one predictor of success in learning to read. Recognizing the letters of the alphabet and the sounds they represent is another predictor of success in learning to read. The alphabetic principle also means that children recognize that patterns of letters make up words. The accuracy with which children can name letters is important, but equally important is the automaticity with which children can read letters. A child who can recognize letters with speed and confidence will have an easier time learning about letter sounds and word spellings. Another important and assessable developmental aspect of emergent literacy is the child’s concepts about print. Marie Clay (1993) explains that over a period of time, children gradually learn a great deal about the printed word. Children observe how adults handle books as they read. Environmental print is also a source of opportunity for incidental print learning. Teachers need to understand what children already know about print and what they have yet to sort out about our printed language. Concepts about print include understanding that print carries meaning and knowing the difference between the front, back, top, and bottom of a book, where to begin reading, in which direction to read (left to right, top to bottom), and that letters make up a word and that words make up sentences. Children need to realize that pictures enrich and accompany text. More advanced concepts might include knowing the difference between capital and lower-case letters, realizing that sentences end with different marks, knowing that capital letters begin a sentence, and understanding what quotation marks mean. In addition, some children might be able to recognize and write some basic sight words as well as their given and family names.
Aspects of Early Literacy Development Learning to read and to write begins when young children hear and mimic language. They are curious and begin to experiment with sounds and with communication. Parents, caregivers, and family members are the child’s first teachers. Children repeat the sounds they hear, gradually approximating acceptable, understandable speech. Literacy begins at birth and develops at differing rates; it begins with communication and language. The early language play that children engage in, such as rhyming and repetition, becomes an important basis for the development of reading. This is phonological awareness, the understanding that our language is made up of sounds. Knowing that these sound segments, or phonemes, are used to build words develops along with language and sound play. This is known as phonemic awareness. Phonemic awareness is the notion that words are made up of a specific sequence of sounds, or phonemes. Some level of awareness of phonemes is necessary for children to use as a basis for learning to read print (Adams et al., 1990). Phonemic awareness does not develop spontaneously in all children; it eludes those from about one-fourth of all middle-class homes and substantially more from backgrounds that are less literacy rich. Because of this, phonemic awareness needs to be encouraged and, often, directly taught. Activities that encourage the development of phonemic awareness include: rhyming, letter-sound matching, segmentation, blending, deletion of sounds, and manipulation of sounds. This list is not sequential, and success at all tasks is not a prerequisite of reading. The National Reading Panel (2000) examined fiftytwo articles on literacy and determined that phonemic awareness instruction has a significant, positive effect on reading and spelling, and is most effective when one or two different activities are followed, not more. Programs are most effective when they are not too long or too short
Aspects of Beginning Reading Children grow in reading and writing at their own pace; the process is developmental in nature. Some come to formal schooling with more experiences and more knowledge about print than others. In general, most of this proficiency is attributed to experiences at home, preschool, and kindergarten. In first and second grade, children 161
Early Literacy Assessment expand and enrich their literacy concepts. Their oral language has developed exponentially as they acquire words for more complex topics and ideas. Children also develop their sight word recognition, usually with words that are familiar and in their speaking vocabularies. In addition, as they become more familiar with letters and sounds, children further develop word-recognition strategies (using sounds, context, and so on). Phonics, the relationship between sounds and symbols, is a tool that students can use to enable them to decode words. When basic rules and principles of letter-sound relationships are understood and applied to unknown words, reading and understanding are facilitated. Teachers need to realize which of these orthographic rules are known and, further, which need to be taught. An understanding of phonics can supply students with an additional, valuable tool with which they can unlock words and enhance text meaning. When they can recognize enough words to read connected text, students move toward reading text with a narrative or expository thread. Comprehending text is an important part of beginning reading. As students develop into proficient readers, getting meaning from text read both orally and silently is the ultimate goal. Comprehension is the essence of reading. Therefore, teachers need to assess whether a student understands what is read.
and Representing Phonemes with Letters. Students use a booklet and pencil. Administration of all sections takes about half an hour (Adams et al., 1990). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) The following four tasks, each with several forms, were designed to be a brief screening device to determine which children might be slow to develop early literacy skills and which might benefit from early intervention. These timed, oneminute probes are individually administered and can also be used repeatedly in different forms to measure the effectiveness of specific interventions. Letter Naming Fluency (kindergarten through early first grade) measures how many randomly ordered upper- and lower-case letters a child can name in one minute (forty to sixty is considered proficient). Phonemic Segmentation Fluency (kindergarten through first grade) measures a child’s ability to segment orally presented words into phonemes. Accurately producing thirty-five to forty-five phonemes per minute is considered adequate. Nonsense Word Fluency (first grade) consists of a nonsense word–reading task to determine whether a child applies letter-sound correspondence to decode words (thirty to forty letter sounds is considered adequate). Onset Recognition (kindergarten) determines how many stimulus sounds a child can associate with a named picture in one minute (Curriculum-Based Network, 1999).
Assessment Instruments The following instruments can be used by educators who understand their use and can effectively apply and interpret the resultant data. They represent a selection of published materials available to educators. Additional instruments, such as informal-reading inventories, attitude and interest surveys, or state- and district-constructed assessments might also aid in gaining information about the progress of emergent and beginning readers.
Early Literacy Assessments This collection offers a wide range of assessments for measuring early literacy abilities. Several short, appealing activities are designed to gain a profile of an emergent reader. Educators need to choose which assessments might help them gain the most information about a child. Included are: Interviews about Reading Attitude and Interest, Retelling a Story, Literacy Knowledge (concepts about print), Wordless Picture Reading, Auditory Discrimination, Rhyme Detection, Alphabet Knowledge, Phoneme Segmentation, Writing, Developmental Spelling, Consonant Phonic Elements (initial and final), Decoding, Caption Reading, Basic Sight Word Knowledge, and Passage Reading (Johns, Lenski, and Elish-Piper, 1999).
The Assessment Test The Assessment Test is a part of Phonemic Awareness in Young Children, which is a complete, concise curriculum for the instruction of phonemic awareness in kindergarten and firstgrade classrooms. Components of this group-administered test include Detecting Rhymes, Counting Syllables, Matching Initial Sounds, Counting Phonemes, Comparing Word Lengths, 162
Early Literacy Assessment Early Reading Screening Instrument (ERSI) The ERSI is a series of tasks that focus on beginning readers’ print-related ability. It was designed to work as a screening of late kindergarten and early first-grade students to predict students who would benefit from early reading intervention programs. The individually administered tasks include the following: Alphabet Knowledge measures recognition of upper- and lower-case letters in a variant sequence; production of letters is also assessed. Concept of Word in Text measures a beginning reader’s ability to match spoken words to written words; given memory support and a short rehearsal, a student must finger point to text and read a sentence. Concept of Word in Text measures a student’s ability to match spoken words to text; a student must locate a key word in text that has just been read. Phoneme Awareness is measured in this battery by a twelve-word spelling task; students are encouraged to use their letters and sounds to produce a written stimulus word. Developmental spelling may produce a mixture of correct and incorrect phonemes; scoring word by word, the total number of correct phonemes and patterns or errors provides predictive and diagnostic information (Morris, 1999).
Concepts about Print (CAP) are tested, including identifying the front of the book and understanding that print carries meaning, that clusters of letters are called words, that there are both upper- and lower-case letters, that spaces have meaning, and that ending punctuation gives meaning. Two little books, which also act as forms of CAP, are titled Follow Me, Moon and No Shoes (Clay, 1993). Word Test is based on the idea that beginning readers need a base of sight words that are the most frequent. The Ready to Read series is used during the first year of schooling in Auckland, New Zealand. Writing Sample rates writing samples taken from beginning writers. Clay has urged teachers to rate samples relative to language level, message quality, and directional principles. Writing Vocabulary measures how many words a child can write in ten minutes. Prompts are allowed. Scoring is based on correct spelling, directionality, series of words, and correct use of capitals. Hearing Sounds in Words requires a child to write a sentence that is dictated. The child writes the sounds that are heard. Scoring is directed toward phonemic awareness (Clay, 1993). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III The PPVT-III is an individually administered, norm-referenced test designed to measure the receptive vocabulary in students from age two and a half through adult. Subjects are asked to determine which of four pictures on an easel depicts the meaning of the stimulus word. There is no writing required on the part of the subject, and this test usually takes ten to fifteen minutes to administer. The authors determine the PPVTIII as predictive of verbal ability and, thus, of language. Success with language is frequently linked with success in reading. Scores are reported as a variety of derived forms: standard scores, percentiles, stanines (ranks), normal curve equivalents (NCEs), and age equivalents (Dunn and Dunn, 1998).
Metropolitan Reading Instructional Tests This survey battery is designed for students in kindergarten through ninth grade. It is suitable for group use and is divided into six levels. The paper-and-pencil items that measure early reading skills include visual discrimination, letter recognition, auditory discrimination, sight vocabulary, consonants, and vowels (Farr, Prescott, Balow, and Hogan, 1986). An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement This survey is a collection of standardized observational tasks for teachers to use to measure and monitor literacy progress for students at beginning first-grade level. Clay has suggested that these tasks be used in concert to gain a complete picture of a developing reader rather than separating one or two tasks to use as screening instruments. The survey tasks include: Running Record, which scores oral reading behavior to determine any pattern of miscues and to observe problem solving on the part of the child. Letter Identification includes upper and lower case.
Screening Children for Related Early Educational Needs (SCREEN) SCREEN is an individually administered battery of tests designed to assess academic ability in children from three to seven years of age. SCREEN may be used to assess children who may exhibit risk factors for learning. The parts of this battery include: Test of Early Language Development 163
Early Literacy Assessment (TELD), which contains eighteen items that measure syntax, semantics, and the ability to use language. Test of Early Written Language (TEWL) assesses the mechanics of writing and also the expression of ideas. There are sixteen items. Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA) consists of eighteen items that measure concepts about print and retelling. Cloze items are also included. Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA) measures rote counting, the use of a number line, basic number facts, and place value. There are eighteen items (Hresko et al., 1988).
Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation This is an individually administered screening survey to determine a child’s ability to break a word into its separate phonemes. There are twenty-two items that are administered to kindergarten and first graders. There are no alternate forms or specific, rigorous norms. The author suggests that students who score eleven or better are likely to be phonemically aware. Students who cannot orally segment sounds from a given word may have difficulty learning to read and spell (Yopp, 1995). Peggy VanLeirsburg Marciniec
Specific Level Assessment of Awareness of Print and Sound This is an informal measure of fifteen tasks that are related to letter-sound correspondence and print awareness. It also measures a child’s knowledge of letter sounds and the application of this knowledge to decode nonsense words. Specific Level Assessment of Awareness of Print and Sound is designed to use with kindergarten or first graders and also with students whose alphabet and print experiences may be lacking. There are no established scoring conventions, but the authors advise that students who are successful early readers are generally accurate with these basic skills (Howell, Fox, and Morehead, 1993).
See Also Phonics Instruction; Phonological and Phonemic Awareness References Adams, Marilyn J., Barbara R. Foorman, Ingvar Lundberg, and Terri Beeler. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge: MIT Press. Clay, Marie. 1993. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Curriculum-Based Network. 1999. “Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS).” Eugene: School Psychology Program, University of Oregon. Dunn, Lloyd M., and Leota M. Dunn. 1998. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance. Farr, Roger C., George Prescott, Irving H. Balow, and Thomas Hogan. 1986. Metropolitan Reading Instructional Tests. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Howell, Kenneth W., Sheila L. Fox, and Mada K. Morehead. 1993. Specific Level Assessment of Awareness of Print and Sound. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Hresko, Wayne, Donald Reid, Donald Hammill, Herbert Ginsburg, and Arthur J. Baroody. 1988. Screening Children for Related Early Educational Needs. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Johns, Jerry, Susan Lenski, and Laurie Elish-Piper. 1999. Early Literacy Assessments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Morris, Darrell. 1999. “Early Reading Screening Instrument (ERSI).” Best Practices in SpeechLanguage Pathology 2:43–51. National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Pub. no. 00-4769.
Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA) TOPA is a norm-referenced test of young children’s awareness of the phonological structure of words. There are two versions, one for kindergarten and one for early elementary. Each contains two subtests of ten items. Initial sounds must be matched in the first subtest. Children listen for the initial sound that is different in the second part (Torgesen and Bryant, 1994). Word Reading Efficiency and Nonword Efficiency This test is for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade. It is individually administered and diagnostic in nature. This screening provides a measure of the ability of students to apply phonic skills to increasing complex nonwords. They are asked to apply their knowledge of letter-sound relationships in pronouncing unfamiliar, nonwords without the aid of context clues. Analysis of errors can provide an indicator of strengths and needs in decoding ability (Torgesen and Wagner, 1998). 164
Early Literacy Software
Child using a computer for learning (Laura Dwight)
Foundations of Literacy Software Software that effectively supports young children’s acquisition of foundational literacy concepts, such as phonemic awareness, letter recognition, sound-symbol relationships, ABC order, and concept of word (Teale and Sulzby, 1989) are designed to go beyond the repetitive drilland-practice format of many of the lower-level programs that have dominated the marketplace. Effective software fosters children’s initial and ongoing acquisition of skills through playful engagement within gamelike scenarios that offer multiple occasions to explore literacy concepts in highly predictable and responsive screen environments. For example, in programs such as Blue’s Clues ABC Time Activities, children can playfully explore ABC order by following a letter maze in a sandbox, associate sound and symbol relationships by matching soapbubble pictures to sounds of initial consonants, and go on a vocabulary word safari while interacting with popular television characters. Spelling games, like Spelling Blaster, and typing games such as Read, Write, and Type may also help young children associate keyboard letters with sounds.
Torgesen, Joseph, and Brian Bryant. 1994. Test of Phonological Awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Torgesen, Joseph, and Richard Wagner. 1998. Word Reading Efficiency and Nonword Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Yopp, Hallie Kay. 1995. Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Early Literacy Software Computers and literacy-related software have become commonplace features in early childhood classrooms within the last decade (Becker, 1993). In 1999, hundreds of software programs involving reading were available commercially. Early childhood experts consider only a fraction of the software programs targeted for young children to be developmentally appropriate (Haugland and Shade, 1994). Developmentally appropriate early literacy software programs are designed to effectively support young children as they (1) acquire foundational literacy skills, (2) develop reading abilities, and (3) develop writing abilities. 165
Early Literacy Software Reading Software Software that effectively fosters young children’s development of reading abilities offers various levels of support for word recognition and comprehension of narrative stories, reference materials, and informational text. CD-ROM Talking Books are interactive, digital versions of stories that employ multimedia features such as animation, music, sound effects, highlighted text, and modeled fluent reading. For example, Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham allows children to use the mouse to access words that are pronounced, passages that are reread, illustrations that are reanimated, and special effects that produce visual or auditory responses. The interactive features focus on word recognition, reading fluency, and multimedia support for story comprehension when animations are integrally related to the story (Miller, Blackstock, and Miller, 1994). Digital encyclopedias, such as Microsoft Encarta Multimedia Encyclopedia, and digital dictionaries, such as American Heritage Children’s Dictionary, provide convenient references with embedded links to auxiliary materials or additional information. Reference software can often be updated via the Internet. Support for content literacy (see Content-Area Literacy) or thematic studies may occur as children walk through virtual museums like The Louvre Museum for Kids, encounter biological concepts such as 3-D Body Adventure, or simulate excursions through space and time as in Madeline: European Adventures or Reading Galaxy.
development of abilities to create multimedia documents that contain associated links. Highlighted text or portions of screens may open additional screen windows to video and audio streams, geographical maps, or related textual supplementary information. Educators of young children who are interested in learning more about selecting developmentally appropriate software can locate various reviews of early childhood literacy software online (see Tech Learning, available: http://www. techlearning.com/review.html). Linda D. Labbo and Jonathan Eakle See Also Content-Area Literacy; Hypertext; Software for Older Readers References Becker, Howard. 1993. “Decision Making about Computer Acquisition and Use in American Schools.” Computers and Education 20:341–352. Haugland, Susan, and Daniel Shade. 1994. “Software Evaluation for Young Children.” In June Wright and Daniel Shade, eds., Young Children: Active Learners in a Technological Age. Washington, DC: NAEYC Press. Miller, Larry, James Blackstock, and R. Miller. 1994. “An Exploratory Study into the Use of CD-ROM Storybooks.” Computers in Education 22:187–204. Teale, William, and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1989. “Emergent Literacy: New Perspectives on Young Children’s Reading and Writing Development.” In Dorothy Strickland and Lesley Morro, eds., Emerging Literacy: Young Children Learn to Read and Write, pp. 1–15. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Selected Examples of Foundational Literacy Acquisition Software: Baily’s Book House, Edmark, Redmond, VA. Blue’s Clues ABC Time Activities, Humongous Entertainment, Bothell, WA. Jump Start Kindergarten, Knowledge Adventure, Torrance, CA. Selected Examples of Reading Development Software Titles: Dr. Seuss’s ABC, Broderbund/The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Dr. Seuss’s Green Eggs and Ham, Broderbund/The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Just Grandma and Me, Broderbund/The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Stellaluna, Broderbund/The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Selected Examples of Writing Development Software Titles:
Writing Software Software that effectively fosters young children’s development of writing abilities supports composing and shaping ideas on screen through various symbol systems. When composing, children may wish to draw pictures for prewriting or as an expression of early communicative symbol making (Teale and Sulzby, 1989). KidPix Studio Deluxe, a multimedia software graphics and paint program, allows beginning readers/ writers to initially experiment with graphics, digital photos, and special visual/audio effects. With the help of an adult, word-processing programs such as Microsoft Word can support children’s writing processes through formatting pages, editing invented spelling, and printing final drafts for publishing. Simple hypertext programs, such as Hypercard, support children’s 166
Ebonics KidpixStudio Deluxe (Broderbund/Mattell), The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Read, Write, and Type, The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Storybook Weaver Deluxe (MECC), The Learning Company, Novato, CA. Ultimate Writing and Creativity Center, The Learning Company, Novato, CA.
where the term Ebonics was coined have suggested that the term was meant to repudiate the view that the language of enslaved Africans is based in English or resulted from a European-invented pidgin English. Notwithstanding these differences, adherents of all three perspectives agree that Ebonics is governed by a system of linguistic rules (grammatical, syntactical, morphological, pragmatic, and semantic) and paralinguistic (nonverbal) features. These unique features define the communicative competence of the descendants of enslaved Africans in diaspora, including the Caribbean and the United States, and incorporate the idiomatic expressions, social communication behaviors, and cultural mores of African people compelled to adapt to the conditions of enslavement throughout the world. African American Ebonics borrows the bulk of its vocabulary from English but preserves some of the grammar, phonology, and pragmatic structures of West African (Niger-Congo) languages.
Ebonics Ebonics, a term coined by a group of African American scholars in 1973, combines two words—ebony, meaning black, and phonics, which refers to the science or study of sounds. Thus, literally, Ebonics refers to the science or study of black sounds. But how the term is defined operationally depends on the theoretical perspective the person defining it holds about the origin and historical development of this language. Is Ebonics an offshoot of English? Does Ebonics derive from a simplified pidgin language employed by participants in the Atlantic slave trade? Or does Ebonics have its origin in the languages of West Africa? Some scholars (English-origin theorists) maintain that Ebonics, referred to as black dialect, is no different from the white dialects of English and suggest that the underlying grammar of this black dialect is English. The differences between black dialects and white dialects are said to have resulted from enslaved Africans’ exposure to poor English models or to their impaired attempts to approximate good English models, or both. Another group of scholars (Creolists) view Ebonics as a system of communication used by enslaved Africans in America, which evolved from the simplified languages (pidgins) developed on the West Coast of Africa and in the Caribbean. Most Creolists equate Ebonics with such terms as Black English, Vernacular Black English, and African American Vernacular English. A third theoretical perspective holds that Ebonics is not an English dialect and that, therefore, terms such as black dialect, Black English, or African American Vernacular English are inappropriate. This African-origin theory posits that Ebonics is a new language rooted in African (especially Niger-Congo) languages. Indeed, Africologists present at the 1973 conference
The Public View of Ebonics The public debate around Ebonics focuses mainly on whether this system of communication, which is used by nearly all African Americans at least some of the time (Smitherman, 1977), is a rule-based language or simply an amalgamation of errors resulting from the feeble attempts of African people to learn English. This debate has paid little attention to the extensive empirical linguistic research, yet American society has a very high level of tolerance for this misinformation. Decades ago, linguists established that African American Ebonics is systematic and rule governed like all natural languages and that speakers of this language should be viewed the same as speakers of any other language. Unfortunately, this linguistic knowledge base has penetrated neither public opinion nor the views of many educators, whose attitudes about how black children speak are a critical determinant of how black children fare in school. Ebonics and Learning Although the public debate centers on how Ebonics is viewed, the more critical pedagogical question concerns the impact it has on learning in American educational institutions. Perennially, the academic achievement of African Amer167
Ecological Literacy ican students has been disconcerting. The extensive use of Ebonics, which differs significantly from the language of school (Academic English), is widely recognized as a barrier to learning in African American students. This barrier is formed in part by the negative attitudes of educators toward Ebonics and in part by the structural differences between Ebonics and Standard American or Academic English. Teachers’ low opinions and misunderstandings about Ebonics contribute to the failure of many African American students in America’s public schools (Baugh, 1999). Because teacher attitudes and beliefs are critical variables influencing achievement in students, one of the greatest challenges facing teacher development institutions is the need to change negative attitudes toward Ebonics by building teachers’ knowledge of the linguistic research on Ebonics. How teachers respond to language difference in African American students has a significant impact on classroom instructional practice and student achievement. Although changes in educator attitudes are important, they represent only part of the puzzle. African American Ebonics is structurally different from Standard American English in significant ways. It differs phonologically in how sounds are formed and used to construct words, grammatically in how words and sentences are formed to carry meaning, and pragmatically in how language is used in social contexts. Therefore, speakers of Ebonics who possess limited access to interactive models of Standard American English need structured, research-based interventions that promote acquisition of Standard English. The shared vocabulary of Ebonics and Standard American English veils the complex linguistic differences (grammatical, phonological, and pragmatic) between the two language systems, thus masking the difficulty speakers of Ebonics have with Standard English acquisition. Reading and oral language are highly correlated, and how the two connect has significant implications for the process of becoming literate. Many problems related to language and literacy acquisition in speakers of Ebonics result from a lack of familiarity with the linguistic constraints of Standard American and Academic English. Speakers of Ebonics have difficulty distinguishing Standard English phonemes, which results in problems with sound-spelling relationships, loss
of confidence in the alphabet, and differentiation of homophones, causing linguistically based reading and writing problems (Berdan, 1978). As the twenty-first century brings increased demands for language use that exceeds basic proficiency, how the language acquisition needs of students for whom Ebonics is native are addressed in primary- and secondary-learning institutions is critical to these students’ ability to access post-secondary educational opportunities and career options. We have an obligation to our future generations to move beyond uninformed public debates about Ebonics to acknowledgment of the three decades of linguistic research on the topic and the application of that knowledge to efficacy in the education of those who speak Ebonics. Noma LeMoine References Baugh, John. 1999. “Considerations in Preparing Teachers for Linguistic Diversity.” In Carolyn Adger, Donna Christian, and Orlando Taylor, eds., Making the Connections: Language and Academic Achievement among African American Students, pp. 97–114. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Berdan, Robert. 1978. “Dialect Fair Reading Instruction for Speakers of Black English.” Paper prepared for the Sociolinguistics of Reading Session, Sociolinguistics Research Program, Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden, National Institute of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Smitherman, Geneva. 1977. Talkin’ and Testifyin’: The Language of Black America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Ecological Literacy Ecological literacy refers to the embeddedness of our human lives in cultural and physical contexts and the ways in which we interpret those contexts. Ecological literacy has been thought of in several different ways. The first of these, instead of limiting literacy to the skills required to read and write, uses ecology as a metaphor to demonstrate that literacy is a social endeavor (Barton, 1994). When we view literacy as deeply embedded in a social context, we are taking an ecological approach to literacy. We accept the understanding that the environment or culture in which literacy is practiced shapes the many forms of literacy and that literacy, in turn, shapes 168
Ecological Literacy
Third grade students putting on a skit about conservation (Elizabeth Crews)
pact of our way of life on the environment, we must also recognize a third conceptualization of ecological literacy—the development of our ability to read or interpret the world around us. One ecologist, David Orr (1992), has argued that ecological literacy should be taught in schools, but that this form of education should begin with developing students’ abilities to observe and interpret nature. He argued that without a sense of wonder and delight in the world of nature that surrounds us, no amount of learning about ecology will prevent us from destroying that world. What is needed is a sense of kinship with the world. Because we often do not recognize the embeddedness of our society in nature, we have done much damage to our planet. This sense of kinship is difficult to obtain, because education has been a primarily indoor activity, with fewer and fewer opportunities for direct experience with nature. Along with this sense of kinship with nature, we must learn, or perhaps relearn, how to understand and interpret our natural environment.
the environment or culture in which it is practiced. A second conceptualization of ecological literacy frames it as the capacity to understand the connections between humans and their environment. Ecologists, concerned that education should include an understanding of the relationships between humans and the earth, have presented basic concepts that should be central to ecological literacy. Students should understand, for example, how humanity has changed the earth’s ecosystems, that certain relationships exist between organisms and their environment, and that the nature of ecosystems is changeable. Ecologists also advocate activism, mainstreaming environmental courses throughout school curricula and raising funds for environmental activities on campus as ways to promote ecological literacy. Along with the recognition that literacy is deeply embedded in a social context and that it is important for us as humans to recognize the im169
Economics of Literacy Development To explore ecological literacy more fully, in this sense of reading our natural environment, we must see literacy occupying a broader space than has traditionally been made for it, as an ability to read nonprint texts, including nature itself. This widening of the arena of literacy is supported by work done by the New London Group, a group of researchers and theorists that originally met in New London, New Hampshire, in September 1994. Drawn together from a variety of disciplines by their concern for transformations occurring in the personal, public, and working lives of people today, this group developed a pedagogy of multiliteracies that is broader than language alone and that allows for variation in different cultures and contexts (New London Group, 2000). Highlighting the increased diversity through globalization of English and the increasingly multimodal presence of communications technologies, the multiliteracies argument provides a flexible and openended structure for both analysis and pedagogy. The schools of Manitoba, Canada, have recognized the need to broaden the definition of literacy. In its 2000 Grade Three English-Language Arts curriculum, this district has added “the land” to possible sources that students may read in learning to manage ideas and information. In addition, students are encouraged to systematically observe and record information from their environment. The International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English have also included reading nonprint text in their 2000 Standards for the English-Language Arts. A conceptualization of literacy that includes both print text and the world around us has great potential to deepen our understanding of literacy and to help us reestablish connections among ourselves and our environment. In a reciprocal and ecological literacy, we choose as our texts the world around us and open ourselves to being aware of and reading our environment.
also interpretation of topographical maps, sign systems designed for navigation along the trail, weather, the gestures and movements of animals and humans, geographical formations, and their own bodies. These complex and multimodal literacies both fit into and expand upon the multiliteracies described by the New London Group (2000). Continuing to explore these multiple forms of literacy can help us develop a deeper, more complex understanding of literacy, with applications not only for our relationship with the environment but also for our educational practice of literacy in schools. Leslie S. Rush See Also Literacy in Informal Settings References Barton, David. 1994. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Oxford: Blackwell. New London Group. 2000. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” In Bill Cope and Mary Kalantzis, eds., Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, pp. 9–37. New York: Routledge. Orr, David. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rush, Leslie. 2002. “Multiliteracies of Appalachian Trail Thru-Hikers.” Ph.D. diss., University of Georgia.
Economics of Literacy Development Economics of literacy development refers to three distinct but connected concepts: (1) the relationship between literacy proficiency and personal income, (2) the relationship between government support for literacy resources (schools, libraries) and community literacy levels, and (3) the relationship between the “price” of literacy resources and the amount that people read. Most people are used to thinking of the first of these relationships. Literacy development, it is commonly assumed, affects an individual’s economic future, that is, the ability to secure a good job and high wages. According to this line of reasoning, the literacy development of a given population will affect the economic health of its state or country. Although this is no doubt true to a large extent, it is the other two areas of intersection between economics and literacy—the promotion of
Research in Ecological Literacy Unfortunately, little research has been done in the area of ecological literacy. In an effort to begin rethinking literacy in its embeddedness in culture and in nature, my dissertation (Rush, 2002) examines the ecological literacy practices of the Appalachian Trail thru-hiker community. For thru-hikers who backpack from Georgia to Maine, literacy involves not only written text but 170
Economics of Literacy Development literacy through economic policy and the analysis of reading behavior as an economic transaction—that are of greater interest to education practitioners and researchers. One of these topics has already generated a considerable amount of research, but the other has seldom been formally addressed in the scientific literature.
school libraries), and community (bookstores, public libraries). Studies of home environment and reading frequency have consistently found that children who have plentiful access to books and other reading materials at home read more frequently. Such access is usually (but not always) associated with other parental behaviors that encourage literacy development, such as modeling reading, taking trips to the library and bookstore, and reading aloud to the child. More important, there is a small but growing body of research to demonstrate that experimentally increasing access to reading materials in the home can, in and of itself, lead to greater reading frequency. This type of intervention is, of course, somewhat rare due to the expense involved in physically supplying books to each child to take home, but the positive results so far suggest a causal relationship between the ready availability of a physical resource (books) and the use of that resource (reading) (McQuillan, 1998). Although the home provides a child’s first exposure to literacy, various national and international surveys have found that most schoolchildren report the school and public library as being the primary source of reading material (Krashen, 1993). This is true particularly of children from low-income communities, where families lack the financial means to purchase a large quantity of books. Not surprisingly, several studies have confirmed that as in the case of the home, increasing how much access children have to reading materials in their school and classroom libraries increases the amount of reading students engage in, as well as increasing their reading proficiency (McQuillan, 1998). This effect is also observed at the community level, with public libraries. Children and adults who live closer to the public library, for example, tend to use the library more than those who live farther away. This effect has remained strong even after the widespread adoption of the automobile. Similarly, other library-science researchers have found that the higher the quality of the public library (all other things being equal), the more people will use that library. Since the quality of classroom, school, and public libraries results directly from the resources provided to these institutions, the effect of a government’s economic policy on literacy development now takes a clearer form: Governments that spend more money on the “tools” of
How Economic Policy Promotes (and Retards) Literacy Development The connection between economic policy and literacy development can be understood best by first thinking about the possible variables that affect growth in reading and writing proficiency. It is accepted by most researchers from both a “code” or skills-emphasis orientation, and by those with more “meaning” or literature-based approaches, that the more children read, the better they read. Although the debates over literacy instruction tend to be heated and contentious, almost all parties agree that getting students to read voluminously is the goal of good literacy instruction. This general relationship—that in effect, “practice makes perfect”— has been found to hold for a wide range of physical and cognitive skills. The best review of this relationship between volume of reading (sometimes referred to as “print exposure”) and literacy development can be found in Stephen Krashen’s appropriately titled book, The Power of Reading (1993). Krashen discusses correlational and experimental studies that have found that increased reading leads to higher levels of both reading and writing proficiency among children of all ages. If the amount of reading one does explains a good deal of the variation in how well one reads, how can we explain the differences in the volume of reading that children and adults do? There is no single answer to this question, but there is growing evidence that the way governments allocate funds to schools and public libraries affects whether schools and communities have high or low levels of literacy. The number of printed materials (books, magazines, comics, newspapers, and so on) in a reader’s environment influences reading frequency, which in turn influences reading proficiency. Just as you can’t learn to be a world-class cyclist without a bicycle, you cannot be a highly proficient reader without print. Access to reading material can come from three places: home, school (classroom and 171
Economics of Literacy Development literacy via library collections have a substantive impact on literacy development in a community. This leads to another important issue: How are such resources currently allocated?
from local sources, such as local property taxes. As a result, low-income communities, with a weaker tax base, have much poorer public-library services than high-income communities. It is interesting to note that although many states in the United States now have “finance equalization” to ensure that poorer school districts receive an adequate amount of per-pupil funding, no such programs exist for public libraries. Further, some recent research suggests that it is precisely during the summer months—when the public library is the only free source of reading materials—that the gap between high- and lowlevel readers widens the most. Two caveats are in order to put these results in their proper context. First, income is not itself the key variable in predicting literacy achievement in these print-access studies. Income tends to serve as a rough proxy for print access, but the two are not identical. The amount of print access in the home, school, and community has a distinct and strong effect on literacy development independent of income, and this can be separated from general-funding levels, teacher-pupil ratios, and other educational resources. Unfortunately, children in low-income environments generally have poorer access in all three domains than their high-income peers. Second, it should be noted that physical access to reading materials alone is not thought in most cases to be sufficient for literacy growth. It is, however, considered a necessary condition without which no other form of assistance or influence (modeling, adult intervention) can succeed.
Disparities in Print Access Due to Economic Policies Several recent local, national, and cross-national studies (McQuillan, 1998; Neuman and Celano, 2001) have documented that in all three domains (home, school, community), there are grave, and sometimes dramatic, disparities in literary resources between high- and low-income communities. Children from high-income families, for example, have been found to have up to 100 times more reading materials than their low-income peers. Schools in high-income communities similarly have been documented to have book-per-pupil ratios several times greater than schools in low-income communities. These disparities are particularly acute for language-minority students in the United States. Researchers have found that schools that serve a large number of speakers of languages other than English have few print resources in non-English languages, even when these schools have bilingual or dual-language programs. Such schools are, in effect, doubly hit by print deprivation, since they also tend to be located in poor communities, which themselves have a limited number of books and other reading materials in English. Public libraries also vary widely in terms of the number of books per capita available on their shelves. In one study, high-income communities were found to have three times more books than low-income communities in the same state. These differences were reflected by several indicators of library quality, among them the number of librarians available to provide services to the public. Susan Neuman and Donna Celano (2001) found that these disparities exist even within a single community, with middle-income areas of a city having better-quality library services than low-income neighborhoods. Most of these disparities are rooted in economic policy decisions. Governments and policymakers decide how to allocate scarce public resources and in what form. In the United States, some states have chosen to give generous support to their public-school libraries with tax dollars, whereas others have not. At the community level, public libraries tend to get most of their funding
Literacy Development as Economic Activity Literacy development can both affect and be affected by economic policy on a local, state, and national level. There is a third sense in which we can consider the relationship between economics and literacy, one that to date has not been formally examined by reading and writing scholars but is quite common in analogous fields of leisure and recreation studies. That is to view the act of reading (leisure reading, in particular) as consumption of a product (reading materials), which has an attendant “price” determined by the forces of supply and demand. For more than two decades, researchers in leisure studies have studied the supply-and-demand functions of public recreation centers, complete with formulas to relate the distance and quality of parks to 172
Effective Schools and Teachers their amount of use by publics with different demographic characteristics. These studies have discovered that these “free” public resources do not, in fact, cost the same to all members of the community and that their use responds to typical market forces. Concerning recreation centers, for example, travel time is a price that people must pay because they forgo alternative uses of their time (including income-producing activity in the case of adults) and purchase the actual means of transportation (gas, bus fare) to the park site. More readily available parks decrease the cost of their use, so that those who live in a community with lots of parks and recreation centers pay a lower price. Similarly, the quality of recreation areas determines the value gained from accessing them. A high-quality recreation area (e.g., one with more lakes, tennis courts, and the like) has a lower cost to the user than a lowquality area does, since people gets “more for their money” by spending the time and energy to visit the high-quality park. These same factors of travel time and facility quality may be used to understand how public services related to literacy, such as school and public libraries, are or are not used. As noted above, the less time it takes to travel to the library, the more people are likely to use it, regardless of their socioeconomic level. Quality considerations similar to those found in public recreation centers come into play as well. Libraries of higher quality (more books, more librarians), greater ease of access (open more hours), and better services have higher circulations, again controlling for socioeconomic differences. Knowing these factors, then, it is possible to lower the effective price of library use to readers. In this way, government policy could be adjusted to increase the supply of print materials in areas where reading frequency and literacy levels are low, thus boosting the literacy proficiency of the community. This is precisely what developing nations have done in recent years, with the advent of “book flood” programs to provide more reading resources to less-literate populations in order to lower their “cost” of reading. All this would require considerably more sophisticated analysis than has been carried out thus far. Nevertheless, given the demonstrated importance of what we may call the “macroeconomic” forces discussed here on literacy develop-
ment, similar “microeconomic” analysis should prove a useful area of study for both literacy researchers and practitioners. Jeff McQuillan See Also The Political Nature of Literacy References Krashen, Stephen D. 1993. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. McQuillan, Jeff. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims, Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Neuman, Susan, and Donna Celano. 2001. “Access to Print in Low-Income and Middle-Income Communities: An Ecological Study of Four Neighborhoods.” Reading Research Quarterly 36 (1):8–26.
Effective Schools and Teachers Summarizing research on effective schools as related to reading achievement from the 1970s and 1980s, James Hoffman (1991) discussed eight characteristics: (1) a clear school mission, (2) effective instructional leadership and effective instructional practices, (3) high expectations for pupil learning, (4) a positive school climate, (5) continuous curriculum improvement, (6) maximizing of instructional time, (7) regular monitoring of pupil progress, and (8) positive homeschool relationships. In recent years, a considerable number of studies on effective schools are again appearing, undoubtedly due to widespread national concerns about the reading achievement levels of our students. Barbara Taylor, Michael Pressley, and David Pearson (2002) summarized strikingly similar findings from five large-scale research studies published in 1997–2000 on highpoverty elementary schools with high reading scores. Similar findings were also reported by Anthony Bryk and his colleagues (1998). Three studies pointed to the importance of building strong leadership. Effective principals redirected people’s time and energy, worked to develop a collective sense of responsibility among the staff for school improvement, fostered teacher leadership, and provided opportunities for collaboration and professional development. The importance of strong staff collaboration in the delivery of reading instruction was stressed in 173
Effective Schools and Teachers four of the studies. Teachers in effective schools talked and worked together within and across grades to best meet students’ needs. Four of the studies reported ongoing professional development tied to research-based reading practices as an important factor in effective schools, especially when teachers learned together within their building to improve instruction. In a related vein, research on effective school reform and teacher professional development has also stressed the importance of teachers’ learning and changing together over an extended period of time as they reflect on their practice and implement new teaching strategies. Four of the studies on effective schools reported that teachers in these schools regularly shared assessment data on students’ reading performance to make instructional decisions. Teachers also worked across grade levels to align benchmarks or standards with instruction and required assessments. All five studies reported that effective schools made a concerted effort to involve parents as partners. Schools first concentrated on securing the confidence of parents and then worked with parents on ways they could support their students’ literacy development. A great deal is also known about effective teachers of reading in the elementary grades. From the research on teaching from the 1960s and 1970s, we learned that the more effective teachers concentrated on academics, had high pupil engagement, and provided direct instruction. Effective direct instruction focused on clear learning goals, questioning as a way of monitoring students’ understanding of content covered, and regular feedback to students about their academic progress. Beginning with the research of Gerry Duffy and Laura Roehler and their colleagues (1987), attention shifted to the role of cognitive processes used by excellent teachers in the delivery of reading instruction. The more effective teachers engaged in modeling and explanation of reading strategies students could use to decode and understand texts. Michael Knapp (1995) also found that effective teachers engaged their students in higher-level thinking more than lower-level skills. Michael Pressley and his colleagues (2001) reported that effective primarygrade teachers exemplified balanced literacy instruction, in that they taught skills but also got
their students engaged in a great deal of actual reading and writing. These teachers also taught students to use strategies in reading and writing and fostered their independence as learners. Taylor and her colleagues (2000) found that accomplished primary-grade teachers engaged in more small-group than whole-group reading instruction, maintained high levels of pupil engagement, preferred coaching to telling in their interactions with students when they were teaching reading, and engaged students in more higherlevel thinking during literacy instruction than other teachers. Barbara M. Taylor See Also Balanced Literacy Instruction References Bryk, Anthony S., Penny Bender Sebring, David Kerbow, Sharon Rollow, and John Q. Easton. 1998. Charting Chicago School Reform: Democratic Localism as a Lever for Change. Boulder: Westview. Duffy, Gerald G., Laura R. Roehler, Eva Sivan, Gary Rackliffe, Cassandra Book, Michael Meloth, Linda Vavrus, Roy Wesselman, Joyce Putnam, and Dina Bassiri. 1987. “Effects of Explaining the Reasoning Associated with Using Reading Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 20:347–368. Hoffman, James V. 1991. “Teacher and School Effects in Learning to Read.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 911–950. New York: Longman. Knapp, Michael S. 1995. Teaching for Meaning in High-Poverty Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Pressley, Michael, Ruth Wharton-McDonald, Richard Allington, Cathy C. Block, Leslie Morrow, Diane Tracey, Kim Baker, Gregory Brooks, John Cronin, Eileen Nelson, and Debra Woo. 2001. “A Study of Effective First-Grade Literacy Instruction.” Scientific Studies of Reading 5 (10):35–58. Taylor, Barbara M., Michael Pressley, and P. David Pearson. 2002. Research-Supported Characteristics of Teachers and Schools That Promote Reading Achievement. In Barbara M. Taylor and P. David Pearson, eds., Teaching Reading: Effective Schools, Accomplished Teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Taylor, Barbara M., P. David Pearson, Kathleen Clark, and Sharon Walpole. 2000. “Effective Schools and Accomplished Teachers: Lessons about Primary Grade Reading Instruction in Low-Income Schools.” Elementary School Journal 101 (2):121–166. Wharton-MacDonald, Ruth, Michael Pressley, and
174
Elders and Literacy
A senior citizen reads her magazine (Elizabeth Crews)
Jennifer M. Hampston. 1998. “Literacy Instruction in Nine First Grade Classrooms: Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement.” Elementary School Journal 99:101–128.
into ages sixty-five to seventy-four, seventy-five to eighty-four, and eighty-five and older. The recent profile from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001) stated that in 1999, there were 34.5 million people over sixty-five years old. That’s approximately 13 percent of the total population. These distinctions among particular cohorts within the overarching category of elders are vital. The number of elders over sixty-five will increase to 70 million, or 20 percent of the total population, by 2030, clearly reflecting the impact of the baby boom generation. Between 1970 and 1999, the rate of high-school completion among those over sixty-five rose from 28 percent to 68 percent; however, this increase also varied dramatically by race and ethnicity. Finally, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services profile noted that in 1999, 15 percent of those over sixty-five had a college degree. Thus, the levels of educational attainment and, most likely, the corresponding varieties of
Elders and Literacy The functions and uses of literacy among the elderly in the United States are, at best, sketchily known. This should be a cause for concern in light of the fact that the number of elders is increasing rapidly. What we do know about elders and their literacy practices comes from a limited number of research studies and reports from practitioners in the field. Who Are the Elderly? Defining “the elderly” is complex. The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) recruits individuals at forty-nine years of age. Gerontologists often use such terms as “young old,” “very old,” and “old old.” Cohorts are often divided 175
Elders and Literacy literacy practices differ among those born immediately prior to World War II and those born during the first decades of the twentieth century. These differences will become even greater in the future when those born after World War II reach sixty-five. All of these differences are also compounded by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic class, and elders’ native language.
who might be classified as limited in their literacy abilities according to some list of basic skills or set of criteria (for example, the NALS) might indeed read and write little but may still be successful in all other areas of their lives. Similarly, elders who are considered highly literate might see little need to read and write and thus seldom do so. Finally, the reading habits of the elderly are as diverse as they are in any other group of adults. Interest surveys show that the elderly like to read newspapers, magazines, mysteries, and religious and inspirational texts because they are brief and informative (Smith, 1993).
What Do We Know about Elders’ Literacy? The National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) conducted by the Educational Testing Service (Kirsch et al., 1993) employed a literacy assessment and background interview with a sample of 26,000 adults who were sixteen and older. Subsequently, researchers have broken out the data on those adults sixty and older and have found that with a variety of texts, for example, newspapers, books, and magazines, younger and middle-aged adults typically demonstrated greater reading proficiency than older adults. Such national surveys are by their very nature limited, since they attempt to measure literacy according to some general set of criteria and ignore the particular social and cultural contexts in which literacy is actually used by individuals. Likewise, smaller studies of the elderly are often severely limited by their narrow focus, for example, by semantic memory and its effects on spelling, the impact of noise when identifying lists of words, syntactic processing of texts, and so forth. Typically, these data are gathered in experimental, “laboratory” situations and not through in situ practices. Case-study research typically involved small groups of elders in specific contexts and profiles. For example research by Gail Weinstein-Shr (1995), allows us to make some tentative observations, if not generalizations, about elders and literacy. Those elders who are active readers use literacy as a social as well as a personal process; that is, reading helps them connect to others through sharing and discussion. Likewise, elders often write to maintain connections through correspondence, to explore and preserve their pasts through memoirs, autobiographies, and “life reviews,” and to counter the effects of illness and loneliness. Like younger adults, elders’ perceptions and uses of literacy vary according to their socioeconomic status, racial/ethnic background, level of education, and particular cultural context. Those
Future Directions Although the information about elders’ literacy perceptions, needs, and uses is limited, it still provides clues to the necessary approach to literacy development for the elderly. It appears from what we do know that such programs must be based on the actual realities of the lives of the elderly in specific situations, on the social and connective power of reading and writing, and on the fact that they tend to prefer informal learning situations. Continuing literacy development for the elderly must take into consideration all of the complex differences described above. The AARP web site, for example, which offers free on-line classes on such topics as “Writing for Children” and “Shakespearean Drama” cannot be used as a single template. The sixty-five-year-old professional who is financially secure in 2010 will need, and will want, different literacy experiences than the sixty-five-year-old high-school dropout who, of necessity, is still in the workforce. The sixty-five-year-old who speaks English as a second language (ESL) or who speaks little English at all will need and want another type of literacy experience. Regardless of elders’ socioeconomic, educational, or linguistic status in 2001, 2010, or 2030, the graying of America demands that policy planners and program developers pay serious attention to the continuous literacy development of the elderly. Such development of literacy range and power needs to be based on a broad and comprehensive understanding of literacy. It should center around a life-task(s) orientation that views literacy as a tool for gaining self-understanding, self-expression, and empowerment 176
Electronic Jigsaw and not upon a narrow-training (in the pejorative sense) perspective. Francis E. Kazemek
subtopic in a unit that is being studied. Each cooperative learning group takes one piece or part of the unit, researches it using electronic as well as traditional resources, and prepares a multimedia presentation to teach the rest of the class. Students use storyboards to organize their multimedia presentations as they write and record their own scripts. The multimedia, content-rich pieces are put together by each group, which shares its information piece of the puzzle with the class. The total puzzle is viewed as complete when all of the subtopic information is combined into a whole. Popular electronic presentation programs, such as Hyperstudio or Microsoft PowerPoint, may be used by students to prepare the presentations. Students use digital cameras, music selections, photographs, imported graphics from disk files, and the Internet to enhance the multimedia presentations. Viewing the electronic presentations in their entirety is an effective way to culminate a unit of study. The Electronic Jigsaw learning strategy is particularly useful in exploring various units of study in social studies or science. This strategy can be thought of as a reading-method framework that has certain procedural steps and options for completing the strategy. The procedural steps and options include:
See Also Adult Literacy; Literacy Autobiography References Kirsch, Irwin, Ann Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Smith, M. Cecil. 1993. “The Reading Abilities and Practices of Older Adults.” Educational Gerontology 19:417–432. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2001. A Profile of Older Americans: 2000. Washington, DC: Administration on Aging. Weinstein-Shr, Gail. 1995. Literacy and Older Adults in the United States. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy.
Electronic Jigsaw Electronic Jigsaw (eJigsaw) is a cooperative learning strategy that integrates technology with content-area literacy. The purpose of the Electronic Jigsaw is for students to learn from each other through cooperative learning groups engaged in peer teaching while using various technology resources in their research and presentation of information. Using the eJigsaw strategy requires that students apply previously learned research skills (i.e., information retrieval, summarizing information), which gives their work an authentic purpose. Additionally, the use of technology makes the research and the final presentation meaningful and motivating for students. Using technology as a learning-enhancement tool with the Jigsaw was first described by Robert Slavin (1986) as Jigsaw II. In this variation, all students read the entire assignment, but each student becomes an expert about a specific topic within the assignment. The Jigsaw, a cooperative learning strategy, was originally developed as a means of promoting positive race relations in public-school classrooms, but it was also found to have positive effects on students’ learning. The purpose of the Jigsaw is for learners to learn from each other. The process of using the Electronic Jigsaw in the classroom builds on the notion that students will become experts about a particular part or
1. Identify the subtopics to be studied 2. Conduct research in cooperative groups 3. Organize information learned about the subtopic 4. Prepare an electronic presentation program 5. Share research presentations The National Educational Technology Standards for Students (International Society for Technology Education, 2000) state that the most effective learning environments blend both traditional and new approaches to facilitate learning of content while addressing individual needs. Teaching that way infuses technology into the curriculum and demonstrates the nature of using technology as a tool for learning. The Electronic Jigsaw incorporates various technologies in such a way that students can access information as well as present their findings for others. Cynthia B. Elliott and Susan P. Kornuta 177
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment Eligibility Decisions One of the first purposes for the English-literacy evaluation of English-language learners is to determine which students are eligible for bilingual education or ESL services. According to federal law, all school districts must meet the educational needs of English-language learners (Crawford, 1995). It is not sufficient to provide them with merely the same instruction as native-English-speaking students. When parents first enroll a child in a school district, they are almost always asked whether the child speaks a language other than English. If the parents answer yes, then the district usually requires an evaluation of the child’s English-language proficiency. Although the construct of English-language proficiency includes speaking, listening, reading, and writing, the focus of the evaluation tends to vary according to the age of the student and the district or state policy. For example, the evaluation of preschool children’s English proficiency often emphasizes oral proficiency (listening and speaking) and does not include emergent literacy, even though this is an important aspect of their academic development. Older children’s eligibility tends to be based on an evaluation of their English listening and speaking performance, with some attention, often minor, given to their reading and writing performance. The types of assessments used to estimate students’ English-language proficiency vary. At the preschool level, districts often develop their own assessments, such as a home language survey along with an interview or observation protocol that can be administered by bilingual or ESL personnel or the children’s classroom teachers. At other grade levels, commercial measures tend to be used. These measures range from rating sheets that teachers complete based on interviews or classroom observations to individual assessments completed by the students. In the latter type of assessment, students are usually asked to respond to tape-recorded instructions by pointing out the correct answer and by audio-recording their oral responses. Generally, commercial language proficiency measures are designed for and normed on English-language learners. Although these measures may include reading and writing, they tend to emphasize students’ pronunciation, grammar, oral vocabulary, and ability to communicate in English in a variety of contexts. Because students need more than oral English proficiency to par-
See Also Cooperative Learning References Godoy, Al, producer, and Cynthia B. Elliott, director. 1999. Literacy and Learning in Content Area Reading: Electronic Jigsaw, Literacy, and Social Studies. Videotape. Available from Louisiana Public Broadcasting. International Society for Technology Education. 2000. National Educational Technology Standards for Students—Connecting Curriculum and Technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) NETS Project. Slavin, Robert E. 1986. “A Cooperative Learning Approach to Content Areas: Jigsaw Teaching.” In D. Lapp, J. Flood, and N. Farnan, eds., Content Area Reading and Learning: Instructional Strategies, pp. 330–345. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment The English-literacy evaluation and assessment of English-language learners—students who are acquiring English as a second language (ESL)— serve important educational purposes, even though there are serious biases involved in the process. The term evaluation refers to judgments based on the interpretation of student performance data, whereas assessment refers to the design, collection, analysis, and report of student data. The English literacy performance of English-language learners is evaluated for at least four purposes: (1) to identify those students who are eligible for bilingual education or ESL services, (2) to determine students’ placement in educational programs, (3) to monitor student progress and inform classroom instruction, and (4) to meet accountability requirements. When the students’ second-language status and bilingualism are not taken into account in the design, administration, scoring, and reporting of the assessments, then the accuracy and usefulness of the data, as well as the evaluation, are compromised. A serious problem with formal Englishliteracy assessments (standardized tests, standards-based assessments, and commercial assessments) is that they do not differentiate between the student’s knowledge of English and English-literacy performance. 178
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment ticipate successfully in English-speaking classrooms, second-language experts warn that students’ eligibility for bilingual education or ESL instruction should also be based on their English reading and writing performance.
ing strategies acquired in one language to a second language. Therefore, it is important to know how well English-language learners can read and write in their native language. Lastly, it is difficult to determine whether English-language learners have a language or cognitive delay without first estimating their language and cognitive development in their native language. Most researchers and educators recommend that multiple assessments be used to monitor student performance in the programs and to decide when English-language learners should receive special education or Title I services or be placed in an all-English classroom. Multiple assessments usually involve (1) an English-language proficiency measure normed on Englishlanguage learners, (2) a standardized academic test (especially a reading and writing test) in English normed on native-English speakers, (3) classroom or performance-based assessments that reveal how individual students approach, interpret, and complete literacy tasks in English, and, when possible, (4) assessments in the native language, such as a standardized reading test and classroom assessment. Many districts require that English-language learners perform at a certain percentile on a standardized reading test in English before they are reclassified and moved into an all-English setting. Because the educational goal is for English-language learners to perform at grade level in English, the ideal score should be the fiftieth percentile. However, it is not unusual for school districts to accept lower percentile scores.
Program Placement Another purpose for the English-literacy evaluation of English-language learners is to decide on their placement in bilingual, ESL, or all-English settings and to determine whether they are eligible for placement in special education or Title I programs. The use of assessments to monitor students’ performance in the programs and to decide when students should be released from one program and transferred to another also fits within this purpose. Researchers and secondlanguage educators warn school personnel not to place or release students solely based on their oral English performance (Cummins, 1981). Sometimes, English-language learners appear to be fluent English speakers but do not have the requisite English-literacy development to perform at grade level in an all-English classroom. At other times, educators mistakenly interpret the accented English of English-language learners as meaning that they are not literate in their native language or English. They erroneously assume that the students have learning delays and need special-education services. In evaluating the English-literacy development of English-language learners for placement purposes, it is important to take into account what is known about their literacy development and academic success (August and Hakuta, 1997; García, 2000). For example, English-language learners often develop their oral skills in English at a much faster rate than their academic skills. To place them in all-English settings solely based on their oral English proficiency ignores the English-literacy development that they need to tackle academic work in English. Similarly, whenever possible, the English-literacy evaluation of English-language learners should be complemented with a native-language literacy evaluation. A number of researchers have reported that students’ reading performance in their native language is a much stronger predictor of their English reading performance than their oral English performance. Considerable evidence has also indicated that bilingual students are capable of transferring knowledge and read-
Monitoring Student Progress and Informing Classroom Instruction A third purpose for the English evaluation of English-language learners’ literacy performance is to monitor student progress and to inform classroom instruction. Classroom assessments or performance-based assessments usually provide this type of data. These assessments are similar in that the classroom teacher is the observer and recorder, many of the same types of tasks occur in both types of assessments, and the tasks are usually integrated into classroom instruction and reflect the school curriculum (García and Pearson, 1994). For example, it is not unusual for both types of assessments to include running records, story retellings, think-alouds, writing portfolios, reading logs, ongoing teacher obser179
English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment vations, and student self-evaluation. However, performance-based assessments are often developed outside of the individual classroom, involve the completion of specific tasks, and have someone other than the classroom teacher evaluating student performance. When classroom assessments and performance-based assessments are conducted throughout the school year, not just at the beginning or end of the school year, and are tied to the school curriculum, then they not only inform instruction but also provide useful data for monitoring student progress. An advantage that classroom assessments and performance-based assessments have over formal assessments is that they have the potential to reveal what English-language learners can and cannot do on authentic literacy tasks (García and Pearson, 1994). Standardized tests rarely indicate why students perform poorly, nor do they highlight what needs to be done to help students improve their literacy performance. Also, they are usually not tied to the school curriculum or to district or state standards (levels of expectation for student performance). Because standardized tests are only written in one language, they do not reveal how bilingual students are developing their literacy skills in two languages. In contrast, through classroom assessment, a teacher can document when individual students have difficulty with specific vocabulary items, what type of instruction works best for them, and when they are able to comprehend and use the vocabulary items appropriately. If the teacher understands the native language or is able to make use of native-language peers, aides, or parents, then it can also be determined whether the students already know the vocabulary concept and just need to know the English label or whether they need to learn the concept. The appropriate use and interpretation of classroom and performance-based assessments with English-language learners require considerable expertise in second-language acquisition. For example, both classroom teachers and the developers and scorers of performance assessments need to understand that English-language learners often reveal more comprehension of English text when they are allowed to respond (orally or in writing) in their native language.
purposes. Assessments are used for accountability purposes when student performance data are compared to determine student progress and teacher, school, district, and state performance. These assessments are characterized as high stakes when they are used to determine how much funding is provided to states, school districts, or schools; which districts, schools, or teachers are sanctioned or rewarded; or when students are to be promoted, retained, or allowed to graduate. Advocates of the accountability reform movement claim that holding students, teachers, schools, districts, and states accountable for high expectations will result in improved instruction and student performance. It is for these reasons that some educators want Englishlanguage learners to participate in English accountability assessments even when they are aware of the assessment limitations. Most of the national and state assessments developed for accountability purposes are based on standards that are designed and normed for native-English-speaking students. As a result, critics warn that the measures are not accurate indicators of English-language learners’ literacy development. At a minimum, they recommend that the scores for English-language learners should be disaggregated and reported separately. Sometimes, English-language learners who are still receiving ESL and bilingual-education services are required to participate in accountability assessments. School districts concerned about the potential low scores of English-language learners often illegally exclude them from participating in the assessments. Bilingual-education teachers, who are forced to participate in the assessments and who are worried about their students’ English performance, have been known to decrease the amount of literacy instruction that they provide in the native language and overemphasize English-literacy instruction, violating the very purpose of bilingual education. To offset district concerns about the potentially low performance of English-language learners on accountability measures, some of the state and national assessments exclude students who have not completed a specific number of years in bilingual-education or ESL programs. In other cases, they allow English-language learners to participate with accommodations. For example, English-language learners may be given more time to complete the assessment, the test admin-
Accountability Requirements English-language learners’ literacy development in English is also evaluated for accountability 180
English Journal istrator may read the instructions or questions aloud, or students may be allowed to use dictionaries. A few states, such as Illinois, have developed and normed their own accountability measures in English for English-language learners.
knowledge and strategy use is typically not included in the English-literacy assessment of English-language learners. Georgia Earnest García See Also Biliteracy References August, Diane, and Hakuta Kenji, eds. 1997. Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Crawford, James. 1995. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services. Cummins, Jim. 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. 3–49. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University–Los Angeles. García, Georgia E. 2000. “Bilingual Children’s Reading.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 813–834. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. García, Georgia E., and P. David Pearson. 1994. “Assessment and Diversity.” Review of Research in Education 20:337–391. Jiménez, Robert T., Georgia E. García, and P. David Pearson. 1996. “The Reading Strategies of Bilingual Latina/o Students Who Are Successful English Readers: Opportunities and Obstacles.” Reading Research Quarterly 31 (l):90–112.
Bias Issues There are a number of factors that adversely affect the literacy assessment of English-language learners and make it difficult to accurately estimate their English-literacy development (García and Pearson, 1994). For example, on formal reading measures, as compared to native-English speakers, English-language learners face more unknown English vocabulary in the test instructions, passages, and test items. They are adversely affected when key vocabulary items in the passages are paraphrased in the test questions. They often have to read passages for which they do not have the appropriate background knowledge and are rarely given the opportunity to read passages for which they do have the appropriate background knowledge. Bilingual readers, compared to monolingual readers, often need more time to process text in the second language. Because reading assessments in English are typically normed on native-English speakers, it is not uncommon for bilingual students to need more time to complete the assessment than the amount allowed. The appropriateness of using literacy assessments in English that are developed for nativeEnglish-speaking students with English-language learners is questionable, given that the assessments do not reflect what is known about second-language reading or the experiences of successful second-language readers. For example, it is not unusual for English-language learners to demonstrate much higher levels of reading comprehension in English when they are given the test questions in their native language or are allowed to write their answers to semiconstructed or open-ended questions in the native language. Researchers also report that bilingual students who are successful English readers have a unitary view of reading across their two languages, use similar high-level metacognitive and cognitive reading strategies while reading in their two languages, and transfer knowledge acquired in one language to the other (Jiménez, García, and Pearson, 1996). They judiciously employ bilingual strategies, such as codeswitching, accessing cognates, and translating. This type of
English Journal English Journal is a publication of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) geared primarily toward secondary-school and middleschool teachers of English and language arts. Teacher educators also subscribe to the journal. Articles span a variety of topics of interest to this audience, such as discussion of pertinent professional issues, arguments for a particular point of view about the teaching of English and language arts, or new ideas and descriptions of innovative classroom practice. Because secondary- and middle-school teachers are the primary audience, English Journal does not accept reports of quantitative research or articles on literary criticism. Most issues of the journal are designed around a theme related to the teaching of writ181
The Even Start Family Literacy Program that time, the program was administered by the U.S. Department of Education, which awarded funding to seventy-six local school districts. Currently, there are more than 800 Even Start projects across the country, with an average of fifty families per project. The majority are collaborative efforts between a local school district and a community-based organization, administered by state Even Start coordinators. Through state-run grant competitions, local projects receive federal Even Start funds, with increasing local match requirements over the first eight years of the project. There are also set-aside funds administered by the federal government for migrant families, Indian tribes, and tribal organizations, along with statewide family literacy initiatives. Even Start legislation specifies that projects must build on existing community resources to develop an integrated model of intensive early childhood education, adult education, and parenting education. In addition, projects must serve the families most in need of these services, provide opportunities for parents and children to be involved in activities together, offer some home-based services, and make supports available, such as transportation, to enable families to participate. However, the specific program design is determined by local project staff. For example, projects decide on the schedule of activities and whether services will be supported by Even Start funds or through collaboration with other local agencies. The majority of projects offer a center-based early childhood program. Programs for infants and toddlers are generally staffed by Even Start, with preschool programs more often provided through collaboration with community agencies. Services for school-age children include homework assistance, family events, and summer enrichment activities. Across projects, there is a range of adult-education services offered, including preparation for the GED, instruction in basic reading and math skills, and English as a second language. Parenting education includes group discussions as well as parent-child activities either at home or in the early childhood classroom. To date, there have been two national evaluations of Even Start (St. Pierre et al., 1995; Tao, Gamse, and Tarr, 1998). Both reported significant gains in adults’ literacy skills and children’s general cognitive skills. However, except for a randomized study conducted in five projects,
ing, literature, and language, but articles on a variety of topics are considered. With a subscription base of approximately 45,000, English Journal reaches teachers and teacher educators internationally. The journal is published bimonthly—September through July— and each issue contains approximately ten to twelve articles. In addition, there are six regular columns: English in the News, Learning with Technology, Poetry, Professional Links (reviews of professional books and web sites), Talk about Books (reviews of fiction and nonfiction), and Young Adult Literature. English Journal also includes several features: Cross-Conversations, Insights for Interns, Speaking My Mind, and Teacher to Teacher. Reviews of books and classroom materials are handled by the appropriate column editors and are not accepted from unsolicited manuscripts. Poetry is submitted directly to the poetry column editor. Calls for thematic issues and for ongoing features are announced in the front section of each issue, detailing topics, listing deadlines, and noting whether inquiries are welcome. The journal web site carries this information as well (available: http://www.cc.ysu. edu/tej). Virginia R. Monseau See Also National Council of Teachers of English
The Even Start Family Literacy Program The Even Start Family Literacy Program uses an integrated approach to early childhood education, parenting education, and adult education for families with young children. The overarching goal is to help break the cycle of intergenerational poverty and low literacy among families with limited educational experiences. Specific goals are: to help parents improve their literacy or basic educational skills, to help parents become full partners in educating their children, and to help children reach their full potential as learners. To be eligible for the program, families must have a child under eight years old and a parent who is either eligible for adult-education services under the Adult Education Act or still within the state’s compulsory school-attendance range. The Even Start Family Literacy Program began in 1989 as part of the revised Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). At 182
Eye Movements a smaller and somewhat more portable camera— and the Reading Eye and Reading Eye II cameras). The seminal literature attributed to these researchers continues to be cited. Prior to the 1920s, one of the overriding issues was the study of fixations and saccades. This stop-and-go process piqued researchers’ interest because of the primary question: does it affect the reader’s ability to understand text? Or from a fluency perspective, do fewer fixations along a line of print indicate that a person is a good reader, and do more fixations suggest reading difficulty? Since the 1920s, eye-movement researchers have attempted to explain the impact of ocular pursuit (smooth and linear movement), fixations, saccades, and regressions (returning to viewed elements) on the reading process. According to Eleanor Gibson and Harry Levin (1975), basic findings in recent years have indicated that eye movement is stable by the fourth grade (frequency and duration of fixations and decreases in regressions). Eye movement involves fixations 94 percent of the time and saccades 6 percent of the time—fixations of 240 to 250 milliseconds—which are satisfactory. Eye movement is responsive to the difficulty of the materials and comprehension and is different for oral and silent reading (e.g., fewer fixations and shorter regressions during silent reading). One of the more interesting statements made by Gibson and Levin was that our general understanding of the relationship between eye movement and reading was provided by early researchers using primitive devices, and their discoveries continue to remain “trustworthy.” It has also been reported (Daneman, 1991) that a preponderance of published data suggest that irregular eye movements are symptomatic of reading problems rather than causal. Earl H. Cheek Jr. and Jimmy D. Lindsey
there were no control groups to gauge whether these gains can actually be attributed to participation in the program. Janet P. Swartz See Also The Head Start Program References St. Pierre, Robert, Beth Gamse, Judith Alamprese, Tracy Rimdzius, and Fumiyo Tao. 1998. The Even Start Family Literacy Program: Evidence from the Past and a Look to the Future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and Evaluation Service. Available: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EvenStart. St. Pierre, Robert, Janet P. Swartz, Beth Gamse, Stephen Murray, Dennis Deck, and Phil Nickel. 1995. National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and Evaluation Service. Tao, Fumiyo, Beth Gamse, and Hope Tarr. 1998. National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1994–97 Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning, and Evaluation Service.
Eye Movements Perhaps one of the more intriguing areas of reading inquiry during the past 100 years has been that of eye movements. As research on the reading process began, there was an immediate interest in the way the eye moved across the printed page. Investigators wanted to know whether perception occurred as the eyes were moving across the printed page, and if not, why? Another issue they sought to address was the regularity of eye movements, specifically the occurrence of fixations and saccades—movement between fixations (Venezky, 1984). Early eye-movement researchers included Emile Javal (a pioneer who first reported this phenomenon in 1878), Raymond Dodge (who devised the corneal reflection method for determining eye movements), W. F. Dearborn (who was interested in word structure and adult pronunciations), and Edmund Huey (who was known for the synthesis of eye-movement findings in his 1908 textbook). They were followed by Guy Buswell and Miles Tinker (who developed and used cameras to examine eye movements) and Earl Taylor and Tinker’s son Stanford Tinker (who developed and used the Opthalmograph—
References Daneman, Meredyth. 1991. “Individual Differences in Reading Skills.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, p. 517. New York: Longman. Gibson, Eleanor J., and Harry Levin. 1975. The Psychology of Reading. Cambridge: MIT Press. Venezky, Richard L. 1984. “The History of Reading Research.” In P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 7–10. New York: Longman.
183
F tended to meet two goals—to provide parents with instruction that will both advance their own literacy skills and abilities and help them support their children’s success in learning how to read and write. Programs differ in the ways they deliver these services. Some offer direct instruction to the parent only, with the intention of affecting the child’s literacy learning through parental actions. Others provide direct instruction in literacy to parent and child in separate settings and also involve parents and children in site-based, joint literacy events and activities. Some programs also require that parents participate in a parenting component, apparently on the basis of an as yet undocumented assumption that parents who lack literacy proficiency also lack understanding of effective parenting practices. The program model that may be most widely practiced in the United States was put forth by Sharon Darling and Andrew Hayes (1988–1989) at the National Center for Family Literacy and has become the basis for the largest federally funded family literacy initiative, the Even Start program. This model includes four components: parent literacy education, child literacy education, parent and child activity time, and parenting education. In recent years, family literacy programs have proliferated in schools and communities across the United States and, at the same time, have become the focus of vigorous debate. Many view them as the answer to a host of problems associated with society in general, and school failure in particular. For example, Darling, founder and president of the National Center for Family Literacy, described family literacy as one of the most important initiatives in the effort to reform welfare and suggested that family literacy programs have the potential to strengthen family
Family Literacy The role that parents play in their children’s education has long been a focus of study by educators and policymakers, particularly in relation to efforts to understand high rates of failure among some groups of children. Evidence documenting the relationship between children’s early reading success and parents’ own reading behaviors has led many educators to seek educational interventions that address the family unit rather than the child alone. Thomas Sticht was among the earliest to refer to such programs as “intergenerational literacy programs,” and subsequently others have referred to them variously as “two-generation programs” and, most recently, as “family literacy” programs. Of particular interest has been the relationship between children’s school success and two parent-related factors: parental education and home literacy practices. The importance of the first factor, parental education, is underscored by results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which, over several administrations, has repeatedly shown that children who have higher rates of performance on reading achievement tests also have parents with higher levels of education. The importance of the second factor, home literacy practices, became a particular focus in 1966 with the publication of Dolores Durkin’s oft-cited study on children who read early and in the years since has received substantial support from numerous other investigations. Evidence consistently supports a relationship that links children’s early success in reading with parents’ own reading and interest in books, parent-child storybook reading, and parents’ general interactions with their children around print. Family literacy programs are generally in185
Family Literacy
Parents read the Bible to their children (Skjold Photographs)
comes of family literacy intervention programs. They also disagree strongly in their perceptions of the literate lives of families that are often targeted as participants in such programs. For example, Darling and Hayes (1988–1989) described the daily lives of such families as essentially devoid of any literate activity and, as a consequence, as unlikely to provide children with sufficient opportunity to acquire basic knowledge about literacy and language. Illiterate parents, they said, lack the resources to support their children’s school success, and as a result, an intergenerational cycle of illiteracy ensues. In contrast, researchers such as Shirley Brice Heath (1983), Luis Moll and James Greenberg (1990), Denny Taylor and Catherine DorseyGaines (1988), and William Teale (1986) assert that nearly all families embed some forms of literacy and language events within their daily routines. Nevertheless, these events are often different from those that teachers expect or are familiar with, and consequently, they go unnoticed. Proponents of this point of view support their claim with evidence from studies across different cultural, linguistic, and economic groups.
values and functioning and advance families toward self-sufficiency. This point of view enjoys substantial political and legislative support. As a result, family literacy interventions are now singled out as priorities in many federally and statefunded reading programs for early childhood, elementary, and adult education. Others, however, strongly disagree with the claim that education will provide a shield against poverty, low employment, and other societal problems. Among the most vocal on this side of the debate, Denny Taylor (1997) has relied on a six-year ethnographic study of families living in poverty, along with numerous anecdotal accounts collected from parents, teachers, and researchers, to argue that high unemployment and poverty are the result of inequalities within society that prevent individuals from achieving economic advancement despite personal motivation or educational attainment. Those sharing this point of view also point to census data that indicate that race and gender correlate more highly with unemployment and poverty than does education. Those on each side of the debate differ not only in what they believe to be the likely out186
Feminist Post-Structuralism They conclude that children fail not because they are language and literacy deprived, but because they are language and literacy different. As such, they enter the schoolhouse doors without knowledge of language patterns and literacy events that are valued and privileged in most classrooms. Vivian Gadsden (1994) summarized the disagreement and dissension that characterizes the work in family literacy as emerging from two seriously conflicting premises: one that perceives the family’s lack of school-like literacy as a barrier to learning, the other that views the home literacy practices that are already present—however different from school-based literacy—as a bridge to new learnings. Rather than choosing sides in the debate, however, Gadsden argued that both premises may be useful—that educators might adopt a reciprocal approach predicated on an understanding that teachers need to instruct parents in school-based literacy and also seek to learn about and integrate parents’ existing knowledge and resources into the school curriculum. Several programs that adhere to a reciprocal approach to family literacy have been studied, and results indicate some potential benefits. Among their combined findings are improved English proficiency for parents, improvements in children’s knowledge of letter names and print awareness, more frequent visits by parents to school, greater numbers of literacy materials at home, increased confidence on the part of parents in helping with their children’s homework, increased interaction between parents and their children’s teachers, and increased understanding among parents of how they are able to support their children’s literacy learning. Family literacy interventions based on a practice of reciprocity in learning between parents and teachers may hold promise for increasing the access to educational opportunity for linguistically and culturally different children and adults. Nevertheless, in recent critical reviews of related research, researchers have cautioned that existing studies are largely characterized by diverse populations, small sample sizes, and nonexperimental designs and, as such, must be considered to be exploratory rather than conclusive in understanding effective practice in family literacy. Thus, as research and practice in family literacy moves forward, it must heed and acknowledge
the diversity in the populations that are often served by family literacy interventions and the implications of such diversity for research and teaching, while also recognizing the need for methodological rigor that will enable educators to learn which interventions are likely to serve those populations most effectively. Jeanne R. Paratore See Also Community Literacy; The Even Start Family Literacy Program; National Assessment of Educational Progress References Darling, Sharon, and Andrew Hayes. 1988–1989. Family Literacy Project: Final Project Report. Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy. Durkin, Dolores. 1966. Children Who Read Early. New York: Teachers College Press. Gadsden, Vivian L. 1994. Understanding Family Literacy: Conceptual Issues Facing the Field. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania National Center for Adult Literacy. Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Ways with Words. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Moll, Luis, and James B. Greenberg. 1990. “Creating Zones of Possibilities: Combining Social Contexts for Instruction.” In L. C. Moll, ed., Vygotsky in Education, pp. 319–349. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sticht, Thomas G., and Barbara McDonald. 1989. “Making the Nation Smarter: The Intergenerational Transfer of Literacy.” San Diego: Institute for Adult Literacy. Taylor, Denny. 1997. Many Families, Many Literacies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, Denny, and Catherine Dorsey-Gaines. 1988. Growing Up Literate: Learning from Inner-City Families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Teale, William H. 1986. “Home Background and Young Children’s Literacy Development.” In W. H. Teale and E. Sulzby, eds., Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading, pp. 173–206. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Feminist Post-Structuralism Post-structuralism is commonly associated with the work of French theorist Michel Foucault. It is both a social theory and a methodology. Like all theories, it has many interpretations and derivations, one of which is feminist post-structuralism. It has its intellectual roots partly in “French” feminism (Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, Hélène 187
Feminist Post-Structuralism Cixous) and partly in North American and British feminist interpretations of Foucault (Michele Barrett, Lois McNay, Caroline Ramazanoglu, Jana Sawicki). Feminist post-structuralists focus on deconstruction of the patriarchal canon, and locate “the feminine” at its theoretical and methodological center. Post-structuralism is a critique of modernism, and its historical marker, the term post, locates it after and in response to structuralism. Poststructuralism arose as an intellectual movement in the late 1960s, partly in response to disillusionment with Marxism, partly as an alternative to then dominant structuralist paradigms in the social sciences (e.g., Jean Piaget, Lawrence Kohlberg, Noam Chomsky, Claude Lévi-Strauss, de Saussure). Post-structuralism challenges Enlightenment rationality and scientific reason, the autonomous transcendental individual, the veracity and transparency of language, the truth of knowledge, and the telos of progressive accounts of history. Feminist post-structuralism, in turn, appropriated post-structuralism’s analytic tools to critique structuralist accounts of gender differences and the masculinist epistemological foundations of all social theory, including poststructuralism itself. Its task has been to deconstruct the masters’ narratives and the historical entrenchment of patriarchy that has buried women’s voices, subjectivity, and opportunities.
Foucault advocated that genealogy, as both a methodology and a critique of history, be replaced by multiple and overlapping histories. Genealogy studies the material conditions of discourse, its location in fields of power, and its tactics of producing “truths,” knowledge, and subjectivities. A genealogical study of the discursive formation of the social subject can also reveal its “Other”: the silenced, marginalized, “abnormal Other” of the normative subject. Feminist post-structuralists argue that modernist history of “great men” and events has silenced the local histories, voices, and memories of women and people of color. This has resulted in a rewriting of histories and a stunning exposé of the politics of knowledge at work in two dominant modernist discourses—patriarchy and colonialism—both renowned for their subjugating tactics of masquerading as truth, of silencing and “othering” women and all groups of nonWestern racial, ethnic, or cultural origins. Knowledge Foucault argued that knowledge is a social construct with a history and context and is infused with politics. Knowledge is closely related to his concept of discourse, commonly understood as socially legitimated knowledge and practices that systematically construct and formalize objects in the world. Thus, knowledge—or any discourse— cannot be conceptualized independently of its institutionalization in concrete material practices and power relations. Curricular knowledge, for example, is unthinkable outside its schoolbased institutionalization. Knowledge and practice co-constitute and validate each other. Knowledge-as-discourse is a formalized system of theories, concepts, and statements about objects in the world that derive their “truth” value from rules and procedures embodied in institutional practices. Hence, textbook knowledge, legitimated by a massive schooling, bureaucratic, and legal apparatus, has achieved the status of a formalized truth that students, teachers, and parents abide by. Knowledge is the product of historically contingent organizing principles that name and classify things, giving them value and meaning in relation to other things located on various knowledge grids (education, psychology, law, history). The production of knowledge is not an autonomous process without human agency
History Post-structuralism rejects the modernist teleological concept of history that sees each epoch as the dialectical outcome of previous eras and as the rational march of human history toward an ideal state. Foucault, instead, argued for “the end of history” as we know it: a break with grand historical narratives and totalizing conceptions of history. Post-structuralists claim that history is messy and uneven, without fixed points of origin, consisting of unpredictable convergences, discontinuities, and ruptures. Modern concepts of mass literacy, for example, emerged in the early sixteenth century as the printing press coincided with the rise of Protestantism and its injunction that every individual should have personal access to the word of scripture. The mass production of the same text enabled by the press, coupled with an emergent ideology of individual readership, produced the need for universal literacy and, hence, for early versions of universal and mass schooling. 188
Feminist Post-Structuralism but is embedded in social and power relations that are infused with contradictions and conflict over meaning and authority. The “culture wars” among educators is a case in point, whether in Japan, the United States, or Australia: Whose history, whose perspective? Was it settlement or invasion? For post-structuralists, there is nothing neutral, fixed, or essential about either truth or knowledge. Instead, they are historical sociocultural constructs, always political and always regulatory of the objects about which knowledge speaks and of which truth claims are made.
state) power relations that shape teachers’ work, social conduct, and workplace relations. Teachers also become part of the educational knowledge industry through their participation in, say, curriculum development, as progressive or regressive change agents in their schools, or as they climb the state’s department hierarchy to more senior positions. Their location within the larger network of the educational enterprise means that they gain access over time to different kinds of power and knowledge, becoming subject themselves to different levels and kinds of power. Similarly, the production of knowledge from the student “body”—student collectives in a class, school, district, state, nation—derives from student testing over which teachers (and the state) preside. The massive archive produced from the regime of the examination is organized and interpreted through prevailing educational discourses and becomes knowledge that can legitimate extant or create new concepts, theory, policy, and subject categories (e.g., students atrisk, with special needs, gifted; attention deficit disorder [ADD] or English as a second language [ESL] students). Theory, or the “truth” about the educable subject, generates new pedagogical practices—some punitive, others beneficent— that claim to cater to (and normalize) those categories of difference. These scenarios illustrate not only how knowledge and power combine to control, subject, and normalize the individual but also how they can create productive spaces and practices (inclusive, special, compensatory, or accelerated education; gender equity policy; antiracist pedagogy).
Power Contrary to the “repressive hypothesis” of power dominating modernist social theory, Foucault conceptualized power as productive, fluid, multifaceted, and diffuse rather than as fixed in one place, “owned” and exercised by one person or group in only negative and punitive ways. Power is intimately connected to knowledge; it is relational and historically contingent. All social relations are constituted by power dynamics (parent-child; judge-jury-accused), and relations of power derive their legitimacy and force from the discourses that regulate and govern individual subjects. People exercise power as much as they are subjected by it. For instance, a teacher has power over students in the way questions are posed and to whom they are directed; how curricular knowledge is interpreted and distributed; how students are seated, tested, graded; how educational capital and credentials are distributed. At the same time, a teacher is subject to the layers of institutional power and control of the school and district administration, the discourse of policy and curriculum, teacher testing, and legal responsibilities. Educational discourse—the entire ensemble of theory, practices, rules, laws, policies—is the knowledge regime that sustains the many subjectivities and subject positions of all people variously engaged in schooling in different relations of power (student, teacher, parent, learning support or administrative staff, principal). Power and knowledge operate in a co-constitutive circuit. To illustrate: teachers’ certified knowledge (the teaching credential) legitimates their authority to teach and exercise power over large numbers of students, but it also subjects them to local (school) and external (district,
Language Knowledge “speaks” through language, although ideas, meanings, and classificatory taxonomies are also expressed in iconic imagery and spatial organization—whether the textbook illustration, graph, or chart, or the school or classroom configurations. Language, for all variants of poststructuralism, is the analytic key: a window to the discursive construction of knowledge, truth, power, social organization, and the social subject. Post-structuralism critiques the modernist/humanist conception of language that assumes that language is a transparent window to the real, that meaning is fixed in the linguistic signifier, and that the rational, self-conscious, and self-knowing subject has autonomous con189
Feminist Post-Structuralism trol and choice over “authentic” self-expression through language. Feminist post-structuralists argue that the gendered politics of language preclude authentic voice and self-expression. They have shown how women, girls, and concepts of the feminine have been subsumed by the generic “he” or “man,” how what used to be called “malestream” thought is embedded in educational policy, curriculum, and theory—both “conservative” and “radical” (Luke and Gore, 1992). Others have deconstructed the language of theoretical discourses that produce gender differences (Henriques et al., 1984); gender constructions in school yard play (Walkerdine, 1990), curriculum (Gilbert, 1996), and teacher talk (Baker and Freebody, 1996); the role of gender discourses in the language(s) of popular culture that are appropriated by young people in the process of identity formation (Alverman, Moon, and Hagood, 1999; Christian-Smith, 1993). Language gives meaning to social reality, including the way social subjects make themselves, others, and the world intelligible. Post-structuralists thus argue that language—signs organized in discourse—provides discursive subject positions and subjectivities through which we live our lives and make sense of the world. Feminist post-structuralists have long argued that a globally dominant, although culturally inflected, masculinist epistemology historically has limited women’s subject positions, muted their subjectivity, denied them an education, a voice, a speaking/writing position. Women have thus been unable to speak or write themselves into history or any speakable narrative. Feminist post-structuralists have sought to reclaim language and speaking positions for women, although their “speech” bears the residue of the language and genres of the father.
hand, and one’s subjectivity or subjective sense of “self,” on the other. Everyday life consists of multiple and competing discourses and meanings alongside dominant discourses that, in turn, create multiple subject positions—some marginalized, others hegemonic. The subject negotiates, lives, and acts through a range of subject positions at every moment: acquiescent to normative and dominant subjectivities one moment, resisting or reshaping other “given” positions at another moment, attempting to unify disparate positions at yet another. Although discourses normalize, regulate, and position people into power/knowledge fields that govern their subject positions and actions, it is in the gaps and overlaps of discourses that change and resistance are enacted. Discourses are social products, themselves subject to the shifting historical winds of political interests embodied in social subjects and institutions. As such, the very social and historical nature of power, of socially constructed knowledge and socially embedded subjects, makes all discourses highly unstable and contingent, keeping them in continual flux. Yet access to any number of historically dominant or emergent discourses can form the analytic lenses that we turn on dominant discourses to transform them. For post-structuralists, a composite of discourses shapes the practical templates for everyday life that, in turn, constitute the multifaceted parameters by which social agents act in the world. Carmen Luke See Also Post-Structuralism and Structuralism; Subjectivity References Alverman, Donna, J. S. Moon, and Margaret Hagood. 1999. Popular Culture in the Classroom: Teaching and Researching Critical Media Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Baker, Carolyn, and Peter Freebody. 1996. “Categories and Sense-Making in the Talk and Texts of Schooling.” In Geoff Bull and Michele Anstey, eds., The Literacy Lexicon, pp. 145–162. Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Christian-Smith, Linda. 1993. Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininities, and Schooling. London: Falmer Press. Gilbert, Pam. 1996. “Gender Talk and Silence: Speaking and Listening as Social Practice.” In Geoff Bull and Michele Anstey, eds., The Literacy Lexicon, pp. 163–176. Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Henriques, Julian, Wendy Hollway, Cathy Urwin,
Subjects, Subjectivity, Subject Positions The subject is a social construct that varies across time, cultural and institutional locations, and across and within discourses. Subjectivity refers to the internal private sense of oneself (although largely derived from prevailing discourses one has access to) including private reflection, memories, the unsayable of dreams, affect, emotion, and other extra-linguistic experiences and thoughts. Subject positions are taken up, contested, or negotiated in between prescribed positions offered in discourse, on the one 190
Fluency Couze Venn, and Valerie Walkerdine. 1984. Changing the Subject. New York: Methuen. Luke, Carmen, and Jennifer Gore. 1992. Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge. Walkerdine, Valerie. 1990. Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso.
needs (Allington, 2000), and there is a growing body of research that addresses the benefits of flexible instruction. For example, Janet Lerner (2000) reported that teachers could manipulate variables such as time, grouping, and methodology to accommodate differences among students and to help students achieve success without watering down the content. The practice of “manipulating instructional variables” provides teachers with the mechanism to meet literacy objectives and support students’ learning. Researchers (Allington, 2001) have reported that educators have actually changed their beliefs regarding flexibility and how best to teach students. Additionally, flexibility in programming and developing technologies provide “students” of all ages the opportunity for lifelong learning that enhances literacy and work abilities. Jimmy D. Lindsey, Carolyn F. Woods, and Nicki L. Anzelmo-Skelton
Flexibility Flexibility refers to the decisions readers make during the reading process to adjust their reading rate to promote fluency or comprehension. (It can also refer to the judgments professionals make during literacy instruction to meet students’ individual needs.) An important component of the reading process is flexibility, or the rate at which reading takes place. Flexibility in reading rate is the ability to read varying materials at different rates and for different purposes. In general, reading rate is determined by the purpose for reading (e.g., leisure, guided), in conjunction with the nature of the materials being read (e.g., organization, concept density), and there is a correlation between reading rate and level of comprehension (i.e., increased reading rate can promote higher understanding). Conversely, as reported by Timothy Rasinski and Nancy Padak (1998), problems in flexibility or reading rate can also negatively affect fluency and comprehension. For example, many students are unable to regulate their reading rate to correspond to purpose or characteristics of printed material without direct instruction. Nevertheless, there are several interventions that may be helpful in teaching readers to vary and ultimately increase reading rates, including repeating readings (Lerner, 2000), teaching phrasing, and using practice materials just below a reader’s instructional level. Flexibility in literacy instruction is a delivery method intended to meet the individual needs of all students (e.g., matching instructional attributes with learner characteristics). This system is in sharp contrast to finding and implementing one method to teach all children, particularly for those students whose needs differ at different times in their lives and respond to varying curricula and strategies (Lerner, 2000). In an effort to afford all students the opportunity to access the curriculum and become literate, teachers must constantly organize and reorganize instruction to ensure flexible events to meet individual
See Also Automaticity and Reading Fluency References Allington, Richard L. 2001. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. Reading, MA: Longman. Lerner, Janet W. 2000. Learning Disabilities: Theories, Diagnosis, and Teaching Strategies. 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Rasinski, Timothy V., and Nancy D. Padak. 1998. “How Elementary Students Referred for Compensatory Reading Instruction Perform on School-Based Measures of Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension.” Reading Psychology 19 (2):185–216.
Fluency Fluency in reading refers to the ability to read in a smooth, expressive, accurate, and meaningful manner with appropriate phrasing, at an appropriate rate, and with good comprehension. Although reading fluency in most commonly thought of in terms of oral reading, it is believed that the manifestations and outcomes of fluency are present in silent reading as well. According to the National Reading Panel (Rasinski, 2000), teachers need to understand that word-recognition accuracy is not the end point of reading instruction. Reading fluency is a level of expertise beyond word-recognition accuracy. Moreover, reading comprehension is aided 191
Fluency by fluency. Proficient readers read words accurately, rapidly, and efficiently, devoting their finite cognitive resources to the task of comprehending the text. One factor commonly associated with reading fluency is automaticity in word recognition or decoding. Automatic or attention-free decoding is a major contributor to fluency in reading. As readers’ word recognition achieves a level of automaticity—the point where words can be decoded with minimal cognitive effort—readers are more able to direct their cognitive resources to the higher-level task of text comprehension. In this sense, then, reading fluency can be defined as efficiency in decoding. Peter Schreiber (1980) offered an alternative explanation for reading fluency. According to Schreiber, reading fluency develops as the reader achieves syntactic control of the text. That is, the fluent reader is able to chunk the text into syntactically appropriate and meaningful phrases. Developing the ability to phrase text can be a difficult task for many readers, as written text does not have reliable intrasentential-phrase boundary markers. Commas and other forms of punctuation do not provide the same reliable cues to intrasentential phrasing that are found in the prosodic features that speakers use to embed their speech and that mark phrase boundaries for listeners. As readers’ fluency improves through greater awareness and control of the meaningful syntactic structures in written text, comprehension also improves.
sured by reading rate, however, that effectively distinguished the more-effective from the lesseffective readers. Readers who were most fluent and read with the highest levels of comprehension read at nearly three times the reading rate of the least-effective group of readers. In its integrative review of research on reading fluency, the National Reading Panel (Rasinski, 2000) reported that instruction in and development of reading fluency, particularly through repeated oral readings of text with feedback and guidance, does lead to significant gains in overall student achievement—for good readers as well as for those who struggle in reading. Nevertheless, despite the growing recognition that fluency plays an important role in reading, reading fluency is often a neglected part of reading instruction. An examination of current materials designed for reading instruction reveals that reading fluency continues to be largely ignored as an important instructional factor for teachers and students. Nurturing Fluent Reading through Instruction There are several principles of instruction that should guide instruction in fluency. Learning readers need to develop an understanding of the nature of fluent reading and its importance in the overall reading process. This can be fostered through teachers’ modeling of fluent reading for students and by their drawing students’ attention to various aspects of fluent reading. Fluency is developed by practice or repeated readings of connected written discourse. S. Jay Samuels (1979) and others have found that the repeated readings of individual texts by a reader generally resulted in improved comprehension and overall performance on passages that not been previously encountered by the reader. Support provided by a fluent oral rendition of the text, through choral, partner (paired or shared reading), or recorded reading, while being read simultaneously by the student, also led to improved reading fluency. Since disfluency in reading is often marked by reading in a word-byword manner, fluent reading can also be fostered through an instructional focus on the phrased nature of text to be read and explicitly marking the phrase boundaries within texts. Finally, during instruction, fluency can be promoted through the use of written texts that are well
Importance of Fluency Inasmuch as reading fluency has been associated with efficiency in text processing and comprehension, it should play a significant role in proficient reading and should be a key element in effective reading instruction. In a large-scale study of reading fluency among fourth-grade students, Gay Sue Pinnell and her colleagues (1995) found that oral reading fluency, as measured by a descriptive fluency rubric, was significantly associated with silent-reading comprehension and that nearly 50 percent of all fourth graders had not yet achieved even a minimally acceptable level of reading fluency. The study also noted that fluent and less-fluent readers, as well as effective and less-effective comprehenders, demonstrated fairly proficient levels of word-recognition accuracy. It was word-recognition efficiency, as mea192
Fluency within the reader’s ability to read easily and expressively. Material that is too difficult or unfamiliar will, by its very nature, be a source of disfluency while reading. Thus, fluency can be nurtured by providing students with texts that are relatively easy to read. Brief, predictable texts, with clear phrase boundaries, such as rhyming and rhythmical poetry, are excellent choices for developing reading fluency. Although the above guidelines or principles of fluency instruction will nurture fluent reading, instructional routines that are based upon and integrate more than one of the guidelines will result in even more effective fluency instruction for students. In one study of an integrated fluency instruction model, for example, a successful fluency development lesson combined the modeling of fluent reading of short easy texts, repeated reading with formative feedback, and support through repeated choral readings, with the program implemented regularly over the course of a school year. This model had a significant effect on the overall reading development of at-risk second-grade readers.
Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that fluency is an important and valid component of successful reading. Fluency is associated with reading comprehension and overall reading proficiency, and it can be measured easily and reliably. Moreover, instruction to foster fluency is possible, and such instruction can lead to generalized improvements in comprehension as well as in word recognition, textual phrasing, and overall fluency. It is essential for developing readers to acquire the automatic-word and phraseprocessing abilities that are key components of fluent reading, because the development of these processing abilities permit the reader to devote his or her limited cognitive capacity to the primary task of reading—comprehension. Timothy Rasinski See Also Automaticity and Reading Fluency; ReadingComprehension Processes; Word Recognition References Allington, Richard. 1983. “Fluency: The Neglected Goal of the Reading Program.” Reading Teacher 36:556–561. Hasbrouck, Jan E., and Gerald Tindal. 1992. “Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Norms for Students in Grades 2 through 5.” Teaching Exceptional Children 24 (3):41–45. Pinnell, Gay S., John J. Pikulski, Karen K. Wixson, Jay R. Campbell, Phillip B. Gough, and Alexandra S. Beatty. 1995. Listening to Children Read Aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Rasinski, Timothy. 2000. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Samuels, S. Jay. 1979. “The Method of Repeated Readings.” Reading Teacher 32:403–408. Schreiber, Peter. 1980. “On the Acquisition of Reading Fluency.” Journal of Reading Behavior 12:177–186. Zutell, Jerry, and Timothy Rasinski. 1991. “Training Teachers to Attend to Their Students’ Oral Reading Fluency.” Theory Into Practice 30:211–217.
Measuring Reading Fluency Reading fluency is most easily measured through reading rate. Rate data obtained from oneminute oral-reading probes (curriculum-based measurement) and measured in words read correctly per minute (wcpm) provide a simple and consistent way for teachers to assess reading fluency that combines rate and accuracy. Jan Hasbrouck and Gerald Tindal (1992) reported midyear average reading rates of 78 wcpm for second grade, 93 wcpm for third grade, 112 wcpm for fourth grade, and 118 wcpm for fifth grade. Jerry Zutell and Timothy Rasinski (1991) also noted that fluency can be assessed more holistically through careful listening to students’ oral reading and then rating the readings on a descriptive scale. In his dissertation, Rasinski found that such a rating scale was a significant predictor of third- and fifth-grade students’ comprehension and overall reading achievement. A similar finding on fourth graders was reported by Gay Sue Pinnell and her colleagues (1995).
193
G boys would directly state their ideas and were more likely to argue their position with comments such as, “That’s wrong because . . . .” Moreover, the boys’ perception of the girls’ language style was that it indicated a lack of knowledge on the girls’ part and implied that girls did not understand physics as well as boys. The type of talk used in discussions may also be influenced by gender. In her study of the different types of talk used by girls and boys in literature discussions, Meredith Cherland (1992) found that girls tend to use a discourse of feeling, but boys tend to use a discourse of action. According to Cherland, a discourse of feeling focuses on the emotion in the text, deals with human relationships, values caring, and looks at the plot in terms of how it helps the reader understand character development. In contrast, a discourse of action is concerned with logic, values reason and believability, and seeks meaning in the plot and action. Cherland called these differences gendered talk and hypothesized that a discourse of action is more likely to be valued in a male-dominated society. Another way of addressing how gender influences discussion is to look at how girls and boys use their talk to achieve different ends. In her study of an eighth-grade language arts class, Heather Blair (2000) found that boys talked in order to establish status in their group. The boys frequently discredited and belittled others and made overt sexual references, including homophobic insults. Through such discourse patterns, the boys obtained and reinforced their power and privilege in the class. In contrast, the girls used their discussions to build their relationships, to identify with those they saw as their friends, and to separate themselves from those not viewed as friends.
Gender and Discussion According to research on students’ speech patterns in classrooms, gender plays a role in determining how students engage in discussion. Much of this research focuses on the differences between boys’ and girls’ discourse patterns. More recent work, however, has begun to advocate moving beyond such dichotomous forms of conceptualizing how gender influences classroom talk. Differences between Girls’ and Boys’ Discussion Patterns Some common distinctions associated with gender are: girls have the discussion floor less than boys, talk less when they do have the floor, often have their ideas disregarded, and are interrupted more than boys; girls are less likely to answer questions and are more likely to belittle or doubt their own ideas. For example, in her study of science discussions in a first-grade classroom, Karen Gallas (1995) found a small group of powerful boys who dominated the discussions and actively worked to prevent other students from breaking into the conversation. In their study of seventh- and eighth-grade language arts classes, Donna Alvermann and her colleagues (1997) found that girls often engaged in what they termed “sorry talk. In such talk, girls qualified or apologized for their contributions to classroom discussions and consequently, diluted the power of what they had to say.” Another way girls dilute the authority of their contributions is to pose their ideas as questions rather than statements. In their study of discussions in high-school physics classes, Barbara Guzzetti and Wayne Williams (1996) found that girls tended to phrase their ideas in ways such as, “Have you thought about this. . . .” In contrast, 195
Gender and Discussion
Girls and boys in a discussion group (Elizabeth Crews)
may choose to be silent during discussions—not because they have nothing to contribute but rather as a means of resistance to the male-dominated discourse patterns established. The girls in Guzzetti and Williams’s study (1996) often declined to engage in discussions, particularly debates where ideas were being refuted. When asked about their participation patterns, the girls responded that they felt ineffectual in relaying their ideas and perceived their opinions to be dismissed by the boys. Moreover, in later discussions with the students, the boys’ statements indicated that they were proud of the ways in which they dominated and silenced the girls in their class. Another example of girls choosing to be silent due to male dominance occurred in Karen Evans and her colleagues’ (1998) study of fifth-grade literature discussion groups. In one discussion group, the boys used their talk as a means of establishing power. They controlled who talked and what could be talked about and frequently made demeaning, hurtful remarks to the girls in
Similar results were found in Guzzetti and Williams’s (1996) high-school study. In their small-group discussions, girls appeared to engage in a collaborative discourse style characterized by more interaction, more willingness to consider others’ opinions, and an emphasis on consensus building. In contrast, the boys engaged in an independent discourse style in which they were more aggressive and competitive in their talk and less likely to negotiate shared meanings. These same patterns have also been found in adult discussions. In her study of gendered discourse practices in a graduate-level course, Margaret Gritsavage (1997) found that women were more likely than men to validate others’ comments, whereas men were more likely to interrupt women (not the other men), compete for the discussion floor, and evaluate others’ comments. Interpreting Silence in Discussion One possible consequence of such gendered discourse patterns is that students, particularly girls, 196
Gender and Discussion the group. One girl member tried to initiate book-related discussions; however, her attempts were unilaterally defeated by the boys, who preferred to engage in insulting conversation directed toward the other female member. After two days of discussion, this girl also began to be a target of the boys’ insults. Rather than continue her attempts to engage in book-related discussions and risk being insulted even further, she became a virtual silent member of the group while the boys continued to belittle the other female member. Consequently, this research reveals how gendered discourse can result in silencing students, particularly girls, and illustrates how some students may have compelling reasons for not speaking.
der discourse patterns by assuming the conversational floor and keeping it for a substantial amount of time, dominating parts of the discussion, and forcefully voicing her opinions. However, Heather also exhibited gender-typical discourse through the use of comments that revealed her need to maintain a relationship with others in her group and a desire to have her group members enjoy the story. Bronwyn Davies (1993) also found girls and boys engaging in ways that contested gendertypical forms of discourse. In her study, a group of sixth-grade students were discussing a traditional fairy tale (i.e., one that reinforces gender stereotypes) and a feminist fairy tale (i.e., a version of a traditional fairy tale that contradicts gender stereotypes). In this discussion, a boy named James engaged in numerous gender-typical discourse patterns such as interrupting, talking over people, and disrupting what others were saying. However, James was also the group member most willing to interpret the feminist fairy tale in feminist ways. For example, he connected heroism with a female character, suggested that the female protagonist could be ugly, and argued that beauty does not necessarily equate with goodness. In his group, however, James’s contributions were consistently ignored and unaccepted, particularly by the girls in his group. The girls’ efforts to reject his contributions illustrate how they engaged in dominating discourse practices that led to James’s withdrawing from the conversation. Students such as Heather and James help reveal the limits of conceptualizing gender as discrete categories of boy and girl. Students seldom fit neatly into one of these categories, and their contributions to discussions rarely reveal only one type of gender-typical discourse pattern.
Moving beyond Dichotomous Gender Differences Recently, researchers like Donna Alvermann and David Moore have begun to argue that research on gender and discussion needs to move away from conceptualizing gender in dichotomous, essentialized ways. Such a notion of gender separates females and males into discrete categories and emphasizes the differences between them. Furthermore, these researchers suggest that this notion of gender runs the risk of perpetuating gender stereotypes and limits our ability to see the complexity with which gender influences discussion. This research calls attention to the multiple subjectivities and cultural influences (i.e., age, gender, race, economic status) students bring with them to discussions and the fluid nature with which students move among the various identities and discourses available to them. In other words, all boys do not always engage in a discourse of action, dominate the discussion, and use their talk as a means of establishing power, just as all girls do not always engage in a discourse of feeling, relinquish the speaking floor, and use their talk as a means of establishing relationships. Rather, boys and girls move among the possible discourse patterns available and display behavior consistent across gender roles. This was evident in David Moore’s (1997) study of discussions in a twelfth-grade Advanced English Placement class. In this class, students exhibited behavior and used discourse patterns that both accepted and contested traditional gender expectations. For example, in one discussion, a girl named Heather contested typical gen-
Influence of Context on Students’ Gendered Discussion Patterns Recent research has also begun to explore how the discussion context influences which multiple subjectivities and gendered discourse patterns are taken up by students. Subjectivities such as gender, ethnicity, ability, and status, along with classroom culture and norms, all have the potential to influence how gender interacts with students’ discussion patterns. Moreover, these various factors all interact with each other. Consequently, it may be impractical to single out 197
Gender and Discussion and separate the influence of gender from these other factors. Research has suggested that gender is a powerful factor operating in the discussion context. The impact of being in a heterogeneous- or homogeneous-gender group was investigated by Karen Evans (2002) in her study of fifth-grade literature discussion groups. When in heterogeneous-gender groups, girls were likely to either exhibit male discourse patterns (i.e., dominate discussion, control who could talk) or remain silent. Both options created problems in many heterogeneous-gender groups. When used by females, the male discourse patterns were viewed by others as aggressive. The girls’ silence was often a form of resistance to the perceived male discourse patterns being used by the boys in their group. The boys, however, interpreted the girls’ silence as noncompliance with the assigned task. When in all-girl groups, girls were much more likely to actively facilitate discussion among their female group members, using their talk to maintain relationships and identify with friends. Furthermore, homogeneous groups (both all-boy and all-girl) were more successful overall than heterogeneous groups, and students consistently stated that they preferred to work in samegender discussion groups. Guzzetti and Williams (1996) also found differences between homogeneous- and heterogeneous-gender groups at the high-school level. When in heterogeneous lab groups, males were the ones engaged in manipulating the equipment, giving directions, and making verbal inferences about their observations. Females were often limited to setting up the equipment and recording data that the boys generated through actually conducting the experiment. Even in groups where there was only one male, that male was still most likely to give orders, assume agreement by the females in the group, and talk to demonstrate or show the girls how to proceed. In contrast, when in a homogeneous-gender lab group, the females became much more active in their participation. They set up the equipment, manipulated the experiment, identified errors and resolved them, made observations, recorded data, and negotiated meanings. This research suggests that the discussion context influences, at least partially, which of the various gendered discourses students choose to use. Homogeneous-gender groups appear to have a particular impact on how females choose
to participate. In same-gender groups, females are more likely to become active participants and engage in a wider range of verbal interactions. These findings should not be interpreted to mean that teachers should only use same-gender groups, but rather, they reveal the importance of broadening educators’ notions of acceptable forms of discourse, valuing different types of discourse, and breaking down commonly held stereotypes regarding gendered discourse that traditionally tend to privilege discourse patterns most frequently associated with males. Interventions Researchers have begun to explore ways of interrupting gendered discursive practices. One possible method is to place students in homogeneous-gender groups. Homogenous-gender groups appear to influence particularly the ways girls choose to participate in small-group settings (Evans, 2002; Guzzetti and Williams, 1996). Gallas (1995) also tried various ways of interrupting the discourse patterns established by the small group of dominating boys in her classroom. She established what she termed talk protocols, which included such procedures as limiting the number of comments the boys could make, monitoring the amount of time they talked, and having the speaker select the next person to talk. She also tried giving the boys other jobs to perform during the discussion (i.e., watching for people who are trying to get into the discussion) and separated the talkers and nontalkers into different groups. Methods like these represent possible ways teachers might begin to interrupt gendered discourse practices. As Alvermann and her colleagues (1997) caution, however, teachers are often unaware of how they themselves contribute to gendered discourse practices, which makes it difficult for them to change such patterns. Recognizing that gender does influence how students choose to participate in discussions is a first and necessary step toward helping students and teachers examine and interrupt the hidden and often taken-for-granted manner in which gender impacts discursive practices. Karen S. Evans See Also Discussion; Gender and Post-Typographical Text; Gender and Reading; Gender and Writing; Subjectivity
198
Gender and Post-Typographical Text Acknowledging that the fundamental changes accompanying electronic text have social, political, and cultural implications, teachers and researchers seek to understand the implications of these changes for all populations and at all levels of schooling. Most researchers who study this question view gender as a social construction, that is, as learned through interactions with others. The studies of gender and post-typographical text have focused on a range of students from elementary through college levels. Many of these studies are identified in a large project in which a group of researchers (Guzzetti et al., 2002) systematically reviewed the literature on gender and literacies.
References Alvermann, Donna E., Michelle Commeyras, Josephine P. Young, Sally Randall, and David Hinson. 1997. “Interrupting Gendered Discursive Practices in Classroom Talk about Texts: Easy to Think About, Difficult to Do.” Journal of Literacy Research 29 (1):73–104. Blaire, Heather A. 2000. “Genderlects: Girl Talk and Boy Talk in a Middle-Years Classroom. Language Arts 77 (4):315–323. Cherland, Meredith R. 1992. “Gendered Readings: Cultural Restraints upon Response to Literature.” New Advocate 5 (3):187–198. Davies, Bronwyn. 1993. “Beyond Dualism and Towards Multiple Subjectivities.” In Linda K. Christian-Smith, ed., Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling, pp. 145–173. London: Falmer Press. Evans, Karen S. 2002. “Fifth-Grade Students’ Perceptions of How They Experience Literature Discussion Groups.” Reading Research Quarterly 37(1):46–69. Evans, Karen S., Donna Alvermann, and Patricia L. Anders. 1998. “Literature Discussion Groups: An Examination of Gender Roles.” Reading Research and Instruction 37 (2):107–122. Gallas, Karen. 1995. Talking Their Way into Science: Hearing Children’s Questions and Theories, Responding with Curricula. New York: Teachers College Press. Gritsavage, Margaret. December 1997. “Gendered Discourse in Classroom Conversations about Gender, Culture, and Literacy.” Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Phoenix, AZ. Guzzetti, Barbara J., and Wayne O. Williams. 1996. “Changing the Pattern of Gendered Discussion: Lessons from Science Classrooms.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40 (1):38–47. Moore, David W. 1997. “Some Complexities of Gendered Talk about Texts.” Journal of Literacy Research 29 (4):507–530.
Gender and Post-Typographical Text in the College Environment Early studies focusing on gender and post-typographical text took place in college writing classes in which students shared writing and responses to writing through on-line “conferences,” both synchronous and asynchronous. Authors of some of these studies (Selfe, 1992) cautioned against gender bias but also observed the promise of more democratic, equitable discussions through post-typographical text (Cooper and Selfe, 1990). Basic to the positive findings were certain qualities of communicating through post-typographical text: the time provided for considering one’s thoughts, a focus on the language of the communication rather than on the participant’s appearance or nonverbal gestures, and the possibility of building an on-line community as a result of these features. Such unique literacy forums provided through asynchronous e-mail, listservs, and computer conferencing offered participants appealing freedom. For example, in several distance-learning writing classes taught entirely through electronic communication, adult female students were empowered to voice their ideas and thus affirm and in several cases change some of their perspectives (Fey, 1994). Initially, the students read feminist and multicultural readings and then responded to them through post-typographical text. They then wrote essays that were peer edited through the computer medium. Although the positive claims of the benefits of post-typographical text for communication at the college level continue to emerge, questions continue to be raised about whether on-line
Gender and Post-Typographical Text The topic of gender and post-typographical (electronic) text has emerged in the field of literacy because electronic text is created and used by both women and men alike. Since computer technology has traditionally been considered a male domain, it is important to ensure that interactions with this text are fair for all users. Gender stereotypes associated with attitudes toward computer use and reports of male dominance have stimulated this concern. 199
Gender and Post-Typographical Text classroom discussions are empowering for all women students. As with face-to-face classroom experiences, using post-typographical text for a classroom medium is complex. At the college level, gender considerations in the use of electronic communication in a mixed-gender class appear to depend on an array of factors, for example, the curriculum, the unique characteristics of participants, and the teacher’s pedagogical approach.
terms of how they used computers and the topics they chose to write about on-line. She also discovered gender bias on the part of the teacher as she assisted students in using the computers. John Pryor (1995), an elementary teacher in the United Kingdom, also aimed to discover ways to promote gender equity in the use of computers. Concerned that even when teachers are sensitive to gender issues they are not always effective in bringing about gender equity, Pryor engaged in a two-year study in which he worked in a fourth-grade classroom once a week to understand gender issues as they applied to groups of students working with computers. He observed that boys were more likely than girls to engage in conflict because they were less able than girls to distinguish between debating and quarreling. When emphasis was placed on the process of group work rather than the results, the boys’ language became less harsh and competitive. Mixed-ability grouping also supported Pryor’s goal of improving collaboration and promoting gender equity. Cynthia Lewis and Bettina Fabos (2000) turned to instant messaging to examine social practices when post-typographical text is used in an out-of-class environment. Instant messaging enables participants to communicate to one another in real time, that is, simultaneously. The researchers focused on the extracurricular home use of instant messaging so that teachers might also understand students’ out-of-school literacy practices. The two middle-school girls in their study reported that instant messaging eased their communication with classmates and at times enabled them to hide their own identities by transforming their language patterns and tone. Through instant messaging, the girls were able to negotiate social relationships and enhance their social standing at school. Even though students had an opportunity to speak up, however, masculine conventions determined their stance. Consequently, Lewis and Fabos doubted that instant messaging provides a completely genderneutral environment.
Gender and Post-Typographical Text in the School Environment The role gender plays in the use of post-typographical text in the schools is also a concern. Although research focused on this subject is limited, researchers and teachers are beginning to understand the interplay of gender and posttypographical text in the schools. In some instances, instead of promoting gender equity, electronic communication appears to reproduce the hierarchy still present in contemporary culture. To understand how and when gender attitudes toward computers are instilled, Julie Nicholson and her colleagues (1998) observed groups of first-grade students as they worked in same-gender and mixed-gender groups to compose stories on the computer without the direction of a teacher. The young male students destroyed female partners’ confidence through constant critical remarks, threats, and strong directives. Although girls supported and encouraged collaboration with one another, boys created competition by comparing stories and pointing out differences in a competitive manner. Researchers concluded that young girls’ confidence in using computers waned when they were antagonized and criticized by boys during their computer sessions. In a feminist teacher-research project describing third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade girls’ interactions with post-typographical text, Alice Christie (1995) reported inconsistent results in her efforts to support students in gender equitable uses of the computer. She aimed to disrupt the stereotypical attitudes toward gender and technology. Christie noted that girls more than boys most commonly used post-typographical text to build relationships and share feelings of concern, but she also found that young girls used computer texts to defy gender stereotypes (as did boys) in
Gender and Post-Typographical Text in School-College Collaborations With the ease of communicating through the Internet and the increasing availability of Internet connections in schools and colleges, teachers are taking advantage of the possibilities of extending 200
Gender and Reading References Christie, Alice. 1995. “No Chips on Their Shoulders: Girls, Boys, and Telecommunications.” Ph.D. diss., Arizona State University West, Phoenix. Cooper, Marilyn M., and Cynthia L. Selfe. 1990. “Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse.” College English 52:847–869. Fey, Marion H. 1994. “Finding Voice through Computer Communication: A New Venue for Collaboration.” Journal of Advanced Composition 14 (1):221–237. ———. 1997. “Literate Behavior in a Cross-Age Computer-Mediated Discussion: A Question of Empowerment.” In Charles K. Kinzer, Kathleen A. Hinchman, and Donald J. Leu, eds., Inquiries in Literacy Theory and Practice: Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 507–518. Chicago: National Reading Conference. ———. 1998. “Critical Literacy in School-College Collaboration through Computer Networking: A Feminist Research Project.” Journal of Literacy Research 30:85–117. Guzzetti, Barbara, Josephine Young, Margaret Gritsavage, Laurie Fyfe, and Marie Hardenbrook. 2002. Reading, Writing and Talking Gender in Literacy Learning. Newark, DE: The International Reading Association/The National Reading Conference Literacy Series. Lewis, Cynthia, and Bettina Fabos. 2000. “But Will It Work in the Heartland? A Response and Illustration.” Journal of Adolescent Literacy 43 (5):462–469. Nicholson, Julie, Adrienne Gelpi, Shannon Young, and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1998. “Influences of Gender and Open-Ended Software on First Graders’ Collaborative Composing Activities on Computers.” Journal of Computing in Childhood Education 9 (1):3–42. Pryor, John. 1995. “Gender Issues in Group Work—A Case Study Involving Computers.” British Educational Research Journal 21 (30):277–288. Selfe, Cynthia L. 1992. “Preparing English Teachers for the Virtual Age: The Case for Technology Critics.” In Gail E. Hawisher and Paul LeBlanc, eds., Re-Imagining Computers and Composition: Teaching and Research in the Virtual Age, pp. 24–42. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
classroom communication to populations beyond the school through electronic communication. This use of post-typographical text also supports the increased focus in schools and colleges on authentic learning and service learning. As preservice teachers link to school students in many areas of the country, they benefit from working with actual students and in many cases are exposed to populations of students different from those they would observe during field visits to local schools. These connections also perform a type of service learning since each population helps the other to meet its learning goals. At this point, most of these connections are through asynchronous electronic communication, although links through real-time, synchronous communication are beginning to be explored as well. As with other uses of post-typographical text, school-college collaborations are being evaluated with respect to gender issues. Two research studies on school-college electronic collaborations conducted by teachers (Fey, 1997, 1998) evaluated the communications with respect to gender and, particularly, language use. Both collaborations used the asynchronous communication of listservs to link college students in a small town with high-school students in urban and suburban schools. The topics for discussion adopted a critical literacy stance that focused on issues of power and assisted students in challenging existing structures of inequality and oppression. In the 1997 collaboration, discussions about ethical issues led to agonistic, hierarchical language by some males. Although a number of students reported positive experiences, some males inhibited the expression of voice for several female participants, whose participation in the conversation was thereby limited. In the 1998 collaboration, females persisted in communicating despite differences or conflict in discussions. The contexts for the two studies differed in a number of respects, for example, the number of participants, the students’ understanding of gender issues, and the time period of involvement of the students. A closer look at features such as these may lead to a better understanding of ways to assure positive learning experiences with posttypographical text. Marion Harris Fey
Gender and Reading Until as late as the 1980s, discussions about reading and gender were limited for the most part to calling attention to the gender of a protagonist of any given story. With a deepening understanding of societal influences, scholars have focused at-
See Also Gender and Discussion; Gender and Writing; Instant Messaging; Post-Typographic
201
Gender and Reading dered. Girls tend to select romance and fiction; boys tend to read adventure and nonfiction. Boys read superhero comic books whereas girls read series novels and teen magazines, marketed especially for girls. Magazine selection as well as production is gendered as well. Magazines that target girls are targeted for the teenage girl. Magazines for boys are most often aimed at an adult readership (Moss, 1995). Texts, ranging from fairy tales to adult novels, have been criticized because they seem to constrain the roles available to boys and girls and serve to reinscribe them into patriarchy. Like the fairy tales, popular book series are written in such a way as to construct models of masculinity and femininity that reinforce gender stereotypes, with males in active, powerful roles and females relegated to roles in which they find their place in the society through romance and rescuers. Cultural Constructions of Gender and Reading Before examining gender and reading in more depth, let’s clarify each term. More than simply the abilities to decode and comprehend, reading is now understood as a set of social practices constructed by families, schools, and other institutions. Understanding reading as a social and cultural construction focuses attention to the ways in which certain practices are privileged or ignored in particular contexts. Reading carries with it significant cultural capital that governs social actions and social consequences. As concerns the term gender, scholars now argue for a more cultural definition, situating it within broader societal forces, as has been done with the term reading. Beyond biology, scholars now accept a more constructed view of gender. This shifts the focus from biological processes to the social processes that enable and constrain beliefs, practices, and even desires. Meredith Cherland (1994), for example, explains that gender has to do not so much with what people are (male or female) but with what they do (gender-appropriate ways of acting in the world). Gender-appropriate actions involve a multifaceted set of culturally constructed actions. Reading is one of the culturally constructed actions that makes up the complex system of societal influences. Because gender is culturally constructed and reading is a social practice, gender is always present in reading (Cherland, 1994). Scholars such as
Teenage girls reading magazines (Laura Dwight)
tention on gender to examine the social, political, and developmental nature of reading. Likewise, attentiveness to reading makes gender distinctions apparent. Reading is one means through which girls and boys learn to construct and reconstruct their desires and gender roles, as well as their awareness of social positions and power dynamics (Christian-Smith, 1993). In other words, reading is one means by which young people come to know their place in the world, and that place comes already equipped with gender scripts that dictate what is appropriate to wear, to do, to say, and even to read as a gendered being in a society. From a very early age, children have clear ideas about demarcations along gender lines. They can tell you as early as the primary grades that certain books are “boys’ books” and that others are clearly “girls’ books.” By the early elementary grades, children may tease and chastise others for making gender-inappropriate reading choices. In school as well as out of school, reading choices are distinctly gen202
Gender and Reading Cherland, Linda Christian-Smith, Pam Gilbert, and others describe the complex ways in which entering a story world allows readers to come to know what counts as being a woman or a man in the world. Through stories, children learn the range of ways to be masculine and feminine in a culture. Inversely, readers enter a story world with a repertoire of already gendered social practices that influence their interpretations. Scholars have begun to ask about the contents of texts and, equally important, about how texts are being read. Gender is never the sole variable that determines how texts get read. Race, class, gender, and many other influences come into play in establishing how reading is enacted. That said, it is important to repeat that gender is always inescapably present in reading.
another lens to examine reading and gender. Talk about texts provides a means to perform gender roles. Children enter the classroom with a repertoire of already gendered language practices that constitute their resources for interpreting and participating in classroom discussions. Joseph Tobin (2000), for example, has noted that he observed third- and fourth-grade boys and girls using a discussion of violence in a film to display gender. The boys showcased their knowledge of the physical world, something that tends to be considered masculine; the girls made statements about their empathy for the victims. A classroom is always an arena to perform gender roles, and girls and boys stand to gain or lose status based on their gender competence. When a teacher asks children to select texts, she must realize that she is asking her students to perform gender roles. Girls may read “boys’ books,” but boys rarely accept an invitation to read what they consider to be a “girl book.” Why? Gemma Moss (1995) suggests that we are asking the powerless to take on more powerful strategies, and inversely, we are asking the more powerful to appropriate less powerful strategies. Such invitations are not equal. How boys and girls read and talk about particular texts center on reading as it intertwines with a gendered sense of self. How home, school, and societal influences shape reading practices have also been the focus of studies of how children learn to read. For example, Judith Solsken (1993) conducted a threeyear study of early literacy learning. Her study of children as they made the transition from entering kindergarten through completion of second grade documents that in even progressive schools and supportive homes, the dimensions of gender identity may perpetuate traditional gender roles and actually account for important links that influence reading. Such accounts of learning to read showcase the complexities that both boys and girls face due to gendered divisions of labor in their homes and in school. Through examinations of the ways in which larger home, school, and societal influences shape reading practices, we see how gender and reading impinge upon one another. Reading is one means by which children come to understand the range of ways to be masculine and feminine in a culture. Equally important, gender as a set of social practices shapes the ways in which children engage with texts.
Reading Gender Scholars have approached reading gender in a variety of ways. In an attempt to understand how gender and reading impinge upon each other, scholars have focused on the larger home, school, and societal influences that shape reading practices, examining content analyses of texts, readers reading texts, and how children learn to read. In a content analysis, researchers look at story lines, descriptions, and pictures in an attempt to understand the construction of the feminine and the masculine in a textual world. Some scholars challenge the notions that texts hold fixed meanings, and thus, it is not the content alone that should be examined. Assumptions that texts are potentially powerful in their effect on readers rest upon a notion of vulnerable readers (Moss, 1995). What matters most about the texts is not the content alone but the ways in which readers use that content. Studies of how readers read text focus not simply on the content of the reading materials but on how readers interact with those textual worlds. In a study of romance readers, for example, Janice Radway (1984) argued that adult women constructed reading as a “declaration of their independence,” citing a private pleasure and an escape from their daily responsibilities. In a study of sixth-grade girls, Cherland (1994) maintained that reading may serve as “combative” (as an escape from being good) and “compensatory” (as a tool to feel more powerful). In addition to gaining understanding of how children read, how they talk about reading provides 203
Gender and Reading Curriculum and School Performance Curricular materials and discussion patterns have been criticized for gender bias. A predominance of gender bias in textbooks and other curricular materials is well documented. The structures of classrooms and selections of texts dictate how children construct and experience gender (Cherland, 1994). Gender expectations shape how children construct and experience reading. Although studies show that boys may receive more attention in some classes, the teaching of reading is often absent in such studies. Since girls tend to outperform in reading, there is little attention to the language arts, which according to a cross-national study found that the perception of literacy as feminine shapes the ways schools teach reading (American Association of University Women, 1998), which may further the gender gap in reading competencies. Views that females are “naturally” more inclined to be better readers and that expectations that boys will lag behind seem to be just good common sense. Students themselves hold these gendered views of reading, with distinctions between male and female competencies in reading becoming more intensified after the fourth grade and becoming deeply entrenched by the last years of high school (American Association of University Women, 1998). Notions of good reading performance may be based for the most part on middle-class, white cultural views, and according to Signithia Fordham (1993), the denial of diversity of gender constructions in schools forces some social groups to silence. Inattentiveness to diversity of gender roles in the school context serves to marginalize some readers, especially those who do not share the racial, ethnic, socioeconomic, or cultural expectations of the school.
who have brought together scholars from content areas as diverse as mathematics, science, physical education, technology, and literacy, call for a pedagogy that examines privilege and power. They suggested that across content disciplines, the curriculum at its core should pay attention to the processes that produce patterns of participation and achievement. Moss has suggested the need for an “ethnography of reading” pedagogy that stresses the ways in which diverse social and cultural practices shape how texts get read. In other words, these scholars have championed the need in schools for boys and girls to examine what is taken as “natural” in any content and to investigate the politics and privileges embedded in their reading, whatever it might be—fiction, nonfiction, textbooks, or the larger culture. Margaret Finders See Also Gender and Discussion; Gender and PostTypographical Text; Gender and Writing References American Association of University Women. 1998. Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. Cherland, Meredith. 1994. Private Practices: Girls Reading Fiction and Constructing Identity. London: Taylor and Francis. Christian-Smith, Linda. 1993. “Constituting and Reconstituting Desire: Fiction, Fantasy and Femininity.” In Linda Christian-Smith, ed., Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling, pp. 1–8. London: Falmer Press. Fordham, Signithia. 1993. “Those Loud Black Girls: (Black) Women, Silence, and Gender ‘Passing’ in the Academy.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 24:3–32. Gaskell, Jane, and John Willinsky. 1995. Gender In/Forms Curriculum: From Enrichment to Transformation. New York: Teachers College Press. Gilbert, Pam. 1994. “And They Lived Happily Ever After: Cultural Storylines and the Construction of Gender.” In A. H. Dyson and C. Genishi, eds., The Need for Story. Urbana, IL: NCTE. Moss, Gemma. 1995. “Rewriting Reading.” In Janet Holland and Maud Blair, eds., with Sue Sheldon. Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy, pp. 157–168. Buckingham, UK: Open University. Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Fiction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Solsken, Judith. 1993. Literacy, Gender, and Work in Families and in School. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Initiatives and Pedagogical Approaches Recent initiatives have focused on pedagogical approaches that call for examinations of biases in texts, interaction patterns, and the larger culture. Scholars are calling for a pedagogy that builds from an awareness of the influence of both language and culture upon students’ lives. Cherland (1994), for example, called for a critical pedagogy that explores vested interests in texts and examines the ways in which individuals are positioned to read and respond in certain ways. Likewise, Jane Gaskell and John Willinsky (1995), 204
Gender and Writing Tobin, Joseph. 2000. Good Guys Don’t Wear Hats: Children Talk about the Media. New York: Teachers College Press.
two terms interchangeably. Trying to make distinctions between biological difference and processes of socialization suggests that one can clearly distinguish between naturally determined and culturally determined characteristics of men and women. As Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, and others have pointed out, however, conceptions of sex are as constructed as gender, making any distinctions between the two difficult to determine. The complex understandings of genetics and hormones that are emerging, for example, point to the difficulty of distinguishing innate or biological influences from those that are culturally and socially constructed. Much of the gender research and theory has been guided and influenced by feminist movements and postcolonial and queer theory, all of which critique power structures, question and distinguish differences, and shift thinking away from hierarchical models.
Gender and Writing Gender is a variable in the historical, social, and cultural contexts that influence and are influenced by the creation of texts and writing processes. Gender differs from sex in that the former distinguishes the cultural categories of masculine and feminine, whereas the latter distinguishes biological difference. Because writing gives humans the capability to reflect and analyze language and is closely connected to self-understanding, the role of gender in the development of subjectivity through writing is an important consideration. Four main perspectives on the relationship between writing and gender are: (1) organic and embodied, (2) socially constructed, (3) poststructural, and (4) complex. The organic and embodied perspective derives from the development of a two-sex model and considers physical and psychosocial differences between women and men and how these differences influence writing. The socially constructed perspective focuses on cultural, historical, and social influences and how men and women are socialized differently, affecting the structure of their texts and their writing processes. The post-structural perspective considers the discursive and shifting nature of gender and subjectivity and its relationship to writing as a discursive practice. The complex perspective draws on recent ecological theories of complexity to understand gender and writing as coevolving within human and nonhuman systems.
Writing Writing is a powerful technology for thinking and learning that commits the word to space and enlarges the potential of language, including its heuristic power. Writing creates conceptions of reality, influences individuals’ understanding of themselves, and traces their relations to places and other people. Writing also serves to integrate and interpret experience, creating a subjunctive or liminal space for real, imagined, and possible lives of those who write and read. Writing makes possible such understandings because it enables human beings to reflect on ideas; that is, consciousness of words creates a distinction between the words themselves and the ideas they express. Such capabilities mean that humans can use written language as an object of reflection and analysis. Because the practice of writing is so strongly connected to self-understanding and the development of subjectivity, the influences of gender are important when considering such a process.
Gender Gender, like genre, arises from the Latin root genus, meaning birth or kind. Traditionally, gender was a grammatical classification in languages for masculine, feminine, or neuter nouns, whereas biological classifications used the term “sex.” When anthropologists and sociologists began to use gender to distinguish cultural categories from biological ones, gender became one of the descriptors for differences among humans that helped develop understandings of people’s identities. As its usage expanded, individuals sometimes equated gender with sex and used the
Writing as Organic and Embodied Before the two-sex model of understanding difference, people considered male and female bodies as fundamentally the same with only the visibility of their genitalia contrasting. Once society used differing sexual characteristics to maintain power structures, the male body became the dominant and privileged form. Society consid205
Gender and Writing ered women to be lacking the attributes of the male; in other words, female identity was based on who women were not in comparison to men, rather than who they were. French philosopher Luce Irigaray explained that women are defined as complements of men and do not exist in their own right in the symbolic order. She argued for the creation of an ethics of sexual difference that defines women in their own terms and not in relation to men. The conception of the two differing sexes evolved from a focus on physiology to encompass the differences in psychology, with women again defined as lacking. The work of Nancy Chodorow, among others, challenged that conception. Chodorow argued that gender differences were created relationally. Because women are usually the primary caretakers of children, she noted, males, in order to establish their gender identity, must differentiate themselves from their mothers, whereas girls establish their gender identity through relating to and identifying with the mother. The work of Carol Gilligan also identified psychological distinctions between males and females in their decisionmaking processes, with males found to be hierarchical and focused on authority and females attending more to contextual factors. Mary Belenky and her collaborators (1986) highlighted other gender differences in their analysis of the interview transcripts of 135 women. From these data, they identified five distinct ways of women’s knowing. The five distinct ways of women’s knowing include silence—a place of not knowing where a woman feels she has no voice or power—and received knowing, in which the woman trusts the knowledge of others whom she sees as more powerful and knowledgeable and from whom she can learn. Subjective knowing describes personal and private knowledge based on intuition and feeling. Procedural knowing includes processes and techniques for acquiring, validating, and evaluating knowledge. Constructed knowing understands truth as contextual and knowledge as tentative rather than absolute, where the knower constructs the known. With the focus of gender differences being biological and psychological, a feminist aesthetic of writing developed—that is, an erotics of writing that comes from the self, that tends to be sensual and connected to the world and the body and that is seen to be potentially revolutionary in ques-
tioning the existing structures of literary canons and the understanding of what it means to be female. Writers such as Adrienne Rich, Audre Lorde, and Susan Griffin have developed this feminist aesthetic through their writing. In her theoretical explorations of writing, Hélène Cixous (1991) explored connections among the female body, sexual expression, and writing, called l’écriture féminine. Cixous draws on the semiotic associated with the female body such as its fluidity and open boundaries, shaping her writing in response and creating a women’s language. Establishing a feminist aesthetic of writing based on specific characteristics of biology and psychology is difficult because of the global nature of the categories. Viewing writing from this perspective erases many of the differences within genders, such as cultural, historical, and social contexts, and suggests that writing strategies are without context. Some research that focuses on variables describing specific gender differences in writing points to the relational metaphors in women’s writing and the individuation choices in men’s writing and suggests that such evidence supports innate differences between males and females in their writing abilities. The work of many women writers, however, also highlights the strengths of this perspective in acknowledging that writing is embodied, that who we are shapes and is shaped by the texts we create and read, and that traces of our histories reside in language. Writing as Socially Constructed The role of cultural, historical, and social influences on gender and writing is an important characteristic of this perspective. As Mikhail Bakhtin noted, language is understood not as transparent or apolitical but as a site where discursive struggles occur between those who desire power through determining meaning and those who would interrupt that power for a plurality of meaning. In the 1970s, Robin Lakoff published her work Language and Woman’s Place, which pointed to the difficulty of representing women’s experience in a language that bears the marks of its male-defined history and that discriminates against women. Elaine Showalter (1989) proposed a different approach to literary criticism, which she called gynocriticism, examining how texts reveal ideological inscriptions of gender. These and other feminist theories, as well as the 206
Gender and Writing work of gender theorists, furthered the understanding of gender as part of a network of cultural and social relations. In understanding language as colored by its contexts, this perspective sees writing as a process that mediates cultural knowledge with textuality. Writers draw from these ideological and discursive systems while at the same time the discourses define the choices available to them. If women construct narratives about interactions of connection and men write about separation and achievement, they are reflecting the perceptual frameworks that have shaped them. When writers are conscious of such choices, they can use writing as a way to resist or subvert gender definitions or other cultural expectations. The work of Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar (1979), considered one of the turning points in the study of women’s writing, reveals how gender operates textually. Many genres, such as poetry and drama, erected barriers against women at a time when authorship was considered a male role. Men wrote social discourse; women expressed a self through confessional pieces or disguised their work with a masculine pseudonym. As Gilbert and Gubar pointed out, however, women writers were able to create submerged or hidden meanings even when writing within the constraints of the day. Some genres of writing continue to be privileged over others, but all genres are affected by gendered social regulation. For instance, some research that examines the gender differences in writing relates expository, objective, and linear prose with male writing. As writers become more skilled, researchers discover that it is more difficult to distinguish between “male” and “female” writing. Some studies suggest that capable writers can recognize and use various genre styles; others question whether women simply learn to write in the privileged academic discourse, that is, using expository and linear style. One must also consider the context in which the writing is read. Many readers assume they can identify pieces written by males or females, revealing that society continues to make assumptions about the clearly delineated presence of gender in texts. Susan Friedman described strategies that women use in their writing to question and subvert genres and canons and to claim the public space of texts. For example, they choose typical plot structures to write their own ideologies,
such as rewriting fairy tales, or they reconfigure narrative patterns to structure their writing in ways meaningful to their experience. Alternatively, women weave together different genres such as oral and written conventions or the lyrical and the narrative. New relational patterns are created that can disrupt or unify seemingly contradictory or fragmented discourses. In seeing writing as socially constructed, questions continue about what is female writing and what is male. In the search for answers, research about writing and gender can mire researchers in syntactic and lexical levels of analysis rather than asking broader questions of discourse structure and use. Because of the complex nature of language, it is difficult to understand and trace the relation between gender and writing, so the temptation to single out one cause or one variable is common. At the same time, understanding the social construction of texts and gender encourages writers to push the boundaries, to rewrite the structures of genre, and to consider the interplay among race, class, sexual orientation, and gender through writing. Writing as Post-Structural Text There is a close relationship between the recognition of the social construction of texts and post-structuralism. Both theories recognize the complexity of cultural, historical, and social variables that influence gender and writing; poststructuralism, however, focuses more closely on how discourses create individuals’ subjectivity. Chris Weedon (1987) has defined subjectivity as a woman’s way of understanding herself and her relation to the world, including her conscious and unconscious thoughts and emotions. Because of its discursive character, subjectivity is constantly open to change, always shifting away from the modernist conception of a fixed and stable self at the center. Gender, as a discourse related to subjectivity, is understood not as a masculine-feminine binary but as a broader continuum of possibilities. From a post-structural perspective, writing is the learned social discursive practice of a gendered subject, open to negotiation and change. Going beyond familiar discursive patterns is difficult because they are recognizable, connecting with cultural mores to seem almost natural and invisible. At the same time, writing becomes a mode of knowing that can continually interro207
Graffiti gate its own methods and processes. For example, deconstruction, which questions the possibility of all-encompassing systems or discourses, can challenge the construction of a text, revealing the elisions and gaps. Post-structuralism points out the permeable nature of boundaries and, as with gender, understands that all writing contains elements of many genres and texts, creating an intertextual character. Frigga Haug has argued that because gendered patriarchal discourses have constructed women’s subjectivity, the importance of writing for women is crucial. Through such a process, they can create a history by retrieving from the dominant culture a new image of themselves, enabling them to construct alternative interpretations. To disrupt such expectations and the patriarchal structures of language and texts, some women turn to avant-garde writing, with its fragmented nature and subversion of pattern. Many are selfreflexive, deliberately drawing attention to the process of writing and the structures of the text, taking apart the inherited fabric of form, and melting the boundaries between genres. Weedon has suggested that is equally important for men to use post-structural techniques to deconstruct masculinity and its role in patriarchal power. Although fragmentation and self-reflexivity are strategies that critique existing literary frameworks, they are also becoming features of popular culture forms, such as music videos, and can stimulate consumption and maintain the status quo. Further, although such writing has opened up possibilities for women to disrupt some of the patriarchal structures that confined their writing, for some women, the decentering of the self discursively is of little value if their sense of self is still uncertain. The interests of individual writers, too, may be lost in deconstructionist criticism that continues to support white, middle-class patriarchy. Moreover, writers must realize that discursive practices are embedded in material power relations that also need transformation. Nevertheless, post-structural writing opens up greater possibilities for creating subjectivities and offers a way for writers to be oppositional within the ideologies and conceptual frameworks of patriarchy.
tionship not easily defined and part of a web of relations that stretch beyond interpersonal interactions, cultural norms, and historical processes to nonhuman and subhuman systems. Laurie Finke (1992) sees complexity as a poetics that is cultural and indeterminate, drawing on the creative energy of chaos theory to highlight how order marginalizes, excludes, and neutralizes. As a literacy and complexity researcher, Finke, along with Katherine Hayles and others, explores the complex systems of which writing and gender are a part, emphasizing the importance of examining competing discourses and engaging in debates without resorting to essentialism, binary division, or uncritical assimilation. Understanding writing from such a perspective acknowledges that writing and gender together do not create a totalizing system that renders differences and contradictions invisible but rather are part of an ever-emerging pattern of cultural productions that feeds back into society, maintaining and refashioning it. Rebecca Luce-Kapler See Also Post-Structuralism and Structuralism; Subjectivity References Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker, Nancy Clinchy, Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books. Cixous, Hélène. 1991. Coming to Writing and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Finke, Laurie A. 1992. Feminist Theory, Women’s Writing. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Gilbert, Sandra, and Susan Gubar. 1979. Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press. Showalter, Elaine. 1989. Speaking of Gender. New York: Routledge. Weedon, Chris. 1987. Feminist Practice and PostStructuralist Theory. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell.
Graffiti At a most basic level, graffiti can be defined simply as unsanctioned writing on public spaces. In a more complex rendering, graffiti can be considered to be systemically encoded expressions of identity, attempts to make meaning, or statements of resistance to dominant power struc-
Writing and Complexity Complexity is a newly emerging focus that understands gender and writing as a complex rela208
Graffiti
Example of graffiti (Elizabeth Birr Moje)
graffiti writing quite similar to the kind found on walls in a modern urban city to examples in ancient Rome and Pompeii, and he argues that prehistoric cave writing is considered by some to be a form of graffiti. Although practiced worldwide and throughout history, the codes associated with graffiti are determined by both geographic and social space and by the set or identity of the graffiti writers. In addition, graffiti can be distinguished from more conventional writing practices by its fluidity. The codes and rules of graffiti writing are standardized by particular groups, but the standards are always changing. Because much of graffiti writing is connected to acts of resistance and underground practice, the codes change of necessity, as a way of maintaining secrecy and of confusing authorities who might seek to challenge the graffiti writers. The codes also change, however, as new ideas and expressions are exchanged. Sociologists and anthropologists have for years studied graffiti writing as a social practice embedded in gangs and tagging crews, but rarely have these scholars studied graffiti as an act of
tures. In either definition, graffiti must be considered an act of literacy, one that integrates alphabetic and iconic representational forms in systematic ways. Ralph Cintron (1997) argued that graffiti writers appropriate mainstream symbols and recontextualize them into new meanings that allow the writers to enter an otherwise closed discourse. Elizabeth Moje (2000) has suggested that for a group of young people in one community, graffiti writing (and other gang-connected practices) provided a way for them “to be part of the story” in a place where their ethnic, classed, and religious stories were not heard or valued. Graffiti writing, from these perspectives, is usually a practice of marginalized individuals. Moreover, graffiti writing is not merely a resistant or deviant act, it is a literate practice used to claim a space and a voice in dominant society and to express oneself or one’s group identity to others who share that identity. Often thought of as a contemporary problem, graffiti is a historically significant, worldwide literacy practice. Matthew Hunt (1996) has traced 209
Graffiti literacy. Literacy research and theory has tended to focus on the reading and writing of conventional formulations of alphabetic print, mainly the print that one finds in published texts. Some exceptions include the work of Jill Aguilar, Ralph Cintron, Dwight Conquergood, Matthew Hunt, and Elizabeth Moje. In addition, Miriam Camitta, Amy Shuman, and Debbie Smith have studied the implications of graffiti writing and other “vernacular” literacy practices for classroom teaching (Camitta, 1993).
by the number “187” written at the top of the list of gangs. The symbol “187” is a play on the standard police code for homicide and indicates a call to action that the members of the gangs listed in the graffito should be executed. The use of the Roman numeral XV indicates that the East Side King Crips claim the 15th Street territory. Second, the street names of the gangstas who make up the King Crips are written around the letters KC (e.g., Lil Blue, Budda, and so on). With this writing, each of the members of the 15th Street King Crips claims membership and affiliation with the gang. Budda, Lil Blue, Oreo, and the others are homeboys—dedicated to loyalty to each other and to the gang at all costs, even if such loyalty requires them to harm a non-gangaffiliated friend, a rival gang member who may be a friend in different circumstances, or another homeboy who has been disloyal to the gang. The “c” written under each street name or moniker indicates the writer’s ownership or copyright of that name and implies ownership of the larger public space as well. It is in relation to this claiming of the 15th Street space that a second point can be made about the meaning embedded in this particular graffito. Although the members of the surrounding community may not be able to read the code written by the 15th Street King Crips, they nonetheless receive a message about the claiming of space. To the people who live in this relatively affluent neighborhood, this unsanctioned writing is an encroachment on their territory. Despite the fact that the community members probably could not read a symbol like “187” to know that it calls for the death of rival gangstas, the discovery of such graffiti was met with shock and alarm by community members, and the wall was quickly buffed to erase the reminder of this encroachment on their territory (and to prevent would-be customers from avoiding the store). In contrast to gang graffiti, graffiti written or “thrown up” (Hunt, 1996) by taggers are considered artistic, although similarly unsanctioned, writings in public spaces. Tags are not used to claim territory but to advertise the individual artist or, at times, an entire tagging crew (a group of tagging artists). For nongangstas or nontaggers, tagger graffiti would probably be indistinguishable from gang graffiti. Taggers and gangstas, however, can easily distinguish types of graffiti and are respectful of the different types.
What Counts as Graffiti? What, exactly, are graffiti? As in any language or code, general graffiti codes cannot be described for graffiti writers across the world but must be analyzed in particular groups. In addition, graffiti writing is typically connected to a number of other representational and communicative practices, including particular dress codes, body proxemics, and conventional reading and writing practices (Cintron, 1997; Conquergood, 1990; Hunt, 1996; Moje, 2000); thus, any description of the print alone provides only a partial description of the literate practice involved in graffiti writing. In broad terms, however, graffiti are stylized, unsanctioned writings in publicly visible spaces such as fences, billboards, sidewalks, or buildings (Aguilar, 2000; Hunt, 1996). This definition is not in itself fully explanatory, however. For example, “Car Wash— $2.00/car” might be scrawled on a building in chalk, but the scrawl would not necessarily be considered graffiti. The reading of something as graffiti, then, depends on what the reader counts not only as sanctioned or unsanctioned but also as worthwhile. For many people, graffiti are associated with street gangs. What makes something gang graffiti, however, is whether it is used to send messages about territory to other gangs. For example, the graffito (singular of graffiti) shown here represents gang writing: The graffito shown in the photograph was written on the wall of a “public” space, a store in a city neighborhood shopping area. The graffito serves dual purposes: First, it tells a number of rival gangs that the East Side King Crips claim this space or territory. In fact, the other gangs are negated by being “crossed out” (note the Xs drawn over the names of several gangs—QVO, BMG, SAS, POG, 21st Street, and M1F—on the left side of the wall) and are explicitly threatened 210
Graffiti One of the adolescents studied by Elizabeth Moje (2000) made the distinction between tagging and graffiti best in an essay he wrote about distinctions between tagger and gang graffiti: “Taggers write for a statement and for artwork and a sign of respect. Graffiti is to mark where you come from like gangs and what they claim as their turf.” In general, taggers and gangstas assert that tagging is “art” and is not necessarily related to gang activity, although taggers—who are usually members of tagging “crews”—are at times hired by gangs to produce gang-related graffiti. According to the youth interviewed in Moje’s (2000) study, gangstas will usually not “cross out” a tag unless it encroaches on their territory; taggers will not cross out a gang graffito, because crossing out by taggers is done as a form of evaluation of the art and taggers recognize that gang graffiti are not written as art. In addition, such cross-outs might be read as challenges to the gang. Hunt (1996) described graffiti created by the best taggers (known as piecers, from the abbreviation of masterpiece) as colorful, appearing to be three-dimensional, and highly visible or “in the heavens.” Elizabeth Moje (2000) observed several examples of young people practicing tags in notebooks that they carried in school. For example, one tag observed was the name of a tagging crew, “Midtown,” written in elaborate lettering, with a clawed fist holding a bomb around the letter “o.” As a tag, this graffito could be considered somewhat unusual in that the clawed hand holding a lit bomb seems to threaten violence, and in that the graffito seems to claim territory—aspects that tend to be associated with gang graffiti rather than with tagging crews. Although generally nonviolent in nature, tags quite commonly communicate resistance or claims for identity. In this case, the tagger seems to want to advertise the Midtown crew as people with something to say. However, it is possible that despite the bubble writing, which would seem to indicate a tag rather than a gang graffito, the writer is actually using tag writing to display a gang name. Given the context of this tag—part of a school project on tagging and gang graffiti—it is possible that the writer (an identified gang member) mixed linguistic conventions to mask his membership in an actual gang. In part because of the school setting for which it was written, then, the tag sends complicated messages about identity, membership, and voice.
Although it is risky to engage in tagging practices in school, it is by no means unusual for gang-connected adolescents (and wannabes, that is, people who, for reasons of safety or popularity, want to be associated with gangs or tagging crews) to use school time to draw tags on paper. In addition to the tags that taggers might write on highly visible spaces, many serious taggers keep tagging notebooks or sketchbooks in which they practice their tags in pencil or pen before throwing them up on a wall, sign, or fence (Hunt, 1996). It was common in one middle school (Moje, 2000) to see students with oversized sheets of bond paper, calligraphy pens, and charcoal pencils used for practicing their tags. The Midtown tag, although prepared specifically for a classroom writing project, is an example of a typical notebook tag. These notebooks—and the accompanying writing/drawing equipment— served both as practice sites and as emblems of tagger and gangsta identity. Because taggers tag as a way of making themselves known, these notebooks announce the ability to tag, at least on paper. They serve, in this sense, as an advertisement. Significance of Graffiti in Literacy and Educational Research and Practice A number of studies show that young people may turn to graffiti writing, and other unsanctioned literacy and language practices, as a way of writing themselves into the world (Aguilar, 2000; Cintron, 1997; Hunt, 1996; Moje, 2000). Comments from a number of young graffiti writers speak to the importance of understanding how these unsanctioned literacy practices, although typically thought to be negative and perhaps worthless, may serve as tools for transforming thought and experience in the lives of marginalized youth. Despite a recent emphasis in educational theory on conceptualizing literacy as a tool for changing thought and experience, however, when adults typically speak of the graffiti writing, they rarely talk about such a literacy form as a tool. Instead, graffiti writing is often referred to in terms of deviance or resistance. If literacy educators want to claim that literacy is a tool for transforming thought and experience, then literacy theorists and researchers need to extend that theoretical claim to all literacy practices by asking what a literacy practice like graffiti writing does for adolescents. As educators, it is important to acknowledge graffiti as a timeless 211
Graphic Aids type), nor do they change how such text is displayed on some surface (e.g., including texts as sidebars to the main text or varying the width of margins or background color). Nonetheless, many graphic aids include alphabetic texts in the form of captions or labels. Further, graphic displays not explicitly aimed at providing information cannot be categorized as graphic aids. For example, pictures or graphic designs aimed primarily at enhancing attention or interest (e.g., a picture of someone driving on the first page of a driving manual) or included mainly for aesthetic reasons (e.g., a cover design that is engaging and pleasing to the eye) are not considered to be graphic aids. Nonetheless, the visual elements of a graphic aid itself might be analyzed in terms of their overall effect on attention or interest. Finally, graphic aids do not include icons frequently used in place of alphabetic texts. The research pertaining to graphic aids has focused on determining their role in the comprehension of texts and on how they might be designed or manipulated to increase learning and understanding. A variety of theoretical perspectives has been used to guide this research, ranging from principles of textual design associated with the field of instructional technology to cognitive theories of textual processing associated with the field of educational psychology. Beginning in the mid-1980s, interest increased in graphic aids used in conjunction with computerbased texts. Computer-based texts have changed the role and function of graphic aids, compared to the conventional printed texts with which they were previously associated. For example, in computer-based texts, graphic displays can be animated and displayed contingently, depending upon a reader’s actions during reading. Further, computer-based texts may naturally subordinate alphabetic texts to graphic information (Bolter, 1991; Lanham, 1993), thus suggesting that graphic “aids” is a misnomer. Graphic aids have received relatively little attention within instructional programs. Most attention has been focused on acquiring literal information from graphic representations (e.g., “reading” a table), although there have long been calls for a more interpretive stance on graphic aids (Summers, 1965). One instructional strategy referred to as the graphics information lesson (GIL) has been proposed as a means for encouraging such an interpretive stance while
literacy practice and to ask why young people in today’s society are using graffiti, how the use of graffiti relates to the learning of academic literacies, and how graffiti writing might shape the larger life possibilities of these young people. Elizabeth Birr Moje References Aguilar, Jill A. April, 2000. “Chicano Street Signs: Graffiti as Public Literacy Practice.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, LA. Camitta, Miriam. 1993. “Vernacular Writing: Varieties of Literacy among Philadelphia High School Students.” In B. V. Street, ed., Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy, pp. 228–246. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Cintron, Ralph. 1997. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and Rhetorics of the Everyday. Boston: Beacon Press. Conquergood, Dwight. 1990. The Heart Broken in Half (video). Chicago: Siegel Productions. Hunt, Matthew. 1996. “The Sociolinguistics of Tagging and Chicano Gang Graffiti.” Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Moje, Elizabeth B. 2000. “To Be Part of the Story: The Literacy Practices of Gangsta Adolescents.” Teachers College Record 102:652–690.
Graphic Aids Graphic aids is a term that has been used in research and instructional practice to identify various nonalphabetic representations inserted purposefully in expository texts for the sake of enhancing comprehension and learning. Specifically, the purpose of graphic aids is to supplement and extend information presented in a particular alphabetic text, thereby assisting the reader to understand and learn while reading that text independently. Graphic aids include maps, charts, tables, figures, drawings, photographs, diagrams, pictures, illustrations, and other primarily nonalphabetic representations, typically displayed near the alphabetic texts to which they are related. They are generally associated with conventional printed textbooks employed in a variety of instructional contexts, but they may also be found in other informational materials such as brochures, manuals, and directions for assembling items or for carrying out a task requiring physical manipulation. Graphic aids are not visual variations of an alphabetic text (e.g., the use of italics or boldface 212
Graphic Organizers Advance Organizer
Structured Overview
Graphic Organizer
Pictures
Photos
Cartoons
Maps
Diagrams
Venn Diagrams
Flow Charts
Matrices
Concept Maps
Story Maps
Character Maps
Figure 1
Graphic organizers visually represent relations among elements of a concept and, as such, present a large amount of information in few words. They can be constructed by teachers or by students and are useful before, during, and after reading. In addition, graphic organizers are useful tools for planning instruction, teaching, learning, prewriting, and assessment. Theoretical underpinnings of graphic organizers include David Ausubel’s concept of advance organizers (a short piece of text written at a higher abstract level than the information it serves to introduce), Richard Anderson’s conceptualization of schema theory (schema theory emphasizes the importance of prior knowledge in learning), and Lev Vygotsky’s notion of semiotic mediation (the idea that culturally derived signs/words can mediate learning). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, researchers at Syracuse University conducted a number of experiments on the use of vocabulary words as advance organizers. Richard Earle (1969) termed the resulting diagrams structured overviews. A structured overview was essentially a diagram composed of essential vocabulary terms arranged to convey the relationships that existed among the terms. As teachers adapted these structured overviews, they began using other
enhancing content-area instruction (Reinking, 1986). David Reinking References Bolter, Jay David. 1991. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lanham, Richard A. 1993. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Reinking, David. 1986. “Integrating Graphic Aids into Content Area Instruction: The Graphic Information Lesson.” Journal of Reading 30:146–151. Summers, Edward G. 1965. “Utilizing Visual Aids in Reading Materials for Effective Learning.” In H. L. Herber, ed., Developing Study Skills in Secondary Schools, pp. 97–155. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Graphic Organizers Graphic organizers are visual representations of concepts or information. The term applies to a variety of forms, including cartoons, pictures, diagrams, structured overviews, Venn diagrams, semantic maps, character maps, and story maps. 213
Graphic Organizers EXPOSITORY TEXT
Cause/ Effect
Fishbone Map
Descriptive
Web
NARRATIVE TEXT
Sequential
Story Web
Comparison
Matrix
Timeline
Story Map
Venn Diagram
Network Tree Series of Events Chain
Cycle
Figure 2
visuals, including pictures, charts, Venn diagrams, flow charts, cartoons, and semantic maps in their teaching. Many of these visual aids were unlike the structured overviews that had been developed by the Syracuse researchers and the more general term graphic organizer began to be applied to a family of visuals. Figure 1 is a graphic organizer that represents the evolution of the graphic organizer. Constructed by teachers, graphic organizers are useful in planning instruction, vocabulary exercises, and assessments. Teacher-constructed graphic organizers may be used to introduce technical vocabulary for students whose insufficient prior knowledge needs elaboration. Use of diagrams, charts, and other forms of graphic organizers can scaffold student learning by providing a skeletal structure of the information, facilitating students’ ability to organize information meaningfully. A teacher-created graphic organizer may be used to guide reading when students are asked to annotate the graphic organizer or to complete one left partially blank. More-able students can be asked to create their own graphic organizer as they read. Less-able students may need more scaffolding. When a graphic organizer provides the structure of the information in advance, students can more easily differentiate important from unimportant information and can see how important elements of a concept are related. This in turn improves students’ comprehension. Having students construct graphic organizers to represent their learning provides a vehicle for
reflection after reading. Although no two graphic organizers will be identical, the learners should be able to justify the relations and hierarchies depicted in them. An effective strategy is to have pairs or small groups of students create graphic organizers and explain them to the class. For assessment purposes, Cathleen Rafferty and Linda Fleschner (1993) developed guidelines to evaluate student-constructed graphic organizers. Teachers have a wide variety of visuals to choose from when creating graphic organizers. Effective graphic organizers are created with the knowledge structure or text structure, or both, in mind. Figure 2 summarizes the relationship between the type of graphic organizer and the text structure. Victoria Gentry Ridgeway and Kathy Cochran See Also Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Semantic Mapping; Thematic Organizers References Bromley, Karen, Linda Irwin-De Vitis, and Marcia Modlo. 1995. Graphic Organizers: Visual Strategies for Active Learning. New York: Scholastic. Earle, Richard A. 1969. “Use of the Structured Overview in Mathematics Classes.” In Harold L. Herber and Peter L. Sanders, eds., Research in Reading in the Content Areas: First Year Report, pp. 49–58. Syracuse, NY: Reading and Language Arts Center, Syracuse University. Rafferty, Cathleen D., and Linda K. Fleschner. 1993. “Concept Mapping: A Viable Alternative to Objective and Essay Exams.” Reading Research and Instruction 32 (3):25–34.
214
Group Reading Inventories
Group Reading Inventories
presented in the passage. Following the question, the targeted skill should be identified. For example, “What is the incubation period of the Emperor penguin’s egg?” The second type of GRI consists of several graded passages taken from a text with questions for each passage. Students’ functional reading levels, that is, independent, instructional, and frustration levels, can be determined using this type of GRI. Three assessment sessions are required to complete the graded-passages GRI. To create this type of GRI, several graded reading passages and questions are developed following the same procedures used to create a single-passage GRI. Approximately ten questions reflecting literal, inferential, and critical reading/thinking should accompany each passage. At the first assessment session, all students receive the same passage and are instructed to read it silently. Questions are distributed to students once reading is completed. Students correctly answering 70 percent or more of the questions (high group) receive a second passage that is two reading levels higher than the first passage. Students scoring below 70 percent correct (low group) receive a second passage that is two reading levels below the first passage. Once again, students read the passages silently and receive and respond to related questions. Within the higher scoring group of students, the teacher determines those who scored 70 percent or more correct and provides them with a third passage that is one reading level higher than the second passage. Students in the group that scored below 70 percent correct are given a third passage that is one reading level lower than the second passage. Within the lower scoring group, the teacher follows the same procedure using the same criteria: students scoring above 70 percent correct receive a passage one reading level higher than the second passage; students scoring below 70 percent correct receive a passage one reading level lower. The final assessment session, then, requires the teacher to administer appropriate reading passages and questions at four different reading levels (Henk and Helfeldt, 1985). Students’ reading ability levels can be determined from either the single-passage or multiple-passage GRI. Although researchers’ criteria for determining students’ independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels varies, students scoring 80 percent or more correct are gen-
The group reading inventory (GRI) is a two-part, informal, teacher-made assessment patterned after the informal reading inventory. The GRI is designed to assess fourth-grade through collegeage students’ ability to use and comprehend expository text (McWilliams and Rakes, 1980). Part one of the assessment is designed to gather information about how well students can use illustrations, references, and other components of content-area texts. Part two assesses students’ abilities to respond to literal and inferential comprehension questions following silent reading. Unlike informal reading inventories that are administered to one student at a time, the GRI is designed for group administration. This assessment is used to help teachers determine whether students’ comprehension levels match the readability of the content-area text. Group reading inventories can take one of two forms—either a single passage with questions or several graded passages with related questions for each passage. The single-passage GRI format is administered in a single assessment session and provides general information about students’ reading levels and the readability of the text. However, the single-passage GRI does not provide a complete picture of students’ reading abilities. A single-passage GRI is constructed by selecting a text passage of approximately 500 words. The passage should be one that students have not read before and it should cover a complete concept. The teacher then develops the two-part GRI by writing a total of twelve to fifteen questions based on the passage and the text from which the passage was taken. The first part of the GRI requires students to use their textbook to answer the first six to eight questions. These questions focus on students’ knowledge of textbook aids like the table of contents, glossary, index, and graphic aids. A question, for example, may ask students the page number on which a particular chapter begins. The second part of the GRI targets students’ comprehension of information from the selected passage. For part two, students silently read the passage in the text. The remaining six to eight questions on the passage are distributed once all students have read the material. Responses are written without referring to the text. Questions for this part of the GRI reflect literal and inferential thinking and target main ideas, vocabulary, and important details 215
Group Reading Inventories graded reading passages for the JIRI are derived from high-interest adolescent literature. The passages are read silently, and responses to comprehension questions are written without referring to the passage. Comprehension questions are designed to measure vocabulary, details, main ideas, cause and effect, and inference (Cagney, 1983). Because the purpose of the JIRI is to match students’ reading levels with high-interest adolescent literature, teachers cannot use the assessment results to make decisions about whether students will be able to read contentarea texts successfully. Pamela J. Dunston and M. Christina Pennington
erally considered to be reading at the independent level (level at which readers can read comfortably with little or no assistance). Students scoring 65–80 percent correct are reading within their instructional level (level at which readers can read with assistance from a teacher or knowledgeable other), and students scoring below 65 percent correct are reading at the frustration level (level at which readers experience stress and discomfort even when assisted). Students falling within the frustration level will need extensive teacher support and supplemental instruction in order to be successful. Analysis of students’ responses to comprehension questions associated with either type of GRI provides the teacher with information concerning specific comprehension weaknesses. Based on the types of questions most frequently missed by students, the teacher can plan instruction to address students’ needs. A commercially produced GRI designed to measure students’ reading levels with narrative text is the Johnston Informal Reading Inventory (JIRI). The JIRI is a three-part assessment that provides information about students’ knowledge of antonyms, synonyms, and reading levels. The
See Also Informal Reading Inventory References Cagney, Margaret. 1983. “Johnston Informal Reading Inventory.” Journal of Reading 26:530–532. Henk, William A., and Joan P. Helfeldt. 1985. “The Group Reading Inventory in the Social Studies Classroom.” Social Education 49:224–227. McWilliams, Lana, and Thomas A. Rakes. 1980. “Assessing Reading Skills in Science.” Science and Children 18:21–22.
216
H The Handbook of Reading Research
For example, work in neurobiology is included in Volume III, despite the fact that a relatively small volume of research on it has occurred. The topics across all volumes reflect a broadening of the scope of problems being studied by reading researchers. The reviews in The HRR are interpretive and evidence-driven. Experts in the field are selected to produce each review. The reviews combine historical analyses of research, syntheses of current research, and conclusions about future directions for research. Authors put their reviews in context, relating them to earlier reviews and making them relevant for future—and past— research. Volume III includes two new types of reviews, methodological and geographic. Ten reviews of research methodologies are included to highlight the increasing importance of methodology in the conduct and interpretation of reading research. Because of the increasing emphasis on international issues in reading research, five reviews relating to specific geographic regions were also included. The ten essays on methodology have been reprinted in a separate volume (Kamil et al., 2002). All authors and editors of Volume III have contributed their honoraria and royalties to a research fund administered by the National Reading Conference to promote research in international literacy issues. The HRR is a primary source of information about the current state of knowledge about reading research. It provides background on almost all of the currently important topics in reading and serves as an entry point for more detailed research. Michael L. Kamil
The Handbook of Reading Research (HRR) is a multivolume collection of reviews of reading research compiled by experts in each of the represented specialties. There have been three volumes published, in 1984, 1991, and 2000, respectively. A fourth volume is in production. The three published volumes contain a total of 107 articles authored or coauthored by 189 researchers, for nearly 3,000 pages in all. Although each volume is only slightly different in length, over the course of their publication the number of articles almost doubled from Volume 1 to Volume III. The number of authors and coauthors has more than doubled, from forty in Volume I to eighty-seven in Volume III. These increases seem to be representative of the increasing complexity and collaborative style of reading research. The amount of literature on reading research is enormous, consisting of more than 100,000 published journal articles. To make sense of this wealth of information, systematic reviews of this literature are required. Each of the three handbook volumes represents an attempt to characterize the state of knowledge in reading research at a given point in time, realizing that not all topics can be reviewed in each volume. Topics were chosen for each volume because they were representative of published literature to date. For Volumes II and III, the topics were chosen to highlight those areas of reading research that had accumulated substantial new material since the prior review. Topics range from early and emergent literacy to adult and workplace literacy. They include research in historical issues, basic processes, applications, and policy. Volume IV will follow a similar plan. Emerging trends are also highlighted.
References Barr, Rebecca, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds. 1991. Handbook of
217
The Head Start Program Reading Research, Volume II. New York: Longman. Reprinted in 1996, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kamil, M., P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds. 2000. Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. ———. 2002. Methods of Literacy Research: The Methodology Chapters from the Handbook of Reading Research Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Mosenthal, P., P. D. Pearson, R. Barr, and M. Kamil, eds. 2002. Methods of Literacy Research: The Methodology Chapters from the Handbook of Reading Research Volume IV. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Pearson, P. D., R. Barr, M. Kamil, and P. Mosenthal, eds. 1984. Handbook of Reading Research. New York: Longman. Reprinted in 1984, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
The Head Start Program Head Start is a comprehensive services program for low-income children from birth to age five and their families. Its goal is to foster the healthy development of the whole child, which includes social-emotional, cognitive, language, and physical development. To achieve these goals, program services are individualized and include education; medical, dental, and mental health; and nutrition. A basic element of program philosophy is the idea that parents are the primary educators, nurturers, and advocates of their children. Consequently, Head Start has a strong commitment to partnering with parents to enhance the child’s development. Head Start was initiated in 1965 as a part of the federal government’s War on Poverty. It started as a summer program serving 561,000 children and costing $96.4 million and grew slowly until the 1990s. In that decade, the program expanded in cost from $1.5 billion to nearly $5 billion. In fiscal year 2000, it served 857,664 children and was funded at $5,266,211,000. Since its inception, Head Start has touched the lives of 19,397,000 children (Head Start Bureau, 2001). To guide the implementation of Head Start services, this nationally operated program has instituted the Head Start Program Performance Standards. The objective of the education activities is to provide each child with a safe, nurturing, stimulating, enjoyable, and secure environment to help that child gain the skills and confidence necessary to succeed in Head Start, in school, and
Children participating in a Head Start program (Laura Dwight)
in life (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 1996). The Head Start curriculum definition states that teachers must set goals for children’s development and learning, outline the experiences children need to accomplish these goals, specify the behaviors of adults that will allow these goals to be met, and supply the materials and equipment that support the goals. In the areas of cognitive and language development, these standards require a program that shows a balance between child-initiated and teacher-directed activities, uses a variety of strategies and approaches, encourages children’s self-expression and interaction with one another and with adults, and supports literacy and numeracy activities. Head Start staff must assess the child at the beginning of the year, at some time during the year, and at the end of the year and must use these data to plan the program, individualize the program for the child, and judge the achieved outcomes. Since 1965, when Head Start began, several national studies have assessed its success. A 218
Heritage-Language Development Start Program Quality and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families.
meta-analysis of these studies (Hubbell, 1983) reported that Head Start children showed shortterm gains on intelligence measures and performed better than non–Head Start children from similar socioeconomic groups. Some studies showed that these gains were maintained into elementary school, but some did not. In general, Head Start graduates performed better on teacher ratings, retention in grade, and assignment to special education. The current results of an ongoing study, the Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families, 2000) define more clearly the cognitive skills of Head Start children as they make their transition to kindergarten. For example, Head Start children could tell their name and age, identify ten basic colors by name, count four objects, show the front cover of a storybook and open it to start reading, and answer simple factual questions about a story read to them. Head Start children showed significant growth in their vocabularies over the Head Start year. In the year before starting kindergarten, about 24 percent scored close to or above the national mean in the fall, whereas 34 percent did so in the spring, showing a 40percent increase in those scoring at or above the mean. Nevertheless, a typical Head Start child, in the spring before kindergarten, could not tell his or her address, identify most letters of the alphabet, or understand that a reader goes from left to right and top to bottom when reading English text. Finally, Head Start graduates’ improvement in kindergarten exceeded the growth of typical kindergartners, suggesting that the program does prepare children in many ways to succeed in school. Lorelei R. Brush
Heritage-Language Development Heritage languages are the home or ancestral languages of certain immigrant or indigenous groups of people. A “heritage language” may also be called a “first language,” “native language,” or “mother tongue” when the language is indeed the person’s first-learned language. A “heritage language” may also be referred to as a “minority language,” “ethnic language,” or “ancestral language” when the target language is associated with a person’s heritage but is not necessarily the individual’s first-learned language or the language used in the home. Thus, target language groups in heritage-language development studies vary considerably in terms of their historical and cultural backgrounds and their levels of heritage-language proficiency (Cummins, 1983). Heritage-language development studies have typically been conducted within the contexts of minority education, bilingualism (see Bilingualism), and language maintenance, language shift, or language revitalization. Heritage-Language Development: Academic and Personal Benefits A growing number of minority-education studies have argued for the importance and merits of active school involvement in the development of heritage languages. These arguments are based on empirical evidence that language-minority students who preserve their own language and culture as well as their distinct ethnic identity have strong pride in their heritage, succeed in mainstream school and society, and have satisfying communication with their family members. For example, extensive empirical research on heritage-language development conducted in Canada suggests that the development of heritage-language children’s first language enhances their learning of the dominant nonheritage language and their overall academic achievement (Cummins, 1991). According to Cummins’s “interdependence hypothesis,” one’s academic literacy skills in L1 (first language) and L2 (second language) are interrelated because they derive from the same underlying cognitive proficiency,
See Also The Even Start Family Literacy Program References Head Start Bureau. 2001. 2001 Head Start Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Head Start Bureau. Hubbell, Ruth. 1983. A Review of Head Start Research Since 1970. Washington, DC: CSR. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration on Children, Youth and Families. 1996. “Head Start Program Performance Standards.” 45 CFR 1304, Federal Register 61, no. 215 (November 5):57186–57227. ———. 2000. FACES Findings: New Research on Head
219
Heritage-Language Development
Class of Vietnamese children learning to read Vietnamese (Elizabeth Crews)
guage policy: a subtractive policy of language assimilation for language minorities and an additive policy of foreign-language study for mainstream monolinguals. One problem resulting from these two diverging principles is that many high-school and university students from immigrant families, who may no longer speak or write their heritage language well, are required to study the language to satisfy an academic requirement. This can cause extremely frustrating experiences for students from immigrant backgrounds, and many even fail in traditional foreign-language classes. Researchers observe that many immigrant parents have positive attitudes toward their children’s heritage-language development or bilingualism, but those who try to raise their children bilingually in a relatively monolingual society find it very difficult and see their school-age immigrant children quickly shifting to the language of the dominant culture. Indeed, research suggests that language shift occurs soon after immigrant children start socializing with speakers of the dominant language in kindergarten. In many monolingual communities where a strong bilin-
and therefore, the development of either language helps enhance proficiency in the other language, especially academic-related literacy skills (Cummins, 1994). Cummins’s view of the interdependence of L1 and L2 academic abilities has been supported by follow-up studies of heritagelanguage learners from various language backgrounds, including languages with different orthographies, such as Kana (Japanese basic syllabaries). Cummins has also suggested that it takes five to seven years for language-minority students to master academic English, whereas conversational ability in English may be learned in a year or so. Therefore, without academic aid in these students’ heritage languages, mainstream schooling becomes very ineffective for these students. Difficulties of Heritage-Language Development Many language studies dealing with heritagelanguage development are primarily concerned with individuals whose parents are immigrants to a country like the United States, where there is a long history of two diverging principles of lan220
Heritage-Language Development gual program for heritage-language learners is not available, children of heritage-language backgrounds seem to be able to achieve bilingualism only when the family remains an intact domain for using their heritage language (Kondo, 1998). Without strong family commitment, efforts for language maintenance in other channels (e.g., school) may only serve as a symbolic function (Fishman, 1991).
language due to negative external reactions to their poor performance—may discourage them from using the language. Pedagogical Concerns about Heritage-Language Development Applied linguistics in the United States have increasingly emphasized the special language behavior and needs of heritage-language students, which are distinctly different from those of traditional nonheritage-language students (Campbell, 1996). Some have proposed theoretical frameworks suggesting ways to conceptualize heritagelanguage students’ language abilities and to offer the best approach to heritage-language instruction (Valdés, 1995). In addition, the success of collaborative programs for preparing teachers of heritage-language learners has been documented (Webb and Miller, 2000). Furthermore, the Internet web site for the Heritage Language Initiative (available: http://www.cal.org/ heritage/), established by the Center for Applied Linguistics and the National Foreign Language Center in the United States, provides a number of on-line instructional resources for educators of heritagelanguage learners. At the same time, despite this unprecedented interest in heritage-language education in the Unites States, many heritage-language students in the United States who want to learn their home language in mainstream institutions normally have no choice but to study the language in traditional foreign-language classes. It has been argued that such students may be just wasting many hours by attending classes because those classes are not tailored to meet their special needs. Thus, although there are many studies that lament the neglect of heritage-language speakers in foreign-language programs, there is still no strong empirical research that investigates the issue of what should be taught, especially to students of less commonly taught languages. At the same time, the effect of nonformal language instruction outside the mainstream educational system (e.g., attending a heritage/ethnic language school) on heritage-language development needs further investigation. Lucy Tse (Krashen, Tse, and McQuillan, 1998) has suggested that heritagelanguage programs may only be successful if such programs are offered as part of the mainstream school curriculum and if the students perceive their school as validating the importance of their home languages.
Factors Influencing Heritage-Language Development One apparent factor that explains the difficulty of raising children bilingually in a relatively monolingual community is the lack of input in the target heritage language (Krashen, Tse, and McQuillan, 1998). Also, research suggests that age at the time of arrival in the host country is a critical factor for immigrant children’s heritagelanguage maintenance; that is, immigrant children who arrive in the host country at older ages maintain their academic skills in their first language better than younger immigrant children. However, sociopsychological models developed within the context of bilingual development suggest that the maintenance or loss of heritage languages is a complicated matter because various sociopsychological factors interact with the learning environment, influencing heritage-language learners’ language behavior. Indeed, empirical studies on immigrant language groups have consistently shown that there is a strong association between heritage-language learners’ bilingual development and sociocultural factors such as identity formation and attitudes toward learning their heritage language and their heritage culture. For example, Kimi Kondo-Brown (2000) demonstrated (1) that Hawai’i-based Japanese heritage-language learners’ identities are closely associated with their language use/choice, their language attitudes, and their levels of Japanese language proficiency, and (2) that their identity formation and acculturation processes are not static, in that the learners have changed from assimilative to additive modes over the years. Research on childhood bilingualism also emphasizes that children need to see the importance or necessity of speaking a nondominant heritage language in order for them to do so. Additionally, self-reports of older heritagelanguage learners have revealed that anxiety factors—such as reluctance to use their heritage 221
Heritage-Language Development Teaching Spanish as a Heritage Language As the most widely spoken heritage language in the United States, Spanish leads in the area of heritage-language education. Special Spanish heritage-language programs offered in secondary schools and universities expanded in the late 1970s and early 1980s and have continued to grow since. This work in Spanish seems to provide a valuable pedagogical model for teaching other heritage languages. For example, several theoretical frameworks for ways to best approach Spanish heritage-language instruction have been proposed (Merino, Trueba, and Samaniego, 1993). Although more empirical evidence of the effectiveness of these proposed strategies is needed, the proposed instructional approaches take into consideration the special language behavior of heritage-language learners of Spanish, which is considerably different from traditional foreign-language students. For instance, Spanish bilingual heritage-language students tend to have an extensive vocabulary in some contexts but a restricted one in others. They may speak fluent Spanish but may not be able to read and write it. Also, many speak a rural or stigmatized variety of Spanish. In addition, they demonstrate varying levels of both oral and written Spanish proficiency, and therefore, an individualized approach to curriculum may be necessary. Jeff McQuillan (1996) has suggested that traditional curricula for heritage-language students may greatly benefit from incorporating “free voluntary reading,” which encourages the students to do the self-directed reading of popular literature as part of their curricular activities. McQuillan argued that such an individualized approach helps heritagelanguage learners at various proficiency levels to effectively enhance their vocabulary acquisition as well as improve their attitudes toward reading literature.
nication skills (which are primarily acquired at home) and their low levels of formal language skills (which are more valuable for academic learning) are serious and very frustrating. As in the case of teaching Spanish for Spanish speakers, teachers of these students from Asian immigrant backgrounds face many challenges concerning how to best deal with these students in terms of placement and instruction. For example, in the case of Japanese, it is only recently that the special language-learning needs of heritagelanguage students have been widely addressed. Although a number of recent Japanese language studies have investigated the language development of heritage students of Japanese from various perspectives such as language maintenance, identity development, assessment, and curriculum development, a well-designed and carefully articulated Japanese language program for heritage-language students has yet to be developed. Instructional as well as assessment materials for Japanese heritage-language learners are definitely lacking. Thus, neglect in heritage-language education is evident in the area of teaching Asian languages. Kimi Kondo-Brown See Also Bilingualism References Campbell, Russell. 1996. “New Learners and New Environments: Challenges and Opportunities.” In Robert C. Lafayette, ed., National Standards: A Catalyst for Reform, pp. 97–118. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Cummins, Jim. 1983. Heritage Language Education: A Literature Review. Ontario: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 233 588. ———. 1994. “Heritage Language Learning and Teaching.” In John Berry and J. A. Laponce, eds., Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape, pp. 435–456. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ———, ed. 1991. “Heritage Languages” (special issue). The Canadian Modern Language Review 47 (4). Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Revising Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Kondo, Kimi. 1998. “Social-Psychological Factors Affecting Language Maintenance: Interviews with Shin Nisei University Students.” Linguistics and Education 9:369–408.
Teaching Less Commonly Taught Heritage Languages In the United States, following the example of Spanish heritage-language education, interest in heritage-language education in other less commonly taught languages, especially Asian languages, is growing. For students from Asian immigrant backgrounds whose languages are written in characters rather than in alphabets, learning problems created by the discrepancy between their advance levels of informal commu222
High-Stakes Assessment Kondo-Brown, K. 2000. “Acculturation and Identity among Bilingual Heritage Students of Japanese.” Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 6:1–19. Krashen, Stephen, Lucy Tse, and Jeff McQuillan, eds. 1998. Heritage Language Development. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. McQuillan, Jeff. 1996. “How Should Heritage Languages Be Taught?: The Effects of a Free Voluntary Reading Program.” Foreign Language Annals 29:56–72. Merino, Barbara J., Henry T. Trueba, and Fabián A. Samaniego, eds. 1993. Language and Culture in Learning: Teaching Spanish to Native Speakers of Spanish. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Valdés, Guadalupe. 1995. “The Teaching of Minority Languages as Academic Subjects: Pedagogical and Theoretical Challenges.” The Modern Language Journal 79:299–328. Webb, John B., and Barbara L. Miller. 2000. Teaching Heritage Language Learners: Voices from the Classroom. New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
ended questions require students to provide their own answers, whereas selected-response items allow students to choose their answers from several test-provided possibilities. Most states began high-stakes testing by measuring students’ abilities in reading, writing, and mathematics. Over time, the assessments expanded to include science and social studies, with many states currently developing tests for an even more extensive list of subject areas. Criticisms of High-Stakes Testing Opponents of high-stakes assessment focus on its structure and misuse. They believe that it is unethical and unsound practice to make any educational decision on the basis of one test score. Scott Thompson (2001) reported recently that whenever a high-stakes, standardized measure is imposed as the sole criterion for judging student success, it replaces existing content or performance standards. Opponents also note that high-stakes tests do not have sufficient reliability and validity for the purposes for which they are being used. To correct this deficiency, Donald Gratz (2000) has proposed standards for testing. These would ensure that the constructs (e.g., academic standards) that the test measures are relevant and fair and that the test assesses what it purports to assess. Many researchers report that high-stakes assessments often fail to evaluate students’ knowledge accurately. Because reading is such a complex process, literacy professionals, in particular, believe that high-stakes tests do not provide a full and accurate view of students’ abilities. They suggest that policymakers should design assessment plans that are considerate of reading, learning to read, and the teaching of reading. They further note that policymakers should rely on multiple measures and use sampling when possible, but they should not use incentives or attempt to manipulate instruction (Hoffman et al., 1993; Santa, Silver, and Valencia, 1999). Other controversies regarding high-stakes assessment have arisen because the results have been used for a wide variety of purposes. These include meeting a consumer demand for credentialing, transferring control of curriculum and graduation standards from the local level to state departments of education, describing publicly the performance of individual students, and defining the nature of educational priorities
High-Stakes Assessment High-stakes assessment uses the results of a single measure to make important decisions about student progress or the effectiveness of instruction. Proponents of high-stakes assessment claim that it is a catalyst for reform that promotes higher expectations for student performance. Enacted by policymakers with the intention of improving education, high-stakes tests are designed for numerous purposes, including making comparisons of students across the nation. Assessments of this sort are most frequently developed at the state level and administered annually to a number of different grades. Florida’s Comprehensive State Assessment and Virginia’s Standards of Learning Tests are examples of such measures. High-stakes assessments at the state level have been designed to report school performance, change curriculum and assessment practices, evaluate curricular changes, and monitor program effectiveness. Nearly all states have such measures in place. The most frequently used types of questions are performance based, openended, and selected response. Writing essays in response to prompts or creating math problems and solutions based on test-provided information are examples of performance tasks. Open223
History of Reading Instruction Hoffman, James V., Kathryn Au, Colin Harrison, Scott Paris, P. David Pearson, Carol Minnick, George Madaus, and Thomas Kellaghan. 1993. “Testing as a Mechanism of Public Policy: A Brief History and Description.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 26(1):6–10. Santa, Minnick, Sarah H. Silver, and Sheila Valencia. 1999. “High-Stakes Assessments in Reading: Consequences, Concerns, and Common Sense.” In Shelby J. Barrentine, ed., Reading Assessment: Principles and Practices for Elementary Teachers, pp. 247–260. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Thompson, Scott. 2001. “The Authentic Standards Movement and Its Evil Twin.” Phi Delta Kappan 82:358–362.
(Hoffman et al., 1993). The outcomes of such assessments impact students, teachers, administrators, and school districts by affecting promotion, retention, instructional effectiveness, teacher salary, and the school district’s funding. Highstakes tests are viewed as being misused in evaluating teachers and schools because they have no connection to the school’s content standards or curriculum (Thompson, 2001). In addition to numerous individual researchers, professional educational organizations including the American Educational Research Association (AERA), the International Reading Association (IRA), the National Council Teachers of English (NCTE), and the National Reading Conference (NRC) have issued resolutions or position statements declaring opposition to high-stakes testing.
History of Reading Instruction
Relationship to State Standards High-stakes assessments at the state level are usually highly correlated with state standards and designed to measure student progress in attaining them. School districts often design down from the state standards to create benchmarks or grade-level indicators of expected student performance. This results in high-stakes testing affecting everyday teaching and learning. The relationship between state assessments and state standards can also be viewed as problematic. The control of curriculum and limitation of instruction are two examples. Because high-stakes testing is inextricably linked to important rewards and sanctions, school districts often tailor the curriculum to accommodate subject areas and topics addressed in the tests. This can result in a narrowing of the school district’s curriculum, which can affect what the students learn. In the classroom, teachers may not only find themselves teaching to the test but also spending inordinate amounts of time on test preparations, including the use of instructional materials that mirror high-stakes testing formats, content, and question types. Such practices can diminish students’ access to meaningful instruction. Maureen McLaughlin
We limit our discussion of reading instruction in colonial America and the United States to formal school instruction in reading English. Six features are constant: (1) the importance of the milieu of the times (see Literacy and Culture), (2) the pedagogical context, (3) the resulting methods and materials of reading instruction, (4) the mentoring provided to teachers (see Teacher Education in Literacy), (5) the presence of stakeholders: the learners themselves, teachers and principals of schools, parents, and other groups, and (6) the relationship of reading series to the publishing industry, whose most important motivations are commercial (see Commercial Reading Programs). Our focus is on the first three features—milieu, pedagogy, and methods and materials—alluding to the others when necessary. We begin with textbooks, which until the 1980s were used nationwide to teach reading. Colonial America Motivated by the belief that salvation required the ability to read the Bible, the colony of Massachusetts passed the earliest law on reading in 1642, requiring all parents and masters of apprentices to have their children taught to read. The first Massachusetts schooling law of 1647 mandated townships of over fifty families to support a schoolmaster to teach writing and reading. The only method in use was the alphabet method, which proceeded from part to whole. Children were taught to spell aloud the letter
See Also Reading Assessment; Writing Assessment; Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts References Gratz, Donald B. 2000. “High Standards for Whom?” Phi Delta Kappan 81:681–687.
224
History of Reading Instruction
Native American students at the Carlisle Indian School (c. 1903), which forced them to abandon their traditional ways (Corbis)
English Tongue, dominated the market from the 1760s to the 1780s.
names of a word in sequence, syllable by syllable, and then pronounce the entire word. Reading instruction was conducted orally and early; writing was not begun until children were about seven. The sequence of texts for colonial instruction reflected the Protestantism of most immigrants: the hornbook, primer, Psalter, New Testament, and then the entire Bible. The New-England Primer, in its second edition in 1690, was a bestseller throughout the period. In the absence of international copyright agreements, imported English spelling books were freely reproduced on American presses from the 1730s on, entering the sequence after the primer. They were designed primarily to teaching reading through the alphabet method; spelling instruction was a secondary goal. “Tables” of words were arranged in an increasing number of syllables, organized by syllabic stress and interspersed with “lessons” for connected reading. American reprints of Thomas Dilworth’s speller, A New Guide to the
The Early Republic, 1776–1840 Except for a spelling book by the antislavery activist Anthony Benezet in 1779, the first literacy textbooks written by an American in the new Republic were by Noah Webster (1758–1843). His three-part A Grammatical Institute of the English Language, consisting of a speller, a grammar, and a reader (an advanced text for children who could already read), appeared between 1783 and 1785. Using numerical superscripts to indicate vowel pronunciations, Webster believed his speller would teach the new nation a single system of pronunciation, thus helping unify it. The American Spelling Book, as it was revised and retitled in 1787, reigned until the 1820s. But it slipped in popularity while Webster was working on his American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). So in 1829, Webster, with the aid of 225
History of Reading Instruction Aaron Ely, a New York teacher, issued The Elementary Spelling Book (the “blue-back speller”). Like Webster’s earlier spellers, the Elementary incorporated changes that still distinguish American from British spelling: for example, honor, center for honour, centre (see Spelling). Webster’s grammar and reader, however, fell victim to similar works by Caleb Bingham (1757–1817) and Lindley Murray (1745–1826). Murray, a New Yorker forced into exile in Britain after the Revolution as a Loyalist, began to write literacy textbooks there, including the English Grammar (1795) and The English Reader (1799), soon reproduced by American printers. From 1815 to 1840, Murray’s English Reader was the most popular advanced-reading textbook in the United States.
initially written in 1836 by William Holmes McGuffey (1800–1873). The series’ stories about children, their moral and religious tone, and their large type and illustrations exemplified the changed meaning of a “reader” as an elementary, and not an advanced, reading instructional text. The McGuffey series reigned through various editions until the 1870s, when slipping sales encouraged the major revision of 1879, edited anonymously by Henry Vail. The series’ key rivals in the early decades included Samuel Goodrich’s Goodrich Readers and, briefly, Lyman Cobb’s readers, and from the late 1860s on, the Harper Brothers’ Willson Readers. Other competitors were G. S. Hillard, Salem Town, David Tower, and Charles Sanders. Publishers claimed that teachers could use their series with the old alphabet method or the new word and phonic approaches. From the late 1860s on, many publishers marked unfamiliar words diacritically. These marked, accented, and syllabified words appeared either below or more commonly above a reading lesson (e.g., in the revised edition of the McGuffey Eclectic Readers, 1879). Even when authors promoted the word method, as Charles Barnes did in his New National First Reader (1883), they used sight words only as an introduction, marking words diacritically later in the text. Other innovators used diacritical markings on the entire text (e.g., Edward Ward in his Rational Method in Reading series, 1899). By the end of the century, series were using systematic phonics (e.g., the series by Lewis B. Monroe, Rebecca Pollard, and Ellen Cyr). Another reformist approach was the sentence method, described in George L. Farnham’s The Sentence Method of Reading (1895). This variety of approach was preserved after several publishers consolidated into the American Book Company in 1890. In content, nineteenth-century readers were similar across publishers. Moralizing had become covert rather than overt by the end of the century, but most series sought to build character by promoting the American virtues of honesty, courage, hard work, self-reliance, patriotism, and temperance. The higher-numbered readers included excerpts from British and American authors, with the fifth or sixth reader usually being devoted to rhetoric. Gender stereotyping was commonplace. In terms of author gender, those who com-
Experimentation and Reform, 1826–1883 In the early nineteenth century, American educators were impressed by the work of European educational reformers, particularly by the Swiss educator Johann Pestalozzi (1746–1827). Pestalozzi rejected rote learning and harsh discipline, believed that learning proceeded from concrete experiences and from whole to part, and emphasized children’s capacity for understanding. His theories, imported into the United States by Joseph Neef around 1810, began to influence American educators, including Horace Mann (1796–1859). The major voice of Pestalozzian-based American reform was The American Journal of Education (1825 on), edited by William Russell (1798–1873). Reformers attacked spelling books for their long lists of often incomprehensible words and berated works such as Murray’s English Reader for their multisyllabic essays about adult themes. A common thread among reformers was a focus on meaning. An early text that exhibited the influence of Pestalozzian ideas was Samuel Worcester’s Primer of the English Language (1826). It included instructions to the teacher, introduced prereading activities, and suggested that teachers teach words as wholes before proceeding to analyze them. The common-school movement and the growth of academies expanded the demand for textbooks of all kinds and promoted the evolution of textbooks into graded series. The most popular reading series resulting from these movements were the McGuffey Eclectic Readers, 226
History of Reading Instruction posed literacy textbooks until the last quarter of the nineteenth century were almost exclusively male. However, women were playing an increasingly important role as teachers in the nation’s schools, particularly in the early grades. By 1888, 63 percent of American teachers were women, with 90 percent of them teaching in the cities. This predominance doubtless inspired publishers to ask women teachers and administrators to be textbook authors. An early leader was Edwin Ginn. In 1885, his publishing house printed the Stickney Readers by Jenny Stickney, principal of the Boston Training School for Teachers. From the 1890s to the 1920s, the number of women authors of basal series, reading manuals, and professional texts rose rapidly. They included Mrs. Lewis Monroe, Ellen Cyr, Rebecca Pollard, Sarah Louise Arnold, Sarah Sprague, Emma Gordon, Frances Lilian Taylor, and Ella Flagg Young.
meaning, reserving discussions of the relationship between letters and speech sounds until much later, if at all. The biggest loser was the syllable, which lost its status as the bridge for the beginner between the letter and the word. Three other factors influenced reading instruction at the end of the century. The first was the progressive Francis Wayland Parker’s Talks on Teaching (1883), emphasizing reading as thought-getting. The second was an attack by Charles W. Eliot (1834–1926), president of Harvard University, on the content of readers, which he said lacked literary merit. The third was the theory of G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924) that the development of the child recapitulates the development of the race. From the 1880s to 1930s, the first encouraged reading for meaning; the second promoted more literature in the higher readers; and the third (in combination with Farnham’s sentence approach) fostered the inclusion, in the lower readers, of the myths, fables, and fairy stories that supposedly represented the beliefs of primitive peoples. Silent reading became common practice instead of the oral reading of earlier centuries (see Oral Reading, and Silent Reading), encouraged by Clarence Stone’s Silent and Oral Reading (1922). From about 1920 to 1930, silent reading became so fashionable that it was even used as an initial reading approach in several series. As early as the 1910s, progressive education had a competitor: the measurement movement, derived from the behaviorism of John Broadus Watson (1878–1958) and articulated by Edward Lee Thorndike (1874–1949), whose work promoted testing in reading. Methodologically, devotees of both progressive and measurement approaches accepted the word as the basic unit of instruction rather than the letter. Eye-movement studies (see Eye Movements) were interpreted as supporting the word method for beginning readers. The impact of progressive education on reading series was minimal: Progressives despised textbooks and encouraged children to write and read their own texts. But the impact of the measurement movement was large: word frequency, ascertained by careful word counts, formed the basis for the vocabulary selection in the reading series from the 1920s on. Publishers relied on vocabularies by Thorndike (1921) and Thorndike’s young colleague, Arthur I. Gates (1935).
Progressive Education, Literature, and the Birth of Reading Research, 1870–1940 The word method gained new popularity in the post–Civil War years. Its spread was influenced by the Oswego (New York) State Normal and Training School, whose principal from 1862 until his death was Edward Austin Sheldon (1823–1897). In a new adaptation of Pestalozzian principles, Sheldon advocated teaching reading by showing familiar physical objects that were then named and written as whole words. His ideas, spread by his Lessons on Objects (1870), his manuals, a reading series, and the graduates of his normal school, influenced the teaching of reading throughout the country. The object-method/whole-word approach fit neatly with the rise of the child-centered philosophy of the progressive education movement of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, whose theory was articulated by John Dewey (1859–1952). Dewey believed that schools should reflect society and that schooling should proceed from the child’s interests. Progressive educators embraced the word method for its avoidance of the repetition and drill associated with alphabetic and phonic approaches. The renewed popularity of the word method in this form signaled a radical change in American reading education. Earlier word approaches had only been preparatory to discussions of letter-sound correspondences, but the new word approach moved the child from word directly to 227
History of Reading Instruction Professional Consensus, Parental Dissent, and the Great Society, 1940–1967 Gates’s “intrinsic” approach to phonics instruction (inferring phonic values from known sight words) was accepted by another researcher influenced by the measurement movement, the educational psychologist William S. Gray (1885– 1960). Gray instituted strict vocabulary control and many opportunities for repetition of sight words. His “Dick and Jane” characters in Scott, Foresman’s Basic Reading (1940–1948) became the poster children of the new approach. The content of basal readers changed (see Basal Readers): tales of anthropomorphic animals gave way to children and families in realistic settings. Adult illiteracy had been dramatically revealed by the testing of World War I recruits. The revelation led to Moonlight schools in Kentucky and other programs for teaching literacy to adults (see Adult Literacy). As reading failure was increasingly identified, remedial-reading instruction was expanded to another set of army recruits in World War II, to junior and high schools, and to colleges (see Adolescent Literacy, Developmental and College Reading, and Secondary-School Reading Programs). The reading profession was initially reluctant to accept the concept of dyslexia (see Dyslexia), preferring to identify multiple factors as the causes of reading disability. Approaches toward disability in the 1940s included the kinesthetic approach of Grace Fernald (see Kinesthetic Methods) and synthetic phonics approaches combined with writing, based on the neurological theories of Samuel Torrey Orton (1879–1948). Other innovations of the early twentieth century that still exist today were individualized instruction and language experience approaches, both products of progressive education (see Individualized Reading, and Language Experience Approach). The purposes and techniques of reading also expanded to include study skills and strategies (see Study Skills and Strategies). Meanwhile, manuals for teachers grew ever bulkier even while teachers received increased training in teaching reading. The decades of the 1930s to 1950s marked the era of the “conventional wisdom,” as Jeanne Chall (1921–1999) later called it, enshrined in basal readers. The basic unit for reading instruction was the word (see Sight Words, and Word Recognition). Children were to read for meaning from
the first. Word attack relied heavily on contextual evidence: “clues” included, in order of application, “context,” “configuration,” “structural,” “phonic” (or “phonetic”) (see Phonics Instruction), and “dictionary” clues, as summarized by Gray in On Their Own in Reading (1948). Many classrooms used round-robin reading (see Round Robin Oral Reading) as they put these precepts into practice. As to content, beautifully illustrated stories were filled with white, middle-class, suburban families, mothers in aprons, foolish little sisters, and problem-solving older brothers. The ready acceptance of this approach by the great majority of publishers of reading series was fostered by the fact that textbook authors were also teacher educators and reading researchers. Gray authored or coauthored Scott, Foresman’s Elson Basic Readers (1930), the Elson-Gray Basic Readers (1936–1938), the Basic Readers series (1940–1948), and New Basic Readers (1951– 1957); Gates coauthored Macmillan’s Work-Play Books (1932 on). Few publishers printed anything at odds with this conventional wisdom. This professional consensus was attacked by Rudolf Flesch’s Why Johnny Can’t Read—and What You Can Do about It (1955). Flesch claimed that the word method had reduced learning English to the equivalent of learning Chinese; that reading professionals were in cahoots with the publishing industry; and that professionals had ignored the results of their own research, which had shown that phonics was superior to the whole-word approach. The book struck a chord with parents: it remained on the best-seller list for over thirty weeks. The assailed reading profession closed ranks: in 1956, it combined two earlier reading associations—the International Council for the Improvement of Reading Instruction and the National Association of Remedial Teachers—to form the International Reading Association (see International Reading Association), with Gray as the organization’s first president. The profession solidified its objections to “isolating the sound of the letter” (a crucial feature of phonics) and to any program that did so. Another result of Flesch’s attack was that the few new basal series published over the next decades to present a systematic phonics approach were authored by those outside the reading profession (e.g., Lippincott’s and Open Court’s programs). In 1965, as part of President Johnson’s Great 228
History of Reading Instruction Society, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed, giving billions of dollars to programs for schools, parochial as well as public, taught by remedial-reading teachers (see Title I). Reading professionals had long used the medical metaphor of “diagnosis” and “remediation” to approach reading failure, so schools of education were well equipped to train teachers for the influx of new remedial-reading positions. The civil rights movement of the 1960s and the women’s movement of the 1970s led, respectively, to studies of racist and sexist content in textbooks and to recommendations for change, such as printing readers in African American English (see Ebonics). In 1964, criticism of public education, sparked in part by the Soviet Union’s successful launch of Sputnik in 1957, spurred a search for the “best method” of beginning reading instruction: the federal government funded twenty-seven individual research studies at sites across the nation. In these “First Grade Studies,” investigators compared traditional basal approaches with “newer” approaches in hundreds of classrooms. Guy Bond and Robert Dykstra (1967) analyzed data from fifteen of the studies and concluded that there was more variation within methods than between them and that no one method was superior. Also in 1967, Chall reviewed the existing reading research on methods in her Learning to Read: The Great Debate. She concluded that a change to a code emphasis over a meaning emphasis would enhance children’s acquisition of reading and that “systematic” phonics was superior to “intrinsic” phonics. In response, publishers added more and earlier phonics to existing look-and-say series, but Chall’s book did not effect radical change in textbook methodology.
tion), whereas Bloom’s and Gagne’s promoted the spread of skill-based remedial-reading labs in junior high schools (see Learning Centers, and Literacy Labs). A radical change in theory caused a radical change in reading practice: after Noam Chomsky (1928–) had offered convincing evidence that language acquisition was innate rather than learned through stimulus-response mechanisms, new insights on reading processes were derived from allied linguistic fields (see Psycholinguistics, and Sociolinguistics and Literacy). A new interdisciplinary field emerged in the 1960s: “cognitive science.” Using the computer as a metaphor, scholars studied how the mind receives, stores, retrieves, transforms, and transmits information (see Models of the Reading Process). In 1976, the federal government funded the Center for the Study of Reading at the University of Illinois to study how the mind comprehends texts and what methods rooted in this new science should look like. Guided by a cognitive science-based “schema-theoretic” view of reading comprehension (see Reading-Comprehension Processes, and Schema Theory), the center’s impact was far-reaching. Many studies examined how reading comprehension was affected by such features as text structure (see Discourse Analysis, and Narrative and Expository Text). From these studies, recommendations grew on how to compose reading material that was more congruent with how the mind works (see Considerate Text). Strategies for almost every aspect of thinking while reading were developed: some focused on what a reader knew about a topic prior to reading (see Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions), others on strategies for when comprehension breaks down during reading (see Comprehension Strategies), and still others on refining the types of questioning (see Questioning). As constructivist (see Constructivism), holistic, and progressive ways of thinking about literacy gained favor among educators, the wholelanguage movement emerged in the late 1980s, advancing these philosophical tenets (see Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment). The Elementary School Journal in November 1989 devoted its entire issue to the movement. As a philosophy rooted not in a specific method but in a theory of language that assumed reading acquisition occurred as naturally as lan-
Behaviorism Revisited and the New Cognitive Environment, 1965–Present A major influence on the field in the 1970s was a new version of behaviorism based on the work of the psychologist B. F. Skinner (1904–1990), who held that behavior was controlled by its consequences. Similarly behaviorist was the “mastery learning” approach of Benjamin Bloom (1913–1993) and Robert Mills Gagne (1916–), who viewed reading as a cluster of hierarchical skills that must be mastered up to a set criterion. Skinner’s approach fostered the publication of programmed texts (see Programmed Instruc229
History of Reading Instruction guage acquisition, whole language anchored its view of literacy in three principles: authenticity, integration, and child-centeredness. In practice, this meant that the literacy curriculum was to be enacted in such a way that (1) authentic methods and materials were used, (2) the language arts and content curricula were integrated, and (3) the proficiencies and imagination of children were central to all activity. Teachers flocked to an approach that for the first time allowed them to control the texts of instruction instead of being controlled by the texts. Multiple-choice testing, a key feature of the skills-based movement, yielded in whole-language classrooms to “authentic assessment” (see Authentic Assessment), to analysis of children’s miscues in reading (see Miscue Analysis), and to informal assessment (see Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation). Word identification was encouraged by the use of predictable books (see Predictable Books), reminiscent of the sentence and story approaches of the early twentieth century. At the heart of all this lay inquiry-based learning (see Inquiry-Based Instruction). The consequences for the publishing industry were dramatic but benign: in whole-language classrooms, basal readers fell into disgrace and trade books became the choice (see Trade Books), nonfiction as well as fiction (see Children’s Literature, and Adolescent Literature). Whole language, however, soon had its critics in a politically charged atmosphere (see The Political Nature of Literacy). Linguists derided the notion that the acquisition of literacy was comparable to the acquisition of speech, because not all languages have writing systems and those that do vary widely and also because the perceived antiphonics aspect of the movement, which encouraged “embedded” rather than explicit systematic phonics instruction, upset parents. They pointed to the reading scores of California, which had adopted a literature-based curriculum in 1987 but had ranked almost at the bottom of U.S. states on the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading Assessment (see National Assessment of Educational Progress). They succeeded in getting legislation mandating “systematic, explicit phonics” instruction passed in California and similar legislation in Alabama and Ohio. Although conservative organizations such as Right to Read (see The National Right to Read Foundation) supported this legislative change,
many otherwise liberal parents did so, too. Advocates of systematic phonics instruction invoked research on reading acquisition summarized by Marilyn Adams (1990) that pointed to the crucial role played by phonological and phonemic awareness (see Phonological and Phonemic Awareness) in the successful acquisition of an alphabetical writing system, to the importance of automaticity of word identification (see Automaticity and Reading Fluency), and to the value of explicit instruction. The climate in the first years of the twentyfirst century has been a truce of sorts: the new watchword is a “balanced approach” (see Balanced Literacy Instruction). One continuing debate has concerned “decodable” texts. In a political climate that favors accountability and testing (see Accountability and Testing), including highstakes assessment (see High-Stakes Assessment), and at a time when several government-appointed panels have recently finished their work (see National Reading Panel), the debate over reading methodology, in particular, seems destined to continue. E. Jennifer Monaghan, Douglas K. Hartman, and Charles Monaghan See Also Bilingual Education; English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment; Family Literacy; Literacy in Informal Settings; Literature Circles; Multicultural Literacy; Reading Clinics; Reading Specialists References Adams, Marilyn J. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge: MIT Press. Bond, Guy L., and Robert Dykstra. 1967. “The Cooperative Research Program in First-Grade Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 2:7–142. Chall, Jeanne. 1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. The History of Literacy web site. Available: http://www.historyliteracy.org. Lamport, Harold. 1935. A History of the Teaching of Beginning Reading. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Mathews, Mitford M. 1966. Teaching to Read, Historically Considered. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Monaghan, Charles. 1998. The Murrays of Murray Hill. Brooklyn, NY: Urban History Press. Monaghan, E. Jennifer. 1994. “Gender and Textbooks: Women Writers of Elementary Readers,
230
History of the Book they were also influenced by publishers, editors, censors, economic conditions, social milieus, levels of literacy, technologies of reproduction and distribution, and the demands of the literary marketplace. Book historians, then, study how books shape society and how society shapes books. The basic working model for book historians was sketched out by Robert Darnton in his 1990 essay “What Is the History of Books?” Darnton described the life cycle of every printed book as a “communications circuit,” running from author to publisher to printer to shipper to bookseller to reader. Readers’ responses (as reflected in book sales and reviews) in turn have an impact on the author, inevitably influencing the next book he or she chooses to write. The circuit is thus completed and, in fact, becomes a continuous loop. Moreover, every one of the agents in the communications circuit must respond to prevailing social forces, intellectual movements, economic conditions, sociological trends, and legal sanctions. Reconstructing the complete communications circuit for even one book is a formidable scholarly task, but it can bring an entirely new dimension to the study of literacy. Until recently, historians of literacy were mainly concerned with the extent and acquisition of literacy. Book historians have gone one step further, inquiring into the uses and practices of literacy within a larger cultural and material context. In A Fictive People: Antebellum Economic Development and the American Reading Public (1993), Ronald J. Zboray explored all the converging forces that created the modern reading audience, including new methods of printing, communication, transportation, illumination, and marketing. A model for book historians is William J. Gilmore’s classic, Reading Becomes a Necessity of Life: Material and Cultural Life in Rural New England, 1780–1835 (1989). Gilmore applied Darnton’s communications circuit to a remote corner of the upper Connecticut River Valley, reconstructing in intense detail the sociology of a rural district in the early American Republic. He listed the books found in hundreds of family libraries. He mapped out road, river, and postal communications links, identifying areas that did or did not have easy access to printed matter. He tracked the proliferation of print shops, local newspapers, bookstores, schools, lyceums, debating societies, churches, political clubs, and lending libraries. He measured literacy by counting
1880–1950.” Publishing Research Quarterly 10:28–46. Monaghan, E. Jennifer, and Arlene L. Barry. 1999. Writing the Past: Teaching Reading in Colonial America and the United States, 1640–1940: The Catalog. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Monaghan, E. Jennifer, and E. Wendy Saul. 1987. “The Reader, the Scribe, the Thinker: A Critical Look at the History of American Reading and Writing Instruction.” In T. S. Popkewitz, ed., The Formation of School Subjects: The Struggle for Creating an American Institution, pp. 85–122. Philadelphia: Falmer. Moore, David W., E. Jennifer Monaghan, and Douglas K. Hartman. 1997. “Values of Literacy History.” Reading Research Quarterly 32:90–102. Smith, Nila Banton. 1986. American Reading Instruction. Prologue by L. Courtney, FSC, and epilogue by H. A. Robinson. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Venezky, Richard L. 1987. “A History of the American Reading Textbook.” Elementary School Journal 87:247–265.
History of the Book The history of the book is a new and innovative academic field that is becoming increasingly important to the study of literacy. Broadly, book history is the social, economic, and cultural history of written and printed documents: how they are created, disseminated, used, preserved, and destroyed. It embraces the history of authorship, printing, publishing, the book arts, bookselling and distribution, copyright, censorship, libraries, reading, and (of course) literacy. It is concerned not only with books per se—in this context, “book” is understood to mean any kind of textual document, including periodicals, newspapers, manuscripts, letters, and (most recently) electronic or post-typographic texts. Two fundamental premises underlie all scholarship in book history. The first is that, from the earliest forms of writing to the Internet, script and print have been the primary tools that human societies use to organize themselves, store information, preserve literature, and distribute wealth and power. History itself is reconstructed from documentary evidence: therefore, the study of history should begin with the history of written and printed documents. Those documents were not created solely by their authors, however; 231
History of the Book signatures in deeds, wills, petitions to the state legislature, and shopkeepers’ account books. (By the period 1812 to 1830, men’s literacy in that region was nearly universal and women’s literacy was about 85 percent, one of the highest rates in the world at the time.) Gilmore also tested a hypothesis developed by German historian Rolf Engelsing, who postulated that around 1800 the North Atlantic world experienced a “reading revolution.” This involved a shift from “intensive” to “extensive” reading: that is, from repeated, careful, and often collective reading of a few religious texts (such as the Bible and Pilgrim’s Progress) to rapid consumption of a vast array of more ephemeral secular texts (such as newspapers and novels.) This theory has been much debated among book historians, but Gilmore’s findings tend to support Engelsing. Families devoted to intensive reading of religious literature tended to live on poor and remote farms, and possessed an average of only 1.6 books; families who read secular literature extensively were more prosperous and owned an average of 136.6 volumes. Unlike bibliophiles (who collect rare and beautiful books), book historians study the often perishable texts that were read by ordinary readers: religious tracts, dictionaries, schoolbooks, almanacs, hymnals, pamphlets, popular histories, now-forgotten novels, and even pornography. (Darnton has argued that lewd stories of royal misbehavior helped bring about the French Revolution, whereas Gilmore concluded that John Cleland’s Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure was widely sold under the counter in early nineteenth-century New England.) Book historians are not ashamed to investigate dime novels, comic books, and other lowbrow reading. Critics habitually sneer at middlebrow literature, but in The Making of Middlebrow Culture (1992) Joan Shelley Rubin appreciatively treated such enterprises as the Book-of-the-Month Club, which won huge audiences. Some book historians prefer to call themselves historians of “print culture,” since their purview extends well beyond books as such. In City Reading (1998), David M. Henkin described the blizzard of ephemeral print that bombarded New Yorkers before the Civil War: posters, billboards, street signs, newspaper advertisements, even banknotes. These scraps of paper all provided essential information that enabled urbanites to ne-
gotiate a strange, sprawling, anonymous city. By then New York was already America’s information capital: the city handled 22 percent of the nation’s mail, and New York State produced four times as much printed matter as all the slave states combined. Book history could be defined as a branch of the history of information. Certainly, book historians recognize that all human societies are “information societies,” in which power depends on the possession of knowledge. Since Gutenberg, print has been the prime means of preserving and communicating information. In Knowledge Is Power: The Diffusion of Information in Early America, 1700–1865 (1989), Richard D. Brown reconstructed the origins and use of the nation’s communications infrastructure, including printers, bookshops, postal systems, personal and public libraries, newspapers, steamship routes, telegraph lines, and conversation networks among colonial clergy and lawyers. Although they often teach together in literature departments, there is a crucial difference between literary critics and book historians. Critics study texts, and sometimes try to guess how readers in the past might have responded to those texts. Book historians study actual readers, from Welsh coal miners to New Yorker subscribers, using such sources as memoirs, diaries, marginalia, interviews, sociological surveys, letters to editors (published and unpublished), school and library records, and even the files of censors and police agencies. (The archives of the Inquisition are a valuable resource for studying the literary tastes of heretics.) These two approaches to studying readers’ responses can produce very different results. To take a conspicuous case, feminist critics commonly dismissed romance novels as patriarchal propaganda, subtly indoctrinating women in traditional subservient roles. When Janice Radway interviewed those readers for her book Reading the Romance (1984), however, they reported that they often found empowering and liberating messages even in Harlequins. Precisely because the methods of book history offer a window into the minds of readers, they have been widely adopted by library historians. Louise S. Robbins’s The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown: Civil Rights, Censorship, and the American Library (2000) and Christine Pawley’s Reading on the Middle Border: The Culture of Print in Late Nineteenth-Century 232
Hypertext Rubin, Joan Shelley. 1992. The Making of Middlebrow Culture. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Zboray, Ronald J. 1993. A Fictive People: Antebellum Economic Development and the American Reading Public. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zboray, Ronald J., and Mary Saracino Zboray. 2000. A Handbook for the Study of Book History in the United States. Washington, DC: Center for the Book, Library of Congress.
Osage, Iowa (2001) do not study midwestern public libraries in isolation. They explore the readers and communities these institutions served as well as the social pressures and cultural conflicts that shaped their collections. The Society for the History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP), founded in 1991, is the chief international organization of book historians. It publishes a journal (Book History) and sponsors an annual conference. SHARP also maintains the most extensive web site in the field at www.sharpweb.org, a good starting point for a novice. The American Antiquarian Society in Worcester, Massachusetts, holds the world’s best collection of early American imprints and sponsors a series of summer seminars called the History of the Book in American Culture. Centers for the Book have been established on some campuses (e.g., Pennsylvania State University, University of Iowa), and there are more formal graduate programs at the University of South Carolina, Drew University, and the University of Wisconsin. The Annual Bibliography of the History of the Printed Book and Libraries began in 1970 as a series of printed volumes, but it is now being converted to Book History Online, a searchable and very useful database located at www.kb.nl/ kb/bho/index2. html. Jonathan Rose
Hypertext Hypertext is a digital network consisting of units of information linked in some nontraditional or nonsequential manner. The term hypertext dates from the 1960s and is commonly credited to Ted Nelson, though the underlying idea can be traced back to Vannevar Bush (1945). The original coinage may have been based on the concept of hyperspace, which transcends earlier notions of linear space. Before the advent of affordable microcomputer technology, the notion of hypertext was fairly arcane, of interest to theorists and designers associated with an infant technology. It is now clear that hypertext has important educational implications. Identifying these implications and modifying instruction in order to accommodate them is a challenge to present-day literacy educators.
See Also History of Reading Instruction References Brown, Richard D. 1989. Knowledge Is Power: The Diffusion of Information in Early America, 1700–1865. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Darnton, Robert. 1990. “What Is the History of Books?” In Robert Darnton, ed., The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History, pp. 107–135. New York: W. W. Norton. Gilmore, William J. 1989. Reading Becomes a Necessity of Life: Material and Cultural Life in Rural New England, 1780–1835. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Henkin, David M. 1998 City Reading: Written Words and Public Spaces in Antebellum New York. New York: Columbia University Press. Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Fiction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Robbins, Louise S. 2000. The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown: Civil Rights, Censorship, and the American Library. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Characteristics of Hypertext Hypertexts consist of units (texts, graphics, and so on) and links (pathways established by the writer between units). Hypertexts can be limited, selfcontained, and carefully planned, as in the case of electronic textbook, or unlimited and organic, as in the case of the World Wide Web. Readers of hypertexts are expected to follow the links in order to achieve personal goals. This assumption lends a quite literal dimension to the notion that reading is a process of constructing meaning. Readers of hypertexts are in fact constructing their own texts as they choose their pathways. Control is shared between reader and writer to a far greater extent than in the case of print. Creators of hypertexts generally provide the reader with tools for efficient reading. These include maps and overviews in order to convey an idea of how the hypertext is structured. These 233
Hypertext tools also typically include hierarchical menus and, in the case of large hypertexts, search engines. Jay David Bolter (1998) identified the key difference between hypertext and print as fluidity. Print texts are stable and fixed; they invite a linear reading under the control of the author. Hypertexts, by contrast, are collections of potential texts, depending on the path a particular reader chooses to follow. As more control is transferred to the reader, along with it comes an increased responsibility to create a coherent reading experience. The idea of coherence is an obvious goal of good linear writing, but it is also a goal for good hypertextual reading, for it falls to the reader to construct a coherent whole by successfully integrating the content of multiple texts.
Electronic hypertexts present the same choices but with far greater speed and convenience. These are mixed blessings, however, in that readers who are not sufficiently focused may find themselves far afield in a matter of seconds. How to instill in children the ability to move about purposefully within electronic hypertexts is an unprecedented challenge to literacy educators. Such practices as “looping” (returning to the same units) and “jumping” (ignoring the established, logical links between units) often signal disorientation rather than strategic command of the situation, even among proficient adult readers (Rouet and Levonen, 1996). Some familiar print devices hold promise for fostering hypertext literacy. Graphic organizers, for example, are print analogues that appear to have potential for teaching students to read and write hypertexts. Tree diagrams, herringbones, and semantic webs stress nonlinear structures similar to those used to organize hypertexts. The ability to interpret such devices should transfer to the ability to navigate effectively in hypertext. Moreover, the ability to create such diagrams would appear to serve far better than conventional outlines during the planning phase of hypertext writing.
Print Analogues of Hypertext In an important sense, hypertext has existed at least since the development of the codex book (a book consisting of pages bound on one side). Whenever a reader is presented with choices about what to read next, a hypertext environment exists, even in conventional print formats. The presence of footnotes, marginal glosses, sidebars, glossary entries, and graphics poses a host of implied questions: What should be read first? What can be safely skipped or scanned? What are the logical relationships among units? Even proficient readers sometimes experience difficulties in contending with these choices, and they can be especially daunting to children who lack the experience needed to read purposefully and strategically. A print-based hypertext can be thought of as extending beyond the covers of a single book. A person reading a book in a library may encounter references to other books, for example, and may find it useful to retrieve these books from the shelves where they are stored. These books may in turn reference others that may also be deliberately located by the reader. Writing a research report often entails actions such as these, and the experience may lead to an appreciation of how print sources are linked in logical networks defined and created by their users. This is true not only for nonfiction, in which authors often cite other sources, but for all genres. For example, a person reading a novel set in Europe may find it helpful to consult an atlas, an almanac, or some historical source that can enhance comprehension.
Hypermedia Strictly speaking, hypertext is a network of text sources linked by pathways available to the reader. When nontext elements are included, such as still pictures, audio, animation, and movies, the result is hypermedia. Hypermedia extends the range of choices a reader can make and in fact broadens the notion of reading itself by including the interpretation of nonprint sources of information. The idea of multiple literacies is integral to an understanding of hypermedia and its implications for educators. In hypermedia settings, it is not enough for children to be able to comprehend text. They must be able to use and interpret audiovisual sources as well. The need to orchestrate conventional reading skills with those used to bring meaning to nonprint elements is obvious. The need to redefine the notion of reading in hypermedia environments is also clear, and a broadened viewpoint is justified. Imagine this encyclopedia entry in a hypermedia format. A menu would allow the user to examine the various subtopics, to return to the 234
Hypertext starting point (main menu), or to branch to units not available in this print format. For example, links to examples of hypertexts might be provided, and examples of various graphic units, such as movies, still pictures, audio clips, and animation, could be provided in authentic contexts. Would these features enrich your understanding of the concepts of hypertext and hypermedia? And would they not also confer a responsibility to integrate a variety of information units into coherent knowledge?
ture will be to fully realize them and to respond accordingly. It would be premature to attempt anything like a complete catalogue of the educational implications of hypertext for reading and learning to read, but a few implications are already clear. Supported Text Hypertext offers the promise of assisting readers who would otherwise struggle in a conventional print environment. Mark Horney introduced the notion of supported text to describe hypertextual assistance of many types. They include digitized pronunciations, definitions, simplified text, listening options, second-language translations, even American Sign Language movies. Units that are more frequently thought of as hypertextual are also associated with supported text. These include sidebars, background explanations, enrichment material, movies, graphics, and references (to units both within and beyond the text). The further development of supported text will no doubt lead to novel ways of assisting readers (Anderson-Inman and Horney, 1998). Supported text represents one facet of the extraordinary potential of hypertext.
Metaphors for Hypertext Several metaphors are useful for gaining an appreciation of the nature of hypertext. These are not rival comparisons requiring a choice among them. Rather, they complement one another and bring to light different dimensions of the concept. Hypertext can be perceived as a spine and ribs. A linear text may form the spine, a primary source to read from beginning to end, whereas hypertextual choices are analogous to ribs that can amplify the reading experience at various points along the way. An electronic encyclopedia entry in which cross-references are highlighted illustrates how the spine-and-rib analogy works. Hypertext can also be thought of as a web. Whenever a linear text is absent, a web is a more appropriate analogy. A reader begins at the center and must choose at once which filament to follow. An example of this sort of hypertext is a home page that presents a menu of options but conveys very little information itself. The reader is expected to choose at once which path to pursue. It is not coincidental that the World Wide Web was so named because of this quality. Indeed, it is the world’s largest electronic hypertext. Hypertext can also be seen as a landscape. The reader is a traveler who must “navigate” in order to reach desired destinations. A real landscape, of course, presents choices that are not constrained to predefined pathways, for the real-life traveler can move in any direction. In this sense, the metaphor fails, but the experience of feeling “lost” and of arriving at undesirable locations is familiar to most of us.
Electronic Textbooks Closely related to the idea of supported text is the electronic textbook. CD-ROM textbooks are already commonplace in college, and many contain not only the digital form of the print textbook but other resources as well, including Internet links, exercises, interactive quizzes, and simulations. The entry of electronic textbooks into public schools has been far slower. Hardware access and production costs are formidable problems, but eventually such texts are likely to be mainstays. Stand-alone CD-ROMs may give way to on-line texts, available by subscription and equipped with selected Internet links, interactive features, and record-keeping facilities. Add to these qualities the notion of supported text for struggling readers, and the electronic textbook of the near future would appear to hold great promise. Developing useful electronic texts for younger readers will require close attention to structural issues. Unlike college students, youngsters cannot be left to themselves to learn independently, even in supported text environments. A linear text with a variety of links (a spine-and-rib format) would almost undoubtedly be more effec-
Implications for Literacy Education Electronic hypertext has important implications for the nature of literacy and how best to foster it in children. One of the challenges of the near fu235
Hypertext tive than a topical approach, like that of an encyclopedia. Moreover, monitoring comprehension would be an indispensable aid to teachers. The design of effective electronic textbooks poses an important challenge to publishers, one that will require a thorough understanding of reading in hypertextual settings.
Just as word processors have altered the writing process (and with it the pedagogy of writing) by supporting mechanics and facilitating revision, software is emerging that guides and scaffolds the creation of hypertexts. Using such software should result in students who are better able not only to write hypertexts but read them as well. There is no reason the reciprocal nature of reading and writing should not pertain to hypertext, and this fact suggests an additional reason for teaching students to write hypertexts. Doing so will make them better readers of hypertexts.
Strategic Reading The need to read strategically and thus to navigate purposefully in hypertext environments is already apparent. Many educators are currently contending with the necessity of preparing students to meet this challenge through Internet projects and other activities. However, effective pedagogy is still developing. Clearly, the cognitive demands of hypertext exceed those of print. A reader must not only comprehend the content of each unit but must also (1) remain oriented within the hypertext network, (2) decide where to go next, and (3) keep track of units previously visited (Rouet and Levonen, 1996). These skills have few counterparts in the world of conventional print. One of the early predictions for hypertext was that it would aid comprehension by mirroring the associative nature of thinking. The reality appears to be that simply immersing a reader in a large network of information does not guarantee that the reader will be able to integrate it effectively. Indeed, the reverse may be true, creating a mandate for teachers to foster in their students the ability to “hyper-read.”
Prospects Hypertext is here to stay. The World Wide Web assures its continued presence both in the home and in the workplace. If literacy educators are to adequately prepare children for the world they will enter as adults, then acknowledging the unique character of hypertext is essential. Conventional notions of reading and writing must be broadened to accommodate the realities of nonlinear literacies. Research into hypertext is likely to improve its design and to enable individuals to better avail themselves of its advantages and negotiate its pitfalls, both as readers and writers. JeanFrançois Rouet and his colleagues have identified three more or less distinct lines of investigation (Rouet et al., 1996). One area concerns the cognitive processing involved in reading and writing hypertexts. Another focuses on ergonomics, the study of the interaction between human beings and complex devices. A third entails the educational issues raised by hypertext. In the years ahead, it is likely that these three lines of inquiry will mutually inform one another, resulting in better hypertexts and in individuals better able to use and create them. Michael C. McKenna
Writing The advent of word processing had the effect of launching writing instruction into electronic environments. These environments have been largely linear, however. Bolter (1998) has described the need for teachers to develop the ability to create hypertext and hypermedia as a mainstay of writing ability. Although most of the skills attendant on writing in print environments also pertain to the writing of hypertext, it is apparent that unprecedented skills are also needed. For example, students must be able to structure the links of a hypertext and know which nontext media are most likely to support an author’s purpose. Studies have shown that middle-school students are not only capable of mastering this sort of composition but that they flourish when afforded the opportunity.
See Also Post-Typographic References Anderson-Inman, Lynne, and Mark A. Horney. 1998. “Transforming Text for At-Risk Readers.” In D. Reinking, Michael C. McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, and Ronald D. Kieffer, eds., Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a PostTypographic World, pp. 15–43. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bolter, Jay David. 1998. “Hypertext and the Question of Visual Literacy.” In D. Reinking, Michael C.
236
Hypertext Empirical Studies and Their Implications.” In Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand J. Spiro, eds., Hypertext and Cognition, pp. 9–23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rouet, Jean-François, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand J. Spiro. 1996. “An Introduction to Hypertext and Cognition.” In Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand J. Spiro, eds., Hypertext and Cognition, pp. 3–8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, and Ronald D. Kieffer, eds., Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-Typographic World, pp. 3–13. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bush, Vannevar. 1945. “As We May Think.” Atlantic Monthly 176 (1):101–108. Reinking, David. 1997. “Me and My Hypertext:) A Multiple Digression Analysis of Technology and Literacy (sic).” Reading Teacher 50:626–643. Rouet, Jean-François, and Jarmo J. Levonen. 1996. “Studying and Learning with Hypertext:
237
I Successful Text Processing When children are engaged in independent reading, they exert flexibility and control over their reading processes. Those researchers who have looked at fluency and self-monitoring behaviors while investigating eye movements, as well as those who have examined the use of informalreading inventories, miscue analysis, and running records, have lent their expertise to understanding independent reading. They concur that independent reading is marked by speed and accuracy as the reader coordinates comprehension and word-recognition strategies. Because independent readers can access multiple-cueing systems (semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic) and integrate them to achieve meaning, their oral reading is automatic, smooth, and effortless. Kenneth Goodman, who first used the term miscue to describe deviations readers make from text, and Marie Clay, who developed the running record, taught the necessity of looking closely at patterns of errors during oral reading in order to develop a picture of a child’s reading abilities. Counting errors and comparing totals to the number of words read altogether can, they said, give us a sense of how well children understand text. Children with miscues of between zero and five out of every 100 words usually have a satisfactory understanding of text, and one can be reasonably confident that such children are able to successfully read other similar material. In other words, oral reading provides a window into whether a particular text is easy or hard, with a 95–100-percent accuracy rate identifying texts within the reader’s independentreading level. Still, one must be cautious about using word recognition as the only indicator for determining whether material is easy or hard. Even if oral accuracy rates are high, a slow read-
Independent Reading Independent reading represents the mode by which a reader successfully processes text orally or silently and also signifies an important component of a classroom literacy program wherein students are given time and encouragement to read books on their own. Reading at an independent level is marked by ease in word recognition and high comprehension. Due to the widespread belief that independent reading promotes higher achievement, professional literature often emphasizes the importance of having students at all levels read independently daily. Motivators or incentives, such as classroom collections and good reading models, can help to induce children to read books that are at appropriate levels and of high interest. Sustained silent reading (SSR) and reading workshops are also frequently used to stimulate and support independent reading. As early as 1908, Edmund Burke Huey insisted that silent reading, or selective reading, or reading what is essential, is golden practice in the training of judgment. Other early proponents of the need for and value of independent reading dating back to the 1950s and 1960s include Walter Barbe, Marie Clay, Dolores Durkin, Don Holdaway, Frank Smith, and Jeanette Veatch. These individuals as well as the following are represented in the ideas discussed here. They have all researched or helped to translate research into practice in regard to independent reading: Richard Allington, Nancie Atwell, Brian Cambourne, Eugene Cramer, Patricia Cunningham, Irene Fountas, Linda Gambrell, Jerry Johns, Marlene McCracken, Robert McCracken, Larry Mikulecky, Lesley Mandel Morrow, Victor Nell, P. David Pearson, Gay Su Pinnell, Regie Routman, Dixie Lee Spiegel, Dorothy Strickland, and Keith Stanovich. 239
Independent Reading
One child reads while her classmates are engaged in other activities (Elizabeth Crews)
daily increases their knowledge of words, sentence structure, text structure, literary forms, and the world in general, a recent analysis of studies demonstrates the difficulty of proving a causal link. This is because most studies looking at the efficacy of independent reading are correlational in nature. The fact that good readers read more could be a direct result of their reading practice, but it could also be that as good readers, they choose to read more simply because it is something they already do well. Two questions persist: Does independent reading stimulate reading achievement, or does reading achievement stimulate independent reading? A recent investigation related to this question was included in the widely publicized work of the National Reading Panel in 2000. The panel was convened by legislative mandate by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) for the express purpose of assessing the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read. One of the seven
ing rate, poor phrasing, inappropriate intonation (not approximating good oral expression), inadequate retelling, or poor response to questions may signal that the reader is not within his or her independent zone. Effects on Reading Achievement Practitioners and researchers alike have long stressed that children’s reading more both in and out of school will increase their word knowledge, fluency, and reading comprehension. They reason, for example, that if children in grades three through twelve learn the meanings of 3,000 new words yearly, as they seem to do, then it would be impossible to teach all those new words directly. Instruction would have to insure the mastery of fifteen new words daily. Researchers argue, therefore, that it is more reasonable to assume that most new words are learned incidentally through reading, and most through independent reading. Although it is reasonable to expect that increasing the amount of time children spend reading books, magazines, and even comic books 240
Independent Reading broad areas the panel addressed included a look at programs that seek to increase the amount of children’s independent reading in order to improve reading achievement. Only fourteen studies published in peer-reviewed journals since 1991 met the selection criteria of the panel, and many of these were weak in research design. Three significant aspects of the fourteen studies are worthy of note, however, when looking at the effects of independent reading on fluency, vocabulary development, and reading comprehension. First, most of the studies emphasized the involvement of students in sustained silent reading with minimal guidance or feedback. Second, at the end of instructional treatments, students involved in the studies were most often given standardized or informal tests to measure overall achievement gains. Only changes in vocabulary or comprehension were noted. Third, because the studies varied widely in the quality of their methodology and in the outcome variables they measured, only trends could be identified. From the experimental evidence, therefore, the panel could neither confirm nor deny the possibility that programs that increase the amount of children’s independent reading will also increase reading achievement. Correlational studies overwhelmingly remain the best evidence that such a positive relationship exists. Wide use of independent reading programs persists in identified “best-practice” classrooms, and professional literature abounds with descriptions of benefits and strategies for increasing students’ independent reading inside and outside of school.
time still averages only about fifteen minutes per school day. At home, half of all fifth graders spend only four minutes reading daily. Overall, this supports other findings that students read less outside of school as they progress through the grades. The Commission on Reading has suggested that two hours of out-of-school independent reading weekly is a reasonable expectation for students by the time they reach third or fourth grade. More recent publications, such as those by the National Research Council and the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), which focus on successful strategies for beginning readers, stress the inclusion of daily independent reading as an important component of well-designed primary-grade classrooms. Motivators and Incentives As indicated earlier, children who enjoy reading are likely to read more. Perhaps one of the strongest motivators for independent reading, then, is finding books that are a good fit for the reader. It has already been mentioned that children can read independently for extended periods of time when they are matched with books they can read with 95-percent or higher word accuracy. For the past thirty years, Marie Clay has promoted leveled books (those whose text is analyzed and ranked according to specific criteria) for beginning readers to insure an appropriate match with children’s instructional and independent reading levels. More recently, Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell have also produced guidelines for matching books to the wide range of readers found in most elementary classrooms. Their book lists representing a variety of publishers are designed to support a rich classroom literacy program at home and at school that includes reading aloud and shared, guided, and independent reading. Fountas and Pinnell use the term “just right” to represent those texts that offer beginning readers an appropriate amount of challenge and support when reading on their own or when receiving support. They view independent reading as an extension of guided reading, in which children receive instructional support using materials with which they have at least a 90-percent oral-accuracy rate. Leveled collections allow children to read books easily and find enjoyment in the experience because books are being reread or
Recommended Amounts Average minutes per day spent reading books is often cited as the best predictor of reading comprehension, size of vocabulary, and overall reading achievement with both elementary- and secondary-age students. Whether at home or at school, however, there are strong indications that American children do not spend much time reading independently. For example, the report of the Commission on Reading stated that on the average, children spend just seven to eight minutes each day reading silently in the typical primary classroom. That calculates to less than 10 percent of the total time devoted to reading. There is an increase in in-school independent reading by the middle grades, but silent reading 241
Independent Reading purposefully selected with each child’s current competencies in mind. They suggest the use of plentiful classroom collections, including boxes or tubs of appropriate books placed near children for browsing and for selecting materials to read on their own throughout the day. A key, then, to promoting independent reading is having books readily accessible to children through a well-developed classroom library. Although school and public libraries are also important sources of books for children and teenagers, children in classrooms that have rich collections of books read more, have better attitudes about reading, and make greater gains in reading comprehension than children in classrooms without such materials at their fingertips. Self-selection also plays a significant role in motivating involvement in independent reading. Consistent findings across studies speaks to the power of choice and supports the notion that students who are encouraged to choose their own reading material expend more effort and persist in understanding that material. Also, studies show a strong correlation between choice and the development of intrinsic motivation for reading. That learning is facilitated by social interaction is no less true for reading than for learning in general. Students who engage in frequent discussions about their reading with their classmates and others are also more motivated to read and, thus, read more. Most certainly, sharing provides opportunities for students to become familiar with a wider range of literature titles and genres as students exchange recommendations. Teachers, parents, students, and community members who are enthusiastic and explicit reading models have a significant effect on students’ own reading habits. Reading aloud is recalled time and time again as one of the most effective methods for creating capable readers who love to read. For example, research suggests that teachers who are avid readers themselves have students who read more. When they read aloud and share their reading experiences with students, they are showing clearly how important reading is and how it enriches their lives. Other reading activities that are designed to arouse interest in reading are especially important for students without literacy-rich backgrounds. Whole-school reading days, visits from guest authors, and efforts to involve parents at
home and at school have merit. Community volunteers can also help by serving as after-school reading buddies. Public librarians support school goals when they develop high-interest programs that promote books. Numerous national efforts also encourage and celebrate voluntary reading at all levels. A few examples that mark the yearly calendar are Read across America Day, National Literacy Day, Get Caught Reading Campaign, U.S. National Library Week, and National Children’s Book Week. Two hit Public Broadcasting System (PBS) series, Reading Rainbow and Between the Lions, have also targeted children and books. All have been useful in publicly promoting awareness and involvement in reading as a valuable leisure-time activity. Studies that have examined the feasibility of using extrinsic rewards as literacy motivators have found that they should be used sparingly and cautiously. They usually work, however, if they are age and ability appropriate, are used in supportive environments, are used for worthy goals, and are not overused. Extrinsic rewards are best for increasing the amount of reading but work less well in increasing the quality of reading. The following practices are promoted as ways to foster greater involvement in independent reading, even for those students who come from low-literacy homes: immersion in book-rich environments, many exposures to demonstrations about how books are used, engagement in interactions with others around and about books, responsibility for making decisions about the whats, whens, and hows of reading, opportunities to become involved in literacy activities, and supportive interactions with adults with high expectations. Sustained Silent Reading and Other Reading-Time Programs Originally called uninterrupted sustained silent reading (USSR), sustained silent reading (SSR) became popular in the 1970s and 1980s as a means of providing students of all ages with a quiet time for voluntary reading in the classroom, usually for approximately fifteen to twenty minutes. Other creative acronyms developed to describe this time include Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), Go Read a Book (GRAB), Free Reading Every Day (FRED), Read a Book Because It’s There (RABBIT), Reading Is Our Thing (RIOT), Our School Cares about Reading (OSCAR), Sustained Quiet 242
Independent Reading Uninterrupted Independent Reading Time (SQUIRT), and We All Like the Extra Reading (WALTER). Regardless of what the time is called, the cardinal rules enforced in the classroom, or possibly schoolwide, are that everybody will read, no interruptions will be allowed, and no one will be asked to report on what they have read. The emphasis is on free reading for pleasure in self-selected material; the goal is to communicate the value of reading and motivate further reading. Teachers or other adults are to provide students with models of good silent reading by reading quietly themselves near students. Students or teachers may share or give book talks before or after the silent-reading period but are cautioned not to let these activities impinge on reading time. As SSR gained popularity, research studies began examining its effects. As indicated earlier, for the most part studies found little improvement in reading achievement and attitude beyond what students not involved in SSR attained. Investigations by Marlene and Robert McCracken found that programs that were doing poorly were characterized by teachers who did not model reading, students who were distracted or who distracted others from reading, and lowlevel readers who could not find appropriate books. In addition, some SSR periods were too long and insufficient books were available. As a result of the research on SSR and in reaction to the weaknesses found in such programs, the term reading workshop or readers’ workshop has come to designate programs of the 1990s that call for a more active role for the teacher. In the workshop format, students are given time to read silently and respond to a variety of texts of their own choosing. Yet the teacher carefully monitors and intervenes if necessary in the choices students make, students keep a record of what they read, and both teachers and students accept responsibility for monitoring progress as they look at how well skills and strategies are being applied. In some classrooms, reading workshop is used as the primary mode of instruction; in others, it is thought of as one component of a balanced literacy program. Regardless, the term has come to define a more active, involved stance for teachers as opposed to their minimal involvement during the traditional SSR time.
One of the early proponents of a workshop approach as an alternative to traditional reading instruction was Jeanette Veatch. In the 1960s, an era dominated by basal-reading series, she, along with Walter Barbe, promoted an individualized, personalized reading approach, suggesting that children could learn to read using a wide range of self-selected trade books. Others who have promoted personalized literature approaches, which were often referred to as “whole-language” or “literature-based” approaches, include Marie Clay, Kenneth Goodman, Don Holdaway, and Frank Smith. These researchers insisted that children learn to read by being read to, through shared reading experiences, and by reading on their own. Don Holdaway espoused the use of shared book experiences and individual conferences with self-selected reading. He, along with Marie Clay, stressed the need for monitoring individual progress through developmental stages, as well as the use of graded, natural-language texts with early readers. Veatch, Holdaway, and Clay pioneered the concept that self-regulation and the development of a self-improving system characterize the efficiency and automaticity of the independent reader. Beginning in the 1990s, Patricia Cunningham and Dorothy Hall have promoted a reading workshop approach through their four-blocks model as one component of a balanced literacy approach. Their literacy framework, which is more organized and purposeful than most SSR programs, includes a block of time for self-selected reading along with blocks for guided reading, working with words, and writing. During self-selected reading, students spend approximately thirty to forty minutes reading silently and responding to a variety of texts of their own choosing and within their independent-reading levels. Teachers read aloud from a variety of fiction and nonfiction materials, provide mini-lessons to boost their students’ grasp of effective strategies, and confer regularly with students to assess comprehension, encourage appropriate choosing of materials, and document individual progress. Most important, the purpose of this block is to expand the depth and breadth of students’ independent reading. Marrietta Castle See Also National Reading Panel
243
Individualized Reading vidualized reading program (see LiteratureBased Instruction, and Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment). The individualized reading program, sometimes called the individualized reading approach, emerged as an alternative to the traditional basal-reading program in the belief that students profit from reading instruction that is tailored to their individual reading abilities and interests. Jeanette Veatch (1978), a major spokesperson and advocate for the individualized reading program, has written extensively on both the rationale and procedures for classroom implementation of this student-centered instructional program. Central to the individualized reading program are three major tenets: self-selection, in which students primarily read books that they have chosen according to their needs and interests; self-pacing, in which students proceed through the reading at their own rate or speed; and selfseeking, in which students select more advanced reading materials as their reading ability matures and improves. Successful implementation of the individualized reading program depends on the incorporation of certain procedures. The teacher organizes, instructs, and carefully monitors each student’s progress and is the leader and facilitator of the individualized reading program. It is important that a large number of books (a minimum of three per student is suggested) from school, homes, and libraries, appropriate to a variety of interests and reading abilities, be available and accessible to the students. The majority of the reading period is devoted to students’ reading in their chosen book and preparing for regular, individual teacher conferences. A conference area is established where students come to discuss their book, respond to queries from the teacher, and read aloud a small, prepared portion of the book. The teacher evaluates the student’s instructional needs and maintains an individual record in order to monitor the progress and development of each student. The teacher regularly creates flexible groups of students for instruction according to common problems, literacy needs, interests, or ongoing activities pertaining to their reading. Flexible, temporary groups provide focused instruction for students when the teacher determines they have common needs. There are also a variety of activities possible when a book is finished or students wish to pursue an original
References Anderson, Richard C., Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Judith A. Scott, and Ian A. G. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Urbana: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Hiebert, Elfrieda H., P. David Pearson, Barbara M. Taylor, Virginia Richardson, and Scott G. Paris. 1998. Every Child a Reader: Applying Reading Research in the Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). Huey, Edmund B. 1968. The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. Cambridge: MIT Press. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (Reports of the Subgroups). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, eds. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Individualized Reading Individualized reading refers to a classroom structure that has students primarily working independently of other students. The rationale is that individualizing provides for instruction and learning that is appropriate to each student’s ability level and more fully addresses the wide range of individual differences in classrooms. There is no one individualized reading model, but models have traditionally been divided into two major categories: personalized reading instruction (PRI), which tends to be student-centered, and individually prescribed instruction (IPI), which tends to be skill- or curriculum-centered. Several kinds of individualized reading formats are used in elementary and secondary classrooms today. Some procedures and structures that follow individualized reading formats need to be explained. These are the individualized reading program, individually prescribed instruction, and literature-based reading. The Individualized Reading Program The individualized reading program, an instructional reading program developed in the 1950s and 1960s, is a well-established model of personalized reading instruction. Many of the PRI practices developed since then derive from the indi244
Individualized Reading project. Such activities might be a class newspaper, readers’ theater, drama, book sharing, functional and creative writing, art, or research projects in students’ areas of interest, but specifically not workbooks or duplicated skill sheets. The teacher also schedules whole-class time for student interaction and discussion in planning for common classroom concerns, student jobs, or other matters that need the students’ attention.
there are some differences in individually prescribed instruction structures, the common component is that students are working by themselves through sequentially presented materials that are followed by a test to determine mastery of that material. The influence of individually prescribed instruction can be seen in the increase of minimum competency or mastery requirements for promotion or graduation present in educational settings during the late 1900s. By the year 2000, most states in the United States had developed reading proficiency tests, which are administered to K–12 students on a periodic basis. Special education, at all levels, determines behavioral objectives and instruction and mastery levels needed to succeed through the use of an individual education plan (IEP). Scores and measurement methods have become critical to evaluating the effectiveness of a student, a program, or a school. State and federal governments have progressively established mandatory testing at all levels in an attempt to ensure educational quality, measurable student achievement, and school accountability.
Individually Prescribed Instruction By the late 1960s and 1970s, individually prescribed instruction, a quite different form of individualized reading, was incorporated into many school programs. Individually prescribed instruction is a term used when the individualized plan involves a set of predetermined reading objectives (skills), usually presented in a topical, developmental, or sequential order of difficulty. Many programs have 300 to 500 identified objectives. A pretest of these objectives is given to a student, and the teacher or computer identifies the specific items the student did not answer correctly. The student then works on a computer program (see Computer-Assisted Instruction), a teacher-compiled set of materials, or a published program in order to learn the incorrectly answered skill (or skills). When the instructional material has been completed, the student takes a post-test to determine whether the skill (or skills) has been learned or mastered. If it has, the student takes a new pretest for the more difficult objectives at the next level, and the process continues. If the student has not achieved mastery, a different but comparable set of materials becomes the student’s next independent work. In some cases, the program may compose the majority of the students’ reading period; other programs may use individually prescribed instruction for only a portion of reading instruction. Individually prescribed instruction, in different kinds of formats, has become increasingly prevalent since the 1970s and continues to be incorporated in schools through the present day. Most educators are familiar with a number of published programs that follow the basic tenets of individually prescribed instruction. Some of these are: Wisconsin Design, SRA Reading Laboratory Kits, Reader Rabbit, Roberts English, Sullivan Associates Programmed Reading, STAR, and the Chicago Mastery Learning Reading Program (see Programmed Instruction). Although
Literature-Based Reading During the second half of the twentieth century, many reading professionals developed literaturebased programs that supported the use of real literature as the core material for reading instruction. Real literature refers to fiction and nonfiction books that are professionally authored and commercially published (often called “trade books” or “authentic literature”). Many literature-based approaches follow the principles of personalized reading instruction. Nancie Atwell (1987), Kenneth Goodman (1986), Charlotte Huck (1996), and Dorothy Strickland (1994–1995) are some of the advocates often cited as promoters of authentic literature. Student choice of reading materials and large blocks of time for independent reading are central to most literature-based curricula. Literature-based reading is a broad term that does not suggest a particular practice; rather, it requires the use of authentic reading material, not written passages that are contrived in order to focus on skills (“See Spot run”) or simplified by rewriting the original story (“dumbed down”) to serve an instructional goal. The literature may be contained in a published anthology often des245
Individualized Reading ignated by grade levels, or it may be trade books available from school, home, or library. For literature-based reading to be considered individualized, large blocks of the reading period should be scheduled for students to read independently. In an individualized literature-based program, the procedures used during the reading period may vary. A teacher may determine what the students are reading and what assignments follow the actual reading. In other classrooms, a teacher may provide students with choice of material and other activities. This latter format functions more like an adaptation or extension of the individualized reading program, as students self-select and self-pace their reading. Over the years, many individualized literaturebased models have been widely used. Some of the most often cited and implemented are: recreational reading (see Recreational Reading), which has a long history and consists of students reading for pleasure, usually when assigned work is completed; uninterrupted sustained silent reading (USSR), also called sustained silent reading (SSR); Drop Everything and Read (DEAR). Sustained Quiet Uninterrupted Independent Reading Time (SQUIRT) is a model that requires that a certain period of time be regularly set aside for self-selected and independent reading. Everyone present in the class, including the teacher, must read for the entire time. In some schools, this silent reading is also performed in such a way that everyone in the building, visitors included, reads for a common, specified time (see Silent Reading). There is no talking or communicating with others. When the period is over, books are put away and there is no teacher’s assignment or follow-up of any kind. Conversely, readers’ workshop is a term used to describe a setting in which students are actively engaged in reading, discussing, and sharing books that are being read. The teacher may create small groups for “mini-lessons,” arrange for individual or group meetings, and monitor the students’ progress and discussions. Reading recovery (see Reading Recovery) is an early intervention program for at-risk first-grade students. Daily thirty-minute periods with one student and one trained reading-recovery teacher have a core of reading, word study, and writing. The teacher’s careful observation and planning for the student’s needs is the critical core of the required one- to two-year reading-recovery teacher training.
Literature Circles In the literature circles model, different sets of novels or trade books are used (see Literature Circles). The teacher gives a brief “book talk” to the class for each set of titles. Usually five or six books are presented. Each student selects which book to read, then joins the group of students who decided to read the same book. During the reading, discussion groups meet, and students prepare for discussion according to leadership roles that rotate among group members. Educational Implications The broad term individualized reading does not refer to one instructional program or curriculum. To determine what is actually occurring in a classroom setting, the materials, structure, and roles of both students and teacher need to be addressed. It is not enough to be told that a class or school “does” individualized reading. A central issue is who/what is in primary control of students’ reading activities? Is it the teacher, the program, the materials, or the students? This question of democratic versus autocratic classroom organization is an ongoing debate in reading education and in the field of education as a whole. In individualized reading, the models presented exemplify that debate. Personalized reading instruction and most literature-based approaches follow the democratic model in which students have a choice and collaborate with their teachers in planning for reading instruction, materials, and activities. Individually prescribed instruction, however, follows an autocratic model in which the students are given the instruction and materials that have been predetermined by the test, the teacher, or the program. Individuals who are considering implementing or evaluating an individualized reading program need to be cognizant of both the basic procedural and philosophic differences between personalized reading instruction and individually prescribed instruction. Martha H. Rusnak See Also Computer-Assisted Instruction; Literature Circles; Literature-Based Instruction; Programmed Instruction; Reading Recovery; Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment References Atwell, Nancie. 1987. In the Middle: Writing and Reading and Learning with Adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
246
Informal Reading Inventory Daniels, Harvey. 1994. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Elementary Classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Goodman, Kenneth. 1986. What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Huck, Charlotte S. 1996. “Literature-Based Reading Programs: A Retrospective.” New Advocate 9:23–33. Strickland, Dorothy. 1994–1995. “Reinventing Our Literacy Programs: Books, Basics, Balance.” Reading Teacher 48:294–302. Veatch, Jeannette. 1978. Reading in the Elementary School. New York: Richard C. Owen.
Informal reading inventories can assess a student’s listening level, word identification, and comprehension. The listening level is the highest level at which the student can understand material read aloud with 75 percent comprehension. By reading increasingly difficult passages to the student and asking comprehension questions, the examiner can use the results as a rough indicator of the student’s reading potential. To determine the student’s needs in word identification, the examiner can analyze miscues from the word lists and passages read to develop some tentative hypotheses about the student’s sight vocabulary and decoding strategies (e.g., phonics, context, structural analysis). These hypotheses can become the departure point for responsive instruction. The student’s retelling or answers to various types of comprehension questions (e.g., fact, inference, evaluation, vocabulary) can also be analyzed informally to hypothesize instructional needs. The beginnings of what ultimately became known as the IRI began about 100 years ago with the work of Karl Waldo and William S. Gray (see Johns, 2001, for a history of the informal reading inventory). Waldo presented the informal assessment of students’ oral- and silent-reading ability. He initially used oral-reading expression as the sole means for evaluating comprehension. Waldo’s assessment of silent reading and comprehension was based on five minutes of reading for students in grades three through eight. Tests were administered by the same individual to ensure uniformity in administration. Students marked their place after five minutes, and their silent-reading rate was determined. Students were then asked to write a reproduction or complete account of what they had just read. A set of ten questions about the reading material was also given to the students, who were asked to write brief answers to the questions. Scores for rate and reproduction as well as percentages of correct answers were recorded for each student. This test was administered in the early part of the school year. Six months later, another test was given by using selections of the same relative difficulty from the same reading material. Data from the second test were compared with data from the first test to determine whether the students had made any gains in silent-reading rate and comprehension. Waldo’s goal was to use informal tests as one way to impose instruction. Trends in assessing reading at this time centered
Informal Reading Inventory The informal reading inventory (IRI) is perhaps the most widely recognized type of informalreading assessment. An IRI is an individually administered test composed of graded word lists and graded passages that increase in difficulty from beginning reading (pre-primer) through middle school or high school. Comprehension questions accompany the passages. There are provisions for the student to engage in oral and silent reading. There are also ways to adapt IRIs for group administration. The basic purpose of an IRI is to help teachers and specialists determine a student’s three reading levels: independent, instructional, and frustration. Other purposes include establishing the student’s listening level, determining strengths and needs in word identification and comprehension, and evaluating growth in reading. The three reading levels are determined by applying both quantitative and qualitative criteria. At the independent level, quantitative criteria include word-recognition accuracy of 99 percent or better and at least 90-percent comprehension. Qualitative criteria include fluent, rhythmical reading and excellent comprehension based on retelling or questions answered. At the instructional level, quantitative criteria include word recognition of 95 percent and comprehension of 75 percent. Qualitative criteria include using word-identification strategies for unknown words and generally fluent reading. At the frustration level, quantitative criteria include word recognition of 90 percent or less and comprehension of 50 percent or less. Qualitative criteria include word-by-word reading, nervousness, refusals, and poor comprehension. These criteria were initially developed by Emmett Betts in 1946 and remain the basic criteria used today. 247
Informal Reading Inventory mainly on oral reading and rate. Waldo’s study is important because it appears to be one of the earliest attempts to informally assess silent-reading rate and comprehension. William S. Gray’s work also influenced the development of the IRI. His tests were called “Standard Tests,” consisting of eleven paragraphs arranged in order of increasing difficulty and three paragraphs intended for designated grade levels. The oral reading was used to determine oral-reading rate and the ability to pronounce words at sight. Gray listed specific directions for the administration of these paragraphs. The tests were administered individually and a record was kept of both the time required to read each paragraph and the errors made. No evaluation of comprehension was made on the oral reading. After compiling data from 3,000 students, Gray established the criteria for discontinuing the oral reading. The silent-reading paragraphs were then administered to determine rate and comprehension. After the students read each paragraph silently, they were asked to reproduce it. Secondand third-grade students were asked to retell the story; older students were asked to write the story as well as they could. Following this reproduction, the students were given ten questions to answer about the story. Younger students were allowed to dictate their answers; older students wrote their answers. Silent-reading rate was calculated in words read per second. A “quality of silent-reading” score was also obtained by using the student’s reproduction and answers to the questions. Gray’s test of silent reading reflects some of the characteristics found in Waldo’s test. The comprehension assessment is identical except that the younger students who read Gray’s tests were allowed to dictate their answers. The method of calculating the quality of silent reading using the reproductions and comprehension questions is also similar in both tests. Gray, however, used individual testing, whereas Waldo’s assessment involved the group or class as a whole. Several characteristics of today’s IRIs are present in Gray’s tests: paragraphs increasing in difficulty, individual testing by a trained person, an error-marking system, comprehension assessment of silent reading through questions, and criteria for evaluation. The beginnings of the IRI can be seen in the reading tests developed before
1920. Many refinements and contributions were made before the IRI reached its present state, however. By the early 1940s, the “subjective reading inventory” was developed by Emmett Betts for use in the Reading Clinic at Pennsylvania State College. In subsequent years, IRIs became commercially available and procedures were presented for developing and using them (Johnson and Kress, 1965). Research on IRIs reported in professional journals and doctoral dissertations has focused on several themes—appropriate criteria for the independent, instructional, and frustration levels; comparisons of IRI reading levels to standardized tests; quantitative and qualitative aspects of miscue analysis; and the areas of validity, reliability, and training programs. Much of this research was compiled in an annotated reference guide (Johns, 1993). To generalize some major trends in IRI research, the traditional Betts criteria for the instructional level (word identification of 95 percent and comprehension of 75 percent) may be a bit stringent for students in the primary grades. Overall, however, the criteria appear to be generally accepted. Comparisons of IRI instructional levels to standardized tests were investigated in several doctoral dissertations. In general, these studies found that standardized tests overestimated students’ instructional levels. At least ten IRIs are commercially available. Some are accompanied by audio- and videotapes to help facilitate training or by CD-ROMS to help track students’ progress reading. IRIs are also available in Spanish. In the twenty-first century, the emphasis on reading assessment is likely to result in continued use of this long-standing informal method of assessing students’ reading. Jerry L. Johns See Also Group Reading Inventories References Betts, Emmett Albert. 1946. Foundations of Reading Instruction. New York: American Book Company. Johns, Jerry L. 2001. “History of the Informal Reading Inventory.” In Basic Reading Inventory, by Jerry L. Johns, 8th ed., pp. 99–108. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Johns, Jerry L., comp. 1993. Informal Reading Inventories: An Annotated Reference Guide. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University. Johnson, Marjorie Seddon, and Roy A. Kress. 1965. Informal Reading Inventories. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
248
Inquiry-Based Instruction Johnson, Marjorie Seddon, Roy A. Kress, and John J. Pikulski. 1987. Informal Reading Inventories. 2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
tions, otherwise the work that follows may be irrelevant and meaningless. How problems are conceived determines the manner of investigating and the types of data selected or rejected. Once a problem has been defined, inquirers work toward a solution through direct observation of and interaction with phenomena related to the problem. Because inquiry is progressive in determining the problem and the solution, the anticipated consequences or ideas are initially vague. For Dewey, inquiry is always situated and contextual and is approached in response to actual questions. Moreover, inquiry is a reflective activity in which existing tools and materials (tangible and conceptual) are brought together in novel and creative ways to produce new understandings.
Inquiry-Based Instruction Inquiry is a process by which questions are asked, and even the motivations for the questions themselves are questioned, all of which leads to new understandings and new questions. It involves the learner remaining in a sustained state of curiosity and wonderment. Kathy Short, Jerome Harste, and Carolyn Burke (1996) have contended that inquiry should be viewed as a framework for learning, not a skill that children learn. An inquiry-oriented perspective on teaching and learning is different from a discoveryoriented perspective. With inquiry, there are no tangible end points—only new questions to ask. The nature and range of the questions and the ways in which questions are investigated make end points virtually impossible. There is recursive cyclical process at work. Discovery learning, by contrast, has a predefined end in mind, whereby the learner explores concepts primarily through a hands-on approach to arrive at understandings already predetermined by the teacher. Discovery learning is not cyclical in design.
Current Views of Inquiry Dewey’s notions and patterns of inquiry continue to be embodied in current discussions of inquiry. Educational researchers and scholars in the latter half of the twentieth century, such as Bertram Bruce, Judith Lindfors, and Gordon Wells, maintain an important perspective about inquiry. For them and others, inquiry is not a performance tool in science, history, or other subjects. Rather, inquiry is a philosophical stance that pervades all aspects of the classroom. Inquiry involves being open to wondering and puzzlement, trying to test and construct explanations for whatever phenomena are encountered, and acquiring the knowledge that already exists in the culture. Along these lines, inquiry is personal and collaborative. The personalized construction of meaning begins with learners engaged in systematic inquiry about the questions and topics that are personally relevant and interesting. The collaborative nature of inquiry is evident, as the practices (and patterns) of inquiry are not learned in isolation. Rather, teachers and learners make sense of topics that are individually and socially significant through dialogue and conversation. Understandings are jointly constructed. Bertram Bruce and James Levin (2001) appropriated Dewey’s work about curriculum to think about how inquiry, communication, construction, and expression may be used as a model of inquiry. The focus is on asking authentic and relevant questions. Learners define the problem by naming it. They seek information, knowledge, and experiences that will enable them to create
Historical Roots of Inquiry-Based Curriculum To situate inquiry in the context of teaching and learning, it is helpful to reflect on the historical roots of inquiry, primarily the contributions of John Dewey. As an educational philosopher of the early 1900s, Dewey spearheaded the progressive education movement, in which teaching and learning emphasized “learning by doing.” What children know and want to know is the foundation for inquiry, and ultimately for learning. At the heart of this perspective is the coming together of the child’s interests with those of the larger community or society. Dewey suggested in 1938 that an essential part of his framework of logical thinking involved a pattern of inquiry that can be applied both in common sense and science. Dewey’s work outlined a pattern that essentially begins with doubt, uncertainty, and unsettlement. After this initial sense of wonderment, inquirers frame explicit questions about a concept, theory, or experience. The problems should grow out of actual situa249
Inquiry-Based Instruction and form new knowledge. Learners seek to share their ideas with others, wondering if what they are finding is commonplace or true in other circumstances and contexts. In reflecting on their new findings, new questions will surface. Gordon Wells (1999) presented a model of inquiry in which the initial questions are launched and are then followed by research, interpretation, presentation, and reflection. In each of these phases, the learner plans, acts upon, and reviews the ideas or anticipated consequences that Dewey mentioned. The process is recursive in that new understandings and knowledge lead to new and lingering questions. Within this model, learners are engaged in collaborative talk, read and explore a multitude of perspectives, and use available cultural resources to make sense of their questions and emerging understandings. Short, Harste, and Burke (1996) also contributed to the discussion with their model of curriculum as inquiry. In this model, asking questions that are significant to the learner— those that are meaningful and relevant to the lives of the inquirers—is a critical component. To explore the questions, students and teachers draw upon three sources of knowledge, including social and personal knowing, knowledge systems, and sign systems. A social and personal source of knowledge involves knowing how to participate in learning events and how to negotiate and share new understandings with others. Knowledge systems are similar to disciplines, for example, mathematics, science, anthropology, literature, and history. Moreover, sign systems, or ways of representing understandings, include letters, numbers, maps, art, music, and dance, among others. As inquirers gain new understandings, there are additional questions to ask or anomalies to resolve toward understanding. These authors have suggested that these new understandings are temporal in nature and last only until learners begin to ask new questions.
learner has even engaged with the topic—hardly an inducement to wondering. Thus, when authoritarian social relations are present, literacy can mitigate against a spirit of inquiry. For this reason, some teachers in the progressive tradition, valuing inquiry, have suppressed the role of reading and writing in an effort to hold curiosity open and make all answers provisional. Indeed, though some form of signification is fundamental to inquiry, it is possible to inquire without any use of print. Inquirers may directly observe phenomena, predict and reflect in conversations, and employ such technologies as sketching, videotaping, and collecting artifacts in order to record what they find out and make meaning of it. Print as such may not be necessary to inquiry, even if it is helpful in many ways. Because school-based literacy can prematurely close questions and because inquiry can proceed without print, inquiry-oriented educators are cautious to make sure uses of literacy are purposeful and subordinate to the goals of inquirybased instruction. Both reading and writing are obviously useful to inquiry, if classroom conditions can maintain a constructive openness between knowers and knowledge. In some inquirybased classrooms, no portion of the day is dedicated explicitly to reading or writing, since these are viewed as tools for learning, not objects of learning. Rather, literate work occurs as the whole class investigates a topic from the social or natural world or as individuals or small groups pursue independent investigations of self-selected topics. They read to find relevant, useful information and perspectives about the topic, whether it be plant roots or pioneer women. Reading, in this context, permits the learner to engage with more knowledgeable others who are not physically present or available for telephone conversations. No single text is taken as authoritative, and learners consult multiple sources, being particularly attentive to the differences among them. Writing in these classrooms is a tool for recording, reflecting, and posing questions, as well as for representing knowledge, informing others, and taking social action. The purpose of writing in such inquiry is to fix understandings temporarily so the learner can build meaning, revise theories, enlist others into projects, communicate understandings, and plan further investigations. Texts made by individuals and groups function as improvable objects, vehi-
Literacy and Inquiry Inquiry’s unfinished, open-ended nature complicates its relationship to literacy, since use of print may tend to make knowledge seem fixed. In textbooks, dictionaries, encyclopedias, and similar authoritative texts, what is real and known may appear to be fully accounted for in print. Texts such as worksheets and tests pose questions and determine correct answers long before the 250
Instant Messaging cles through which learners can visually represent tentative understandings, looking back at and revising the text as their concepts develop. Other classrooms view texts themselves as objects of inquiry, not as definitive statements about topics but as instances of particular kinds of texts (genres), rhetorical modes, aesthetic approaches, authorial styles, or literate purposes. In these cases, the topic into which learners inquire might be poetry, a particular author, or writing for social action rather than topics about nonlinguistic phenomena such as plant roots or pioneer women. Although the object of inquiry is different, the process is similar, involving a disciplined wonder, sustained investigation, and representations of provisional understandings. In a genre study, learners inquire into how a particular kind of text is written, how readers interact with it, the conditions that generate it, and the sorts of thinking and relationships it inscribes. In such a study, the roles of reading and writing are different than in other kinds of inquiry, since reading is an act of observation, noticing, and recording. Learners are not reading about poetry but rather are reading poetry. Writing may take the form of notes about poetry, but it is more likely to involve the writing of poetry itself. Because the text is also the object of inquiry, there is less of a tendency for readers to take the text as authoritative, as the final word. The fact that inquirers are also makers of similar texts further subverts the potential elevation of the text to anything like the supreme status of textbooks. According to Judith Lindfors (1999), whatever the goal and domain of learning, an inquiry-based classroom is characterized by communicative acts, purposes, and styles that differ from those in classrooms where knowledge is fixed in advance and transmitted from teacher to students. Questions are genuine, in the sense that the questioner does not already have a particular answer in mind. Students value discussion with one another and carry on much of their work in partnerships and small groups. The teacher—as a more experienced co-inquirer—continually demonstrates the language, processes, and dispositions into which students are being inducted. Much of the talk in an inquiry classroom is tentative and designed to explore ideas rather than to recite received facts. Therefore, inquiry-based instruction is as much a description of a discourse style as it is a relationship to reality and epistemology.
Because learners acquire habits of inquiry through the quality of their interactions, an inquiry-based classroom community attends to the fairness and equality of relationships among its members. Students are empowered to innovate, and their initiative is welcomed. Power relationships among students and between teachers and students are interrogated to make sure dialogue remains open. A social atmosphere of trust allows learners to take the intellectual and practical risks necessary to expand knowledge and understanding. Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) has maintained that dialogic language and relationships are the heart of inquiry. Therefore, inquiry-based instruction is closely related to critical literacy (an approach to literacy that questions political assumptions; see Critical Literacy) and literacy education for social justice and democracy. Amy Seely Flint and Randy Bomer See Also Critical Literacy; Social Justice and Literacies References Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bruce, Bertram, and James Levin. 2001. “Roles for New Technologies in Language Arts: Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression.” In Julie Jensen, James Flood, Diane Lapp, and James Squire, eds., Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, pp. 649–657. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Dewey, John. 1938. Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt. Lindfors, Judith. 1999. Children’s Inquiry: Using Language to Make Sense of the World. New York: Teachers College Press. Short, Kathy, and Jerome Harste, with Carolyn Burke. 1996. Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Instant Messaging In just a few short years, instant messaging (IM) has become a communication technology uniquely popular among adolescents in the United States and abroad who have Internet access at home. Instant messaging services (e.g., AOL Instant Messenger [AIM], or Microsoft’s 251
Instant Messaging
Teenagers converse via instant messaging on the computer (Elizabeth Crews)
through the keyboard are developing increasingly refined rhetorical strategies during their often lengthy communication sessions. These strategies point to the role of popular culture in the classroom, to the potential of using IM to connect with adolescents’ informal literacy practices, and to their desire to integrate this knowledge with formal learning.
MSN Messenger Service) allow users to carry on real-time on-line conversations with their peers. Users assemble personalized buddy lists of up to 150 people, and depending on who is also online at a certain moment, they can chat with their buddies instantaneously. Messages tend to be short (one or two lines), with one small window assigned to each buddy and with users often negotiating up to twenty conversations at a time. Mimicking face-to-face conversations, instant messages are peppered with a distinct shorthand lingo (e.g., “how r u?”)—often the shorter the better—and the norm is to type and send short overlapping messages in the spirit of continuous interruption. As both a communication practice grounded in new technology and an engaging social scene, IM has become the favorite activity among huge numbers of twelve- to nineteenyear-olds with home Internet access. Although a relatively new force in popular culture, IM use may have important implications for literacy education. Young people with well-honed typing skills and a strong desire to communicate
Three Levels of Interaction Adolescents self-consciously finesse IM technology to their own creative benefit on three levels—language use, social practice, and surveillance (Lewis and Fabos, 2000). On the level of language use, they manipulate the tone, voice, word choice, subject matter, narrative flow, and visuals of their messages to fit their communication needs. Creativity occurs in a user’s witty one-line reply; in the way a user can quickly enter a window and seamlessly continue a story line (before exiting again and jumping to another story line); in pausing suspensefully before hitting the “return” key and sending a reply; in the 252
Instant Messaging satisfying narrative flow of an entire conversation (which is visibly constructed, can be referred back to, and can be printed out in full); and in the successful creation of multiple narratives between windows that leads to narrative tension, intrigue, and pleasing juxtapositions. These narratives are further flavored by clever user names, visual icons, quotes, message beeps, opening/closing door sounds (to signify a buddy coming or going), and “away” signs that appear in user profiles or pop up when a buddy has temporarily left the computer. On the level of social practice, IM users negotiate patterns of communication through IM to enhance social relationships and social standings in school. For example, users often talk more with their classmates in the IM environment than they do at school, reaching new levels of intimacy. Intimacy is partly possible because IM can erase potential awkwardness when talking to the opposite sex face-to-face: there is no fear of turning “bright red” or running out of things to say. Furthermore, IM users can appear popular by conveying to their buddy audience that they are busy juggling multiple conversations (when in fact they are not): they simply wait before replying to buddies they intend to impress. On the level of surveillance, IM users monitor the IM landscape for their own benefit, combat excessive or unwanted messages, assume alternative identities, and overcome parental restrictions on their on-line communication. For example, an IM user may try to surreptitiously discover who is talking to whom by asking friends to administer a set of questions (which can be copied and pasted) and pass along investigative information, all of which further extends their layered multinarratives. Users also develop savvy ways of blocking or subverting their identities by breaking into parental-control accounts. IM as a literate practice thus demands multiliteracies as it defines and mediates social status.
phistication of IM users’ rhetorical choices compared with the simple linearity of the writing process often represented in the classroom, some researchers argue that we need to be aware of these multiliteracies and adjust our concept of the writing process as it is currently taught (Lewis and Fabos, 2000). The proliferation of IM communication among adolescents also suggests the need for literacy discussions that go beyond text evaluation and consider the social, political, and economic context of Internet technology in and out of school (Luke, 2000). Although IM services have inspired rather compelling literacy practices, these practices are certainly not neutral with regard to corporate interests and the desire to influence youth culture and spending habits. As a free Internet activity, instant messaging has proved to be one of the Internet’s “stickiest” applications, meaning that users tend to leave the instant message screen on for long periods to monitor incoming messages; users’ eyes (and thus, their attention) are “stuck” to the screen. Stickiness is good for business: besides delivering a constant stream of targeted advertisements to IM users, the service also acts as a doorway into all the other services offered by AOL, Microsoft, or Yahoo!, such as search engines, content directories, and e-commerce channels. From a corporate perspective, having a popular IM portal, then, gains user patronage for a whole range of commercial Web services—for the long term. By far the most dominant instant message service is AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), which in 2000 had 90 percent of the U.S. market. AOL purchased ICQ, the template for AIM, in 1998. Together with ICQ, which continues to dominate instant messaging in Europe, AOL boasts over 80 million IM subscribers. Since AOL and ICQ prohibit their users from exchanging messages with competing IM systems, such as Microsoft’s MSN Messenger Service and Yahoo!’s Messenger, AOL has been under considerable attack for exhibiting monopolistic tendencies. The fight, from Microsoft and Yahoo!’s perspective, is worth fighting: besides its potential as a sticky application, IM users also fill out detailed profiles when signing up for the service, providing advertisers with multiple ways to target them as they chat with their friends. Bettina Fabos
The Writing Process and Critical Literacy Researchers of youth cultures and education have begun to examine the social and political uses of popular culture and technologies (e.g., Gee, 2000) and new literacy practices emerging from the digital age (e.g., Sefton-Green, 1998). There has been little research, however, that specifically investigates the impact or benefits of IM on literacy education. Considering the so253
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy deadline decisionmaking. Contracts typically consist of grading procedures, activities, and contract requirements and agreements. For example, in the book How to Eat Fried Worms (Rockwell, 1973), Billy is in the uncomfortable position of having to eat fifteen worms in fifteen days or he loses a bet with his friends. In the contract, students are first asked to read the book, prepare a brief summary, and answer specific comprehension questions. They are then given a choice of activities for varying grades. Activities might include illustrating how earthworms move and how fast they travel or writing a two-page report on the benefits of earthworms to the soil. Contracts are appropriate for fostering independence, focusing on student interest, and accommodating different rates and styles of learning. Disadvantages may include lack of availability of a variety of contracts. In addition, care must be taken to ensure that students select activities to complete that are appropriate to their skill levels.
See Also Adolescent Literacy; Popular Culture References Gee, James Paul. 2000. “Teenagers in New Times: A New Literacy Studies Perspective.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5):412–420. Lewis, Cynthia, and Bettina Fabos. 2000. “But Will It Work in the Heartland? A Response and Illustration.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5):462–469. Luke, Allan. 2000. “Critical Literacy in Australia: A Matter of Context and Standpoint.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5):448–459. Sefton-Green, Julian. 1998. “Introduction: Being Young in the Digital Age.” In Julian Sefton-Green, ed., Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia, pp. 1–20. London: University College London Press.
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy Inter- (between, among, within) disciplinary (an area of knowledge, a subject) approaches include individualized instruction, subject-centered curriculum, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curriculum, service learning, and curriculum integration. Interdisciplinary approaches to literacy refer to the type, presentation, format, and intent of curriculum that provides for independent thinkers, writers, and readers. In each approach to literacy, the focus is on student understanding and application of reading, writing, and language skills. Individualized instruction, subject-centered curriculum, and interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curriculum primarily focus on mastering content from the subjects involved, whereas service learning and curriculum integration focus on problems of life experience and mastering content from the subjects involved. Individualized instruction includes contracts, learning centers, and virtual-based curriculum. Individualized curriculum is designed by the teacher or a team of teachers, textbook companies, researchers, and, to some degree, students. In this approach to literacy, individuals or small groups of students work on activities designed to address a particular need or deepen understanding about concepts.
Learning Centers Learning centers are classroom areas where students go to do structured or unstructured independent work on a given topic or subject. The time frame and setup of a learning center depends upon the purpose. For example, if the purpose is to promote curiosity and exploration in reading, a teacher might organize a learning center on the five senses. In a yearlong “sense surround learning center,” a student could choose a box containing a trade book. Also included in the box would be items related to the book so that as the child reads, his or her sense of taste, touch, smell, sight, and sound would be heightened. Advantages for this approach include versatility and variation of centers. Disadvantages may include lack of resources, space, planning time, and setup and breakdown time. Virtual-Based Curriculum Virtual-based curriculum, sometimes referred to as computer-based instruction, provides students with opportunities to gain literacy skills by engaging in decisionmaking and problem-solving activities. Virtual-based curriculum is normally developed by computer software companies, researchers, or curriculum specialists. The typical virtual-based curriculum consists of instruction, references, exercises, problems, and self-correcting materials that a student needs to
Contracts Contracts are independent studies allowing opportunities for goal, interest, evaluation, and 254
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy complete independently. An example of virtualbased curriculum is the Arctic Benthic Biota— Links to Global Change (available: http:// www.Utmsi.utexas.edu/staff/dunton/sbi/index.h tm). In this interactive program, thematic organizers, class ideas, books, web links, reports, and individual student activities are identified. The goal of the Arctic Benthic Biota curriculum is to provide an opportunity for interactive exchange between scientists and K–12 students on issues related to arctic living resources and native cultures in the context of global change. Advantages for this approach include linkages to daily living; increased motivation; familiarity for students, teachers, and parents; existing course materials; and conceptual cohesion. Disadvantages may include lack of accessible technology, expertise in content areas, and length of time needed for identifying appropriate curriculum.
Parallel Curriculum Parallel curriculum is one in which teachers sequence their lessons to correspond to lessons in the same area in other subjects. For example, students might read Gone with the Wind in their reading class while simultaneously studying the Civil War in their social studies class. In this curriculum, teachers hope that students will make connections among the subjects. Advantages include ease of planning and implementation. Disadvantages may include lack of opportunities for in-depth connection of subjects and isolation of topics. Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Curriculum Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curriculum implies a series of interconnected lessons on a general topic or theme. The intent of interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curriculum is the connection of aspects of two subjects (e.g., language arts and science) or more than two subjects (e.g., language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, the fine arts). Emphasis may be heavier for one subject in the curriculum (e.g., perhaps six weeks of mathematics and only two weeks of science in a thematic unit). Lessons from this type of curriculum might last a day, a week, a year, or even multiple years. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curriculum can be developed for one classroom, a team of students, or an entire school. This curriculum is designed primarily by the teacher, a team of teachers, or textbook companies with little, if any, input from students. Interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary curriculum may be organized around issues (e.g., homelessness), topics (e.g., math mania), current events (e.g., presidential election), concepts (e.g., magnetism), or questions (“Why are rain forests in jeopardy?”). Advantages of interdisciplinary curriculum include the specific attempt to make connections between subjects, flexibility in time/length of unit, and interest in thematic units for students. Disadvantages may include increased teacher planning time, lack of application of content to daily living, and disconnection between theme and student interests and needs.
Subject-Centered Curriculum Subject-centered curriculum focuses on one discipline area or scholarly field or branches of specialized inquiry. Specific bodies of teachable knowledge, such as language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies, are generally taught within a time block during the school day. In this approach, delineations between the subjects are stressed, with emphasis often placed on reading, writing, and communication. Subject-centered curriculum is designed primarily by textbook companies or by the teacher or a team of teachers and is often referred to as discipline based, traditional, or departmentalized. Curriculum may be structured as single lessons, a series of connected lessons, or a thematic unit. Embedded in subject-centered curriculum is the layer-cake approach, in which fields within a discipline are studied. For example, science in high schools often begins with earth science, followed by biology, chemistry, and physics. Subject-centered curriculum can be traced back to Aristotle, who believed that knowledge should be divided into productive disciplines, theoretical disciplines, and practical disciplines. Advantages for this approach include student, teacher, and parent familiarity; existing course materials; and conceptual cohesion. Disadvantages may include the fragmenting effect on students’ learning, lack of personal interaction with others, inattention to student needs, and disconnection with student’s lives and the world.
Service Learning Service learning is a community-based approach to literacy (see Community Literacy). Service 255
Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy learning is a philosophy and methodology involving the application of academic skills to solving real-life problems in the community. The concept is rooted in the Progressive Era and the early 1960s. Curriculum in service learning cuts across multiple subject areas. Service-learning projects are sometimes designed by the teacher and community collaborators or by students working with the teacher and community collaborators. In service learning, literacy in the typical sense is addressed with the added benefit of community literacy. Literacy is promoted in service learning because there is a “need to know” with application of learning. In service learning, participants become involved in service projects, receive no direct monetary or material benefits, commit time or resources, and are motivated to address a community need. Projects are carried out with educational objectives in mind, with reflection and evaluation critical to the process. Reciprocity occurs between those doing the service and those being served. Through service learning, students become active citizens while making contributions to society. Oakland Center Friends is an example of a service-learning curriculum (available: http://www.coe.uga. edu/~epate/) in which fourth-grade self-contained students collaborated with profoundly and severely intellectually disabled students. One group of students collected positive emotional response data during their visits with disabled students; they later graphed the data during mathematics classes. This activity gave students practical mathematics and research experiences based on nontraditional communication efforts. A second group conducted a literature review on cerebral palsy and presented their findings in a slide show to peers and interested parties. This gave students practical experience in research and technology skills. A third group interviewed people who work with special-education children. This gave students practical experience in writing and communication skills. A fourth group wrote a newspaper article based on their experiences and research. This experience improved their reading and writing skills. Advantages of service learning include the application of knowledge, which results in service projects that are beneficial to others, their community, or their environment; increased motivation; and appropriate and interesting text and interactions. Disadvantages
may include increased teacher planning time, perceived lack of attention to standards, and unfamiliarity with service-learning philosophy and practice. Curriculum Integration Curriculum integration involves the collaboration with students and teachers on what is to be learned, why it is to be learned, how it is to be learned, and how it is to be assessed. Themes of study are developed around student interests and concerns with mandated content and skills addressed within the themes. Subjects are used as needed to answer questions, understand issues, and solve problems. Themes might revolve around environmental problems, racial issues, societal needs, and personal concerns. For example, as part of a unit on human interactions and the environment, five girls chose animal testing as their topic. The girls wanted to find answers to such questions as: What is animal testing? Why are some people against using animals in laboratory research? How does animal testing and research affect the world around us? and What are some of the animals used in animal testing? Students read journal and newspaper articles, books, and pamphlets; wrote letters and journal entries; developed rubrics, created portfolios, and delivered presentations to peers and the public (Pate, Homestead, and McGinnis, 1997). In integrated curriculum, students become active participants in their own learning. Teachers become facilitators and instigators of learning. The heart of curriculum integration is democracy. Decisions are made by students and teachers through consensus rather than by teacher or majority rule. Literacy is promoted in curriculum integration because content and skills are applied in context rather than in isolation. Students discover their own particular abilities, talents, interests, values, and preferences as they construct knowledge. Curriculum integration is derived from progressive educational ideas such as the project method, the experience curriculum, and the problem-centered core curriculum. Advantages of curriculum integration include authentic learning centered on real-life situations, problems, and solutions; increased student ownership and responsibility for learning; learning that is contextual/relevant/immediate; increased possibilities for personal and social action inside and outside of school; participation 256
International Reading Association day-to-day operations of the association are carried out by the executive director and a staff of approximately 100 people. The work of the organization is done by its members, primarily through its standing committees, ad hoc committees, and commissions. Its headquarters is in Newark, Delaware, but the organization also maintains offices in Washington, D.C., and Buenos Aires. Literally thousands of literacy projects are carried on by the organization’s local, state, and provincial councils and by its national affiliates and special interest groups. Chiefly, these organizations sponsor or conduct regularly scheduled conferences, workshops, and other meetings that focus on improving reading instruction in public and private schools and the promotion of lifelong habits of extensive reading. The IRA itself produces about twenty new books and videos each year. It publishes a bimonthly newspaper, Reading Today, which provides news about literacy projects and organizations to the entire membership. It also publishes: The Reading Teacher, with a circulation of about 68,000 and a focus on the literacy learning of children; Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, with a circulation of about 15,000 and the focus that its name implies; Reading Research Quarterly, which presents research results and articles about reading theory and practices at all levels (RRQ Online is an add-on service); Lectura y vida, which presents literacy articles in Spanish from Latin America; and Reading Online, the electronic journal of the association. The largest meeting of the IRA is its annual conference, held each year in Canada or the United States. Typically, more than 17,000 attend, with about 1,800 listed as program participants. World congresses are held every two years in a country other than Canada or the United States. These meetings have far fewer attendees but draw from a great many different countries. More information can be found at the IRA web site, available: http://www.reading.org. Bob W. Jerrolds
in democratic environments; and appropriate and interesting text and interactions. Disadvantages of curriculum integration may include unfamiliarity with resources and content, increased planning time, and perceived lack of structure. Interdisciplinary approaches to literacy should match defined goals and have natural connections among subjects. Setting aside time for student and teacher reflection and commitment to the process of collaborative planning and teaching are critical to fostering literacy. Curriculum linkages with student interests and needs and students’ daily lives should be emphasized. P. Elizabeth Pate References Kauchak, D. P., and P. D. Eggen. 1989. Learning and Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Pate, P. Elizabeth, Elaine Homestead, and Karen McGinnis. 1997. Making Integrated Curriculum Work: Teachers, Students, and the Quest for Coherent Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Rockwell, Thomas. 1973. How to Eat Fried Worms. New York: Dell Publishing.
International Reading Association The International Reading Association (IRA) is one of the largest and most influential organizations in the world dedicated to the promotion of literacy. Individual members include classroom teachers, reading specialists, consultants, administrators, supervisors, researchers, psychologists, librarians, media specialists, college and university education faculty members, authors and publishers of books for children, and parents. There are about 100,000 individual and institutional members of the IRA, but the total network consists of the association’s 1,250 councils, fortytwo national affiliates, and forty special interest groups. Thus, with members and affiliates in 100 countries, the total network of the organization reaches approximately 350,000 people in virtually all parts of the world. The IRA officially began January 1, 1956, with the merger of its two parent organizations, the International Council for the Improvement of Reading Instruction, originally formed in 1947, and the National Association of Remedial Teachers, established in 1948. The IRA is governed by its elected officers and board of directors. The
References Jerrolds, Bob W. 1977. Reading Reflections: The History of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
257
Intertextuality ories that argue that texts contain multiple possible meanings and that readers’ interpretations draw on the creation of intertextual links. Studies of intertextuality in literacy and classroom studies often use the idea of intertextuality as a way to represent the various connections students make in a larger web of meaning-making. Studies involving literary texts include examinations of the relationships among the sources of information students draw on to interpret stories (Rogers, 1991), the ways in which readers’ understanding includes linking ideas across stories (Hartmann, 1995), as well as an ability to map the ways in which stories connect to each other. Intertextual linking among literary and other cultural texts, such as artwork, movies, videos, and advertisements, have been studied, even among very young children (Sipe, 2000). Sociolinguistic studies of reading take a broader view, examining the intertextuality among spoken interactions of participants in literacy contexts as well as discerning what kinds of intertextual connections are maintained in particular social contexts (Bloome and Egan-Robertson, 1993). Intertextuality, particularly as a way of conceptualizing the rich interplay of text and discourse, continues to be a fertile area of inquiry as researchers further uncover the ways in which literacy practices are embedded in and reflect larger social and cultural discourse practices. Theresa Rogers and Robert J. Tierney
Adolescent girl responds to media texts by creating another text that extends and disputes ideas in the original text (Barbara Guzzetti)
Intertextuality The term intertextuality, originally coined by Julia Kristeva, is a theory of texts as a network of signs or signifying practices and is based on her reading of the work of Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin. Theories of intertextuality were further developed by post-structuralist scholars such as Roland Barthes, Jacques Derrida, and Jacques Lacan. A more limited sense of the concept implies a relationship between two or more literary texts that influence one another, whereas a broader definition assumes that any given text takes shape in relation to an array of other texts, so that all texts are related in an infinite play of meaning. In this more expansive sense, theories of intertextuality include the interplay of all cultural texts, written and spoken, and draw on analyses of the ways in which they lean on, speak to, echo, or even transform other texts, both explicitly or implicitly. All texts are seen as created in response to other texts and are themselves part of a larger network of meaning. More recent notions of textuality, and intertextuality, have been further extended by Foucauldian concepts of the interplay of textual and institutional discourses. Intertextuality has been linked to shifts away from an emphasis on authorial intention in textual interpretation and toward reader-based the-
See Also Critical Media Literacy; Discourse Analysis; PostStructuralism and Structuralism; Reader Response; Reading-Comprehension Processes References Bloome, David, and Anne Egan-Robertson. 1993. “The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:305–333. Hartmann, Douglas. 1995. “Eight Readers Reading: The Intertextual Links of Proficient Readers Reading Multiple Passages.” Reading Research Quarterly 30:520–560. Rogers, Theresa. 1991. “Students as Literary Critics: The Interpretive Experiences, Beliefs, and Processes of Ninth-Grade Students.” Journal of Reading Behavior 23:391–423. Sipe, Lawrence. 2000. “The Construction of Literary Understanding by First and Second Graders in Oral Response to Picture Storybook ReadAlouds.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:252–275.
258
J Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy
torial focus on “navigating new literacies” has been a deliberate attempt to lead the field of adolescent literacies in a number of areas. These include: the power of new technologies to reshape how youth and adults use traditional print literacy, spoken language, and new media of expression; the emergence of new modes of adolescent identity, textual practice, and critical engagement with both traditional and popular culture; the social facts of multilingual and multicultural student populations across both postindustrial and developing countries; and a broad commitment to inclusive educational approaches to language and literacy education, including the special needs of an increasingly diverse student population. This has involved a stronger global and intercultural perspective, reflected in the cosmopolitan editorial board, and regular articles and columns by international contributors. In recent years, the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy has also become the site for a renewed research, development, and advocacy focus within the International Reading Association and among various educational communities for stronger U.S. policy interventions for adolescents’ reading, writing, and “multiliteracies” (New London Group, 1996). This has included the publication of several major IRA programmatic statements on millennial issues facing youth in new times and on the need for funding and policy. Regular columns now focus on new technologies and “multiliteracies,” on the uses of popular culture in the classroom, on new workplace cultures and literacy practices, and on literacy programs and interventions for an aging population. The editorship of the journal will return to the United States in 2003 under Todd Goodson of
The Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy is published by the International Reading Association (IRA) in Newark, Delaware. It is that organization’s principal research and practitioner journal for middle-school, secondary-school, and adult-literacy educators, teacher educators, and researchers. The journal was founded in 1957 as the Journal of Developmental Reading by the developmental reading staff of Purdue University. From 1964 until 1995, it was called the Journal of Reading and added to the publications of the International Reading Association to address the expanded interest in reading education beyond the initial years of primary education (see International Reading Association). The Journal of Reading was edited by Janet Ramage Binkley of the International Reading Association. With volume 39, issue 1, in 1995, the journal was given its present name and editorial responsibility was transferred to Norman Unrau of California State University, Los Angeles. This marked several paradigm shifts underway in the field in the 1990s, including: a shift in research focus from reading per se to a broader focus on literacy and language education as a unified field, an increasing recognition of the significance of adult and workplace literacy, a stronger developmental focus in educational systems on coherent pathways through school to work and community life by adolescents and young adults. From September 1998 until May 2002, the Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy was edited by John Elkins and Allan Luke of the University of Queensland, Australia. It was the first International Reading Association journal to be edited outside the United States. Its recent edi259
Journal of Literacy Research Kansas State University. Further information is available: http://www.reading.org/publications/ jaal/. John Elkins and Allan Luke
perimental methodologies and its narrow focus on reading. As the field moved toward broader conceptions of literacy, more sociocognitive orientations, and the inclusion of qualitative methodologies, NRC changed the name of its journal to reflect these trends. JLR’s base circulation is approximately 2,000, almost equally divided between NRC members, who receive it as part of their membership, and research libraries. However, its influence on the field and literacy scholarship is broader than these numbers might suggest. The NRC membership has historically included the leading researchers in the field. Further, JLR is abstracted in the ERIC database and in Psychological Abstracts. Since 2000, the full text of JLR articles that have been in print for more than two years have been accessible on its web site (available: http://nrc.oakland.edu/jlr/archive/index.html). David Reinking
See Also Adolescent Literacy; International Reading Association References New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 60 (1):60–92.
Journal of Literacy Research The Journal of Literacy Research (JLR) is a peerreviewed research journal published quarterly by the National Reading Conference (NRC). As described in the statement of purpose published in each issue, JLR is “an interdisciplinary journal publishing research related to literacy, language, and schooling from preschool through adulthood.” Articles published in JLR are mainly reports of original research, but the journal also includes scholarly reviews, conceptual analyses, and theoretical essays. Each issue also typically includes a review of a scholarly book and an invited “Critical Issues” article on topics of interest to literacy researchers. JLR occasionally publishes editorials, commentaries, and letters to the editor. Since 1994, two guest-edited themed issues have been published, and in 1999 a special thirtieth-anniversary issue (volume 31, issue 1) was published with articles focusing on the history of JLR in relation to NRC, its parent organization, and on the journal’s influence on the field. JLR is widely recognized among literacy researchers as one of the most rigorously reviewed and prestigious outlets for literacy research. For example, it is invariably cited in other literacy journals aiming to characterize the status of literacy research or trends within the field (e.g., Kamil and Lane, 1998). Articles in the NRC journal are also frequently cited in the literature, as indicated by an analysis of the Social Sciences Citation Index (McKenna and Robinson, 1999). Of the 70–100 manuscripts submitted to JLR each year, approximately 12–15 percent are eventually accepted for publication. Until 1994, JLR was the Journal of Reading Behavior (JRB). JRB, the NRC’s original title for its journal, had become increasingly anachronistic, with its allusion to behavioristic views and ex-
See Also National Reading Conference References Kamil, Michael L., and Diane M. Lane. 1998. “Researching the Relation between Technology and Literacy: An Agenda for the 21st Century.” In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, and R. D. Kieffer, eds., Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-Typographic World, pp. 323–341. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. McKenna, Michael C., and Richard D. Robinson. 1999. “The Impact of the Journal of Reading Behavior on Reading Scholarship.” Journal of Literacy Research 31:93–104.
Junior Great Books As part of the Great Books Program, the Junior Great Books Program is intended for elementary- and middle-school children. In the Junior Great Books Program, children read and discuss classics in children’s literature. The program emphasizes discussion and interpretive activities that engage students in ideas found in the literature. The program’s philosophy is based on the notion that shared inquiry, in which teachers and students collaborate, enhances meaning-making strategies (Rosenblatt, 1978). Teachers pose thought-provoking questions, and students respond with their own ideas in oral language and in writing. Students then use evidence from the text to develop and refine their interpretations. 260
Junior Great Books The goal of the program is to improve children’s critical-thinking skills in the language arts (reading, writing, speaking, and listening). Junior Great Books begins with a read-aloud program for young children that is intended to bridge the gap between the limitations of children’s early decoding skills and students’ capacity for complex critical thinking. The activities in read-aloud programs include: asking original questions, listening to others, forming opinions, drawing key characters and themes, acting out significant story events, and group creative writing. Sample titles included in the program are: The Frog Prince, The Shoemaker and the Elves, Seasons, and Coyote Rides the Sun. In the elementary- and middle-school programs, children read classics with sophisticated and often complex language and intricate plots. As they read and discuss these pieces of literature, they have opportunities to expand their vocabularies and strengthen their comprehension skills by raising and answering questions, noting significant passages, and supporting their interpretations with evidence they have gathered from the text. Elementary-school children read and discuss works by Rudyard Kipling (How the Camel Got His Hump), Albert Lamorisse (The Red Balloon), Marjorie Williams (The Velveteen Rabbit), the Brothers Grimm (The Brave Little Tailor), Kenneth Grahame (The Wind in the Willows),
Langston Hughes (Thank You, Ma’am), Shirley Jackson (Charles), Doris Lessing (Through the Tunnel), William Saroyan (The Parsley Garden), and Ray Bradbury (The Veldt). Middle-school students read and discuss works by Paula Fox (A Likely Place), John Updike (The Alligators), Walter de la Mare (The Magic Jacket), Alice Munro (Day of the Butterfly), Charles Dickens (A Christmas Carol), Amy Tan (The Joy Luck Club), Maya Angelou (I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), H. G. Wells (The Time Machine), Ethan Canin (Star Food), and Mark Twain (The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn). The Junior Great Books Program is designed to explore questions that are timely and timeless. The aim of the program is to enable children to think for themselves by addressing complex, multifaceted ideas in their discussions. Through discussion of the program’s books, children learn how to consider and evaluate other people’s ideas as they develop their own. They develop the listening skills that enable them to respect and learn from others. James Flood and Diane Lapp See Also Adolescent Literature; Children’s Literature References Rosenblatt, Louise. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
261
K observation, and evaluation strategies (Short and Harste, with Burke, 1996; Bridges, 1996; Clyde and Condon, 1999; Morrison, 2000). Careful observation and interaction (kidwatching) provide evaluation data that play significant roles in enriching the student’s development of language and concepts. Teachers build insider views of students and their classrooms as a result of their knowledge as active members of the classroom community. In ethnographic research, the emic, or insider’s, view is considered extremely important to understanding a cultural community. Ethnographers value careful observation of phenomena by knowledgeable observers who spend intensive time carefully watching, interacting in appropriate ways, taking field notes, and making professionally informed interpretations. Kidwatching teachers are in essence developing ethnographic views of their classrooms and their students. As they are kidwatching, teachers continuously ask themselves such questions as: Why is this happening to the student? What does the student know that allows this to happen? What does this tell me about the intellectual functioning and strategy use of the learner? Teachers use a variety of kidwatching tools, such as informal conversations, formal interviews, home visits, and observations of the students during participation in cultural events, classroom presentations, outdoor activities, and many other contexts. At the same time, they participate in a number of kidwatching strategies.
Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation Kidwatching is embedded in the notion that professional teachers are constantly evaluating their students’ knowledge within the ongoing daily curriculum. The concept of kidwatching legitimizes the significance of professional observation in the classroom by a knowledgeable teacher as the basis for the development of an enriched curriculum informed by ongoing evaluation of pupils’ growth. In this view, evaluation and curriculum are integrally related. Kidwatching acknowledges the importance of professional teachers who are continuously learning throughout their careers and developing insights into language, learning, teaching, and curriculum. The kidwatching concept is an extension of the child-study movement of the 1930s. The importance of curriculum in classrooms, a concept that emerged from teachers knowing and understanding young children, has been a central tenet of the exemplary work of early childhood educators throughout the twentieth century. Earlychildhood scholars have highlighted the importance of classroom observation and the ability of knowledgeable teachers to participate in critical analysis of their students’ work in order to develop whole-language curricula that support the constructivist nature of student’s learning (Katz, 1997). I first used the term kidwatching in 1978 and in a number of other publications (Goodman, 1978, 1985). It has since become a term used often by those who are interested in the development of authentic assessment and other teacher-constructed evaluation procedures. A web search for the term yields many references to chat rooms, course syllabi, district and state curriculum guides, articles and books on innovative
Knowing What, How, and When to Observe Kidwatching involves making observations that are variously planned or spontaneous, formal or informal, and interacting with each student at regular times. Kidwatching takes place in many 263
Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation different contexts because teachers know that students show different capabilities in different settings. Teachers are involved in kidwatching when they step aside from daily activities and observe their students from the sidelines. They are engaging in kidwatching when they interact with their students by asking provocative questions, conversing with a single student, self-reflecting on whole-class discussions, or participating in an over-the-shoulder conference. Sometimes, teachers capture observations quickly, by making field notes or writing down anecdotes, whereas at other times, they may tape-record interactions to gather data for later careful listening or to make transcripts. Teachers record the date and setting, note the names of the kids they are observing, and indicate the event or experience taking place. For example, teachers note which students are using literacy and language with confidence and which need greater support, which students work well together, and which students prefer to work or play independently. They indicate the activities that particular students spend the most time on; how often and what kinds of reading or writing they prefer; the intensity with which they engage with science or math inquiry projects; and the art media they favor. Kidwatching notes, written in short phrases, are recorded on Post-its or labels. Clipboards are often helpful for this purpose. The notes are placed in the student’s individual folder and jog the teacher’s memory at a later date when the time comes to expand on the statements and develop permanent anecdotal records. Kidwatching involves formal analysis of questionnaires, interviews, conferences, learning logs, dialogue journals, portfolios including drafts, ongoing and final projects, transcripts and videos of group and class meetings, and audiotapes of the students’ reading and writing samples. The notes, the tapes, and the transcriptions are kept in the student’s folder for evaluation purposes during student-teacher conferences and to plan curricular experiences that support the student’s growth.
A teacher observes his students at work (Elizabeth Crews)
evaluation and in plans for their learning. They understand the values parents have toward education, the time they have to work with the school; teachers respect the culture, language, and knowledge of the parents and community members. They consider the student’s background to be an important learning resource. They analyze the student’s work, taking into consideration the student’s linguistic and cultural background. They keep and organize records of kidwatching to provide information for parents, the student’s next teachers, and other evaluation purposes. Interacting with Students as They Learn The teacher kidwatches during conferences, listening to students read and discuss their responses and comprehension. They sit next to students while they are writing a journal entry, composing a story, or writing a report on the computer. They interact with students working in the writing center or having a literature discussion and note the confidence with which students read and write. They discover the ways in
Knowing the Sociocultural and Linguistic Backgrounds of Students, Families, and Communities Teachers discover a lot about their students and their families. They read about the backgrounds of the communities and interview parents, inviting them to participate as partners in students’ 264
Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation which their students use a range of reading and writing experiences as an integral part of their learning experiences during inquiry projects, at play, during art and music, and in the publishing center.
They realize that adults also make miscues and learn from their mistakes and that such a process is in the nature of all learning. They participate themselves in the activities they ask of students, and they examine their own responses and reactions.
Understanding Miscues as Integral to Language Development Kidwatching includes formal assessment, during which the teacher works with a student or a small group to document knowledge about the ways in which students use the conventions of language in their reading and writing. Kidwatchers are able to articulate what the evidence reflects about the knowledge and learning strategies of students. For the purposes of evaluating early-literacy development, the teacher looks for book-handling abilities, directionality in reading and writing, reading of captions and signs, and writing of diverse texts. Kidwatchers understand the role of error in language learning and provide evidence that errors are not random and can be used to explain what students know, how language works, and how people learn language. A kidwatcher uses the term miscue rather than error to suggest that what the teacher hears or sees may be unexpected but is based on the cues that are informed by the student’s language, culture, and concept development. With the understanding that miscues provide, teachers plan curricular experiences so students are able to rethink their understanding and expand on their knowledge and concepts.
Involving Students in Self-Evaluation Kidwatching leads to constant evaluation and reevaluation of the ongoing curriculum as it responds to the students and their needs and interests. The data that become the focus of the analysis lead to student and teacher conferences. Teachers involve students in selecting and analyzing their own work to help teachers in maintaining records. In this way, students are involved in documenting their own learning, and learner self-evaluation becomes an integral part of the kidwatching process. Students’ self-evaluation of their own learning involves critical analysis of the ongoing curriculum and leads to a curriculum negotiated between the teacher and the students. The teacher’s questioning of students and kidwatching strategies and tools lead to a rich profile of each student’s learning. In summary, the major purposes of kidwatching are to assess students, involve students in selfassessment, report to parents, keep school records, and, most important, inform the development of an enriched curriculum based on evidence regarding the needs of the students. Teachers know more about the students in their classrooms than anyone else except their parents. Knowledgeable teachers know that the more information they gather about their students as they observe and interact with them, the more they are able to take the students’ abilities into consideration as they plan for the ongoing curriculum. Kidwatching builds teachers’ knowledge about every student’s development, and students therefore come to trust the learning process. It is necessary for the public to learn to trust the judgments of teachers and their professional insights, so that the public becomes confident about teachers’ expertise in observing learning and learners in their classrooms and in their ability to use their expertise to develop supportive curricula and instruction. Yetta M. Goodman
Observing “Right” and “Wrong” Answers The role that teachers play in kidwatching is a very active one. Teachers not only ask students for explanations when they consider responses to be wrong but question students about right answers, allowing students to provide insight into their own thinking processes. In this way, students realize that questioning what they are learning is something that is under their own control and not something only monitored by their teacher. Establishing Realistic Expectations for Students Kidwatchers do not expect students to deliver what they do not expect from themselves and other proficient adult learners. They do not ask their students to do things they would not do.
See Also Authentic Assessment; Whole Language and WholeLanguage Assessment
265
Kinesthetic Methods to be an influence in various reading approaches (Gentry, 1974). Early modifications of the Fernald kinesthetic method of teaching readers with severe disabilities have included blind writing, in which children trace words composed of three-dimensional letters with their eyes closed, using large arm movements to trace words in the air or rubbing or tracing letters on sandpaper blocks or in wet sand; the teacher may also trace letters on the student’s back. Because of its intensely individualized nature, the Fernald technique and similar kinesthetic methods appeared to be limited almost exclusively to clinics and special-education classrooms. In the early 1970s, the kinesthetic approach was supported by the learning-styles movement and expanded delivery to include group participation. Learning-style (LS) theorists focused on environmental factors as influences in learning. Results of reading-style inventories showed that the styles of poor readers indicated a strong preference for the Fernald method, that is, a global, tactile method of reading instruction (Sudzina, 1993). Teachers, therefore, might prevent poor reading or provide remediation by furnishing a classroom that incorporates tactile/kinesthetic instructionally related reading opportunities. About ten years later, multiple intelligence (MI) theory further advocated the validity of using bodily/kinesthetic intelligence in reading instruction. According to MI, students have a variety of intelligences through which they learn; a match between instructional delivery and intelligence is the key to learning. Bodily/kinesthetic intelligence has been identified as one of several intelligences; this intelligence relies on the whole body to express ideas and feelings and on the hands to produce or transform objects. The MI view holds that for some children, bodily/kinesthetic instructional approaches must be used as the primary reading technique. Although LS and MI scholars espouse some theoretical differences, reading instruction based on kinesthetic actions are similar, if not identical. Children are often taught rhythm and coordination skills correlated with foundation levels of reading and writing. Skipping, marching, and dancing are used to teach children the rhythms and patterns found in reading. Mirroring activities are used to advance crossing the midline, thus facilitating students’ abilities to read with
References Bridges, Lois. 1996. Assessment: Continuous Learning. York, ME: Stenhouse. Clyde, Jean, and Mark Condon. 1999. Get Real: Bringing Kids’ Learning Lives into Your Classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Goodman, Yetta. 1978. “Kidwatching: An Alternative to Testing.” National Elementary School Principal 57 (4):41–45. ———. 1985. “Kidwatching: Observing Children in the Classroom.” In Angela Jaggar and Margaret Smith-Burke, eds., Observing the Language Learner, pp. 9–18. Urbana, IL, and Newark, DE: National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. Katz, Lillian. 1997. “A Developmental Approach to Assessment of Young Children.” ERIC Digest, April, ED 407 172. Morrison, George S. 2000. Fundamentals of Early Childhood Education. 2nd ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Short, Kathy G., and Jerome C. Harste, with Carolyn Burke. 1996. Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Kinesthetic Methods Kinesthetic methods for reading instruction incorporate the use of large muscle groups in isolation or in combination with fine motor, visual, or auditory approaches to teaching reading. The kinesthetic approach to reading originated in 1922 when Grace Fernald and H. Keller described a remedial-reading method for readers with severe learning problems that incorporated visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile (VAKT) modes. Fernald’s method stressed tracing words with the first two fingers of the dominant hand as the initial stage of word learning. The Fernald technique and similar techniques were beneficial for students with reading disabilities because they were systematic and consistent with left to right directionality, and they provided adequate repetition, immediate notation and correction of errors, and reinforcement of visual impressions by tracing, writing, and saying the words (Talmadge, Davids, and Laufer, 1963). Eighty years after Fernald and Keller had outlined their hand-tracing technique, the kinesthetic approach has undergone a variety of interpretations but the essence of tracing and motor movement as an important instructional technique in the teaching of reading continues 266
KWL and KWL+ 270) that highlights the basic steps of the process and permits them to keep a record of their own individual engagement as they think, read, and learn. The KWL learning framework is grounded in the research on the role of prior knowledge in learning and in the need for active engagement and processing for significant learning to occur.
both eyes across an entire page. Spatial formation activities include creating letters with a jump rope and forming two-letter words with the jump rope as one letter and the student’s body as the second. Some additional examples of activities that require muscles or whole body include running, building, touching, and gesturing. Children often combine reading, writing, and moving; for example, they may create rhymes for jump-rope activities, make letters and words with their bodies, and write in response to reading or acting in a dramatic piece. Kathleen McCoy
What We Know In using the KWL process, a teacher helps students prepare for reading by engaging in two initial activities—first, activating their specific knowledge of the topic and their familiarity with likely major categories of information, and second, developing questions to be answered while reading. To activate what they know, the teacher helps the students brainstorm about what they know and think they know about the topic of study. This helps them bring their prior knowledge and experience to a conscious level. In the discussion of the topic, students listen to each other, have their memories stimulated so formerly inert knowledge can be brought to a conscious level of awareness, and have points of uncertainty highlighted. This informal exchange generally provides the focus and motivation for students to want to engage with a textbook or other sources of information (books, magazines, videos, Internet sites, and so on) to resolve any ambiguities. The role of the teacher is to help students activate what they know, listen to each other and begin to raise questions, and develop a sense of curiosity and interest. As students share what they know, the teacher can highlight differences in their understandings and gaps in knowledge and, using these points of ambiguity, can then help students find and frame questions that they want to have answered in their reading. During this initial brainstorming, the teacher accepts whatever ideas the students contribute, right or wrong. The teacher writes down these student-volunteered ideas without evaluating their contributions for correctness. This is important, so that students don’t feel constrained in sharing whatever associations or ideas they bring with them. It also keeps the activity at the level of real brainstorming and removes the teacher from the role of “evaluator” or expert. If the ideas seem far afield or the teacher wants to keep students thinking deeply, students can be asked to elaborate on where they got their ideas or what brought an idea to mind. Shifting the query to
References Fernald, Grace M., and H. Keller. 1922. “The Effect of Kinaesthetic Factors in the Development of Word Recognition in the Case of Non-Readers.” Journal of Educational Research 4 (December):355–377. Gentry, L. A. 1974. “A Clinical Method in Classroom Success—Kinesthetic Teaching.” Reading Teacher 28 (3):298–300. Sudzina, Mary. 1993. “An Investigation of the Relationship between the Reading Styles of Second-Graders and Their Achievement in Three Basal Reader Treatments.” ERIC Digest ED 353 569. Talmadge, M., Anthony Davids, and M. Laufer. 1963. “A Study of Experimental Methods for Teaching Emotionally Disturbed, Brain Damaged Retarded Readers.” Journal of Educational Research 56 (February):311–316.
KWL and KWL+ The Know, Want to Know, and Learned (KWL) framework is a technique designed to be used by teachers as a way of engaging students actively in reading informational material. It is useful both during extended study of content-area topics and as a guide for the active reading of particular pieces of informational materials. The teacher models and guides the reading and learning process with a group of students. Before asking students to read, the teacher engages students in focused discussion of what they already know; from this group exchange of ideas, students’ questions are elicited. Next, students read with specific purposes in mind and then evaluate their success in finding answers to their questions. Although working with the group, the teacher makes a written record of student contributions on the board or on an overhead display. Later, students are given a three-part chart (see p. 267
KWL and KWL+ other students by asking, “Does anyone else have a different idea related to this?” can keep the talk serious and help students identify points of disagreement and ambiguity. Asking students to record where they think they learned the information can be an interesting activity to expand this initial brainstorming phase. Some research has questioned the advisability of activating inaccurate ideas and associations as a part of a learning process. When using the KWL framework, however, these ideas are clearly noted as part of initial brainstorming only, and students know they will come back to verify or change them later. As they read, students are asked to check out the accuracy of these working ideas. Teachers model the idea that brainstorming is a beginning that then facilitates clarifying ideas. With younger students, too, the ideas they offer are not generally closely held value-laden concepts, and students readily modify their contributions. The teacher keeps the group-brainstormed list in a place that allows students to refer back to it during their study. This can be achieved by displaying the list on an overhead acetate, having it on a computer file students can access, or putting it on large piece of paper hanging in the room. Later, the students will come back to the group and their individual lists and can edit them, making references to the authoritative sources they have read. The second aspect of activation of knowledge and preparation for reading and learning comes when the teacher asks students what categories of information they think will be included in the topic. This is done in one of two ways: the teacher may ask students to look at the ideas they have brainstormed and think of ways to group them together—forming categories, the list of which is then put at the bottom of the KWL chart—or the teacher may simply ask the group to anticipate what the categories will be or to imagine the table of contents of a book on the topic. For example, in preparing to read biographies of presidents, the teacher may ask students what categories they think will be included in the material they are about to read. Students may suggest that a person’s early life, education, and accomplishments are important categories. Yet they may not include obstacles or awareness of the social context as categories of importance. The teacher may then refer the students to their
brainstormed list to check what ideas they had listed. The students may note that little has been offered about education, thus leading to some good question formation. The teacher can propose ideas, in the interest of adding one or two other possible categories. For example, a teacher might mention having recently visited the Franklin Roosevelt memorial in Washington, D.C., and having been struck by Roosevelt’s efforts to overcome the effects of polio. The teacher might then ask, “What category of information would that fit into?” thereby leading the students to suggest “obstacles.” The teacher usually needs to model this attention to categories because students are not often accustomed to thinking of ways experts organize information. This step is important as a way of helping students develop a cognitive organizer for their study; and it is increasingly important today, as students seek information on the Internet. To use web sites effectively, key categories need to be identified early on. Experts generally organize information on topics in predictable ways. Developing students’ awareness and use of these organizers is a major task for teachers and is integral to the KWL framework. What We Want to Find Out During these initial steps, the teacher is attentive to ways to help students form questions that can then provide a focus for their subsequent reading. Both the brainstorming and anticipation of categories help students identify those areas where they lack information and want to find out more. During these group processes, questions generally arise that can lead into purposes for the reading. If a group disagrees about some aspect of the ideas that are brainstormed, the teacher can use this moment to suggest they write their concern as a question for later investigation. Thus, even during the initial phase of activating prior knowledge, the teacher guides students to identify questions they have. By looking at the categories students associate with the topic, the teacher can help students create good questions. Often, the student who is brainstorming has not included information or ideas in several of the categories the class has suggested. This creates a good opportunity for the teacher to model and guide students again in determining what they need and want to learn. Then, when the brainstorming and predicting categories are 268
KWL and KWL+ complete, the teacher asks students to think specifically about what else they want to know or about what questions they have on the topic of study. As students develop their questions, the teacher records them so everyone can see them and refer to them as they learn new information. All of the questions are added to the chart in the second column—the “W,” or “Want to learn,” column. The teacher’s role is crucial in the development of this active, engaged process. The success of the brainstorming depends on teacher guidance. Also, during the initial discussion, the teacher writing down what students say enhances the process. Students often feel proud knowing that their ideas are worthy of the teacher’s recording them for the whole class. A second benefit of the teacher doing the initial writing is that students can both hear and see the vocabulary of the topic under study before reading. This previewing provides some support, so when they later see the same terms in print, they are not unfamiliar and intimidating. This modeling and guiding by the teacher particularly helps less-confident readers and spellers. It reduces their anxiety about reading new materials. It also provides them with a written model; thus, they are also more likely to copy ideas onto their own charts when they have the correct form of the written language before them. When the two initial activities have been completed by the group, the students are given time to individually complete their own charts. They are instructed to write down what each of them thinks they know, what categories each thinks are important, and what questions each wants answered. At first, many students will copy just what the teacher has modeled. When students gain confidence in the process, the individual KWL charts take on more individual character and students even add additional information and questions to their own sheets.
their success in meeting their own goals. They do this because the answers to their questions come in very different order than their original questions. As they read, students also encounter new ideas and form new questions. They also record these on their individual KWL charts. By using the individual charts, students create a visible record of their learning. The clearly outlined steps in the KWL process encourage them to regularly monitor their learning and think actively about their understanding. These visible records of thinking also help students deal with the need to modify and revise their prior conceptions. In situations where students have a great deal of misinformation, it can be useful to model the process of revising ideas. The teacher can direct students to return to the first column—the “K,” or “Know,” column—of the group work. The teacher shows students how to use this list to check out changes in knowledge of which they have become aware. The list of ideas can then be revised to make it more accurate. The class can do this in a very graphic way by actually revising the list of ideas. The teacher may model this process by using formal editing marks or by informally making alterations to the list, using a pen of a different color. The teacher draws students’ attention to the first column and shows them how they can draw a line through inaccurate information and use a caret to add information that will modify partially accurate ideas. As they do this checking and modifying, students can also learn how to cite sources that were used to make the changes in the brainstormed list. The teacher models for the students how to locate which texts and shows them on which pages information is given that confirms listed ideas. This citation information is then written beside the information in the first, or “K,” column. Students can later use this same process on their individual working charts. The original KWL chart format included all these operations. However, after using the process in classrooms, it became obvious that students’ knowledge, interests, and levels of questions frequently did not match textbook presentations. Therefore, it was necessary to go beyond a single source of information to fulfill students’ need to know. To help students identify important sources, another section was added to the bottom of the chart: “How/Where to find information.” With the number of sources of in-
Reading and Recording What Is Learned As students begin reading the text or resource materials, they write down key information that they are learning and answers they find for their questions in the third column—the “L,” or “Learned/Still want to learn,” column. Some students number their questions and match those numbers with the pieces of information they include in the third column so they can monitor 269
K-W-L CHART What We Know
What We Want to Find Out
What We Learned/Still Need to Learn
Categories of Information We May Use:
Where/How We Will Find Information
1.
1.
2.
2.
3.
3.
4. 4.
KWL and KWL+ formation now available to students electronically as well as in print, student-led searches for information are common and the KWL chart provides a guide and a support for students as they read widely.
students deal with concepts in a deeper way than they do when reading material only once. They need to process it more deeply, taking more time to think about the ideas and organizing the knowledge to fit their own mental categories or schemata. The power of the “plus” is even stronger when the students assume a personal voice in their summaries. Jennings’s dissertation compared fifth-grade students’ learning when teachers used a traditional approach to social studies and when they used KWL+ with either the basic summarizing task or with a personal journal-writing task. The results of her study showed significant gains in retention for both of the KWL+ conditions, with the personal journal writing evidencing the best long-term gains. When students thought about the material and found a way to represent it using their own voice, deep learning occurred.
KWL+ KWL+ is designed as a strategy for individual students to use so they can internalize new concepts and information gained from reading. Eileen Carr and Donna Ogle (1987) realized the value of the KWL process for individual student use. However, it was lacking the rehearsal component important to help students retain new ideas. When students are required to engage in study reading and when they add concepts and information to their long-term memory, they need to do more than just read through material once and make notes. The “plus” indicates the addition of two postreading steps to help learners process information more deeply. The first step is to create a graphic organizer, a visual representation of the key ideas and their relationships. In making this graphic map, students include both information they had prior to their study and the important new ideas they gained. They can use either key categories they identify or those used by the text being studied. Generally, the main topic is put in the center and related concepts form branches extending out from that center. Smaller supporting details and examples can be indicated as subordinate to the concepts (see Graphic Organizers). By using the chart and adding both of these steps with KWL+, students expend considerable effort throughout their reading process and know how to successfully learn material themselves. Creating a visual representation of the ideas helps students attend to the major categories or chunks of knowledge that are related. The second “plus” step is to write a summary of the important ideas by using their graphic organizer. By putting the ideas together in prose form, students need to think again about how to clearly group ideas and organize the concepts. Having organized the information graphically, students can then write a summary more easily. This additional prose reorganization deepens student understanding and retention. Research by Joyce Jennings (1991) showed strong effects for KWL+. By transforming the ideas into both a graphic form and a summary,
Uses of KWL and KWL+ Many applied studies and many teacher reports on using the process continue to underscore the value of both the active framework and the personal-learning strategy. It is one of the most widely used informational strategies around the world; from Saudi Arabia to Argentina, the Philippines, and Brunei, it has become a central part of teaching and learning. It is also being used as a form of evaluation of student learning. One approach involves the teacher in recording the oral contributions of individual students at each phase of the KWL process. This record allows the teacher to reflect on the particular pattern of contributions of students and determine the ways the group process can help scaffold the development of student thinking over time. Other evaluations concentrate on using the written charts that students produce. Changes in their quality over time can be noted easily. In addition, the charts can be used to assess the thinking students have used from the beginning of their study of a particular topic or text until the end. The individual KWL charts provide written documentation of students’ own efforts and provide a way to verify that students are doing their own work. Donna M. Ogle See Also Graphic Organizers References Carr, Eileen, and Donna Ogle. 1987. “K-W-L Plus: A
271
KWL and KWL+ Ogle, Donna. 1986. “K-W-L: A Teaching Model That Develops Active Reading of Expository Text.” Reading Teacher 39(6):564–570. ———. 1991. “The Know, Want to Know, Learned Strategy.” In K. D. Muth, ed., Children’s Comprehension of Text: Research into Practice, pp. 205–223. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Strategy for Comprehension and Summarization.” Journal of Reading 30:626–631. Jennings, Joyce Holt. 1991. “A Comparison of Summary and Journal Writing as Components of an Interactive Comprehension Model.” In Jerry Zutell et al., eds., Learner Factors/Teacher Factors: Issues in Literacy Research and Instruction, pp. 67–82. Chicago: The National Reading Conference.
272
L that is, in fact, much deeper than the observables to which Skinner wished to restrict us. An oftcited illustration of the point, due to Chomsky, is the contrast between Mary is easy to please and Mary is eager to please. These sentences differ only in choice of adjective, easy versus eager. However, the internal structure of the sentences differs a great deal. In the first sentence, Mary is interpreted as the object of the embedded verb please, but as the subject of please in the second sentence. This is true despite the fact that the “grammatical frame” (linear sequence of lexical categories) is identical. If language learning were a process of building analogies on the basis of other structures, as Skinner and others maintained, then we would not expect to find these deep structural differences underlying the surface. In contrast to Skinner and others who viewed discussion of mental architecture with suspicion, Chomsky maintained that any attempt to explain human language or its acquisition would be hopeless without it. Chomsky characterized language as the infinite use of finite means, pointing to the human capacity to express infinitely many thoughts in the form of sentences as a uniquely human characteristic. Chomsky noted that human beings have the amazing capacity to utter and comprehend novel sentences, a fact that cannot be explained without postulating an underlying, mental system of abstract rules that defy direct observation. The kind of linguistic analysis undertaken by Chomsky is known as generative grammar, and still dominates the linguistic sciences today. The particular theory of language acquisition associated with it is known as principles and parameters theory. An important difference between generativists and behaviorists relates to their views of the nature of the language learner. Skinner, as an em-
Language Acquisition Language acquisition refers to the growth of language in an individual. Research in child language acquisition (CLA) has shown that children acquire the language of their speech community effortlessly and without instruction, achieving a grammar that is essentially indistinguishable from that of adult speakers by the time they reach school. Researchers have also devoted considerable attention to the relationship between CLA and second-language acquisition (SLA), as well as to the conditions that facilitate secondlanguage learning in the classroom. Research on Child Language Acquisition In the middle of the last century, B. F. Skinner, a developmental psychologist who founded the behaviorist school, turned his attention to the phenomenon of child language acquisition in his book Verbal Behavior (1957). Skinner saw language learning essentially as a process of imitation, instantiated in learners by the interplay of stimulus, reinforcement, and deprivation. Influenced by logical positivism like his contemporaries, Skinner believed that the study of behavior—linguistic or otherwise—should restrict itself to public methods of observation and permit scientific discussion of observables only, eschewing any mention of intentions, plans, or other mental states. For behaviorists, mind was a topic for spiritualists, not scientists. In a famous review of Skinner’s book in 1959, Noam Chomsky, a young linguist who had just taken a post at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, showed that Skinner’s imitation theory and related psychological constructs broke down immediately upon inspection. Chomsky provided persuasive arguments that language, like other human behaviors, has a rich structure 273
Language Acquisition the APS observes that linguistic input is finite, yet children acquire a grammar capable of generating infinitely many sentences, even sentences of infinite length. Finally, the APS observed that linguistic input is underdetermined by experience: Children know things about their language for which they have no evidence at all. For example, we derive questions such as “What does John like?” from corresponding statements such as “John likes cookies.” The object of the verb (“cookies”) is changed to “what,” then “what” is moved to the front of the sentence. However, if the object is coordinated, as in “milk and cookies,” then extraction is impossible: We cannot generate a question like “What does John like and milk?” from “John likes milk and cookies,” in which “milk” is changed to “what” and moved to the front of the sentence. This fact is particularly surprising when we note that “What does John like with cookies?” where the object is extracted out of a prepositional phrase, is well formed. Why is it that children never say sentences like “What does John like and milk?” even though it is a perfectly logical thing to say and should follow straightforwardly from the same rules of question formation that produced “What does John like?” Learning this restriction would require negative evidence (evidence that tells us what we cannot say), but the linguistic input that children hear consists only of positive examples of speech (evidence of what we can say). According to generative linguists, children never produce errors of this kind because they are born knowing that such sentences are impossible. The knowledge is innate. (For further discussion, see Chomsky [1986] and Pinker [1994].) In reaction to the nativist program of the generativists, Jerome Bruner (1975) proposed a rather different perspective. Bruner suggested that what is innate in language acquisition is not linguistic innateness, as Chomsky maintained, but rather some special features of human action that permit it to be decoded by language learners. Bruner and others believed that the particular form that grammars take could be explained by their function, particularly in the context of social interaction—an idea that was very appealing to Vygotskian constructivists. Subsequent research saw considerable attention given to the analysis of “motherese” or “caregiver speech” as a way of scaffolding children’s language develop-
B. F. Skinner in 1933 (Bettmann/Corbis)
piricist, believed that human beings had little innate, inborn mental structure and that the environment played a fundamental role in shaping our language. Generativists, by contrast, maintain that humans are endowed with Universal Grammar, which defines which languages are possible human languages. Thus, for generativists, linguistic structure, in all its variability, is innate, or prewired, and the environment has only a minimal effect—serving essentially as a triggering mechanism to stimulate language growth in the child. The principal argument for linguistic innateness is known as the argument from the poverty of the stimulus (APS), which observes that input (the language children hear) is limited at three distinct levels, yet output (the language children produce) is unaffected. First, the APS notes that linguistic input is deficient. Although children hear all sorts of incomplete utterances, slips of the tongue, coughs, and so on, they nonetheless ignore these deficiencies and go on to construct a grammar that is remarkably consistent, over a wide range of varying factors, with that of other members of their speech community. Second, 274
Language Acquisition ment as they climbed the ladder to linguistic success. Although subsequent empirical work showed some effects of the maternal environment on the developing speech of children, most researchers (even Bruner, eventually) concluded that the effects were insufficient to support the claim that an elaborate innate component was unnecessary.
Finally, Krashen proposed that an affective filter may negatively influence successful acquisition if levels of anxiety, motivation, and self-confidence are not optimal. Krashen claimed that to the extent these affective factors are optimal, SLA will occur as naturally and effortlessly as CLA. A central premise in Krashen’s work is the claim that CLA is a kind of recapitulation of SLA—a controversial view, but one that has received recent positive review (Epstein, Flynn, and Martohardjono, 1996). Other researchers have proposed that Universal Grammar is completely inaccessible in SLA and believe that the second language must be learned by brute force. Still others have taken an intermediate position and proposed that access to Universal Grammar is somehow mediated by the first language. In contrast to first language, second language evidences a wide range of variation in core aspects of grammatical development and may be dependent on factors such as aptitude, attitudes, motivation, and emotional state (Bialystok and Hakuta, 1994); in this regard, second language appears to differ a great deal from first language, where we note what Chomsky (1965) called the striking uniformity of grammars over a wide range of variation in motivation, emotional state, and other affective and cognitive factors. Bonnie Schwartz (1998) has recently proposed a theory of full transfer/full access, which postulates that the second-language acquirer’s initial state in the acquisition process is the wholesale transfer of the end state of first-language acquisition. This explains the “interference” of firstlanguage grammar in the second language and takes intermediate (or interlanguage) grammars to be essentially mixed systems, with some settings associated with the first language and others associated with the target language.
Research on Second-Language Acquisition Research on CLA naturally influenced work on second-language acquisition (SLA). Of particular importance was Chomsky’s proposal that children acquire language naturally, effortlessly, and without instruction, due to the presence of a mental language acquisition device, or LAD (later called Universal Grammar). Stephen Krashen, whose work in SLA has strongly influenced second-language teaching and curriculum worldwide, proposed five hypotheses about language acquisition. The acquisition-learning hypothesis claimed that learners have two distinct ways of developing ability in a second language, termed acquisition and learning. Acquisition took place in second-language learners much as in the case of CLA, according to Krashen, but could only occur if particular conditions were met. Language learning, on the other hand, results from explicit instruction in grammar and from error correction. Krashen maintained that learning is inefficient and unnecessarily difficult, and it cannot lead to acquisition. The natural order hypothesis proposed that the order of acquisition of grammatical rules was determined by the LAD and could not be manipulated by the environment—in particular, it could not be manipulated by curriculum and teaching. Krashen’s monitor theory posited that conscious knowledge of grammar (language learning) could be used as a kind of editor to correct imperfections of speech resulting from the use of an acquired system still under linguistic development. The input hypothesis, which played a central role in Krashen’s framework, posited that second-language acquisition occurs when acquirers understand messages that contain structures that are slightly above their present ability level, that is, when acquirers receive comprehensible input. Krashen has made the strong claim that input provided in this manner causes acquisition to occur and that acquisition cannot occur otherwise.
Second-Language Pedagogy Although considerably much research in SLA has focused upon issues of mental representation and developmental psycholinguistics, educators have been primarily concerned with characterizing the environmental conditions that facilitate second-language acquisition and with understanding learner differences that appear to have a strong impact upon different levels of ultimate attainment of the second language. Although there have been numerous critics of Krashen’s views, most agree that comprehensible 275
Language Arts Schwartz, Bonnie. 1998. “The Second-Language Instinct.” Lingua 106:133–160. Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
input plays an important role and may be essential, particularly for children who do not have strong academic backgrounds. Christian Faltis (2001) prefers the term comprehensible invite and believes that effective language pedagogy rests on active participation of all students, social integration to build on prior knowledge, integration of language learning into content activities, participation of family and community, and promotion of critical consciousness in the classroom. Ellen Bialystok and Kenji Hakuta (1994) end their excellent overview of research in SLA with this insight: The task for a theory of second-language acquisition is to determine the interplay of the unique conditions that characterize individual learners and the universal aspects of language acquisition. To a large extent, SLA and corresponding pedagogical theories have posed numerous questions, but the complexities of SLA have so far made it impossible to reach definitive conclusions. Thus, in interpreting research in SLA and in considering the relevance of research in CLA to teaching, it seems that teachers should be guided a great deal by the knowledge of their craft and of their students and should use their insights as practitioners to put research into practice. Jeff MacSwan
Language Arts Language Arts is a professional journal for elementary- and middle-school teachers and teacher educators that has been published since 1924. It provides a forum for discussions of all aspects of language arts learning and teaching, primarily as related to children in prekindergarten through eighth grade. Articles discuss theory and classroom practice, highlight current research, review children’s literature and professional books, and profile authors and educators. Language Arts is published bimonthly, in September, November, January, March, May, and July. Language Arts is a selective peer-reviewed journal, historically publishing between 10–15 percent of submitted articles. It was called Elementary English through 1975. The editors since 1975 include Julie Jensen, David Dillon, William Teale, Curt Dudley-Marling, and Sharon Murphy, and the current editorial team of Sandy Kaser, Gloria Kauffman, Jean Schroeder, and Kathy Short. As of fall 2001, Language Arts has approximately 15,000 subscribers from over forty countries. Language Arts articles address substantive issues of theory and practice related to language arts. The strong theoretical base of the articles on practice and research distinguishes this journal from other literacy journals that publish for a broad audience of educators. The themed nature of the journal supports this substantive look at significant issues in the field. These themes include such topics as building a professional community, organizing for literacy instruction, critical literacy and social justice, celebrating local languages and literacies, learners who struggle with reading and writing, imagination and the arts, and media and popular culture in the classroom. The articles focused on practice in the journal are not simplistic “how-to” pieces but illustrations of practice that include the thinking and belief system behind a practice, the actual practice itself, and questions that arise out of engaging in the practice. A current emphasis has been the encouragement of more teacher voices
See Also Bilingualism; Biliteracy; Heritage-Language Development; Language Attitudes References Bialystok, Ellen, and Kenji Hakuta. 1994. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of SecondLanguage Acquisition. New York: Basic Books. Bruner, Jerome. 1975. “The Ontogenesis of Speech Acts.” Journal of Child Language 2:1–19. Chomsky, Noam. 1959. Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. Language 35:26–57. ———. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. ———. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. Epstein, Samuel, Susan Flynn, and Gita Martohardjono. 1996. “Second-Language Acquisition: Theoretical and Experimental Issues in Contemporary Research.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19:677–758. Faltis, Christian. 2001. Joinfostering: Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms. 3rd ed. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall. Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Languages. New York: William Morrow and Company.
276
Language Arts Instruction within the journal through a mentoring process for teachers who are novice writers and through making connections to various teacher research groups and networks. In addition to substantive articles on language arts, the journal includes a wide range of short pieces that appear as sidebars. These sidebars include connections to technology, political action, children’s literature, tools for research, buzz words, curricular engagements, and seminal research studies. An educator with expertise in the theme of a particular issue provides a list of further suggested readings for readers who want to pursue that theme in greater depth. Along with these sidebars, some items appear on a regular basis, such as Reading Corner for Children and Reading Corner for Educators (reviews of children’s literature and professional books on language arts) and profiles (interviews and articles about authors, illustrators, and educators who have significantly influenced the field). The journal also encourages manuscripts in alternative formats such as poems, stories, photo documentaries, journal entries, and plays. The Language Arts web site (available: http://www.ncte.org/la/) provides details on the submission and review process and the current themes and deadlines. Manuscripts are usually twenty pages or less in length and use American Psychological Association formatting. Manuscripts are reviewed anonymously by at least two members of the editorial board. Kathy G. Short
of English, language arts instruction helps to promote students’ understanding and effective use of the English language arts to speak and listen (involves spoken language), to read and write (involves written language), and to view and visually represent (involves visual language). The Function of Spoken, Written, and Visual Languages Languages are the means of communication systems. When using spoken language, students verbally express ideas clearly and effectively when responding to a message and listen attentively to process language. Students use both speaking and listening skills to present written reports, tell stories, hear and distinguish sounds, and actively make sense of ideas presented. When involved in written language, students respond as readers to printed texts and write various responses to those texts. Students use reading and writing to process written symbols that create meaning at the word, sentence, paragraph, and extended-text levels. As students consistently plan, write, compose, construct, edit, revise, and publish messages or stories, they build a capacity to express ideas in words, sentences, and longer texts to convey meanings. Students learn handwriting, the formation of the letters, and spelling, the patterns and structures used in the English language, while engaged in writing for varied audiences. In both spoken and written communication, students use print to construct meaning. In contrast to the use of printed texts in spoken and written languages, students create or make meaning from nonprint images in visual languages to capture their interpretation of what something means. Visual language includes viewing and visual representation. Viewing is the ability to understand and interpret nonprint texts to make meaning. Television, CD-ROMs, educational software, films and videos, and dramatic presentations require students to watch and examine particular visual images, which may also involve spoken and written language. Pictorial aspects of the arts, such as illustration, technical drawing, and computer graphics, require students to create their own images to represent significance. Visually representing is the ability to create an image that symbolizes meaning. Visual representations such as silent films, paintings, and tactile representations (embossed letters
See Also National Council for Teachers of English
Language Arts Instruction Language arts instruction is the teaching of the interconnections among spoken, written, and visual communication systems that students use in preschool, elementary, secondary, and postsecondary classrooms to make, share, and extend meaning. Speaking, listening, reading, writing, viewing, and visually representing are the languages or communication systems that students use to become knowledgeable about the world (IRA/NCTE, 1996). The following categories pair similar communication systems by function. According to the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers 277
Language Arts Instruction
High-school language arts class (Elizabeth Crews)
ing. Language and the arts are linked; together they create an enhanced symbolic system for shared meanings, and reciprocally, they develop and improve students’ ability to communicate well. The term language arts links language in the way one communicates spoken, written, or nonverbal language such as sign language, with visual language in the arts, the knowledge, skills, and processes needed to create artistic representations. The language arts communication processes of reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing interconnect in important ways. For example, students builds spoken, written, and visual language interconnections when they read a story, create a written response to explain how the main character changed over time, portray the main character by making an illustration or computer drawing, and share their work with their classmates. All language systems are clearly enhanced by the student’s reading, writing, visual representing, and speaking tasks. For diverse ethnic and linguistic
used for visually impaired readers) require interpretation by viewing or touch. Language arts instruction supports students’ language growth by also developing understandings of the languages in the arts as they create new meanings from reading print texts, such as books, reports, and diaries, and from responding to nonprint texts, such as images, videos, and dramatic performances. This broad definition of language arts is informed by theories of spoken, written, and visual languages and includes the examination of the nature and function of language arts, the history of language arts instruction, and the teaching of language arts in classrooms. The Nature of Language Arts Language arts are the elementary and secondary curricula associated with reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing, which in combination constitute an integrated system for making and sharing mean278
Language Arts Instruction populations, such as English-language learners, students are bolstered by the ways integration of languages provides opportunities for them to build conceptual knowledge for deep understanding. The integration of these language arts helps students to become more competent communicators as they interact and learn to understand each other.
listening, viewing, and visually representing. This convergence of the language arts means that language and the arts are significant when used as complementary processes for enlarging the capacity to understand the world and becoming effective communicators. Consider for example, an elementary or secondary language arts poetry lesson. Students’ understanding of poetry through reading or writing broadens when they dramatize the text in their own interpretative ways. Senses are heightened by merging the spoken, written, and visual languages that students use to interpret print and nonprint messages. This current expanded definition of language arts has evolved across the decades to the reconceptualized notion that teaching the integration of languages and the arts compounds its value (Flood et al., 1991). Combining language arts areas employs various combinations of spoken language, visual language, and written language to impact learning. For example, when they are cross-linked, reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing provide opportunities for students to further advance their thinking and learning. In fifth grade, for example, students’ listening to a read-aloud story, followed by their creating a written response, provides more opportunities for them to learn than does just listening or writing alone. Learning is enhanced by increasing the potential links made possible by the interplay among the various languages.
The Function of the Language Arts Processes The sounds, words, and combinations of words in a language convey thoughts, and the arts supply ways to interpret ideas creatively through such activities as drama, literature, illustration, or photography. Students use language arts processes to become effective communicators. They use reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing to articulate their own ideas about how print and nonprint texts work and how they can be interpreted. The language arts processes are often separately described, though they rarely exist in isolation in the classroom. Integration of the language arts processes advances literacy thinking and builds students’ communicative competency. Interdependence of Languages New learning possibilities occur when languages are integrated. Reading involves visual representations when students illustrate specific characters in a story. Writing involves students’ imagining what words describe a certain character well and matching those images to the written message. Visual representation involves students’ capacity to use nonprint media for expression. Visual interpretation may include reading or writing with artistic extrapolation to fully explain the creative texts. For example, a student may capture the essence of the visual representation in a spoken or written documentary about the history of art. Overall, language arts instruction is interdependent. Together, the languages and the arts help students to conceptualize ideas and to communicate proficiently.
The Teaching of the Language Arts Language arts instruction supports students’ building a self-extending system whereby they develop language competencies that include how to use language structures and meaning to communicate ideas about their worlds and to interact with others. This means that students develop control over the language arts processes, enabling them to become proficient users of spoken, written, and visual communication systems. Although the contemporary vision of language arts processes draws more upon the nonprint aspects of the arts, even turn-of-the-century educators were encouraged to guide their classes in the demonstration and use of the language arts processes. Instructors were warned in teaching manuals that if they attempted to do all the talking, they would also be left to do all the thinking (Reed and Kellogg, 1885). The purposeful culti-
A Brief History of Language Arts Over the past century, the focus in language arts instruction has moved from public speaking, recitation, and spelling/mechanical competency to the integration of reading, writing, speaking, and listening, followed by a convergence of languages and the arts: reading, writing, speaking, 279
Language Arts Instruction vation of thinking and understanding and the use of spoken, written, and visual language teaching underscores what is critical and important to instruction in the language arts.
pioneer diaries (language arts), calculating covered-wagon travel (math), predicting nutrition and sanitation issues (science and health), and organizing community governments in settlements (social studies). The interdisciplinary curriculum broadly connects content areas for breadth and depth of learning. Both intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary language arts instruction support language learners. Effective integrated language arts instruction builds important interconnections among the language arts processes. Meaningful opportunities to use language arts processes emerge as students talk about and listen to others engaged in thinking and learning.
Intradisciplinary and Interdisciplinary Language Arts Instruction Integrated language arts instruction uses language in one area to enrich the potential for learning in other areas. There are two major approaches to integrated language arts instruction: intradisciplinary and interdisciplinary instruction (Lipson et al., 1993). Intradisciplinary language arts instruction involves using language arts processes—“intra,” or within a particular content area. It represents the most common way to integrate language arts into a single subject. In social studies, for example, reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing are integrated around the social studies curriculum to help learners use language arts within that particular discipline. Social studies trade books might be used to help students research historical information about pioneers forging the westward journey. Students would be expected to use language arts processes to gain a sense of living conditions during the historical time period, to learn about settlements, and to present their learning in interpretive ways that demonstrate new understandings. In an intradisciplinary unit, for example, the underlying theme of survival, courage, or new beginnings might be demonstrated by a student-written play presenting the hardships of the pioneers or by a class newspaper capturing the struggles of everyday living in pioneer settlements. Both activities create opportunities for students to link text and trade books within social studies content while using spoken, written, and visual languages. In interdisciplinary language arts instruction, language arts processes are integrated “inter”— between or among the core content areas of science, math, social studies, language arts, art, and health. By using interdisciplinary themes, reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing are consistently taught in core content areas. For the interdisciplinary approach, knowledge is constructed across subject areas. In the previous social studies example, interdisciplinary language arts instruction would link core content areas. Students might consider reading about and presenting reports based on
Developmental Aspects: Students as Users of Language Arts Language arts learning is a developmental process. This means that students learn to become more proficient in the language arts as they use language arts processes well. As increasingly effective users of language arts processes, students learn to recognize the rich complexities of language and to understand how languages make sense in different contexts. This summative process occurs when students share ideas with others, communicate precisely and thoughtfully, and become more strategic in their creative use and adaptation of spoken, written, and visual languages. Teachers as Users of Language Arts Teaching language arts well requires delivery of instruction that shows students how to become more competent readers, writers, speakers, listeners, viewers, and visual representers, as students engage in integrated activities that require using these processes. Effective language arts instruction builds on what students already know and challenges them to improve their use of these communication systems over time. This type of targeted instruction supports students’ developmental progression. The Relationship of Language Arts Teaching and the Standards Productive language arts teaching in exemplary classrooms is framed by the current language arts teaching standards (IRA/NCTE, 1996). These standards (see Standards) are guides rather than prescriptive measures to target in280
Language Attitudes
Language Attitudes
struction. Strategic language arts instruction cultivates for students a strong knowledge base of the languages and the arts, a disposition to engage effectively in language arts learning, and a focused way to build language arts capacity over time. The English language arts standards organize knowledges, dispositions, and performances as a framework for teaching concepts and strategies, for promoting positive learning cultures, and for designing quality learning experiences to advance students’ language arts competencies. The standard classifications target important dimensions of language arts that provide a foundation for translating theory into practice. The standards focus on critical dimensions that should help teachers provide increased opportunities for students to become effective communicators and informed, productive citizens. To advance deep-level learning of language arts processes, students need to read, write, speak, listen, view, and visually represent their ideas and interpretations in varied forms and in diverse, complex ways (Marzano, 1996). Students learn about language arts by using language arts well. When students demonstrate the interconnections of the languages and the arts in worthwhile ways, they reveal the essence of vital language arts instruction. Linda S. Wold
Attitudes toward language, and toward the way people use language, derive from our beliefs about language and literacy, which frequently are unexamined. Yet these attitudes are critical in developing individual and group identity, influencing both self-esteem and the quality of our interactions with others—as individuals, as communities, and as a society. Our attitudes often influence educational policies, which can have unfortunate results when attitudes reflect prejudice or are based on linguistic myths. Indeed, misunderstandings about language variation and literacy can negatively influence how teachers, students, and parents come to view each other, how they view the language of their communities, and how they view schooling. Language beliefs are deeply ingrained in most people, making it very difficult for us to successfully analyze our own beliefs and how our attitudes affect us and others. Despite the expansion of linguistics as a field over the last several decades, the level and quality of information available to teachers and others outside of linguistics remain low. Perhaps because they are largely unaware of advances in linguistics, teachers sometimes unwittingly reinforce language prejudices, even when opposed to prejudice in principle, which may have profound effects on literacy development and other academic outcomes.
See Also Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy; Standards References Flood, James, Julie M. Jensen, Diane Lapp, and James R. Squire, eds. 1991. Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. New York: Macmillan. IRA/NCTE. 1996. Standards for the English Language Arts. Newark, DE: International Reading Association; Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Lipson, Marjorie Y., Sheila W. Valencia, Karen K. Wixson, and Charles W. Peters. 1993. “Integration and Thematic Teaching: Integration to Improve Teaching and Learning.” Language Arts 70 (4):252–263. Marzano, Robert A. 1996. Cultivating Thinking in English and the Language Arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Reed, Alphonse, and Brainerd Kellogg. 1885. Graded Lessons in English: An Elementary English Grammar, Consisting of One Hundred Practical Lessons, Carefully Graded and Adapted to the Class Room. New York: Clark and Maynard, Publishers.
Attitudes and Education At the level of community, language attitudes can affect whether and how groups interact, how they perceive and define themselves and each other, and which groups receive appropriate treatment in schools. Language attitudes involve both different languages, such as English and Spanish, and different varieties (or dialects) of a single language, such as Standard English and Black English. When teachers speak the standard language and children and parents speak a stigmatized one, poor educational outcomes typically result. It is not this “linguistic mismatch” per se that causes educational failure, but rather the negative attitudes that typically surround stigmatized language. When, by contrast, a child begins school speaking only French, a prestigious language in the United States, academic success is expected. Although there are other factors involved, many minority children do poorly in school because of the negative attitudes ex281
Language Attitudes pressed toward their linguistic—hence, community—identity.
their own language, so much the better, in this view. The simplistic underlying beliefs are, first, that everyone should desire to conform and, second, that conforming is not difficult, or when difficult, it is well worth the effort, virtually guaranteeing economic and social success. However, children who already speak Standard English have very little required of them in terms of modifying their language, but children who speak a nonstandard dialect must, in effect, learn a new language. Worse, they are learning a new language while being punished, whether severely or subtly, for not already knowing it, and under the cloud of negative attitudes toward the language or dialect they bring to school. Children who speak languages other than English are typically accorded some linguistic respect, corresponding to the level of prestige carried by the language they happen to speak, respect that can facilitate learning (Rolstad, 1997). Children who speak Spanish or Black English are typically less respected than speakers of less stigmatized languages. The stigma attached to a language originates, of course, with negative judgments made about the people who speak it, but, in circular fashion, whatever language a stigmatized group uses comes to be viewed as both the cause and the effect of the group’s lower social status. Our attitudes about stigmatized language and speakers directly affect the way children are perceived and treated in schools, where it is common for teachers and other authority figures to upbraid children for speaking a nonstandard dialect. Language usage is generally believed to be easily within individual control, a myth that supports the continued denigration of nonstandard speakers as uneducated, lazy, or deficient in some other way. This deficit view has been refuted by research in a range of disciplines; however, the research has yet to adequately influence the attitudes and behaviors of educators and the general public (Bauer and Trudgill, 1998).
Attitudes and Prejudice Historically, negative language attitudes have led to considerable conflict and stereotyping. When the ancient Greeks perceived other groups’ speech as incoherent stammerings of “bar-barbar” they referred to them as barbaros, from which the English word “barbarian” is derived. In the United States, in times of low immigration or strong economic growth, the effects of language attitudes are less strongly felt. Negative attitudes flare up during economic slumps and in wartime, when campaigns to demonize the enemy extend to their language. This explains in part why Native American languages were widely excoriated in the United States, which has otherwise been relatively tolerant of non-English languages; it was politically expedient for English speakers to demonize Native Americans and their languages as part of the colonizing campaign. Negative attitudes toward immigrants and their languages, although typically less hostile, nevertheless take a political toll on educational programs, which should properly be influenced by purely pedagogical issues, as is seen in current waves of hostility toward bilingual education. In the absence of a multicultural perspective, difference is commonly associated with deficiency, giving rise to prejudices based on language, race, gender, and a host of other cultural differences. The characteristics of the powerful become defined as the norm and set the characteristics of the less powerful in opposition to the norm, establishing a foundation for intrapersonal, interpersonal, and institutionalized conflict. In many societies today, prejudice based on race and sex is widely acknowledged to be unacceptable, whereas prejudice regarding language is considered appropriate (Lippi-Green, 1997). The acceptability of language prejudice is partly due to the fact that people accept race and sex as immutable, by and large, whereas language is believed to be easily changeable. Approbation is considered well deserved when speakers refuse to conform; those who will not conform are thought to be incapable (i.e., stupid) or unwilling (i.e., lazy, rebellious, or immoral). Foreignlanguage speakers are expected to learn English, and dialect speakers are expected to learn Standard English, and if they forget how to speak
Prescriptivism and Other Language Myths Modern linguistics has discredited the notion that some languages and dialects are inherently better than others. Instead, only social values can be used to attribute stigma or prestige to language varieties. Franz Boas, an early-twentieth-century American anthropologist, disproved the notion that languages can be classified as “primitive” or “civilized” by analyzing and documenting the 282
Language Attitudes complexity of American Indian languages, long held to be “primitive” by Westerners. The idea that Native American languages were legitimate, valuable forms of expression on a par with English was grudgingly accepted by early-twentiethcentury academics. However, tolerance turned to outrage when analysis revealed that nonstandard dialects were similarly on a linguistic par with Standard English. The public resisted this revolutionary idea as well, viewing it as an attempt to sabotage the English language and American cultural values (Newmeyer, 1986). The belief that one variety of a language is superior in terms of logic, clarity, expression, and the like, and should be promoted as such, is termed prescriptivism (Crystal, 1987). Prescriptivists attempt to “prescribe” remedies for the linguistic ailments of those who do not conform to established standards, unaware that the standards are set arbitrarily and without any rational linguistic basis. To illustrate this point, imagine that an English speaker were to claim that the word ask is the only correct label for that verb and that the Spanish word for it, preguntar, is wrong. Most people would find this laughable; yet prescriptivists commonly deride speakers of Black English for saying “aks” instead of “ask,” considering it an ignorant mistake, rather than the different word form that it is. Prescriptivists are likely to deride Black English speakers for saying, “He be running,” under the mistaken assumption that “be” is extraneous, when in fact, “be” represents a verbal aspect (habitual) that is not available in Standard English. Most prescriptivists recommend education as a cure to the nonstandard “disease,” attributing it to ignorance, whereas some go further, portraying dialect use as a moral choice, with standard forms held to be morally superior to nonstandard forms.
and culture deemed lower class, prescriptivists mistakenly identify dialect features used by linguistic minorities as examples of errors, or degraded versions of Standard English, even when they may be historically accurate forms. Pioneering work by William Labov in the 1960s attacked the commonly-held deficit view of linguistic minorities, showing that Black English, now often called Ebonics, was no less logical than Standard English, despite criticism of features such as double negatives, as in “I don’t see none.” The argument that “two negatives make a positive,” although true in mathematics, is inapplicable to language, as shown by the fact that other languages, such as French, not only permit but require double negatives and by the fact that not even a prescriptivist can claim that “No, no, no, no, no!” means “Yes!” Yet such claims about the supposed illogic of nonstandard forms have been widely used by prescriptivists to support their linguistic biases. The linguistic ignorance of researchers, combined with their deficit view of other linguistic groups, led to a number of flawed studies that purported to show that speakers of Black English were linguistically and cognitively deficient. Subsequent analysis revealed that the inner–city African American children reputedly so deficient were merely unwilling to display their abilities in the threatening settings in which they were placed by researchers as objects of study. Absurd, invalid findings that many children possessed no verbal abilities at all reflected fundamental misunderstandings both of how language works and of how ethnographic research should be conducted, as well as the classical logical fallacy of basing conclusions on an absence of evidence. Such studies have been lambasted on many counts since then, and yet public perception of Ebonics has not changed, as evidenced during the Oakland School District’s battle for the pedagogical use of Ebonics when it was the home language of students. In the public outcry and media frenzy that resulted from Oakland’s pedagogically sound attempt to improve education for its students, racism was apparent from all sides. Although many whites were quick to decry what appeared to be an attempt to legitimize Ebonics as a viable, valuable language, many African Americans, even those who spoke Ebonics, were no less eager to denigrate the language. A statement issued by the Linguistic Society of
Language Variation and the Deficit View The derision regarding “aks” stems from the attitude that difference entails deficit, because “ask” happens to be the form used by people currently in power, whereas “aks” happens to be a form often used by people who hold lower positions in the American socioeconomic and racial hierarchy, such as speakers of Black English. However, “aks” has historically been used by well-regarded writers of English, Chaucer among them. In their eagerness to dissociate themselves from people 283
Language Attitudes America supporting Oakland’s pedagogical position was largely ignored. Although it is not surprising that people with no knowledge of Ebonics should vilify it, one might expect Ebonics speakers to come to its defense. Yet many Ebonics speakers believe it to be indefensible, accepting the judgments of others that it is merely “broken English.” Research on this acceptance or internalization of inferiority by subordinated groups has been conducted worldwide. One pioneering language attitude study found this effect among French Canadians in Quebec, who are socially subordinate to English Canadians (Lambert and Tucker, 1972). Subjects were asked to attribute personal characteristics to recorded speech samples of French speakers and English speakers, illustrating how their language attitudes affected their judgments of others. English-speaking subjects judged voices in domains such as friendliness, intelligence, physical attractiveness, and so forth and were found to express more positive attitudes toward English than toward French speakers, but French speakers’ attitudes toward English were also more positive than toward French speakers. Such findings have been widely replicated and suggest that children in all societies learn which social and linguistic groups they belong to, deriving their own status relative to others, often with permanent effect on self-esteem.
other language form, codeswitching is often mistakenly attributed to low proficiency in one or both of the alternating languages and is widely discouraged even by adults who codeswitch. This negative attitude toward a rich linguistic form is apparent in schools, where codeswitching students are often viewed as less proficient, and bilingual teachers are typically exhorted never to codeswitch in class (MacSwan, 1999). These attitudes shape students’ views of themselves and their linguistic and academic abilities, with predictably negative results. Linguistic minorities are often told that it is their language that prevents them from attaining higher social and economic status, but often linguistic prejudice is merely a camouflage for deeper-seated racial and class prejudices. For example, blaming Ebonics for the current plight of oppressed African Americans obscures the fact that racism and other social problems continue to play a fundamental role in American life. Despite the fact that educators routinely denigrate nonstandard grammar and pronunciation, many speakers maintain their use of nonstandard dialects, usually because, regardless of the stigma, speakers value their own language forms. In some cases, nonstandard forms not only persist but intensify in opposition to mainstream disapproval, leading to further condemnation. Nonstandard language thus provides a convenient scapegoat for all that the majority finds culturally foreign and therefore unacceptable, and at the same time, continued ignorance of the linguistic facts reinforces negative attitudes toward nonstandard language varieties.
Attitudes and Self-Esteem The way that language attitudes affect both selfesteem and interactions with others is also evident in Gloria Anzaldua’s (1987) work, in which she describes how Chicano culture, which combines elements of American and Mexican culture, clashes with Mexican culture, as evidenced in linguistic interactions and negative attitudes. Chicanos tend to accept and internalize the negative attitudes of others toward both their English and their Spanish, believing that their English is not close enough to Standard English to be considered proper and that, even when they are fully fluent in Spanish, their Spanish is of a form considered similarly illegitimate. Moreover, many native bilinguals are able to switch instantaneously from Spanish to English and back again, weaving languages and meanings together in a form known as “codeswitching.” Despite the fact that this language-use phenomenon is as internally rule governed and grammatical as any
Attitudes and Bilingual Education Research on bilingual education has shown it to be effective with language-minority children, who are able to learn academic subjects in a language they can understand during the several years that it takes for them to learn English sufficiently well to be able to participate in all-English instruction (Ramirez et al., 1991). Unfortunately, hostile attitudes stemming from causes unrelated to pedagogical issues interfere with effective bilingual instruction, when bilingual education is not outlawed altogether for purely political reasons. During the past few decades of bilingual education research, the field of linguistics has taken the descriptive, as compared with prescriptive, approach to language analysis, which has revolu284
Language Attitudes tionized the study of language usage, literacy, and first- and second-language acquisition. However, research findings in these areas also have yet to sufficiently influence teaching of language and literacy. The majority of teachers assume both that children accept Standard English as their model and that exposure is sufficient to assure rapid academic proficiency. In reality, children aspire to speak the language of their peers, which may not be a standard dialect. Even when Standard English is their goal, it typically takes children from four to seven years to become academically proficient in a new language. Besides learning a new language, children must simultaneously attain literacy, a challenge that can be facilitated by teachers’ acceptance of the child’s home language as the basis for literacy instruction. When mainstream, middle-class children begin school speaking Standard English, they face learning to read and write the language they already know. Their oral language is correctly assumed to develop appropriately with minimal or no interference. When children begin school speaking another language or dialect, however, the project is much different. The children must learn to read and write not their own language but the language of the teacher and school. Were the teacher to explain to the students that his or her language differs from theirs in systematic ways, describing the differences without displaying value judgments, literacy would likely result quite naturally. Unfortunately, what often happens is that the teacher, unaware that their languages differ systematically or unaware of precisely what the differences are, embarks on a mission to destroy the students’ language, to replace any and all nonstandard features with what is believed to be the correct, corresponding standard features (Delpit, 1995). The onslaught of negative attitudes, which children correctly perceive to be judgments of them, their parents, their cultures and communities, interfere on a daily basis with the development of literacy and often lead to alienation from school. To the extent that this linguistic assimilation is successful, proficiency in the heritage language or dialect may be lost or denied by the child altogether. When negative attitudes are widespread, the entire community of minority-language speakers may shift away from proficiency in the heritage language to monolingualism in the socially dominant language. Mass communication
and mainstream culture have successfully penetrated what were previously linguistic strongholds, such as the Navajo Reservation, causing heritage languages to erode more rapidly today than ever before in history. Negative language attitudes thus motivate children to rely exclusively on their new language and hence play a role in language shift in communities that may have resisted shift for centuries. When language shift progresses to such a point, bilingual education is not sufficient to reverse the shift, even when literacy is established in the heritage language. Distinguishing between Language and Literacy A further source of misconceptions and destructive language attitudes is the lack of distinction made between the nature and purposes of spoken versus written language. Speaking a language and writing a language are different activities, with different goals and potentially very different styles. It is commonly believed that written language is in some sense the basis of spoken language, when, in fact, it is the other way around. What began as an attempt to render spoken language into a more permanent form has evolved into a different genre of communication, with many subgenres. Written language can perform functions and signify meanings that oral language cannot, and vice versa. Documents such as wills and deeds, for example, represent property ownership and distribution in a way that no oral language can, whereas oral language can incorporate context and include wide ranges of voice quality, volume, and other prosodic features. This crucial distinction is quite obvious, but it is not part of our explicit knowledge of language use and thus leads to tension and disapproval. This tension is apparent whenever a prescriptivist complains that using “go” for “say,” as in “Then I go, ‘Oh!’” should not be tolerated by educated people. What prescriptivists fail to realize in this case is that “go” is used in spoken language to signal an upcoming reenactment of a speech event, often including paralinguistic communication such as facial expressions, gestures, distinct intonation, and so on. With the use of “go” the hearer is alerted to pay attention to something besides the literal message, perhaps to turn to watch what comes next. The performance following “go” may contain no linguistic utterance at all, perhaps consisting of no more than a sig285
Language Attitudes nificant facial expression. In such a case the use of “say” would be quite inaccurate. However, in written text it is “go” that would be inappropriate, but only because there can logically be no performance to follow it. Written language can provide little more than linguistic utterances, with a severely limited ability to show prosodic features, such as commas to represent pauses or question marks to show question intonation. Thus, prescriptivists err in attempting to apply to oral language the rules that govern writing. Yet most people persist in assuming that written language is the standard against which spoken language should be measured, a tendency that can be attributed to several other misconceptions as well. Among these are the notions that language does not and should not change, that a standard language is an ultimate achievement of linguistic correctness, and that allowing the standard to be corrupted or ignored will lead to moral decline. If one believes that a language should not change, then once it has been established in written form, any deviance from that must be judged as illegitimate. In this view, a linguistic dispute is best resolved by consulting “the” dictionary, as if there were only one dictionary and as if this product of other speakers were the ultimate source of knowledge of the disputants’ native tongue. This attitude toward dictionaries or other supposed linguistic authorities quite often leads to linguistic insecurity, which appears to afflict the majority of speakers of any given language, including its mainstream speakers (Milroy and Milroy, 1999). However, the consequences are more severe for nonmainstream speakers, since their divergence from the standard is greater. Attitudes toward language are critical to the understanding of research on learning and instruction generally, but more transparently with regard to language arts and literacy instruction. Research in disciplines from linguistics to psychology to language education has converged in examining many domains of language attitudes that affect teachers and students. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA) have acknowledged these advances in research and promote appropriate linguistic instruction for children in their 1996 guidelines, suggesting teachers should understand principles of language acquisition and diversity, value students
accordingly, and teach students to respect linguistic variation. Some linguists and educators argue that students should be taught explicitly how language attitudes affect them, and even that teaching rules of language without explaining the source of those rules constitutes tyranny. Although it seems that linguistics research has not yet been sufficiently widely disseminated among teachers and teacher educators, we can hope that the NCTE and IRA recommendations will begin to help effect change in approaches to language arts and English instruction, and in how we view children, their parents, and their linguistic communities. Kellie Rolstad See Also Bilingual Education; Heritage-Language Development; Language Acquisition References Anzaldua, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books. Bauer, Laurie, and Peter Trudgill, eds. 1998. Language Myths. London: Penguin Books. Crystal, David. 1987. “The Prescriptive Tradition.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, pp. 2–5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Delpit, Lisa. 1995. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New Press. Labov, William. 1969. “The Logic of Non-Standard English.” Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics 22:1–22, 26–31. Lambert, Wallace E., and G. Richard Tucker. 1972. Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London and New York: Routledge. MacSwan, Jeff. 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Codeswitching. New York: Garland. Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press. Ramirez, J. David, Sandra D. Yuen, Dana R. Ramey, and David J. Pasta. 1991. Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Programs for Language-Minority Children. Final Report to the U. S. Department of Education. Executive summary and vols. I and II. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Rolstad, Kellie. 1997. “Effects of Two-Way Immersion on the Ethnic Identification of Third-Language Students.” Bilingual Research Journal 21 (1):43–63.
286
Language Experience Approach
Language Experience Approach
thusiasm and awareness of the power of children’s writing. Russell Stauffer’s version of LEA was more structured. He acknowledged the wealth of linguistic, conceptual, and perceptual experiences that children possess. Teachers, according to the guidelines established by Stauffer, introduce children to reading instruction through the use of experience stories by having them dictate first in small groups and next on an individual basis. The teacher provides children with opportunities to discover the relationship between spoken and written language. Stauffer also advocated taking children’s language verbatim in dictated accounts, not only as a means of accepting their language patterns but as a means of giving them ownership in writing and the writing process. Stauffer recommended a combination of group and individually dictated accounts with writing, individual and group inquiry activities, and individual and group instruction, thus integrating the language/creative arts with content. The teacher diagnostically observes each child’s performance and plans instruction to meet the child’s needs. Each child keeps a word bank, a collection of the words the child knows. Thus, word-bank cards allow the child to focus on word study with familiar words. Children form sentences with the words, categorize and classify them, and use them to build and refine concepts. Stauffer (1969) described reading as a thinking process, which should be facilitated with emphasis on meaning. Leaning heavily on the works of Jerome Bruner and Jean Piaget, he defined the reading-thinking process as an active, cognitive process in which the learner questions or hypothesizes, tests hypotheses, raises more questions or formulates, refines, or adapts original hypotheses, and processes and generates information, ultimately leading to a solution and concept attainment. Stauffer thought that instead of learners’ learning to read and then reading to learn, learners should be reading to learn from the onset. He believed strongly that learners’ critical reading skills should be emphasized throughout all grades. Stauffer advocated that word identification skills should be taught as an aid to meaning. He believed that meaning clues should be the first source of help in word identification and that phonics must be taught in a pronunciation unit or in context, not in isolation. Stauffer felt
The language experience approach (LEA) provides a philosophy, instructional tenets, and methodology for literacy instruction based on well-grounded research and practice (Stauffer, 1969; Davidson, 1999). LEA capitalizes on the language and experiences of the learner and is generally associated with learners who are in emerging literacy programs; however, the approach is also used with learners in middle grades, junior and senior high school, and college reading programs. The approach has been modified and adapted for those who are learning English as a second language; those with special needs, such as hearing impairment; and learners who are in various special-education programs. LEA is also adapted for use in adult literacy programs. Development of the Language Experience Approach Two major versions of LEA are associated with its initial development in the early 1960s: Doris Lee and Roach Van Allen (1963) initiated one version on the West Coast; Russell Stauffer (1965) initiated and described another version on the East Coast. Lee and Allen argued that children didn’t need to progress through a system of predetermined skills. They identified a conceptual framework that included the following: (1) what a child thinks about he or she can talk about, (2) what a child can talk about can be expressed in writing or some other form, such as painting or dance, (3) anything a child writes can be read by the child, and (4) the child can read what he or she writes and what other people write. Lee and Allen advocated the use of experience charts. Children dictate individually or in small groups to the teacher who records their language on charts. Children’s natural language patterns are recorded, no matter how divergent. Children develop all kinds of charts used for instruction in the classroom. They also make their own books. Silent reading is stressed. Writing and the writing process are emphasized as well. When teachers indicated they needed more assistance in providing skills to children, Allen (1976) provided additional suggestions for teachers to provide skills instruction. One of Allen’s major contributions to LEA was by helping teachers integrate language arts through the use of art, music, literature, and drama and by promoting teacher en287
Language Experience Approach strongly that the rules of the psychology of learning must be observed. He advocated that instruction must be based on the learner’s interests, experiences, and background knowledge. He stressed the notion that learning is a social process and that learners should be taking an active role in the process. In addition, learners should be allowed the freedom of self-selection, along with the responsibilities that encompass that freedom. He further indicated that love and appreciation of reading must be fostered. Stauffer developed a procedure called the Directed Reading-Thinking Activity (DR-TA) for use in group instruction. There are five steps in the DR-TA: (1) identifying purposes for reading, in which the learners predict what they will be reading, based on some limited clues and their own background experience; (2) adjustment of rate to purposes and material, in which rate adjustment takes place naturally, depending upon the purposes set and the nature and difficulty of the reading material; (3) observing the reading, in which the teacher assists students who request help and notes their abilities to adjust rate, use word identification cues, and comprehend material; (4) developing comprehension, in which students check purposes by accepting, rejecting, or redefining them; and (5) fundamental skill-training activities in which students are involved in discussion, further reading, additional study, and writing, based on the student’s and the teacher’s identification of needs. Learners participating in DR-TAs are actively involved in the learning process as they engage in problem solving in a group setting where the teacher serves in the role of a facilitator (see Directed Reading Activity/Directed Reading-Thinking Activity). Stauffer urged that learners must be permitted to engage in their own learning. His suggestions for individual and group inquiry activities helped teachers create settings in which classrooms become centers for inquiry where learners work individually and together in learning. Writing and the writing process are deeply embedded in these centers. Learners share responsibility for lessons with their teachers. They help in planning curriculum and in assessing and evaluating their own performance as well as their group performance. In 1970, Stauffer formed the first special interest group of the International Reading Association, which he called the Language Experience Special Interest Group. Reading educators from
numerous countries came together to discuss philosophies and practices associated with the language experience approach and, working together, achieved greater unity. Leaders among these educators are Roach Van Allen, Ron Cramer, Jane Davidson, John Downing, Harry Hahn, MaryAnn Hall, Dorsey Hammond, Edmund Henderson, Nancy Padak, Bonnie Wilkerson, and Jerry Zutell. New thinking and new research by Carol Chomsky, Marie Clay, Kenneth Goodman, Yetta Goodman, Donald Graves, Michael Halliday, Edmund Henderson, Louise Rosenblatt, Frank Smith, and Lev Vygotsky in the 1970s provided even stronger support for the language experience approach. It became a fitting component of the curricula in many schools. Members of the Language Experience Special Interest Group formulated a statement of commitment in 1979 to share their beliefs about language experience. They believe LEA represents a global concept of reading instruction in which reading is viewed as a thinking process and methodology can be modified for learners at all instructional levels. They emphasize the humanistic procedures in LEA that place value on the dignity, self-esteem, and uniqueness of learners. They advocate integrating the language arts rather than isolating and fragmenting skills and subjects. Authorship is valued and nurtured. They regard the teacher as accountable for making educational decisions, creating an educational environment free of fear of failure, and evaluating each learner’s progress, based on the learner’s overall performance. This IRA special interest group serves to continue dialogue and disseminate information about the language experience approach to reading instruction. Effectiveness of the Language Experience Approach The language experience approach has currently been used in literacy instruction for over thirty years. Its overall effectiveness was proved in the U.S. Office of Education First Grade Studies in the late 1960s. Stauffer, who was one of the researchers examining the effectiveness of the language experience approach in the First Grade Studies, continued his study through the sixth grade and found no significant differences between basal groups and language experience approach groups in word knowledge and reading 288
Language Experience Approach comprehension (Stauffer, 1976). He suggested that the tests were inadequate in assessing students’ performance in the two areas. Teachers indicated the superiority of students in language experience groups in critical reading abilities, but they also thought that the tests didn’t measure these abilities. Nancy Padak and Tim Rasinski (1999) reported that a research synthesis that compared whole-language and language experience approaches with basal-reader approaches for beginning readers showed the former to be clearly superior. A line of research conducted by Jane L. Davidson, Nancy Padak, and Bonnie Wilkerson (Davidson and Wilkerson, 1988), working singly and cooperatively over a sevenyear period on the process of comprehension attainment with eighth-grade students in science, social studies, and literature lessons, showed the clear superiority of the DR-TA. All the studies showed that the DR-TA facilitates students’ critical thinking; moreover, students are actively involved in the learning process, they have a need to know, they care about learning, and they care about helping others learn.
and Rasinski (1999) reported, however, that they were surprised by the numbers of teachers in the United States who are unfamiliar with the language experience approach and the numbers of teachers whose depth of knowledge about language experience is limited. The language experience approach may sound very much like whole language (see Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment). If the language experience approach is viewed narrowly as “little dictated experience stories,” then there appear to be differences between the two approaches. If whole language is viewed narrowly as an approach in which no skills instruction is taught or in which phonics instruction is not necessary for learners, then there appear to be differences between the two. However, these narrow perspectives on the two approaches show lack of knowledge and understanding. There are similarities between the two approaches—both of them share the same philosophical bases, advocate engaging learners to be active participants in the learning process, perceive learning as a social process, support involving learners in constructive and purposeful reading and writing, and respect and value each learner. Differences between the two approaches tend to be political in nature. The language experience approach is as effective now as it was when it was described in the late 1960s and early 1970s. (Forms of the language experience approach occurred as early as Edmund Huey in 1908.) The language experience approach has remained viable for 100 years, not only passing the test of time but surviving reexamination and research; it has been proved to help develop critical readers and thinkers and to facilitate learning and the learning process. There has never been a time period in our history when the language experience approach was completely discarded. It can be expected, then, that it will continue to provide a viable alternative for those educators who wish to actively involve learners in knowing about learning and the learning process. Jane L. Davidson
Current Use of the Language Experience Approach In classrooms using the language experience approach exclusively, language arts are totally integrated with content. Inquiry activities are undertaken at every grade level from kindergarten, where teachers honor the concept of emerging literacy, throughout the grades. Children read to themselves and to each other. Literature circles (see Literature Circles) have replaced basal-reading groups and provide opportunities for learners to share their reflections and ideas about what they are reading. Reading-study groups provide students with a means of learning in depth. Teachers provide large- and small-group instruction, one-on-one instruction, and minilessons in specific areas, meeting the needs of each child. Computer technology is infused in the curriculum. Thoughtful assessment of each child’s performance drives instruction. Taking dictation, making experience charts, and making books—all derived from the language experience approach—are an integral part of reading recovery programs and programs used in beginning literacy (see Reading Recovery). The language experience approach is also widely used in adult literacy programs. Padak
See Also Directed Reading Activity/Directed Reading-Thinking Activity; Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment References Allen, Roach V. 1976. Language Experiences in Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
289
Laubach Literacy Today, Laubach Literacy programs use an innovative array of phonics-based and whole-language methods to tailor instructional materials to meet students’ goals. Laubach Literacy Action, the U.S. Program Division, is the largest volunteer-based literacy organization in the country. It provides literacy services and English as a second language instruction through its 1,100 affiliates and more than 90,000 volunteer trainers and tutors throughout the United States. Laubach programs focus on helping low-literate adults improve their job prospects, teaching immigrants to speak and read English, and teaching parents how to read to their children. Learners improve reading, mathematical, and technological skills by studying specially edited materials that contain sophisticated ideas of interest to adults, written at a simple level. Another way Laubach Literacy supports literacy efforts is through community-based organizations that work with parents and their children. Through the National Book Scholarship Fund (NBSF), Laubach distributes books and educational materials put out by its U.S. Publishing Division, New Readers Press, through grants to eligible local literacy providers in the United States. Since 1995, Laubach has awarded grants for educational materials to more than 700 literacy organizations. Laubach continues the educational publishing tradition begun by its founder through New Readers Press, which publishes and distributes more than 500 educational titles for literacy providers and students. In addition, the press publishes News for You, a weekly newspaper for new readers, as well as a collection of books for new learners. The International Programs Division of Laubach Literacy works with seventy-six volunteer, grassroots organizations in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Laubach provides financial, technical, and training support to its partners to develop programs that combine native-language instruction with community development efforts. The majority of students in these programs are women, who make up two-thirds of the world’s illiterate adults. Laubach’s global outreach campaign, Women in Literacy, has the specific objective of educating women, who most often provide the leadership for social change. Since 1990, the campaign has reached more than 1 million women in 1,400 communities.
Davidson, Jane L. 1999. “A History of Language Experience: A U.S. Perspective.” In Olga Johnson and Wayne Linek, eds., Practical Classroom Applications of Language Experience, pp. 25–36. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Davidson, Jane L., and Bonnie C. Wilkerson. 1988. Directed Reading-Thinking Activities. Monroe, NY: Trillium Press. Huey, Edmund B. 1908. The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. New York: Macmillan. Lee, Doris M., and Roach V. Allen. 1963. Learning to Read Through Experience. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Padak, Nancy, and Tim Rasinski. 1999. “The Language Experience Approach: A Framework for Learning.” In Olga G. Nelson and Wayne M. Linek, eds., Practical Classroom Applications of Language Experience, pp. 1–11. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Stauffer, Russell G. 1965. “A Language Experience Approach.” In James G. Kerfoot, ed., Perspectives in Reading: No. 5, First-Grade Reading Programs, pp. 86–117. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1969. Directing Reading as a Cognitive Process. New York: Harper and Row. ———. 1970. The Language-Experience Approach to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper and Row. ———. 1976. Action Research in L.E.A. Instructional Procedures. Newark: University of Delaware.
Laubach Literacy Laubach Literacy, based in Syracuse, New York, is the world’s largest nonprofit literacy provider. The organization sponsors literacy programs for adults and older youths in the United States and works internationally with partner organizations to provide literacy opportunities to people in forty-four developing countries. Dr. Frank C. Laubach, the founder of Laubach Literacy, began his pioneering literacy efforts in 1929, when, as a missionary in the Philippines, he developed a method of picture, word, and sound associations to help Moro tribesmen teach each other how to read and write in their own language. He found that his “Each One Teach One” method adapted to any language, and over the next twenty-five years, Dr. Laubach traveled throughout Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America, showing people how they could improve their lives through literacy. In 1951, Dr. Laubach published his first English-language reading series, and in 1955, he founded Laubach Literacy. 290
Learning Centers In 2001, Laubach Literacy began merger negotiations with Literacy Volunteers of America, also based in Syracuse. The two organizations expect to be merged in 2002 and will become ProLiteracy Worldwide. For more information on Laubach Literacy’s nationwide, international, or publishing activities, visit the company web site (available: http://www.laubach.org). Bethel H. Kogut
ten to music. Classical music, music for children, and other types of music are usually included. Books such as biographies about the lives of different composers are also included. Typical art supplies are paints, crayons, markers, art paper, modeling clay, scissors, glue, construction paper, and other craft items. Activities in the music and art center are related to the curriculum objectives. Language Arts Learning Center In the language arts center, provision is made for reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing. Materials include a wide variety of books at different reading and interest levels, other types of reading materials such as magazines, newspapers, newsletters, stories written by students, tape-recorded books, and tape recorders with headphones for students to listen to the books. Writing materials include tables for writing, paper, pencils, markers, and crayons. Lists of commonly used words the students will need to spell when writing are usually posted in the center. Books to use as guidelines for stories are also available. Materials for viewing and visually representing include pictures, graphs, signs, and other graphic information. Activities that require interpretation or illustration of these materials are usually part of the program in the center. These activities are designed to help students develop skills in interpreting and visually representing information.
Learning Centers Learning centers are areas within the elementary classroom designed for particular instructional activities. Materials needed for the activities are stored in the area, and these materials vary according to the purpose of the center. Learning centers serve a variety of purposes. They can be used to provide students with opportunities for practice with concepts or skills, or they may provide students with an opportunity for exploration, discovery, and hands-on learning. Other purposes include providing students with enrichment or remediation activities. Each learning center provides students with specific objectives related to the purpose of the center. Among the materials students use at learning centers are hands-on materials for exploration and discovery. These activities are usually self-checking, so students can receive immediate feedback. This enables students to use the centers independently, either individually or in small groups, to complete the learning center activities. Research indicates that students achieve more when they work in small groups, interacting and sharing knowledge (Tiedt, Tiedt, and Tiedt, 2001). Learning centers are usually organized around a theme. Thematic organization provides a means of integrating different subject areas into the curriculum. Directions for the activities in learning centers are clearly written or illustrated and posted on site. Basic learning centers include areas for art and music, language arts, mathematics, science, computers, blocks, dramatic play, and sand-and-water tables. Following are descriptions of such learning centers.
Science Learning Center The science learning center is usually located close to the sink, if there is one. This makes it more convenient for the students to conduct experiments. The science center contains manipulatives that will allow the students to explore and discover scientific concepts. Materials of this sort include containers of water and different objects such as corks, blocks, and plastic objects to help students discover which objects will float or sink. Plants and seeds, magnets, different types of rocks, soil, and small animals are usually included. Mathematics Learning Center Materials for the mathematics learning center include a variety of manipulatives. Beads for stringing and making patterns, blocks for constructing and classifying, puzzles, Unifix cubes, Base Ten blocks, games, playing cards, construction toys, and Tinker Toys are just a few of the
Art and Music Learning Center Art and music are usually combined into one learning center. Materials in the center usually include audiocassettes or compact discs and cassette players or compact disc players for students to lis291
Learning Centers struct projects, sort and classify shapes and colors, solve problems, and create patterns. A variety of blocks that are of different sizes, shapes, and colors and that interlock are usually included. Activities are available in the block center to help students create and solve problems in addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, along with other types of problems. Sand-and-Water Learning Center The sand-and-water learning center is located close to the water supply in the classroom. Small plastic swimming pools are used as containers for both sand and water. Different materials are sometimes used in place of sand. Cornmeal is often used as a substitute for sand. A variety of small containers are usually available for students to measure sand or water. Dramatic-Play Learning Center The dramatic-play learning center contains materials to help students use their imagination and be creative. Articles of clothing such as hats, shoes, coats, and dresses are included. Kitchen items such as pots and pans, tables, chairs, and other household items are usually available in the center. Here, students will find materials for creating a store, such as play money, canned foods, cereal boxes, and play cash registers. Props for plays and any other imaginative items that will help students develop their creative abilities are also included.
A learning center is part of a classroom set aside for learning a specific subject such as writing (Elizabeth Crews)
many types of materials included in the mathematics center. Storage is important in this center. The center is well organized to accommodate the storage of all the manipulatives. Boxes or plastic tubs that can be stacked are used as storage containers in the center. A table is usually available so students can solve puzzles and work on construction projects.
Benefits of Learning Centers Students need to be actively involved in learning every day. They need the physical activity of moving from one learning center to another to accommodate short attention spans. Students need to be able to use manipulatives to solve problems and construct projects because most of the students are in the preoperative and concrete stages of cognitive development (Brewer, 2001). Learning centers provide students with opportunities to meet these needs. Another benefit is that learning centers provide students with a variety of different types of materials and activities to meet their interest levels, ability levels, and learning styles. The use of learning centers is a developmentally appropriate way of teaching young students. E. Jo Ann Belk
Computer Learning Center Most classrooms have a computer learning center including one or more computers. The computers are available for students to use individually or in small groups. Computers in the classroom are more accessible for students than a computer laboratory located in another area. Computers are available for students to use word processing and publishing and writing programs. Software programs for different subject areas such as reading, mathematics, social studies, and science are also available to students. Blocks Learning Center The blocks learning center contains different types of manipulatives to enable students to con-
See Also Individualized Reading
292
Learning with Texts References Brewer, Jo Ann. 2001. Introduction to Early Childhood Education: Preschool through Primary Grades. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tiedt, Pamela L., Iris M. Tiedt, and Sidney W. Tiedt. 200l. Language Arts Activities for the Classroom. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
experiences and things in the world when they make them part of their language system. The result, they argued, can be a set of words, signs, and representations or even things such as architectural creations, stars, and emotions, as long as they are given meaning through language. Texts can be formal and in the public domain, such as books or newspapers, or they can be informal and private, such as conversations and notes (Wade and Moje, 2000). All texts, even those that appear to be objective and authoritative, such as textbooks, have a point to make—an underlying argument or view of the world—that is created when their authors include certain information and exclude other information.
Learning with Texts Most of the subject-area reading that students do in school has been called learning with texts, or reading to learn. This is the kind of reading that is concerned with what is to be carried away and remembered after reading, which Louise Rosenblatt (1994) has called efferent reading (from the Latin effere, to carry outward). The reader’s purpose is primarily to remember and use information, directions, or conclusions gained from having read a text, whether it be a newspaper, biography, novel, textbook, recipe, instruction manual, story problem in mathematics, or notes taken during a discussion or lecture. Rosenblatt contrasted efferent reading with aesthetic reading, in which the reader’s purpose is to experience, perhaps even savor, the sensations, emotions, personalities, images, and ideas evoked while reading. Although we tend to read a given text in a way that is predominantly efferent or aesthetic, these stances are not exclusive, and often contain elements of the other. Further, learning with texts may also have a critical, evaluative aspect, as when readers question how texts include or exclude information or present arguments or when they examine authors’ assumptions, beliefs, and worldviews. Finally, reading for any purpose is always a social experience. Even when we are reading by ourselves, we bring our experiences with others, including other authors, to the reading experience. The phrase learning with texts (rather than learning from text) represents important changes in current views of reading and learning in the subject areas. Robert Tierney and P. David Pearson (1994) use the preposition with instead of from to capture the idea that texts are tools that we use to construct meaning and learn rather than authoritative repositories of information to be acquired. The phrase also emphasizes the use of multiple texts, both those in print and in other forms. David Bloome and Ann Egan-Robertson (1993) argued that people create texts from their
Processes Involved in Learning with Texts Just as the concept of text has changed, so have views of what is involved in comprehending and learning with texts. Older views of reading assumed that meaning exists in the text and that the reader had only to use basic decoding skills to unlock the meaning. Today, reading for any purpose—whether efferent, aesthetic, or critical—is widely viewed as the active process of constructing meaning. However, learning with texts (i.e., reading for efferent purposes) involves more than constructing meaning; it also involves deliberative actions chosen with a specific purpose in mind. Such actions have been called strategies, to distinguish them from skills, which are used automatically or unconsciously (Paris, Wasik, and Turner, 1991). In the last three decades of the twentieth century, researchers have examined the complex cognitive and metacognitive processes involved in learning with texts, such as analyzing the task; planning a strategy; relating new information to prior knowledge; selecting, synthesizing, and organizing important information; monitoring comprehension and learning; remedying problems when they occur; and flexibly modifying plans and strategies as necessary. Researchers also recognize that learning is not purely cognitive and that motivational, affective, interpretive, and social processes play an equally important role. Analyzing the Task One of the first and most important activities in learning with texts in schools is interpreting the task—for example, what end result is expected, what texts and other materials will be involved, 293
Learning with Texts
Student getting help with problem solving using text (Elizabeth Crews)
ready participants in the culture of power may not share the meanings of these implicit cues. They, like most students, find it easier to learn in school when information about task expectations and strategy use is explicitly presented. For example, in preparing for a test, teachers might explain what kind of test to expect and what kinds of information students should learn, and how, why, and under what conditions certain strategies might be helpful.
how learning will be evaluated, and the context in which the task will be accomplished. This is important because learners’ knowledge of and expectations about the task influence what strategies and background knowledge they will use and what kinds of information in a text they will consider important and worth noting. Whether learners’ understandings of tasks are congruent with their teachers’ is greatly influenced by their cultural expectations and values. Lisa Delpit (1988) has argued that without explicit information about task expectations and other aspects of schooling, many minority students are denied access to the culture of power that exists in all classrooms. The culture of power reflects the rules and codes of the culture of those who have power in society and determines what is expected in school in terms of the ways students talk, write, and interact with others. This information is transmitted implicitly by teachers through their lectures, instructions, questions, feedback, previous exams, and assignments. Students who are not al-
Assessing Task Difficulty How difficult a task will be depends on the nature of the task, the texts that will be used, and the experience, prior knowledge, interests, and skills of the learner. Reading tasks can be as different as remembering major concepts or specific details, selecting information to include in a paper, evaluating the logic of an argument, comprehending a process or procedure, or appreciating an author’s use of a literary device. Each of these tasks represents a different use of knowl294
Learning with Texts edge and involves qualitative differences in cognitive processing. To illustrate differences in complexity, we can place school tasks on a continuum. At one end are tasks that require students to fill slots with missing information or recall isolated bits of information, as in fill-in-the-blank, short-answer, and most multiple-choice tests. At the other end of the continuum are tasks that require students to integrate and relate concepts to one another and to their prior knowledge, as in discussions or assignments that involve a great deal of writing. The more complex and unfamiliar a task, the more cognitive resources and effort the learner will need to expend. Developing a deep, elaborated, integrated understanding of an unfamiliar concept requires a good deal more effort than getting the gist of a text on a familiar topic or memorizing isolated bits of information. Deep understanding involves generating connections among concepts and between newly acquired information and prior knowledge.
preliminary step to a more in-depth study of the material. Determining Importance As strategic learners analyze the task and texts, they think about what is important to learn— what information is valuable, significant, worth knowing, and relevant (Alexander and Jetton, 2000). Strategic learners know that when they read a text, some information is important to accomplishing their task, and some is irrelevant. Strategic learners rely on several kinds of prior knowledge to help them figure out what is important in a text, especially when they do not know much about the specific task facing them. First, they use their prior knowledge about the domain and topic being studied to help them focus their attention on related information rather than on highly interesting anecdotes about people and events that are unrelated to the major themes in the text. Second, strategic learners use their knowledge of text structure, organization, and text signals (e.g., introductions, summaries, headings, topic sentences, italics, and bold typeface) to determine what is important. For example, knowledge of expository text structures such as problem solution and cause and effect enable learners to make connections and distinguish between higher-order concepts and supporting details. In addition, strategic learners take into account their own resources such as their prior knowledge, skills, interest in the topic, goals, and experiences with similar types of tasks and texts. This knowledge enables them to know where to focus attention in a text, how much effort and time to expend, and what actions to take.
Assessing Text Difficulty Whether a learner considers a text difficult depends on characteristics of the text and on the resources and interests of the learner. For example, a text that contains literary terms and abstract ideas would be less difficult for a highly skilled reader with a lot of topic knowledge and interest than it would be for a reader with poor word-identification skills or little background knowledge and interest in the topic. Texts can also be more or less difficult depending on how well written they are. Learners will usually comprehend a text more easily when important ideas are clearly signaled, information is well integrated, and explanations showing the relationships among ideas are adequate. Text difficulty is also affected by how much irrelevant detail is included, which has been found to disrupt the learning of important information. To assess text difficulty and gather other kinds of information about the texts they will use, strategic learners often preview relevant sections before they begin to read. Previewing gives learners information about the content and organizational structure of the text and enables them to assess their background knowledge and interest in the topic. For many learners, previewing is a kind of fast reading, or skimming, to get the gist of the text’s major ideas, sometimes a
Planning Once strategic learners develop their purposes for reading and have made preliminary judgments about the nature of the task and texts, they begin to plan the best course of action to follow. Whether it is conscious or not, planning is a kind of problem solving that is an essential part of strategic learning. In contrast to relying on habitual solutions or trial and error, planning involves the deliberate organization of actions to reach a goal. Whether these plans are elaborate and detailed or simple and rudimentary will depend upon how complex and unfamiliar the task and text content are, how skilled and motivated 295
Learning with Texts the learner is, and how supportive the context is for carrying out the plan. When the task is particularly difficult and unfamiliar, the learner might do a lot of advance planning by thinking about what to do before starting out. For example, students engaged in a research project might plan to write questions to focus their research before beginning a systematic search for relevant information. For less complex and more familiar tasks, planning might be more automatic and occur mostly during the course of carrying out the action. For example, if readers who frequently read reviews in the newspaper are searching for a review of last night’s concert, they might not do a lot of conscious advance planning; rather, they would be more likely to plan as they go along.
preciate the value of the strategies they use. Only if learners know why a strategy is useful will they be inclined to select it and expend the effort necessary to use it. Monitoring Comprehension and Learning As strategic learners engage in comprehension activities, they also monitor their progress and resolve problems when they occur. Monitoring provides learners with information about whether they are understanding the text, whether their strategies are working, and whether they are accomplishing their goals. This layer of decisionmaking and problem solving is a kind of executive control, or metacognition, that strategic learners use to evaluate and regulate the entire learning process. To monitor comprehension, learners may ask themselves the following kinds of questions: Does this make sense? Does my interpretation take into account all the information presented? Are there other possibilities?
Choosing Strategies Successful learners have a large repertoire of strategies from which to draw. Some strategies can be used only in specific situations to accomplish a particular task. These procedures are relatively easy to perform because they involve the application of fairly simple routines under prescribed circumstances. However, for this very reason, they are of limited usefulness. More useful are general reading and learning strategies that can be applied across subject areas (Pressley et al., 1989). Skimming, visualizing, relating information to prior knowledge, outlining, and drawing key-word diagrams are all examples of general strategies. Many of these strategies involve analyzing the structure of the text and constructing and explaining relationships among ideas in a text. For example, one learner might hierarchically arrange information in an informal outline or graphic organizer, whereas another might underline words and phrases that seem important and write notes in the margin for review later. Research has found that successful learners engage in more of these effortful, elaborative strategies than do less successful learners. As important as knowing how to carry out these strategies is knowing the conditions under which they will be most effective and why they could be useful. Knowing when and why to select a particular action (referred to as conditional knowledge) enables the learner to make informed, deliberate decisions. Any one strategy for learning is useful only for some tasks and under some conditions. Strategic learners also ap-
Fix-Up Strategies If all is going well, monitoring is usually an automatic process for successful learners. If the learner experiences problems, however, monitoring may become a conscious undertaking. Strategic learners then use fix-up strategies to resolve perceived problems. When learners encounter an unfamiliar word, do not understand a concept, or realize they have not understood a portion of the text, the first thing they must decide is whether what they did not understand is important to their comprehension of the text. If it is not, they may decide to ignore the problem and read on. If they decide that the problem is important, they may use one of several fix-up strategies (Garner, 1987). The least disruptive to reading is to skip the unfamiliar word or confusing section and scan ahead, actively searching for clarifying information. Another strategy is to go back to sections of the text that were missed, forgotten, or confusing. If all else fails, learners may consult an expert source such as a teacher, parent, or peer, or a resource book such as a dictionary or encyclopedia. Strategies for Evaluating Texts Fix-up strategies are actions learners can adopt when they encounter comprehension difficulties that they attribute to themselves. But comprehension problems sometimes stem from difficul296
Learning with Texts ties with the text itself. Texts may be poorly organized, unclear, or lacking essential information. Other problems may arise when an author draws conclusions on the basis of insufficient evidence or appears to ignore evidence. Thus, although strategic learners think critically about their own comprehension and learning, they may also evaluate the text they are reading by questioning an author’s assumptions and underlying message, searching for inconsistencies, and attempting to understand other points of view.
beliefs often override conflicting scientific conceptions, especially when the scientific explanations are counterintuitive. When prior knowledge conflicts with scientific and other types of explanations, the prior knowledge usually prevails. How do learners deal with evidence that conflicts with their existing theories and beliefs? Answers to this question are essential to designing instruction that develops reflective analysis and conceptual change in students. According to Chinn and Brewer (1993), people deal with conflicting data in one of three ways. First, they can keep their existing theories intact by ignoring, rejecting, or excluding the contradictory evidence. Second, they can slightly modify their theories in ways that accommodate the new evidence but preserve its core ideas, thus making relatively minor changes in their theory. This enables them to accommodate the new information while keeping the central propositions of their theory intact. Third, they can abandon their old theories altogether and accept new ones. However, lasting change that affects core beliefs is a difficult process and usually occurs over a long period of time as students acquire more knowledge. Changing theories and beliefs also involves the ability and willingness to discover problems, pay careful attention to contradictory information, understand alternative theories, examine the relationships between new evidence and competing theories, consider the range of evidence to the fullest extent possible, and construct solutions or better theories. Thus, conceptual change involves an open mind—a willingness to seek new information and question old beliefs. Suzanne E. Wade
Flexibility in Strategy Use Another key element of learning with texts is flexibility. Flexibility is the ability to adjust to new situations and to change a course of action when necessary. Strategic learners do not blindly or habitually choose the same actions for each task but instead create a strategy for each learning situation. They also modify their strategy plans as they progress toward their goals, finetuning or adjusting them as the task and text become more familiar or easier and as they gain more knowledge. If necessary, strategic learners may abandon their plans altogether and devise new ones. The Role of Motivation in Learning with Texts Because learning with texts involves having a purpose, focused attention, and effort, motivation plays a key role. Motivation has to do with whether and why we engage in activities and exert effort. Therefore, it is not surprising that some kinds of motivation are closely linked to positive academic achievement. In numerous studies, motivation that is intrinsic and self-determined has been associated with better conceptual learning as well as with students’ use of deeper processing and metacognitive strategies, enjoyment of classroom work, satisfaction with school, lower anxiety, and willingness to persist at challenging tasks (Guthrie and Anderson, 1999).
See Also Conceptual Change Learning and Texts; Metacognition References Alexander, Patricia A., and Tamara L. Jetton. 2000. “Learning from Text: A Multidimensional and Developmental Perspective.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 285–311. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bloome, David, and Ann Egan-Robertson. 1993. “The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.” Reading Research Quarterly 28 (4):304–333. Chinn, Clark A., and William F. Brewer. 1993. “The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge
Conceptual Change in Learning with Texts Another factor affecting learning with texts is that learners may have prior knowledge and strong beliefs that conflict with information in a text (Guzzetti and Hynd, 1998). This problem has been particularly well documented in the sciences, where students’ theories of the world and 297
Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction.” Review of Educational Research 63 (1):1–49. Delpit, Lisa. 1988. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children.” Harvard Educational Review 58:280–298. Garner, Ruth. 1987. Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Guthrie, John T., and Emily Anderson. 1999. “Engagement in Reading: Processes of Motivated, Strategic, Knowledgeable, Social Readers.” In John T. Guthrie and Donna E. Alvermann, eds., Engaged Reading: Processes, Practices, and Policy Implications, pp. 17–45. New York: Teachers College Press. Guzzetti, Barbara, and Cynthia R. Hynd, eds. 1998. Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning in a Complex World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Paris, Scott G., Barbara A. Wasik, and Julianne C. Turner. 1991. “The Development of Strategic Readers.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 609–640. White Plains, NY: Longman. Pressley, Michael, Fiona Goodchild, Joan Fleet, Richard Zajchowski, and Ellis D. Evans. 1989. “The Challenges of Classroom Strategy Instruction.” Elementary School Journal 89 (3):301–342. Rosenblatt, Louise. 1994. “The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, pp. 1057–1092. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Tierney, Robert, and P. David Pearson. 1994. “A Revisionist Perspective on ‘Learning to Learn from Text’: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, pp. 514–519. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Wade, Suzanne E., and Elizabeth B. Moje. 2000. “The Role of Text in Classroom Learning.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 609–627. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
reading programs emphasizing word recognition over comprehension. The Merrill linguistic readers and the Sullivan programmed reading approach were two popular examples of such programs. Linguistic reading programs were influenced by the work of linguists who were primarily interested in the forms of language and the distribution of phonemes (minimal sound units of speech that affect the meaning of words) and morphemes (meaningful linguistic units that cannot be divided into smaller meaningful elements) within the language (Young, 1973). Leonard Bloomfield (1942) was one of the first linguists to discuss the possible contributions linguistics could make to reading instruction. His work received little attention until the early 1960s, when Charles Fries (1963) began to refer to it. He emphasized Bloomfield’s criticism of the use of the “word-method” for teaching word recognition and vocabulary development. His concerns were threefold: (1) this approach ignored the alphabetic aspect of our writing system, treating it more as an ideographic system, (2) too many words with irregular spelling patterns were being selected, and (3) words that contained letters representing more than one phonemic value were used. Bloomfield’s criteria for selecting words used for teaching reading, which drew upon the concepts of the consistencies found between speech and print, were derived from structural linguistics (the study of language in terms of its form and the distribution of elements [phonemes and morphemes] within its parts). These ideas received considerable attention in the early 1960s and led to the so-called linguistic approach to teaching reading. Condensed to their simplest form, they are: (1) words representing letters in only one phonetic value should be used (i.e., if words like can, cat, and cut are to be introduced, then words such as city or cite should not be), (2) words containing silent letters should not be included in initial reading materials provided for children, (3) no words with double letters representing single phonemes (ball or tall) or special phonemes (as in too) should be included, (4) no words with two letters representing special values (such as the /th/ in thin or /ea/ in bean) should be included, (5) the words to be learned should be useful (such as the, a, and what), and (6) the words should be meaningful to children (such as birthday, mother, and father). When these sug-
Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction The linguistic reading programs of the mid1960s were primarily designed as beginning 298
Listservs in Literacy gested linguistic methods of instruction are considered, the reasoning behind the criteria is obvious. Phonetic consistency and contrast were the key underlying principles guiding reading instruction at that time. Consequently, materials used to teach reading had to provide an instructional approach using these principles. To understand these ideas, it is necessary to realize that neither the linguists developing these programs nor the programs themselves recommend teaching phonics. Children were not taught phonemes in isolation, nor were the sounds represented by graphemes (a printed representation of a phoneme) ever referred to during instruction. Words that contained consistent graphophonemic representations provided the opportunity for learners to concentrate on minimal pairs—words that differed by only one distinctive feature. As children progressed through the first sets of words, they were introduced to increasingly complex patterns. The vocabulary, however, always represented consistent phoneme-grapheme patterns of the spoken language. Then, by slowly adding a few necessary function words and a few high-interest words, simple sentences could be introduced, regardless of how strange these sentences may sound (e.g., “Nat, the fat cat, sat on the mat”). The underlying assumptions of this approach to teaching reading were that (1) instruction can progress without the need for any teacher explanation of the differences that letters make in words, and (2) knowledge about these differences has automatic transfer value. Rapid learning, inductive learning, and transfer of learning are all assumed (Durkin, 1972). Some linguistic programs further emphasized the importance of the inductive nature of this type of learning by suggesting that early reading materials should have no pictures so that readers would not be tempted to use clues other than the printed words to identify the vocabulary. The lack of pictures also helped assure that any misunderstanding caused by picture clues would not erroneously lead a reader to associate the wrong pronunciation with a written word. During the 1960s, there was a wide variety of proposals suggesting basic relationships between reading and linguistics; the most prominent were those exploring the relationships between reading instruction and language structure. Some researchers, however, suggested that linguistics of-
fered more. Transformational-generative grammar (a theory of grammar composed of rules that predict all possible grammatical but no ungrammatical sentences of a language) began to influence research in reading, and the influence of linguistics on reading instruction began to broaden in the 1970s. The narrow view derived from structural linguistics that concentrated on phoneme-grapheme relationships began to give way to the broader view of the interrelationships between language and thought (Hall and Ramig, 1978). In the late 1960s and early 1970s, fields of linguistics such as psycholinguistics (the interdisciplinary field of psychology and linguistics in which language behavior is examined) and sociolinguistics (the study of language as a social phenomenon) began to affect how reading instruction was perceived. This influence moved the field to a much broader, meaning-focused approach to reading instruction. William Earl Smith See Also Phonics Instruction; Phonological and Phonemic Awareness; Psycholinguistics References Bloomfield, Leonard. 1942. “Linguistics and Reading.” Elementary English Review 19:125–130, 183–186. Durkin, Dolores. 1972. Phonics, Linguistics, and Reading. New York: College Press. Fries, Charles C. 1963. Linguistics and Reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Hall, Mary Ann, and Christopher J. Ramig. 1978. Linguistic Foundations for Reading. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Young, Sherrye Lynn Smith. 1973. The Relationship of Reading and Linguistics: A Critical Essay and Annotated Bibliography. Ph.D. diss., Ohio University, Athens.
Listservs in Literacy Literacy listservs are computer-based mailing lists or discussion lists to which individuals may subscribe for the dual purposes of obtaining information and participating in collegial discussion. All listservs require participants to subscribe to the list. Many listservs provide a moderator who screens, and sometimes selects, messages that are sent out to the list. In the field of literacy, the topic of listservs is important because the use of technology now brings the world into our homes, classrooms, and work299
Listservs in Literacy places. As a part of the evolving technology, listservs provide still one more forum for discussion and the sharing of ideas concerning literacy in general, practices in literacy, research in literacy, and other means of communicating about the field for interested parties.
Listservs Directly Related to Literacy There are a growing number of available listserv resources, which range from simplistic to very sophisticated. Listservs can be created by teachers or students at all grade levels, who of course have varying levels of technology knowledge. Many of the well-established listservs are housed at major universities, publishing houses, or local school districts. Literacy organizations, including the International Reading Association (IRA) (available: http://www.reading.org), the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) (available: http:// www.ncte.org), and the National Reading Conference (NRC) (available: http://nrc.oakland. edu), are among many that have posted ongoing listservs open to their membership and the general public. These same organizations all have electronic editions of their professional journals in addition to their listservs. The National Reading Conference (NRC) has a private listserv exclusively open to the membership of the organization called NRCEMAIL. This was a pioneer listserv in literacy. The list currently has approximately 500 subscribers who are members of NRC. The listserv includes messages about literacy research, professional conferences, organizational business, position announcements, policy issues in literacy, and requests for resources, such as articles on a particular topic or course syllabi. Another long-standing listserv site is RTEACHER (available: http://
[email protected]), which has long been an active component of the International Reading Association’s journal, The Reading Teacher. This subscription-based listserv provides valuable information to educators and the lay public on literacy issues. Another popular site is the OnLine Communities listserv for the IRA’s electronic journal, Reading Online. This listserv (available: http://www.readingonline.org) provides opportunities for users to discuss the posted articles and engage in discussions with the authors and editors of the journal.
The Role of Listservs in Literacy Listservs in literacy play an essential role in providing users with the opportunity to learn more about specific research, teaching or instructional techniques, locating other interested partners for the purpose of collaborative classroom-based research, and providing students with e-pals or “key pals” (electronic pen pals). Literacy listservs are likely to be of great value to school personnel (including, but not limited to, teachers, students, administrators, library or media specialists, paraprofessionals, teacher aides, and parents), university-based teachereducators and researchers, librarians, members of professional organizations, authors, editors, commercial educational publishing houses, users of noncommercialized listservs, and members of professional organizations’ special interest groups. Joining an Existing Listserv Many listservs are administered through subscriptions that may be found on established Internet sites (listed below). However, just as many listservs are privately held by organizations and are offered for subscription only by their membership or by special invitation. There are usually two e-mail addresses that need to be used: an address to which a potential subscriber must send a message indicating a desire to join the listserv and an address to which the user sends all correspondence. In the first step to membership, the potential user receives notification that the subscription application has (or has not) been accepted. Often, the new subscriber will also receive additional instructions concerning the proper use, etiquette, and possible access to a database of users and current topics. Sometimes a user may need to subscribe to subsets of a major listserv that are of particular interest. Some listservs restrict access to certain users, depending upon the users’ “need to know” or based upon required credentials for access. Some listserv administrators screen messages that are sent to the list.
Listserv Activity Most users find that once they subscribe to a listserv, they begin to receive postings of information, questions, requests for information, and responses to other users’ discussions. Sometimes the amount of e-mail related to these listservs is overwhelming. In response to this, many listserv 300
Listservs in Literacy administrators have established ways to classify how users receive information (i.e., in groups, based on selected topics, based on selected users, and so on). This classification system can usually be directly controlled by the subscriber and may help to filter out issues of lesser interest. One example may be taken from the OnLine Communities listserv of Reading Online, an open community forum for all subscribers to discuss articles that have appeared in the recent electronic edition or in archived articles. Subscribers may post comments about the articles, interact with other individuals who have posted comments, send questions or comments to the author, or simply pose questions or exchange ideas and experiences. This list, along with other professional journal listservs, allows users the opportunity for worldwide intellectual exchange. Having the ability to discuss relevant issues and themes with experts in the field is a unique opportunity not previously afforded to the average individual. The possibilities for global understandings about literacy issues and for sharing multicultural/multiethnic ideas are a very powerful component of these listservs. They may also serve as exemplars for students in the field as they “test the waters” with their own newly acquired learning and experiment in conducting dialogues with the greater community of learners in the field.
agogical e-mail dialogue. The authors concluded that although listservs can provide a useful vehicle for dialogue, many students remain on the outskirts of the conversation. Cathy Kurkjian, Ken Weiss, and Helen Abadiano (1998) found that students “lurked” on a listserv. Students read postings but did not choose to voice their opinion. In some cases, this was due to fear that their opinions might be shallow or seem elementary. Further results from this study pointed to perceived feelings of isolation. This perception seemed to be contrary to the very purpose of joining a listserv, but for many, this was also reality. Many users also felt technology challenged and preferred not to use the computer as a tool. They missed the spontaneity of face-to-face conversation. In fact, students who subscribed to this listserv stated that they could not “read” the tone or emotion of other users. Community of Learners When listservs are at their best, participants find them to be useful communities of learning. Neophytes and experts exchange ideas, pose questions, debate issues, seek collaboration, and make lasting professional/personal acquaintances. A well-moderated listserv provides a safe environment where all participants’ views are respected and encouraged. It is not uncommon on some literacy listservs to find scholars in pursuit of other scholars. It is on these listservs that researchers seek out collaborators. For example, initial findings of a research project may be posted for feedback. Often, faculty from institutions of higher education seek classroom teachers who would be willing to participate in collaborative research across the country or in other countries. Still other listservs encourage teachers and parents to seek out conversations and advice from professionals in the field. One other kind of listserv encourages students to converse with authors of favorite books. In the world of academia, Blackboard.com (available: http://www.blackboard.com) is a recent introduction. This is a multifaceted site for use by college instructors as another learning tool for the classroom. Several components of this service include linking web sites directly to an instructor’s course and providing forums for students and instructors to converse electronically about issues discussed in texts as well as the course in general. The site is secure, meaning
Social Aspects of Listservs Although the use of listservs might be construed by some to isolate users, listservs are tools that can be used to help form a community and to tap into a social-constructivist (see Constructivism) approach to the construction of meaning. Shared ideas and answers to questions open the realm of a wider community to users. Through the use of listservs, students as well as experts are able to discuss narrow or broad issues concerning literacy. For many users of listservs, this opportunity is unique, providing them with the ability to reach out to the larger community and be heard. Woodrow Trathen and Gary Moorman (2001) documented the use in six universities of a private listserv for students and professors participating in content-area reading courses. The students jointly used an e-mail listserv called READ-L. The purpose of the listserv was to engage students and professors enrolled in similar courses at these six institutions in ped301
Listservs in Literacy that only subscribers (usually established by the course instructor) may participate. The service also provides users with the ability to have a virtual chat room, where live synchronous conversations take place. Students of all ages and at all academic levels are encouraged to join appropriate listservs to help them learn, understand, and grow. Many children’s book publishers have established “safe” kid web sites that include listserv forums with authors, illustrators, poets, and storytellers. Other listserv sites are designed for students to write to e-pals or key pals (electronic pen pals) from around the globe. Several web sites have been established to engage children of all ages in the literacy learning process. These web sites contain specific age-appropriate Internet projects to assist student learning. As a component of these web sites, students, teachers, and parents are encouraged not only to participate in the projects but to submit new ideas. Sharing of ideas and posting of finished projects is encouraged through lively discussions posted on specific listservs established by the project originators (Weiss and Kurkjian, 1999).
community or audience. In addition, many subscribers to the classroom listserv expressed concerns about privacy. Who could read the e-mail? Would the comments be taken personally and result in some kind of repercussion for the author? As a result of these fears, many subscribers to the class listserv chose to be silent. Don Leu and Deborah Leu (2000) have cautioned that teachers who choose to use listservs in their classrooms must also be aware that some content may not always be appropriate for students. Although most listservs have moderators who monitor content, the very nature of the listserv (i.e., that it is open to subscribers who are free to post anything they wish) may prove to be troublesome to some users. To that end, there are also many well-established listservs created especially for children. A list of some of these is given below. Specific Listservs It is almost impossible to provide an up-to-date section of suggested listservs in the literacy field. Dot.com sites seem to appear and disappear with a rapidity that eludes most users. Often, potential subscribers receive a message that a particular site does not exist. The short list provided here includes sites that have shown relative stability. For the literacy professional and students in higher education: Available: http://www.readingonline.org. This is the official electronic publication of the International Reading Association. The OnLine Communities section provides a listserv forum for subscribers. Available: http://
[email protected]. org. This is the site at which subscriptions may be obtained to the RTEACHER listserv of the International Reading Association. Available: http://www.ncte.org. This is the official web site for the National Council of Teachers of English. Available: http://nrc.oakland.edu. This is the official web site for members of the National Reading Conference, an organization of literacy researchers and policymakers. Information about NRCEMAIL may be obtained at this web site. For classroom teachers seeking literacy listservs for themselves and for their students: Kidsphere is a listserv that provides opportunities for students, teachers, and parents to discuss education-related ideas. Kidsphere requires
Possible Downsides of Using Listservs Along with the positive aspects of this electronic forum come some negative issues. Administrators of many of the listservs in literacy have acknowledged that listservs often take a great deal of time to catch on. Subscribers are slow to enter into conversations, and many subscribers simply read the postings in their e-mail and move on. Another major issue concerning listservs is the lack of sense of audience. Very often, users of the listserv pose a statement or question that goes unanswered. It is almost as if subscribers to the listserv do not see this tool as a community forum where dialogue might take place. Individual comments are the norm, rather than the use of extended conversations. Kurkjian, Weiss, and Abadiano (1998) involved graduate students in two children’s literature courses at two college campuses in using a listserv to discuss multicultural children’s literature. One unanticipated outcome was much resistance to conducting sustained conversations on the listserv. Instead, users posted isolated comments to which there were few authentic and spontaneous responses. There was little sense of 302
Literacy and Culture a subscription; to obtain one send e-mail to
[email protected]. To find key pals (electronic pen pals), visit the web site (available: http://www.keypals.com) for an extensive list of other listservs devoted to safe electronic pen pals. Other listservs devoted to literacy topics may be accessed at the tile.net web site (available: http://www.tile.net). At this site, users are prompted for a keyword to conduct their search. Keying in the word “literacy” will access many well-established discussion sites related to the broad topic of literacy. Kenneth J. Weiss
vidualized sounds of a language, is best described as the engine, or cause, of social and cultural change or whether the relationship is more reciprocal. The positions researchers, educators, and policymakers may take either implicitly or explicitly on this issue have important ramifications for the funding and the direction of literacy research and education. Literacy as the Engine of Western Civilization In the West, although the association of literacy with cultural development can be traced to Matthew Arnold and other nineteenth-century reformers, current discussions of the literacyculture relationship first appeared in the 1960s. Anthropologist Jack Goody and literary historian Ian Watt (1963) argued that the adoption of a phonetically based system of writing in Ancient Greece was the critical event in the foundation of Western civilization. In their telling, the ease of learning a writing system based on a one-to-one correspondence between the sounds of spoken language and individual signs, or letters, liberated writing and reading from the control of a few highly educated individuals and produced unprecedented levels of mass literacy (among free Greek males). Goody and Watt also argued that the recording of arguments and discussions in writing effectively enabled readers to return to speeches and conversations in order to examine statements more rationally and logically. For Goody and Watt, it was this process of rational inspection of thought that led, in time, to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in Europe and the West. Later historians took up this argument and extended it to a discussion of the invention of the printing press and the Protestant Reformation, which they argued produced mass literacy and the eventual democratization of political and economic life in Europe. The crowning achievement of this period for these historians was the (British) invention in the eighteenth century of the prose essay, a genre that prized explicit expression of ideas within a text that was written to be read and understood apart from the social context of its writing. It was claimed that in making writing into a process driven by the imperatives of logic, for the first time writing became a technology that could not only transmit preconceived facts and ideas but that could now rationally produce new knowledge. Because of its cognitive implications, the work
See Also Constructivism; Distance Learning; Hypertext; International Reading Association; National Council of Teachers of English; National Reading Conference; Reading Online; The Reading Teacher; Social Constructivism References Kurkjian, Catherine, Kenneth J. Weiss, and Helen R. Abadiano. 1998. “Electronic Exchanges across Campuses: Facilitating Forums for Concerns and Issues Surrounding the Selection and Use of Culturally Conscious Literature within a Multicultural Curriculum.” In The 1997 Proceedings of the National Association of Multicultural Education, pp. 338–358. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Leu, Donald J., and Deborah Diadiun Leu. 2000. Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the Classroom. 3rd ed. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon Publishers. Trathen, Woodrow, and Gary Moorman. 2001. “Using Email to Create Pedagogical Dialogue in Teacher Education.” Reading Research and Instruction 40:203–223. Weiss, Kenneth J., and Catherine Kurkjian. 1999. “Students and Teachers Discovering the Power of Internet Projects.” New England Reading Association Journal 35 (2):20–23.
Literacy and Culture Literacy’s relation to culture is a relatively recent topic of study that has grown largely out of concerns about relationships between school achievement and cultural development. Discussions about how literacy and culture are related have typically focused on the issue of whether literacy, and particularly alphabetic literacy, in which individual letters correspond to the indi303
Literacy and Culture
Volunteers helping English-language learners of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds (Elizabeth Crews)
in spite of increased rates of literacy. Second, carefully designed studies conducted by Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole (1981) that compared the cognitive practices of so-called primitive peoples with their counterparts in Western societies challenged the belief that literacy produces cognitive change. Scribner and Cole found that differences in the ways that individuals organized time and space depended not on their ability to read and write text but rather on whether they had participated in the practices of Westernized, formal education, which included the acquisition of literacy. Third, historian Harvey Graff (1987) determined that throughout the history of the West, increases in literacy across Europe have not preceded but instead have paralleled or followed periods of cultural change and economic and political development.
of Goody and Watt and others had a profound effect on educational research and policy within developing nations. It was asserted that what separated “modern” societies with their “modern” habits of rational, organized thought from “primitive” ones was the technology of print literacy. Policymakers and leaders of emerging and developing nations around the world embraced the belief that by investing heavily in adult and school literacy programs that taught the “basics” of alphabetic literacy—that is, how to decode written text into spoken language—preindustrial societies could be “bootstrapped” into the acquisition of modern, Westernized ways of perceiving time, space, and the organization of human and natural resources. However, the argument that literacy in and of itself would spur cognitive changes and economic and political development was later disproven by a number of seminal events and empirical studies. First, many if not most developing nations of the time failed to achieve either economic prosperity or political stability,
Literacy, Culture, and Schooling Within education, studies of the relationship between literacy and culture have most often been tied to the relationship between students’ 304
Literacy and Culture home cultures and their school achievement. Although there have been many exceptional individual cases, one of the most statistically consistent findings of educational research has been that children from low-income homes and many children of color have more difficulty acquiring and achieving proficiency in reading and writing than do children who are from middle- and upper-income homes and of European background. As in early studies of the general relationship between literacy and culture, early attempts to account for this finding often relied on broadly interpretive approaches and a narrow range of empirical evidence. In one study conducted in the United States in the 1960s, when African American preschoolers from low-income homes were brought into a controlled setting and asked to perform a series of psychological tests, the children balked and engaged in evasive verbal and physical behaviors, such as responding nonsensically or answering in one or two words. In other cases, interviews between European American, middle-class researchers and children from urban, low-income settings were tape-recorded and transcribed. In these interviews, the children spoke the dialect of their homes (usually vernacular Black English), whereas the researchers spoke the dialect of white, university-educated North Americans. Researchers concluded that the poor school achievement of low-income minority children was attributable to cognitive deficiencies that resulted from their lack of exposure to, and practice with, the standard dialect. In another study, conducted in Britain, when children from working-class homes were shown a series of drawings and asked to tell a story about them, they routinely told a story that could not be understood apart from the series of drawings; but when children of professional middle-class parents were shown the same series of pictures, the texts of their stories contained enough detail to be understood apart from the drawings. The speech practices of the workingclass children in this research were labeled “restrictive” and were used to account for difficulties that they had or were projected to have in reading and retelling stories in school, whereas the speech practices of children from professional backgrounds were labeled “elaborated” and were credited with these children’s relatively quick mastery of school literacy tasks.
However, later studies found that when minority children were interviewed by researchers from their own ethnic backgrounds in a dialect similar to their own and evaluated by criteria appropriate to the dialect and logical assumptions of their cultural group, their verbal performance equaled and in some cases arguably surpassed the fluency and logic of their largely white, middle-class counterparts. Other studies also showed that working-class students could provide detailed, elaborated stories about a series of pictures when questioned or when the full context of the storytelling task was explained to them. In addition, researchers have argued that minority and lowincome students’ apparent school failure should be more accurately described as an act of political resistance—that is, as a way of asserting their own cultural identity in opposition to the language and literacy practices of the dominant culture as it was represented in schools. Similar findings from other studies have recently led researchers to reconceptualize both literacy and culture as objects of investigation in several ways. First, rather than overgeneralize its findings and conclusions to all the people of an entire geographic region or nation or economy, culture was more often conceived as the practices and beliefs of one particular group of people within a specific location who shared particular historical, economic, political, ethnic, or linguistic characteristics. Although the findings of these studies were sometimes overgeneralized to a particular cultural group as a whole (e.g., studies of literacy and speech practices within a specific African American community were often generalized as characteristic of all African Americans), a more recent trend has been to examine secondary but very significant differences within primary cultural groups (e.g., middle-class versus working-class African Americans; female versus male working-class adolescents), often through case studies. Second, whereas early studies tended to assume that the acquisition of literacy occurred separately from the acquisition of spoken language, later studies found that the ways members of a group engaged in literate activities often extended and enhanced, rather than changed or directed, that group’s ways of using spoken language to communicate. For example, in one of the most influential studies of this period, Shirley Heath (1983) described how the commu305
Literacy and Culture nal reading aloud and sharing of letters and other texts among a community of working-class African Americans mirrored their ways of sharing information, extending exclusively oral communication patterns to literate activities. In another case, Heath described how the tacit conventions of oral storytelling within workingclass Appalachian families (tell the truth about yourself; be factual and literal in the telling; include a clear and unambiguous lesson) extended to the ways parents taught their children to read (by asking literal comprehension questions) and sanctioned the types of stories children could tell or write (e.g., no fantasy stories). Third, causal relations between literacy and culture were depicted as increasingly more complex and specific to the material and historical conditions of groups and their individual members. Literacy was characterized less often as a technology or as a simple “one size fits all” tool to be applied in the same way within different circumstances. It was more often viewed as a practice or set of practices that frequently combined written and spoken language and that varied highly depending on the genre and form of text being read or written and the circumstances of use. In other words, the question of whether literacy changed, reinforced, or otherwise contributed to a group’s cultural, political, or material circumstances was seen to depend largely upon a wide range of factors and often upon how research findings were interpreted. Moreover, in all cases, it was not the technology of literacy but the use of literacy within specific contexts that was at issue. This reconceptualization of relations between literacy and culture has been represented in a large number of studies conducted from the late 1970s to the present. Most of these can be placed in one of three categories. Studies of cultural congruence focused on differences and similarities between students’ home literacy practices and those they encountered at school. In addition to Heath’s study, the most influential of these has been the Kamehameha Early Education Project (KEEP), which focused on the problems that native Hawaiian children face in conventional primary schools. Kathryn Au (1980) demonstrated that by restructuring learning tasks as smallgroup activities that gave children more autonomy—a practice similar to the way “chores” were divided in the children’s homes—and by reor-
ganizing reading instruction in ways that mirrored the Hawaiian cultural event known as “talk story,” researchers were able to reduce the anxiety Hawaiian children felt at school, thus dramatically improving their performance in reading and other academic areas. Studies of emergent literacy focused on the preschool experiences of young children with text. Most of these studies followed the development of individual children and found that in situations in which children were surrounded with print—in some cases through storybooks and in others through “environmental” print such as that appearing on cereal boxes and newspapers— and involved in its functional use, they very frequently grasped the basic conventions and patterns of stories, as well as the conventions of writing in that culture, such as word boundaries, scanning from left to right, recognition of basic sight words, and in some cases, the elements of phonetic decoding, without formal instruction. Studies of the sociology of readers and reading have focused on the ways that older readers, often adolescents and adults considered to be uneducated or aliterate (able but resistant to reading) in public settings such as school, make active and sophisticated use of multiple forms of text, including novels, magazines, television, and the Internet, in their private lives. One interesting discussion raised by these studies has been the extent to which the reading of novels, and particularly realistic fiction, has contributed to the emancipation of women since the eighteenth century. Many social theorists and literary historians have considered the novel, as well as other genres of mass popular culture, to be cultural technologies that drew their readers into beliefs and practices designed to promote the division of labor necessary for the maintenance of capitalist, male-dominated societies. In their analysis, women were taught by novels to “live for their men” and to be content with a life at home, whereas men were taught to live public lives and, freed from the management of home and children, to devote their time and energy to work in the public sphere. Adult and adolescent women who read romance and other “trash” novels recreationally were characterized as cultural dupes whose pleasure became the instrument of their own domestic servitude. The work of Nancy Armstrong (1987) and other recent critics, however, has pointed to the socially reform306
Literacy and Culture ing nature of many popular novels and to the plots of the most popular romances of the last two centuries, in which the heroine often struggled successfully to establish an identity and a life outside the home—even if, at the end of the story, she usually found happiness in the arms of a loving husband. These critics have credited the novel with the eventual entry of women into the “helping” professions and later into leadership in business and public service. Moreover, ethnographic studies have found that readers of these novels were often far more aware and critical of the plots of the stories and the decisions of characters than had been assumed. Far from being duped by these stories, readers used them as occasions to escape domestic tasks and to imagine—and sometimes to enact—outcomes that challenged and contradicted cultural norms.
or more sounds as a syllable), whole-language teachers prefer to “facilitate” children’s literacy development through holistic, functional activities such as story times and a variety of writing projects that may include book making, schoolnewspaper work, and letter writing. However, advocates of skills-based, or balanced literacy, approaches have recently cited the same studies of emergent literacy and cultural congruence to argue that the success of wholelanguage approaches is tied to literacy practices found in the homes of middle-class children of European descent. They argue from statistical evidence that if these children acquire literacy in school with greater ease and proficiency, this is because the practices of that cultural group are educationally superior to those of other cultural groups. To compensate for what is perceived as the deficiency of many minority and low-income children’s preschool experiences with language and literacy, advocates of balanced literacy prescribe specific programs of direct instruction in isolated skills and grounded in the reading of texts whose vocabulary is carefully controlled for its phonetic regularity. They would then supplement this program with story-time activities. Since the end of the 1990s, balanced literacy has been the approach most often favored by state boards of education and in large public grants to researchers. Mark Dressman
Impact on Literacy Education Findings from these studies have been interpreted by literacy educators in ways that support a wide range of conflicting, and often contradictory, instructional practices. Sociological studies are often appropriated by advocates of critical pedagogy to emphasize the need for educators to teach literacy as a practice of learning to read both “the word and the world” (Freire and Macedo, 1987)—that is, to use literacy instruction to raise the political consciousness of marginalized and economically oppressed groups. Similarly, advocates of multiculturalism cite studies of the continuing incongruence between the home culture of ethnic-minority students and the schools they attend to argue the need for instruction that builds on the language and literacy practices that minority children bring to school, as well as for books and other materials that accurately reflect these students’ life-worlds and historical perspectives. Advocates of the whole-language philosophy frequently cite studies of emergent literacy to argue against the teaching of reading and writing as a discrete set of subskills, on the grounds that such instruction subverts developmental processes of literacy acquisition that operate within literate communities and has negative motivational consequences for later school achievement. Rather than directly instruct students in the primary grades in subskills such as phonetic analysis (isolating the syllables and sounds of words) and synthesis (“blending” two
See Also Balanced Literacy Instruction; History of Reading Instruction; Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment References Armstrong, Nancy. 1987. Desire and Domestic Fiction: A Political History of the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Au, Kathryn Hu-Pei. 1980. “Participation Structures in a Reading Lesson with Hawaiian Children: Analysis of a Culturally Appropriate Instructional Event.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 11:91–115. Freire, Paulo, and Donaldo Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Goody, Jack, and Ian Watt. 1963. “The Consequences of Literacy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:304–345. Graff, Harvey J. 1987. The Literacy Myth: Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture and Society. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
307
Literacy Autobiography Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Ways with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Scribner, Sylvia, and Michael Cole. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
by reliving and retelling the past, an individual can discover undesirable patterns and move toward change (Spires et al., 1999). A literacy autobiography can serve to make a teacher more explicitly aware of beliefs that may predict classroom practices that are advantageous or deleterious to students. An account of what we know about teachers’ literacy histories gleaned from studies of their literacy autobiographies follows.
Literacy Autobiography A literacy autobiography consists of a description of a person’s unique literacy history from earliest memories to the present (Readence, Bean, and Baldwin, 2001). Literacy autobiographies have become an important teaching and research tool because a written account of a teacher’s own literacy experiences offers a window on well-established beliefs about classroom teaching. This is crucial, as these beliefs are likely to influence classroom practice. Thus, teacher literacy autobiographies shed light on the interpretive filters we use to make instructional decisions (Bean, 1998). For example, Elizabeth Sturtevant (1996) found that two experienced social studies teachers revealed in their autobiographies past histories of teachers they had who attempted to cover the textbook material at a shallow, rapidfire pace. This pattern that they had experienced as students persisted as teachers in their own content teaching. Changing learned patterns is never easy. George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1999) noted that our memories are deeply embodied, resulting in very enduring memory traces. Such experiential learning is difficult but not impossible to modify. Accounts of teachers’ past literacy experiences shed light on attitudes toward reading that may range from positive to negative associations as a result of memorable experiences in and out of classrooms. Attitudes are defined as those feelings that cause a reader to approach or avoid a reading situation (Readence, Bean, and Baldwin, 2001). Most important, attitudes toward reading influence frequency of voluntary reading, and this, in turn, influences reading achievement (McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth, 1995). An information-laden society places a high premium on developing a citizenry that reads widely and critically across various narrative and expository genres. Through new experiences, we can learn a great deal about literacy beliefs that have been forged at an early age but are still amenable to change. Autobiographies afford reader reflection, so that
Research on Teachers’ Literacy Autobiographies In a study of preservice teachers’ attitudes toward reading in Hawaii, Thomas Bean (1994) used autobiographies to gain an understanding of their literacy beliefs. The respondents were asked to start by writing about their earliest memories of reading or being read to, progressing through elementary, middle, secondary, and more recent stages of reading development. Specifically, they were asked to comment on: (1) the kinds of books they were read to or read at particular ages, (2) reading or lack of reading at the point where they became independent readers, (3) feelings about what they read or had to read at various stages of reading development, (4) present reading habits and preferences, (5) people who influenced liking or disliking reading at various stages, (6) places where books are acquired, and (7) feelings and sensations currently associated with reading (Readence, Bean, and Baldwin, 2001). The study revealed that parents and other relatives were recalled as significant positive influences, whereas negative influences included not being read to by parents and dull textbooks in the secondary grades. At the earliest stages of reading development, Dr. Seuss and other popular children’s books were recalled fondly. These early precursors to voluntary recreational reading are important because the frequency of recreational reading is linked to reading achievement as measured by national assessments. Although reading for pleasure is worthwhile in its own right, recent research shows that students who engage in regular voluntary reading outpace their peers who do not read regularly (McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth, 1995). Unfortunately, by the middle and secondary grades, reading is perceived as work and early positive attitudes toward reading are often replaced with negative associations. 308
Literacy Autobiography Thomas Bean and John Readence (1995) conducted a comparative case study analysis of teachers enrolled in required content-area reading classes in Nevada and Hawaii who wrote literacy autobiographies early in their respective courses. These fifty-three individuals recalled positive experiences, including bedtime stories being read to them, library visits, books in the home, book ownership, parents who were observed reading, Bible stories, and bookmobile visits to rural areas. They also recalled negative factors such as not being read to, round robin oral reading (i.e., calling on students to read orally one after the other; Harris and Hodges, 1995), book reports, ability grouping and labeling, and no parent modeling of reading. Reading attitudes declined by the middle and secondary grades, but these teachers also recalled positive experiences during those years, including book-sharing discussions in classes, exchanging favorite books with friends, reading to escape more mundane dimensions of adolescent life, and field trips linked to concepts in their textbooks. In some rare instances, secondary teachers introduced students to books related to their unique Hawaiian ethnicity and cultural interests, and this snowballed into further reading in this genre. The profound impact of early reading experiences also influences career choices. For example, a biology teacher recalled how her father’s extensive collection of wildlife readings, coupled with living in rural Alaska, undoubtedly played a role in her interest in science. Attitudes toward reading at the various stages expressed in their autobiographies were by no means static. For example, when teachers took a children’s literature class as part of their teaching-credential course work, they often rekindled a lost interest in reading for pleasure. Research using literacy autobiographies to study the influence of gender on literacy development shows the powerful sway of dominant social practices on students’ selection of reading material. Barbara Guzzetti and her colleagues (2002) conducted an extensive review of research in this area, identifying thirteen studies employing literacy autobiographies. Findings revealed that gender played a crucial role in limiting perceived choices in voluntary reading. For example, male readers reported selecting comics featuring strong male superhero characters, whereas female readers gravitated toward Judy
Blume novels. Social-justice issues of power and identity development were shown to be strongly influenced by mainstream gender roles and their representation in literature and literacy autobiographies. Hence, findings from these studies show that literacy autobiographies are an important teaching and research tool and provide a window on students’ life experiences. Thomas W. Bean References Bean, Thomas W. 1994. “A Constructivist View of Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes toward Reading through Case Study Analysis of Autobiographies.” In Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, eds., Multidimensional Aspects of Literacy Research: Theory and Practice, pp. 370–379. Forty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. ———. 1998. “Teacher Literacy Histories and Adolescent Voices: Changing Content-Area Classrooms.” In Donna E. Alvermann, Kathleen A. Hinchman, David W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, and Diane R. Waff, eds., Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives, pp. 149–170. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bean, Thomas W., and John E. Readence. 1995. “A Comparative Study of Content Area Literacy Students’ Attitudes toward Reading through Autobiography Analysis.” In Kathleen A. Hinchman, Donald J. Leu, and Charles A. Kinzer, eds., Perspectives on Literacy Research and Practice, pp. 325–333. Forty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Guzzetti, Barbara, Josephine Young, Margaret Gritsavage, Laurie Fyfe, and Marie Hardenbrook. 2002. Reading, Writing, and Talking Gender in Literacy Learning. Literacy Studies Series. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and the National Reading Conference. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges, eds. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. McKenna, Michael C., Dennis J. Kear, and Richard A. Ellsworth. 1995. “Children’s Attitudes toward Reading: A National Survey.” Reading Research Quarterly 30:934–956. Readence, John E., Thomas W. Bean, and R. Scott Baldwin. 2001. Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach. 7th ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
309
Literacy Definitions Spires, Hiller A., Josie B. Williams, Alecia Jackson, and Lois E. Huffman. 1999. “Leveling the Academic Playing Field through Autobiographical Reading and Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42(4):296–304. Sturtevant, Elizabeth G. 1996. “Lifetime Influences on the Literacy-Related Instructional Beliefs of Experienced High-School History Teachers: Two Comparative Case Studies.” Journal of Literacy Research 28:227–257.
most misunderstood and politically charged problems confronting the United States. Definitions of literacy have evolved dramatically during the last century, yet there is no general agreement among scholars or the general public on what determines a person’s literacy. Commonplace and typically unsupportable assumptions about the nature and benefits of literacy underpin many adult programs and most pronouncements made by educational leaders, politicians, and employers. Because low-level literacy often correlates with poverty and a lack of equal education and opportunity, adult literacy inevitably raises questions of power, class, race, gender, and linguistic difference. Welfare-reform advocates, for example, argue that low levels of literacy ability have prevented individuals from acquiring jobs that will help them escape poverty. Welfare-rights advocates, however, contend that poverty and inequality have often detrimentally affected individuals’ literacy abilities. All of these issues seem to arise every decade or so like the mythical phoenix from the ashes of indifference or ignorance and fan the flames of concern among the public, governmental leaders, and adult educators.
Literacy Definitions What does it mean to say someone is “literate”? We’ve heard illiteracy used to describe a number of faults: inability to recognize literary allusions; lack of clarity in writing a message; committing a faux pas in speech or writing, as in, “She gave it to George and I”; confusing lie with lay; or even misspelling a few words. But such comments assume that in the United States, everybody goes to school for twelve years and receives instruction and practice in using written forms of the standard language. After twelve years spent reading such classics as Huckleberry Finn or Romeo and Juliet, studying grammar, and writing reports, journals, essays, and even sometimes poems, many of us consider ourselves to be literate, and indeed we are—we have read and can refer to enough of the classics of English literature to carry on conversations at conventions of the National Council of Teachers of English with other well-read people. Over the last thirty years of our work with adults becoming readers and writers, we’ve also heard illiteracy used by well-meaning volunteers with organizations such as the Literacy Volunteers of America or Laubach Literacy: these volunteers stand ready to teach the alphabet and very short, very simple texts to illiterate adults. Our tax dollars support the National Institute for Literacy, whose job it is to suggest ways and means of making thousands of citizens literate. What is it NIFL is trying to do? Is it trying to replicate twelve years of American education or just help some uneducated folks master their letters? Or is it trying to do something in between? Here we want to offer a fresh look at the terms adult literacy and illiteracy, to indicate what these terms mean in historical context and to suggest how we can step outside traditional definitions that constrain educational efforts. We believe that adult illiteracy is one of the
Definitions of Literacy Definitions of adult literacy of the last 100 years have reflected the social and political realties of the particular times, and the same is true today as we begin the twenty-first century. In earlier periods, individuals were considered literate if they could sign their names or read a simple message. Later, literacy was defined as a number of grades completed in school—those who had attended four or five years of elementary school, for example, were deemed to be literate, whether or not they could read or write. As recently as the 1960s, scholars and practitioners were describing literacy in terms of grade levels, for example, specifying that adults ought to be reading at a twelfth-grade level. School-based notions and grade equivalents proved to be ineffectual ways of looking at the literacy of adults in an increasingly complex society. The very notion of a person being literate or illiterate, researchers maintained, was a misleading one. Even the seemingly most illiterate individual in our society possesses some ability to read and write in specific contexts. Thus, scholars began to explore literacy in terms of 310
Literacy Definitions functional competence, that is, by investigating how individuals could use literacy in particular situations to attain particular goals. The emphasis shifted from the schoolhouse to the actual world in which adults lived and worked. An influential study that popularized the notion of function competency was the Adult Performance Level (APL) project published in 1975 (Northcutt, 1975). The researchers determined levels of competence by identifying effective use of specific skills (reading, writing, computation, and so forth) in specific content or knowledge areas (occupational, consumer economic, and so on). The criteria the researchers used were level of education, level of income, and status of occupation. Based upon these criteria, they established three levels of function competency: adults who function with difficulty, adults who are functional but not proficient (i.e., proficient at being adult), and proficient adults. According to these guidelines, 34 million adults were designated as functioning with difficulty (Northcutt, 1975). Although subsequently criticized for basing its definition of literacy on socioeconomic bias, the APL project still exemplifies the way most major studies approach literacy. The recent and extensive national study—the touchstone for all governmental funding and popular discourse—is the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), conducted by researchers at the Educational Testing Service (Kirsch et al., 1993). This project utilized both a literacy assessment and a background interview with a sample of over 26,000 adults sixteen and older. Their reading ability was tested in three areas: prose literacy (news stories, poems, fiction, and so on); document literacy (job applications, bus schedules, maps, and the like); and quantitative literacy (balancing a checkbook, and so forth). The researchers established five levels of PDQ (prose, document, and quantitative) competence, and 50 percent of adults were found to be in the lowest two levels, 30 percent in the third level, and 20 percent in the highest two. Accordingly, it is now widely assumed and accepted that 90–100 million adults in the United States do not possess the literacy abilities to function effectively in society. These surveys and ways of looking at and determining literacy levels have not gone unchallenged by researchers, practitioners, community activists, and adults with limited literacy abilities.
Literacy, these critics maintain, cannot be measured in terms of some general set of criteria, such as the NALS “PDQ” scales, regardless of how complex or sophisticated they are. Rather, literacy—all literacy—must be viewed within particular social and cultural contexts and can be defined only within those specific settings. Street (1984) captured much of this current view of literacy in arguing that literacy is not an autonomous set of generalized skills and practices predetermined by others; rather, literacy is an “ideological” enterprise that is culturally embedded and socially and politically constructed. Similarly contentious is the way adult literacy is seen through the lens of employment. Earlier research attempted to determine functional literacy levels for selected jobs in the military. Researchers then extrapolated those findings to jobs in the civilian sector. Subsequently, workplace literacy has emerged as the primary way of assessing literacy among national leaders and employers. This emphasis on (typically limited) job-related literacy skills has gained even greater prominence since the welfare-reform legislation of the mid-1990s. Critics have rejected this view of literacy, whose primary purpose is to allow people to function on the job. They argue that such an orientation severely limits the potential power of literacy to help develop critically intelligent adults who are able to critique unjust social and economic practices and thus gain more power and control over their lives. Lastly, since about 1975, researchers and practitioners have been exploring adult literacy in terms of its complexity, but literacy is still largely understood by the general public, program funders, and test makers to be solely a matter of reading. Writing as a key element of literacy is ignored or given slight emphasis. Even the National Adult Literacy Survey, for example, pays scant attention to adults’ writing. Questionable Assumptions about Adult Literacy Perhaps the most persistent assumption about adult literacy is that it leads development, eventually resulting in a more productive society, better jobs, more equality, and greater autonomy among individuals. This largely unfounded assumption has underscored literacy campaigns in the United States and around the world for decades. It still echoes in the rhetoric of politi311
Literacy Definitions cians, corporate leaders, and educators. Problems such as unemployment, poverty, and crime are directly tied to low literacy levels. The argument goes: these problems would be greatly diminished if only the people involved were more literate. There is little empirical evidence to support the assumption that increased levels of literacy lead to societal improvement or the necessary betterment of individuals’ lives. To the contrary, targeted studies over the decades have shown that improved levels of literacy for individuals in low-status jobs typically result in little economic improvement or change in job status (see, for example, Gowen’s 1992 study of workplace literacy education for hospital workers). Moreover, historical studies that have examined the effects of literacy upon societies have shown that it is not literacy that leads development. Such claims for the power of literacy are unfounded. The leading historian of literacy, Harvey Graff (1995), has contended that these claims rarely stand up to either empirical or conceptual scrutiny. A related assumption that has also proven to be untenable is the notion that literacy is a neutral set of skills and that adult literacy a neutral process whereby individuals acquire improved reading and writing abilities. Paulo Freire (1970) is best known for articulating the essential political, value-laden, and communal nature of all literacy endeavors and uses of reading and writing. His work and contention that literacy involves a critical understanding or reading of the world in which individuals live as members of particular communities has been deepened and extended by others since the early 1970s. Among those dispelling the neutral and individualistic nature of literacy are various feminist scholars who have examined the relationships among women, literacy, and societal expectations. Gender-related marginalization of women in many parts of the world has resulted in their lack of access to schooling and literacy education. Victoria Purcell-Gates and Robin Waterman (2000) provide an in-depth study of an adult women’s-literacy program in El Salvador that has implications in terms of content and process for programs in the United States. Similarly, Jennifer Horsman’s (2000) exploration of the effects that violence has upon women’s ability to learn has serious implications for adult literacy education. Every program must consider
how it can serve the needs of women who have experienced trauma and support their learning. A relatively recent phenomenon and nationally expanding effort is the family literacy movement. Some, though not all, family literacy programs are based upon the mistaken assumption that children struggle in school because their parents possess limited literacy abilities. If the parents’ literacy improves, so this reasoning goes, the parents will be better able to help their struggling children. Accordingly, literacy programs are focused on developing adults’ literacy in conjunction with that of their children. Unfortunately, some of these programs reflect a deficit view of adults rather than an understanding of how parents from different racial/ethnic backgrounds and in different communities might raise their children differently. The role of the literacy program is to help adults overcome their deficiencies. Often, they are asked to do “school stuff ” in relation to their children’s education, that is, to engage in practices that make them little more than uncritical extensions of the children’s teachers (Auerbach, 1989). A final false assumption is related to aliteracy, that is, the ability to read and write but the refusal to do so. This assumption is held by many adults with low levels of literacy and even some educators. They believe that by simply living in a “print-saturated environment” and acquiring a set of basic decoding skills, individuals will become effective readers and writers. The relationships among practice, proficiency, and intentionality are ignored or given slight attention. Researchers have shown, however, that literacy is not only a practice but also a culture; it is something individuals choose to do. Cecil Smith (1995), for example, has documented that nonreaders performed at the lowest levels of the NALS “PDQ” Scales. Victoria Purcell-Gates (1995) contended that intentionality is often missing from the literacy development of those with limited literacy; writing and reading are neither integral nor necessary parts of their worlds. Print is available to a person only to the extent that it is used by other members of that person’s sociocultural group. Issues In addition to the concerns outlined above, two primary issues face adult literacy theory and 312
The Literacy Dictionary Gowen, Sheryl G. 1992. The Politics of Workplace Literacy: A Case Study. New York: Teachers College Press. Graff, Harvey J. 1995. The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Horsman, Jennifer. 2000. Too Scared to Learn: Women, Violence, and Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kirsch, Irwin, Ann Jungeblut, L. Jenkins, and A. Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Princeton: Educational Testing Service. Luke, Allen, and John Elkins. 1998. “Editorial: Reinventing Literacy in ‘New Times.’” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42:4–7. Northcutt, Norvell. 1975. Adult Functional Competency: A Summary. Austin: University of Texas. Purcell-Gates, Victoria. 1995. Other People’s Words: The Cycle of Low Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Purcell-Gates, Victoria, and Robin A. Waterman. 2000. Now We Read, We See, We Speak: Portrait of Literacy Development in an Adult Freirean-Based Class. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Smith, M. Cecil. 1995. “Differences in Adults’ Reading Practices and Literacy Proficiencies.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:196–219. Street, Brian. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
practice in both the near and the more distant future. Both of these issues involve diversity and multiplicity: a multilingual society and a multiliterate society. Now in the first years of the twenty-first century, the United States is undergoing a radical transformation; it is becoming a multilingual society. Immigrants from all over the world continue to land on these shores. Latinos, many of whom speak Spanish as a first language, will become the largest minority group in the United States within the next two decades. In urban schools, there are often thirty or more languages being spoken. Accordingly, a primary issue for adult-literacy educators and program developers is how to help adults who do not speak English as a first language develop their literacy abilities in both their native language and in English. This is a dramatic challenge and will require a concerted effort to prepare skilled and multilingual adult educators and to adequately fund ESL programs. Literacy scholars have been contending that we are in “new times” and that we can no longer think of literacy as a simple or a single phenomenon. Rather, they maintain, we must begin to think of critical multiliteracies that involve the ability to use a wide range of print and nonprint texts in an ever-expanding and increasingly sophisticated world of information, entertainment, and advertisement (Luke and Elkins, 1998). Adult literacy, in both theory and practice, is challenged by these “new times.” Researchers, practitioners, and program developers can no longer think simply of literacy in terms of some “basic skills” or limited workplace competencies. Instead, they must begin to explore ways of helping adults develop a repertoire of strategies that will enable them to participate critically and effectively in their homes, communities, and places of employment and in the affairs of the nation. This is a daunting task as we enter the new millennium, but it is one that must be addressed in an increasingly diverse nation. Francis E. Kazemek and Pat Rigg
The Literacy Dictionary The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing, published by the International Reading Association (1995), is a reference work containing key terms and concepts relevant to theory, research, and educational practices in the literacy field (see International Reading Association). Edited by Theodore Harris (d. 1995) and Richard E. Hodges, the primary purpose of this publication is to provide those involved in the study or teaching of literacy at all levels with a concise resource of terms used in contemporary and historical writings about literacy. Although the rubric of literacy covers a broad spectrum in current literature—cultural literacy, mathematical literacy, computer literacy, among others—the focus of this dictionary centers on terminology pertinent to linguistic literacy, defined as reading and writing competence, and to supporting disciplines, fields of study, and professions. Initially intended as a revision of an earlier
See Also Adult Literacy; Adult Literacy Testing References Auerbach, Elsa R. 1989. “Toward a Social-Contextual Approach to Family Literacy.” Harvard Educational Review 59:165–181. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press.
313
The Literacy Dictionary publication by the same editors, namely, A Dictionary of Reading and Related Terms (1981), extensive changes in educational theory, practices, and supporting fields in the intervening years prompted a new conceptualization of the nature and scope of a literacy-focused dictionary. To account for these changes, The Literacy Dictionary is broader and more extensive in scope than its predecessor. With literacy as the core concept, five domains are sources of entries. They, and the categories within them, are: (1) fields of literacy—general, political, emergent, adult, (2) cognate fields— psychology, sociology, anthropology, physiology, (3) language—general, psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, grammar, semantics, semiotics, (4) curriculum/instruction—general, reading, writing, and (5) technical inquiry/services—research, measurement, supporting technology. To insure that The Literacy Dictionary incorporates key terms and accurate definitions, an advisory board of forty-seven scholars with expertise in the fields and topics covered in the dictionary provided critical editorial comment in term selection and in reviewing definitions prepared by the editors and the associate editors, Frank Greene and Dianne Monson. In addition, nearly 150 literacy specialists nationally and internationally reviewed the word-entry list for inclusiveness. A selected group of international scholars also offered valuable suggestions regarding the usage and translation of technical terms in a number of languages other than English. Besides the conventional features found in most standard dictionaries, such as cross-referencing, parts of speech, and variant spellings of entries, The Literacy Dictionary contains several innovative features, including: (1) several essays written by invited scholars stating their personal views on selected topics of concern to the literacy field; among the topics covered are “Censorship,” “Dyslexia,” “Problems in Translation,” “Readability,” and “Evaluation”; (2) a “wordex,” or specialized index, that accesses over 650 useful terms not otherwise defined but used in meaningful context in main-entry definitions, including synonyms, antonyms, alternative spellings, and subentries of main entries; (3) boxed groups, or clusters, of terms and concepts that are conceptually related to a more general term; for example, a boxed listing of various types of correlations defined elsewhere in the dictionary is placed ad-
jacent to the general main entry correlation; (4) illuminative notes, brief essays, and illustrative phrases and sentences included in numerous definitions to augment meanings or to indicate typical usage of terms; (5) appendices that contain the wordex, common abbreviations, and their meanings found in literacy literature; and (6) a selective bibliography of books and articles used in selecting and defining terms in dictionary preparation. The Literacy Dictionary is a standard reference work available in many university libraries and in other educational agencies nationally and internationally where literacy is a principal concern. Subsequent publications stemming from the dictionary include a Portuguese-language (Brazil) edition, Dicionario de alfabetizacao: Vocabulario de leitura e escrita (1999); and a booklet, What Is Literacy? Selected Definitions and Essays from The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing (1999). The booklet is a publication separate from the dictionary and is in flip-chart format intended for use with professional and public groups in discussions concerning literacy instruction. It contains forty-one definitions of terms from the dictionary pertaining to literacy instruction; reading processes, methods, and assessment; and to relationships between reading and writing. What Is Literacy? includes six essays from the dictionary that extend understandings of the selected terms. Richard E. Hodges See Also International Reading Association References Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges, eds. 1981. A Dictionary of Reading and Related Terms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1999. Dicionario de Alfabetizacao: Vocabulario de Leitura e Escrita. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artes Medicas Sul. Hodges, Richard E., ed. 1999. What Is Literacy? Selected Definitions and Essays from The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
314
Literacy in Informal Settings
Literacy in Informal Settings Despite the stranglehold that formal schooling has had on studies of literacy, the range of possible informal sites and contexts for the practice of literacy is enormous. In short, anything outside of school counts as an informal setting for literacy, although nonschool settings can be more or less informal in terms of the physical setting of the literate practice, the nature of the literate activity engaged within the setting, the norms for participation in the activity, and the types of literate practices engaged by the activity. Although categorizing the myriad of literacy studies in informal settings is difficult, three broad settings differ in significant ways along the dimensions mentioned above. The three settings are nonschool-based but institutionalized settings, such as after-school programs, community-based organizations, museums, churches, and families; noninstitutional, but nevertheless rule-bound, settings, such as sorority or fraternity houses and enclaves of street gangs, homeless groups, skaters and snowboarders, or adolescent peer groups (in many cases these settings are also unsanctioned); and nonphysical settings, such as Internet chat rooms. Such settings are often rule bound and can be more or less institutionalized, depending on the vehicle for communication across physical spaces. Each of these constitutes an informal setting in which literacy occurs, but there are, undoubtedly, many other ways to categorize informal settings, as well as many additional categories, even within this scheme. The current interest in complexities of literate practice and literacy learning in informal settings can be attributed largely to developments in sociocultural theory since the early 1970s. Although there is no one study that launched all sociocultural studies of literacy, the publication of Sylvia Scribner and Michael Cole’s (1981) Psychology of Literacy certainly had an enormous impact on how literacy scholars now understand the relationship among literacy, cognition, and schooling. Scribner and Cole, driven by a desire to test Lev Vygotsky’s (Vygotsky, 1978) theories that literacy has cognitive consequences (particularly for abstract thinking), found that literacy did not appear to have cognitive consequences such as the development of abstract thinking. In fact, schooling appeared to produce such consequences, rather than literate practice in and of itself. Literacy, they learned, was as much a social
Police officer reading to children at the Minnesota State Fair (Michael Siluk)
practice, situated in particular contexts, spaces, and activities, as it was a cognitive process. Schooling in the Western tradition, also a social practice, provided learners with a particular type of literate practice, one that emphasized rationality, structure, and abstraction, even in the study of narrative texts. In studying contexts, spaces, and activities other than Western schooling (e.g., Qur’anic schooling, or schooling to teach the Koran), Scribner and Cole found that literacy was used for different purposes (e.g., to memorize, to tell stories) and thus called up different cognitive and social practices. This finding led scholars to consider schooling a formal context for literacy learning and to investigate other, informal contexts, paying attention to how literacy was learned, practiced, and reconstructed in those contexts. Several other landmark studies, such as those by David Barton and Roz Ivanic (1991), Shirley Brice Heath (1983), and Brian Street (1984), of literacy practices and learning outside of school contributed to the field’s current attention to informal literacy contexts. Each of these studies, and many others that followed, documented how literacy is used and learned ac315
Literacy in Informal Settings cording to the social practices and purposes of different groups. Each of these studies also inspired greater attentiveness to the literacies learned and practiced outside of school. Critical perspectives on education and literacy have also turned attention to contexts other than formal schooling, because a number of scholars have critiqued the social, economic, and political reproduction of formal schooling and have sought to challenge that reproduction. Paulo Freire and Donaldo Macedo (1987), for example, argued for a literacy instruction rooted in the worlds of learners, although what Freire called the learner’s world was often driven by his Marxist interpretation of relations of power in the world. Despite Freire’s bias in constructing the learner’s world, his call for a generative literacy pedagogy that begins by teaching the written words for concepts in a learner’s experience had a dramatic impact on the quest to understand how people use literacy outside of formal schooling. A number of other critical perspectives have also examined traditionally disenfranchised or marginalized groups’ uses of literacy in a variety of contexts. Youth cultural studies, in particular, draw from critical perspectives to examine how young people use language and literacy to make sense of their worlds outside of school. Such studies examine informal literacy practices not only in relation to formal schooling but also as important literate practices in and of themselves.
readers’ interpretations and sense making. More important, given the focus on the nature of the setting, the researchers found that the space or context of the interactions around oral and written texts heavily shaped how the people involved made meaning from text. Specifically, the afterschool library setting for the various studies undertaken by Alvermann and her colleagues provided a safe space for participants to experiment with alternatives for discussing print texts. The informal context, albeit institutionalized, made an important difference in how people publicly represented the meanings they made. It is especially important to note that unlike the categories of informal settings that follow in this synopsis, the “informal institution” does provide opportunity for guidance by and feedback from adults (or more knowledgeable others) as children and youth engage in literacy; and yet, despite adult involvement, the participants in most informal institutional literacy projects suggest that they feel free to explore alternatives to conventional literacies. In short, relations of power in these informal institutions differ from the typical authority relations and standardization of formal schooling. Such findings suggest that at least one important aspect of informal settings is the simple fact that they are not schools. As important as specific contexts and spaces are to understanding literacy practices, equally important is the notion that many settings can provide learners with some level of freedom to explore multiple possibilities for expressing identity and representing understanding, as long as the setting is not a school.
Literacy in Informal Institutions The phrase informal institutions may seem like a paradox, but it connotes spaces that exist within institutional boundaries that are not schools. Such institutions include community-based organizations, libraries, after-school programs, churches, and families (especially family-literacy programs). Work in this area focuses on how children, youth, and adults learn and practice literacy as they use it to achieve the ends of the institution. The work of Donna Alvermann and her colleagues (1999) in after-school “read and talk clubs” serves as an exemplar of literacy research in informal institutions. In such studies, the researchers focused particularly on printbased interactions around classic and popular cultural texts, although both oral and written interactions were the focus of the work. That is, the researchers documented how oral conversations about print texts both facilitated and constrained
Informal Literacy in Peer Groups Research on the literacies of adolescent peer groups ranges from studies of small and highly informal groupings of youth simply hanging out in homes, malls, or streets to studies of more organized groups such as street gangs. In general, these studies examine literacy practices of adolescent young people in some sort of peer-group arrangement, typically unmediated and unregulated by adults. In an extensive volume on youth literacies in informal settings, Jabari Mahiri (2002) has collected a series of studies that examine the various informal peer settings in which youth engage in literacy. Chapters in the Mahiri collection range from studies of the street scripts of African American youth writing about 316
Literacy in Informal Settings crime and violence to a study of how Latinos use literacy to further their interest in low-rider cars to an examination of the language and literacy practices of food-service workers. The researchers analyze the different identities, activities, representations, and stories of the youth as each is situated in and mediated by particular literacy practices in particular social, political, economic, and historical contexts. These practices, Mahiri argued, shape who youths are and who they will become. In particular, each chapter emphasizes the ways that young people engage in activities and explores the accompanying literacy practices that provide meaning and pleasure in their lives. In Mahiri’s work with street-script writers, for example, he found that contrary to the typical representations of street writers made in media, the youth he studied were engaged in thoughtful social and political commentary and critique. In sum, each of these studies, like many others in the growing body of peer-group literacy practices, makes two critical points about literacy practices of youth in informal settings: First, what may seem on the surface (or to the uniformed) to be deviant, resistant, or problematic practices (see Graffiti) are important tools for sense making. These tools require complex sets of sophisticated language and literacy skills that are not so cognitively different from—and certainly not less than—the level of literacy required in school settings (Mahiri, 2002). Second, the freedom afforded in informal settings to explore possibilities for interpreting and constructing all kinds of texts makes the literacies and accompanying texts more motivating and more powerful than conventional, schooled literacies seem to be for youth, even though the practices share many of the same basic skill requirements.
tion as her main goal for on-line literate activity and that she engaged in communication with many different audiences in many different ways. Sam’s analysis of her audiences’ social purposes and of the consequences of different kinds of language practices illustrated her sophistication with rhetorical strategies in writing and speech (with instant messaging being as close as one can get to “written talk”). Sam, for example, consciously used the language of her audience in her replies as a way of establishing a shared community. She engaged with multiple audiences simultaneously, measuring her response time in terms of her relationship with her audience (e.g., one waits an appropriate time to respond to “popular” people in order to appear equally popular). In an argument similar to the “safe space” argument of the informal institutional literacy settings (e.g., after-school programs), Lewis and Fabos argued that the Internet represented a safe space for Sam to experiment with various literate and rhetorical strategies, to develop relationships, to further social goals. Because Sam’s physical body was not present in the interactions, she could hide her identity and play with other ways of being. Some would argue, then, that cyberspace might represent the most liberating of informal literacy settings and that it allows for the greatest invention of new literacies. Lewis and Fabos cautioned, however, that many of the same asymmetrical power relations apply to Internet settings and that many of the same cognitive and linguistic skills are employed in engaging in online literacies. Experimentation on the Internet is not without consequence, but the possibilities are certainly greater than in the constrained world of formal schooling when one type of literate practice and certain sets of texts are privileged. Significance of Studies of Literacy in Informal Settings Removed from the context of formal schooling, literacy has come to be seen less as a quality of individual cognition, less as a static ability to be learned. For many of the studies represented here, an examination of informal settings showed clearly that literacy could be considered to be a tool used in everyday interactions to support and shape social practices. Other researchers were able to document the ideological and economic basis for engaging in particular literate practices, as well as the educational, eco-
Informal Literacy in Cyberspace In the final category, I draw from work by Cynthia Lewis and Bettina Fabos (2000) on the use of instant-messaging technology among adolescent females. Using one case study of a thirteen-yearold European American girl of working-class background, Lewis and Fabos illustrate that Internet technologies demand both sophisticated conventional literacies and innovative literacy skills unique to the Internet medium. The researchers illustrated, for example, that the young woman, Sam (a pseudonym), saw communica317
Literacy in Play
Literacy in Play
nomic, and political consequences of such engagements. Perhaps more important, these studies of literacy learning and use outside of school illustrated that individuals and groups often characterized as lacking in literacy abilities were fluent and capable readers and writers in contexts that valued their skills. Finally, the studies of literacy in informal settings have illustrated that when provided with freedom and opportunity, children, adolescents, and adults will experiment with new ways with words, and they will invent literate practices that meet the social demands and purposes of the setting. Such findings challenge literacy educators to find ways to adapt formal school settings to provide opportunities for invention, experimentation, and expanded literate possibilities and to link better to the worlds with which learners engage outside of school. Elizabeth Birr Moje
Literacy in play refers to the incorporation of social resources (e.g., knowledge and skills) and material resources (e.g., books and writing tools) that pertain to reading and writing into play settings and situations. Play, as developmental activity in early childhood, affords young children opportunities to discover, explore, and rehearse the literacy processes and practices of their family and society. Major theorists such as Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky have explicitly linked the symbolic function of pretend play with the representational demands of spoken and written language. Both are cognitive acts that require children to separate meaning from the immediate situation, thus relying on thought to guide action over the “pull” of environment alone. Ecological studies have demonstrated the benefits of literacy-enriched play environments for exposing children to print experiences and gaining access to new literacy knowledge, processes, and skills. Investigations of narrative development reveal the structural parallels between unfolding play scenarios and story grammar as well as the transformative power of play episodes in helping children to adapt their cultural sense of story to school expectations. Literacy, in sum, is in play, scaffolded by the reading and writing resources at hand and also imported by the players themselves who seek to make their play meaningful and satisfying.
See Also Graffiti References Alvermann, Donna E., Josephine P. Young, Colin Green, and Joseph M. Wisenbaker. 1999. “Adolescents’ Perceptions and Negotiations of Literacy Practices in After-School Read and Talk Clubs.” American Educational Research Journal 36 (2):221–264. Barton, David, and Roz Ivanic. 1991. Writing in the Community, Written Communication Annual. Vol. 6. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Freire, Paulo, and Donaldo Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, Cynthia, and Bettina Fabos. 2000. “But Will It Work in the Heartland? A Response and Illustration.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5):462–469. Mahiri, Jabari, ed. 2002. What They Don’t Learn in School: Literacy in the Lives of Urban Youth. New York: Peter Lang. Scribner, Sylvia, and Michael Cole. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and U. E. Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Readiness Period, Pre-1980 During the 1960s and 1970s, reading was viewed as being closely tied to physical and mental maturation. It was believed that children had to reach a certain level of intelligence (a mental age of 6.5 years) and develop perceptual-motor skills such as visual memory and auditory discrimination before they could begin to learn to read. Early childhood was viewed as a time during which these readiness skills should be taught as a preparation to reading and writing instruction in the primary grades. Simultaneously, the developmental theories of Piaget and Vygotsky were coming into prominence, providing a potential cognitive link between play and literacy. Both theories viewed make-believe play as a means through which children could learn or practice using symbolic representation. Thus, the possibility existed that play might provide children with an important 318
Literacy in Play reading-readiness skill—the ability to use and interpret symbols. The earliest research on play and literacy examined cognitive connections between symbolic play and reading readiness. For example, Rhoda Becher and Charles Wolfgang (1977) found that children who were at Piaget’s concrete operational stage scored higher on the Metropolitan Readiness Test and exhibited higher levels of symbolic representation in play than did children who were at the less mature, preoperational stage of development. Anthony Pellegrini (1980) reported positive correlations between dramatic play (play involving symbolic transformations and role-playing) and children’s scores on the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Thus, these early studies provided some evidence that children who frequently engaged in symbolic play also scored high on reading-readiness measures. As with all correlational research, however, these studies were not able to determine the causal direction between the two variables. Did engaging in symbolic play promote reading-readiness skills, or did reading-readiness skills (visual memory, auditory discrimination, and so on) result in higher frequencies of symbolic play? Research addressing connections between children’s narrative abilities and their play activity encountered similar methodological problems during this period. Hypothesizing that pretend-play elements, such as role taking, foster narrative competence and by inference literate thinking (e.g., sense of story and story comprehension), investigators examined play as a context for story production and recall (Silvern et al., 1986). They found that indeed pretend play prompted children to use the “building blocks of story” (e.g., setting, character, and plot) and reciprocally helped them remember better (and therefore comprehend) stories they had been read. However, it was difficult to disentangle the play from nonplay factors that might be contributing these positive results. Was it the play per se—that is, was it the pretend transformations—that stimulated story production, on the one hand, and story recall, on the other? Or were nonplay factors responsible, such as the negotiating players must do outside the play frame to create play stories or the tutoring adults must do to show children how to reenact stories they’ve been read? Despite good effort, the experimental paradigm used to pursue the intersection of pre-
2-year-old child pretending to be a carpenter; writing measurements on pad (Laura Dwight)
tend play, narrative abilities, and reading comprehension seemed incapable of disentangling the complex of factors that may be genuinely influential in children’s literacy development. Still, these early studies left their mark on knowledge of play-literacy relationships and the progress of the research work. Outwardly dissimilar acts, play and literacy apparently shared common mental processes associated with perceptual discrimination skills, representational abilities, and narrative competencies that not only advanced play activity but also figured in the process of learning to read and write. And, in plowing new investigative ground, these pioneer researchers set a standard for inquiry with strong descriptive and experimental designs that brought to the surface definitional and methodological issues that inform and guide research to this day. The Great Shift, 1980–1995 The early 1980s witnessed a major theoretical shift in the field of early literacy. The concept of 319
Literacy in Play reading readiness was gradually replaced by a new perspective known as emergent literacy. According to this view, literacy learning began much earlier than had previously been believed and was similar in nature to oral-language acquisition. Infants and toddlers observe the literacy that surrounds them in everyday life—bedtime stories, environmental print (e.g., labels on cereal boxes, restaurant signs), and family literacy routines (e.g., looking up programs in the TV Guide, writing down phone messages)—and then begin to construct their own hypotheses about the function, structure, and conventions of print. In this process, young children invent their own “emergent” versions of reading and writing that initially have little resemblance to conventional forms. For example, their initial system of writing often resembles drawing or scribbles. As children have opportunities to use these emergent versions of literacy in meaningful social situations, their reading and writing become increasingly conventional. This new view was prompted, in part, by a series of case studies in which researchers carefully documented the early literacy development of their own children (e.g., Baghban, 1984). In addition to laying the groundwork for the emergent-literacy perspective, these case studies also revealed that young children frequently engaged in emergent forms of reading and writing during make-believe play. For example, Marcia Baghban (1984) described how, after returning home from a meal at a restaurant, her twenty-eightmonth old daughter took on the role of a waitress and pretended to write down her mother’s food orders on a notepad. These types of incidents gave rise to possibility that play had a more direct role in literacy development than was previously believed. Perhaps play offers children opportunities to experiment with, practice, and “conventionalize” emergent forms of reading and writing. This “direct link” hypothesis resulted in a number of naturalistic observation studies being conducted in preschool and kindergarten classrooms. Reflecting the influence of ecological psychology, these descriptive studies were conducted in literacy-enriched play centers that contained materials that created an environmental “press” for play-related reading and writing activities—pencils, markers, notepads, signs, menus, and so on. Data showed that, when given
the opportunity, young children eagerly incorporated literacy props into their dramatic play. The resulting play also proved to be a rich source of information about children’s literacy development. For example, Carol Schrader (1989) described how preschoolers exhibited knowledge of the practical functions of print in their play, such as using writing for instrumental (paying for a meal with a check), regulatory (making a “closed” sign for a doctor’s office), and interactional (writing letters to a friend) purposes. Because such play settings were rare in early childhood programs, a series of intervention studies quickly followed. Results showed that adding literacy props to existing classroom play settings resulted in large increases in emergent reading and writing activity during play (e.g., Neuman and Roskos, 1990). Although attempts were also made to link children’s play in printenriched setting with gains in literacy development, the results were mixed. For example, Susan Neuman and Kathleen Roskos (1990) found that adding literacy materials to play centers resulted in a significant gain in preschoolers’ scores on Marie Clay’s Concepts about Print test. Piaget and Vygotsky’s theories continued to generate interest in cognitive connections between play and literacy, but to a lesser extent than in the past. Attention shifted to social-interactionist aspects of Vygotsky’s theory and his construct of “the zone of proximal development,” in which adults or more competent peers help children engage in activities that they cannot manage on their own. Researchers used this construct as a rationale for investigating the effects of social interaction on children’s behavior in literacy-enriched play settings. Results of several intervention studies indicated that adult scaffolding, combined with literacy-enriched play settings, did increase the amount of literacy activity during play (e.g., Morrow, 1990). Thus, the shift from a maturationist view of early literacy development to a developmentalist perspective widened the lens on play to encompass not only psychological connections between play and literacy processes (e.g., symbolic representation) but also ecological factors that illuminated children’s firsthand experiences with literacy and their concepts about how reading and writing work. Credible evidence showed that enriching play settings with literacy resources (material and social) led to increased literacy activity 320
Literacy in Play on the part of young children, although it did not make clear what increased activity actually meant in relation to literacy development. Did literacy-enriched play settings merely afford children the opportunity to show what they already knew, or did it also create conditions that pulled literacy development forward? Even as the research work of this era exposed the influence of ecological factors, it failed to document any causal connections between these factors and learning to read and write. Rich in description, studies did not incorporate essential design features that might yield such connections, that is, long-term exposure to literacy in play activities, longitudinal interventions, and rigorous control of variables that may impact development. What these studies lacked in terms of research advances, however, they made up for in practical value to the early childhood curriculum. The simple strategy of enriching commonplace play settings with literacy props and activities could be readily accomplished by early childhood teachers at low cost and with little disruption in typical preschool routines.
source of literacy knowledge has also been refined and expanded. Whereas earlier studies focused exclusively on teacher-child play interactions, the third-generation of literacy-in-play studies has also examined how children can appropriate literacy knowledge and skills while playing with parents. James Christie and Sandra Stone (1999), for example, investigated how multiage grouping in a play setting allowed children to teach one another about literacy. Findings showed that the collaborative literacy interactions that occurred during the play were more complex than the zone of proximal development would lead one to believe. Although a majority of the joint literacy learning conformed to the zone construct, flowing from older or more competent “experts” to “novices,” a sizable number of collaborative interactions in both groups were multidirectional in nature, with the “expert” and “novice” roles not firmly set. Finally, the relationships among play, literacy, and the physical environment has been reexamined and found to be much more complex than previously assumed. Earlier studies assumed a unidirectional relationship between the play and the environment, with literacy-rich settings exerting a press for children to incorporate literacy into their play. Third-generation investigations have embraced Urie Bronfenbrenner’s basic concept of the person-environment dynamic, namely, that individuals both shape and are shaped by their surroundings. Play is viewed as a system of activity that arises from individual intentions as well as from setting influences both near (the immediate surroundings) and far (socially held views of play). As such, play affords an opportunity to exercise individual literacy ideas and skills even as it presses for certain kinds of literacy knowledge and interactions. According to this view, the interface between play and literacy is at the level of activity, concerned with its social organization (e.g., groupings, roles, power relations) as well as its psychological content (e.g., tasks, tools, mental work). Using activity as the basic unit of analysis, Neuman and Roskos (1997) examined the distinguishing features of literacy in play, the knowledge that this type of activity requires, and the cognitive operations involved. Results showed that preschoolers demonstrated declarative (e.g., names of literacy objects), procedural (e.g., routines such as checking out a book from
New Century Studies, 1995–2000 The mid-1990s marked the beginning of a third generation of research on play in literacy. This new wave of studies revisited some earlier connections and examined these in more depth, while at the same time expanding the scope of the literacy-play interface to include sociocultural and eco-biological factors. Combining a carefully designed ethnographic study of toddlers’ book-related play in a preschool setting with a case study of her own child, Deborah Rowe (1998) reexamined the interface between play and literacy that involves symbolic representation. Rowe investigated how very young children use play to remember and make sense of books. Some of the book-related play conformed with Louise Rosenblatt’s conception of aesthetic responses to literature, in which readers combine ideas, feelings, and images from books with their own prior knowledge to create meaning. Rowe found that children’s book-related play served other purposes as well, helping them to sort out an author’s message, to explore the points of view of characters, and to conduct inquiries into matters of personal interest. The Vygotskian notion that social interaction between individuals during play can serve as the 321
Literacy in Play a library), and strategic (e.g., self-checking and self-correcting) knowledge about literacy during their play activity. Although engaged in familiar activity, the children were able to tap their knowledge of their social and cultural worlds and call up appropriate rules and routines, enabling them to engage in a wide range of literacy practices in play. In a study focusing on macrolevel sociocultural influences, Susan Sonnenschein and her colleagues (2000) examined how family income influenced parent’s views about literacy and play. Low-income parents tended to have a skills orientation that favored drill-and-practice activity, whereas middle-income parents favored an entertainment orientation that valued activities that made literacy fun and enjoyable (e.g., play, storybook reading). These parental attitudes, in turn, appeared to influence the children’s access to various forms of home literacy activities. Longitudinal data showed that children who grew up in homes with an entertainment perspective toward literacy were more likely to develop phonemic awareness and a positive orientation toward print than children who grew up in homes that emphasized a skills perspective toward literacy.
ships that give rise to the situation as a whole, that is, the interlocking dimensions of who, what, when, where, and why that constitute literacy in play activity in a specific time and place. This demands a more inclusive analysis that searches for patterns of literacy in play activity that may be influential in literacy development in the early years. Simultaneously taking into account the ecology of play and the developing players is scientifically difficult. It requires the joint consideration of interactive processes at the micro and macro levels to fully investigate a fundamental question: How does literacy develop in play in specific children? In wrestling with this question, the next generation of play-literacy studies will need to look to new theorizing about cognitive development (e.g., dynamic systems theory), nonlinear analytic techniques (e.g., time scales and the measurements of variability), and multidimensional, longitudinal studies that integrate the dynamics of literacy development in the play activity of individuals. Some recent literacy and play researchers have made empirical moves in this direction, closely examining children’s problemsolving strategies in different print-rich play contexts and their self-regulatory abilities as indicators of developmental change. Still, much remains uncharted if we are to understand the organic and environmental factors that engender individual literacy development in children’s everyday play activity. James Christie and Kathleen Roskos
Future Directions Widening the lens on play to examine it as an activity system embedded within even larger activity systems of family, school, and society creates a new set of challenges for literacy researchers. When the play-literacy interface is expanded in this manner, play holds far more complex possibilities for literacy within its densely packed layers of activity than was thought in earlier periods. When children engage in literacy actions and literate thinking, they are stimulated by both the environment and their own meaning-making in the situation. Therefore, the immediate conditions of literacy in play involve: (1) external, social factors such as play objects and themes, and (2) internal, cognitive components of thought and meaning embodied in the players and the context. Moreover, the very circumstance of play itself is formed out of the pressures and resources of larger social systems, such as family, school, and society, which in turn are goal driven and imbued with meaning. A full measure of the play-literacy interface, therefore, should examine the configuration of relation-
See Also Early Literacy References Baghban, Marcia M. 1984. Our Daughter Learns to Read and Write: A Case Study from Birth to Three. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Becher, Rhoda M., and Charles H. Wolfgang. 1977. “An Exploration of the Relationship between Symbolic Representation in Dramatic Play and Art and the Cognitive and Reading Readiness Levels of Kindergarten Children.” Psychology in the Schools 14:377–381. Christie, James F., and Sandra J. Stone. 1999. “Collaborative Literacy Activity in Print-Enriched Play Centers: Exploring the ‘Zone’ in Same-Age and Multi-Age Groupings.” Journal of Literacy Research 3:109–131. Morrow, Lesley M. 1990. “Preparing the Classroom Environment to Promote Literacy during Play.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 5:537–544.
322
Literacy Labs Neuman, Susan B., and Kathleen Roskos. 1990. “The Influence of Literacy-Enriched Play Settings on Preschoolers’ Engagement with Written Language.” In Sandra McCormick and Jerry Zutell, eds., Literacy Theory and Research: Analyses from Multiple Perspectives, pp. 179–187. Chicago: National Reading Conference. ———. 1997. “Literacy Knowledge in Practice: Contexts of Participation for Young Writers and Readers.” Reading Research Quarterly 32:10–32. Pellegrini, Anthony D. 1980. “The Relationship between Kindergartners’ Play and Achievement in Prereading, Language, and Writing.” Psychology in the Schools 17:530–535. Rowe, Deborah W. 1998. “The Literate Potentials of Book-Related Dramatic Play.” Reading Research Quarterly 33:10–35. Schrader, Carol T. 1989. “Written Language Use within the Context of Young Children’s Symbolic Play.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 4:225–244. Silvern, Steven B., Janet B. Taylor, Peter A. Williamson, Elaine Surbeck, and Michael F. Kelley. 1986. “Young Children’s Story Recall as a Product of Play, Story Familiarity, and Adult Intervention.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32:73–86. Sonnenschein, Susan, Linda Baker, Robert Serpell, and Diane Schmidt. 2000. “Reading Is a Source of Entertainment: The Importance of the Home Perspective for Children’s Literacy Development.” In Kathleen A. Roskos and James F. Christie, eds., Play and Literacy in Early Childhood: Research from Multiple Perspectives, pp. 107–124. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
school with literacies outside of school. This integrated perspective represents a break with the previous generation of remedial programs, which emphasized isolated skills and strategies instruction or sets of special materials that promote those print-based skills (e.g., “high interest-low vocabulary” books or materials designed to target specific skills). In addition, contemporary literacy labs are constructed as part of a comprehensive schoolwide literacy program rather than as isolated “pullout” programs, in which students are removed from part of the regular curriculum to be placed in a special program. The term literacy lab, however, can still refer to pullout programs, alternative placements for juvenile offenders, and adult basic-education facilities. The distinguishing characteristic of these programs, however, is that they often include a lab with computers and related technologies as one component of the program. Clients Current research has changed the way literacy labs assess clients and design programs for them. Instead of viewing each learner as an isolated case with problems or deficits that need remediation, literacy labs now focus more on instructional routines and materials that are sensitive to the needs of individual students and consider a variety of instructional and affective contexts. In addition to standardized and formal assessments, literacy labs rely on assessments and program designs that consider a range of types of literacy practices that students engage in both in and out of school. Similarly, the assessments and program design features also consider students’ interests and how these factors relate to engagement in literacy tasks. Rather than relying primarily on standardized tests designed to provide general profiles of competency or on standardized and informal assessments designed to isolate specific deficits, literacy labs rely on assessments that tap into notions of multiple literacies or multiliteracies (Barton and Hamilton, 2000); that is, they examine how students appropriate various kinds of literacies, situated in particular events, for useful purposes. Within this latter conception, students in literacy labs are assessed in terms of their competence in various literacy practices that serve a variety of both social and academic purposes. In the field of literacy, considerable attention
Literacy Labs In breaking with the term remedial and the exclusive focus on reading, literacy labs have become what their name implies—places and programs that promote a broadened, more integrated focus on literacy, including reading, writing, listening, speaking, and various intersections of these, and emphasizing not only print literacies but media literacies (see Remediation). Literacy labs can take a variety of official forms, but most of them are contemporary, more progressive versions of their predecessors, which were remedial-reading programs designed to help struggling readers (Johnston and Allington, 1991). These labs consider how students read, write, and critique both print and other forms of media to construct meaning, shape their understandings of themselves, and connect literacies in 323
Literacy Labs and resources are currently aimed at early literacy development and early intervention programs. Literacy labs are designed to serve students in middle school and high school, who, for one reason or another, didn’t receive or didn’t benefit from earlier instruction or early intervention programs. Hence, literacy labs typically serve “struggling” students who have been unsuccessful in literacy tasks and have been unsuccessful in their classes in the curriculum due to interrelated factors, including low attainment of literacy skills and strategies, feelings of inadequacy, lack of self-efficacy, lack of clear goals, attribution of failure to factors beyond their control, and avoidance of tasks that present the possibility of failure (Moore, Alvermann, and Hinchman, 2000). The number and type of students served by literacy labs depends on the way learners are labeled, the types of assessments used to identify them, and the resources available to serve them. Typically, the clientele includes a variety of students who have evidenced problems with literacy skills and processes to the point where these problems impede their progress in the curriculum.
part of the schoolwide program and, in addition to providing the skills-strategies component, it provides or coordinates two other resources: content literacy support specifically designed to help learners with literacy challenges related to learning in various classes and support to regular classroom teachers in the areas of assessment, curriculum design, and instruction that meets the specific needs of struggling learners. An Example An example of a contemporary literacy lab that fits the definition offered here is the Lafayette Jefferson High Literacy Lab (O’Brien, Springs, and Stith, 2001). The program was designed to replace a traditional remedial-reading program at a comprehensive high school. The lab is staffed by two reading specialists; they serve about 100 students from grades 9–12 who have been administratively enrolled in the program rather than choosing it as an elective. Based on the resources available, the lab serves students within a range of the lowest 5–8 percent of performance in reading achievement as evidenced by standardized achievement testing. Incoming freshmen are screened with content-reading inventories constructed from text materials they will actually encounter in the curriculum. If they score below frustration level in three subject areas on content-reading inventories, they are enrolled in the lab. Freshman students currently placed in the lowest track of a three-track curriculum coming into the high school are also referred for screening. As has been the case with traditional remedial-reading labs, some students have been referred by guidance counselors or teachers or have been identified through specialeducation assessment as mildly handicapped, usually as learning disabled with a particular deficit in language skills. The Jefferson High program rests on three guiding principles: First, students are understood as unique individuals who live in the broader community rather than being defined by their deficits or labels. Second, instructional tasks are flexible and challenging enough to be interesting, yet flexible enough to provide students with leverage in controlling the level of difficulty. The tasks are antithetical to the low-incentive, highrisk, competitive, ability-based tasks typically valued in the regular school curriculum. Finally, students are given more autonomy than in the
Settings The physical settings of literacy labs vary. Like their remedial or corrective-reading predecessors, school literacy labs are typically places that contain special facilities and materials and house the program for struggling learners. They can be pullout programs that remove students from portions of the regular curriculum, although this traditional model has proven to be problematic (Allington, 1994). The preferred approach is to include the literacy lab curriculum as part of the standard curriculum and to use the literacy lab as a resource to improve the way struggling learners learn in their regular classes—so called inclusion or pullin programs (Klenk and Kibby, 2000). Ideally, rather than being an isolated experience, the literacy lab curriculum is part of a schoolwide program to promote effective integration of the literacy practices students learn in the lab into their learning in classes across the curriculum. Traditional remedial labs are based on a model that assumes the skills instruction in the lab will transfer into the curriculum without additional resources or in-class support. In contrast, a contemporary literacy lab is considered as 324
Literacy Labs typical school curriculum in choosing what they work on and how they approach tasks. The fundamental idea is that shifting the basic school cultural values from content coverage and teacher control to more student choice and autonomy will lead to increased engagement. Some of the literacy lab students with low literacy performance are generally successful in academics; some of the students are competent readers but are referred to special programs because they are different than the mainstream social group; and many reside outside of the mainstream academic culture and its associated social network. Most of the students have had negative experiences in school, and many of them are not motivated to engage in many school tasks. About 20 percent of the literacy lab students decide to drop out of high school when they reach legal age. The environment in the Jefferson High lab was specially designed to allow the staff to meet the goals of developing innovative activities that allow students maximum choice in selecting the tasks they work on and selecting the mode of completing these tasks. The lab was initiated with administrative support and financial resources. For example, school administrators financed a new computer lab, including a file server with networking, a flatbed scanner, digital cameras, and a wide range of software with an emphasis on multimedia authoring applications. In addition to standard workspace including tables and desks, the lab has twenty networked computers and several other stand-alone machines set up as multimedia workstations. The tables, which seat four to six students apiece, are arranged in the inner portion of the room, where students can work in small groups or on individual projects. Two full-time teachers and one university teacher-researcher work with about fifteen students per class period, with a total of six sections of class; the classes meet for ninety-two minutes each day in a block-eight configuration (each student is in the lab every other day). In the lab, text-based activities are integrated with other media, including a variety of computerbased multimedia activities. These activities are designed to foster student engagement in literacy by using paired learning, collaborative groups, and peer tutoring. Students enrolled in this innovative literacy program exercise autonomy in selecting from a variety of options in terms of
materials, activities, and modes of instruction. In addition to the activities outlined above, students can choose to work in self-selected small groups. The group sessions typically focus on broad discussions about the topics based on the students’ experiences, interspersed with reading segments of the texts. Students in the Jefferson High Literacy Lab select activities from a menu and contract to complete each activity selected over a period of time that is compatible with the difficulty of the task. For example, in a project called the Violence Project, students conducted ministudies and constructed documentaries, including persuasive pieces about the impact of violence in the media on adolescents and children. The students were free to choose topics within the broad topic of violence as portrayed or constructed in the media; they selected media they found most compelling, then constructed presentation formats that fit their projects. The violence project took several weeks to complete. Other projects could be completed in a class period or two. For example, students engaged in media productions in which they wrote about people or events important to them and used various visual media such as scanned pictures, images downloaded from web sites, or video clips complemented by computer graphics and drawing tools. In most projects, they were required to develop narratives or informational texts after reading about topics of interest. For example, after reading stories in Current Events or Newsweek, students wrote about teen pregnancy, smoking, crime, and gangs. They sometimes wrote about themselves, their friends, or families by augmenting print with visual media. The project-based curriculum contracts are monitored each day. The emphasis on a wide range of flexible tasks, many of them based on using computers and media authoring, coupled with a focus on process—completing the work contracted for the day rather than focusing on relative ability—instills confidence in the students. Instructors place few limits on the topics students may select or their purposes for reading and writing. Students write about topics acceptable within the guidelines set by school policy, but they are offered more latitude than they typically receive in other classes. Many of the topics students choose to read come from current events sources or from “popular” youth culture, 325
Literacy Motivation O’Brien, eds., Constructions of Literacy: Studies of Teaching and Learning in and out of Secondary Schools, pp. 105–123. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
for instance, music, hobbies, and sports. Hence, students are given choice with a balance of structure. Some of the topics are related to reading and written assignments from various classes, and students are offered tutoring support and guided practice with reading strategies to help them with their textbooks and related assignments. Hence, literacy labs can be both a physical place and a curriculum designed for students who need help with the literacy challenges they face in reading and writing across the curriculum. They can also serve as resource centers that allow the reading, writing, other language arts specialists, and media specialists to coordinate materials development for lab activities, with the ultimate aim of providing literacy resources to assist faculty schoolwide. David G. O’Brien
Literacy Motivation Literacy motivation refers to the roots of human action in the pursuit of literate activity. Motivations are multiple and complex within each individual and vary according to the particular context and culture. The study of literacy motivation draws from research bridging the fields of both literacy and motivation. Within each field, there is wide variation in the definition of literacy and motivation. What Is Literacy? Many scholars and educators agree that literacy involves not only reading and writing skills but also speaking and listening skills. Some definitions of literacy or of the “literate” person are quite narrow and refer to the ability to read and write in ways that reflect only very functional levels of literate ability. By such definitions, a literate person would be able to read road signs and recipes, pay bills, sign contracts, and follow basic instructions. Other definitions of the term literate center on a person’s being well informed, or well educated, or versed in or fond of literature. These forms of literacy imply much higher levels of skill or abilities. They are likely to involve higher degrees of motivation for literate activity.
See Also Adolescent Literacy; At-Risk Students; Content-Area Literacy; Delayed Readers; Early Literacy; Reading Diagnosis; Remediation; Secondary-School Reading Programs References Allington, Richard L. 1994. “Critical Issues: What’s Special about Special Programs for Children Who Find Learning to Read Difficult?” Journal of Reading Behavior 26:95–115. Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 2000. “Literacy Practices.” In David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds., Situated Literacies, pp. 7–11. London: Routledge. Johnston, Peter, and Richard Allington. 1991. “Remediation.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 984–1012. New York: Longman. Klenk, Laura, and Michael W. Kibby. 2000. “ReMediating Reading Difficulties: Appraising the Past, Reconciling the Present, Constructing the Future.” In Michael. L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 667–690. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moore, David W., Donna E. Alvermann, and Kathleen A. Hinchman. 2000. Struggling Adolescent Readers: A Collection of Teaching Strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. O’Brien, David G., Rebecca Springs, and David R. Stith. 2001. “Engaging ‘At-Risk’ High-School Students: Literacy Learning in a High-School Literacy Lab.” In Elizabeth B. Moje and David G.
What Is Motivation? Motivation is an essential ingredient underlying human action. Similar descriptive terms include drive, inspiration, impulse, stimulus, and spur. These various terms imply different conceptions or forms of motivation. For example, stimulus implies a behavioral perspective, reflecting B. F. Skinner’s notion of stimulus-response, in which human behavior is shaped or conditioned by outside stimuli. Teaching, in this view, emphasizes “training” and providing extrinsic motivators in the form of rewards and punishments. In contrast, inspiration connotes a different form of motivation. According to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1969), one meaning of inspiration is, literally, “the act of breathing in.” In that spirit, inspiration involves a focus on intrinsic purposes that are creative acts involving 326
Literacy Motivation thought and feeling with often aesthetic or even spiritual dimensions. Teachers who strive to inspire students’ literacy motivations are likely to use quite different approaches from those who try to shape students’ behaviors through extrinsic approaches. There are likely to be different motivational outcomes, as well. There are many different motivations. Most of us have multiple and complex motivations that prompt us to read and write, and they may involve both intrinsic and extrinsic elements. Particular motivations for literacy can change across time and often depend upon the particular contexts in which we participate, along with a variety of other factors to be discussed here. Importance of Literacy Motivation Literacy motivation is important to all stakeholders in the educational enterprise. Teachers are likely to report student motivation to read and write as among the highest priority and most difficult challenge in teaching. Similarly, students are likely to report that motivational struggles are among their greatest concerns as learners. A democratic society is dependent upon an informed citizenry that can read and write and become well informed enough to make reasoned judgments as voters and consumers as well as in other domains of life.
Child building model is motivated to read instructions (Laura Dwight)
more fluent and automatic. Many researchers believe that in schooling, strong support of students’ intrinsic motivations is likely to lead to lifelong learning and ultimately to enhance student competence and achievement.
How Motivation Influences Quality and Depth of Learning There is strong evidence of links between intrinsic forms of motivation and the quality and depth of learning. For example, students who are intrinsically interested in a topic are more likely to apply strategies of higher-level thinking and to engage in deeper processing of content and therefore achieve greater understanding of the subject matter. Intrinsically interested learners are likely to gain deeper conceptual understandings from their reading. They are more likely to be open to incidental learning and to engage in creative applications of ideas. They are likely to have more positive emotional experiences and higher levels of self-esteem, cope more effectively with failure, and persist in their efforts. Those who have intrinsic interest in reading and writing spend more time at it. They gain more fluency, have less disruption in their comprehension, and experience increased enjoyment as their reading and writing processes become
How Motivations Influence the Quality of Our Lives Whoever we are, intrinsic literacy motivations can enhance the quality of our lives. Passion to read and write can open new vistas and new understandings, as well as a sense of connection to others. Some people view literacy motivation as essentially a quality-of-life issue; others stress its importance for competition in the workplace and its impact on the U.S. position in the global economy. How Motivation Research Informs Issues of Literacy Motivation Researchers in motivation have examined the roots of human action in many ways, and their 327
Literacy Motivation findings are applicable to understanding literacy motivations. Some theorists have stressed needs or drives as the bases for motivations. Others, such as Skinnerian behaviorists, believe that all human activity is built upon stimulus and response. They advocate the use of operant conditioning as a means of motivation. Using this approach, they attempt to control or “shape” behavior, using rewards for “reinforcement.” Skinnerians believe that all human activity can be explained in terms of reinforcement. Behaviorism is one of the most prevalent approaches employed by schools today in attempting to motivate students to read and write and to engage in a multitude of other desired behaviors. Students are given candy, gold stars, and other extrinsic rewards or incentives. For example, through the Book It program, students earn free pizza for reading a certain number of books. The Accelerated Reader program is another that is built upon extrinsic rewards. These approaches are controversial. Proponents point to increased numbers of books read by students and argue that students may become more engaged and competent. Critics point out that to earn points, some students choose to read books that are too easy, rather than selecting books that are more challenging, interesting, and appropriate. They also point to extensive research showing that when rewards are removed, people cease to engage in the behaviors that were being rewarded. Attention is drawn from the value of the activity (the interest in reading) and is focused instead on extrinsic rewards (pizza or points). Under some (but not all) conditions, extrinsic rewards (especially tangible rewards) have detrimental effects on students’ intrinsic motivation. This is particularly likely if students experience the rewards as controlling their actions. Intrinsic motivation is undermined less when students interpret the rewards as “informational” rather than controlling (Deci, Koestner, and Ryan, 2001). Through their own research and through extensive synthesis of work by other motivation researchers, Edward Deci and his colleagues developed cognitive evaluation theory (CET), which goes a long way toward helping us understand how to support students’ intrinsic literacy motivations. They posit that intrinsic motivations spring from three primary psychological needs: (1) the need for autonomy (or a sense of agency or self-determination), (2) the need to feel com-
petent, and (3) the need for relatedness (a desire to connect and care about others or to feel involvement with the world beyond oneself). CET has important implications for educators who wish to support students’ intrinsic literacy motivations. These implications concern supporting students’ sense of autonomy (allowing voice and choice for reading and writing; providing informational feedback regarding competence and ways for people to become competent as readers and writers; and promoting social interactions, cooperative learning, community building among those engaged in literate activity). CET helps explain why extrinsic rewards may be detrimental to intrinsic motivations: when students experience such rewards as controlling, they do not experience self-determination or ownership of the literacy learning agenda. Other fundamental work in the area of literacy motivation comes from Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, whose flow theory helps us understand what is going on when a person “gets lost in a book.” Readers who are in “flow” lose self-awareness and may lose track of time and place. They become completed absorbed in their activity. This form of intense intrinsic motivation can occur only when a person experiences an optimal challenge level, that is, the activity is challenging enough to be engaging—but not so difficult that it produces anxiety. Conversely, the activity must not be so easy that it becomes boring. An optimal challenge level supports a person’s sense of self-competence. The educational implications of flow theory are especially critical for teachers in typical classroom situations in which students have widely varying levels of ability and achievement. One solution is to structure classroom activities that provide for students to have some choice (as well as guidance) about the level of difficulty of their reading material and their writing tasks. Reading and writing workshops that allow choice can enable students to work at their optimal challenge levels. Such classroom structures may support intrinsic literacy motivations, particularly if teachers provide informational feedback, allow for self-expression, and support students’ sense of self-competence. Goals are important factors affecting literacy motivations. For example, some motivations are based primarily on ego or performance goals (wanting to “look good” or to impress others). Other motivations have to do with mastery or 328
Literacy Motivation task involvement. Competition is a doubleedged sword for motivation. Competition may seem to spur some people on. However, competition “hooks into” goals of ego involvement and tends to decrease intrinsic interest in literate activities for many students. There are generally more losers than winners in ego-involved, competitive classrooms. Students may not ask for help or to help others. John Nicholls (1989) illustrated how this dilemma presents major issues for democratic societies.
ronments available through computer technologies. Book clubs can be very stimulating to students’ reading engagement. How Sociocultural Approaches Inform Literacy Motivation Sociocultural approaches offer understandings of how the cultures of families, classrooms, and communities, as well as the larger culture (including pop culture and media), support literacy motivation. For example, in order to support the motivation of culturally diverse learners, educators need to develop reciprocal relationships with their families and to understand and appreciate students’ unique strengths and needs. Incorporating aspects of pop culture into literate activities can also enhance students’ literacy engagement. As Penny Oldfather and her colleagues (1999) found, teachers who view knowledge as socially constructed are able to share the ownership of knowing and develop deeply responsive classroom cultures that support students’ sense of intellectual agency as readers and writers. Penny Oldfather
Role of Family The role of the family in supporting literacy development and literacy motivation cannot be overemphasized. Young children who are surrounded by books and other reading material and who are read to on a daily basis are much more likely to embrace the world of books and to value reading and writing in their lives. If there is a rich literacy environment at home and if family members or caregivers are engaged in literate activities, young children gain understanding of the functions of literacy and concepts of print and are more likely to develop vocabulary and phonological awareness. These experiences provide a crucial foundations for them to develop as readers and writers and thus to experience greater self-competence (and therefore greater literacy motivation) as they progress through school.
See Also Book Clubs; Concept Instruction with Text; Dialogic Responsiveness; Diversity; Family Literacy; Inquiry-Based Instruction; Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy; Literacy Definitions; Reading-Interest Inventories References Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1977. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Deci, Edward, Richard Koestner, and Richard Ryan. 2001. “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again.” Review of Educational Research 71:1–27. Guthrie, John, and Solomon Alao. 1997. “Designing Contexts to Increase Motivations for Reading.” Educational Psychologist 32 (2):95–105. Nicholls, John. 1989. The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Oldfather, Penny, Sally Thomas, Lizz Eckert, Florencia Garcia, Nicki Grannis, John Kilgore, Andy Newman-Gonchar, Brian Peterson, Paul Rodriguez, and Marcel Tjioe. 1999. “The Nature and Outcomes of Students’ Longitudinal Participatory Research on Literacy Motivations and Schooling.” Research in the Teaching of English 34:281–320.
Role of Curriculum When curriculum is built around interdisciplinary, conceptual themes, students are more likely to enjoy and take an interest in reading and writing. Language arts, science, and social studies content can be integrated through investigations based on themes such as survival, patterns, or interdependence. Both motivation and achievement can be supported through this approach because students are also more likely to think more deeply about the content of their reading and be less caught up in performance goals (Guthrie and Alao, 1997). When students are guided by adults and encouraged by peers to read high-quality literature and poetry, as well as informational texts, their literacy motivations are enhanced. The literacy curriculum is also more motivating when it includes hands-on, real-world activities, manipulatives, role playing, simulations, and drama and multimedia envi329
Literacy Volunteers of America
Literacy Volunteers of America
liver a consistent level of top-quality adult literacy instruction. In 1999, consulting firm A. T. Kearney interviewed more than 200 students in Wisconsin and New York to study the economic benefit to society of LVA’s services. The study found that for every dollar invested in LVA, the value created for the overall economy is $33. The A. T. Kearney study stated that students enrolled in LVA programs do, in fact, experience significant economic gains in their lives by increasing their earning potential and decreasing their dependence on public support (Kearney, 1999). Since its inception in 1962, LVA has grown into a network of more than 350 affiliates nationwide, serving more than 80,000 adults each year with the help of approximately 50,000 volunteers. In 2000, LVA entered into merger negotiations with Laubach Literacy International, also located in Syracuse, New York. The new organization that will result from this merger is expected to have 1,500 domestic member programs and seventy-six international partner programs in forty-four countries around the world. LVA’s web site (available: http://www.literacyvolunteers.org) offers information on adult literacy in the United States and on all aspects of LVA services. Tracy Carman
Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) is composed of community and state adult literacy programs. These programs give adults the opportunity to acquire the literacy skills they need to function effectively in their families, communities, and workplaces. LVA has helped more than 500,000 adults acquire literacy skills. In 1962, Ruth Colvin founded LVA in Syracuse, New York, because she was concerned about low literacy levels in her city. Colvin contacted professional reading consultants to help her create a tutor-training workshop for volunteers who wanted to tutor adults in basic reading and writing. She believed a one-on-one teaching method would work successfully with adults, rather than a traditional classroom setting. Tutors were trained to use everyday reading materials to help advance the individual needs and goals of their students. Other communities learned of the effectiveness of Colvin’s methods and started their own programs. In 1967, LVA was chartered in New York State as a tax-exempt nonprofit corporation with a volunteer board of directors. In the late 1960s, LVA developed its first training materials. LVA has continued to develop and disseminate instructional and management materials, training, and technical assistance. In 1974, LVA added an English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) program, and in 1984, knowledgeable literacy practitioners were brought in to help develop programs all over the country. In 1990, the GTE Foundation (now Verizon) funded the LVA/Verizon Family Literacy and Technology Initiative. The initiative provided support for family literacy programs across the country and for the development of LVA’s web site (available: http://www.literacyvolunteers. org) in 1998. LVA maintains its student-centered philosophy as a cornerstone of the organization. In 1992, LVA formed the National Student Advisory Board to promote and advance student involvement at all levels of the LVA organization. As part of its effort to improve student services, the LVA Board of Directors approved the LVA Accreditation Initiative in 1997. This initiative is the first national program to establish and implement mandatory quality standards for its members. These standards ensure that LVA members de-
References Kearney, A. T. 1999. “Economic Impact Analysis.” Syracuse, NY: Literacy Volunteers of America.
Literature Circles Literature circles are a strategy or process for teaching reading in which heterogeneous student-led groups of pupils read trade books (novels, picture books, chapter books) in classrooms as either the core of the reading program or as part of it (see Book Clubs). Often, teachers invent their own unique name for this practice of literature-based reading. Teachers typically offer a pre-chosen selection of novels to the students at a given time by presenting information about the available choices. This gives students an opportunity to nominate their first, second, or third choice of reading material and results in a group of readers sharing the same title. Literature circles vary somewhat but typically 330
Literature Circles include four segments. These include regular opportunities to read the book together out loud, sometimes in addition to individuals or pairs reading a day’s segment prior to or after the group reading; subsequent opportunities to make journal entries about their response to the day’s reading, either regularly or at selected intervals; time for student-led discussions about the text; and opportunities to create and present something artistic, dramatic, or musical (or in some other innovative form) to classmates about what the book or story meant to them upon completing the entire book. Most proponents agree that group sizes of four or five are optimum per book, with a handful of books, usually different books, being read concurrently.
stimulating rich discussions and the limited role of written narrative response. A different variation is one in which the groups keep a journal regularly and use their own entries as discussion material. It is admittedly difficult to conduct good student discussions in which all members actively participate and contribute, a genuine exchange of ideas takes place, and individual contributions are valued, but that goal becomes paramount in this technique. In these discussions, students are encouraged to make judgments about characters and author choices and to connect events in the literature with their own lives. The advantage to this approach is that once these discussions have developed, they show evidence of critical thinking in students. Guidance on understanding and developing good conversational skills in students is offered in various sources (Gambrell and Almasi, 1996). The journals or audiotaped discussions are good assessment and evaluation avenues. In another approach, a more learner-centered variation, written responses are used, which provide evidence for student assessment of learning and for gauging the quality of student responses. Writing to learn is integral to this approach, lending all the power that writing has to support academic learning. Opportunities to write offer important time for students to reflect, allowing them to consider the meaningfulness of a text, to prepare themselves for discussion groups, and to use that writing to contribute to student-led discussions. The disadvantage, according to teachers, is that vocabulary handling is more informal and more difficult to monitor, and this approach may take longer to reach a point of satisfaction. Some teachers are satisfied that vocabulary development is inherent in the literature-circle experience. Others prefer to support vocabulary development more systematically, through students’ keeping logs of new words, having each group contribute new words to a class spelling or vocabulary learning list.
Purpose The purpose of literature circles is to provide longer, more sustained engagements with quality literature than are available when teaching only with anthologies such as basal readers; other benefits include provoking deeper thinking and discussion and making connections with literature. These deeper and sustained engagements with award-winning and acclaimed age-appropriate literature are likely to promote positive experiences with books that generally translate to desirable lifelong reading attitudes and habits. Such experiences with literature are intended not only to support learning objectives and contentarea study but to be life enhancing as well. Variations Variations on literature circles are offered in different works to suit different teacher preferences. Harvey Daniels (1994) presented a structured approach in which each member of the studentled group has a specific role in the group and each role contributes to meaningful interaction about the book. Prescribed roles include that of the discussion leader, who leads the group for the day (or week, however it is set up); the passage picker, who nominates interesting language for the group to appreciate and savor; and the word wizard, who selects challenging vocabulary that might be unfamiliar to students and researches the selected words. The advantage of this variation, according to teachers, is the comfortable structure it provides and the attention to features of text. Disadvantages of this approach, according to teachers consulted, are the difficulty of
Using Literature Circles with Different Students Literature circles have a wide audience. They can be circles for younger readers, in kindergarten and first grade. Although some students in these grades are not yet independent readers, they can still connect with quality books that have been 331
Literature Circles read to them by older readers, parent volunteers, or a teacher. Discussion can be developed, even with the least experienced readers, to highly proficient levels where readers share opinions and make judgments. Literature circles are a teaching strategy that has been shown to be successful not only with typical readers and emergent readers but also with second-language learners (Brock, 1997), with special-education students (Whitmore, 1997), in cross-age settings (Boyd and Galda, 1997), and in multiage classrooms (Kasten and Lolli, 1998). Literature circles have also been successfully used with a strong content-area focus (McMahon and Raphael, 1997) and to highlight studies in the arts (Hoonan, 1995; Norwick, 1995).
Lois Lowry’s Number the Stars (1989), and Michael Morpurgo’s Waiting for Anya (1990). Although the reading levels of these books vary somewhat, all of them could be read by typical students in this age group. The richness of the content and the appropriateness to the topic overrides concerns about matching students to their reading level. Books can be enjoyed on many levels, and for these purposes, the reading level is not as important as the content. As long as some of the students in the particular group have sufficient reading ability to handle the text, less-able readers can listen and learn as classmates share aloud, and all students will be able to participate equitably in the journal keeping and discussion. If the goal is to support content-area study, then teachers may not want to overlook the possibility that even advanced able readers can benefit from picture books. Picture books are not the sole purview of younger or less-able readers. They are a unique form that combines art and text in ways not found elsewhere. Many picture books contain sophisticated content that is better communicated through illustrations or photography. Using picture books with literature circles is an optimum complement to novels. For example, to support the same contentarea study mentioned above, a teacher might propose historical picture book selections, such as: Haruko Maruki’s Hiroshima No Pika (1982), Junk Morimoto’s My Hiroshima (1987), Tomoko Tsuchiya’s Faithful Elephants (1988), Robert Innocenti’s Rose Blanche (1990), and Daisaka Ikeda’s The Cherry Tree (1991). Although these books can be read by younger readers, the content can be disturbing and is, in some ways, better suited to older readers. Literature circles need not always support content objectives. The teaching of quality literature is in itself a worthy goal, in that it helps readers broaden their reading backgrounds and exposes them to memorable books. One intermediate class (ages ten through twelve) has class members reading Natalie Babbitt’s Tuck Everlasting (1975; a fantasy), Jerry Spinelli’s Wringer (1997; contemporary literature), Carolyn Reeder’s Shades of Gray (1989; historical fiction set after the Civil War), along with other contemporary selections, for example, Walter Dean Myers’s Scorpions (1988) and Sharon Creech’s Walk Two Moons (1994).
Selecting Books for Successful Literature Circles Many teachers struggle with selecting books for use in literature circles. Finding recommendations from other teachers, librarians, and media specialists is a good resource. It can be useful to select books from lists of award-winning books, with possible sources of such titles being: the American Library Association (ALA) notable list, the Canadian Library Awards (literary merit, children’s literature by Canadian writers), Newbery Medal winners (prestigious literary awards in children’s literature), the Boston Globe/Hornbook Award (for nonfiction children’s authors and illustrators), the National Book Award (children’s literature division; awarded for books that contribute to human awareness and understanding), the Coretta Scott King Award (children’s literature award for African American authors and illustrators), the Hans Christian Andersen Medal (an international children’s literature award), and others, including many awards offered locally that are voted on by children. Librarians and media specialists are good resources for this information. Selections for a round of literature circles lasting six or seven weeks might look as follows: If, for example, students between ages ten and fourteen were studying the World War II era, a teacher might first propose historical fiction novels along this line. Selections might include Bette Greene’s Summer of My German Soldier (1980), Jane Yolen’s The Devil’s Arithmetic (1988), Karen Hesse’s Letters from Rifka (1992), 332
Literature Circles Assessment Teachers assess literature circles in a number of different ways. Some value the process and offer credit to groups that have worked well together. Often, self-assessment becomes part of this process, as students are asked to reflect on and perhaps score their own participation as well as comment on each of the other group members. In this manner, teachers can get a vivid picture of the group dynamics, which provides good information for future grouping and for teaching needed social skills for group work. Still other teachers assess student journals for evidence of critical thinking, effort, and thoughtfulness. Others leave audio tape-recorders running from time to time and listen to discussions later to assess student engagement with the process and types of thinking that the conversations demonstrate. Final presentations are good opportunities for teachers to gain insight into student understanding as well as possibly using a teacher-made rubric to assess the effort and thoughtfulness of the presentations. In literature circles, it is generally not recommended that teachers test students on book knowledge or create comprehension questions related to the book. Such practices are dull and timeworn and detract from making the experience as meaningful and enjoyable as it is intended to be. The varied modes of presentation suit learner diversity and multiple ways of learning.
Literature circles are sometimes called literary circles, or book clubs, although the term book clubs may also be used quite generally to refer to any group meeting concerning books and discussion. Teachers report much success using literature circles in classrooms to further the program objectives of not only teaching reading and literature but encouraging students to want to read on their own. Wendy C. Kasten See Also Literature-Based Instruction References Boyd, Fenice B., and Lee Galda. 1997. “Lessons Taught and Lessons Learned: How Cross-Aged Talk about Books Helped Struggling Adolescents Develop Their Own Literacy.” In Jeanne Paratore and Rachael L. McCormack, eds., Peer Talk in the Classroom: Learning from Research, pp. 66–87. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Brock, Cynthia H. 1997. “Second-Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms.” In Susan I. McMahon and Taffy E. Raphael, eds., The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk, pp. 141–158. New York: Teachers College Press; and Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Daniels, Harvey. 1994. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Student-Centered Classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Gambrell, Linda B., and Janice F. Almasi, eds. 1996. Lively Discussions! Fostering Engaged Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hill, Bonnie Campbell, Nancy J. Johnson, and Katherine L. Schlick Noe. 1995. Literature Circles and Response. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon Publishers. Hoonan, Barry. 1995. “Drawing on the Artist’s Perspective: Ventures into Meaning Making.” In Bonnie Campbell Hill, Nancy J. Johnson, and Katherine L. Schlick Noe, eds., Literature Circles and Response, pp. 153–166. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Kasten, Wendy C., and Elizabeth Monce Lolli. 1998. Implementing Multiage Education: A Practical Guide. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. McMahon, Susan I., Taffy E. Raphael, and Virginia Goatley, eds. 1997. The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. New York: Teachers College Press; and Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Norwick, Lisa F. 1995. “Deepening Response through the Arts.” In Bonnie Campbell Hill, Nancy J. Johnson, and Katherine L. Schlick Noe, eds.,
Teacher Research Teachers who are also graduate students at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio, have conducted individual-action research studies that involved implementing literature circles in their classrooms, covering the range from second grade (seven- to eight-year-olds) to secondary classrooms (fifteento sixteen-year-olds). In all cases, these teachers aimed to see whether student attitudes toward reading and critical thinking would increase. Using reading-attitude surveys, listening to audiotapes left at student discussion tables, and examining student journals, each of these teachers found that evidence of critical thinking was emerging when they could track students making predictions about the books, judging character actions, making connections between the stories and their own experiences, and judging author’s writing. Students also had somewhat better attitudes toward reading, even after only a few months. 333
Literature-Based Instruction Literature Circles and Response, pp. 131–152. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Paratore, Jeanne, and Rachel L. McCormack, eds. 1997. Peer Talk in the Classroom: Learning from Research. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Whitmore, Kathryn F. 1997. “Inventing Conversations in Second-Language Classrooms: What Students Say and How They Say It.” In Jeanne Paratore and Rachel L. McCormack, eds., Peer Talk in the Classroom: Learning from Research, pp. 102–129. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
them ably apply their knowledge to new situations. Literature-based instruction seeks to create an instructional environment that accommodates students’ experience, discovery, reflection, and interaction in the classroom. Literature-Based Instruction in the Classroom In literature-based classrooms, students are provided with a broad choice of high-quality literature in the content areas, reading, or language arts curricula. Students are allowed to choose from fiction and nonfiction trade books. The types of literature used for literature-based instruction include narrative books, such as picture books, big books, poetry, folktale myths, fables, fantasy and realistic fiction, science and historical fiction, and expository or informational books (Morrow and Gambrell, 2000). Literature provides the opportunity for teachers and students to explore issues, ideas, themes, or topics in depth. Literature also offers background from which students can learn vocabulary, accumulate knowledge about written language, and develop literacy strategies. Access to a broad selection of texts and genres gives students opportunities to critically evaluate and clarify their understanding of diverse texts. In literature-based classrooms, students not only choose what they read but also choose how they respond to their reading. Self-selected reading promotes students’ interest in the text, encouraging them to draw upon prior knowledge and experience to analyze what they are reading and to construct their own interpretations. Individuals use text as stimuli and models to frame what they have to say or write. As learners construct an understanding of text, they become motivated to ably explain and defend their points of view and express their thoughts in ways that all can understand. In literature-based classrooms, text provides context in which students discuss or write about issues, ideas, themes, or topics. Discussions are focused on specific questions related to various elements of the literature. Teachers employ techniques that encourage students to engage in higher levels of thinking, including synthesis and interpretation. They use discussion strategies, such as interpretive questioning, shared inquiry, and divergent questioning, to promote students’ problem solving and critical thinking skills. A
Literature-Based Instruction Literature-based instruction is characterized by the use of high-quality literature in place of or in addition to basal texts to teach reading and language arts together or integrated within a content area. The approach is typified by a classroom where students have access to a broad choice of fiction and nonfiction trade books (books that are not textbooks), are allowed to make choices about what they are to read, and are given adequate time and means to respond. Knowledgeable teachers act as facilitators to guide students in acquiring knowledge, developing critical thinking skills, and promoting motivation. In addition, the environment encourages students to discuss and collaborate on their readings with teachers and peers. Theoretical Foundation Literature-based instruction is based on readerresponse theory as described by Louise Rosenblatt (1978), who proposed that reading is a transaction between reader and text. A reader calls on prior experiences to shape the meaning of the text being read and takes away new perspectives shaped by the text. Readers interact with the text in either an “efferent” manner, when they read for information, or in an “aesthetic” manner, when they read for personal enjoyment or enrichment. As readers progress, they develop strategies for constructing and critically evaluating a variety of texts. Literature-based instruction encourages students to acquire concepts from a wide range of sources and supports integration of new knowledge with existing understanding to construct meaning. This approach assists in developing students’ critical thinking skills that will help 334
Literature-Based Instruction
Children reading and discussing children’s literature (Elizabeth Crews)
fold learning, they provide students with a great deal of support at the beginning of new learning but gradually decrease that support over time to encourage students to assert their understanding. To represent and reinforce concepts and strategies, teachers draw upon texts, their own behavior, and that of students as models for learning. As students become familiar with strategies and engage in their own learning, teachers take on roles as facilitators and interact with students at increasingly higher levels of thinking skills. In literature-based classrooms, teachers encourage cooperative learning, providing students with opportunities to study and work together. Students learn to read, write, and think by discussing and exploring concepts with many people, including peers, teachers, parents, and experts. Students hear stories read or told by teachers or peers and interact with others about the readings. Students join in group discussions on different aspects of the text, such as vocabulary, syntax, and the meaning of the selection. These activities with teachers and peers serve to increase comprehension and reading fluency.
wide variety of literature introduces students to the different styles, syntax, moods, and other literary aspects of writing. Teachers provide specific instruction in strategies to aid students in constructing meaning from text. They have students employ inference before and during reading to make predictions about the text. They ask students to judge, reason, or draw conclusions based on information in the text. Students monitor what they are reading so they can learn to know when they do not understand the text. Readers are taught to use strategies such as asking whether the reading makes sense, rereading, reading ahead, looking up words in a dictionary, or asking for help. Students may summarize what they are reading or may generate their own questions to be answered as they read; this teaches them to focus on the text and provides a self-generated purpose for reading. Students are engaged in activities that foster the development and sharing of thought beyond a literal interpretation of the text. Teachers use scaffolding and modeling to aid students in bridging the gap between their current understanding and learning goals. When teachers scaf335
Literature-Based Instruction In addition, Barbara Moss (1991) discussed how children’s nonfiction trade books when used with content-area textbooks could enrich students’ learning in the content areas. She argued that textbooks have limitations, such as difficult or uninteresting text, superficial discussion, and lack of current content. Children’s trade books can help overcome these shortcomings. Moss argued that trade books allow for individualizing content-area instruction, are visually appealing, provide for in-depth discussion of a subject, are easier and more interesting to read, and are more current than textbooks. She suggested criteria and resources for selecting trade books and approaches for incorporating literature into classroom instruction.
themes, real-world interaction, self-direction, collaboration, strategy instruction, self-expression, and coherence across activities, materials, and contexts. CORI students showed greater gains in conceptual knowledge than students in the basal-text-based classrooms. The researchers concluded that a literature-based approach could affect students’ concept acquisition. Barbara Guzzetti, Tom McGowan, and Barbara J. Kowalinski (1992) conducted a comparison of a literature-based approach to a basal-text approach in the content area of social studies. One class of sixth graders used fiction and nonfiction trade books in an inquiry approach to a unit on China, whereas the other sixth graders used the traditional textbook with lectures, discussions, quizzes, and chapter questions in transmission instruction. Students who had literature-based instruction acquired more accurate concepts than did students in the traditional approach. Charles Fisher and Elfrieda Hiebert (1990) compared the efficacy of literature-based and traditional skills-oriented instruction in fostering higher-order thinking during reading and writing. They found that literature-based instruction required students to complete tasks that were larger; extended over a longer period of time; were more complex; required synthesis, integration, or creation of ideas in contrast to simple recognition of facts, memory, or literal comprehension; and were more student oriented, allowing students to influence their reading and writing tasks to better reflect their own purposes and goals than traditional skills-oriented instruction. The researchers concluded that instructional approach is crucial in determining the types and numbers of tasks in which students engage in the classroom. Steven Stahl and his associates (1996) investigated whether the use of multiple sources in the social studies classroom enhanced students’ understanding of history and historical analysis. They examined whether students, when given a variety of perspectives on a particular event that multiple sources can provide, constructed a richer and more detailed understanding of that event. The researchers found that when analyzing text, students focused on text features, preferring short, well-structured texts to longer, more difficult texts. Students built mental models of the information rather than differentiating across the information found in the texts. When
The Effect of Literature-Based Instruction Literature-based instruction has been the focus of a significant body of research. Researchers have investigated aspects of literature-based instruction to determine whether literature-based instruction could improve students’ knowledge acquisition, critical thinking, and motivation as compared to traditional basal-text-based instruction. For example, Nancy Romance and Michael Vitale (1992) compared the effect of a literature-based approach with traditional basaltext-based instruction on students’ achievement, attitude, and self-confidence toward science and reading. They incorporated in-depth hands-on science instruction and science reading as part of daily, expanded, science teaching. The researchers found that students in the literaturebased integrated classroom had greater gains in reading and science achievement than students in the traditional basal-text-based classroom. They concluded that integrating hands-on science activities and science process skills with direct-reading instruction in science content is the best strategy for fostering combined scienceconcept mastery and reading comprehension. John Guthrie and his colleagues (1998) designed and implemented a framework of instruction called concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI). CORI provides literature-based integrated instruction that encourages students to observe and personalize their reading, learn a variety of cognitive strategies, interact socially, and communicate their understanding to others. The researchers identified seven design principles to describe their approach: integrated conceptual 336
Literature-Based Instruction “Characteristics of Tasks in Two Approaches to Literacy Instruction.” Elementary School Journal 91 (1):3–18. Guthrie, John T., Peggy Van Meter, Gregory R. Hancock, Solomon Alao, Emily Anderson, and Ann McCann. 1998. “Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase Strategy-Use and Conceptual Learning from Text?” Journal of Educational Psychology 90 (2):261–278. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tom McGowan, and Barbara J. Kowalinski. 1992. “Using a Literature-Based Approach to Teaching Social Studies.” Journal of Reading 38 (2):114–122. Morrow, Leslie M., and Linda Gambrell. 2000. “Literature-Based Reading Instruction.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 563–586. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moss, Barbara. 1991. “Children’s Nonfiction Trade Books: A Complement to Content Area Texts.” Reading Teacher 45 (1):26–32. Romance, Nancy R., and Michael R. Vitale. 1992. “A Curriculum Strategy That Expands Time for InDepth Elementary Science Instruction by Using Science-Based Reading Strategies: Effect of a YearLong Study in Grade Four.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:545–554. Rosenblatt, Louise M. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transaction Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Stahl, Steven A., Cynthia R. Hynd, Bruce K. Britton, Mary M. McNish, and Dennis Bosquet. 1996. “What Happens When Students Read Multiple Source Documents in History?” Reading Research Quarterly 31:430–456.
responding to a description task, students looked to the text to get information and recorded it. When responding to an opinion task, students called on prior knowledge to respond and did not consult the texts. The researchers concluded that students need specific instruction in integrating information across different texts and performing cross-textual analysis. Hence, research substantiates that literaturebased instruction supports students’ learning. Students’ concept acquisition can be supported by integrated conceptual themes, by access to a broad variety of texts, and by allowing students to engage in self-directed and collaborative activities. Students’ critical thinking can be developed through the use of multiple texts and instruction focused on the development of metacognitive skills and disciplinary knowledge. Several investigators found that students’ motivation toward a content area and toward reading could be enhanced by engaging students in texts that they choose, in self-directed activities, and in cooperative activities with their teachers and peers. Literature-based instruction has been shown to be effective in both teaching reading and teaching concepts in a content area. Jacqueline Y. Munyer See Also Children’s Literature; Concept Instruction with Text; Inquiry-Based Instruction; Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy; Multiple Texts; Reader Response; Trade Books References Fisher, Charles W., and Elfrieda H. Hiebert. 1990.
337
Running
338
M Handicapped Act, subsequently renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Mainstreaming enabled students with special needs to move from segregated special education settings to interact with nonhandicapped peers, initially during nonacademic activities, and when prepared adequately to return to general education academic settings, for part or all of the school day. Many educational models of mainstreaming exist, but the most important elements for successful mainstreaming are individualization in general education classes, acceptance of students with disabilities by nondisabled peers and teachers, a cooperative working relationship between general and special educators, and administrative support (Gillet, 1982). The terms mainstreaming, least restrictive environment, and inclusion are frequently confused and used interchangeably because each represents an aspect of integrating children with special learning needs into the general education system. In contrast to mainstreaming, inclusion, also an educational term, describes the practice of placing students with special needs first in the general education setting and only moving toward a more restrictive setting if the children cannot gain educationally from the general education classroom. With inclusion, educational support services are provided in the general education setting, and students are required to benefit educationally but not necessarily to complete the goals and objectives set for their nondisabled peers. Full inclusion means that all students, regardless of handicapping condition or severity, are educated in a regular classroom or program full-time. Children are removed from the general education setting only when appropriate services cannot be provided in the general education environment. Inclusion practices, based on chil-
Mainstreaming Mainstreaming is the educational arrangement of placing students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment (LRE) to the maximum extent appropriate. LRE refers to the legal principle proscribed in the 1975 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that mandated that students with disabilities must be educated as closely as possible in the general education setting. Mainstreaming as an educational term refers to the practice of placing students with disabilities in the general education classroom with suitable support. Generally, mainstreaming refers to implementing selective placement of special education students in general education classes; students are placed in regular classes by demonstrating their ability to complete class work assigned by the general education teacher. In the mainstream movement, special students shift from the more restrictive special education placement to the general education classroom. Mainstream practices typically place children with disabilities in a special education environment to catch up or acquire skills necessary to succeed in a general education setting. Once skill gaps have been reduced, children are placed to the maximum extent possible in a general education setting. When needed, the special education teacher typically provides instructional support in a “pull-out” arrangement, that is, children receive services for some of the day in a special education setting. Mainstreaming represents a significant phase in a progressive inclusion movement to educate children who are atypical physically, cognitively, or socially to the maximum extent possible with nonexceptional students (Wang and Reynolds, 1996). The impetus for mainstreaming emerged in 1975 from the passage of the Education for 339
Media Literacy dren’s needs, may require adaptations in instructional delivery as well as in how students demonstrate knowledge. Some students, for example, may need changes in setting, presentation format, timing, or response modes to benefit from the classroom setting. Other students may need more substantial changes that modify the instructional level, content, or performance criteria. The words mainstreaming and inclusion do not appear in the text of IDEA. Their meaning and respective practices have been inferred from the law’s LRE mandate. The LRE mandate clearly states that to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities are educated with children who are not handicapped. LRE further stipulates that special classes, separate schooling, or removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment can occur only when the nature and severity of the disability are such that education in regular classes, with the use of supplemental aids and services, cannot meet children’s needs satisfactorily. Mainstreaming, inclusion, and least restrictive environment are concepts firmly rooted in the desegregation phase of special education service models. In the early 1960s, the social climate of the United States forced persons with egalitarian and humanist sensitivities to examine the means and methods of educating students with severe disabilities or mild cognitive disabilities. Simultaneously, educators, parents, and social activists began to question the efficacy of segregated or self-contained special education classes. Segregation deprived children with disabilities of opportunities to participate in a variety of academic classes or extracurricular activities; segregated special education was separate and not equal to that provided the general population of students. To assure a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities, a series of federal laws emerged in the 1970s addressing the governance of the educational rights of children with disabilities. The initial two federal laws that influenced significant changes in service delivery were IDEA (1975) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Neither law necessitated mainstreaming or inclusion, but both required a significant effort from the American educational system to include children with special needs in the general education environment. With the passage of more than two decades, IDEA continues to be reauthorized and refined. The notion of
mainstreaming, which once seemed bold and revolutionary, is now viewed as antiquated and has been replaced with inclusion practices. Challenges to the integration of students with disabilities continue to exist. Issues such as adequate teacher preparation, cost and benefit analysis financially and educationally of including students with disabilities in the general education setting, and the rights of nondisabled students continue to be addressed. The search for the means to effectively and efficiently serve children with disabilities in regular school programs continues to be a growing and urgent concern. Kathleen M. McCoy References Gillet, Pamela. 1982. “Models for Mainstreaming.” The Journal for Special Educators 19:1–12. Wang, Margaret, and Maynard Reynolds. 1996. “Progressive Inclusion: Meeting New Challenges in Special Education.” Theory into Practice 35:20–25.
Media Literacy Media literacy involves the ability to evaluate media messages with regard to genre, technical features, industry, production, and audience impact and demographics. The evaluation process involves considering and sorting through the various choices in meaning in media messages and selecting or producing those that go beyond superficial or inaccurate representations. The goal of media literacy instruction, then, is typically to expose students to the ideology at work in media messages and to provide them with the analytic tools to identify and rework what those messages convey. Analytic Processes There exist several specific analytic processes designed to help students evaluate media messages. In general, these processes consist of cognitive, emotional, and aesthetic considerations. Cognitive considerations address how and why media messages are produced and usually involve historical, cultural, and structural analyses. Emotional considerations address the pleasures consumers derive from encounters with media texts, and aesthetic considerations address the appreciation of media as an art form. One of the most salient premises of media literacy instruction is that media texts too often 340
Media Literacy
Students reviewing magazines and newspapers (Elizabeth Crews)
what worldview is being depicted in the particular text. A primary goal of cultural analysis is to deconstruct commonsense public attitudes about social norms and offer or produce representations that belie cultural stereotypes and other harmful assumptions. For example, a teacher may have students look through several fashion magazines and discuss the way the ideal female figure is portrayed and how such portrayals may be harmful. The teacher may then ask them to create a magazine that includes a wider variety of physical representations to demonstrate ways in which media productions might be more inclusive. Structural (or semiotic) analyses of media texts focus more on the use of technical features of productions—the uses of camera angles, color, music, pacing, and lighting, for example. Students evaluate these features to determine how they are used to construct particular meanings. For instance, certain lighting shades, such as pinks and yellows, might be used to convey meanings of femininity. Diffuse lighting might be used around actors’ or models’ faces to make
convey harmful messages and that consumers too often take these messages for granted, absorb them blindly, and/or put undue faith in their supposed veracity. Therefore, lessons in media literacy many times guide students to locate and consider alternative meanings within media texts. Part of this process is analyzing the historical context of media productions. Students consider the ways in which the production has been influenced by the events taking place during the time it was created as well as how the production represents the cultural concerns of that particular period. In addition, they may trace the evolution of a medium, genre, or presentation in order to glean any shifts in cultural attitudes or concerns. Closely tied to a historical analysis of media texts is the consideration of cultural representation. Students participating in media literacy instruction will also often spend much time addressing the ways in which productions reflect, reinforce, inculcate, or shape cultural attitudes, values, behaviors, preoccupations, or myths. In general, students aim to answer the question of 341
Media Literacy them look more attractive. Students look at these factors in order to determine how even the smallest details of a media text act to produce pervasive notions of what it means to take up specific identities such as “female.” Structural analyses may also involve consideration of how the media industry plays a part in the messages that are produced and conveyed through media texts. Students address the ways in which ownership patterns of media corporations might affect the content of productions. They may also address the ways in which government regulation of the media industry affects media messages. Consideration of the media industry, then, might bring about discussions of censorship, public and private interests in media presentation, federal court rulings on obscene and indecent programming, or governmental controls on parameters for media liability.
journalism, for example, may be examined for the way information is presented, specifically in reference to elements of writer objectivity, intent, and bias. The notion of objectivity is often the focus of study in relation to news reporting: Students consider the difference between truth and interpretation in how “facts” are represented in newspaper articles. The objective of such consideration is to have students acknowledge that journalism is a process of value-laden decisions and that media messages, even those in reputable publications, are never transparent. Political campaigns, in particular, offer opportunities for students to study how the news is affected by value systems and to evaluate the credibility of media messages. Analyzing the structure of televised campaigns typically involves considering how political polls are devised, how politicians attempt to appeal to the American people through the media, and how the news tends to emphasize the dramatic exchanges of political life. The genre of campaign advertising may also be evaluated to expose the ways in which politicians methodically develop a cumulative rhetoric. A vital part of such rhetoric is the symbolism that politicians utilize to convey messages of national pride and solidarity. For example, it is not unusual for campaign advertisements to position politicians in front of national monuments, beside their families, and/or within interchanges that demonstrate attention to the concerns of minority populations. Students study such positionings and evaluate the impact they have on media audiences.
Analysis of Genre and Literary Devices Structural analyses of media texts extend beyond considerations of industry and technical features to include evaluations of genre and literary device. Because so many media texts are offered in the narrative form (movies, television programs, video games), media literacy instruction also involves an analysis of plot, characterization, and theme. In this way, media literacy is most like the more traditional literacy practices of teachers and students. That is, many of the same questions are asked of media texts that are asked of the literature of the canon: What conflicts are presented in the story? How do the characters change in dealing with these conflicts? What is the most logical conclusion to the story given the tradition of the genre (action-adventure, romance, comedy)? Students also evaluate the use of literary devices, such as metaphor, symbolism, and foreshadowing. When such structural analyses are performed, media texts are often treated as art forms rather than simply purveyors of harmful or superficial messages. An analysis of characterization or metaphor might also be used, however, to demonstrate further how stereotypes or other harmful ideas are portrayed in the media.
Theoretical Considerations The development of media literacy is seen primarily as a cognitive/rational process. James Potter (1998), for example, described highly medialiterate people as those who are keenly aware of the brain functions that process media messages and can use their awareness to control their media consumption in productive ways. More specifically, they can quickly assess the important elements of media messages and ignore the distracting elements; they are comfortable with ambiguity and are open to new perspectives; and they are reflective rather than impulsive when making decisions about a message’s credibility. People with low levels of media literacy, on the other hand, have a weak, limited perspective on the media and, thus, have little control over their
Study of Journalism and Politics Media literacy instruction may also involve the analysis of expository texts such as newspaper articles or televised political campaigns. Print 342
Media Literacy media consumption. They make for a passive audience, absorbing messages with little critical awareness of their impact. Furthermore, they have difficulty articulating why they like or dislike particular productions and may have little awareness regarding their choices to interact with media. Media literacy instruction is situated within media studies, a discipline that has seen significant paradigm shifts over the last fifty years (Pietila, 1994). In the 1950s, empirical research dominated the media studies field and was based on the premise that modern society was a mass of atomized people under the collective influence of an omnipotent media. At first, the relationship between the media and audience was thought to be a direct one: The audience was conceptualized as an amorphous mass that received media messages all in the same, unmitigated form. As mass communication studies continued, however, researchers began to pay attention to the sociocultural factors that influenced how media messages were received. More specifically, they began to look at how media exposure, audience predispositions, and social interactions might affect the ways in which media texts were interpreted and used by consumers. During the 1960s, the critical theory of the Frankfurt School brought about a New Left critique of media studies. This critique called for an examination of the media’s dependency on the economic, political, and ideological forces of society. Proponents of the critique called for media activity that would be directed against social inequality and repression. They were particularly interested in the dynamics of hegemony and the media’s role in such dynamics. The 1970s and 1980s brought about a culturalist perspective on media studies. Sociological and progressive notions of communication, as found in the work of John Dewey, for example, were examined to highlight the role of social interaction in the interpretation and use of media texts. The culturalist’s view of an audience’s transaction with media messages focused on the reciprocal relationship between production and consumption. That is, culturalists concerned themselves with the ways in which audiences constructed unique and changing understandings of media texts, particularly within communications with other consumers. Media, culturalists contended, do not produce public opinion.
Rather, consumers produce meaning by interpreting texts within specific contexts and for particular reasons. Understanding the various theoretical frameworks that have influenced the direction and focus of media studies is vital to conceptualizing how media literacy instruction is enacted in classrooms. As demonstrated above, paradigm shifts affect how theorists and researchers view the role of media in consumers’ lives. These views also affect how students and teachers conduct media studies in classrooms. Typically, media literacy instruction stems from either a critical theory perspective (often termed critical media literacy; see “Critical Media Literacy” entry) or from a broader modernist tradition as seen in the disciplines of journalism and mass communication studies. Both of these perspectives have one significant tenet in common, namely the assumption that media act upon consumers in negative ways. Therefore, becoming media literate under both a broad modernist and, more specifically, a critical theory tradition is largely a process of learning to identify and resist the harmful aspects of media messages. Postmodern critiques of modernist/rational thinking have put the more traditional forms of media studies under critique (for example, Luke, 1997). Postmodernism calls into question such humanist assumptions as the claim that truth can be obtained through rational deliberation. Therefore, media studies from a postmodern perspective would not promote a process of formulating unbiased, unprejudiced truths regarding what the media should or should not convey to their public. Cultural studies, a discipline with some ties to postmodernism, also offers a critique of the modernist/rationalist tradition of media studies (for example, Storey, 1996). Specifically, the critiques focus on the assumption that consumers (including students) are cultural dupes who need a more knowledgeable other to expose them to the negative ideologies at work in media messages; the critique extends to the Marxist notion that such exposure will in turn provide the students with power to resist harmful media texts and to overcome hegemonic practices. Postmodern thought discounts Marxist notions of empowerment and emancipation, claiming that the scenario in which power or knowledge is handed over unquestioningly to supposedly 343
Mental Modeling helpless and naive populations is a myth. Likewise, those who work in cultural studies question the notion that media consumers are naive and helpless and posit instead that audiences readily and actively construct meanings from media texts without the help of emancipatory lessons in how to do so. Media literacy instruction informed by postmodernism and cultural studies, then, looks very different from the version informed by mass communication studies or critical theory. Instead of assuming that students need simply to learn the ways in which media affect their behaviors, thoughts, and emotions from a supposedly more knowledgeable adult, teachers invite students to share their own processes of constructing meaning from media texts and design lessons that allow for the negotiation of power within students’ interpretation and use of media. Alison H. Heron
gatherings of teacher and students that occur at the “workbench” of active-responsive reading. Mental modeling has come to be the primary vehicle for teaching from this constructivist stance. An Intuitive, but Elusive Concept Incidental mental modeling is the fundamental process of natural language acquisition. Parents and many good teachers intuitively use incidental mental modeling without labeling it as such. A parent might stress saying “Good morning, Adam,” while smiling and encouraging the child to say the same back, hoping that the routine leads to self-initiated greetings. It is only relatively recently, however, that mental modeling has been intentionally applied as an aspect of direct instructional methodology. This is largely because its theoretical underpinnings do not parallel the precepts of behaviorism that dominated learning psychology until recent years.
References Luke, Carmen. 1997. “Media Literacy and Cultural Studies.” In Sandy Muspratt, Allan Luke, and Peter Freebody, eds., Constructing Critical Literacies: Teaching and Learning Textual Practice, pp. 19–49. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Pietila, Veikko. 1994. “Perspectives on Our Past: Charting the Histories of Mass Communication Studies.” Critical Studies in Mass Communications 11:346–361. Potter, James W. 1998. Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Silverblatt, Art. 1995. Media Literacy: Keys to Interpreting Media Messages. Westport, CT: Praeger. Storey, John. 1996. Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press.
First Instructional Application The first proof-of-principle of mental modeling was in the field of comprehension instruction in reading education. This was notable for the fact that there was an unspoken belief that reading comprehension was a straightforward function of intellectual capacity and was, therefore, relatively immutable. There were few instructional methods for teaching comprehension, since it seemed evident that once decoding skills were mastered, one’s understanding of text was determined by one’s knowledge of the word meanings and, to some extent, one’s motivation to attend to them. The proof of an alternative, though largely intuitive, proposition was the Reciprocal Questioning (ReQuest) procedure (Manzo, 1969), in which the teacher and students take turns asking questions about the first few sentences of a reading selection. The teacher intentionally models inner speech in the form of questions that are useful in independently setting a purpose for reading. Students soon begin to imitate the teacher’s “scripts” for asking and answering questions, which ideally are individualized to the particular student.
Mental Modeling Mental modeling is thinking aloud to demonstrate the kind of inner speech that proficient readers tend to use to strategize complex cognitive operations in ways that invite learners to imitate, internalize, and adapt as self-guidance for independent use in analogous task situations. Now widely recognized as a powerful means of instilling habits of mind, mental modeling simultaneously instills much of the “underlying attitude” of the teacher, such as social poise, language, and demeanor. A useful metaphor for mental modeling is a cognitive apprenticeship, a term that conveys its historical origins in teaching crafts and the new
Conditions for Effective Mental Modeling Three overlapping conditions are required for effective mental modeling. The first, reciprocity, is analogous to an opposable thumb: when it is built into instructional conversation, it permits students and teacher to pick up and try out one 344
Metacognition another’s “language of thinking.” Methods based on reciprocity intentionally counteract the teacher’s natural tendency to direct student “talk.” The second condition is that of a teacher with sensitivity to the art of diagnostic teaching: customizing exchanges to student strategy needs. The third required condition is social as well as cognitive scaffolding. Mental modeling methods must be structured in ways that reduce the risks to ego, or self, of active participation and encourage learners to experiment with new ways of thinking and communicating. In ReQuest, wary students may safely begin by parroting the verbal forms of the teacher and other students, until they overcome the awkwardness one feels when attempting to voice new thoughts. As students gain confidence and automaticity in using a set of strategies with a particular content, the teacher gradually fades, or removes, the scaffolding. It is during this fading process that learners internalize new learning strategies by adjusting them into comfortable forms for personal use. Structured methods based on mental modeling with rotation of talk, such as ReQuest, offer the “flip side” of intuitive, incidental mental modeling: frequent, structured opportunities for students to try out new thinking strategies in a low-risk environment in which students can vicariously learn from observing others until they are comfortable and ready to venture out into the instructional conversation. (There was no provision for vicarious learning in behaviorist models.) Because this process is accomplished at the student’s own pace and with a heightened probability of success, it also becomes self-reinforcing and reengaging when offered again. Anthony V. Manzo and Ula Manzo
Comprehension Process” entry). The term metacognition was introduced in the 1970s by John Flavell within the context of memory research and by Ann Brown in the field of reading. The study of metacognition, however, began decades earlier. In the 1920s and 1930s, John Dewey and Edward Thorndike investigated the planning, checking, and evaluating activities we now associate with metacognition. Metacognition involves several dimensions. The first dimension is knowledge of one’s self and one’s abilities in relation to comprehension. Readers must believe that they can control the reading process. The second dimension is knowledge of a task. Readers must understand the purpose of reading and the scope of the task. The third dimension is knowledge of strategies that are relevant to the task at hand and when and how to use those strategies. To engage in strategy use, readers must believe that the strategies are worth the effort and result in improved comprehension. The fourth dimension is executive control of cognitive processes. This dimension is often referred to as comprehension monitoring. It involves being aware of and reflecting on the state of one’s own comprehension, generating plans for improving comprehension, implementing strategies for fulfilling these plans, evaluating the effectiveness of plans, and revising the plans when necessary. Some researchers have found that readers’ motivation is intricately linked with strategy use and comprehension monitoring (see “Literacy Motivation” entry). This entry focuses primarily on the third and fourth principles of metacognition. Expert and Novice Reader Research In the 1970s, when metacognition research was at its height, research in reading was shifting from a behavioral perspective to a cognitive perspective. With this shift came a change in the way in which readers were viewed. Instead of viewing readers as passive recipients of information in a text, researchers began to view readers as active constructors of meaning. Numerous studies investigated the characteristics of readers, both expert (sometimes referred to as good, strategic, successful, skilled) and novice (sometimes referred to as poor, delayed, or unsuccessful) (see “Delayed Readers” entry). This research provided insights into readers who were metacognitively aware compared to readers who were not.
See also Constructivism; Scaffolded Literacy Instruction References Manzo, A. V. 1969. “Improving Reading Comprehension through Reciprocal Questioning.” Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University. Dissertation Abstracts International 30:5344A.
Metacognition Metacognition is a reader’s awareness and knowledge of his or her own cognitive processes so they can be monitored, regulated, and directed to a desired end, in this case comprehension (Harris and Hodges, 1995; see “Reading345
Metacognition Some researchers examined how expert and novice readers defined reading. They found that novices tended to define reading as it relates to decoding, whereas experts tended to focus on comprehension. Other researchers examined the behaviors of expert and novice readers. They found that expert readers processed information in economical ways, attending more closely to information relevant to a goal (the second dimension of metacognition). Expert readers also used a number of strategies as they read (the third dimension of metacognition). They possessed knowledge of a variety of strategies and used them flexibly according to the demands of a text, a task, and the purposes for reading. Experts employed a number of metacognitive, or problemsolving, strategies to insure comprehension. They monitored their comprehension and utilized fixup strategies when they recognized a problem (the fourth dimension of metacognition).
Questions may also be related to comprehension monitoring. For example, to determine the meaning of an unknown word, readers may ask themselves what the remainder of a paragraph says about the word. Related to this strategy are what Michael Pressley and his colleagues (Pressley et al., 1989) referred to as question-answering strategies. These strategies, however, relate to questions generated by a teacher or that appear in a text. Research has shown that it is important for readers not only to generate questions but also to know how to go about answering questions. They must know where answers to questions may be found. A fourth strategy used by expert readers is summarizing information. To summarize, readers not only identify the most important information in a text but also synthesize the ideas and develop a coherent summary that is true to the content of the original text. To construct a summary also involves the use of several other strategies described above. For example, readers must determine what information is the most important. To do that, they must make inferences. To make inferences, readers must use their background knowledge. The fifth strategy is comprehension monitoring, another important aspect of metacognition. Expert readers are aware of the quality and degree of their comprehension during reading. When they recognize that there is a problem, they have access to a repertoire of strategies from which they choose to remedy the problem. They know what strategies are most likely to be effective under certain conditions, and if one strategy is ineffective, they systematically select another. Another strategy a number of researchers have identified as powerful for enhancing reading comprehension is the generation of sensory images (Keene and Zimmerman, 1997). They purport that teaching students to use their senses to imagine the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and feelings an author writes about helps students better understand a text. Sensory images also help readers remember what they read. It must be remembered, however, that this strategy is intricately related to a reader’s experiences. A strategy related to the second principle of metacognition is clarifying the purposes of a reading task and understanding both the explicit and implicit demands of a task. Understanding the purposes of a task must be accompanied by knowledge of other strategies. With this knowl-
Strategies Expert Readers Use Researchers identified a number of strategies as being important for fostering metacognitive awareness and, ultimately, comprehension. Janice Dole and her colleagues (Dole et al., 1991) identified five strategies from their synthesis of comprehension research (see “Comprehension Strategies” entry). First, expert readers can determine the importance of ideas in a text. They can judge between ideas that authors deem important and those that are of lesser importance. To do this they use their existing world knowledge, knowledge of specific content, and knowledge of text structure. A second strategy essential for effective comprehension is drawing inferences. Almost all texts require that readers draw inferences as they read in order to fill in details that are not included in a text and to elaborate on what they read. To make inferences, readers must use their existing knowledge. Inferencing is necessary to engage in a number of other strategies (for example, answering questions, determining importance of ideas, summarizing.) Generating questions is a third strategy Janice Dole and her colleagues identified. Expert readers do not rely on the teacher to ask questions but generate their own as they read. They might ask themselves such questions related to a text as “What is the most important information the author is trying to communicate?” or “When is this story set and who are the main characters?” 346
Metacognition edge, readers can plan which strategies are most appropriate for particular purposes. A strategy inherent in the strategies identified above is that of making connections between readers’ existing knowledge (sometimes referred to as background knowledge or prior knowledge) and ideas presented in a text (see “Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions” entry). Research related to schema theory has demonstrated the importance of this strategy for text recall and comprehension (see “Schema Theory” entry). Existing knowledge includes not only knowledge gained from personal experience but also knowledge of text structure and knowledge of the world. (Although a reader’s existing knowledge is typically beneficial, research has demonstrated that personal knowledge that is counter to what is presented in the text can negatively affect comprehension; see “Schema Theory Criticisms” entry.)
Consistent with Palincsar and Brown’s study, other research has demonstrated that explicit, scaffolded instruction is most effective for teaching metacognitive strategies. Explicit strategy instruction involves some common components. At first the teacher models a strategy’s use and explains its purpose by thinking aloud as he or she reads a text. The teacher orchestrates instruction at this point. Based on students’ developing knowledge of a strategy, the teacher gradually releases responsibility for strategy use to students. Students practice the use of a strategy, with the teacher (or more experienced peer) providing specific guidance as needed (sometimes referred to as guided practice). As students become more familiar with a strategy, they enter into a dialogue with the teacher and gradually take over the responsibility of using a strategy. Finally, students practice a strategy independently. Ultimately the goal of instruction is that students will use strategies independently and flexibly as they read. Metacognitive strategy instruction as described above takes time. Some researchers and teacher educators have found that teaching a strategy takes six to eight weeks. Instruction must be done with a variety of texts and in a variety of contexts. Instruction should not end there, however. The use of metacognitive strategies must be reinforced by teachers and emphasized at subsequent grade levels as task and text demands change. Jeanne Swafford
Strategy Instruction As research clearly identified the characteristics of expert readers, in the 1980s researchers turned their attention to determining if novice readers could be taught to use strategies that expert readers use. At first, researchers experimented with teaching single strategies. Many of these studies revealed positive results; students of varying ages and reading proficiencies could be taught to utilize a strategy, and comprehension improved. Among the first studies that examined the effectiveness of teaching students to use several comprehension strategies in concert (what expert readers do) was the now classic study by Anne Marie Palincsar and Ann Brown (1984). They developed what they call Reciprocal Teaching, which focused on explicitly teaching students how to use four strategies (predicting, generating questions, summarizing, and clarifying difficult parts of a text) that can be used before, during, and after reading a text (see “Reciprocal Teaching” entry). Reciprocal Teaching of each strategy was carefully scaffolded, beginning with teacher modeling and gradually releasing responsibility to students as they became more knowledgeable about strategy use (see “Scaffolded Instruction” entry). Interactive dialogue occurred among the teacher and students as they discussed the text and learned to use the strategies. After learning the strategies, students used the four strategies together, with the teacher and students sharing responsibility for facilitating discussion of a text.
See also Comprehension Strategies; Delayed Readers; Literacy Motivation; Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions; Reading-Comprehension Processes; Reciprocal Teaching; Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Schema Theory; Schema Theory Criticisms References Dole, Janice A., Gerald G. Duffy, Laura R. Roehler, and P. David Pearson. 1991. “Moving from the Old to the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction.” Review of Educational Research 61 (2):239–264. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Keene, Ellin O., and Susan Zimmerman. 1997. Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
347
Middle-School Literacy Palincsar, Ann M., and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-fostering and Comprehension-monitoring Activities.” Cognition and Instruction 1:117–175. Pressley, Michael, Carla J. Johnson, Sonya Symons, Jacqueline A. McGoldrick, and Janice A. Durita. 1989. “Strategies that Improve Children’s Memory and Comprehension of Text.” The Elementary School Journal 90 (1):3–32.
cognitive, social, and personal changes associated with moving from childhood into adolescence. Many of these students are also experiencing the changes associated with moving from elementary schools to middle schools or junior high schools. Owing to a variety of social transformations, such as changes in the family structure and a world dominated by the media, the sociocultural context in which young adolescents are growing up today is significantly different from that of only a few years ago. For many young adolescents, the changes associated with early adolescence occur quite smoothly. For others, the impact of these changes can have negative effects, such as declining grades, decreased interest in school, poor attendance, and low self-esteem. There is new research, however, that suggests that middle-grades schools can help make this time of change a positive experience for young adolescents (Muth and Alvermann, 1999).
Middle-School Literacy Middle-school literacy is the ability of middlegrade (grades four to eight) students to use reading, writing, listening, and speaking when learning and problem solving. Literacy is important in the middle grades because the focus shifts from a goal of learning to read and write to one of reading and writing to learn. In the middle grades, literacy requires that the language arts become increasingly integrated and interdependent. Literacy also requires that students master both content knowledge and functional skills. There are many ways that literacy influences middleschool students, and for this reason it is characterized by a variety of names such as content literacy, critical literacy, functional literacy, information literacy, family literacy, and social literacy. The term literacy has become so powerful and pervasive that it has been appropriated and applied to areas that are peripheral to language arts, such as computer literacy, technical literacy, and scientific literacy. Literacy plays a fundamental role in middleschool education by helping students in relevant contexts by means of reading, writing, speaking, and listening. It is during the middle-grade years that young adolescents form attitudes about education and its relevance to their future. During these years, they also make decisions about how long to remain in school and whether to prepare for higher education. More often than not, young adolescents make these decisions based on their ability to read and write about what they are learning as well as their ability to contribute constructively to classroom discussions and conversations (Johnston et al., 2001).
Defining Literacy in the Middle Grades Literacy is crucial to the teaching-learning process that occurs in the middle grades because this is when young adolescents begin to move from narrative to expository text, a process that places increasing demands on the students’ literacy skills. Unfortunately, despite these increasing demands on their literacy skills, formal reading instruction ends for many young adolescents once they enter middle school. One reason for this is that only about 50 percent of middlegrades teachers receive training in the teaching of literacy, broadly conceived as integrated reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Fewer still receive specific training in programs such as writing across the curriculum. Consequently, many teachers are less than ideally prepared to teach content-area literacy strategies to their students. Given the increasing emphasis on integrated curricula in the middle grades, all teachers, regardless of the subjects they teach, are being called on to integrate the language arts into their subjects. Successful Middle-Grades Literacy Programs Successful school-wide literacy programs are developed around the needs of young adolescents. What do such literacy programs look like? Judith Irvin (1998) maintained that successful middlegrades literacy programs accomplish five goals. Specifically, these programs (1) focus on the
Development during the Middle-School Years Early adolescence is a time of great change. Students at this age are experiencing the physical, 348
Middle-School Literacy
Middle school students reading (Elizabeth Crews)
play an active role in their learning and use their literacy skills to extend their learning. Students receive formal instruction in effective listening and speaking skills. Activities that integrate reading, writing, listening, and speaking with content-area material play a key role. Play writing and performances, role-playing, improvisation, poetry readings, journal writing, and peer editing are frequently used to integrate language arts into the curriculum and to capitalize on the social nature of young adolescents. An important outcome of a successful literacy program is that students engage in reading and writing for enjoyment as well as for learning. Accordingly, opportunities are provided for students to read and write recreationally in all content areas. Recreational reading allows middle-grades students to read, at their own pace, from sources of their own choosing (see “Recreational Reading” entry). Similarly, recreational writing provides students with opportunities to write without having to concentrate on form, punctuation, and spelling and without worrying about sharing their writing with oth-
learning process, (2) facilitate language development, (3) provide strategy-based instruction across the curriculum, (4) integrate the language arts, and (5) encourage recreational reading and reading aloud to students. In successful programs, teachers focus on student learning that makes connections across disciplines rather than on student learning that focuses exclusively on the memorization of facts. Teaching occurs in a manner that facilitates student learning as an active, constructive process, rather than a passive reproductive process. That is, students are active participants in their own learning so they can learn new material in relevant ways. Activities that Develop Literacy In successful programs, teachers promote the language development of young adolescents. This means that communication, dialogue, discussion, and interaction between the teacher and the students, and between the students themselves, are crucial elements of learning. Activities in which students interact with the teacher and with each other characterize successful programs. Students 349
Middle-School Literacy ers. When students are read aloud to, the intent is to provide them with informal opportunities to respond and react to what they are hearing. Reading aloud to students also establishes a common starting point for class discussions and other activities (see “Discussion” entry).
ests and attitudes toward literacy. Because some students see no use for literacy in their lives, a critical factor in their success is finding some way to connect the school literacy program to their personal interests and experiences. Middle-school students from low socioeconomic backgrounds often come from homes characterized by “oral literacy” rather than the “reading literacy” associated with learning from books and magazines. In an oral-literacy environment, young people are socialized by means of stories, fables, proverbs, parables, and legends that are passed down through oral tradition. These are rich and often beautiful language experiences, but they are not the experiences upon which many teachers are prepared to build. Successful literacy programs are those that recognize and value the cultural and linguistic strengths of students for oral-literacy environments.
Team Planning and Action Research Successful middle-grades literacy programs are often organized around interdisciplinary teams of teachers. Teams typically include two to four teachers who plan the language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies curriculum together during a common planning time. Teams meet on a regular basis to plan ways to integrate the language arts into the curriculum. Ideally, these meetings occur when the teams are in the beginning stages of planning integrated units and themes. Specific sessions are scheduled to help teams brainstorm activities and assignments that involve integrating reading, writing, listening, and speaking into the content. Teams use strategies that help them move, as much as possible, from a teacher-centered curriculum to a student-centered one. In successful programs, experienced teachers routinely give demonstration lessons for teams. Demonstration lessons are videotaped for other teachers in the school and used for simulated recall sessions with groups of teachers. This practice is especially helpful when a team is using a new strategy or activity for the first time and wants to see it modeled by someone who is familiar with its use. Recent perspectives on the changing roles of teachers in literacy instruction highlight the notion of teachers as researchers who carry out action research projects in teams. Ideas for such projects are generated by team members and should center around questions and concerns they have about their own practice. Teachers then publish their results in practitioner-oriented journals.
Goal-Oriented Literacy Assessment One of the most important responsibilities of teachers in a successful literacy program is to agree upon what graduating students should be able to do in the areas of reading, writing, speaking, and listening (Harp, 1996; Kamil et al., 2000). Without agreement among teachers on what is important, literacy programs too often end up focusing primarily on improving standardized test scores. Although good scores on tests are important, they should not be an end in and of themselves. Equally important, without goals and objectives that are specific to individual schools, teachers have little sense of how to build on what has been taught previously and how to prepare students for what will be taught in the future. Historically, there have been at least three major goals of middle-school literacy. The first is functional literacy that prepares students to write, read, and speak well enough to compete and succeed in the work world. The second is academic literacy that enables students to appreciate cultural literature and develop their thinking abilities and appreciation of the world around them. The third is social literacy that prepares students to change society for the better in accordance with democratic and egalitarian educational ideals. In practice, these three goals overlap considerably and are represented to varying degrees in all successful literacy programs. Teachers are responsible for coordinating the standardized, state criterion-referenced, and
Literacy Assessment in the Middle Grades Teachers assess the literacy strengths and weaknesses of students, particularly at-risk students, by assessment devices such as the Individual Reading Inventory (IRI) and the Test of Written Language (TWL). Nevertheless, perhaps even more important than assessing students’ specific strengths and weaknesses is assessing their inter350
Minimum-Competency Testing classroom literacy tests at the school level (see “Reading Assessment” entry). At the state and district level, this coordination involves helping officials choose and develop assessments that are appropriate for young adolescents. For example, teachers often serve on state and district literacy assessment committees so that they can provide input on the types of assessments that the students in their schools will be required to take. On the more local level, teachers are responsible for administering these tests, interpreting the results, and communicating these results to students and parents. Finally, teachers are responsible for designing their own classroom assessments and using the results to make decisions about students.
gram as well as on specific features of the program. Regular evaluation and revision of a middle-grades literacy program ensures that it will continue to help students achieve important lifelong literacy skills. K. Denise Muth and Shawn M. Glynn See also Discussion; Reading Assessment; Recreational Reading References Harp, Bill. 1996. The Handbook of Literacy Assessment and Evaluation. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon. Irvin, Judith L. 1998. Reading and the Middle School Student. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Johnston, Peter, Haley Woodside-Jiron, and Jeni Day. 2001. “Teaching and Learning Literate Epistemologies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 93:223–233. Kamil, Michael L., Peter B. Mosenthal, David P. Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds. 2000. Handbook of Reading Research. Vol. 3. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Muth, K. Denise, and Donna Alvermann. 1999. Teaching and Learning in the Middle Grades. 2d ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Stiggins, Richard J. 1995. “Assessment Literacy for the 21st Century.” Phi Delta Kappan 77, no. 3: 238–245.
Evaluation of Program Success In successful programs, teachers integrate authentic assessment into literacy instruction. Unfortunately, many programs are unsuccessful because teachers receive little training in sound assessment practices in general, let alone in authentic types of assessment, such as portfolio and performance assessment, that link literacy instruction and assessment (Stiggins, 1995). Among teachers who are familiar with current assessment practices, many are reluctant to use them because of the time involved. In successful programs, teacher teams work, from the ground up, to design and implement these types of assessment on a school-wide basis. Teacher teams regularly meet and discuss their students’ performance on criterion- and norm-referenced tests that they take. Successful literacy programs are evaluated and revised regularly, with all stakeholders involved in the process. Coordinating such an effort involves three specific tasks. First, school-wide literacy goals and objectives are annually reviewed, revised, and even eliminated if necessary. For example, just because all students are achieving a certain objective does not mean that the objective remains part of the curriculum—the objective must be relevant to the evolving literacy goals of the program. Second, teachers use assessment data to measure student progress toward goals and objectives. This information is then used to make systematic revisions in classroom practice. Third, teachers and students are surveyed on an annual basis to get their input on the overall strengths and weaknesses of the pro-
Minimum-Competency Testing Minimum-competency testing, which began in the 1970s, assessed students’ abilities to demonstrate prespecified basic skills. Reading and mathematics were the subjects most frequently measured. State tests were generally administered to students at several points during their K–12 experiences, with grades three, five, eight, and eleven being the levels at which testing most frequently occurred. Examples of such tests were the Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS) in Texas and the Test of Essential Literacy Learning Skills (TELLS) in Pennsylvania. Minimum-competency testing evolved because people outside the educational field believed the quality of education was declining. When the results of the minimum-competency tests were reported to the school districts, students who did not meet the minimum standards received diagnosis, remediation, and evaluation plans. It is important to note that the students’ scores on the minimum-competency test were the only factors considered when classifying 351
Miscue Analysis students. Students were discontinued from the remedial programs when they demonstrated achievement of the prescribed minimum competencies. Funding for these programs was provided by the states in an effort to ensure that every student was able to function at a basic skills level.
information derived from such testing, the formats of the measures, and the focus on minimal knowledge are among the factors that have contributed to its decreased use. There are, however, states that still employ minimum-competency testing. For example, in some states minimumcompetency testing continues to be used as a requirement for high school graduation. It also is still widely utilized for the purpose of teacher credentialing. In states where it is no longer used, it has been replaced by high-stakes assessments described as focusing on students’ maximum potentials rather than their minimum competencies. These high-stakes assessments remain a force in our educational process (Madaus,1985). Maureen McLaughlin
Reality and Potential William Spady (1978) reported on the disparity between what minimum-competency education was and what it could have been. He noted that it was no more than a testing and remediation program focused on basic literacy and mathematical skills. He described it as missing the point in terms of the meaning and importance of competency in life-role activities, in terms of what it meant to base a program on competencies, and in what respects the term education extended beyond the boundaries of student certification alone. The essential point was that competency should have required tapping this reservoir of individual capacities, integrating them in complex ways and applying them based on the contingencies present in specific social contexts. He concluded that true competency rarely involved the simple mechanical application of simple cognitive or manual capacities as the tests required.
See also High-Stakes Assessment References Madaus, George F. 1985. “Public Policy and the Testing Profession—You’ve Never Had It So Good?” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 4:5–11. Spady, William G. 1978. “The Concept and Implications of Competency-based Education.” Educational Leadership 36:16–22. Taylor, Bob L. 1978. “Effects of Minimum Competencies on Promotion Standards.” Educational Leadership 36:23–26.
Relationship to High-Stakes Assessment It was during the minimum-competency movement that policymakers realized that state-level testing had power and consequences beyond its informational or descriptive uses. They learned that when sanctions or rewards were attached to test results, the measures could be used to implement policy. As a consequence, test results began to be used to make high-stakes decisions, including student placement, promotion, retention, graduation certificates, teacher credentialing, and allocation of funding. Many researchers and policymakers cited the advent of minimumcompetency testing as the beginning of highstakes assessment in the United States. Such high-stakes uses profoundly changed the role of testing in education (Madaus,1985).
Miscue Analysis Miscues are the unexpected responses readers make when reading texts. Although some researchers, including teachers and others working with readers, refer to these unexpected responses as “errors,” Kenneth Goodman coined the term miscue to highlight the fact that these responses are based on inferences and predictions using the same language cues and reading strategies that readers use to make expected responses. Miscue analysis is a tool to determine how effectively and efficiently readers use the language systems and reading strategies to construct meaning. Miscue analysis also provides researchers with an enriched understanding of the reading process itself, helps them evaluate the complexity and predictability of reading materials, and influences their instruction and support of readers. Since Goodman pioneered miscue analysis in the 1960s, hundreds of miscue studies (see Brown, Goodman, and Marek, 1996) on readers from a
Negative Outcomes and Current Uses Over time it became clear that the minimumcompetency movement was having a negative impact on students and teachers. The value of the 352
Miscue Analysis broad range of cultures, ages, and abilities have supported the findings of his research. These findings include the following: Reading is a process of constructing meaning; there is a single underlying reading process; and all readers, regardless of proficiency, make miscues (Goodman, 1994).
Figure 1. Examples of high quality miscues. c Three everybody There had been a party and everyone had brought a gift. Note: Corrected miscues are marked with a ‘c’; substitutions are written above the text.
Miscues: Unexpected Responses to Text Miscue analysis research demonstrates that readers orchestrate cues from two bodies of knowledge as they transact with texts in their sociocultural context. Language cueing systems make up one of these bodies. These systems include the graphophonic system—relationship between oral and written language (including phonics); the syntactic system—linguistic and structural relationships (grammar); and the semantic/pragmatic system—personal and social meanings of language in a cultural context. The other body of knowledge consists of the general cognitive strategies. In using these strategies, readers initiate, making the decision to read; sample, selecting the most productive and useful cues based on what they know about reading, the text, and their situational context; infer, guessing information needed based on the partial information they have; predict, anticipating that information is coming that they do not already know; confirm or disconfirm, self-monitoring their reading so they are constructing meaning; correct, if necessary, reconstructing the text and recovering meaning; and terminate, deciding to stop reading. Miscues occur when readers make predictions and decisions that differ from the authors’ meanings represented in the published text. When readers sample the language systems, they decide which cues provide the information they need to predict and construct meaning. If their predictions make sense (semantic acceptability) and sound like language (syntactic acceptability), they confirm and continue reading; if their predictions do not make sense, they disconfirm and self-correct. What distinguishes proficient and less proficient readers is not the reading process itself but the readers’ experience with reading and how flexibly and proficiently they control the process. (For a more detailed description of the reading process, see Goodman, 1994.) Leigh, a third grader, made the miscues illustrated in the sentence in Figure 1 while reading the 1969 book, Alexander and the Wind-Up Mouse.
Both of Leigh’s miscues in the sentence illustrated reveal her knowledge of language and her concern for constructing meaning. She sampled the graphophonics, syntax, and semantics and predicted that the sentence began with “Three.” Because she was monitoring her reading for meaning, she realized “Three” did not fit the syntax of the sentence and would not make sense. So, she disconfirmed, self-corrected, and continued reading. Her sampling, predicting, and use of the reading process matched the author’s decisions until she reached “everyone.” Here, she sampled the graphophonics, syntax, and semantics and predicted “everybody.” Because “everybody” fit the syntax and made sense in the context of the sentence and the story, she confirmed and continued reading. Like all proficient readers, Leigh monitored her reading for meaning and corrected miscues that interfered with the meaning she was constructing and did not correct miscues that did not interfere with that meaning. Miscue Analysis: A Window on the Reading Process Leigh’s miscues are not unlike the miscues of other readers. Research reveals that miscues are not random or evidence of carelessness; miscues are cued by readers’ knowledge and concepts of language and the world. Through the “window” that miscue analysis provides, researchers examine the pattern of readers’ miscues and discover the readers’ focus on and ability to construct meaning. (For a detailed description of miscue analysis and its procedures, see Goodman, Watson, and Burke, 1987.) Procedures Miscue analysis relies on oral readings. Although there are differences between oral and silent reading (that is, silent reading is usually faster and more efficient, allows readers to be less conscious of the audience and perhaps take more 353
Miscue Analysis risks, and so on), the use of the language cueing systems and reading strategies is in essence the same (Goodman and Goodman, 1994). Before beginning, the researchers need a complete text that is new to the reader (although language and content should be familiar) and challenging enough to provide a minimum of twenty-five miscues, notes (written or mental) to use during the retelling, a typescript or copy of the text that maintains the original line breaks and is double or triple spaced, and a tape recorder and blank tape (readings are always audio taped for later analysis). Researchers begin these sessions by chatting briefly to establish a rapport and then, before the reading, stating the purpose of the miscue analysis. They explain that if the reader comes to something she does not know, she should do what she would do if she were alone, that they are not going to help in order to understand what she does when she reads. The reader is also told that when she finishes reading, she will be asked to retell the story. During the reading, researchers note miscues and other observations (that is, finger pointing, subvocalizing, perusal of illustrations, oral asides, and so on) on the typescript. If the reader stops reading for an extended time, researchers may ask what she does when she comes to something she does not know. Without providing the specific answer or word, researchers assure the reader that whatever strategy she chooses is acceptable. Following the reading and comments on positive aspects of the student’s reading, researchers ask for a retelling. The retelling has two parts, unaided and aided. In the unaided retelling, the reader begins where she chooses and relates everything she remembers about the story while the researchers listen carefully and make notes. When the reader finishes, the researchers begin the aided retelling by asking questions based on the information the reader shared. Such openended questions as “Tell me more about . . .” or “Why do you think (character) did that?” invite more details without providing information in the questions. Although oral retellings are the most common, written retellings, sketches, time lines, and so on may also be used.
and what the reader said, using standard miscue markings (see Goodman, Watson, and Burke, 1987). Detailed notes or a transcription of the retelling are also made. The most thorough method for analyzing miscues involves the Goodman Taxonomy of Reading Miscues, a series of questions aimed at evaluating readers’ consecutive miscues to discover why the miscues were made and the influences of the miscues on the readers’ comprehension. The taxonomy was adapted and later revised to make it more accessible to researchers. (For information on the Goodman Taxonomy and four alternative miscue procedures, see Goodman, Watson, and Burke, 1987.) In miscue analysis it is not the quantity of miscues readers make but the quality of the pattern of miscues across a text, in relation to the quality of the retelling, that is examined. The quality of miscues is established by how much the miscues change or enrich the meaning of the text. Highquality miscues are usually semantically and syntactically acceptable or have been corrected if they are unacceptable. Semantically acceptable miscues make sense within the sentence and complete story. Syntactically acceptable miscues are in language structures that grammatically fit into the sentence and complete story. Leigh’s earlier miscues are examples of high-quality miscues. Low-quality miscues are unacceptable semantically and/or syntactically and are not corrected, as with another miscue Leigh made, as shown in Figure 2. Although “took” is a past tense verb like “told” (syntactic system) and has high graphic similarity (graphophonic system), it does not make sense (semantic system) and is a low-quality miscue resulting in meaning loss. Miscue analysis distinguishes between comprehending and comprehension (Goodman and Goodman, 1994). Comprehending is what readers do to understand while they are reading; comprehension is what they understand when they finish reading. Researchers examine readers’ comprehending through their use of the language cueing systems and readers’ comprehension through the retelling. Figure 2. An example of a low quality miscue.
Analysis Before analyzing the miscues, researchers listen to the tape and carefully mark on the typescript all differences between what they expect to hear
took He told him of his adventures with brooms . . .
354
Miscue Analysis In analyzing Leigh’s reading of this story, 94 percent of the time her miscues were syntactically acceptable, indicating her high concern for producing sentences that sounded like acceptable grammatical structures. Four of her sentences were syntactically acceptable but not semantically acceptable. Twice this was due to her substitution of nonwords, which did not result in a meaningful text but retained the grammatical structure of the sentence. An example is given in Figure 3. Screatly is not a real word but serves the function of an adverb. Nonwords frequently are similar to the expected response in number of syllables, length, spelling patterns, and bound morphemes, indicating the degree to which readers attend to the graphophonic and syntactic systems. Instances like this reveal Leigh’s desire to maintain a syntactic cohesion as she reads. Research demonstrates that maintaining syntactic acceptability, even without semantic acceptability, allows readers to continue making linguistic sense as they read. Analysis also reveals that 89 percent of the time Leigh was closely monitoring the semantic cueing system. She sampled the text, inferred, and generally predicted semantically and syntactically acceptable sentences, self-correcting when her predictions were unacceptable. Leigh’s earlier high-quality miscues are examples of this. Leigh’s graphophonic score reveals her phonics knowledge. An analysis of her substitution miscues shows that 88 percent bear graphic similarity to the expected response. The miscues with no graphic similarity were function words that resulted in syntactic and semantic acceptability because they were either corrected or did not change the meaning of the sentence. Miscue analysis is never complete without a retelling to indicate the readers’ comprehension. Leigh’s retelling received a holistic score of 5/5. She retold the story sequentially and cohesively, included details, and understood the point of the story.
Figure 3. An example of a nonword. $ Screatly Cautiously Alexander moved closer to the hole. Note: Nonwords are marked with a ‘$’.
cally and semantically acceptable, regardless of the number of miscues, and their comprehension is strong; and they are efficient because they use strategies that support their meaning construction and keep them moving through the text. Moderately proficient readers are effective or efficient, not both. Nonproficient readers are neither effective nor efficient. They produce sentences that are syntactically and semantically unacceptable and often rely too heavily on graphophonic information. In Leigh’s reading of this story, she was a strong moderately proficient reader. She was an effective reader but not a fully efficient reader. Strategy lessons that focus her on being more efficient in her choice and use of cues and strategies would move her to being a proficient reader. Miscue Analysis Research The dynamic nature of miscue analysis is continually evident. Current miscue analysis studies are examining eye movements, fluency, English as a Second Language and bilingual issues, and text analysis. The insights from this research will add to and enrich researchers’ understandings of the reading process and how to support readers. Prisca Martens See also Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment References Brown, Joel, Kenneth S. Goodman, and Ann M. Marek. 1996. Studies in Miscue Analysis: An Annotated Bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goodman, Kenneth S. 1994. “Reading, Writing, and Written Texts: A Transactional Sociopsycholinguistic View.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, pp. 1093–1130. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goodman, Yetta M., and Kenneth S. Goodman. 1994. “To Err Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, ed., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading,
Reader Profiles Patterns of miscues across a reading and the retelling provide profiles of readers (Goodman, Watson, and Burke, 1987, 1996). Proficient readers are both effective and efficient in their use of the language cueing systems and the reading strategies. They are effective because most of the time they produce sentences that are syntacti355
Models of the Reading Process newly read texts. In addition, models of reading cannot serve as guidelines from which we can project perfectly how internal, invisible reading processes actually function. A model of reading explains and represents in symbolic form both empirical research and theory in reading. Some models show complex, interacting systems contributing to the comprehension of text whereas other models focus on only one component. In either case, our limited capacity to observe, measure, collect information, and describe processes precisely limits the accuracy of a reading model. Furthermore, models of reading depict a moment in time described in ordinary language processed linearly whereas reading is a continuous, recursive, and multileveled process.
pp. 104–123. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goodman, Yetta M., Dorothy J. Watson, and Carolyn L. Burke. 1987. Reading Miscue Inventory: Alternative Procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen. ———. 1996. Reading Strategies: Focus on Comprehension. New York: Richard C. Owen.
Models of the Reading Process A model of reading represents in ordinary language or graphic form the components and processes of reading. A model may render a specific aspect of the reading process, such as word recognition, or depict more globally an integrated and interacting network of specific components, all of which contribute to the mind’s making of meaning from a text. A model of reading provides us with a window through which we can view a reader’s mind at work. The view enables us to understand from a certain perspective processes and components that contribute to the construction of meaning from a text. The explanation of a specific reading process and its relationship to other functions or components within a model is commonly based on extensive research and theory. The overall design of the model is intended to reveal how components and functions interact to produce comprehension.
On Benefits of Reading Models Most readers have an implicit “model” of the reading process that we could describe if we were asked. If you were an educator, your implicit understanding of reading would most likely influence your approach to reading instruction in the classroom. We know that understanding the reading process more fully and explicitly will contribute to teachers’ deeper knowledge of their students’ learning and to improvements in instructional practice for their students (Beck, 1989). Models can provide educators with a deeper understanding of reading processes, where they can break down, and what strategies could improve reading processes. First, with respect to understanding reading, a model integrates research findings, makes theory graphic, and provides us with an explanation of how reading takes place in accord with what we currently know. Taking a car’s engine apart helps us see how it works and repair it, but dismantling the reading process presents us with a very different problem. Nevertheless, although reading is a highly complex and hidden process with no pistons, valves, or crankshafts to pull out for observation, we do have a substantial amount of research and theoretical knowledge about it. What we do know enables us to construct a model to visualize this mysterious, invisible process. Having a model reduces some of the mystery surrounding reading so that we might understand more about a very important skill that is very hard to see. Models are metaphors that help us visualize and understand
On the Nature of Models Models represent in language and/or graphic form objects, events, or processes. A blueprint of a house is a model that a builder can use to guide construction of the real thing. The Pythagorean theorem (A2 + B2 = C2) is a model representing the relationship between the sides of a right triangle and its hypotenuse. This mathematical model can help us solve problems—as long as they involve triangles with right angles. Some of us working in literacy have also engaged in model building based on our empirical observations. The objects and processes we have tried to capture and describe in our models, however, are often less visible than the behavior of triangles or the design of houses. We can observe and measure eye movements and make inferences from the data we obtain, but we cannot (at this time) observe and measure activation and integration of background knowledge with 356
Models of the Reading Process research and theories that explain aspects of the reading process. Second, a model of reading will help us detect where points of breakdown in comprehension could occur. Glitches happen. Perplexities arise. Texts do not always make sense. A model can help us visualize what components are vulnerable or fail to contribute to smooth meaningmaking while reading. For example, weak or slow word recognition can cause poor comprehension. In short, a model will help us understand what is going on when diagnosing a student’s struggle with reading. Third, a model provides clues about instructional and intervention strategies that could help struggling readers at different points in the reading process. For example, research has revealed that readers trained to recognize text structures, such as the structure of cause-effect passages, comprehend texts with those structures better than untrained readers. Having knowledge of text structure as information readers could hold in long-term memory will alert educators to its potential for comprehension in instructional settings. Although viewing the model as a definitive predictor for formulating prescriptions to solve every struggling reader’s frustration is risky, we can use it as a resource for good hints. A well-designed model based in solid research can create more opportunities to envision instructional interventions.
species, beneath it. When readers encounter an object that occupies a more concrete place in an organized knowledge structure, they are likely to see that object within a broader, more abstract system. Several reading models that rely on schema theory postulate that external data (in the form of letters, words, and concepts in a text) interact with internal schema (as knowledge networks stored in memory) in two distinct directions. Reading is data driven when data activate a schema, a direction of interaction known as “bottom-up.” Reading is schema driven when a schema influences or supports data on the page, a direction of interaction known as “top-down.” In some reading models, both “bottom-up” and “top-down” processes interact. Schema theory has provided several model builders with an explanation of how background knowledge may affect the reading process. With that theory in mind as an example of the many theories that appear in models of reading, we can now explore several models to savor their similarities and differences. Types of Reading Models Models of reading fall into several categories. These categories reflect the various disciplines and theoretical stances from which they are derived. Most of the models developed since the 1970s fall into the cognitive-processing category, but variations within that category arose because their originators held somewhat different theoretical perspectives within the cognitive-processing domain. Two other distinct categories have arisen. One of these categories, namely the sociocognitive-processing models, builds upon a cognitive core but takes into account the influence that the social processes of the classroom have upon meaning construction. The last category treated, namely the transactional model, arose early in the twentieth century from several disciplines, including philosophy and comparative literature. Unable to treat each category exhaustively here, samples of models from the cognitive-processing, sociocognitive-processing, and transactional categories will follow. A more exhaustive array of models has been assembled by Robert Ruddell, Margaret Ruddell, and Harry Singer in Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (1994).
From Theory to Model A theory is an explanation of events that is usually based upon extensive research. Several important theories contribute to current reading models. One of these theories of comprehension that appears in several models of reading is schema theory. A brief explanation of the theory will facilitate understanding several models of the reading process in which it is embedded. Schema theory helps us to understand how knowledge that is stored in memory shapes the meanings we construct while reading. Schema theory is based on the hypothesis that information is held in knowledge structures or networks. These networks often appear to be organized hierarchically, meaning that knowledge is ordered in degrees of importance or scope. For example, a schema may look like a root system with an organism’s phyla at the top of the hierarchy and lesser categories, such as kingdom, family, and 357
Models of the Reading Process Cognitive-Processing Models Cognitive-processing models all share a strong focus on cognition during reading. The explosion in cognitive psychology during the latter part of the twentieth century illuminates these models that focus on internal cognitive processes. In an early information-processing account of reading, Philip Gough (1972) used a schematic diagram, similar to a programmer’s flow chart, to represent one second of reading. The model typifies “bottom-up” processing because it shows that reading starts with the stimulation of letters to the visual system and culminates, after a series of transformations, in TPWSGWTAU (The Place Where Sentences Go When They Are Understood). The automatic information-processing model, when proposed by David LaBerge and Jay Samuels (1974), provided substantial support for the diagnosis of certain reading problems, such as decoders with weak comprehension and skilled readers with little recall of recently read text. The automaticity theory built into this model implies that students who decode but fail to comprehend give so much attention to the decoding process that they have little left for comprehension. That same automaticity theory helps us understand that good college readers may allocate insufficient attention to what they are reading because the text requires so little of their efforts that their minds wander to other, perhaps more entertaining topics. Jay Samuels (1994) extended automaticity theory to schema theory, suggesting that speed of access to schemata is an important factor in reading fluency. Troubled by what he saw as an excessive emphasis on data-driven models of reading, David Rumelhart (1985) synthesized research demonstrating the importance of an interactive model of reading. He believed that reading was a meaning construction process driven by higher-level processing (top-down) as well as by lower-level data collection (bottom-up). Evidence was abundant that top-down processing influenced reading not only at the orthographic levels as readers tried to decode words but also at syntactic and semantic levels. Summarizing his findings in the mid-1980s, Rumelhart wrote that “our apprehension of information at one level of analysis can often depend on our apprehension of information at a higher level” (735). He went on to design a “message center” model to ac-
count for various knowledge sources, such as letter-level knowledge, letter-cluster knowledge, lexical-level knowledge, syntactic knowledge, and semantic-level knowledge, operating in an interactive, parallel process while readers read. Another cognitive processing model called READER was developed by Marcel Just and Patricia Carpenter (1987) to simulate reading. They believed their model, which emphasizes “bottom-up” processing but includes “topdown” schema influences, coherently synthesized the research available to them, including their own research on speed reading and dyslexia. The READER model provides a computer simulation of the reading process and shows how its components work together to produce comprehension (see Figure 1). The authors described READER as a production system model that runs on production rules. Each “production” describes an action to be taken and under what conditions it should be taken. Each production rule expresses procedural knowledge that enables the system to know how to function when textual conditions vary. When a condition is created in working memory, a production addresses that condition by describing what symbol manipulation to perform. A production is similar to a computer’s program because, just like a production, a computer program states an action that is to be carried out and the conditions that need to be met for that action to take place. Production rules consist of IF-THEN connections that are activated under the right conditions, just as when we are multiplying numbers or reading. For example, IF 7 X 7, THEN 49. Together, these production rules make up a production system that is just like the computer program I am using to write this sentence on my computer. This program has a rule like this: IF I spell their as thier, THEN it will underline thier in red. Just and Carpenter believed that we have productions or production systems that encode orthography, phonology, and syntax as well as metacognitive skills. During each reading cycle (triggered by an eye fixation), all productions examine the knowledge state in working memory. At that point, they determine if the conditions that warrant their activation and application are present. Those productions whose conditions for application are met carry out their action and modify, as appropriate to their rules, the current state of 358
Models of the Reading Process
Figure 1
tence word by word, it operates on many parallel levels, such as the lexical, semantic, and textschema, at the same time. At each level, the following mechanisms are engaged: word encoding, lexical access, semantic and syntactic analysis, referential processes, schema-level processes, and forgetting in working memory. These coordinated mechanisms contribute to the comprehension of a text that can be held in memory. Marilyn Adams’s model, which falls in the cognitive-process category, is also interactive. In her study of beginning readers, Adams (1990) designed a model of reading that focused strongly on word recognition. Her model, which
knowledge in working memory. No “chief executive” controls this process. Rather the reading process is self-scheduled in that decisions about what comes next are not preplanned but are dependent upon the state of knowledge in working memory from moment to moment. As READER processes words, propositions are formed to represent the knowledge acquired. Propositions are symbolic structures that function as building blocks for more complex sentences and texts. Interrelated propositions form a semantic network that holds and expresses the knowledge READER has encoded. As READER moves through a printed sen359
Models of the Reading Process
Figure 2
by selecting appropriate word meanings, including meanings for highly ambiguous words. And finally, the phonological processor enables readers to sound out words being processed and so provides a degree of helpful redundancy to visual processing and essential support for readers’ working memory and text comprehension. Pointing out that less frequently encountered words often carry heavy loads of meaning for a passage, Adams emphasizes the importance of speed and complete processing within and among the processors. Walter Kintsch (1998) designed a construction-integration model of reading that he elaborated into a paradigm for cognition. Kintsch, troubled by “top-down” models, pointed out that, in the past, builders of reading models built in
combined the findings of many studies, including those of Just and Carpenter, consisted of four processors that are simultaneously active and interactive (see Figure 2). These four processors are called the orthographic processor, the meaning processor, the context processor, and the phonological processor. Each processor performs functions essential to reading. The orthographic processor takes print stimuli in letter form and initiates the word recognition process by processing letter order and breaking words into syllables. The meaning processor enables recognized words to acquire recognizable meanings and to store the meaning of new words so that they will be recognized in the future. The context processor constructs a progressive representation of a text being read 360
Models of the Reading Process strong rules of background knowledge use to make sure that the correct elements get generated in the correct context. In strong “top-down” or expectation-driven models, schemata are supposed to constrain or limit our inferences from a text. Accordingly, that constraint process keeps irrelevant or redundant associations from cluttering our thoughts and our efforts to make sense out of a text. In short, the knowledge base we activate when we read keeps us out of blind alleys. Kintsch proposed an alternative model he thought would fit empirical findings better. Bottom-up information, the reading of words, is critical to all readers, he noted. In fact, he thought it was so important that a model of comprehension must account for it. He did so by taking an approach that allows for a weak production system that permits many interpretations to arise from a word or phrase in a text. Only those activated interpretations that are appropriate for the context so far constructed will gain strength and survive. Those meanings that are contextually inappropriate will be inhibited and fade away. He called the model construction-integration because it combines a construction process with an integration phase. During the construction phase, a reader constructs a text base from printed words and the reader’s knowledge base. During the integration phase, that text base gets integrated into a coherent whole.
that text as students interact with their teacher, classmates, and the text itself. In creating the model, the authors took into account both the student as reader and the teacher as reader. Both these readers brought similar components to the reading process, but those components often had different contents that were applied differently during reading. Although both student and teacher brought “prior beliefs and knowledge” of several kinds, including features of text-processing strategies, the substance of their “prior beliefs and knowledge” could be quite different. For example, a teacher’s motivational profile, especially when the teaching of a text lies ahead, is likely to be quite different from that of a student, who may be thinking about an upcoming comprehension quiz. They also bring a different set of text-processing strategies, including knowledge of text structure and metacognitive processes. Although a student-reader may be struggling with an unfamiliar text structure, such as a sonnet, the teacher may be thinking about how to teach the new text structure to enhance the richness of the student’s interpretation and understanding. When the outcomes of meaning construction for the student-reader and the outcomes of instructional decisionmaking for the teacher-reader emerge in the context of the classroom, negotiations over textual meanings flourish. According to the model, meanings of the student-reader, the teacher-reader, and the classroom community interact in a learning environment. In that learning environment, not only text meanings are negotiated. Participants in the meaning-negotiation process also interpret tasks, sources of authority for the validity of interpretations, and sociocultural meanings (see “Learning Environment” in the center of Figure 3). Furthermore, all these meanings undergo reinterpretation in the hermeneutical cycle as new knowledge acquired from classroom discourse informs and reforms older understandings.
Sociocognitive-Processing Model Although drawing upon cognitive-processing research and theory, the sociocognitive-processing model designed by Robert Ruddell and Norman Unrau (1994) also integrates theory and research on classroom discourse and motivation. Titling their description of the model “Reading as a Meaning-Construction Process: The Reader, the Text, and the Teacher,” they explicitly took into account the influence on textual interpretation of teachers and other readers in a classroom context (see Figure 3). In explaining the meaningconstruction process, the authors drew upon research accounting for textual, social, cultural, and disciplinary perspectives. Furthermore, they showed how students and teachers in classroom interactions and discussions form and reform interpretations in a hermeneutical circle. Single meanings generated at one instant in time during an initial reading of a text are seen embedded in cyclical rereadings and reinterpretations of
Transactional Model Arising from a multidisciplinary perspective, including philosophy, comparative literature, aesthetics, linguistics, and sociology, Louise Rosenblatt’s (1994) transactional model differed in significant ways from cognitive-processing models of reading. Even as she formulated her model of reading, she warned that, although she could 361
Figure 3
Models of the Reading Process generalize about reading events, each of the innumerable transactions between a reader and a text is unique and separate. Rather than thinking of reading as a separate reader taking in a separate text, Rosenblatt viewed the reader and text as “two aspects of a total dynamic situation.” Readers do not get meaning from the text where it resides. Meaning issues from the transaction between reader and text. Readers, while transacting with a text, form a structure of the text’s elements that becomes an object of thought, what she called the evocation. Readers then respond to emerging evocations while reading and form interpretations that report, analyze, and explain those evocations. Furthermore, readers adopt a stance toward a text on an efferent-aesthetic continuum. Readers adopt an efferent stance when their purpose for reading is focused upon what they extract and retain from a reading event. They adopt the aesthetic stance when they attend to the experience they live through during the reading, the perceptions they have within the text world created through the transaction. Sometimes summed up as “scientific” or “public” for efferent and “artistic” or “private” for aesthetic, these two stances are not binary but are mixed in various proportions, depending on the reader’s selective attention and intention. More perhaps than any other model of reading, Rosenblatt’s transactional model has impacted literary criticism and English education in the United States. The influence of her transactional theory expanded from its almost unnoticed 1938 publication in Literature as Exploration until that book’s fifth edition in 1995. Currently, reader-response theory plays an important role in both the education of teachers of English and in secondary-school classrooms where the expression of students’ unique interpretations of text is often nourished under the aegis of that theory.
simultaneously. The multitude of components interacting instantaneously cannot be shown on a static page or in the most precise model. So the model cannot, at this time, be a scientifically perfect production machine or simulation of real reading. Designers of models would like to be master programmers capable of building a mind-brain replica of the reading process, but they have to settle for being more like photographers or cartographers capturing one moment in the process, a kind of cross section of cognitive life shown in a two-dimensional map. As Robert Tierney (1994) put it, a creator of a model is not an engineer but a mapmaker who is capable of showing us only a mirage of reading at an imaginary moment in time. Furthermore, a model of reading functions like a paradigm in science. Paradigms in science provide a definition and clarification of a “tradition” for understanding a process and for scientific research based on that understanding. When new findings cannot be explained within “traditional” models, a new model emerges to capture and provide explanatory information for the new discoveries. The history of science is littered with models that have been cast aside on the way to better models that more accurately and adequately embody the knowledge and problems of the time. Blind adherence to a model may blind its admirers to new problems in the field and to new discoveries. Just as adherence to categorical thinking may not allow us to “think out of the box,” models, too, could limit breakthroughs to newer, fresher insights and findings. Although we do not now know the potential of future models to advance our understanding of reading, we do know that models have the power to both advance and to limit our progress. With more sophisticated technologies to detect reading processes, we undoubtedly will add to our storehouse of research to build theories and models. Bennet Shaywitz and his associates (Shaywitz et al., 2000) reported that, in the past few years, magnetic resonance imagery and other technologies have yielded brain scans while readers read that reveal new findings about those areas of the brain involved in reading processes. Meanwhile, the memory capacity of computers has grown quickly so that storing vast amounts of information has become increasingly possible. How far are we from a computer program or
The Limits and Possibilities of Models Although models have many benefits, they have limitations as well. Builders of models know they cannot depict the dynamic complexity of reading-in-action. Models described in ordinary language unfold line by line. Graphic representations are two dimensional. Reading is neither line by line nor two dimensional. It is recursive and multidimensional, occurring along parallel pathways 363
Multicultural Literacy eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 996–1056. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ruddell, Robert B., Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds. 1994. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rumelhart, David E. 1985. “Toward an Interactive Model of Reading.” In Harry Singer and Robert B. Ruddell, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 3d ed., pp. 722–750. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Samuels, S. Jay. 1994. “Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading, Revisited.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 816–837. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Shaywitz, Bennett A., Kenneth R. Pugh, Annette R. Jenner, Robert K. Fulbright, Jack M. Fletcher, John C. Gore, and Sally E. Shaywitz. 2000. “The Neurobiology of Reading and Reading Disability (Dyslexia).” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 229–249. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Tierney, Robert J. 1994. “Dissension, Tensions, and Models of Literacy.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 1162–1184. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
reading simulator that could read a randomly selected expository text, compile a summary of it, and formulate questions about it that would demonstrate comprehension? Could advanced simulators even interpret texts, perhaps even novels, and guide enlightening discussions? Although we cannot see the future of reading research and model building clearly, we can certainly see the potential of powerful, perhaps computer-derived and -driven models of reading that may thoroughly astound us as they replicate even expert human reading. In the meantime, models of reading inform us of both hidden and transparent processes whose improvement can enhance comprehension and learning. Norman J. Unrau See also Automaticity and Reading Fluency; Schema Theory; Schema Theory Criticisms References Adams, Marilyn. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge: Bradford Books/MIT Press. Beck, Isabel L. 1989. “Improving Practice through Understanding Reading.” In Lauren Resnick and Leopold Klopfer, eds., Toward the Thinking Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, pp. 40–58). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision in Curriculim and Development; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gough, Philip B. 1972. “One Second of Reading.” In James F. Davanagh and Ignatius G. Mattingly, eds., Language by Ear and by Eye, pp. 331–358. Cambridge: MIT Press. Just, Marcel, and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1987. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. LaBerge, David, and S. Jay Samuels. 1974. “Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading.” Cognitive Psychology 6:293–323. Rosenblatt, Louise M. 1994. “The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 1057–1092. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ruddell, Robert B., and Norman J. Unrau. 1994. “Reading as a Meaning-construction Process: The Reader, the Text, and the Teacher.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer,
Multicultural Literacy Multicultural literacy challenges and rejects the traditional view of literacy as a neutral set of cognitive skills and linguistic competencies, identical for each individual. Viewed within a (multi)cultural framework, literacy has come to be understood, instead, as a multilayered construct, the acquisition of which involves processes that vary across individuals and groups and are shaped and given meaning by society (Ferdman, 1990). The key principles that guide this view of multicultural literacy include the following. (1) Literacy is a sociocultural phenomenon, not simply an individual accomplishment, that varies across cultural and social groups. (2) Different communities place differing values on literacy, and therefore, not all communities use literacy in the same ways. (3) What counts as text also varies across cultural and social groups. (4) There are significant differences between how 364
Multicultural Literacy schools and culturally nonmainstream communities define and use literacy. (5) These differences create the need for instruction that takes into account the sociocultural histories of children from varied cultural backgrounds.
Heath discovered that some uses for reading were common across the three communities: to acquire information to accomplish daily tasks, to gain information about third parties or community or more distant events, and to gain or confirm information regarding social obligations and social relationships. There were also significant differences, however. The townspeople frequently engaged in reading for enjoyment and recreation and reading for what Heath called critical and educational purposes. These she defined as reading to increase an individual’s ability to discuss political, social, aesthetic, or religious knowledge. Examples included the reading of popular works of fiction and nonfiction, newsletters, magazines, newsmagazines, out-oftown newspapers, and reviews of Broadway plays and ballet or symphony performances. In neither Roadville nor Trackton did families engage in such critical/educational reading. In Roadville, Heath documented some reading for recreation but not nearly the amount found among townspeople. Yet the schools expected children would be able to demonstrate or engage in these particular uses of reading. This study also revealed some common uses for writing. In all three communities, adults used writing as a memory aid, a substitute for oral messages, and an aid in financial transactions. In both Roadville and among the townspeople, adults used writing as one way of carrying on social relationships. Only the townspeople, however, engaged in an expository use of writing, the writing of connected prose to summarize information or generalizations and to provide information to other readers. And only the townspeople assisted their children in the completion of such school writing tasks as reports, stories, and poems. Heath also examined the quantity and utilization of children’s books in homes in Trackton and Roadville and in the homes of the townspeople. In Trackton, where a tradition of oral storytelling was strong and where verbal storytelling ability was greatly prized, she found many fewer books than in either Roadville or among the townspeople. She found that although Trackton adults did not read aloud to preschoolers, reading aloud to young children was a common practice for the townspeople and in Roadville. This literacy practice, however, was carried out differently in the two communities. As an inte-
Literacy as Sociocultural Construct and Process The prevailing model for literacy (coming from educational psychology) presents literacy as a set of measurable, cognitive skills and linguistic competencies that can be acquired with precision (de Castell and Luke, 1983). From the multidisciplinary research of anthropologists, ethnographers, experimental and developmental psychologists, neurolinguists, psycholinguists, sociolinguists, and educational researchers, literacy is revealed to be more than a personal attribute. It is seen instead to be an interactive social process in which individuals master the skills to decode, comprehend, and produce the texts valued by the group or community to which they belong. The valued “texts” vary materially from culture to culture and can be seen to include all forms of linguistically coded works important to the group. They can range from the written words of the Bible or Quran to oral songs and stories containing the knowledge of a culture. Some cultures include oral competencies within their framework for language and literacy. For example, within some indigenous communities, to be literate is to know and to be able to orally recount the stories. These sociocultural processes of attaining literacy have developed historically. Literacy in Diverse Communities This perspective of literacy has been studied and written about by scholars who have immersed themselves in the lives of families in diverse communities around the United States. The best known of these scholars may be Shirley Brice Heath, who spent ten years living and working in the Piedmont region of the Carolinas to document the home and community language and literacy practices of two groups: Roadville, a working-class white community, and Trackton, a working-class black community. Heath then contrasted these practices with those of the townspeople, the middle-class residents of the same area, and with literacy practices or behaviors expected of all children in the local schools (Heath, 1983). 365
Multicultural Literacy gral feature of storybook reading, townspeople’s children had multiple experiences with interacting with adults and books and answering display questions and questions to which the answer is already known (for example, “What’s this story about?” “Who is in the story?” “What do you see in this picture?”). In contrast, Roadville parents expected their children to sit silently during and after the reading of books. When children entered school, Heath discovered that teachers often characterized the Trackton and Roadville youngsters as being unable or unwilling to engage in the kinds of verbal interactions around storybooks that the teachers expected. This now classic work prompted other researchers to examine literacy in a variety of culturally and linguistically diverse communities, particularly those made up of recent immigrants to the United States and indigenous groups colonized by European Americans. In a study of written language practices of a group of Mexican immigrants in the Chicago neighborhood of Pilsen/Little Village, Juan Guerra (1998) found that the adults he studied engaged regularly in literacy in Spanish, including reading community newspapers, signs and advertisements, and the Bible. Of most significance, however, was letter writing to relatives in Mexico. Letters were sent on a regular basis, and letters received were read repeatedly and stored away, rather than discarded. English literacy was also a fact of life in this community, but becoming proficient in English was a daunting task. When adults first arrived, they relied on bilingual community members to read and write for them in English. Gradually they came to rely on those from the next generation as readers and writers of English and as translators. English literacy was required for documents such as school notes, applications, and government forms. The visibility of both Spanish and English in the community, and community members’ family histories, contributed to the valuing of biliteracy and to the division of uses for literacy in the two languages. Guerra focused on literacy in an immigrant community, but Daniel McLaughlin (1992) studied the uses of English and Navajo literacy in Mesa Valley, Arizona. This study is especially interesting because historically Navajo has been an oral language without a tradition of literacy, and English has been viewed as the language in which it was necessary to become literate. McLaughlin
examined spoken, read, and written English and Navajo by focusing on four key institutions in the town: the trading post, the chapter house (the local government entity), the school, and the mission church. He found that written English dominated the trading post and the chapter house (for example, flyers, notices, the newspaper, notes, mail, agendas for meetings, minutes of meetings) but that community members commonly used spoken Navajo to negotiate such events as chapter meetings. At the school and at the mission church, although English literacy was predominant, there were specific uses for Navajo literacy. Navajo translations of the Bible were used to spread Christianity, and some church members wrote personal journals in which they reflected upon church teachings. At school, a bilingual program included the teaching of some content classes in Navajo (for example, Navajo sociology, Navajo government, and so on). Students learned to read and write in Navajo and used Navajo literacy through secondary school to create class notes, school newspaper articles, and graffiti. In his analysis, McLaughlin demonstrated that the use of Navajo for reading and writing in the church and at the school connected directly to community aspirations for self-determination and to individual and community feelings of empowerment. At school, written Navajo came to be viewed as the best way to help young Navajos become more self-aware, more Navajo. In the church the non-Navajo minister realized that Navajos themselves would need to carry the message of Christianity and that they would need to do this through their own traditions. Thus, although English literacy provided access to mainstream institutions, written Navajo allowed the people to tap into the linguistic and cultural resources of the community. Cultural Variation and Schooling As represented in the work of Heath, Guerra, McLaughlin, and others, in the process of becoming literate, individuals accept the standards of the group with regard to what is culturally significant, and in demonstrating behavior that is congruent with those standards, they become identified with the particular culture. In a multicultural society, variations as to what constitutes literacy and the concomitant values attached to cultural identity become most problematic in 366
Multicultural Literacy the area of formal education that reflects the values of the dominant Western Euro-American culture. From this perspective, literacy is embraced as a context-free, content- and value-neutral competence, which often results in classroom instruction that presents literacy skills in the form of behavioral objectives specified in “value-neutral” terminology. Students of the dominant mainstream culture (Heath’s townspeople) find consistency between home and school constructs of literacy. The cultural codes with which they enter the classroom are verified and built upon; the value they hold for their cultural identity is validated. Nevertheless, for those students who are members of minority cultures (Heath’s Roadville and Trackton residents), who are considered by researchers such as Lisa Delpit (1995) to be “outside the culture of power,” these connections are tenuous. The codes they carry into the classroom, which are appropriate for survival and success within their communities and may render them “literate” within their cultures, are generally disregarded or marginally accepted within the culture of the classroom. They are often interpreted, as Heath has shown, as negative indications of their capacity as learners. With the value of their cultural identity threatened or at the very least diminished, they are left with a choice either to assimilate the perspective of the school, at the risk of developing a negative view of their cultural identity, or else to resist, at the risk of becoming alienated from school.
to develop curriculum that builds on what learners know, to expand curriculum to encompass and build on multiple perspectives and ways of knowing, to create a community of learners who generate and share curriculum both within and beyond the classroom walls, and to include oral and written texts that reflect a wide range of perspectives, including those of traditionally underrepresented groups. Luis Moll (2000), for example, has helped us understand ways in which teachers structure school so that it acknowledges and draws on students’ linguistic and cultural knowledge. Throughout the 1990s, Moll and several elementary teachers conducted ethnographic experiments in their schools’ communities to identify the funds of knowledge (the collective and shared knowledge of literacy practices in students’ home communities) and to understand ways students live culturally. This information was used to develop linguistically and culturally responsive curricula. Their work has helped other teachers to view all students as competent learners and language users and to extend students’ cultural and linguistic knowledge rather than replace it. Knowing students’/communities’ funds of knowledge and the ways students live culturally is important to enhancing individual students’ academic work. Equally important, however, is the need to help students learn to respect and learn from each other’s perspectives and from those outside their immediate communities. According to Jay Robinson (1990), however, this kind of curriculum can only be effective if teachers first create habitable spaces within their classrooms—spaces that open up a world to students’ voices, giving them agency and inviting them to be heard through their reading, writing, and speaking. One example of multicultural literacy that is carried out within the kind of habitable space described by Robinson can be found in the work of Patricia Stock (1995). This narrative traced a year in the life of two classes of twelfth-grade students and their teachers. Together the teachers and students composed and shared their growing-up stories, and they read the stories of published authors whose ethnic heritages matched their own. Through these texts, they explored their experiences in light of those of others, and they considered the similarities and differences
Culturally Sensitive School Literacy Practices Fortunately, this disparity in instructional practices was written about by several scholars during the 1990s. These scholars made explicit the necessity of multicultural education and literacy to the well-being of children from diverse cultures and to our democratic society. They also provided diverse stories that help us to envision pedagogies of possibility. For example, Sonia Nieto (1996) advocated for a form of multicultural education that goes beyond celebrating diversity. She argued for a form of multicultural education that is premised on a teacher’s theoretical understandings about how children learn and how culture and language are foundational for expanding all learners’ understandings of the world. Central to these writings is the need for teachers 367
Multicultural Literature Delpit, Lisa. 1995. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: The New Press. Edelsky, Carole. 1999. Making Justice Our Practice: Teachers Working toward Critical Whole Language Practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Ferdman, Bernardo M. 1990. “Literacy and Cultural Identity.” Harvard Educational Review 60 (2):181–204. Guerra, Juan. 1998. Close to Home: Oral and Literate Practices in a Transnational Mexican Community. New York: Teachers College Press. Heath, Shirley B. 1983. Way with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, Daniel. 1992. When Literacy Empowers: Navajo Language in Print. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. Moll, Luis. 2000. “Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic Experiments in Education.” In Carol Lee and Peter Smagorinsky, eds., Vygotskian Perspective on Literary Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry, pp. 256–268. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nieto, Sonia. 1996. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. New York: Longman. Robinson. Jay. 1990. Conversations on the Written Word: Essays on Language and Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Stock, Patricia L. 1995. The Dialogic Curriculum: Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Society. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Zepeda, Ofelia. 1995. “The Continuum of Literacy in American Indian Communities.” Bilingual Research Journal 19 (1):5–15.
that have shaped their ideas, understandings, and concerns. Stock recognized students as knowledgeable individuals whose valuable ideas and experiences contribute to the learning situation. She also recognized teachers as model students who are committed to learning for and with their students. Additionally, she saw students and teachers as learners responsible for sharing their developing understandings and talents with one another and with the broader community. According to Robinson and to Stock (1990), this type of multicultural, critical pedagogy provides a multivoiced literacy in which all participants are provided a space to speak no matter what language. It also allows students to reach toward deeper meanings of language as they shape worlds they must inhabit. Although the work of Moll, Robinson, Stock, and others helps us envision the kind of literacy pedagogy that both celebrates and affirms multicultural literacy, other works have focused on the role multicultural literature can play in the curriculum. One way is to have extensive libraries full of books that reflect the perspectives, experiences, and values of all ethnic, cultural, and other underrepresented groups (see “Multicultural Literature” entry). This allows teachers and students the opportunity to meet each other on their own cultural ground and to affirm and challenge a range of cultural perspectives. The text thus becomes a shared body of experience that is used by the members of a classroom community. Although it is important for teachers to help their students to examine and identify with the text from their own background, they should also help them learn to bring mainstream beliefs to a conscious level for examination and critique. According to Carole Edelsky (1999), this means, among other things, using literature to highlight the relationship of language and power; foregrounding the political, sociological, and historical character of language; and talking about and analyzing the positions offered by texts. Anna Figueira, Sarah Hudelson, and Karen Smith
Multicultural Literature Multicultural literature and multiethnic literature are terms used to capture the complexity of several kinds of literature seemingly lumped together but not because of their literary and artistic merit. Rather, the characters’ physical attributes, languages, and status as members of marginalized groups are paramount in determining what literature is defined as multicultural. The label multicultural is also applied to authors and illustrators of the literature, specifically those who are African American, Asian Pacific American, Latino/a, or Native American. Many authors and illustrators, such as Joseph Brujac, Eloise Greenfield, Gary Soto, and Lawrence Yep, accept the mantle of having their
See also Biliteracy; Multicultural Literature; The Political Nature of Literacy References De Castell, Suzanne, and Alan Luke. 1983. “Defining ‘Literacy’ in North American Schools: Social and Historical Conditions and Consequences.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 5 (4):373–389.
368
Multicultural Literature works labeled multicultural, albeit with some trepidation. The trepidation results from concerns about artistic limitations and access to a wide readership. Other authors, Allen Say, for instance, soundly reject categorization as a creator of multicultural literature. Author Virginia Hamilton (2001) proposed a framework for categorizing the literature as parallel culture(s) literature, which shifts the emphases from the physical characteristics of the authors and their characters to a broader, equally complex notion of culture. A central point of contention in discussions about multicultural literature is the criterion for categorization as such. Typically, definitions or conceptions of who and what are included in the category of multicultural initially focused on the race and ethnicity of creators and characters. This emphasis reflected a particular historical moment when citizens were coming to grips with the effects of and resistance to institutionalized and legalized racism in the 1960s. The music industry grappled with similar naming issues; for example, labels such as “race music” were used to describe the music of African Americans. Gender issues became a part of conceptions about multicultural literature as the women’s movement gained force. Ironically, when girls and women are referenced, discussions usually refer to white women and girls. Issues related to women and girls of color are usually subsumed under the categories of race or ethnicity. An underlying assumption seems to be that racial or ethnic issues are far more germane to girls and women of color than are gender matters. All girls and women share some experiences, for example, biological development; various cultural currents shape other equally compelling experiences, for example, schooling, in different ways. Similarly, other categories of difference—gays and lesbians, religion, language, class, and disability—are also included in some views. The term multicultural literature is a curiously old-fashioned term for a literature that evokes such disparate responses. A term with more pizzazz is somehow preferred, a term that would capture the radical potential of the literature as well as its appropriation and subsequent “deradicalization.” Music aficionados adopted hip terms such as world beat, global beat,” and world music to capture sounds, rhythms, and lyrics emanating from Senegal, Brazil, Columbia, and In-
dia. A certain élan is needed to appreciate music videos of rappers from India clothed in indigenous dress who dance to hip-hop beats. Global and world beat along with world music are quite appropriate. These terms suggest an interconnectedness lacking in the phrase multicultural literature. Whites, Whiteness, and Exclusion The overwhelming emphasis on race and ethnicity generates considerable opposition. Most of the opposition centers on the inclusion of whites. A primary issue is whether or not literature written by whites should be considered multicultural. Many would agree that whites are capable of writing multicultural literature. Questions may arise, however, about the accuracy and authenticity of the literature created by whites. Several examples exist of literature written by whites that has been characterized as stereotyped or inaccurate, including historic texts, such as Stories of Little Brown Koko (Hunt, 1940), fiction about a black boy that is replete with negative stereotypes, or modern texts such as My Heart Is on the Ground (Rinaldi, 1999), which provoked intense discussion about the depiction of Native American boarding schools. These books would not be considered African American or Native American literature, respectively. Instead, a more accurate classification of them would be literature about African and Native Americans. An authoritative definition of multicultural literature does not exist; rather, various individuals create working definitions that are subject to change based on a variety of factors. A more radical or critical analysis moves beyond questions of inclusion to questions of “white privilege” and “notions of whiteness.” Critiques from this stance would examine the policies of publishing companies. How many books are published each year? What actions are taken by editors and marketing personnel to ensure that the demands for best sellers or blockbusters, for example, Harry Potter, do not prevent publishers from producing works that will sell 2,000–10,000 copies? Many books categorized as multicultural sell less than 5,000 copies. Some are bestsellers, but few generate the sales of Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry (Taylor, 1975) or The Watsons Go to Birmingham–1963 (Curtis, 1995). 369
Multicultural Literature The composition of the editorial staffs of publishing companies is a crucial factor. White women have always been pivotal participants in children’s and young adult literature, and some—Phyllis Fogelman, Susan Hirschman, Margaret McElderry, Susan Pearson, and others—have nurtured the careers of several writers of color. Women and men of color have been less prominent, but some have acquired positions of influence, such as Burnette Ford or Andrea Davis Pinkney, who has her own imprint: Jump at the Sun at Hyperion Publishing Company. An imprint is a division of a publishing house created to publish books with a particular artistic impulse or books that reflect the vision of a specific individual. An argument can be made that greater integration of publishing ranks may result in greater diversity among the writers and illustrators that are published. Sometimes the reception of book topics put forth by writers of color subverts traditional notions of the ideas most appropriate for works, such as writing books that only feature white characters or exploring a new genre, perhaps science fiction or fantasy. The author bears the burden of convincing the editor that science fiction and fantasy are appropriate genres for multicultural literature. The marketing of multicultural literature determines its availability and suggests an implied audience. More books about African Americans appear during February, which is Black History Month, and books reflective of other groups appear during months identified for celebration of that group. Editors and marketing personnel highlight books during these celebratory months in order to take advantage of the focus on these groups in libraries, schools, and bookstores and in various organizations—religious, political, and social. A few refer to this as the “ghettoization” of the literature. The selection policies of bookstores, libraries, and classroom teachers can also suggest that multicultural literature is not central to literary studies by not selecting it for display in bookstores and for use in libraries or classrooms. Nonetheless, some strides are evident in the reception accorded several authors and the influence of various groups and awards committees.
Council on Interracial Books for Children (CIBC) illustrate the significant progress made and the work that remains in order to institutionalize multicultural literature. Myers’s career began over thirty years ago when he won a writing contest sponsored by the CIBC. As suggested by its name, the CIBC comprised individuals of various races and nationalities who worked as librarians, teachers, and members of the publishing industry. The CIBC emerged during the volatile and violent era of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Yet, the group offered a measure of hope for tolerance and racial harmony during a turbulent period. The CIBC’s contest was a deliberate attempt to introduce writers of color to publishers and, subsequently, readers. Walter Dean Myers achieved two goals set forth by the CIBC. He has written more than thirty books in a range of formats and genres. He is the recipient of numerous literary awards; most recently he was the first recipient of the Printz Award, given by the American Library Association for the best example of a literary work for young adults, for his groundbreaking novel, Monster (1999). He is a frequent speaker at national conferences such as those sponsored by the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English. Many of his books are best sellers, for example, Fallen Angels (1991), Brown Angels (1993), The Glory Field (1994), and Monster (1999). Myers was a featured author in the 2001 National Book Festival sponsored by First Lady Laura Bush and the Library of Congress. He is popular with adolescents and adults and conducts writing workshops for urban teenagers who are often regarded with distrust or disdain. Such workshops enable him to give voice to the unheard and create an authentic voice for his urban male protagonists. Myers is one of the limited numbers of writers who have been included in literary canons in children’s and young adult literature. The Southern Poverty Law Center fills the void left by the now defunct CIBC. Staffers publish a journal, Teaching Tolerance, that continues and expands the tradition established by the CIBC. Teaching Tolerance articles unabashedly focus on antiracism initiatives that are supported by a host of books, videotapes, and curricula. As such, it is a more radical form of multiculturalism. For example, the center produces materials for elementary students, such as America’s Civil
Institutionalization Efforts The careers of authors such as Walter Dean Myers and the histories of organizations such as the 370
Multicultural Literature Rights Movement, A Place at the Table, and Starting Small. Each curriculum kit provides fiction and nonfiction about the topic as well as activities to engage children in critical thinking and discussion. Other groups—the American Library Association, for example—sponsor awards focused on multicultural literature. A few publishing companies—for instance, Little, Brown and Company—have sponsored writing contests to identify and nurture the talents of writers of colors. Lee and Low Publishing Company specializes in the publication of multicultural literature and is one of the most successful independent publishing houses. The company also sponsors a writers’ contest designed to support writers who focus on multicultural literature, the New Voices Award. Other publishing companies underwrite the efforts of individuals, such as author Walter Mosely, who seek to increase the number of people of color in the publishing industry. Over the past two decades, children’s book publishers experienced monumental changes that resulted in fewer independent houses, numerous consolidations, and an expanded emphasis on publishing works that easily translate to movies, television, CD-ROMs, and numerous sidelines such as clothing, food products, and accessories. For example, multinational corporations such as Bertlesman and Pearson purchased several imprints. The Mattel Corporation, identified closely with the Barbie doll, purchased the independent American Girls from Pleasant Company for more than $700 million. The creator of the American Girls series, Pleasant Rowland, attempted to create historical fiction for girls that featured characters who were intelligent, adventurous, kind, and fun rather than miniaturized or sexualized little adults. The American Girls series also includes characters of color: Addy, an African American girl, and Josefina, a Mexican American girl. The Addy series was one of the most successful group of books featuring a character of color in the 1990s. Some trepidation exists about the continued support of multicultural literature within these new publishing behemoths that demand consistent profits from their publishing divisions. For now, the support for multicultural literature seems constant within the industry, and some advances are apparent. The institutionalization of multicultural literature is dependent on the support for new voices. Some of the new voices
are related to the pioneering writers from previous decades. For example, some “dynasties” are apparent in multicultural literature in which the children, spouses, or siblings of authors or illustrators who were first published in the 1960s have significant influence in publishing in various capacities. One such family “dynasty” is reflected in the varied careers of the Pinkney family. Jerry and Gloria, illustrator and author, are the parents and in-laws of Brian Pinkney (author-illustrator), Andrea Davis Pinkney (editorauthor), Myles C. Pinkney (photographer), and Sandra L. Pinkney (author). Some companies have emerged that focus primarily on multicultural literature. The Children’s Book Press celebrated its thirtieth anniversary under the direction of Harriet Rohmer in 2000. Many Latino/a authors and illustrators owe their success in the children’s market to the company. For instance, Francisco Alarcón garnered new readers for his poetry with a series of four poetry books about the seasons written in Spanish and English; one of these was From the Bellybutton of the Moon and Other Summer Poems/Del ombligo de la luna y otros poemas de verano. Lee and Low Publishing Company is dedicated to producing literature that reflects the racial and ethnic diversity of the country, such as Bebop Books, a reading series for children learning to read. Similarly, Polychrome Press focuses on books about Asian Pacific Americans, and Just Us Books focuses on African Americans. Small companies such as Oyate publish books about Native Americans that may be perceived as more culturally authentic or reflective of the sensibilities and cultures of various First Nations. Role of Whites Another aspect of the history of multicultural literature is found in the contentious debates about the role of white authors in its creation, the appeal and value of the literature to white students, the role of the literature in decline of literacy skills among children, and its literary and artistic merit. A firestorm of criticism erupted in the mid-1990s when the interim editors of The Horn Book Magazine suggested in editorial comments that exceptional works of literature written by people of color were routinely ignored for the Caldecott and Newbery medals sponsored by the American Library Association. The Caldecott Medal was established to honor excellence in pic371
Multicultural Literature ture book art; the Newbery Medal honors excellence in writing, fiction or nonfiction. Books designated as Caldecott or Newbery winners or honor books must have first been published in the United States. Numerous letters to the editors in the next issue castigated the editors for having the temerity to suggest that these works were unfairly overlooked because of their creators. A few academics claimed that the inclusion of literature written by people of color was devoid of literary merit and contributed to literacy difficulties for those learning to read or enhance their reading skills. A prominent editor and author decried what he characterized as the exclusionary policies of awards given to writers of color such as the Coretta Scott King Award and the Pura Belpre Award (the awards honor books featuring and/or written or illustrated by African Americans and Latinos/as respectively) in an article published in The Horn Book Magazine in 2001. His comments garnered some support and considerable ire from those who were pioneers in the efforts to create, publish, and disseminate children’s and young adult literature, such as Virginia Hamilton, Andrea Davis Pinkney, and Henrietta Smith. Their comments focused on the editor’s lack of knowledge or his refusal to acknowledge the awards’ criteria, past and current history about multicultural literature, and the role of racism in the publishing industry. Those responses reflect a larger, on-going argument about the role of race and ethnicity in the United States.
different model of social action, one that is deliberate rather than spontaneous. Or, students might read books such as The Circuit that document the lives of child migrant laborers and compare that memoir with accounts in textbooks. Oxford Press publishes several history series for children, for instance, Joy Hakim’s A History of Us (1999), that are alternatives to traditional social studies texts for children. Students who read these differing accounts are forced to judge the validity of the information, thus improving their inferential and critical thinking skills. Librarians, prior to the 1960s, attempted to create materials that would assist in helping children develop a sense of tolerance and understanding of children of color. Monographs such as We Build Together and publications written by and workshops conducted by librarians such as Augusta Baker, Charlemae Rollins, Effie Lee Morris, Henrietta Smith, Pura Belpre, and others sought to fulfill these goals. Their efforts resulted in changes in libraries and among individuals. Librarians who documented some attitudinal changes that may or may not have been long lasting conducted several studies. Multicultural literature is incorporated in schools and libraries in numerous ways today. One overlooked site for inclusion is in series created for reading or language arts instruction. For example, authors such as George Ancona, Mildred Taylor, and Laurence Yep are routinely included in series. Some teachers even regard Taylor’s Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry (1975) as a book accessible to elementary school students. Book clubs are another tool that allows readers to gain access to multicultural literature. A profusion of professional texts provides teachers with a vast array of knowledge about the literature, its history, the individuals who create it, and its curricular uses. Similarly, many of the professional journals—Book Links, The Dragon’s Lode, Journal of Children’s Literature, Language Arts, The New Advocate, and The Reading Teacher—routinely include articles about multicultural literature. The use of the literature in school contexts varies. Some good intentions of teachers and test creators have gone awry. The furor that erupted over the use of Nappy Hair in a classroom in New York City provides an example of what may happen if a teacher lacks knowledge about students, their cultures, and the literature she shares. In
Literacy Instruction Multicultural literature, as with any literature, is capable of providing readers with valuable knowledge, improving literacy skills, and enhancing critical thinking skills. An essential component, however, is the guidance of a knowledgeable teacher, librarian, or parent. For example, many ideas about the civil rights movement in textbooks in previous years provided iconic historic events, such as Mrs. Rosa Parks’s refusal to yield her seat to a white man on a segregated bus. Students would have to read her autobiography to understand that she was a political activist as indicated by her membership with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the training she received at Highlander Center, a place to learn valuable political and organizing skills. The autobiography presents a more accurate historic record and a 372
Multicultural Literature this instance, a well-meaning teacher attempted to share what she considered an example of literature reflective of the cultures of her students of African descent. Some of these students, although they were of African descent, identified as Dominicans or immigrants from other Caribbean countries. Identifying them as African American would be incorrect. The teacher copied pages from the text and distributed these to the children. Their parents and other caregivers were asked to share the decontextualized texts. Many adults were outraged because the illustrations suggested stereotypic images of blacks, for instance, those associated with “pickaninnies.” The term pickaninny is a racial slur and was used to describe all African American children of each social class. As with other epithets used to describe groups of people, some members of the group used the term to describe themselves. Had the teacher possessed particular cultural knowledge, she would have understood why the parents found the illustrations distasteful. Third-grade children in the state of Illinois were confused and angered when a beloved book’s characters in The Stories Julian Tells (Cameron 1981) were depicted in the reading test as being white rather than African American. This incident also highlights the need for informed individuals who create curricular materials.
white students resisted the inclusion of multicultural literature and responded accordingly in small- and whole-group discussions. A different kind of resistance among teachers, librarians, and academics is apparent. Some teachers and librarians argue that they need not include multicultural literature featuring people of color in their classrooms or libraries because they do not have youth of color in their schools. A few academics argue that the inclusion of multicultural literature in reading and language arts series is primarily responsible for the precipitous decline in literacy achievement in schools. This perspective has not gained wide acceptance. What has gained greater acceptance is the belief that multicultural literature is a vital component of schools, libraries, and homes for all children and youth. The institutionalization of efforts, for example, participation in professional organizations, work by advocacy groups, inclusion of the works in curriculum materials, and the emergence of a core group of writers and illustrators will help ensure that the literature is pushed from the margins to the centers of schools and libraries. Violet J. Harris See also Adolescent Literature; Children’s Literature; Literature-Based Instruction; Multiple Texts References Alarcón, Francisco. 1998. From the Bellybutton of the Moon and Other Summer Poems/Del ombligo de la luna y otros poemas de verano. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press. Aronson, Marc. 2001. “Slippery Slopes and Proliferating Prizes.” The Horn Book Magazine 77, no. 3 (May/June):271–279. Barrera, Rosalinda, Ruth Quiroa, and Cassiette WestWilliams. 1999. “Poco a Poco: The Continuing Development of Mexican American Children’s Literature in the 1990s.” The New Advocate 12 (4):315–329. Cai, Mingshui. 1998. “Multiple Definitions of Multicultural Literature: Is the Debate Really Just ‘Ivory Tower’ Bickering?” The New Advocate 11 (4):311–324. Cameron, Ann. 1981. The Stories Julian Tells. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Curtis, Christopher Paul. 1995. The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963. New York: Delacorte. Fondrie, Suzanne. 2001. “Gentle Doses of Racism: Whiteness and Children’s Literature.” Journal of Children’s Literature 27 (2):9–13. Hakim, Joy. 1999. A History of Us. 2d rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press.
Research Support More successful examples of the inclusion of multicultural literature exist. Studies published in professional journals suggest that children of color participate more and produce more complex oral and written statements when discussing literature that included people of color. A few researchers report changes in behavior among students when provided with multicultural literature. Bilingual children were found to produce more complex responses when bilingual multicultural literature was shared with them. Research results about the use of multicultural literature in content classrooms hint at the possibilities for critical thinking in art and social studies. A greater amount of research has been produced on the use of multicultural literature in literacy or language arts programs. Different levels of background knowledge, textual understandings, and participation rates were evident when multicultural literature was used, especially in racially heterogeneous classrooms. Some 373
Multimedia the different ways that information is represented and accessed in multimedia require a broad view of literacy, one that encompasses multiple literacy capabilities (Flood, Heath, and Lapp, 1997). These capabilities for readers, writers, listeners, and viewers involve comprehension of messages embedded within multimedia materials as well as an understanding of their function and organizational features.
Hamilton, Virginia. 2001. “Letters to the Editor.” The Horn Book Magazine 77, no. 5 (September/October):504. Harris, Violet Joyce, ed. 1996. Using Multiethnic Literature in Grades K–8. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Herron, Carolivia. 1997. Nappy Hair. New York: Knopf. Hunt, Blanche Seale. 1940. Stories of Little Brown Koko. Chicago: American Colortype. Jiménez, Francisco. 1999. The Circuit: Stories from the Life of a Migrant Child. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Myers, Walter Dean. 1991. Fallen Angels. New York: Scholastic Paperbacks. ———. 1993. Brown Angels. New York: HarperCollins. ———. 1994. The Glory Field. New York: HarperCollins. ———. 1999. Monster. New York: HarperCollins. Rinaldi, Ann. 1999. My Heart Is on the Ground. New York: Scholastic. Rollins, Charlemae. 1948. We Build Together: A Reader’s Guide to Negro Life and Literature for Elementary and High School Use. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Sims Bishop, Rudine. 1998. “Following in Their Fathers’ Paths.” The Horn Book Magazine 74, no. 2 (March/April):249–257. Taylor, M. 1975. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry. New York: Dial Books. Wolf, Shelby, Darcy Ballentine, and Lisa Hill. 1999. “The Right to Write: Preservice Teachers’ Evolving Understandings of Authenticity and Aesthetic Heat in Multicultural Literature.” Research in the Teaching of English 34 (1):130–184.
Multimedia Literacy Development and Instruction Multimedia can be used to afford literacy development and literacy instruction. Their potential power for both purposes has been tested during recent decades, but because of constant changes in technology capabilities their future roles are yet to be realized. What we have learned thus far is that multimedia applications require new ways to think about learning and instruction. For example, obtaining meaning about the content involves a critical analysis of the media messages for their intent, value, worthiness, and accuracy. Obtaining meaning about how the multimedia text works requires developing technical and procedural knowledge about how to navigate the design features and organizational aspects of the multimedia materials (for example, using computer access to video scenes on a compact disc) and how to draw connections across multiple information formats and sources. And obtaining meaning about how to teach with multimedia requires an evaluation of particular design features, an anticipation of differentiating processing strategies that may be unique to specific design elements and formats, and an ability to integrate multimedia within literacy tasks in authentic ways. Instructional uses of multimedia within literacy curricula vary widely. Some applications follow a computer-directed activity where feedback is given for responses and students participate in workbook-like exercises. Some provide storybook readings with opportunities for students to record their oral readings or prompts to guide personal compositions. Others invite critical analysis and independent thinking while studying real-world issues. For example, John Bransford, Ann Brown, and Rodney Cocking (1999) described materials that provide video-based adventures combined with animation and graphics to pose challenges that require access to addi-
Multimedia Multimedia provide combinations of a least two forms of technology-based media for representing and accessing information. These media forms include electronic text, audios, videos, movies, music, graphics, images, and animation that can be pressed on compact discs (CD-ROM) or digitized video discs (DVD) and/or accessed via the Internet or worldwide web. Whereas conventional printed materials tend to have a linear order for accessing information (for example, one page in a book is followed by the next), multimedia information can be accessed in a variety of orders (for example, written text on a computer screen often provides a series of menus for accessing additional texts or multimedia formats with no predetermined order for access). Thus, 374
Multimedia
Student learning simultaneously from a text and a computer (Elizabeth Crews)
munication with participants from around the world). These environments invite social practices that are interactive (individuals both direct and are directed by computer-based prompts) and dynamic (involving various representations of information and ability to create new instantiations). For example, the Explorers of the Universe program, directed by Marino Alvarez (2001), involves high school and postsecondary students from the United States in collaborating on-line with each other and astronomers to gather and analyze real data generated from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) projects, write research papers, and develop concepts that transcend their in-school curriculum (for example, history, science, math, literature). Learning is scaffolded with computer-generated graphics in the format of concept maps and Vee diagrams. Similarly, Teresa Kennedy and George Canney (2001) involve teachers and K–12 students in the Globe project
tional information via the worldwide web or through audio-recorded interviews. Multimedia materials can also provide access to resources (archived video documentaries, audio interviews and commentaries, graphic timelines, web sites) to build understandings of disciplinary knowledge, such as the project developed by Rhonda Hammer and Douglas Keller (2001) that encourages an in-depth study of the Holocaust. And multimedia cases are used for teacher education and development by representing authentic teaching situations for problem analysis and demonstrating methods of teaching and learning with multimedia (Risko and Kinzer, 1999) and for learning how to assess children’s literacy development (Baker and Wedman, 2001). Other applications of multimedia create electronic communities (both those that occur in classrooms where participants share the same instructional space and those that facilitate com375
Multiple Literacies Hammer, Rhonda, and Douglas Kellner. 2001. “Multimedia Pedagogy and Multicultural Education for the New Millennium.” Current Issues in Education 4 (2): 1–10 (on-line at http://cie.ed.asu.edu/volume4/number 2). Kennedy, Teresa J., and George F. Canney. 2001. “Collaboration across Language, Age, and Geographic Borders.” In Victoria J. Risko and Karen Bromley, eds., Collaboration for Diverse Learners, pp. 310–329. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Labbo, Linda D., and David Reinking. 1999. “Negotiating the Multiple Realities of Technology in Literacy Research and Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 34, no. 4:478–492. Risko, Victoria J., and Charles K. Kinzer. 1999. Multimedia Cases in Reading Education. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
to build worldwide communities of students of different linguistic and cultural backgrounds around the study of science and math problems and the development of literacy. Issues around Power and Authority Ever-changing forms and applications of multimedia hold promise for transforming literacy learning and instruction. Yet their use is situated and governed by the culture in which it is applied, and equity issues should be addressed to ensure optimal effectiveness. Who gains access to multimedia within the learning environment and the roles/participation of the teacher and students depend on the power and authority of factors such as economic resources and their allocation within schools and classrooms. Whether multimedia are an “add-on” to existing curricula (and therefore not integrated in authentic ways) or embedded and integrated across the literacy curriculum to support multiple writing, viewing, and reading practices depends on the power and traditions of local schooling practices (Labbo and Reinking, 1999). Whether multimedia applications encourage or restrict dialogic encounters among students and teachers requires a careful study of the role teachers and students assume within their situated applications. Victoria J. Risko
Multiple Literacies The term multiple literacies refers to the many and varied ways that people read and write in their lives. This highlights the fact that different written texts are written for different purposes within different contexts by literate people. For example, researchers have documented (and anyone can observe simply by taking note) people reading store signs, print on food containers, notices of meetings, news articles, bus schedules, personal letters, novels, and so on. Similarly, people write memos, messages on greeting cards, reports for organizations, notes on a public lecture, and so on. The construct of multiple literacies is often contrasted with that of autonomous literacy (Street, 1984). Brian Street claimed that the term autonomous literacy captures the belief that literacy is one dimensional—that is, reading is reading and writing is writing, and it is the same process no matter who is doing it, for what purpose, and where. Further, this one-dimensional view of literacy, according to Brian Street and others who agree with his perspective, is the reading and writing that is taught in schools, that is, academic literacy. This contrast of multiple literacies to autonomous literacy is often made to highlight what many believe is a privileging of academic literacy over other types of literacies with which all people engage in their daily lives outside of school. By privileging, they mean that only academic literacy is considered “real” literacy, given
See also Media Literacy References Alvarez, Marino C. 2001. “Developing Critical and Imaginative Thinking within Electronic Literacy.” In James A. Rycik and Judith L. Irvin, eds., What Adolescents Deserve: A Commitment to Students’ Literacy Learning, pp. 191–197. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Baker, Elizabeth A., and Judith Wedman. 2001. “The Effects of Using Cases to Bring an Elementary Classroom into a Preservice Teacher Classroom: Learning about Literacy and Analyzing Literacy Processes.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Flood, James, Shirley B. Heath, and Diane Lapp, eds. 1997. Handbook of Research on Teaching through the Communicative and Visual Arts. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
376
Multiple Literacies value by the society, and rewarded. This privileging not only continues to favor those members of society who already hold political and social status but also is unrealistic. It is unrealistic because it does not capture, or acknowledge, the actual uses to which people put their reading and writing abilities. It only captures one use of literacy—a use that quickly becomes extinct for the majority of people when they leave school. The term multiple literacies is also applied by some to other semiotic systems and people’s interpretations of them. These include music, the visual arts, drama, and so on. This discussion focuses only on that of written language, however. Within the academic world, interest in the notion of multiple literacies arose gradually in the last quarter of the twentieth century from several different perspectives and concerns: (1) anthropology of literacy, (2) sociology of literacy, (3) critical theory, (4) emergent literacy, and (5) adult literacy, among others. A common focus, or concern, among all of these groups is the continuing lack of academic success, including literacy achievement, of minority, low-socioeconomic learners relative to their more privileged peers. It is noted that even though learners from marginalized groups, as a whole, do less well at school and academic tasks, they use reading and writing in many different ways in their day-today lives at home and in the community. The related concern is that the out-of-school literacies of many of these learners differ significantly from the academic literacy of schooling.
Girl learning how to cook by reading (Michael Siluk)
Issues of power are always relevant to any discussion of literacy because the types of literacies that are held up as most prestigious and associated with high status are defined and named by those sociocultural groups in power. Power and ideology, according to this view, also assign low status to literacies. The implication here is that the power and status of sociocultural groups are intimately tied to the literacies that they practice and vice versa. Although some may assign the cause of low and marginalized status to low literacy skills, those who hold a multiple-literacy, critical theory stance view the relationship as the opposite: Low or marginalized status ensures that the literacy practices engaged in by community members will be considered similarly. Thus, literacy can never be considered as autonomous or a neutral skill in relation to the practice of literacy; it is not a technology but a social practice that is part of the social and political system of power relationships (see “Critical Literacy” entry).
Issues of Power Bringing a critical theoretical slant to the topic, anthropologist Brian Street asserted that the “ideological” model of literacy from which he works recognizes a multiplicity of literacies and that literacy practices are always associated with issues of power; they are not neutral technologies. By this he meant that those who hold favor and social and political power in a society determine which types of literacies are considered valid, and which ones are not. Also, those in sociopolitical control determine who has access to the literacies in favor and who does not through educational and economic policy decisions. Street’s work also described the ways literacies are multiple, resulting from differing languages and writing systems as well as differing contexts and purposes for reading and writing. 377
Multiple Literacies Literacies as Social Practices David Barton is perhaps the most well known of the theorists who view literacy through a sociological lens. David Barton and coauthor Mary Hamilton’s theory of literacy as social practice held that literacy is best understood as a set of social practices and that these social practices can be inferred from social events in which written texts are used, such as taking minutes at a meeting or using a recipe to cook dinner for one’s family. Another part of Barton’s theory is that different literacies are associated with different domains of life. Further, literacy practices are patterned by social institutions and power relationships, and some literacies become more dominant, visible, and influential than others (this reflects Street’s notion of autonomous versus multiple literacies). Barton also asserted that literacy practices are purposeful and embedded in broader social goals and cultural practices. They are also historically situated. Finally, literacy practices change, and new ones are frequently acquired through processes of informal learning and sense making (Barton and Hamilton, 1998). In their ethnography of the uses of reading and writing in one community in Great Britain in the 1990s, Barton and Hamilton (1998) documented the “local literacies,” or vernacular literacies, throughout the community studied. The final picture their data drew is that of people of all walks of life using reading and writing to get things done in their lives: to manage households (writing lists and notes, paying bills), to shop (reading food ingredients, reading laundry requirements, writing grocery lists), to communicate with others (writing notes and letters to loved ones, writing formal letters to school personnel, sending and receiving greeting cards), to learn (reading books, writing essays, reading and following directions), to relax (reading novels and poetry; doing crossword puzzles), and to reflect (writing in diaries). Beyond the functional, Barton and Hamilton noted that the construct of literacy practice includes not only what people do with literacy but also their values, attitudes, feelings and social relationships, which are facilitated by and expressed through literacy. Literacy is situated always within a social context, according to this view, and is shaped by all aspects of that context (see “Context in Literacy” and “Social Nature of
Literacy” entries). The texts that people read and write also play a critical part of the study of literacy as social practice, and they must always be considered in relation to the social purposes for which they are used. For example, it would make little sense to observe or claim that X number of novels are read by teenagers in a given year. Rather, for this fact to be meaningful, one must note the purposes for which the novels were read: for a school assignment, for personal escape, to participate in a book club, to prepare for an exam, to report to a committee, and so on. The Texts of Multiple Literacies The different texts written and read by people outside of a school setting and a school purpose have been documented to a degree, particularly by researchers interested in emergent literacy issues. Emergent literacy theory posits that young children learn important foundational concepts of literacy as they experience literate others in their lives reading and writing. These concepts include the understanding that print “says” something and that written language “sounds” different from oral language, reflecting vocabulary and syntactic differences as well as the greater degree of linguistic decontextualization for written language. Other important concepts include the cluster of “concepts about print” such as the left-right directionality of written English, capital and lowercase letters, periods, question marks, quotation marks, and so on. The alphabetic principle is also considered an emergent literacy concept—the understanding that for alphabetic languages like English, print captures speech at the level of the individual phoneme—the smallest, most isolable, unit of sound in a language. To explore the relationship between the types of texts that low-socioeconomic children experience others reading and writing in their lives and their acquisition of these foundational concepts, Victoria Purcell-Gates placed researchers in the homes of twenty-four children (ages four–six) to document each literacy event, the text read, and those involved in the event, the participant structure (1996). Researchers tested the children at the conclusion of the home literacy data collection on the different emergent literacy concepts. Purcell-Gates found that two factors were positively related to the children’s emergent literacy knowledge: the overall frequency of reading and 378
Multiple Literacies writing observed by the children and the types of texts being written and read. The more complex the texts were in terms of syntax (units such as sentences with more words, phrases, and clauses and often in inverted orders as compared to speech), vocabulary (more literary word choices such as entrance instead of door), and degrees of textual decontextualization (more reliance on the written words to carry meaning without the support of pictures—for example, a newspaper story as compared to print on food products), the more the children knew about emergent literacy concepts. Thus, the nature of the multiple literacies experienced by young children in their homes and communities influenced their emergent literacy knowledge. Other research (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998) has shown that the more emergent literacy knowledge that children hold when beginning school, the more likely they are to succeed at learning to read and write in school. All of this put together reinforces the need, according to many, to examine and take seriously the construct of multiple literacies.
scribed above, that found that young children’s emergent literacy knowledge was related to high frequencies of reading and writing and to the types of texts involved (see “Early Literacy” entry). Quantitative analysis of answers to face-toface questionnaire interviews found that literacy practice change was positively related to the degree to which the literacy activities and texts used in adult literacy classes reflected those used by people in their lives outside of a schooling context—the multiple literacies of literate people. School Literacy and Multiple Literacy: Are They Related? Much of the theoretical work on multiple literacies positions the construct in opposition to—or at least as separate from and unrelated to— school, or academic, literacy. Preferring the term differently literate to low literate, multiple-literacy theorists point to the privileging of academic literacy over local literacies as the genesis of status descriptors such as low literate. Brian Street argued in his work that theorists need to move away from an idealized generalization of literacy to a more concrete understanding of literacy practices in “real” social contexts. The literacy taught in schools—from early focus on skills to later focus on approved readings of texts in high-school literature classes—is only “real” in the school context, according to this argument. Once learners leave school, they never again engage in reading and writing texts for those purposes—unless they reenter school at some point. Out in the world, people read and write different texts for communicative purposes such as those cited previously. Related to this argument is the assessment of literacy ability. Multiple-literacy theorists dismiss standardized assessments of reading and writing as testing literacy in only one context— that of a test. Context as it specifies literacy practices is key to the notion of multiple literacies. Further, the items used on standardized assessments of reading and writing for the most part reflect the academic literacy that occupies a power-determined position of favor and, thus, marginalize the nonacademic literacies of the world outside of school. Even when test makers attempt to use items that reflect real-life uses of print such as bus schedules or recipes, the purposes they assign the readers are not reflective of the real-life purposes for which these texts would
Change in Literacy Practices David Barton and Mary Hamilton noted that new literacy practices are often acquired through informal means. Rather than return to school, for example, to learn how to read letters from elementary schools, parents learn to do this by other, more informal, means (see “Literacy in Informal Settings” entry). A study of adult literacy students by Victoria Purcell-Gates, Sophie Degener, Erik Jacobson, and Marta Soler (2000) established that adults who attend adult literacy classes to improve their reading and writing spontaneously attribute changes in their literacy practices to a variety of life changes. These changes include job changes, relationship changes, responsibility changes, geographical changes, and changes in the lives of their children. With this study, the researchers were looking for possible relationships between the degree to which the reading and writing activities and texts used in the adult literacy classes were authentic (in the sense that people outside of school read and write the same types of texts for the same types of purposes) and increased frequency on the part of the students of nonschoolassigned literacy practices as well as the reading and writing of new and different texts. This interest was prompted by the earlier study, de379
Multiple Texts Knowledge.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:406–428. Purcell-Gates, Victoria, Sophie Degener, Erik Jacobson, and Marta Soler. 2000. Affecting Change in Literacy Practices of Adult Learners: Impact of Two Dimensions of Instruction. Boston: The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, eds. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
be read (for example, “Read the bus schedule and determine which stop comes first after Manchester Square”). Nowhere in this critical stance can one find a consideration of any type of relationship between the literacy presented in school to learners and the ways in which learners’ literate abilities are embodied outside of school, that is, how they actually use written texts for their own purposes. This lack of a relationship seems quite extreme, however, to many educators and some researchers. Surely, others say, there is some relationship between learning to read and write in school, according to academic literacy methods and approaches, and the ways that people read and write in their lives outside of school. Teachers who are aware of the multiple-literacies perspective, and who accept it as valid, often ask about such a relationship. Usually their questions and concerns are motivated by their felt need to both accept the real-life, out-of-school literacies of their students and to help them to achieve at a higher level in school with school, or academic, literacy. How can they bridge the two? They claim that it is not enough to acknowledge the privileging of academic literacy when the social and cultural world in which their students must live reflects that privileging, and to fail at school literacy is to pay multiple consequences both socially and economically throughout life. Thus, there is a growing interest in expanding the study and theory of multiple literacies to explore the relationships that exist between school literacy and lived literacy. Researchers and practitioners are calling for studies, situated in reallife literacy communities, that explore and ultimately explain why it seems to be that all children experience essentially the same, schoolbased literacy instruction, yet as adults embody different literacies. Victoria Purcell-Gates
Multiple Texts When individuals in literacy education refer to multiple texts, they refer to several texts that intersect in some way, enabling readers to develop a more thorough and complex understanding of the intersecting element. For example, consider several documents about the Tonkin Gulf incident of the Vietnam conflict ranging from primary sources (original documents from the time period such as a phone call transcript) to secondary sources (documents that represent an interpretation of an event such as an editorial or memoir) to tertiary sources (documents that rely largely on secondary sources; for example, a textbook excerpt). Each of these documents presents a unique perspective and is written by an author who has unique levels of involvement and expertise as well as unique political perspectives, sources of information, purposes for writing, and style. Thus, the different documents will conflict in some ways and agree in others. If only one document were read, then readers’ understandings of the Tonkin Gulf incident would be the result of the transaction between their current understandings, beliefs, and dispositions and the one text representing that author’s perspective. A reader who had never heard of the Vietnam conflict would, upon reading, end up with a partial, possibly biased understanding of the incident. A reader who read all of the texts, however, would have a more complex understanding, one that it is to be hoped would include a realization of the controversial nature of the incident but that might also include a sense of consternation about what to believe. Individuals are bombarded with multiple, conflicting messages in their daily lives, not just
See also Context in Literacy; Critical Literacy; Early Literacy; Family Literacy; Literacy in Informal Settings; Social Nature of Literacy References Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge. Purcell-Gates, Victoria. 1996. “Stories, Coupons, and the TV Guide: Relationships between Home Literacy Experiences and Emergent Literacy
380
Multiple Texts in this history example. Through the media, on the Internet, and in everyday conversations at the office, in the voting booth, and during leisure activities, people make decisions about what to believe based upon incomplete, inconsistent data coming from multiple sources. Paradoxically, literacy educators have focused their attention on the comprehension of single texts; yet single text reading is rarely the norm in everyday living. Thus, educators have become increasingly concerned with teaching students to make sense of multiple texts. Several lines of theory and research add to our understanding of the processes involved in comprehending multiple texts. A brief explanation of these follows.
rians viewed the documents as arguments, the students read the documents as truth to be believed indiscriminately. The implications for that finding is that students do not automatically employ cross-textual strategies or engage in critical thinking across texts. This is especially true for students who lack disciplinary or domain knowledge, knowledge about the ways in which information is created, shared, and evaluated by those “in the business.” For example, a naive science student does not automatically realize that the information in an article in Nature is more credible than the information that comes from a locally published, nonrefereed science text. Thus, she may read an article in Nature and a locally published editorial about the significance of the greenhouse effect with the same uncritical eye, regarding both texts as truth and the purpose for reading them as to “get the facts.” In the same way, a naive voter might not pay attention to the source of the television ads that cast a politician as a lothario and might believe that those ads have the same credibility as a nonpartisan publication that discusses the strengths and weaknesses of each of the candidates. Patricia Alexander (1997), in her Model of Domain Learning (MDL), suggested that students move from naivete to expertise in a given domain as a function of the intersection of knowledge, interest, and strategy use. As students gain content knowledge, they organize the information about the content in meaningful ways, thus enabling the use of efficient strategies and fostering intrinsic interest in the content. Certainly, a rise in domain knowledge would have the same effect as a rise in content knowledge. The interaction of the three elements is reciprocal. If a student were able to apply more efficient strategies to her reading, she would be likely to learn more and to become more interested. Thus, readers might need to be taught to engage in critical reading and to be taught strategies for understanding and thinking about information from more than one source. Cynthia Hynd (1999) argued that students should be taught sourcing, contextualization, and corroboration at the same time that they learn about the discipline in which they are engaged.
Multiple Texts and Disciplinary Understanding Samuel Wineburg (1991) conducted a study of multiple-text reading in history. In this study, he compared the processes of historians with those of high-school students as they read several documents about a single historical incident. Wineburg found that the historians demonstrated a more complex understanding of the incident than did the high-school students. This finding is not surprising if one assumes that the historians’ high background knowledge was beneficial to them. The historians, however, had little background knowledge about the incident, whereas the high-school students’ background knowledge was high. Wineburg also found that the historians engaged in three processes in which the high-school students did not. Historians engaged in sourcing (they took into account the author’s expertise and biases and information about the publication), contextualization (they thought about the time period in which the author wrote and the surrounding events that might impact the author’s interpretation of the incident), and corroboration (they noted and evaluated the agreements and disagreements across the texts). The high-school students merely read the texts as sources of factual information. They rarely made cross-textual ties, but rather regarded each text as a collection of facts and their task as gathering them (see “Textbooks” entry). A number of other researchers have confirmed that students rarely engage in the processes engaged in by historians (Afflerbach and VanSledright, 1998; Britt, Rouet, and Perfetti, 1996; Stahl et. al, 1996). Whereas the histo-
Intertextuality Intertextuality has to do with the linking of texts, whether those texts include linguistic or nonlin381
Multiple Texts guistic signs and whether they are tangible, such as those located on a written page, or intangible, such as experiences or memories. Engaged readers negotiate textual understandings by linking information both within and outside of the text(s) they read. When dealing with multiple texts, educators focus more on what Douglas Hartmann (1995) referred to as secondary endogenous links (links across different texts) rather than on primary endogenous links (links from a portion of text to another portion of the same text) or on exogenous links (links to personal experiences or knowledge). That is not to say that these other links rarely occur or are unimportant. In fact, engaged reading must involve them. But the unique feature of multiple texts is that they offer the opportunity to readers to make cross-textual links. Are the three kinds of links different when it comes to the kind of thinking readers employ? Certainly, when individuals make cross-textual links, the complexity of processing rises when compared to link making with a single text. But processing may be different in other ways as well, even if these differences are mainly in degree, not quality. For example, those who read multiple texts may be more likely to engage in reading in order to decide what to believe rather than to uncritically remember all of the “facts.” In addition, those who read multiple texts may be more likely to pay attention to the agreements and disagreements across the texts and to make judgments of credibility than to regard the texts equally. Unfortunately, it is not a given that students will take advantage of the opportunity to read multiple texts with a critical eye. Douglas Hartmann (1995) studied nine advanced-level high-school students as they read five historical passages that provided a rich intertextual environment. He found that students, when prompted to do so, were capable of making links to personal experience, links within a text, and links across texts to create meaning. They made fewer cross-textual links, however, than they did others.
Model, also referred to as the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model, describes the processing of persuasive texts. This model was proposed by Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo (1986) and Shelly Chaiken (1987) and elaborated on by Gale Sinatra and Janice Dole (1998). It hypothesized two routes to persuasion—the central route and the peripheral route. The central route involves the systematic processing of texts. Corroboration is an example of central processing. Central processing makes it likely that elaborative understandings of the ideas in the texts will result from reading. The peripheral route involves heuristic or rule-based processing. Historians are engaged in heuristic processing when they evaluate the source and the context of the text they are reading. A historian would use a heuristic, for example, if he determined a text’s quality based upon the belief that an author’s close involvement in a controversial event would bias her to tell the story in a way that would make her look good. One’s heuristics may or may not be well articulated and may or may not represent mature thinking. Further, the level of disciplinary knowledge one has plays a role in quality of the heuristics that are used. A practicing historian is more capable of evaluating the education and scholarship of an author of history than is a high-school student, for example. Central processing of arguments is superior to peripheral processing, because central processing signals a deeper engagement with the ideas in the text. When a person is unfamiliar with a topic, however, he is more likely to engage in heuristic processing than in central processing. Some believe that a reliance on heuristics detracts from a reliance on the arguments in the text. Even when individuals engage in primarily central processing, however, they engage in heuristic processing as well. It may be that when individuals have to make up their minds, processing information both centrally and peripherally is superior to engaging in central processing alone. For example, an individual might read two texts about segregation and, through central processing, understand them. That individual may evaluate the arguments more critically if he notes that a member of the Ku Klux Klan wrote one of the texts and the American Civil Liberties Union sponsored the other. If multiple, conflicting documents are the sources of information, then us-
Persuasion From Samuel Wineburg (1991), we learned that historians process multiple historical documents as arguments or attempts to persuade. Thus, theories of persuasion are relevant to understanding multiple texts. The Elaboration-Likelihood 382
Multiple Texts Perfetti. 1996. “Using Hypertext to Study and Reason about Historical Evidence.” In Jean Frances Rouet, John T. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand Spiro, eds., Hypertext and Cognition, pp. 43–72. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chaiken, Shelly. 1987. “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion.” In Mark P. Zanna, James M. Olson, and C. Peter Herman, eds., Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hartmann, Douglas K. 1995. “Eight Readers Reading: The Intertextual Links of Proficient Readers Reading Multiple Passages.” Reading Research Quarterly 30:520–560. Hynd, Cynthia. 1999. “Teaching Students to Think Critically Using Multiple Texts in History.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42:428–436. Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Sinatra, Gale, and Janice Dole. 1998. “Case Studies in Conceptual Change: A Social Psychological Perspective.” In Barbara Guzzetti and Cynthia Hynd, eds., Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning in a Complex World, pp. 39–54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stahl, Steven, Cynthia Hynd, Bruce Britton, Mary McNish, and Dennis Bosquet. 1996. “What Happens When Students Read Multiple Source Documents in History?” Reading Research Quarterly 31:430–457. Wineburg, Samuel S. 1991. “On the Reading of Historical Texts: Notes on the Breach between School and Academy.” American Educational Research Journal 28:495–519.
ing a combination of central and peripheral processing may lead to more informed decisions than using either central or heuristic processing alone. Educators are becoming aware that multipletext reading encourages the development of richer mental representations of concepts. It is believed that, with that kind of reading, readers can be taught to change their views of the texts themselves, their purposes for reading, and their strategies. Texts change from being inert recitations of fact to dynamic creations of authors who have unique perspectives. Students’ purpose for reading changes from the gathering of facts to making decisions about what to believe. Strategies change from memorization to a focus on higher-level thinking. The presentation of multiple texts allows educators to encourage growth in both content and disciplinary knowledge and to engage in thinking beyond the literal. Cynthia R. Hynd See also Concept Instruction with Text; Textbooks References Afflerbach, Peter, and Bruce VanSledright. 1998. “The Challenge of Understanding the Past: How Do Fifth Grade Readers Construct Meaning from Diverse History Texts?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Alexander, Patricia. 1997. “Mapping the Multidimensional Nature of Domain Learning: The Interplay of Cognitive, Motivational, and Strategic Forces.” Advances in Motivation and Achievement 10:213–250. Britt, M. Anne, Jean Francis Rouet, and Charles A.
383
N Narrative and Expository Text
though these variables all play an important role in the development of reading proficiency, the focus here is on what research reveals about the need to appropriately balance exposure to and instruction with narrative and expository text in the elementary classroom.
Text is defined as a coherent written message that can take the form of a range of narrative and expository materials, such as a page in a novel, a newspaper or magazine article, a book or short story, the print on a computer, or a chapter in a textbook. Cohere means “to stick together,” so the ways in which the various parts of the text message relate to each other, or “stick together,” is an important characteristic of text. How coherent a written message is depends upon the structure of the text. The two major text structures are narrative (story text) and expository (informational text). Text structure refers to the way in which the ideas in the text are interrelated in order to convey a message to the reader. Narrative and expository texts differ in significant ways. Narrative text, broadly defined, tells a story. Examples of narrative texts include short stories, novels, folktales, tall tales, myths, fables, legends, fantasies, and science fiction. Expository texts, on the other hand, are factual. The primary purpose of expository text is to inform, explain, or persuade. Examples of expository texts include textbooks, newspaper and magazine articles, diaries, journals, brochures, directions, and catalogs. Some texts, such as biographies, autobiographies, and historical fiction, combine qualities of both narrative and expository text. These hybrid texts have also been called “soft” expository and infotainment text (combining elements of information and entertainment). As students mature in their reading development, they are expected to read and understand a wide range of narrative and expository text. The ability to do so depends on a number of variables, including decoding ability, comprehension ability, background knowledge, strategy knowledge, and knowledge of text structures. Al-
The Need to Balance Narrative and Expository Text Students of all ages, from elementary to high school, have difficulty comprehending expository or informational text. Some have speculated that the root of the problem lies in young children’s lack of exposure to text, given that they encounter primarily narrative forms in television shows and picture books. Although many educators and theorists have emphasized the importance of narrative in children’s lives, significant questions have been raised about whether narrative should be the primary or dominant text used with young children. In a study of kindergarten children, Christine Pappas (1993) analyzed repeated pretend readings of two stories and two expository books in order to gain insights about young children’s strategies in dealing with these two genres. The study revealed that young children were just as successful in reenacting the informational books as they were the stories and that they preferred the expository text. Pappas challenged the “narrative as primary” notion, stating that an exclusive emphasis on reading “story” in the early grades limits children’s experiences with other text forms and may result in creating a barrier to full access to literacy. In a study of first-grade classrooms, Nell Duke (2000) explored the degree to which informational texts were actually included in classrooms. Data were collected about the types of texts on classroom walls and other surfaces, in the class385
Narrative and Expository Text Although there is documentation of the scant amount of time devoted to reading and writing expository text in primary classrooms, Nell Duke (2000) argued that we should not attempt to increase time spent with expository text by decreasing the amount of time and attention given to narrative text. Such an approach would be self-defeating. Rather, it is important that we balance exposure across narrative and expository text so that children have adequate and appropriate experiences with both genres. The Nature of Narrative and Expository Text Research on the structural characteristics of text has revealed three levels at which text can be analyzed: microstructure, macrostructure, and toplevel structure (Meyer and Freedle, 1984). The microstructure level is the lowest or most detailed level of text structure. At this level the focus is on the interrelationships among sentences: how they are put together, how they cohere, and how the sentences are organized within the text. The macrostructure level is concerned with main ideas, represented by extended portions of text, such as paragraphs. At this level the concern is with the global meaning, or the “gist,” of the text. The top-level structure refers to the organizing principles of the text, much like the architect’s drawings for a building. The organizing principles differ according to the content and purpose of the written material (for example, narrative, descriptive, cause-effect, persuasive, poetry, research reports). Narratives are stories that are most often written to entertain and excite the reader. A story usually has a beginning, a middle, and an end (temporal order) and is goal based. Narratives have an internal structure that usually consists of several main components including characters, setting, theme, plot, and resolution. It is this organization or macrostructure that results in a well-formed narrative. Expository text is designed to inform, rather than simply entertain, and communicates information about the natural or social world. Expository texts make use of a number of text structures such as cause-effect, compare-contrast, time-order, simple listing, and problem-solution. Susan Dymock (1999) described the most commonly occurring expository structures found in texts:
E-books give readers a new way to access text—this downloaded story is an example of narrative text (Associated Press/AP)
room library, and in classroom written-language activities. The study revealed a scarcity of informational texts in classroom print environments and activities. Few informational texts were included in the classroom libraries, very little informational text appeared on classroom walls and other surfaces, and a mean of only 3.6 minutes per day was spent with informational texts during classroom written-language activities. Perhaps even more revealing was the fact that the scarcity of the use of informational text was particularly acute for children in low socioecomonic schools (SES). In the low-SES schools, there were fewer informational texts in their already smaller classroom libraries, and the mean time per day spent with informational texts was only 1.9 minutes. Over half of the low-SES classrooms spent no time at all with informational texts. This research suggests that young children lack adequate exposure to informational text. Clearly, such exposure is necessary for building the familiarity, comfort, and confidence needed for proficiency in reading expository text. 386
Narrative and Expository Text Cause-Effect—One or more ideas or events are causal, and others are effects or results. For example, a history text on the Russian Revolution of 1917 may cover the causes and effects of the revolution. The cause-effect text structure is common in science, social studies, and English textbooks. Compare-Contrast—Similarities and differences between two or more things are described. In science, for example, comparisons might be made between black bears and brown bears in terms of size, color, habitats, and so on. The compare-contrast text structure is most often found in English, health, and science textbooks. Time-order—The text is sequenced over a passage of time. Examples are the events leading up to a war or the sequence to follow in working out a mathematics problem. This text structure is common in history and science textbooks. Simple Listing—A simple listing, such as a list of things to do or a shopping list, is not affected by time, as in time-order structure. For example, the attributes of frogs may be listed (webbed feet, tailless, smooth skin, long hind legs adapted for jumping). This text structure is more often found in mathematics, health, science, and social studies textbooks. Problem-Solution—A problem is stated, and then a solution to the problem is given. For example, a text might describe a problem such as inadequate diet in schoolage children, resulting in poor concentration and lack of motivation, and then discuss a possible solution such as having the schools provide breakfast and lunch for all school-age children. This text structure is found in a wide range of textbooks but is commonly found in science and health textbooks (174–192).
greater attention is that more experience may prevent some of the difficulties many students encounter with expository text later in schooling. A second reason is that interactions with expository text can serve as a catalyst for literacy motivation. Students often show a decline in their rate of literacy progress at about the fourth grade. This “slump” has been blamed on the shift in the types of materials that students are expected to read at this grade level. Narrative materials have been documented as dominating the primary grades; however, at the fourth-grade level students are expected to read and write expository text to a much greater extent than in the primary grades. Lack of exposure to expository text in the primary grades may increase the probability that students will have difficulty reading these types of materials because the structure and demands of reading expository text differ from that of reading narrative. Some children are very interested in the topics presented in expository text. These nonfiction texts can capitalize on children’s interests in these topics and can nurture the motivation to read and write. Too often teachers fail to capitalize on children’s fascination for facts and their interest in informational topics. Research has indicated that young children are as capable of understanding expository text as narrative text, and they find expository text to be interesting and compelling (Pappas, 1993). This research suggested that young children improve in their ability to understand expository text as their exposure and opportunities to interact with it are increased. This initial interest and competence with expository text may diminish if teachers expose students to primarily narrative text. The research of John Guthrie and his colleagues (Guthrie et al., 1996) with elementary students documented that the use of expository text for reading instruction can be enjoyable and motivating and can result in increased reading motivation and achievement. They explored literacy instruction that emphasized real-world science observations and the use of informational science tradebooks. Across fall and spring assessments, third- and fifth-grade students made gains in both intrinsic motivation and higher-order strategies such as searching multiple texts, representing knowledge, transferring concepts,
Striving for Balance: The Case for Increasing Exposure to Expository Text in the Elementary Grades There are a number of important reasons for increasing elementary students’ exposure to expository text. The most often cited rationale for 387
Narrative Text and comprehending expository text. All students who increased in intrinsic motivation also increased in their use of higher-order strategies. The ability to read both narrative and expository text is important for success in school and beyond. Research in the elementary grades, however, suggests that we tend to emphasize narrative at the expense of expository text in classroom libraries, teacher read-aloud sessions, and text used for reading instruction. As we enter the information age, it is more important than ever that our students read and write expository text with ease and competence. If we do not provide young children with appropriate experiences with expository text, we may contribute to future difficulties with these types of materials. Increased experiences with narrative and expository texts may provide the support that students need to read at higher levels of achievement. Linda B. Gambrell
ogy have studied the meaning of genre for many years. Nevertheless, a widely accepted perspective is that narrative text is discourse, or connected words, that embodies a series of events that occur in time with causal or thematic coherence (Brewer, 1980). There are many types of narratives, including mysteries, Westerns, science fiction, fairy tales, short stories, biographies, light and serious drama, literary novels, newspaper stories, histories, parables, fables, and message novels. Even instructions, recipes, and advertisements can be narratives. In the United States, research on reading narratives and, to a lesser extent, research on writing narrative text were most prominent during the decade beginning with the late 1970s and into the 1980s. Most of the narrative research done during that period focused on stories, and often researchers would use the terms narratives and stories interchangeably. The research revolved around understanding and describing the psycholinguistic nature of narrative structure as well as how the structure was related to comprehension and memory. Also during that decade several groups of researchers led a movement to detail story grammars, or a set of rules that would define both a text’s story structure and an individual’s mental representation of story structure. Highly similar grammars were independently developed by Jean M. Mandler and Nancy S. Johnson, David E. Rumelhart, Nancy L. Stein and Christine G. Glenn, and Perry Thorndyke. Although the study of reading and writing narrative texts peaked in the United States during the 1980s, it has a long history, and many researchers have credited the influence of earlier scholars on their work, frequently citing, among others, Vladimir Propp’s and Frank C. Barlett’s work done in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Research on narrative text may be placed into three broad categories: identification of five key dimensions of narratives, explication of story structure, and exploration of individuals’ use of narrative text features.
See also Textbooks References Duke, Nell K. 2000. “3.6 Minutes per Day: The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade.” Reading Research Quarterly 35, no. 2:202–224. Dymock, Susan J. 1999. “Learning about Text Structure.” In Brian G. Thompson and Tom Nicholson, eds., Learning to Read: Beyond Phonics and Whole Language, pp. 174–192. New York: Teachers College Press; Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Guthrie, John T., Peggy Van Meter, Ann D. McCann, Allan Wigfield, Lois Bennett, Carol C. Poundstone, Mary E. Rice, Frances M. Faibisch, Brian Hunt, and Ann M. Mitchell. 1996. “Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivation and Strategies during Concept-oriented Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:306–333. Meyer, Bonnie J. F., and Roy O. Freedle. 1984. “Effects of Discourse Type on Recall.” American Educational Research Journal 21:121–143. Pappas, Christine C. 1993. “Is Narrative ‘Primary’? Some Insights from Kindergartners’ Pretend Readings of Stories and Information Books.” Journal of Reading Behavior 25:97–129.
Identification of Five Key Dimensions of Narratives Five commonly accepted key dimensions of narratives are content, structure, style, force and affect, and transmission. Content is the chain of events, characters and settings, objects, and performers. Structure is a sort of container, the way the narrative is put together, or the parts and the
Narrative Text Determining definitions of genre is controversial. Academicians from disciplines such as literary theory, rhetoric, anthropology, and psychol388
Narrative Text connections between the parts. There are two levels of content and structure. One is the underlying complete narrative world reality, such as the actual personality of the main character. The other is the portrayal in text, which may convey only aspects of the underlying reality. Style is the set of words and word-order choices the author uses. Force is an interaction of the author’s intended meaning and the reader’s perception. Affect refers to the text’s impact on the reader, including feelings of interest, liking, surprise, and suspense. Transmission is the actual expression of the text. Examples include inside view, or seeing inside a character, and point of view, or the perspective provided by the narrator. These five key dimensions are not entirely separable. Content, structure, and affect, in particular, are often especially difficult to disentangle. Designation of a part of a text’s structure is made, at least to some degree, on the basis of the content. For instance, narratives typically include a setting, and settings are identified by the content descriptions of people, locations, and props. Also, some features of narratives fall into more than one of the five key categories. For example, “plot” may refer to the actual content of a narrative as well as to a structural configuration of goals and actions, and “foreshadowing” may refer to the actual content of what is being foreshadowed as well as to the structural part or place in a narrative which “holds” the glimpse of something to come.
The other influence was the advancing work in schema theory. When defining a schema, researchers and theorists posited that both events and actions consisted of distinct parts or structural features that could be described and then ordered. For instance, there is a schema for going to a restaurant, for which the parts, such as waiting to be seated, reading the menu, and so forth, can be identified and ordered. Prominent researchers who described story structure positioned their explications as “grammars,” or sets of rules that identified the major elements of a typical story and the relationships among those elements. In so doing, they built upon the psycholinguistic understanding that the spoken text was a representation of an idealized internal, or mental, representation. Psycholinguistics refers to the mental processes involved in language. Simultaneously drawing on schema theory, the researchers moved the concept of grammar beyond the sentence level in order to describe grammars of whole texts. The story grammar proposed by Jean Mandler and Nancy S. Johnson (1977) included six major story elements: setting (introduction of the protagonist or main character of the first episode, which may include statements about locale, time, or props), beginning (a precipitating event), reaction (the protagonist’s internal response to the precipitating event and formation of a goal), attempt (effort to attain the goal), outcome (success or failure of the attempt), and ending (longrange consequence of the action, final response of a character, or added emphasis). Key stylistic phrases often signal certain story parts. For instance, “Once upon a time” frequently introduces a setting, and “One day” signals a beginning. The six major story parts are actually subparts of higher-order units (Whaley, 1981). The story grammarians used pictorial “trees” to represent story structures, similar to the way that psycholinguists used “trees” to represent parsings of sentence structures. Figure 1 shows an example of a tree. At the lowest level in a tree, a story consists of a setting and one or more episodes. At the next higher level, the episode is made up of a beginning, which causes the development (the unfolding of the protagonist’s response to the precipitating event), which in turn causes the ending. At the next higher level, within the development, there can be two major chunks, called the complex reaction and goal path. In turn, moving
Explication of Story Structure Researchers identifying the structure of stories focused mainly on a type of story emanating from a folktale or fairy tale tradition. Their work was heavily influenced by the confluence of two contemporary psychological movements. One influence was a psycholinguistic outlook in which spoken language was understood as a surface representation of “deeper” meanings. That is, the spoken text represented more than connected words. It represented underlying psychological processes. The analysis of language therefore entailed understanding the rules that individuals learned and used to produce acceptable orders of words in sentences so that others could understand the “deeper” meaning of the speaker. Psycholinguists attempted to identify the “grammars” or rules of acceptable word orders for sentences. 389
The Tree
Setting
and
EPISODE
1&2
BEGINNING
C
DEVELOPMENT
C
ENDING Ending Event
Beginning Event 3&4
11 & 12 COMPLEX REACTION
Simple reaction 5 C stands for Cause
C
C
GOAL PATH
Goal
Attempt
6
7&8
C
Outcome 9 & 10
Narrative Text down a level on the tree, the complex reaction consists of a simple reaction that causes a goal. At the same level, but within the goal path, there is an attempt that causes an outcome. Many stories, both written and told, can be reliably parsed using the story grammar, and a considerable amount of research in reading unfolded upon the heels of the story grammar explications of story structures. It is important to note, however, that some individuals criticized the story grammars, saying they described only a limited set of stories, that structure is not an essential dimension of stories, and that the grammars could not be used to describe highly complex stories (for example, Black and Wilensky, 1979).
be recognized and remembered best. For the next category, development of key features of stories, findings included noting that many children develop an understanding of story structure as young as four years old. Knowledge of story structure becomes richer and more elaborate as children grow older, especially over the upper elementary grade years. Some individuals do not easily acquire a rich understanding of story features. In regard to universality of story features, findings included noting that research does not clearly inform us as to whether people from different cultures expect stories to have similar structures. Findings for the category modality effects and story features showed that a limited number of researchers suggested their studies indicated that knowledge and use of story features are robust across reading and listening situations. In regard to the category relationship of knowledge of story features to reading ability, findings included the fact that there tends to be a positive relationship between knowledge of story features and reading ability. Findings concerning instruction included noting that instruction in narrative features can increase children’s understanding of story structure and affect comprehension and recall. A few studies supported the belief that such instruction can also affect children’s writing.
Individuals’ Use of Narrative Text Features The research findings on individuals’ use of narrative text features may loosely be described within seven categories: knowledge about key features of text, effects of text features, development of key features of stories, universality of story features, modality effects and story features, relationship of knowledge of story features to reading ability, and instruction (Fitzgerald, 1989). Most of the research was done in the late 1970s and the 1980s, and it centered on story structure. Also, most of the research involved participants in reading or listening, with writing being used rarely. The following is a summary of the major findings. In reference to the category knowledge of key features of text, it was found that most people have a tacit knowledge about how stories are organized; there are, however, subjective variations. More important information in the story structure (information located “higher” in the tree diagram) tends to be recalled better. Individuals think stories contain particular kinds of content, such as conflict and competition. Story content that is most central to the causal chain of events tends to be considered more salient than other content. Findings related to the category effects of text features included determining that people use knowledge of story structure to guide their expectations, understanding, recall, and production of text. The way a story is structured impacts readers’ affective states. For instance, narratives with no initiating event evoke little suspense. Content can influence what readers remember. For instance, unusual content tends to
Implications for Teachers Because narratives are a central part of children’s lives, inside and outside of school, the more knowledge we have about what makes good stories and about what impact they have upon listeners and readers, the better prepared we may be to guide students’ academic and personal success. Consequently, research on narratives has importance for teachers. Among the major instructional suggestions are the following. First, it has been widely suggested that teachers might explore ways of teaching children about narrative features and that children reading at lower levels in particular might especially benefit from such instruction. Second, teachers can enhance students’ understanding about narrative features through both direct and indirect approaches, including explicit instruction and incidental “telling” or questioning. Third, because little is known about the universality of common story features, teachers may need to be sensitive to cross-cultural variations in story feature expecta391
National Assessment of Educational Progress followed in 1970. Writing was first assessed in 1973. In addition to these subjects, assessments are conducted periodically in fine arts, music, civics/citizenship, social studies, mathematics, and specialized subjects such as technology or career and occupational development. NAEP was intended to be substantially different from the norm-referenced tests that dominated assessment at the time of its inception and was initially planned to include mostly constructed response (open-ended) items. Until recently, however, most NAEP items have been of machinescorable, multiple-choice format. Assessments are conducted at frequent intervals, with reading being the most frequently assessed subject. Current proposals for an expansion of NAEP would include reading assessments at grades four and eight yearly.
tions, particularly structural ones. Minorities and English language learners may bring different understandings of narrative characteristics to classrooms than do other children. Jill Fitzgerald See also Narrative and Expository Text; Story Grammar References Black, John B., and Robert Wilensky. 1979. “An Evaluation of Story Grammars.” Cognitive Science 3:213–230. Brewer, William F. 1980. “Literary Theory, Rhetoric, and Stylistics: Implication for Psychology.” In Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer, eds., Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, pp. 221–239. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Fitzgerald, Jill. 1989. “Research on Stories: Implications for Teachers.” In Denise Muth Glynn, ed., Children’s Comprehension of Text: Research into Practice, pp. 2–36. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Mandler, Jean M., and Nancy S. Johnson. 1977. “Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall.” Cognitive Psychology 9:111–151. Whaley, Jill Fitzgerald. 1981. “Story Grammars and Reading Instruction.” The Reading Teacher 34:764.
NAEP Oversight and Goals NAEP policy oversight rests with the nonpartisan, presidentially appointed National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB). NAGB’s twenty-five members include governors, state legislators, educators at the state and local level, curriculum and measurement experts, and representatives of the business community and of the general public. The National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) administers the assessment program, which is developed and carried out by several testing companies. NAEP has two primary goals: to provide information about trends in student achievement over time and to report student achievement on current objectives. To accomplish these goals, NAEP actually consists of two instruments. The first contains items that have been carried unchanged across assessments from each content area’s initial administration. Used with comparable agegroup cohorts, these items allow for the measurement of “trend,” that is, for the comparison of student achievement across time. Changes are noted at each of the grade levels assessed. The “main” NAEP assessment is more reflective of pedagogical practices and educational priorities at the time of administration. Frameworks for the main NAEP are revised periodically in response to educational changes but usually remain in place for approximately ten years. For example, the NAEP reading framework was revised for the 1992 administration and has guided test development for the last decade.
National Assessment of Educational Progress The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is a federally funded, nationally representative assessment of what American students know and can do in numerous content areas, including reading and writing. NAEP in many ways is the closest representation there is to national standards or a national curriculum in the United States, in that frameworks that guide the assessment and the achievement levels that shape reporting have been agreed upon by nationally representative committees and seek to impact national policy. Plans for NAEP grew from a congressional mandate to gather and report data on the condition and progress of education in the United States. Data were to be objective and to provide information for policymakers, educators, and parents. Background Planning for NAEP began in 1963, with the first administration of tests in 1969. Science was assessed in 1969. A reading/literature assessment 392
National Assessment of Educational Progress
Students take a national standardized test in 1998 (Associated Press/AP)
NAEP Frameworks Each NAEP assessment reflects a framework developed through a consensus effort that brings together researchers, curriculum experts, and teachers for a process of stating what they consider to be the most important aspects of a domain to measure in an assessment. The resulting framework shows an organization of the domain and contributes to defining the tasks that will appear on a test. For example, in 1992, a committee shaped the reading assessment for the following decade and beyond (Langer et al., 1995). The committee defined reading as a constructivist activity, a dynamic, complex interaction among the reader, the text, and the context in which the reading act occurs (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992). Among their recommendation was that the assessment should consist of fairly long, intact, authentic texts and include innovative instrumentation, such as more open-ended items than had been used in the near past. Prose materials could be literary or informational in nature. In addition to prose selections, students would also read documents such as bus schedules, lists, or maps.
NAEP is administered to students in grades four, eight, and twelve. Assessments have been administered in most subjects every four years, except for reading, which is given every two years. This policy may change to include assessment in reading and mathematics each year, probably at grades four and eight. Matrix sampling is used, so each student actually receives about one-tenth of the entire assessment. Aggregate data from all students assessed contribute to NAEP reporting. The reports, often published as The Nation’s Report Card, present information on student achievement in general and also as disaggregated by numerous groups, such as urban or rural, region of the country, socioeconomic status, or race/ethnicity. Background surveys are administered to students and teachers to gather information about instructional practice, home support for academic work, school climate, available resources, and the extent to which innovations such as “reader response” have been incorporated into routine classroom practice. For example, students have been asked about the amount of homework they are given, their television watching habits, the time they spend in independent reading, and the extent to which their teachers encourage debate and discussion.
NAEP Reading Assessment Students taking the NAEP reading tests read for three distinct purposes: for a “literary experi393
National Assessment of Educational Progress ence,” to gain information, or to perform a task (for example, to gain information from a document). Stimulus material is selected to be representative of what students encounter in their inschool and recreational reading, but the assessment is designed to be curriculum free and to not reflect a specific curriculum approach to reading or writing instruction. NAEP reading contains no items on reading subskills such as word analysis, although some items may assess students’ ability to figure out word meaning from context. The NAEP framework that guides item development represents four “stances” (Council of Chief State School Officers, 1992). These represent the different perspectives readers may take as they construct meaning from what they read. The stances include (1) forming an initial understanding or comprehending the general meaning of what is read, (2) developing an interpretation or extending the initial ideas by making inferences and connections, (3) personal reflection and response or making explicit connections between ideas in the text and one’s own background knowledge and experiences, and (4) demonstrating a critical stance or considering author’s craft, author’s choices, and stylistics features of text; evaluating what is read. Items for the assessment are developed to tap each of these stances. Students encounter both multiple-choice and open-ended questions about the material they read. Some of the passages are linked conceptually or thematically so that students answer intertextual questions that ask them to draw upon their understanding of both passages.
ideas and using appropriate conventions of writing; and, finally, (6) value writing as a communicative activity. Students who take the NAEP writing test encounter a mix of informative, persuasive, and narrative writing tasks. Some students write two twenty-five-minute pieces, and some write on one task for fifty minutes. Results of the 1994 NAEP writing assessment indicated that “the best students can write relatively effective informative and narrative pieces; however, data also showed that most students tested had difficulty developing arguments and providing evidence in persuasive writing” (Applebee et al., 1994, 18). NAEP Reporting NAEP results are reported as average scores and percentiles on subject-specific scales. Reports present students’ accomplishments according to achievement levels. The three levels measure how well students are doing against statement of what is the most desirable achievement in each subject in grades four, eight, and twelve. The three achievement levels are basic, proficient, and advanced. Behavior descriptors are developed for each content area at each grade level; generic (non–subject specific) definitions of the achievements are also presented as national standards for excellence in academic performance. The generic descriptors follow (Educational Testing Service, 1997): Basic—Partial mastery of prerequisite knowledge and skills that are fundamental for proficient work at each grade. Proficient—Solid academic performance for each grade assessed. Students reaching this level have demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including subject-matter knowledge, application of such knowledge to real-world situations, and analytical skills appropriate to the subject matter. Advanced—Superior performance. (28)
NAEP Writing Assessment The framework for the NAEP writing assessment was developed through a similar consensus process. The 1994 framework stated six objectives (Applebee et al., 1994), which were carried forward to the 1998 assessment. The objectives specify that students should (1) write for a variety of purposes, including informative, persuasive, and narrative; (2) write on a variety of tasks and for many different audiences; (3) write from a variety of stimulus materials and within different time constraints; (4) generate, draft, evaluate, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in their writing; (5) display effective choices in the organization of their writing, such as including ample detail to illustrate and elaborate their
NAEP reports are quite varied; data are published in both technical and summary form. Reports provide examples of item types that have proven easy or difficult, statistical analyses of student achievement, and discussions of the variables collected through student and teacher back394
National Commission on Reading ground surveys. The reports avoid direct comparative statements about instructional practice, although the information provided can be quite interesting. For example, as of 1994, only 36 percent of eighth graders and 61 percent of twelfth graders reported that their teachers asked them to discuss their interpretations of what they read at least once a week. Furthermore, data indicated that the students who engaged in such discussion scored higher on NAEP than students who were asked to discuss their reading less frequently (Campbell et al., 1996). In addition to published reports, NAEP data are made available electronically for secondary analyses. Actual student responses to openended items and essay prompts are available in addition to response frequencies for multiplechoice items. These data tapes allow researchers to investigate aspects of student achievement that may be too specialized for public interest.
though the concept received some public support, plans for the VNT did not win approval in the Congress, and the project ceased to exist after the 2000 election. Terry Salinger See also Reading Assessment; Writing Assessment; Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts References Applebee, A. N., J. A. Langer, I. V. S. Mullis, A. S. Latham, and C. A. Gentile. 1994. NAEP 1992 Writing Report Card. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Campbell, J. R., P. L. Donahue, C. M. Reese, and G. Phillips. 1996. NAEP 1994 Reading Report for the Nation and the States: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Trial State Assessment. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Council of Chief State School Officers. 1992. 1992 NAEP Reading Objectives. Washington, DC. Council of Chief State School Officers. Educational Testing Service. 1997. The NAEP Guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Langer, J. A., J. R. Campbell, S. B. Neuman, I. V. S. Mullis, H. R. Persley, and P. L. Donahue. 1995. Reading Assessment Redesigned. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Phillips, G. 1991. “Benefits of State-by-State Comparisons.” Educational Research 20 (3): 17–19.
State NAEP For more than twenty years, NAEP was given only at the national level. Beginning in 1988, however, state-by-state assessments became available in selected subjects. Individual states can elect to participate, at their own expense, in the assessment and receive data reports on the achievement of students within their jurisdiction along with information about their students in comparison to students in other states and in the nation as a whole. State-by-state assessments were first administered in mathematics in 1992 and then in reading and mathematics in 1994. Advocates of state-by-state NAEP claim that more valuable information is provided than that from state-developed or commercial tests that may not be comparable from state to state (Phillips, 1991), even though information is reported at the aggregate, not individual, level.
National Commission on Reading On 1 May 1985, Richard Anderson presented Becoming a Nation of Readers (BNR) to the secretary of education of the United States, William Bennett, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. Since that time, 311,000 copies of this report (Anderson et al., 1985) have been distributed. Although its influence has waned, BNR remains a significant synthesis of reading research and practice, and many of the recommendations remain relevant today.
Voluntary National Tests Attempts to introduce a NAEP-like test that would yield individual scores failed. The socalled Voluntary National Tests (VNT), which were to parallel NAEP in frameworks and item types, were proposed for administration to grade-four students in reading and grade-eight students in mathematics. They would provide data at the state and local levels, with reports issued for each student who took the tests. Although items were developed for the test and al-
The Origins of the Report In 1983, the U.S. Department of Education issued a call to action for American education in A Nation at Risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Without educational reform, it was argued in this report, the nation would drown in a sea of mediocrity. In the same year, the 395
National Commission on Reading National Academy of Education’s Commission on Education and Public Policy was formed to bring its members’ cross-disciplinary knowledge to bear in informing educational policy. Reading was identified at the forefront of this effort, and a Commission on Reading was appointed. Since the mid-1970s, ground-breaking research on schema theory, metacognition, text structure, and reading comprehension strategies had occurred at the Center for the Study of Reading (CSR) at the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. Richard Anderson, director of CSR, was appointed chair of the Commission on Reading. The commission’s charge was to prepare a report that summarized research and theory on beginning reading and the comprehension of language for the improvement of reading in American students. Eight individuals, representing a spectrum of research in reading, cognitive science, and teaching, were appointed to the commission: Isabel Beck, Jere Brophy, Jeanne Chall, Robert Glaser, Lenore Ringler, David Rumelhart, Dorothy Strickland, and Sue Talot. Elfrieda Hiebert was hired to oversee the day-today work on the report and to coordinate the efforts of two CSR graduate students, Judith Scott and Ian Wilkinson. Richard Anderson and the staff began by designing a metanalysis of beginning reading methods, including phonics. Research studies had been identified and collected, and procedures for coding data to permit comparison of effect sizes of different methods were established. This effort was halted two months after its inception at the commission’s first meeting. The commission unanimously argued for a report that summarized research on reading comprehension and strategies of developing readers, not simply beginning reading methods.
processes were elaborated with examples from classrooms and texts that provided the typical fare of reading instruction. The next three chapters summarized research on effective teaching and schools, on testing and its effects on instruction and on learning, and on teacher education and professional development. Since the mid-1970s, research on teaching effectiveness had been extensive, particularly at the Institute for Research on Teaching (IRT) at Michigan State University. Jere Brophy, as codirector of the IRT and a member of the commission, contributed to the integration of research on teaching and school effectiveness with research on reading processes. The report ended with a list of seventeen recommendations that laid out a clear-cut and pragmatic course of action. The commission, led by its chair, believed that a course of action could be based on the best available knowledge. The recommendation that phonics should be kept simple and be completed by the end of second grade and the recommendation that children should spend less time on worksheets and more time reading illustrate the tone and content of the recommendations. The Report’s Legacy The two recent national reports on reading, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (PRD) (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998), and the report of the National Reading Panel (see “National Reading Panel” entry) have had massive dissemination budgets; BNR had none. The 311,000 copies in circulation were bought by individuals or organizations. Three features can be identified that explain the success of BNR. First and foremost, the report was written in an accessible style. From the outset, the aim was to produce a short document that summarized research for serious laypeople. The report summarized work on considerate text, and the staff worked to identify elements of considerate text for a lay audience. Although staff members and commission members wrote summaries of research, Richard Anderson integrated the text into a cohesive whole. Commission members, colleagues at CSR, and members of other constituencies reviewed drafts of the report. Issues that were raised in reviews were discussed by commission members with a focus on achieving consensus. In the end, Richard Anderson’s role as
The Content of the Report The first chapter of BNR presented reading as a constructive, fluent, strategic, motivated, and lifelong pursuit. In its first years of distribution, the characterization of reading as constructive, fluent, and strategic provided new perspectives for many educators. These perspectives were further developed as they applied to beginning or emerging literacy and to literacy in the years beyond or extending literacy. The use of “literacy” rather than reading also provided a new perspective for many educators. Descriptions of reading 396
National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy California English/Language Arts Committee. 1987. English–Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools (Kindergarten through Grade Twelve). Sacramento: California Department of Education. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Snow, Catherine, M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Research Council.
the writer meant that the final product conveyed a consistent voice and style. Points where commission members disagreed, such as choices of topics, are evident in Chall’s afterword. Second, the report provided information that had not been widely distributed previously. Research on the effects of readability formulas, the positive effects of writing activities on reading, and the merits of extended reading rather than worksheet practice pertained to the conventional practices of the time. Third, the report was comprehensive in its treatment of instructional and policy issues. Issues of interest to policymakers, such as testing, were addressed as were issues of interest to classroom teachers, such as grouping practices. This comprehensive treatment made the report pertinent to a variety of constituencies. The widespread distribution of BNR meant that it influenced policy. To our knowledge, no analyses have been conducted of precisely what state policies were influenced by this report. BNR was referenced frequently in the California framework (California English/Language Arts Committee, 1987) that was the first to mandate an elimination of readability formulas. The more recent mandates of Texas and California for decodable text indicate the influence of PRD. Not coincidentally, sales of BNR have declined substantially since the publication of PRD. In the seventeen years since BNR was published, it is to be expected that the conclusions of BNR would have been extended and elaborated by numerous studies. In examining the PRD and the report of the National Reading Panel, research on beginning reading has far outpaced that reported on in BNR. On other topics, such as vocabulary and comprehension, advances in research have not been extensive. With the recent national reports, BNR has become a historical document. Its influence over an extended period of time should serve as a model of the contributions that a national report can have. Elfrieda H. Hiebert and Judith A. Scott
National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy The National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy (NCRLL) was founded in 1932. Originally named the National Conference on Research in English (NCRE), NCRLL’s mission is to further research in the teaching of language and literacy and to improve instructional practice through the conduct and publication of research. NCRLL strives (1) to stimulate and encourage research in the teaching of English language arts at all educational levels; (2) to synthesize, interpret, and publish significant research and compilations of research results in English language arts teaching; (3) to support research and special projects authorized by the executive committee; and (4) to recognize and reward outstanding achievements in English language arts research. The NCRLL website is located at http://www.coe.uga.edu/ncrll/index.html. In 1983, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and NCRE copublished Walter T. Petty’s A History of the National Conference on Research in English. This volume provided a history of the organization’s first fifty years. NCRE originated as an organization in which elementary reading researchers could have the voice and visibility that they felt were unavailable in NCTE, which was dominated by those interested in secondary schools (see “National Council of Teachers of English” entry). In those early years, membership was highly exclusive. Over time, secondary-school researchers became more a part of NCRE, and as definitions of research became more inclusive, so did NCRE’s membership. To recognize the kinds of research that its members were conducting outside the realm of English, NCRE changed its name and became
See also National Reading Panel References Anderson, Richard C., Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Judith A. Scott, and Ian A. G. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Champaign, IL: The Center for the Study of Reading, National Institute of Education, National Academy of Education.
397
National Council of Teachers of English
National Council of Teachers of English
NCRLL in 1993. Although its membership derives primarily from members of NCTE and the International Reading Association (IRA), NCRLL is itself unaffiliated and draws no financial support from any parent organization. NCRLL is governed by an executive committee consisting of a president, president-elect, past president, secretary, treasurer, research chair, newsletter editor, membership chair, and diversity chair. The executive committee plans NCRLL programs such as the annual breakfast meeting and the featured speaker at the fall meeting of the NCTE and the spring meeting of the International Reading Association. NCRLL programs may also appear at the annual conferences of the National Reading Conference and American Educational Research Association. The research chair additionally plans one state-ofthe-art conference during the final year of his or her three-year term. Membership is limited to those who are nominated by an NCRLL member and approved by the executive committee. NCRLL members of eminent distinction are approved as fellows by the executive committee. Each year an awards committee identifies a member whose career accomplishments merit the NCRLL Distinguished Researcher Award. NCRLL publications include a newsletter published biannually. NCRLL also has published bulletins, monographs, and edited collections. These books are listed at http://www.coe.uga. edu/ncrll/Publications/NCRLLPublications. htm, a web site that allows for downloading of selected titles. These publications have reviewed research on specific topics, collected the featured presentations at landmark conferences, and focused on a specific research methodology. Revenues from publications provide the primary financial support for NCRLL activities. Peter Smagorinsky
Formed in 1911, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) today is the largest content-area professional association in the United States, claiming some 77,000 members, 56,000 of whom are secondary English teachers. Despite the fact that the organization’s membership is largely secondary, the purposes of the association are to improve the quality of instruction in English at all educational levels; encourage research, experimentation, and investigation in the teaching of English; facilitate professional collaboration among English language arts teachers at the elementary, middle, secondary, and college level; hold public discussions and programs; sponsor, support, and distribute professional articles and publications; and integrate the efforts of all those who are concerned with the improvement of instruction in English. In a very real sense, NCTE is not so much a member organization as it is a coalition of groups interested in different aspects of the teaching of English and the language arts. Persons joining NCTE must declare a section—college, secondary, middle school, elementary— which in turn guarantees representation within the governing structure. In addition, members may join any number of other assemblies or conferences within NCTE, including the Conference on College Composition and Communication (largely of interest to teachers of writing), the Conference on English Education (teacher educators), the Conference on English Leadership (English education department chairs), the TwoYear College Association, the Assembly on Children’s Literature, the Whole Language Umbrella, the Gay Straight Educators Alliance, the Black Caucus, and the Latino Caucus; the options go on. To facilitate the work of the council there are five permanent commissions (reading, literature, language, media, curriculum) as well as several standing committees and task forces on issues of current interest or concern to the membership (for example, high-stakes testing and critical literacy). NCTE’s Research Foundation supports member as well as nonmember research. Overall, NCTE puts on twelve conferences each year, publishes twenty professional texts, and edits and distributes some thirteen professional journals and magazines, the best known of which are
See also National Council of Teachers of English References Petty, Walter T. 1983. A History of the National Conference on Research in English. Urbana, IL: National Conference on Research in English and National Council of Teachers of English.
398
National Institute for Literacy College English, English Journal, Research in the Teaching of English, and Language Arts. Teachers most often turn to NCTE for information on the teaching of writing as well as on what literature they should use in their classroom. Over the years, NCTE has fought adamantly against censorship and has passed resolutions in favor of each student’s right to his or her own language and against high-stakes testing. NCTE sees itself as having unique responsibilities in helping educators understand the centrality of talk in learning, the power of writing across the curriculum, and the importance of using good literature in the teaching of all subject matters. The public best knows NCTE for the Double Speak Award, which it gives each year to some public figure or group who uses language in a convoluted manner (recent recipients being expresident Bill Clinton and the National Rifle Association). Despite gate-keeping efforts of this sort, NCTE is perceived as quite liberal by politicians and by its sister organizations. Key tenets of its core values (www.ncte.org) deal with advocacy (by which it means “having knowledgeable teachers in every classroom”), public education (“run in such a way that teachers can teach and children can learn”), and diversity (“where multiple forms of literacy are explored, and where difference is interrogated and valued in pursuit of education befitting a democracy”). For information on publications, journals, upcoming conferences, or how to join NCTE, see www. ncte.org. Membership allows on-line access to all past issues of the organization’s journals. Jerome C. Harste
profits, and private-sector organizations to raise the visibility of literacy and bring additional resources to bear on challenges facing the literacy field. For instance, a partnership with the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education and the telecommunications company Verizon has produced a comprehensive on-line directory of literacy programs in all fifty states and U.S. territories available to everyone with Internet access. Another partnership with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Verizon led to the creation of a booklet on workplace literacy distributed to businesses throughout the country through local Chambers of Commerce. The institute’s primary projects make a variety of contributions to strengthening literacy services. Its learning disabilities project has funded research into adult learning disabilities and produced a multivolume series on identifying and serving adults with learning disabilities. The project also includes a master trainer certification process and, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, an initiative to train counselors who work with welfare recipients. Another institute project, Equipped for the Future, has developed content standards for adult education that explain what adults need to know and be able to do as workers, family members, and citizens. The standards help promote adult literacy system reform and accountability by more clearly defining the results that can be expected from the system. The project is now supporting the development of assessments based on the content standards. The institute’s newest project, undertaken with the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, identifies high-quality reading research and makes findings easily accessible to educators, administrators, parents, and others with an interest in improving reading instruction. Finally, NIFL’s communications work brings together dozens of literacy-related databases and web sites into one information system. It includes more than fifty discussion lists, instructional materials on a variety of topics, and general information about literacy and literacy policy. To find out more about the National Institute for Literacy, visit www.nifl.gov. Lynn Reddy
National Institute for Literacy The National Institute for Literacy (NIFL) is a small, independent organization within the U.S. government. It was created by Congress in 1991. The institute supports the development of highquality state, regional, and national literacy services so that all Americans—adults and children—can develop the literacy skills they need to succeed in school, at work, at home, and in the community. NIFL seeks to improve literacy services though its partnerships, projects, and communications. NIFL collaborates with federal agencies, non399
National Reading Conference
National Reading Conference
tive research review, the president’s address, and several plenary speakers, often from related fields of inquiry. A call for proposals can be found on the NRC home page, NRC Online (http://nrc. oakland.edu/). The NRC Newsletter is published twice each year. The newsletter’s content covers a range of topics that keeps the membership apprised of the functions of the organization. Communication across the membership is also facilitated through the discussions of both topical issues and organizational information posted on the NRC listserv (NRCEMAIL) and the NRC web site. Membership in the listserv is open to all members of NRC. The National Reading Conference recognizes leadership in the field, service to the organization, and emerging scholars through its awards program. One of the most prestigious recognitions in the literacy profession is NRC’s Oscar S. Causey Award, given regularly to an individual who has made outstanding and long-term contributions to literacy research. The Albert J. Kingston Award is given to an individual who has served the organization with distinction. Additional awards include the Outstanding Student Research Award, the Early Career Award, and the Edward Fry Book Award. Additional information about NRC, including the NRC ethics statement, may be reviewed at http://nrc.oakland.edu/. Norman A. Stahl
The National Reading Conference (NRC) is a professional organization in literacy, a community of literacy professionals incorporated as a nonprofit, educational corporation with the purpose of promoting the study and dissemination of literacy research, literacy instruction, and related fields. Through its conference programs, varied publications, and governance structure, NRC supports the professional development of emerging and established scholars. Publications of the organization include the Journal of Literacy Research, the National Reading Conference Yearbook, and the National Reading Conference/International Reading Association Literacy Studies Series that disseminates scholarship on reading and writing processes and the teaching and learning of these practices. These publications include original research of varied methodologies, critical reviews, conceptual analyses, and theoretical essays from diverse orientations (see National Reading Conference [1999] for a historical summary of articles and features appearing in the journal). A conference has been held annually in early December since 1952. Membership in NRC, along with opportunities to serve within its governance structure, is open to all individuals in the profession. The organization began in 1950 when Oscar S. Causey of Texas Christian University (TCU) undertook a survey of college reading programs in southwestern colleges, demonstrating that instructors greatly desired opportunities to discuss common concerns and to build camaraderie in a period of rapid growth in the profession. Such a shared need led to TCU’s hosting in 1952 the First Annual Southwest Reading Conference for Colleges and Universities (SRC). The individuals in attendance voted to hold a future conference to promote procedures and research in college reading and also to publish the proceedings of the first meeting. By 1957, the leaders of the SRC felt that the organization needed a name that reflected its growing national presence. With the release of the seventh yearbook in 1958, the new name, the National Reading Conference, was debuted to the nation. NRC sponsors an annual meeting featuring research reported in the form of roundtable discussions, symposia, papers, and alternative format sessions that all go through a rigorous peer review. The conference also presents an integra-
References National Reading Conference. 1999. 30th Anniversary Issue. Journal of Literacy Research 31, no. 1 (March).
National Reading Conference Yearbook The National Reading Conference Yearbook is an annual publication of the National Reading Conference (see “National Reading Conference” entry). It is a refereed, edited book that includes brief research articles (about ten to twelve pages each) and reviews of research on virtually every aspect of literacy learning and teaching. All Yearbook articles must have their basis in presentations made at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference. Because of the brevity of the pieces, its rapid publication schedule, and the link of the articles to the conference presenta400
National Reading Panel tions, the Yearbook provides a snapshot summary of the field of reading research at any given time. It also makes it a popular outlet for students and other nascent researchers publishing their first research articles or for more seasoned researchers to reveal the directions of their new investigations. The National Reading Conference Yearbook began publication in 1952 (originated by conference president, Oscar Causey) and has issued one or two volumes each year since that time. The Yearbook was originated by the Southwest Reading Conference for Colleges and Universities, and from the 1950s through the early 1970s its content consisted largely or entirely of articles about the pedagogy and administration of college-level reading programs. Beginning with its second volume, the Yearbook began publishing an annual review of research on college reading, and over time, this led to the inclusion of other research articles in the collection. During the 1960s, the Southwest Reading Conference became the National Reading Conference, and this change marked an end to the regional character of the Yearbook as well as a broadening of membership interests. Increasingly, articles addressed a wide variety of topics on reading education, though college reading issues predominated for more than a decade longer. By the 1970s, conference membership expanded to such an extent that the Yearbook required two volumes, as all presenters were required to submit their conference papers to the Yearbook. Continued publication of multiple volumes was not financially feasible, so publication in the Yearbook became optional for conference presenters, and editorial peer review of the material was required to select from these submissions (about one-third of articles submitted for publication are actually included in the Yearbook). During this period, the Yearbook began limiting its contents to research articles, and the focus on college reading gave way to a prekindergarten-through-adult emphasis. An annual review of research is still included, but this is not limited to updates on college reading, and now covers a wide range of topics including metacognition, reading-writing relationships, word recognition, and technology. The Yearbook publishes approximately forty-five articles each year, including the presidential address, an annual review of research, a student award-winning study,
two to four additional invited papers, and approximately forty refereed pieces. The Yearbook is one of the longest-published serials devoted specifically to reading psychology and education. Timothy Shanahan See also National Reading Conference References Baldwin, R. Scott, John E. Readence, Jeanne Shay Schumm, and John P. Konopak. 1990. “The NRC Yearbooks Database.” In Literacy Theory and Research: Analyses from Multiple Paradigms, Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 73–78. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Singer, Harry, and Albert J. Kingston. 1984. “From the Southwest Reading Conference to the National Reading Conference: A Brief History from 1952–1984.” In Jerome A. Niles and Larry A. Harris, eds., Changing Perspectives on Research in Reading/language Processing and Instruction, Thirty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 1–4. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Van Gilder, Lester L. 1970. “A Study of the Changes within the National Reading Conference.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University.
National Reading Panel The National Reading Panel (NRP) was set up to determine for the U. S. government what research had to say about the teaching of reading. The panel was made up of fourteen members, including scientists, teachers, principals, and parents. The panel issued one report, Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (National Reading Panel, 2000). It also published written and videotaped summaries of this report. The report addressed the impact upon reading achievement of various instructional approaches to phonemic awareness, phonics, guided oral reading, encouraging children to read, vocabulary, comprehension, teacher education, and technology. During the 1990s, government officials expressed concern over the teaching of reading. Stagnant national reading achievement, surprisingly low reading scores in some states, and rancorous professional debate over how best to teach reading fostered public dissatisfaction. Against this backdrop, Congress asked that a panel be appointed by the director of the Na401
National Reading Panel tional Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) in consultation with the secretary of education to assess the status of research-based knowledge concerning the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching reading to children. The idea was to provide an authoritative analysis that would summarize “scientifically based research” findings, and then these findings would become the basis of classroom reading instruction. In assembling the panel, NICHD and the Department of Education were required to adhere to federal regulations that prohibited the inclusion of individuals with financial interests in the programs and materials being examined. In April 1998, the panel was convened. Its members were Donald N. Langenberg, chair, Gloria Correro, Linnea Ehri, Gwenette Ferguson, Norma Garza, Michael L. Kamil, Cora Bagley Marrett, S. J. Samuels, Timothy Shanahan, Sally E. Shaywitz, Thomas Trabasso, Joanna Williams, Dale Willows, and Joanne Yatvin. The panel held five regional public hearings to help determine what topics to pursue and divided into topical subgroups to expedite the synthesis effort. The panel was required to develop explicit standards for the identification, selection, analysis, and synthesis of the research. The members decided to use metanalysis as the basis for their work wherever possible. Metanalysis requires a systematic, rule-based determination of the universe of studies to be examined. These procedures do not allow the inclusion of studies that do not strictly meet the identification and search criteria, and they prevent the exclusion of studies that are consistent with the search rules. Additionally, the data from the studies had to be summarized in a systematic way, so as to ensure comparability of information. Finally, the results of the various studies were combined into a single statistical analysis that provided an overall determination of the effectiveness of the procedures being analyzed. Instead of discussing dozens—or even hundreds of independent findings—this analysis allows for a single set of findings to be drawn from the entire collection of studies on a given topic. This analysis, because it includes data drawn across a variety of study conditions, allows for the examination of the influence of key variables, including some that were not examined in the original studies. In one controversial move, the panel limited
its analysis to experimental or quasi-experimental studies, ignoring qualitative, descriptive, and correlational evidence. This meant that the panel used only studies that could demonstrate a clear causal link between an instructional approach and student achievement. Critics complained that such selectivity might discourage future qualitative research. The panel argued that such a strict standard was needed, given that they were determining federal education policy, and that because the findings might evolve into mandates for schools, it was essential that there be a clear unequivocal relationship between the instructional approaches and achievement. Furthermore, the panel itself emphasized the importance of qualitative research, particularly when conducted in conjunction with experimental studies. In April 2000, NRP reported its findings to the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee. The National Institute for Literacy, an independent agency of the U.S. government, was charged with responsibility for disseminating the results of the report, and several agencies, including the International Reading Association and the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, released summaries of the report. This latter summary, Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read (Armbruster, Lehr, and Osborn, 2001), was widely distributed by the National Institute for Literacy. In 2001, President George W. Bush and Secretary of Education Roderick Page made the Report of the National Reading Panel the basis of federal education policy. Both the Reading Excellence Act and the Reading First portions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001 provided more than $6 billion in funds for professional development for teachers of low-income and low-education children in the instructional approaches that NRP determined to be effective. These laws represent a major shift in U.S. educational policy toward the support of instructional approaches with a strong basis in scientific research evidence. The National Reading Panel report is one of many authoritative reports on reading education. Unlike reports such as Reading: The Great Debate (Chall, 1967), Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading (Anderson et al., 1985), Beginning to Read (Adams, 1990), and Preventing Reading Difficul402
National Reading Panel ties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, and Griffin, 1998), NRP had to synthesize research studies in a systematic and objective manner, and the work had to be conducted before the public in open meetings. Although earlier reports focused only on phonics, the learning of young children, or the results of studies from a single research center, NRP, because of its official status as a determiner of findings for the U.S. government, was required by law to look more widely, more systematically, and more objectively than any of these other reports. The most contemporaneous of these reports to NRP was the Prevention of Reading Disabilities (PRD), an effort that has often been confused with the NRP report. An important distinction between the two is that PRD is a consensus report, reflecting an agreement among a group of scholars concerning their recommendations for schools, whereas NRP is a formal synthesis of research results that was prohibited from including any kind of instructional recommendations. The panel’s major findings are summarized in the sections below.
two. With struggling, older readers through grade six, phonics improved word-recognition skills and spelling skills, but it provided no significant improvement in reading comprehension. Guided Oral Reading NRP examined sixty-seven independent studies that used repeated reading or other procedures in which children read text aloud with guidance or feedback and repetition. Guided oral reading instruction was studied both with regular classroom-based populations (through grade four) and with struggling readers (through grade nine) with positive results on word recognition, oral fluency, reading comprehension, and overall reading achievement. A wide range of approaches was successful, including those using highly trained teachers, peer and parent tutoring, and the use of volunteers. Encouraging Children to Read The panel examined studies in which children were encouraged or facilitated to read more. These approaches included incentive programs, computer-based reading systems such as Accelerated Reader, and various sustained silent reading organizational schemes that set aside part of the school day for student reading. Despite widespread authoritative support for such efforts, little published research was identified on any of these topics. Only fourteen published studies were found on this varied collection of topics, and these were of marginal quality and had mixed results. The panel decided there was not enough high-quality research on which to base any conclusions for instructional practice and recommended that research be conducted in this area to determine if some ways of encouraging children to read more would successfully improve reading achievement.
Phonemic Awareness Phonemic awareness is the knowledge that words are composed of tiny sound segments or phonemes and the ability to manipulate those sounds. The panel examined fifty-two studies of the effects of phonemic awareness training upon reading achievement and concluded that a small amount of phonemic awareness teaching improved beginning reading achievement in kindergarten and grade one for normal achieving beginning readers, at-risk readers, and older reading-disabled children. Phonemic awareness instruction worked best when letter knowledge made up part of the instruction, and when children were taught in small groups. Phonics NRP examined thirty-eight independent studies of the impact of phonics upon reading achievement. They concluded that systematic phonics made a significant contribution to children’s growth in reading and that such instruction was more effective than nonsystematic phonics or no phonics. Phonics instruction gave children a clear advantage within all types of programs and in kindergarten and grades one and two. Significant additional growth was evident for children who received multiple years of phonics through grade
Vocabulary The panel examined studies of the teaching of vocabulary, but since several recent metanalyses of vocabulary were available, the panel relied heavily upon the results of these analyses. The panel concluded that both incidental vocabulary instruction—in which children read or are read to—and direct vocabulary instruction—in which teachers teach the meanings of specific words—improve children’s vocabulary and generalize to improved reading achievement overall. 403
The National Right to Read Foundation A wide range of vocabulary teaching techniques had these positive effects.
tive and correlational research studies, the panel’s exclusive focus on research on children, lack of attention to studies from non-Englishspeaking cultures), content (the omission of particular topics), and writing quality. Although these critiques occasionally challenged specific panel findings, they as often supported the conclusions or failed to discuss them at all. Even when critiques did disagree with the NRP findings, no systematic reevaluations of the report have proposed contradictory conclusions. Timothy Shanahan
Comprehension The panel identified 215 studies of reading comprehension, many conducted with older elementary- and middle-school populations. The panel concluded that explicit teaching of comprehension strategies improved reading achievement. Practices that were found to be successful in a large number of studies included cooperative learning activities, teaching children to recognize question types and to seek answers appropriate to those questions, teaching children to ask their own questions of a text, summarization approaches, graphic summarization or translation, story mapping techniques, and metacognitive awareness and fix-up strategies. More effective than any of these single techniques were approaches that taught combinations of these, such as reciprocal teaching that includes prediction, questioning, clarification, and summarization.
See also Comprehension Strategies; Fluency; National Commission on Reading; Phonics Instruction; Phonological and Phonemic Awareness; ReadingComprehension Instruction; Recreational Reading; Repeated Readings; Vocabulary Instruction References Adams, M. J. 1990. Beginning to Read. Cambridge: MIT Press. Anderson, R. C., E. H. Hiebert, J. A. Scott, and I. A. G. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a Nation of Readers: Report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. Armbruster, B. B., F. Lehr, and J. Osborn. 2001. Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Litearcy. Chall, J. S. 1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Snow, C. E., M. S. Burns, and P. Griffin. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Teacher Education The panel examined research on pre-service and in-service education. No studies of pre-service teacher education considered its impact on children’s reading progress. Nevertheless, there was a sufficient body of research on the effectiveness of in-service professional development that indicated that such programs result in higher reading achievement, particularly when these efforts are ongoing and practice based. Technology The panel examined studies of the impact of computers, hypertext, and other technologies in the teaching of reading. Although there were positive findings on reading for various technological approaches, there were very few studies of any of these, and overall the panel concluded that there was not sufficient evidence about the role of technology in reading instruction to merit any findings in this area.
The National Right to Read Foundation The National Right to Read Foundation (NRRF) was established in 1993 as a nonprofit tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization by Robert W. Sweet Jr., a former director of the National Institute of Education, and James B. Jacobson, a former official of the U.S. Department of Education. The purpose of NRRF was to educate teachers, parents, public school administrators, state and federal legislators, and the general public about the
Critiques of the Report One member of the NRP, Joanne Yatvin, issued a minority report at the time the report was issued, and various, independent critical responses appeared during the first year after the report appeared as well. These responses often focused on the panel’s methods (that is, exclusion of qualita404
The National Right to Read Foundation latest research on reading instruction and how it applies in the classroom. From the beginning, the foundation established an 800 telephone number that was widely publicized nationally as a help line to parents and educators who had questions about how to help their children learn the skill of reading. The need was evident, as thousands of parents called the help line in desperation because their children, who were of normal sight, hearing, and intelligence, were placed in special education or remedial classes or told that they “would never be able to read.” The pattern was very consistent. The children began school with the expectation that they would learn to read. After a few weeks, months, and even years of “reading instruction,” parents were called in for a parent/teacher conference and told that their child could no longer remain in the regular classroom because of “reading difficulties.” Many parents, determined to help their children, called for help. NRRF compiled a list of reading teaching products that had been proven successful in the classroom and in home use and made them available to the callers. In addition, simple, direct explanations were given by telephone, and thousands of packets of free information were mailed out. Now, on its web site, http://www.nrrf.org, NRRF is able to provide a voluminous amount of information on scientific
research–based reading instruction, effective reading programs, links to other related web sites, news of activities in support of returning to the classrooms of America reading instruction that is based on the findings of scientifically based reading research, and much more. NRRF also developed a network of volunteers across the United States to offer on-site help to parents and teachers who request it. In addition, state legislators, looking for assistance in developing state laws to reduce illiteracy, are being helped by the model legislation that has been prepared by NRRF. As many as twenty-five states, including California, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Washington, have either changed their laws to require scientific research–based reading instruction in the regular classroom or are in the process of doing so. The research on reading instruction has now reached a point at which we can say with some certainty what an optimal reading program should include. The National Reading Panel, which released its report in April 2000, identified some of the elements of an effective reading program—explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency, and comprehension strategies. Joy Sweet
405
O Oral Language
phonological form of the word used to refer to green beans (les horicot vert) and to a type of associated music. There are no documents written in Cajun English or in African American English. Cultural knowledge is handed down through oral histories, and storytelling is the primary mechanism of cultural transmission. Early investigations characterized the relationship between oral and written language as a continuum with oral language on one end and literacy on the other (Westby, 1991). It was believed that young children first learned how to talk and then learned how to read and write. This concept, however, failed to account for the full range of functions that both oral and written language express at very early ages. The idea of an oral-toliterate continuum was subsequently revised to reflect the use of highly decontextualized oral language in even very young children as well as their abilities to recognize words in print and to read favorite books. We now conceptualize oral and written language as two modalities for representing a shared linguistic base. Both oral and written language require similar underlying knowledge of the form, content, and use of language. That is, both oral and written language rely on similar knowledge about the five components of language that constitute the surface forms, meanings, and functions of language. We also know that cultures are rarely either oral or literate but exhibit use of both modalities. In comparison with written language, however, oral language is often highly contextualized and is the primary mode for social interaction. Children acquire early spoken words based on the immediate environment. For example, if a child wants to request a cookie, nothing more is needed than a single word paired with a pointing gesture. The context makes it easy to interpret
Learning to talk is the process of acquiring oral language. Oral language is composed of five components needed to both speak and to understand what is spoken. These five components are phonology (speech sounds), morphology (units of meaning), syntax (grammar), semantics (vocabulary), and pragmatics (rules for social use). Oralcy and orality are terms sometimes used to describe the ways in which a person demonstrates competent use of oral language. Those terms may also refer to the extent to which members of a community transmit cultural knowledge through oral rather than written language. Scholars characterize cultures as primarily adhering to either an oral or a literate tradition. For example, mainstream Anglo culture in the United States is described as a literate culture. The rich heritage of written decrees and declarations, the great literature by American authors, the importance of the daily newspaper, telephone books, e-mail, and the volumes of personal and commercial correspondence processed by the U.S. Postal Service all attest to this characterization. On the other hand, minority cultures such as the African American community or the Cajun community of southwest Louisiana are described as primarily oral. The dialects spoken by members of these groups are depicted as variations of mainstream languages. Because individuals from minority cultures value uses of language that are different from mainstream culture, they are referred to as oral communities. Minority dialects often have no orthographic representation other than a marked version of the mainstream language. For example, the word poor is written as po’. Cajun English, on the other hand, combines aspects of both French and English forms and meanings. The Cajun word zydeco captures the 407
Oral Language
Parent talking to baby in exaggerated fashion (Elizabeth Crews)
ing speech sounds, including knowing specifically which sounds are included in the native language. Oral and written language are obviously different in this aspect. Oral language relies on the auditory system for transmission of meaning. In English, by the time children are three years old, they begin to master vowel sounds and consonant sounds produced in the front of the mouth such as /m/, /p/, and /b/. They learn that changing the sounds in a word changes the meaning; mom and mop are not the same. They learn that /s/ and /l/ can go together at the beginning of a word such as slow, but that /m/ and /b/ cannot. And they learn that two words such as have and to get reduced to hafta, but that the words have and two, as in I have two cookies, do not. Written language, however, uses the visual channel for achieving meaning. The written word is composed of letters or symbols. In English orthography (writing system), these are known as graphemes. Nonliteral meanings and pragmatic intents are expressed through punctuation, font, spacing, underlining, and so on.
and respond to the child’s message. Similarly, children can easily comprehend the language of the environment that directs their behavior, inquires about their needs, or maintains play and other social interaction based on the immediate environment. As the child enters school, language is needed to gain information. Children use books to learn about persons not present, events that have already occurred or that might occur at some point in the future, and the ways that others might interpret a concept or perceive an event. Such informational uses of communication are more decontextualized and require more sophisticated use of language. Closer inspection of the forms, meanings, and uses of language indicates that knowledge of both oral and written language develops simultaneously. Language Form Children must learn the rules that govern the form of their native languages. The components of language form are phonology, morphology, and syntax. Phonology refers to the rules for us408
Oral Language Phonemes, or individual speech sounds, are replaced with graphemes, the individual letters of the alphabet. Children undergo a developmental process of learning to spell that is similar to acquiring speech sounds. In fact, spelling errors in young children often resemble their earlier speech errors. For example, children who say the word tooth accurately nonetheless may write it initially as tuf, substituting f for th as they once did when learning to talk. The second component of form is morphology, or the words and word parts that represent unique meaning. These units of meaning are called morphemes. Oral and written language share the same rules for morphology. Some words consist of a single morpheme. Examples include words such as under, because, and superstition. Other words have two or more morphemes. Words such as bathtub have two units of meaning and are clearly compound words. More often, however, the number of morphemes in a word is related to changes in the root word that affect the meaning in some way. For example, the word cats has two morphemes. Cat is the root word and -s indicates that there is more than one cat. Learning to use such inflections begins by age two and continues to age six. Roger Brown (1973) identified fourteen inflectional morphemes that are acquired in more or less the same order by children whose native language is English. In addition to regular and irregular noun plurals, children must learn how to inflect verbs to mark both tense and agreement for person and number by adding such morphemes as -ed, -ing, -s for third person singular, present tense verbs, and the auxiliary verbs be and have. Children must also learn derivational morphology that permits a word from one grammatical category to be used in a different category and to express degrees of comparison. For example, by using derivational morphology, we can change the adjective slow into the adverb slowly or the verb sing into the noun singer. We can also talk about how one tomato is red, but another one is redder. The final component of form is syntax, which is usually simple and straightforward in oral language, especially in conversations. The syntax of lectures, however, may be quite complex. Syntax refers to the order of words in an utterance that affect meaning relationships. For example, the sentence The truck hit the wall is acceptable in
English, although The wall hit the truck is ungrammatical. The word wall does not entail animacy and cannot be used as the subject of the verb hit. Differences in word order can also alter sentence type. For example, the subject and predicate are reversed to form questions such as Are you happy? Passive sentences are also constructed by changing word order. Spoken language occurs in a linear, temporal sequence with conversational partners adding information with each phrase and each utterance. For this reason, most spoken sentences tend to be simple rather than complex. Conversation occurs in real time, and once spoken, a word cannot be retrieved. On the other hand, written language is usually produced for an absent audience. The printed word remains on the page indefinitely and constitutes a record of the communication. Reading is a solitary act, and the reader constructs meaning under very different circumstances from those of partners in oral conversation. For these reasons, written language tends to have more sophisticated grammatical construction, is hierarchically arranged, and has a greater number of complex sentences than oral language. Sentences are longer, and there are more embedded ideas in written sentences than in spoken utterances. Meaning Semantics is the component of language associated with meaning. A child’s first words provide evidence of learning to attach symbolic meaning to phonological forms. Most children learn the first fifty words by eighteen months and soon after begin to combine single-word utterances into two-word combinations and then short sentences. Lexical (vocabulary) development then proceeds rapidly during the next three years. The average child entering school has approximately 5,000 words in the productive vocabulary. By eighteen years, that vocabulary has doubled and includes a wide variety of words in all grammatical categories. Extensive and elaborate knowledge of the relationships among words is acquired. For example, children can identify the hierarchical relationships among basic-level category words such as dog and subordinate categories such as collie as well as superordinate categories such as canine. In the early grades, children recognize and use words that are synonyms and antonyms. They understand semantic fields such 409
Oral Language as the terms used for math as opposed to physical education or the difference between polite words and naughty words. Both oral and written modalities rely on essentially the same semantic component of the linguistic system.
anticipate the listener’s needs to highlight new information, provide sufficient background, speak clearly, choose words carefully, be truthful, and be unambiguous. They learn how to signal deviations from these principles for speech forms such as sarcasm, joking, and storytelling. Before they enter school, children learn to change registers appropriately, talking in one way with same-aged friends, another way with their parents. They talk with relatives in a way that is different from the way they talk to strangers. They can use different styles of speaking to assume roles in pretend play, such as teacher, baby, parent, or clerk. They can pretend to speak with an accent or even in a different language! By the age of three, they have sufficient oral language to engage in conversations and to tell stories. They understand conversational turn taking from social games learned in early infancy such as peeka-boo. By five, they can sustain conversation across many turns, shift topics deftly, and tell lengthy narratives. Carol Westby (1991) described narrative discourse as the bridge between oral and written language. Children entering kindergarten generate both personal and fictional narratives. This ability is important for a number of reasons. First, in narratives, a single individual is responsible for generating and conveying a much greater quantity of information in a single turn than conversational speech requires. Second, narratives require a certain level of organization. The child must introduce the story, relate a sequence of events in a particular order, convey cause-effect relationships among those events, express intentionality, and address an overall purpose or theme. The schema for what constitutes a good story based on the culture must be internalized. In addition, the child must anticipate what background knowledge must be provided based on the extent to which the listener shares the context. Less detailed information is needed by a listener who was present when the event about which a story is being told took place than by one who was not a part of the event. Fictional stories represent an even greater accomplishment because no part of the context is shared knowledge. This displacement in time, space, and perspective is thought to help prepare children for the expository text encountered in school textbooks. New opportunities for interacting with a variety of partners con-
Use of Language Pragmatics is the component of language that addresses the social use. In structural linguistics models of language, pragmatics is one of five separate and equal components of language. Phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics are conceptualized as separate but overlapping modules. On the other hand, in functionalist models of language, pragmatics provides the organizing force for the development of the other four components. In this view, form and meaning develop for the purpose of meeting particular communicative and social functions, identified by John Searle (1969) as speech acts. Examples of speech acts include requesting information, acknowledging, commenting, and protesting. Children demonstrate rudimentary speech acts such as requesting objects even before they begin using speech. Pragmatic competence also includes knowing how to alter literal meanings. Paralinguistic devices such as prosody, emphasis, loudness level, and rate of speaking can affect meaning in subtle ways. For example, placing stress on different words can vary the meanings of spoken sentences: I want to go and I want to go can be given different meanings by different stresses. Sarcasm is another example of how literal meaning can be changed by intonation, prosody, or expression. Unlike written language, reactions of the communication partner allow immediate opportunities to negotiate meanings. This is accomplished through verbal signals such as requests for clarification or the use of back channeling such as nodding the head and saying yeah. It can also be accomplished nonverbally through facial expression or gestures. Native speakers of a language quickly become adept at reading these cues about how they are being understood. In these face-to-face interactions, meanings are fluid and are established moment by moment. Paul Grice (1975) proposed that communication partners enter into a tacit agreement to cooperate to achieve meaning. The cooperative principle states that children learn to provide enough information without being redundant, 410
Oral Language Development tribute to increased pragmatic knowledge and a wider range of functions as students learn to compare and contrast, interpret, evaluate, debate, and hypothesize. Lynne Hebert Remson
the mother names the object, “Here’s the bottle.” After numerous repetitions with the adult presenting the action/object and phrase, the baby learns that the clear cylinder, filled with food, is called a “bottle.” Behaviorists suggest that through operant conditioning, infants gradually learn expressive language by being rewarded for imitating the sounds and speech they hear. For instance, a baby spontaneously babbles and accidentally says or repeats the sound “mama.” The mother responds joyfully, hugging and kissing the baby, saying “Yes, Mama!” The baby, given this reward, is reinforced and attempts to repeat the behavior. Once the behavior is repeated and rewarded often enough, the child connects the word sound to the object or event.
References Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, vol. 3, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Norris, Janet. 1989. “Facilitating Developmental Changes in Spelling.” Academic Therapy 25:97–108. Norris, Janet, and Paul Hoffman. 1989. “On the Nature of Phonological Development: Evidence from Normal Children’s Spelling Errors.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32:787–794. ———. 1993. Whole Language Intervention for SchoolAge Children. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Owens, Robert. 1996. Language Development: An Introduction, 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Snow, Catherine. 1983. “Literacy and Language: Relationships during the Preschool Years.” Harvard Educational Review 53 (2):165–189. Teal, William, and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1986. Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. Westby, Carol. 1991. “Learning to Talk—Talking to Learn: Oral-Literate Language Differences.” In Charlann Simon, ed., Communication Skills and Classroom Success: Assessment and Therapy for Language and Learning Disabled Students, pp. 334–355. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
Linguistic Nativists Perspective The linguistic nativists believe that every child has an inborn capacity to learn language. Noam Chomsky (1965) called this innate capacity a language acquisition device (LAD). Nativists posit that the LAD allows children to interpret phoneme patterns, word meanings, and the rules that govern language. For example, when children first begin to use past tenses, they often overgeneralize certain words, such as goed for went or thinked for thought. Since goed and thinked are not words that children would hear adults say, these examples illustrate that children are using some type of internal rule system instead of simple imitation to govern their acquisition of language. Nativists believe that language learning differs from all other human learning in that a child learns to communicate even without support from parents or caregivers. Nativists view the environment’s role in language acquisition as largely a function of activating the innate, physiologically based system rather than the major force in shaping a child’s language development.
Oral Language Development Children’s oral language development is truly remarkable, but how does this development occur so rapidly and without any seeming effort on the part of children or their parents?
Social Interactionist Perspective The social interactionists acknowledge the influence of both genetics and parental teaching. They share with behaviorists the belief that environment plays a central role in children’s language development. Likewise, along with nativists, they share the belief that children possess an innate predisposition to learn language. Social interactionists, however, stress the child’s own
Behaviorist Perspective The behaviorists suggest that a child is taught language through two basic processes—classical and operant conditioning (Skinner, 1957). Behaviorists attribute receptive language to associations that result from classical conditioning. For example, every time the baby is offered a bottle, 411
Oral Language Development intentional participation in language learning and the construction of meaning. The social interactionist’s point of view emphasizes the importance of the infant’s verbal negotiations or “verbal bouts” with caregivers. These negotiations occur partly because mothers or other caretakers treat children’s attempts at speech as meaningful and intentional. As parents begin to make sense of their child’s speech, they also begin to understand the child’s meaning and/or intent. Lev Vygotsky (1962) described this type of adult support, or scaffolding, as facilitating the child’s language growth within the zone of proximal development, the distance between a child’s current level of development and the level at which the child can function with adult assistance. Parents also promote a central task of language when they encourage children to match language with meaning by focusing the child’s attention on objects in the immediate environment and labeling each object and its action.
The Sequence of Children’s Language Development By the time they enter preschool, most children have mastered the basic structures of language and are fairly accomplished communicators. Although most children demonstrate language skills well within the normal age range, some do not. If a child’s language is delayed more than two months past the upper age limits, caregivers should seek medical guidance, as delays may indicate specific medical or cognitive problems. Fortunately, early identification of problems leads to appropriate intervention (Vines and Rosenthal-Tanzer, 1988; Weiss, Lilly-White, and Gordon, 1980). Though individual variations do occur, this rapid acquisition of language tends to follow the following predictable sequence. Birth to Nine Months Language development begins when sounds of speech activate neural networks in the infant’s brain. This process actually begins during the last two months of prenatal development, as babies are able to hear intonation patterns of their mother’s voice. Thus, within hours of birth, infants can distinguish their mother’s voice from the sound of other female voices. Although the biological aspects of the auditory system are present at birth, the neural network that supports language acquisition is just beginning to develop. When family members engage in the daily routines of feeding, bathing, and playing with their babies, they instinctively use an exaggerated speech pattern called parentese. Recent studies have demonstrated that this slowed-down, high-pitched, exaggerated, repetitious speech actually seems to facilitate a child’s language development. This is because the rate and pitch of parentese perfectly match the auditory processing ability of the infant (Kuhl, 1993). Babies experiment with the range of new sounds they can make. These trills and coos are also bids for attention, as most babies have begun to make simple cause-and-effect associations, such as learning that crying equals attention. When parents respond to their child’s cries, they reinforce their child’s willingness and ability to communicate. As babies babble, they gain motor control of their vocal and breathing apparatus. Interactions with caregivers allow babies an opportunity to listen, observe, and attempt to
A Neurobiological Perspective The psychologists, linguists, and anthropologists who developed the three preceding theories of language acquisition had to infer the origins of language and brain activity from careful, long-term observations of external behavior. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, technological innovations enabled neuroscientists to study the brain at a cellular level. Brain-imaging techniques are noninvasive procedures that display three-dimensional, color-enhanced images of a living brain as it processes information. New brain-imaging technology has allowed scientists to locate specific areas in the brain that are dedicated to hearing, speaking, and interpreting language. According to this new perspective, the human brain has dedicated structures for language, and infant brains are born capable of speaking any of the 3,000-plus human languages (Kuhl, 1993). Infants are not disposed to speak any particular language, however, nor are they born language proficient. The language that a child learns is dependent upon the language that he or she hears spoken in the home even prior to birth. Hence, the recent discoveries in neurobiology closely reflect elements of the nativist, behaviorist, and social interactionists’ views of language development. 412
Oral Language Development mimic sounds they hear and the mouth and tongue movements they see. Through this process, babies begin to specialize in the sounds of their native language(s). Between six to seven months the brain has already created permanent neural networks that recognize the sounds of a child’s native language(s) or dialect. Babies’ babbling not only reflects what their ears hear but what their tongues, lips, and mouths can articulate. Although there are still no real words in their babble, babies’ vocalizations now begin to take on some of the conventions of adult conversations, such as turn taking, eye contact, and recognizable gestures. These forms of prelanguage are playlike in nature, being done for their own sake rather than a deliberate use of language to communicate a need or accomplish a goal.
“explosion.” Brain-imaging technology clearly reveals that the full cortex is involved in processing language. During this time children are able to learn as many as twelve words a day. Linguists call this phenomenon “fast mapping.” Human linguistic ability is a remarkable form of intelligence that is usually centered in the left hemisphere. Two important interconnected structures in that part of the brain are Wernicke’s area in the temporal lobe, which links language and thought (word comprehension), and Broca’s area in the frontal lobe, which processes grammatical structures and word production. A bundle of nerve fibers called the arcuate fasciculus connects these two structures, and when it develops (at about age two), children are able to speak in sentences. Factors Contributing to Variations in Language Development Although the process of learning to talk follows a predictable sequence, the age at which children say their first word may vary widely from one child to another. Several factors could modify the rate of normal language production.
Nine to Eighteen Months At about nine months, most babies begin to hear phonemic boundaries (syllables). Prior to this “doyouwantyourbottle?” was a pleasant tune but was not explicit communication. After auditory boundaries become apparent, babies will hear distinct words, “Do / you / want / your / BOTTLE?” The ability to distinguish the auditory boundaries of words is critical to the child’s ability to acquire both expressive and receptive language. At this stage of development, babies usually recognize and have cognitive meaning for words such as bottle, momma, and daddy. Though their receptive or listening vocabulary is growing rapidly, it will take a few more months before their expressive or spoken language catches up From about the eighth to the ninth month, the hippocampus, located in the center of the brain’s limbic system, becomes functional. The hippocampus helps to index and file memories, and as it matures, babies are able to form short-term memories. At this point, babies’ ability to remember words that label objects and actions greatly increases. Hence neural development, in combination with countless hours of sound play and verbal exchanges with loving caregivers, allows most children to begin speaking their first words. By eighteen months neural synapses have increased and strengthened and are beginning to transmit information quite efficiently, hence most toddlers begin to experience a language
Gender Differences Observational research consistently reveals that a majority of girls talk earlier and talk more than the majority of boys. It is also true that the majority of late talkers are young boys. Nevertheless, it is difficult to determine if differences in the rate of language acquisition are biological or if biological differences are exaggerated by social influences—there is evidence for both views. For example, although neural research offers graphic images that illustrate how men’s and women’s brains process language somewhat differently, research consistently documents differential treatment of infants based on gender. Parents tend to engage in lengthy, face-to-face conversations with baby girls. Yet, with baby boys, adults are not as likely to engage in sustained face-toface verbal interactions. Perhaps girls talk earlier and talk more because they receive more language stimulation (Healy, 1997). Socioeconomic Level Numerous studies have long documented the differences in the rate of language acquisition and the level of language proficiency between low and middle socioeconomic families. These 413
Oral Language Development studies found that children, especially males, from low-income homes were usually somewhat slower to use expressive language than children from middle-income homes. These findings likely reflect social-class differences both in language use in general and in parent-child interaction patterns. For example, Betty Hart and Todd Risley (1995) estimated that, by age four, children from professional families have had a cumulative total of 50 million words addressed to them, whereas children from welfare families have been exposed to only 13 million words. The children from professional families have had more than three times the linguistic input than welfare family’s children; this gives them a tremendous advantage in language acquisition.
Unfortunately, some children have congenital language disorders that impair their ability to learn language or use it effectively. The origin of these disorders may be physical or neurological. Examples of physical problems could include malformation of the structures in the inner ear or a poorly formed palate. Neurological problems could include dysfunction in the brain’s ability to perceive or interpret the sounds of language. Though the symptoms of various language disorders may appear similar, effective treatment may differ significantly, depending on the cause of the problem. For example, articulation problems caused by a physical malformation of the palate might require reconstructive surgery, whereas articulation problems caused by hearing impairment might require a combination of auditory amplification and speech therapy. Two of the most common symptoms of congenital language disorders that parents and teachers may encounter are disfluency (stuttering or cluttering) and pronunciation. It is important to remember that some children may simply show delayed language development; this may mean that a child is gaining control over the speaking mechanisms at a slower rate than same-age peers or has had limited opportunity to hear speech or interact with others. Billie J. Enz
Cultural Influences The rate of language acquisition may be somewhat different for children of different cultures. Since spoken language is a reflection of the culture from which it emerges, it is necessary to consider the needs verbal language serves in that culture. Communication may be accomplished in other meaningful nonverbal ways (GonzalezMena, 1997). Likewise, some cultures do not view babies’ vocal attempts as meaningful communication. Shirley Brice Heath (1983) described a community in which infants’ early vocalizations are virtually ignored and adults do not generally address much of their talk directly to infants. Many cultures emphasize receptive language, and children listen as adults speak.
See also Early Literacy; Oral Language References Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. Gonzalez-Mena, Janet. 1997. Multicultural Issues in Childcare. 2d ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Hart, Betty, and Todd Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Healy, Jane. 1997. “Current Brain Research.” Scholastic Early Childhood Today (August– September):42–43. Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kuhl, Patricia. 1993. Life Language. Seattle: University of Washington. Skinner, Burrhus F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Vines, Saul, and Ron Rosenthal-Tanzer. 1988. “Causes of Speech Delay.” Language Development 65:606–618.
Medical Concerns Beyond gender, socioeconomic, and culture differences, other reasons children’s language may be delayed include temporary medical problems and congenital complications. Hearing involves creating useful cognitive information out of the pitch, volume, and timbre of complex sound waves. If a sound wave moving through the fluid bends a receptor, it activates a neural message at a specific frequency; then the auditory nerve sends an electrical impulse to the temporal lobe of the brain. Unfortunately, if sound waves are consistently impeded during the first three years of life, normal language development is impeded. Congenital Language Disorders For most children, learning to communicate is a natural, predictable, developmental progression. 414
Oral Reading Vygotsky, Lev. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. Weiss, Charles, Henry Lillywhite, and Mary Gordon. 1980. Clinical Management of Articulation Disorders. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
in everyday life. Further, research has shown that silent reading is more positively related to reading gains than is small-group oral reading. Some have suggested that readers reconstruct the writer’s ideas and sense the feeling of the text when reading silently. These ideas can then be shared with others through oral reading. In this way, silent reading can be seen as a foundation for oral reading.
Oral Reading Oral reading is the process of reading aloud to communicate to another or to an audience (Harris and Hodges, 1995). In the past, when print material was scarce, oral reading was a necessary way to disseminate information. With the advent of the printing press, however, the emphasis on oral reading began to change. By the early 1920s, most educators believed that more silent reading should be done in the classroom because this was the type of reading that was done outside of school in real-life situations. Perhaps one of the most influential books of the time to help teachers learn how to use silent reading was One Hundred Ways of Teaching Silent Reading for All Grades (Smith, 1925). The book provided teachers with a rationale for teaching silent reading, including three main goals of silent reading instruction. The first goal was to teach children to comprehend completely and accurately. A second goal was to teach children to read rapidly with good comprehension. A third goal was to teach children how to read many different kinds of reading material for several different purposes. The book provided a wealth of teaching ideas to help teachers accomplish these three goals. At the same time, other teacher resources were written to provide teachers with some help in teaching silent reading. The Silent Reading Hour (Buswell, 1923) was one such resource. It consisted of grade-level exercises with accompanying teaching suggestions. The teacher section of the book also provided teachers with background information about silent and oral reading. Pertinent studies of the time were cited to provide support for the rationale for teaching students to read silently. Oral reading did not disappear altogether. It was still considered important for some types of reading experiences; that remains true today. A visit to nearly any classroom will verify that students are engaged with both types of reading experiences. Silent reading is used most often, however, because it is a faster mode of reading, and it is more representative of how readers read
Purposes and Guidelines for Effective Use of Oral Reading Although silent reading is important, oral reading is necessary as well. Through it, students can further develop aspects of reading associated with competent readers. These include a positive attitude toward reading; reading comprehension strategies such as making connections, predicting, visualizing, questioning, using prior knowledge, monitoring while reading, summarizing, and making inferences; listening comprehension; reading vocabulary; listening vocabulary; use of language cues; reading with expression; reading fluency; phrasing; and skimming. This list suggests that any time oral reading is used, it must be used to accomplish a specific purpose. Specific purposes for using oral reading with accompanying guidelines are noted in this section. One purpose for using oral reading is to help students further develop reading comprehension. Some students may need to learn how to visualize when reading, whereas others may need to learn how to use signals provided by the author to convey an idea (that is, typographical signals). At least three guiding principles must be adhered to for effective use of these and other oral reading strategies meant to enhance comprehension. First, the specific strategy must be identified. Do students need to learn to visualize? Then induced imagery would be a good choice. Do students need to learn to attend to features such as enlarged print to see how doing so helps with understanding text? If so, then using a strategy such as “look for the signals” (Opitz and Rasinski, 1998) would be a good choice. Second, specific examples from children’s literature selections need to be provided. This is essential, for it shows children how authors actually use words and other typographic symbols to convey their ideas. Using children’s literature also helps students connect the exercise with actual reading experiences. In other words, they can see the 415
Oral Reading
A student reads to her classmates (Elizabeth Crews)
all students might locate and practice reading a poem that they want to share with others. Poetry books such as In the Swim (Florian, 1997), Sawgrass Poems (Asch and Levin, 1996), and When a City Leans against the Sky (DeFina, 1997) are but three choices that can be made available to students. Then, too, students might practice reading a script and read it to others (that is, readers’ theater). A Readers Theater Treasury of Stories (Braun and Braun, 1996) is but one example of the numerous resources available that provides such scripts. Regardless of how students share, when they are expected to share or perform for others, two guiding principles must be in place. First, students must be provided with ample time to prepare. This preparation is essential, for it enables the reader to work out any problem areas before sharing with an audience. As a result of this preparation, the reader comes across as a fluent, confident reader who is mainly concerned with sharing information with others. Second, readers must be provided with an interested audience.
connection with the lesson and with everyday reading. Finally, students need to be provided with meaningful practice. This provides students with time to actually use the skill that has just been taught as they read, making their internalization of it more likely. Books such as Maniac Magee (Spinelli, 1990), Dear Mr. Henshaw (Cleary, 1983), Alligator Baby (Munsch, 1997), and When Papa Snores (Long, 2000) are but a few examples. Students can be reminded to use visualizing or attend to typographical cues as they read throughout the day. Students might also be encouraged to share examples of what they have discovered. A second reason for using oral reading is to help students see that oral reading is used to communicate with others. This is usually accomplished through some sort of sharing or performing. For example, at the conclusion of reading an article or a book, students might highlight one idea that caught their attention, read it aloud to interested others, and state why it is important. This can occur with any text. At other times, 416
Oral Reading This ensures that communication can take place because the individuals on the receiving end really want to hear what another has to share or have a desire to be a part of the performance. A third reason for using oral reading focuses on students who struggle with reading for one reason or another. Sometimes their struggle is related to one of the comprehension strategies noted above. If students struggle with comprehension because they have difficulty creating images, then oral reading can be used to show them how to do just that. Other times, students struggle because they fail to grasp the idea that the essence of reading is comprehension. As a result, they fail to monitor their own reading to ensure that it is making sense. Using oral reading with these students can help them to develop a sense of monitoring. While reading aloud, they can hear themselves and are more likely to see if their reading makes sense. Then, too, some students need to hear themselves read orally as an additional reinforcement for what they have read. Hearing it makes them able to recall what they have read. As with the first two reasons for using oral reading, there are guiding principles to ensure that oral reading is being used most effectively with struggling readers. The first is to identify their specific needs. The second one is to provide these students with meaningful practice using real texts, texts written by authors to communicate ideas to children (that is, authentic texts). Do students need to focus on reading with fluency, phrasing, and/or reading with expression? If so, they can be encouraged to read poetry, as it is written in phrases. It actually forces students to do the same. School Supplies (Hopkins, 1996) is but one excellent resource. Third, these students need to be exposed to the most effective oral reading teaching strategies. Round-robin reading (that is, expecting students to read a passage to others without rehearsal while others follow along) should be avoided as it does not adhere to any of the guiding principles noted above. A fourth reason for using oral reading is to assess students’ reading. This is one of the best ways to better understand how students approach reading. A first step in determining how to use oral reading to assess reading is to determine what needs to be known. Next, we can determine why this information is needed. An appropriate assessment strategy can then be
selected. For example, one might be interested in learning about a reader’s fluency because fluency can affect reading comprehension. If fluency is a problem, lessons can be designed to focus on helping the learner develop greater fluency. To assess for fluency, a learner can orally read a passage and an examiner can listen. Does the student read word-by-word? Does the student read in two- and three-word phrases? Is the reading a combination of run-ons and pauses in the middles of sentences, making the reading sound somewhat choppy? Does the student read with phrases? Questions such as these can be used as an examiner listens. Notations can be made on note-taking guides. At other times, one might want to know if a reader uses all three language cues when reading (that is, semantic, syntactic, grapho-phonic). Proficient readers use all three in concert with one another. Therefore, discovering the degree to which readers use the various language cues can shed light on the type of instruction they need to be provided. Students can be asked to read a passage, and as they read, the assessor can make notations on a similar copy, which can then be analyzed (that is, miscue analysis). There are three guidelines that must be adhered to when using oral reading to assess students. The first is privacy. Privacy better ensures that the learner is focused on the task at hand rather than performing for others. Consequently, the results of the assessment are more valid. Second, the assessor needs to record what is heard. This written record provides accountability as well as a starting place for designing instruction. Third, the information that is revealed from the assessment needs to be used to provide appropriate instruction. This is the reason that the assessment is completed in the first place. For example, if the analysis reveals that the student focuses on how words look and little attention is given to meaning, then instruction can focus on helping the student learn how to use meaning as well as visual cues when reading. Finally, oral reading can be a way to involve parents. They can be encouraged to share information obtained from a variety of resources such as magazines, newspapers, and/or books to their children via oral reading and ask their children to do the same. More often than not, though, parents want to help their children be the best readers they can, but they need some suggestions 417
Oral Reading for how to do just that. Two guiding principles come into play. One is communication; the second is “know-how.” Because many parents are not educators, they need to be taught a specific strategy to use at home. Providing them with a specific strategy as well as a brief explanation to successfully complete the activity better ensures that they will use it. For example, they can be shown how to do paired reading. Using this technique, parents learn how to set a time limit for reading and what to do when their children come to words that pose difficulty. Parents can also be shown how to use captioned television with their children. Turning on the captions and turning down the volume, parents and their children can read to one another as a show progresses. Parents can also be shown how to do a more focused fifteen-minute activity in which they focus on rereading a poem with their children, talking about the meaning and their interpretations of it. They can also focus on interesting words. All of these are ways to better involve parents, ensuring that meaningful, enjoyable additional reading experiences occur at home.
more on how oral reading is used, however, than on oral reading itself. As noted, oral reading can be used to accomplish specific purposes. Michael F. Opitz See also Fluency; Round-Robin Oral Reading; Silent Reading References Asch, Frank, and Fred Levin. 1996. Sawgrass Poems: A View of the Everglades. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. Braun, Win, and Carl Braun. 1996. A Readers Theatre Treasury of Stories. Calgary, Alberta: Braun and Braun Associates. Buswell, Guy T. 1923. The Silent Reading Hour. Chicago: Wheeler. Cleary, Beverly. 1983. Dear Mr. Henshaw. New York: Dell. DeFina, Allan. 1997. When a City Leans against the Sky. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills. Florian, David. 1997. In the Swim. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hopkins, Lee B. 1996. School Supplies. New York: Scholastic. Long, Melinda. 2000. When Papa Snores. New York: Simon and Schuster. Munsch, Robert. 1997. Alligator Baby. New York: Scholastic. Opitz, Michael, and Timothy Rasinski. 1998. Goodbye Round Robin: 25 Effective Oral Reading Strategies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Schotter, Roni. 2000. Captain Bob Sets Sail. New York: Atheneum. Smith, Nila Banton. 1925. One Hundred Ways of Teaching Silent Reading for All Grades. Chicago: World Book. Spinelli, Jerry. 1990. Maniac Magee. New York: Little, Brown. Wardlaw, Lee. 1997. Punia and the King of the Sharks. New York: Dial.
Criticisms of Oral Reading Although oral reading can be used to achieve purposes as noted above, oral reading is often criticized. The largest criticism is that it is used inappropriately. That is, the guiding principles noted earlier are not followed. For example, children are expected to read to others in a roundrobin manner (one after another) without rehearsal as others follow along. Their reading errors are recorded and used when noting reading progress. At other times, oral reading is used to fill time or as an attempt to manage the classroom rather than for a genuine purpose such as to share information or show evidence of comprehending all or part of a specific part of a text. Criticisms such as these are understandable given the guidelines noted above. They focus
418
P Peer and Cross-Age Tutoring
Charles Greenwood and his colleagues found that peer tutoring is an effective way to increase the time that learning-disabled or low-performing readers spend in active, individualized instruction and learning time with high success rates, as well as increased opportunity to read. Students also had increased opportunities to respond and demonstrated increased time on task (Greenwood, Delquadri, and Hall, 1988). One effective program, the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) program for secondthrough fifth-grade students (Simmons et al., 1995), is conducted three times a week for twenty
Peer tutoring programs (Greenwood, Delquadri, and Hall, 1989; Simmons et al., 1995;) and crossage tutoring programs (Taylor et al., 1997) have been effective in increasing elementary students’ reading achievement. In addition to benefiting the younger children who are tutored, older students who are themselves struggling readers have been found to benefit when they serve as tutors (Labbo and Teale, 1990). The reading skills of average as well as struggling readers have been enhanced from peer-age tutoring (Mathes et al, 1998).
Mentor and child reading a book at a community youth center (Skjold Photographs)
419
Peer Discussion age Reading: A Strategy for Helping Poor Readers.” The Reading Teacher 43:362–369. Mathes, Patricia G., Jill K. Howard, Shelley H. Allen, and Douglas Fuchs. 1998. “Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for First-Grade Readers: Making Early Reading Instruction More Responsive to the Needs of Diverse Learners.” Reading Research Quarterly 33:62–95. Simmons, Deborah C., Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Patricia G. Mathes, and Janie P. Hodge. 1995. “Effects of Explicit Teaching and Peer-Mediated Instruction on the Reading Achievement of Learning Disabled and Low Performing Students.” Elementary School Journal 95:387–408. Taylor, Barbara M., Barbara E. Hanson, Karen Justice-Swanson, and Susan M. Watts. 1997. “Helping Struggling Readers: Linking SmallGroup Intervention with Cross-age Tutoring.” The Reading Teacher 51:196–208.
minutes. Teachers receive training on how to help their students engage in the repeated reading component and the paragraph summarizing component of PALS. Children have demonstrated gains in reading fluency and comprehension. In the first-grade PALS program (Mathes et al., 1998), students engage in a Sounds and Words component in which they work on phonemic awareness and decoding. In a Partner ReadAloud component, students make predictions about a text, read the text, discuss the text, and summarize what they have read. First-grade children in this program demonstrated higher wordreading, fluency, and comprehension scores than students who were not in the program. In the Early Intervention in Reading (EIR) cross-age tutoring program, third- and fourthgrade struggling readers work with first- or second-grade children who are having a difficult time learning to read (Taylor et al, 1997). The older children meet for twenty minutes a day four days a week to get ready to work with their younger tutees. They read their stories repeatedly for fluency, write several questions they will ask their tutee, and select one or two vocabulary words to discuss. They help the younger children with their own reading and then read a story to them, following this up with discussing what they have read and discussing word meanings. The younger children have showed significant gains in their reading comprehension, as measured by standardized test scores, and the older children have shown gains in their reading fluency and attitudes about themselves as readers. There appear to be numerous benefits from peer and cross-age tutoring programs. In addition to improving students’ reading ability, such programs have been found to increase students’ opportunity to read and to have a positive impact on students’ attitudes about reading. Barbara M. Taylor
Peer Discussion Peer discussion is a classroom event in which students collaboratively construct meaning or consider alternate interpretations of texts to arrive at new understandings. During peer discussions, students gather to talk about, critique, and understand texts with minimal teacher assistance. Students determine their own topics of conversation and negotiate the procedural rules and social conventions that govern their discussion. Discourse is lively and focuses on personal reactions, responses, and interpretations of what has been read. Students also use a variety of strategic reading behaviors (for example, comprehension monitoring, imagery, prediction, summarization) and higher levels of abstract and critical thinking (for example, making intertextual connections, critiquing author’s craft) to participate meaningfully in discussions. Participants in peer discussions have often read the same text(s). Nevertheless, peer discussion can be equally effective when participants have read varied texts and use the discussion as a means of examining common and contrasting elements in literary texts (for example, character, theme, author’s craft) and/or informational texts (for example, content). The 1995 National Assessment of Educational Progress results report that students who explained their understanding or discussed interpretations of what they read with friends at least once or twice a week had higher reading achieve-
References Greenwood, Charles R., Judith J. Carta, and R. Vance Hall. 1988. “The Use of Peer Tutoring Strategies in Classroom Management and Educational Instruction.” School Psychology Review 17:258–275. Greenwood, Charles R., Joseph C. Delquadri, and R. Vance Hall. 1989. “Longitudinal Effects of Classwide Peer Tutoring.” Journal of Educational Psychology 81:371–383. Labbo, Linda D., and William H. Teale. 1990. “Cross-
420
Peer Discussion ment than students who reported doing so less frequently. Research has shown that peer discussion provides opportunities for children to grow cognitively, socially, and affectively. More specifically, when students engage in peer discussion, the quality of their discourse and the cognitive processes associated with higher-level thinking (for example, comprehension monitoring, metacognition) are enhanced. Peer discussion fosters meaning construction and evokes more natural conversation, and the extensive amount of talk that students do in peer discussion helps them confirm, extend, and modify their interpretations of text (Eeds and Wells, 1989). Many studies have demonstrated that students exhibit a larger repertoire of types of responses and exhibit positive dispositions when engaged in discussions of this nature (e.g., Martinez et al., 1992; McGee, 1992). Likewise, students themselves find peer discussion valuable in helping them understand what they read, and they view peer discussion as a valuable social outlet for trying out new ideas on subjects within their peer community (Alvermann et al., 1996). As promising as this research sounds, there are limitations and potential drawbacks to peer discussion. Donna Alvermann’s work in particular reminds us that many students do not function successfully within and do not enjoy peer discussion. In her examination of students’ perspectives on peer discussions, she found that some students often feel uncomfortable during peer discussions. The effect of such discomfort is that some students silence themselves, grow disenchanted with peer discussion, or become marginalized within the class. Alvermann (1996) cautioned against viewing peer discussion as an emancipatory event for students. Alternatively, she urged teachers and researchers to attend to the power relations that exist among students and that exist between teachers and students to understand who is being empowered and who is not. Historically, peer discussion has its roots in programs designed by literacy educators to enhance students’ ability to read and respond to text. Various terms have been used to identify peer discussion of text. MaryAnn Eeds, Ralph Peterson, and Deborah Wells (1989) have used the term grand conversations to describe a form of classroom discourse focused on students’ responses to text. Other terms used to refer to these conversations about text include literature circles,
literature discussion groups, and conversational discussion groups. An instructional component is added to the students’ discourse. Students learn social and cognitive strategies for responding to text during an introductory/review phase, a discussion phase, and a debriefing phase. Susan McMahon and Taffy Raphael (1997) have also built an instructional component into their Book Club, a four-part program in which students read literature, write responses to the literature, discuss, and engage in community share. The following definition draws distinctions among varied forms of peer discussion with regard to theory, research, and practice. Characteristics of Peer Discussion Peer discussion is a sociocultural, dialogic, and democratic endeavor that is characterized by four primary features. It has a moral dimension, is student centered, is collaborative, and features dynamic student roles. Each feature is mutually dependent on the others for successful peer discussion to occur. Moral Dimension Peer discussion, like discussion of any form, requires that participants see themselves as contributors to, and beneficiaries of, the discourse. As David Bridges (1979) noted, this requires that participants see themselves as sources of knowledge that will enhance and further the discussion. It also requires that participants be responsive and attentive to others’ contributions. Participants must feel that their contributions are valued. True discussion is impossible when participants view themselves or other participants as authorities. When one member of the group is viewed in such a manner, the others ultimately defer to that authority, leaving little room for authentic dialogue to emerge. This is one reason why the teacher in particular must have a restricted role during peer discussion. Student Centered Classroom discourse is typically structured according to the Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) participation structure in which the teacher’s role is central. This type of discussion is more appropriately called a lecture, a recitation, or a teacher-led discussion. During such events, the teacher often determines the topics of conversations by asking questions (that is, initiation) and 421
Peer Discussion soliciting student responses to those questions. Students in these discussions tend to assume the static role of respondent, and the teacher evaluates their responses to determine their correctness. When such interactions revolve around texts, the underlying theoretical assumption is predicated on the notion that it is possible to attain a single, correct interpretation of text. Such presuppositions are in direct contrast to those that undergird peer discussion. A plethora of research on teacher questionasking behaviors has consistently shown that teachers primarily ask factual, known-answer, or literal types of questions. This type of questioning elicits corresponding student responses, which leads students to read texts literally. When teachers persist in asking literal questions, students adjust their expectations and values accordingly. Students focus on literal readings of texts rather than critical, higher-level, or interpretive readings. A good example of such research comes from J. T. Dillon’s (1998) work on questioning. Dillon examined classroom discussions to determine the characteristic features of classroom discourse. He found that teachers’ questions diminished students’ cognitive, affective, and expressive responses. Likewise, teachers’ questioning stalled and interrupted student discourse to such an extent that it led to decreased motivation, cognitive disengagement, and passivity. During teacher-led discussions, students’ participation is contingent on teacher permission to respond. Work on question-asking behaviors has suggested that certain teacher behaviors (for example, calling on some students less often, providing less wait time for some students, providing evaluative feedback) induce passivity among low-achieving students in particular. Such students choose to remain passive to avoid making mistakes in public. Centralized authority structures, such as teacher-led discussion, impede communication among students, making nonparticipation and passivity an alluring alternative to engagement. In contrast, peer discussion provides a student-centered context in which small groups of students collaboratively interpret and construct meaning about texts. Students initiate topics of conversation and negotiate the procedural rules and conventions (for example, managing talk, cohering topics, and sustaining topics) that guide their discussion. The quality of student discourse
is enhanced, and students engage in higher levels of cognitive processing as a result of peer discussion. Although the teacher does not initiate topics of conversation, ask questions, or evaluate responses during peer discussion, he or she does have a key role as a facilitator and momentary scaffold. The timing and nature of this role are critical. Teachers must model and provide explicit instruction related to interpretation (for example, using interpretive strategies such as making personal connections, critiquing author’s craft) and interaction (for example, how to cohere topics, how to manage the group process), but they must gradually relinquish this responsibility to the students. Teachers must scaffold students in ways that enable them to recognize and resolve conversational dilemmas on their own. Effective peer discussions have minimal teacher talk and minimal teacher interference. Less effective peer discussions feature more teacher talk aimed at scaffolding student conversation—talk that is so extensive that it shortcircuits student thinking, results in less student-to-student discourse, and affects the group’s ability to learn how to manage conversation (Almasi, O’Flahavan, and Arya (2001). In an analysis of the middle-school teacher’s role in content-area reading discussions, Donna Alvermann, David O’Brien, and Deborah Dillon (1987) reported that the teacher’s purpose influenced the type of discussion employed during instruction. When the teacher’s goal was to define terms or provide information, recitation formats were used. When teachers wanted to facilitate comprehension, more open formats (such as peer discussion) were used. Overall, teachers employed recitation forms of discussion more than open formats largely because such formats offered greater social control, greater control over the content that is covered, and control over the pace of instruction. Thus, issues of power and authority may affect the nature of the discussion format employed by teachers. Collaborative Peer discussion involves the collaborative effort, rather than the cooperative effort, of participants. That is, participants gather to jointly construct meaning about text. Each participant may enter the discussion with an individual, temporary understanding of the text, but the discussion serves as a place where all participants are 422
Peer Discussion open to the ideas, opinions, and interpretations of others so that their individual interpretations may be shaped, reshaped, and altered. This view is rooted theoretically in sociocultural perspectives of learning that assume that learners actively construct knowledge in dialogic interactions with others (Vygotsky, 1978). From this perspective, learning involves a relationship between the learner’s cognitive processes and the cultural, historical, and institutional settings in which the learner is situated (Wertsch, 1985). In contrast to traditional perspectives of learning in which learning is viewed as the transmission of skills and knowledge to be applied later in authentic activities, sociocultural perspectives assume that learning develops through talk and interaction with others. Social environments, such as peer discussion, are central to sociocultural theory. Such environments provide learners the opportunity to observe others engaging in cognitive and social processes in which they may not be able to engage on their own. Learning may occur incidentally as learners observe the cognitive and social processes of their peers, or learning may be more direct when teachers or peers function as more knowledgeable others to scaffold learning. As a result of such incidental learning or scaffolded instruction, learners gradually internalize the cognitive and social processes they were previously unable to perform on their own. Peer discussion is a social environment that fosters this type of learning. Through participation in peer discussion, students learn cognitive processes for interpreting literature; such processes may include monitoring their comprehension, making and verifying predictions, summarizing text, making intertextual connections, challenging ideas, and critiquing/evaluating the author’s craft. They also learn social processes for interacting with one another in a productive manner, such as determining topics of conversation, managing the flow of the conversation, taking turns, maintaining/sustaining a topic of conversation, and cohering topics. In contrast to cooperative endeavors, collaborative endeavors such as peer discussion do not have predetermined directions, end products, assigned roles, or reward systems. Whereas in cooperative endeavors goals are more specific and task oriented, the ultimate goal in peer discussion is meaning construction. Because collabora-
tive ventures are jointly produced in a sociocultural context, the goal or product is dynamic, ever evolving, and contingent on participant contributions. The culture that emerges during peer discussion of text is one in which the interactions among group members involve recursive actions and reactions that are influenced by, and influence, one another as they interpret text. That is, what is discussed and where the discussion ends emerge throughout the peer discussion event. Participants are unaware of how their interpretations of text will evolve as a result of peer discussion. As noted earlier, this notion stands in contrast to assumptions that presuppose a single, attainable, correct interpretation. Theoretically this notion relies on transactional and reader-response views of literacy espoused by theorists such Louise Rosenblatt (1978), among others. These theories posit that the reader, the text, and the context are mutually and reciprocally engaged in meaning making. Peer discussion becomes an event in which this process occurs. As readers, texts, and contexts transact, new, alternate, and conflicting interpretations and understandings are derived from the coalescence of ideas. In contrast with teacher-led discussions in which a single interpretation of text is often pursued, peer discussion is grounded in the principle that multiple and contrasting interpretations can coexist because of the wealth of divergent cultures and experiences that individual participants bring to the discussion. Dynamic Student Roles In contrast to the static role of respondent in teacher-led discussions and the assigned roles that characterize cooperative discussions (for example, manager, recorder, word wizard), students in peer discussions assume a variety of roles. These roles are dynamic and may vary from moment to moment depending on the context. That is, at times students may assume the role of initiator to initiate a topic of conversation. At other times they may act as a respondent to others’ comments, or they may act as the monitor of the group’s process by alerting the group that it has strayed from the topic or that the members need to speak one at a time in order to be heard. In other words, in authentic peer discussion the roles that students assume depend on the situation and the context. Roles are neither assigned nor static. This stands in marked 423
Peer Discussion Whose Interest Are Served?” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 39:282–289. Alvermann, Donna E., Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien. 1987. “What Discussion Is and Is Not.” In Donna Alvermann, Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien, eds., Using Discussion to Promote Reading Comprehension, pp. 1–8. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alvermann, Donna E., Josephine Peyton Young, Dera Weaver, Kathleen A. Hinchman, David W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, Esther C. Thrash, and Patricia Zalewski. 1996. “Middle and High School Students’ Perceptions of How They Experience Text-Based Discussions: A Multicase Study.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:244–267. Bridges, David. 1979. Education, Democracy, and Discussion. New York: University Press of America. Dillon, J. T. 1988. Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. Eeds, MaryAnn, and Deborah Wells. 1989. “Grand Conversations: An Exploration of Meaning Construction in Literature Study Groups.” Research in the Teaching of English 23:4–29. Leal, Dorothy. 1992. “The Nature of Talk about Three Types of Text during Peer Group Discussions.” Journal of Reading Behavior 24, no. 3:313–338. Martinez, Miriam, Nancy L. Roser, James V. Hoffman, and Jennifer Battle. 1992. “Fostering Better Book Discussions through Response Logs and a Response Framework: A Case of Description.” In Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, eds., Literacy Research, Theory, and Practice: Views from Many Perspectives, pp. 303–311. Chicago: National Reading Conference. McGee, Lea. 1992. “An Exploration of Meaning Construction in First Graders’ Grand Conversations.” In Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, Literacy Research, Theory, and Practice: Views from Many Perspectives, pp. 177–186. Chicago: National Reading Conference. McMahon, Susan I., and Taffy Raphael, eds. The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. Language and Literacy Series. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rosenblatt, Louise. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinios University Press. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, James V. 1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
contrast to cooperative forms of peer discussion in which students are initially assigned a static role to maintain throughout a given discussion. Educators are often advised to use roles as a means of easing into peer discussion. Theorists posit that assigning roles ensures that all students participate and teaches students how to perform each role. Although there is a substantive body of research on the use of roles in cooperative endeavors, there is little research to support the use of roles in collaborative events such as peer discussion. The assignment of such roles can lead to unnatural discourse and patterns of conversation that are ritualistic, performative, and lacking in authenticity. The assignment of roles also forced students to be positioned and to position themselves to attain power and authority in order to overpower other group members. Such positioning often meant that students were silenced, marginalized, or disenfranchised. It is quite possible that such effects are a product of peer discussion itself, however. When peer discussion is fully decentralized and democratic, all participants negotiate and submit to simple rules of conduct, respect each other’s opinions, are free to express opinions without fear of rebuke, and are prepared to listen to and be affected by one another. Such classroom contexts are ideally free of the trappings of power and authority because all participants are granted equal status and are free to participate in ways and use natural roles that are comfortable for them. Janice F. Almasi See also Discussion; Gender and Discussion; Literature Circles References Almasi, Janice F. 1995. “The Nature of Fourth Graders’ Sociocognitive Conflicts in Peer-led and Teacher-led Discussions of Literature.” Reading Research Quarterly 30, no. 3:314–351. Almasi, Janice F., John F. O’Flahavan, and Poonam Arya. 2001. “A Comparative Analysis of Student and Teacher Development in More and Less Proficient Discussions of Literature.” Reading Research Quarterly 36, no. 2. Alpert, Bracha R. 1987. “Active, Silent, and Controlled Discussions: Explaining Variations in Classroom Conversation.” Teaching and Teacher Education 3, no. 1:29–40. Alvermann, Donna E. 1996. “Peer-led Discussions:
424
Peer Status and Literacy Development
Peer Status and Literacy Development
their culture. These understandings are transmitted to children through speech, social interaction, and the process of cooperative activity. When these interactions occur around literacy, children come to know how the surrounding culture defines literacy and ultimately who they are as literate beings. Sociocultural theory, therefore, has focused attention on how children’s social lives influence aspects of their cognitive development. Within literacy contexts, much of this attention has focused on the by-products of these interactions (for example, enhanced engagement, conceptual change) or on how learning occurs during these interactions, for instance, scaffolding, guided participation), rather than on the nature or quality of the relationships of the participants within these interactions. Support for considering the nature and quality of children’s relationships is provided by decades of research in sociology and psychology, most notably through the work of Steven Asher, William Bukowski, Elizabeth Cohen, Kenneth Dodge, John Gottman, Williard Hartup, Gary Ladd, Jeffrey Parker, and Kenneth Rubin.
Peer status is the degree to which children are accepted versus rejected by their peers. To determine a child’s status among peers, researchers and classroom teachers often use sociometric methods. These methods provide a way to analyze the relationships between members of a small group who are together across extended periods of time, for example, students within a classroom. Research suggests that a child’s status among peers has consequences for that child’s socioemotional development, adjustment to school, achievement, and general well-being. Moreover, children with high peer status are perceived as valued members of the group. They are sought after for companionship, and their peers elevate the importance of their contributions. In contrast, children with rejected or neutral status are rarely sought as companions, and their initiations and contributions are often rebuffed or ignored. These reactions are not confined to play or other social situations, for status characteristics generalize across contexts and are stable across time. When sociometric methods are used to investigate the relationship of participants in collaborative literacy events (for example, children grouped to write a story together), the results suggest that the consequences of interacting with others may be beneficial or detrimental depending on the nature and quality of these relationships. To understand how peer status influences young children’s interactions with classmates during collaborative events, three areas are discussed. They are (1) prominent perspectives of learning about children’s interactions with others, (2) aspects of peer status that are critical to understanding children’s relationships with others, and (3) insights from research that has explored the nature and quality of the relationships between participants in collaborative literacy events.
Relevant Aspects of Peer Status What is peer status? Although peer status and social status often are used interchangeably, Elizabeth Cohen (1994) drew a distinction among three status areas: academic, social, and peer. Academic status refers to children’s competence in learning the school’s curriculum. Social status refers to the characteristics with which children enter a group (for example, sex, socioeconomic level, race), and peer status refers to the degree of acceptance versus rejection of a child by his or her peers. According to Kenneth Rubin, William Bukowski, and Jeffrey Parker (1998), children with high peer status possess two distinctive characteristics: They are socially competent, and they possess the social skills needed for positive interactions with others. Being socially competent enables the children to balance personal goals while maintaining positive interactions, a balance they are able to maintain across time and situations. This competence, these researchers would argue, can be attributed to their knowledge of the social skills needed to behave in socially responsible ways and to solve social tasks (for example, to express emotions in ways that conform to cultural expectations). How is a child’s status determined? Peer nom-
Prominent Perspectives of Learning about Children’s Interactions with Others Sociocultural perspectives of learning have stimulated interest in children’s interactions with others during literacy events. From a sociocultural perspective, individuals come to understand the world and themselves through their interactions with more knowledgeable members of 425
Peer Status and Literacy Development ination and peer rating are the most common procedures used by researchers and classroom teachers to identify group members’ status. With peer nomination, children identify which individuals in a group they would place in particular categories (for example, best friend, friend, not a friend). With peer rating, children rate each person in the group on a Likert-type scale according to some criterion (“How much do you like to work on a reading activity with this person?”) There are several ways to analyze the nominations or ratings gathered from a group. For peer nomination, the simplest is to calculate the number of nominations each child receives for each category. Then, the number in each category is compared to those received by the other children in the group. Children who receive very high or very low nominations for the extreme categories (for example, best friend or not a friend) are grouped into the high status/popular category and the rejected category respectively. Children who receive few very positive (for example, best friend) or negative nominations are categorized as neglected. Some researchers include two additional categories: average for children who receive average nominations for the very positive (for example, best friend) and negative categories and controversial for children who receive higher than average nominations for both positive and negative categories. Analyzing peer ratings is even simpler. A popularity index is determined by averaging the ratings for each child. This becomes that child’s popularity index. Whether a peer nomination or peer rating method is used, decades of use have determined sociometric methods to be reliable, valid, and practical means for identifying status differences among group members. (For a detailed discussion of sociometric procedures, see Rubin, Bukowski, and Parker, 1998.) How are social status effects generalized and reinforced? To illustrate how children’s social lives impact their school and scholastic lives, Gary Ladd, Sandra Birch, and Eric Buhs (1999) investigated the viability of a Child X Environment model (see “Social Nature of Literacy” entry). Briefly, the model demonstrates how entry characteristics of children (gender, preschool experience, cognitive maturity, and family background) influence the children’s behavior when they enter school. This behavior in turn affects the relationships they form with their peers and
teachers, which has consequences for the nature and the degree to which children participate in classroom events. Ultimately, this participation has an impact on the children’s achievement. Ladd, Birch, and Buhs sought to understand how the elements of this model interact by identifying direct and indirect paths among the model’s components. Their research supported the viability of the model. They expanded the relationship domain, however, by explicating the elements within the subcategories of peer acceptance (number of mutual best friendships, peer acceptance, teacher-child closeness) and peer rejection (number of mutual enemies, peer rejection, teacher-child conflict) to distinguish among those elements with significant effects and those with nonsignificant effects. They determined that, among these elements, the level of rejection, rather than the level of acceptance, had stronger effects on the children’s adjustment and achievement. Rejection, they surmised, operates as a stressor to the children and has an impact on their sense of belonging in the class. Children’s responses to their rejected peers, therefore, become barriers to their participation in groups. This diminishes the rejected peers’ involvement in instructional events, a result that, in turn, has consequences for their overall achievement. For decades Elizabeth Cohen (1997) has examined how these status characteristics of students influence their interactions with peers during small- and whole-group instructional events. She would argue that groups form social hierarchies, and expectation status theory provides a useful model for understanding how these hierarchies are created, reinforced, and generalized across instructional contexts. According to this theory, individuals hold expectations for how others will perform as well as expectations for how they themselves will perform. These expectations are demonstrated in the ways the group members behave toward each other. The differences in behavior result in a stratification, or a hierarchical division, of the status characteristic. In addition, the expectations that the members have are relative to others in the group. Thus, one child is perceived as being a more or less desirable companion when compared to others within the group. As a result, some children’s contributions during peer-only instructional events are ignored or rejected, whereas others are sought after and accepted. If these group dynam426
Peer Status and Literacy Development ics are allowed to continue, the net result is a selffulfilling prophecy for the children. Eventually, their views of themselves mirror those of their peers; these self-perceptions affect the children’s own behavior in future group events, which in turn reinforces their classmates’ expectations. Finally, unless the cycle is broken, expectations continue to be reinforced and generalized to other classroom events.
differences in the talk between friends as compared to nonfriends have been found to be qualitative rather than quantitative. Williard Hartup (1996), listening to his colleagues, found that friends spend more time discussing the content and vocabulary used in the writing, engage in less off-task talk, agree more, and propose more alternatives and elaborations. In addition, the written products created by friends included more story problem solutions and fewer errors in syntax and word use and focused more on interpersonal relationships. Researchers such as Anthony Pellegrini and Lee Galda (1998) have examined relationships between the language used during collaborative writing among friends and proximal and distal measures of literacy development. Their previous research had suggested a correlation between children’s use of emotional terms, as evidenced by their expressions of emotions in their conflicts/make-ups, and their use of literate language (a precursor to the school-based literacy language). They reasoned that the positive emotional tenor of the friendship relationship creates an opportunity for the children to reflect upon the constituent cognitive and linguistic processes of literate language. This increased knowledge of the components of literate language, they hypothesized, should have immediate consequences in the type of language used by the children and long-term consequences on more formal measures of literacy growth. Their hypotheses were supported. Friends used more linguistic terms (talk louder) and more cognitive terms (let me think). These effects for use of cognitive and linguistic language were also significantly correlated to proximal and distal measures of literacy development. When sociometric methods are used to identify friendship patterns for all members within a group, such as in a classroom, the quality of each child’s relationship with his or her classmates is determined. When the sociometric ratings or nominations for each child are combined, then that child’s peer status (that is, level of acceptance versus rejection by peers) is revealed. The work of researchers such as Mona Matthews and John Kesner (2000) and Jane West (1996) illustrated the typical patterns of response to classmates with different levels of peer acceptance during collaborative literacy events. Children with high peer status are provided
Peer Relationships and Their Influence during Collaborative Literacy Events Researchers interested in how children’s relationships with their peers influence their behavior during collaborative literacy events have focused on two areas. One area explores the nature of children’s relationship. This research reveals the cognitive benefits to children when they participate with a friend versus a nonfriend during writing events. The second area examines the quality of children’s peer relationship. This research reveals that a child’s status among his or her peers is either a source of support or a barrier to that child’s participation in collaborative literacy events. The nature of the relationship between children influences their interactions during collaborative events. Research suggests that interactions of dyads of friends are qualitatively different from those of nonfriends. Friendship relationships are special. Friends have a mutual interest in being together. This interest increases the children’s desire to resolve conflicts that occur and to resolve them in a balanced equitable manner. The resolution of the conflicts provides opportunities for the children to consider another’s perspective, and because friends interact across time, the repetition provides a unique opportunity for the children to reflect on their strategies, alter unsuccessful ones, and try new strategies. Researchers who have investigated children working with friends would argue that this commitment and reciprocity are what distinguish interactions between friends versus nonfriends and what result in distinctive opportunities for children to develop the ability to take the perspective of another person. This ability to view a situation from another’s perspective has led some to examine dyads of friends versus nonfriends during collaborative writing events for differences in conversation and differences in the final written product. The 427
Phonics Instruction Kindergarten: Related Spheres and Influences.” Child Development 70, no. 6:1373–1400. Matthews, Mona W., and John E. Kesner. 2000. “The Silencing of Sammy: One Struggling Reader Learning with His Peers.” The Reading Teacher 53, no. 5:382–390. Pellegrini, Anthony D., and Lee Galda. 1998. The Development of School-Based Literacy: A Social Ecological Perspective. London: Routledge. Rubin, Kenneth H., William Bukowski, and Jeffrey G. Parker. 1998. “Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups.” In Nancy Eisenberg, ed., Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th ed., pp. 619–700. New York: John Wiley and Sons. West, Jane. 1996. “Getting Help When You Need It: The Relations between Social Status and Third Graders’ Helping Interactions during Literacy Events.” In Donald J. Leu, Charles K. Kinzer, and Kathleen A. Hinchman, eds., Literacies for the 21st Century: Research and Practice, Forty-Fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 59–75. Chicago: National Reading Conference.
assistance when they request it; their offers to help are accepted, and their literacy responses gain approval and are often copied. In contrast, children with rejected peer status often have their requests for help go unheeded; their offers to help are rejected, and their literacy contributions are ignored or rejected. Children with neutral or ignored status often observe rather than participate, their opportunities to participate are usurped, and when they do respond, their literacy responses are corrected. Complicating or supporting these children’s interactions with others during collaborative literacy events is their reading ability. Children with high status who are also competent readers have the social resources of friends to support them as they work as well as the academic resources to draw from if others do not provide help or if the help provided is deemed not useful. Children with rejected or neutral status who are also struggling readers have neither the social resources to draw from for support nor the academic resources needed to complete successfully the assigned literacy task. Often when these children are given a choice of the type of activity to perform, they choose to perform a task that does not require them to read or write. Additional information about how children’s peer status influences behavior and how this behavior influences interactions with peers during collaborative literacy events can be gained from the sources cited in the References section. Mona W. Matthews
Phonics Instruction Phonics is a strategy that involves learning the alphabetic principles of language and knowledge of letter-sound relationships. Children learn to associate letters with the phonemes or basic speech sounds of English, to help them break the alphabetic code and become independent readers. Phonemic awareness is the ability to hear speech sounds in words and to blend and segment these sounds, or phonemes. Phonemic awareness is thought by some to be a precursor to phonics and a strong predictor of the ease or difficulty with which children learn phonics and, subsequently, to read (Adams, 1990). According to Connie Juel (1989), children need to acquire phonemic awareness and the ability to use phonics in order to learn how to read proficiently.
See also Social Nature of Literacy References Cohen, Elizabeth G. 1994. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. 2d ed. New York: Teachers College Press. ———. 1997. “Understanding Status Problems: Sources and Consequences.” In Elizabeth G. Cohen and Rachel A. Lotan, eds., Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms: Sociological Theory in Practice, pp. 61–76. New York: Teachers College Press. Hartup, Williard W. 1996. “Cooperation, Close Relationships, and Cognitive Development.” In William M. Bukowski, Andrew F. Newcomb, and Williard W. Hartup, eds., The Company They Keep, pp. 213–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ladd, Gary W., Sandra H. Birch, and Eric S. Buhs. 1999. “Children’s Social and Scholastic Lives in
Past and Present Phonics Instruction During colonial times to the mid-nineteenth century, reading instruction focused on teaching the basic alphabetic code. The sole purpose of reading instruction was to teach children how to read the Bible and/or patriotic essays. After the midnineteenth century, the purpose of reading expanded from an emphasis on teaching phonics to include encouraging the desire to read and understanding meaning. Soon, researchers and educators began to view phonics and comprehension as an “either-or” situation; that is, educators 428
Phonics Instruction taught reading with an emphasis on either phonics or comprehension. Horace Mann, secretary of the Massachusetts Board of Education in 1837, advocated teaching children meaningful whole words. The meaning-first curriculum was intended to create knowledgeable, intellectual, and independent citizens who would be creative, responsible, and productive. The McGuffey Eclectic Readers, used in the early 1900s, introduced attention to phonics elements, building vocabulary, and increasing difficulty with sentence length. The widespread administration of standardized tests during the 1920s brought public attention to individual differences in reading achievement. As a result, teachers were inspired to try new instructional methods to accommodate these differences. During the 1930s, basal-reader programs were introduced. These basal programs became the staple of reading instruction methodology in the United States for several decades (Strickland, 1998). These materials are revised frequently and reflect the thinking of the times with either more or less meaning-based instruction or phonics. In the 1950s, Rudolph Flesch wrote the book Why Johnny Can’t Read and fueled the flame for the importance of phonics instruction (Flesch, 1985). Research found that beginning reading programs that included early, systematic phonics instruction generally produced better results than those that did not. The reports in Learning to Read: The Great Debate by Jeanne Chall (1967) resulted from an investigation dealing with systematic phonics instruction. This study found that a systematic phonics instruction program was a valuable asset with consistent advantages to beginning reading. From the late 1970s to the late 1990s, phonics was not at the forefront of teaching, research, and methodology. Instead, teaching methodologies included a language experience approach, structured linguistics approach, and whole language. Within the last few years, the emphasis on phonics instruction has become very important again. James Baumann and his colleagues (2000) surveyed teachers representing kindergarten through first grade and found that 63 percent agreed that phonics needs to be taught directly to beginning readers in order for students to become fluent and skillful. Today, the recommended sequence for teaching phonics usually begins with teaching initial
Students in a high school language lab (Skjold Photographs)
and final consonant sounds, then short vowels, long vowels, consonant blends, consonant digraphs, and other structural aspects of words such as vowel digraphs and r-controlled vowels. Systematic phonics instruction refers to teaching a specific sequence of skills like this in phonics. Instructional Approaches Instructional approaches for teaching phonics include analogy phonics, analytic phonics, embedded phonics, onset-rime phonics, phonicsthrough-spelling, and synthetic phonics. Analogy phonics involves teaching students unfamiliar words using an analogy that includes some known words. Through this approach, children are taught to recognize that the rime (the vowel and the letters that follow) segment of an unfamiliar word is identical to that of a familiar word. Students blend the known rime with the new word onset (the initial letter or letters before the first vowel), such as reading frog by recognizing that -og is also contained in the known word dog. 429
Phonics Instruction When teaching students onset-rime analogies, children use rimes and onsets to form new words. For example, with the ending rime -all, ball is changed to fall, hall, call by adding different onsets. Analytic phonics entails teaching students to analyze letter-sound relations in previously learned words to avoid pronouncing sounds in isolation. For example, children are asked to discuss how these words are similar: tree, truck, turn, and talk. Using their prior pronunciation of the letter “t,” the children are able to recognize that all the words begin with the same letter, hence, they are able to recognize each beginning sound “t.” Embedded phonics teaches students phonics skills through reading texts. Students are encouraged to apply the letter-sound relationships, alphabetical principles, and context clues when they approach an unfamiliar word in text. Phonics becomes integrated into their everyday reading and writing process. Teaching students to spell words phonetically, or phonics through spelling, is another approach that teaches students to segment words into phonemes and to select letters for those phonemes. Students write words by transforming sounds into letters. This type of phonics-based spelling is often referred to as invented spelling. Although early writing attempts result in emergent writing behavior, the child’s writing becomes more conventional as she or he develops. Finally, synthetic phonics is an approach that teaches students to convert letters into phonemes and then blend the sounds to form recognizable words. Students begin by pronouncing each letter in isolation. Next, the parts are blended together to create a word. When working with the word cat, the student reads c/a/t, then c-a-t. This approach makes use of the part-to-whole framework.
rectly related to programs that include systematic instruction in letter-to-sound correspondences. In a study of 375 mostly disadvantaged first graders in Houston, Texas, a sequenced or systematic presentation of phonics elements resulted in higher scores on a standardized test than those received by a control group of students who did not receive this sequenced instruction. The National Reading Panel (see “National Reading Panel” entry) concludes that systematic phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in kindergarten through sixth grade and for children having difficulty learning to read. Research is not definite, however, about the best way to teach phonics. Meaningful contexts for teaching phonics can be provided through authentic reading and writing experiences within science and social studies thematic units, children’s literature, experience charts, morning messages, and so on. Meaningful phonics instruction can involve children in auditory, visual, tactile, and kinesthetic activities. Singing songs, playing games such as Initial Sound Bingo, or making an alphabet book are ways to involve children in phonics experiences within meaningful contexts. Phonics instruction occurs incidentally during teachable moments and through the integration of phonics instruction into other areas of the curriculum that provide meaningful contexts. The spontaneous instruction of phonics involves no prior preparation and does not follow a specific schedule or sequence. If the opportunity arises within a text or discussion, the teacher grasps the moment to reinforce a skill. This type of phonics instruction uses the material that is being taught at that particular time, giving a meaningful context in which phonics instruction occurs. Some frequently used word-study strategies to teach phonics include (1) activities with phonograms or word families, which help children to learn sound-symbol relationships, and (2) word sorts and word building with onsets and rimes, which help children to look at bigger chunks of words and patterns in words. In addition, words can be sorted for blends, digraphs, and numbers of syllables. Teachers can ask students to make little words from big words using new vocabulary studied. Teaching specific rules and the use of worksheets to practice the rules are associated with explicit teaching of phonics.
Methods Teaching beginning readers to understand that spoken words are made up of smaller units of sounds and to familiarize them with letter-sound correspondence can be accomplished in many ways. Researchers have promoted various methods for teaching phonics, such as instruction in meaningful contexts, systematic approaches, and taking advantage of teachable moments with spontaneous instruction. According to Marilyn Adams (1990), achievement in word recognition and spelling can be di430
Phonological and Phonemic Awareness References Adams, Marilyn Jager. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge: MIT Press. Allington, Richard L., and Harold Woodside-Jiron. 1997. Adequacy of a Program of Research and of a “Research Synthesis” in Shaping Educational Policy. No. 115. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, University at Albany. Baumann, James F., Ann M. Duffy-Hester, James V. Hoffman, and Jennifer M. Ro. 2000 “The First R Yesterday and Today: U.S. Elementary Reading Instruction Practices Reported by Teachers and Administrators.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:343–353. Bear, Donald R., Marsha Invernizz, Shane Templeton, and Fran Johnson. 2000. Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Chall, Jeanne Sternlight. 1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Cunningham, Patricia. 1955. Phonics They Use: Words for Reading and Writing. 2d ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Flesch, Rudolph. 1985. Why Johnny Can’t Read. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row. Gambrell, Linda B., Lesley Mandel Morrow, Susan B. Newman, and Michael Pressley. 1999. Best Practices in Literacy Instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. Juel, Connie. 1989. “Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children from First through Fourth Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (4):437–447. Morrow, Lesley Mandel. 2001. Literacy Development in the Early Years: Helping Children Read and Write. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Strickland, Dorothy. 1998. Teaching Phonics Today: A Primer for Educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Torgesen, Jack 1998. “Catch Them before They Fall: Identification and Assessment to Prevent Reading Failure in Young Children.” American Educator 22 (Spring/Summer):32–39.
Critical Issues concerning Practice and Research in Phonics When deciding upon the approach and structure in which to teach phonics, teachers must take into consideration the varying developmental levels of the students within their classroom. If children are at the emergent stage in their reading development, we then need to teach the children to recognize and write the letters of the alphabet and to play with the sounds in words. This is done by sorting pictures and categorizing the words in the picture using beginning consonants or rhyming sounds. Likewise, more advanced readers can increase their vocabulary and reading ability through word sorting or making little words from a big word. Teachers should have a center in their classroom that contains materials for practicing phonics skills. Some suggested materials include magnetic letters and boards, flash cards with letters, letter stamps, and word wheels. These materials can be purchased from teacher stores and large school-supply companies or made by teachers, parents, or aides. Teachers can also create many phonics activities that can be used independently to help children learn and review skills. Worksheets may also be used as practice materials to review phonics skills. Teachers need to remember that the main goal of phonics instruction is to teach children to recognize patterns in words so that they are able to identify unfamiliar words independently. Phonics is just one part of a total reading program. Children also need to use the context and syntax of a passage to decode and develop comprehension strategies. Research is not definite on how much emphasis to put on phonics. Most recommend embedded phonics as just one cue system; it is important, however, to teach contextual clues and syntactical clues as well. We need to continue our concern about phonics instruction. We need to find answers to questions such as when to begin teaching phonics, which approaches to use when teaching phonics, and how much time should be spent on phonics instruction. Lesley Mandel Morrow, Taylor Holt, and Amy C. Sass
Phonological and Phonemic Awareness Although the terms phonological awareness and phonemic awareness are sometimes used as synonyms, they are not. Phonological awareness refers to awareness of three aspects of spoken language: words, syllables within words, and
See also National Reading Panel; Phonological and Phonemic Awareness
431
Phonological and Phonemic Awareness sounds or phonemes within syllables and words. Phonemic awareness is the awareness that words are made up of individual sounds. It is one aspect of the larger category of phonological awareness. One of the best ways to remember the differences between the terms is to visualize an umbrella adorned with tassels. Phonological awareness would be the fabric and the frame holding the umbrella together. Phonemic awareness would be one of the tassels hanging from the end of one of the umbrella’s sections. Both terms, however, refer to spoken language. A child who is phonologically and phonemically aware is not necessarily able to connect the sound units with written symbols. Those who write about phonological awareness agree that it develops in stages. Learners first become aware that their spoken language is composed of words. They then progress to the stage in which they become aware that words are constructed of syllables. The last stage is the one in which learners become aware that words and syllables are made up of individual sounds (that is, phonemes).
say, “Tell me the sounds you hear in the word ‘mom.’” Learners might be expected to drop a counter into a cup that represents the sounds heard in the word. Phoneme manipulation is just that—manipulating the sounds within a given word in different ways. Sometimes children are expected to substitute one sound for another, as in “What word do we have if we change the /m/ in man to /p/?” Other times children are asked to add sounds to a given word, as in “Add /s/ to nail. What’s the new word?” Still other times children are expected to delete a sound within a word, such as when the teacher says, “Take away the first sound in gate. What’s the new word?” Views on the Development of Phonemic Awareness At the present time, several investigations have led many to agree that phonological awareness in general and phonemic awareness in particular are related to reading success. That is, children who lack phonemic awareness appear to be more likely to have reading difficulties than those who have it. There are four different views about how and when phonemic awareness develops and how much a child needs in order to be a competent reader. Different theorists have designed and conducted studies to try to address these issues, and the results of their studies have led them to different explanations. One explanation is called the prerequisite view. Those who support this view note that progress in reading is not possible unless learners know that words have sounds and that these sounds are attached to letters. A second explanation is called the consequence view. Those who advocate this view state that phonemic awareness is acquired as a result of learning to read. A third view is called facilitative. Those who hold this view believe that phonemic awareness is a necessary yet not sufficient skill in learning how to read. The fourth view is called the reciprocal view. Advocates of this view support the idea that phonemic awareness helps children learn to read and learning to read helps children become phonemically aware. Although these different views exist, the reciprocal view is the one that is supported by the majority of researchers.
Phonemic Awareness Tasks There are many tasks associated with phonemic awareness, and some are more difficult than others. When children can do all of these tasks, they are considered to have phonemic awareness. Identifying and producing rhyme appears to be the least difficult. Another phonemic awareness task is phoneme matching, which calls for the learner to identify words that have a given sound or generate a word that has a given sound. When children are expected to listen to a sentence and then state the sound that they hear at the beginning of a word or are expected to state some words that begin like a given word, they are performing phoneme matching. Phoneme blending is another phonemic awareness task. This takes place when students are expected to put sounds together to form a given word. For example, the teacher might say, “I’m thinking of a word that names something we have at lunch. It’s /m/ ilk. What’s the word?” Children must blend the first sound with the rest of the sounds to state the word milk. Phoneme segmentation is yet another phonemic awareness task. Children are given a word and asked to tell how many sounds they hear in it. They are also often expected to produce the actual sounds. For example, the teacher might
Fostering Phonological Awareness For most children, phonological awareness is more caught than taught. Children who come to 432
Phonological and Phonemic Awareness kindergarten or first grade with this awareness are those who have been exposed to a rich language environment that included read-alouds, songs, nursery rhymes, poems, and other forms of language play. The reverse is true for those children who are lacking in phonological awareness. That is, more often than not, they have not been afforded with a rich language environment that facilitates an understanding of spoken language. There are six specific suggestions drawn from the work of many individuals who have shed light on how to best help children acquire phonological awareness. First, phonological awareness needs to be embedded into everyday reading and writing experiences. Doing so helps children understand how this awareness of sounds relates to reading and writing. For example, when children hear an adult reading a book, especially if the book emphasizes a specific language feature such as alliteration, the child begins to see that words are made up of sound elements that sometimes sound alike. Second, children need to be afforded time to write using invented spelling. Although it is true that phonological awareness is focused on sounds of language rather than its printed form, there is a wealth of research that points to the value of having children write to develop phonological awareness. As children write they must learn to represent spoken language with written symbols and must hone their skills at segmenting phonemes. Third, children need to hear books that focus on specific language features. Texts such as these draw the learners’ attention to given language features such as rhyme, alliteration, phoneme substitution, and phoneme segmentation. As a result of being exposed to books such as these, children become able to make distinctions among sounds and may develop phonological awareness in general and phonemic awareness in particular in meaningful contexts. Fortunately, there are several such titles being written every year. Clickety Clack (Spence and Spence, 1999) is a rhyming story of what happens when many different kinds and numbers of animals decide they want to ride a train. Much initial consonant substitution is used to create the rhymes, making this an excellent book to use not only for exposing children to rhyme but also for offering some meaningful practice with phoneme substitution. Pignic (Miranda, 1996) is an example of allitera-
tive text in which each member of the pig family brings something to the pignic that begins with the same sound that begins his or her name. Children can join in the fun by going on their own imaginary picnic by bringing along some item that begins with the same sound as their name. Things That Are Most in the World (Barrett, 1998) is a repetitive text that tells about some of the silliest, heaviest, and smelliest things in the world! Once finished reading the book, children can learn more about phoneme deletion by playing the take-away game. Using words from the text, children might be asked to “Take /est/ away from wiggliest. What’s the new word?” Earthsong (Rogers, 1998) is a poetry text that includes a rhythmic, rhyming pattern as parents and their offspring have dialogues. Therefore, this is an excellent book to help children further understand rhyme. Songs can also be used to further children’s understanding of phonological awareness. One way songs are used is in song picture books. These are books that have been created to illustrate a specific song. For example, Hush, Little Baby (Frazee, 1999) is true to the original song, but updated illustrations are used. Once children have sung the song, each word can be framed on a second reading to help children understand word boundaries. Finally, texts that use language in playful ways, such as those written by Dr. Suess, help children to see that we often play with the sounds in our language. Along with this learning is a heightened sense of phonological awareness. For example, in Altoona Baboona (Bynum, 1999), the author inserts a sound at the end of several words, making this a perfect book to help children further understand sound deletion or sound addition. Children can be directed to take the last sound off of the word and say the remaining word (that is, phoneme deletion) or add a sound to the end of their names (that is, phoneme addition). Fourth, children need to be engaged with oral language activities that are fun. Some children may need more explicit instruction to develop all levels of phonological awareness. If so, these children need to be engaged with the three points listed above as well as with activities that will stimulate their curiosity and understanding of their spoken language. If children need to understand that words represent a sound unit, then they can be provided with some sort of counters. 433
Policy Issues in Testing
Policy Issues in Testing
Once a story has been read, students can be directed to pick up a counter for each word they hear. If children need to better understand that words are constructed of syllables, children can be invited to clap out the parts as words are read aloud. If students need additional practice with recognizing that words are made up of individual sounds (that is, phonemes), children can be asked to tell the sounds they hear in given words from the story. Fifth, just where children need help must be identified. This can be accomplished through observing children as they participate in literacyrelated activities such as writing. Observations during writing could reveal those children whose writing shows spaces between words and words written using representative symbols for sounds. If so, this would indicate that the child has developed a sense of all levels of phonological awareness previously explained. Sixth, families need to be involved. One way to accomplish this is to provide a book and a brief explanation that tells how to complete an accompanying activity. For example, if the book that is being sent home contains much alliteration, the letter can explain how to point out to the child that all of the words on a given page begin with a certain sound. The child can then be asked to listen for the sound and to state it after a page has been read. The parent can then be instructed to have the child think of other words that begin with the same sound. In any case, the letter needs to focus on exactly what the parent needs to do with the book and the child. Michael F. Opitz
Between 1992 and 2000, the percentage of fourth graders at or above the proficient achievement level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) increased by a small but statistically significant amount. During that same time period, however, the scores for high-performing students improved while the scores for lower-performing students lost ground. Are we making progress or losing ground? What do we keep on doing, and what do we need to change? How do we help all of our children become more successful? These policy questions are important and difficult to answer. Clearly, however, testing plays a crucial role in policy discussions. “Testing” often conjures up images of children sitting in rows, writing short answers or filling in bubble sheets. When policymakers and the general public think about tests, they often think about large-scale standardized tests. But a huge range of assessment instruments, techniques, and philosophies exists. Most important, different approaches to assessment can serve different kinds of audiences. Assessments can help (1) students take more control of their own learning, (2) teachers focus their instruction more effectively, (3) educators determine student eligibility for special programs, (4) parents understand more about their children’s progress, (5) administrators understand how students in their schools are progressing, (6) citizens understand how groups of students across the state or nation are progressing, and (7) policymakers monitor the effectiveness of reform initiatives, including school finance, resource allocation, governance, or changes in curriculum. The tests used in policy discussions are often one kind of assessment—standardized, highstakes tests. These tests often dominate the policy discussions surrounding education, but they are not usually the kinds of assessments that are most useful on a day-to-day basis for students, parents, teachers, and other educators. In addition, the tests used for the purposes of policy often conflict with and overwhelm the assessments used for other purposes. With that caveat, let us focus on some of the important policy issues in testing that occur at the state and national levels.
See also Children’s Literature; Phonics Instruction References Barrett, Judi. 1998. Things That Are Most in the World. New York: Atheneum. Bynum, Janie. 1999. Altoona Baboona. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Frazee, Marla. 1999. Hush, Little Baby. San Diego, CA: Browndeer/Harcourt. Miranda, Anne. 1996. Pignic. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills. Rogers, Sally. 1998. Earthsong. New York: Dutton. Spence, Rob, and Amy Spence. 1999. Clickety Clack. New York: Viking.
Testing and Policy Over the past twenty years, a host of reports, such as A Nation at Risk (National Commission 434
Policy Issues in Testing on Excellence in Education, 1983), have warned about two related crises in American education. The first crisis is that of the low levels of academic achievement of American students and the need for “world-class” standards of learning so that the United States can remain economically competitive. The second crisis is the continued low academic achievement of many minority and poor children and the importance of helping all children obtain an equitable and adequate education. These crises have spurred a variety of reform efforts since the 1980s, including the current attempts at systemic reform. Systemic reform focuses on improving student achievement by (1) the promotion of meaningful goals and standards for all students; (2) the increased focus on accountability and assessment of students, teachers, and schools; (3) the alignment of policy approaches and the coordination of educational, economic, social, and health institutions; (4) the restructuring and alignment of public education governance; (5) an increase in the funding and other resources needed; and (6) an increased focus on the classroom teacher. This larger context of reform helps frame many of the policy issues in testing. Tests, particularly large-scale, high-stakes tests, are supposed to provide policymakers and the public with information needed to set priorities, evaluate methods, distribute resources, and guide other decisions surrounding public education. Are current approaches to testing fulfilling these policy expectations? Here are four of the most important issues surrounding this key question:
areas of reading/language arts and other academic areas. In the best of cases, these standards are thoughtful, comprehensive, and rigorous. Unfortunately, too many of the tests used to measure whether children are meeting these standards are better at measuring basic knowledge and skills than they are at measuring higher-order abilities including reasoning and problem solving. Moreover, these tests often serve as the only measure of student success. We will examine those concerns next. Are Tests Having a Positive Effect on Students’ Learning? Critics argue that the tests used in policy decisions are based upon outdated models of learning and that they narrow the curriculum and redefine the goals of education in destructive ways, particularly for poor students, minority students, and students with diverse linguistic backgrounds. One of the ways to solve these problems is offered by the movement toward using more authentic and multiple measures of learning. Advocates such as Linda Darling-Hammond (1994) believe that more authentic forms of assessment, based on current models of learning, enhance and strengthen the curriculum, are easily understood by stakeholders, and produce valid results and positive educational consequences for all children. Authentic assessment occurs in the context of a meaningful learning environment and reflects worthwhile learning experiences that can be assessed in a variety of ways, including work samples, portfolios, presentations, and projects. Authentic assessments may include individual as well as group tasks. Emphasis is placed on the student’s understanding, growth, and ability to engage in self-reflection, rather than on responses based only on recall of isolated facts. Authentic assessments are intended to enhance teachers’ ability to provide effective instruction and parents’ understanding of their children’s growth. Researchers such as Peter Winograd, Rebecca Blum Martinez, and Elizabeth Noll (1999) believe that authentic assessments offer a great deal of promise as tools for policymakers. For example, authentic assessments provide a way to change the focus of testing from ranking and sorting students to a richer view of students’ abilities that supports meaningful and constructive changes in
Are Tests Valid Measures of Learning? The essential characteristic of any test is that it is valid—the test actually measures what it is supposed to measure. The issue of validity is always crucial, but never more so than when tests are used to make high-stake decisions about students, teachers, and schools. Perhaps the most crucial policy issue in testing related to validity is that too many of the tests used do not accurately measure what students are expected to learn. Central to most current reform movements is the identification of content standards and achievement standards. What should students know and be able to do? Most states and districts have developed extensive frameworks of what students should know and be able to do in the 435
Policy Issues in Testing curriculum and instruction. Because authentic assessments focus on documenting learning on an ongoing basis and recognize variation in learning contexts, they can be a particularly useful tool for revealing the strengths and needs of minority language and literacy learners. But authentic forms of assessment can be misused as well. The most likely danger is that too much focus will be on the tests, whatever their form, and not enough on the resources and tools schools need to succeed. This issue comes next.
But another major policy issue in testing is the testing of teachers themselves. The rationale is that teacher quality is the key to student achievement, and policymakers need to ensure that only qualified individuals enter the teaching profession. Currently forty-two states require teacher candidates to pass one or more tests to earn a license. The failure rates on these tests are significant, particularly for teacher candidates from different ethnic and racial backgrounds. The issues surrounding teacher testing are complex (for example, Mitchell et al., 2001), but one is particularly relevant for this entry. Most of the teacher examinations include a subtest or tests on teaching practices, including the teaching of reading and the language arts. Several states, including New Mexico, have tests that focus specifically on the teaching of reading. The issues that are beginning to emerge include: Who makes the decisions about what kinds of reading practices and philosophies are included in these tests? What effects are these tests having on who becomes a teacher? How valid are the tests? Are tests an effective way to ensure that teachers can actually teach reading?
Are Tests Part of a Systemic Approach to Reform? Testing must be coupled with adequate resources, effective practices, stable governance, and other critical conditions necessary for students and teachers to be successful. It takes more than testing to make educational policy work. An assessment system that provides accurate information about students’ learning must be embedded in a system that provides students with rich opportunities to learn. The National Council on Educational Standards and Testing (1992) argued that adequate opportunities to learn are a critical condition for valid and fair use of assessment results. Embedding tests in a larger framework of support is crucial and—unfortunately—a lesson still to be learned. Each year, Education Week publishes a special report entitled Quality Counts, with current surveys and the latest information on the status of education reform in the United States. The 2001 report concluded that states may be placing too much emphasis on tests and not enough emphasis on the resources and policies needed for students and teachers to meet higher expectations. For example, of the eighteen states that require that students pass a test to earn a diploma, fifteen require students to get additional help if they fail the tests. Only nine of the fifteen states pay for such assistance. Helping policymakers understand that testing is only part of improving education is particularly difficult because of the costs associated with teacher salaries, professional development, technology, curriculum, social support, and the other elements of systemic reform.
The Future of Testing and Policy How do we help all of our children become more successful? Are we making progress or losing ground? What do we keep on doing, and what do we need to change? These questions are unlikely to change in the future. Indeed, they should not change as long as parents and communities care about their children’s education. Well-designed, carefully used assessments can help answer these questions. But it is clear that the overuse and misuse of testing has been and continues to be a problem. The current emphasis on accountability is likely to make the problem worse. Fortunately, many educators and decisionmakers are attempting to ensure that the assessments used in policy decisions (1) are a valid measure of meaningful learning, (2) have positive effects on children’s learning, (3) are embedded in a system of adequate resources and support, and (4) strengthen the teaching profession. In the long run, however, testing for the purposes of policy may help all children succeed, but only to the extent that adults choose to solve the technical, social, and political issues that surround any approach to testing. Peter Winograd
Can Tests Ensure Effective Teaching? So far, the discussion has focused on the tests given to students to measure their achievement. 436
The Political Nature of Literacy and sexual orientation, among others, within contexts and relationships that are constructed in particular times and places. In this sense, being literate embodies situated, social practices and actions that are part of a cultural model for particular groups of people. Because literacy reflects individuals’ values and beliefs within particular discourse groups and because these values are struggled over, negotiated, and forwarded through relations of power, literacy is unavoidably political. Further, literacy education, like any educational endeavor, is inherently political because it likewise involves a mobilization of values and power relations among people. The fact that literacy education is political, however, is not to say that it should be politicized. In other words, literacy education should not be used by political groups as a means of forwarding their ideological agendas through the singular control of curricular methods, definitions, or approaches to teaching. Literacy educators already work with their values in place, although they may be unexamined. Literacy educators are free to make choices about literacy instruction based on their own beliefs and hopes for their students and communities. Of course, some are freer than others to make such choices, and often this freedom is variously constrained or enabled by macro- and micropolitical power structures. Briefly, macropolitical power structures involve the use of sovereign power. These may include federal or state efforts to award grant monies to schools that follow particular guidelines for reading instruction and assessment, national or state standards that define literacy and literacy instruction in particular ways, or adjustments to student enrollment in special programs such as Head Start. When politicized, options for literacy education are frequently narrowed to promote a consensus around forwarding one possibility that reflects the values of one group. At a different level, micropolitical structures involve disciplinary or normalizing power as it circulates in and among various discourse groups and individuals. As an example of this, Michelle Fraatz (1987) reminded us that struggles over literacy do not exclusively involve the sovereign power of government. Fraatz wrote that reading teachers’ daily work involves mobilizing their own biases and beliefs about what is best and good for their students within the con-
See also Accountability and Testing; Authentic Assessment; Economics of Literacy Development; English as a Second Language (ESL) Literacy Evaluation and Assessment; High-Stakes Assessment; Kid Watching and Classroom Evaluation; National Assessment of Educational Progress; Portfolios; Public Opinion and Literacy; Standardized Test Score Decline; Standardized Test Score Interpretation; Standardized Testing; Standards References A Better Balance: Standards, Tests, and the Tools to Succeed. 2001. Education Week Special Issue 20 (17) (January 11). Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1994. “Performancebased Assessment and Educational Equity.” Harvard Educational Review 64:5–30. Mitchell, Karen, David Robinson, Barbara Plake, and Kaeli Knowles. 2001. Testing Teacher Candidates: The Role of Licensure Tests in Improving Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.” Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. 1992. Raising Standards for American Education: A Report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American People. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Winograd, Peter, Rebecca Blum Martinez, and Elisabeth Noll. 1999. “Alternative Assessments of Learning and Literacy: A U.S Perspective.” In Daniel Wagner, Richard Venesky, and Brian Street, eds., Literacy: An International Handbook, pp. 203–210. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
The Political Nature of Literacy James Gee (1999) defined literacy as the mastery of the language of a secondary discourse, including the signs, symbols, gestures, texts, and actions acceptable to particular communities. He explained that discourses are identity kits that attune individual’s actions and language within particular contexts that are ever changing. Because of this, literacy likewise is ever changing, as meanings are never fixed and individuals continually work to negotiate new and variable discourses within the broader contexts of society. Individuals come to read the world differently based on their own values, which are in turn influenced by factors such as class, race, gender, 437
The Political Nature of Literacy texts of their classrooms and schools. Such mobilization of bias affects others involved in education, from children to parents, specialists, and administrators. Fraatz contended that teachers have much power in relation to educational issues and that recognition of this power will help them to take charge of struggles for classroom control. The values individuals bring to bear on decisions about literacy education become manifest in multiple representations of literacy by various groups. If we consider the major political groups in a very general sense, we recognize different representations of literacy evident in claims about what literacy is and what it should do. Each representation is defined through a dialectical interpretation of what it means to be literate and illiterate within particular contexts, accompanied by some measure of self-interest that often politicizes literacy education. In Reading Poverty, Patrick Shannon (1998) helped us to understand how these political agendas for literacy surface in a variety of contexts and forms. Joel Spring’s (1997) work in Political Agendas for Education helped us to more generally understand major political parties and their roles in education policy. Following is a brief description of four predominant political orientations—conservative, neoconservative, neoliberal, liberal—followed by a short explanation of the alternative perspectives offered through a radical democratic position. These descriptions draw largely from both Shannon’s and Spring’s research, and supporting examples tend to be based on literacy education (although it should be noted that these examples could apply more broadly to literacy).
ditional Anglo-Saxon values, at the exclusion of secular humanism, feminism, multiculturalism, and vegetarianism from textbooks and curriculum. Because conservatives tend to believe that individuals are genetically predisposed toward certain intellectual abilities, their education agendas typically include reduction in funding to programs such as Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act or to public schools in general. Robert Sweet and the National Right to Read Foundation, as well as Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s work in The Bell Curve (1994), represent conservative views of literacy education. Neoconservatives Neoconservatives define literacy in terms that reflect their hopes to improve what they tend to see as a moral crisis in the United States. According to a neoconservative logic, this moral crisis keeps people in poverty, a situation that Anglo-Saxon moral resolutions can serve to ameliorate. Neoconservatives, who view bureaucracy and multicultural education as key problems in education, expect that literacy education can thrive in competitive school environments. Further, they anticipate that the hard work of learning to read will be rewarded through an ability to read stories conveying moral lessons that will in turn help those who are literate to change their position in life. William Bennett is perhaps the most outspoken and prolific neoconservative, but if you listen carefully you can hear neoconservative values when First Lady Laura Bush reads to children in public schools and when Lynne Cheney, wife of Vice President Dick Cheney, works through the Committee to Review National Standards in order to revise the Anglo omissions she perceives in the national history standards.
Conservatives Conservative groups tend to rationalize reading aptitude according to the discriminatory logic of intelligence tests. In other words, the aim is to demonstrate differences across individuals and groups with an expectation that reading instruction should correspond with the potential (often described in genetic terms) that each child has to learn to read in English. Learning to read helps each individual to live up to his or her expected station in life, and any inequality in wealth or learning is perceived as natural and even necessary in a free market economy. Conservative education agendas typically reflect attempts to unify communities around Christian and/or tra-
Neoliberals Sharing the neoconservative commitment to market-based, competitive solutions for public education, neoliberals find literacy to be an essential skill that, if acquired at an early age, can secure success in school and later in the job market. Neoliberals aim to provide more efficient education, based on corporate business models, through standards and high-stakes testing. Literacy success is considered vital to economic success in a new global work order. Former president Bill Clinton was the first U.S. president to be 438
The Political Nature of Literacy considered neoliberal, and many of his education policies were directed toward assuring that all children learned to read by the end of the third grade. America Reads, School-to-Work initiatives, and the Improving America’s Schools Act were just a few of the policies that reflected the Clinton administration’s neoliberal values. In addition to Bill Clinton, we see neoliberal values surface in the for-profit agendas of the Edison schools, in the materials published by the New Standards movement, and in the words of E. D. Hirsch Jr. as he offers what every American needs to know in order to meet with success.
what literacy can and should do. Diverse representations of literacy can be found in the work of critical educators such as Michael Apple, Peter McClaren, and Donaldo Macedo, who study broader social conditions with a concern for the relationship between theory and society. There are also critical race theorists, such as Gloria Ladson-Billings, who put race at the center of critical questions about society and culture. Other alternatives can be found in postcolonialist work, including that of historian Robin D. G. Kelley, who attempts to describe and understand the experience of colonized peoples both before and after colonization. Meanwhile, postmodern feminists, including Sandra Hollingsworth, ask questions about gender, power, and identity within a context that rejects modernity or grand theories. These diverse influences have the potential to redefine literacy and literacy education in postmodern times. Meanwhile, principles of radical democracy can be found in Jonathan Kozol’s hopes for children attending school and living in toxic urban communities, in Henry Giroux’s advocacy for a revitalized public sphere, and in bell hooks’s calls for teaching to be an act of transgression that runs against the grain of current racial and economic injustice. Understanding the political nature of literacy, particularly its ideological and epistemological forms, helps us to recognize how powerful groups have worked together to conceptualize literacy and literacy education and how these views play out in public forums, policies, instruction, and assessment. Attending to these concerns also sheds light on the ways in which these groups convince others of their claims by making their own beliefs seem natural and selfevident, thereby invalidating the alternative suggestions others may pose. Tracing epistemological understandings of literacy through time and place helps us to perceive historically how literacy has been influenced by the values, beliefs, and goals of those in power, allowing us to better grasp who has benefited and who has been left out. Just briefly, for example, in the early days of this country there were laws either encouraging or limiting access to literacy for Americans. Massachusetts’s 1647 Old Deluder Satan Act was passed to ensure that at least one colonist in a community could read a Bible in order to help protect the settlement against evil. Yet, the 1819 Missouri Literacy Law made it illegal to teach
Liberals Liberals tend to move away from the competition-based agendas of conservatives, neoconservatives, and neoliberals, instead viewing literacy as a basic human right for all Americans. They consider this right to often be restricted based on institutional, social, and/or private discrimination. Liberals seek to find the best methods of instruction that can reach all children, regardless of race, class, gender, and sexual orientation, thus enabling children from all backgrounds to learn to read. In addition, liberals hope to increase access to texts for children living in high-poverty areas and hope that multicultural education and bilingual programs can lead to a society in which tolerance of other races, classes, and genders is possible. Liberal rhetoric can be heard in Minnesota’s U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone’s pleas to diminish the range and impact of high-stakes testing, which he sees as excluding children from public education, and in Jesse Jackson and his Rainbow Coalition’s efforts to eliminate racial, cultural, and gender biases in curriculum and textbooks. Radical Democrats From an alternative position, radical democrats find literacy to be essential for a participatory democracy in which individuals and groups can struggle to transform communities into a more just and equitable society. Inspired by prominent educators and revolutionaries such as Paulo Friere, Myles Horton, and Che Guevara, radical democrats see literacy as central in work toward empowerment and transformative social change that would potentially result in different ideological understandings of literacy, different practices to teach and assess literacy, and different aims for 439
Popular Culture
Popular Culture
slaves to read and write. In more recent times, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s War on Poverty defined literacy through liberal terms that would allow the poor to improve their position in life by getting a “head start” on schooling and additional services through Title I programs in reading and math. Meanwhile, California’s 1998 Proposition 227 mandated English-only instruction in public schools, a move that had a direct impact on the education of more than 1 million students in spite of teacher and parent protests against the law. We cannot avoid the fact that literacy is political. Those who claim that we can are in fact making a political statement. What we can do is work against those who would politicize literacy and literacy education into simple solutions for the advancement of their own ideologies. As Chantal Mouffee (1995) reminded us, the tensions between consensus and dissensus, between values and interpretations, are central to the survival of a democracy. These struggles make collective political identities possible, in turn allowing positions to be clearly identified and real alternatives to be offered. If we embrace the fact that literacy involves value-laden work, we can then use our understandings, our political literacy, to create public spaces where educators, community members, and others can openly struggle to define, teach, and assess literacy in ways they decide are best. Jacqueline Edmondson
Popular culture is often defined as the large-scale acceptance of and pleasure in a particular text produced for audience consumption. Popular culture texts may include books, movies, music, magazines, the Internet, television, comics, and fashion that are produced and consumed by industry and audiences. The term popular culture, however, is more complicated than quantifiable indicators that determine consumption of texts. Actually, a good deal of controversy exists about popular culture. Postmodern theory (the notion that texts have no inherent meaning), sociocultural perspectives on literacy learning (the notion that literacy is influenced by social and cultural factors that extend beyond psychological models), and a broadened notion of text (that moves beyond print and includes visual and audio texts) have affected the ways that popular culture has been viewed in literacy education. Different perspectives of the term popular culture as mass culture, folk culture, and everyday culture illustrate how the definition of popular culture has changed over the past seventy-five years, dependent upon people’s perceptions of popular culture and their uses of popular culture texts. These perspectives differ in conceptualizations of control of knowledge, power, and pleasures related to text production and audience consumption of and uses of popular culture texts. Popular Culture as Mass Culture Popular culture is sometimes referred to as mass culture. Described in this way, popular culture is distinguished from culture for the elite (high, civilized culture) and recognized as culture for the general population (popular, uncivilized culture). Perspectives of popular culture as mass popular culture assume that media (newspapers, magazines, movie studios, and so on) are monolithic sites of textual production. As a culture produced for the people, readers passively encounter texts. Media are powerful enough to determine the meaning of a text and to demand and to ensure that audiences read and extract meaning from texts in similar ways. The concept of popular culture as mass culture stems from the work of Max Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno (1976), theorists of the Frankfurt School. They analyzed and critiqued media producers, dubbing them the culture industry and accusing the culture industry of the mass genera-
See also Critical Literacy; Literacy and Culture; Policy Issues in Testing; Social Justice and Literacies; Social Nature of Literacy References Fraatz, Michelle. 1987. The Politics of Reading. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, James. 1999. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. New York: Routledge. Herrnstein, Richard, and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press. Mouffee, Chantal. 1995. “Politics, Democratic Action, and Solidarity.” Inquiry 38:99–108. Shannon, Patrick. 1998. Reading Poverty. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Spring, Joel. 1997. Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
440
Popular Culture
Poster of a popular band (Nirvana) on girl’s wall (Barbara Guzzetti)
some inherent meaning. To these theorists, high culture was associated with complex printed texts that were part of the literary canon—creative, deep, and worthy of audience’s study and critique to ascertain the meaning of the text produced by an author. Mass/low/popular culture texts, often in the form of visual or auditory texts, were conversely deemed simple and unproblematic. Those who espouse the view of mass culture believe popular culture texts to have determined meaning and to be uniform and predictable. Text meaning is uncomplicated and self-evident. Popular culture texts from this view are considered unnecessary for study and require no discussion or critique. Based on stimulus-response “effects” of popular culture on audiences, those following the work of the Frankfurt School theorists blame the “culture industry” for imposing mass culture upon the people and for seducing mass audiences to read texts in ways that dull audiences’ minds and maintain the social authority and ideologies of dominant classes.
tion of worthless texts. They asserted that mass production of texts and the ensuing consumption of such texts created a popular culture for audiences that added little to aesthetic values and made people into passive recipients who mindlessly accepted media’s ideologically charged messages. This transmission model of text from media production to audience consumption viewed the media as sole proprietors of power who legitimated knowledge that lacked moral seriousness and that socialized people in common ways. Audiences were perceived as insatiable, nondiscriminatory consumers because their interpretations of and pleasures in their readings of popular culture texts seemed always in agreement with the ideologies presented in the text. Horkheimer and Adorno purported that engagement with popular culture turned audiences into cultural dupes dominated by mass deception. By pitting popular culture against high culture, the theorists of the Frankfurt School preserved the dichotomy between high and low culture and perpetuated the belief that texts had 441
Popular Culture Popular Culture as Folk Culture Unlike the top-down model of mass culture that produces popular meaning for the people and delineates texts along class lines, a folk culture perspective of popular culture celebrates a bottom-up and authentic popular culture of the people. Begun by British researchers in the 1960s at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies in response to conceptions of mass culture as mindless activity, views of popular culture as folk culture acknowledge class divisions between popular and high culture but assert that different classes, especially the working class, use popular culture to resist dominant views represented in texts. British cultural theorists popularized the folk culture view of popular culture in their research on working-class people’s uses of popular culture as forms of literacy. In their research, they emphasized audiences’ rather than media’s power in textual reading. They illustrated how working-class people used popular culture texts in ways that subverted the original intent of the texts produced by the culture industry and that critiqued high culture (for example, uses of language, ways of dressing, readings of romance novels). As with perceptions of mass culture, a folk cultural view of popular culture continues the ideas that texts have some determined meaning. The view of popular culture as folk culture, however, focuses on meanings that audiences create from texts and on audiences’ reaction to and uses of texts (see Hoggart, 1958; Willis, 1977). Meaning from this perspective lies not in text producers, as in the views of mass culture, but rather in the audience’s interaction with and uses of the text on their own terms and often in keeping with class perceptions. A folk culture view of popular culture frequently valorizes subcultural groups’ active meaning-making of texts and their resistance to dominant ideologies presented in texts. Texts are studied in relation to uses and gratifications that subcultural groups make of them. Audiences’ everyday production practices, which resist monolithic understandings of popular culture texts, are vital to a folk culture view of popular culture. Knowledge formed from audiences’ construction of textual meaning and textual pleasures results from audiences’ own appropriation of the text. So, contrary to the culture industry’s power in the concept of mass culture that views media
as forcing particular readings onto audiences and producing negative effects, popular culture as folk culture views the audience as those who hold power. Audiences use their power to actively produce their own meanings from texts, not meanings that have been forced onto them by media production. Rather than condemn popular culture as the downfall of society, those working from this perspective acknowledge users’ pleasures that they create from their own engagement of the texts. Popular Culture as Everyday Culture Popular culture is also defined as everyday culture. British cultural theorists of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies who were influenced by postmodern and sociocultural theories originally developed this perspective in the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1990s this perspective of popular culture became important in the research and work in Australia, Canada, France, India, and the United States. Popular culture conceived of as everyday culture is all about the study of the culture of everyday life (Storey, 1996). Its study involves in-depth examinations of the relations between high and low culture, not privileging one domain over the other. Thus, definitions of popular culture as mass and folk culture are collapsed and included within the study of popular culture as everyday culture. Texts from this perspective include those that fit into high- and low-culture categories and those that are print, visual, and auditory. Proponents of popular culture as everyday culture attend to both media production and audiences’ production of their own uses of texts in their consumption of popular culture. In this way, popular culture texts shape audiences’ uses of texts while audiences simultaneously create their own uses of the texts (Hall, 1997). Popular culture as everyday culture perceives texts as indeterminate. The polysemous nature of popular culture texts in everyday culture holds that individuals or groups may interpret texts differently and use them in different ways to create knowledge and to derive various pleasures from them (McRobbie, 1994). Studying popular culture as everyday culture highlights two areas. First, it calls attention to audiences’ negotiation of consumption and their own production of uses in popular culture texts. Second, this view also realizes media’s power to control knowledge 442
Portfolios See also Critical Media Literacy; Media Literacy References Hall, Stuart. 1997. “The Work of Representation.” In Stuart Hall, ed., Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, pp. 13–64. London: Sage. Hoggart, Richard. 1958. The Uses of Literacy. London: Penguin. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodore Adorno. 1976. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by J. Cumming. New York: Herder and Herder. McRobbie, Angela. 1994. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge. Storey, John. 1996. Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Willis, Paul. 1977. Learning to Labour. New York: Columbia University Press.
through cultural markets and products. Popular culture as everyday culture therefore focuses on the tension between the power of media to produce textual meaning and audiences’ power to choose whether or not to give similar or different value or meaning to the texts and to decide what knowledge they will produce from their own uses and pleasures of the texts. Popular Culture, Literacy, and Literacy Education Though the perception of popular culture as everyday culture has taken hold in areas influenced by cultural studies, media studies, and postmodern theory, popular culture as part of literacy education in K–12 classrooms often is stuck in a view of popular culture as mass culture. Literacy education in schools often focuses on texts deemed high culture to the exclusion of any recognition of popular culture texts as everyday culture. An emphasis on high-culture texts promotes print-based literacy and focuses on transmission models such that all texts have determined meaning created by an author that must be deciphered by a reader. Folk culture perspectives of popular culture texts are often given any credence only in a curriculum of high-culture texts when readers are instructed to engage in reader-response activities. A movement toward popular culture as everyday culture in literacy education that acknowledges both concepts of texts of mass culture and folk culture needs to include several factors. First, texts need to be recognized as capable of being read as determinate—locating the author’s meaning (as in perspectives of texts as products of mass culture) —or as indeterminate (audiences make their own meaning of a text as in folk culture, or audiences negotiate meaning between author’s and reader’s intent as in everyday cultural perspectives of texts). Second, textual study needs to include print-based, auditory, and visual texts that combine high-culture texts from the literary canon with popular culture texts more well liked and used by students. Third, teachers who choose to use popular culture texts in literacy education need to be cognizant that readers often form meaning and uses of texts different from authorial intention and that readers often use everyday cultural texts to gain knowledge, to create pleasure, and to assert power. Margaret Carmody Hagood
Portfolios Portfolios have been described as a purposeful selection by a student of work/artifacts that represent the student’s pursuits, explorations, and projects as a way of evidencing the student’s progress, effort, achievements, and growth and as a basis for exploring possibilities. Arguably, portfolios involve process as well as product—a vehicle for a grounded representation of student performance and as a basis for conversations around progress as well as judgments of achievements and consideration of future possibilities. Portfolios have a long history of use in various professions (for example, art, journalism, architecture, and so on) in which traditional assessment procedures were obviously unable to adequately represent performance; the advent of portfolios in schools tends to be more recent. Indeed, advocacy for them as an alternative to more formal assessment practices reached their stride only in the 1990s in literacy when portfolio assessment emerged in response to the criticisms being leveled at traditional assessment procedures, such as standardized tests, and to the desire to realign assessment with teaching and learning as described by Robert Tierney, Mark Carter, and Laurie Desai (1991). Primarily, portfolios offer the means to review, reflect, and plan through conversation around past performance and future possibilities—conversations with oneself and others (students with parents, peers, teachers, and other school per443
Portfolios sonnel). And this occurs in conjunction with engaging in a process of collecting, analyzing, and developing plans or interpretations via reviewing primary artifacts of students’ work and explorations. In these discussions, students may debate and advance procedures and rationales for examining their portfolio artifacts, explain the evidence of their progress, and describe the criteria that they used to justify what they have done, as well as their claims of accomplishments, their goals or plans for what they might do, and the conclusions that they have reached. Throughout these discussions, they will interrogate each other’s critiques. By so doing, portfolios can become significant sites of engagement, a place where students try out, try on, and test possibilities of who they are and who they might become. Portfolios represent a significant departure from the dominant forms of assessment—a movement from summative to formative evaluation and from a product orientation to a learnercentered emphasis stressing student development and teacher decisionmaking as well as a shift in power relationships (from externally controlled assessment to responsive evaluation) and cultural sensitivity (Tierney and Clark et al., 1998). Portfolios contribute to a shift toward assessment practices concomitant with the ethics and standards of qualitative research tenets. They have helped draw attention to the relationship between teaching, learning, and assessment as well as to a move toward a partnership among teachers, stakeholders, caregivers, and learners. They have shifted the orientation toward an engagement in helping learners to research themselves, including the learner’s ability to represent his or her learning and development. They represent a shift in roles of teachers toward partner, coach, and mentor. Advocates of traditional assessment have difficulty reconciling the complexities and intimate nature of the portfolio approach with their score-driven objectivity (Moss, 1992). Portfolios challenge a regimen dependent upon standardization, uniformity of administration, avoidance of classroom bias or contamination, straightforward comparison, and ease of scoring. Although psychometricians are beginning to emphasize consequences of assessment as one criterion for validity, understanding the connections between portfolio assessment, student motivation and engagement, and wider school reform is often
slighted. Much of the theory that is brought to bear on the concept of portfolios tends to have focused on technical issues of traditional reliability, objectivity, and scorability, especially the problems of distilling individual performance indices from classroom collaborative exchanges. Whereas portfolios sample from and strive to represent the richness and diversity of classroom life, these psychometric technicians are often troubled by the diverse forms of representation, the intraindividual and interindividual diversity, and their desire to systematically remove the impact of different degrees of support or collaboration that are not discernible or understood except by insiders or participants in the classroom life. Whereas standardized tests and formal quizzes strive for objectivity, portfolio approaches have emphasized reciprocity, transactions, and thoughtful judgment by the student in partnership with the teacher, who acts less as a detached outsider and more as a participant observer and mentor. In response to these concerns, as well as the growth in their popularity and the pressure to be used for a range of purposes in different settings, variations of a portfolio approach have emerged to meet the needs of other stakeholders and have aligned with the tenets typically associated with traditional views of large-scale assessment. In particular, with increased pressure for accountability, including high-stakes decisionmaking, hybrid versions of portfolios have been enlisted to do comparisons across classrooms for school-wide, state, national, and other large-scale decisionmaking. Although such moves are understandable, they also risk undermining the learner-centered aspects of portfolios. Such strictures are particularly evident as portfolios are used with middleand upper-level learners. Whereas primarygrade portfolios often reflect the values of engagement in learning and risk taking that portfolios have proposed to foster and support, portfolios that are subject to standards-driven criteria and standardization may lose their ability to enable these important aspects of learning. Robert J. Tierney and Caroline T. Clark See also Authentic Assessment; Dynamic Assessment; HighStakes Assessment References Moss, Pamela. 1992. “Shifting Conceptions of Validity in Educational Measurement: Implications for
444
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism Performance Assessment.” Review of Educational Research 62:229–258. Tierney, Robert J., M. Carter, and L. Desai. 1991. Portfolio Assessment in the Reading-Writing Classroom: An Introduction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Tierney, Robert, and Caroline Clark (with Linda Fenner, Roberta Herter, Carolyn Staunton Simpson, and Bert Wiser). 1998. “Portfolios: Assumptions, Tensions, and Possibilities.” Research Quarterly 33, no. 4:474–486.
to the system of language, which could be scientifically observed versus parole. This is because parole, which is everyday speech utterances, could vary from context to context and from speaker to speaker, whereas langue is a system of language that could be universalized and thus made an object of science. Before an individual speaks, according to Saussure, a person must know the language. In this sense, language is inherited quite unconsciously; a speaker does not speak or write in a void. Each language element must be construed in relation to a broader language system in order to be scientifically evaluated. Thus, the use of language cannot be arbitrary. If a speaker makes up a term without explanations, no one else will know what is meant. Nevertheless, even though language as a system was not arbitrary for Saussure, the signs used to express relationships to concepts are arbitrary. According to Saussure, the fact that we use the sign telephone or book to respectively refer to the concepts of a telephone or a book is totally arbitrary and an accident. He realized, however, that the system of language must also be socially sanctioned and agreed upon. This social component means that terms could change historically but focus on the on-going changes of language in history that Saussure described as “diachronic.” He chose to develop linguistics on the fixed, existing system of language that he called “synchronic.” After all, it would be difficult to develop a science of language based on signs, which are constantly in flux. In addition, Saussure believed that language did not construct meaning by its positive signifying power but rather negatively in the sense that one term was used as opposed to other signifying signs. For example, there is no necessary relationship between the word cat and the concept of a cat. This would be considered a positive signifying power of the sign, that the word cat had some scientific or metaphysical association. For Saussure, it was significant that we do not choose other terms, such as mouse, television, and so on to associate the word cat with the concept of cat. Thus, all linguistic meaning is relational; meaning is asserted as not positively signifying an object with some universal signifier but rather negatively determining a signifier against other possible terms. Even the very letters of the alphabet only become manifest juxtaposed to other
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism Post-structuralism is a philosophical trend that was established in France in the late 1960s, in part as a response to structuralism. Structuralism is a philosophy that deciphers language and symbols by looking for common, universal structures in systems of thought. Post-structuralism, using some of the same presuppositions, emphasizes differences in language and social reality. Post-structuralism has flourished both in and outside of France over recent decades. By its very nature as thinking that eschews traditional philosophical categories, poststructuralism is difficult to define. Many of its seminal thinkers, such as Jacques Derrida, Michel Foucault, and Jacques Lacan, are more philosophical nomads than members of any school of thought. Thus, the best way of defining post-structuralism is to understand its critique of structuralism and the Western philosophical tradition. Structuralism French linguist Ferdinand Saussure was the father of structuralism. Saussure sought to ground philosophy in a science of language. Unlike previous philosophies that sought to base philosophy in metaphysical constructs and human subjectivity that could not be empirically demonstrated, Saussure developed structural linguistics—a system for understanding language by focusing on its whole rather than its constituent parts. All of structuralism is a footnote to this linguistic system. Saussure’s science of language broke down communication into langue, the overall system of language, and parole, the individual expressions in the everyday world. He gave precedence 445
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism letters that they are not. Meaning is always relational. Words have no scientific or philosophical meaning in themselves. Words are defined by the context of the language system. Any word in language can be considered a sign. For Saussure, the speech or word element used to express a concept was called the signifier; the concept to which it refers was the signified. The signifier and the signified are both necessary for meaning. An expression without an object (such as a grunt) would mean nothing. Similarly, we cannot think or communicate without a term to express it to ourselves or to others. There can be no signified without a signifier. Traditional linguistic theories before Saussure sought to understand language by that which is external to language. Such interpretations assume the omnipresence of an object and then try to decipher how the signifier came to express the object. Saussure insisted that language is internal to itself and that no axis of interpretation other than the structure of language be used to interpret language. Although Saussure was deemed the father of structuralism, its popularity and extension into the philosophical world were mediated by the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. Levi-Strauss used structural linguistics in his study of primitive cultures. The linkage between a system of language and system of social reality attracted much more attention in the philosophical world than Saussure’s more narrow discussion of linguistics, signifiers, and signifieds. Nevertheless, the thrust remained the same—that the system or structure was more important in determining meaning than its constituent parts. By making use of Saussure’s linguistics, LeviStrauss was able to distance himself from the schools of anthropology that espoused functionalism that would reduce primitive practices to their social utility. He was also able to show that certain practices, although they may empirically vary from culture and take on different characteristics in historical development, nonetheless manifest structural consistency that transcends both utility and different historical manifestations. In this sense, Levi-Strauss’s work can be considered as synchronic, like Saussure’s linguistics, because the focus on the cultural code is more on what is constant than what is historically changing. Beneath the varied symbolisms of different cultures (both new and in the past)
Michel Foucault invented post-structuralist theory (Bettmann/Corbis)
there are common structures. In primitive cultural practices, such as myth, taboo, kinship, and exchange, there is a social code that emerges equivalent of Saussure’s conception of language. Post-Structuralism Although post-structuralism inherited the focus of language from Saussure and Levi-Strauss, post-structuralists ultimately seek to destructure structuralism. To be sure, structuralism emphasized differences, but these differences were ultimately tied back to universal structures. Poststructuralists take these differences in language and customs and celebrate them, thereby delivering a mortal blow to any universalization in terms of system or structure. Although the list of poststructuralists is long, the most famous of these archenemies of structuralism are Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault. Their respective strategies of deconstruction and genealogy reflect most clearly the destructuring of structuralism. This destructuring is also shared in the oeuvre of Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Francois Lyo446
Post-Structuralism and Structuralism tard, and Jean Baudrillard and among others who are considered post-structuralists. Pivotal to the destructuring work of the poststructuralists—in particular, of Derrida and Foucault—is the work of Friedrich Nietzsche. It was Nietzsche who claimed that truth was unattainable, who believed that everything was an interpretation, and who asserted that reality was radically multiperspectival. These are some of the themes that post-structuralists used to expose the weaknesses of structuralism. Although Saussure and Levi-Strauss insisted that language could not be defined by that which was external to it, they had unwittingly replaced the universal truths of philosophy with a new truth of structure that transcended language. Nevertheless, Nietzsche’s critique preceded structuralism and went well beyond it in a full-scale assault on all of Western philosophy. In destructuring structuralism, the post-structuralists have also gone beyond the specific critique of Saussure and LeviStrauss, thereby continuing the Nietzschean challenge to Western philosophy. Deconstruction was Derrida’s alternative to Saussure’s structural linguistics. Although still couching his philosophy in the Saussurean terms of signifier and signified, Derrida surpassed it by pointing out that writing is a constant free play of signifiers and effectively it is this play of signifiers that is the basis of meaning, not the relationship of the signifier to the signified. Derrida replaced the Saussurean concept of difference with his own neologism of differance. Differance means that the meaning of language and writing is ultimately both differential and deferred. There is never any rest in a signified, be it transcendental or immanent. Derrida was also critical of Saussure and LeviStrauss for continuing what he considered the metaphysical bias of privileging speech over writing. He was especially critical of LeviStrauss, who claimed that writing had poisoned primitive cultures more than had pure speech communication. Derrida called such claims nothing more than phonocentrism. Furthermore, this phonocentrism that is the privileging of speech is not limited to structuralism but can be found in most of Western philosophy. In the case of structuralism, this resulted in seeking to limit the free play of signifiers in writing through a new science of linguistics or grammatology of Saussure and Levi-Strauss. In most of the West-
ern tradition, however, the emasculation of writing and differance is through the privileging of consciousness or metaphysics through speech, which results in a very limiting concept of socalled rationality called logocentrism. Logocentrism, for Derrida, was the natural consequence of the phonocentric practice of priveliging speech over writing. Derrida claimed that in the acting of writing, words take on, to some extent, a life of their own that cannot be reduced to the narrow logic of an author or language system that would be logocentrism. Foucault was also indebted to structuralism. His early work, known as Archaeology of Knowledge (translated from the French in 1972), was seen by some as a hybrid of structuralism and post-structuralism. Foucault quickly ended any ambiguities of where he stood relative to structuralism when he adopted the Nietzschean method of genealogy midway through his career. Whereas Levi-Strauss had insisted on the synchronic, ahistorical approach to language as it relates to social reality, Foucault reversed this completely with a new, diachronic focus on the shifting horizons in which language is used to articulate social reality. Social reality as mediated by language is hardly constant from culture to culture, according to Foucault. The only constant that Focault found was that of power and various interests using different interpretations or what he called games of truth to rationalize their power. Genealogy, much like Derrida’s deconstruction, seeks to expose attempts by those who would impose metainterpretations under some ruse of logic. It is important to note that power is not necessarily a negative term for Foucault. Much of what genealogy seeks to do is to expose the micromechanisms of power. For example, Foucault in his genealogy of prisons focused on how space is divided in the penal institutions and then suggested analogies, such as the ways our schools and factories are set up. History, as well as the social reality that it comprises, is polyvalent. There is no single structure behind it to explain the ongoing tensions between competing games of truth and competing interests. Foucault pointed out that all too often, historians posit a certain metaphysical origin and teleological development of events merely as legitimization to serve their own power needs to the exclusion of the confluences of power and interpretations. 447
Post-Typographic
Post-Typographic
Derrida and Foucault are by no means the only post-structuralists. As with other poststructuralists, however, their attempts through deconstruction and genealogy to destructure structuralism mirror the efforts of those such as Jacques Lacan in the realm of psychoanalysis, Julia Kristeva in the area of gender studies, JeanFrancois Lyotard’s challenge to the metanarratives of modernity, and Jean Baudrillard’s work on the hyperreality of mass media. These critiques penetrate beyond structuralism and offer a more radical challenge to the concepts of truth, rationality, and metaphysics that rest at the core of Western philosophy. It is unlikely that given the presuppositions of post-structuralism it will ever be a school philosophy, but rather its multiple interpretations will likely continue infinitely, like Derrida’s conception differance—the free play of signifiers into an unknown future without rest or resolution. Sam Vagenas
Post-typographic is a term that has been used to describe significant changes in what comprises literacy and its sociocultural consequences owing to the increasing use and influence of nonprint, particularly digital, forms of reading and writing. It is similar to terms such as postindustrial and postmodern in the sense that it implies a profound and consequential shift toward a different worldview in which previously established assumptions or actions and their effects are reevaluated and transformed. Further, like these similar terms, there is an implication that the new worldview is in some sense an outgrowth of or reaction to a previously dominant one referred to after the prefix post. There is also the more subtle implication of a competitive incompatibility between the new and old orders that creates controversy and turmoil. The roots of the term post-typographic might be traced to Marshall McLuhan (1962) who popularized the notion that a “typographic man” was the offspring of print-based communication but that the introduction of new media such as radio and television broadly effected changes in human relations and activities. In a similar vein, Walter Ong (1982), who cited McLuhan’s work, referred to “post-typography” in discussing how electronic media have reestablished in modern communication and culture some of the characteristics of oral and preliterate cultures such as spontaneity and informality. More recently, writers have used the term post-typographic to emphasize the rapid increase in digital forms of communication, the important differences between digital and printed texts, and the potentially important consequences of such trends and differences (see Reinking et al., 1998). Thus, the term post-typographic is used to describe a new order in which printed texts are no longer central to conceptions of literacy and in which digital texts emerge as a major force for sociocultural change. Used in this way, the term is associated with what Bertram Bruce (1997) has referred to as a “transformational” stance toward technology and literacy. In addition to these sources, a theoretical base for the term post-typographic can be derived from the work of scholars attempting to understand media and their effects in general and the relation of printed or digital forms of communication in particular. For these scholars, the tech-
See also Feminist Post-Structuralism References Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gaytari Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1979. Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles. Translated by Barbara Harlow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Dosse, François. 1997. History of Structuralism. Vol. 1: The Rising Sign, 1945–1966. Translated by Deborah Glassman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1997. History of Structuralism. Vol. 2: The Sign Sets, 1967–Present. Translated by Deborah Glassman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Foucault, Michel. 1972. Archaeology of Knowledge. New York: Random House. ———. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon. Mahon, Michael. 1992. Foucault’s Neitzschean Genealogy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Sarup, Madan. 1988. An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Post-Modernism. London: Simon and Schuster. Schrift, Alan. 1995. Nietzsche’s French Legacy: A Genealogy of Poststructuralism. London: Routledge.
448
Post-Typographic nologies of reading and writing are prominent in explaining the uses and effects of written discourse. For example, David Kaufer and Kathleen Carley (1993) have implicated technologies in an elaborate mathematical model to explain the influence of print on sociocultural organization and change. Likewise, Gavriel Salomon (1979) has demonstrated that symbol systems embedded in particular technologies figure prominently in distinguishing media and the cognitive skills they require and therefore exercise if information is to be extracted from them. Others have argued that the effects of digital forms of writing and reading can be understood as epochal from a historical, literary, and philosophical standpoint (for example, Bolter 1991; Lanham 1993). Drawing on these and other theoretical positions, David Reinking (for example, 1997) identified five fundamental differences between printed and digital texts that are foundational to a movement from a “typographic” to a “post-typographic” era. First, digital texts readily permit a literal interaction among readers, texts, and authors. For example, digital texts can adapt automatically to individual readers during independent reading, and readers can easily be allowed to access a text’s author through e-mail. Second, digital texts encompass a wider range of symbol systems for expressing meaning. Thus, for example, they make available a wider range of possibilities for assisting a reader to contend with textual information. Third, digital texts naturally encourage nonlinear forms of writing and reading. For example, hypertexts promote nonlinear approaches to structuring information and invite more open-ended, tentative stances toward textual information. Fourth, digital texts expand the boundaries of freedom and control in accessing textual information. For example, the Internet makes sharing and accessing information easy, yet digital technologies can also be employed to restrict sharing of and access to texts by particular readers under particular circumstances. Finally, digital texts change the pragmatics of written communication. For example, email can disrupt the distribution of power among individuals in schools and businesses. Thus, at least theoretically, there is support for the use of the term post-typographic in identifying a distinctly new era of literacy. Concrete evidence for the onset of a post-typographic world is mixed, however. On one hand, in some areas
and for some activities printed forms continue to dominate. For example, the consumption of paper for printing has increased, but that increase is fueled in part by the wider dissemination of digital texts and the ease of converting them to printed texts. The production and dissemination of books also continue to increase, although again that increase may be due to the increasing use of digital technologies to produce and promote books not so much as cultural artifacts but as marketable commodities. On the other hand, many mainstream artifacts of the typographic world are disappearing or are being pushed to the margins by digital forms. Word processing has made typewriters obsolete; printed encyclopedias have been replaced by digital multimedia versions; and e-mail is well on its way to replacing the conventional personal or business letter. The assumptions, implications, and perspectives associated with the term post-typographic have been highlighted with related terms such as multiple literacies, new times, and new literacies (see Hagood, 2000). These related terms focus less on an analysis of the technological developments that have changed reading and writing, however, and more on expanded definitions of literacy that include a wider range of media. There is also more emphasis on the potential of this expanded view to call attention to the social dimensions of literacy that have been overlooked when literacy was focused more narrowly on printed materials. There are at least two potential concerns with the term post-typographic. The first concern is that the root typographic has a narrow literal meaning but has also acquired a broader less literal meaning. Literally, typographic refers to producing texts by applying ink, traditionally using metal type, to paper. Thus, post-typographic is a meaningful term if referring to methods of communication that go beyond printed pages. Typographic has also been associated more generically with the visual arrangement of texts and images presumably in any medium and what those effects might be on readers. In that sense, typographic could include the arrangement and availability of texts and images on a computer screen and the local and global effects of those changes. That broader use of the word typographic may be misleading in interpreting the meaning of posttypographic. Another concern with the term post-typo449
Predictable Books graphic is that by highlighting a technological, material dimension of literacy, it may imply a view often described pejoratively as technological determinism. Technological determinism is the view that virtually all sociocultural change is a direct result of technological developments. Nevertheless, highlighting recent technological developments as instrumental in expanding and changing the conception of literacy and its effects does not necessarily imply a technological deterministic view that rules out all other influences. Yet, it may be incumbent on those using this term to clarify these potential misconceptions. David Reinking
dren’s story, The Three Billy Goats Gruff. Predictable books enable beginning readers to join in reading in much the same way that adults join in singing the repetitive refrains of a popular song. The language patterns in predictable books are frequently organized around the three R’s of predictability—rhyme, rhythm, and repetition— and often include repetition of large chunks of language, repetition of episodes, and familiar story lines, sequences, and concepts. The illustrations in these books usually provide a close match with the text and support children’s recognition of the vocabulary and their interpretation of the meaning of the printed text. Predictable books may be organized around familiar cultural patterns such as the cardinal and ordinal numbers, the alphabet, the days of the week, the months of the year, the four seasons, holidays, and the basic colors. Other books gain predictability through repetition of a certain phrase or sentence at various points throughout the selection. Some employ cumulative-repetitive patterns that involve repetition of a word, phrase, or sentence, but in addition, a new word, phrase, or sentence is added to each succeeding episode, as in the old favorite song “The Twelve Days of Christmas.” Most beginning readers already possess knowledge of these types of cultural, linguistic, and rhythmic structures when they arrive at school, and this knowledge supports their early efforts to decode printed language.
References Bolter, Jay David. 1991. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bruce, Bertram C. 1997. “Literacy Technologies: What Stance Should We Take?” Journal of Literacy Research 29:289–309. Hagood, Margaret C. 2000. “New Times, New Millennium, New Literacies.” Reading Research and Instruction 39:311–328. Kaufer, David S., and Kathleen M. Carley. 1993. Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organizational and Change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lanham, Richard A. 1993. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McLuhan, Marshall. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen. Reinking, David. 1997. “Me and My Hypertext: A Multiple Digression Analysis of Technology and Literacy.” The Reading Teacher 50:626–643. Reinking, David, Michael McKenna, Linda Labbo, and Ronald D. Kiefer, eds. Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a PostTypographical World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Salomon, Gavriel. 1979. Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Instructional Uses of Predictable Books Teachers can use predictable books in early reading instruction to accomplish many purposes: to help children learn high-frequency sight vocabulary words, rhyme and spelling patterns, context clues, comprehension skills, and fluency and to write take-offs on the predictable pattern. The repetitive patterns in these books allow beginning readers to role play themselves as readers even while they are learning to read, because the children can join in and read these predictable books fluently even before they recognize all of the individual words. Bill Martin (Martin and Brogan, 1971) contended that this role-playing instills in children the belief that they can read, a belief that he sees as an essential first step toward learning to read successfully. Don Holdaway (1979) also heralded the importance of young children’s role-playing themselves as readers
Predictable Books Predictable books contain patterned language or predictable plots that enable the reader to anticipate the next word, line, or episode in the text, such as the old favorite rhyme, “This Is the House That Jack Built,” or the well-known chil450
Predictable Books with familiar, predictable books. He contended that as children read and reread these books, they are practicing reading and teaching themselves about the way print works. A knowledgeable parent or teacher can mediate this interaction between child and book to facilitate the child’s learning to read. Not only have predictable books been recommended for a variety of instructional purposes, but numerous authors have also recommended the use of predictable materials with several different populations of children, including typical beginning readers in kindergarten and first grade, youngsters deemed at risk for failure in learning to read, students learning English as a second language, students who speak a “nonstandard” dialect, and students with learning disabilities and developmental disabilities.
Reading Recovery Program, which relies heavily on the use of predictable books, especially sets of little books that are leveled in difficulty. The easiest levels of these little books contain limited print and rely on repetition, a close match between illustration and text, and other predictable elements to support the efforts of struggling beginning readers. The psycholinguistic writings of Kenneth Goodman and Frank Smith provided the theoretical underpinnings for the use of predictable materials in beginning reading instruction. The Nature of Instruction with Predictable Books In general, the instructional procedures recommended for use with predictable texts proceed from whole to part, beginning with presentation of the whole book and proceeding to a focus on individual skills, depending on the instructional purpose. The teacher always begins by reading the whole book aloud in an expressive manner, so that the children’s initial exposure to the book focuses on the sound of the language and the meaning of the text. It is desirable to have the enlarged version of the book in Big Book format so that the children may benefit from the illustrations and observe the teacher as she or he reads. The teacher rereads the book to the children, pointing to the print while reading and inviting the students to join in on the predictable parts. The teacher gradually phases out of the reading at points where the children are able to read alone, supplying support when needed and withdrawing support on sections that children can read independently. After the children have gained familiarity with the story through multiple rereadings of the text, the teacher may choose to focus instruction on certain individual words, letter/sound correspondences, rhyming patterns, comprehension skills, or print concepts depending upon the nature of the text, the developmental level of the children, and the instructional purpose of the lesson.
Early Proponents of Predictable Books Early advocates for the use of predictable books in beginning reading instruction include, among others, Bill Martin and Peggy Brogan, Don Holdaway, Kenneth and Yetta Goodman, Roach Van Allen, Marie Clay, and Robert and Marlene McCracken. Bill Martin authored the first sets of predictable instructional materials, Sounds of Language Readers (1966) and Instant Readers (Martin and Brogan, 1971), in the United States more than three decades ago. These pioneering materials were characterized by natural and meaningful language rather than the highly controlled and stilted language characteristic of the early levels of the basal reading series of the period. Don Holdaway (1979) credited the influence of Bill Martin’s work on his own thinking about the use of predictable books in beginning reading instruction and the development of a set of instructional procedures, known as Shared Book Reading, to support young children’s efforts to learn to read. Holdaway’s work in New Zealand using Shared Book Reading has strongly influenced the nature of instruction recommended for teachers in their use of predictable books as well as the format of the books themselves. Holdaway was the first to write about using enlarged versions of predictable books, known as Big Books, that enable a teacher to share a book with small groups of children in much the same way that a parent shares a regular-sized book in a family story time setting. Another New Zealander, Marie Clay, developed the
Research on Predictable Books There have been only a few studies that have involved direct comparisons of the efficacy of using predictable materials in beginning reading instruction versus other types of instructional materials, and most of these studies have involved small groups of children for short periods 451
Predictable Books of time. The earliest studies of children instructed in predictable books were those by Lynn Rhodes (1979), Connie Bridge and her colleagues (Bridge and Burton, 1982; Bridge, Winograd, and Haley, 1983), Herbert Simons and his colleagues (Leu, DeGroff, and Simons, 1986), and Jana Mason and her colleagues (for example, McCormick and Mason, 1986). The results of these early studies showed facilitative effects on children’s acquisition of sight vocabulary, their comprehension, their oral reading fluency, their attitude toward reading, and their ability to use syntactic and semantic context clues along with letter sound correspondences in recognizing unfamiliar words. Several more recent studies, both quasi-experimental and qualitative, have confirmed these instructional advantages of predictable materials, especially as one part of a balanced approach to beginning reading instruction.
taining such predictable features as repeated patterns, rhyme, and rhythm compared to only 20 percent of the selections in the 1986–1987 editions. The teachers’ editions of the new basals also reflected the influence of the literature on predictable materials in that the instructional suggestions for the early levels of first grade were based on Holdaway’s Shared Reading model rather than on the directed reading model employed in the old basal manuals for teachers. The Interaction among Teacher, Child, and Text Text features are important in beginning reading instruction, and predictability is one of the factors that should be included in the development and selection of materials for beginning readers. Predictability is a complicated feature, however, that cannot be determined in isolation from the reader and the instructional scaffolding provided by the teacher. The child’s prior knowledge of the topic and familiarity with the language patterns will make a particular text more or less difficult for that child as compared to another youngster with a different background of knowledge and experience. So, too, will the instructional procedures employed by the teacher affect the child’s ability to read the text with fluency and comprehension. Teachers who successfully use predictable materials with beginning readers are highly knowledgeable about the reading process and the manner in which children learn to read. They know the nature and degree of support that will be needed by each individual student if he or she is to be successful in reading a particular text and in learning more about reading through reading that text. Reading experts do not yet possess all of the knowledge needed to determine precisely the nature of the texts needed by beginning readers, but they are moving closer to describing the multiple factors that need to be considered, including both the predictability of the text and the instructional support the teacher needs to provide. Connie A. Bridge
The Effects of Predictability on New Basal Reading Materials In the 1970s and 1980s, critics were expressing concerns about the unnatural language and poorly developed plots of traditional basal reading materials. Consequently, several researchers studied the effects of rewriting basal selections to be more predictable or of using children’s literature containing natural language and predictable patterns on students’ word recognition, comprehension, and fluency. They found that texts that had been rewritten to make them more predictable allowed young readers to read with better understanding and fewer miscues that interfered with meaning than did typical beginning reading materials (Brennan, Bridge, and Winograd, 1986; Gourley, 1984; Simons and Ammon, 1987). The work with predictable materials has had a profound influence on recently published reading programs in the United States, both in the nature of the children’s reading selections and in the instructional recommendations in the teachers’ editions. James Hoffman and his colleagues (Hoffman et al., 1994) studied the changes in the new basals and found that publishers included more predictable selections in the early reading levels of basal reading materials published in the 1990s. Hoffman and his colleagues found that the 1993 editions of basal series were significantly more predictable than the basals of the 1980s, with over 50 percent of the selections con-
See also Basal Readers; Children’s Literature References Brennan, Allison D. H., Connie A. Bridge, and Peter N. Winograd. 1986. “The Effects of Structural Variation on Children’s Recall of Basal Reader Stories.” Reading Research Quarterly 21:91–104.
452
Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions Bridge, Connie A., and Brenda Burton. 1982. “Teaching Sight Vocabulary through Patterned Language Materials.” In Jerry A. Niles and Larry A. Harris, eds., New Inquiries in Reading Research and Instruction: The Thirty-first Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 119–123. Washington, DC: National Reading Conference. Bridge, Connie A., Peter N. Winograd, and Darliene Haley. 1983. “Using Predictable Materials to Teach Beginning Reading.” The Reading Teacher 36:884–891. Gourley, Judith W. 1984. “Discourse Structure: Expectations of Beginning Readers and Readability of Text.” Journal of Reading Behavior 14:169–188. Hoffman, James V., Sarah J. McCarthey, Judy Abbott, Cheryl Christian, Laura Corman, Mark Dressman, Bonnie Elliot, Debra Matherne, and Debra Stahle. 1994. “So What’s New in the New Basals?” Journal of Reading Behavior 26:47–73. Holdaway, Don. 1979. The Foundations of Literacy. New York: Ashton Scholastic. Leu, Donald J. Jr., Linda-Jo C. DeGroff, and Herbert D. Simons. 1986. “Predictable Texts and Interactive-Compensatory Hypotheses: Evaluating Individual Differences in Reading Ability, Context Use, and Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology 78:347–352. Martin, Bill. 1966. Sounds of Language Readers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Martin, Bill, and Peggy Brogan. 1971. Instant Readers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. McCormick, Christine, and Jana M. Mason. 1986. Use of Little Books at Home: A Minimal Intervention Strategy That Fosters Early Reading. Technical report no. 388. Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading. Rhodes, Lynn K. 1979. “Comprehension and Predictability: An Analysis of Beginning Reading Materials.” In Jerry C. Harste and Robert F. Carey, eds., New Perspectives on Comprehension, pp. 100–131. Bloomington: Indiana University School of Education. Simons, Herbert D., and Paul R. Ammon. 1987. “The Language of Beginning Reading Texts.” Unpublished report. Berkeley: University of California.
monly used in educational settings. In its most general sense, prior knowledge refers to all the existing knowledge an individual holds in memory. This knowledge can consist of concrete experiences, emotions, facts, ideas, and concepts as well as associations with other related ideas and concepts. For example, an individual’s knowledge about families can include personal experiences with families, including all the associated emotions of being a part of a family. As well, though, knowledge about families often includes an understanding of the superordinate concept of a family—what a family is, who is included in a family, how families are the same, how they are different, what they do, how they function, and so forth. All this information can generally be included in the term prior knowledge about families. It should be clear that prior knowledge is not an all-or-none phenomenon. Instead, individuals’ prior knowledge about any topic—both in terms of quantity and quality—lies on a continuum from no knowledge to superficial or partial knowledge to deep or extensive knowledge. Young children’s knowledge about a family most likely directly relates to their own families. As children grow, they learn the concept of a family, outside of their own, and eventually come to understand families in a more abstract sense. Often, adults have extensive knowledge about families and related concepts such as relatives, friends and loved ones, and so forth. The term prior knowledge arose from, and is in fact a dilution of, the concept of schema theory. During the 1970s and 1980s, cognitive psychologists began to think about how our knowledge of the world was organized in memory. They employed words such as schemata, scripts, and frames to think about the various scenarios individuals carry around in their heads. Over time and through its application to educational practice, schema theory as a theory of how knowledge is organized and represented in memory has been replaced in the educational literature by the more general term prior knowledge. What is the importance of prior knowledge to educational practice in reading? Arguably the single, most robust finding in educational research is that prior knowledge is critical in order for comprehension and new learning to take place. Researchers have found that, in general, the more familiar individuals are with a topic, the more they are likely to learn about that topic.
Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions The term prior knowledge, also referred to as background knowledge, is one that is now com453
Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions Similarly, the less familiar individuals are with a topic, the less they are likely to learn about that topic. Thus, one important point about prior knowledge is that more knowledge is most often better than less. Incomplete or faulty prior knowledge can cause problems for students as they try to learn new information. Some students have gaps in their prior knowledge. These gaps will cause learning problems, especially if students must draw inferences based on information they do not have. A problem with faulty prior knowledge is that students may have a minimal understanding of the relationships among the facts they do have about a topic. In other words, their prior knowledge may be fragmented and unrelated. Margaret McKeown and Isabel Beck (1990) found that many fifth- and sixth-graders did not understand the multiples causes of the American Revolution and were not able to connect certain critical events to other related ones, leading to misunderstandings and failed comprehension of the total event. Still other students had difficulty making the inferences required to weave an overall understanding of the event. Thus, students need appropriate prior knowledge to understand many texts as well as topics and events within those texts. In an excellent chapter on teaching comprehension, Isabel Beck (1984) laid out many of these issues related to the lack of appropriate prior knowledge. To determine the quantity and quality of students’ prior knowledge, teachers must assess students’ prior knowledge before they begin teaching about a topic or reading a selection. Teachers can determine what inaccurate and incomplete information their students may have. They can also deduce how cohesive and coherent students’ ideas and concepts are. They can also determine where students have gaps in their knowledge. Once teachers determine students’ level of prior knowledge, they have several options. First, if students have no knowledge or very limited knowledge, then teachers can decide whether they will need to build more prior knowledge before they begin teaching. For example, suppose middle-school teachers are beginning a unit on the American Revolution. It would be wise for teachers to talk to students about what they already know. If students have no or very limited knowledge, teachers may want to begin with a film about the revolution, preferably told as a
story. This experience provides students with a multimedia experience—visual as well as auditory—told as a narrative, both of which are familiar experiences to students. As well, teachers may need to discuss with students the ideas and concepts they do know that they can connect to the revolution. For example, although students may not know about the American Revolution as such, they may know about revolutions in general or about wars and how and why they are fought. Teachers can use these understandings as bridges to build new knowledge about the American Revolution. Thus, there are a number of effective teaching strategies to help build students’ prior knowledge when it is not there. Direct experiences, of course, are always best. This, however, is often not possible. Next best are indirect experiences that help build a knowledge base for students through multisensory experiences—audio, visual, and kinesthetic. Film, videos, and pictures can be very effective. Drama and role playing or hands-on activities and simulation games can also be effective. Discussions can be helpful, especially if students need clarification and brief explanation, but not if students need substantial amounts of knowledge. There are likely to be times when students will need so much prior knowledge that it is not worth the effort to build it. For example, suppose a text or an English anthology included a story about a trip on the subway in New York. For students who have lived on a farm in the Midwest all their lives or who have lived on the mesas and plateaus of the Southwest, the story may be so foreign and unfamiliar that it is not worth the time and energy to build enough prior knowledge so students can understand the story. Of course, we may argue that students eventually do need to learn about subways in cities, but it may not be at that particular point in their academic lives. Teachers need to consider their priorities in terms of what is most important to accomplish and when. If teachers find that their students have some knowledge about an upcoming topic, but that knowledge is fragmented or limited, then teachers will want to make note of that information. One important goal of instruction is to help students develop rich, complex, and complete conceptions about various subject areas. To the extent that students’ knowledge is fragmented, 454
Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions students are less likely to be able to learn new information and organize it into a cohesive and coherent whole. Effective teaching strategies for developing coherent conceptions about topics in subject areas include graphic organizers, elaboration activities, writing, and concept maps.
The general observation from several different knowledge domains is that students’ prior knowledge is quite resistant to change. In general, researchers have found that students tend to ignore, reject, or even reinterpret new information that conflicts with their prior knowledge rather than reject their prior knowledge in favor of new information. In 1990, Jere Confrey completed an extensive review of this research. There have been a number of studies designed to determine if instruction by teachers and/or texts could help students develop more scientifically accurate conceptions. Barbara Guzzetti and her colleagues (Guzzetti et al., 1993) completed a meta-analysis or statistical integration of these studies and found that conceptual change is difficult to come by. Nevertheless, one instructional element present in several strategies was found to be effective on the average across studies. That technique was the generation of cognitive conflict in which students came to be dissatisfied with their existing ideas. Regardless of how conflict was generated, students had to experience it to change their conceptions. Some different ways of generating cognitive conflict included direct refutation of existing misconceptions in text, as well as activities or demonstrations designed to cause surprise, change, or incongruity in the mind of the learner, supplemented by a direct refutation of the misconception. The term misconception used to represent inaccurate prior knowledge in science has been replaced in more recent writings. Many researchers prefer more neutral terms, such as intuitive theories, intuitive conceptions, naive conceptions, or alternative frameworks. Researchers believe these terms better reflect students’ initial understandings and interpretations about the world arising from their direct sensory experiences with it. The concept of prior knowledge and the notion of misconceptions have great significance for educators as they prepare instruction in any subject. For effective instruction to take place, teachers must have a sense of what students already know about a topic for instruction. If students have an inadequate amount of prior knowledge, then teachers will have to provide students with more information, a sufficient amount to enable them to learn the new information. If students have incorrect knowledge or knowledge that will conflict with the new information to be learned, then teachers will need to
Misconceptions The most difficult learning situation for teachers is when students’ prior knowledge is faulty or inaccurate. Most often, when this happens, students will be exposed to new information that directly conflicts with their prior knowledge. Research has found that inaccurate prior knowledge can have a debilitative effect on learning and remembering. Marjorie Lipson (1982) demonstrated this effect in a study she completed with young students. Some of these students were under the assumption that spiders have six legs. When these young students read a passage about spiders and their eight legs, those who held prior knowledge that spiders have six legs were unshaken from their beliefs. Their post-test knowledge indicated that spiders had six legs. In other words, these students retained their original knowledge about the six-legged spiders despite reading contradictory text. In this case, prior knowledge that was incorrect was more debilitative than no knowledge. Students who did not know how many legs a spider had actually were more likely to respond that they have eight legs than students who believed that spiders had six legs. Thus, inaccurate prior knowledge has a special effect on learning, above and beyond no knowledge at all. Science educators have found that students’ prior knowledge can be a particular problem (as well as asset) in learning about science. Most students come to school with misconceptions about the world and how it works. Science educators called students’ prior knowledge misconceptions because these ideas are often inaccurate or inconsistent with scientific explanations about everyday phenomena. For example, Joseph Nussbaum (1985) found that young children often view the earth as a flat object rather than as a sphere, a conception that arises from children’s early, sensory experiences with a flat horizon in front of them. Further, they see the sun as something that comes “up” in the day and goes “down” at night, an interpretation arising from their sensory experiences observing the sun directly. 455
Prior-Knowledge Assessment generate cognitive conflict to help students think differently about their knowledge, challenge their knowledge, and process the new information deeply and thoughtfully. Janice A. Dole
Assessing a Group’s Prior Knowledge Brainstorming in one form or another is one of the most popular prereading techniques. In brainstorming, the teacher mentions a central concept in the text and asks students to say anything that comes to their minds when they think about that concept. The teacher then lists those responses, noting which are appropriate and which are not. Sometimes students are asked their reasons for stating ideas related to the central concepts. Or, after the brainstorming, the teacher and students might work together to organize the prior knowledge into categories and display the information in a semantic map. These types of group activities are useful for teachers because they simultaneously provide general information about the level of the group’s prior knowledge and enable students in the group to provide knowledge to each other so that the activities serve as instruction as well as assessment. On the other hand, because brainstorming is a group technique, it is not useful for determining the prior knowledge of a particular student.
See also Conceptual Change Learning and Texts; Prior Knowledge Assessment; Schema Theory References Beck, Isabel. 1984. “ Developing Comprehension: The Impact of the Directed Reading Lesson.” In Richard C. Anderson, Jean Osborn, and Robert J. Tierney, eds., Learning to Read in American Schools, pp. 3–20. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Confrey, Jere. 1990. “A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science and Programming.” In Courtney Cazden, ed., Review of Research in Education, pp. 3–56. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tonja E. Snyder, Gene V. Glass, and Warren S. Gamas. 1993. “Promoting Conceptual Change in Science: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Instructional Interventions from Reading Education and Science Education.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:116–161. Lipson, Marjorie. 1982. “Learning New Information from Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Reading Ability.” Journal of Reading Behavior 14:234–258. McKeown, Margaret G., and Isabel L. Beck. 1990. “The Assessment and Characterization of Young Learners’ Knowledge of a Topic in History.” American Educational Research Journal 27:688–726. Nussbaum, Joseph. 1985. “The Earth as Cosmic Body.” In R. Driver, E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghian, eds., Children’s Ideas in Science, pp. 170–192. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Assessing an Individual’s Prior Knowledge Measures to determine an individual student’s prior knowledge vary on a continuum of formats, ranging from recall tasks (such as brainstorming and open-ended questions) to recognition tasks (such as multiple-choice tests and true-false tests). Students may be asked to respond either orally or in writing when using these formats. Their responses may be scored either quantitatively (for example, number of correct responses) or qualitatively (for example, type of prior knowledge). Measures also vary, ranging from assessment of discrete elements (such as vocabulary and concepts) to assessment of relationships between concepts, providing a picture of the structure of a student’s prior knowledge. Students often have concepts about a topic that differ from concepts accepted by experts in the field of study of which that topic is a part. These different concepts are referred to as misconceptions, preconceptions, or alternative conceptions. If the ideas in a text contradict a student’s alternative conceptions, he or she will find it harder to learn the new ideas than if he or she had no knowledge of the topic. Because alternative conceptions are quite common in science and be-
Prior-Knowledge Assessment Prior-knowledge assessment is gathering information concerning what a reader knows about the topic of a text before he or she reads it. In the 1970s and 1980s, research based on schema theory provided evidence that the prior knowledge readers brought to a text was one of the most powerful factors in determining their ability to comprehend that text (see “Schema Theory” entry). Comprehension was defined as making connections between text information and prior knowledge. Teachers were urged to begin reading lessons by determining what students already knew about the topic of the text. 456
Prior-Knowledge Assessment cause many scientific concepts are counterintuitive, students often have difficulty learning scientific concepts when reading science texts. When a teacher or researcher only wants to find out whether a student knows a particular idea, measures at the knowledge level or literal level are sufficient. Application measures are especially necessary, however, when assessing alternative conceptions, because children typically do not connect scientific knowledge with phenomena encountered in their everyday life. Consequently, a student may give the “right” answer to a question on the knowledge level, yet an application question on the same concept may reveal an alternative conception (Dole and Smith, 1989). The four most popular formats that have been used to assess prior knowledge are written openended questions, oral clinical interviews, written multiple-choice questions, and concept maps. Although these categories are discussed individually in the following sections, it is important to note that they may be used together. For example, students who answer written multiplechoice questions might then be interviewed about the reasons for their answers.
Oral Clinical Interviews Clinical interviews of the type first developed by Jean Piaget are often considered the most valid measures of prior knowledge because they provide the opportunity to probe students’ responses to individual questions, determine relationships between ideas, and obtain authentic responses from students. In a study to establish the validity of different prior knowledge tests, Sheila Valencia and her colleagues (Valencia et al., 1991) used interviews as the criterion against which all other tests were measured. Interviews usually begin with open-ended questions about a topic. Answers to these questions are then probed with more specific questions that either probe students’ knowledge or ask students to predict what might happen in a particular situation. Concrete objects can be used to present several situations at the same time. For example, Shirley Magnusson and Mark Templin (1997) used wires, batteries, light bulbs, and switches in different configurations in asking students to predict what would happen when the switch was turned on. Katherine Maria (1997, 1998) asked young students to choose from four pictures the one that showed what would happen to a ball dropped in a hole through the earth and to explain the reasons for their choice. Interviews have often been criticized for their lack of reliability. Researchers have attempted to improve the reliability of interviews by standardizing them to some extent. Researchers have done so by using the same questions and, as far as possible, similar probes in each interview. Another problem is that probing is very difficult to do without leading a student toward a particular response. Conducting appropriate interviews also requires training and experience. Because of the demands of training and the number of interviews required for each student in a classroom, interviews are difficult for teachers to use. Categorizing responses and scoring interviews are also problematic because of the vast amount of data that interviews generate. When trying to determine whether students have alternative conceptions, information regarding common alternative conceptions and accepted ideas about the topic can be used to create a set of categories ranging from most incorrect to most correct. If no information is available, initial interviews can
Written Open-Ended Questions Asking students to answer open-ended questions individually and to write down their ideas allows a teacher or researcher to measure a number of individual students at a same time; hence, this is an efficient way to assess prior knowledge. This technique, however, does not allow assessors to determine whether a student has a particular idea about a topic. For example, a student might know that only birds have feathers but might not state that idea when asked to brainstorm about birds. When answering open-ended questions, students might state alternative conceptions about the topic or give an answer to an application question that indicates that they have an alternative conception. Then the teacher would be able to structure instruction to help that student and any others who shared the alternative conception to change their ideas. As in assessing other specific concepts, however, assessors cannot be certain that students do not have an alternative conception just because they do not state it. Thus, individual oral interviews (referred to as clinical interviews) and tests using multiple-choice questions are more valid measures when assessing whether a student has a particular concept. 457
Prior-Knowledge Assessment be used to develop categories for later ones. Students may, however, give contradictory answers in an interview, making it hard to understand whether or not an individual has an alternative conception about a topic. In cases like these, it may be necessary to score interviews holistically using either the number of responses in a category or other concrete evidence to decide whether a student’s prior knowledge is correct or incorrect. Also, to ensure reliability, cross-checking of scoring by independent raters is necessary.
can be taught to create concept maps independently so that a teacher or researcher could gather concept maps from a group in far less time than it would take to interview the individuals in the group. On the other hand, because concept maps are difficult to construct, it takes a long time to train students to construct them. Consequently, students may resist using them. Implications When Sheila Valencia and her colleagues (Valencia et al., 1991) administered several different prior-knowledge measures on the same topic to students, they found that the measures were not significantly correlated or similar enough to be measuring the same construct. Therefore, it appears that different measures of prior knowledge may be measuring different things. When an assessor wishes to obtain as complete a picture of a student’s prior knowledge as possible, it is necessary to use a number of different measures. In seeking to obtain information about a particular aspect of a student’s prior knowledge, such as whether or not he or she has a particular alternative conception, teachers and researchers must balance the advantages and disadvantages of the different prior-knowledge measures in choosing the one that best fits their needs. Katherine Maria
Multiple-Choice Tests Multiple-choice questions are the most popular measures at both the knowledge and application levels because they are easy to administer and score. Carefully chosen distractors (wrong answers) can also provide information about a student’s reasoning. Distractors can be constructed based on common alternative conceptions and can be used to determine whether a student has an alternative conception. When multiple-choice and open-ended questions were compared, multiple-choice questions revealed a higher percentage of alternative conceptions. One possible reason for this, however, may have been that the distractors based on common alternative conceptions may have created alternative conceptions (Bar, 1987). Another problem with multiple-choice questions is that they test an individual’s ideas finitely and consequently provide no information about the structure of students’ prior knowledge. Two-tiered multiplechoice tests in which students provide reasons for their choices of answers or questions that probe students’ reasons for their answers can, however, provide this information.
See also Conceptual Change Learning and Texts; Graphic Organizers; Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions; Schema Theory References Bar, Varda. 1987. “The Effect of Testing Format on the Distribution of the Results.” Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics 1: 26–31. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Dole, Janice A., and Edward L. Smith. 1989. “Prior Knowledge and Learning from Science Text: An Instructional Study.” In Cognitive and Social Perspectives for Literacy Research and Instruction. Thirty-eighth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 33–49. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Magnusson, Shirley J., and Mark Templin. 1997. “Dynamic Science Assessment: A New Approach for Investigating Conceptual Change.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 6:91–142. Maria, Katherine. 1997. “A Case Study of Conceptual Change in a Young Child.” Elementary School Journal 98:67–88.
Concept Maps Concept maps are a type of graphic organizer that represents relationships between concepts (see “Graphic Organizers” entry). The terms representing concepts that students generate are written down by the assessor and enclosed in boxes or circles that are connected by lines labeled to show how the concepts interrelate. Concept maps are useful because, like interviews, they provide information about a student’s knowledge structure. This assessment technique can be helpful in identifying alternative conceptions. There are advantages and disadvantages to concept maps. One advantage is that students 458
Process Writing ———. 1998. “Self-confidence and the Process of Conceptual Change.” In Barbara J. Guzzetti and Cynthia Hynd, eds., Perspectives on Conceptual Change, pp. 7–16. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Valencia, Sheila W., Anne C. Stallman, Michelle Commyras, P. David Pearson, and Douglas K. Hartman. 1991. “Four Measures of Topical Knowledge: A Study of Construct Validity.” Reading Research Quarterly 26:204–233.
Process Writing Process writing is an instructional model that views writing as an ongoing experience during which students follow a given set of procedures. With this model, writing is viewed as a composing process that requires planning, drafting, revising, and editing. The writing process, like the reading process, has overlapping and recurring components. Students are instructed to develop their writing through a procedure that includes five stages. Although these stages have received a variety of labels by educators, they consistently include the following fundamentals: (1) prewriting or planning, (2) writing the first draft, (3) revising, (4) editing and proofreading, and (5) publishing (Emig, 1971; Graves, 1975). Prior to the increasing acceptance of viewing writing as a process, most of the writing activities in elementary classrooms had fallen under the guise of “creative writing.” Frequently students were assigned a story starter, such as “If I Won The Lottery . . .” and were instructed to complete a composition. This traditional approach to developing writing skills was usually unsatisfactory, as students were given an assignment and left to complete it independently. Students were often unengaged, spent little time planning what they would write about, and frequently refrained from revision entirely (Dyson and Freedman, 1991). The focus was on the final mechanically correct product and ignored the recursive journey experienced by writers as they produce a piece of work. Teachers who employed the creative writing methodology did not teach students how to write but rather had them practice writing as if they were fine tuning a set of discrete skills (Tompkins, 1990). Skill sheets and other exercises designed to practice good writing skills did not produce writers who valued their work but rather encouraged students to focus on mechanical correctness. In the writing process,
A student reviews the first draft of her paper (Elizabeth Crews)
the emphasis has shifted from analyzing students’ finished products to investigating what students think and do as they write. This shift has impacted the teacher’s role during writing time. Rather than merely assigning and assessing, teachers now work with students throughout the writing process (Tompkins, 1990). The first step in the writing process is prewriting or planning. This can be considered the getting-ready-to-write time. Prewriting is as crucial to writers as warming up is to athletes and has often been the most neglected stage of the writing process (Tompkins, 1990). Unlike the traditional approach to writing, students are urged to write about something they genuinely care about rather than on a teacher-selected topic. It is the teacher’s responsibility to create conditions within which writers become more aware of issues and feelings that are important to them and are able to develop the confidence of self-expression. Writing must be relevant to students if they are to become engaged writers. Initially, choosing a topic can be a stumbling block for students who are accustomed to being given a specific writing assignment. It is not uncommon for teachers to hear the familiar 459
Process Writing lament, “But I don’t know what to write about!” This predicament can be assuaged in a variety of ways. Students’ preparation for choosing a topic may take many forms. They can be encouraged to daydream, sketch, make lists, outline, and talk to peers about their ideas. Brainstorming ideas about topics with an entire class frequently serves as a catalyst for students to begin to write. William Brozo and Michelle Simpson (1999) believed that students who are provided with more time in class for brainstorming ideas with their peers significantly increase the quality and ownership of their writing. During the prewriting stage, students determine their purposes for writing and select a form for their composition. A letter, for example, will take on an entirely different form than a report or a story. Additionally students need to consider their audience or the people with whom they might share their writing. Unlike merely writing to complete an assignment, writing with a reader in mind will impact the tone and form of their composition. After students have decided upon a topic for their composition and have done some preliminary planning, they are ready to write their first drafts. An important characteristic of the process approach to writing is that students may write several drafts, fine-tuning each one as they proceed. At this point, however, mechanical correctness and neatness need not be concerns. This phase, sometimes referred to as “sloppy copies,” is primarily a time for students to get their ideas down on paper. They should be encouraged to strive for flexibility, as their writing journey may take them to unanticipated destinations. The next stage, the revising stage, is the time for writers to share their compositions with a classmate and seek feedback. Frequently writers will find, when sharing their writing, that they wish to expand and clarify their ideas or polish and trim the writing for clarity and effectiveness. Patrick Sebranek, Verne Meyer, and Dave Kemper (1996) suggested that writers follow the 5-R’s strategy for effective revisions. They suggested that students first read their piece aloud and listen to their writing. Next students should be encouraged to react to their own writing by asking questions such as, “Does the composition say what I want it to say?”“Where do I need to go from here?” The third R involves reworking the piece by making changes that provide clarity and
smoothness. Reflecting on the work and the changes is the fourth step. It is important to consider whether or not the changes have improved the piece. Finally, students should refine their work by adding touches that provide some additional sparkle and interest to the piece. When the revision phase is completed, students are ready to edit their writing. Mary Warner (2001) discriminated metaphorically between revising and editing by saying that revising is seeing the forest, whereas editing is seeing single trees. During the editing process, attention is paid to the conventions of language. The conventions of language are the elements of a composition that enable an audience to be able to read and appreciate a piece of writing (Lenski and Johns, 2000). Thus it is important for students to examine their compositions for mechanical errors that will interfere with a reader’s understanding and enjoyment of the selection. During the proofreading phase, students read carefully for errors rather than focus on meaning. It is usually appropriate at this juncture for teachers to supply students with grade-level editing checklists. A first- or second-grade checklist, for example, might include only a few items, such as capital letters at the beginning of sentences and periods at the end of sentences. Middle-grade checklists, however, can naturally be more complex and extensive. The final stage of the writing process is sharing or publishing. This stage is the culminating event for writers and allows students to see themselves as actual authors. Whether they share their composition with fellow classmates, parents, or other members of the community, they will experience the satisfaction of completing a writing journey. At the final stage of the writing process, sharing their work encourages young writers to return to the challenge of writing with enthusiasm and motivation. A valid concern about the writing process has been expressed by some instructional leaders (DiPardo and Freedman, 1988). They warned that the writing process can become an inflexible set of activities that ignores the original intention of recursiveness. It is possible, for example, to schedule a week based on the notion that students will plan on Monday, write drafts on Tuesday, revise on Wednesday, and edit and share on Thursday. This rigidity ignores the flexibility that is the intent and the essence of process writing. 460
Programmed Instruction Not every student, for example, will be ready or willing to share according to a preset schedule. Writing should be viewed as a problem-solving process that allows for flexibility and a recycling through the various stages. Mary Ann Wham
systematic presentation of text emphasizing immediate feedback to the student’s responses. Literacy objectives are conceptualized and stated as expected terminal behaviors, and each lesson is presented in a step-by-step progressive sequence that is designed to result in the achieving of a specified objective. As the student responds to each item, immediate feedback is provided in the form of a branching or linear technique. Branching reinforcement directs the student to another section or lesson to reteach or reinforce information that has been identified as a weakness (for example, an incorrect response to a previous item), whereas linear feedback directs the student forward and to the next item in the instructional sequence or text (that is, without the benefit of cross-referencing to reteach or reinforce learning). According to Deloris Durkin (1978) and to Cecil Mercer and Anne Mercer (1989), C. D. Buchanan’s 1966 Programmed Reading and M. D. Sullivan’s 1966 Sullivan Reading Program were two of the more popular programmed series used by general and special education teachers for developmental and remedial purposes. Martha Collins and Earl Cheek (1989) identified a number of strengths associated with programmed instruction: These materials tend to enhance student motivation, are self-paced and individualized and conducive to students’ learning rate, provide immediate feedback (for example, branching or linear reinforcement), have lessons that are presented in a progressive and carefully sequenced format designed to enhance skill development, and permit teachers to focus on the individual needs of each student. Collins and Cheek also identified inherent limitations in the unqualified use of programmed materials, noting that these materials tend to emphasize the development of word identification and literallevel comprehension (not critical-thinking abilities), can be overused by teachers and result in monotonous literacy events without any real purpose (for example, busy work), have only one correct answer to each item (a response format that could stifle creativity), and vary in instructional or readability levels (for example, text may be too difficult for some students and too easy for others). Although the use of programmed instruction and related materials in print form is less prevalent today than in previous years, there has been
See also Writing across the Curriculum References Brozo, William, and Michelle Simpson. 1999. Readers, Teachers, Learners: Expanding Literacy across the Content Areas. 3d ed.. Columbus, OH: Merrill. DiPardo, Anne, and Sarah W. Freedman 1988. “Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classroom: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions.” Review of Educational Research 58 (2):119–149. Dyson, Ann H., and Sarah W. Freedman. 1991. “Writing.” In James Flood, Julie M. Jensen, Diane Lapp, and James R. Squire, eds., Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, pp. 754–774. New York: Macmillan. Emig, Janet. 1971. The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Graves, Donald H. 1975. “An Examination of the Writing Processes of Seven-Year-Old Children.” Research in the Teaching of English 9:227–241. Lenski, Susan Davis, and Jerry L. Johns. 2000. Improving Writing. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Sebranek, Patrick, Verne Meyer, and Dave Kemper. 1996. Writers Inc: A Student Handbook for Writing and Learning. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Tompkins, Gail E. 1990. Teaching Writing; Balancing Process and Product. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Warner, Mary. 2001. Winning Ways of Coaching Writing: A Practical Guide for Teaching Writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Programmed Instruction The use of programmed instruction in schools emerged as a viable option in the 1950s. Spache (1976) suggested that it was an outgrowth of operant conditioning and a systematic approach to learning borrowed from the field of psychology. The basic premise of this type of instruction is that learning takes place in small increments that are repeated frequently with immediate reinforcement until the desired behavior or learning is achieved. This theory of learning has been applied to the teaching of reading through the use of programmed materials that purport to develop proficient readers through the implementation of a 461
Psycholinguistics a significant increase in technology-based literacy programs using the theory of operant conditioning. One such popular program used today is Accelerated Reader (see Renaissance Learning’s Learning Information System at http://www.renlearn.com). Jimmy D. Lindsey and Earl H. Cheek Jr.
itively hypothesized and experimented with rules of language suggested a new way of thinking about how people might learn to read. It was an easy step for researchers already interested in reading—such as Kenneth Goodman, Frank Smith, and Robert Ruddell—to extend the ideas of language acquisition to reading. For these researchers, reading and print comprised a form of language parallel to oral language, rather than secondary to it. This meaning-centered language perspective of the reading process had several influences on reading instruction that were concisely summarized by David Pearson and Diane Stephens (1994):
References Collins, Martha D., and Earl H. Cheek Jr. 1989. Diagnostic-Prescriptive Reading Instruction: A Guide for Classroom Teachers. 3d ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. Durkin, Delores. 1978. Teaching Them to Read. 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Mercer, Cecil D., and Anne R. Mercer. 1989. Teaching Children with Learning Problems. 3d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Spache, George D. 1976. Investigating the Issues of Reading Disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
The psycholinguistic approach emphasizes the value and importance of using texts that rely upon natural language. This influence was seen most in the changes in materials used for beginning readers. Contrived, unnatural language structures were no longer used in these materials. Classroom literacy experiences that emphasized language’s being used for authentic reasons and that provided experiences for which the learner easily recognized the purpose became more prevalent. Because of the clear connection between reading and oral language, reading was thought of as a process. This had the effect of shifting instruction from skill lessons and drill and practice to a more strategic approach in which students learned how to process print. Reader’s miscues—misreadings—were regarded as windows on the process used rather than as errors to be fixed. Probably the most significant influence was on the way the teaching-learning relationship was perceived and developed. Teachers were no longer regarded as dispensers of information but rather as partners in the learning process during which they helped students build, revise, and develop processes that allowed them to construct meaning from print. (1)
Psycholinguistics Psycholinguistics is a subdiscipline of psychology at the intersection of two distinct and separate disciplines—psychology and linguistics. It examines the behavior of the reader and his or her learning conditions (psychology) as well as the abstract study of language (linguistics). Its basic emphasis is the investigation of language processes described by linguists and the determination of their psychological reality. The work of psycholinguistics is to examine and develop theories of language performance. The term psycholinguistics was first used in the early 1950s to focus on linguistic methods for describing language output. During this time it was closely allied with information and learning theories. This continued until the 1960s, when psychologists interested in language processes were introduced to the work of Noam Chomsky. Chomsky and his generative transformational grammar brought about a radical change in the way psychologists studied language behavior. With this change, investigation of language turned from focusing on descriptions of the output of language users to the processes of language development and use. This shift in focus brought about some general implications for other types of cognitive functions. The understanding that the learner of language was an active learner who observed language being used in the environment and intu-
In explaining the language process as the application of a set of generative and transformational rules on the part of the language user, Noam Chomsky and his supporters set out to 462
Psycholinguistics show that behaviorist learning theory was unable to account for the complexities of the language process and that a stimulus-response theory and a probabilities approach to language acquisition combined to create a remarkably inadequate theory. The effects of this criticism of behaviorist theory eventually led linguists away from the investigation of the physical features of language and away from comparing the early language of children to that of adults; linguists began looking at language development as a rule-governed process by which the user intuitively developed the rules that govern language use. Children’s early utterances were no longer thought of as fragments of a more complete adult grammar but rather as complete rule-governed utterances containing a grammar and meaning of their own. Until this time, reading had been thought of as a set of discrete skills that needed to be learned so that print could be recoded into a form of oral language before it could be understood. The prevalent idea at the time had been that it was necessary to translate print into oral language. The skills needed to do this were inseparably connected with the ability to figure out printed words. Consequently, the ability to identify letters, learn the sounds they represented, identify morphemic elements (units of meaning within words, such as ed, ing, plural endings), and so on had all been very much a part of the process of learning to read. Emphasis on words in one form or another invariably made up the basic curriculum of reading instruction. Obviously, the important information necessary for reading was to be obtained from the printed page. Now this changed; instead, researchers focused on the idea that reading is another form of language. Psycholinguistics helped develop the point of view that reading is language and is developed in the same way oral language is: by active, involved learners participating in language experiences that involve print in meaningful, important, and understandable ways. Key to this concept is that people are not taught to read; they come to read because they are a part of the literate society and are expected to be contributing members of it. Because they are given the opportunity to experience literacy activities, they develop into readers. According to the psycholinguistic perspective, this does not eliminate the role of the teacher in learning to read. It does, however, greatly change that role. The teacher, along with
parents and others in the learner’s environment, becomes responsible for helping the learner become an active participant, for establishing environments in which the learner can safely experiment with the reading process, and for providing appropriate feedback that can move the learner to confirmation of the hypothesis formed and then on to other levels and hypotheses about the process, thereby starting the cycle over by continuing to provide environments that further test new hypotheses. According to Frank Smith (1973), there were three major concepts strongly supported by studies in psycholinguistics that were important to reading. These concepts take the emphasis in learning to read away from the word and place it squarely on meaning. First, the printed page provides only a small part of the information needed to comprehend what the author has written. Second, the identification of individual words is far more dependent upon comprehension than is comprehension dependent upon decoding the printed word. Third, reading is not recoding print into spoken language; it is the construction of meaning directly from the print. This third concept is facilitated by understanding the visual and nonvisual forms of information that contribute to the reading process. Visual information is the data obtained from the print on the page and is considered to be secondary to the nonvisual information—that which the reader already knows about language, about reading, and about the world in general. With this new emphasis on nonvisual information as a significant contributor to the reading process, a revolutionary way of thinking about how readers process print was born: (1) When more nonvisual information is available, less visual information is needed; (2) when the form of the text makes it more difficult to use nonvisual information, the reader has to rely more on the visual, consequently slowing the reading process. These two pieces of information are further complicated by the fact that there is a severe limitation on the amount of visual information that can be processed at any one time. This suggests that overuse of or overreliance on visual information can overload the system, making it very hard—if not impossible—to read for meaning when the reader is relying primarily on visual information. This limited capacity of the system makes the interaction of visual and nonvisual in463
Public Opinion and Literacy Pearson, P. David, and Diane Stephens. 1994. “Learning about Literacy: A 30-year Journey.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 22–47. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ruddell, Robert. 1969. “Psycholinguistic Implications for a System of Communication Model.” In Kenneth S. Goodman and James T. Fleming, eds., Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading, pp. 61–78. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Smith, Frank. 1973. Psycholinguistics and Reading. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
formation even more important if meaningful reading is to occur. These ideas completely change the focus on word identification as a major emphasis in reading instruction to a focus on meaning in reading instruction. Another logical implication for reading instruction drawn from this information involves the nature of beginning reading materials. Contrived and artificial text (often the result of attempts to control the vocabulary and sentence length or to provide multiple practices with specific words within a passage) makes the use of nonverbal information more difficult, thereby making the reading process more difficult. Prior to the advent of psycholinguistics, the study of reading had basically been approached from an atheoretical position and was thought as a word-identification activity. One of the first researchers to question this and to begin to look at reading from a language process approach was Kenneth Goodman (1967, 1994). His work and ideas drew him to the work of linguists and psychologists who were studying reading. It became clear to him that meaning was the central core of reading; consequently, it had to be a psycholinguistic process. From this grew what was later to be called the whole-language model of reading. From the psycholinguistic perspective, reading is an active process during which the reader uses different cueing systems (meaning, the structure of language, and letter-sound relationships) to predict upcoming print. The reader, using previous experience and knowledge of our linguistic system along with world knowledge, interacts with the print to construct meaning. Using the context of the material, the reader confirms or disconfirms predictions made about what the print means to complete the reading process. William Earl Smith
Public Opinion and Literacy The perceived role of schooling and literacy instruction in U.S. schools has changed over time from an emphasis on religious freedom and developing the spiritual to creating a patriotic, informed citizenry, and now, a productive workforce in an information age. As the aims of schooling and literacy instruction have changed over time, so has the public’s opinion changed toward them! Recent and current public opinions about schooling and literacy education have been influenced greatly by the role of the electronic media in our society since 1950. Events such as the publication of Why Johnny Can’t Read (Flesch, 1955); the launching of the Russian satellite Sputnik; the publication of Chall’s (1967) Learning to Read: The Great Debate; the widespread distribution of the federal report, A Nation At Risk; the creation of the Hooked on Phonics program geared toward parents; the rise and fall of whole language; and the current focus on balanced reading instruction are examples of how reading instruction increasingly has been at the forefront of America’s consciousness. Although Gallup polls of public opinion have documented sustained support for public schools over the past twenty years, newspaper headlines, comments by politicians, and articles in the popular press would suggest a much different public perception. From these media messages, it would seem that most would agree today that our educational system is in need of major reform—particularly the manner in which reading is taught. The growing fear of a literacy collapse in our schools is fueled by reports in the media and by public officials that schools are failing to teach children to read. Despite the un-
See also Language Acquisition; Linguistic Approaches to Reading Instruction; Whole Language and WholeLanguage Assessment References Goodman, Kenneth S. (1967). “Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game.” Journal of the Reading Specialist 4:126–135. ———. 1994. “Reading, Writing, and Written Texts: A Transactional Sociopsycholinguistic View.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 1093– 1130. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
464
Public Opinion and Literacy
People protesting on the state of public schools (Michael Siluk)
ated Press Online, 2000); “Phonics Is the Key to Teaching Children to Read” (Knight-Ridder News Service, 2000). Literacy abilities are viewed increasingly as crucial for economic success, both for individuals and for society as a whole. Standards for what constitute the literacy skills required for success have increased dramatically over time, so literacy requirements for monetary success today are higher than ever. Because of the increased importance of literacy in the lives of individuals, greater demand for excellence in literacy instruction has increased. Current public opinion may be declining owing to concerns over higher levels of literacy abilities needed in the workforce and fears that the rising generation may not be well enough equipped to meet the demands. For a variety of reasons the public seems to prefer simple messages that present clear, unambiguous facts. News is presented in short segments that simplify many issues and minimize the complexities. Reading is a very complex process that researchers are still trying to completely understand. Due to its intricacy, effective ways to teach children to read are complex as well. Research and reviews of research consis-
substantiated rhetoric of such reports, data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that reading scores for fourth, eighth, and eleventh graders have remained remarkably stable over the past thirty years. Even with the dramatic increase of children who are not native English speakers, the scores have risen slightly over time, indicating that the feared or even rumored decline in literacy learning is not occurring. The current media debate about reading is quite literally focused between proponents of phonics instruction and whole language, but this surface-level debate is only symptomatic of much deeper and more significant issues. Public opinion as reflected in polls, press releases, and research reports is ever more strident in its tone and content. Headlines selected from recent newspaper articles provide examples of the debate: “War of Words” (Toronto Star, 1996); “The Reading Wars” (Los Angeles Times, 2000); “As Reading Scores Plummet, States Get Hooked on Phonics” (Christian Science Monitor, 1996); “Teaching Children to Read: Politics Colors Debate over Methods” (New York Times, 1997); “Reading Methods Fighting Criticized” (Associ465
Public Opinion and Literacy tently indicate that there is no one best way to teach children to read. In the public’s search for simple answers to difficult questions, literacy professionals may not present current understanding of reading instruction in ways that are useful. Several important issues are at the center of this disagreement between the profession and the public.
couraging individual progress. Educators express concern over measuring outcomes and skill acquisition as the most important part of reading acquisition rather than considering the abilities to critically assess ideas, reason and write using multiple texts, and construct personal meaning from text as more worthy educational purposes. Educators want parents to understand the complexities surrounding why children struggle when learning to read. Educators want parents, policymakers, and politicians to support children in their personal quest for reading ability rather than making comparisons to mythical “average” achieving students and forcing competitive conditions upon young children. Teachers want to measure a student’s progress against past individual performance rather than against other children’s collective performance. For the public, group-administered product assessments determine the success of certain policies, processes, and procedures in large populations or segments of a population. As public servants, educators cannot become dismissive about their ethical and professional responsibilities to the public. To act in an unresponsive manner is to render the potential contributions of the profession to the public good irrelevant. On the other hand, policymakers, parents, and politicians must support educators’ needs to measure individual performance and progress in order to guide their professional judgments, decisions, and actions. Without individual progress assessment, teachers do not know how to teach to the needs of individual students.
Responsibility Who, after all, is ultimately responsible for the success or failure of a child learning to read? Ask parents, policymakers, and politicians, and one hears of failing schools, uninvolved administrators, and poorly trained teachers. Ask educators, and one hears of failing homes, poorly informed policymakers, and detached parents. The fingers of blame point in opposite directions. Research on this issue shows parents and homes coupled with competent professional teaching account for the preponderance of a child’s predicted success in learning to read. The solution to this issue is to stop placing blame and assume shared responsibility for the collective and individual success of children in learning to read. Purposes and Goals Whose purposes and goals for reading instruction are most worthwhile? Ask parents, policymakers, and politicians, and one hears calls for measuring reading success in terms of outcomes, examining the product of students’ reading efforts, increasing students’ acquisition of reading skills, improving test scores, and performing on grade level in comparison and in competition with other students. These same stakeholders want to compare students’ current performance to the past performance of the nation’s students. They want to compare the current performance of individual students to the “average” performance of a normative comparison group. They want research that answers questions about how to teach all children to read—especially those who struggle. In short, they want educators to be held accountable for demonstrating the “value added” dimension of their remunerated professional services in relation to teaching children to read. Ask educators, and one hears calls for measuring reading success in terms of inputs, understanding the reading process, improving student attitudes and dispositions, assessing whether students read widely and well, and en-
Control Who is, or more important, who should be in control of deciding how reading is taught and assessed? Ask parents, policymakers, and politicians, and the answer is the public. Ask educators, and the answer is the profession. Each of these factions asserts clear moral imperatives as grounds for their polarized positions on the issue. The public pays the bills and parents have legal rights to decide such things for their children; therefore, the public should set the policy, decide what is to be taught, and hold the profession accountable for their use of public funds and trust. On the other hand, the profession asserts its specialized training and knowledge as grounds for setting policy, deciding what is taught and how it is taught, and holding the public and parents re466
Public Opinion and Literacy sponsible for the adequacy of their support and engagement in the educational process. This dispute arises because the two factions view the question from differing perspectives. The public applies a “customer service” perspective to educators—insisting they have been paid to perform a service competently and satisfactorily. Educators agree in principle with this notion but believe they need to have greater control over whether or not their “patients” comply with their prescriptions.
accept a business model of education with emphasis on outputs, standards, accountability, and quality control. By contrast, many professional educators take a more democratic view, choosing to focus more on individual growth and development, on processes rather than on the products of education, and on building relationships of trust among stakeholders (students, teachers, parents, administrators, and the public). When such a sharp divide exists, the two sides may find it difficult to relate to and understand one another. Pendulum thinking and the crudities associated therewith will not produce the conversations, the compromise, the collaboration, the community, the conditions, or the commitment to meet the challenges facing this generation of children or their teachers as the importance of learning to read increases. Another generation of children must not be used as the political pawns in a power struggle over who knows best and who gets control. The public and the profession must rise above these issues seeking a “win-win” for all children—and not a focus on the continuing argument for positions, politics, power, or philosophies. D. Ray Reutzel and Timothy G. Morrison
Accountability “What counts” as evidence to support successful or “best practices” for teaching children to read? Public voices seem to demand greater “scientific” evidence based in quantitative data collection and analysis. The orientation here is that reading is largely a cognitive activity or skill only marginally impacted by other competing social or environmental factors. Professional voices insist social, environmental, and individual nuances in reading instruction demand a comprehensive view and solution. Inclusive, multiparadigm models and theories of the reading process, the instructional process, and the research process must be accepted and valued by the public and the profession to shed necessary light on these vital issues. Those outside the mainstream of the literacy education community who present seemingly simple solutions to complex problems may attract the attention of the public. The result may be the public’s distrust of the established research community’s ability to present a coherent answer to widespread concerns and questions. The rise of the media has clearly played an important role in the creation of public opinion. The media play an important role in informing the populace, but they also are in the business of providing entertainment. Whether presenting news or providing entertainment, the media strive to attract the largest audience possible. To increase the number of viewers, the media frequently focus on the controversial and titillating, limiting attention on what the profession considers important issues. Since there is legitimate disagreement over appropriate ways to teach reading, the media may capitalize on the controversy to attract viewers. The views of educators and the public often differ related to the role of education and literacy. U.S. society appears to
See also The Political Nature of Literacy References Chall, Jeanne S. 1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Flesch, Rudolf. 1955. Why Johnny Can’t Read. New York: HarperCollins. Hooked on Phonics. 2000. San Francisco: Gateway Learning Corporation. NAEP 1994 Reading: A First Look—Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 1995. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. 1983. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Rhodes, Lynne. 1979. “Comprehension and Predictability: An Analysis of Beginning Reading Materials.” In Jerry C. Harste and Robert F. Carey, eds., New Perspectives on Comprehension, pp. 100–131. Bloomington: Indiana University School of Education. Simons, Herbert D., and Paul R. Ammon. 1987. “The Language of Beginning Reading Texts.” Unpublished report. Berkeley: University of California.
467
Q dents’ text comprehension (“What does the word civil mean when you see the term, ‘a civil war’?”). Reading by children invites questions that probe for understandings (for example, “Why did Jess feel guilty?”), that redirect their attention (for example, “Are you sure that word is ‘spent’?”), or that model comprehension monitoring (for example, “Does that make sense?”). Contexts in which questions are prevalent include guided reading groups, writing conferences, student- and teacher-led literature discussion groups (see “Book Clubs,” “Literature Circles,” and “Peer Discussion” entries), inquiry groups (see “Inquiry-Based Instruction” entry), and whole-class discussions. Teachers’ roles vary across contexts, from teacher-led to student-led interactions. In teacher-led activities, questions are used generally as a part of explicit instruction, modeling, or scaffolding. When the teacher and students share responsibilities for discussion (for example, see Eeds and Wells [1989] for a description of “grand conversations”), the teacher’s role is more likely to be that of facilitator (that is, orchestrating turn taking but not limiting the topics discussed) or participant (that is, the teacher is one of the discussants with no authority or responsibility for framing, directing, or summarizing the discussion). In student-led activities, questions students ask of each other often mirror those that they experience in teacher-led settings. In paired reading, observers may see the more able readers prompting the less able through questioning, using questions to monitor understanding, or to direct attention. In book clubs (see “Book Clubs” entry) and related “fish bowls” (a book club group performing while classroom peers observe them) or readers’ workshop, appropriate questioning involves seeking new information or in-
Questioning Since Socrates, the use of questions to promote learning has been a primary form of discourse in instructional situations. In today’s classrooms, we see patterns from the ubiquitous InitiateRespond-Evaluate (IRE) and its variations to questioning among students as they engage in inquiry activities and literature discussions during book clubs. In this entry, we explore four areas important to understanding questioning practices and related strategies: (1) the contexts where questioning activities and strategies occur, (2) frameworks to guide effective questioning, (3) teaching students about questioning, and (4) students’ use of questioning strategies. Classroom Literacy Contexts for Questioning Activities In K–12 classrooms, questions serve three primary functions: guiding conversations, probing for information, and assessing understanding. Questions can be teacher or student generated and can range from ones designed to promote critical analysis to those seeking low-level, literal responses. Classroom literacy contexts vary in the kinds of questioning activities they invite. For example, when teachers read to their students, questions may be rhetorical ones designed to model reading strategies (for example, “What ever will Marty do to help this poor dog?”) or to underscore important information (for example, “I’m not surprised that Jess and Lesley have become friends, are you?”). When teachers read with their children in shared reading, questions may focus students’ attention on text ideas or features (for example, “Why do you think the poet wrote two words on each line when she had space for more words than that?”). In contrast, during guided reading, questions scaffold stu469
Questioning terpretations, clarifying confusions, finding points of personal contact with the text being discussed, and intetextual connections between texts.
they introduce students to Reciprocal Teaching, emphasizing their use in whole-class settings, in small groups, and on their own. By integrating Reciprocal Teaching into all classroom reading (content area, poems, silent reading books, and so on), teachers have multiple opportunities to model, and students to practice, question asking and answering strategies. POSSE is a framework to guide teachers and students through prereading, reading, and postreading activities designed to facilitate comprehension, particularly for children with reading problems. POSSE stands for Predict (predict what the story will be about), Organize (organize your knowledge into categories and details), Search (read to identify the main ideas and details or story parts) Summarize (name the main idea), and Evaluate (ask a question, compare, clarify, and predict). Questioning practices are embedded within the Predict, Search, and Evaluate activities. A teacher-led questioning framework in contrast to Reciprocal Teaching and POSSE is the Shared Inquiry Discussion format found in the Junior Great Books Curriculum, featuring a reading/writing exercise designed to promote thoughtful reading and critical thinking. In this method, the teachers/leaders continue to be a very important component to this form of inquiry; however, they are trained to avoid asking questions that cause the participants to speculate about events outside the text or that ask for predictions. The founders promote what they call interpretive questions—words, phrases, or sentences that can be understood in more than one way—that focus students’ attention on the text while challenging them to think independently. Teacher-led frameworks for questioning have also focused on modeling effective independent study strategies, such as SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review). Developed nearly fifty years ago by Francis P. Robinson (see Gunning, 2000), SQ3R incorporates many of the strategies recommended by cognitive psychologists. These include predicting, setting goals, constructing questions, monitoring, and summarizing. Thus, readers survey headings and summaries for an overview of the text, ask questions before reading to set comprehension goals, read, then recite what has been read to support memory for the content, and finally review their understanding of major ideas to identify relationships among ideas.
Frameworks to Promote Effective Questioning Some frameworks that promote effective questioning guide teachers in leading discussion with their students (see “KWL and KWL+” entry). In these frameworks, discussion leaders emphasize questions in ways that elicit and/or build students’ background knowledge at appropriate times, focus their attention on text-specific information, and help them make links to their own experiences. For example, in KWL (see “KWL and KWL+” entry), teachers begin wholeclass discussions with a framing question: “What do I KNOW?”; move to an inquiry question: “What do I WANT to know?”; and, after inquiry, ask “What did I LEARN?” The questions give a specific purpose for learning, motivating and guiding readers in acquiring information. Similarly, in ETR (Experience-Text-Relationship), teachers begin guided reading group discussions with a background building question, “What experiences have you had like . . .?,” then move to questions focusing on meaning construction from text, and, after reading, ask students to consider the relationship between their experiences and the ideas in the text. Many frameworks that help students develop effective questioning practices embed questioning within a set of strategies that students are to internalize and use independently. Like the frameworks above, these are designed to promote comprehension, engagement with peers, and monitoring. Unlike the ones above, they are designed to promote students’ independent use of the taught strategies. Two such examples are Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar and Brown, 1989) and POSSE (Englert et al., 1994). Reciprocal Teaching (see “Reciprocal Teaching” entry) emphasizes four strategies designed to foster comprehension, throughout which questioning plays a central role. Question generating is the first activity. Here students create questions about the text, first about main ideas and then about supporting details. After summarizing the text’s content and predicting upcoming topics or events, students again turn to questioning, this time to clarify confusions. Question asking and answering are modeled by teachers as 470
Questioning Making Questioning Visible to Students How can students become proficient in using questions effectively in their own learning? There are two major challenges associated with this question. First, while prevalent in any classroom, questions are so common that teachers and students simply take them for granted, rather than analyze how they work. That is, how questions are formed, the purposes they serve, and the information sources they probe are both abstract and invisible. Second, even assuming ways to make questioning practices public, students need opportunities to engage in questioning practices themselves, with the goal to increasing their text understandings. Making thinking public through thinkalouds—the sharing through language of what are otherwise invisible processes such as those associated with reading (also see “Think-Alouds” entry)—is one way to make a relatively common or invisible process such as identifying important information more visible. When teachers use think-alouds, they model or demonstrate strategy use and in the case of questions, the vocabulary of Question Answer Relationships (QARs) is valuable. Taffy Raphael (1986) developed QARs to help students and teachers develop a shared language for making this relationship visible and for discussing how particular questions are designed to function. Such knowledge is important for both the prevalent question asking and question answering that characterizes the contexts and the activities within the frameworks described earlier. Raphael framed QARs in terms of the knowledge and information that someone would need to draw upon to answer a particular question. Thus, a question asked could require a response that is part of the learners’ background knowledge—an “in my head” QAR. In contrast, a question may require a response that is obtained from a text—referred to as an “in the book” QAR. Each of these two QARs has two more specific relationships between the question generated and the kind of response elicited. An “in my head” question may require a response only available from the learner’s background knowledge. A question such as “Have you ever been surprised on your birthday?” clearly cannot be addressed with information from text, even if the book describes someone’s
surprise birthday party. Thus, even though the question relates to the text, it cannot be answered by information in the book. In contrast, an “author and me” QAR requires the learner to combine his or her own background knowledge with information from a text. For example, a question such as “What might Sam have done if he didn’t have the pole with him?” requires both understanding Sam’s dilemma within the story and drawing on one’s own background to solve the problem in a new way. Similarly, an “in the book” QAR can be subdivided into two types. A “right there” QAR has information in the book, generally a detail. Moreover, many times the words used to form the question base can be found in the sentence in which the detail information is provided. Other “in the book” QARs are more complex, requiring readers to understand how texts are structured, since to respond to the question appropriately, they must “think and search,” putting information together from within a text or across multiple texts. These questions may invite comparison/contrasts across characters, sequencing key story events, detailing an explanation for how an event has occurred, and so forth. When both students and teachers understand the terms associated with QARs, they have a language that supports both asking and answering questions in a range of classroom contexts. QARs can be used to clarify expectations, such as a teacher stating, “Well, you are asking each other a lot of ‘right there’ questions in your discussions, but I was hoping you would use more ‘author and me’ and ‘think and search’ ones.” QARs can be used to promote discussion in book clubs or literary circles, such as an assignment that asks students to come to group with at least one “author and me” and one “on my own” question for the others in their group. The specific contexts described earlier (for example, Reciprocal Teaching, ETR, KWL) provide meaningful sites within which teachers can think aloud to model and scaffold questioning practices, draw on QAR knowledge, and support students’ learning to use this knowledge in the context of their reading and discussion. In more restrictive contexts, such as the Junior Great Books discussions or when taking tests, shared knowledge of QARs can be helpful in delineating the boundaries of the strategies to be used for responding to questions asked. 471
Questioning Students’ Use of Questioning Strategies In student-led groups or in an individual context, students can begin to take over the responsibility of using questions to help foster deeper understanding of text. There are several approaches that students can use to support their discussions and enhance their thinking. Kathy Short and Jerome Harste, with Carolyn Burke (1996), developed inquiry learning to encourage students to become more involved in the decisionmaking process of what to study and what activities will support successful learning. Students take an active role in exploring, finding, and researching their own questions. In inquirybased learning, the students develop the questions and then research the answers to support their responses. Inquiry is not always a specific question but can also be a “wondering” of something the student wishes to investigate. There is no one correct answer to meaningful questions, but through the inquiry process, students actually gain understanding and generate more questions to ponder and further issues to research. This technique helps provide students with a structure for looking through texts and sorting out relevant from irrelevant information. Another approach in students’ use of questions is Questioning the Author, developed by Isabel Beck and her colleagues (Beck et al., 1996). They created this strategy to help students build understanding of text ideas. Questioning the author begins by having the student read a text. The student stops the reading at critical points to pose questions on small segments of text that explore what the author is trying to say. Such queries include “What is the author trying to tell me?” and “What does the author mean by that?” Questioning the Author differs from other questioning strategies because it takes place during the first reading of the text. This distinguishing feature helps students construct meaning from the text ideas. Students also use questioning in guided reading lessons. Before reading a text, either fiction or nonfiction, students develop predictive questions as to what they will learn. Students then read and stop at various points to reconsider their original questions. They eliminate ones that are not correct, confirm those that are, and ask further questions about the text. After the reading, they review and confirm those that were accurate.
Student-centered literature discussion groups, also known as literature circles (see “Literature Circles” entry), literature study groups, conversational discussion groups, and book clubs (see “Book Clubs” entry), allow opportunities for students to engage in conversational interactions through the use of questioning. Literature discussion groups are student centered, are heterogeneously grouped in composition, and provide opportunities for students to discuss and question ideas that have surfaced from their reading. In most studies of literature discussion groups, the same book is read and discussed by the participants. Students apply what they have learned about question asking in journals or reading logs in preparation for their discussion, as well as during the conversation and the discussion itself. For example, Carolyn Frank, Carol Dixon, and Lois Brandts (2001) described a second-grade classroom in which literature discussion groups similar to adult book clubs were formed. The purpose was to join together and talk honestly about their literature selection. Students chose their own storybook, and four or five students met once every other week to share conversations about different books they had chosen. After modeling the process, the teacher relinquished the role of leader and the students took charge. Members of the book clubs asked questions of themselves and of one another. Questions centered on author intent, such as “Did the title fit this book?” In addition, students asked questions to other group members to clarify what was said in the discussion. This included questions about characters’ traits, problems in the story, and the student’s favorite parts of the reading. These types of questions provided students with understandings that could also be used in other curriculum areas. Through the use of questioning in whole-class activities, student-led groups, and individual work, students engage in the social processes fundamental to learning. Sociocultural theory suggests that all individual learning begins in the social plane through interactions in which learners can interact with more knowledgeable others. Questions serve as one vehicle for promoting such engagement. Further, in terms of interacting with text, questions promote deeper readings and more conscious attention to sense making. Stephanie Harvey and Anne Goudvis (2000) suggested that students’ question asking and search472
Questioning Interventions.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 27 (3):165–185. Frank, Carolyn R., Carol N. Dixon, and Lois R. Brandts. 2001. “Bears, Trolls, and Pagemasters: Learning about Learners in Book Clubs.” The Reading Teacher 54 (5):448–462. Gunning, Thomas. 2000. Creating Literacy Instruction for All Students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harvey, Stephanie, and Anne Goudvis. 2000. Strategies that Work. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Ogle, Donna M. 1986. “K-W-L: A Teaching Model that Develops Active Reading of Expository Text.” The Reading Teacher 39 (6):564–570. Palincsar, Annemarie S., and Ann L. Brown. 1989. “Classroom Dialogues to Promote Self-Regulated Comprehension.” In Jere Brophy, ed., Advances in Research on Teaching, pp. 35–71. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Raphael, Taffy E. 1986. “Teaching Question Answer Relationships, Revisited.” The Reading Teacher 39 (6):516–522. Short, Kathy, and Jerome Harste, with Carolyn Burke. 1996. Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers. 2d ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
ing for answers indicate that they are monitoring their comprehension as well as interacting with the text to construct meaning. Taffy E. Raphael, Mary Johnston, Cheryl Pocius, Kathy Highfield, Kay Pentzien, Kathryn Brimmer, and MariAnne George See also Book Clubs; Inquiry-Based Approach; Reciprocal Teaching References Au, Kathryn H. 1979. “Using the Experience-TextRelationship Method with Minority Children“ The Reading Teacher 32 (7):677–679. Beck, Isabel L., Margaret G. McKeown, Cheryl Sandora, Linda Kucan, and Jo Worthy. 1996. “Questioning the Author: A Yearlong Classroom Implementation to Engage Students with Text.” Elementary School Journal 96 (4):385–414. Eeds, Maryann, and Deborah Wells. 1989. “Grand Conversations: An Explanation of Meaning Construction in Literature Study Groups.” Research in the Teaching of English 23 (1):4–29. Englert, Carol Sue, Kathy L. Tarrant, Troy V. Mariage, and Tina Oxer. 1994. “Lesson Talk as the Work of Reading Groups: The Effectiveness of Two
473
R ing outcomes and identifying some key areas in which research is necessary. It outlined major challenges, which include understanding how children become good comprehenders, how to design and deliver instruction that promotes comprehension, how to assess comprehension, and how to prevent comprehension failure. The RRSG began, however, by presenting a viable definition for reading comprehension, considering dimensions of variability in four key elements (reader, text, activity, sociocultural context). Next, the study group proposed areas that have the highest priority for research attention: instruction, teacher preparation, and assessment. In making these proposals, the study group emphasized the need for research that builds on what we already know, will contribute to better theories of reading development, and will produce knowledge usable in classrooms and in policy arenas. The RRSG’s thinking was informed by a vision of proficient readers as those who are capable of acquiring new knowledge and understandings, applying information from text appropriately, and being engaged and reflective while reading. Members of the study group viewed learning to read well as a long-term developmental process that leads to proficient adult reading. This is a plateau where the reader can read a variety of materials with ease and interest and for varying purposes and read with comprehension even when the material is neither easy nor intrinsically interesting. The RRSG was funded through OERI. Catherine Snow, Harvard University, chaired the study group, and Anne P. Sweet directed the RRSG process at RAND. along with information about obtaining a printed copy. Anne P. Sweet
The RAND Reading Study Group The RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG) was formed in 2000, after the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) sought RAND’s advice on how OERI might improve the quality and relevance of the education research it sponsors. As a result, RAND convened study groups in reading and mathematics education to develop programs of research in both areas. The RRSG constructed a framework for a national program of research in reading comprehension, which should be viewed as a “living document” that will require revision over the course of the program. The RRSG’s full report, Reading for Understanding (2002), can be viewed at www.rand.org/multi/ achievementforall. In developing the report, the study group built upon recent efforts to summarize the knowledge base in the field of reading, including Snow, Burns, and Griffin’s Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (1998) and the National Reading Panel’s Teaching Children to Read (2000). The RRSG decided early in its deliberations to concentrate on proficient reading, with a focus on the development of comprehension and the capacity to acquire knowledge through reading. This decision was motivated by several factors, including the knowledge that all high-school graduates will face increased needs for high levels of literacy, yet little attention has been devoted to developing the skills teachers need to promote reading comprehension, to ensure content learning through reading, and to deal with the differences in comprehension proficiency that their students display. In its report, the study group presented a research agenda for the next decade, mapping the fields of knowledge relevant to improving read475
Rauding Theory See also National Reading Panel References National Reading Panel. 2000. Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Washington, DC: RAND. Snow, Catherine E., M. S. Burns, and P. Griffin, eds. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
easy text is defined more precisely as text written at a difficulty level (DL) that is lower than the rauding accuracy level (AL) of the individual, when both are measured in grade equivalent (GE) units. For example, individuals who have a sixthgrade reading level (AL = 6) are likely to use their rauding process when they are reading text written at the third-grade level of difficulty (DL = 3). Notice that the accuracy level, AL, of the individual is a construct that is similar to the traditional concept of an untimed measure of reading level in GE units, whereas difficulty level, DL, is similar to a measure of text readability in GE units. Raudamatized Words The words in relatively easy texts are automatically decoded by the reader such that their meaning in a sentence is recognized relatively quickly. These words are called “raudamatized” words, that is, words that (1) an individual knows when spoken, (2) can be pronounced accurately when seen in print, and (3) can be recognized relatively quickly because they have been overlearned through practice to a speed limit. When good and poor readers alike are given texts containing raudamatized words, they are “automatic” readers because all of the words in these texts can be read “automatically.” In relatively easy texts (AL > DL), 99 to 100 percent of the words are known by the reader (Carver, 1994); that is, 99 to 100 percent of the words are raudamatized words whose spellings can be recognized relatively quickly.
Rauding Theory Rauding is a word that was formed by combining two words, reading and auding (Carver, 1977). Reading means to be looking at printed words in order to understand their meaning. Auding means to be listening to spoken words in order to understand their meaning. Rauding means to comprehend the meaning of the complete thoughts in sentences during reading or auding. The same comprehension process is being used during the normal reading of sentences and during the normal auding of sentences, and this is called rauding to emphasize the similarity of the processes involved. During reading, rauding means to understand most of the complete thoughts in sentences as they are being read. Rauding is what occurs most of the time when individuals are reading text, that is, reading sentences in newspapers, magazines, novels, letters, and memos and on computer screens, and so on.
Constant Reading Rate Since all raudamatized words have been learned to the same speed limit of the individual, this means that relatively easy texts ordinarily will be read at a constant rate. This constant rate at which individuals operate their rauding process is called their rauding rate (Rr). Rauding rate, Rr, can be measured in various ways, such as standard sentences per minute (Spm), standard words per minute (Wpm), or grade equivalents, GE (Carver, 1990). When Rr is measured in GE units, it is called rauding rate level (RL), or simply “rate level.” For example, individuals with AL = 6 (sixth-grade reading level) and RL = 4 (fourth-grade rate level) will read texts written at DL = 3 (third-grade readability) at a constant rate of 150 Wpm; these students will also read the relatively easy texts at the other difficulty levels below 6 (DL = 5, DL = 4, DL = 2, and DL = 1)
Theory Rauding theory (Carver, 2000a) is relevant to ordinary, typical, or normal reading of text, which is called the “rauding process” to distinguish it from other text reading processes such as scanning, skimming, learning, and memorizing. Individuals may shift out of their rauding process and up to a faster reading process when they need to skim or scan, and they may shift down to a slower reading process when they need to learn from texts or memorize texts. Ordinarily, however, individuals use their rauding process, especially when they are given texts that are relatively easy. Relatively 476
Rauding Theory at this same constant rate of 150 Wpm. In this example, the individual reading normally at 150 Wpm would have a fourth-grade rate level (RL = 4) according to the conversion table given by Carver (2000a).
The focus of this causal model—reading achievement—has been upgraded by a theoretical construct called rauding efficiency level, or more simply “efficiency level” (EL). The EL construct has been designed to improve upon the traditional concept of reading achievement, or general reading ability, as measured by a speeded test of reading comprehension. For example, suppose a student takes the Reading Comprehension section of the Iowa Test of Basic Skills and is found to be at the eighth-grade level; this score would be an indicant of efficiency level (EL = 8) because this is a timed test and therefore it measures a combination of accuracy and rate, which is efficiency. The two proximal (nearby) causes of reading achievement (EL) are reading level (AL) and rate level (RL); these two latter constructs were described earlier. In turn, the two proximal causes of reading level (AL) are (1) listening comprehension level (or verbal knowledge level, VL) and (2) word identification level (or pronunciation knowledge level, PL). And the two proximal causes of rate level (RL) are (1) word identification level (PL) and (2) naming speed level (or cognitive speed level, CS). Again, research evidence supports the theory that AL (reading level) and RL (rate level) are the two causes of high and low EL (reading achievement). Research evidence also supports the theory that VL (listening level, or verbal knowledge level) and PL (word identification level, or pronunciation knowledge level) are the two causes of high and low AL (reading level); notice that this is a form of the simple view of reading espoused by Gough and colleagues (for example, Hoover and Gough, 1990) because the simple view holds that listening (VL) and decoding (PL) determine reading (AL). Finally, research evidence also supports the theory that PL (word identification level, or pronunciation level) and CS (naming speed, or cognitive speed level) are the two causes of RL (rate level). Next, the theoretical causes of VL, PL, and CS will be described. The two proximal causes of listening level (VL) are (1) teaching and learning and (2) verbal aptitude (gv). The two proximal causes of word identification level (PL) are (1) teaching and learning and (2) pronunciation aptitude (gp), or what might be called decoding aptitude. The two proximal causes of naming speed level (CS) are (1) age and (2) cognitive speed aptitude (gs).
Reading Comprehension In rauding theory, there are two highly important constructs that are very closely associated with the traditional concept of reading comprehension. One is the accuracy of text comprehension (A). The other is the accuracy of comprehension that accompanies normal reading, or the rauding process, and it is called rauding accuracy (Ar). Both text accuracy, A, and rauding accuracy, Ar, can be predicted using mathematical equations (Carver, 2000a). The accuracy of comprehension that accompanies normal reading, Ar, can be predicted using a formula involving the relative easiness of the text (AL-DL). The prediction formula is as follows: Ar = .04 (AL-DL) + .64. For example, suppose students at the sixthgrade reading level (AL = 6) are given thirdgrade texts to read (DL = 3); it can be predicted from the above equation that these students will comprehend 76 percent of the sentences in these texts (Ar = .76) when they are using their rauding process, or reading normally. Then, the accuracy of text comprehension, A, can be predicted from formulas including (1) two attributes of the individual, which are Ar and Rr; (2) two attributes of the text, which are DL and the length of the passage in sentences, or complete thoughts (Tp); and (3) the time in minutes taken to read the text (t). For example, if Ar = .76, Rr = 9 Spm (or 150 Wpm), Tp = 150 sentences (2,500 words), and t = 10 minutes, then A = .46 using the following equation: A = ArRr (t/Tp). Notice that the student in this example would comprehend 76 percent of the text written at the thirdgrade level when allowed to finish reading all of the 2,500 words in the text (Ar = .76), but if this student were given only 10 minutes to read this text, then her accuracy of comprehension of all 150 sentences in these 2,500 words would be much lower at 46 percent (A = .46). Causal Model Rauding theory also includes a causal model of reading achievement that has been shown to be highly consistent with relevant prior research (Carver, 1997, 2000a; Carver and David, 2001). 477
Rauding Theory Lawful Relationships The model described above theorizes about the proximal and distal causes of high and low reading achievement, and the constructs involved can also be lawfully related using very simple mathematical equations. Reading level and rate level can be averaged to determine the level of reading achievement, as follows: EL = (AL + RL)/2. For example, a student who has a sixth-grade reading level (AL = 6) and a fourth-grade rate level (RL = 4) would be at the fifth-grade level in reading achievement (EL = 5) because the average of 6 and 4 is 5. In addition, reading level can be determined from the average of listening level and word identification level, as follows: AL = (VL + PL)/2. For example, a student who was at the ninth grade in listening level (VL = 9) and at the third grade in word identification level (PL = 3) would be at the sixth-grade level in reading (AL = 6) because the average of 9 and 3 is 6. Also, rate level can be determined from the average of word identification level and naming speed level, as follows: RL = (PL + Cs)/2. For example, a student who was at the third-grade level in word identification (PL = 3) and was at the fifth-grade level in naming speed (Cs = 5) would be at the fourth-grade level in reading rate (RL = 4) because the average of 3 and 5 is 4. This means that if we have measured a student’s listening level, word identification level, and naming speed level (VL, PL, and Cs) in GE units, then we can average pairs of values to determine that student’s reading level, rate level, and reading achievement level in GE units. In this example, this means that if we know that a student is at the ninth-grade level of listening (VL = 9), is at the third-grade level of word identification (PL = 3), and is at the fifth-grade level of naming speed (Cs = 5), then it can be determined that this student (1) has a sixth-grade reading level (AL = 6), (2) has a fourth-grade rate level (RL = 4), and (3) has a fifth-grade level of reading achievement (EL = 5). These relationships among listening level, word identification level, naming speed level, reading level, rate level, and reading achievement level are highly lawful, or predictable using equations.
(dk). Furthermore, dk has a lawful relationship with reading level (AL) and word identification level (PL), as follows: PL = (AL + dk)/2. For example, if a student scores at grade level 8 (AL = 8) on the Passage Comprehension test from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (WRMT) and scores at grade level 2 (dk = 2) on the Word Attack test on the WRMT, then it can be determined that this student would score at grade level 5 (PL = 5) on the Word Identification test of the WRMT. This means that word attack, or the ability to correctly pronounce pseudowords, is lawfully related to AL and PL. Furthermore, the level of word attack in GE units can also be determined from listening level (VL) and word identification level (PL) because (1) VL and PL can be averaged to get AL, and (2) dk equals 2PL-AL. Spelling Level Another important aspect of rauding theory is that word identification level and spelling level (SL) are equal; that is, PL = SL. For example, if a student scores at the second-grade level on a word identification test (PL = 2), such as from the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), then this student would also be expected to score at the second-grade level (SL = 2) on a spelling test, such as from the WRAT. Therefore, the level of knowledge associated with spelling increasingly difficult words is equal to, or reciprocally related to, the level of knowledge associated with identifying increasingly difficult words, when both are measured in GE units. Reading Level and Rate Level It should not go unnoticed that when an individual’s reading level and rate level have been measured (AL and RL), we can determine that individual’s level of reading achievement, EL, by averaging AL and RL, and we can also predict how much that individual will comprehend (Ar or A), when reading text normally. The accuracy of comprehension during the rauding process, Ar, can be determined from the equation involving AL and DL, as explained earlier. And the accuracy of comprehension of a passage of known length that has been read for a known amount of time can be predicted from Ar and Rr; remember that Rr can be determined from RL because they are both rauding rates expressed in different units. Therefore, the accuracy of reading comprehension (Ar or A) and the level of reading
Word Attack It should be pointed out that the concept of “word attack” as measured in GE units has also been more precisely defined in rauding theory as the construct called pure decoding knowledge 478
Rauding Theory achievement (EL) can each be determined from the reading level of the student (AL) and the rate level of the student (RL). In turn, this means that Ar, A, and EL can be determined from measures of listening level (VL), word identification level (PL), and naming speed level (Cs). Therefore, if we want to improve reading achievement, or if we want to improve how much students comprehend when they read normally, then we will have to improve their level of listening (VL) or their level of word identification (PL). Their level of naming speed (Cs) is not amenable to improvement owing to experience or education because it only improves via maturation to adulthood.
three aptitudes noted earlier (gv, gp, or gs). A dyslexic is defined as being handicapped in pronunciation aptitude (low gp) but not handicapped in verbal aptitude (not low in gv), whereas a severe dyslexic is defined as being handicapped in both pronunciation aptitude and cognitive speed aptitude (low gp and low gs) but not handicapped in verbal aptitude (not low gv). Individuals with a disability in VL, PL, or Cs are likely to have a corresponding handicap in verbal aptitude, pronunciation aptitude, or cognitive speed aptitude (gv, gp, or gs). It should be noted that a disability in VL or PL can be remediated with teaching and learning, but a handicap in gv, gp, or gs cannot be remediated. Students who are low in phoneme awareness or low in phonological awareness (for their age) are likely to have a handicap in pronunciation aptitude, gp.
Good and Poor Readers In rauding theory, good readers are defined as having a high level of reading achievement (high EL for their age), whereas poor readers are defined as having a low level of reading achievement (low EL for their age). Although good and poor readers are defined in terms of their age, or grade in school, readers are also categorized with respect to the following three skill levels: beginning, intermediate, and advanced (Carver, 2000b). Beginning readers are defined as having their listening level or their word identification level below grade 3 (VL < 3 or PL < 3). Intermediate readers are defined as having their listening level and their word identification level at grade 3 or higher (VL > 3 and PL > 3) but their listening level or their word identification level below grade 8 (VL < 8 or PL < 8). Advanced readers are defined as having their listening level and their word identification level at grade 8 or higher (VL > 8 and PL > 8). For advanced readers, word identification level, or PL, drops out of the causal model; listening level and reading level become reciprocally causal (VL < AL), and naming speed becomes the sole cause of rate level (CL (r) RL).
Reading Instruction With respect to reading instruction, rauding theory holds that students who know more words when listening than they do when reading should be taught to spell these unknown printed words and then taught to recognize them quickly via practice. That is, instruction should be focused on those words that are known when listening but not known when reading, so that these unknown printed words can become raudamatized; this instruction will increase reading level, AL, via an increase in PL, and this instruction will also increase RL via an increase in PL. Those students who know as many words when reading as they do when listening need to learn the meaning of more words, along with learning how to spell these words and recognize them quickly; this instruction will increase reading level, AL, via increases in both VL and PL. Reading Process and Poor Readers In rauding theory, poor readers do not exist owing to some kind of malfunction in their reading process. All readers use the same normal reading process, called the rauding process, when they are trying to comprehend the sentences in relatively easy text (AL > DL). There is no way we can help poor readers become average readers, or good readers, by making some adjustment in a reading process that they use. On the other hand, there is no good reason to assume that a poor reader, such as a dyslexic, is always doomed to be a poor reader or can never become an advanced
Disabilities, Handicaps, and Dyslexia A disability for an individual is defined as being low (as compared to age) in reading level, rate level, listening level, word identification level, or naming speed level (Carver and Clark, 1998). Almost all poor readers have a disability in reading level and/or rate level. In turn, almost all individuals with a disability in reading level or rate leve, also have a disability in listening, word identification, or naming speed (VL, PL, or Cs). A handicap is defined as being low in one of the 479
Readability Instruction.” Journal of Reading Behavior 26 (4):413–437. ———. 1997. “Reading for One Second, One Minute, or One Year from the Perspective of Rauding Theory.” Scientific Studies of Reading 1 (1):3–43. ———. 2000a. The Causes of High and Low Reading Achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ———. 2000b. “How Will Literacy Be Defined?” Reading Research Quarterly 35 (1):67–68. Carver, Ronald P., and Susan W. Clark. 1998. “Investigating Reading Disabilities Using the Rauding Diagnostic System.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (5):143–174. Carver, Ronald P., and Anne H. David. 2001. “Investigating Reading Achievement Using a Causal Model.” Scientific Studies of Reading 5 (2):107–139. Carver, Ronald P., and Robert E. Leibert. 1995. “The Effect of Reading Library Books at Different Levels of Difficulty upon Gain in Reading Ability.” Reading Research Quarterly 30 (1):26–48. Hoover, Wesley A., and Philip B. Gough. 1990. “The Simple View of Reading.” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2:127–160.
reader. These readers who are currently reading poorly, such as many dyslexics, are simply going to have to learn to raudamatize all the words used in texts written at the eighth-grade level. Then, they will be advanced readers capable of functioning as good citizens by being able to raud most newspapers and magazines and thereby be sufficiently informed to vote and to be functionally literate. As suggested earlier, poor readers are likely to be low in verbal aptitude (gv), low in pronunciation aptitude (gp), and/or low in cognitive speed aptitude (gs), but that only means that they will need to spend extra time engaged in learning to raudamatize words. Contributions Rauding theory has defined and lawfully related the most important theoretical constructs relevant to the traditional concepts of reading comprehension and reading achievement. This means that the following concepts have been more precisely defined: normal reading, accuracy of text comprehension, accuracy of comprehension during normal reading, reading level, reading rate, reading achievement, listening level, word identification level, spelling level, word attack, naming speed, verbal aptitude, decoding aptitude, naming speed aptitude, reading disability, and dyslexia. This also means that most of these traditional concepts have been precisely related using mathematical prediction equations involving their corresponding theoretical constructs. Finally, this means that a broad scientific theory exists that purports to explain how reading instruction in schools can be improved so as to increase reading achievement and purports to explain how reading disabilities can be remediated and how dyslexics can be helped to become advanced readers. Ronald P. Carver
Readability Readability is the ease of reading comprehension due to the style of writing. This entry is mostly about readability formulas that objectively assign difficulty levels to books and other written passages. Readability formulas frequently assign a grade level or some other numerical designation to a book. Readability designations, however, have been applied to almost every kind of prose, including laws, newspaper articles, test passages, military manuals, and advertising. A term that is alternate or similar to readability is leveling. It is not surprising that readability scores are most often found for textbooks and literature books used in the schools since most of the early research was done by university-based educational psychologists and much of the later work by or for educational publishers. To put it in broad perspective, readability is really part of the scientific movement in education that began in the 1920s when schools started using standardized tests to measure students’ achievement and word counts to aid in curriculum development. Before that, in a practice that continues to the present, many educators used more subjective judgment, with statements such as “I think this book would be about right for my third graders.” Most readability formulas, on the
See also Models of the Reading Process; ReadingComprehension Processes References Carver, Ronald P. 1977. “Toward a Theory of Reading Comprehension and Rauding.” Reading Research Quarterly 13:8–63. ———. 1990. Reading Rate: A Review of Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press. ———. 1994. “Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the Relative Difficulty of the Text: Implications for
480
Readability other hand, are so objective that they can be done by computers—simply type in a passage or scan in a whole book, and the computer will give a readability formula score: for instance, that the passage or book is at the third-grade level. Nevertheless, it is possible to use many readability formulas by hand, that is, without a computer. Most computer formulas are based on two inputs that have been verified by many studies—a measure of syntactic difficulty (grammatical complexity), usually measured by sentence length, and a measure of semantic difficulty (meaning or word meaning). A common measure of this is word length measured in syllables or number of letters. Sometimes, however, semantic difficulty is judged by frequency, either an actual frequency count of the word or the fact that the word does or does not appear on a list of familiar words. These two basic factors have been supplemented, and occasionally replaced, by a number of other input factors, such as book length and subjective judgment. In fact, any readability formula must be used along with subjective judgment because formulas do not take into account many important factors, such as motivation—is the student really interested in the subject and/or are there other incentives? Another consideration is appropriateness. For example, adult novels might not be appropriate for junior high although some of them have eighth-grade readability scores. A third consideration is the reader’s background. Readers all have different cultural backgrounds and educative experiences. All are in some ethnic group, some social class, some geographical region, and all have parents of different backgrounds in occupation and education.
the written passage. This is certainly important in selecting textbooks. Much education is expected to take place by reading the textbook in many subjects at every level from elementary school through college. Comprehensibility is also very important in many areas outside of school. It is no accident that General Motors, the army, and the navy have all done extensive work in readability, as all are major publishing organizations whose output of manuals, correspondence, directives, and advertisements rivals many traditional publishing houses. An interesting use of readability is in the law and government field. A number of states have Plain Language laws that state that various documents, such as loan contracts or insurance policies, must be readable. In practice, this often means documents written at about the eighthgrade level. President Jimmy Carter signed a directive to federal government agencies that they should produce readable documents, but there is some doubt if this well-intentioned order has had much effect on such agencies as the Internal Revenue Service or the Department of Justice. Readability formulas have fared rather well when tested in court. Judge Weinstein in a New York federal appellate court case found readability formulas appropriate and ordered the U.S. Department of Health and Welfare to rewrite a Medicare appeal letter. Some law professors have tried to get their students and the legal profession to write more clearly and drop legalese. Considering how many lawsuits pivot on the understanding of a written document, readability has barely scratched the legal surface, however. Validity How do we know if readability formulas are any good? Readability is one of the most widely researched areas in education. George Klare (1984) stated that there were more than 1,000 published articles on readability. A look in the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) system in September 2000 under the entry term readability yielded 2,578 documents. The majority of these entries say that readability works in fields as diverse as adult basic education and horticulture. The proof of success is most frequently a correlation with a comprehension test. The student understands less as the readability score increases. The proof of a student’s comprehension is often a multiple-choice comprehension test,
Purpose What is the purpose of readability formulas? Certainly, one common purpose of readability formulas is to help students learn to read better. Teachers have long known that giving the student a book at the right level will cause him or her to really read it, to comprehend it, and to also enjoy it. Give the student a book that has too high a readability level, and one or all of those three things may be missing. Aiding comprehensibility, or the transfer of information, is certainly one of the major purposes of readability. A readability formula attempts to predict the reader’s understanding of 481
Readability but sometimes it is a written or oral response. A somewhat unique proof is the use of a cloze test, in which the student is asked to fill in blanks where words were omitted. One advantage of a cloze score is that it is very objective. For example, every fifth word is omitted, and only exact word replacement is counted. Cloze thus eliminates the subjectiveness of writing or selecting comprehension test items. Another proof of readability formulas is correlation with oral reading errors. As the readability score increases, so do oral reading errors. This interestingly enough substantiates the three levels—frustration, instructional, and independent (or basic)—suggested by Emmett Betts in 1946. Betts proposed that a student read a passage and that one oral reading error in every twenty words would place that reading material on the student’s instructional level. More errors would place the material on the student’s frustration level, and fewer errors would indicate the material was at the student’s independent level. This same basic notion is similar to Lev Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development. But teachers have long known that material that is too difficult should not be used. Readability formulas simply refine and objectify this concept. Readership is a concept borrowed from library science and journalism. Basically, it is concerned with how many people are reading their materials. Studies have shown that by lowering the readability score, readership increases. Readability can also be shown by eye-voice span. Turn off the light as a student is reading aloud and see how many words he or she continues to say. The more words read aloud, the easier the readability of the passage. In other words, the greater the distance between where the eye is fixating and where the voice is saying the words, the easier the reading material. A similar objective proof is subvocalization. Subvocalization is often thought of as the little voice you hear inside your head while reading silently. More objectively, it can be measured by electrodes placed on the lips to monitor tiny muscle movements. The greater the subtle muscle movement, the more difficult the passage. Subjective judgment has also been used to validate formulas. A group simply reads a number of passages, then ranks them. This ranking is greatly facilitated (made more reliable) if judgment is aided by comparisons with passages of
known standard difficulty. This is the basis of the Singer readability procedure. Subjective judgment is part of the Reading Recovery book-leveling procedure. Finally, most formulas agree fairly well on ranking a set of books. We could say they have concurrent validity or high correlation. There is less agreement, however, on designating the level. For example, one formula might place a book at fifth grade and another place the same book at sixth grade. Grade-level scores are usually within a year’s difference. Lately, readability measures have used a variety of types of scores, such as Level K or Lexile 370. See Table 1 for some comparisons of different types of scores. Criticisms Are readability formulas criticized? Yes, they certainly are. Some of the major criticisms are partly philosophical—there are still many educators who oppose the scientific method. To them, classifying literature prose into a numerical score of difficulty is abhorrent. These same people frequently oppose standardized test scores. They prefer subjective judgment to objective scores. Flying under such banners as Whole Language, literature-based, or the earlier progressive education, they point out the flaws of readability formulas. Here are some of those criticisms and my responses. A common criticism is that formulas and tests are sometimes wrong. Correct, there is a standard error of measurement in all prediction or assessment scores. There is no standard error of measurement in subjective judgment because there is no way of quantifying it. To take it out of measurement terms, readability formulas are sometimes wrong, but subjective judgment is sometimes also wrong. It is difficult to have a standard error if you do not use objective measures or do not understand or do not wish to use the applications of probability inherent in the normal distribution curve. Readability formulas are also criticized for causing bad writing, sometimes called formula writing or dumbing down textbooks. The criticism goes something like this: The reason many elementary textbooks and some children’s trade books are so bad is that the writer had to write them to a certain grade level. Although there is some truth in this, the formula did not cause the bad writing. The formula is meant to estimate 482
Readability Table 1. Readability Formula Score Correlation Chart Grade Level (Dale Chall, Fry, ATOS)
Reading Recovery
DRP
Lexile
.5 1 2 3
3–5 10–1,135 16–1,742 —
27 170 370 46
70
Fountas and Pinnell*
Wright Group*
B F K
508
B G L
O
Q
ATOS = Advantage TASA Open Standard (similar to Flesch Kincaid) Reading Recovery (Clay 1991) DRP = Degrees of Reading Power (TASA 1999) Lexile (Meta Metrics 1995) Fountas and Pinnell (1999) Wright Group (publishers, Bothel, WA) *Indicates scores from leveling. The others are readability formulas.
(predict) readability after a piece is already written. It is not the formula’s fault if the publisher has a bad editor and a bad writer. In brief, readability formulas are not writers’ guides. There is much more to good writing than two simple inputs such as word and sentence length. The critics are correct in pointing out that readability formulas do not take into account all of the more cognitive factors that make reading difficult. The formula makers simply point out that the formulas are useful in doing what they are supposed to do, and that is predicting comprehension and reading ease by a number of traditional and experimental measures. Readability is not the same thing as legibility. Legibility has to do with type size, spacing, and the quality of letter formation (in handwriting, for example). Publishers sometimes take an old children’s story and set it in large type. This might increase sales to parents, but it really does not change the true readability much and the readability score not at all.
1900s. Considering that the total population of the United States was 23 million in 1850 and only 76 million in 1900, that means a very high percentage of the school population used McGuffey’s graded readers. This is an interesting proof that graded reading textbooks had wide acceptance. There are several rather detailed histories of readability. Some examples include the ones by Jeanne Chall (1958) and George Klare (1984). Discussions of readability also occur in many major reading methods textbooks used in teacher training, such as the classic text by Harris and Sipay (1985). The most widely used formula in schools and with educational publishers in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s was the Dale Chall formula first developed in 1948 (Chall and Dale, 1995). Businesses tended to use the Flesch formula (1948) or its slight modification known as the Flesch Kincaid. The original Dale Chall formula graded books from grades four through twelve, so for grades one to four in 1960s, the Spache formula (1953) became popular for grading books below fourth grade. Both used a list of familiar words and sentence length and required a numerical calculation. In the 1980s popularity shifted. The Fry Readability Graph showed another significant move toward the ease of usage. The graph permits a direct estimate of reading grade level upon entering school, with syllable length and number of sentences per 100-word sample, thus providing another way of avoiding the manual use of a formula. It seems safe to say that in
History How old is the readability field? The first readability formula was published in 1923 by B. A. Lively and Sidney Pressey. Before that, however, there had been numerous discussions of literary criticism, rhetoric, and writing style that dated back to Aristotle; these continue to the present. William Holmes McGuffey is credited with writing the first series of graded readers in the mid1800s. The McGuffey readers sold over 130 million copies between the 1850s and the early 483
Readability its most recent version (1977), Fry’s graph is the most widely used of all readability methods. By the year 2000, readability had become less dependent on one or a few formulas and much more diverse. The readability grading of books is now largely done by publishers and large companies, often using formulas that require their computers. For example, Advantage Learning Systems has a graded list of 25,000 books that contains almost all of the trade books used in schools. They use their own formula, known as ATOS (Advantage TASA Open Standard), which uses the inputs of sentence length, average grade level of words, and length of book. This formula uses a computer and the entire content of the book, not just samples of text. The formula yields grade-level scores that are coordinated with their own Standardized Test for Achievement in Reading. Another company that analyzed 15,000 books is TASA (Touchstone Applied Science Associates), using its own computerized readability formula that yields DRP units (degrees of reading power). Their inputs are sentence length, word length, and proportion of common words. These readability levels coordinate with their own reading test that yields DRP units. A third company that is doing computerized readability on large amounts of materials (26,000 trade books) is Meta Metrics. This program output is in units called lexiles. Lexiles can be translated into grade levels. A student can take their achievement test that yields lexiles, or any well-known standardized test, such as the Stanford 9 Achievement Test. Traditional readability formulas such as the Dale Chall and Fry Graph are also available in computer format for individual use. One company providing these is Micro Power and Light Company. Lexiles, DRP, and ATOS are not available for individual computers.
ing procedures are: Content—is it appropriate or familiar to that age group? Illustrations—do pictures tell the story or explain vocabulary? Length—are there two words on a page? How many pages in the book? Levels—(scores) are not necessarily grade levels, but often finer grading. Curriculum—levels related to teaching methods and/or framework. Language structure—includes repetitious words or phrases, flow. Experience—levels can be adjusted using judgment from teaching. Format—type size, spacing, page layout. Several leveling systems have book lists of a number of leveled books. Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell (1999) have over 7,000 leveled books. Thomas Gunning (1998) has over 1,000 books. Gunning’s leveling incorporates his own primary readability formula, and Weaver’s (2000) leveling incorporates the Fry Graph, Dale Chall formula, or DRP. Classroom teachers can do book leveling. Book leveling is also a major part of the Reading Recovery system of reading teaching (Clay, 1991). Marie Clay discussed text support that includes text features that are predictive, repetitive, and close to a student’s natural language. Foreign Languages Are readability formulas available for other languages? Klare (1984) reported that there are readability formulas for fourteen languages, ranging from Afrikaans to Vietnamese. Most of the languages are alphabetic and use the two major inputs of syntax and semantics that in practice are sentence length and vocabulary. An interesting problem occurs in nonalphabetic languages such as Chinese, which is written in ideographs (characters). The inputs for Chinese are vocabulary (proportion of words on a 5,600word list) and brush strokes per character. Other languages have unique problems; for example, Spanish words have many more longer, polysyllabic words than does English. In using the Fry Graph for the first three grades, the number sixty-seven must be subtracted from the average syllable count. A readability formula developed in Sweden and used in Europe is the Lix, which is short for “lasbarhets index”; translated that means readability index and is simply sentence length plus word length. A later modification is called Rix; it is a number of long words divided by sentence length.
Leveling What is leveling? Leveling refers to various systems of grading books for difficulty using a larger number of subjective and objective factors than most readability formulas. Leveling sometimes incorporates more traditional readability formulas or the inputs of traditional formulas. It is used much more at the primary levels than upper levels. The goal of leveling is often fluency, rather than strictly comprehension. Some of the factors taken into account by some of the level484
Readability
485
Read-Alouds Formulas What do readability formulas actually look like? Since there are over 100 readability formulas, it would be difficult to show them all, but here are a few to give you a more concrete idea of what they look like. The original readability formula developed by Livey and Pressey (1923) used five inputs and six numerical constants in their formula to yield an average comprehension score. Readability formulas have since been greatly simplified. The New Dale Chall Readability Formula (Chall and Dale, 1995) has only two inputs to get grade level, but it is necessary to have the manual, which includes a 3,000-word vocabulary of familiar words, as well as the tables to yield a grade level or cloze scores. The Fry Graph is used widely in schools and also used widely by educational publishers. It requires two inputs, including sentence length and word length in terms of number of syllables. These are entered into a graph to yield grade level (see Figure 2). Most readability formulas are based on the two factors of syntax (often sentence length) and semantics (word difficulty). Furthermore, most formulas will rank a set of materials in the same difficulty order. There is less agreement, however, on obtaining the same grade level for any one piece of writing. There is even less agreement on the way the readability score is reported. A grade-level score is widely used, but difficulty is also reported in a wide variety of scores such as alphabet (A, B, C). Leveling requires specific directions that vary depending on which leveling system is being used. Leveling often requires a number of subjective judgment factors, such as content appropriateness, format, language structure, and illustration use. Leveling is a variation of readability more often used along with instruction methods at the primary levels. It uses a number of subjective factors and has the related goals of fluency and teachability. The concept of readability, and more specifically readability formulas, has had an important influence on American education and the selection of school reading materials. To a lesser extent, readability has influenced written communication in the armed services, industry, government, and law. Readability has also had some impact in languages other than English in countries ranging from Sweden to China. The fundamental purpose of readability is to im-
prove reading comprehension. This is particularly important in selecting textbooks and trade books for school use, but it is important to consider readability in any type of written communication. Other important uses of readability are in selecting materials for successful reading instruction and for increasing the readership of library books and periodicals. Readability is an active field under continuous development. The more than 2,500 references to readability in the ERIC database literature search system testify to its widespread uses and interest. Edward Fry See also Cloze Procedure; Informal Reading Inventory References Betts, Emmet A. 1946. Foundations of Reading Instruction with Emphasis on Differentiated Guidance. New York: American Book Co. Chall, Jeanne. 1958. Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, The Ohio State University. Chall, Jeanne S., and Edgar Dale. 1995. Manual for the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Clay, Marie. 1991. Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Flesch, Rudolf F. 1948. “A New Readability Yardstick.” Journal of Applied Psychology 32:221–233. Fountas, Irene, and Gay Su Pinnell. 1999. Matching Books to Readers: Using Leveled Books in Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fry, Edward B. 1977. “Fry’s Readability Graph: Clarifications, Validity, and Extensions to Level 17.” Journal of Reading 21:242–252. ———. 1988. “Writeability: The Principles of Writing for Increased Comprehension.” In Beverly Zakaluk and S. Jay Samuels, eds., Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future, pp. 77–97. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (ERIC ED 220 799). Gunning, Thomas G. 1998. Best Books for Beginning Readers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Harris, Albert J., and Edward Sipay. 1985. How to Increase Reading Ability. New York: Longman. Klare, George R. 1984. “Readability.” In P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 681–744. New York: Longman. Lively, B. A., and Sidney L. Pressey. 1923. “A Method of Measuring Vocabulary Burden of Textbooks.” Educational Administration and Supervision 9:389–398. Spache, George. 1953. “A New Readability Formula
486
Read-Alouds for Primary Grade Reading Material.” Elementary School Journal 53:410–413. Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Weaver, Brenda M. 2000. Leveling Books K–8: Matching Readers to Text. Newark, DE: International Reading Assn. Zakaluk, Beverly, and S. Jay Samuels, eds. 1988. Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (ERIC ED 292 058).
successful readers (Anderson et al., 1985). Reading aloud to children has both cognitive and emotional benefits. It has been found to improve skills in literacy as well as develop positive attitudes about reading and books (Trelease, 1995). Children experience the social purposes for using language through read-aloud experiences. They learn the communicative power of words. They learn to associate words with the specific verbal messages they convey, with the visual images they provoke, and with gestures that are appropriate. Children learn the feeling of comradery and of community spirit. They develop mutual bonds between themselves and the reader as well as among themselves as they share common interests. They laugh together, cry together, and often join hearts as they experience the excitement, joy, and rapture of literature. These relaxing moments of story time are among the most cherished memories of childhood. Reading aloud to young children exposes them to concepts of print, such as the front of the book, the top of the page, left-to-right progression, punctuation, and the notion that letters and sounds make up words. They see that the words and pictures on the pages communicate the meaning of the story; thus, they realize that reading is more than recognizing words. These early informal experiences with print provide the foundation for literacy development. Reading aloud to children helps them develop longer attention spans and strong auditory skills. It allows them to hear the beauty of language and understand its power and purpose. It provides good models for teaching children proper grammar and word usage that, in turn, build the foundation for their use of syntax and semantics as they encounter and decode unfamiliar words. Listening to stories helps children learn to interpret and to predict. They become familiar with common story lines and phrasing that aid in the development of reading fluency. They learn to recognize story elements, the characteristics of the various genres of children’s literature, and the differences in the structure of narrative and expository texts. Reading aloud helps them learn to construct meaning from the stories they hear. These informal experiences in constructing meaning contribute significantly to the development of reading comprehension. Through listening to stories, children learn to attend to details, organize infor-
Read-Alouds The term read-aloud refers to an experience that involves the actual oral reading of a book or some other form of print for the purpose of communicating the text’s meaning to others. Reading aloud involves verbalizing the words while adhering to the intonation, pitch, inflection, stress, and pauses that present the language and style that are appropriate for conveying the author’s message. Silent reading does not present the language, style, and mood of a text as effectively as reading aloud. We typically associate reading-aloud experiences with children and the literature that is specifically written for them; however, reading aloud is appropriate for all ages. It can involve as few as one listener or a group of listeners. Reading aloud to children is commonly referred to as story time and can be a quiet, soothing experience or be lively, interactive, and animated. Reading to children is a practice that has been recommended for many years by researchers, educators, and professional organizations such as the International Reading Association. It is a practice that should occur in the home in the form of “lap reading” or bedtime stories as well as in every grade at school. In a recent study on reading-aloud practices in the schools, James Jacobs, Timothy Morrison, and William Swinyard (2000) found that reading aloud was more commonly practiced in the primary grades and by younger teachers. Benefits of Reading Aloud to Children According to the report of the National Commission on Reading (see “National Commission on Reading” entry) entitled Becoming a Nation of Readers, reading aloud to children is credited as the “single most” valuable asset in developing 487
Reader Response See also National Commission on Reading References Anderson, Richard C., Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Judith A. Scott, and Ian A. G. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Graves, Michael F., Connie Juel, and Bonnie B. Graves. 2001. Teaching Reading in the Twenty-first Century. 2d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Jacobs, James S., Timothy G. Morrison, and William R. Swinyard. 2000. “Reading Aloud to Students: A National Probability Study of Classroom Reading Practices of Elementary School Teachers.” Reading Psychology 21:171–193. Trelease, Jim. 1995. The Read-Aloud Handbook. 4th ed. New York: Penquin Books.
mation, and draw conclusions long before they begin formal reading instruction and have to orchestrate simultaneously the processes of word recognition and comprehension. Read-aloud experiences can be used to set the stage for learning experiences. They can help activate prior knowledge and provide an alternative for children to learn from material that is too difficult for them to read independently. They can be used to inform, entertain, encourage, arouse curiosity, and entice children to read further. Reading aloud encourages children to think imaginatively and creatively. It takes them to places unknown and allows them to “walk in others’ shoes.” It exposes them to different perspectives and diversity in general. It evokes a variety of thoughts and beliefs and in so doing, helps cultivate individual belief systems. Reading high-quality literature aloud to children broadens their horizons by increasing their vocabularies, their world knowledge, and their book knowledge (Graves, Juel, and Graves, 2001). It empowers them with a rich repertoire of words and word meanings and introduces them to subjects and themes that they might not otherwise encounter. It provides them with an alternative to direct experience, and it allows them to explore out-of-the-ordinary places and times. This is especially important for beginning readers and doubly so for children who do not have a rich experiential background or who come from a home where books and other learning materials are less available. Casual conversations with young children are no substitute for read-aloud experiences because such conversations are typically limited to the words children already know. Intrinsic motivation for reading evolves through many pleasurable, success-filled experiences with books and leads to the creation of lifelong readers. Rich read-aloud experiences prepare children for success in reading by exposing them to good models for expressive and fluent reading and to a variety of topics and themes, colorful characters, and real-life situations. Such experiences also equip children with the knowledge of books, a broad conceptual schema, and a rich repertoire of words and word knowledge. In short, reading aloud to children has been credited with providing the knowledge necessary to ensure success in reading and should therefore be a priority in every classroom. Lavada Jacumin Parmer
Reader Response Reader-response theories focus on how readers construct meaning through a transaction between themselves and a text within a particular social context (see Beach, 1993; Rosenblatt, 1978). In this transaction with texts, readers construct unique meanings through applying their purposes for reading, attitudes, needs, experiences, and world/literary knowledge. By understanding this text-reader transaction, teachers create classroom activities to help students articulate, extend, and share their responses through discussions, writing, artwork, drama, or multimedia productions. The Role of the Text Reader-response theorists challenge the idea that the meaning is “in” the text, a basic assumption of New Criticism, a literary critical approach that focused on the text’s language to the exclusion of variation in readers’ construction of meaning. Rreader-response theorists differ, however, in their beliefs about the role of the text as evoking or inviting a range of different meanings. At one end of the spectrum, some theorists perceive the text as no more than a Rorschach’s ink blot that could evoke almost any meaning. At the other end, theorists posit that readers need to attend to textual cues—titles, names, beginnings, and endings—in order to infer the author’s intentions or to identify the type of genre represented by the text (Rabinowitz and Smith, 1998). For example, in responding to narratives, readers have to know 488
Reader Response
Reader response urges readers to identify with the main character of the book (Associated Press/AP)
ment of computer hypertexts (see “Hypertext” entry) allows readers to construct their own linked versions of texts by clicking on optional paths to story lines, images, background information, or other texts. In responding to these texts, readers assume entirely new and different roles as cocreators of texts with authors. Reader-response theorists are also interested in the ways that texts position readers or audiences rhetorically to accept or adopt certain interpretations or beliefs. Some theorists study how readers’ written responses expressed in letters or diaries reflect the beliefs and attitudes operating in a particular historical period. For example, in the late 1800s, concerned parents in Concord, Massachusetts, banned Huckleberry Finn from their library. They believed that Huck resembled other “bad-boy” characters in dime novels as well as members of the Jesse James gang and that young readers would emulate what they perceived to be Huck’s “bad-boy,” deviant behaviors (Mailloux, 1984). Response theorists also examine how readers use their experiences with texts to imagine alternative ways of being or social practices. In responding to the Harry Potter books, young read-
how to attend to cues intentionally employed to dramatize unusual, extraordinary events that violate norms or expectations, dramatizations that make a story worth telling as an out-of-the-ordinary event. In reading a story that begins with the words “It was a dark and stormy night,” readers apply this literary know-how to anticipate some unusual, foreboding event. Or readers also draw on knowledge of language use to construct characters or speakers as having certain traits and attitudes. For example, readers draw on cultural assumptions about language use and gender, class, or race to infer character traits and agendas. In responding to the dialogue in The Doll’s House, readers use knowledge of language and gender to infer that Nora, the main character, is asserting her own authority against the patriarchal norms of the time. Readers also define connections between a work and other work they have read, links defined in terms of shared topics, themes, issues, stances, or genres. In responding to a story, a reader may note that the story follows a prototypical quest/journey pattern, drawing on his or her knowledge about similar quest/journey stories to understand the text. The recent develop489
Reader Response ers may adopt Harry’s perspective, imagining what it is like to assume power within their peergroup world. Similarly, in responding to teen magazines, adolescent readers construct idealized portrayals of what it means to be popular with their peers as portrayed in stories, advice columns, and ads. Teachers can help students reflect on how texts shape their responses by having them reread texts and compare their responses across rereadings. With each rereading, students find more evidence of how texts evoke certain expectations that are or are not fulfilled. They may also appreciate the value of rereading texts, particularly with poetry, in order to construct new meanings with each new rereading.
Autobiographical Experiences Readers also apply their own unique autobiographical experiences to a text, experiences that can illuminate their understanding. In responding to To Kill a Mockingbird, I apply my own experience of growing up in a segregated southern city to understand the racist attitudes portrayed in the novel. Writing about autobiographical experiences evoked during and after reading a text encourages students to extend their responses, defining similarities and differences between their experiences and experiences portrayed in the text, and then using those comparisons to interpret the text. At the same time, one of the criticisms of a reader-response approach is that when students are asked to connect their prior experiences to texts, they may simply apply their own stereotypical beliefs about gender, race, or class to texts without being open to challenges to those stereotypes from reading about complex, nonstereotypical portrayals in literature.
Individual Differences in Readers’ Responses Reader-response theorists highlight how readers differ in their responses given differences in their modes of engagement, autobiographical experiences, response styles/strategies, prior reading experience, confidence in expressing responses, cultural/historical knowledge, and stances. Some response theorists, however, question the idea of unique individual differences in readers, arguing that readers are themselves constituted by larger cultural and ideological forces.
Response Styles and Strategies Readers also employ different response styles and strategies of engaging, question posing, describing, linking/connecting, interpreting, constructing cultural worlds, or judging literary quality. Some students may prefer to interpret thematic meanings, whereas other students may prefer to describe their emotional reactions or to draw connections between the texts and their lives. These styles and strategies vary according to students’ backgrounds. In a comparison of working- versus middle-class high-school students’ responses to poetry, Lowry Hemphill (1999) found that working-class students focused more on speakers’ actions and thoughts, whereas middle-class students focused more on thematic meanings consistent with the goals of literature instruction, resulting in more positive evaluations from teachers than was the case with working-class students. Teachers need to devise response activities that accommodate these individual differences in response styles and strategies. Teachers may also use response strategies to sequence response activities, so that students move inductively from initial, tentative reactions, descriptions, or engagements to interpreting or connecting activities that extend these initial responses.
Modes of Engagement Readers vary in how they engage with texts. As they enter into a fictional world, they adopt characters’ perspectives or worldviews that may be distinct from their own. They become highly engaged with fantasy, science fiction, or adventure literature because they are transported into alternative, novel ways of imagining about their own real worlds. Then they step back out of the text world to reflect on their experience with that world in relationship to their own real-world experience (Langer, 1995). Having experienced the fantasy school and peer world of the Harry Potter books, they may revise their own real-world perceptions about school or their peers. At the same time, readers may have difficulty suspending their disbelief and accepting the text world as fictional, imposing their own assumptions about reality onto the text world. They may also have difficulty distinguishing between fiction and reality, believing, for example, that they could achieve the idealized portrayals of love relationships in romance novels or teen magazine stories in their own lives.
Prior Reading Experience Readers also vary in the amount of prior reading experience and knowledge they bring to the text. 490
Reader Response As readers read, they acquire an intuitive knowledge of text conventions essential for interpreting meaning and judging quality. For example, as readers read poetry, they acquire the know-how associated with inferring the symbolic meaning of poetic and figurative language. All of this points to the value of extensive, voluntary reading in free-reading programs. Through their reading, students intuitively acquire tacit knowledge of text conventions.
nist, patriarchic stance valued during that time period. Readers may also resist these invited stances, depending on their own attitudes or identities. Readers who adopted a feminist stance responded critically to the stereotyping of women in the Bond novels. Early-adolescent females responding to young-adult romance novels adopted stances of “bad girls” or “good girls” depending on their attitudes toward school and their attitudes toward the “bad-” and “good-girl” characters in the romance novel (Ensico, 1998). Students may resist engagement with multicultural literature that portrays cultural perspectives distinct from their own that they may not understand or appreciate. In responding to multicultural literature, students may impose their sense of privilege associated with class or race onto texts, reflecting a failure to entertain alternative cultural perspectives. This suggests the need for teachers to provide relevant cultural background for understanding cultural differences and to help students reflect on how their own cultural perspectives influence their responses. For example, in responding to postcolonial literature, students may explore how Eurocentric perspectives shape their responses to portrayals of colonialized characters as the “other.”
Confidence in Expressing Responses Readers vary in their confidence in publicly expressing their responses. Some readers may be reluctant to share what they assume to be their “private” responses with others. Teachers can foster students’ confidence by having them engage in “think-aloud” activities in which a “reader” shares thoughts while reading a text with a partner. Engaging in “think-alouds” over time bolsters students’ confidence in trusting the validity of their responses. Cultural and Historical Knowledge Readers also differ in the social and cultural knowledge they bring to texts. Readers use their knowledge of social norms operating in a cultural world to explain characters’ actions as consistent with the different worlds in these texts. To understand the comic worlds of Jane Austen’s novels, readers need their knowledge of the classbound society of early-nineteenth-century Britain that limited women’s roles and status. In responding to Pride and Prejudice, readers may note the disparities between Elizabeth Bennett’s middle-class world and D’Arcy’s upper-class world to explain differences in these characters’ sensibilities. Because many texts are set in past historical contexts, teachers need to provide students with knowledge about the social and cultural practices valued in these historical worlds.
Creating Enabling Response Contexts Based on an understanding of how individual differences shape responses, teachers create enabling social contexts in the classroom that foster students’ high levels of engagement with texts through talk, writing, art, hypermedia productions, or drama. Students can share and explore responses through participation in small-group or whole-class, student- or teacher-led discussions. Unfortunately, classroom literature discussions are often limited to responding to low-level teacher recitation questions that allow for little elaboration of responses or exchange of responses between students (Marshall, Smagorinsky, and Smith, 1995). Teachers need to ask questions with no predetermined answers and encourage students to elaborate on their responses or link their responses to other students’ responses. In contrast to these teacher-dominated discussions, students are more likely to be engaged in discussions when they can control the content and the flow of discussion. Giving students some responsibility to lead or direct discussions en-
Stances Readers’ responses are shaped by differences in the stances or subject positions they adopt in responding to texts. In some cases, texts invite readers to adopt certain stances consistent with the text’s ideological orientation. In other cases, readers adopt the stances valued in a social context or certain historical period. In responding to James Bond novels in the 1960s and 1970s, some readers adopted a pro-Western, anti-Commu491
Reader Response hances their participation in discussions. In a book club program (McMahon et al., 1997), elementary students were responsible for bringing their own ideas to the discussion and for asking their peers for clarification of their responses. At the same time, teachers assume an important role in discussions by modeling response strategies, raising issues that students did not raise themselves, clarifying confusions, highlighting students’ contributions, and linking the text to various themes. In modeling response strategies, teachers need to recognize that while they may have read a text numerous times, their students are reading it for the first time. This suggests the need for teachers to adopt the perspective of the first-time reader so that they are accepting of students’ initial responses. Teachers may also teach students to employ literary critical approaches—applying feminist, psychological, Marxist, semiotic, mythic, or post-structuralist approaches to texts (Appleman, 2000). Applying these critical lenses to texts helps students formulate different thematic meanings related to texts and their own lives. For example, adopting a post-structuralist perspective as employed in the Chalkface anthology series distributed by the National Council of Teachers of English helps students examine how the language categories, such as “good” or “evil,” structure perceptions of reality. Teachers can also use journals, free writing, or e-mail exchanges to foster articulation of responses prior to, during, or after discussions. Informal writing helps students think through and reflect on their responses in a spontaneous manner. Having students exchange response entries fosters a social, collaborative exploration of different perspectives and interpretations, leading to new, shared insights into a text. More formal, essay writing serves to help students formulate and extend their responses through citing illustrative examples verifying their interpretations. Students may also construct their own poems and stories based on their responses to certain types of texts. In responding to news stories about a particular event, students may construct their own fictional version of that event. In responding to short, one-act plays, students may write scripts based on conflicts and tensions in their own lives. As they are writing these texts, they may return to similar texts to examine how writers use certain literary tech-
niques; for example, how writers use dialogue to portray characters. Students also use different media—images, mapping, artwork, hypermedia—to construct visual representations or dramatizations of responses. For example, high school students used images, photos, video clips, and song recordings to construct web-based hypertext responses to stories about love, family, and peer relationships (Beach and Myers, 2001). Students may use drawings, maps, or graphs to visually portray their perceptions of characters’ traits or relationships with other characters, using these depictions to discuss their perceptions of these characters’ traits and agendas. Students also respond to texts through oral interpretations or dramatic readings to convey their interpretations of a text through how they perform the text. Drama or role-play activities help students adopt and act out characters’ roles as they cope with conflicts and dilemmas in the text, experiment with language, and empathize with characters’ perspectives (Wilhelm, 1997). Teachers can help students frame their responses to literature in terms of issues, questions, concerns, or dilemmas about social worlds portrayed in literature and in their own lives (Beach and Myers, 2001). In doing so, teachers encourage students to explore larger social and cultural forces constituting text worlds. For example, eighth-grade students explored the social world of an adolescent female who lived in the Middle Ages as portrayed in the novel, Catherine, Called Birdy. The students studied the feudal system, the life of lords and peasants, the church, education, and so on and then shared their dialogue-journal responses to the novel. They were concerned about the main character’s lack of power as a female—the fact that her father is marrying her off to an older man against her wishes. They were also intrigued by the power of religion over the characters’ lives. They then compared the roles of females in the medieval world with females in the contemporary world, noting that although changes have occurred, the subordination of females still occurs in many cultures. Working in pairs, they then conducted studies of issues related to women in present-day society and presented their findings to sixth graders. Teachers also draw on reader-response theories to instruct students on how to respond to 492
Readers Theatre McMahon, Susan I., Taffey Raphael, Virginia Goatley, and Laura Pardo. 1997. The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. New York: Teachers College Press. Myers, Jamie. 2001. Inquiry-Based English Instruction: Engaging Students in Life and Literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Rabinowitz, Peter J., and Michael W. Smith. 1998. Authorizing Readers: Resistance and Respect in the Teaching of Literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Rosenblatt, Louise. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wilhelm, Jeffrey D. 1997. “You Gotta BE the Book”: Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.
each other’s writing in peer conferences. In giving “reader-based” feedback to each other’s writing, students describe their own reactions to their peers’ drafts, noting specific aspects of a draft that engage, provoke, confuse, baffle, or challenge them. By focusing on specific descriptive feedback, students invite their peers to make their own judgments about a draft, judgments that may then lead to revision. Teachers may evaluate students’ journal or essay responses by reacting in a conversational mode, engaging in a dialogue by sharing their own responses, or posing questions that invite students to extend or elaborate on their responses. By using portfolio collections of students’ written responses, teachers can evaluate changes in the amount of responses, engagements with texts, the degree of elaboration of responses, uses of a range of different response strategies, connections between texts and/or experiences, level and quality of interpretation, and application of various literary critical approaches. Richard Beach
Readers Theatre Readers Theatre is an interpretive reading activity—a hybrid between conventional theater and oral interpretation—in which readers use their voices to bring texts to life. Unlike conventional theater, Readers Theatre requires no sets, costumes, props, or memorized lines. Nor does Readers Theatre depend upon the presence of a written play. Instead, any piece of literature can be turned into a script for oral presentation. The discussion of texts that occurs in preparation for assuming roles and the repeated readings associated with rehearsals make Readers Theatre a vehicle both for students’ literary meaning making and for purposeful practice. Often seated on stools, with scripts on music stands, the performers’ goal is to read so effectively that the audience can visualize the setting, characters, and action. In addition to the characters, the narrator has a special role in Readers Theater. Drawing from the original text’s narration and illustrations, the narrator provides the cementing details and explanations, clarifying the action as necessary. In the absence of theatrical trappings, the emphasis of Readers Theatre is on conveying the text as an experience to be imaged by audiences. Across sites and grade levels, teachers and researchers report that readers are highly motivated by the practice.
See also Criticisms of Reader Response References Appleman, Deborah. 2000. Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press. Beach, Richard. 1993. A Teacher’s Introduction to Reader Response Theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Beach, Richard, and Jamie Myers. 2001. Inquiry-Based Instruction: Encouraging Students in Life and Literacies. New York: Teachers College Press. Ensico, Patricia E. 1998. “Good/Bad Girls Read Together: Pre-adolescent Girls’ Co-authorship of Feminine Subject Positions during a Shared Reading Event.” English Education 30:44–62. Hemphill, Lowry. 1999. “Narrative Style, Social Class, and Response to Poetry.” Research in the Teaching of English 33, no. 3:275–302. Langer, Judith A. 1995. Envisioning Literature: Literary Understanding and Literature Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Mailloux, Steven. 1984. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Marshall, James D., Peter Smagorinsky, and Michael W. Smith. 1995. The Language of Interpretation: Patterns of Discourse in Discussions of Literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Readers Theatre in the Classroom There are many more descriptions of the procedures for installing Readers Theatre in classrooms 493
Readers Theatre (ranging from the production of scripts to managing practice to staging performances) than there is evidence for the effectiveness of Readers Theatre on students’ literacy. Even so, Readers Theatre has been used instructionally to support students’ interpretive reading (of both fiction and nonfiction), as a support for second-language learners, as a vehicle for fluency development, and for the exploration of literary elements— such as characterization, mood, and so on.
texts was shown to support fluency. There are also logical arguments, observational evidence, and experimental studies that argue directly for the influences of Readers Theatre on fluency (for example, Martinez, Roser, and Strecker 1998/ 1999). In addition to practice (rehearsal), readers who are becoming fluent need manageable texts in which to practice. They must know what fluent reading sounds like, so they need effective models. Because some researchers contend that students who receive instruction and feedback are more likely to develop reading fluency, the instruction that accompanies Readers Theatre often includes attention to phrasing, punctuation, and expressiveness as ways of registering meaning. Beverly Busching (1981) argued that Readers Theatre makes its greatest contribution to below-level readers. Even so, it may be important to continue to investigate the range of readers for whom Readers Theatre is an effective instructional practice.
Interpretive Reading As with poetry, some stories nearly beg to be released from the page through voiced interpretation. According to Jean Bertram (1967), effective oral reading entails a construction or interpretation of the sound, sense, and structure of literature, including its purposes, language, emotions, and pace. The precepts of Readers Theatre lean on Louise Rosenblatt’s (1978) transactional model of reading. That is, as readers focus on how they will interpret a text with their voices, they work with others to make literary meanings within a social context. Whether in literature circles, book clubs, or class discussions, readers talk over the texts they will perform. Further, as they rehearse, reflect, and then exchange roles, they have opportunities to share, support, and try out various interpretations.
Study of Literature/Literary Elements As with any use of literary text, children who read and reread have opportunity to notice the author’s craft. As the plot is resolved and the fate of characters is assured, readers who return to texts can shift their attention. For example, they may notice for the first time the ways in which the author has worked to build tension, establish mood, reveal the characters, foreshadow events, or create other awarenesses that may be elusive when one is engaged with a compelling story. The multiple rehearsals associated with Readers Theatre provide for this shift of attention. Readers freed to consider the text as purposefully shaped may be more likely to learn to reflect thoughtfully on unrehearsed texts. Nancy L. Roser
Supporting Language Learning Working in a third-fourth–grade classroom with children whose many labels included “limited English proficient,” Shelby Wolf (1993) attributed the children’s capable text interpretations at the end of the year to their purposeful and active uses of language during Readers Theatre. Because scripts for Readers Theater can be selected or produced based on culturally relevant texts, children transitioning to English can have opportunity for meaningful talk and a focus on deeper understanding while exploring their own culture and that of others. This chance to operate within the inevitable gaps in text to try out one’s own roles in possible worlds, as Jerome Bruner (1986) described it, to reflect on actions, and to both construct and convey meanings are important aspects of students’ language learning.
See also Children’s Literature; Reader Response; Transactional Theory References Bertram, Jean DeSales. 1967. The Oral Experience of Literature: Sense, Structure, and Sound. Scranton, PA: Chandler. Bruner, Jerome. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Busching, Beverly. 1981. “Readers Theatre: An Education for Language and Life.” Language Arts 58, no. 3:330–338. Martinez, Miriam, Nancy L. Roser, and Susan
Fluency Practice In the research of Jay Samuels, Sarah Dowhower, Patricia Herman, and others, repeatedly reading 494
Reading Assessment Strecker. 1998/1999. “‘I Never Thought I Could Be a Star’: A Readers Theatre Ticket to Fluency.” The Reading Teacher 52, no. 4:326–334. Rosenblatt, Louise. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Wolf, Shelby Ann. 1993. “What’s in a Name? Labels and Literacy in Readers Theatre.” The Reading Teacher 46, no. 7:540–545.
every child. Thus, RWQ publishes sound scholarship that represents divergent views, believing that sharing and analyzing divergent views advances knowledge and understanding. Third, to benefit struggling readers and writers, themes and articles must address important issues in a well-organized, clear fashion and must offer well-justified, practical suggestions for translating research into practice. RWQ publishes literature reviews, original research, theoretical essays, case studies, program descriptions, and instructional methodology articles as part of themes or as individual manuscripts. Themes may run up to 125 manuscript pages; unsolicited manuscripts may run up to thirty pages. All manuscripts undergo masked review. All submissions must adhere to the latest Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. Before a theme is reviewed, prospective theme editors must submit a proposal to RWQ for peer review. Themes are due for masked review a year after a proposal’s acceptance. Each manuscript in a theme must meet RWQ’s standards for publication, which include clear, coherent writing and relevant, accurate, sound scholarship. Themes are reviewed in their entirety to ensure that they form a coherent whole. University faculty, graduate and undergraduate students, and schoolbased reading, special education, elementary and secondary education, and school psychology personnel comprise RWQ’s basic readership. RWQ is primarily a library journal. As part of a library subscription, RWQ offers readers free on-line access. The publisher, Taylor and Francis, offers personal subscriptions to RWQ at reduced rates. Subscription and sample issue information are available on Taylor and Francis’s web page (www.taylorandfrancis.com). Editorial inquires should be addressed to RWQ’s editor: Howard Margolis, Ed.D., DECP- B Building, Queens College, Flushing, NY 11367–0904,
[email protected]. Howard Margolis
The Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties The Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties (RWQ) publishes theme issues and individual articles to help professionals better understand and work with children and adolescents who have or are at risk for having reading and writing problems, whatever their origin. As such, RWQ addresses a wide variety of subjects, directly related to the academic, social, and emotional needs of such students. Recent theme titles illustrate the diversity and importance of RWQ’s topics. Titles have included “Using Cooperative Learning to Improve Reading and Writing,” “Automaticity: Theory and Practice,” “Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Schools,”“Promoting Word Learning with Delayed Readers,” “Writing Assessment,” “Electronic Literacy,” “Addressing Barriers to Student Learning,” “Conceptual Change Learning: A Multidimensional Lens,” “PerformanceBased Assessment: Equity and Fairness,” “Social Mediation for Assisting Learning and Development,” “Providing Intervention for Struggling Learners in Grades Four through Eight,”“Homework for Students with Learning Disabilities,” “Textbook Evaluation and Modification for Students with Learning Problems,” and “Overcoming Motivation Problems in Literacy Learning.” Three premises guide RWQ’s decisionmaking. First, to be most effective, professionals who serve children and adolescents with reading and writing problems must keep current with the relevant literature and understand how they can apply it to helping students overcome learning problems. This requires information on the validity, efficacy, and procedural details of assessment, instructional practices, and program development. Second, no philosophy or instructional model has proven inherently superior to most others for
Reading Assessment Reading assessment is a complex endeavor that involves both formal and informal measurement of the reading ability of individuals or groups and the use of information gained through assess495
Reading Assessment ment for educational decisionmaking. Assessment instruments and procedures may measure oral or silent reading, the component skills necessary for reading, various levels of comprehension, written responses to reading, or a combination of these manifestations of reading behavior. Formal measures of reading achievement include standardized tests that may be administered either one-on-one or to groups of students. They can serve one of two purposes: (1) to survey students’ achievement to gain an overall or comparative rating of reading ability or (2) to provide diagnostic information that can inform instruction. Informal measures of reading may also be individually or group administered (see “Standardized Testing” entry). Both teachermade tests and commercial instruments can be used for informal measurement. Their purpose is to obtain information quickly so that it can inform instruction or to screen students who need more extensive diagnostic testing. The decisions that are made as a result of reading assessment serve several purposes: to inform administrative purposes, to influence instruction, or to provide information to parents. Thus, formal assessment data might contribute to decisions about retention of a child in grade, or data from an informal assessment might help a teacher know what to reteach to a student who has not mastered a specific aspect of reading. Parents need assessment data to keep track of their children’s progress or determine how they can best support the efforts of the school at home. Because test results contribute to decisions about students, it is important that tests be of the highest quality. The following characteristics of tests apply to both formal and informal tests but are especially important for formal, standardized tests that may carry tremendous weight in academic decisionmaking.
against which subsequent test takers’ performance is compared. In interpreting students’ scores on norm-referenced tests, it is important to be sure that the norming group was sufficiently similar to the population that took the test. Without this similarity, test data may be suspect. It is also important to determine that norming information is current, lest test results again run the risk of inaccuracies. Criterion-referenced tests compare students’ achievement against an established list of learning objectives to see how much each student has accomplished against the desired learning goals. Mastery is determined by comparing students’ performance on a test (their scores) against a criterion or standard for achievement. Criterion-referenced tests usually state a mastery level, that is, a percentage of items that an individual must get correct to indicate mastery of the material assessed. Reliability and Validity of Tests Reliability and validity are essential characteristics of formal reading tests. Reliability refers to the degree to which there is consistency between two measures of the same construct. Test results must represent consistency by a test taker if performance on one measure can be generalized to performance on another measure or to performance in general. Consideration of reliability involves the error or variability associated with the test from the perspective of the individual (intraindividual) and of the test itself (interindividual). Theoretically, each test taker has a true score, but that score can vary. The variance is indexed by the standard error of measurement, which expresses the probability that an individual’s test score would vary from day to day. Interindividual variability refers to the consistency or stability of performance of a group of test takers whose performance is measured at different times. There are numerous measures of interindividual variability, but all are expressed with a correlation coefficient or index ranging from -1.0 to +1.0. In evaluating assessments, the closer the correlation coefficient is to +1.0, the better the reading measure will be. Test stability is one measure of reliability; it is often reported as test-retest reliability because it refers to the degree to which a test taker’s performance is consistent across time. Equivalent form/alternate form/parallel form reliabilities re-
Kinds of Tests Formal tests may be norm referenced or criterion referenced. A norm-referenced test compares the performance of individual students to one another or to a so-called norm group. Groups of students may also be compared to other groups. Norm-referenced comparisons depend on tables of norms, that is, sets of statistics derived from a standardization process. Test publishers administer their tests to representative groups of students who provide the “norm” 496
Reading Assessment fer to the extent that different forms of the same test are in fact comparable. Internal consistency is the degree to which all test items measure the same trait or characteristic. It is estimated with the split-half reliability method, the KuderRichardson 20 and 21 formulas, and Cronbach’s coefficient alpha. Inter-rater (or interscorer) reliability is also an important measure and is used to evaluate openended/constructed response items that ask test takers to write about their reading. The simplest measure of inter-rater reliability is a calculation of the percentage of scores that agree, that is, the percentage of times that scorers assign the same score to the same answer. This is affected by the clarity with which the item states what is demanded of the test taker and also the detail provided by the scoring rubric or detailed scoring guide that accompanies the item. Validity is another important attribute of reading tests; it refers to the truthfulness or accuracy of the measurement derived from administering the test. A valid test provides an accurate measure of the behaviors being measured. In other words, it reflects test takers’ true reading abilities. The validity of a test can be viewed from several perspectives. Content validity refers to the extent to which a test samples the representative aspects of the domain being assessed. For example, a comprehension test that purports to provide a full measure of a student’s comprehension abilities should include different kinds of stimulus material to read and present questions that tap different levels of comprehension. In contrast, a decoding test that presents only phonetically regular words will not present an accurate measure of decoding skills. Construct validity refers to the extent to which a test measures the psychological construct or trait that it claims to measure. For reading tests, it is important to know how the test developer defined reading, including how broadly or narrowly the developer has conceptualized the cognitive processes the test will measure. It is also important to know how the items themselves articulate the definition. For example, a test is measuring something other than reading ability if items about a reading passage can be answered without reading the passage, perhaps because they draw heavily on background knowledge. Predictive and criterion-related validity are
also important, especially for tests that are used for high-stakes decisions. A test that is intended to predict future performance must have high criterion-related validity so that users can be confident that the test accurately predicts the criterion of interest. For example, a screening test given to kindergarten children to predict their later reading achievement will be useful only if the items on the test accurately measure the basic knowledge and skills necessary for reading success. Test Bias Tests should be fair and free from bias. Normand criterion-referenced tests provide a ranking of test takers, and it is essential that that ranking really reflect differences in reading ability. A test is considered biased if it in some way differentiates between groups of test takers based on characteristics other than the constructs being measured. Tests may demonstrate bias in numerous ways. Reading passages may, for example, be differentially familiar to some groups of test takers, or they may contain information that some groups find offensive or sensitive to such an extent that they cannot perform optimally on the test. Bias reviews during test development help to remove bias, and test results are routinely investigated statistically for differential item functioning (DIF) to remove biased items from scoring (and ultimately from the tests themselves). Varieties of Reading Tests There are numerous kinds of formal reading tests, just as there are different purposes for using them. Individual tests can be used with only one student at a time and are often used to gain diagnostic information. Group tests permit the simultaneous administration of a test to a whole class or group of students. Survey tests, such as those often given at the end of the school year, measure general achievement in reading in broad, global areas that are appropriate for the grade level (for example, word analysis skills in lower grades versus inferential comprehension at upper grades). Such tests sample the reading domain by asking about each of the “objectives” to be measured by the test. Thus, young children might take subtests on word analysis, phonics, vocabulary, and comprehension. Older students might take subtests on vocabulary, research skills, and comprehension of several different 497
Reading Assessment genres. Multiple-choice items have long been the most common format for survey tests, but increasingly states and school districts are demanding that open-ended items also be provided to see how students can write in response to their reading. Open-ended items are also used on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading, a large survey instrument that is administered to a representative sample of students nationwide in grades four, eight, and twelve (see “National Association of Educational Progress” entry). Survey tests are often selected for use at the end of the school year because they provide national norms against which local achievement can be compared. Commerically developed tests such as the Stanford Achievement Test, the Terra Nova, or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills are commonly used. These survey batteries test reading and language arts, along with other content areas. Forms are available in Spanish as well as English. Some of the test companies provide services to states and districts that show how the objectives of these survey tests are aligned with local standards and expectations. States and local districts may elect to develop their own survey reading tests to keep track of their students’ achievement against local standards. These tests are sometimes developed solely by local educators or may be developed as a collaboration of local teachers and a test company. Even though sensitive to local expectations, such tests do not provide information that allows national comparisons and may not go through the rigorous statistical analyses that a national test withstands to ensure reliability and validity. Formal, standardized tests can also be used for placement and grouping decisions. Tests such as the Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (Durrell and Catterson, 1980) or the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (Woodcock, 1987) are often used to determine placement within a program. They are administered individually and provide information about the instructional level of material that is most appropriate for a student to encounter. As instructional programs offer students more choice of what they read, tests such as these are less often used; instead teachers use more informal measures to determine placement and recognize the fluidity of students’ reading levels as motivation influences their reading selections. Group-administered tests can be used
for grouping decisions as well in that they provide information on achievement that can be translated to instructional level. Reading Tests for Diagnosis of Difficulties Diagnostic tests examine specific strengths or deficits within a specific skill area or areas to provide a fine-grained profile of a student’s reading behavior. Information gained from a diagnostic test can serve many purposes. Group-administered standardized tests provide general information about students’ achievement levels and often alert teachers to the need for further, closer evaluation with a diagnostic reading test. There are both group-administered and individually administered diagnostic tests. Perhaps the most common group-administered diagnostic test is the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (Karsen and Gardner, 1984); it yields evaluative information in decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension and has forms that make it appropriate for students from grade one to community college level. Even though tests such as this provide both norm- and criterion-referenced scores and more specific information than a survey reading test, they do not diagnose strengths and weaknesses as precisely as an individually administered test. Individually administered diagnostic reading tests include a wide range of subtests to help administrators, usually a reading specialist or psychologist, develop a full profile of a student’s strengths and weaknesses. At the low levels of reading, a student might be tested on basic knowledge of the alphabet and letter-sound correspondence, on word attack skills such as phonic analysis, on vocabulary, on synonyms and antonyms, and on very simple comprehension tasks. Even with older students, subtests such as these may be used to gain insight into any basic misunderstandings or deficits that have impeded reading progress. An important component of formal diagnosis (and of informal reading assessment) is analysis of meaning-changing and non-meaning-changing deviations from text. When a student deviates from text in her oral production—for example, inserts a word, skips a word, or seemingly mispronounces a word—the deviation provides insight into how the student has processed language. A deviation that does not change meaning (for example, saying “goes to the grocery store” for “goes to the store”) reflects higher levels of 498
Reading Assessment skill in language processing and comprehension than a different kind of deviation. For example, saying “goes to the school” rather than “goes to the store” would suggest that the student attended to the initial letter of “store” but had not comprehended the sentence in which the word appeared. Diagnosis of comprehension difficulties can occur through several means. The most common comprehension tasks are recognition and retelling. Recognition tasks, such as multiplechoice items, require the reader to analyze several possible responses to a question and determine the one that is most correct. Well-constructed recognition questions present plausible options as well as the correct answer so that information can be gathered about how fully and accurately the reader has processed what she has read. Retelling tasks ask the reader to recall what she has read and retell it in her own words. At the lowest level, a reader should recall the beginning, middle, and end of the text; but more competent comprehenders may relate major and supporting ideas, details, and the main idea or thesis of the text and even generalize beyond the text to other readings or her own life. A rubric detailing gradations of “richness” of the retelling is used to evaluate comprehension and to point out aspects of text structure that the reader may not fully process. Data from a diagnostic reading test are complex and multilayered. Such data require careful analysis and thoughtful consideration because they may point to a pattern of deficits and compensatory strengths. One student may, for example, score well on a phonics subtest and sight word list but not be able to comprehend simple text; another student may comprehend well but not demonstrate word analysis skills at nearly a commensurate level. Both students have reading problems that must be addressed, but the remedial approach will differ considerably for each student. Diagnostic tests of reading may indicate the need for additional testing. Students may be referred for vision, hearing, neurological screening, or other tests to determine underlying causes of reading difficulties.
multiple sources and writing about what was read in several different ways. Such multistep tasks—the New Standards assessments and the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP)—are referred to as performance assessments. In assessments such as these, students must use all language channels and respond to text in multiple ways. In MSPAP, assessments tap students’ reading/language arts skills and also assess mathematics, science, and social studies (Kapinus, Collier, and Kruglanski, 1994). A characteristic of performance assessments of reading is flexibility of response formats: Students may write an essay, respond briefly in writing, develop a graphic organizer, or draw and annotate a picture. Student responses are scored on multiple dimensions, that is, for reading, language usage, writing, and in the case of MSPAP, for other content areas as well. Detailed rubrics guide scorers, and data reported on students can provide a rich picture of readers’ interactions with complex, authentic reading tasks. An important goal of performance assessment in reading is instructional change. Because the assessments mimic a particular way of interacting with text, teachers whose students are assessed in this way are encouraged to develop more integrative, flexible teaching approaches. For performance assessment to be a valid measure of reading achievement (Linn, Baker, and Dunbar, 1991), students must have had opportunities to practice this required form of interaction with text. Teachers often need professional development and support if they are to learn to teach in ways that are compatible with the assessment mode. Portfolios of students’ work in reading and language arts are another assessment approach (Au, 1994; Hansen, 1994; Salinger and Chittenden, 1994). In this approach, teachers keep students’ work samples as documentation of their interactions with text. Samples may include transcripts of running records (see next section), writing or drawing in response to reading, or other artifacts that document how students respond to multiple reading tasks. Portfolio content may be highly structured or more loosely assembled; content is evaluated holistically against criteria that often reflect expectations for accomplishment at different points along a developmental continuum of reading growth.
Performance Assessments A relatively new form of reading test involves composite reading behaviors, such as reading 499
Reading Assessment Informal Reading Assessment The range of informal assessment procedures is large, extending from commercial instruments to teacher-made tests and strategies. Perhaps the most common commercial instrument is the informal reading inventory or IRI (see “Informal Reading Inventory” entry). IRIs, which are given individually, usually consist of numerous subtests and checklists that allow teachers or reading specialists to perform an initial screening to determine students’ appropriate level for placement or to delve more deeply into students’ reading abilities. The subtests include brief inventories—for example, graded word lists, spelling lists, blending activities, vocabulary—and are accompanied by short, leveled passages and questions about what is read. The complete test battery of an IRI can provide a detailed profile of students’ abilities, but the data must be integrated thoughtfully to determine how to tailor instruction to students’ needs. The work of Marie Clay (1979, 1993) has had a strong effect on informal assessment. Her “Concepts about Print Test” (1974) is a standardized test administered in an informal way to ascertain beginning readers’ understanding of the fundamentals of print. The idea of assessing concepts of print has worked its way into the lexicon of informal assessment as a routine way of observing students’ book handling and asking them about the mechanics of reading. Equally, Clay’s use of running records has become a mainstay of classroom-based, informal assessment. A running record involves a child’s reading orally a selection of text at the instructional level; such a text will offer enough challenge that she can make some errors and also reveal strategies for figuring out unfamiliar words. Teachers administering a running record note the kinds of errors the child makes and the extent to which the child self-corrects. As the core of an informal approach to reading assessment, running records may be followed by a retelling exercise or by comprehension questions. Such an approach mimics aspects of an IRI but lacks the standardized procedures and materials that an IRI offers. Other informal approaches include interest inventories and attitude surveys and checklists filled out by teachers, reading conferences in which teachers discuss reading one-on-one with students, or teacher-developed quizzes and as-
signments about reading. Students can play a role in their own assessment by completing reading journals in which they write about their reading, oral retellings and think-alouds about what they read, demonstrations of reading through multidisciplinary projects, or self-assessments through which students compare their own progress against class expectations. Any of these kinds of assessments can be placed in a portfolio, as discussed above, to be evaluated on the cumulative data they provide (Klotz, 1996). A necessary component of teacher-developed informal assessment is the quality of scoring rubrics or other guides to how work will be evaluated. Expectations for performance and standards for evaluation must be clear and understood by both teachers and students. A teacher who uses informal assessment techniques should be confident that his or her evaluation of a student’s performance would be evaluated in a similar way by another teacher using the same scoring rubrics. It is also essential that no one piece of informal assessment information be considered the ultimate statement on students’ achievement. Both informal and formal assessments have their place in measuring reading achievement. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999) and the more specific standards for reading and writing assessment published by the International Reading Association and the National Council of Teachers of English (1994) both stress the need for multiple forms of evidence about any student. Appropriate evidence can come from well-chosen formal and informal assessments that match the purposes for their use and the developmental level of the students with whom they are used. Terry Salinger See also Authentic Assessment; Group Reading Inventories; Informal Reading Inventory; Portfolios; Reading Assessment; Standards References American Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association [APA], and National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME]. 1999. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. New York: AERA, APA, and NCME.
500
Reading-Attitude Measures
Reading-Attitude Measures
Au, Kathryn. 1994. “Portfolio Assessment: Experiences at the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program.” In S. W. Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, and P. P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 103–126. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Clay, Marie M. 1972. Sand—The Concepts about Print Test. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. ———. 1979. Reading: The Patterning of Complex Behaviour. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. ———. 1993. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann Education. Durrell, Donald D., and Jane H. Catterson. 1980. Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Hansen, Jane. 1994. “Literacy Portfolios: Windows on Potential.” In Shelia W. Valencia, Elfrieda Hiebert, and Peter P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 26–40. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. 1994. Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. Kapinus, Barbara A., Trudy V. Collier, and Hannah Kruglanski. 1994. “The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: A New View of Assessment.” In S. W. Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, and P. P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 255–276. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Karlsen, Bjorn, and Eric F. Gardner. 1984. Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Klotz, J. 1996. “Balanced Assesment for Balanced Instruction.” In Jerry L. Johns and Laurie ElishPiper, eds., Balanced Reading Instruction: Teachers’ Visions and Voices, pp. 134–144. Dubuque, IA: Kendell/Hunt Publishing. Linn, Robert L., E. L. Baker, and S. B. Dunbar. 1991. “Complex, Performance-based Assessment: Expectation and Validation Criteria.” Educational Researcher 20 (8):15–21. Salinger, Terry, and E. Chittenden. 1994. “Analysis of an Early Literacy Portfolio: Consequences for Instruction.” Language Arts 71:446–452. U.S. Department of Education. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Woodcock, Richard W. 1987. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Throughout the past seven decades, reading-attitude measures have been developed to assess students’ attitudes and feelings toward reading. Attitude is usually defined as a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable or unfavorable manner with respect to a given object (in this case, any text to be read). Several researchers in the reading field have concurred. They have argued that reading attitude can be conceptualized along a continuum with positive and negative extremes. Reading attitude is a system of feelings that is directly related to the act of reading that causes students to approach or avoid a reading situation. Some of the measures that have been developed to assess attitudes toward reading have been informal measures. These have included the use of checklists, teachers’ observation forms, interview protocols, and holistic writing samples by children. Other measures have been more formal tests, including measures developed by Estes (1971), Heathington (1979), and the National Right to Read Office (1976). Few studies have actually investigated the effectiveness of reading-attitude measures themselves, however. Notable exceptions include Regina Tullock-Rhody and Alexander Eskel (1980), who developed a reading-attitude scale for secondary students and established reliability or how well results would be dependable. Another exception is Michael McKenna and his colleagues, who developed an attitude measure for elementary-school students. McKenna and his colleagues reported on the reliability and validity of their instrument, Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (McKenna and Kear, 1990). The seven criteria that guided the development of their instrument included (1) establishing a large-scale normative frame of reference; (2) developing a set of items selected on the basis of desirable psychometric properties; (3) documenting empirically based data concerning reliability and validity; (4) developing applicability to all students in grades one–six; (5) including an inviting, friendly pictorial response format; (6) designing the instrument to be group administered; and (7) including subscales that measure differences between recreational and academic reading. Reading-attitude measures have served students and teachers as guides for interpreting behaviors during reading episodes. They have been 501
Reading Clinics considered a diagnostic measure as well as a measure of change in attitudes toward reading. In addition, they have been used to create supportive learning environments to help change reading attitudes from a negative to a positive direction. Diane Lapp and James Flood
university reading club. Some involve only reading educators; others involve a wide variety of professionals. Over the years, reading clinics have shifted in emphasis. Early on, clinics generally emphasized close instruction of decoding or word recognition. Clinics have, over the years, stressed psychological aspects of reading failure including counseling and analysis, perceptual aspects of reading, and language aspects of reading failure. Currently, most clinics are focused on reading instruction within an integrated perspective, stressing equally decoding, oral reading of connected text, comprehension, and writing. What these clinics have in common is that they provide assessment and/or instruction to children and adults with reading problems. There is a wide variety of approaches to both assessment and instruction in these various entities, though. Each clinic has its view of the nature of reading and of reading problems, and the clinic uses approaches consistent with that view.
References Estes, Thomas. 1971. “A Scale to Measure Attitude toward Reading,” Journal of Reading 15:135–138. Heathington, Betty. 1979. “What to Do about Reading Motivation in the Middle School.” Journal of Reading 32:709–713. McKenna, Michael, and Dennis Kear. 1990. “Measuring Attitude toward Reading: A New Tool for Teachers.” The Reading Teacher (May):626–639. McKenna, Michael, Dennis Kear, and R. Elllsworth. 1995. “Children’s Attitudes toward Reading: A National Survey.” Reading Research Quarterly 30 (4):934–956. Right to Read Office. 1976. Reading Interest/Attitude Scale. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. Tullock-Rhody, Regina, and Alexander J. Eskel. 1980. “A Scale for Assessing Attitudes for Reading in Secondary Schools.” Journal of Reading 23, no 7: 609–614.
Views of the Reading Process and Problems The term reading clinic comes from a medical model. In a medical model, the “clinician” “diagnoses” a reading problem and comes up with a plan of “remediation.” Often, the child’s reading problem is indicative of a reading “disability.” These medical terms are our heritage and certainly have affected the approaches that we take toward reading problems. Many current practitioners have tried to reject this medical model, with varying degrees of success; others still use the model as a metaphor; others are medically trained professionals (neuropsychologists, optometrists, and so on) who use their training to diagnose and prescribe treatments for reading problems. This discussion will be limited to clinics based in reading education, rather than in other specialties. Looking across reading clinics, there are as many approaches to reading and reading problems as there are in the field as a whole. There are some clinics that take a skills-based view of reading. In such clinics, reading is seen as the accumulation of a list of skills, each of which must be mastered and integrated in order for reading to successfully occur. At an opposite end, there are those who take a holistic view of reading who stress the interactions among the clinical teacher, the child, and the text. They might see the task of
Reading Clinics Many different entities refer to themselves as reading clinics. Most traditionally, reading clinics have been attached to universities and used to train students in working with children and adults with reading problems. The first university-based reading clinic was established by Grace Fernald at the University of California at Los Angeles in 1921. Other early clinics were established by William S. Gray at the University of Chicago, Samuel Orton at the University of Iowa, Mary Dougherty at Johns Hopkins, Jeanne S. Chall at Harvard, and Ira Aaron at the University of Georgia. At present, a search for the term reading clinic on an Internet search engine may turn up private, independent clinics; those specializing in neuropsychological examinations of children or adults with reading problems; clinics working with optometrists; and so on. Some universities run reading clinics, as they have for many years. In other universities, the “clinic” may be a part-time program conducted at a school or only during the summer. Some are still called a reading clinic; others may be called a literacy center, a reading and writing clinic, or even a 502
Reading Clinics
College tutor helps middle-school students having trouble with their reading (Skjold Photographs)
terms of underlying psychological processes, for example, may diagnose the reading problem in terms of those processes. Such a diagnosis might involve teaching reading in a way that is consonant with the process strengths and weaknesses or may involve direct manipulation of underlying processes. Within the reading field, work with underlying processes is rare, as it is becoming in the field of learning disabilities, but there are still medical people who concentrate on remediating underlying problems. The divergent approaches to reading may impede our ability to reliably assess children’s and adults’ abilities, which, in turn, may impede our ability to develop a coherent research base about children and adults with reading problems. Vinsonhaler and his colleagues found that different professionals who work with children and adults with reading problems (reading specialists, learning disabilities teachers, and so on) had insufficient inter-rater agreement when presented with simulated case materials (assessments, observations, and so on) (Vinsonhaler et al., 1983). There is some evidence that clinicians not only diverge between clinics but also that clinicians
teaching reading as finding an appropriate match between the child and a text that will motivate and enable reading development. Diagnosis The process of diagnosis is an inference process. Based on the clinician’s observations of the child’s performance on formal tests or informal tasks, the clinician makes a hypothesis about the needs of the child and the best procedures for helping that child improve in reading. The observation-hypothesis-instruction cycle continues as the clinician continues to work with the child. The view of reading and reading problems held by the clinic influences what the clinician might look at. For example, a clinician who sees the reading process as a series of skills that need to be learned may infer that a child’s comprehension is inhibited by lack of word identification skills, which, in turn, is inhibited by lack of decoding skills. The clinician may teach those decoding skills and reobserve the child’s oral reading and/or comprehension to generate additional hypotheses about what is needed. A clinician who sees the reading process differently, in 503
Reading Clinics within a single clinical training program show low agreement. Vinsonhaler and his colleagues suggested that reading specialists lack a shared model of the diagnostic process and a standard vocabulary for discussing reading problems. Without a common model and vocabulary, it is difficult to compare treatments across clinics or children, making it difficult to make generalizations about effectiveness. Different views of reading also lead clinics to typically use different types of tests for assessment. Some clinics rely heavily on formal measures; others rely on informal measures, such as informal reading inventories or even just observation during reading. Some clinics supplement their assessments with language and cognitive measures; others rely on these measures less frequently. Some clinics rely on specially developed measures, based on the model used for diagnosis. Typical reading measures used in a reading clinic might include measures of oral reading of connected text or of isolated words, such as the oral reading subtest or the word recognition subtests of an informal reading inventory, respectively. They might also include more formal measures, such as the Gray Oral Reading Test, Diagnostic Assessment of Reading and Trial Teaching Sessions (DAR-TTS), Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty, and/or miscue analysis of trade books, the word recognition subtest of the DAR-TTS, the Durrell Analysis, the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, and/or the Slosson Oral Reading Test. Reading comprehension might be tested with oral and silent reading subtests of informal reading inventory, formal measures such as the Test of Reading Comprehension (TORC), comprehension subtests of the Woodcock or another individually administered reading achievement battery, individual administration of a group-administered test such as the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, analysis of retelling, interviews and think-alouds during reading, or decoding tests such as clinic-made informal measures and/or formal measures such as the word attack subtest of the Woodcock or the phonics subtest of the DAR-TTS. Spelling is usually tested with developmental spelling lists, and early literacy can be measured with the Observation Survey (Clay, 1993) and measures of phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and book handling. It is important that the assessments used are reasonably reliable and valid. One should not as-
sume that all formal measures are reliable, nor are they necessarily valid. Informal instruments, even though they do not usually present evidence of reliability, may be more valid measures, since they are closer to the tasks that children do in reading and writing. A clinician needs to read manuals and reviews in standard references before choosing to use different instruments. Currently, the trend is to spend less time in formal assessment and more time observing and working with the child. Usually, but not always, the clinician will use at least one formal assessment, so that at least one measure with proven reliability is included. But often the best insights are gained from informal assessments and from close observation. Based on the results of the assessment, a clinician will often write a report. This report details the assessments given, including observations and interviews, and interprets them. Following the interpretation, a report makes some suggestions about appropriate instructional practice. A good report should be clear, written so that intelligent laypersons can understand it, and free of both jargon and statements that could be misinterpreted to the child’s detriment. Instruction in the Reading Clinic As with diagnosis, there are large discrepancies in how children and adults with reading problems are taught in a reading clinic. Again, the instruction provided depends on the way the clinic perceives the reading process. Some clinics see themselves as teaching reading skills, others as encouraging children and adults to read material at an appropriate level. There are, however, many commonalities among clinics, even if these do not characterize every clinic. The first commonality is a concentration on reading connected text. Although clinics vary in how they approach the skills in reading, especially decoding skills, most reading clinics devote the majority of their tutorial time in reading of connected text (fiction or nonfiction text longer than a paragraph or so.) Research has shown that the amount of text reading that children do is strongly related to their gains in reading achievement. In clinics, text reading may be oral or silent, self-selected or teacher selected. The second commonality is use of specialized techniques. If a clinic is to be successful where the school failed, it must use techniques that are 504
Reading Clinics somewhat different. The reasons for using different techniques are twofold. First, children and adults tend to reject teaching that has been tried and failed. Therefore, novel approaches may work simply because children or adults have not encountered failure with these approaches already. Second, many of the techniques are geared toward children and adults with severe or special problems in reading and sometimes are not practical for use in larger settings. Some of the techniques that are used often in reading clinics to teach word recognition and decoding are the Orton-Gillingham approach (a highly structured synthetic phonics approach involving tracing of letters and blending them together to make words), the Fernald approach (a whole-to-part word learning approach, also involving tracing), and the Benchmark School approach (a compare/contrast approach to teaching word identification). To teach fluency and oral reading, clinics often use repeated readings (rereading a passage until a target rate and level of accuracy is achieved), assisted reading (rereading with assistance, usually choral reading with a tutor), paired reading (reading with assistance, nonrepeated, but using material of interest to the tutee). Methods often used by clinics to teach comprehension include Reciprocal Teaching (having students take turns performing the role of “teacher” in order to model basic comprehension processes; see Palincsar and Brown, 1986) and Transactional Strategy Instruction (interactive comprehension instruction; see Pressley et al., 1992). Some of these are used (or have been adapted for use) in regular classrooms, but all were originally developed for use in clinics. Most time in the clinics, however, is spent in basic reading and writing activities, just as in any school setting. A third commonality is careful attention to matching children and adults with appropriate material. Because of the ability to work closely with children and adults, the clinician is better able than a classroom teacher to match children and adults closely with material at their reading level or interest. The close observation allows the clinician to quickly sense whether a text is too difficult or easy and to take appropriate action. Traditionally, learners read material at their instructional level. Instructional level has been defined as the level at which a learner can read with 95 percent accuracy and with at least 70 percent
comprehension. More recently, the traditional notion of instructional level has been questioned from a number of perspectives. Many studies have found that children can benefit from reading more difficult material if close support is provided, as in repeated or assisted reading or in Reading Recovery lessons. Clinicians, either implicitly or explicitly, work with a child within his “zone of proximal development,” to use Lev Vygotsky’s term. This is the level between the level at which the tutee can work independently and the level at which the child cannot succeed even with maximum support. Tutors should spend some time working at the top of that level so the child can make maximum gains. A fourth commonality is careful attention to the child’s motivation and affective needs. Another advantage of working closely with children and adults in a clinical setting is that the teacher is better able to tend to the child’s affective needs. With the experience of failure in reading, children or adults with reading problems develop a sense of “learned helplessness” or the feeling that they cannot succeed no matter what they do. This attitude has to be unlearned in order for the learner to succeed. With greater amounts of failure, the attitude is more difficult to unlearn. Clinicians need to be empathetic, coaching children with reading problems to greater achievement. This is as important as the cognitive aspects of the reading instruction provided. The Future of the Reading Clinic As long as children and adults fail to achieve at levels expected, there will be a need for clinical services for reading problems. What form these services will take is an open question. The diversity of reading clinics is both a strength and a weakness. It is a strength in that parents and children are provided with a wide range of options, but a weakness in that we have difficulty systematically accumulating data about the effectiveness of what treatments we use. Clinics are moving away from a medical model in which children are seen as disabled, but there is still a need for assessment and targeted instruction. New forms of assessment are being developed that will improve our ability to assess children. Many private clinics are using computer technology to assess and instruct. It is clear that future clinics will use more technology. Even with all of these changes, reading clinics do not look too different from 505
Reading-Comprehension Instruction clinics of twenty or more years ago. They still involve a tutor with a child, interacting around a book. This is, ultimately, how children and adults with reading problems learn best. Steven A. Stahl
roles in society, shifting conceptions of learning, and emerging educational agendas. Changing Nature of Reading-Comprehension Instruction In North America and many Western countries, views of teaching reading comprehension have shifted with changes in literacy expectations and demands placed on individuals and societies, developments in our understanding of the nature of reading comprehension, and the developments in curriculum and what are seen as appropriate or effective reading practices. Over the past century these changing views have influenced our understanding of what constitutes reading comprehension in terms of (1) its cognitive and sociocognitive dimensions, (2) its relationship to the range and type of texts with which students at various ages interact, and (3) variations in instructional contexts and institutional norms of reading. Reviews of teaching reading comprehension over the last thirty years emphasize either research on discrete subskills of comprehension (Davis, 1971); models of reading that focus on comprehension as a product of reading rather than an integral process (Ruddell, Ruddell, and Singer, 1994); research that increases students’ abilities to engage with and learn from prose, drawing on multiple and interacting cognitive strategies (Tierney and Cunningham, 1984); or research that acknowledges the active role of the readers in constructing information from a range of naturally occurring texts (Pearson and Fielding, 1991). More recently, reading-comprehension research and practice have been influenced by an understanding of reading as a social, cultural, and critical process and by the understanding of reading print literacy as one of many forms of literacy practices. The present summary is intended not to substitute for these reviews and works but to serve as a kind of historical overview to the various perspectives and approaches that have been taken toward the idea of teaching students to more fully understand the range of texts they encounter.
See also Literacy Labs; Reading Diagnosis; Remediation References Allington, R. L. 1998. Teaching Struggling Readers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 2001. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-based Programs. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. Clay, M. M. 1993. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Evensen, D. H., and P. B. Mosenthal. 1999. Advances in Reading/Language Research. Vol 6: Reconsidering the Role of the Reading Clinic in a New Age of Literacy. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Palincsar, A. S., and A. L. Brown. 1986. “Interactive Teaching to Promote Independent Learning from Text.” The Reading Teacher 39:771–777. Pressley, M., P. B. El-Dinary, I. Gaskins, T. Schuder, J. L. Bergman, J. Almasi, and R. Brown. 1992. “Beyond Direct Explanation: Transactional Instruction of Reading Comprehension Strategies.” Elementary School Journal 92:513–555. Roller, C. M. 1996. Variability, Not Disability: Struggling Readers in a Workshop Classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vinsonhaler, J. F., A. B. Weinshank, C. C. Wagner, and R. M. Polin. 1983. “Diagnosing Children with Educational Problems: Characteristics of Reading and Learning Disabilities Specialists, and Classroom Teachers.” Reading Research Quarterly 18:134–164. Vygotsky, Lev. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Wixson, K. K., and M. Y. Lipson. 1996. Reading Disability. New York: HarperCollins.
Reading-Comprehension Instruction The idea of teaching reading comprehension assumes that reading-comprehension abilities can improve with instructional intervention; in turn, the form that instruction takes depends on the particular models or theories of reading and learning on which the instruction leans. Our aspirations for and approaches to reading-comprehension instruction mirror literacy’s changing
Early Reading-Comprehension Instructional Approaches Prior to the influence of cognitive psychology on reading research that took hold in the 1970s, it was assumed that reading comprehension would 506
Reading-Comprehension Instruction simply involve a set sequence of skill mastery taught in a lockstep process, to be assessed only after the fact through questioning and summarizing. Instead, we understand that the reading process entails the ability to selectively and flexibly engage in an array of sophisticated and intersecting strategies before, during, and after reading and that these process are situated in and influenced by social contexts and interactions. Reading-Comprehension Instruction: The Metacognitive Turn These richer understandings were initially influenced by research carried out during the 1970s and 1980s in which educational researchers built upon and moved beyond theory and research emphasizing the impact of questioning and other adjuncts to reading comprehension and instead pursued analyses of expert readers who were skilled, strategic, successful comprehenders. This research uncovered an array of text-based and reader-based strategies that readers enlist in a flexible fashion as a way of deepening their understandings and uses of text. Researchers then tested whether certain instructional interventions might heighten the comprehension abilities of developing readers. In turn, researchers and curriculum developers created instructional protocols that provided readers tools for heightening their understandings that included explicit demonstration, modeling, and practicing of strategies and developed protocols that provided scaffolded and collaborative support and mentoring of learners. The term metacognition was coined by development psychologists such as John Flavell and Ann Brown to address the notion of learning to learn and was applied to studies of reading comprehension.
Student getting help with reading comprehension (Elizabeth Crews)
develop as students were provided opportunities to read and reflect on a range of texts that represent some corpus of ideas. Across age levels, difficulty levels were graduated so that texts might suitably challenge readers at different ages. Although students’ understanding was probed as a means of ensuring that they would recall important information, consistent with the view that reading comprehension was a reasoning process, teaching reading comprehension seemed to stress the products of reading comprehension (that is, the particular understandings to be gleaned, such as recall of important ideas, answers to specific questions) across selected texts. As complicated scope and sequence rubrics were developed for commercial reading programs, the skills themselves tended to remain the same as they were applied to increasingly sophisticated reading materials. These notions of readingcomprehension development had their corollaries in developmental views of learning and in stage-wise notions of reading that suggested learning to read was a precursor to reading to learn. Most reading educators then and now recognize that reading comprehension does not
Moving Beyond a Cognitive Approach Many of these earlier models of reading comprehension tend to focus on reading as information processing; however, more expansive views of reading comprehension have prompted the development of protocols intended to support multiple ways of learning with and through single and multiple texts. Extending the work of Louise Rosenblatt, drama educators such as Dorothy Heatchcote, and reader-response theorists, reading as a literary transaction or secondary world engagement has prompted the development of reading-comprehension protocols 507
Reading-Comprehension Processes that involve readers’ adopting stances and perspectives and suspending disbelief as they read. Reading as a communicative act led to protocols informed by communicative theory and involving the reciprocal processes of reading and writing. Definitions of reading as involving social dynamics, wherein meaning making is seen to be socially mediated, have prompted protocols for reading comprehension that help readers understand and use the conventions that surround text comprehension and the interpretive processes, such as those that communities offer in support of readers. Conceptions of reading as a sociocultural process have prompted the development of teaching in which readers are encouraged to critique issues of stance, identity, gender, and power in concert with examining comprehension of literary texts. These various research strands are not necessarily distinct; indeed, their interplay with one another is often considered in more current approaches to teaching reading comprehension.
standing that any attempt to provide a summary representing our understanding of teaching reading comprehension is apt to be selective, impressionistic, and a product of its historical moment and place. Robert J. Tierney and Theresa Rogers See also Comprehension Strategies; Content-Area Literacy; Learning with Texts; Metacognition; ReadingComprehension Processes; Study Skills and Strategies References Davis, Frederick. 1971. “Psychometric Research on Comprehension in Reading.” In Frederick Davis, ed., The Literature of Research in Reading with Emphasis on Models, pp. 3–61. East Brunswick, NJ: Iris Corporation. Pearson, Dave, and Linda Fielding. 1991. “Comprehension Instruction.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 815–860. New York: Longman. Ruddell, Martha, Robert Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds. 1994. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. 4th ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Tierney, Robert, and James Cunningham. 1984. “Teaching Reading Comprehension.” In P. Pearson, ed., Handbook of Research in Reading, pp. 609–656. New York: Longman.
Reading-Comprehension Instruction within and across Societies Developments in our views of the reading-comprehension process parallel changes in larger developments related to literacy, society, and education. Various ideological and cultural perspectives and norms influence the ways in which particular forms of reading are valued in particular societies; teaching reading is often tied to notions of what it means to have an educated citizenry, and approaches to reading have involved debates around what should be read and understood by those who are considered educated. For instance, when multiculturalism took hold in North America during the 1980s and 1990s, concerns about reading crosscultural texts informed reading theory; and when more conservative views of education arise in response to various historical, social, and economic conditions, concomitant debates about the importance of teaching reading “skills” come into ascendancy, as is currently the case in the United States. At the same time, and somewhat paradoxically, a growing global “knowledge economy” emphasizes the need for students to negotiate, interpret, and evaluate information from a variety of media sources in increasingly sophisticated ways. Therefore, this brief entry should be viewed with the under-
Reading-Comprehension Processes In the field of education, reading comprehension conjures up a few traditional lenses through which we view this important individual and social process. One is text—both in the sense of the structures that are used to organize text and the print through which meaning is encrypted. A second is language—both the oral language reservoir that undergirds all comprehension and the discourses peculiar to written language. A third is knowledge—the medium that both enables and is enabled by comprehension. And a fourth is process—the neurological, psychological, and social routines that mediate comprehension. Although their early-twentieth-century roots are clear in the processes of the visual perception (of print) and language understanding, the cognitive revolution in the 1970s brought both knowledge and text structure into leading roles in explaining how we understand text. 508
Reading-Comprehension Processes More recently, sociolinguistics and cultural psychology have added cultural and contextual dimensions to our understanding of texts. Poststructural advances in interpretive fields such as literary studies have also shaped our current views of comprehension. More recently, neurobiological studies have expanded to embrace reading comprehension. Each discipline is grounded in its own particular roots in Western beliefs and assumptions about mind, brain, knowledge, and knowing. Whether it is the importance of comprehension as a human activity (many agree on the centrality to human empowerment, citizenship, or education), or its elusive character (unlike writing, it is very hard to see), comprehension has lured scholars from many disciplines into its lair. Three of these perspectives are represented in this entry: the cognitive, the sociocultural, and the neurobiological.
trieved from long-term memory. Nonetheless, it provided a useful metaphor for comprehension. Schema theoretic accounts of reading comprehension proved a powerful set of ideas that moved beyond earlier models of reading that emphasized single-word recognition or sentence understanding (see “Schema Theory” and “Models of the Reading Process” entries). The reader’s own internal state of knowing assumed center stage, especially in the highly important process of inferential elaboration. Building on the seminal work of early-twentieth-century social psychologists, Richard Anderson (1984) and his colleagues built an elaborate model of reading comprehension. All knowledge is world knowledge, built up from our experiential encounters with the world. For purposes of text comprehension, we can think of three kinds of world knowledge: knowledge of language (its components and its functions—such as informing, persuading, controlling, entertaining, or enlightening), knowledge of text (text structures, orthographic features, and disciplinary discourses), and knowledge of things—comprising everyday experience and disciplinary knowledge (the essences of things such as birds, chairs, meals, games, botany, kinship structures, and the like). According to Anderson (1984), schemata (the plural form of schema) work well for reading comprehension because they perform several jobs very well. A single schema provides ideational scaffolding for assimilating text information (it tells us where to put things). Schemata facilitate selective allocation of attention (they help us focus on essential information) and enable inferential elaboration (they help us fill in gaps that are unspecified by an author). Schemata allow orderly searches of memory (to leave no stone unturned), facilitate editing and summarizing (as we build representations of what we understood), and permit inferential reconstruction of elements only partially specified by the text. If the reader is central in schema theory, the text follows in importance. The text is not seen as an object with an independent meaning to be unearthed but rather as a catalyst for unleashing a reader’s knowledge on the comprehension process. The structure of the text itself can influence and yield information about schema-based processes involved in reading it; this follows logically from the assumption that knowledge of
The Cognitive Model During the 1970s and 1980s, cognitive perspectives dominated our views of comprehension. The individual reader, interacting with a single text, in one particular context, was the fundamental analytic triad. Scholars tried to answer questions about the strategies the reader employs to build, sustain, and adapt a model of meaning for a text, the role of prior knowledge, and the distinction between literal and inferential comprehension. The psychological construct of mind (not the biological construct of brain) emphasized the individual reader, with a corollary emphasis given to constructs such as intentionality, affect, and inference. Intellectual or emotional reactions, knowledge, thoughts, and perceptions feature strongly in any cognitive analysis of text understanding. It is knowledge, usually in the form of content-laden knowledge or some logical variant, that propels comprehension. Knowledge and comprehension are seen as mutually synergistic constructs—knowledge begets comprehension begets knowledge. Schema Theory Perhaps the most popular of cognitive accounts of reading comprehension in the 1970s and 1980s was provided by schema theory. Ironically, it is not a theory of reading comprehension but a theory of memory. It attempts to describe how ideas enter, are organized within, and get re509
Reading-Comprehension Processes text and text structure is part of one’s store of existing knowledge. The early research on text was organized under the rubric of readability and focused on predicting text difficulty; the later work focused on explanations of comprehension success and failure and the capacity of text structures to elicit durable memory for ideas. In the late 1970s, structural accounts of understanding narrative and expository texts literally exploded onto the reading research scene. These structural accounts shared the common purpose of demonstrating how readers can avail themselves of the structures inherent in texts to organize their reading and retrieval. In the early 1990s, as schema theory waned, the common critique was its failure to account for context in the comprehension process. This allegation, while not without foundation, overlooked the attempts to account for context by scholars who documented the dramatic influence of cultural contexts on comprehension. Schema theory met many challenges during the late 1980s and early 1990s. The common thread to these challenges was the perceived rigidity of schema theory, which was deemed to consist of prepackaged, inflexible categories that could not account for the situated, flexible, idiosyncratic character of authentic everyday comprehension tasks.
tiple perspectives with multiple lenses in something akin to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s notion of crisscrossing a landscape from many directions. Rand Spiro prefers to conceptualize comprehension as a matter of building a schema of the moment rather than selecting a particular schema to do the job. Mental Models Another popular alternative to schema theory in the early 1990s was the mental models proposed by Timothy McNamara, Diana Miller, and John Bransford (1991). They were developed to compensate for the abstract categorical function that schema serve and functioned in a more temporal, episodic way. Mental models can account for heavily scripted events in the same way as schemata, but they can also account for unique, unscripted activities, which schema models fail to explain well. The comprehension research of the late 1980s documented the utility of mental models in accounting for the dynamic course of comprehension during reading. For example, the mental models approach was quite sensitive to subtle shifts in comprehension focus (for example, when a reader shifts from a hypothesis that character A in the story rather than character B is the likely candidate for the protagonist slot). Walter Kintsch’s Model The third important post-schema contribution comes from connectionist theories and propositional analysis. Walter Kintsch is the most prominent of these theorists, particularly as related to work in reading comprehension represented in his landmark book, Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition (1998). This work can be seen as a culmination of both schema-theoretic accounts and the mental models approach. Like schema theory, his model has both top-down and bottom-up components. The key bottom-up component is the text base or text model. It is within the text base that the unglamorous on-line work of comprehension is done. This reading is online; the reader actually processes the words and then the sentences on the page in linear fashion, accumulating a representation of several sentences. As new information enters working memory, it is integrated with other information in the text base through a process of linking propositions in a connectionist network. In parallel but synergistic fashion, the situa-
Cognitive-Flexibility Theory One lasting attempt to accommodate some of those problems comes from the work of Rand Spiro and his colleagues (Spiro et al., 1989) under the rubric of cognitive-flexibility theory. The fundamental assumption is that knowledge, particularly in complex domains, has to be thought of as ill- rather than well-structured. Hence learners (and readers) need to accommodate by adopting a flexible stance toward understanding and information acquisition and use. Spiro and colleagues were able to demonstrate the constricting, oversimplifying, and conceptually misleading effects of singular perspectives, including simplifying analogies, when students try to understand or learn information in complex, illstructured domains of inquiry, such as medicine, literary theory, or teaching. In arguing for multiple perspectives, Spiro takes a well-studied approach. Rather than abstract a general principle, readers begin to see family resemblances among specific cases. Readers examine a text from mul510
Reading-Comprehension Processes tion model also does its work. The situation model, a concept similar in function if not form to a schema, does its work by connecting the ideas in the text base to those in long-term memory and by filling in the gaps not specified by the text base. Thus, in reading a story, if the author does not make explicit who the protagonist is, the situation model, driven by a wealth of knowledge about how stories work and how human conflicts play themselves out in everyday life, will draw that inference for the reader. During this integration process, wherein the text base and the situation model meet and come to terms, ideas eventually settle and become a stable part of one’s knowledge base (the connectionist network of ideas stored in long term memory). The text base comprises propositions—implicit statements, stored in memory—about the logical relations among the ideas in the text. Propositions consist of the segments of discourse in a text, such as sentences and other coherent chunks of text. These become the ropes that comprise the mental networks people establish—how that knowledge is represented in a person’s mind. Nevertheless, these networks are flexible; they change moment by moment and day by day. In a sense, the text base characterizes the bottom-up work of reading—what readers extract in laborious fashion from the printed page, whereas the situation model is the topdown contribution, which Kintsch called the Construction-Integration (CI) model. According to Kintsch and others, this class of newer models provides greater flexibility and greater sensitivity over schema theory to the contributions to comprehension made by careful parsing of the text.
that impose significant constraints on comprehension. Traditional constructs, such as generalization and transfer, or at least their canonical accounts, are problematized by calling into question the idea that abstract entities can travel across situations to explain cognitive processes such as learning and understanding. Hence anything resembling a schema, with its powerful abstract qualities, is suspect. Equally important in this bridging phenomenon were critiques championing the social construction of reality. From literary theory came the reincarnation of Louise Rosenblatt’s (1978) Deweyan-inspired transactional view of the relationship between reader and writer. The powerful ideas of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1978) and the Russian literary theorist Mikhail Bakhtin (1981) informed these emerging sociocultural views. From Vygotsky, reading researchers appropriated two powerful social constructs: (1) the zone of proximal development (that range defined by the difference between the learning a child can accomplish on her own and what she can accomplish with the assistance of a mentor) and (2) the idea that phenomena (ideas, perceptions, and so on) are first encountered socially, on an interpsychological plane, before they become internalized (that is, learned) within an intrapsychological plane. These two constructs demanded a view of learning and comprehension as inherently social, that is, intrapsychological. From Bakhtin’s dialogic perspective, scholars forged an intertextual view of reading comprehension, with the basic premise that we understand each new text—be it written, oral, imaginal, or experiential—in relation to all the previous texts we have experienced.
Situated Cognition Paralleling the advances in cognitive comprehension models in the late 1980s and early 1990s were advances in the social aspects of understanding and learning, with the situated cognition perspective proposed by James Greeno (1998) serving as a bridge between cognitive and social perspectives. Situated cognition anchors mental accounts in a cognitive frame (individual people really do possess knowledge) while raising the salience of social and cultural factors in shaping the comprehension process (because knowledge and understanding are regarded as inherently contextualized). Reading activities are construed as occurring within natural settings
Sociocultural Models of Comprehension These new ideas shifted the attention of reading scholars from the individual and the text to the situational context, including both a community of learners and a community of texts, surrounding the act of reading. The idea of comprehending an external text gave way to individuals’ negotiating meanings for and across texts within a discourse community. In this community, both social and cultural forces are at work. The mind-knowledge nexus in cognitive models, usually shrouded in an explicit or implicit assumption of subject-object duality, was replaced by an interdependent and transactional world511
Reading-Comprehension Processes person relationship. The notion of text was extended to encompass systems of activity, tool use, and evidence left by artifacts. What counted was not the form of representation (for example, graphical, verbal, and so on) but the semiotic fact of representation. Mind, knowing, and text present themselves as very different conceptualizations in social and cultural accounts of comprehension. In cognitive accounts, mind and knowledge are believed to be properties of individuals. In sociocultural accounts, such as those described by James Gee (1992), they are construed as the constructions of social practice. In cultural models, knowledge is conceived as distributed across many persons, with the group functioning together as an organism. Text is not an independent, isolable entity; it owes its existence, both in its production and its interpretation, to social and cultural influences, and it takes on the variety of forms suggested by Bakhtin’s conceptualization. The distinction between text and context becomes fuzzy, for one text can serve as the context for another, and a context can serve as a text that we read and interpret and for which we make meaning. People use text in whatever form it assumes as a means to interpret, to understand the social dimensions of the world or particular contexts. Like situated cognition, sociocultural views challenged the abstract nature of the stuff of comprehension (what cognitivists called schemata or frames). Sociocultural theorists argue that there really is no such thing as abstraction, or more precisely decontextualization. What is really occurring is recontextualization. Instead of mentally distancing a phenomenon further and further away from the environment or context in which it was originally encountered, we actually reorient, reappropriate it into another context. Hence, it takes on new and more developed characteristics, even if those contexts are purely mental ones. More formalized versions of social action can be codified according to cultural expectations and mores and can be referred to as distinct practices, or what Gee called discourses. People participate and act in many contexts: homes, clubs, work environments, sports teams, spiritual communities, and the like. Each of these settings and the participants who operate within it develop their own set of cultural practices and texts. Given that a contextual arena embraces
more than an individual’s mind or self, the door of comprehension opens out onto a vast and ever-expanding array of possibilities. It moves beyond what we typically think of as literacy as only academic reading and writing, or those kinds of reading and writing activities associated with what a person learns in school. The notion of interaction, so popular in cognitive accounts, was replaced by the notion of transaction, in which the encounter of the reader-text-context triad produces a new entity that is more than the sum or product of the three. Much is made within sociocultural accounts of the notion of tool use and mediation. Indeed, language itself is seen as a tool, like any other more transparently material tool, to act upon the world, including, of course, the other actors within that world. Like any tool, language is essentially symbolic and holds the power to change and shape thought itself (Vygotsky, 1978). Hence the mediational function of speech—a person becomes acculturated into a social system because symbolic tools, primarily language, are internalized, adopted, and adapted. Early in a person’s development, action precedes speech (as with Vygotsky’s interpersonal before intrapersonal encounters). Later, as speech becomes internalized, it will develop the capacity to precede action, becoming welded with thought itself. Language can then take on the role of mediating perception—how we frame and view the world and the actions of others and self (Wertsch, 1993). It is this analytical nature of speech that allows it to shape how we think and understand. Thus, comprehension involves both the internalization of the tool of language and its effective use in particular situations. A person masters written or oral language in order to attain goals and make transformations on the world. One might say that understanding, including text comprehension, entails a mastery of knowing about both the nature of the tool being used and the context of use. In addition, people might gain understandings of the consequences of their actions, intended meaning, and so forth on others. Clearly context is the central feature of sociocultural views of comprehension. Language is a tool that is shaped by contexts and purposes. What is considered a text or a context depends entirely upon purpose and context. The very notion of mind is not only social (Gee, 1992), but alterable from one social context to another. 512
Reading-Comprehension Processes In the most fully articulated cultural model of reading, Peter Smagorinsky (2001) borrowed heavily from the reader-response theory of Louise Rosenblatt (1978) and the activity theories emanating from the Vygotskian tradition (for example, Wertsch, 1993) to argue that the meaning in understanding resides not within the text or within the reader but within that transactional zone (borrowing from Rosenblatt) in which reader, text, and context meet and become something more than their sums or products. The fundamental argument is that readers quite literally compose new texts in response to texts they read; their recompositions are based upon the evocations (links to prior texts and experiences) that occur during the act of reading within a context that also shapes the type and manner of interpretations they make. These evocations hearken back to both Bakhtin’s notion of intertextuality (for they are, even in a literal sense, connections to other texts) and the cultural practices notions of writers such as James Wertsch (1993) and James Gee (1992). Culture here is construed as both a macro (for example, Western civilization) and a micro (for example, the local classroom) construct.
identify distinct neurological sites in the brain for the distinct processes involved in multiple aspects of reading—phonological awareness, phonological recoding, semantic processing, grammatical processing, and comprehension. For example, in comparing word meaning identification in isolation and in the context of a sentence, researchers have found that the frontal areas are engaged in simple semantic processing (that is, word meaning identification) well before the appearance of more complex activity in posterior areas, within the area of the prefrontal cortex, with these posterior areas engaged only when contextual processing is required. Along with the cerebral specialization comes coordination, for the two areas must work in tandem to achieve comprehension. The matter of cerebral specialization/location has become highly specific. After examining a large number of studies on complex cognition, Christhoff Kalina and John Gabrieli (2000) concluded that thought, memory, and complex cognitive processes operate in the prefrontal cortex. The frontopolar area is active when internally generated information is being evaluated (perhaps ideas in one’s memory), and the dorsolateral region is activated when people evaluate externally generated information (perhaps words on a page). This distinction is reminiscent of Kintsch’s distinction between the text model and the situation model. The review also points to a hierarchical model of prefrontal function in which the dorsolateral and frontopolar regions are serially recruited, as reasoning or memory tasks require evaluation of internally generated information (Kalina and Gabrieli, 2000). In other words, as activities such as comprehension demand the evaluation of the reader’s emerging model of meaning, the reader resorts to memory stores in the frontal regions. This new area of research, enabled by advanced technology, holds promise for sharpening and deepening our understanding of the comprehension process, for it may remove some of the mysteries involved in trying to fathom the relationship among various aspects of the reading process, such as phonological processing, decoding, word meaning, and comprehension. The most recent work on dyslexia, such as that done by Bennett Shaywitz (Shaywitz et al., 2000), is promising on a practical front because the technology has been extended to work with children
The Neurobiological Approach Although it is not properly a model per se, interesting new developments in understanding comprehension may well come from neurobiological research currently underway in medical schools. As new tools, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), have been recruited, medical scholars have tried to establish links between specific kinds of reading activity (for example, decoding or comprehension) and specific areas of neural activation in different parts of the brain. In establishing the mapping between cognitive and neural activity, researchers examine the changes in images or electrical activity that occur when a person is asked to process text in a range of modes, for example, letter by letter, in whole words, or while making higher-order connections involving comprehension in longer passages. Recent evidence suggests that phonological and comprehension processing are different neurologically. Many of these studies compare participants with normally functioning brains to those with frank brain damage. The upshot of the work is that these scientists have been able to 513
Reading-Comprehension Processes with and without evidence of reading difficulties. In short, the work may ultimately have some diagnostic value.
cultural), and cultural views do not readily acknowledge the commonsense intuition that reading really is something done by individuals. Taken together, the accounts provide a richer view of the process, and Vygotsky’s dual plane notion allows the best of both to work in synergy. Diane Hamm and P. David Pearson
Comparing the Approaches In comparing the cognitive, the sociocultural, and the neurobiological accounts of comprehension, the fundamental question is whether they provide complementary or conflicting explanations. It seems safe to conclude that the neurobiological approach is a potential complement to the cognitive approach in that it may specify the neural mechanisms by which cognitive processes play themselves out. It is not clear that there is a potential complementarity between the neurobiological approach and the sociocultural. The fundamental conflict stems from the inherent emphasis on the individual as the unit of cognition within neuroscience research (it is, in a sense, even more individual than the cognitive). The brain, the mind, and all the processes involved in comprehension are viewed as the inherent property of individuals (although we suppose that one could imagine group MRI studies). The sociocultural notion of the mind as a social and cultural construct that involves the transaction among individuals within a discourse community seems completely foreign to the neuroscientific approach. Granted, cultural and social phenomena influence comprehension within a neurobiological account, but only because they shape concepts that become a part of an individual’s memory storehouse. It seems fair to say that in the neurobiological approach, comprehension is only incidentally cultural. A greater rapprochement seems possible between the cultural and cognitive views of comprehension, provided that the cognitivists are willing to accept Vygotsky’s notion that interpersonal processing of concepts (via language) precedes intrapersonal processing (via thought). What is not clear is whether modern sociocultural theorists readily accept the intrapersonal part of Vygotsky’s theory and admit that meaning eventually gets transformed into a state that would make individual cognition possible or relevant to our everyday lives. In our view, no single approach provides an adequate account of comprehension. The cognitive and medical views cannot fully account for everyday understanding as shaped by our life experiences (which are inherently social and
See also Mental Modeling; Post-Structuralism and Structuralism; Schema Theory; Schema Theory Criticisms; Sociolinguistics and Literacy References Anderson, Richard C. 1984. “Role of the Reader’s Schema in Comprehension, Learning, and Memory.” In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, and H. Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 469–482. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited by Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Gee, James. 1992. The Social Mind. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Greeno, James. 1998. “The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research.” American Psychologist 53 (1): 5–26. Kalina, Christhoff, and John D. E. Gabrieli. 2000. “The Frontopolar Cortex and Human Cognition: Evidence for a Rostocaudal Hierarchical Organization within the Human Prefrontal Cortex.” Psychobiology 28 (2):168–186. Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McNamara, Timothy P., Diana L. Miller, and John D. Bransford. (1991). “Mental Models and Reading Comprehension.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 490–511. New York: Longman. Rosenblatt, Louise M. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Shaywitz, Bennett A., Kenneth R. Pugh, Annette Jenner, Robert K. Fulbright, Jack M. Fletcher, John C. Gore, and Sally E. Shaywitz. 2000. “The Neurobiology of Reading and Reading Disability (Dyslexia).” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, 2d ed., pp. 229–249. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Smagorinsky, Peter. 2001. “If Meaning Is Constructed, What Is It Made from: Toward a
514
Reading Diagnosis Cultural Theory of Reading.” Review of Educational Research 71(1):133–169. Spiro, Rand J., Walter L. Vispoel, John Schmitz, Ala Samarapungavan, and Angela Boerger. 1989. “Knowledge Acquisition for Application: Cognitive Flexibility and Transfer in Complex Content Domains.” In Bruce C. Britton and Shawn Glynn, eds., Executive Control Processes, pp. 177–199. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wertsch, James. 1993. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
adapted the medical model of diagnosis to the field of education, and more specifically to reading. For example, in the first half of the 1900s, the primary focus of reading diagnosis was on those students who experienced significant reading difficulties in the classroom setting. Many of the school districts in this country were ill prepared to meet the needs of these students, so only those students who could afford private reading clinics, if available, or who were in close proximity to a university reading clinic could receive needed assistance. The remainder continued to struggle or, in some instances, simply dropped out of school. In a few larger school districts, reading clinics with highly trained professionals became an integral component of the educational process. Thus, the medical model provided the conceptual framework for identifying literacy strengths and weaknesses with the reading clinic as the primary venue for providing assistance to those students with significant reading difficulties.
Reading Diagnosis Reading diagnosis is a process in which the strengths and weaknesses of individual schoolage students are identified for the purpose of providing appropriate instruction. A closely related term is assessment, which consists of the procedures and methods used to evaluate the progress that a student makes in developing as an effective reader (Collins and Cheek, 2000). Theodore Harris and Richard Hodges (1995) defined assessment as the process of gathering data to more fully understand strengths and weaknesses of students as they strive to become efficient readers. They further stated that the term assessment often refers to the judgment and evaluations made after the data have been gathered. The use of either or both of these terms strongly implies that gathering data relative to the strengths and weaknesses as related to the reading process is of paramount importance.
Reading Diagnosis and Authentic Assessment During the late 1960s and into the 1970s, it was becoming abundantly clear to the reading education community that the emphasis on the medical model and the use of quantitative data (that is, literacy scores or findings secured using standardized or norm-referenced tools such as achievement tests) for diagnosing reading strengths and weaknesses was ill suited to the task of providing effective reading instruction to millions of students. In conjunction with this realization, there was a subtle shift in the educational community toward the use of more qualitative data-gathering procedures to ascertain the individual needs of each student (that is, using informal or nonstandardized procedures such as observations, interviews, and teacher-developed assessments to secure literacy data). As this trend became more pronounced, reading education began to focus more on utilizing both quantitative and qualitative data in identifying students’ strengths and weaknesses. One of the early results of this trend was a move to redirect the focus of reading diagnosis from that of a medical model, emphasizing quantitative gathering procedures, to a classroom-teacher model that utilized both quantitative and qualitative data. In the classroom-teacher model, the responsibility of decisionmaking regarding the use of diagnostic data shifted to the teacher.
Reading Diagnosis and the Medical Model Before discussing how diagnostic data can be most efficiently gathered, it is important to revisit the origin of the concept of reading diagnosis and its value in providing appropriate reading instruction to students. Diagnosis is a term that has been associated with the medical field for a considerable length of time; however, with the development of modern educational observational and testing procedures in the 1920s and 1930s, the reading community began to apply procedures to examine the literacy strengths and weaknesses of students (that is, why some students struggled as readers while others were successful). It was during this period that the reading professionals 515
Reading Diagnosis A basic tenet of the classroom-teacher model is that teachers are responsible for selecting appropriate diagnostic tools, both quantitative and qualitative, to assess the needs of each student. They are also responsible for analyzing and interpreting the diagnostic data in order to make decisions about the instructional needs of each student. Furthermore, continuous diagnosis using both quantitative and qualitative procedures is essential to the classroom-teacher model. As classroom teachers became more proficient in diagnosing the needs of the students, there was less emphasis on the medical model. In addition, teacher education programs intensified the preparation that students received in diagnosing the strengths and weaknesses of schoolage students. As the knowledge base of teachers increased in the fundamentals of utilizing diagnostic procedures, there was little reason to continue to rely upon the medical model. The 1980s witnessed even more dramatic events with the emergence of various philosophical perspectives that affected reading diagnosis and instruction. Some perspectives supported the use of both quantitative and qualitative diagnostic procedures, whereas others relied primarily on qualitative assessment. Many of the latter postulated that the process rather than the product was crucial to students’ becoming successful readers. Such attributes as collaboration, critical thinking and reflecting, developing both reading and writing capabilities, and promoting creativity were highly valued. Authentic tasks and assignments were emphasized, which in turn required alternative ways of assessing students’ needs and their progress in becoming successful readers. This alternative way of assessing students became known as authentic (or naturalistic) assessment. Authentic assessment was a way of evaluating the progress of students’ knowledge as it related to the tasks that actually occurred in classrooms. Learning was evaluated through the link between authentic or real tasks in the classrooms and assessment that was designed to assess those tasks. This perspective represented a deemphasis on quantitative data, particularly data gathered from standardized or norm-referenced instruments, that were frequently characterized as measuring information that was virtually unrelated to what students actually learned in the classroom. Many supporters of this perspective proposed that standard-
ized instruments evaluated information at the literal level, rather than at higher critical-thinking levels. Even as this perspective gained significant support among many reading professionals throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, there was an undertone of discontent from both inside and outside the educational community. Many policymakers, educational leaders, legislators, and the public in general believed that our children and young adults were reading at lower levels than they should be. This perception led to a deemphasis initiated in the late 1990s and early 2000s on qualitative gathering procedures such as authentic assessment and the reemergence of an emphasis on the use of quantitative data in the form of “high-stakes testing.” The effect on reading diagnosis was to reemphasize the reliance of using standardized tools and quantitative data to identify students’ strengths and weaknesses. The impact on reading instruction also was felt in many school districts in the form of teaching to the test through such activities as practice tests that closely resembled the standardized test given in a particular district, the use of “Saturday school” beginning approximately six weeks before the testing period to prepare students for the test, and after-school tutoring sessions with an emphasis on test preparation. Regardless of the current trend toward an increased reliance on quantitative data, many teachers continue to use multiple sources for gathering diagnostic data that include both quantitative and qualitative procedures. The benefits of using a variety of diagnostic tools is clearly evident to the majority of teachers, reinforcing the belief that the classroom-teacher diagnostic model should continue as a viable component of the instructional reading program. Implementing an effective diagnostic component to support a successful reading instructional program requires the gathering of data to identify strengths and weaknesses of each student in the classroom. There are two primary ways of securing diagnostic data for classroom use: through the use of qualitative and of quantitative procedures. Qualitative (Informal) Procedures Qualitative or informal diagnostic procedures are those data-gathering techniques that are nonstandardized. These include many tools and activities 516
Reading Diagnosis that classroom teachers use every day to assess the progress that their students have made in becoming successful readers. These tools can also be used to determine the independent and instructional reading levels of students as well as to identify their individual strengths and weaknesses. The versatility of these various diagnostic procedures is clearly evident in the daily activities of the classroom setting. These instruments are teacher friendly and are widely used as essential elements in developing successful readers, and their primary attributes include availability, ease of use, little or no cost to teachers or school districts, and a mechanism for continuous assessment. In the following discussion, eight of the more widely used informal procedures are presented. These procedures represent a partial listing of appropriate informed diagnostics tools, since there are many qualitative avenues available to classroom teachers for assessing the progress of their students.
lengthy and time-consuming process that requires the observer to track the progress of an individual student over a prolonged period of time. This process is especially valuable in illuminating patterns of behavior in the classroom, frequently revealing causes for success or failure in the instructional program. This tool is more typically used to identify strengths and weaknesses of struggling readers. Kidwatching is a diagnostic strategy based on observing students while they are reading (see “Kidwatching and Classroom Evaluation” entry). Attitude and Interest Inventories Attitude and interest inventories are designed to ascertain the perceptions of students in topics related to home, school, play, books, entertainment, and other relevant areas that could directly or indirectly affect reading performance at school. The primary purpose of attitude and interest inventories is to enable teachers to use this information to design an appropriate instructional plan for each student. The inventories should be given individually in a setting that encourages students to fully answer each question and should be an interactive process between the student and the teacher. These inventories can provide information to the teacher that is particularly valuable in planning instruction for struggling readers. As Tompkins (2001) so poignantly noted, the attitudes students bring to instructional settings or tasks affect not only how they value literacy but also their success in becoming proficient readers.
Observation Arguably, observation is the most important informal diagnostic tool available to the classroom teacher. Just the act of informally observing the behavior, attitudes, and interest of the students on a daily basis is crucial to the provisions of effective instruction. By observing patterns of behavior, especially those that relate directly to reading instruction, classroom teachers can, in many instances, anticipate those situations in which students encounter difficulty with various reading tasks. This close scrutiny can often mitigate those unsuccessful attempts to participate fully in the reading process by providing immediate assistance to students who are struggling. An advanced tier of observation represents a more formalized process that involves introducing more structure in the use of this tool. This is demonstrated in the use of checklists for observing the reading behavior and other activities related to the act of reading (for example, reading skills checklist, oral reading checklist, reading and writing checklist, and on-task reading behavior checklist). The use of checklists has been popular for many years, but enjoyed something of a resurgence as a valued tool in the authentic assessment process during the 1980s and 1990s. Another advanced tier in the formalized process of gathering observational data is the use of anecdotal records. This is an excellent but
Word Lists Although the critical acceptance of word lists as diagnostic tools by reading professionals has varied over the years, their popularity has remained constant among classroom teachers and, for the most part, went virtually unabated during most of the twentieth century. The reason for this continuing popularity can be attributed to the ease with which they can be used to determine strengths and weaknesses in sight word recognition. Basically, a word list can be given to a student who reads the words orally to the teacher with the intent of determining their knowledge of a vocabulary presented in the list. This information can be quickly obtained, with the data yielded becoming part of the student’s instructional plan. Numerous word lists have been de517
Reading Diagnosis veloped during the 1900s, but undoubtedly the most widely used is the Dolch Basic Sight Word List developed in 1941.
Group Skills Inventory The group skills inventory (GSI), also referred to as the group reading inventory (GRI), is a tool that is specifically intended to assess in group settings the strengths and weaknesses of students’ knowledge of the use of specific reading skills. Typically, it is used with content materials for students in the third or fourth grade upward; however, its use can vary depending upon the maturity and capabilities of the students. The use of the GSI is closely associated with content textbooks, since it is one way in which students can demonstrate their grasp of the information presented. In a typical GSI, students are requested to locate information, find and demonstrate the use of technical vocabulary, activate various comprehension skills (for example, cause and effect), and demonstrate their facility with study skills.
Criterion-Referenced Tests Criterion-referenced tests (CRTs) are designed to evaluate the students’ knowledge relative to specific objectives such as those pertaining to the use of the particular reading skills. CRTs differ from quantitative procedures in that they are not norm referenced (that is, purport to compare one student’s knowledge to that of another). Since the emergence of this type of diagnostic tool in the late 1960s, CTRs have become widely used in many school districts across the country. In many areas, they are used in conjunction with standardized instruments such as achievement tests to evaluate progress of reading performance. For numerous school districts and states, CRTs have become an integral component of the “highstakes testing” agenda that is currently in vogue.
Informal Reading Inventory The informal reading inventory (IRI) is designed to yield the independent, instructional, and frustration reading levels of students as well as to permit the classroom teacher to identify students’ specific strengths and weaknesses in vocabulary and comprehension. It is perhaps the most versatile informal diagnostic reading tool available to classroom teachers and is intended for use as an individually administered assessment. Its versatility can be attributed to its ease of use, time to administer (it typically requires fifteen to twenty minutes per student), and accuracy in yielding essential data. Data from the IRI are gathered through the use of a series of leveled passages, typically 100 to 200 words in length, and the use of five to eight comprehension questions per passage. Although the IRI can be selfconstructed by classroom teachers, published versions are more commonly used in school districts (see “Informal Reading Inventory” entry).
Cloze Procedure Cloze is a tool professionals can use to assess the ability of students to comprehend information in the materials that they are expected to read in school, home, or community settings (Burns, Row, and Ross, 1988). Every fifth word in the text is deleted, and the percentage of the correct number of words the reader provides indicates reading facility. Specifically, this diagnostic tool is capable of yielding independent and instructional reading levels and, to some degree, the strengths and weaknesses of students in vocabulary and comprehension. Since it is more typically used with content materials, the cloze procedure is an excellent tool for determining the degree of success to which groups and/or individual students are capable of understanding those materials that they are required to read. It is currently accepted among reading professionals that the cloze can be effectively used as a diagnostic tool from approximately the fourth grade upward; however, it should be noted that the authors have encountered a number of elementary teachers over the years who have successfully used a modified version of this procedure with students in lower grades. An interesting historical footnote regarding the cloze procedure is that its originator, Wilson Taylor, conceptualized this tool as a readability formula, but it has evolved into an informed diagnostic procedure.
Portfolios Portfolios are venues for gathering data about individual students and are used to assess the literacy progress that the students have made over a specified period of time. Although portfolios represent a product of sorts, the emphasis in using this tool to gather these data is on the process that students follow to achieve literacy objectives or teaching-learning outcomes. Portfolios can assume a number of forms. For 518
Reading Diagnosis example, some teachers may use expandable files, boxes, separate shelves, or other appropriate storage devices for managing and showcasing the students’ work. Portfolios are intended to be viewed as a work in progress with materials (entries and artifacts) being added or deleted over time, as deemed appropriate by the teacher and in some instances in collaboration with the students. Entries and artifacts found in portfolios can consist of writing activities, audiotapes, assessment data, teacher observations, student responses, rubrics, and any other appropriate student-generated products. Portfolios are closely associated with authentic or naturalistic assessment and represent an effort by teachers to assess on a daily and weekly basis student progress based on the actual instruction occurring in the classroom.
mastered. They are group tests that examine knowledge learned in such curricular areas as mathematics, reading, social studies, science, and language. The popularity of achievement tests among school districts can be attributed to their ability to examine the knowledge base of students in a variety of curriculum areas, the type of data gathered (that is, it can be generalized to larger populations), and the relatively low cost involved in using this type of assessment. Limitations of achievement tests could include culturally biased items, the fact that the tool is survey rather than diagnostic in orientation or construction, and the fact that achievement tests require highly developed silent reading skills. Three widely administered achievement tests are the Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), and the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) (see “Reading Assessment” entry).
Quantitative (Formal) Procedures Quantitative or formal diagnostic procedures are those data-gathering tools that are standardized or norm referenced. Although these diagnostic tools are typically not as teacher friendly as informal procedures, school districts use them because the data secured generalize to a larger population. They are especially valuable in comparing schools, school districts, and states because of the standardization factor. This has become particularly important in the “highstakes testing” environment currently sweeping the country. Various types and levels of formal diagnostic procedures are in use today, with some providing relatively superficial information and others providing very specific information about students’ strengths and weaknesses, independent and instructional reading levels, listening comprehension levels, oral and silent reading capabilities, vocabulary development, and phonemic awareness, among other crucial areas. Classroom teachers without additional preparation can easily administer some of the formal diagnostic procedures; others require a higher degree of expertise for administration, scoring, or interpretation of findings.
Intelligence Tests Intelligence tests are designed as predictive instruments with the intent of exploring the potential of students, and they are frequently referred to as aptitude tests. These instruments are constructed in such a way that they can be used as both group and individualized tools, depending upon purpose and the specific instruments selected. Although widely used in school districts to identify students with special needs or exceptionalities (for example, gifted and talented or academically challenged), it should be noted that their limitations include culturally biased items and/or extensive silent reading demands (for example, data secured could suggest a lack of reading ability rather than altitudinal findings). Two widely administered intelligence tests are the Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test (group) and the Slosson Intelligence Test–Revised (SIT-R). Survey Reading Tests Survey reading tests are group tests that are constructed to measure reading capacity in the three broad areas of vocabulary, comprehension, and on some instruments, reading rate. Attributes of these tools include ease of use by classroom teachers, short length of time to administer, and the type of data generated (for example, vocabulary, comprehension, and rate of reading). When viewed as a screening device and used appropriately, these tools are particularly valuable in pro-
Achievement Tests Achievement tests are designed to measure the content-area knowledge bases that students have developed over a period of time and the extent to which specific information has been acquired or 519
Reading Excellence Act viding classroom teachers with a beginning point for instruction. The most widely used survey reading test is the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test.
for the purpose of early reading improvement. States then award competitive subgrants to local education agencies for local reading improvement programs directed to prekindergarten through third-grade children in high-poverty or low-performing schools. The REA also provides for professional development that is grounded in scientifically based reading research, expansion of family literacy programs, and interventions to preclude inappropriate special education placements. According to 2001 information from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, grants had been awarded to a total of forty state agencies under the act (http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESA/ REA). REA guidelines define reading, specify elements of reading instruction, specify the structure of family literacy programs, and mandate scientifically based reading research as the foundation for instructional practice. As set out in Section 2252 (5) of the act (available at http:// www.ed.gov/offices/OESA/REA.pdf), scientifically based research entails methods that are rigorous, systematic, objective, and generalizable, a model that has been criticized as narrow and unrealistic for educational research on which instruction is to be based. For example, Richard Allington (2001) asserted the difficulties of accomplishing such rigorous research when dealing with schools, teachers, and children, citing problems with randomization, generalizability, fidelity of implementation, and replication across sites. The REA has authorized dissemination of the findings of the National Reading Panel (National Institute for Child Health and Human Development, 2000) that, at the direction of Congress, reviewed research-based knowledge on the effectiveness of reading instruction. Goals of the dissemination include familiarizing educators, parents, and policymakers with scientifically based reading research and promoting replication of evidence-based reading programs that have been evaluated and found to be effective A Reading First program supercedes the REA (see H.R.1 and S.1 available at http://thomas.loc. gov). Goals and guidelines remain substantially similar to those of the REA. Since the new program was enacted under Title I of the ESEA, however, the funding formula changed from competitive grants to allocations upon approval
Diagnostic Reading Tests Diagnostic reading tests are designed to permit an in-depth examination of students’ strengths and weaknesses in a wide variety of areas and in both groups and individually administered formats. The level of expertise required in the administration of these instruments ranges from classroom teachers to highly prepared professionals (for example, reading specialists). Typically, classroom teachers can give groupadministered instruments, but some of these individually administered instruments require advanced preparation for administration, scoring, or interpretation purposes. The primary attribute of these tools is the in-depth data yielded that enable classroom teachers to better understand the needs of their students, and if needed, to refer those students with more severe reading problems to the appropriate professional such as a reading specialist. Two examples of diagnostic reading tests are the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test (group) and Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty (individual). Earl H. Cheek Jr. and Jimmy D. Lindsey See also Reading Assessment; Reading Clinics References Burns, Paul C., Betty D. Row, and Elinor P. Ross. 1988. Teaching Reading in Today’s Elementary Schools. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Collins, Martha D., and Earl H. Cheek Jr. 2000. Assessing and Guiding Reading Instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges, eds. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Tompkins, Gail E. 2001. Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Reading Excellence Act The Reading Excellence Act (REA), authorized by the U.S. Congress in 1998 as an amendment to Title II of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), provides competitive reading and literacy grants to eligible state education agencies 520
Reading Hall of Fame of state plans. Subgrants to local districts will continue to be competitive but will be restricted to Title I schools. Ruth D. Handel
tion as a member include significant contributions in the reading area, involvement in reading for at least twenty-five years, being well known and respected in the profession, and being alive at the time of nomination. After the death of members, their names are retained on the membership roster as deceased members. Honorary members, required to meet the same professional criteria as members, must have been deceased for three or more years prior to election. Reading pioneers are fifteen outstanding leaders of the past who were no longer living in 1973 at the time of the beginning of the Reading Hall of Fame. They were elected to membership as a group in 1985. These fifteen pioneers are May Hill Arbuthnot, James McKeen Catell, Walter F. Dearborn, Raymond Dodge, Arthur I. Gates, William S. Gray, Ernest Horn, Edmund Burke Huey, Charles Hubbard Judd, Bernice E. Leary, David H. Russell, Ruth Strang, Edward L. Thorndike, Douglas Waples, and Robert S. Woodworth (Reading Hall of Fame, 1999, 1985). Reading pioneers are sometimes listed as honorary members with no reference to their special status. Only members of the organization may nominate and elect members and honorary members. New members are usually limited to three or four each year. The bylaws place a limit of not more than two honorary members to be added each year. The 2000 membership list included seventyeight members, thirty-six deceased members, and twenty-three honorary members, including the fifteen reading pioneers (International Reading Association, 2000). These 137 leaders came from fifteen different countries: Australia, Austria, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, England, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, and the United States. The Reading Hall of Fame and the International Reading Association have overlapping membership and activities. Twenty-eight of the International Reading Association’s forty-six presidents (through the year 2000) and four of its executive directors are listed among the members of the Reading Hall of Fame. More than twenty other members have served on the board of directors of the International Reading Association. The Reading Hall of Fame’s annual business meeting and a cosponsored meeting of presentations by recently elected and other
See also National Reading Panel; Title I References Allington, Richard L. 2001. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. New York: Longman. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. “Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature and Its Implications for Reading Instruction.” Washington DC: National Institute of Health Publication no. 00-4769. Also available at http://nationalreadingpanel.org.
Reading Hall of Fame The Reading Hall of Fame, an international organization begun in 1973, honors leaders, past and present, who over time have made important contributions in the area of reading. Though independent, its activities are closely associated with the International Reading Association. In 1973, Russell N. Cassell, then editor of the journal Reading Improvement, asked four well-known leaders in the area of reading to start what was called Project Innovation’s “Reading Hall of Fame.” These leaders were Helen M. Robinson, Emmett A. Betts, Donald D. Durrell, and Nila Banton Smith. Robinson served as chair of the group for the first three years. The loose relationship with Reading Improvement ended in 1977 and reference to Project Innovation was dropped (Robinson, 1999). The purpose of the Reading Hall of Fame, according to its bylaws, is to use members’ experiences to improve reading instruction by means of contributions through: cosponsoring sessions at meetings of organizations with similar objectives, further disseminating important ideas and information from such meetings through publications, focusing attention on needed research and past trends that appear to have significance for the future, and discussing current reading problems needing attention and offering possible ways of solving them (Reading Hall of Fame, 1999). The Reading Hall of Fame bylaws provide for three types of membership: member, honorary member, and reading pioneer. Criteria for elec521
Reading-Interest Inventories members are held during the International Reading Association’s annual convention. Ira E. Aaron
terials are interesting to them. The influence of students’ interests on their reading comprehension and engagement is often underestimated. Interest is crucial in stimulating effort, promoting intrinsic motivation, and developing joyful, lifelong readers. Educators use many kinds of assessment in the classroom in order to develop a full picture of a student’s academic progress. Some assessments are formal, such as standardized tests, and other forms of assessment are informal, such as the reading-interest inventory. Teachers often give a reading-interest inventory at the beginning of the school year to determine students’ particular interests and then use the results to inform the curriculum. The interest inventory is repeated at the end of the school year to note changes in interests and reflect upon how the curriculum may have influenced those changes. Numerous reading-interest inventories have been published in the area of literacy and reading. The inventories typically include questions about the students’ reading habits and book preferences as well as other life experiences. Information about such things as students’ families, pets, travel experiences, and hobbies can give insight into which reading materials may capture their imagination. Open-ended questions are often best on an inventory, since that format provides maximum opportunity for students to express their interests and feelings. Jerry Johns and Susan Davis Lenski (1997) created a reading-interest inventory. Their inventory, About Me, uses a sentence completion format where the beginning of a sentence about reading or a student’s feelings about reading is provided, and the student is asked to fill in the rest of the sentence. This inventory is appropriate for all grade levels. In another interest survey entitled News about Me, Johns and Lenski asked primary and intermediate students for news about their family, pets, likes and dislikes, wishes, travels and adventures, hobbies and collections, television favorites, school subjects, and reading habits. The inventory concludes with an openended invitation for the student to write about any other news they want to share. Another example of a reading-interest inventory is the Flippo Interest Inventory (Cheek, Flippo, and Lindsey, 1997). This inventory makes use of probing questions that may be more suitable for older students. The questions ask about
References International Reading Association. 2000. Reading Hall of Fame [electronic data tape]. Newark, DE. International Reading Association. Reading Hall of Fame. 1985. “Reading Hall of Fame, Minutes of the Annual Meeting.” Unpublished document (9 May). ———. 1999. “By-laws of the Reading Hall of Fame.” Revised. Unpublished document. Robinson, Helen. 1999. “The Reading Hall of Fame: A Summary of Its First Decade—1973–May 5, 1983.” Unpublished document.
Reading-Interest Inventories A reading-interest inventory is a questionnaire that helps determine students’ interests and preferences. Educators can use this information to select reading materials for the classroom, choose books for individual students, and promote literate behavior and motivation to read. John Dewey (1913) noted that in order to successfully educate our children we must discover what is interesting to them, and one way to do that is to incorporate reading-interest inventories into the reading program. Interests can be powerful motivators, and when educators discover their students’ interests through a reading-interest inventory and respect those interests, there can be a profound positive effect on reading and learning. A variety of reading-interest inventories exists, some published and many teacher made. Reading motivation is multifaceted (Wigfield and Guthrie, 1997), and interest is one facet to consider. Richard Anderson, Larry Shirey, Paul Wilson, and Linda Fielding (1987) defined interest as an emotional response brought about by a specific written material, and encouraging this emotional response is a desirable goal in the reading classroom. Two types of interest that can be identified and nurtured by educators are individual interest and situational interest (Schiefele, 1991). Individual interest is a disposition for certain topics or activities, and situational interest is brought about by proceedings in the environment. Schiefele stated that interest can be temporary or enduring, general or specific, and can motivate a reader to go deeper into the text and comprehend more fully. Students of all grade levels will read more if the available reading ma522
Reading Is Fundamental topics the students may be interested in exploring and subjects they would like to see written about in books. The reading-interest inventories presented here are simply suggestions. Many educators use a published inventory to gain ideas, but then change or add to the inventory to suit their own purposes. A reading inventory may comprise questions that are straightforward and general or that are complex and detailed to meet the needs of a specific group of students. Reading-interest inventories may also be followed by an interview with the child to clarify or extend answers. Once the students’ reading interests are identified, the teacher can use the results for many purposes. Interesting units of study can be developed and appropriate reading materials selected, so learning opportunities can be tailor-made to the students. Students’ reading interests can also inform flexible grouping for instruction and assist educators in teaching students to make reading choices of their own. Reading-interest inventories are a useful tool to help reading educators design an interesting and motivational curriculum for the classroom. Jill E. Cole
that promotes the love of reading by providing free, new books to children; organizing activities to motivate children to read; and encouraging family and community involvement in literacy. RIF stresses the importance of children’s needing access to books and reading material in the home. To fulfill this need, RIF allows children to select books from a wide array of age-appropriate titles chosen by local book selection committees. Founded in 1966 by Margaret McNamara, RIF began as an experiment in two Washington, D.C., public schools after McNamara and other tutors learned that many of the students they worked with had no books in their homes. Working with the D.C. Citizens for Better Public Education and public school teachers, McNamara organized book distributions at which children could review several books, then select one to keep. These same children would have another opportunity to select a book later in the school year and thus begin to build their own home libraries. RIF grew rapidly and steadily to become one of the largest nonprofit children’s literacy organizations in the United States. In 2001, RIF distributed more than 14 million books to more than 4.2 million children in all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories (RIF 2000). A small staff at RIF’s Washington, D.C., headquarters manages a grassroots network of more than 370,000 volunteers at 19,000 sites. The majority of children served by RIF are at risk of failing to achieve basic educational goals. To start an RIF program, a coordinator representing a public agency or nonprofit organization applies to the RIF national office. These programs could be anywhere groups of children are found: schools, libraries, day-care centers, migrant worker camps, and even juvenile detention centers. Priority is given to those programs that will serve the greatest number of at-risk children. Initially sponsored by community groups and corporations, RIF has been receiving federal support since 1975 under the Inexpensive Book Distribution Program, which constitutes about 70 percent of RIF’s resources. The remainder is raised through private-sector donations. This funding is administered through the U.S. Department of Education. Books purchased with federal funds cannot cost more than five dollars. Because of the great number of books purchased by its programs, RIF is able to negotiate price discounts from book publishers for RIF pro-
References Anderson, Richard, Larry Shirey, Paul Wilson, and Linda Fielding. 1987. “Interestingness of Children’s Reading Material.” In R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr, eds., Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction: Cognitive and Affective Process Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 287–299. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cheek, Earl, Rona Flippo, and Jimmy Lindsey. 1997. Reading for Success in Elementary Schools. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. Dewey, John. 1913. Interest and Effort in Education. Boston: Riverside. Johns, Jerry, and Susan Davis Lenski. 1997. Improving Reading: A Handbook of Strategies. Vol. 2. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Schiefele, Ulrich. 1991. “Interest, Learning, and Motivation.” Educational Psychologist 26:299–323. Wigfield, Allan, and John Guthrie. 1997. “Relations of Children’s Motivation for Reading to the Amount and Breadth of Their Reading.” Journal of Educational Psychology 89:420–432.
Reading Is Fundamental Reading Is Fundamental, Inc. (RIF), is a nonprofit children’s and family literacy organization 523
Reading is Fundamental
Reading Is Fundamental donates books to students who often do not have access to them at home (Elizabeth Crews)
incorporate reading motivational activities into their book distributions and host separate motivational events. In 1999, RIF began a distance-learning service, RIFNet, that combines satellite television broadcasts, web sites, Internet discussion groups, and CD-ROM guidebooks. RIF also develops literacy programs to address specific audiences and themes, including young parents, child-care providers, food-related books, a Between the Lions reading program, and family literacy. For more information, visit the RIF web site at www.rif.org. Henry T. Dunbar
grams. To qualify for government funding, a program must serve at least 100 children, of which at least 80 percent must be at risk. Most of RIF’s books and services are provided through its National Book Program. The majority of programs in this model distribute books to children three times during a school year. There are also twelve-month programs that have five distributions and summer programs that have only two. The books for each program are selected and purchased by a local committee. At each distribution, children select their books from a variety of titles to help instill a sense of ownership. This is vital to the RIF concept of reading motivation. All of these programs must 524
Reading Online
Reading Online
tion. For example, several readers made comments about Mary Jo Fresch’s (2000/2001) “Using Think-Alouds to Analyze Decision Making during Spelling Word Sorts.” Fresch’s response to one of the comments referred the reader to a web site that elaborated on the reader’s question about think-alouds.
Reading Online, an electronic journal, is one of five peer-reviewed journals published by the International Reading Association. Prior to 1995, the International Reading Association published only print-based journals. When the first issue of Reading Online was published in 1996, it was not only the International Reading Association’s first venture into electronic publishing but also the first new peer-reviewed journal published by the International Reading Association in more than a dozen years (Dillner, 2000). Editors include Martha Dillner (1996–2000) and Bridget Dalton and Dana Grisham (2000–2004). The journal is currently available on-line at no cost to anyone who has access to the Internet. In the year 2000, the association’s membership contained over 93,000 individuals and institutions in more than 100 countries. Although not all 93,000 members access Reading Online, the traffic as measured by the number of “visitor sessions” indicates that during January 2001, the journal had over 40,000 “visitor sessions” with an average duration of 9.17 minutes per session (personal communication from Ann Fullerton, editor at IRA, February 5, 2001).
Audience and Content The journal does not focus solely on technology and its applications. It is intended to serve literacy educators working at all levels who are interested in using an electronic medium for explorations of research, instruction, and communication. These educators include classroom teachers, administrators, college and university faculty, researchers, students, policymakers, and others. Because Reading Online is published electronically, however, it naturally attracts authors who are interested in exploring ways in which technology can be used to enhance learning. Reading Online is published ten times a year— July/August and December/January are combined issues. New content in all departments appears on the first of the month (except for 1 August and 1 January). Because Reading Online is an electronic journal, however, new information is added to the journal all the time, and the many interactive forums within the journal provide ongoing reactions and commentary from readers. Details on the review process, the kinds and volume of manuscripts submitted and accepted, and the submission process can be seen on the Reading Online web site at http://www. readingonline.org/about/about_index.asp. Martha Dillner
Aspects Not Available in Print Journals From its conception, Reading Online was designed to be an electronic journal and not just an electronic version of an already published print journal. The journal is only produced in an electronic format accessible through the Internet. Because it is Internet based, the format of manuscripts in Reading Online can include aspects not available to print-only articles. In addition to text, articles can contain components such as hyperlinks, video clips, audio clips, and animated graphics. Though not all articles utilize multimedia components, many do. For example, an article by Thomas Bean published in the first issue of Reading Online included audio clips of the blues song written by middle-school children as part of a report that they researched and wrote dispelling negative myths about bats (Bean, 1997). Likewise, the discussion forums associated with Reading Online have enabled the journal to serve as a vehicle for interaction and exchange among the readers. Though comments are not made about all articles, those that are discussed often include reader-reader or reader-author interac-
References “About Reading Online.” 2000. Reading Online (June). http://www.readingonline.org/about/ about_index.asp. Bean, Thomas. 1997. “ReWrite: A Music Strategy for Exploring Content Area Concepts.” Reading Online (May). http://www.readingonline.org/ articles/art_index.asp?HREF=bats/index. html. Dillner, Martha. 1999. “Finding Quality Resources in Electronic Publications.” Reading Online (February). http://www.readingonline.org/ editorial/edit_index.asp?HREF=/editorial/ editorial2.html. ———. 2000. “Where We Were, Where We Are: Looking Back at the Past Four Years.” Reading Online (June). http://www.readingonline.org/
525
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly editorial/edit_index.asp?HREF=/editorial/ june2000_ed/index.html. Fresch, Mary Jo. 2000/2001. “Using Think-alouds to Analyze Decision Making during Spelling Word Sorts.” Reading Online 4(6) (December/January). Available at http://www.readingonline.org/ articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/fresch/ index.html.
by determining a child’s mental age and (2) reading should not begin before the mental age of six-and-a-half to seven years. This could occur as early as a chronological age of five or as late as eight. The extreme position of this concept was that early reading instruction was not only useless but could even be harmful (Mason, 1984). Educators not in agreement with this maturational idea of readiness for reading were uncomfortable delaying instruction. Children, they argued, could achieve reading readiness by being taught a number of specific skills. Readiness was thought to be more dependent on good instruction or training than on biological determinants. Most reading-readiness programs stressed skills such as visual discrimination, auditory discrimination, picture interpretation, left-to-right progression, visual-motor skills, laterality, large motor skills, and letter names. Finally, the idea of necessary prerequisite skills moved from a search for a set of fixed skills for all children to a more relative idea in which the intellectual and motivational needs to learn to read were thought of as depending on the type of instruction, the conditions under which the instruction took place, and the materials to be mastered. Reading readiness had a long and respectable history. Nila Banton Smith (1986) traced evidence of the concept in the writings of JeanJacques Rousseau, Pestulozzi, and Friedrich Froebel. She quoted John Herbert and John Dewey as supporting the idea that a child must be ready to receive reading instruction. She credited Dewey with saying that a child should not be taught to read until the age of eight. Criticisms concerning reading readiness and its accompanying instructional materials began to grow in the mid-1960s. This criticism started with awareness that readiness is a function of the child’s total growth and skepticism about its contribution to reading instruction. This skepticism grew as it became clearer that reading readiness (the idea that children must acquire a number of skills that prepared them for reading instruction) gave way to the more interactive concept of emergent reading. William Earl Smith
Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly publishes manuscripts in the literacy areas of reading, writing, assessment, and instruction. The journal is refereed, and each manuscript that is submitted for publication consideration is peer reviewed. Research manuscripts that focus on all aspects of reading and reading acquisition are welcomed. The past contents of the journal have included both quantitative and qualitative research, literature reviews, methodological research, and philosophical essays. In addition, the journal has published reviews of learning resources, books, and instructional programs that are of interest to university faculty, public school faculty, and lay personnel. Readers of Reading Psychology are primarily university faculty, graduate students, and researchers interested in reading research. Individuals can reach the Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly web site by using the following URL: http://www.tandf. co.uk/journals/tf/02702711.html. William H. Rupley
Reading Readiness Reading readiness is the belief that there is a set of cognitive, motivational, and intellectual skills that children must possess before they can benefit from instruction in reading. Readiness is the preparation to perform a specific task, the development of specific prerequisite skills. In the case of reading readiness, it is those skills that make it possible for a child to profit from reading instruction. The concept of reading readiness grew from the belief that children should not receive instruction in reading until they had cognitively achieved a specific biologically controlled level of development. Instruction any earlier was considered useless. Many educators believed that (1) developmental readiness could be identified
References Mason, Jana M. 1984. “Early Reading from a Developmental Perspective.” In P. David Pearson,
526
Reading Recovery
An Even Start program contributes to the reading readiness of these children (Elizabeth Crews)
Description of the Program In Reading Recovery, children are provided individual daily tutoring from a teacher who has received special training; the goal of tutoring is to establish effective reading strategies. Lessons are thirty minutes in length and include (1) learning about letters, sounds, and words; (2) reading several short books; (3) writing a story; (4) working on phonics skills; (5) and reading a new text that provides challenge and new opportunities to learn. Through solving problems in novel text and reading fluently in familiar text, students can expand their reading ability. The intervention lasts between twelve and twenty weeks, during which time children are expected to make accelerated progress and catch up with their classroom peers who do not need extra help. When the Reading Recovery teacher and the classroom teacher determine that the child has developed a basic reading system and is performing at or above average for the class, the program is discontinued. Because they are performing within average range and have basic
ed., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 505–534. New York: Longman. Smith, Nila Banton. 1986. American Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Reading Recovery Reading Recovery is an early intervention program designed to assist first graders who are having difficulty learning to read and write. An essential component of any literacy reform movement is to provide the level of service needed for every child, even those who are having extreme difficulty. The single stated goal of Reading Recovery is to reduce the number of such learners and their cost to the educational systems. As a safety net within comprehensive educational improvement efforts, Reading Recovery’s contribution is to remove the “tail end” of the distribution of achievement, a result documented in longitudinal studies (for example, Rowe, 1995). 527
Reading Recovery skills, children can then continue to make progress in the regular classroom setting because they can gain the maximum benefit from ongoing classroom instruction (Clay, 1993b).
Professional Development Reading Recovery is designed to be a systemic intervention that changes the level and quality of instruction for children who need it. The key to successful implementation lies in the training model for teachers. Teachers receive training at local sites for an entire year. Meeting weekly, they take turns teaching behind a one-way glass screen while their peers watch and discuss the lesson. A teacher educator (called a “teacher leader”) guides the discussion and helps teachers learn a range of procedures from which they select to tailor the lesson to the particular child’s needs. Teacher leaders receive a full year of training at a university site; university trainers also receive a year of training. Although the training is extensive, no time is lost for teaching children. Reading Recovery teachers and teacher leaders engage in the research-based professional development course and at the same time teach children, learning on the job. All educators involved in Reading Recovery are required to engage in ongoing, regular professional development, involving demonstration teaching, as long as they are involved in the program. A body of research indicates that Reading Recovery teacher training results in changes in practice and increase in knowledge and skills (Lyons, Pinnell, and Deford, 1993).
Teaching Approach Reading Recovery is not aligned with any particular classroom approach but exists in a wide variety of schools with different curricula. The researchbased procedures are designed for one-to-one tutoring; they include reading, writing, and working on letters and sounds. Reading Recovery teachers develop phonemic awareness through having children say words slowly and connect them to writing; time is devoted to helping children learn how to look at print and use the distinctive features of letters. Teachers use magnetic letters as well as writing to help children learn how “words work.” Every day, children read continuous text to develop processing and comprehension strategies; they also write and read a short message or story. The teacher knows and takes into account, in specific detail, what the child already knows and moves to what he or she needs to know next. At the same time, Reading Recovery teachers assure that all reading is meaningful and that children learn to self-monitor their reading to be sure that it makes sense, sounds right, and looks right. Children The design of the program calls for service to the lowest-achieving children, bar none. The most extreme cases are selected, and the program serves as a period of diagnostic teaching. The lowest achievers are selected because they are least likely to “catch up” with whole-group or small-group instruction.
Research The Reading Recovery design is rooted in Marie Clay’s (1993a) extensive studies of young children’s reading and writing behaviors. She developed a collection of systematic observational techniques that have been tested for validity and reliability and that teachers have found useful for assessing young children’s literacy knowledge. The tasks of An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 1993a) provide systematic reading, writing, and phonics tasks that are administered in a standard way. The assessment includes letter identification, a high-frequency word test, a test of basic concepts about print, a test of writing vocabulary, a test of hearing and recording the sounds in words, and a measure of text reading. A number of studies were undertaken during the design, development, and testing of Reading Recovery. A development project in 1976 was followed by field trials, follow-up studies, replication studies, analyses of lesson content, monitoring studies, and subgroup studies. The Ministry of Education has monitored the New Zealand
Outcomes There are two possible outcomes of the Reading Recovery program. The first is “discontinuing” service to the child who no longer needs extra help. The child is an independent reader and writer who needs only an effective classroom literacy program to continue to make success. The second is a recommendation for additional assessment and service. Appropriate school staff members collaborate to plan future learning opportunities for the child. Thus, Reading Recovery is considered a “first net” with the purpose of reducing the number of children who need extensive assessment and ongoing help. 528
Reading Recovery program nationally since 1984. Empirical studies in Ohio (Pinnell et al., 1993) verified the program’s effectiveness by testing it in controlled studies utilizing randomly assigned control groups. Reading Recovery has been developed, tested, and refined for many years across a wide range of geographic areas, including New Zealand, Australia, Canada, England, Ireland, Bermuda, and forty-nine states in the United States (Askew et al., 1998; Clay, 1993b). In the United States and other countries, researchers continue to examine different questions and to design and conduct studies that inform the teaching and implementation of Reading Recovery. In addition to formal studies, ongoing and systematic program evaluation is required. Reading Recovery teacher leaders and administrators at every site systematically collect and report data on every child to a national evaluation center. The program replicates its effect at the level of individual subjects. Evaluation data are collected annually on each child served. Reading Recovery has used two types of replication methodology to determine program effectiveness: systematic replication and simultaneous replication. Repeatedly producing the same results with different students across different settings increases confidence in an intervention, providing substantial evidence of the effectiveness of Reading Recovery tutoring. Results across thirteen years of data collection demonstrate the consistency of outcomes across extensive replication documentation. Of all children entered in the program from 1985 to 1997 (N = 436,249), including those who moved after a few days or weeks or had incomplete programs for other reasons, 60 percent made accelerated progress; they caught up to their peers, and their programs were discontinued. During the same time period, of the group of children (N = 313,848) who had enough time to experience a complete program (twelve to twenty weeks), 81 percent were successfully discontinued (Askew et al., 1998).
covery teaching to serve every child who needs the service; (3) informed leadership, in which system and school-level administrators are knowledgeable about the components of the program; (4) continuous attention to quality in training and teaching; (5) sustained focus on the goal of Reading Recovery and its attainment, without expanding the goals of the program so much and spreading the services so thin that nothing can be achieved; and (6) examination of data to uncover and solve problems. Reading Recovery educators are prepared to look at implementation as a complex and ongoing process that requires constant attention. University and School Base for the Program Reading Recovery is a not-for-profit program that involves collaboration among schools, districts, and universities. It is not an independent business venture but represents a partnership among educational organizations. In the United States the name Reading Recovery has been a trademark and/or service mark of The Ohio State University since 18 December 1990, when action was taken to identify sites that meet the essential criteria for a Reading Recovery program. The trademark for Reading Recovery is not a guarantee of high quality, but it does contribute to consistency of implementation across sites that are far spread geographically and exist in many different kinds of communities. The essential characteristics of Reading Recovery implementation are clearly described in a set of standards and guidelines. There are strict controls that prevent individuals and commercial organizations from using the name Reading Recovery to promote a program that does not meet the standards. On an annual basis, programs are granted a royalty-free license to use the name. Gay Su Pinnell References Askew, Billie J., Irene C. Fountas, Carol A. Lyons, Gay S. Pinnell, and Maribeth C. Schmitt. 1998. Reading Recovery Review: Understandings, Outcomes, and Implications. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Clay, Marie M. 1993a. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1993b. Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Characteristics of Implementation To achieve these results, it is necessary to consider such implementation factors as (1) shared ownership, in which stakeholders collaborate to put the structures into place that will work together for high quality; (2) level of coverage, which means that there is sufficient Reading Re529
Reading Research and Instruction Lyons, Carol A., Gay S. Pinnell, and Diane E. DeFord. 1993. Partners in Learning: Teachers and Children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers College Press. Pinnell, Gay S., Carol A. Lyons, Diane E. DeFord, Anthony Bryk, and Michael Seltzer. 1993. “Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High Risk First Graders.” Reading Research Quarterly 29:8–39. Rowe, Kenneth J. 1995. “Factors Affecting Students’ Progress in Reading: Key Findings from a Longitudinal Study.” Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy 1:57–110.
changes, the journal took on new covers and bindings as well as additional features. Reading Research and Instruction (ISSN 08860246) continues as a nationally recognized source for authoritative information on literacy research and practice, publishing research reports, instructional intervention articles, thematic issues, book reviews, commentaries, and editorials. RRI typically carries four or five articles per quarterly issue making use of quantitative, qualitative, and historical research methodologies. Articles span the full range of topics associated with literacy and literacy education. Articles address all levels of literacy instruction and learning, ranging from early childhood to adult learners, teachers, and teacher educators. Themed issues are periodically announced for RRI by the editorial staff. RRI is published as an open forum for research, intervention, and commentaries on improving the teaching and learning of reading and literacy. Readers of RRI are typically graduate students in literacy-related fields of study, literacy researchers, and literacy teacher educators. Reading Research and Instruction is nationally and internationally indexed in the Current Index to Journals in Education (CIJE), Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), and the Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) databases. Summaries of articles appearing in RRI are reported in Research in Education. Submitted manuscripts typically do not exceed twenty pages of narrative (excluding figures and references), although longer submissions are not discouraged. D. Ray Reutzel and Timothy G. Morrison
Reading Research and Instruction Reading Research and Instruction (RRI) is the official, quarterly, refereed journal publication of the College Reading Association (CRA). The first issue of Reading Research and Instruction was published as the College Reading Association Newsletter in 1961. The board of directors of CRA decided to establish a new journal publication in 1964 based upon that newsletter. It was called The Journal of the Reading Specialist and was edited by Dr. Albert Mazurkiewicz until March 1969. Under the editorship of Dr. Samuel S. Zeman, the name of the journal was changed in March 1970 from The Journal of the Reading Specialist to Reading World, and the journal became available on microfilm in 1974 through Xerox University Microfilms. Dr. Jerry Johns was appointed associate editor in 1977. It was during this critical period that Drs. Johns and Zeman brought RRI to a level of national recognition. In October 1984, the title of the journal was changed from Reading World to Reading Research and Instruction. Dr. John E. Readence and Dr. R. Scott Baldwin became coeditors of Reading World in 1984 with Dr. Samuel Zeman as executive consulting editor. In 1985, Dr. William Blanton and Dr. Karen Wood became coeditors of RRI. In 1993, Dr. Robert B. Cooter was named the editor and continued until 1996. In 1996, Dr. D. Ray Reutzel was named the editor of RRI with Drs. Parker C. Fawson and Timothy G. Morrison as associate editors until 1999. In 1999, Drs. Sam Miller and Robert J. Rickelman were named coeditors of RRI with Drs. Ernest K. Dishner and William A. Henk as associate editors. With each of these editorial
Reading Research Quarterly Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ), the world’s leading peer-reviewed journal in literacy research, is a quarterly publication of the International Reading Association (IRA) and is committed to scholarship on questions of literacy among learners of all ages. Since its inception in 1965, RRQ has supported the spirit of inquiry that is essential to the ongoing development of literacy research and is intended to provide a forum for the exchange of information and opinion on research, theory, and practice in literacy and literacy-related processes. The major goal of RRQ is to publish original manuscripts that report qual530
Reading Specialists
Reading Specialists
itative and quantitative research, integrative reviews or syntheses, and conceptual articles designed to enrich our understanding of, and stimulate new thinking about, literacy. The original manuscripts that RRQ publishes reflect the widest range of definitions of literacy and approaches to theory and research in literacy, including multidisciplinary research, alternative modes of inquiry, and variant viewpoints about the nature of literacy practices and policies of diverse groups of individuals around the world. Where once literacy was narrowly defined as a list of competencies in reading, the lens of literacy in RRQ has been broadened to include, but not be limited to, reading, listening, writing, and speaking as well as the social, cultural, political, and historical influences inherent in the acquisition and development of literacy processes. The journal also supports a multilayered discussion and dialogue about issues, topics, concerns, theoretical perspectives, and methodologies in literacy matters. Beyond original manuscripts, RRQ also publishes letters to the editors that are typically short (500-word) reactions to articles published in the journal. In addition, commentaries representing more extensive reactions to articles published in the journal or thoughtful reflections on issues concerning literacy research are considered for publication. Letters are published based upon the discretion of the editors and space availability, whereas commentaries are peer reviewed. Manuscripts submitted to RRQ for publication consideration must follow guidelines specified in the latest edition of the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (1994). Directions for preparing a manuscript for submission to RRQ can be found at www.reading.org or are available at IRA headquarters, 800 Barksdale Road, P.O. Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714-1839. John E. Readence
The reading specialist is a professional with advanced preparation and experience in reading who has responsibilities (that is, providing instruction, serving as a resource to teachers) for the literacy performance of readers in general and of struggling readers in particular. Such individuals may work at one or more of the following levels—early childhood, elementary, middle, secondary, or adult learners—and in various settings—public, private, or commercial schools; reading resource centers; or clinics (International Reading Association, 2000). In the past, reading specialists worked primarily in elementary schools; they spent most of their time working directly with struggling readers either one on one or in small groups and, if requested, provided help and consultation to the regular classroom teacher. But, because of the varied and diverse needs of students coupled with the understanding that reading development and achievement do not end once a student leaves elementary school, the role of the reading specialist has changed. Though reading specialists still focus primarily on reading, the exact nature of the work and what reading specialists do differ from district to district, from school to school. Thus, one cannot tell what reading specialists do and the roles they play, by just looking at their job title, for what they do varies, depending on the size of the school district, student needs, and philosophy of the school district. Keep in mind that there are as many different combinations of the following topics as there are schools, teachers, and students. Levels of Involvement Some reading specialists might work strictly in one school building; others might be at the district level (on curricula, professional development for teachers and classroom aides, and home-school relationships). Some work with only struggling readers; others work with the gifted readers as well. Some work only in the area of reading; others provide help and instruction in writing, for many students learn how to read by writing, and students who write, read more deeply (Smith, 1983). That is, they read as writers and in doing so improve their reading and writing. Many reading specialists understand that all the language arts are related and that
References American Psychological Association. 1994. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. International Reading Association. Instructions for Authors for Reading Research Quarterly. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
531
Reading Specialists
Reading specialist teaching reading skills (Laura Dwight)
qualifications and characteristics of effective reading specialists that can be identified.
making meaning is central to becoming literate. Reading specialists might work only with English-speaking students; others primarily with English as a Second Language (ESL) and bilingual students. Some provide assistance through intensive, pull-out programs or courses (mostly in middle schools and high schools), others by working with the student(s) in the classroom. Some work closely with the classroom teachers; others do not, for they have little time or resources to do so.
Reading Specialists as Advocates and Change Agents In addition to understanding reading acquisition and development, reading specialists are often advocates for students and teachers; they also act as change agents and thus are often involved in staff development efforts. Therefore they must also be cognizant of the “human” element in building rapport and developing trust. Reading specialists must be good listeners, understand what the role of a good helper is, put aside personal agendas, and lead from behind. They must understand adult learners and have excellent interpersonal skills (Siu-Runyan, 1990, 1992, pp. 81–82). Teachers must see them as honest, caring, supportive, and knowledgeable.
Assessment and Evaluation Reading specialists might directly test, evaluate, and develop curriculum for students; others collaborate with the classroom teacher in gathering data, developing learning activities, and selecting appropriate materials. Some provide initial screening information about a student’s literacy development and whether or not more in-depth testing is needed. In most school districts, reading specialists are not considered to be special education teachers and therefore can screen students without parental consent. Despite these differences in jobs and roles, there are common
Reading Specialists and the Written Language Since reading specialists are advocates for literacy, they must be able to communicate using written language. Often reading specialists must know about sources of funding, be able to write 532
The Reading Teacher
The Reading Teacher
proposals for obtaining grant monies, and communicate procedure and policy to different audiences such as parents, community agencies, school boards, and businesses. Because some reading specialists are also involved in the supervision of others, they must have skill in observing, conferring, and writing evaluations.
The Reading Teacher (RT) is a professional journal for teachers, reading specialists, school administrators, and other professionals who work with young children (ages four or five to twelve). The first issue of RT, also the first publication of the International Reading Association (IRA), appeared in 1951. (From 1948 through 1951, the journal was published as The Bulletin by the International Council for the Improvement of Reading Instruction, a forerunner of IRA.) RT is currently published eight times yearly. Articles in RT present the latest research, informed opinion, descriptions of best practice, and issues and trends within the field of literacy education. Approximately 70,000 people and institutions subscribe to RT. Its readership, the number of people who actually read parts of each issue, is estimated at 250,000, which makes RT the mostread journal for literacy professionals in the world. Each issue of The Reading Teacher contains four to six feature-length articles and several shorter pieces. The former provide in-depth explorations of topics related to the field of literacy education. These may be descriptions of classroom practices, overviews of classroom-based research, reviews of research about a particular aspect of reading or learning to read, or opinion pieces. Authors for these articles are frequently collaborative teams of school-based and university-based professionals. Shorter pieces may be descriptions of specific teacher-tested instructional ideas or vignettes or poems related to children, reading and writing, or teaching and learning. Each issue also contains several columns, such as one that provides reviews of the latest and best publications in children’s literature. Each year, the results of the Children’s Choices and Teachers’ Choices projects are published in RT. These projects, which are cosponsored by IRA and the Children’s Book Council, yield lists of children’s (or teachers’) favorite trade books published during the previous year. Editors for The Reading Teacher are selected in a competitive application process. Most often literacy professors, the editors work closely with staff in the publications department at IRA to ensure that both the content of the journal and its appearance are of the highest quality. RT is a peer-reviewed journal, which means that articles published in the journal have undergone rigor-
Reading Specialists and Title I Reading specialists are often in positions funded by Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Thus they may be responsible for administering the Title I program in the district and facilitating the work of other reading specialists is the school district. Preparation of Reading Specialists for Being Effective Helpers Reading specialists have advanced graduate preparation, appropriate educational licensure, and classroom teaching experience. A part of the graduate work includes the completion of a clinical practicum that includes working with students who have reading difficulties. Also, because reading specialists often work closely with other teachers and educational specialists such as the school social worker, school psychologist, speech/language specialist, special education teacher, and ESL or bilingual teacher, they must develop skills and abilities in working collaboratively and communicate effectively with others. Reading specialists must be effective leaders, for they have strong and lasting influence on the literacy development at the school and district levels. Yvonne Siu-Runyan References International Reading Association. 2000. “Teaching All Children to Read: The Roles of the Reading Specialist—A Position Statement of the International Reading Association.” Newark, DE: The International Reading Association. (Single copies are free upon request by sending a selfaddressed, stamped envelope to IRA or by going to www.reading.org/advocacy/policies/specialist.) Siu-Runyan, Yvonne. 1990. “Forming Partnerships.” Journal of Reading 33:458–459. ———. 1992. “Supporting Teacher Growth.” In C. Weave and L. Henke, eds., Supporting Whole Language: Stories of Teacher and Institutional Change, pp. 67–86. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Smith, Frank. 1983. “Reading Like a Writer.” Language Arts 60:558–567.
533
Reading Today ous evaluation by respected literacy professionals prior to publication. Only about 10 percent of the manuscripts submitted to RT are eventually published. The International Reading Association, which publishes RT, is a professional organization of teachers, administrators, teacher educators, and others who are committed to improving literacy teaching and learning. IRA’s mission is to promote high levels of literacy for all by improving the quality of reading instruction through studying the reading process and teaching techniques; serving as a clearinghouse for the dissemination of reading research through conferences, journals, and other publications; and actively encouraging the lifetime reading habit (the web site is http://www.reading.org/about/. Members of the International Reading Association may subscribe to The Reading Teacher. Institutional subscriptions are also available, so RT is found in nearly all college or university libraries and many public libraries and schools. For more information about the International Reading Association or The Reading Teacher, contact the International Reading Association, 800 Barksdale Rd., P.O. Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714–8139, USA, 10800–336-READ, or www. reading.org. Nancy Padak and Timothy Rasinski
Publishers (EdPress), the Society of National Association Publications (SNAP), Association Trends, and Communications Concepts (the APEX Awards for Publication Excellence). Over the years, its articles have been reprinted in Education Digest and other education publications as well as in trade newspapers. Selected articles from each issue also appear on the International Reading Association’s web site at www.reading. org. For many years, Reading Today existed as a two- to four-page newsletter that was mailed out eight times a year. A Reading Today International newsletter was published quarterly in the months when Reading Today did not appear. The association also published separate newsletters focusing on parents, administrators, and IRA council activities. In 1983 these various newsletters were folded into one bimonthly Reading Today publication, which was expanded to a newspaper format. The new publication was at first called Reading ’83, but the complications involved in updating the name each year soon led to a return to the original Reading Today name. The newspaper has grown and changed considerably since 1983, going from an average of sixteen pages per issue in 1983 to an average of about forty-six pages per issue today. Furthermore, the newspaper has moved from a black and white presentation to full color. For further information, contact: Reading Today, International Reading Association, 800 Barksdale Rd., P.O. Box 8139, Newark, DE 19714–8139, USA. Telephone: 302–731–1600. Email:
[email protected]. Web site: www. reading.org. John Micklos Jr.
Reading Today Reading Today, the newspaper of the International Reading Association (IRA), is mailed six times per year to nearly 90,000 members of the organization in approximately 100 countries throughout the world. The newspaper covers issues relating to reading education in general, with a specific emphasis on the activities and services of the International Reading Association. In addition to presenting a wide variety of news and feature articles about reading education, Reading Today contains regular sections aimed specifically at classroom teachers, administrators, parents, and IRA council members as well as sections focusing on upcoming events, opinion pieces and letters to the editor, legislative activities in Washington, resources for educators, a message from the president of the organization, and a bulletin board of association activities. The newspaper has earned awards in contests sponsored by the Association of Educational
See also International Reading Association
Reading-Writing Relationships In the last quarter century, research, theory, and curriculum developments have contributed to a view of reading and writing as more intertwined and inseparable than even the term relationships suggests. The word literacy tends to be used as a way to characterize how reading and writing are related and occur almost simultaneously in the use of discourses by communities. Reading-writing relationships are like two intersecting circles 534
Reciprocal Teaching that have varied in the extent to which reading and writing have been connected with one another, according to Nancy Nelson and Robert Calfee (1998). Although there have been forces that have tended to separate reading from writing, there has been a confluence of developments over the last twenty-five years that has led to an emphasis upon the integration of reading and writing rather than their separation (Clifford, 1989). Certainly, research developments over the last twenty years have had a major impact upon a view of reading and writing that is more integrated (Tierney and Shanahan, 1990). The advent of writerly notions of readers and readerly notions of writers has contributed to a view of both reading and writing as constructivist acts or as acts of composing. Developments in linguistics, especially pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and semiotics, prompted reading and writing theorists to describe reading and writing in terms of author-reader transactions and the social dynamics of interpretive communities, discourse communities, and criss-crossing representational forms. Developmental studies such as those of Ann Haas Dyson (1989) of literacy before formal schooling challenged age-old notions of how literacy developed and highlighted the extent to which reading and writing development was intertwined and worked together from a very early age. Studies of the impact of reading and writing on thinking and learning indicated that certain kinds of reading and writing assignments served as powerful adjuncts to learning content and thinking critically. At the same time as researchers and theorists extended their analyses of reading and writing to the real world, they encountered events within which reading and writing worked together in a multiplicity of ways, including being embedded in one another. Our image of a learner reading to collect ideas, then writing to transmit or record ideas, has shifted to a view of learners as members of a community in which members enlist reading, writing, and other ways of knowing interchangeably to explore topics, address issues, solve problems, and argue. These shifts in thinking about reading and writing were also spurred as educators embraced process writing, collaborative learning opportunities, project- and unit-based learning, writing across the curriculum, literature-based and whole-language orientations to classroom prac-
tice, and early reading experiences tied to writing opportunities and reconceptualized separated reading and writing curricula as integrated literacy programs as well as inquiry-driven approaches to curriculum. Reading development became seen as occurring at the hands of writing and vice versa. In terms of learning, it became apparent that inquiry-driven reading and writing were shown to have the potential to achieve a synergism together that was less likely when they were apart. Further, in various professions, experts enlisted reading and writing interchangeably as artists might mix together colors from their palettes and on their canvases and engage themselves simultaneously as viewers, creators, and critics. Robert J. Tierney See also Hypertext; Inquiry-Based Instruction; Interdisciplinary Approaches to Literacy; Intertextuality; Language Experience Approach; Literature-Based Approach; Media Literacy; Process Writing; Whole Language and WholeLanguage Assessment; Writing across the Curriculum References Clifford, Geraldine. 1989. “A Sisyphean Task: Historical Perspectives on Writing and Reading Instruction.” In Anne Haas Dyson, ed., Collaboration through Reading and Writing, pp. 25–83. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Dyson, Anne Haas, ed. 1989. Collaboration through Reading and Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, Nelson, Nancy, and Robert Calfee, eds. 1998. The Reading-writing Connection. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Tierney, Robert, and Timothy Shanahan. 1990. “Research on the Reading-Writing Relationship: Interactions, Transactions, and Outcomes.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. II, pp. 246–280. New York: Longman.
Reciprocal Teaching Reciprocal Teaching (RT) is an instructional procedure designed to enhance students’ reading comprehension. The procedure typically engages teachers and students in a discussion, the purpose of which is to jointly construct the meaning 535
Reciprocal Teaching of the text. Unlike free-flowing discussions, RT dialogues have a particular structure that is provided by the use of four strategies: question generating, summarizing, clarifying, and predicting. When students are initially introduced to RT, the teacher models how skilled readers might use these strategies both for the purpose of actively bringing meaning to the written word and for monitoring how well they understand what they are reading. Over the course of time, the students assume increased responsibility for leading the dialogues. By focusing on the kinds of thinking and learner activity that are requisite to successful comprehension, RT provides students with tools for learning independently.
with students who may believe that the purpose of reading is merely to correctly identify the words, not necessarily to make sense of them. Clarifying engages students in attending to the many reasons why text may be difficult to understand (for example, unfamiliar vocabulary, awkward structure, unclear referent words, idiomatic expressions). Students are taught to be alert to such situations, and most important, to take some measures to restore meaning when the text is unclear (for example, rereading, reading ahead, asking for help) (see “Reading-Comprehension Processes” entry). Predicting Predicting requires students to hypothesize about what the author might discuss next in the text. There are several approaches that students can take to predicting; one is to think about what one already knows about the topic; another is to attend to text features (for example, headings, embedded questions) or text structure—that is, how the text is organized (for example, as a chronology, in terms of problems and solutions, or causes and effects). Students make predictions regarding the upcoming content and then read for the purpose of confirming or disproving their hypotheses.
The Four RT Strategies When students first begin RT dialogues, they are encouraged to use each of the strategies with each segment of text; in addition, they are encouraged to use the strategies in a particular order. As the students become more familiar with the process of engaging in RT dialogues and the purposes that each strategy serves, however, they may eliminate certain strategies with particular segments of the text (for example, each segment of text does not necessarily support a new prediction, or there may not be anything that needs to be clarified in a given section of text). A description of each strategy follows.
Using the Strategies in RT Dialogues A typical discussion might follow this pattern: The group reads a section of text silently or reading along as someone in the group reads orally (depending upon the decoding skills of the students). The discussion leader (a teacher or student) generates a question to which the other members respond. Other members of the group are invited to ask questions they thought of while reading the text. The leader then summarizes the text and asks the group members if they would like to elaborate upon or revise the summary. Necessary clarifications may be discussed throughout the dialogue or all at once. Finally, in preparation for moving on to the next segment of text, the group makes predictions.
Summarizing Summarizing engages students in identifying, paraphrasing, and integrating important information in the text. Students ask themselves: “What is the gist of the text?” “What is the most important information?” “Why did the author write this part?” The readers then put the answers to these questions into their own words. Questioning Students can be taught to generate and ask questions about the text at many levels. For example, questions can be raised that recall details in the text; others engage the students in drawing inferences from the text or in applying information in the text to a novel problem or situation (questions that may or may not have a single, agreed-upon answer).
The Learning Principles Underlying the Use of RT RT is founded on progressive reconceptualizations of reading, in which reading is defined as an interactive process of constructing meaning on the basis of background knowledge, the pur-
Clarifying Clarifying is particularly useful when working 536
Reciprocal Teaching pose(s) of reading, and the context in which reading occurs (Valencia and Wixson, 2000). In RT, the instruction focuses on helping students to understand the factors that interact and influence their comprehension of text. Furthermore, the strategies are taught as a means for enhancing comprehension, rather than as an end in themselves. RT stands in stark contrast to some procedures used in traditional reading instruction. For example, in traditional instruction, strategies are typically presented as a set of isolated skills; in teaching summarizing, students might be asked to underline a topic sentence in a series of disconnected passages. This type of task does not reflect the nature of summarization, however, which involves analyzing and synthesizing information. In contrast, in RT dialogues, students are taught to apply the strategies in meaningful contexts, that is, while reading extended text, rather than in isolation using artificial tasks. Furthermore, in traditional instruction, students are often introduced to and practice single strategies. This practice is problematic for two reasons: It suggests that the ultimate goal is to master isolated strategies, rather than to learn to use the strategies for the purpose of enhancing comprehension, and it does not engage learners in the synergistic and flexible use of strategies (see “Reading-Comprehension Processes” entry). Underlying the model of RT is the notion that expert-led social interactions play an important role in learning and can provide a major impetus to cognitive development. This idea, found in the writings of Lev Vygotsky, John Dewey, and Jean Piaget, emphasizes the role of guided learning in social context as a key to developmental change. Dialogue is a critical element of socially mediated instruction, since it provides the means by which experts provide and adjust support to novice learners. Socially mediated instruction is sometimes referred to as scaffolded instruction (see “Scaffolded Literacy” entry) to the extent that a scaffold provides support that is both temporary and adjustable. In the initial phase of RT, teachers provide considerable support to students as they learn the strategies and their application to understanding text. Scaffolding may take the form of teachers’ explaining, modeling through the use of think-aloud, or prompting (for example, supplying an appropriate interrogative with
which to start a question). Over the course of instruction, there is a conscious effort on the part of the teacher to gradually decrease the amount of support provided students, so that, eventually, teachers provide minimal support and act more in the role of coach providing feedback and prompting only as necessary. Metacognitive strategy instruction has also informed RT. Metacognition refers to (1) the knowledge we have about ourselves as learners, the demands of learning tasks, and the strategies we employ to achieve tasks successfully; and (2) the ability to monitor and regulate learning. Metacognitive knowledge is developmental in nature, since it is acquired over time and is influenced by our experiences in the same way that we acquire and use any kind of knowledge (see “Metacognition” entry). Maximizing the effectiveness of metacognitive strategy instruction involves (1) identifying the strategy(ies) being taught, (2) explaining why it is being taught, (3) demonstrating its use, (4) eliciting and guiding students’ acquisition and application of the strategy in contexts that resemble the contexts in which the strategies would be useful, (5) engaging students in evaluating the effectiveness of the strategy, and (6) gradually transferring control for implementing the strategy from teacher to students. Finally, RT takes into consideration the influence of motivation on student learning and the kinds of attributions that students who have a history of academic difficulty typically make. Students who are anxious and feel helpless in school are inclined to attribute success with a task to “luck” while attributing failure with a task to their own lack of ability. Students making these kinds of attributions need to make connections between engaging in strategic activity and the outcomes of this activity. Reciprocal Teaching enhances motivation by increasing student awareness of the kinds of factors that influence learning outcomes; furthermore, as students become experienced with RT dialogues, they come to appreciate the relationship between their activity as readers and the outcomes of this activity. RT also enhances motivation, since students typically enjoy interacting with their peers and collaborating with their teachers. Research into the Effectiveness of RT The majority of research regarding RT has been 537
Reciprocal Teaching conducted in reading and listening comprehension by general, remedial, and special educators. Approximately 300 middle-school students and 400 primary-grade students participated in the research conducted by Annemarie Palincsar and Ann Brown on RT (1984, 1989), which was designed especially for students who were at risk for academic difficulty or who were already identified as remedial or special education students. Participants in the research typically scored below the fortieth percentile on nationally normed measures of reading achievement. To evaluate the success of the intervention, criterion-referenced measures of text comprehension were administered as one of several assessments of student learning. This assessment was designed to evaluate students’ ability to recall information, draw inferences, identify the gist of the passage, and apply information presented in the text to a novel situation. The criterion level of performance was defined as the ability to score 75 percent to 85 percent on four out of five consecutive days of assessment. Prior to instruction, students typically scored approximately 30 percent on the criterion-referenced measures of text comprehension (averaging three of ten question correct). At the conclusion of instruction (typically twenty days), however, approximately 80 percent of both the primary- and middle-school students achieved the criterion level of performance. Furthermore, participants demonstrated maintenance of these gains for up to six months to a year following instruction.
performance; (3) RT/independent practice, in which students were taught RT for only four days, followed by eight days of independently applying the strategies in writing while reading text; and (4) traditional RT procedure that incorporated dialogic instruction. Only the latter was effective in bringing about large and reliable changes in student performance (Brown and Palincsar, 1987). A second comparative study was conducted to determine if all four strategies were needed to improve students’ comprehension abilities or whether a subset would suffice. The performance of students who were taught ten days of reciprocal questioning alone and students who were taught ten days of reciprocal summarizing alone were compared with ten days of the traditional RT procedure, in which students were taught all four strategies concurrently. Neither of the individual strategy conditions was as effective as the full set of strategies (Brown and Palincsar, 1987). Annemarie Sullivan Palincsar See also Metacognition; Reading-Comprehension Instruction; Reading-Comprehension Processes References Brown, Ann L., and Annemarie S. Palincsar. 1987. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension Strategies: A Natural History of One Program for Enhancing Learning.” In John Borkowski and Jean Day, eds., Intelligence and Cognition in Special Children: Comparative Studies of Giftedness, Mental Retardation, and Learning Disabilities, pp. 75–98. New York: Ablex. ———. 1989. “Guided Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition.” In Lauren B. Resnick, ed., Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, pp. 393–451. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Palincsar, Annemarie S., and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension Fostering and Comprehension Monitoring Activities.” Cognition and Instruction 1:117–175. ———. 1989. “Classroom Dialogues to Promote SelfRegulated Comprehension.” In Jere Brophy, ed., Advances in Research on Teaching, pp. 35–71. New York: JAI Press. Valencia, Shiela, and Karen K. Wixson. 2000. “PolicyOriented Research on Literacy Standards and Assessment. In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, pp. 909–935. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Essential Components of RT Comparative studies have been conducted to determine the essential features of RT. Specifically, the studies were designed to evaluate the role of dialogue in teaching students to be self-regulated learners and to determine whether all four strategies were needed to improve students’ comprehension of text. To compare RT with other kinds of instruction that focused on teaching the same set of strategies, not in dialogic manner, students were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: (1) modeling, in which the teacher demonstrated how to use the strategies while reading text, and the students observed and responded to the teacher’s questions; (2) isolated skills practice, in which students were taught the RT strategies using written activities with extensive teacher feedback regarding their 538
Recreational Reading
Recreational Reading
vocabulary and spelling after a brief exposure to comprehensible text (for example, Nagy, Herman, and Anderson, 1985). It is difficult to attribute these gains to anything but actual reading. William Nagy and his colleagues concluded that each time an unfamiliar word is seen in print, there is a small but reliable increase in word knowledge. It is enough, however, to account for increases in vocabulary size seen in school-age children, suggesting that reading is a major source of vocabulary knowledge.
Recreational reading, or reading because you want to, is one of the most powerful tools we have in language education. Those who read more read better, write better, have larger vocabularies, spell better, and have more competence in grammar. These findings are consistent with the more general hypothesis that we acquire language and develop literacy through the comprehension of messages. The case for recreational reading finds support in several areas of research.
Sustained Silent Reading In sustained silent reading programs, part of the school day is set aside for unrestricted recreational reading, with little or no accountability (for example, no book reports), and teachers read books of their own choosing while students read. Sustained silent reading is typically done for short periods each day, sometimes as short as ten minutes (rather than a large period of reading one day per week). In some versions, however (for instance, self-selected reading), students read all period and have brief conferences with teachers to discuss problems and book selection. Stephen Krashen (1993) reviewed fortyone comparisons of sustained silent reading with traditional instructional programs and reported that in thirty-eight cases, those in sustained silent reading did as well as or better than comparisons on tests of reading comprehension. Programs that lasted for a year or longer showed the most positive results, with readers doing better than comparison students in eight out of nine comparisons and with no difference on the other comparison. One reason for the finding that longer sustained silent reading programs are more effective is apparent to teachers who have used recreational reading in their classrooms: It takes a while for students to settle into reading and find books of interest. Note that a finding of no difference suggests that recreational reading is just as good as traditional instruction, which confirms that recreational reading results in literacy growth. Because recreational reading is so much more pleasant than regular instruction (for students and teachers), a finding of no difference also provides evidence in favor of recreational reading in classrooms. Sustained silent reading also results in gains in vocabulary, grammatical competence, and writing. Moreover, results are similar for En-
Case Histories Case histories include those of Richard Wright and Ben Carson. Wright (1966) credited reading with providing him with high levels of literacy development. Wright reported that he tried studying English grammars to improve his writing style but concluded that he developed a better sense of the language from reading novels than from studying grammar. Carson (1990) wrote that his mother’s insistence that he read two books a week (of his own choosing) when he was in the fifth grade was a turning point. Carson credited reading with improving his reading comprehension, vocabulary, and spelling, and it helped him move from the bottom of his class in grade five to the top in grade seven. Such reports cannot be called rigorous research, but it is hard to imagine any other source for this obvious improvement, and cases like these are not uncommon. Correlational Studies Correlational studies show that those who read more do better on tests of reading comprehension, vocabulary, and grammar. Correlational studies are difficult to interpret, as readers could argue that those with more literacy development read more. Several correlational studies control for prior reading ability and provide stronger evidence that recreational reading is a cause of literacy development. Richard Anderson, Paul Wilson, and Linda Fielding (1988), for example, asked fifth graders to record their activities outside of school and found that book reading was the best predictor of reading comprehension, vocabulary, and reading speed, controlling for reading ability in grade two. Read-and-Test Studies Additional evidence comes from read-and-test studies, in which students showed clear gains in 539
Recreational Reading
Teen reading a novel at the beach (Elizabeth Crews)
books, young readers expand their interests as they read more, and books that children select on their own include those that are typically harder than assigned reading or reading at their current instructional level. Free reading is not always easy reading.
glish as a first language and as a second language and for children, adolescents, and adults (university students) (for example, Elley and Mangubhai, 1983; Mason and Krashen, 1997). Limitations Setting time aside for sustained silent reading is only helpful when appropriate texts are available. Thus, very young children and beginners in a second language will not profit from free reading periods unless special efforts are made to provide them with interesting, comprehensible texts. Handcrafted texts may be appropriate for second-language acquirers. In student-constructed or handcrafted texts, more-advanced students create texts for less-advanced students. Another limitation concerns what is read. If readers stay with very easy texts, after a point there will be little progress in literacy development. This may not be a problem: Those who do a great deal of recreational reading eventually choose what experts have decided are good
Encouraging Reading If recreational reading is helpful, how can we encourage children to read? Richard Anderson and his colleagues (Anderson, Wilson, and Fielding, 1988) reported that the teacher had a significant influence on how much children read and that those who read more comic books read more in general. Those with more access to books read more and read better (McQuillan, 1998), a result confirmed by studies showing that children who have access to better libraries read better (McQuillan, 1998; Lance, 1994). In fact, even one exposure to a good library or one exciting literacy experience (what Jim Trelease has called a home run book) can be a powerful incentive to read. 540
Redundancy Media Annual, Vol. 12, pp. 188–197. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Mason, Beniko, and Stephen Krashen. 1997. “Extensive Reading in English as a Foreign Language.” System 25:91–102. McQuillan, Jeff. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Nagy, William, Patricia Herman, and Richard Anderson. 1985. “Learning Words from Context.” Reading Research Quarterly 20:233–253. Neuman, Susan, and Donna Celano. 2001. “Access to Print in Low-Income and Middle-Income Communities.” Reading Research Quarterly 36(1):8–26. Ramos, Franciso, and Stephen Krashen. 1998. “The Impact of One Trip to the Public Library: Making Books Available May Be the Best Incentive for Reading.” The Reading Teacher 51 (7):614–615. Wright, Richard. 1966. Black Boy. New York: Harper and Row.
Sadly, children from low-income families have little access to reading material. Susan Neuman and Donna Celano (2001) discovered enormous differences in the print environments of children from high- and low-income families. Children from high-income families had more places to buy books and had a far wider range of titles to choose from. Their public libraries had more books and were open longer hours. In high-income neighborhoods, environmental signs were more legible, and there were more places suitable for reading, meaning that children were more likely to see adults reading for pleasure. School and classroom libraries are the only aspect of the print environment under the control of the education profession. Neuman and Celano (2001) reported that the school libraries of the high-income children were far superior. They had more books per child, were open more days, and had professional librarians. School libraries in the low-income areas did not have professional librarians. Keith Lance (1994) found a positive relationship between reading achievement and the quality of school library staffing. Nell Duke (2000) confirmed that children from higher-income families have access to better classroom libraries. High-income children were also read to more and had more time for free choice reading in school. Of course, providing access to books is not always sufficient, but it is clearly necessary. Stephen Krashen
Redundancy Redundancy is the ability to simultaneously use both conscious and unconscious language processes at different levels to understand meaningful words, letters, and sound relationships. Redundancy is also the tendency of languages to restrict the sequences in which symbols can occur and, at the same time, to provide a number of cues to the same information to ensure total efficiency in the amount of information transmitted (that is, redundancy narrows language options and assists readers in “zeroing in” on meaning). Redundancy exists in all printed languages, proves to be more effective in some languages owing to differing amounts of redundancy, and assists readers in interacting with and understanding text—where the reader has an understanding of basic language concepts (for example, morphemes: the meaning bearing elements; syntax: the orderly arrangement of words; semantics: the meaning of words and word combinations), textual elements (for example, letters, word shapes, printing conventions), and appropriate prior knowledge (Horning, 1991). Different terms have been used to identify types of redundancy. In both reading and writing, distributional redundancy refers to how many times a certain letter occurs in a word or a word in a sentence. Sequential or orthographic positional redundancy refers to the ease of predicting
References Anderson, Richard, Paul Wilson, and Linda Fielding. 1988. “Growth in Reading and How Children Spend Their Time outside of School.” Reading Research Quarterly 23 (3):285–303. Carson, Ben. 1990. Gifted Hands. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Books. Duke, Nell. 2000. “For the Rich It’s Richer: Print Experiences and Environments Offered to Children in Very Low- and Very HighSocioeconomic Status First-grade Classrooms.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (2):441–478. Elley, Warwick, and Francis Mangubhai. 1983. “The Impact of Reading on Second Language Learning.” Reading Research Quarterly 19:53–67. Krashen, Stephen. 1993. The Power of Reading. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Lance, Keith Curry. 1994. “The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement.” In C. Kuhlthau, ed., School Library
541
Refutational Texts certain letters or words after a particular letter or word. There are various types of redundancy in relationship to different sensory channels: withina-communication-channel redundancy is a visual processing function simultaneously using a combination of syntax, semantics, and pragmatism (for example, word identification); between-channel redundancy involves the use of visual and auditory processing simultaneously (for example, looking at the printed page while listening to a story); and input-memory redundancy refers to the use of experiences and prior knowledge the reader brings to the printed page. Functional redundancy is used in conjunction with textual elements that promote reading proficiency during rapid reading events (for example, text before and after paragraphs/passages; pictures with or without captions). The effects of redundancy should be considered when designing literacy events. It has been suggested (see Booth, Perfetti, and MacWhinney, 1999) that skilled readers have a better grasp of orthographic positional redundancy whereas beginning or challenged readers do not have overlapping knowledge schemes of inherent word or letter patterns. Jimmy D. Lindsey and Johan W. van der Jagt
students learn counterintuitive science concepts than demonstrations and labs, instructional strategies favored more than text by most science educators. Although refutational texts can be used in any content area, up to this time, their use has been extensively studied only in the area of science. Content-area teachers in general, but particularly science teachers, tend to downplay the role of text in learning content-area information. The students may have textbooks, but science teachers usually do not use texts to present new information (see “Textbooks” entry). Teachers often present new information through lecture and/or discussion or, in the case of science, most often through hands-on activities. Students may copy notes from the board and be told to read the text for review. Since the textbooks are often difficult to understand, it is not surprising that students may not bother reading them. When interviewed, some college students say that they never read a textbook until they got to college, when the professor held them responsible for material that he or she did not discuss in class. Yet, refutational texts have been found to help students learn scientific concepts that are counterintuitive and, therefore, require the students to engage in the process of conceptual change. Theories of comprehension such as schema theory and instructional strategies based on these theories tend to focus on the process that Jean Piaget called assimilation, the process by which we make connections between new ideas and ideas that we already have, adding to our store of knowledge (see “Schema Theory” entry). Piaget postulated another process in learning—accommodation, the process of changing our old ideas because the new ideas that we have learned do not connect to what we already know. What we already know must be changed. Therefore, the term conceptual change was coined (see “Conceptual Change Learning and Texts” entry). Research over many years and in many countries demonstrated that children and adults have alternative conceptions in subjects such as mathematics, social studies, and science. Science is the content area that has been studied the most because the conceptual change process is required for learning many basic scientific concepts. For example, as children, we see that the earth is flat, and yet in science we are taught that the earth is round. We learn from early experiences that the closer we
References Booth, James R., Charles A. Perfetti, and Brian MacWhinney. 1999. “Automatic and General Activation of Orthographic and Phonological Representations in Young Readers.” Developmental Psychology 35, no. 1:3–19. Horning, Alice. 1991. “Readable Writing: The Role of Cohesion and Redundancy.” Journal of Advanced Composition 11, no. 1: 135–145.
Refutational Texts Refutational texts are informational texts that contrast scientific concepts with common alternative conceptions (nonscientific ideas) about the scientific phenomenon being discussed. Refutational texts are written in a contrast structure. These passages begin by discussing the alternative conception, then explain why scientists do not accept this explanation, and conclude by explaining why the scientific concept provides a better explanation of the phenomenon than the alternative conception. These texts are an important aspect of reading in the content areas (see “Content-Area Literacy” entry) because they have been found to be more effective in helping 542
Refutational Texts get to a source of heat, the hotter it is. So, when we are taught that it is the tilt of the earth toward the sun and the angle of the sun’s rays that makes it warmer in the summer, that it has nothing to do with the distance of the earth from the sun, we still think it has something to do with distance. When the earth tilts toward the sun, is it not closer? The process of conceptual change is difficult, and many types of instructional interventions that are helpful in the process of assimilation do not foster conceptual change. Yet, a metanalysis by Barbara Guzzetti and her colleagues in 1993 (Guzzetti et al., 1993) of approximately twentyfive reading education studies and fifty science education studies that compared different instructional strategies designed to foster conceptual change found medium- to large-effect sizes (measures of the practical significance of an intervention) favoring the use of refutational text. Refutational text was the most powerful strategy for changing students’ misconceptions, and the only instructional strategy that caused long-term conceptual change. When other strategies such as demonstrations were used, students showed improvement on immediate tests, but when tested again after a period of a few weeks, students reverted to their original alternative conceptions. This finding was also supported by quantitative studies conducted after the metanalysis. Although refutation texts are sometimes found in science textbooks, most science textbooks are nonrefutational texts. Teachers can write their own short passages that refute common alternative conceptions, since most texts do not refer to possible alternative conceptions.
and nonrefutation text on middle-grade students’ learning of science concepts that contradicted ideas the students held before reading. First, they measured the students’ prior knowledge to identify the alternative conceptions that they held. They then presented both types of texts. The texts were short ones like this example: “People used to believe that handling a toad would give you warts. It is easy to see how such a belief developed, for warts are rather mysterious. They often appear and disappear for no apparent reason. Yet scientists today know that warts are caused by a virus and have nothing to do with touching a toad.” Maria and MacGinitie found that the refutation texts helped readers to learn the new scientific information better than the nonrefutation texts. Other reading education researchers such as Donna Alvermann and Cynthia Hynd (1989) used longer refutation texts about more complex scientific topics such as Newton’s laws of motion and seasonal change. They continued to find that refutation texts supported the conceptual change process. Nonrefutation texts, on the other hand, were no more effective than doing activities unrelated to the topic, as discovered by Barbara Guzzetti and her colleagues in their metanalysis or statistical integration of the extant research (Guzzetti et al., 1993). Narrative and expository versions of refutation text were also compared. In a study conducted with fifth and seventh graders (Maria and Johnson, 1990), students who read narrative refutation text did better on a delayed application test than those who read a considerate expository refutation text, suggesting that the narrative version was more memorable. In addition to comparing the types of texts, researchers investigated the effects of different types of activities designed to support the comprehension of the texts. For example, prereading activation of students’ alternative conceptions was found to be helpful in supporting the conceptual change of students who read refutation and nonrefutation texts. It was only helpful, however, if it was accompanied by prereading directions indicating to the students that their ideas differed from ideas found in the text and that they should be alert for these text ideas.
Quantitative Studies Most refutational texts have been written by researchers in reading education. Reading education researchers used refutational texts in their investigations not so much because they were interested in science instruction, but because they were interested in investigating the process of conceptual change. Researchers wondered what would happen when readers read a text containing ideas that contradicted the ideas that they held before reading the text. They used science texts because they were a rich source of these contradictory ideas. In the first reading education study that investigated the use of refutation text, Katherine Maria and Walter MacGinitie (1987) compared the effects of refutation text
Qualitative Studies Quantitative studies using traditional research designs demonstrated that refutational text was 543
Refutational Texts effective in changing students’ alternative conceptions but provided no information about how the conceptual change process worked or how refutation text supported that process. Posner et al.’s (1982) model of conceptual change hypothesized that instruction designed to change alternative conceptions needed to make students dissatisfied with these conceptions and make the scientific conceptions understandable, plausible, and useful. Was refutation text effective because it made students dissatisfied with their alternative conceptions? Was it because it was more interactive than other forms of text, since it took readers’ ideas into account and responded to them? Or was it because this type of text provided an authoritative confirmation of ideas initially presented in hands-on inquiry activities? Reading education researchers turned to qualitative or observational studies to answer these questions. When Barbara Guzzetti and her colleagues (Guzzetti et al., 1997) interviewed students about their text preferences, high-school students chose refutation texts over nonrefutation texts and provided information about why they thought refutation text was more supportive of the conceptual change process. Students believed it was important to learn that many peoples’ ideas differ from scientific ideas because they thought that they probably had similar alternative conceptions. They pointed out that since the refutation texts directly told them that these alternative conceptions differed from science concepts, they would not continue to believe in these alternative conceptions if they currently held them. Also, if they did not have the alternative conceptions already, and they read the refutational text, they would not be persuaded to adopt these ideas by some of their peers who did have them. These high-school students preferred expository refutational texts to narrative refutation texts. They said they thought the narrative version was more interesting but they would learn more from the expository version. These interviews also suggested why some students, after reading refutation texts, were able to change their alternative conceptions and others were not. Several students suggested that one reason a student might fail to change his or her alternative conception after reading a refutational text might be skimming the text and missing the refutation of the alternative conception.
Implications for Instruction It appears that merely reading a refutational text is not enough to change some students’ alternative conceptions. For them, reading needs to be supported by discussion. Teachers can call students’ attention to sections of the text that refute their alternative conceptions by asking questions about these sections. Teachers can ask students to elaborate and clarify their answers to the questions and direct them to find supporting evidence for their explanations in the text. A discussion web in which small groups of students take a position about a central query and support that position with textual evidence appears to be an effective way of structuring this type of discussion (see “The Discussion Web” entry). There is evidence that if discussion is not teacher guided, students may not change their alternative conceptions. Without teacher guidance in small-group discussions, a persuasive member of the group may convince some students to believe the alternative conception instead of the scientific concept. Therefore, discussion must be monitored and guided by the teacher to avoid reinforcement of alternative conceptions. Katherine Maria See also Conceptual Change; Content-Area Literacy; The Discussion Web; Narrative and Expository Text; Textbooks References Alvermann, Donna E., and Cynthia R. Hynd. 1989. “Effects of Prior Knowledge Activation Modes and Text Structure on Nonscience Majors’ Comprehension of Physics.” Journal of Educational Research 82:97–102. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tonya E. Snyder, Gene V. Glass, and Warren S. Gamas. 1993. “Promoting Conceptual Change in Science: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Instructional Interventions from Reading Education and Science Education.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:116–161. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Wayne O. Williams, Stephanie A. Skeels, and Shwu Ming Wu. 1997. “Influence of Text Structure on Learning Counterintuitive Physics Concepts.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:701–719. Maria, Katherine, and Joanne M. Johnson. 1990. “Correcting Misconceptions: Effect of Type of Text.” In Jerry Zutell and Sandra McCormick, eds., Thirty-ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 329–337. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Maria, Katherine, and Walter R. MacGinitie. 1987.
544
Remediation “Learning from Texts That Refute the Reader’s Prior Knowledge.” Reading Research and Instruction 26:222–238. Posner, George J., Kenneth A. Strike, Peter W. Hewson, and W. A. Gertzog. 1982. “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change.” Science Education 66:211–227.
gram evaluations, led to a general demise of these early remedial interventions. Policymakers instead advocated funding “systemic” reform models with federal ESEA monies. The focus on schoolwide reform was seen as one solution to the typically fragmented remediation interventions. Thus, funding was allowed to be distributed more broadly in high-poverty schools. Instead of focusing remediation on struggling readers, the funds could now be used to improve education for any and all students attending the high-poverty school. As of yet, there is little evidence that this strategy has resulted in improved reading achievement among students in high-poverty schools.
Remediation As a nation’s population nears universal literacy, the concept of remediating reading difficulties has historically emerged. The idea of remediation seems rooted in the idea of remedy. That is, reading difficulties are viewed as abnormal, and thus a remedy is prescribed. But for reading difficulties to be viewed as abnormal, literacy acquisition with little evidence of difficulty must be the common state of affairs. Thus, it is only when a society’s educational system is mature—providing universal access to schooling—that the notion of difficulties in reading acquisition begins to emerge and remediation appears on the educational agenda.
Why Have Remediation Efforts Been Largely Unsuccessful? Although little evidence exists that suggests that the federal funding for remediation has actually enhanced reading achievement, there is no evidence concerning what reading achievement levels would be if the federal funding for remediation programs had never been available. In other words, the evidence available suggests that elementary students’ reading achievement has been largely steady for thirty years even in the face of rising juvenile poverty. Perhaps simply maintaining achievement levels was the primary effect of the federal effort. The point is that most remedial interventions did not produce a significant acceleration in reading development among most participants. But if struggling readers were to “catch up” with their normally achieving peers, acceleration of development was necessary. In retrospect it is an easy matter to suggest why most remedial efforts failed to accelerate reading development. First, most remedial interventions simply replaced some (or all) of the reading lessons that participating students had been receiving. Thus, participation rarely increased the quantity of reading instruction and thus rarely “supplemented” instruction in the sense of adding instructional time. Second, participation in remedial programs typically provided little improvement in instructional intensity as measured by instructional group size and little improvement in instructional quality. The relatively large group size (seven–nine students) meant that remedial lessons were rarely personalized to individual student needs. The relatively brief
A Brief History of Remediation in the United States In the United States, programs for the remediation of reading difficulties emerged around the middle of the twentieth century. These programs expanded rapidly upon passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The ESEA legislation marked the entrance of federal government into the education arena. The focus was the achievement gap between economically advantaged and disadvantaged children and youth, especially the reading achievement gap. The ESEA provided funding for the training and employment of reading specialists in higherpoverty schools to provide supplementary reading instruction—reading remediation—to struggling readers (McGill-Franzen and Goatley, 2001). This remediation was typically developed from a diagnostic-prescriptive framework. Reading teachers administered a battery of reading achievement and reading skills assessments to struggling readers in an attempt to target the weak or missing skills for remedial lessons But criticisms of the validity of the skills assessment system and the skills-emphasis instruction, along with disappointing findings on large-scale pro545
Remediation
Special education children in class interacting with a teacher (Laura Dwight)
dial efforts, in relation to actual needs, can explain some of the limited interventions designed and the limited effects observed (for example, limited instructional time, larger groups, use of paraprofessionals). Professional beliefs and limited attention to the research in the design of remediation efforts also explain the limited impact observed.
limited contact period (approximately ninety minutes of remediation per week) meant that the programs impacted only about 5 percent of the instructional time available. Third, much of the remedial instruction funded under federal programs was provided by paraprofessionals, and the evidence on the impact of instructional aides on reading achievement indicates no positive effects (Gerber et al., 2001). Fourth, about half of the children eligible for remedial services never received those services. The federal funding provided under ESEA was never sufficient to meet the needs of all eligible children, and in many cases the available funding was spread rather thinly across as broad a population as possible, thereby diluting the potential effectiveness of remedial programs. Finally, it is now clear that many of those charged with implementing remediation efforts simply did not view the acceleration of reading development as a primary goal. In short, there is little research to suggest that remedial reading interventions, generally, were designed in a manner that would lead one to predict an acceleration in reading development would be an outcome. Limited funding of reme-
Using Research to Design Remediation The available evaluations of typical remedial reading interventions do not provide much support for continuing these efforts. The research provides fairly clear direction for the design of remediation that is likely to accelerate reading development, however, direction that has too often been ignored. The research is quite clear that expertise in reading instruction matters in the delivery of remediation (Pearson, 2001). That is, all things being equal, more-expert teachers of reading produce greater reading growth than less-expert teachers. These data, combined with the evidence on the ineffectiveness of paraprofessionals, indicate that effective remediation is offered by teachers—teachers with additional 546
Remediation coursework and credentials in reading instruction. The quantity of remediation is important. Remedial interventions that expand the quantity of reading instruction—reading instruction above and beyond that offered all students—seems more likely to accelerate development than remediation designs that simply replace some or all of the reading instruction students regularly receive (Johnston and Allington, 1991). Some students will need more reading instruction if they are to develop at typical rates of acquisition. Thus, in designing remediation it will be important to consider the use of extended day and summer reading programs. The research provides guidance on the role of instructional intensity as measured by group size (Allington, 2002). One-to-one tutoring routinely produces the greatest acceleration in reading development. Very small group (two–three students) remediation also has a demonstrated record of accelerating reading development. But as the size of the instructional group grows beyond three students, the research evidence becomes less and less optimistic. The instruction in the remedial intervention must provide appropriately designed lessons. The difficulty of the texts and tasks assigned must match the development of the student and must provide useful skill and strategy teaching (Hiebert and Taylor, 2000). To achieve the maximum benefit from remediation, the remedial and general education lessons must be mutually informed and mutually supportive. In other words, designing a remedial intervention that addresses only 10–20 percent of the school day (thirty–sixty minutes) is an unlikely strategy for reliably accelerating reading development. Remediation is most effective when the remedial effort is combined with a whole-day instructional program that provides appropriate reading instruction.
continued to receive small-group reading support. All students participated in general education reading lessons as well. Only about 1 percent of the tutored students did not have their reading development accelerated. Half of the participating students achieved a 50th percentile performance or better on a standardized reading achievement test, and 80 percent achieved performances within one standard deviation of the mean on the reading achievement test. Unfortunately, few remediation programs are currently funded at levels that would allow for a similar intervention effort. In some highpoverty schools, 80 percent of the students would qualify for tutoring using similar identification criteria. In a school with 140 first-graders, for instance, this would mean 112 students would need tutoring. If each tutor worked with students for thirty minutes daily for a semester, then six reading teachers would be needed just to serve these first-grade students. Those students needing the continued small-group remedial support would require additional reading teachers. Providing remediation to older students would require even more reading teachers. The point is that few schools, if any, have funding available to support such an extensive remediation effort. To date, no federal or state reform initiative provides the sort of funding needed to replicate the remedial intervention provided by Vellutino and his colleagues. Remediation of reading difficulties has a relatively rich history in American education. Unfortunately, the research suggests much of the remediation effort has been designed such that acceleration of reading development would not be an expected outcome. Nonetheless, research provides fairly clear guidelines on how to design effective remediation. The question is whether the funding will be available to support such designs. Richard L. Allington
An Example of Effective Remediation Frank Vellutino and his colleagues (Vellutino et al., 1996) provided dramatic evidence of the potential of remediation in reading. The reading teachers provided one-to-one tutoring for all first-grade students who struggled with reading acquisition. Most students received tutoring for a semester, but a few participated in tutoring for a longer period. In addition, after the tutoring had accelerated reading development, some students
See also Delayed Readers; Literacy Labs; Reading Clinics References Allington, Richard L. 2002. “Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions.” In Alan Farstrup and S. Jay Samuels, eds., What Research Says about Reading Instruction, 3d ed., pp. 261–290. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gerber, Stephanie B., Jeremy D. Finn, Charles M.
547
Repeated Readings The Method of Repeated Readings The term method of repeated readings was first coined by S. Jay Samuels (1979/1997). In his description of the original method, individual students read a short (50–200 word) passage orally, and both speed and accuracy were recorded. Following this oral reading, students practiced reading silently until it was again their turn to read orally. Following each subsequent oral reading, the students’ speed and accuracy were recorded. When a predetermined speed was reached, for example, eighty-five words per minute, students were able to move on to new passages. This practice was then repeated with new and different passages as the students’ individual fluency increased. Repeated readings developed out of work at the University of Minnesota with students with identified learning disabilities, students with mild mental retardation, and adult nonreaders. With each group, focusing primarily on the development of speed to a set criterion, Jay Samuels was able to improve both students’ speed and their accuracy. Although the primary method as described above was unassisted, that is, the students practiced independently, students were also able to practice with audio support, usually taped readings of the texts. Jay Samuels’s repeated-readings method was grounded in the automaticity theory that he developed with his colleague David LaBerge, suggesting that comprehending text is less difficult for fluent readers because they decode text automatically. That is to say, they do not have to attend to their decoding, therefore they can attend to their comprehension. By creating a method that strives to make the rapid and accurate decoding of words more accessible to developing readers, Samuels argued that his work ultimately focused on making comprehension the focus of students’ reading instruction. The use of this method of improving fluency appears to be fruitful. Recent modifications of the practice have indicated that reading a passage four times can yield the same effects as charting and counting words. Further, numerous studies have confirmed that varied methods of repeated readings (such as those described in the next section) have been successful in improving speed and accuracy on practiced texts, improving speed and accuracy on new texts, and improving comprehension of both practiced and novel texts (as discussed in the section “Outcomes of Re-
Achilles, and Jane Boyd-Zaharias. 2001. “Teacher Aides and Students’ Academic Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23:123–143. Hiebert, Efrieda H., and Barbara M. Taylor. 2000. “Beginning Reading Instruction: Research on Early Intervention.” In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, pp. 455–482. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Johnston, Peter A., and Richard L. Allington. 1991. “Remediation.” In P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. I, pp. 986–1012. McGill-Franzen, Anne, and Virginia Goatley. 2001. “Title 1 and Special Education: Support for Children Who Struggle to Learn to Read.” In S. Neuman and D. Dickinson, eds., Handbook of Early Literacy Research, pp. 471–483. New York: Guilford. Pearson, P. David. 2001. “Learning to Teach Reading: The Status of the Knowledge Base.” In C. Roller, ed., Learning to Teach Reading: Setting the Research Agenda, pp. 4–19. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vellutino, Frank R., Edward R. Sipay, Sheila G. Small, Alice Pratt, Ru Chen, and Martha B. Denckla. 1996. “Cognitive Profiles of Difficultto-Remediate and Readily Remediated Poor Readers: Early Intervention as a Vehicle for Distinguishing between Cognitive and Experiential Deficits as Basic Causes of Specific Reading Disability.” Journal of Educational Psychology 88:601–638.
Repeated Readings As a method of improving reading fluency, repeated readings is the practice of rereading a short text passage until a set level of speed and accuracy has been reached. Repeated readings have been demonstrated to improve students’ oral reading fluency not only in practiced texts but also in new texts. Research also suggests that repeated-reading techniques that include some form of modeling improve students’ prosody. Further, repeated readings appear to improve readers’ comprehension of both repeated and novel texts. Because of the success of repeated readings in improving students’ speed, accuracy, and comprehension, many have suggested that repeated readings and related methods should be central parts of literacy instruction. 548
Repeated Readings peated Readings”). This finding, that comprehension as well as fluency is improved by multiple readings of a text, has led to suggestions by researchers such as Richard Allington and Steven Stahl that instruction aimed at improving students’ fluency should be a pivotal part of comprehension-centered literacy instruction (as demonstrated in the section “Repeated Readings in the Classroom”).
of S. Jay Samuels, Carol Chomsky (1978), suggested the use of audiotaped reading of text to provide a model for students’ repeated readings. In his seminal work on repeated readings, Samuels noted that both lines of research developed simultaneously, without mutual knowledge. In her research, Carol Chomsky used tapeassisted repeated readings with five third-graders who were yet to become fluent readers. In the tape-assisted method, Carol Chomsky provided modeling for the students through tape recordings of fluent reading. By listening to the tapes repeatedly and reading along with the model the tapes provided, the students were successful. Her intervention resulted in improved speed and accuracy as well as a noted improvement in attitude toward reading. The work of these three scholars collectively emphasized the repetitive, practiced nature of acquiring a preset level of speed and accuracy. In a later adaptation of repeated reading methods for classroom instruction, Patricia Koskinen and Irene Blum (1986) suggested that repeated readings could become an important peer monitoring and practice strategy. Moving beyond a teacher or a parent volunteer’s being the personnel to time and track a student’s fluency progress, paired repeated readings used peers to help students develop their speed and accuracy. Students were trained to identify fluent reading, to attend to a peer’s reading, to listen for accuracy and to time for speed, and finally to critique a peer’s reading in order to improve their fluency. In pairs, peers would read to each other repeatedly (ususally three times) and then, using a structured response form, offer suggestions for improvements. Koskinen and Blum found that the implementation of a paired repeated reading strategy, one that provides not only practice with oral reading but also with listening, observation, and evaluation, created improvement in students’ fluency and comprehension in a little over a month. Sarah Dowhower’s (1987) equally successful work with second graders combined several repeated-reading techniques to focus instruction on students’ fluency development. In combining assisted and unassisted repeated-reading techniques, Dowhower’s students made broad gains in fluency and comprehension. Further, students demonstrated strong transfer of fluency and comprehension to unpracticed texts. Instruc-
The Family of Repeated Readings The larger family of methods termed together to be repeated readings includes many different designs: The neurological impress method (Heckelman, 1966), the tape-assisted repeated readings (Chomsky, 1978), the shared oral repeated readings (Koskinen and Blum, 1986), the silent repeated readings (Samuels, 1979/1997), and mixed designs involving several of these methods (Dowhower, 1987) are a sample of varied repeated reading methods. This family of methods shares the common practice of reading a text multiple times in an attempt to improve students’ speed and accuracy in reading, that is, their fluency. They differ in whether or not they provide a reading model (which Dowhower has called assisted repeated reading), whether the reading is oral or silent, and whether students read with/to a teacher, parent, or peer. Although the term repeated readings originated in the work of Jay Samuels (1979/1997), other researchers preceded or coincided with his theories in the family of methods of repeated readings. In 1966, R. G. Heckelman discussed his Neurological Impress Method (NIM) for students diagnosed with learning disabilities. In this method, a teacher sitting slightly behind a pupil reads with that student; however, the teacher is to read slightly louder and slightly more quickly, thus modeling good reading and providing an impetus for increased speed on the part of the student. This technique, which was meant to be used repetitively until a student met preset levels of speed and accuracy, demonstrated its effectiveness for improving the reading fluency of remedial reading students in grades five–ten. NIM has been further adapted by Keith Topping, without the looking over the shoulder component, into paired reading. Paired reading has also been successful in improving students’ fluency and comprehension. Like R. G. Heckleman, another contemporary 549
Repeated Readings tional designs, such as this one focusing on repeated readings, that highlight the development of fluency have been recommended, particularly with early readers.
unrepeated texts. Research such as that by Sarah Dowhower (1987) and by Patricia Koskinen and Irene Blum (1986) found that repeated reading, in assisted or unassisted methods, improved both fluency and comprehension at all reading levels and on novel texts as well as on those that were read repeatedly.
Outcomes of Repeated Readings Although each of the designs in the family of repeated readings has a different focus and each is somewhat at variance with Jay Samuels’s original unassisted individual repeated readings, they all rest on a similar theoretical framework—that repeated practice in reading, as in any activity, produces an improvement in the speed and accuracy of that activity. The research that followed these fluency forerunners supported varied repeatedreading techniques for improved speed and accuracy with readers classified as having learning disabilities or having been placed in Chapter I programs, as well as students reading below, on, or above grade level. Further, improved speed and accuracy were found at all levels of instruction: elementary school, middle school, high school, and college. It appears that most students can benefit, in terms of increased speed and accuracy, from some form of repeated reading. Additionally, many studies, representing students in a range of grade levels and with a range of reading levels, demonstrated that this increased speed and accuracy transferred to new, unrepeated texts. Some questioned, however, if speed and accuracy were enough to increase a student’s fluency. The concern that prosody, or the ability to read the text with appropriate phrasing, is also an important part of fluency was the impetus for further research into what Sarah Dowhower (1987) had termed assisted repeated-reading methods. Assisted repeated-reading methods, such as the methods of R. G. Heckelman and Carol Chomsky, use a model to help students develop prosody as well as speed and accuracy. Several investigations found that prosodic reading was more likely to develop when the students were involved in a repeated-reading activity that involved modeling. There is some indication, however, that passive listening to taped texts, with no preset goals, can result in lesser comprehension gains. The question of improved comprehension’s connection to improved fluency was not so easily answered, however. Although it had been theorized that comprehension actually improved with increased fluency, there was little evidence that such improvement might transfer to other,
Repeated Readings in the Classroom Research suggests that repeated-reading methods are effective instructional techniques, and many have argued that they be incorporated in some form into reading instruction in classrooms on a regular basis. In particular, repeatedreading methods in varying configurations (individual pupil silent, group oral, choral reading, and assisted repeated-reading techniques) have been heralded as practical and research-based alternatives to the questionable practice of roundrobin reading. Repeated readings’ advocates recommend broad implementation of repeated-reading methods, perhaps using them as an aspect of direct instruction, as a learning center, as a method of cooperative learning, and as an aspect of literacy instruction. Timothy Rasinski (1989) supported these implementations and suggested that teachers be sure to use repeated readings, as well as modeling, direct instruction and feedback, supported reading, and short texts at an appropriate reading level in order to facilitate fluency instruction in their classrooms. Some teachers express concern that the repetitive nature of repeated readings might make it difficult to hold students’ attention on task. To counter this potential problem, less formalized methods of repeated readings, such as choral reading, readers’ theater, and cross-aged tutoring, have been suggested to provide students with a real-life purpose for their repeated-reading practice and an impetus for their need for an increase in fluency. Other more innovative applications of the methods may also help to gain student interest and to increase their awareness of issues such as critical media literacy; for example, the application of a broad interpretation of repeated-reading methods into practice for a karaoke singing performance. Gwynne Ellen Ash References Chomsky, Carol. 1978. “When You Still Can’t Read in
550
Research in the Teaching of English Third Grade: After Decoding, What?” In S. Jay Samuels, ed., What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, pp. 13–30. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Dowhower, Sarah L. 1987. “Effects of Repeated Reading on Second-grade Transitional Readers’ Fluency and Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 22:389–406. Heckelman, R. G. 1966. “Using the Neurological Impress Remedial Reading Technique.” Academic Therapy 1:235–239, 250. Koskinen, Patricia S., and Irene H. Blum. 1986. “Paired Repeated Reading: A Classroom Strategy for Developing Fluent Reading.” Reading Teacher 40:70–75. Rasinski, Timothy V. 1989. “Fluency for Everyone: Incorporating Fluency Instruction in the Classroom.” The Reading Teacher 42:690–692. Samuels, S. Jay. 1979/1997. “The Method of Repeated Readings.” The Reading Teacher 32:403–408. Reprinted in The Reading Teacher 50:376–381.
ted articles. Originally a journal that focused on the classroom teaching of English/language arts, RTE now publishes articles more broadly concerned with literacy issues that can inform English/language arts instruction. These expanded topics include, but are not limited to, workplace literacy, community literacy, reading and writing across the curriculum, literacy in after-school programs, the teaching and learning of additional languages, and pre-service and in-service learning about teaching literacy. Articles may focus on social issues related to literacy, such as gender and culture. Articles are welcome from diverse sites, including communities and nations in which English is not spoken. The Alan C. Purves Award honors the article from the previous year’s volume most likely to have an impact on educational practice. In keeping with trends in the field, in its early years RTE tended to publish experimental and quasi-experimental studies of classroom learning or clinical studies of reading or writing performance, focusing on outcomes rather than process. In recent years, however, as researchers have begun to focus increasingly on the role of context and culture in learning and teaching and to study both social and literacy processes, the field has produced more qualitative studies. Because qualitative studies tend to be longer, the number of articles per issue has been reduced. In keeping with this trend toward longer manuscripts, RTE has eliminated its page limit for submitted articles. Whereas it was common for issues in the 1960s and 1970s to feature as many as ten articles, presently it is typical for RTE to publish three–four in each issue. The RTE web site, www.ncte.org/rte/, provides details on the review process, the kinds and volume of manuscripts submitted and accepted, and the submission process. It also provides a Progress Page to inform authors about the status of reviews, a Readers’ Forum through which readers may comment on published articles, an archive of previously published articles, and a large set of links designed to serve the research community. Peter Smagorinsky and Michael W. Smith
Research in the Teaching of English Founded in 1967, Research in the Teaching of English (RTE) is the archival research journal of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE). It is a highly selective, quarterly, peerreviewed journal, historically publishing 10 percent of submitted articles. Editors include Richard Braddock (1967–1972), Alan C. Purves (1973–1978), Roy O’Donnell (1978–1982), Judith Langer and Arthur Applebee (1983–1991), Sandra Stotsky (1992–1997), and Peter Smagorinsky and Michael W. Smith (1997–present). As of the fall of 2000, RTE had over 5,000 subscribers from over forty countries. RTE publishes research from any theoretical perspective or methodological approach. Although requiring American Psychological Association style, RTE publishes research reports in multiple genres, including conventional APAstructured articles, research narratives, and other forms for representing data. In addition to original research reports, RTE publishes discussions of research methods, reviews of research, datadriven conceptual arguments, and a semiannual annotated bibliography of literacy research compiled by an international team of editors. To accommodate extended attention to theory and method and to allow for detailed reporting of data, RTE does not have a page limit for submit551
Resistant Reading oppression emanating from racism, classism, and heterosexism as well as ethnic and religious rivalries are presumed and perpetuated. This large body of work raises important questions about whether or not readers should be taught to resist dominant encodings of power relations in favor of rendering meanings that are more consistent with their interests, values, and positions with regard to gender, class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Peter Rabinowitz (1989) addressed this question in his study of the literary and linguistic conventions guiding the process of reading. His work supported a conclusion that resistant reading should be taught, but that it will remain ineffective and uninteresting unless it carefully takes into account what Rabinowitz referred to as “authorial voice,” a manifestation of the intended and unintended effects of the choices made by a writer. More recently, James Phelan (1996) and Dennis Sumara (1996) have suggested an alternative way of thinking. They proposed a more recursive or dialogic view of reading, one that asks readers to scrutinize their own beliefs and assumptions as well as those that may be ascribed to the author of a text they are reading. Phelan’s essay foregrounds his experience as a white male reading Toni Morrison’s novel Beloved. A dead child, a runaway slave, a terrible secret—these are the central concerns of the novel. By his account, this experience produced a pattern of mutual resistance calling into question Phelan’s own stance as a reader at the same time as he found himself wanting to interrogate Morrison’s authorial stance. Sumara reported a similar level of self-questioning in conjunction with a reading of The English Patient, which he shared with a group of teachers. The English Patient tells the story of the entanglement of four damaged lives in an Italian monastery as World War II ends. According to Phelan and Sumara, recursive and dialogic use of resistant reading takes it beyond the adversarial tone it had when first introduced twenty years ago.
Resistant Reading Resistant reading is a critical approach to constructing meaning. It is often referred to as “reading against the text.” For example, a male author, such as Ernest Hemingway, who often writes as if his audience is likely to be composed of other males, may become subject to a resistant reading by female readers who object to his “macho” stance regarding such things as bullfighting and interpersonal relationships. Resistant reading occurs when readers adopt a stance in opposition to the one they imagine an author has assumed for his or her readers. Since it is impossible to write without making some assumptions about what one’s readers will know or believe, it is equally impossible to write without privileging some readers over others. Roland Barthes demonstrated resistant reading in writing about his own reading performance in S/Z (translated in 1974) and further elaborated in The Pleasure of the Text (translated in 1975) (Travis, 1998). Feminist critics such as Judith Fetterly and Patrocinio Schweickart were among the first to write about the passive and self-negating position assumed for women readers. They advocated that readers resist the dominant social ideology of patriarchy assumed in many texts considered to be literary classics. Generally speaking, feminist critics argue that writing/reading events are best understood as mediated by culture-specific dispositions that tend to privilege some voices while diminishing or silencing others. They encourage all readers, but especially women, to recognize how they are being positioned as readers by an author’s assumptions and/or stated beliefs. Fetterly’s (1978) analysis of American literary classics has itself become a classic of resistant reading, in which she illustrates her contention that the canon of American literature, as it was defined thirty years ago, presumes a reader who is identified as male. In her introduction she writes about Norman Mailer’s use of scapegoating in An American Dream. The sacrificial scapegoat is the woman/wife and the cleansed survivor is the husband/male. In such fictions the female reader is asked to identify with a self that defines itself in opposition to her. She is expected to identify against herself. Feminist perspectives on resistant reading quickly paved the way for a more expansive examination of texts for ways in which regimes of
Teaching Resistant Reading Resistant reading sometimes gets taught as part of literary studies or as relevant to reading comprehension. Mark Faust (1992) taught highschool teachers to question any presumption of authority on the part of writers or the characters they create. He wanted teachers to do more than invite the kind of responsive reading in which 552
Round-Robin Oral Reading Phelan, James. 1996. “Toward a Rhetorical ReaderResponse Criticism: The Difficult, the Stubborn, and the Ending of Beloved.” In J. Phelan, ed., Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology, pp. 173–190. Columbus: The Ohio University Press. Rabinowitz, Peter. 1987. Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Sumara, Dennis J. 1996. Private Readings in Public: Schooling the Literary Imagination. New York: Peter Lang. Travis, Molly Abel. 1998. Reading Cultures: The Construction of Readers in the Twentieth Century. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University.
confirmation is sought for one’s personal interpretations. He advocated the development of responsive-resistant readers who ask of the text and its author: “What values and/or beliefs am I being asked to confirm?” When a community of readers read resistantly, they consider a range of acceptable interpretations while simultaneously commenting on whose values or beliefs are supported by each interpretation and whose interests are being served. Peter Forrestal (1992) also advocated the teaching of resistant reading. He used a cigarette advertisement that featured a glamorous yachting scene to introduce resistant reading. He posed a series of questions (for example, “What if all the people in the advertisement were over seventy?”) to encourage students to consider what presumptions are at play that attempt to lead the reader to a particular reading. Resistant reading rejects the existence of a preferred meaning in favor of considering what readings are possible for a given text. Readers can then endorse, negotiate, or oppose the various meanings they have identified. The goal is to make readers more aware of what they take for granted, ignore, disbelieve, or suppress in constructing a meaningful interpretation of text. Texts are not completely open with regard to meaning, but they are open with regard to what value the reader places on the text. Less well attended to in the literature is what personal and intellectual qualities make a person more likely to engage in resistant reading. Resistant reading may necessitate that we be like Jean Paul Sartre who, according to Simone de Beauvoir (1984), never ceased calling himself into question. Not wanting to be taken over by his own ideological interests, Sartre thought it right to think against himself. To teach resistant reading is to affect the character of readers. Michelle Commeyras and Mark Faust
Round-Robin Oral Reading Round-robin oral reading can be described as the practice of having students orally read a story or other material, allowing one sentence or paragraph at a time for each student, and reading in a sequential rotation. Although Theodore Harris and Richard Hodges (1995) called the practice outmoded, and many other experts representing a wide range of perspectives have indicated that use of this practice would actually make learning to read difficult for children, the practice still persists in classrooms today. Teachers’ use of round-robin oral reading puts children in the position of giving a performance. The other students are told to listen and follow along in their own books as individual students take turns reading. If a given student makes a pronunciation or other mistake, he or she is often publicly corrected. Many who struggle with word recognition can find this devastating. The focus is on doing well on the performance rather than on understanding what is being read. Pronouncing words correctly seems clearly to be the most important goal during round-robin reading. This takes away from what should be the more important goal of all reading activity— comprehension. To make matters worse, once the teacher establishes the round-robin pattern (for example, reading aloud up and down rows, clockwise or counterclockwise, one paragraph each, or one sentence each), children can usually predict when they will have their turn. The obvious solution, when confronted with a performance in the presence of one’s peers, is for students to look ahead in their book to silently rehearse while
See also Critical Literacy; Critical Reading References de Beauvoir, Simone. 1984. Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre. New York: Pantheon. Faust, Mark A. 1992. “Ways of Reading and ‘the Use of Force.’” English Journal 92:44–49. Fetterly, Judith. 1978. The Resistant Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Forrestal, Peter. 1992. “Re-Reading Reading.” English Journal 81:25–29.
553
Round-Robin Oral Reading habits, encourages inattentive behavior with potential discipline problems, does not allow children to have the opportunity to correct themselves, consumes valuable classroom time that could be better spent on more meaningful reading activities; and can hamper the development of listening comprehension. Rona F. Flippo
others before them are taking their turn reading. Because many children are busy rehearsing their part, there is little opportunity to focus on the meaning of what is being read. Oral reading itself is not an ineffective instructional practice. In fact, there are many authentic means of oral reading in classrooms. Reading authorities clearly recognize the round-robin oral reading style as an ineffective practice, however. For example, Michael Opitz and Timothy Rasinski (1998) pointed out that teachers are still using the round-robin oral reading because of classroom management issues. Teachers are often unaware that there are other more appropriate ways to facilitate oral reading opportunities in their classrooms. Opitz and Rasinski also provided a list of reasons why teachers should move away from round-robin reading. They suggested that the practice also promotes children’s inaccurate views of reading, causes faulty reading
References Flippo, Rona F., ed. 2001. Reading Researchers in Search of Common Ground. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges, eds. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Optiz, Michael F., and Timothy V. Rasinski. 1998. Good-bye Round Robin: Twenty-five Effective Oral Reading Strategies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
554
S Scaffolded Literacy Instruction
Reciprocal teaching is an integrated instructional routine that is based on extensive teacher scaffolding and gradual release of responsibility. The purpose of the program is to develop students’ abilities to use multiple comprehension strategies and enhance their reading comprehension. Students are taught to use four strategies: asking and answering important questions about the text; summarizing the important ideas; clarifying confusions; making predictions about upcoming text (see “Reciprocal Teaching” entry). Another approach to comprehension instruction that helps students to become more strategic, self-regulated learners, which requires a great deal of teacher scaffolding, is transactional strategies instruction (TSI). Through TSI students learn why, when, and how to use multiple strategies that include the following: predicting, verifying predictions, visualizing, summarizing important ideas, restating ideas in one’s own words, relating ideas in text to prior knowledge, and self-monitoring of one’s comprehension. Barbara M. Taylor
Scaffolded instruction in grounded in Lev Vygotsky’s theory (1978) in which a teacher instructs a child in a task or strategy within the child’s zone of proximal development. That is, the teacher determines what a child can accomplish relative to a task or strategy with assistance but also with purposefully diminished support as a child moves toward being able to perform that task or strategy independently. The teacher provides support in the form of scaffolds or assistance, with a gradual release of responsibility as the child is learning to become independent and self-regulated in performing a task or strategy. A teacher provides assistance to a child through modeling, prompting, and providing feedback. In addition, a teacher must continually assess how much support a child needs in performing that task or strategy at a particular point along the continuum, ranging from the child’s needing much support to being able to perform independently. Ruth Wharton-MacDonald, Michael Pressley, and Jennifer Hampston (1998) found that effective primary-grade teachers provided extensive scaffolding as they interacted with children on literacy tasks and strategies to help the children learn to become self-regulatory and independent. Shelley Wong et al. (1994) found that Reading Recovery teachers provided a considerable amount of scaffolded instruction during Reading Recovery tutorials. Barbara Taylor, David Pearson, Kathleen Clark, and Sharon Walpole (2000) found that the preferred interaction style of highly accomplished primary-grade teachers was coaching, or scaffolding, in which they provided prompts and encouragement as children tried to figure out a word while reading, elaborate on an idea related to text they had read, or perform a comprehension strategy.
See also Reciprocal Teaching References Taylor, Barbara M., P. David Pearson, Kathleen Clark, and Sharon Walpole. 2000. “Effective Schools and Accomplished Teachers: Lessons about Primary Grade Reading Instruction in Low-Income Schools.” The Elementary School Journal 101, no. 2:121–166. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wharton-MacDonald, Ruth, Michael Pressley, and Jennifer M. Hampston. 1998. “Literacy Instruction in Nine First-Grade Classrooms: Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement.” The Elementary School Journal 99, no. 2:101–128.
555
Schema Theory Wong, Shelley, Lois Groth, John O’Flahaven, Sheila Gale, Gayle Kelley, Sheryl Leeds, Jeanette Regetz, and Janet Steiner-O’Malley. 1994. Characteristic Teacher Student Interaction in Reading Recovery Lessons. College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center.
was at one point embedded as a subschema may become the superarching structure that connects dogs to fleas and to dinosaurs in a discussion of the range of possibilities in sizes of animals that have ever lived on earth. Third, schemata develop over time, having the potential to become more elaborated and specific as an individual’s experiences in particular domains increase.
Schema Theory
An Illustrative Example of Schemata at Work By way of clarifying how schemata are said to participate in the comprehension process, consider the following conversation I once had with my oldest son, Robbie, when he was eight years old. We were picking up his baby brother from the day-care center, and while I was busy with the baby, Robbie overheard two adults discussing how ear infections result from letting babies go to sleep with milk in their mouths. As we walked to the car, he began to explain this to me, and as he did so, I opened my mouth and pointed upward inside, silently indicating the Eustachian tube that connects the back of the mouth with the middle ear, saying, “That makes sense. The milk would get backed up inside the ear and cause an infection.” To my surprise, Robbie immediately shook his head in clear objection and, passing his finger on the outside of his cheek, from the corner of his mouth toward his ear, said, “No, it doesn’t get in the ear that way! The milk leaks out of the mouth and drips into the ear.” His comment, of course, caused me to object: “No, it doesn’t! Did you know that there’s a tube in the back of your mouth that’s connected to the inside of your ear? It’s called the Eustachian tube.” To which Robbie replied, “That’s not what the lady meant! The milk dribbles out and gets into the ear from the outside.” Although neither Robbie nor I could claim to be anatomists at the time of the conversation, and I had not even heard the original exchange that had so intrigued him, we were nevertheless each of us adamant about our different interpretations. As Robbie was telling me about milk in babies’ mouths, I effortlessly constructed a pathway by which the infection must occur, the Eustachian tube, of which I had heard mention frequently in the pediatrician’s office, but of whose exact location I had only a general idea. Robbie, by contrast, with the very same overheard conversation, constructed a different way for milk to
A schema (plural: schemata) is one cognitive structure comprising an organized, interconnected set of nodes that represent abstracted regularities in an individual’s experience. As such, schemata represent the basic units in a particular theory of the nature of an individual’s knowledge as it participates in comprehension and learning. Thus, it would not be correct to equate all theories that allude to the role of knowledge with schema theory, as there have been at least two major families of models of knowledge that have been used to explain how we organize and use what we know to make sense of the world we encounter. When we use the term schema, we are choosing one of these families, a structural metaphor for knowledge rather than a connectionist, parallel-distributed, neural net model. Richard Anderson (1977) first proposed schemata to literacy researchers in a work that stands as the manifesto of schema theory. Although the theory was later elaborated and transformed, several aspects have remained essential to a definition of schema. First, the nodes that make up a schema are actually variables, that is, abstracted ranges of possibilities that allow the knowledge to be flexibly fitted to a particular situation. For example, a reader’s schema for a dog would represent a specific configuration of features capturing what a dog can look like, how it can behave, what place it can have in one’s heart, or whatever aspects of dogginess an individual would have experienced. For most adults with the usual range of experiences with dogs, the variable of size of dogs would allow for much variability, as dogs range from tiny fistfuls of life to nearly small pony size. Nevertheless, dogs are not house size (unless they are Clifford!) and encountering such a dog would upset most individuals tremendously. Second, schemata are interembedded and dynamic so that the nodes that make up a schema, as, for example, the construct of size of animals, can themselves be schemata. Depending on the needs of the moment, what 556
Schema Theory cause problems to the ears. Without knowledge of a tube leading from the back of the mouth to the middle ear, all he could imagine was that milk had to come into the ear from the outside. In fact, to his view, my claim that the milk would cause trouble from inside the head must have sounded far-fetched. Interconnected tubes and channels inside the head may have seemed disturbing to him. Even such a mundane conversation has the potential to reveal the powerful role that an individual’s knowledge plays in meaning construction. Robbie and I heard something different in what the two women at the day-care center were discussing because we had different existing knowledge, different schemata, of the anatomy of the human head. My schema included the possibility of a tube to connect the back of the mouth with the ear. His did not, and therefore, as he heard what the two women were discussing, he had to invent a different pathway to get the milk into the ear. The major difference between Robbie’s and my knowledge of the ear was not that I had “the truth” about the anatomy of the head by virtue of being an educated adult but that by a wealth of mostly indirect and informal experiences, I had come to understand that there is such a thing as a Eustachian tube that somehow connects the ear with the back of the throat. Over time, after noticing what happened when his ears popped during an airplane landing, perhaps, or after reading about the anatomy of the ear, or after having conversations such as the one above, Robbie would likely develop a schema similar to mine. In fact, when Robbie first saw his dad after our discussion, he offered the same advice about babies—that they should not sleep with their bottles, but this time, he pointed inside his mouth as he explained. When his dad said, “ I guess the milk would get inside the Eustachian tube,” Robbie simply agreed. Thus, a schema is not a memory but the abstracted residue that one accrues from all of life’s experiences, organized in a particular way and connected to everything else one knows.
That is, meaning is made as a result of a dynamic interaction between whatever we are encountering and our schemata. The result of this interaction is a particularized interpretation, a schema with the choices now pinned down for each of its variables. Three critical features fall out of this description of the comprehension process. First, schemata provide the basis for the inferences a learner needs in particular comprehension situations. Schemata do more than point to a general thinking process; they specify the particular content of the inferences we draw. Thus, Robbie and I inferred how milk could enter a baby’s ears, instantiating what we each “knew” about the head in order to make sense of what the women were saying. Second, schemata help a learner identify what is more and less important in all that the learner is encountering. This is more than a trivial contribution because otherwise the world becomes a confusing mass of stimulation all of equal weight and portent. Third, schemata help explain bias in our interpretations. Thus in this view, being knowledgeable involves having conceptions that one has built up from experiences, both real and virtual. Conceptions are tremendously helpful in making sense of our world, but they also can act to constrain what a person perceives or concludes to be true in a particular situation. Bias may seem too strong a term to use when the sort of constraints on a person’s interpretations carry little political or social import. Nevertheless, thinking of knowledge as organized in schemata helps explain why different individuals can see very different meanings in the normally ambiguous world of human actions. How Conceptions of the Construct of Schema Have Evolved Having described in basic outline that the construct of schema generally implies, I move now to a consideration of how the construct has changed over the past thirty years. One problem was that although it was meant to refer to a theory of knowledge, schema theory was best tested in situations in which comprehension was at issue rather than knowledge acquisition. Many of the clever studies first published in the name of schema theory used the instantiation aspect of the theory rather than addressing how individuals change their knowledge from experience in the world. In the metaphor of knowledge as structures, knowledge was portrayed as static,
Value of Schema to Descriptions of Process One of the most important contributions of the schema view of knowledge was the description it offered of how one’s knowledge is actually used in processing. As a person tries to make sense of the world, particular schemata are instantiated. 557
Schema Theory Criticisms fully formed structures rather than as a constructed, probabilistic, and incomplete open system responsive to the vagaries of the input. This problem was recognized early on and led to changes in the theory so that rather than saying that an individual’s knowledge was accessed, we claimed that knowledge itself was constructed, even as an interpretation was also being constructed (Schallert, 1982). Thus, as schema theorists made the claim that comprehension resulted from an interaction between one’s knowledge and the clues afforded by input, the interaction described was a very dynamic, responsive interplay, a moment-by-moment changing synergy that resulted in sense making. Eventually, Patricia Alexander and her colleagues (Alexander, Schallert, and Hare, 1991) claimed that an individual’s knowledge always is in one of two states, a tacit or an explicit one. Here, the advantages and disadvantages of a structural (schema) view of knowledge and of knowledge represented as connections (the neural-net view) were used to offset each other, with the tacit knowledge represented as a net of spreading activation and the explicit knowledge cast in the form of structures or schemata. In such a view, tacit knowledge becomes the basis from which individuals construct in a dynamic way the knowledge structures (schemata) they may need in their explicit knowledge to make sense of the world. The construct of knowledge as represented in schema theory was almost immediately popular with learning and literacy researchers. In fact, schema was quickly equated with the more general claim that one’s existing knowledge influences learning and comprehension, in ways usually beneficial but sometimes less so. The appeal to knowledge as an explanatory concept led to a surprising proliferation of terms, as in background knowledge, domain knowledge, content knowledge, metacognitive knowledge, and procedural and declarative knowledge. This did not help the field maintain a clear grasp on what was meant by the underlying construct of prior knowledge, let alone schema. I recommend the article by Patricia Alexander and her colleagues (Alexander, Schallert, and Hare, 1991) as a resource for understanding the overlapping extensions of meaning of these different knowledge terms. Today, there is less mention made of the con-
struct of schema directly. Nevertheless, most literacy researchers acknowledge that the perspective represented in schema theory caused a significant revolution in our thinking. Learning and reading would forevermore be explained not, or not solely, as the result of the abilities that we bring to a text or a situation but as influenced by the set of experiences we have had up to the moment. Diane L. Schallert See also Prior Knowledge and Misconceptions; Schema Theory Criticisms References Alexander, Patricia A., Diane L. Schallert, and Victoria Chou Hare. 1991. “Coming to Terms: How Researchers in Learning and Literacy Talk about Knowledge.” Review of Educational Research 61:315–343. Anderson, Richard C. 1977. “The Notion of Schemata and the Educational Enterprise.” In Richard C. Anderson, Rand J. Spiro, and William E. Montague, eds., Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, pp. 415–431. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schallert, Diane L. 1982. “The Significance of Knowledge: A Synthesis of Research Related to Schema Theory.” In Wayne Otto and Sandra White, eds., Reading Expository Material, pp. 13–48. New York: Academic Press.
Schema Theory Criticisms Although schema theory is most generally a theory of cognition (see “Schema Theory” entry), it is examined here as a theory of reading. Our purpose is to canvass major criticisms of the theory. Those that we include argue that schema theory suffers from vagueness of definition that hampers research, from reliance upon a traditional and overly restricted theory of meaning, from the elision of readers’ intentionality in its attempt to explain reading, from an oversimplification of memory retrieval and of the interpretive processes leading to memory storage, from a paucity of strong supporting evidence, and from a failure to be scientifically testable. The reader is cautioned not to overlook the significant strengths of schema theory, the discussion of which falls outside the purview of this entry. Vagueness of Definition Schema is a central theoretical term within a program of research. As such, we are invited to ex558
Schema Theory Criticisms pect precision. Nevertheless, schema is defined rather imprecisely and exhibits a wide array of meanings in the research literature, including general knowledge about a specific domain, a cluster of knowledge, a pocket of knowledge, a network of prior knowledge, a group of information slots to be filled, abstract knowledge structures, data structures, a set of personal experiences, prior knowledge, background knowledge, everyday knowledge, and old knowledge. Such diversity has led some to conclude that the term has no fixed definition (Alba and Hasher, 1983). If schema theory is to guide research on reading, it must set clear boundaries for the application of its central theoretical terms. At the most basic level, the theory must provide criteria for deciding between what are schemata (the plural form of schema) and what are not, and between when a person has a schema and when a person does not. If a reader knows the dictionary definition of dog, is that sufficient to have the schema of dog? If not, what else is needed? Is an individual’s dog schema expandable without bound, or are there limits? Do some characteristics of dogs carry more weight than others? In what ways is the schema for dog the same as or different from the schema for love? Schema theory is insufficiently precise to help answer such questions. This lack of precision places severe restrictions on the possibilities of research, including the ability to test hypotheses about the relation of particular schemata to the interpretations of particular texts.
In the reading field, writing nearly three centuries later, Richard Anderson and P. David Pearson (1984) mirrored the ideas of Locke when they listed the six parts of the typical person’s ship-christening schema: done to bless a ship, in a dry dock, by a celebrity, involving a new ship, with a bottle broken on the bow, and just before launching. Beginning in the early 1970s, such philosophers as Hilary Putnam (1975) and Saul Kripke (1972) began to point out basic problems with this traditional theory of meaning and to offer an alternative theory. Schema theory postulates that meanings reside in individual heads. The new theory of meaning holds that they reside also in causally linked, historical social practices. The first criticism is that proper names refer independently of the identifying descriptions commonly associated with them. For example, we might associate “Shakespeare” with the description “author of Hamlet.” Unlike what is proposed by the main tenet of the traditional view, however, we do not rely on this description’s being true in order to use the word Shakespeare to refer to the person we intend. We can imagine learning that Shakespeare did not write Hamlet. Nevertheless, we would still refer to him using his name, because of a historically and causally linked usage that began in person over 400 years ago and that was inherited by us through intergenerational contact. The second criticism extends the first to apply to natural-kind terms such as water, gold, and tiger. According to the new view, such terms can refer to the same materials despite changes in their superficial properties and despite changes in our beliefs about the materials. Thus, although originally carbon referred to a material that is very soft, black, opaque, and electrically conductive, we now use the word also to refer to diamond, which is very hard, often colorless, transparent, and electrically insulative. According to the new theory of meaning, we mean the same thing by the word carbon as our predecessors who did not know that diamond is carbon. The historical alterations in the descriptions associated with the word did not alter what the word is about (namely, that element with atomic number 6), which, as in the case of proper names, depends upon causally mediated usage passed on from generation to generation. Therefore, although schema theory may provide a par-
Restricted Theory of Meaning Schema theory finds both its roots and severe critics in philosophy. The basic ideas underlying schema theory derive from a traditional philosophical theory of meaning that is centuries old. According to this traditional view, the meaning of a word is given by listing the properties of the things to which the word refers. In the seventeenth century, John Locke (1690 [1959]) provided as the meaning of gold the list: body, yellow, heavy, fusible, and malleable. Writing some 250 years later, C. I. Lewis (1946) expressed the same thought when he said that the correct definition of a word is given by the conjunction of attributes connoted by it. Thus, he said the word square names things that are plane figures, having equal sides and all their angles right angles. 559
Schema Theory Criticisms tial theory of meaning, it fails as an adequate theory for proper names, natural-kind terms, and perhaps even for all common nouns.
exact replica of what was presented, but an abstraction that affords higher priority to meaning than to precise form. Third, memory is based not on exact traces of what is presented, but on inference-based interpretations of it. The interpretations are driven by the activated schemata, which serve to supply to memory typicalities, even if those typical elements were not part of the original presentation. Finally, the activated schemata serve to integrate the elements of the presentation with each other, with existing prior knowledge, and with subsequent information. The evidence suggests that memory is far more complex than is portrayed by this schematheoretic account (Alba and Hasher, 1983). First, a number of studies that focused on recognition rather than recall have found that memory contains far more content than would be predicted by the influence of schema-based interpretation. Second, memory is not necessarily abstractive, but sometimes precisely exact. Furthermore, although early studies supportive of schema theory found superior recognition of semantic (related to the meaning of a text, irrespective of the exact words and arrangement appearing in a text) over syntactic (related to the functions and patterns of words in a text, irrespective of its meaning) information, more recent studies found that memory of syntactic and lexical information is richer, more detailed, and more flexible than schema theory would suggest. Third, research has shown that inferences are not necessarily made at the time of reading. Finally, studies have shown that individuals do not necessarily integrate related events in their memories. All of this contrary evidence regarding the ability of schema theory to account for memory has implications for the ability of the theory to explain the interpretations of the original presentations that lead to memories.
Elision of Intentionality Schema theory is an attempt to provide a naturalized account of reading. Such an account views human subjects as natural phenomena and uses the methods of science to study and theorize about them. This agenda can go astray if it does not take into account the intentional features of reading. Something that is about something else exhibits intentionality. Beliefs, hopes, wishes, statements, and other mental states are intentional, as are books, maps, paintings, music, and other representations. Readers exhibit intentionality because their thoughts are about texts. Due to this intentionality, two problems arise for any attempt to provide a fully naturalized theory of reading. The first problem is that it is not possible to provide a completely objective account of reading. This is so because readers’ first-person points of view must be considered in determining whether their interpretations are justified and in making judgments of the quality of their readings (Norris and Phillips, 1994). Such a problem does not arise in the investigation of nonintentional objects, such as rocks, bacteria, fossils, and stars. The second problem arises because intentionality is also present in any account of reading. The process of seeking a theory of reading must build upon interpretations and judgments of data and evidence. In order to explain reading, however, it is precisely the making of interpretations and judgments that must be explained. It is difficult to imagine how a theory can explain objectively the very processes required for its own production, so it is possible that there never will be a scientifically complete account of reading, an account that elides intentionality.
Paucity of Strong Supporting Evidence The majority of evidence for schema theory is derived from situations in which readers are prompted to activate preexisting schemata rather than to construct new ones (Bransford, 1984). It is possible that these schemata work only because the readers have already acquired them. Therefore, we cannot generalize the findings to reading situations that require the construction and acquisition of new schemata. The evidence on schema theory is further weakened because it
Oversimplification of Memory Schema theory assumes four basic processes through which memory is created while reading: selection, abstraction, interpretation, and integration. According to the theory, the result of these processes is memory with particular characteristics. First, what is stored in memory is highly selected from all that was presented, and the selection is guided by the schemata activated at the time of reading. Second, memory is not an 560
Schema Theory Criticisms was collected using contrived reading samples. The texts for most schema theory research have short, simple, and highly stereotyped narratives. Such texts are convenient for manipulating and controlling variables in experimental studies, but they are not representative of authentic texts. Consequently, the generality of the findings on the use of schemata in reading is called into doubt (Sadoski, Paivio, and Goetz, 1991). Finally, schema theory is limited by evidence that fails to portray the personal, social, and cultural factors in readers’ environments. Hence, much of the support for schema theory is of questionable validity for reading generally.
ficult to find cases that schema theory excludes and very easy to find cases that schema theory covers. The theory is so loosely specified that it is difficult, if not impossible, to derive exact predictions that rule out particular occurrences, rendering the theory relatively immune to disconfirmation and capable of explaining after the fact almost any empirical result (Thorndyke and Yekovich, 1980). Linda M. Phillips and Stephen P. Norris References Alba, Joseph W., and Lynn Hasher. 1983. “Is Memory Schematic?” Psychological Bulletin 93 (2):203–231. Anderson, Richard C., and P. David Pearson. 1984. “A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension.” In P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, and Peter Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 255–291. New York: Longman. Bransford, John D. 1984. “Schema Activation and Schema Acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson’s Remarks.” In Richard C. Anderson, Jean Osborn, and Robert J. Tierney, eds., Learning to Read in American Schools: Basal Readers and Content Texts, pp. 259–272. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kripke, Saul. 1972. “Naming and Necessity.” In Donald Donaldson and Gilbert Harman, eds., Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 253–355. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel. Lewis, Clarence I. 1946. An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. LaSalle, IL: The Open Court Publishing. Locke, John. 1690. Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Alexander C. Fraser. New York: Dover, 1959. Norris, Stephen P., and Linda M. Phillips. 1994. “The Relevance of a Reader’s Knowledge within a Perspectival View of Reading.” Journal of Reading Behavior 26 (4):391–412. Putnam, Hilary. 1975. Mind, Language, and Reality, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Sadoski, Mark, Allan Paivio, and Ernest T. Goetz. 1991. “A Critique of Schema Theory in Reading and a Dual Coding Alternative.” Reading Research Quarterly 26 (4):463–484. Thorndyke, Perry W., and Frank R.Yekovich. 1980. “A Critique of Schema-Based Theories of Human Story Memory.” Poetics 9:23–49.
Failure of Testability As a theory of reading, schema theory is intended to explain facts and generalizations about reading. In order to do this, it must itself contain generalizations that cover the situations being explained, but it must also exclude some conceivable cases. If it cannot both cover and exclude, then it cannot be used to make predictions and cannot be tested. Suppose, by way of example, we consider the accepted generalization about reading that comprehension of a passage is facilitated by bringing to bear relevant background information. Schema theory can explain this generalization by postulating that successful comprehension is based upon activating a schema containing relevant information. Suppose we present a passage to two groups of individuals. In the first group, an attempt is made to activate with a cue the schema thought relevant to comprehending the passage, and in the second group no such attempt is made. If the first group comprehends the passage better than the second, then schema theory could explain that outcome, and the theory would be supported. If the second group comprehends the passage better than the first, then, with appropriate assumptions about the lack of success or even counterproductiveness of the initial cue, schema theory could explain that outcome also, and the theory would again be supported. If each group contains an equal number of members who comprehend and do not comprehend the passage, then, with appropriate assumptions about what schemata are relevant to comprehending the passage and about the failure of the cue, schema theory could explain that outcome, and again receive support from the data. The problem is that it is very dif561
Secondary-School Reading Programs
Secondary-School Reading Programs
medial classes, and students who do not are eligible for developmental classes. Inclusive classes are for all. Classes with titles such as Remedial Reading, Reading Improvement, and Learning Skills have been offered over the years to students labeled with terms such as remedial reader and at-risk learner. Students might be required to enroll in these classes, or they may enter voluntarily. They might take the course as an elective or an English language arts credit. Instructional attention generally focuses on basic reading processes such as word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. Given many adolescents’ disdain toward reinvesting themselves in the frustration of academic reading, educators typically address student’s identities as readers, attending to their motivations, goals, attitudes, and interests. Students are candidates for remedial reading classes typically on the basis of test scores and teacher recommendations. Reading assessments developed by each state as part of the standards movement begun in the 1990s are joining national norm-referenced standardized tests as the most common types used for these special class placements. Remedial classes for those who struggle as readers in secondary schools received much federal funding and attention in the 1970s, but movement away from this arrangement occurred about the turn of this century. Educators and policymakers questioned the effectiveness of special upper-grade interventions, and resources were shifted substantially into the lower grades (Klenk and Kibby, 2000). Developmental Reading classes are meant to increase the sophistication of those already reading close to grade-level expectations. These classes might refine and extend students’ competencies with taking tests, Greek and Latin word parts, and reading flexibly. They might address strategies such as students’ questioning themselves about what they read, judging their own understanding, locating information on the Internet, and recognizing how a text is organized and using that organization as a tool for learning. Developmental reading classes are more common in middle schools than in high schools. When such classes are offered in a high school, they frequently are offered to incoming ninthgrade students to point them toward success in the new, potentially more demanding academic situation. Along with reading competencies, these classes might address general school success skills
The standardized reading tests first implemented in the United States in the early 1900s substantiated a wide range of reading achievement among secondary-school students. Educators of the 1920s through 1940s, working amid the social and economic forces of the times, responded to this range mainly by implementing remedial reading programs. As more and more educators realized that reading had no upper limit, they planned instruction to continue students’ reading development beyond elementary levels. Pioneers such as Ruth Strang in 1938 and Guy Bond and Eva Bond in 1941 produced landmark guides for comprehensive programs devoted to the reading achievement of all secondary-school students. In May 1999, the International Reading Association board of directors approved the position statement of its Commission on Adolescent Literacy (Moore et al., 1999). This statement highlighted the distinctiveness of adolescents as readers, noting that opportunities for refinement and expansion are required if reading is to develop. It affirmed the time-honored call for secondaryschool reading programs. Secondary students’ reading needs today might be served through special education, bilingual education, and English as a Second Language programs; they might be accommodated incidentally through creative lesson planning, cooperative learning in classrooms, and extra study time (Barry, 1997). In this entry, reading program refers to the instructional and administrative settings where reading directly receives top priority. Secondary refers to middle schools and high schools, educational institutions encompassing at least grades seven through twelve, where adolescents encounter different teachers for different subjects. The following describes common recommendations for secondaryschool reading programs. Reading Classes Comprehensive programs that set out to fully engage adolescents with reading usually contain reading classes. Secondary-school reading classes that concentrate on reading generally—but not always—are differentiated according to students’ reading proficiencies. Students who commonly struggle with school reading are eligible for re562
Secondary-School Reading Programs
Secondary-school students learn to read with traditional and web-based texts (Elizabeth Crews)
1970 text, Teaching Reading in the Content Areas. In this structure, every teacher provides instruction in general reading competencies such as identifying meaningful word parts and taking notes. In addition, every teacher presents the competencies particular to reading in their academic disciplines. They guide students to read like scientists, historians, journalists, and so on. For instance, English teachers enable students to interpret drama such as Hamlet’s line, “To be, or not to be: that is the question,” and mathematics teachers show how to follow a sentence such as “Describe the graph of the inequality |x-3| <2.” Despite long-standing advocacy by reading educators, well-established reading-across-thecurriculum programs are rare (Alvermann and Moore, 1991). Owing to personal and workplace conditions, subject-matter teachers generally come to believe that they are not responsible for teaching adolescents how to read effectively. Consequently, English language arts teachers often assume primary responsibility for promoting reading achievement.
such as managing time productively, setting and meeting appropriate goals, and attributing learning to individual effort rather than luck. Inclusive Reading classes are those in which readers of all ability levels are included. Differentiating reading classes among remedial and developmental levels is meant to enable highly focused instruction with appropriate challenges. This practice is problematic, however, because treating remedial readers as struggling or slow often produces, or at least reinforces, readers who act accordingly. Some secondary-school reading programs offer nondifferentiated, inclusive reading classes. They make it known that all readers encounter challenging passages, and they teach strategies such as organizing ideas that apply to all levels of challenge. Reading across the Curriculum Reading across the curriculum is an arrangement signaled by the slogan that William S. Gray began in the 1930s, “Every teacher a teacher of reading,” and popularized by Harold Herber’s 563
Secondary-School Reading Programs Recreational Opportunities Recreational reading opportunities address attitude and interest as much as skills and strategies. They give students chances to read self-selected materials freely. Students just read during certain times; they complete no book reports, end-ofchapter questions, or study guides. Students are encouraged—but not required—to share their responses to what they read. They might talk about their books, read portions aloud, or artistically portray favorites. Additionally, educators promote recreational reading through practices such as book fairs, free book distributions, and readers theater presentations. Recreational opportunities might be implemented at the schoolwide, grade, team, department, or class level. Explanations for the success of recreational reading opportunities come from two perspectives (Pilgreen, 2000). One is that immersion in any language enables learners to discover what is needed to develop the language, and self-selected recreational reading is a form of immersion. Another is that learners must practice what has been taught until it becomes automatic, and recreational reading offers extensive practice. Despite generally positive results, care is needed to have sufficient faculty, student, and administrative support when introducing this practice beyond the class level. Those who are affected might resist the time and resources devoted to it.
Cross-age Cross-age partnerships involve older students working with younger ones. Under a teacher’s guidance, adolescents might produce books and distribute them to primary-grade children, coach them through their assigned schoolwork, read aloud and share books with them, and tutor them on specific reading competencies. Acting as reading role models, older students can benefit emotionally and academically as much as the younger ones. Community Community members are organized through businesses, volunteers, and social services. Businesspeople meet with students at school or work sites to explain how they use reading and writing in their professional and personal lives. Adolescents sometimes are matched with a mentor, someone to meet a few times each month for support and guidance. Adults serve as an external audience when adolescents exhibit what they are learning. Tutors are available for during- or after-school assistance. Public librarians provide print and technological resources for inquiry projects and recreational reading. Authors-inresidence share their literacy processes. Administrative Settings Administrative settings, which are situated outside of instructional settings, frame teachers’ professional and workplace worlds. Administrative settings influence students’ reading development by shaping what and how teachers teach. Structure and climate are two aspects of administrative settings.
Reading Partnerships Reading partnerships are collaborations, or alliances, among different groups to promote literacy. Large- and small-scale partnerships can be enmeshed with secondary-school reading classes, across-the-curriculum efforts, and recreational opportunities. Common partnerships occur among school and homes, in cross-age situations, and throughout the local community.
Structure Administrative structure designates responsibilities for a program. At the district level of a comprehensive secondary-school reading program, responsibilities might be allocated among a superintendent, reading coordinator, and reading committee. Similarly, at the school-level reading program, roles might be distributed among a principal, assistant principal, reading specialist, and reading committee. The school level also houses the reading and subject-matter teachers responsible for ongoing interactions with students and reading. Coordinators at the district level and specialists at the school level contribute expertise to
Home/school Reading programs that connect home and school emphasize communication. Teachers regularly share students’ academic status with the home. Additionally, parents and guardians are welcome to use the program’s reading resources after school hours to develop their own proficiencies. Family members might participate in father-son, mother-daughter, or combined book clubs. Adolescents who are themselves parents are presented ways to promote literacy with their children. 564
Secondary-School Reading Programs reading programs. They communicate regularly with others, engaging in activities such as staff development, curriculum design, and updating parents and other constituents on program results. Coordinators often publish monthly newsletters, develop professional libraries, and personally meet with teachers, administrators, and community members about reading programs. They often are involved in administering, interpreting, and reporting reading test scores. District- and school-level reading committees, sometimes called improvement teams or advisory councils, include stakeholders such as parents, school administrators, library/media specialists, and teachers from each middle-school team or high-school department. A reading coordinator or specialist typically chairs these committees. Their primary function is to provide direction and initiate action. They consult surveys, needs assessments, reading test scores, and the professional literature, among other things, to prioritize efforts. For instance, they might direct program efforts toward struggling readers who are not served well by continuing in remedial classes. They might concentrate on developing for these students partnerships such as mentoring by businesspeople and cross-age tutoring. In another case, committee members might address the specifics of promoting recreational reading across the curriculum. They might procure grant funds through governmental and philanthropic agencies and capitalize on the school media specialist’s expertise to locate appropriate materials. Another possible direction involves forming clear concrete links among reading and technological resources.
provide demonstration and application sessions relative to such strategies. Teachers listen to speakers, read the professional literature, and talk with each other about strategies such as organizing, predicting, questioning, clarifying, and so on. They examine indicators of students’ strategy control and modify efforts when appropriate. They involve students in these study strategy efforts to promote self-assessment and selfdirected learning. Commitment to students is another aspect of climate pertinent to secondary-school reading programs. Knowing that adolescents come to school with identities shaped by their previous experiences with literacy, faculty and administrators steadfastly maintain high expectations and a caring attitude. They believe that their students can and will improve their reading, and this belief shapes their instruction. Enthusiasm and dedication are apparent when addressing reading competencies. Teachers monitor students’ grades and behaviors, conferring with those who show signs of disengagement. They regularly talk with each other about how to serve individual students’ best interests. Some teachers adorn their classes with pictures of students in everyday situations, and they display evidence of past students’ successes such as awards won and recognitions received. A climate of participation also relates directly to secondary reading programs. Teachers and administrators assume individual and collective responsibility for promoting reading in their classrooms. Professional community is enhanced through multiple networks. Teachers collaborate in team and department meetings; they participate informally in study groups; they are active in local-, state-, and national-level professional organizations. They work together to upgrade their proficiencies and keep pace with the everchanging expectations for students’ reading. David W. Moore
Climate The climate of a program refers to its intangible aspects, to the atmosphere, or environment, in which people operate. Climate is evident in the norms of behavior that circulate throughout the professional day. One aspect of climate pertinent to secondary-school reading programs is commitment to literacy goals (Davidson and Koppenhaver, 1993). School personnel consistently follow coordinated efforts leading to shared outcomes. They have a clear vision (for example, to develop independent, lifelong readers), and they adhere to a plan for accomplishing it. For instance, if one part of the plan is to improve students’ study strategies, then all teachers regularly
References Alvermann, Donna, and David Moore. 1991. “Secondary School Reading.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 951–983. New York: Longman. Barry, Arlene L. 1997. “High School Reading Programs Revisited.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40, no. 7:524–531.
565
Semantic Feature Analysis enable the meaningful use of a word. Connotations, or contextual definitions, enable the understanding of the subtle meanings that help to make language more specific and that lead toward greater understanding. For instance, a thesaurus considers bush and hedge to be synonyms when, in reality, they have different connotations (Readence, Bean, and Baldwin, 2001). Semantic feature analysis helps to clearly delineate connotations for words and ideas and classify or categorize them into meaningful structures that can be stored in and retrieved from the schemata or file folders in the brain.
Davidson, Judith, and David Koppenhaver. 1993. Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why. 2d ed. New York: Garland. Klenk, Laura, and Michael W. Kibby. 2000. “ReMediating Reading Difficulties: Appraising the Past, Reconciling the Present, Constructing the Future.” In Michael J. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, pp. 667–690. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moore, David W., Thomas W. Bean, Deanna Birdyshaw, and James A. Rycik for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association. 1999. Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pilgreen, Janice L. 2000. How to Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading Program. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
Description of the Basic Procedure The procedures involve the following: selecting a category that is central to the topic, listing words that fit within the category that represent major concepts or words that are semantically similar, listing features that are contained in some of the words, determining which words possess each feature, and inviting the addition of more words and features for clarity and extended meaning. The final steps involve completing the grid, discussing it, and writing a summary statement, either individually or as a group, based on the information contained in the grid. The example of Games in Figure 1 might be used in introducing the strategy to participants who are unfamiliar with it. After a category has been selected, some of the words in the category are listed down the left side of the grid. Students are invited to share more words within the category. These words are added along the side of the grid. Next, features shared by at least some of the words are listed across the top of the chart; then each word is considered relative to the features. A plus/minus (+/-) system can be used to indicate feature possession. If features are not dichotomous, a numeric system can be used (1 = never, 2 = some, 3 = always) or a letter-system (A = almost always, S = sometimes, N = never). In some cases, a question mark (?) indicates the need for more information. For use with very young children, smiling and sad faces can be drawn in each box of the grid. The completed matrix for Games might look like the one shown in Figure 2. As the grid is completed, students may be invited to add more words and features to the matrix. It is often necessary to add features to help distinguish the unique meaning of some of the words in the category selected. For instance, the
Semantic Feature Analysis Semantic feature analysis (SFA) is an instructional strategy in which the unique features of concepts or vocabulary are defined and discriminated. Semantic feature analysis is derived from schema theory (Rumelhart, 1980) that suggests that we develop structures in our minds that are the result of our experiences (see “Schema Theory” entry). That information is organized and stored in categories in the brain (Pittelman et al., 1991). The classification system of SFA is used to help students develop their vocabularies and clearly delineate the similarities and differences in related words and concepts within a topic or content area through the use of a graphic organizer (see “Graphic Aids” entry) in the form of a grid (Johnson and Pearson, 1984). Schema theory suggests that meanings for words are constantly being changed or modified according to experiences. In other words, experience greatly influences understanding of auditory and visual symbols as well as acquisition and understanding of new terms, concepts, or ideas. The concepts that words represent may vary from person to person and even from time to time within one person’s understanding, based on background knowledge and how new information is acquired and assimilated into what is already known. Understanding the denotation or broad meaning of a word is related to its definition. Definitional knowledge is limiting, however, and is seldom sufficiently complex to 566
Semantic Feature Analysis
Features
Games
Words
rs s the card ard ice) o ors rs o d ith k of e b (or oo utdo re d w ll o in co d ec am ie ye es d es g es d es ba yed yed am s a l a a P Pl Us Us Us Us Pl Te
Basketball Scrabble Bingo Crazy 8 Soccer Solitaire Billiards
Figure 1
played with others and use a ball; however, basketball can be played both indoors and outdoors whereas soccer is generally played outdoors.”
resulting grid for soccer and basketball could be identical if the location of play were not included in the features list. Additional features could be added to make the differentiation between the two games even more specific. These additions are often critical, as they relate to the specific experiences and background knowledge (schema) of those who are developing the grid. When the matrix is complete, the grid is examined and discussed, especially noting the similarities and differences among the words in the category. A final and important step links the grid to a writing experience. Writing can be a powerful tool to enhance learning; thus students are encouraged to make a summary statement regarding some of the words in the grid. Simple questions such as “How can two items in the grid be compared?” or “What conclusions can you draw by looking at the information in the grid?” can be used to initiate a writing experience that draws the information together in a meaningful way for students. For example, the completed grid on games might generate the following statement: “Basketball and soccer are similar in that they both are
Using SFA with Informational Text One of the major difficulties for students in learning in the content areas is the acquisition of the often-heavy vocabulary load. It is not uncommon for students to have thirty or more terms to learn within one chapter in a middleschool or secondary-school content-area textbook. In addition to selecting the key concept words for study, the teacher must provide experiences that allow students to make connections with the new terminology and use it in multiple ways. As students incorporate these new terms into their existing schemata, they can more easily make links between the new information and what is already known. Semantic feature analysis provides one means of helping students explore, connect with, and organize the technical vocabulary associated with a chapter or unit. Although SFA is often used at the completion of a chapter or unit to help students clarify sim567
Games
Features
Words
rs s the card ard ice) rs o f ors tdoo e bo or d th o i o e d ( k w u cor l n s ed s dec s gam s die s bal ed i ed o y Pla Use Use Use Use Play Play Team
Basketball
+
–
–
–
+
+
+
+
Scrabble
+
–
+
–
–
+
–
–
Bingo
+
–
+
–
–
+
–
–
Crazy 8
+
+
–
–
–
+
–
–
Soccer
+
–
–
–
+
–
+
+
Solitaire
–
+
–
–
–
+
–
–
Billiards
+
–
–
–
+
+
–
+
Figure 2
Glacial Features FEATURES
Valley glacier
ne ey raine raine raine orai l l o lm o o va e in r ng ral m ial m nd m ina tic u i q g les ml r es u Ci Han Late Med Gro Term Erra Dru Eske Kett Tarn Lak + – +– + + + + + + depends + + + + maybe on size
Continental glacier
–
Glaciers
–
–
–
+
Figure 3
568
+
+
+
+
+
–
+
Semantic Feature Analysis
re
su
gh
Hi
s pre
re
su
w
Lo
s pre
Rising air
–
+
Because it doesn’t weigh as much.
Sinking air
+
–
Cuz it weighs more.
Cold air
+
Warm air
–
Clockwise circulation
+
Counterclockwise circulation
–
Doldrums
–
Polar areas
+
Horse latitudes
–
Wind moves towards it
–
Wind moves away from it
+
Cold air sinks so its heavy.
Air goes from high pressure to low pressure.
Cold air sinks.
Air goes from high to low.
Andrea Place a + sign if you agree Place a – sign if you disagree For each plus give a reason as to why you agree
d
tan ders I un w!!! no
Figure 4
ilar terms and concepts, it can also be used during the lesson as a graphic organizer and teaching tool. In the example in Figure 3, the teacher placed the blank grid on the overhead and also distributed copies to the students. As the teacher introduced each feature, its presence was discussed and noted in valley and/or continental glaciers and the reasons for the subsequent marking. The written comments added to the
grid provided more information and also suggested ideas that should be included in students’ class notes. The completion of an SFA grid can also be an effective homework assignment. The example of ninth-grader Andrea’s work in Figure 4 shows how she came to understand the key differences in high and low air pressure as a result of working through the grid and then having to justify 569
Semantic Feature Analysis Character Traits Features
Words
Jea lou Fai s r Car ing Ge ner Tru ous stin Un g der Me standi an ng Tea ser Lia r He lpfu Da l ring Un kin d
Book Freckle Juice by Judy Blume
Andrew
+ +
–
+
+ +
Nicky Sharon
+ + + –
– –
– –
– –
Miss Kelly
– +
+ +
+ +
Mother
– +
+ +
–
Andrew’s class
– –
–
–
Our class
+
–
+ + +
–
–
–
+
–
+ – + +
– –
– +
+ +
–
–
+
–
–
+ +
–
–
+
–
–
–
+
+
–
–
+
+
+ + –
–
–
+ –
–
+ – – + –
–
Figure 5
out the story. In this example, the students are invited to finish the grid by rating Andrew’s class (see Figure 5) on the features listed on the grid and then comparing their own class with Andrew’s. SFA can also be used to compare characters across multiple texts clustered around a theme or in a unit of study. As students compare and contrast the various characters, they gain experience in making text-to-text connections.
her answers. Her comment—“I understand now!”—is further confirmation of the usefulness and effectiveness of the strategy. Using SFA with Narrative Text Although the most popular use of SFA is in helping students with the extensive vocabulary found in content-area expository (informational) text material, it can also be a useful tool when working with narrative or story text. One frequent use of SFA with narrative text is in character analysis. As seen in Figure 5, the main characters in the book Freckle Juice, by Judy Blume, are listed on the left side of the grid, and words representing various personality traits are listed across the top. As students read the story, they are invited to mark their beliefs about the traits each character exhibits and defend their choices with specific text citations. Students are invited to repeat the process at the end of the story and see if the characters exhibit different traits by the time the story is finished or if the previously exhibited traits are reinforced through-
SFA as a Study Strategy When a grid has been completed, summarized, and discussed, students can use the matrix as a useful resource in studying for exams. In Figure 6, the completed grid will help students in an Earth Science class discriminate the similarities and differences among the various planets in the solar system and clarify their understanding of their unique features prior to a test. By covering the pluses or minuses for one of the planets, a student could easily review knowledge and then refer to the completed grid for immediate feedback. 570
Semantic Feature Analysis
Planets
Solar System
ury
erc
M
Features
us
n Ve
er
ars upit J M
n
r atu
S
e un us an ept luto r N U P
Atmosphere
+
+
+
+
?
?
?
–
Solid surface
+
+
+
–
–
–
–
+
Hot temps
+
+
+
+
+
–
–
–
Craters
+
+
+
–
–
–
–
+
Life
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Moons
+
–
ice ? +
+
+
+
+
?
Rings
–
–
–
+
+
–
+
–
rings + – +
+ – –
?
–
–
– + – –
Unusual/important features Water/water features Ice Volcanoes
hot
hotter/ ice/ traps energy/ red thick earth
rings/ spot storms
–
–
+
+ – +
+
?
+
–
–
+
? ?
Figure 6
answers. If students have difficulty completing the grid, more instruction and background need to be provided. If students complete the grid easily and can successfully extend it, these may be clues that the concepts are generally understood. To determine background knowledge and to assess the amount and level of instruction needed, SFA can also be used as a prereading activity prior to the beginning of a unit of study. It is important that the grid be used during and after instruction in this case, to be certain that any misconceptions displayed prior to the new learning be clarified and corrected.
Benefits of Semantic Feature Analysis Those who have used SFA have found that the process of completing the grid as a whole-class experience helps to encourage a classroom environment in which risk taking and exploring knowledge and misconceptions can flourish. It also serves to stimulate student participation and change the typical question-answer interaction pattern so often present in whole-class instruction. Students freely interact among themselves regarding the feature possession and add their own experiences and knowledge that, in turn, enriches the discussion and information being shared. The process of SFA also encourages students to develop deeper understanding of vocabulary and discriminate between and among similar concepts, thus reducing cognitive confusion and enhancing knowledge and extending comprehension. The strategy also provides a useful opportunity for determining levels of understanding within the class and provides opportunities for teachers to probe for clarification, thus encouraging students to support and defend their
Additional Comments and Cautions Students should be actively involved in the completion of a semantic feature analysis grid. The discussion surrounding the work with the grid and the analysis of the completed grid are keys to the success of this strategy. Further, writing a summary statement after the grid has been completed consolidates the information that has been developed and helps students to make con571
Semantic Mapping nections among concepts and ideas. Semantic feature analysis can be an integral part of elementary and secondary reading instruction as well as content-area lessons. To help students understand a practical application of SFA or to introduce the strategy, copies of the popular periodical, Consumer Reports, may be shown. Each monthly issue uses the concept of SFA to rate performances of popular consumer goods, including vehicles, appliances, and other common items. Viewing these grids and asking for conclusions to be drawn by studying information in the grid may help middle- and high-school students especially to learn to understand information presented in graphic form and to develop summaries using topics related to their interests (for example, automobiles, computers, foods, or MP3 players) as well as to understand the value of the strategy’s real-life usefulness. Roberta L. Berglund
differences among these strategies, they share a theoretical base and are procedurally similar. Semantic mapping is a flexible strategy and may be found embedded in other instructional strategies, such as KWL (What do you Know? What do you Want to know? What did you Learn?); used in conjunction with other strategies such as List Group Label; or used as an assessment tool. Students may create semantic maps individually, in small groups, or as a whole-class activity. This strategy has been used successfully across grade levels, kindergarten through college, and with a wide variety of learners, including special education populations, regular students, and students studying English as a new language. Used before, during, and after reading, semantic mapping promotes active learning, enabling students to learn the meaning and uses of new words, old words in a new context, and the relationships among words and fostering comprehension of both narrative and expository text.
See also Study Skills and Strategies References Johnson, Dale D., and P. David Pearson. 1984. Teaching Reading Vocabulary. 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Pittelman, Susan D., Joan E. Heimlich, Roberta L. Berglund, and Michael P. French. 1991. Semantic Feature Analysis: Classroom Applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Readence, John E., Thomas W. Bean, and R. Scott Baldwin. 2001. Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach. 7th ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Rumelhart, David E. 1980. “Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition.” In R. J. Shapiro et al., eds., Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, pp. 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Theoretical Base Schema theory forms the theoretical base for semantic mapping. Schema theory contends that human beings store experiences in hierarchically organized networks called schemata. These schemata facilitate reading comprehension by providing scaffolding in the form of slots of expected information, focusing attention, and assisting with orderly searches of memory. They enable a reader to make inferences and to summarize what has been read (Anderson, 1994). Schemata are constantly being reorganized, elaborated, and fine tuned as new information is received (Pearson and Spiro, 1982). For example, an initial encounter with a cat will create a schema for this experience that might contain information that the cat has fur, walks on four legs, is gray with stripes, and has whiskers and pointed ears. You might learn during this initial encounter that a cat is a type of pet, promoting a link to the schema for pet. Subsequent encounters with cats refine this schema to include cats with long or short fur, in different colors, with a variety of facial types. Reading may result in learning that in the wild there are cats that are much larger than pet cats, such as leopards, lions, and cheetahs. These pieces of information become part of the network of information we call a schema. As more information is gained, the schema for cat is refined and elaborated. A semantic map is a vi-
Semantic Mapping Semantic mapping is a strategy that results in a visual diagram of the relationships among terms and/or phrases. The diagram consists of labeled nodes that represent the concepts or words and connecting lines that show the relationships existing among the concepts. A type of graphic organizer, or visual display of a concept or idea, semantic mapping is closely related to clustering, synonym maps, polysemantic maps, morphology maps, concept maps, story maps, character maps, and relationship maps and is also known as webbing or networking. Although there are subtle 572
Semantic Mapping
ANIMALS PETS
IN THE WILD: Lion Leopard Cheetah Tiger
CAT DIET: Cat food Table scraps Ice Cream
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS: Fur Pointed ears Whiskers Four legs Paws with claws Two eyes
BEHAVIOR: Chase tail Play with string Walk on four legs Sleep in sun Lick themselves clean
TYPES: Siamese Tabby Persian Main Coon
COLORS: Gray with stripes Orange Calico Black
Figure 1
increasing motivation and promoting divergent thinking (Heimlich and Pittelman, 1986). In addition, semantic mapping has been suggested for use with students learning English as a second language because it promotes development of language competency through discussion. Brisk and Harrington (2000) suggested that use of semantic mapping encourages increased comprehension of students learning a second language because it presents a succinct visual arrangement that makes relationships among ideas clear.
sual representation of this knowledge (see Figure 1). Semantic mapping has many uses, including vocabulary development, reading comprehension, a prewriting strategy, and a study strategy. Research supporting the use of semantic mapping for vocabulary development was conducted in the early 1980s. When compared with training in the use of context, semantic mapping proved more effective. In addition, group size and composition did not alter the effectiveness of semantic mapping for poor readers. The strategy was effective when used with Hispanic, rural Native American, inner-city black, and suburban students as well (Heimlich and Pittelman, 1986). Candace Bos and Patricia Anders (1992) found that interactive strategies such as semantic mapping improved the comprehension of learningdisabled students. Semantic mapping has also been found to be an effective prereading strategy,
Procedures for and Uses of Semantic Mapping Procedures for the strategy vary according to its use, although all procedures include the steps of brainstorming, categorizing, and mapping. When used to focus on vocabulary development, the 573
Semantic Mapping
BEE
HOT SYMBOL
HONEY SUMMER
WOMEN’S WORK BARN LOFT
HIVE
COUNTING BEE DANCES Figure 2
them with necessary scaffolding to promote comprehension. After reading, the class may return to the original semantic map to refine and elaborate their information. Clustering is a less structured form of semantic mapping. It is used to record immediate responses to a prompt and is a way to go deeply into something you know. The resulting cluster map represents chains of reasoning. Students record words in nodes connected to each other; they may stop and begin connecting thoughts to a previous node, randomly branching their map according to their thoughts. For example, if students were reading a story in which bees played a central part, students might cluster using the initial prompt of bee. The resulting cluster might look like Figure 2. Clustering may be used before reading or writing and may form the basis for a more organized representation of one’s thoughts. Clustering is accomplished very quickly without concern for order or structure.
following procedures are usually employed (Heimlich and Pittelman, 1986). First, the teacher chooses a word or topic related to the concept under study or to the story to be read and writes it on the chalkboard or overhead. The class then brainstorms related words and phrases. Brainstorming may be done individually, in pairs or small groups, or with the whole class. Next, responses are shared and recorded in categories on the class map. If students need to learn how to categorize, teachers might list the terms students share and think aloud as they and the students categorize the terms. Then categories are labeled. Finally, a full and rich discussion of the map takes place, focusing on key categories. When using semantic mapping as a prereading strategy, the teacher may add new and/or unfamiliar target vocabulary terms to the class map as a way of introducing key vocabulary. As students read, the map serves as a reading guide. Students may annotate their maps, providing 574
Semantic Mapping
ANNOUNCED
EXCLAIMED
PROCLAIMED WHISPERED SHOUTED
SAID
MOUTHED MUMBLED
DECLARED
SLURRED DECLAIMED
Figure 3
have multiple meanings. The same basic procedure is used, resulting in a wheel-shaped map. Acknowledging a variety of meanings for a technical term helps students focus on appropriate word meanings for polysemantic terms. One such word is base. In social studies, a military base houses military personnel and equipment. In science, a base is a type of compound that turns litmus paper blue. In math, there are two meanings for this term. We study the base of geometric figures such as triangles and quadrilaterals and include the term in a formula to determine the area of a figure (1/2 b*h = A) We also study different number systems such as base 10, which we normally use, and base 2, used in computer programming. To students, however, the term base is associated with the game of baseball. Beginning a discussion of the term base by creating a polysemantic map of the term with the students will help them focus on the meaning being used in a specific instance. Another variation of semantic mapping is a morphology map. Especially useful in science and math, this semantic map displays Greek and Latin root words and affixes together with technical terms and their meanings. A student who
Semantic Mapping and Vocabulary Development Synonym maps, polysemantic maps, and morphology maps are a few of the more common adaptations of semantic mapping for vocabulary development. Synonym maps are useful in helping students refine their understanding of vocabulary terms and enabling students to distinguish fine shades of meaning among terms (Blachowicz and Fisher, 1996). Procedures for creating a synonym map follow the general pattern of semantic mapping except that students brainstorm synonyms for a selected core term and consult a thesaurus to identify additional synonyms. Using synonym maps helps students vary their word use when writing as well. Students whose writing contains repeated use of the word “said” could use the synonym web in Figure 3 to choose alternatives to make their writing more interesting. Synonyms whose meanings differ due to intensity, such as dislike, hate, and loathe, are better suited, however, for other forms of graphic organizers such as a linear array (Allen, 1999). Polysemantic maps are very similar to synonym maps in that they visually display word relationships, but these maps focus on words that 575
Semantic Mapping knows that scientific terms relating to light are derived from the Greek root photo- or the Latin root lumin- will be able to determine the meaning of a wide variety of technical terms, including photocell, photochemistry, photoconductive, photon, photoelectric, photoengrave as well as lumen, luminance, luminesce, luminescence, luminosity, and luminous. Morphology maps are also useful for elaborating students’ general vocabularies. Illustrating prefixes, suffixes, and root words in a variety of words that share the affix in a wheel-shaped map and posting these maps on the class walls or bulletin boards aid readers’ attempts to decode words they encounter in their reading that contain these word parts. For example, the prefix con-, which means “together,” is found in construct, converge, conference, confer, and connect. Knowledge of the meaning of the affix together with the context in which it appears would help students infer the meaning of conscript, for example.
When using concept maps as an assessment tool, Rafferty and Fleschner (1993) suggested the following rubric: One point for each valid relationship, five points for each level of hierarchy, and ten points for each link between two distinct segments. Relationships are counted by totaling the number of links present in the map. When determining the number of hierarchical levels, two things must be considered: Maps may be asymmetrical, so that the number of hierarchy levels should be determined by the most branched segment; and words strung together without explicit subordinate relationships should not be counted as levels of hierarchy. The concept map in Figure 4 scored 73 using this method: one point for each of the 18 relationships; 25 points for 5 levels of hierarchy; 30 points for 3 cross-links between the two main segments of the map. Using this rubric, concept maps can quickly be evaluated. Story maps or webs are variations of semantic maps applied to narrative text. The use of story maps has been shown to improve comprehension of stories for struggling readers (Reutzel and Fawson, 1991; Sinatra, Berg, and Dunn, 1985). In addition, constructing a story map prior to teaching a story or book helps teachers plan instruction (Bromley, 1996). Story maps graphically illustrate relationships among major story elements of setting, character, plot, and theme. The story elements included and the graphic arrangement of them vary according to the genre from which a story is drawn and the purpose for which the story map is constructed. The story map in Figure 5 illustrates the major story elements found in Catherine, Called Birdy (Cushman, 1994). Like story maps, character maps aid comprehension of narrative text. A character map helps children make connections between story events and the attributes of characters. Character maps that focus on one character’s attributes generally identify the character in a central box and list attributes on a line connecting the character to specific details and actions from the story that support each attribute. Character maps used to illustrate interactions among characters are sometimes termed relationship maps (Bromley, 1996). In this type of character map, the main character is listed in the center of the map, with minor characters listed around the periphery. Feelings or attitudes of one character toward another are written on lines connecting the charac-
Semantic Mapping and Comprehension Development Concept maps, story maps, and character maps are variations of semantic mapping used when comprehension is the instructional focus. Concept mapping is best suited to expository text, whereas story and character maps are used with narrative text. Concept mapping is very similar to semantic mapping, but the essential differences are that in concept mapping the relationships are explicitly identified and are hierarchically organized. Labels indicate the relationships between the nodes, for example, causes, characteristics, functions, and examples. This strategy is most often used with science concepts and has been suggested as an alternative to objective and essay tests (Rafferty and Fleschner, 1993). To create a concept map, first identify major concepts to be included on the map. Second, organize the list from the most general or abstract to the most specific. Generally there are fewer abstract concepts than specific ones. Third, categorize the concepts in two ways: concepts that function at a similar functional level (similar level of abstraction) and concepts that are closely interrelated (hierarchically related). Fourth, arrange the concepts visually to represent their relationships to one another. Finally, link related concepts and label each line with a logical connective. 576
Semantic Mapping Villagers and Perkin the goat boy
First character Brothers: Thomas, Edward, and Robert Catherine, called Little Bird or Birdy (see character map) Catherine, Called Birdy
Morwenna
Suitors
Second character
Parents: Rollo and Lady Aislinn
Themes
Adolescence, death, selfdetermination Conflict Setting Castle in Stonebridge, England
Getting married
Duties as a lady and station in life
Figure 4
may consult references or the Internet or interview experts in order to add to their maps. Next, students review their information and decide on a logical sequence for their writing, numbering each map segment to indicate sequence. Finally, for each major category, students create a topic sentence and then supporting sentences, using information on the map. Construction of a semantic map beforehand provides necessary scaffolding for students who have difficulty writing. This helps students write in a more purposeful way and results in better organized writing.
ters. A relationship map illustrating character interactions in Catherine, Called Birdy (Cushman, 1994) is illustrated in Figure 6. Semantic Mapping as a Writing Strategy Semantic mapping helps focus, organize, and sequence writing and is particularly helpful for students for whom writing is difficult. Mapping may be used with language experience activities as well as a basis for research projects. Procedures for using semantic mapping as a prewriting activity in which students are writing on individual topics begin with students’ thinking of a topic of interest about which they would like to write. Next, students write a preliminary title in the center of the map. They then brainstorm what they already know about their topic and make a list. When used to structure research projects, ideas generated are shared in small groups. Students then add to their maps based on the small-group sharing and discussion. Next, students categorize their information and create a preliminary prewriting semantic map including category headings with supporting details. In research projects, students
Semantic Mapping as a Study Strategy When used as a study strategy, the procedures are designed to aid students in identifying important ideas and supporting details in content area texts. Developed by Marilyn Hanf, the procedures for use of semantic mapping in studying are as follows (Heimlich and Pittelman, 1986). Initially, students and teacher identify the main topic of the text. Students then brainstorm what they already know about the topic and use this information to predict what they might en577
Semantic Mapping Villagers and Perkin the goat boy
First character Brothers: Thomas, Edward, and Robert Catherine, called Little Bird or Birdy (see character map) Morwenna
Catherine, Called Birdy
Suitors
Second character
Parents: Rollo and Lady Aislinn
Themes
Adolescence, death, selfdetermination Conflict Setting Castle in Stonebridge, England
Getting married
Duties as a lady and station in life
1290 A.D.
Figure 5
series of questions about rock types, written on the back of their maps. Questions might include “How many kinds of rocks are there?” “How are rocks classified by scientists?” “How are rocks formed?” “What are some examples of rock types we have locally?” After generating questions, students preview the text chapter, noticing headings and subheadings. In this case, the text might have three sections titled Igneous, Sedimentary, and Metamorphic. Students would draw three lines extending from the title and write each subsection title on a line. Alternatively, they might construct questions for each subsection. After they read, students note information provided by the text, recording the details in the appropriate place on their map. When they complete their maps, students might compare their maps and refine their own map based on class discussion. The completed map provides a visual summary of the text information on one side of one piece of paper, which is a handy study aid. This technique is best used with well-orga-
counter in the text. Next, students generate several questions based on their prior knowledge and write these on the back of the semantic map. Then, students identify secondary categories. Students now check their predictions about information the author might have included in the text. They skim the chapter, looking for headings and subheadings and record four to six secondary headings on their map. This creates a visual representation of the chapter and focuses students on the most important information. Some teachers prefer to have students turn secondary categories into questions to be answered as students read the text. Students now read the text to identify supporting details for the secondary categories or to answer their questions. After they read, students are to add the details from memory. In the case of a text chapter describing the major types of rocks, students might draw a rock in the middle of the page and then brainstorm what they know about rocks and what information the text might provide on major rock types. They might generate a 578
Semantic Mapping
See Catherine as property; are exasperated with her behavior
Catherine, Little Bird, or Birdy Catherine dislikes them, tries to make herself undesirable to them
Loves her brother, doesn’t like writing in the diary but will do so to get out of her “lady lessons”
Morwenna loves Birdy, but also loves her soon to be husband
Edward, Birdy’s brother who is a priest
Would like to “tame” his sister and so asks her to keep a diary for her own sake
Birdy loves her but thinks she is mean sometimes – wants to have her freedom
Morwenna, Birdy’s nurse
Thinks he is a toad trying to marry her off to highest bidder — loves her mother, thinks she is a true lady, but doesn’t want to be one
Parents, Rollo and Lady Aislinn
Rollo thinks Birdy is stubborn; Lady Aislinn feels that Birdy is obstinate — she is exasperated with her
Suitors for Catherine: Shaggy Beard Figure 6
Blachowicz, Camille, and Peter Fisher. 1996. Teaching Vocabulary in All Classrooms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. Bos, Candace S., and Patricia Anders. 1992. “Using Interactive Teaching and Learning Strategies to Promote Text Comprehension and Content Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39 (3):225–228. Brisk, Marie E., and Margaret Harrington. 2000. Literacy and Bilingualism: A Handbook for All Teachers. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum. Bromley, Karen D. 1996. Webbing with Literature: Creating Story Maps with Children’s Books. 2d ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Cushman, Karen. 1994. Catherine, Called Birdy. New York: Harper Trophy Books, a division of HarperCollins. Heimlich, Joan E., and Susan D. Pittelman. 1986. Semantic Mapping: Classroom Applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pearson, P. David, and Rand Spiro. 1982. “The New
nized textbooks that have topics and subtopics that coincide with the information in the text. Textbooks that are not subdivided into sections or that have section headings that are misleading do not lend themselves to this particular application of semantic mapping. For most textbooks in use today, however, this study method puts students in charge of their own learning and creates more independent learners. Victoria Gentry Ridgeway and M. Christina Pennington See also Graphic Organizers References Allen, Janet. 1999. Words, Words, Words: Teaching Vocabulary in Grades 4–12. York, ME: Stenhouse. Anderson, Richard C. 1994. “Role of the Reader’s Schema in Comprehension, Learning, and Memory.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 469–482. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
579
Semiotics Buzz Word in Reading is Schema.” Instructor 91:46–48. Rafferty, Cathleen D., and Linda K. Fleschner. 1993. “Concept Mapping: A Viable Alternative to Objective and Essay Exams.” Reading Research and Instruction 32, no 3:25–34. Reutzel, D. Ray, and Parker C. Fawson. 1991. “Literature Webbing Predictable Books: A Prediction Strategy that Helps Below-Average First Graders.” Reading Research and Instruction 30 (4):20–30. Sinatra, Richard C., David Berg, and Rita Dunn. 1985. “Semantic Mapping Improves Reading Comprehension of Learning Disabled Students.” Teaching Exceptional Children 17 (4):310–314.
ics and thereby set unnatural limits on learning. Literacy has also been treated as an individual accomplishment rather than the social and distributed capability that it is from a semiotic perspective. Pop culture and the media teach our children more about literacy than do schools, and a semiotic perspective suggests that educators must become critical about whose meanings are privileged. New literacies emerge in new times, and school curriculum needs to exceed today’s canon. Semiotics has democratic overtones. If different cultures have different ways of knowing, then semiotics, or an expanded view of literacy, might provide access to populations of students currently not well served by our schools. Some would even go so far as to argue that an understanding of semiotics is a needed first step in developing a diversity and difference model of education, one that would replace our current consensus model of learning.
Semiotics Semiotics is the study of how groups of people create and share meaning. Semiotics has been said to be an “architectonic discipline,” meaning it is a discipline that attempts to explain everything. Within this discipline, literacy is defined as knowing how to interact using many different forms of communication for many different purposes, and becoming fully literate involves the study of language, gesture, art, music, dance, drama, architecture, and more. America’s greatest pragmatist, Charles Sanders Peirce, introduced semiotics to North American scholars with his attempt to develop a comprehensive theory of semantics or meaning-making. His goal was nothing short of mapping the complete history of thought. The concept of triadic relationships is central to semiotics. Whereas behaviorism posited a stimulus-response connection as the key to learning, semiotics posits that learners construct an “interpretant” in response to a “sign” and the “object” for which it stands. According to this theory of social cognition, meaning-making depends on “thirdness”—the ability to generate meaning that goes beyond the duality of a sign and a fixed meaning. Semiotics posits that it is always possible to generate a third point of meaning from which to gain a new perspective. This understanding, that there is always a third perspective or point from which to view things, is one of the major contributions of semiotics to the field of literacy. From a semiotic perspective, literacy has been too narrowly defined. Schools tend to discount sign systems other than language and mathemat-
Signs and Semiosis Inherent to the study of semiotics is the study of cognition. Humans do not have direct access to their world. All that reaches the brain are sensory impulses of varying intensity. If we make sense of these sensory impulses—that is, if we declare that we see a car or a tree or a person—it is because the brain has done something. It has taken this impulse as a “sign” and assigned some sort of meaning to it. How groups of people come to “read” such signs—share meaning—is what the study of semiotics is all about. Semiosis is the fundamental process of cognition. Semiosis is different than semiotics. Semiosis is the process each of us uses to assign some sort of meaning to the sensory impulses we take as signs. Semiosis goes on all of the time as we personally read signs and make signs to record our meanings. We might read a friend’s body language and think to ourselves, “Despite the fact that she didn’t raise her voice, I think she was very angry.” In this case, we used verbal and nonverbal signs to make sense of daily experience. We might go on to talk about the sense we made of the event and in fact begin to convince others in our social group to read the signs in a similar way. To understand what is happening at this point, we have to move beyond the level of semiosis (individual meaning-making) to think about how the group of people makes meaning (semiotics). 580
Sight Words Sign Systems and Positioning There are two components to any semiotic system. One component is the sign system involved—language, art, music, drama, movement, and so on. Each sign system has a content plane (that is, a semantic territory it can communicate) and an expression plane (syntax, line, shape, form, and so on). Meaning (the interpretant) always resides above the expression plane (the relationship between object and sign.), and the relationship between meaning and expression is complex, much like the relationship between the surface and deep structures of language. As a result, we can express similar meanings using different sign systems. For example the concept “love” can be expressed in language, in art, or in mathematics but not in exactly the same ways. People choose the sign systems that are most familiar and comfortable to them and might, for example, choose to express love in a love letter, a painting that expresses feelings for a lover, or a heart carved into a tree with “John + Mary” scratched in the center. The content plane and expression plane of each sign system vary. For this reason, taking an idea and expressing it in some other sign system—a process semioticians call transmediation—is often generative. The giving of a dozen roses, for example, may be more powerful than saying “I love you,” despite Hallmark’s attempt to make us believe that their greeting cards are the ultimate in tasteful expression. Sign systems, however, rarely work alone. Why not send a Hallmark card and a dozen roses? You communicate the best of both worlds! Not only do most attempts at communication involve multiple sign systems (spoken language, for example, is supplemented by gestures, postures, grimaces, shrugs, and grunts), but more and more we are bombarded with multimodal messages that are intentionally designed to position us in particular ways—often as witless consumers. That is what all that background music in shopping malls is about! The second component of any semiotic system, positioning, is one that is often overlooked and the reason why some semioticians prefer the term sociosemiotics to just semiotics. Although semiotics involves sign systems, what is important about the use of sign systems is how they position us. As a result of using a sign system we stand differently in relationship to our world.
This notion of positioning is important. Whenever we borrow signs used by others in a group to construct and share meanings, we also borrow and communicate attitudes and assumptions about power and privilege that have become associated with those signs. Often these attitudes and assumptions are invisible. What we take as “common sense” is really “cultural sense.” Because the sign systems, knowledge systems, and cultural systems that are at work in the world around us support certain relationships of power and privilege, it is important that we, as literate beings, learn to be critical. There is no place to stand outside these meaning-making systems that carry with them messages about gender, class, race, and power. Importantly, it is our use of sign systems that gives us the power to reflect on experience, articulate thought, and reposition ourselves in our world. Beth Berghoff and Jerome C. Harste References Deely, John. 1982. Introducing Semiotics: Its History and Doctrine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1960–1966. Collected Papers 1839–1914. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sight Words Sight words are those words that appear with such high frequency in written language that they can be immediately recognized without having to resort to any apparent use of strategies, such as context clues or decoding. Examples of basic sight words include when, then, before, again, where, there, why, they, are, and house. Sight-word instruction provides the beginning reader with a base of common, high-occurrence words. The reader is taught to quickly recognize the sight words in isolation, as in flash cards, or as part of meaningful phrases. There has been a great deal of research related to the acquisition of reading skills in elementary school children. The sight-word approach was widely used from around 1930 until the mid-1960s. Sight-word instruction focuses heavily on the identification of whole words rather than on parts of words. Today, many researchers deem sight-word teaching invaluable, whereas others consider it a waste of 581
Sight Words time. Sight words are described as words that are automatically recognized by their graphic form and have linguistic identity. The rationale behind sight-word teaching lies in the belief that repeated opportunities to recognize high-frequency words in dependable contexts help beginning readers develop a sight vocabulary that can soon be recognized in other contexts. Many authorities feel that children should be introduced to reading only after they have acquired a core of sight words (Durkin, 1972). Having this core of sight words provides the reader with a base from which he or she may later deduce graphophonic rules. A common belief among literacy experts is that the child’s first encounter with reading should be devoted to a search for meaning. If students can effortlessly recognize high-frequency words, cognitive processing is freed for a focus on meaning rather than on the decoding of the words. Reading experts and researchers agree that word recognition is a precursor to reading comprehension. What they cannot agree on is the approach or strategy for teaching sight words that is most effective with beginning readers. One study done by Connie Bridge and her colleagues (Bridge, Haley, and Winograd, 1983) demonstrated the effectiveness of teaching sight words to beginners through patterned language or structured language materials. Patterned books enable readers to predict the next word or line or episode by providing repetitive structures. Children can join in and “read” along even though they are probably not able to recognize the individual words. Critics of patterned language instruction believe, however, that the strict control of sentence length and the repetition of vocabulary result in contrived, unnatural sentences. These “reading” experiences do not match the more complex oral language structures and capabilities children are already using. The question of whether to use patterned language books or traditional basal reading books would be moot if experts could agree on which approach to teaching sight words was best. One group of theorists recommends teaching core sight word vocabularies with a context approach. This involves the use of pictures or appropriate sentences and is intended to emphasize immediate meaning and comprehension of the new words. Unfortunately, the data from studies reviewed to date are in conflict as to whether pic-
Students playing a game of “hangman” (Elizabeth Crews)
tures do or do not help or hinder beginning readers to acquire sight-word vocabularies. A student’s sight-word vocabulary is not up to grade level unless he or she can correctly pronounce 95 percent of the words thought to be common at or below his or her grade level. Studies done on reading comprehension show that faster word recognition results in improved story comprehension (Ceprano, 1981). Although fluency alone does not necessarily cause increased comprehension, it does enable the higher-order comprehension operations to function more efficiently. Several well-known sight word lists are used throughout the country in elementary schools daily by reading specialists, classroom teachers, and resource teachers. The most commonly used list, published in 1936, is known as the Dolch Basic Sight Word List. It contains 220 basic sight words that make up approximately 50 to 75 percent of words that appear in print. In 1977, Edward Fry compiled another list of sight words. His list, titled Fry’s List of “Instant Words,” groups 300 words into sets of twenty-five words that are labeled as first grade through fourth grade. Another well-known sight-word list is the 582
Silent Reading ing provides them with the opportunity to try out these new tools. One of the most popular means of providing reading practice is through a daily, scheduled, sustained silent reading activity.
American Heritage High Frequency List. It accounts for nearly 84 percent of running text in several subject areas and is recommended for use with children in grades three through nine. The value in teaching readers the words on these lists is easily recognized, as further word recognition strategies and reading skills are fostered. Margaret Gamboa
Sustained Silent Reading Sustained Silent Reading (SSR) is a structured activity in which students are given a fixed amount of time to silently read self-selected material. Sustained Silent Reading was originally proposed in the 1960s by Lyman Hunt at the University of Vermont. During the 1970s, SSR was being implemented in thousands of public schools across the country. Sustained Silent Reading (formerly known as Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading or USSR) is also referred to by other acronyms, such as High Intensity Practice (HIP), Motivation in Middle School (MIMS), Free Voluntary Reading (FVR), Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), Daily Independent Reading Time (DIRT), Everyone Reads in Class (ERIC), or Hooked On Books (HOB). Advocates for SSR believe that the best way to develop students’ reading skills is to provide them as many opportunities as possible to read silently in class. The intended goal is to allow the students to develop into independent, self-directed, lifelong readers. Many teachers and researchers believe that children excel more in silent reading than in traditional oral reading because in oral reading, mistakes create stress. Students who are reading silently do not have to worry about fear of correction by the teacher, embarrassment in front of classmates, or overall performance anxiety. Because of these factors, SSR may be instrumental in helping to develop a positive attitude toward reading (Allington, 1977). One of the requirements of Sustained Silent Reading is that students choose their own books about topics that interest them. Their interest in the topic helps make reading fun, rewarding, and worth the effort. The data from many studies show that SSR increases student interest and attitude toward reading, provides practice of acquired reading skills, enhances reading comprehension, accounts for approximately one-third of the student’s vocabulary growth, and increases general knowledge as well. Sustained Silent Reading guarantees that every child will have time to read, which is essential to those students who are slower and normally would not have free time during the day for pleasure reading.
See also Word Recognition References Bridge, Connie, Darliene Haley, and Peter Winograd. 1983. “Using Predictable Materials vs. Preprimers to Teach Beginning Sight Words.” The Reading Teacher (May):884–890. Ceprano, Mary A. 1981. “A Review of Selected Research on Methods of Teaching Sight Words.” The Reading Teacher (December):314–321. Durkin, Dolores. 1972. Teaching Young Children to Read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Silent Reading Beginning readers, who have advanced past the oral mode of gaining meaning from print, develop into silent readers. Students’ acquisition of reading appears to go through a process of maturation similar to that of acquiring language. Once a child is able to internalize his or her speech, and abstract thoughts can be processed without vocalization, silent reading is possible. Experienced and fluent readers, usually starting around third grade, are encouraged to read silently, since silent reading encourages an emphasis on meaning and facilitates comprehension. Many teachers of older students report that silent reading is more efficient than oral reading since more words are read per minute, which contributes to gains in reading achievement. Student accountability and comprehension of the material can be tested through oral discussion following the reading lesson or through written comprehension questions. Students are able to increase their vocabularies, their understanding of writing and reading, comprehension, and reading speed through self-directed silent reading (Cohen, 1999). For students to strengthen existing reading skills and practice reading for fluency and meaning, they need many opportunities to read. As students learn and acquire the tools for decoding words, making predictions and inferences, and extracting meaning from printed material, read583
Social Constructivism
A class of students engaged in silent reading (Elizabeth Crews)
Social Constructivism
For any Sustained Silent Reading program to be effective, there are several guidelines that should be applied: No interruptions during SSR, students should be free to choose their own reading material, SSR should take place at the same time every day, and the teacher must participate. The importance of the modeling behavior by the teacher cannot be overemphasized in ensuring the success of any SSR program. Many people believe that reading is the most taught but most underpracticed skill in our schools. Students should have opportunities to develop positive reading habits that will be conducive to a lifetime of learning and leisure reading. Sustained Silent Reading programs provide those opportunities. Margaret Gamboa
Social constructivism is a theoretical framework about learning that has been widely embraced in literacy education since the last quarter of the twentieth century. Its meanings, however, are various and often confusing. Caution is therefore in order when trying to make sense of what a writer means by social constructivism or social construction. General Definitions of Social Constructivism The most widely employed and general definitions of social constructivism in literacy education assert simply that learning is both social and constructed. Put another way, education is a suite of social processes for making coherent the experiences of members within a community. Some reference may be made in these general definitions to the distinction between naive transmission models of learning (wherein knowledge or meaning is transported whole from a source such as a book, an experience, or a teacher into the mind of the learner) and pre-
References Allington, R. L. 1977. “If They Don’t Read Much, How They Ever Gonna Get Good?” Journal of Reading 21:57–61. Cohen, Kera. 1999. “Reluctant Eighth Grade Readers Enjoy Sustained Silent Reading.” The California Reader 33, no. 1 (fall):22–24.
584
Social Constructivism ferred constructivist models of learning (wherein knowledge forms are said to be fashioned or constructed by the learner). Classroom activities are additionally reidentified as language-based social practices and as preparation for participation in society. In addition, schools are identified as social institutions, and the influence of community and home culture on a learner’s developing understandings is acknowledged. The importance of language in the social construction of knowledge is nearly always stressed. These broad definitions are often augmented by gestures toward any number of actual working definitions, such as those from psychology, sociology, and philosophy that are reviewed later. In addition, general definitions are sometimes extended with insights and assertions from sociolinguistics, semiotics, discourse theory, cultural studies, activity theory, situated cognition, critical theory, feminism, poststructuralism, qualitative and interpretive research methodologies, educational anthropology, and the sociology of scientific knowledge. Historically, social constructivism began to gain attention in literacy education as the shortcomings of cognitive constructivism became more apparent. Although cognitive constructivism is more sophisticated than earlier transmission models of learning, at its core are several serious philosophical deficits. Social constructivism was taken up as a response to these shortcomings, stressing that human beings are inherently social and that therefore learning is a social process of developing understandings such that they reflect the knowledge and forms of knowing that are held or privileged within one’s community. In other words, learning is always a process of developing one’s capacity to fruitfully transact with others. The most effective way to do this is to participate in the cultural and linguistic practices of a given community. Not surprisingly, therefore, the keys by which individuals come to make sense of their experiences are already implicitly provided by their culture. Put another way, human sociality guarantees that developing learners will do their best to imitate and incorporate the cultural forms available in their cultural surround in order to participate within that milieu. If the central metaphor of cognitivist constructivism is a building constructed by a learner,
the metaphor most commonly employed in social constructivism is that of the building scaffold. The scaffolding that surrounds a building under construction provides support until such time as the building can support itself. The scaffold is then taken down, even as the builder continues to finish out the structure. Similarly, adult caregivers, teachers, and peers provide scaffoldlike support as a learner develops new thought structures. Once a fundamental knowledge structure can stand on its own, the learner continues to finish out the edifice in novel ways, to particular purposes. Modifications, additions, and extensions result. In educational terms, classroom practices provide the social scaffolding for learners to fashion their knowledge structures and processes until such time as they can grasp the content in question or think effectively and well for themselves. This metaphor seems to account for cultural cohesion, individual differences in understanding, and continued development of ideas. But structuralist metaphors are neither without their limitations nor their critics. From Simplicity, Confusion One of the problems with general definitions of social constructivism is that they allow for unbridled extension in any number of ways, many of them contradictory. For instance, because a general definition of social constructivism asserts that the social surround is important for effective learning, it can be cited as a rationale for group learning activities and other, socially oriented learning practices. But because social constructivism also stresses the importance of making a learner’s understandings coherent with what is privileged in the learner’s culture, it can also be used as a rationale for didactic, contentoriented learning methods. Indeed, it has been used both ways. There are two reasons for this incoherence. First, in an effort to make social constructivism accessible to a broad audience of students and teachers, scholars and teacher educators have often simplified the concept until it is so general as to be banal, so vague as to be confusing. Once these generalities get taken up as common currency in the professional discourse, they are traded about with little critical scrutiny as to the illumination they actually offer. Sweeping, insupportable assertions often result (see the next section). 585
Social Constructivism Second, literacy scholars have drawn their understandings of social constructivism from three distinct disciplines: psychology, sociology, and philosophy. Busy literacy professionals often seem to take up the first compelling description of social constructivism they encounter and erroneously assume it to be the only correct definition. Apparently, many such professionals are unaware that “social constructivism” as it is used in psychology does not mean quite the same thing as “social constructivism” as it is used in sociology or as it is used in philosophy. Each discipline has its own sources and history of ideas in this vein. Moreover, philosophy, psychology, and sociology each acknowledges a range of current meanings distributed along a continuum from what are called “weak” to “strong” formulations of social constructivism. But, again, “weak social constructivism” in philosophy is not the same thing as “weak social constructivism” in sociology or in psychology. These ranges of meaning are not parallel, and the definitions asserted within each discipline, although related, are distinct (see “Sources of Social Constructivist Models” section). Greater respect for the sophistication and variety of the social constructivist theories from which literacy scholars have taken their inspiration, and warranted humility when borrowing ideas from disciplines beyond one’s expertise, might go a long way in reducing the confusion surrounding social constructivism in literacy education.
development of learners and on how a sense of agency is made coherent within a community. Learning is said to be an active process of cognitive interpretation within personal, motivational, experiential, and social contingencies. Generally, a learner constructs knowledge from perceptions and experiences in accordance with what the learner already knows (the constructivist part). At the same time, the learner’s society or culture facilitates this process and provides necessary guidance as to how the learner should comprehend, or construct, meaning in such a way that the result is coherent with what is understood by others (the social part). Such work recommends socially oriented learning practices such as group work and peer-led instruction. Individualist psychology is often criticized for paying insufficient attention to the importance of human society, cultural forms, and institutions. It is also suspected of emphasizing and rationalizing competitiveness over social cooperation in classroom practice. Extreme critics dismiss the concept of individuality altogether on the grounds that it is a morally suspect social construct and that it diverts attention from issues of equity and justice. At the other end of the spectrum, socially centered stances in social constructivism draw from sociology and phenomenology (the philosophy of experience), as well as Marxist-inspired critical theory. These perspectives do not involve the psychological processes of individuals but, at most, the behaviors or activities taken up from the social surround by learners. More often, this approach analyzes cultural practices, social forces, and institutions by way of detailed case studies. The common theme in these socially centered models is that sociocultural contexts determine individual behavior, thought, and development. The degree of cultural determinism implied in the various social constructivist models based on this assumption varies. Such work tends to recommend a broad range of dialogic methods of instruction. Another focus of socially oriented social constructivism—often, in this instance, referred to as social constructionism (with an n, not a v)—is the detailed analysis of the ways in which knowledge forms, practices, or artifacts are developed, maintained, modified, and disseminated by communities or societies. These processes and institutions are said to control, mediate, construct, or
Social Constructivism in Literacy Education Social constructivism in literacy education spans a broad landscape featuring theories that emphasize the psychosocial processes of the individual and theories that emphasize the importance of social relations and institutions. Most self-described social constructivists in literacy keep to the middle ground in this landscape, however, acknowledging and incorporating the importance of both the individual and the social aspects of knowledge formation. The one thing all social constructivists in literacy agree upon, however, is the central importance of language in understanding (Phillips, 2000). Researchers who emphasize the individual draw from psychology and epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) and lean heavily on cognitivist models of constructivism for guidance. They tend to focus on cognitive and social 586
Social Constructivism constitute (depending on the degree of cultural determinism brought to bear) the knowledge forms available for appropriation by individuals. They also constrain the modifications of those forms possible by individuals or communities. This work encourages critical inquiry and analysis as a central focus in instruction. Theories that emphasize the sociocultural surround in knowledge construction are sometimes criticized for underemphasizing the importance of individual differences and thus individual needs. They have also been criticized for being insufficiently constructivist and are therefore said to privilege cultural didacticism and political indoctrination as pedagogic forms. Analytic critics claim that these views confuse interpretations based on facts as social “forces” responsible for those facts, are overly relativistic, and embrace a type of mysticism wherein the development of ideas is said to be directed by prophesized end states (a causative fallacy known as teleology). The middle ground in this landscape holds that both individual agency and social relations play a part in the construction of knowledge both by individual learners and their communities. In spite of the existence of individual cognitive and social development, societies do cohere and undeniably demonstrate coordination among individual minds. It is also acknowledged that social and cultural environments exhibit coherent change over time, owing, in part, to the choices made by the individuals and institutions that comprise them. Learners not only adapt to their surround; they also select and modify it. Language change itself is an excellent example of such adaptive progression. Indeed, the importance of language in social constructivist models is of particular interest to literacy professionals. According to nearly all forms of social constructivism, language is the crucial means for higher-level knowledge construction. Social constructivists note that private thought is always articulated in a particular language drawn from a community. Even alone, the learner thinks as if communicating with others. And most thought, either private or public, is conducted on behalf of social relations or on behalf of activities in relation to other members of one’s community. Thus, meaning arises within webs of social signification. Many linguistic anthropologists hold that language is a functional capacity for uncommonly
precise reference with which to express internal states and manipulate the behavior of others. Human language is said to have evolved to facilitate that expression and manipulation on behalf of the need to negotiate social relations. The use of language to negotiate such social positions and meanings is the very basis of culture. Yet, the plasticity of language makes it the ultimate social construction for any community. Individuals’ sense of identity is also a crucial factor in social negotiation, but it is largely language that makes the assignment of institutional or community identity or articulated self-representation possible. Thus, language is seen as key to the dialectical processes of social knowledge formation and dissemination. Other scholars give language an even greater and more deterministic role, claiming that language actually forms thought, determines behavior, and thus gives rise to social relations. Rather than using language to particular purposes, these scholars suggest, language determines the purposes to which it is put. Language makes us think and act the way we do. Although this stronger view is still common in literacy education circles, it has less support among anthropologists, psychologists, and linguists than it once had. The importance of language in socially constructing knowledge does not require any particular type of instruction, but it does justify an aversion to rote learning, recitation, workbooks, and silent study. Sources of Social Constructivist Models As noted above, “weak” and “strong” forms from psychology, sociology, and philosophy have variously informed social constructivist theories in literacy. These definitions differ across the three disciplines, however. For instance, in psychology, weak social constructivism would refer to the latter work of Jean Piaget, Albert Bandura, or Jerome Bruner (1986). These scholars acknowledged the importance of intellectual support provided by a learner’s community’s encouraging constructed understandings that are in accordance with what is embraced by that community. Nevertheless, the learner’s sense of agency or self-efficacy allows for both adaptation to, and the proactive selection and modification of, the social influences guiding the learner’s own intellectual development. These views support classroom environments where the child is allowed to freely “unfold” along his or her developmental trajectory. 587
Social Constructivism Strong psychological formulations would be related to the work of Lev Vygotsky (1978) and his students who, in keeping with Marxist and Hegelian philosophy, asserted that sociohistorical context determines the immediate cultural context, which in turn determines children’s thinking and intellectual development. Individual variation is seen as strictly a matter of different cultural influences. The knowledge a learner can demonstrate is bounded within what Vygotsky referred to as the zone of proximal development (ZPD). ZPD is a range of demonstrated proficiency; the lower threshold of the range marks what the learner can do on his or her own, whereas the upper threshold demarcates the learner’s optimal response given the assistance of more knowledgeable others. This view emphasizes the importance of adult assistance leading the development of the child toward certain desired behaviors. By contrast, weak social constructivism in sociology would be related to scholars such as Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann. Berger and Luckmann (1966) asserted that social processes involve a dialectic between a community’s social institutions and its members, giving rise to their sense of identity and reality, a topic researchable by empirical sociologists. But strong sociological formulations, such as those of David Bloor or Kenneth Gergen, assert that science itself is one of the institutions that socially constructs our sense of reality and that, moreover, this construction is done deliberately to oppress and marginalize certain peoples or classes (Burr, 1995). These views do not directly recommend any particular teaching approach but instead provide a framework for analyzing our educational systems and methods as social practices. In philosophy, weak social constructivism is based on assumptions from Immanuel Kant’s epistemology, in which innate categories are said to make our sensations comprehensible, and Giambattista Vico’s notion of knowledge as an artifact of imaginative reconstruction. These are entwined with motifs from the social philosophy of John Dewey and George Herbert Mead, suggesting, respectively, a “transactive” or “interactive” relationship between learner and social reality in which experience gives rise to categories as emergent phenomena. Finally, strong formulations in philosophy are inherently antinaturalistic, denying that there is a knowable reality separate from
what we experience (including, presumably, any social reality) and asserting instead that coherence of thought within the minds of individuals and between individuals on behalf of collective goals is what structures knowledge. These philosophical positions provide an intellectual foundation for theories of educational practice. These are the varieties of social constructivism drawn from psychology, sociology, and philosophy that literacy scholars variously rely upon. Unfortunately, literacy professionals rarely identify precisely which definition they have in mind when using the term social constructivism, and most specific references ignore the greater breadth of variation with which any particular use might be confused. As a result, many literacy scholars, and most literacy teachers and teacher educators, understand social constructivism only in a very broad and general sense, one commonly conflated with ancillary theories of human development, cognition, and behavior. Although this may be problematic for theorists, it seems a serviceable enough heuristic for teacher education and classroom practice. George G. Hruby See also Activity Theory; Constructivism; Context in Literacy; Cooperative Learning; Critical Literacy; Dialogic Responsiveness; Inquiry-Based Instruction; Language Acquisition; Language Experience Approach; Literacy and Culture; Literature Circles; Multiple Literacies; Peer Discussion; PostStructuralism and Structuralism; Psycholinguistics; Questioning; Reciprocal Teaching; Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Social Justice and Literacies; Social Nature of Literacy; Sociolinguistics and Literacy; Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment; Workplace Literacy References Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Bruner, Jerome S. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Burr, Vivian. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. Phillips, D. C., ed. 2000. Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
588
Social Justice and Literacies
Social Justice and Literacies
to read and write in order to understand and influence their own economic and political lives. His principles have been adapted by educators around the world, including teachers in the United States. The need for liberatory pedagogy has not always been recognized (nor is it widely practiced even today). The stance of many teachers historically was that in order to be fair, they should treat all students the same. Those who ascribed to “color blindness” adhered to the same curriculum, based on mainstream values, for all students. The assumption was that all children had similar experiences and that there was a universal cultural norm. Children outside that assumed cultural norm were considered deficient and in need of remediation. There was a tacit expectation that all children should learn by the same teaching methods. As educators have been informed by studies of differing cultural values and experiences, however, they have begun to question the “fair equals same” and “different equals deficient” stances. Concurrently, educational researchers have documented that the “fair equals same” stance has not resulted in equal learning opportunities or equal academic achievement. Young people who are not successful in school often do not have the networks or learning strategies needed to translate what they do know into evidence of that knowledge in a traditional academic setting. This leads to a cycle in which students who are not experiencing success with aspects of schooled literate practices feel even more disconnected from school and drop out either physically or mentally. In addition, students for whom schooled literacies come more easily, usually those whose home culture connects more closely with traditional views of literate practices, are often provided with a richer array of experiences. In essence, those that have more often get more. For example, students who are seen as “good readers” often have more opportunities to read a wide variety of texts and to find reading pleasurable, informative, and meaningful. These same students, often in upper or “gifted” tracks in school, are more likely to participate in field trips, to be allowed to check out a wider selection of books, and to have meaningful assignments such as writing letters to local politicians or short stories for class publications.
Literacies for social justice address a range of equity issues that affect students within the educational system as well as societal issues that students and teachers seek to change through social activism. Examples of literacies for social justice in an educational setting might include students engaging in dialogue about biases in the books they read, teachers and students researching the effects of tracking or other inequitable practices in their school, families working together with teachers to support the reading and writing acquisition of students who might otherwise fail, or students engaging in a letter-writing campaign regarding public policies affecting homeless families. These literacies may include reading, writing, media, and critical literacies (see “Bilingualism,” “Critical Literacy,” “Literacy Definitions,” and “Media Literacy” entries). In a just society everyone would have equal access to acquisition of a range of literacies for understanding self and others and for making changes in their communities that lead to a better quality of life. The United States was founded on principles of democracy, justice, and equality. Teachers and students who work toward these ideals may engage in literacies for social justice in the classroom, in the broader educational system, in relationships between school and home, and in the community. Literacies for Social Justice in the Classroom Literacies for social justice in the classroom can be approached from two standpoints. The first involves students learning literate practice; the second involves students using these practices to address social issues and work toward social justice. In the first case, teachers provide space in classrooms for the exploration of multiple, meaningful literacies for all students regardless of background or measured academic ability. In the second case, teachers support students in using literacies to explore the meaning of justice in their lives, in their school, and in society. Literacies for social justice have their roots in liberation theology and liberation pedagogy. Brazilian educator Paulo Freire was influential through his teaching and writing about liberatory pedagogy. He worked primarily with adults living in poverty and political subjugation. Freire’s approach, which he began writing about in the late 1960s (1987), involved adults learning 589
Social Justice and Literacies Studies of language and literacy patterns and variation, community learning practices, and research on issues of race, ethnicity, class, and gender in education point to a new and more complex paradigm for teaching. Teachers make more informed and effective decisions—their classrooms become more just—when they learn about and value each child’s experiences. By building on children’s language, knowledge, strengths, and weaknesses, the teachers provide equitable learning experiences for all children—not necessarily the “same” but also not watered down. For example, a teacher might ask young children to write or dictate stories about morning and bedtime events at home, discuss the different family routines, and then read stories that depict a variety of families participating in a range of morning routines. These stories could include both traditional tales that may be familiar to some children and not others (e.g., Goldilocks and the Three Bears variants) and stories that originate in and depict a range of ethnicities and cultures. In the past, some teachers have assumed that children come to school knowing the same fairy tales and with the same points of comparison: for example, that all children have breakfast together as a family, sleep in their own beds, and so on. For those children who have experiences that differ from these assumptions, school can be a confusing and risky environment. The decisions teachers make affect equity for students. Teachers are key players in creating space for literacies for social justice in schools and in connecting these two standpoints—learning and using meaningful literate practices in the furthering of social and personal justice—into their curriculum. For example, when teacher Barbara Michalove (1999) became aware of prejudiced interactions among students in her class, she designed literate activities that engaged the children in thinking about social justice on multiple levels. She helped her fourth graders first to see prejudice from a historic perspective in U.S. society and eventually to recognize their own discriminatory practices. Michalove provided her students with tools that encouraged investigation of why people discriminate and frank discussions of how those actions affect their lives, families, and communities. Students learned from a variety of sources, including their reading textbook, picture books, films, biographies,
newspapers, family interviews, speakers, and personal stories. The class created a common language to address difficult issues and wrote rules for themselves that emphasized respect for their cultural variation. Teachers in many parts of the country are working to make their classrooms more just places and places that address justice. Engaging in a range of literacies focused on social justice themes often creates opportunities to address prejudice and inequities in the classroom. The conversations that take place, however, are often difficult for students and teachers alike. Both students and teachers need support and need to find ways to turn anger, frustration, and resistance into actions for change. When Bob Fecho’s (1998) African American high school students felt betrayed and angry at dialect use in a poem, he engaged them in a yearlong investigation of the ways that learning and language connect us to our world. Fecho addressed resistance to the printed materials he chose in ways that turned the uneasiness and anger of his students into energy for dialogue and action. Literacies for Social Justice in the Educational System Although many Americans believe that all children have equal opportunity to learn in our free public school system, this is not the case. Jonathon Kozol (1991) documented the savage inequalities of school resources and facilities in poor school districts across the United States. Students who are attending schools with raw sewage, crumbling walls, inadequate heating and air conditioning, and a chaotic rotation of unqualified substitute teachers have little chance of learning to the same degree as children across town in fully equipped, well-maintained, and professionally staffed facilities. In addition, school and classroom libraries range from almost no books to thousands of volumes. Children need a great range of books (fiction, informational, picture books, poetry), multiple copies of texts for shared reading, and books with a wide range of difficulty and interest to engage readers of all ages. The shortage of books is most evident in some of the poorest school districts. Not coincidentally, this is where there are the most children who do not become readers and writers. Equity and social justice issues at the school 590
Social Justice and Literacies
Signs protesting reduction in education funding (Michael Siluk)
content areas and often drop out or are pushed out of school. Traditional views of literacy acquisition are related to these issues in myriad and complex ways. Learning to accurately decode written text is used as a measure of academic achievement and is a central component of high-stakes tests. All children are expected to learn to read by the end of first grade. If they do not reach a predetermined standard, many are labeled as “remedial readers,” “slow learners,” or “learning disabled.” They may have to repeat first grade, a single act that reduces their likelihood of graduating from high school by 50 percent. These students are also likely to be in lower-track classes in middle and high school. Educational inequities are most likely to affect students who live in poverty as well as a disproportionate number of African American, Hispanic, and Native American youth. When these children do not read and write according to the norms of their teachers, who are overwhelmingly European American and middle class, children enter into a cycle of failure, low expectations, and the perpetuation of poverty. Thus, rather than schooling’s contributing to equal opportunity
system level affect students, and eventually society, in deep and pernicious ways. Systemic inequities include tracking (which often starts as ability grouping in the early grades), “flunking” one or more years, and reliance on high-stakes tests (see “High Stakes Assessment” entry) that directly lead to both tracking and retention. Researchers have determined that tracking is more detrimental than beneficial to most students and severely limits the academic achievement of those in the “low group” or “remedial track.” Further, children often receive less effective instruction in lower tracks. For example, children in a low reading group are likely to read fewer books, spend less time actually reading because they are engaged in other types of drill and practice, and have fewer opportunities to think critically about what they are reading. Another aspect of systemic inequity is the failure of some districts to provide effective instruction to students who are learning English. Although debates rage for and against bilingual education, many English language learners are not learning to read or write well in either language. With this limited access to literate practices, the students have difficulty learning in all 591
Social Justice and Literacies for all and the establishment of a just society, it helps to reproduce the current social order. Educators are working to address systemic educational inequities. Those who have recognized that tracking in its various forms is neither functional nor democratic have designed schools and programs to “detrack” students. National networks of schools such as the Accelerated Schools Project, the School Development Program, and the Coalition for Essential Schools and more localized efforts such as the Center for Inquiry in Indianapolis incorporate alternatives to tracking. They have high expectations for all students to read, write, and think in advanced ways, and they provide extensive support for both teachers and students. One successful example of detracking efforts is called Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID) in San Diego. Researchers Hugh Mehan and colleagues (Mehan et al., 1996) documented how low-achieving African American and Hispanic students living in poverty have achieved success in “college prep” programs previously reserved for high-achieving students. Teachers in AVID schools do not simplify instruction or reduce curriculum demands. Students learn a special kind of note taking, write extensively, and keep learning logs. Tutors teach students how to take an inquiry stance toward their learning, and students work in collaborative learning groups. Schools from all over the country send teams to San Diego to learn these detracking strategies. Educating for social justice involves professional educators, students, parents, and members of boards of education in understanding and reenvisioning the larger picture of education in relation with society. This perspective has implications for curriculum development, testing, promotion and retention policies, hiring practices, and policies at every level.
from those valued by educators. In recent years, educational researchers and practitioners have turned their attention toward schools and how educators can learn about families in order to teach children with diverse backgrounds more effectively. The move is away from a deficit model of families as well as children, replacing harsh judgments with respect for diversity and strategies for connecting with families. Guadalupe Valdés (1996) documented the cultural norms and family values of Mexican immigrants in a Texas border town. The families she studied for several years worked hard at making a living, finding housing, staying healthy, and maintaining supportive family ties. Most had limited schooling growing up in Mexico; still, they valued education for their children and wanted them to stay in school. In the United States, education is widely believed to be the vehicle of upward mobility. Such mobility was highly unlikely in Mexico’s class system, however. Parents’ goals were for their sons to be honest and hardworking, their daughters virtuous, and their children to graduate from school and find jobs or start local businesses, allowing them to stay close to their families. These values were often different from the ones held by educators, such as going away to college and entering highly paid professions. Interactions among parents and teachers were marked by misunderstandings of school communications and expectations. Parents were often uncomfortable coming to school and had confidence that teachers were in charge of their children’s academic lives. Consequently, some teachers saw Mexican parents as disinterested and uninvolved in their children’s education. Further, teachers often interpreted children’s silence as lack of knowledge or language; in fact, children had been repeatedly instructed not to talk with people outside the family because of fear of immigration officials. Gulfs between cultures have been documented in most areas of the country, from Appalachia to Native American reservations to inner cities. These gulfs of misunderstanding perpetrate or perpetuate social inequities. Educators can provide more equitable learning opportunities, however. To do so they become part of the communities in which they teach, develop close connections with families, learn about the cultures of their students, and build instruction on the cultural and linguistic resources children bring
Literacies for Social Justice in Relationship between School and Home Most people acknowledge the need for families and schools to work together in the best interest of children. This becomes a social justice issue when school decisionmakers do not understand, value, or make meaningful connections with students’ home cultures. Children of poverty, immigrants, and children of color in the past have been seen as deficient or disadvantaged because their home literacy experiences are different 592
Social Justice and Literacies with them from home. These strategies are especially important when teachers are not of the same ethnic background as their students. Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994) studied successful teachers of African American children, documenting the ways they practiced what she termed culturally relevant teaching. These African American and European American teachers lived and/or participated actively in the community in which they taught. They used a variety of methods to discover the knowledge students brought into the classroom and to help them make relevant connections between home, community, and school. They talked with students about their interests and areas of expertise and helped them set and assess instructional and noninstructional goals. They talked with parents about ways they educated their children, cultivated relationships with students outside of the school environment, and were aware of students’ home responsibilities without expecting less of them in the classroom. They filled their classrooms with books about people of many cultures. They extended the notion of family to their classroom, creating environments in which members were responsible for each other academically and personally. It is often difficult for educators to learn about students’ cultural norms and resources. Teachers working with Luis Moll and his colleagues (Moll et al., 1992) found that extended home visits throughout the year allowed them to develop relationships and curriculum that supported learning by Mexican American and Native American students. These two groups traditionally have lower school success than European American students. In addition to the home visits, teachers met regularly to discuss what they were learning from the students and their families. During these discussions, they mediated their learning through the perspectives and experiences of others in the group, which Moll saw as critical to developing respect for families and their “funds of knowledge.” Teachers then drew upon these family funds of knowledge to design curriculum and instructional practices that connected to what children knew. For example, family members became resources for units on building a house, students incorporated both English and Spanish into written reports of family members who lived in their countries of origin, and teachers employed an apprenticeship approach to learning when possible.
Students make posters of AIDS statistics (Laura Dwight)
Other educators have used journals, photography, family events, and other strategies that draw on the cultural resources in their communities to connect with families. They have provided materials for families to create family books at home to be shared at school, provided cameras so students could document their lives outside of school, and sent tape recorders home so that all families (not just those who can leave work or who have access to transportation) could share their stories. Teachers have also expanded their own linguistic awareness and abilities by finding ways to communicate with families in languages other than English. These and other strategies, often created with instead of for families, have been more effective than traditional definitions of parent involvement as the simple expectation that a parent participate in school conferences and ParentTeacher Organization (PTO) meetings. They take into account the cultural norms, life circumstances, rich knowledge bases, and variety of resources of each family, seeking out ways that families and schools can together enrich learning 593
Social Justice and Literacies for all students. Research has shown that when parents, regardless of income level, believe that they can help their children be successful learners, they do get involved, and their involvement increases their children’s achievement.
forms of literate activity become tools for envisioning and working toward a more just society. Community agencies, media, government agencies, and community activists become resources for moving beyond the classroom.
Literacies for Social Justice in the Community Literacies for social justice extend beyond classrooms when students use literate practices to address critical issues in their local communities or society at large. Student activism usually grows out of in-depth study of social issues, for example, environmental protection, homelessness, or discrimination. Students have become involved in community work such as donations to battered women’s shelters, visiting homeless shelters to read aloud to children or to listen to them read, tutoring younger students, writing to politicians with concerns about the effects of high-stakes testing, and helping newly immigrated families with bureaucratic literacy such as filling out forms. Activist teacher Bob Peterson’s (1994) students attended marches calling for an end to the nuclear arms race and demanding that Martin Luther King Jr. Day be made a national holiday. They testified before their city council about actions ranging from rebuilding their school playground to a Jobs with Peace referendum. Activism occurs on many levels. Students often engage in classroom or school activism before taking a larger step into the community. Teachers support this progression by providing opportunities for students to explore uses of a range of literate practices in connection with addressing racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, and other forms of social injustice. This can begin with sharing reactions to social justice themes in literature in dialogue with others who have diverse life experiences, interviewing members of one’s family or community about injustice in their family histories, or investigating local social justice issues. In order for social activism to be effective as a tool for change as well as for learning, students must be supported in finding ways they can make a difference that is meaningful to them. These inquiries are not usually predetermined or dictated by the teacher. Rather the teacher creates opportunities for students to see areas that need change. Reading, writing, drama, art, and other
Resources Supporting Teaching for Social Justice Teaching for social justice often requires support. Learning what other educators have done is particularly helpful. Carole Edelsky’s (1999) Making Justice Our Project: Teachers Working toward Critical Whole Language Practice presents work by teachers from across the United States, whereas JoBeth Allen’s (1999) Class Actions: Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary and Middle School showed how a study group of teachers in one town addressed these issues. There are several publications with similar foci that are written by teachers for teachers. One is Rethinking Schools: An Urban Educational Journal, a quarterly publication begun in 1985. The emphasis is on issues of equity and social justice grounded in day-today realities of school life. The publication features activist teachers such as Bob Peterson, Linda Christensen, and Bill Bigelow as well as parents, students, community activists, and scholars who are working to create schools of and for justice. Past issues have included topics such as inequitable school funding, fighting homophobia and racism in schools, bilingual education, high-stakes testing, gender stereotypes, and bias in literature. The Southern Poverty Law Center provides free materials for addressing issues of social justice in the classroom. Teaching Tolerance magazine is published twice a year. The articles in it address issues including anti-Semitism, conflict resolution, immigration, race relations, and religious diversity. Authors, often teachers, share curriculum and teaching projects, such as mural making as community building, how coaches tackled violence and disrespect in sports, and how black and Jewish youth shared a heritage of liberation. Other resources from the Teaching Tolerance project are video and text kits to use in classrooms at various grade levels. Starting Small: Teaching Tolerance in Preschool and the Early Grades focuses on seven exemplary tolerance education programs. America’s Civil Rights Movement is for middle and upper levels, as is The Shadow of Hate: A History of Intolerance in Amer594
Social Nature of Literacy
Social Nature of Literacy
ica. A Place at the Table, for grades eight and above, explores the historical struggle for equality through the eyes of contemporary youth. JoBeth Allen and Karla J. Möller
Literacy is a social act in that it involves readers and writers who have been constructed through social codes and practices that shape their relationships to various texts and how such texts might be defined. These codes and practices carry differential power in and out of school. Because literacy practices are shaped by social institutions and hierarchies, some practices are treated as more legitimate or authoritative than others. Yet what carries legitimacy in one social or cultural context may not do so in another. A student who reads romance fiction, for instance, may be seen by his or her teachers as easily manipulated or less intellectually inclined than a student who reads canonized literature. This same student, however, may be viewed with admiration by her peers for being knowledgeable about the latest in romance fiction. Of course, even these categories of peers and teachers are not so easily dichotomized, since each is shaped by different sets of social codes and practices. A teacher whose training and dispositions lead her to focus on reading enjoyment rather than literary heritage will respond differently to a student’s interest in romance fiction than one who believes it is her role to transmit a common literary heritage. Finally, all of these key players exist within the broader social practices of their community and institutional affiliations as well as, in the case of romance fiction, the multinational corporate interests of book publishers, which may oppose the interests of those who see themselves as guardians of “high” culture. Researchers from a range of disciplines have considered the social nature of literacy. Often referred to as the New Literacy Studies, “social literacies,” or “situated literacies,” this branch of literacy theory and research has shifted the focus from models based in psychology that emphasize individual cognition to models based in sociology, linguistics, and anthropology that focus on the social and cultural contexts of literacy. Brian Street’s (1995) model of literacy as “ideological” rather than “autonomous” is central to a view of literacy as social practice because naming literacy “ideological” emphasizes its connection to social institutions and power relations and rejects its status as an isolated, neutral skill. The term literacy practices has a special meaning among those who study the social nature of literacy, particularly within the framework of the
See also Bilingualism; Critical Literacy; Media Literacy References Allen, JoBeth. 1999. Class Actions: Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary and Middle School. New York: Teachers College Press. Edelsky, Carole, ed. 1999. Making Justice Our Project: Teachers Working toward Critical Whole Language Practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Fecho, Bob. 1998. “Crossing Boundaries of Race in a Critical Literacy Classroom.” In D. Alvermann, K. Hinchman, D. Moore, S. Phelps, and D. Waff, eds., Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives, pp.75–101. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Freire, Paulo. 1987. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing. Kozol, Jonathon. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Crown Publishers. Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1994. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Mehan, Hugh, Irene Villanueva, Lea Hubbard, and Angela Lintz. 1996. Constructing School Success: The Consequences of Untracking Low-Achieving Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Michalove, Barbara. 1999. “Examining Prejudice in History and in Ourselves.” In J. Allen, ed., Class Actions: Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary and Middle School. New York: Teachers College Press. Moll, Luis C., Cathy Amanti, Bedorah Neff, and Norma González. 1992. “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.” Theory into Practice 31:132–141. Peterson, Bob. 1994. “Teaching for Social Justice: One Teacher’s Journey.” In B. Bigelow, L. Christensen. S. Karp, B. Miner, and B. Peterson, eds., Rethinking Our Classrooms: Teaching for Equity and Justice. A Special Edition of Rethinking Schools, pp. 30–33, 35–38). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Valdés, Guadalupe. 1996. Con respeto: Bridging the Distances between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools: An Ethnographic Portrait. New York: Teachers College Press.
595
Social Nature of Literacy
Students sharing their yearbook (Elizabeth Crews)
ory to move the field in the direction of the social turn that Gee described. Poststructuralism (see “Post-Structuralism and Structuralism” entry) is particularly important to understanding a view of literacy as social practice.
New Literacy Studies. These researchers are careful to distinguish between literacy events and literacy practices (Barton and Hamilton, 1998; Street, 1995) Literacy events are defined as any event involving a written text, although some have questioned whether or not the text must have a central role in the event. Literacy practices, on the other hand, are what can be inferred from observable events and broader cultural norms. They are more abstract, related to matters of access and distribution, codes and conventions, beliefs and attitudes, legitimation and control. James Gee (2000) traced some of the movements that have contributed to a turn toward the social, identifying fourteen different areas that have played a role. Among the most central to many literacy researchers who operate from a social practice framework are poststructuralism and sociohistoric psychology (see “Activity Theory” entry). Carolyn Baker and Allan Luke’s (1988) influential edited volume, Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy, brought together modern sociology and poststructural the-
Post-Structuralism and the Social Practice of Literacy Recent perspectives on the social nature of literacy that draw from post-structural concepts of language and subjectivity are particularly important to understanding the meaning of literacy practices. Poststructural theorists use the term subjects to replace the term individuals in order to emphasize that individuals are constructed through institutional discourses (that define what is plausible or rational in a given field) and social relations. In her work on situated cognition, Valerie Walkerdine (1997) argued that sociohistoric psychology does not adequately explain how subjects are produced through language and discourse. Walkerdine argued that the focus in sociohistoric psychology on individ596
Social Nature of Literacy ual cognition as shaped by particular contexts does not account for the production of subjects through discourses that regulate practices and rationalize actions and events. A study I conducted on the social nature of literary interpretation and response in an elementary classroom (Lewis, 2001) illustrated Walkderdine’s point. The mother of a very successful student who loved literature told me that her daughter’s teacher was a good match for her daughter because the teacher focused on literature rather than reading, adding that this was unusual in elementary school. The meaning this mother gave to literature can be viewed, in Pierre Bourdieu’s terms, as “habitus” for her daughter, a social field about which she formed (through the social codes that were available to her) embodied perceptions, tastes, and actions relative to literacy texts. It was a habitus that served her well in that it aligned with her teacher’s “ways with literature” and allowed the girl to shape the literary culture of the classroom along with her teacher. Furthermore, the mother’s discourse was constituted within larger institutional discourses. For example, the meaning of literature shared by the student, her mother, and her teacher opposed the way that literature is usually viewed within elementaryschool contexts but coincided with particular disciplinary discourses about literacy knowledge that are more associated with secondary and post-secondary education. Thus, the connection that this mother implicitly made to literature as interpretation rather than comprehension, aesthetics rather than utility, carried a certain legitimacy within and beyond her classroom and helped to produce her daughter as a particular kind of literate subject. As Allan Luke (1992) has argued, literate subjects are produced through the regulation of language and body. Particular ways of using language and body are seen as legitimate in specific contexts that involve literacy. Luke used classroom data to show that students’ bodies are inscribed as literate subjects. Even during “shared book reading,” with students gathered to sit informally on a carpet around a teacher, the teacher began her lesson by instructing students in how to sit (“on your bottoms,” “sit up straight”). Luke cited Shirley Brice Heath’s (1983) research in the Piedmont Carolinas in which “Maintown” (middle-class, white) chil-
dren were expected at bedtime to sit still, without wiggling, and attend to story reading, an embodied literate disposition that prepared them well for the sort of literate subjects they were expected to be at school. Luke’s point is illustrated by another example from my study, in this case a boy in the same classroom whose literate habitus did not match that of many in the class. In most elementary classrooms, it is not considered appropriate literate behavior to laugh at violence in a book being read aloud or to write about violence when given a choice of writing topics. Yet, at times, in family contexts and among peers, laughing at violence on television, in a movie, or in a book may be seen as an appropriate, even expected, response. One student in the class made frequent references to violence during literature discussions, even when the story line did not necessarily warrant these references. This difference from most other students in the class was constituted in the social codes and practices familiar to this student, practices that included the regular consumption of popular media, particularly horror movies and Beavis and Butthead. “They’ll blow up everything. . . . Then they’ll get another bomb,” he said after eagerly jumping into the conversation once. In another class, this kind of response might have engendered enthusiasm from male peers in particular, but such was not the case in this particular class during read-aloud time. The teacher had made clear many times that violence was not a laughing matter, and most students met the expectations of this classroom ethos, having learned to keep their popular culture interests separate from school. For this student, read-aloud served to reify the social order by the collective reinforcement of the classroom ethos and further constituted him as a particular kind of disenfranchised subject. It is interesting to note that other transgressions of typical school behavior actually served the purposes of read-aloud well, and those acts—such as preening one another’s hair, lying on pillows, and talking in an animated but overlapping style—were not only acceptable but preferred, in order to create an atmosphere of comfort and informality. I include these examples not for the purpose of exposing inequities in this classroom but rather to illustrate the ways in which literate subjects are discursively and bodily inscribed and the relation597
Social Nature of Literacy ship of these inevitable inscriptions to the notion of social practices as defined within the New Literacy Studies.
of others. Documenting how social and power relations shape students’ interactions around literacy, as well as what they believe counts as literacy, many researchers have used Bakhtin’s work to theoretically frame their studies of literacy as a social practice. Barton and Hamilton (1998) and Anita Wilson (2000) made the important point that social contexts are not neatly divided territories each with its own discourse and literacy requirements. Instead, Wilson has found in her research with incarcerated populations that the literacies of prisons often include a mixture of discourses from within and outside the prison to create a new space for particular identities to be constructed and maintained. Barton and Hamilton cautioned that the contexts of home and community should not be folded into one positive, utopian space but rather seen as distinct contexts. These contexts, so often seen as spaces of comfort and unity, include members whose identities as they are formed around literacy may well be shaped by ideologies and power relations (for example, the case of a husband feeling threatened by his wife’s wish to extend her education). Instead of “community,” they use the metaphor of “networks” to emphasize links across people and places while maintaining, nonetheless, that networks, like communities, are not always positive.
Discourse, Identity, and the Social Practice of Literacy David Bloome (1983), who has written prolifically about the social nature of literacy with special attention to reading, noted that reading events are shaped more by group memberships and social statuses than by understanding the author’s purpose. Such members and relationships are important markers of identity that Gee (1996) argued are constructed through institutional and ideological worldviews or discourses. Discourses with a capital D (see “Discourse Analysis” entry) are about the beliefs, values, and actions that mark a social group and construct what it means to be a part of the group. Discourse and identity are central concepts for the New Literacy Studies focus on the social practice of literacy, and Mikhail Bakhtin’s (1981) work provided a foundation for understanding these concepts. Bakhtin focused on the fundamental connection between text (spoken or written) and social meanings. This vision of text and context is echoed in the work of researchers who identify with the New Literacy Studies, notably David Barton and Mary Hamilton (1998), who found everyday texts to be saturated with social meanings in their research on a working-class community in Britain. Bakhtin viewed language as sociological rather than psychological. From this sociological perspective, context is divergent, an interplay and struggle of multiple social languages. Although many literacy researchers cite Bakhtin’s theoretical perspectives as informing their own, his work is often used in ways that elide its sense of struggle and disequilibrium in relation to identity and discourse. For Bakhtin, self, text, and context are all constituted in multiple voices. Thus identity is not singular but constructed through competing social discourses. Much research on the social nature of literacy draws on Bakhtin’s work. Anne Haas Dyson (1993), for instance, drew on Bakhtin to explain the ways in which children can enact shifting roles as they use literacy to negotiate subject positions within the classroom. She suggested, finally, that social conditions within the classroom will advance certain performances at the expense
Acknowledging the Social Dimension of Literacy It is hard to imagine not attending to the social nature of literacy, given its vital role in literacy networks and practices; yet, in the midst of myriad demands, including endless benchmarks and standards, the social dimensions of literacy can get swept under the proverbial “read-aloud” carpet at school and remain underresearched and overlooked at community sites and networks. This dimension of literacy is important, however, if we acknowledge, as Gee (2000) suggested we ought to, that our attempts to make our beliefs and desires known—to get them recognized—are the central project of language and literacy. And what, after all, could be more social than that? Cynthia Lewis See also Activity Theory; Post-Structuralism and Structuralism
598
Sociolinguistics and Literacy
Society for the Scientific Study of Reading
References Baker, Carolyn D., and Allan Luke. 1988. Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Bakhtin, Mikhail M. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Translated by C. Emerson and M. Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press. Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. New York: Routledge. Bloome, David. 1983. “Reading as a Social Process.” In B. A. Hutson, ed., Advances in Reading/ Language Research, Vol. 2, pp. 165–195. London: JAI Press. Dyson, Anne Haas. 1993. Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School. New York: Teachers College Press. Gee, James P. 1996. Sociolingusitics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 2d ed. New York: Falmer. ———. 2000. “The New Literacy Studies: From ‘Socially Situated’ to the Work of the Social.” In David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds., Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, pp. 180–196. London: Routledge. Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lewis, Cynthia. 2001. Literary Practices as Social Acts: Power, Status, and Cultural Norms in the Classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Luke, Allan. 1992. “The Body Literate: Discourse and Inscription in Early Literacy Training.” Linguistics and Education 4:107–129. Street, Brian V. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman. Walkerdine, Valerie. 1997. “Redefining the Subject in Situated Cognition Theory.” In David Kirshner and James A. Whitson, eds, Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 57–70. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wilson, Anita. 2000. “There Is No Escape from Third-Space Theory: Borderland Discourse and the ‘In-between’ Literacies of Prisons.” In David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds., Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, pp. 54–69. London: Routledge.
The purposes of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR) are to promote the scientific study of reading and to disseminate information about reading and reading-related areas such as language and literacy. The organization was founded in 1994 and incorporated as a nonprofit, educational organization under the laws of the state of Missouri in the United States of America. It is an international organization, however. Currently, it has around 400 members with about 35 percent from countries around the world—Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, China, Columbia, Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and Wales. Most of the members are professors at universities who try to follow the best principles of science in their research related to reading. The official journal of the society is Scientific Studies of Reading, currently edited by Frank Manis of the University of Southern California, and published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. The presidents of the society, their university affiliations, and their terms of office are as follows: Ronald P. Carver, University of Missouri at Kansas City, 1994–1995; Linnea C. Ehri, City University of New York, 1996–1997; Ralph Reynolds, University of Utah, 1998–1999; Charles Perfetti, University of Pittsburgh, 2000– 2001; Richard Olson, University of Colorado at Boulder, 2002–2003; Joanna Williams, Teachers College, Columbia University, 2004–2005. The headquarters for SSSR is currently located at the University of Missouri at Kansas City. The association manager is Darlene Beeman, and her contact information is SSSR c/o UMKC, 5100 Rockhill Road, Rm. 347ED, Kansas City, MO 64110; (816)235–2236; fax (816)235–6511; email:
[email protected]. Ronald P. Carver
Sociolinguistics and Literacy There are many varieties of sociolinguistics (Fasold, 1990), the field that studies the multiple and complex relationships between society and language, whether oral or written. All these vari599
Sociolinguistics and Literacy eties, however, share a basic interest in how language and context relate to each other. Context refers to an ever-widening set of factors that accompany language in use. These include the material setting, the people present (and what they know and believe), the language that comes before and after a given utterance, the social relationships of the people involved, and their ethnic, gendered, and sexual identities as well as cultural, historical, and institutional factors. Most contemporary work in sociolinguistics has come to assume a reflexive view of the relationship between language and context (Duranti and Goodwin, 1992). Reflexive here means that, at one and the same time, an utterance influences what we take the context to be and context influences how we construe the meaning of the utterance. We can see this reflexive relationship by considering even a simple dialogue—such as “How are ya?” “Fine”—exchanged between colleagues in an office corridor. Why do they use these words in this context? Because they take the context to be but a brief and mundane encounter between acquaintances. But why do they take the context to be thus? In part, because they are using just such words as these. Had the exchange opened with “What’s YOUR problem?” the context would have been construed quite differently. Words, phrases, and utterances in use do not have fixed meanings. Rather, they act as “cues” that guide active construction of meaning in context (Gee, 1999; Gumperz, 1982). We situate meanings in terms of the contexts we take ourselves to be in (however much our construal of those contexts is also shaped by what we take utterances to mean, given the reflexive relationship between language and context). For example, if I say “The coffee spilled” when there are cans all over the floor, you situate a quite different meaning for “coffee” than you do when I say the same thing and there is brown liquid all over the floor. Furthermore, we construct meaning at many different levels, not just at the “literal” level of how words designate things in the world. For example, if I am your boss and I say “The coffee spilled,” this can be taken as a rather abrupt order that indicates a lot about your status and the social relationship between us. Some of how we construe meaning is a matter of habit. Having lived and been socialized within specific sorts of social groups, families,
cultures, and institutions, we come to mean and construe meaning in somewhat (though rarely totally) routine or habitualized forms (Bakhtin, 1986) In this sense, our families, social groups, cultures, and institutions think and mean for us (this is why dictionaries can exist, though even ritualized meanings change over the course of history). The meanings we give and take from language in use, however, are always a combination of habitualized aspects of meaning and more dynamic and creative aspects (Bakhtin, 1986). My words are always simultaneously “inflected” with meanings they have taken on in other settings and texts and “inflected” with my own creative meaning-making capacities as an individual. Registers or Social Languages One way to view sociolinguistics is to see it as concerned with the ways in which people use language to become, at specific times and places, certain socially meaningful “kinds” of people, though, of course, these kinds are always instantiated in performances colored by our own individuality (Gee, 1999). When we speak or write we do not speak or write in “generic English” but always in some specific variety of English in terms of which we seek to be recognized as a particular “kind of person” (a certain sort of “who”) trying to do a particular type of thing (a certain sort of “what”). Because all of us have mastered a number of different varieties of English, we can all take on and recognize a variety of different socially situated identities (for example, a particular type of first-grade teacher, or community activist, or radical feminist, each of whom may very well be one and the same person). A variety of language that helps enact a particular identity or carry out a particular activity is called a “register” or a “social language” (Bakhtin, 1986; Gee, 1999; Halliday and Hasan, 1989). Let me give two examples: First, a young college woman tells her parents at dinner her judgments about the characters in a story she has read; at another time, she tells her boyfriend the same information when they are alone together. She says to her parents about one character: “Well, when I thought about it, I don’t know, it seemed to me that Gregory should be the most offensive,” while to her boyfriend she says about the same character: “What an ass that guy was, you know, her boyfriend” (see Gee, 1999 for the full texts). 600
Sociolinguistics and Literacy It is clear that this young woman is using two different forms of language. To her parents, she carefully hedges her claims (“when I thought about it”); to her boyfriend, she makes her claims straight out. To her boyfriend, she uses terms such as ass and guy, whereas to her parents she uses more formal terms such as offensive. She also uses more formal sentence structure to her parents (“it seemed to me that”) than she does to her boyfriend (“that guy, you know, her boyfriend”). This young woman is making two different visible and recognizable versions of who she is as well as what she takes her relationship to be (for that time and place) with her parents and her boyfriend and what she takes herself to be doing with them. In one case she is a well-educated upper-middle-class daughter having dinner with her parents and construing the context, for the moment at least, as relatively formal. In the other case, she is a girlfriend and peer being intimate with her boyfriend. Obviously, more is at stake here than “literal meanings.” She is enacting a specific socially meaningful identity, and she is communicating a bevy of value-laden information about values, attitudes, and relationships. Let me give one more example. Biologists, and other scientists, write differently in professional journals than they do in popular science magazines, and these two different ways of writing accomplish different activities and display different identities. To see this, consider the same scientist writing about the same topic in a professional science journal and in a popular science magazine (Myers, 1990). The scientist’s topic is a particular species of butterfly that has coevolved with one particular species of plant on which it, and it alone, preys. Thus, both species have shaped each other’s evolution across time. In the professional scientific journal, the subjects of the sentences and many of the other words in the text are the names of methodological tools in natural science (for example, “Experiments show . . .”) or roles that entities play in the particular scientific theory of coevolution (for example, “this egg mimics,” “host-restricted group of insect herbivores”). The text in the scientific journal is concerned with scientific methodology and a particular theoretical perspective on evolution. On the other hand, in the popular science
magazine, the subjects of the sentences are the butterflies and vines themselves (for example, “Heliconcus butterflies lay their eggs . . .,” “ . . .the vines seem to have . . .”). The butterflies and the vine are labeled as such, not in terms of their role in a particular theory. The popular science text is a story about the struggles of insects and plants that are transparently open to the trained gaze of the scientist. These two examples replicate in the present what, in fact, is a historical difference. In the history of biology, the scientist’s relationship with nature gradually changed from telling stories about direct observations of nature (seeing) to carrying out complex experiments to test complex theories and manage uncertainty (Myers, 1990). Note here, too, how institutions and institutional change play into the nature and meanings of texts and how the nature and meanings of texts illuminate the current and past workings of these institutions. These two texts build different “realities” (the “nature-as-lab” versus “nature as open to the gaze”), different identities (the experimenter/ theoretician versus the careful observer of nature), and different activities (the professional contribution to science and the popularization of it). Once again, much more is at stake than the “literal meanings” of words and phrases. Rather, these two texts each reflect and help to create different sorts of cultural, historical, professional, and institutional meanings as well as different types of attitudes, values, and relationships to people, things, nature, and knowledge. Oral and Written Language in Social Practices Traditionally literacy has been viewed primarily in terms of the mental skills and processing required for reading and writing. Sociolinguistics, on the other hand, looks at written texts as part and parcel of social practices and relationships (Gumperz, 1982; Hymes, 1974; Street, 1984). Traditionally, scholars have seen oral and written language as two quite separate things. Sociolinguistics, on the other hand, studies both oral and written language as language in use. Furthermore, sociolinguistics studies oral and written language in terms of the social practices in which they are used, social practices that very often combine or relate oral and written language. It is important to see that there are no fixed 601
Sociolinguistics and Literacy features that clearly distinguish oral and written language in use (Biber, 1992). Lectures are spoken and often orally composed, but they share many grammatical and discourse features with typical written forms such as reports and essays. Personal letters (and many e-mail messages and Internet chats) are written but share many grammatical and discourse features with everyday conversation. Furthermore, different cultures put oral and written language to different uses (Besnier, 1995), although in some circumstances putting them to much the same uses. Therefore, we need to study social practices, practices that often integrate speech, writing, and action, and not just oral utterances or written texts all by themselves. It is true that oral language is usually uttered in the contexts in which it is “consumed” (interpreted), whereas written language is usually consumed in a context different from the one in which it was composed. But this does not mean that written language is “decontextualized.” Rather, to give it meaning, readers have to contextualize it both in terms of their current contexts and in terms of the contexts in which it was composed or those in which it was intended to be used.
things like “What did you do first?” “What did you use? Flour?” thereby getting the child to explicitly mention wax). These children tended to engage in sharing-time performances that were either linear stories or reports (first this happened, then that happened) or factual descriptions (for example, how the child had made a candle). Many of the lower-socioeconomic African American children in the study, especially the girls, engaged in a different sort of sharing-time performance. They engaged in performances that were not linear “blow-by-blow” reports but colorful stories that used poetic language and were build around images and themes. These children would use a good deal of repetiton and parallelism of the sort typical of poetry (for example, “an’ [my puppy] followed me, an’ I hadda go all the way back, an’ then he kept followin’ me back and forth, an’ I hadda keep comin’ back”). Some teachers heard such performances as not about “one” thing. Furthermore, they could not interrupt these children in a nondisruptive way, in part because these children often used falling pitch contours at the ends of episodes or scenes in their stories and not, as the mainstream children did, at the ends of what would have been sentences had their stories been written down. The teacher was listening for such falling contours as an appropriate place to interrupt and scaffold the child’s performance. By her own expectations (that they would be at the end of “sentences”), she heard “too few” of them. This was part of what led her to hear these children as “rambling on.” In some cases, African American children were told to sit down because they were not talking about “one” thing. Some of the children eventually refused to volunteer to share any more. Unfortunately, these teachers did not realize that these children were telling early versions of the sorts of stories that are highly valued in some parts of the African American community, a storytelling tradition that has a long history. Ironically, too, there are important similarities between the way stories are told in this tradition and the sorts of storytelling traditions that are foundational to what became Western literature. Researchers concluded that these teachers were actually treating sharing time as early literacy training for children who could not yet write well. They were listening for but one type of lit-
Socially Situated Identities and Social Interaction One perspective stemming from work on sociolinguistics that has been influential in educational research is this: People’s socially situated identities (for example, as “good readers,” as a “successful student,” or as what it means to be, say, an African American woman at a given time and place) are negotiated within and constructed out of moment-by-moment social interactions (Duranti and Goodwin, 1992). To take just one example, consider work on “sharing time” in early schooling (for example, see Michaels, 1981; Gee, Michaels, and O’Connor, 1992). Teachers in the classrooms studied often had a rule for sharing time that students should talk about “one important thing.” When mainstream, middle-class (Anglo or African American) children shared, the teacher interrupted them in ways that did not disrupt their performances and that scoffolded them to shape those performances along the lines the teacher desired (for example, to a child talking about making candles, the teacher interrupts to say 602
Software for Older Readers Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Michaels, Sarah. 1981. “‘Sharing time’: Children’s Narrative Styles and Differential Access to Literacy.” Language in Society 10:423–442. Myers, Greg. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Street, Brian. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
erate behavior (namely a linear, topic-centered report much like an essay). The African American children understood something quite different by the request to tell a story than the teacher was intending and listening for, though teachers never made their expectations explicit to the children, in part, because they were not consciously aware of them. In the end, the social interaction around sharing time in these classrooms constructed some children as successfully on the way to acquiring school-based literacy, and others as not. It also constructed some of the African American children as not “making sense” when, in fact, they were engaging in a culturally highly valued practice of telling engaging theme-based and poetic stories. These sorts of sharing-time practices privileged only one sort of oral language (namely that which led to linear sorts of speaking and writing) and one type of literacy (early versions of reports and essays and not, say, early versions of creative literature). Though the sharing-time performances were oral, much the same things we have said about them could be said about school practices within which written texts are produced. James Paul Gee
Software for Older Readers Software for older readers includes all computer software designed to enhance the literacy of juveniles and adolescents. Some software programs, such as interactive encyclopedias, serve as resources through which the user can access— and often manipulate—written information that is presented as text on the computer screen. Many software programs provide guided practice or instruction in word recognition, reading comprehension, spelling, and other skills associated with literacy. Yet others offer the means for users to create their own works of literacy, such as writing stories. Some of the programs are comprehensive in scope; most include sound, animated graphics, and other multimedia applications. An overview of literacy-related software programs that are particularly relevant for adolescents is presented in this entry. The software programs are divided into two broad categories: electronic books and tutorial/practice software.
References Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Besnier, Nikko. 1995. Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Polynesian Atoll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Biber, Douglas. 1992. Variations across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duranti, Alexandro, and Charles Goodwin, eds. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fasold, Ronald. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Vol. 2 of Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Gee, James Paul. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. Gee, James Paul, Sarah Michaels, and Cathy O’Conner. 1992. “Discourse Analysis.” In Margaret LeCompte, Wendy Millroy, and Judith Preissle, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research in Education, pp. 227–291. NY: Academic Press. Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, Context, Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Electronic Books Electronic books, sometimes called eBooks, offer readers a computerized alternative to traditional forms of printed text. They include tools that support literacy in ways not possible with traditional books (for example, adjustable print sizes and electronic bookmarks). Electronic books are available as commercially produced CD-ROMs, and thousands of complete books can be downloaded from the Internet to stationary computers or to portable eBook readers. These small, battery-operated computers are shaped like tablets the size of a paperback book and weigh about one pound. The eBook readers, which can store dozens of books at one time, connect directly to any phone line and allow the owner to acquire new titles instantly. Some eBook readers come with electronic amenities such as built-in 603
Software for Older Readers dictionaries that allow the user to access definitions simply by touching the screen. The diverse examples of electronic books presented in this entry have been classified into two broad categories: (1) literature and (2) content-area textbooks and other reference materials. Electronic literature comprises fiction, poetry, drama, and other creative works. Ranging in content from classic to popular, this software is available in various formats and degrees of complexity, from basic hypertext (see “Hypertext” entry) translations to interactive multimedia packages. A casual reader may select, for example, an electronic version of Treasure Island (Gemstar eBook Publishing) or the latest DC Comics adventure (Inverse Ink). In contrast, a student, teacher, or researcher may prefer a multifaceted program with note-taking capability, such as Robert Frost: Poems, Life, Legacy (Henry Holt), which includes not only searchable text of the complete poems, selected letters, critical essays, and a full-length biography but also extensive audio of the poet reading, archival photographs, and a multimedia documentary. A teacher’s manual accompanies the CD-ROM. Other examples of literature-based, electronic books for juveniles and adolescents include the Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (Southern Star Interactive), a comprehensive, multimedia examination of the story and its author; the History of British Literature (Clearview), which consists of five classics along with explanatory notes; and Start to Finish Books (Don Johnson), a multimedia library of classic works that are presented in three formats—CD-ROM, audiocassette, and paperback book. The Start to Finish Books have been condensed and rewritten for adolescents and adults who are deficient in reading skills. Electronic content-area textbooks and references are, like their paper counterparts, concentrated sources of information about a single topic or a broad range of topics. The multimedia capabilities and flexible searching potential of the electronic medium, however, clearly enhance the user’s experience. Representative software programs of this type include American History Explorer (Learning Company), Africa (Encarta), Animal Planet (Discovery Channel Media), Multimedia Encyclopedia (Grolier Interactive), and the Collegiate Dictionary, Deluxe Electronic Edition (Merriam-Webster).
Tutorial and Practice Software Numerous software programs claim to teach some aspect of literacy and/or to develop proficiency in a related skill. Some of these programs consist of a single CD-ROM and user’s guide; others are comprehensive systems. Nearly all are designed specifically for students and are identified by their respective manufacturers as being suitable for a particular range of grade levels. Few programs have been developed exclusively for adolescents. Tutorial/practice programs use multimedia applications as an aid to instruction and motivation. Although many of these programs incorporate electronic book material, they all also include a significant component of interactive instruction and/or practice. Practice and assessment activities are usually presented as games. Very few programs provide detailed instructional feedback regarding incorrect responses. Reading software typically focuses on either (1) reading comprehension or (2) specific reading skills. All comprehension software programs, such as Accelerated Reader (grades 1–12, Renaissance Learning), High School Reading Comprehension Series (grades 9–12, Optimum Resource), and Reading Galaxy (grades 4–8, Broderbund), pose multiple questions about selections of on-screen text. Some, such as That’s a Fact Jack! Read (grades 3–10, Tom Snyder Productions), claim to stimulate higher-level thinking skills. Scholastic’s comprehensive Reading 180 (grades 4–12) offers multiple assessment options and incorporates diverse media such as traditional printed books and videocassettes in addition to CD-ROM tutorial/practice activities. Programs that target specific reading skills typically address aspects of phonics and/or word identification. They are usually marketed toward a wide range of developing and remedial readers, including adults, although some rely on juvenile themes in their text, graphics, and/or activities. Examples of phonics and word identification programs that are intended for use by adolescents are the Language Tune-up Kit (grades 2–12 plus adult, JW or Enterprise), My Reading Coach (grades 1–12, Mindplay), Phonics Tutor (grades K–12 plus adults, Learning Services), and Reading S.O.S (grades 4–12 plus adults, Lexia Learning Systems). A few programs target other skills, such as reading speed (for example, the Ultimate Speed Reader, grades 9–12, Knowledge Adventure). 604
Speed Reading
Speed Reading
Writing software products tend to fall into one or more of the following four categories: (1) mechanics, such as grammar and punctuation; (2) vocabulary and/or spelling; (3) composition and/or the writing process; and (4) creative writing. Some programs address multiple skills, such as Abilities Builder (grades K–12, Teacher Interactive Software), Developing Writing Skills (grades 7–12 plus adult, Queue), and Super Tutor English (grades 7–12, Resource Center). Others specifically target grammar (for example, Grammar for the Real World, grades 4–12, Knowledge Adventure; Grammar Renegades, Level C, grades 7–12, Gamco) or punctuation (for example, Tackle English, grades 4–9, Clearview). Examples of programs that emphasize vocabulary and/or spelling are Scrabble (all ages, Hasbro Interactive), Vocabulary Builder (all ages, Merriam-Webster), and Word Games at Camelot (grades 4–12, Adventure Learning Ware). Many writing programs focus on composition rather than skills. Most emphasize the process and/or format of writing (for example, Inspiration, grades 6–12 plus adult, Inspiration Software; Paragraph Power and Responsive Writing, grades 5–10, Gamco; Student Report Writer, grades 3–12, FTC; Student Writing Center, grades 6–12, Learning Company), whereas a few target creative writing (for example, Writing and Reading Poetry, grades 5–8, Visions Poetry). Software for older readers varies greatly with respect to quality of multimedia presentation, instructional relevance, directions and feedback for users, appropriateness for different age and skill levels, assessment features, hardware requirements, and availability of technical support (Shelly et al., 1999). Reviews of software for children of all ages are published by Active Learning Associates in Children’s Software Review, and reviews of more than 5,000 software products are available on its companion web site at http://www.childrenssoftware.com. R. Scott Baldwin and Donna M. Murphy
Perhaps one of the more contentious issues in the history of reading instruction has been that of speed reading. During the 1960s and early 1970s, there were a number of systems that found a national following (for example, Evelyn Wood Reading Dynamics), and some advertised that their programs could increase reading rate astronomically—almost overnight. There were also claims that after some brief, but intense, training an “average” person could read 1,500 to 6,000 words per minute, and those individuals with “superior” ability could read up to 25,000 words per minute (Curtis Mitchell, 5 February 1961, as cited in Spache, 1976). If these claims were accurate, George Spache (1976) suggested that such speed would entail reading a page of text at one glance, and he questioned these purported claims by inquiring as to why the educational community, specifically the reading specialists, had failed to employ these methods in schools or clinics. He further indicated that he was unaware of any research that would substantiate these claims. Although speed-reading assertions created a great deal of consternation within the reading community, a number of individuals sought to resolve questions or false claims. Spache was one of the leaders in this effort, and in a number of articles published during the period of 1962–1964 and findings synthesized in his 1976 book, he painstakingly reviewed the research and addressed the claims of speed-reading advocates. He suggested that the interpretation of speed reading was primarily a matter of semantics and how the act of reading was defined. Of course, Spache’s definition of reading involved both vocabulary awareness and more than just a moderate understanding of the material read, whereas much of what the speed-reading proponents claimed as reading was actually skimming and scanning (with varying comprehension). Spache further suggested that reading 800 to 900 words per minute over an extended period of time was impossible and demonstrated this premise through a careful discussion of the number of fixations that it takes to read a tenword line (what is physically involved in reading across a line of print). Projecting his calculations to a longer piece, he concluded that under optimum conditions there was a possibility that selected individuals could read at a maximum rate
See also Early Literacy Software References Shelly, Gary B., Thomas J. Cashman, Randolph E. Gunter, and Glenda A. Gunter. 1999. Teachers Discovering Computers: A Link to the Future. Cambridge: Course Technology.
605
Spelling of 900 words per minute, but maintaining a rate over 900 words per minute would be a difficult task at best. Two other highly regarded reading researchers also responded to the claims of the speed-reading advocates. Miles Tinker (1969), a pioneer in eye movement research, concluded that rates of over 800 words per minute would strongly suggest that the reader was skimming rather than reading the full text. Also, Ruth Strang (1969) reported that the physiological limit in reading for comprehension was not more than 800 words per minute. Jimmy D. Lindsey and Earl H. Cheek Jr.
efficient reading of words as well as the automatic and efficient writing of words. The Nature of the English Spelling System A common assumption is that the primary purpose of a spelling system based on an alphabet is to represent sounds and to do so in a consistent manner. In such a system each letter should represent one and only one sound or phoneme. Linguists have noted, however, that most alphabetic writing systems do more than represent sounds; they also represent morphological information, that is, grammatical or syntactic information and meaning or semantic information. The balance between sound and morphology varies across alphabetically based written languages; Spanish and Vietnamese, for example, are more consistent at the level of one letter/one sound correspondence than are English and French. Linguistic analyses have demonstrated that the spelling system of English is considerably more logical than commonly assumed, however, when the consistency with which meaning elements or morphemes are represented is taken into account. In English, words that share common meaning elements are spelled similarly, thus visually preserving these semantic relationships. So, for example, the base in solemn/solemnity and compete/competition/competitive is spelled the same despite the variation when these words are pronounced. Contrast these spellings with solum/ sulemnity and cumpeat/computishun/cumpetativ, in which the spelling more closely reflects sound. As is the case with a large number of words in English, when certain suffixes are attached to a base they effect a change in the pronunciation of the base but not in the spelling. These examples illustrate that English spelling has evolved into a system in which consistent visual identity of word parts takes precedence over consistent letter-sound representation (Venezky, 1999). Consistently representing the visual relationships among meaning elements, however, unavoidably results in greater variability at the level of lettersound relationships. Were English to have followed a different course in which there was more consistency at the level of letter/sound relationships, as in the examples above, these meaning relationships would be obscured. The meaning layer of English spelling, therefore, brings a significant degree of regularity and predictability to the system. Two other layers of
See also Eye Movements References Spache, George D. 1976. Investigating the Issues of Reading Disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Strang, Ruth. 1969. Diagnostic Teaching of Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill. Tinker, Miles A. 1969. “The Uses and Limitations of Eye-Movement Studies of Reading.” In Psychology of Reading Behavior, Eighteenth Yearbook National Reading Conference, pp. 4–8. Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference.
Spelling Spelling has over the years been variously considered as a system of representing language, a process, a product, a subject of the language arts curriculum, and a skill or convention of writing. In the last quarter of the twentieth century a more comprehensive view of spelling emerged in which both the product and the process of spelling were seen to reflect and contribute to the language competence of learners at all phases of literacy development. This more comprehensive view was based on (1) linguistic analyses of the spelling system of English and (2) investigations of the learning and teaching of spelling. As a system, English spelling represents information about the language at the level of sound as well as at the level of meaning and is therefore a more logical and consistent system of representation than is commonly thought. The development of learners’ knowledge of this system is a conceptual process rather than a process of rote memorization. Spelling knowledge is as critical a component in the reading process as it is in the writing process, supporting the automatic and 606
Spelling
Teacher sounding out spelling words (Elizabeth Crews)
There are exceptions to the generalizability of the within- and between-syllable patterns, of course: VCe and VV vowel patterns do not always signal long vowels (come, said), and a VCV syllable juncture pattern does not always signal a long vowel in the first syllable (finish). This variability, however, is not the rule. Despite the influence of historical factors such as the decisions of typesetters in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and the shifting pronunciation of particular sounds over the years, within- and between-syllable patterns bring greater rather than less logic and consistency to representation at the level of sound. As has been noted, at the morphological level there is a high degree of consistency.
information, alphabet and pattern, bring a greater degree of logic to the representation of sound than is commonly assumed. The alphabetic layer represents the sequential left-to-right matchup of letters and sounds, as in the word cap. At the within-syllable level, the pattern relationship is apparent in the word cape, in which the relationship to sound is not captured in a strict one-letter/one-sound mapping but between a group or pattern of letters functioning as a unit to map to sound. The spelling -ape is an example of the vowel-consonant-silent e (VCe) pattern; though not representing a sound itself, the letter e functions to mark a long rather than a short vowel pronunciation. Similarly, the vowelvowel (VV) pattern in rain signals a long a pronunciation with the silent i serving a marking function. At the between-syllable level, syllable juncture patterns operate such as the vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel (VCCV) juncture pattern in words such as runner and yellow and the vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV) juncture pattern in legal and human.
The Development of Spelling Knowledge In the last quarter of the twentieth century developmental spelling research focused on the nature and course of learners’ knowledge of this multilayered system (Henderson, 1990). From the very beginning of young children’s exploration of print through their attempts at writing, 607
Spelling spelling has been revealed to be a conceptual process as opposed to primarily a rote-memory process. Though aspects of every level are reflected in learners’ spelling throughout the course of development (Treiman, 1993), in general younger children acquire knowledge primarily of alphabetic and pattern features; older students acquire knowledge of the morphological features of the system. Investigations of spelling development have been based principally on examinations of spontaneous writing and performance on dictated spelling assessments. Examining how individuals spell words provides the most direct window into their lexical knowledge, their knowledge about words that is applied in processes of both encoding and decoding. To offer a sense of the developmental progression in English-speaking learners, a few features will be highlighted here. The early writing attempts of children reveal some letters and letter-like forms; somewhat later the writing is dominated primarily by consonant letters, with perhaps a few vowel letters scattered throughout. Eventually, writing includes a vowel in almost every syllable (nonconventional spellings are indicated in capital letters in the following lists): MAK (make), SEP (ship), CHRAK (track). In time, young learners’ spelling attempts reflect characteristics of some of the words they can identify immediately in their reading; thus it is that pattern features begin to emerge: first, vowel pattern spellings include silent letter markers such as e in RANE (rain) and DRAEP (drape); later, intersyllabic features are negotiated, such as ALOWED (allowed) and DISSAPEAR (disappear). Spellings such as ACCOMODATE (accommodate) and ALLEDGE (allege) characterize the spelling knowledge of skilled readers. Though beyond the scope of this entry, crosscultural research suggests that the sound-pattern-morphology developmental trend is apparent among children who speak other languages as well. In general, beginning learners expect to find consistency at the level of sound and spelling. Later in development, learners are capable of discerning consistency at the level of meaning and spelling.
growing body of developmental and experimental research, during the last quarter of the twentieth century a conceptual framework emerged for the nature of spelling or word study instruction (Templeton and Morris, 2000). It became clear that learning how to spell is a process of conceptual development. This insight is in marked contrast to the prevailing research and pedagogical stance for most of the twentieth century, which held that the spelling system of English does an inefficient job of representing sounds, and because there is so much variability at the letter/sound or grapheme/phoneme level, mastery of the system can only be achieved through rote memorization and repetitive practice. Skills-based and progressive educators alike tended to define the role of spelling more narrowly, as that of being merely a convention of writing. For both perspectives this focus has meant that students should learn proofreading skills as well as how to spell the 1,000 words that comprise 90 percent of an adult writing vocabulary and the remaining 2,000 or so that comprise most of the remaining 10 percent. Skills-based educators focused on the determination of how many words per lesson/week/year the students should explicitly study at different grade levels and the manner in which this study should proceed. Progressive educators emphasized learning spelling on an as-needed basis in the context of writing, eschewing the more formal study of groups or lists of words apart from the context of writing. The newer conceptualization of spelling instruction covers a broader domain: Although acknowledging the importance of learning proofreading skills and the spelling of the words that occur most frequently, there is greater emphasis on exploration and discovery of sound and meaning patterns. Because this emphasis serves not only writing but reading as well, the instructional emphasis thus shifts from “How many words should students study?” to “What are the productive spelling patterns that students should explore at the beginning, transitional, intermediate, and advanced phases of literacy development?” Conceptualized in this way, words for study are selected based on the type(s) of pattern they represent: alphabetic, within- and betweensyllable, and morphological. Research in spelling pedagogy has underscored the critical importance of students’ mean-
The Learning and Teaching of Spelling As a consequence primarily of linguistic descriptions of the spelling system of English and a 608
Spelling ingful engagements with reading and writing. Students who are good spellers are good readers and good writers: They enjoy reading, and, importantly, they are more likely to enjoy writing. In large part because of this, they are more disposed to attend to and be curious about the nuances of words, including their spelling. Though some students’ spelling ability develops through reading and writing without much additional attention to words outside of these contexts, for most learners additional examination of words is necessary. Even for those students who seem more “naturally” to develop spelling, however, explicit examination of words helps them become aware of patterns that are first perceived only tacitly. Adult readers and spellers, for example, are usually not aware of the tendency of English spelling to preserve visually the meaningful relationships among words and are usually surprised and intrigued when it is pointed out to them. For example, individuals who spell allege as ALLEDGE (most likely through a pattern analogy with ledge) are able to remember the correct spelling when the related word allegation is pointed out to them. The conceptual framework for spelling organizes instruction in terms of several aspects.
are likely to ensure that students have sufficient underlying word knowledge to support learning the conventional spelling of the words. Highfrequency words, many of which do not follow predictable patterns, may be studied a few at a time, together with the words that do follow patterns. Traditionally, there has been more consistency among spelling instructional programs at the primary levels with respect to patterns and representative words selected for study. There has been far less consistency, however, at the intermediate and advanced levels. These are the levels at which students can become aware of and explore the role of morphology in spelling and then connect this knowledge with vocabulary development. Although spelling and vocabulary have traditionally been addressed to varying degrees in classroom instruction, they have seldom been combined in a coordinated and systematic fashion. A convergence of developmental and experimental research has now provided sufficient support and guidelines for designing such coordinated instruction (Templeton and Bear, 1992). In-depth instruction begins, for example, with an exploration of known words that are related in terms of spelling and meaning (crumb/crumble; sign/signature; please/pleasant). The meaning relationships among the related words are noted, followed by a discussion of how the sound changes or alternates between the related forms: We keep the b in crumb because it is related in meaning to crumble; the spelling preserves the meaning that these words share. Through such examination and discussion, students can appreciate the fact that if words were really spelled “the way they sound,” the visual, meaning relationship among them would be lost. Later, this exploration is extended to Greek and Latin word elements; though the pronunciation of these elements may change depending on the words in which they occur, as in -dict- (dictate/indict) and -cred- (credible/credence), the spelling usually does not change.
Assessment of Spelling Knowledge Determining students’ spelling instructional levels is as important as determining their reading instructional levels. Because the types of words and patterns students explore are primarily a function of where they fall along a continuum of literacy development, informal spelling assessments have been developed that may assist teachers in this determination. Students’ spelling levels may be described in terms of developmental phase or grade; both descriptions guide teachers in determining the particular spelling features their students need to explore. If students are not examining words at their appropriate level, however, then even the best of activities will not ensure effective and efficient learning of spelling.
How to Study Words In the area of spelling pedagogy, research does not unequivocally favor one specific type of word study over another. The most reasonable conclusion that may be drawn from the research is that students should examine words from a variety of perspectives (Templeton and Morris,
Words Selected for Study Words should be representative of common patterns at students’ developmental/instructional level. In most instances, particularly at the primary level, they should also be words that students know how to read. These two criteria 609
Standardized Test Score Decline 2000). For most students, this examination includes a combination of active exploration and search for pattern with teacher questioning and explanation or modeling, as appropriate, of word features and patterns. Edmund Henderson (1990) described the goal of such study as developing a habit of search and an attitude of inquiry. Particularly effective are activities in which students compare and contrast words according to features of sound, spelling, and meaning. For example, effective formats for this comparison and contrast are word sorts and writing sorts. Word sort activities involve the use of words that are written or printed on small cards that can easily be manipulated and categorized in different ways. After comparing and contrasting words according to spelling and sound patterns, students are encouraged to derive a spelling generalization. For example, after sorting words such as hopping, planning, and running in one column and raining, roaming, and training in an adjacent column, students may be led to a productive generalization about when to double a final consonant when adding ing and when not to double. Writing sorts differ from word sorts only in that the words are categorized by writing them in appropriate columns. In addition to sorting activities, other effective formats involve the use of words in synonymic and antonymic relationships and in completing analogies. These types of spelling activities, involving reading and spelling the words, are more likely to ensure that students will remember and spell correctly specific words as well as abstract patterns that may be generalized to a number of other words. Importantly, these activities support students in perceiving generalizations; this is more effective than trying to learn spelling by applying rules provided by teachers. Of course, attention should continue to be given to proofreading in the context of editing written compositions. If students are studying words at their appropriate developmental/instructional level, then this type of active exploration brings the underlying logic of the spelling system to a level of explicit awareness; this in turn may lead to a more inquisitive and favorable attitude toward the spelling system. Effective spelling instruction, however, depends upon the knowledge base of the teacher. Teachers who are not aware of the
different layers of information in the spelling system of English and of the characteristics of developing spelling and word knowledge are usually uncertain about the nature of effective practice and are not as likely to accommodate for the varying levels of spelling ability in their classrooms (Barone, 1992). Shane Templeton and Diane Barone References Barone, Diane. 1992. “Whatever Happened to Spelling? The Role of Spelling Instruction in Process-Centered Classrooms.” Reading Psychology 2:1–18. Henderson, Edmund H. 1990. Teaching Spelling. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Templeton, Shane, and Donald R. Bear, eds. 1992. Development of Orthographic Knowledge and the Foundations of Literacy: A Memorial Festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Templeton, Shane, and Darrell Morris. 2000. “Spelling.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol III, pp. 525–543. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Treiman, R. 1993. Beginning to Spell. New York: Oxford University Press. Venezky, Richard L. 1999. The American Way of Spelling: The Structure and Origins of American English Orthography. New York: Guilford Press.
Standardized Test Score Decline There is a widespread perception among the American public and policymakers that students in the United States do not read and write as well today as they did in the past. This perception has significant implications for educational policy and funding priorities: It underlies the demands for accountability and calls for extensive reform of schooling that have dominated educational policymaking for the past twenty years. Standardized tests that have been administered to a large national sample over a period of many years provide the best evidence of achievement trends. (See “Reading Assessment,” “Standardized Testing,” and “Writing Assessment” entries). Such tests include the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS). Scores on the NAEP and ITBS reading tests have not declined. NAEP writing scores declined moderately for seventeen-year610
Standardized Test Score Decline old students from 1984 to 1996 and remained essentially unchanged for nine-year-olds and thirteen-year-olds. Scores on the SAT have declined somewhat, but this decline is probably fully explained by the increased proportion of highschool students who currently take the test. In short, there is no convincing evidence that students today do not read as well as they did at some point in the past, but there may have been a modest decline in the writing of high-school students since 1984. The use of test scores to compare the achievement of students across the years poses complex problems because of changes in the tests and changes in the sample of students who took the test as a representation of all students. Achievement is inferred from student performance on particular tasks, and the meaning and demands of those tasks gradually shift over time. Today’s reading passages and writing prompts may refer to globalization, computer games, and cell phones, whereas those of fifty years ago asked about the Marshall Plan and the Iron Curtain. Changing policies regarding social promotion have resulted in shifts in the age of students. For example, in 1940 the average age of Indiana students entering sixth grade was twelve years and four months; in 1970, it was eleven years and six months, nearly a year younger, because fewer children were retained in grade. A much larger proportion of students graduated from high school in 2000 than in 1960, which must be taken into account in comparing the scores of high-school students across years. Special education policies and policies regarding the exclusion of students from testing have also changed over time. Because of increases in immigration and a decline in domestic birthrates, students tested today tend to be more diverse in respect to ethnicity and home language than students tested in 1970. Any comparison of test results across time must consider the extent to which the tests themselves represent equivalent tasks and the students tested represent equivalent samples of the population at that time.
monitor achievement nationally over time (See “National Assessment of Educational Progress” entry). Beginning in 1969, nationally representative samples of students at ages nine, thirteen, and seventeen have been tested in science, mathematics, reading, writing, social studies, and the arts every two to four years. The test has not been used as an accountability tool, which means that any increase in scores cannot be attributed to teaching narrowly to the test. All grade levels are measured on a single scale, ranging from 0 to 500. A score of 150 should reflect an ability to follow brief, written directions. A score of 200 should reflect an ability to combine ideas and make inferences based on short, uncomplicated passages. A score of 250 should reflect an ability to combine ideas and make inferences and reach generalizations from passages dealing with literature. A score of 300 should reflect an ability to find, understand, summarize, and explain relatively complicated information. And a score of 350 should reflect an ability to synthesize and learn from specialized and complex texts such as literary essays and historical documents. The NAEP Reading Test was first given in 1971. For nine-year-olds, the average score increased from 208 in 1971 to 215 in 1980, declined to 209 in 1990, and remained at 212 in 1996 and 1999. The scores of thirteen-year-olds showed a similar rise from 255 in 1971 to 258 in 1980 and have remained essentially unchanged since then, averaging 259 in 1999. For seventeenyear-olds, scores rose slowly from 285 in 1971 to 290 in 1992 and averaged 288 in 1999. In short, all three age groups are performing better than they were in 1971, and fluctuations across the decades have been small. Black and Hispanic students demonstrated greater improvement in reading than white students from 1971 to 1999. Although the average score of white nine-year-olds increased 7 points (from 214 in 1971 to 221 in 1999), the average score of black and Hispanic nine-year-olds increased 16 points and 10 points, respectively. Thirteen-year-old black students showed a 16point improvement over this period, and Hispanic thirteen-year-olds showed an 11-point gain. The gains for seventeen-year-old black and Hispanic students were larger still (25 points and 19 points, respectively). Writing was first assessed by NAEP in 1984
The National Assessment of Educational Progress The best indicator of achievement trends in literacy is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a set of tests designed explicitly to 611
Standardized Test Score Decline and changed to a new scoring system in 1998, so that comparison data for writing are only available for the period 1984 through 1996. For nineyear-olds, writing scores remained essentially unchanged, fluctuating between 204 in 1984 and 207 in 1996. Writing scores for thirteen-year-olds dropped slightly from an average of 267 in 1984 to 264 in 1996. Writing scores for seventeenyear-olds showed a slow but steady decline from an average of 290 in 1984 to 283 in 1996. In summary, writing performance for nine- and thirteen-year-old students remained essentially unchanged from 1984 to 1996, and the writing performance of seventeen-year-olds declined moderately across that period.
The Scholastic Aptitude Test The Scholastic Aptitude Test provides a third indicator of long-term trends in student performance. The test is required by many colleges and universities for admission, especially by private colleges and by public universities on the East Coast. The test is not generally required by public institutions in the West. The test has been administered regularly since 1941, and from 1941 to 1996 scores were reported in reference to the performance of 10,654 high school seniors on the East Coast who first signed up to take the test in April 1941 because they were planning to attend selective colleges. The average score of that group was set at 500, with scores ranging from 200 to 800 on the verbal and quantitative sections of the test. The average combined score on the SAT declined from 1,000 in 1941 to 970 in 1952, held relatively steady until 1963, and then began a steady decline to 890 in 1980. After 1980, scores rose a bit, to 906 in 1985. In 1997, the average score was 915. In 1997 the verbal average was 428, compared to 478 in 1963 and 500 in 1941. In April 1995, SAT scores were renormed, establishing the average score of test takers in 1990 at 500 for the verbal and quantitative sections of the test. Scores converted to this new scale show that verbal scores for college-bound seniors who took the test declined steadily from 543 in 1967 to 502 in 1980, remained essentially unchanged until 1995, and then rose to 505 in 1996 and remained at that level through 2000. The decline in SAT scores between 1941 and 1980 is difficult to interpret because, unlike the NAEP or ITBS, the test is taken by volunteers, and the characteristics of students who choose to take it vary from year to year. The students who first took the test in 1941 constituted approximately 0.5 percent of high school seniors at that time, whereas approximately 33 percent of high school seniors took the test in 1980, and 44 percent in 2000. The fact that the 44 percent of seniors taking the test in 2000 scored higher than 33 percent taking the test in 1980 does suggest that seniors are performing higher on the verbal skills measured by the test than seniors twenty years ago. Alan Davis
Norm-Referenced Standardized Tests of Achievement Commercial norm-referenced standardized tests provide another indicator of achievement trends, but their results are not as interpretable as the NAEP results. Unlike NAEP, commercial tests are renormed periodically because their primary use is to compare the performance of individual students to the current performance of other students nationally, not to monitor trends over time. These tests are also used for the purpose of accountability, which suggests that improvements in scores may reflect the narrowing of instruction to emphasize particular tasks featured on the tests, rather than a more general improvement in reading and writing (see “Accountability and Testing” entry). One commercial standardized test, the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, provides an interpretable indicator of long-term achievement trends for the state of Iowa. The test has been administered every year since 1935, and studies carried out at the University of Iowa have equated new editions of the test to previous editions so that achievement can be compared across years. Using grade equivalent scores from 1965 (defining the average performance of a student in the first month of the eighth grade as a score of 8.1), ITBS reading scores for eighth-grade students in Iowa rose from 7.99 in 1955 to 8.47 in 1966, dropped to 7.83 in 1977, rose to 8.30 in 1988, and declined slightly to 8.21 in 1997. These results suggest that eighth graders of 1997 read better than the eighth graders of 1955, but not quite as well as eighth graders in 1966.
See also Accountability and Testing; High-Stakes Assessment; National Assessment of Educational Progress;
612
Standardized Test Score Interpretation with percentile and stanine scores being the most commonly reported. A percentile score, which can range from 1 to 99, indicates the point in a distribution below which falls that percent of scores. For example, if Julia obtained a percentile score of 67 on a word-identification subtest, that means that she did as well as or better than 67 percent of the students in the norm group. Percentile scores, sometimes referred to as percentile ranks, provide an intuitively simple way to represent students’ performance and have the advantage of being comparable across tests and subtests and within and between students. For instance, if Julia obtained a percentile of 45 on a reading-comprehension subtest, one could argue that her word-reading ability exceeded her comprehension. Likewise, Julia’s teacher could state that Juan’s percentile score of 87 on the comprehension subtest represented superior text comprehension ability when compared to Julia. Percentiles have several limitations. They are sometimes confused with percentage scores (for example, a percentile rank of 77 does not mean a student got 77 percent of the items correct on the test). Percentiles are also not equally spaced relative to raw scores; they bunch up in the middle and spread out at the extremes. Thus, if Julia’s comprehension percentile went from 45 to 55 from one year to the next and Juan’s went from 87 to 97, Juan’s improvement would be more dramatic. To eliminate the unequal spacing of percentiles, they can be converted into various normalized standard scores, in which the relationship between raw scores and the derived scores is the same, or nearly the same, throughout the scale. This is accomplished through the use of the mathematical concept called the standard deviation, which is a measure of the degree to which a set of scores varies from the mean (the arithmetic average) of those scores. Stanine scores, the most commonly reported normalized standard scores, range from 1 to 9 and have a mean of 5 and a standard deviation of 2. Each stanine, except for 1 and 9, is one-half standard deviation in width, with stanine 5 bracketing the 50th percentile. Because stanines are evenly distributed, varying percentages of students fall within each (4 percent each in stanines 1 and 9, 7 percent in 2 and 8, 12 percent 3 and 7, 17 percent in 4 and 6, and 20 percent in 5). Like percentiles, stanines can be compared across tests
Reading Assessment; Standardized Testing; Writing Assessment References Berliner, David, and Bruce Biddle. 1995. The Manufactured Crisis. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Campbell, Jay, Catherine Hombo, and John Mazzeo. 2000. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. College Entrance Examination Board. 2001. CollegeBound Seniors 2000. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board. Rothstein, Richard. 1998. The Way We Were? The Myths and Realities of America’s Student Achievement. New York: Century Foundation Press. University of Iowa. 1998. Score Reports and Norms, 1997–98. Iowa City: Iowa Testing Program, University of Iowa.
Standardized Test Score Interpretation A standardized test is a commercial assessment instrument prepared by experts, administered according to uniform procedures (for example, directions, testing time, response format), and designed to obtain a sample of behavior (Mehrens and Lehmann, 1987, 1991). Most standardized tests are norm referenced, which means that a person’s score can be compared to scores of persons in a norm group, that is, others who took the test prior to its publication (see “Standardized Testing” entry). There are many scores that are available from standardized, norm-referenced tests (Lyman, 1998). A raw score, usually the number of items correct on a test, is the initial score and has little interpretive value. Derived scores are converted raw scores that provide information about a test taker’s normative or relative performance on the test. Mehrens and Lehmann (1987, 1991) classified norm-referenced scores as being either “relative position status scores” or “developmental level scores.” Their format will be used to organize this discussion, which includes selective examples from each category. Relative Position Status Scores Relative position status scores compare students’ performance to peers of a similar age or grade, 613
Standardized Test Score Interpretation and subtests. Because there are only nine possible scores, stanines reduce the risk of overinterpreting small differences; on the other hand, they may mask differences (for example, percentile ranks of 41 and 59 would both be assigned a stanine score of 5). Other normalized standard scores include normal curve equivalents (NCEs), deviation intelligence quotient (IQ) scores, and Z and T scores. Mehrens and Lehmann (1991) noted, however, that percentile ranks are the best relative position status scores to use when interpreting test data to nonexperts.
measures, such as an informal reading inventory (see “Informal Reading Inventory” entry), would need to be used to determine Juan’s actual instructional reading level. In addition to the estimation problems, GE scores are often misinterpreted as “standards” of performance. For example, some persons might expect all students at the end of third grade to achieve GEs of 3.9 or higher, but that could be an unreasonable expectation, given that only about half of the students in the norm group attained scores in this range. GE scores cannot be compared across tests and subtests. For example, it is possible that, when examining the corresponding percentile scores, Julia’s GE vocabulary subtest score of 4.5 might actually be higher than a 5.1 GE on a mathematics subtest. Extreme GE scores can be misleading. A fifth-grade student achieving a GE word identification subtest score of 2.2 would indicate low performance, but that does not necessarily mean that the student should be placed in a beginning second-grade basal reader; again, other assessments must be used to determine a student’s instructional reading level. Other developmental level scores include age equivalency and mental age scores, but they suffer from the same limitations. Because of the various interpretation problems associated with GE scores, in 1981 the International Reading Association recommended that publishers not report GE scores and that standardized test users not use them when interpreting students’ performance. James F. Baumann
Developmental Level Scores Developmental level scores compare persons across grades or ages, with grade equivalency (GE) scores being the most commonly reported. Grade equivalency scores compare students’ performance to that of students at other grades by expressing the average (mean or median) performance of students at that grade level. GEs consist of digits separated by a decimal. The first digit represents the grade and the second digit the month. For example, if Julia, a third grader, obtained a GE score of 4.5 on a vocabulary subtest, that means that she did as well on that test as did the average student in the fifth month of fourth grade. GEs have many interpretation problems, primarily owing to the manner in which they are constructed. In order to get cross-grade-level comparisons, test publishers administer tests during norming to students not only at the designated grade level but also to students one or two grades above and below the intended grade level. Scores in between the actual scores are mathematically filled-in (interpolated), and scores above and below the grade levels tested are mathematically estimated (extrapolated). Therefore, Julia’s GE of 4.5 is probably an interpolated estimate of what a student in the middle of fourth grade would do on the vocabulary subtest. If Juan, another third grader, achieved a GE score of 8.5 on the vocabulary test, it would likely be an extrapolated projection of what a middle eighth grader might have achieved on the test. Juan’s GE score of 8.5, however, does not necessarily mean that he is “reading at the eighth-grade level” and should be assigned reading instructional materials that are of eighth-grade readability. A GE of 8.5 indicates strong reading performance, but other
References Baumann, James F. 1988. Reading Assessment: An Instructional Decision-Making Perspective, chap. 3. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Baumann, James F., and Jennifer A. Stevenson. 1982. “Understanding Standardized Reading Achievement Test Scores.” The Reading Teacher 35, no. 6:648–654. Lyman, Howard B. 1998. Test Scores and What They Mean. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Mehrens, William A., and Irvin J. Lehmann. 1987. Using Standardized Tests in Education. 4th ed. New York: Longman. ———. 1991. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
614
Standardized Testing
Girl taking a standardized test (Elizabeth Crews)
Standardized Testing
compared with others who have taken the test. Criterion-referenced scores are test results that have been determined by comparing an individual’s raw score to a predetermined passing score for the test or subtest being taken. Criterion-referenced tests, then, report whether or not test takers have passed or failed the predetermined criteria of the given test or subtest they have taken. Test takers are not compared to other test takers, just to the criterion. Consumers of standardized tests often do not realize that norm-referenced tests and criterionreferenced tests can look exactly the same, assess the same objectives and information, and even ask the same questions. This is because the only real difference between them is in how their scores are reported. Those test publishers developing both types of standardized tests build them from specified objectives and then subject them to the necessary procedures to either norm reference them, by first giving the test to others in similar age or grade groups and then using these results to “norm” the test; or to criterion reference them by having knowledgeable persons
Standardized tests are commercially prepared assessment instruments that are given to those being tested under prescribed and uniform conditions. In 1990, John Pikulski indicated that even though many find fault with standardized tests, it is not likely they will disappear. In fact, he and others, including Sheila Valencia and Karen Wixon (2000) have cited evidence that standardized tests are being used more and for more varied high-stakes purposes than ever. With standardized tests, everyone gets the same test, directions, test information, and time allotment to take the test. These tests can be further classified as either norm referenced or criterion referenced, referring to how their particular scores have been derived and how these scores will later be reported. Norm-referenced scores are derived by comparing an individual’s raw score (number of correct answers) to the scores of those in the group on which the test was normed. Therefore, norm-referenced tests report the norm-referenced scores of those being tested. Test takers are actually
615
Standardized Testing (for example, experienced experts in the area being tested) review the test questions to determine how many of the answers an individual test taker should be required to get correct in order to pass the test—thus establishing the “criteria.” Although criticisms abound of standardized tests and of both types of standardized test scores, they concentrate on three major problems and issues. One problem inherent with norm-referenced scored tests is the norming groups and a match between those on whom the test was normed and those taking the text. A second common complaint against criterion-referenced scored tests is the arbitrary cut-off scores. A third group of concerns relates to the implications of the high-stakes usage of standardized tests in general. Those who make decisions regarding whether or not to give standardized tests, the extent to which their results will be counted, and which type of standardized test to use must be able to weigh these issues (summarized below) if they are to make informed decisions appropriate for their testing purposes and the populations they will be testing.
much the group still does not fit the many particular groups of students. For example, would it be fair to compare a group of students from a very urban and socioeconomically deprived area with a mixed population of students from all over the country representing a wide variety of socioeconomic groups? Cut-Off Scores When a developer of a criterion-referenced scored test makes a determination concerning the passing score of the test, this determination becomes known as the cut-off score. This is the actual score that separates those who pass from those who fail a particular test; and that, critics say, is also the problem with it. For example, if the criterion for passing a test, as determined by the developer’s experts, is that students must answer 80 percent of the questions correctly to show acceptable knowledge of the material tested, then with 100 questions on the test, the cut-off score would be 80. This would hypothetically mean that those with a score of 79 or less on the test would fail it, and those with an 80 or more would pass. Given the high-stakes character of so many of the standardized tests, critics argue it is unfair to screen people out by indicating they have failed to meet the criterion, based on such insubstantial differences.
Norm Groups For test developers to norm a test, they must give it to a large sample of people. These people, usually students representative of a full range of age and grade levels, become known as the norm group for a particular test. Test developers must also make every attempt to ensure that those in the norm group are representative of a broad, diverse range of ethnic, racial, socioeconomic, urban, suburban, rural, and geographic areas and groups: Future test takers’ scores will be compared to the scores of the norm group, and it is important the norms accommodate the diversity of the population in the areas where the tests will be administered. Test developers know that unless they take very special care with norming their tests, particular groups could have cause to believe the test is unfair, biased, invalid, or at a minimum inappropriate for measuring the success of those constituents of theirs who must take it. In fact, however, even when test developers have sought to be inclusive of all populations and areas with their norm groups, they have been strongly criticized by many for failing in their attempts or for making their tests “too representative of all groups”—homogenizing the norm group so
Other Concerns Standardized tests and their scores are commonly used as entrance and exit measures for schools, colleges, graduate programs, licensure purposes, and career advancement and other job-related purposes and to evaluate students and schools, colleges, and teachers. Hence, their well-known name, high-stakes tests (see “HighStakes Assessment” entry). The large array of standardized tests often makes it confusing for those making the decisions to select the most appropriate ones. Matching the test to the purpose is thus a very important concern: The technical manuals and other materials accompanying a test must provide full, accurate, and up-to-date information to allow test users to make their decisions. Also important are decisions regarding what should be tested: should reading, for example, be tested as a product or a process? If it is regarded as a product, questions usually focus on the testing of the more discrete, isolated subskills. The tendency of standardized tests to focus 616
Standards on these skills targets them for criticism by those who believe reading should be treated as a process, as in their view the tests overlook the more important evaluation of students’ strategies (Flippo and Schumm 2000). Special populations of students, for instance, students with particular learning disabilities or students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, are not well served by standardized tests: giving them in English to students coming from a non-English-speaking background has been highly criticized, to take one instance. Misuse and inappropriate interpretations of standardized test scores are an important issue. Publishers and users of these tests have a grave responsibility to ensure that those in the position to use score information understand the scores (see “Standardized Test Score Interpretation” entry). Technical problems with standardized tests are a major concern affecting their validity. It is crucial that test publishers produce the finest possible instruments and publish full information concerning their validity and reliability. Rona F. Flippo
Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983) motivated the so-called standards-based reform movement in the United States. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics was the first group to respond to the report’s call for rigorous and measurable standards, with the publication in 1989 of its Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. The standards movement received further impetus later that year when then-president George Bush convened the first national summit on education. The president and the nation’s governors stated the need for a coherent national perspective on education to raise student achievement (U.S. Department of Education, 1991). In 1990, Bush and the governors agreed on six education goals; these goals became the foundation of the Bush educational agenda, “America 2000.” In 1994, the goals were formalized as part of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Public Law 103–227, 1994). National Standards By the early 1990s, the standards movement was a well-established entity in the United States. Several professional associations had already launched efforts to develop standards for their specific content area. In all, national standards were developed with federal or private money in eleven content areas, including most notably science, mathematics, history, geography, foreign languages, and English language arts. Among the initiatives was the effort by the International Reading Association (IRA), the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), and the Center for the Study of Reading to develop standards for English language arts. Federal funding for the project was suspended after eighteen months of work, but the project continued with funding from IRA and NCTE. These standards, published in 1996, reflect a broad consensusbuilding effort to identify and state what students should know and be able to do in literacy. They were intended to provide guidance to educators about what students should learn and how instruction should be provided (International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English, 1996); they were not intended to be prescriptive or to advocate specific kinds of instruction. The twelve IRA-NCTE standards define the
See also High-Stakes Assessment; Standardized Test Score Interpretation References Flippo, Rona F., and Jeanne S. Schumm. 2000. “Reading Tests.” In Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, eds., Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, pp. 365–472. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Pikulski, John J. 1990. “The Role of Tests in a Literacy Assessment Program.” The Reading Teacher 43 (9):686–688. Valencia, Sheila W., and Karen K. Wixon. 2000. “Policy-Oriented Research on Literacy Standards and Assessment.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, pp. 909–935. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Standards Academic standards are statements of what students should know and be able to do in a content area such as reading; they express the goals toward which students should be both encouraged and helped to strive. Publication of A Nation At 617
Standards English language arts as reading, writing, speaking, listening, viewing, and visually representing (that is, expressing oneself through graphic means such as font changes in text or through video or other nonprint means). The document intended to expand the definition of literacy beyond traditional areas of reading and writing into other modes of communication necessary for modern life. The Standards uses “text” to refer to printed language but also included in the definition spoken language, graphics, and technological communications. The document defined language as referring to visual communication as a parallel to spoken and written forms of expression. In addition, the traditional definition of “reading” was expanded beyond print-oriented reading to encompass the acts of listening and viewing as means of making sense of some “text” (International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English, 1996). The IRA/NCTE Standards (p. 3) address what students should read (a wide range of print and nonprint texts that represent many periods and come from many genres), how they should read (with a wide, flexible range of strategies), and how they should use literacy skills (for purposes such as conducting research on issues and interests; communicating in diverse, purposeful ways). Students should become sensitive to language diversity and know how to modify their language situationally to communicate effectively and efficiently to accomplish their own purposes. Use of technology is stressed, as is the importance for non-English speakers of drawing on one’s first language in mastering English. The standards were broad, global statements that sought to provide a “shared vision” for literacy instruction. Instead of specifying learning goals at specific grades, the Standards offered vignettes of ideal classroom instruction and best practice. The breadth of the standards, coupled with their lack of specificity, drew considerable criticism from the public but also drew support from many areas of the field. The IRA/NCTE Standards was not the only document to receive criticism. The first set of history standards was rejected by the Senate for its strong emphasis on representation of minority group and feminist perspectives in choice of instructional materials and teaching practice. These standards were revised and eventually accepted.
New Standards Project A parallel project led by the Learning Research and Development Center of the University of Pittsburgh and the National Center on Education and the Economy also engaged in standards writing. The New Standards Project resulted in national standards in several subjects, including English language arts, and accompanying on-demand reference examinations and a portfolio system of assessment. States’ participation in the New Standards Project resulted in extensive professional development as teachers wrote and then graded assessments and considered innovative ways to measure their students’ growth in reading and writing. A significant component of the New Standards approach is the secondary reference examination, a test to be taken by highschool students to certify their levels of attainment on high and rigorous content material. New Standards has recently published specific standards and benchmarks for literacy learning in kindergarten to grade three (New Standards, 1999). National Assessment of Educational Progress as a Form of Standards An additional form of national standards can be found in the frameworks for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the achievement levels that guide NAEP reporting (see “National Assessment of Educational Progress” entry). The NAEP frameworks for reading and writing assessments state expectations of the kinds of literacy behaviors students should be able to demonstrate at grades four, eight, and twelve. The achievement levels offer descriptors of what constitutes basic, proficient, and advanced performance in reading and writing at these grade levels. State Standards Even as standards were being developed at the national level, states were undertaking their own projects to define English language arts standards. By 2001, only Iowa had not developed state standards to inform language arts instruction. In many states, local districts (for example, Philadelphia and San Diego, among others) developed their own standards, often to shape localized efforts at standards-based reform. Funding for some state standards projects came from the Office of Educational Research and Improve618
Story Grammar Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. New Standards. 1999. Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards for Kindergarten through Third Grade. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Education and the Economy, University of Pittsburgh.
ment (OERI) in an effort to strengthen reform efforts nationwide. Even though some state and local standards projects were guided by the IRA/NCTE standards, most developed comprehensive standards documents that could guide instruction in ways that the national standards failed to do. States and localities developed “benchmarks” at specific grade levels: statements of expected skills, strategies, and understandings that teachers could use as guides for what their students should attain. Many of the state standards efforts have included specific statements about measurability, that is, explicit explanations as to the nature of the expected performance at each level and guidelines for establishing the context in which students can best demonstrate their mastery of the standards. These statements could both guide and shape teachers’ understanding of targets for students learning and also provide the framework for tests. As statements of standards were widely accepted, states began to seek or create standards-based assessments to measure their students’ progress.
Story Grammar Story grammar is a description of the organizational structure of narrative text. Just as the relationships between words in sentences are described by sentence grammar, story grammar depicts a set of rules that illustrate the relationships between categories common to narrative texts. The categories of story grammar can be described in a variety of terms: the most common are setting, plot, theme, and resolution. Story grammar is useful as a means to analyze and create narrative texts, and it is used as an internal framework to monitor comprehension. Frederic Bartlett (1932) laid the groundwork for the research on story grammar by investigating the types of mental structures that are used for the encoding and retrieval of stories. In his book Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Bartlett posited that memory is organized into schema and that past reactions and experiences are always operating. One of Bartlett’s conclusions was that story recall is not an exact reproduction, but that readers create an overall impression of a whole story that is later reconstructed in memory. The concept that memory is constructive was new at the time of Bartlett’s work (the first half of the twentieth century), but his theories provided a basis for further research on the structure of stories that led to the concept of story grammar.
Standards-Based Assessment Carefully developed standards-based assessments can demonstrate not just student learning but also suggest the extent to which instruction has been aligned to the expectations inherent in the standards. Students are being measured not against each other or against national norms but rather against their own accomplishment of the learnings that have been deemed appropriate for students within their locality or state. Students and their parents can better understand what the expected learning goals are and can monitor progress toward them efficiently. Terry Salinger See also National Assessment of Educational Progress References International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. 1996. Standards for the English Language Arts. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. National Commission on Excellence in Education. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School
Story Schema During the 1970s researchers began to focus their interest on comprehension of text and the structures of text that are recalled in memory. This interest was fueled by Noam Chomsky (1957), who developed a transformational grammar and stated that sentence grammars are inherent. Linguists, then, applied that theory to stories and began theoretical work on the components of a story and the rules that govern narrative text. Much of the research on the develop619
Story Grammar ment of story grammar was begun in Europe by Roland Barthes, Claude Bremond, Vladimir Propp, and Teun van Dijk and in the United States by David Rumelhart. David Rumelhart (1975) applied the notions of internal grammars to cognitive science. In “Notes on a Schema for Stories,” Rumelhart proffered the theory that narrative texts have an internal structure analogous to sentence grammar. Rumelhart analyzed folktales, fables, and myths and from that work developed a grammar to represent the internal organization of narrative text. The grammar, suggested Rumelhart, is composed of a set of rules that describe the salient elements of story. The main rule that Rumelhart suggested was that stories begin with a setting that describes the time and place of the story and introduces the main characters. Following the setting is an episode. Episodes are events that occur in the story with the reactions of the characters to the event. Additional rules, suggested Rumelhart, summarize the structure of stories. Rumelhart admitted that the story grammar he developed might not apply to stories with complex plots and multiple characters. His contribution, however, was the supposition that story schema is generalizable across narrative texts.
subjects were asked to recall the text and were given two additional memory tests. Results indicated that story structure influenced comprehension and recall of text. The second experiment tested the story content on text recall. Subjects read two passages of text that had identical plot structures but had different characters and actions. A second group read passages in which the characters were identical and the structure varied. After reading, the subjects were asked to recall the stories. Again, recall was influenced by the structure of the stories. From his research, Thorndyke concluded that readers develop a sense of story from their experiences with text. Their story schema acts as an overlay for new stories. Readers, therefore, generate certain expectations about stories based on their knowledge of story structure and use their internal framework to comprehend and encode new texts. Thorndyke developed several rules that apply to stories that are used during comprehension and recall of narrative texts. The first rule is that all stories have a setting, theme, plot, and resolution. Thorndyke’s rules describe the components that make up each subgroup. For example, a setting is made up of characters, location, and time. Plots consist of a varied number of episodes. Episodes consist of subgoals, attempts, and outcomes. Plot structure is illustrated in Figure 1. Jean Mandler and Nancy Johnson (1977) analyzed the underlying structure of simple stories in a study published in the same issue of Cognitive Psychology that contained Thorndyke’s research. Mandler and Johnson tested the theory that story schema is used to guide comprehension during encoding and recall of narrative texts. Their work tested one of Bartlett’s theories—that during recall of stories, readers use schema to reconstruct what they cannot remember (see “Schema Theory” entry). Bartlett’s definition of story schema, however, was broad and abstract. Mandler and Johnson used story schema as a way to refer to expectations about the internal structures of stories for both encoding and retrieval of information. Story schema, according to Mandler and Johnson, is a framework that is used by readers during encoding. Young children develop their sense of story by listening to narrative texts, and their understandings are deepened as they ac-
Effects of Story Grammar on Comprehension and Recall Three studies published in the late 1970s clarified the structure of narrative, tested the effects of story grammar on comprehension, and popularized story grammar. Shortly after Rumelhart published his story schema, Perry Thorndyke (1977) conducted two experiments to determine the effects of the structure of narrative text on memory and comprehension. Thorndyke theorized that comprehension and recall of stories are aided by the inherent structure of narrative and can be applied by readers to recall text. Thorndyke’s first experiment tested the degree to which plot structure influences memory of text. The subjects of the study were given a passage of text to read. Passages ranged from a highly structured narrative form to a narrative with little structure. Two stories were used, and each was written in four versions in a hierarchical degree of plot structure, although the content remained the same. Subjects were randomly assigned to one passage of text. After reading, the 620
Story Grammar Story
Setting
Location
Theme
Characters
1
Event
Goal
2
Subgoal
Plot
Resolution
Episode
Event
Attempt
Outcome
Figure 1
quire knowledge about ways in which action sequences are developed. Readers use their sense of story to direct attention to the text. The story schema that readers bring to text helps them keep track of the action, summarize, and predict what will follow. As readers read narrative text, they use their sense of story to determine when parts of stories are complete or incomplete. If a part of the story is complete, say the setting has been described, the reader can summarize and store the information. If incomplete, the reader can hold the text component open until further information is read. Mandler and Johnson developed a tree structure to represent the story grammars that they hypothesized are found in stories and parsed four stories using this structure. From the parsing of stories, they developed implications for story grammar. One of their implications was that story grammars are used for both encoding and retrieval but that more is encoded than recalled. A second implication is that the more a story conforms to the ideal story structure, the better recall of the story. Stories with confusing structures may be recalled soon after reading, but recall is compromised after a delay. The effects of story grammar were also tested on first- and fourth-grade students and on adults. From this study, Mandler and Johnson developed two additional implications for the use of story grammar: that all age groups recalled more information from story structures that conformed to the subjects’ understanding of
story and that older readers had better recall than younger readers. The third study that developed the concept of story grammar was published by Nancy Stein and Christine Glenn (1979), who hypothesized that a story grammar needs to take into account the variety of causal links made between actions in stories. Stein and Glenn analyzed more than fifty children’s stories and fables from which they developed six categories to illustrate story grammar. The first category is the setting that introduces the protagonist and contains information about the physical, social, or temporal context in which the story occurs. The second category is the initiating event that is an action that initiates a response from the protagonist. The third category, internal response, is the emotion, cognition, or goal of the protagonist. The fourth is the attempt, or the action the protagonist takes to achieve the goal. The fifth category is the consequence, which is an event, action, or state that depicts the attainment of the goal, and the final category is the reaction, or the emotion that expresses the protagonist’s feelings about the goal. Stein and Glenn tested their beliefs about the use of story grammar by analyzing four stories in two studies of the recall of first- and fifth-grade students. The subjects of the study were told two stories and were asked to retell the stories and to answer questions about them. From these studies, Stein and Glenn concluded that when reading or listening to stories, people expect certain 621
Storytelling patterns of information, encode information based on these patterns, and recall information more clearly when story grammars match internal story structures. Susan Davis Lenski See also Semantic Feature Analysis References Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. Mandler, Jean M., and Nancy S. Johnson. 1977. “Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall.” Cognitive Psychology 9:111–151. Rumelhart, David E. 1975. “Notes on a Schema for Stories.” In Daniel G. Bobrow and Allan Collins, eds., Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 211–236. New York: Academic Press. Stein, Nancy L., and Christine G. Glenn. 1979. “An Analysis of Story Comprehension in Elementary School Children.” In Roy O. Freedle, ed., New Directions in Discourse Processing, pp. 53–120. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Thorndyke, Perry W. 1977. “Cognitive Structures in Comprehension and Memory of Narrative Discourse.” Cognitive Psychology 9:77–110.
A professional storyteller entertains children (Michael Siluk)
as much a part of an individual’s literacy development as it is part of the social and artistic life of a community. Storytelling is conducted in formal venues as well as in casual, daily encounters between individuals. For renowned storyteller Jim May (1994), stories were part of the everyday life that defined his community and his family. Stories shared at bedtime, meals, or planned gatherings help build family identity, facilitate language development, and give children their first invitation to literacy through the entrancing power of the spoken word. Informal storytelling occurs regularly between neighbors in community gathering places, and it is becoming increasingly popular for some communities to hold formal storytelling events, festivals, and workshops featuring professional storytellers as well as amateurs. Classroom use of storytelling has also reemerged in recent years. Storytelling is now taught and used for its own sake as an art form, to create community, and to support literacy and content learning.
Storytelling Storytelling is the oral communication of a narrative by an individual or group to, or with the participation of, an audience. The essence of the narrative is conveyed primarily through the teller’s choice of words and modulation of the voice, although a storyteller may enhance a tale through facial expression, physical actions, or employment of props (McCaslin, 2000). Perhaps the oldest expression of literacy, storytelling continues to serve as a foundation and vehicle for literacy development; it engages adults and children alike in learning. As a means of communicating, storytelling opens the imagination, develops oral language facility, introduces multiple perspectives, invites critical thinking, builds interest in literature, and engages learners intellectually and emotionally in their own learning. Throughout human history, storytelling has been the fundamental means by which people have created and transmitted their culture’s myths and history. It is 622
Storytelling The Art of Storytelling Listening to a gifted storyteller can be a captivating experience. The audience is caught up in the world of the story, transported and transformed as if by magic. Experienced storytellers have honed storytelling as an art form, and each teller develops a distinctive style and repertoire. Listening to a talented storyteller can be an engaging event for a class but may also convey the impression that storytelling requires individual talent. Rather, storytelling is accessible to all. It requires no special tools or props, just a good story, some practice, and an audience. If a teacher not gifted at storytelling is willing to explore storytelling techniques with a class, the students learn that storytelling is attainable. As they take risks together, class members can learn how to choose good stories, prepare a story for telling, and participate as both storyteller and audience in the enriching art of storytelling. It is essential that the storyteller have a good story to tell. Many excellent stories are available in print or in the teller’s lived experience. Stories that work for telling can be found in published collections, picture books, short stories, family histories, and many other sources. Folk tales and family stories lend themselves naturally to storytelling, as they both began in oral form. Retelling these can help beginners get a sense of the rhythm and structure of stories and help them choose others that can be told successfully. A favorite passage from a biography or novel that creates a clear image in the reader’s mind may well do the same for listeners. Picture books and short stories that were written to be read aloud can be told as well; however, reading aloud and storytelling are two very different activities. Books that rely heavily on the illustrations or the order of words on the page may be wonderful when read aloud but are not good choices for storytelling. It is important that a story can be told with little or no reliance on physical elements; the storyteller’s voice and expressions will convey the images in the story. Foremost, the best story choice is one that the teller loves and will want to tell many times. Learners often first practice storytelling techniques by retelling stories they have heard, imitating the teller’s voice and actions. As they become comfortable telling stories in this way, students will begin to take risks telling stories they choose. When they tell a story over and over, they become
comfortable with it and can adapt it as they wish. Students need to practice different ways they may use voice and movement to convey the meaning of the story (Piazza, 1999). They can try out different pacing, pitch, and force of voice to express the emotions and characters in a story. Gestures and facial expressions also require practice so that they do not distract from the story. Overdramatized stories are less effective than those that are simply and honestly told. Likewise, overuse of props can ruin a story, whereas using a few wellchosen props can assist the storyteller to learn, practice, and tell it well. Some people may find it helpful to get a feel for the audience’s perspective by using a tape recorder or practicing in front of a mirror to find the right voice or gesture. Whichever way they practice, each story students tell gives valuable practice for the next. In addition, students who practice storytelling not only become mindful of the effects their choices have on their audience but also become receptive audience members when others tell stories. The audience is an essential factor in storytelling. The teller and the audience work together to create the story. Although a storyteller spins a tale, each listener must create a mental image of the story, creating the setting, fleshing out characters, and moving through scenes. Listeners who also have practice telling stories learn how important it is to be an active receptive audience for the storyteller. A teacher models the art of listening actively to stories through body language, reactions, and comments or questions afterward. An appropriate gasp, sigh, or query conveys to the storyteller that the audience “gets it” and encourages others in the audience to do the same. When students are learning to tell stories, it is important to chat about how and why the audience reacted as they did. Students learn from each other by comparing how different techniques affected them as audience members and trying out what others do. It is necessary that teacher and students create a safe, accepting atmosphere to encourage the approximations that classmates make as they learn the art of storytelling. The enjoyment they find listening to and telling stories can easily be destroyed if storytelling becomes a precise technique or lesson to learn. Ending each storytelling session with a debriefing to analyze techniques delivers a deathblow to enjoyment and to any risk taking. The applause or awed silence honor623
Storytelling ing the teller and the tale should take precedence over any discussions about technique, style, and effect. Thus, an important part of developing the art of storytelling is to learn to become a supportive community of storytellers and listeners. As students and teacher cooperate to select stories, support each others’ practice, and become receptive audience members, they can build a sense of community around storytelling.
and honors the diversity in a classroom community. Students will be more willing to take risks as learners when they feel that their contributions are understood and appreciated. The world of home and community outside of the classroom is invited in when students select their own stories to tell. Some will want to share family stories or their own imaginative tales. The children who so often disrupt class to try to tell such stories shine when given an appropriate forum through storytelling. Those reluctant to compose their own stories may have an easier time telling traditional tales that are personal or family favorites. Traditional tales from diverse cultures are intended to be told: They are engaging and well structured and communicate important ideas about life and human interaction. Inviting family and community into the classroom through storytelling can also be a powerful support for family literacy development. When family stories are honored in the classroom, family members who would otherwise feel excluded from the school community find that they are welcome. Family members who do not yet read or write can be encouraged to share stories at home with their children because such activity is a valuable investment in children’s and family literacy development. Storytelling in a family strengthens family bonds and creates a pleasurable literacy-related experience. Storytelling also provides a means for finding connections between varied home and school cultures. The classroom walls at once enclose a supportive community and expand to include the world, as individual and family stories become a valued part of the group’s shared experience.
Building Community through Storytelling Teachers and students who engage in storytelling quickly recognize the power of story for creating a sense of community in the classroom. Teacher educator Mem Fox (1993) regularly uses storytelling, as it carries an invitation for students to join in, to draw closer, to share thoughts and experiences with each other. Community values are conveyed in the stories and the rituals embraced by a class. A routine for storytelling on a regular basis gives students a sense of identity and often becomes the favorite part of the school week. The stories shared in this time provide a common base of understanding and points of reference for class activities. Many teachers use the rituals of storytelling to calm and focus a class or when introducing new concepts. Furthermore, storytelling invites student participation and honors differences in background and culture. Teachers can include students and families in the classroom community through storytelling events. When students take an active role through storytelling in the classroom, they develop confidence and a sense of ownership for their learning. They become experts; their voices are heard (Gillard, 1996). They are more willing to take risks, to ask questions, to learn. It is essential, however, that they feel comfortable and safe when taking the risk of sharing in storytelling. This is possible when a sense of community has been built through an established routine of storytelling by the teacher, other students, and family members. Some children and adults may be reluctant at first to engage in storytelling; however, an effective teacher can help them to realize that storytelling is already part of their lives. After all, each of us tells stories when we relate the events of our lives to each other and to ourselves. Including students’ own compositions, family stories, and traditional tales in storytelling strengthens the individual’s sense of belonging
Storytelling to Support Reading, Writing, and Content Learning Research on storytelling in literacy development ranges from reports of its use by individual teacher researchers to clinical studies of storytelling as a therapeutic tool for persons with social, language, or emotional disabilities. Whether anecdotal or empirical, studies emphasize that storytelling is often the beginning of literacy development for individuals, and it can have a powerful influence on reading, writing, and content-area learning. It activates higher-level thinking, elicits connection forming, makes complex concepts accessible, and invites participation in a learning community. Teacher researchers such as 624
Storytelling Judy Caulfield (1996) have found that children who hear and tell stories begin to develop the rich imagination, vocabulary, imagery, listening comprehension, and expectation for narrative structure that facilitate their reading development. Likewise, studies of family literacy programs that included storytelling indicate that the storytelling component contributed to literacy growth for both adult and child participants. Students in Adult Basic Education can find connections between their lived experience and printed texts through storytelling, and their understanding of published texts is thus supported. Listening to stories involves readers in active comprehension. They must create the story as they listen, using imagination and visualization. Furthermore, they hear vocabulary in rich, memorable contexts that they can recall and connect with when reading. Difficult words become more recognizable for readers who have heard the words in meaningful use. Additionally, when students prepare to tell stories found in print, they reread, visualize, retell, and recreate the story, furthering their understanding of story plot, structure, and theme. Storytelling also makes accessible to struggling readers more complex literature than they can read independently. The syntax and vocabulary in books can be quite different from casual, everyday speech for many readers. Storytelling develops in listeners’ familiarity with book language and creates an invitation to read books. It can awaken students’ desire to read by creating interest and making the stories in books familiar and accessible. Students enjoy rereading favorite stories they have heard a teacher tell and will often seek out similar stories to read on their own. In addition, students who are looking for a story to tell will read several until they find just the right story or glean ideas for writing their own. Students learn narrative writing more readily when they have a sense for the structure of stories and something to write about. Listening to and practicing storytelling leads children to become aware of story structure as they bring life to characters, describe settings, and develop the plot. Storytelling reveals what is essential to a narrative and can flesh out a weak piece of writing. It is often difficult for children to write anything beyond “Once upon a time,” because the act of composing and the act of recording the
story on the page do not work together for them. They need to tell the story to themselves first. Working out a story verbally before writing it down allows children to make difficult decisions and mitigate the frustrations that slow handwriting, spelling, and erasures can cause. Once the story is composed aloud, the writer can focus attention on the mechanics of writing it down. When a writer can envision a complete story, the developing plot and resolution lead the pencil along. Students who tell the story first are able to write more elaborate constructions (National Storytelling Association, 1994). Storytelling can also help more mature writers to develop their writing. A character’s motives may become clearer when the writer tells an anecdote about that character. Just as reading aloud helps writers get a feel for the rhythm of their writing, telling a draft of a piece can reveal areas in the structure and flow of the narrative that are particularly strong or in need of work. Reluctant writers can get a jump start by first telling a story from their own lived experiences, then using audience feedback to adjust story elements when drafting it into written form. Telling the story first helps to eliminate unnecessary detail that can bog down the written work and to highlight important details that add clarity for the audience. Writers can also help each other by participating in a collaborative storytelling, building a story a line or episode at a time until they have crafted a complete narrative. This technique yields a central tale from which each writer may create alternative stories. Expository writing can be supported in a similar way, when storytelling is used as a tool for learning in the content areas. Content learning becomes memorable and intriguing for students through storytelling. It elicits and supports higher-order thinking, by inviting students to engage in analysis, evaluation, and synthesis of concepts and content (Cornett, 1999). Storytelling is used to set the stage for problem solving in case study method approaches to science and social studies. It is also used to introduce students to major concepts, discoveries, and personalities in mathematics, science, and the arts. Events informing the lives and work of notable persons become real for students through storytelling. Furthermore, students can use storytelling to synthesize content-area information and create scenarios that help them de625
Structural Analysis
Structural Analysis
velop or demonstrate conceptual understanding of the content. A teacher may begin a session of collaborative storytelling to review a subject or unit of study with an opener such as, “As the seed was tossed by the wind, it wondered . . .” In turn, students incorporate what they know as each contributes a line or phrase to the story. Above all, storytelling is enjoyable; it invites people of all ages into literacy in community. Avid reader and teacher Jim Trelease (1995) stressed that story makes the curriculum meaningful and memorable; students will learn when their hearts and minds are engaged through the power of story. Storytelling has the power to create in individuals a desire to read, write, learn, and tell about their world. Deborah J. Augsburger
Structural analysis is a strategy in which readers identify unfamiliar words by recognizing familiar multiletter units, or chunks, in multisyllabic words. It is estimated that by the fifth grade, students learn 3,000 new words each year, the majority of them multisyllabic (Nagy, 1988). These multisyllabic words consist of prefixes, suffixes, base words, root words, contractions, and compound words, and the ability to decode them is paramount to comprehending content-area text and other reading material. The reasons for teaching structural analysis are to give students the knowledge they need to (1) decode long, multisyllabic words, (2) increase reading vocabulary, and (3) aid in comprehending increasingly more challenging text.
See also Children’s Literature References Caulfield, Judy. 1996. “Students Telling Stories: Inquiry into the Process of Learning Stories.” In Zoe Donoahue, Mary Ann VanTassell, and Leslie Patterson, eds., Research in the Classroom: Talk, Texts, and Inquiry, pp. 51–64. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Cornett, Claudia E. 1999. The Arts as Meaning Makers: Integrating Literature and the Arts throughout the Curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Fox, Mem. 1993. Radical Reflections: Passionate Opinions on Teaching, Learning, and Living. San Diego: Harcourt Brace. Gillard, Marni. 1996. Storyteller, Storyteacher. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. May, Jim. 1994. The Farm on Nippersink Creek: Stories from a Midwestern Childhood. Little Rock, AR: August House Publishers. McCaslin, Nellie. 2000. Creative Drama in the Classroom and Beyond. 7th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. National Storytelling Association. 1994. Tales as Tools: The Power of Story in the Classroom. Jonesborough, TN: The National Storytelling Press. Piazza, Carolyn L. 1999. Multiple Forms of Literacy: Teaching Literacy and the Arts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Trelease, Jim. 1995. The Read-Aloud Handbook. 4th ed. New York: Penguin.
Prefixes and Suffixes Prefixes are syllables added to the beginning of words that change word meaning completely or make meaning more specific. Suffixes, which are added to the end of words, change grammatical function, clarify meaning, or add information. The ability to use these two structural cues is important because the number of words with prefixes and suffixes that students will encounter doubles from fourth to fifth grade and doubles again by the seventh grade (White, Sowell, and Yanagihara, 1989). The word endings -s, -ing, and -ed make up 65 percent of the suffixes that students in grades three through nine are likely to read. Of the many English prefixes, un-, re-, in- (meaning not), and dis- account for 58 percent of the words with affixes (prefixes or suffixes) that students in grades three through nine may encounter (White, Sowell, and Yanagihara, 1989). Older students, particularly high-school students, benefit from learning more difficult prefixes, because these prefixes provide clues to the meaning of words in content-area textbooks and other challenging reading materials. Syllables The syllable is the basic unit of pronunciation in English, having only one vowel sound. The syllables in multisyllabic words have different stress, or accent, in pronunciation. The stress given to the syllable affects the vowel sound, with the vowels in stressed syllables more likely to follow conventional spelling-to-sound pronunciation 626
Structural Analysis patterns, and the vowels in unstressed syllables pronounced as /uh/ (a schwa) or a short i, as heard in pig. The six basic syllable patterns in English words include (1) the closed syllable ending in a consonant phoneme, as in mad; (2) the open syllable ending in a vowel phoneme, as in be; (3) the le word-ending syllable, as in ramble; (4) the vowel pair, as in street; and (6) the rcontrolled, as in car. When words consist of two or more syllables, using a syllable-by-syllable decoding strategy to separate them into pronounceable syllables is more effective and efficient than letter-sound by letter-sound decoding. The words in more difficult contentarea textbooks are more likely to have two or more syllables, and hence the ability to decode syllable-by-syllable contributes to pronouncing and learning long, complex words (Fox, 2000).
unchanged, whereas in others word meaning is somewhat different than that of the individual words, as in basketball. Still other compounds represent meanings that have little, if anything, to do with the definition of the individual words, as in butterfly. Therefore, when reading new compounds, students must be cognizant of the two individual words and also cognizant of contextual cues that provide clues to compound meaning. Contractions Contractions are formed by deleting one or more letters (and sounds) from words and replacing the missing letters with an apostrophe, which acts as a visual clue indicating an abbreviated word form. Contractions have the same meaning as the two separate words, and students use contractions in everyday conversation. The teaching of contractions, then, focuses on spelling conventions, where to place the apostrophe, and which letters to omit (Fox, 2000). Children begin learning contractions in the first grade and by the end of third grade are expected to be fluent in reading and spelling them.
Root Words Root words are word parts that become words only when they are combined with other multiletter chunks. The majority of root words are borrowed from Greek and Latin. English words that share the same root also share a common meaning, such as the Latin root aqua, which connotes water in aquarium and aquanaut. In recent years the explosion in science and technology has resulted in using Greek and Latin words to invent many new English words, such as biosphere and biodegradable (Barber, 1997). Root words are semihidden in English words, and each English word with the same root has a slightly different meaning. Hence, to use these structural units to develop their reading vocabulary, students need explicit explanations of the roots, their teachers need to model how to use the roots to unlock word meaning, and students need a variety of opportunities to read and write words that contain roots borrowed from other languages.
Conclusion Structural analysis is a word identification strategy that is based on pronouncing and learning multisyllabic words through the recognition of multiletter chunks. Structural analysis provides students with a strategy to help them identify, learn, and understand complex multisyllabic words in content texts and other challenging reading material. Structural analysis, then, is a strategy that significantly contributes to reading independence and literacy throughout schooling. Barbara J. Fox and Mary Jane Mitchell References Barber, Charles. 1997. The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fox, Barbara. 2000. Word Identification Strategies: Phonics from a New Perspective. 2d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Nagy, William. 1988. Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. White, Thomas, Joanne Sowell, and Alice Yanagihara. 1989. “Teaching Elementary Students to Use Word Part Clues.” The Reading Teacher 42:302–308.
Compound Words Compound words are two words glued together to produce a third word, such as snowman. Students are introduced to compound words in kindergarten or first grade and continue to learn new compounds as they progress in school. Compounds vary in how far the definition strays from the meaning of the words individually. In some compounds, such as bathtub, the general definition of the individual words is relatively 627
Study Guides
Study Guides
prowess in association with the use of study guides, it has to be in reference to providing reinforcing practice on previously developed skills. Question-based study guides, as described, should not be used as though they can facilitate the development of new literacy skills. Why . . . ? Because, if students can answer the questions, they already possess the skills the guide purports to develop. If they do not possess the skills implicit in the questions, asking those questions will not teach them the skills they need in order to answer them—no matter how frequently or intensely the questions are asked. Even so, teachers do use question-based study guides with the intention of developing students’ literacy skills. When they do, they are engaged in what can be called “assumptive teaching.” That is, by the very nature of the materials they are designing and assigning, teachers assume that students already possess the skills that teachers purport to be teaching. If students lack literal comprehension skills, asking them questions that require them to read at that performance level only requires them to do what they have not learned how to do. The guide does not show them how to read at that level. Similarly, if students lack inferential or synthesizing skills, asking them questions that require them to draw inferences from what they have read and to synthesize those inferences with prior knowledge merely requires them to apply skills they have not yet acquired. The guide does not show them how to infer or to synthesize What recourse is there for teachers who want to help their students develop new literacy skills even while they are studying their course content? Alternatives to traditional study guides do exist. These alternatives allow for the study and acquisition of course content. In addition, they support the simultaneous development of literacy skills appropriate to the study of that content.
Study guides frequently are used by subject-area teachers to help students negotiate their way through basic texts and supplementary materials. Usually composed of sets of questions, study guides emphasize information and ideas essential to an understanding of the concept(s) under consideration. Study guides are less frequently designed and used to promote students’ literacy skills. In cases where study guides are used to enhance students’ literacy, the design and application of the guides are such that actually they reinforce reading and reasoning skills that students already possess. They do not serve as a means for developing new and/or more sophisticated reading and reasoning skills. If students do not already possess the skills implicit in the design of the guides, the use of the guides is a futile exercise. Students cannot do what they are being required to do. Avoiding this situation is possible by clarifying assumptions that underlie the design and use of study guides, by identifying alternative constructions of study guides, and by examining the attributes that make the alternative study guides more effective. Assumptions Study guides generally are made up of questions, and students typically are asked to find the answers in the related text or other resource material. Factual questions in a study guide assume that students can read at a literal level of comprehension, ferreting out pertinent information that is responsive to the questions. Inferential questions in a study guide assume that students can look for relationships across information they have acquired, inferring the presence of ideas from those perceived relationships and interpreting the meaning of those relationships. Synthesizing questions in a study guide assume that students can infer relationships between ideas they have derived from the text and their own prior knowledge and experience related to those same ideas—and those synthesizing questions assume that students are capable of articulating the results of that synthesis. By the very design and application of a study guide so described, the assumption is made that students using the guide already possess the literacy skills implicit in the questions that comprise the guide. Thus, to the extent that any consideration is given to enhancing students’ literacy
Alternatives Effective study guides are based on the principle that the essence of good teaching is to show students how to do what they are being required to do (Herber 1978; Herber and Herber 1993). Traditional study guides do not provide this “showing how.” Rather, they essentially “test whether” students can do what they are required to do. Study guides that provide for this “showing how” include ways to support students as they 628
Study Guides apply skills implicit in the guide materials. The support is continued until students internalize the feel for and understanding of the literacy skills to which they have been exposed. The concept of “scaffolding” is a useful metaphor for explaining this process of providing the support students need for developing literacy skills (Applebee and Langer, 1983). In the construction business, scaffolds are used to enable workers to function in locations and at heights they otherwise could not attain. Also, types of scaffolds are used to support structures that are being built until they are sufficiently stable to stand on their own. So it is with the development of students’ prowess in literacy, particularly within the context of the study of various disciplines taught in schools. Students can be given support that enables them to function at levels of sophistication much higher than the level at which they could function on their own. They are supported at these levels until their confidence and competence allow them to stand on their own. Study guides, when properly conceived, constructed, and applied, serve as effective vehicles for this experience. Such guides are characterized by specific attributes: those pertaining to the instructional context in which the guides are used; those pertaining to the design features of the guides themselves; those pertaining to students’ interactions that facilitate the use of the guides.
relate to it from prior knowledge and experience. For example, an organizing idea for the study of the circulatory system could be “What goes around, comes around.” At the beginning of the lesson, the teacher could encourage students to draw from their own experience to discuss this organizing idea and what it means to them. Students then could begin the study of the circulatory system, perceiving it as another example of a concept with which they are already familiar. Tapping into students’ prior knowledge and experience in this manner, teachers reinforce students’ understanding that the learning process involves relating what one is studying to what one already knows—and that what students already know does have value and meaning. Design Features Study guides constructed for this lesson should focus on information and ideas related to an understanding of the circulatory system. The guides should be designed to support students’ use of reading and reasoning skills at levels of sophistication beyond their ability to function independently. The key feature in design of these guides is the use of declarative statements, rather than questions, to construct the guides. These statements really are possible answers to questions a skilled reader (the teacher) might ask in reference to the material and organizing idea. As already noted, questions require students to ferret out information, draw inferences, and articulate meanings derived therefrom. In contrast, declarative statements about the material being read require students to find evidence to support or reject given statements (see Figure 1, for example). The statements in this guide are related to science material used in the study of the organizing idea “What goes around, comes around.” The statements represent information that may or may not be found in the text. Working in small groups, students refer to the text to determine if that information can be found. They read passages to one another to prove the presence of supporting information. The activity supports them in reading at the literal level of comprehension. The statements in the guide in Figure 2 support students’ interpretation of the text being used in this lesson on the circulatory system. This guide would be used after the guide in Figure 1
Attributes Instructional Context For study guides to support students as they develop literacy skills, the guides must be applied in an instructional context that also is supportive of students’ learning. Several important attributes characterize such contexts. Study guides should be used in lessons that are focused on the examination of particular concepts, usually in a content-area class. In preparing lessons, teachers should articulate for themselves the conceptual focus of the selection of resource materials, the identification for emphasis of relevant technical vocabulary, and the construction of study guides. This relevant focus is called an organizing idea. An organizing idea for a lesson or unit is a declarative statement sufficiently narrow to represent the concept being emphasized in the lesson yet sufficiently broad to allow students to 629
Study Guides Figure 1 Directions: Read each of the following statements. Check those statements that contain information actually presented by the author of the text on the circulatory system. Work with others in your group and discuss the reasons for your decisions. _____ 1. The circulatory system is made up of the heart, blood, and blood vessels. _____ 2. Arteries, veins, and capillaries make up the three kinds of blood vessels. _____ 3. The heart pumps more than seven tons of fresh blood each day. _____ 4. Etc. . . .
Figure 2 Directions: Read each of the following statements. Check those statements that present ideas you believe the author would support. Use information in the text as evidence to support your decisions. Work with others in your group and discuss the reasons for your choices. _____ 1. Arteries and veins can adapt to changes in pressure. _____ 2. A stopped heart is not a heart at rest. _____ 3. Blood carries both food and waste. _____ 4. Etc. . . .
Figure 3 Directions: Each of the following statements represents an idea that could be related to the circulatory system. Check each statement with which you agree. Circle the number of a statement if you think the author would agree with your decision. Be ready to give the reasons for your decisions as you work with others in your group. _____ 1. Recycling promotes good health. _____ 2. What goes around comes around. _____ 3. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. _____ 4. Etc. . . .
630
Study Skills and Strategies was used. The statements in this illustrative guide represent possible inferences one could draw from information presented in the text. Students are asked to determine whether there is sufficient evidence in the text to support each statement. “What is your evidence?” is the only question that is used with this type of study guide. Students learn to ask that question of one another as they discuss the kind of statements illustrated here. As students find and articulate evidence to support or reject the statements, they are being supported in the process of inferencing. They develop the feel for how one can piece information together in various ways to construct meaning for a passage of text. They learn that much of what is important in the reading of text material is not just the explicit expressions of the author but also the meanings one can derive by combining that information in various ways. Teachers can learn to adjust the levels of abstraction of the statements they incorporate in their guides, supporting their students’ development of increasingly sophisticated levels of comprehension. The guide in Figure 3 follows the use of those in Figures 1 and 2. The statements in this guide represent possible syntheses between ideas presented in the text and ideas already in students’ knowledge and experience. Students are asked to find support from both the text and their own knowledge to support or reject each statement. In this process they develop a feel for how new knowledge is synthesized with old. They recognize the value of what they already know. They learn that education is not just an accumulation of facts, but rather, it is the development of ideas in a process that respects what you are and what you know even while enabling growth in both aspects of life.
employ their skills as they participate in the small-group discussions. Thus, student interaction extends the positive impact of the “scaffold” provided by the guide itself. As frequently happens when groups gather to discuss ideas, the participants gain insights from one another. Both students and teachers derive a bonus from the experience because students are learning course content even while they are developing and enhancing literacy skills. Harold L. Herber See also Content-Area Literacy; Study Skills and Strategies References Applebee, Arthur N., and Judith A. Langer. 1983. “Instructional Scaffolding: Reading and Writing as Natural Language Activities.” Language Arts 60:168–175. Herber, Harold L. 1978. Teaching Reading in Content Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Herber, Harold L., and Joan Nelson Herber. 1993. Teaching in Content Areas with Reading, Writing, and Reasoning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Study Skills and Strategies A study skill is a specific skill or ability to perform a learning-related task; for example, note taking is a study skill. A study strategy involves the use of many study skills to have a strategy for learning; for example, studying a textbook chapter is a study strategy that could involve scanning the chapter, taking notes, outlining, summarizing, reading graphs and tables, and so on. Use of study skills and the combination of them to facilitate learning strategies are essential for students to succeed at all levels of their schooling. As students move from lower grades toward upper grades, secondary schools, and colleges, they are faced with more complex learning and study-related demands. They must learn how to learn and how to self-regulate their learning by applying appropriate study skills and strategies to the particular academic tasks and situations at hand. Development of independent learners is of utmost importance. Whitney Allgood and others (Allgood et al., 2000) indicated that numerous studies focusing on the characteristics of students who succeed in college and those who experience difficulties point to variables such as
Student Interaction Study guides of the sort illustrated above are most effectively used by students working together in small groups. As students respond to the declarative statements in the guides, they are looking for evidence to support or reject the information or ideas represented in the statements. Being able to promote and defend their decisions with their peers develops their applications of comprehension that are implicit in the process of finding support for the statements found in the guides. Their competencies are enhanced and strengthened by the frequency with which they 631
Subjectivity Devine, Thomas G., and John S. Kania. In press. “Studying: Skills, Strategies, and Systems.” In James Flood, Dianne Lapp, James R. Squire, and Julie M. Jensen, eds., Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, 2d ed., pp. 942–954. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Weinstein, Claire E., and Richard E. Mayer. 1986. “The Teaching of Learning Strategies.” In Merlin C. Whitrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, 3d ed., pp. 315–317. New York: Macmillan.
students’ abilities to adopt and use appropriate strategies for course requirements, students’ perceptions of the curriculum, and their belief in their own abilities to self-regulate studying and learning. Numerous techniques or strategies have also been recommended over the years by many practitioners and researchers in order to help students read and learn information from their textbooks (Devine and Kania, in press). Each of these recommended techniques involves the application of various combinations of different study skills. It is important to understand that these textbook study techniques or strategies also vary in their effectiveness, depending on the individual student, the materials, the instruction, and the demands of the reading and learning task under consideration. No one study strategy works best for all students in all situations. A summary of some of the major categories of study-learning skills and strategies includes rehearsal strategies for basic learning tasks, such as repeating the names of items in an ordered list; rehearsal strategies for complex learning tasks—for example, copying, underlining, or highlighting material; elaboration strategies for basic learning tasks, such as forming a mental image or forming a sentence relating items in logical pairs; elaboration strategies for such complex tasks as paraphrasing, summarizing, or describing how newly introduced information relates to existing information; organizational strategies for basic learning tasks such as grouping or ordering items from a list or from a section of a text; organizational strategies for complex tasks (for instance, outlining a section of a chapter or creating a hierarchy type of diagram); comprehension monitoring strategies such as checking for self-understanding; and affective strategies, such as being prepared, sure of oneself, and/or relaxed (Weinstein and Mayer, 1986). Rona F. Flippo
Subjectivity Subjectivity is a post-structural theoretical construct of the individual as a decentered multiple, shifting, and contradictory subject that continually constructs itself and is constructed within language, power relations, and social practices rather than as a centered and rational, unified and identifiable self. Subjectivity, as differentiated from a stable identity, attends to the changing positions that subjects negotiate in social interaction. Attention to subjectivity in literacy focuses on the complex negotiations between readers, as subjects, and texts (whether those texts are auditory, visual, or multimodal), maintaining that subjects are positioned by texts and position themselves in relation to texts. Subjectivity refers to theories of the individual as a subject formed in relation to historical, social, cultural, and psychological factors that are part of language and social practices that shape people’s thoughts of themselves and their actions. Although the terms self and subject are often used synonymously, they do not mean the same thing. The concept of self connotes a unified and singular person who readily accepts particular identities based upon identity categories such as race, gender, class, age, and ethnicity that are considered stable and are recognized as consistent across contexts. So, for example, a person’s identity might be an Asian American, middle-class adolescent male. The construct of the subject, however, acknowledges multiple and contradictory subject positions that individuals take up within and across contexts. From the perspective of subjectivity, this same person can change his subject position, accepting positions such as adolescent male or Asian American and/or resisting those positions by forming new
See also Content-Area Literacy References Allgood, Whitney P., Victoria J. Risko, Marino C. Alvarez, and Marilyn M. Fairbanks. 2000. “Factors that Influence Study.” In Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, eds., Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, pp. 201–219. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
632
Subjectivity positions for himself as an Asian young man, for example. In this way, he refutes age and nationality identity categories that bind him in particular ways in favor of other positions that seem more apropos to him for the moment. The concept of the self as an individual with a singular identity originates in liberal humanist theory and operates from two principles stemming from René Descartes’s (1596–1650) philosophical statement, “I think, therefore I am.” These principles construct the independent self (1) as the grounding for all knowledge and experience and (2) as a conscious, thinking, rational being. Philosophers (for example, Descartes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Immanuel Kant) during the Enlightenment (1500s–late 1700s) created an identity for the individual based on these premises. As a rational and autonomous being, the individual’s existence is unaffected by conditions outside of itself. Thus, identity exists separate from external conditions such as linguistic, gendered, racial, cultural, and historical contexts. The self of liberal humanism is unencumbered by surrounding social conditions and is capable of observing, analyzing, and making logical judgments about the world. As a rational being, the individual self is constructed outside of language. Therefore, the self uses language unproblematically and consciously as a tool to describe, analyze, and define itself and the world. In this way, individuals, in the search for an objective truth, produce knowledge and control conditions outside of themselves. Within the framework of liberal humanism, literacy is conceptualized as a private act whereby the self learns truths about the world through cognitive engagement of neutral language in spoken, written, and visual texts. Theories of subjectivity from a post-structural perspective reconfigure the individual of liberal humanism, replacing the concepts of self and identity with the constructs of the subject and subjectivity. Unlike the individual of liberal humanism where the self is constructed outside of language, the post-structuralist individual as subject is constructed through language in a process of subjectification. Theories of subjectivity acknowledge that individuals as subjects are constructed through (1) language, (2) discourse, and (3) power. Some of the contributors to the philosophical construct of subjectivity on which this summary is based include Louis Althusser,
Students construct their identities differently in varying contexts (Dex Images/Corbis)
Judith Butler, Jacques Derrida, Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Elizabeth Grosz, Felix Guattari, Luce Irigaray, Jacques Lacan, Angela McRobbie, Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak, and Chris Weedon. The Subject Constructed through Language, Discourse, and Power Louis Althusser (1971) refuted the notion that individuals exist outside of language. Instead, he insisted that individuals are always already subjects through subjectification. All people, according to Althusser, are born into language and ideologies, and it is through language and ideologies that we are produced into determined identity categories (for example, gender) and that we learn about ourselves. He called this process interpellation. Interpellation is exemplified in everyday practices where we create identities for people based upon our knowledge and understanding of a context. For example, when a young boy approaches a female adult in a classroom and requests the morning assignment, he interpellates her as teacher, without even know633
Subjectivity ing her. The woman, who happens to be an engineer hired to repair a computer in the classroom, replies that she is not the teacher of the class. In this example, the boy interpellated the woman with a particular identity—teacher—and the woman rejected the subject position offered. In interpellation, people are categorized by language as a subject, responding to the subject positions—the ideologies—presented in language. These subject positions can be taken up and accepted and/or they can be resisted, as in the case of the engineer resisting the subject position of classroom teacher. In literacy, readers are recruited by ideologies in texts (whether those texts are written, visual, and/or spoken) and answer those texts based upon the subject positions offered and taken up in one’s reading. How readers and subjects are interpellated depends on the discourse operating at the time. Discourse includes not only utterances and statements but also social structures and systems deemed acceptable in different contexts. As discourses change, subjectivity changes. Ultimately, people are made into subjects based upon the language and discourses that subjectify them. For example, the subjectivities people take up as students and teachers in school discourses might be quite different from subjectivities offered, accepted, resisted, and formed as children, siblings, parents, and spouses in home discourses. Discourses, therefore, aid individuals in building understandings of ways of knowing, behaving, talking, being, and reading within the world. Discourses also seek to manage and maintain subjects’ views and actions as well as to define the kinds of texts that are exchanged within them. By examining the workings of discourse, individuals come to understand how they are interpellated as subjects and to see what subject positions are available within the discourse. Power exists within language and discourses as well. Individuals as subjects are subjected to power within the positions offered within discourses. Some positions are considered more powerful than others. For example, the subject positions offered to a classroom teacher are most often considered more powerful than the subject positions offered to a young student. Just as people are positioned both in relation to ideologies and to discourses, however, they also are able to accept and to reject those positions, thereby exercising their own power as subjects. So, for in-
stance, a child in a school discourse might refute a student-learner position given by a teacher who thinks the child is incapable of solving problems without a teacher’s assistance. In place of the neophyte position, the child creates a knowledgeable teacher-subject position for herself, exhibiting her understanding of the subject matter by assisting other students in the class with an assignment. In this example, the teacher positioned the child as unlearned, but the child assumed a different position as knowledgeable. Thus, subjectivity embodies a double placement: the subject constitutes and is constituted simultaneously. Subjectivity in Literacy Post-structuralists recognize the variety of subject positions constructed for individuals within language and attempt to move away from prescribed identity categories such as race, age, class, or gender. Because the individual is reconfigured as one formed through language, discourse, and power, literacy is a means for exploring how readers, as subjects, constantly position themselves in relation to the language that seeks to position them. Literacy and language, then, are no longer considered neutral and unproblematic; they construct and are constructed by subjectivity. Post-structural theories of subjectivity are useful for developing understandings about the intricate play between readers and texts, whether those texts are visual, print based, or auditory. Focusing on subjectivity highlights the complex and multiple positions readers take up, resist, and create for themselves as subjects continuously shifting and changing their thinking within their reading. The concept of subjectivity, therefore, assists in the examination of readers’ various uses of texts to gain understandings of themselves and of the world. Post-structural theories of subjectivity used in literacy research are specific to the interrelations of language and subjectivity. Investigations not only attend to the ways that texts offer particular subject positions but also include examinations of how subjects position themselves as they engage texts. Research about readers’ subjectivities recognizes the possibilities for alternatives and multiple interpretations of texts. Some of those in the field of literacy research who have explored the concept of subjectivity include David Buckingham and Julian Sefton-Green, Linda 634
Subjectivity Christian-Smith, Bronwyn Davies, Pam Gilbert, Margaret Hagood, George Kamberelis and Karla Scott, Michele Knobel and Colin Lankshear, Allan Luke and Carmen Luke, Sarah McCarthey, Elizabeth St. Pierre, Sandra Taylor, Joseph Tobin, and Valerie Walkerdine.
sisting stereotypical identities of gendered dualisms when writing their own texts. Davies argued that studying subjectivities made available in texts provides insights into the mechanisms that hold existing structures of gender identities in place. Questioning the binary male and female positions offered in texts, readers can become more aware of dualist and stereotypical identities they are expected to take up in society and of the various subject positions they can enact to resist those identities.
Subjectivity Examined in Written Texts Subjectivity is often examined by questioning the innocent and transparent use of language in written texts that position characters stereotypically by identity categories. Bronwyn Davies (1993) and coresearcher Chas Banks used the theory of subjectivity to call into question the authority of the author and to break down the division between the author as the one who knows and teaches and the reader/subject as the one who learns. In her work, she examined how young readers positioned themselves according to gendered identities offered in texts and how they constructed subject positions based upon the positions offered. Her aim was to show how texts can be used to move beyond the liberal humanist concept of a singular, gendered identity in order to open up alternative readings about gender using multiple subjectivities. Davies analyzed how three groups of fifthand sixth-grade children used male-female dualist identities presented in texts to constitute themselves as subjects. Throughout the study, a variety of texts were examined (including traditional and feminist fairy tales as well as other books they read, films they saw, and photographs they took). Specifically, Davies was interested in understanding how readers entered the text as a gendered subject and how they positioned themselves in agreement with particular characters, reading the story from that character’s position within the text. Then, Davies discussed and wrote about how positioning influences the students’ own desires to enact those gendered positions in their lives. She also studied the ways that texts became part of the students’ lives, closing off and opening up possible gendered positions through a process of taking on the patterns of interpretation and desire presented in the text. Finally, the student groups wrote their own stories to resist stable gendered identities and to push against the dominant discourses presented in texts. Davies found over time that the children became adept at recognizing how language in texts positioned them, but they had difficulty re-
Subjectivity Examined in Spoken Texts Those who study subjectivity recognize that people continuously work within and against common notions of identity categories as they engage in relations with others in various contexts. Some researchers study subjectivity of spoken texts to observe how people position one another and are positioned in discourses. When researchers examine the varying subjectivities people enact, they attend to the diverse relationships in social settings and how literacy practices are taken up and resisted between and among various people. Sarah McCarthey (1998) studied the literacy practices and subjectivities of third- and fourthgrade students as they participated in smallgroup literacy events during one school year and documented how students positioned themselves in dominant and resistant ways. She examined how teachers positioned students and how students positioned each other in stereotypical ways, attributing their actions to larger societal identifiers such as race or class. By using the concept of shifting and contradictory subjectivities, however, McCarthey illustrated how students used literacy inconsistently in their interactions during small-group literacy events. Analysis of students’ literacy practices in different literacy groupings showed how race, ethnicity, and culture influenced student interaction and literacy practices and how students responded differently depending upon context, task, and group composition of a literacy activity. Whereas the classroom teacher’s interpretation of student interaction and uses of literacy was contingent upon fixed and prescribed personality traits and identity categories, McCarthey acknowledged a fluid view of students who constructed and reconstructed themselves as subjects dependent upon demands within particular literacy prac635
Subjectivity tices and discourses. McCarthey showed in numerous vignettes that subjectivity is not a semifixed essence but is rather constantly shifting in relations with others made possible through discourse. Pushing against notions of stable identity located in categories of race, class, and gender, she illustrated how students used subjectivity in ways unique to themselves and to the situation in order to behave differently and to achieve their literacy objectives in different literacy contexts and groupings. She argued that revising perceptions of students from a fixed and singular identity based on stable identity categories to multiple and changing subjectivities enacted in social contexts shows students’ active and wide-ranging uses of literacy. She contended that having a better understanding of students’ shifting subjectivities and literacy uses within discourse can better serve students of diverse needs.
gued that the readers’/viewers’ positions were more complicated than straightforward media effects that show children’s subjectivities matching the stereotypical identities presented in the text. Within the local discourse, Tobin found that the children, having been exposed to diversity in the student population in their local culture at school and in their community, took up subject positions that actually challenged the global discourse of the film’s tacit depiction of racism and colonialism. The children lacked exposure to various discourses of class and heteronormativity in the local discourses of their lives, however, making it more difficult for them to resist the global discourses of the film that valorized positions of patriarchy and of bourgeois family values. Tobin claimed that the meaning the children made, the subjectivities they formed in relation to the text, were based upon the ways that their local discourses mixed with global discourses they encountered through media exposure. He maintained that in order to move beyond staid media debates regarding the effects of media representations on readers, researchers need to study the contextualized and complex ways that readers’ subjectivities are brought to bear in local and global discourses as they view texts. Margaret Carmody Hagood
Subjectivity Examined in Visual Texts Some researchers interested in subjectivity and various visual media study the intricate relation between media production of subject positions and audience consumption of those positions in an effort to move away from theories of passive audiences mindlessly agreeing with the visual texts. Of particular interest to those studying multiple subjectivities and media is highlighting the complex meaning making that occurs in interaction between the viewer/reader/subject and the visual text. Joseph Tobin (2000) analyzed the incomprehensible statements children (grades kindergarten through six) made when videotaped watching a three-minute, action scene of the Walt Disney film, Swiss Family Robinson. Questions posed by adult facilitators dealt with aspects of violence, sexism, and racism in the film. In thirty-two focus groups totaling 162 children, Tobin studied how readers/viewers used various subjectivities as they positioned themselves and felt positioned by the visual text. Tobin connected the children’s seemingly irrational comments about the film to complex relations of subjectivity within local discourses such as school, family, and neighborhood and within global discourses of colonialism depicted in popular culture. He was particularly concerned with the Disney film’s representation of the goodness of white, middle-class families prevailing over indigenous peoples of color. He ar-
See also Post-Structuralism and Structuralism References Althusser, Louis. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes toward an Investigation).” In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, pp. 127–186. New York: Monthly Review Press. Buckingham, David, and Julian Sefton-Green. 1994. Cultural Studies Goes to School: Reading and Teaching Popular Media. London: Taylor and Francis. Christian-Smith, Linda, ed. 1993. Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling. London: Falmer Press. Davies, Bronwyn. 1993. Shards of Glass. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Derrida, Jacques. 1974. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
636
Subjectivity Tobin, Joseph. 2000. “Good Guys Don’t Wear Hats”: Kids Talk about the Media. New York: Teachers College Press. Walkerdine, Valerie. 1990. Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso. Weedon, Chris. 1997. Feminist Practice and Poststructural Theory. 2d ed. London: Taylor and Francis.
Foucault, Michel. 1988. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Hagood, Margaret Carmody. 2000. “New Times, New Millennium, New Literacies.” Reading Research and Instruction 39:311–328. McCarthey, Sarah J. 1998. “Constructing Multiple Subjectivities in Classroom Literacy Contexts.” Research in the Teaching of English 32:126–160.
637
T tening, and speaking—is ever evolving; hence, teacher education in literacy is continually in a state of flux. The literature describing teacher education in literacy has usually been identified as teaching teachers to be teachers of English/language arts, writing, or reading rather than teachers of literacy. One exception is an article in the Journal of Literacy Research entitled “Preparing Teachers to Teach Literacy” (Barr et al. 2000). This issue provides evidence of the changes literacy teacher education is undergoing. Use of the term literacy, rather than the more typical specific terms (English/language arts, reading, writing, listening, or speaking), is evidence of the changing nature of the field. It is assumed that the term English/language arts includes reading and writing in the rubric of literacy for teacher education. It may be, however, that future conceptions of literacy teacher education will be more than a description of its parts because reading, writing, and speaking may be melding so as to make a whole—literacy. Presently, however, the literature is not conjoined; hence, to describe literacy teacher education, the literature in English/language arts, reading, writing, and teacher education must be consulted.
Teacher Education in Literacy Programs in teacher education affect teachers before they begin their practice, providing experiences and content to launch their careers, and during their professional life, as they refine and improve their practice. The preparation and continued education of teachers in literacy involve the content and pedagogical knowledge of teaching reading, writing, speaking, and listening. Educational agencies and colleges or schools of education are responsible for negotiating with state departments of education to provide course work for certification requirements. Programs of initial teacher preparation vary by institution. Some programs are for undergraduates, with future teachers receiving most of their teacher preparation during their junior and senior years of college. Others are postbaccalaureate, with a fifth-year required for certification, which in some programs results in a master’s degree (that is, a master’s of teaching degree). Graduate programs are linked to state endorsements in reading, curriculum, and English as a Second Language (ESL) and provide continuing education for practicing teachers who, either for personal reasons or because of certification requirements, continue their education. Professional development also occurs through partnerships between school and district programs and programs or projects in higher education (for example, partnerships formed by members of the Holmes Group and the National Network for Educational Renewal). School districts also provide professional development and call upon literacy specialists from colleges and universities, private consultants, and researchers in federally funded laboratories to provide expertise as related to the goals and objectives of the school. The domain of literacy—reading, writing, lis-
Content Professional organizations recommend content standards for teaching literacy. The standards of the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) and the International Reading Association (IRA) emphasize the importance of teachers possessing knowledge about child and adolescent language development; the processes of reading and writing; literature representing the breadth and depth of English, American, and world literature for children and adolescents; and electronic media (see “International Reading 639
Teacher Education in Literacy Association” and “National Council of Teachers of English” entries). The NCTE updates its standards each ten years (most recently in 1996) and the IRA (see www.reading.org) regularly publishes and updates standards and competencies for teachers of reading. Elementary teachers are expected to be competent in teaching reading and writing and children’s literature. Secondary teachers are considered subject-matter specialists and are to have the equivalent of a college major in English, with special attention to the methods of teaching literature and composition. Standards for professional development are not established by professional organizations, except to the extent that the IRA describes graduate course expectations for reading teachers, specialists, and coordinators. Professional development takes many forms, which are usually delivered by a university initiative, a consulting service, or a federally funded research laboratory in response to school or district needs. Some universities and schools form partnerships. The partnerships are dedicated to providing opportunities for student teachers to practice teach and, ideally, for the cooperating teachers to benefit by opportunities to further develop their knowledge base and to participate in teacher research. Theoretically, the question that most often bothers professional developers is the extent to which their work should be top down, bottom up, or somewhere in between. (Top down refers to programs that deliver or transmit methods for teachers to replicate; bottom up refers to organic forms of staff development that build on teachers’ current knowledge and beliefs.) Hence, an issue in professional development is the type of instruction most advantageous for teacher development. The benefits of professional development are difficult to ascertain, especially because the norms of most schools reinforce the status quo and change is difficult (Lortie, 1975).
tional Education Association. The Committee of Ten and its subcommittees were highly influential. They articulated and made recommendations about issues in literacy teacher education that are relevant even today. One point was the recognition that the English teacher was both a learner and teacher of language. Another point was that all teachers across the curriculum have responsibility for encouraging and requiring students to use good English. The committees recommended that teachers be held accountable for content knowledge in rhetoric and composition, English literature, and debate and speech. The content that English and language arts teachers should learn to teach in the elementary and secondary schools is well established. Alfred Grommon (1991) reported that proposals for teacher education in English were modest until the English Teacher Preparation Study (ETPS) in 1968. Subsequent reports, such as “A Statement on the Preparation of Teachers of English,” prepared by the NCTE Standing Committee on Teaching Education and Certification (Committee on Teaching Education and Certification 1996), were influential, as well. The IRA, established in 1956, regularly provides, through its publications and conferences, opportunities for educators to develop knowledge about the teaching of reading. The “reading wars” are infamous—reading educators argue the relative advantages of various methods for teaching sound-symbol relationships and the merits of teaching words in isolation versus in whole text. Jeanne S. Chall (1967) best described the genesis of this debate in Learning to Read: The Great Debate. This debate is regularly argued in the professional organization. A good example of this and related issues is the article by James Hoffman and his colleagues (1998), “The Literature-based Basals in First-grade Classrooms: Savior, Satan, or Same-old, Same-old.” Pedagogy Pedagogy in teacher education is about two topics. First, how should teachers be taught to teach their students? Second, how should teacher educators teach future teachers? From the 1900s until the 1980s, the apprenticeship model was central; teachers in preparation learned content in college-level course work and then apprenticed with mentors. In the 1980s, however, the nature of teacher education
History Attention toward teaching reading and writing is evident from the colonial days in America, but teaching English and the reading and writing of English was brought to the forefront by the president of Harvard University, Charles Eliot. In 1892, he chaired the prestigious Committee of Ten, which was established by the National Council of Education, a subgroup of the Na640
Teacher Education in Literacy literacy shifted as researchers and policymakers encouraged teachers to use “research-based practices.” The idea, known as “process-product research,” was that if teachers would employ research-based practices, students’ literacy skills would improve. Research-based practices probably do improve teaching and learning, but they may not be sufficient. The problem is that research-based practices are theorized, delivered, and measured under controlled circumstances, and teachers do not have the luxury of control. It is incumbent on the teacher to make modifications and to tailor the use of practices to suit the context and goals of the students and the curriculum, and those changes may render the practice ineffective. A related problem is that the researcher and the teacher may not share a common understanding of the particular theories of teaching and learning and of the literacy processes that are the basis for the research-based practice. If a teacher does not share the theory of the researcher, the practice will not be taught with fidelity, the way intended by the researcher. On the basis of these considerations, many teacher educators and theorists of the 1990s challenged the assumptions of the process-product researchers and began to ask how teachers might be taught that would prepare them to acknowledge, deal with, and reflect upon these complexities. Those who recognize the complexity of teaching and learning in a multicultural society criticize the rule-bound process-product mode of teacher education. Joseph Schwab (1983) and Donald Schon (1987) recommended that case studies be used to test rules and maxims. Reflective practitioners make adaptations according to their analysis of rules in light of the studied cases. Inherent in this approach is the notion of inquiry: teacher educators and their students should engage in inquiry about teaching and learning. Donna Alvermann (1990) described common themes among inquiry-oriented researchers as being concerned with how teachers acquire knowledge of complex instructional strategies and what beliefs, or implicit theories of teaching, they use to guide their literacy instruction. This view of teacher education is a major shift from the teacher as transmitter of content to the teacher as researcher, thinker, and decisionmaker. To encourage teachers to teach in problem-solving and inquiry-oriented ways,
they need to be taught that way in their teacher education programs. This is not to say that there exists universal agreement on this issue. Especially in reading, a number of educators and policymakers perpetuate the notion that teachers simply do not know the best ways to teach reading and that researchbased practices are the answer. As this entry is being written, the current educational topic appearing in the press is that primary-level teachers reject research-based practices for teaching reading in favor of “unproven” practices. Much of the blame is being attributed to teacher education programs, which are believed to perpetuate “unscientific” methods of teaching reading. This problem is clear demonstration of paradigmatic differences among educators. Some cling to the top-down paradigm, believing that a scope and sequence of skills can be taught to all students and that learning to be literate will result. Others believe that literacy learning is an interactive process in which literacy learners must engage in meaningful and purposeful language development and that practicing skills in isolation will limit literacy potential. Needed Programs of Research Because of this paradigmatic dispute, high-quality teacher education programs for literacy are difficult to describe. Teacher educators in literacy are left to sort though competing claims and to provide programs that can be justified on the basis of their own experience and the disputed, contradictory research evidence. The best that can be done presently is to provide experiences for student teachers that are coherent and justifiable. Concurrently, teacher educators should conduct research into their practices and programs. Patricia Anders, James Hoffman, and Gerald Duffy (2000) pointed out that teacher education research is a low priority on the national agenda. They argued that to make sound decisions about the content and structure of teacher education, resources need to be allocated for systematic investigations of programs. A national research agenda should be articulated and funded for such investigations. The inquiries should be long term, following teachers from the program into practice. An investment of this magnitude would begin to provide the information and evidence needed for deciding what constitutes high-quality and effective teacher education in literacy. 641
Teacher Education in Literacy Should teacher education about literacy reflect the conceptions of literacy that are dominant in the field? For example, if literacy and teaching are both problem-solving activities, should teachers be involved in problem solving—that is, teacher research? A teacher education program built on the conception of problem solving would engage prospective teachers in the study of cases, which problematizes teaching and learning. Teachers would be in classrooms conducting inquiry about issues relevant to the teaching and learning of literacy. Or is literacy the acquisition of skills? If so, instruction would be prescribed and teaching would honor the scope and sequence of literacy skills that controlled studies “prove” need to be taught. Highquality evidence suggests that new knowledge is assimilated and accommodated through collaboration between knowledgeable and less knowledgeable peers, with all parties working to solve problems, answer questions, and increase their understanding. This is in contrast to the direct instruction model that assumes that individuals learn from a teacher who presumably knows everything in the lesson. How do these competing conceptions fit into a model or program of teacher education? Another body of literature, which is not a customary part of teacher education programs, argues that knowledge is signified by multiple sign systems—not just reading and writing, which are the primary meaning-making symbols used in education. Dance, theater, nonprint media, media literacy, and art are all ways of knowing. How might these sign systems become part of the conceptual and pedagogical knowledge of teacher education? Speaking and listening, also important to the development of language arts and literacy, are marginalized in teacher education programs today. Speaking is relegated to the proper use of English; hence, it is categorized as part of English as a second language. New conceptions of literacy teacher education should include speech instruction. Likewise, sociocultural literacy studies are giving new birth to the assumption that reading, writing, speaking, and listening are connected within the social, cultural, and personal contexts of those experiences. As researchers investigate those contexts, it is likely that attention will turn to how teachers are able to affect the development of listening by students.
Teacher education programs also must find ways to be responsive to culture. The achievement gap between black and white and between Hispanic and Anglo is the number-one problem in public education. One possible reason for the achievement gap may be that teachers and teacher educators lack deep knowledge about how culture shapes ways of learning and knowing. Lacking this knowledge, they are unable to appropriately teach students who are culturally different from themselves. Further, teacher education programs desperately need to find ways to invite persons of color to the teaching field and to retain them. The teaching force should reflect the diversity of society, but it does not. Concerns about the relationship of teaching and learning to gender are closely related to cultural issues. Two problems that are largely unaddressed in teacher education are how to respond to the achievement gap of girls in science and math and boys in literature and the humanities and how to encourage more males to be teachers. Ultimately, the latter issue will need to be addressed by policies related to teacher pay and responsibilities, but research could shed light on which incentives and rewards might be most effective. The nation is undergoing a severe teacher shortage, which will affect the literacy development of children and youth. Investment in highquality programs of teacher education and research is the answer. Linda Darling-Hammond (1997) provided compelling data about the benefits of investing in teacher education. On the basis of a variety of studies from around the county, she argued that spending on teacher education is the most productive investment for schools. What is needed is empirical evidence regarding the literacy-related critical issues that affect the education of those who teach America’s children and youth. The research being called for here is the sort of research that provides descriptions. James Hoffman and P. David Pearson (2000) pointed out that we need knowledge that assists the field by delving into the intricacies associated with helping educators develop a personal and professional commitment to lifelong learning. This call challenges many long-held assumptions about what it takes to make a literacy teacher and the norms that govern teacher education programs. Patricia L. Anders 642
Teacher Research in Literacy
Teacher Research in Literacy
See also International Reading Association; National Council of Teachers of English References Alvermann, Donna E. 1990. “Reading Teacher Education.” In Robert W. Houston, Martin Haberman, and John P. Sikula, eds., The Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, pp. 687–704. New York: Macmillan. Anders, Patricia L., James Hoffman, and Gerald Duffy. 2000. “Teaching Teachers to Teach Reading: Paradigm Shifts, Persistent Problems, and Challenges.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., The Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 719–742. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Barr, Rebecca, Susan Watts-Taffe, Junko Yokota, Mariko Ventura, and Vince Caputi. 2000. “Preparing Teachers to Teach Literacy.” Journal of Literacy Research, 32, no. 4: 463–471. Chall, Jeanne S. 1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Committee on Teaching Education and Certification. 1996. 3d ed. A Statement on the Preparation of Teachers of English. Champaign, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English. Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1997. Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. “English Teacher Preparation Study (ETPS): Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English.” 1968. English Journal 57: 529–536. Grommon, Alfred H. 1991. “Teachers as Language Learners: A History of English Language Arts Teacher Education.” In James Flood, Julie M. Jensen, Diane Lapp, and James R. Squire, eds., The Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, pp. 380–392. New York: Macmillan. Hoffman, James, Sarah McCarthey, Bonnie Elliott, Debra Bayles, Debra Price, Angela Ferree, and Judy Abbott. 1998. “The Literature-based Basals in First-grade Classrooms: Savior, Satan or Sameold, Same-old.” Reading Research Quarterly 33:168–197. Hoffman, James, and P. David Pearson. 2000. “Reading Teacher Education in the Next Millennium: What Your Grandmother’s Teacher Didn’t Know That Your Granddaughter’s Should.” Reading Research Quarterly 35, no. 1:28–44. Lortie, David. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schon, Donald. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schwab, Joseph J. 1983. “The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to Do.” Curriculum Inquiry 13, no. 3:239–265.
Teacher research is a form of educational research that makes knowledge by and for teachers and their students, rather than about them. To this end, teacher researchers use both familiar and unique methods of quantitative and qualitative research to study problems of teaching and learning. Through the systematic use of reflection, action, and critical self-analysis, teacher researchers generate new understandings about their practice. Although this form of research is most often carried out in teachers’ own classrooms with their own students, it also may be conducted in the school, the school district, and the local community and across geographic settings together with other teachers, members of local communities, or university faculty. The History of Teacher Research Historians of the current teacher research movement trace the movements’ roots to various interrelated sources. They often identify the action research movement of the 1940s and 1950s as the earliest ancestor of the current movement. Described in the writing of the social psychologist Kurt Lewin, action research focuses on social actions and their consequences as well as on the ways in which “basic” research influences social action. Important roots of the current teacher research movement are also located in the 1960s curriculum reform work of teachers in England and the conceptual sophistication that Lawrence Stenhouse and John Elliott provided this work during the 1970s and 1980s. More recent North American roots of the teacher research in literacy movement may be traced to organizations such as the National Council of Teachers of English, the National Writing Project, and the North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation and to individuals whose names are associated with work they initiated in various institutional contexts. Among these individuals are Dixie Goswami, director of Middlebury College’s Breadloaf School of English and coeditor of an early, influential collection of research conducted by K–12 teachers; Patricia Carini and her work with colleagues to document children’s learning at the Prospect Center and School in Bennington, Vermont; Marion MacLean and Marian Mohr and their work to guide teachers’ conduct of research; Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle and their work 643
Teacher Research in Literacy
Teacher conducting research in her classroom (Elizabeth Crews)
many professional responsibilities the making of knowledge that addresses problems of teaching and learning that they confront in everyday practice. During the 1980s and 1990s, teacher researchers of literacy produced a number of studies that highlighted the contrast between situation-specific research conducted by individuals responsible for putting the findings of that research into practice and research conducted about or apart from actual classrooms. In rich descriptions of their teaching and their students’ learning, teacher researchers such as Nancie Atwell, Linda Christensen, Bob Fecho, and Bobbi Fisher dramatized the dynamic, organic nature of teaching/learning interactions and drew attention to the interplay of social, cultural, and academic forces at work in these interactions. In doing so, they demonstrated that no one method, no one set of instructional materials is sufficient to meet all students’ learning styles and needs, even in their own particular classroom communities. In addition, they revealed how they used their knowledge of their discipline and of their students (1) to help students become readers and writers capable of responding thoughtfully and critically to texts, both on the page and in the
in the Philadelphia Teachers’ Learning Cooperative; and faculty from universities across the country—among them Cathy Fleischer, Jay Robinson, David Schaafsma, and Patricia Lambert Stock—who began their work together with K–12 teachers in the 1980s in the University of Michigan’s Center for Educational Improvement. Another individual whose work has had a substantial impact on the current teacher research movement is Donald Schon, whose book Reflective Practitioners (1983) provided the movement a persuasive contemporary argument for the unique value of knowledge that is made and applied continuously in the course of professional practice. Schon’s work inspired the term practitioner research, which includes the work of practioners of any type who engage in self-reflective inquiry on their own practice. The Goals of Teacher Research Inspired by the principles and practices developed in action and participatory research movements and in more recent teacher research movements in North America and the United Kingdom, growing numbers of American teachers of literacy have begun to include among their 644
Teacher Research in Literacy world; (2) to write for multiple audiences and purposes; and (3) to understand that the functions and forms of language are integrally related. The demand for their published books indicates that these teachers’ research contributed to other educators’ understanding and benefited other educators’ students as well as their own. Beginning in the 1980s, another corps of teacher researchers expanded the scope and purpose of their inquiries beyond their own classrooms and their own students. They conducted research as an integral part of their larger project: to realize the promise of providing educational access and high-quality instruction to all students. Through intentional, systematic inquiry and analysis, these teacher researchers worked to change the ways in which social constructs such as race, class, and gender limit educational opportunities of the majority of children in the nation’s urban schools, who are more than 75 percent of the children in all the nation’s schools. For example, although the immediate goals of the Michigan School of Teacher Researchers, who figured among this corps, was to develop and study the impact of dialogic curricula and community-based literacy projects on the quality of teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms, their broader goal was to create learning environments in which the civic and civil literacy practices upon which democracy depends might develop and flourish. Another group of teacher researchers interested in educational reform with promise for achieving greater social justice is the Santa Barbara Classroom Discourse Group. This group’s members—which include teachers, principals, and university-based researchers—use ethnographic data-collection strategies and discourse analysis to study classrooms as cultures and to draw attention to the ways in which particular classroom cultures support or constrain students’ learning. Other teacher researchers, such as Bill Bigelow, a high school teacher in Oregon, studied educational materials available for teachers’ use. Specifically, Bigelow studied the political nature of a popular educational computer game. His study revealed sexist, racist, and culturally insensitive features below a multicultural and genderfair veneer. Bigalow has used his work to encourage teachers and students to study critically the moral and political messages embedded in educational texts, including computer software.
Current State of Teacher Research Whether teacher research is empirical or conceptual in nature and whether it is aimed at developing teaching practices, materials, curricula, or schools that serve all students equally well, it has made public a substantial body of information and rich analyses of teaching and learning. During the final decades of the twentieth century, teacher research took its place among other qualitative approaches to research in education that—taken together—have made a persuasive case for the value of local knowledge, the importance of studying problems in context, and the significance of understanding experiences from multiple perspectives, including the perspective of those living through the experiences. These gains, however, have not been without critics, who often acknowledge teacher research as a productive form of professional development but not as a substantial means of making knowledge in education. Arguing that teachers are better positioned to be subjects and consumers of educational research than producers and critics of it, these critics question whether teachers are adequately prepared to carry out intentional, systematic inquiries into their own practice. Educators who have spoken most persuasively for the teacher research movement in K–12 education speak in one voice when they address these critics’ concerns. They dispute the critics’ claim that teachers are unable to carry out systematic and intentional research that can add to the body of knowledge about teaching and learning. On the other hand, they agree that teachers who develop and contribute to a body of knowledge that stands to advance effective teaching and learning must make their research public for peer review and communal use. Making a case for the conduct and development of teacher research, the late Lawrence Stenhouse (1985) argued that private research for one’s own purpose does not count as research. This is in part because unpublished research does not profit by criticism and in part because teacher research is seen as a community effort and unpublished research is of little use to others. Likewise, Louise Wetherbee Phelps (1991) argued that teaching depends for its richness on reflective practioners’ sharing and interrogating their work in community for the purpose of constructing curriculum. Proponents of teacher research also address critics’ concerns about the usefulness of teacher 645
Teacher Research in Literacy research and whether it can have impact beyond the locality in which it is conducted. Assuming that the work of reflective practitioners does produce local knowledge, Phelps (1991) argued for the value of such knowledge, stating that the noble end of practitioner research—to act wisely in particular situations—makes the knowledge it produces especially valuable and worthy of recognition. For Phelps, locally generated knowledge is made and put to its right use precisely because practitioner researchers’ understandings cannot be separated from the practical goals that those understandings construct and serve. Arguing that practitioner research is very different from disciplined inquiry where, by convention, the purpose of the research insulates the researcher from responsibility for action in a situation as a consequence of observing and interpreting phenomena, Phelps drew attention not only to the rich intellectual possibilities for this research but also to its promise to serve the purpose for which it is conducted: to make better educational opportunities available to students. The same critics who argue against teachergenerated knowledge and the value of local knowledge also dispute the quality of teacher research. This criticism often grows out of these critics’ attempts to measure the quality of teacher research with conventional educational research standards such as validity, reliability, and objectivity. This is problematic, since teacher research often has a qualitative focus, and the research methods and forms of evaluation are more in line with those of educational anthropologists and qualitative sociologists than with educational psychologists. But even these appropriated methods and standards are now being questioned by many in the field of teacher research as they consider those conditions that are unique to teacher research: the insider status of the researcher, the centrality of action, the requirement of spiraling self-reflection on action, and the intimate, dialectical relationship of research to practice (Anderson and Herr, 1999). In an attempt to address these issues, practitioner researchers Gary Anderson and Kathryn Herr posited a new set of standards to evaluate the rigor and validity of teacher research. For example, one of their standards, outcome validity, addressed the extent to which actions occur in the study that lead to a resolution of the issue. Although Anderson and Herr viewed these criteria
as tentative and in flux, they also warned that it is ultimately through engaging in dialogue and struggle with other researchers that an appropriate set of methods and a new definition of “rigor” will emerge for this new scholarship. In effect, many of the proposed and emerging standards for rigor in teacher research, like those suggested by Anderson and Herr, are also standards for ethical conduct because they attend not only to the quality of the research itself but to the quality of relationships among participants who have a stake in a study as well. Reflecting on some of these ethical issues within studies that she has conducted as a teacher researcher in her highschool English class, Cathy Fleischer (1995) questioned how one can represent others fairly and accurately. She also wondered if it is a decent or possible thing to do. Reflecting on a case study she conducted and coauthored with a student, Fleischer questioned whether researchers (even when they invite students to join in their research) ever adequately understand another’s worldview. Furthermore, she questioned whether researchers who conduct inquiries with students and then go on to publish accounts of that research do not, in effect, reduce the significance of their students’ perspectives on the research. Flesicher addressed these concerns by conducting what she called representational research. Working to blur the boundaries between researcher and researched, Fleischer conceived of teacher research as a cooperative story-making project that results in polyphonic texts. By this, she meant that all participants (teacher researcher and students) have a voice in the story they tell, and no one person has the final word. Those involved speculate about the meaning of their work and what they have learned from it rather than trying to reach a consensus about its significance. Although Fleischer addressed her concern with the ethics of representation by inviting students to work with her as coresearchers, other teacher researchers invite students to become coresearchers for pedagogical reasons. Persuaded of the effectiveness of inquiry-based literacy instruction, teacher researchers such as Janet Swenson, who worked as director of the Write for Your Life Project with teachers and secondary-school students in ten states, have invited students to use reading and writing to study issues of concern to them in their lived lives. As 646
Television and Reading students researched their lives and developed action research projects to change conditions they deemed in need of change, their teachers researched their practice with one another in online conversations, and Swenson studied the research of both her colleagues and their students. As the teacher research movement enters the twenty-first century, the ethics of teacher research, the ethical conduct of teacher research, and the impact of teacher research on student learning are constitutive issues with which the movement is grappling as it defines itself within the larger research community in education. At the same time, the larger research community in education is grappling with how to understand, value, and use the work that teacher research produces. Karen Smith and Patricia Lambert Stock
first focuses on displacement (Himmelweit, Oppenheim, and Vince, 1958; Schramm Lyle, and Parker, 1961), saying that television takes valuable time away from other leisure pursuits, particularly reading. The second suggests that television has influenced the very way people learn. The third reflects the public’s concern that television affects school-related behaviors as shown in the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Donahue et al., 1999). Students’ need for short-term gratification is considered a result of frequent viewing. There are some voices, however, that have taken a more sanguine view of the medium’s impact by suggesting that television may be stimulating children’s interests and learning. Some educators, such as Rosemary Potter (1976), maintained that television has opened up a window to the world for children, providing them with an extraordinary resource of information. Supporters claim that television has undoubtedly contributed to children’s knowledge of current events and general understanding. These four themes are briefly described below, focusing on the argument and evidence for television’s influence on literacy and school achievement.
See also Literacy and Culture; Narrative Text; Social Justice and Literacies References Anderson, Gary, and Kathryn Herr. (1999). “The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities?” Educational Researcher 28 (5):12–21. Fleischer, Cathy. 1995. Composing Teacher-Research: A Prosaic History. New York: State University of New York Press. Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. 1991. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.” College English 53:863–885. Schon, Donald. 1983. Reflective Practitioners: How Practitioners Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1985. “What Counts as Research.” In Jean Rudduck and David Hopkins, eds., Research as a Basis for Teaching: Readings from the Work of Lawrence Stenhouse, pp. 8–19. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
The Displacement Theory Displacement is a common theme throughout the literature that refers to the reorganization of activities, which occurs as a result of the time spent watching television. Based on benchmark studies by Wilbur Schramm, Jack Lyle, and Edmund Parker (1961) and by Hilda Himmelweit, Pamela Oppenheim, and Pamela Vince (1958) of the introduction of television in a new community, the theory was originally formulated to account for the uneven substitution of other media activities as a result of television. The overall pattern of displacement led to the principle of functional similarity: Children confronted with multiple leisure alternatives sacrificed those media activities appearing to satisfy the same needs as television, only less efficiently or effectively. Media determined to be functionally different, however, remained unaffected by television. Thus, for example, television’s cartoons clearly displaced comic books, but book reading, serving a different function, remained unaffected. Since then, the theory of displacement has been further extended to include other activities outside the realm of media. Studies reporting on
Television and Reading Television has been an issue of great concern for literacy development. In television’s relatively short lifetime, it has been accused of damaging children’s ability to think clearly, reducing their imagination and creativity, and seriously influencing their educational aspirations by destroying independent thinking and the pursuit of scholarly activities. Three major charges have been hurled against the television medium. The 647
Television and Reading
Children mesmerized by television (Laura Dwight)
pendent of the content being transmitted, has a powerful constraining effect on the message one can convey. In his book Understanding Media (1964), Marshall McLuhan described every medium of communication as possessing a logic or grammar that constituted a set of devices for organizing experience. Hot media are those that present sensory stimuli filled with data, requiring little work to complete them. Cool media are those that present little sensory stimuli and little information and thus compel users to complete the sensory image. Print, for example, is a hot medium; television is a cool medium, eliciting high but passive audience participation. For McLuhan, television as a medium not only changed communication, it led to the devaluation of the word. Undoubtedly, certain media attributes such as the ability to zoom into details or animated modeling have been shown to activate certain mental activities, such as cue attending and the ability to produce visual images (Salomon, 1984). The key controversy, however, has laid not in whether these symbol systems can be shaped in such a manner for learning to occur. Rather,
displacement have looked at the relation between the time spent television viewing and many leisure activities, including free play, reading, and homework (Beentjes and Van der Voort, 1988; Neuman, 1988). These studies reflect two major concerns: (1) that the sheer amount of time spent viewing means that children do not have time to be involved in other activities, and (2) that the amount of time spent on such passive recreational activities mean that other, more worthwhile pursuits are being forfeited or neglected. One issue, therefore, deals with the quantity of available time spent viewing; the other deals with the quality of that time. Nevertheless, there is little evidence to suggest that any major changes have actually occurred in the time children devote to leisure reading at home. Children were reading approximately fifteen minutes a day in 1950, and they are still reading approximately the same amount of time today (Neuman, 1995). The Information Processing Theory That the medium is the message has been one of the catch phrases of the past four decades. It emphasizes that the medium of expression, inde648
Television and Reading the controversy has been whether it is the symbol system, itself, that enhances these cognitive skills. Recent evidence has argued against the unique contribution of symbol systems on learning (Neuman, 1992). Rather, this evidence suggests that learning is most likely to occur when a particular symbol system is manipulated to represent the critical features of a cognitive task. In this respect, it is the modeling of these attributes into a form that is understandable for the learner, and not the attributes themselves, that is most important.
critics perpetuate a literacy bias, the notion that thinking resides in a single technology and is not transferable to other media. The Interest Stimulation Theory There have been a few optimists (Potter, 1976), however, who maintain that television may help to enhance children’s learning. They argue that children who see a program on a given topic may be more likely to pursue these interests in school or during their leisure time. Even though practically all of children’s use of television is in pursuit of entertainment, some supporters suggest that children may learn a good deal from television, albeit without directly seeking information from it. Thus, the learning that takes place during home viewing is considered mostly incidental. In contrast to school instruction, television’s teaching, for the most part, is unplanned, nonsequential, and informal in nature. Contrary to this view, however, there are no data indicating that the immediate interests generated from television lead children to seek new information through reading and other activities. Rather, these interests appear to be fleeting and rarely lead to action. Efforts to enhance what can be learned from television, through intentional teaching strategies, have also failed to show increases beyond temporary readjustments of interests in reading and school achievement.
The Short-term Gratification Theory Gratification patterns, broadly defined, reflect two basic dimensions. People who defer gratification typically establish realistic goals in work and home and feel a moral obligation to save, to plan ahead, and to postpone a wide variety of gratification and impulses. On the other hand, those who seek immediate gratification are characterized by impulse following and often prefer to enjoy life rather than to prepare for tomorrow, to spend freely rather than save, and to have little drive toward upward mobility. Some scholars, journalists, and educators believe that television, through the combination of sound effects, exciting music, and rapid-action images, may generate in children a generalized arousal and an inability to tolerate the long conversations or explanations, the necessary delays that characterize the nontelevision or school-related work. Jerome Singer and Dorothy Singer (1983), for example, suspected that the effects of such fast-paced bombardment might turn on youngsters beyond anyone’s expectations, arguing that children’s nervous systems will become overtaxed and lead to unfocused hyperactivity and irritability. This attitude is thought to affect school learning in two ways. First, exposure to the effortless activity of viewing television may lead children to believe that all activities require such effortlessness. Second, the rapid pacing of television may induce shortened attention spans and cause hyperactive behavior. It is even suggested that the continual exposure of television may bias the arousal of the right hemisphere of the brain, permanently affecting children’s ability to process print. There is no evidence, however, to substantiate these claims. To an unfortunate extent, these
A Contrasting Approach: A Theory of Synergy From an accumulation of research, there is evidence for a contrasting model of television and its effects on achievement—a theory of synergy proposed by Susan Neuman (1995). This theory argued that the skills and information children acquire from their innumerable experiences with media may act together in building children’s background knowledge so critical for constructing meaning from text. As children engage in each activity, they are acquiring domain-specific and strategic knowledge that may be used in making sense of subsequent events and actions. Thus, the understandings that children construct when viewing television cannot be attributed solely to their experiences with television but to many events (media related and others) that help shape these expectations. Prior work on media differences has relied on a deficit model; here it is 649
Test Preparation Singer, Jerome L., and Dorothy Singer. 1983. “Implications of Childhood Television Viewing for Cognition, Imagination and Emotion.” In Jerome Bryant and Daniel Anderson, eds., Children’s Understanding of Television: Research on Attention and Comprehension, pp. 265–296. New York, Academic Press.
argued that with moderate viewing, the relationship is synergistic. With their distinctive characteristics, each medium’s physical features, its structures, its method of handling material, add a new dimension to children’s knowledge and the means they employ to attain new knowledge. Thus, rather than detract from literacy, some moderate amounts of television may expose children to an additional set of processing tools that, in combination with others, contributes to their ability to interpret events. Consequently, there may be a spiraling effect. A greater facility to process information may enhance children’s capability to acquire new information, leading to a far more sophisticated knowledge base for an increasing pluralistic society. Susan Neuman
Test Preparation Preparing for taking tests involves the use and coordination of many study skills, including organization, time management, note taking, and memorization. It includes also the learning and application of specialized strategies to enable a student to prepare for and take a specific essay and/or objective test. These specialized strategies include the anticipation of particular questions, practice at answering these questions, and the use of other test-wise information, cues, and appropriate test preparation strategies. Performance on tests is a critical component for gaining access to and negotiating educational as well as occupational and professional requirements. Considering this, successful test-preparation skills, techniques, and strategies and practice with their application are essential for all students. Research supports the idea that appropriate and specialized instruction in preparing for and taking a test can improve performance on the test. (See Flippo, Becker, and Wark [2000] for a review of the effects of the various test-preparation and test-taking strategies at the college level.) Little research has been done on the effectiveness of test-preparation and test-taking strategy instruction at the elementary, middle-school, and secondary levels, and little attention is given to prospective teachers in their teacher training programs as to how to develop students’ testpreparation strategies. But practice and research related to reading and learning strategies suggest that students could benefit from test-preparation and test-taking instruction if they are actively engaged, with opportunities to self-regulate their learning, and are also given some teacher feedback (Butler and Winne, 1995); and if the instruction and practice are authentic, necessary, and appropriate to the setting and situation, and students understand what is expected and why (Garner, 1990). Therefore, it can be surmised that test-preparation and test-taking instruction for students at all levels can most effectively be
References Beentjes, Jerome, and Theo Van der Voort. 1988. “Television’s Impact on Children’s Reading Skills: A Review of Research.” Reading Research Quarterly 23:389–413. Donahue, Patricia, Pat Voelkl, Jay Campbell, and Robert Mazzeo. 1999. Reading Report Card to the Nation. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Himmelweit, Hilda, Pamela Oppenheim, and Pamela Vince. 1958. Television and the Child. London: Oxford. McLuhan, Marshall. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: Signet Books. Neuman, Susan B. 1988. “The Displacement Effect: Assessing the Relation Between Television Viewing and Reading Performance.” Reading Research Quarterly 23:414–440. ———. 1992. “Is Learning from Media Distinctive? Examining Children’s Inferencing Strategies.” American Educational Research Journal 29: 119–140. ———. 1995. Literacy in the Television Age: The Myth of the TV Effect. Norwood, NJ, Ablex. Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Viking. Potter, Rosemary. 1976. New Season: The Positive Use of Commercial Television with Children. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Salomon, Gabriel. 1984. “Television Is ‘Easy’ and Print Is ‘Tough’: The Differential Investment of Mental Effort as a Function of Perceptions and Attributions.” Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 647–658. Schramm, Wilbur, Jack Lyle, and Edwin Parker. 1961. Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
650
Textbooks
Students helping each other study for a test (Skjold Photographs)
done in preparation for the real tests that they must take and by using the actual materials on which the students will be tested, giving them sufficient time to learn, prepare, and practice for the given test. Being test-wise entails many activities: analyzing information about the format, length, and importance of tests; getting in the right frame of mind to prepare for them; planning and sticking to a study schedule; organizing all available resources to study effectively for tests; taking notes from notes and all other important sources and condensing the material; allowing time to continue condensing notes throughout the study times allocated and reducing the information to be studied as it is learned; using sources and information about tests to anticipate and write questions; practicing answering questions during study sessions; recognizing and using the various cues given in objective tests and/or understanding what various types of essay questions require; and finally, using the strategies practiced to answer in the time allotted as many questions as fully as possible. Rona F. Flippo
See also Study Skills and Strategies References Butler, Deborah L., and Philip H. Winne. 1995. “Feedback and Self-regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 65:245–281. Flippo, Rona F., Marilyn J. Becker, and David M. Wark. 2000. “Preparing for and Taking Tests.” In Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, eds., Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, pp. 221–260. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Garner, Ruth. 1990. “When Children and Students Do Not Use Learning Strategies: Toward a Theory of Settings.” Review of Educational Research 60:517–529.
Textbooks Textbooks (also sometimes referred to as basals) are ubiquitous tools for instruction in reading, language arts, and content areas, such as social studies and science. They usually consist of expository or informational text, accompanied by features or supplements, such as chapter ques651
Textbooks tions, teachers’ manuals, worksheets, and tests. Textbooks have most often been associated with traditional or transmission instruction, a view of learning that sees learners as empty vessels to be filled with information from the teacher and the text (see “Transmission Instruction” entry). Often, textbooks designed for elementary, middle, and secondary schools are written to address instructional objectives for a particular subject gathered from states’ department of education offices. Two states that represent a large concentration of textbook consumers whose state department of education’s objectives influence the content of textbooks are California and Texas. Textbooks are often purchased and used by school districts in these states and others to provide a sense of “covering” the objectives or the content. Textbooks are known for providing a general and succinct overview of specific topics or skills.
When students have misconceptions or alternative concepts, they prefer a text that directly refutes the common misconceptions and presents the scientifically acceptable concepts. This type of text is referred to as refutational text (see “Refutational Texts” entry); more recent texts are now including passages that use this text structure to address prevalent misconceptions students have about a specific topic. Adolescents prefer expository text as opposed to narrative text (stories) for learning new concepts, particularly if they have naive ideas about those concepts (see “Narrative and Expository Text” entry). Students state that they learn best from examples or illustrations that are simple rather than complex. Readers report that direct and to-thepoint texts are best for learning, as individuals may be distracted and confused by noncentral concepts that are unfamiliar to them. Suzanne Wade and her colleagues (Wade et al., 1993) found that college students spent a good deal of time on unimportant but highly interesting details (called seductive details) in textbooks. These seductive details may detract from and interfere with comprehension of content concepts.
Evaluation of Textbooks There are other considerations that make some textbooks more appropriate than others, aside from determining if a textbook presents the necessary information and addresses the state’s department of education’s or district’s curriculum objectives. Format and content features also play a role in how readable a text can be for students. Bonnie Armbruster, a researcher at the University of Illinois, developed specific criteria for determining a text’s considerateness (see “Considerate Text” entry). She found that for a text to be considerate, it must be audience appropriate. There are specific features of textbooks that students find helpful and that make some textbooks more useful than others. One of these features is a glossary or dictionary of terms. Often, content vocabulary or terms are printed in bold-faced type when presented and discussed in the text. These bolded words may be found defined in a glossary at the end of a chapter or in an appendix. Students also report other useful textbook features. For example, Barbara Guzzetti and her colleagues (Guzzetti et al., 1995) found that highschool students in science classes appreciate textbooks that have clear and precise language and are explicit. Learners appreciate texts that are written in styles that sound like everyday language, rather than in ways that are artificially elevated to sound more authoritative.
Criticisms of Textbooks There is a plethora of literature that presents criticisms of textbooks in general and critiques of specific textbooks in particular. One common criticism of textbooks in general is that they present too many topics with too little information. The imperative to “cover” all the school district’s or state’s objectives for the content for that grade level causes authors to write in ways that present too little information and one-sided views of a topic. Therefore, textbooks have been criticized for their “watered-down” text (Sewall and Emberling, 1998). Textbooks also have been criticized for their lack of ability to motivate and interest students. Students report that textbooks are boring. Readers do not often curl up in bed at night with a good textbook. Textbooks have also been critiqued for their graphics and illustrations, for several reasons. First, textbook publishers often hire graphic artists to do the illustrations who have no knowledge of the content. Hence, artistic blunders may occur in which the illustrations contradict or fail to complement the text. Second, history textbooks, as well as texts in other areas, have been 652
Thematic Organizers References Guzzetti, Barbara J., Cynthia R. Hynd, Stephanie A. Skeels, and Wayne O. Williams. 1995. “Improving Physics Texts: Students Speak Out.” Journal of Reading 38 (3):656–665. Hynd, Cynthia R. 1999. “Teaching Students to Think Critically Using Multiple Texts in History.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (6):428–436. Perlmutter, David D. 1997. “Manufacturing Visions of Society and History in Textbooks.” Journal of Communication 47 (3):68–81. Sewall, Gilbert T., and Stapley W. Emberling. 1998. A New Generation of History Textbooks: A Report. New York: American Textbook Council. Wade, Suzanne E., Gregory Schraw, William M. Buxton, and Michael T. Hayes. 1993. “Seduction of the Strategic Reader: Effects of Interest on Strategy and Recall.” Reading Research Quarterly 28 (2):92–115.
criticized for their visuals that picture society as homogenized and sanitized to reduce the risk of controversy (Perlmutter, 1997). Third, photos and illustrations have been identified as the greatest source of bias, particularly gender bias, in textbooks. Visuals typically depict males far more than females engaging in or representing content areas such as science or social studies. Alternatives to or with Textbooks Textbooks may be used in alternative ways, and teachers can use alternatives to textbooks. Teachers can depart from traditional forms of instruction by adapting a student-centered approach. Rather than making the textbook the sole supplement to the teacher’s instruction, textbooks can be used as just one of multiple sources of information (see “Multiple Texts” entry). Other texts, such as trade books, newspapers, original documents, and web sites, can supplement textbooks and provide much more depth of information than a single textbook. There is some evidence, however, that students may not be able to profit from multiple texts unless they are taught how to use them. Students need to be taught to read texts critically and to evaluate the messages they contain, particularly when texts present conflicting views. In science or social studies, students must learn to think like a scientist or historian. Students need to be given time to acquire necessary background knowledge and need to be provided with methods historians or scientists use and with opportunities to engage in activities that scientists or historians do (Hynd, 1999). Multiple texts work well in an inquiry or literature-based approach to instruction (see “Inquiry-Based Instruction” and “Literature-Based Instruction” entries). They can be used as resources to help students discover answers to their own queries. Students can use information in multiple texts as evidence to defend their points of view in peer-led discussions to settle disputes about concepts. In ways like these, textbooks can become just one of many resources in a classroom. Barbara J. Guzzetti
Thematic Organizers A thematic organizer, created by Marino Alvarez (1983), is a text adjunct that is developed to help students preview text information and generate connections between their prior knowledge and text concepts. More specifically, the thematic organizer is designed to (1) highlight systematically and explicitly the central theme of the text, (2) relate the theme to experiences and/or knowledge that students already possess, (3) provide cohesion among the ideas to accommodate text structure, and (4) aid schema construction by elaborating upon new and extended meanings of thematic concepts. A thematic organizer differs from other types of previews in that it is developed to define and relate explicitly text themes through analogy to examples that are familiar to the reader. Schema Activation and Knowledge Construction Prereading strategies have been developed to help students relate new information appearing in written discourse to their existing knowledge. The design of many of these preorganizers is to create a mind set prior to reading. These preorganizers have included advance organizers (Ausubel, 1960), vocabulary hierarchically arranged (for example, structured overviews or graphic organizers), previews of forthcoming readings, and thematic organizers.
See also Considerate Text; Inquiry-Based Instruction; Literature-Based Approach; Multiple Texts; Narrative and Expository Text; Transmission Instruction
653
Thematic Organizers Because texts are never completely explicit, the reader must rely on preexisting schemata to provide plausible interpretations (see “Schema Theory” entry). Good and poor readers do not always use schemata appropriately, however, or are unaware of whether the information they are reading is consistent with their existing knowledge. Schema is a mental construction of an event, object, or an individual characteristic that can be fragmentary, inaccurate, or inconsistent. It is based upon a belief that can be applied to semantic meanings depicted in a text. The notion of schema theory is that a person can comprehend a text when it is congruent with his or her belief system.
varied sources, build background with a target concept, make critical judgments, and determine the authenticity and accuracy of the information appearing on the Internet. Designing a Thematic Organizer A thematic organizer consists of two sections: thematic overview and guided statements. The first section consists of a narrative that “sets the scene” in the first paragraph by introducing the thematic concept in a setting believed to be relevant to the students’ experience. The second paragraph presents several examples that further define the target concept. The third paragraph presents an analogous relationship between the concept as defined by the students’ past experience and the concept as presented in the text passage. In this paragraph an explicit definition of the thematic concept is given. Additional paragraphs can be added to further illustrate the definition of the thematic or target concept. These final paragraphs contain sentences either from the text passage or related questions that ask students to explain these ideas in written form. The intent is to have students make predictions about what they will be reading in the text. Explicit connectives are used to relate ideas within and across sentences contained in these paragraphs. The second section of the thematic organizer consists of a set of interpretive statements that contain attributes and nonattributes of the thematic target concept. If the thematic organizer appears in an electronic format, statements may be linked to pertinent Internet sites. The premise of thematic organizers is consistent with the notion advanced by David Ausubel (1960) that clarifying and providing the reader with prior structure on which to anchor and map incoming new material leads to increased comprehension of a text. An important aspect of meaningful learning is that materials are not already meaningful but only potentially meaningful and that the goal is to connect potential meaning into actual meaning. A thematic organizer serves as a mediating tool for students to elaborate on the content of the text and thereby enhance their comprehension. This process of alerting students to concepts presented in varied contexts can reduce confusion and encourage the incorporation of new knowledge. Marino C. Alvarez and Victoria J. Risko
Transitioning from Paper-and-Pencil to Electronic Formats Thematic organizers written by the teacher and read by students prior to text readings have been found to be an effective way for engaging the reader with a text when a concept is either ill defined or novel and enhancing students’ literal, interpretive, and critical comprehension abilities. Studies with middle-school students and students in remedial settings indicated that these students recalled more of the important ideas and presented more complete propositions than those who did not use a thematic organizer (Risko and Alvarez, 1986). A study with college students enrolled in a developmental studies program found that this thematic strategy facilitated the generalizability of ideas from one context to another (Alvarez and Risko, 1989). Thematic organizers have been developed to accompany written cases that present real-world problems that learners resolve and multimedia cases appearing on compact discs to aid students’ comprehension and composition. The organizer serves to activate schema via the Internet to stimulate critical and imaginative thinking. Statements are written to guide the student to make informed judgments with the electronic sources. Electronic use of a thematic organizer that encompasses electronic links to Internet sources enables learners to read, view, and listen to documents and simulations in order to enhance conceptual understanding with a designated target concept while simultaneously building background knowledge. The transition from paperand-pencil thematic organizers to electronic ones enables students to access information from 654
Think-Alouds pages aloud. The teacher stops them periodically to verify predictions and verbally describe mental images or thoughts that formed while reading the text. The teacher explains connections between these thoughts and images and prior experiences or existing knowledge. Beth Davey (1983) referred to this as the “like a” step. For example, “This sounds like a time when I . . .” At points of confusion, the teacher should verbalize thoughts and describe how the confusion or breakdown in comprehension was detected. The final step is the point at which the teacher models strategies the reader can use to correct the confusion and restore comprehension. These strategies, called fix-up strategies, may include rereading, reading on, retelling, and rethinking. The objective is to teach the reader to consciously employ fix-up strategies when breakdowns in comprehension are detected. Following several modeling episodes, the teacher provides ample opportunities for students to discuss and practice the think-aloud steps. For practice, students can work in pairs to read and talk through the think-aloud process. Davey (1983) recommended that students practice think-alouds independently using a checklist that outlines the process. As with any learning strategy, students should have ample opportunities to use thinkalouds in a variety of contexts with a variety of texts including content-area and informational texts. The effect of teaching elementary-age children to use think-alouds has not been investigated extensively. Nevertheless, there is evidence to suggest that students’ ability to self-monitor comprehension can be enhanced with teacher-led, direct instruction that incorporates group discussion (Baumann, Seifert-Kessell, and Jones, 1992). Discussion may be a key element in helping students learn and internalize the thinkaloud process owing to the importance of socially constructed knowledge. Another positive aspect of think-alouds and their ability to improve students’ comprehension self-monitoring and strategic reading is the inclusion of prediction. James Baumann and his colleagues (1992) speculated that instruction and practice in prediction, such as that found in the think-aloud process, may improve significantly students’ comprehension self-monitoring. Think-alouds can be used in content-area courses following the procedures described
See also Graphic Organizers References Alvarez, Marino C. 1983. “Using a Thematic Preorganizer and Guided Instruction as Aids to Concept Learning.” Reading Horizons 24, no. 1:51–58. Alvarez, Marino C., and Victoria J. Risko. 1989. “Using a Thematic Organizer to Facilitate Transfer Learning with College Developmental Studies Students.” Reading Research and Instruction 28, no. 2:1–15. Ausubel, David P. 1960. “The Use of Advance Organizers in the Learning and Retention of Meaningful Material.” Journal of Educational Psychology 51:267–272. Risko, Victoria J., and Marino C. Alvarez. 1986. “An Investigation of Poor Readers’ Use of a Thematic Strategy to Comprehend Text.” Reading Research Quarterly 21, no. 3:298–316.
Think-Alouds Think-alouds are a reader’s explicit, spoken statements that explain the thoughts and strategies he or she used to construct meaning from a text. Teachers use think-alouds in two ways: as an informal assessment of students’ comprehension self-monitoring abilities and as a teaching strategy aimed at assisting readers of all ages in developing the essential comprehension self-monitoring skills necessary for effective learning. Skill in comprehension self-monitoring depends on the readers’ ability to recognize whether or not comprehension is occurring and the ability to take corrective actions when comprehension breakdowns are detected. Though seldom used as a teaching strategy (Tierney and Readence, 2000), think-alouds help readers focus on meaning rather than the pronunciation of words. The think-aloud process is a five-step procedure. Instruction in think-aloud procedures begins with the teacher’s modeling the entire process. To begin, the teacher selects reading material that contains information that may be difficult for the students to comprehend. The material is then previewed with the students by noting information such as the title, illustrations, graphic aids, headings and subheadings, and captions. Based on this information, students verbalize predictions about what will be learned or what will happen in the upcoming reading. Then, students read a few paragraphs or 655
Title I above, or the process can be modified. One adaptation for using think-alouds in content-area courses is to have students use a code to record their thoughts and reactions as they read the text. The code is determined by the teacher and based on learning objectives and responses the teacher wants to elicit from the students as they read. For example, the teacher-developed code for a science textbook may be “I” = Important, “U” = Understand, “C” = Confused. Using the code as they read, students record their responses to the text on strips of paper attached to the margins. This procedure has the potential to improve students’ comprehension self-monitoring skills. Group discussion following reading is an important step in the modified think-aloud procedure. Discussion allows the teacher to model comprehension fix-up strategies and identify concepts that are problematic for students. In the case of older students, taking notes, drawing diagrams, and constructing graphic organizers may be worthwhile strategies that aid students in overcoming comprehension breakdowns. Think-alouds can also be used as an informal assessment of students’ comprehension selfmonitoring abilities. As noted by Davey (1983), the five steps of the think-aloud are keys to weak points in comprehension. When used as an informal assessment, students are evaluated individually. The teacher asks the student to talk through each step of the think-aloud process using a text the student has not read previously. The teacher makes written notes about the student’s ability to complete successfully each step of the think-aloud process. As an informal assessment, think-alouds help the teacher identify areas of weakness in the student’s ability to selfmonitor comprehension. These weaknesses are then addressed through instruction and modeling. Dated think-aloud assessment records can be compared to denote the student’s progress in learning self-monitoring skills and fix-up strategies. A major limitation of think-alouds is the lack of research supporting long-term positive effects on students’ strategic reading. The effect of using think-alouds with different cultural groups is also unknown. In a study with Latino and Latina students, Robert Jiménez and Arturo Gámez (1996) found that middle-grades students were more inclined to verbalize the think-aloud process when texts containing culturally familiar
and recognizable information were used and when allowed to use both English and Spanish. Without supporting evidence of long-term, positive effects of instruction, use of the procedure may be limited to struggling readers owing to the length of instructional time needed to assure student proficiency and internalization of the process. Pamela J. Dunston and Kathy N. Headley See also Study Skills and Strategies References Baumann, James F., Nancy Seifert-Kessell, and Leah A. Jones. 1992. “Effect of Think-Aloud Instruction on Elementary Students’ Comprehension Monitoring Abilities.” Journal of Reading Behavior 24:143–172. Davey, Beth. 1983. “Think Aloud—Modeling the Cognitive Process of Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Reading 27:44–47. Jiménez, Robert T., and Arturo Gámez. 1996. “Literature-Based Cognitive Strategy Instruction for Middle School Latina/o Students.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40:84–91. Tierney, Robert J., and John E. Readence. 2000. Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Title I Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, originally enacted in 1965, provides federal support for low-achieving students in high-poverty schools, with the aim of bolstering their opportunities to meet challenging state standards in core academic subjects. The 2001 appropriation for Part A, Grants to Local Educational Agencies (the largest part of the program), was $8.6 billion. The funds support extra instruction in literacy, mathematics, and other subjects as well as preschool, after-school, and summer programs that extend and reinforce the school’s curriculum. Some Title I services are targeted to individual low-achieving students, but the program can, in high-poverty schools, support schoolwide improvement. Local decisions have resulted in a nationwide staffing mix that includes roughly equal numbers of certified teachers and paraprofessional aides. In the school year 1997–1998, more than 12.5 million students who attended public and nonpublic schools participated in Title I (Sinclair and Carroll, 2000). Two-thirds of participating 656
Trade Books References Chambers, Jay, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Kampen, and Stephanie Stullich. 2000. Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Sinclair, Beth, and Janet Carroll. 2000. State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997–98: Final Summary Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Education. 2001. High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges since the 1994 Reauthorization. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
students were in grades one–six. Fifty-seven percent of the public schools in the nation received Title I funds, but because the funds are targeted to the schools with the highest poverty levels in their districts, the participation rate was a much higher 96 percent among schools where at least 75 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The 1994 amendments to Title I required states to take major steps toward standardsbased reform in reading and mathematics by developing standards that would apply to all students and linking those standards to assessment and accountability systems. By 2001, all states had developed content standards, but progress was much slower in establishing assessment and accountability systems linked to performance standards. Including students with limited English proficiency or disabilities in the assessment systems was a common stumbling block, as was the alignment of tests and accountability with standards. Also, many states built parallel accountability systems, one applying to all students and another, which complied with federal requirements, for Title I schools and students. Districts and schools are free to design their Title I programs locally. In schools with poverty rates of at least 50 percent, Title I funds can be used in “schoolwide programs,” meaning that they can be used to strengthen the school’s overall program; often this means adopting a research-based model such as Success for All. In schools that serve a more affluent mix of families, Title I services are targeted to students with low achievement. A nationally representative survey showed how Title I funds were spent locally in 1997–1998 (Chambers et al., 2000). Forty-seven percent of all local spending went to pay teachers and 15 percent to pay paraprofessionals. There has been much criticism, however, of the fact that the number of full-time-equivalent paraprofessionals working in the program has been roughly equal to the number of certified teachers, particularly because paraprofessionals report that they provide instruction to students. Nationwide, Title I accounted for substantial federal spending on instructional technology (a total of $287 million) and professional development ($212 million). Brenda Turnbull
Trade Books Trade books are books available to the general public; they are found in libraries and bookstores. Textbooks and reference books are not considered trade books. The terms trade books and children’s literature are used interchangeably by educators. Children’s trade books include a variety of genres: realistic fiction, informational books (nonfiction books), historical fiction, fantasy, science fiction, picture books, and poetry (see “Children’s Literature” entry). Although basal reading programs (which provide for developmental reading instruction using textbooks, workbooks, and supplemental materials) dominated reading instruction during most of the twentieth century, the use of trade books for reading instruction has been advocated off and on since the 1950s (see “Basal Readers” entry). Individualized reading programs were developed as alternatives to using basal reading programs. These programs emphasized the use of trade books, students’ selfselection of books, and instruction based on individual needs. In the 1980s and 1990s when the whole-language movement swept the country, many changes in reading instruction occurred (see Whole Language and Whole Language Assessment). The emphases shifted from the almost exclusive use of basal readers to the use of authentic texts (children’s literature and real texts used outside of school), students’ self-selection of books, and integrated language arts and content-area instruction. Accessibility to high-quality trade books of varying genres, topics, and reading levels became integral components of reading instruction. Classroom li657
Trade Books
Trade book section at a chain bookstore (Michael Siluk)
are presented annually to recognize outstanding children’s literature.
braries were common in elementary schools. Teachers used trade books for all facets of reading instruction. The transactional view of reading advocated by Louise Rosenblatt influenced how teachers use trade books. This view emphasizes the critical role of readers and their experiences for constructing meaning. To capitalize on what readers bring to texts, they must share their ideas. Literature discussion groups (also called literature circles and book clubs) provide students with contexts for discussing trade books (see “Book Clubs” and “Literature Circles” entries). Coinciding with the whole-language movement, the publication of children’s literature became a major industry. Estimates reveal that over 6,000 children’s trade books are published annually (Ink and Grabois, 2001). The quality of children’s trade books has improved with advancing technologies. Numerous awards, such as the Caldecott Medal for picture books, the Newbery Medal for major contributions to American literature, and the Orbis Pictus Award for nonfiction,
Benefits of Using Trade Books As the use of trade books for reading and content-area instruction became more widespread, much was written about the inadequacies of textbooks and the advantages of trade books. Textbooks are criticized for being dated and difficult for students to read. They lack depth, oversimplify information, and are abstract. The disadvantages result from the very nature of textbooks; they are designed to provide an overview of a great deal of information. Hundreds of articles have been written about the benefits of using trade books for reading instruction. Because many trade books are published annually, it is easy to locate current information. They often go into depth about a particular aspect of a topic and are written about every topic imaginable. Literature encourages the love of reading, enriches students’ oral and written language development, facilitates the devel658
Trade Books opment of background knowledge for a variety of topics, increases fluency, and promotes reading for meaning. Trade books provide students with opportunities to explore their own and others’ emotions and values. Furthermore, literature promotes understanding of the natural and historical world and accompanying social issues. In addition, trade books provide students with opportunities to learn about various text structures (narrative, cause-effect, comparison-contrast, problem-solution, description, and sequence) that help students become better readers and writers. Because trade books are beautifully and creatively illustrated, they provide students with a variety of experiences with many artistic media. How teachers use trade books for reading instruction varies. Sometimes trade books are used exclusively for reading instruction and other times to supplement basal readers. When teachers use instructional units as frameworks for integrating reading and content-area objectives, trade books are essential. Students use a variety of sources, including trade books of varying genres, text structures, formats, and points of view, as they engage in learning about a variety of topics.
that fourth-grade students in the integrated science/reading group scored significantly higher on standardized tests of science and reading and reported more positive attitudes toward those subjects than students in the traditional instruction group. Lesley Morrow and her colleagues (Morrow et al., 1997) found similar results. They investigated the impact of integrating a literature-based program into literacy and science instruction. They found that third graders in the literature/science group scored significantly higher than students in the literature-only and basal groups on measures of reading comprehension, writing science-related narratives, science facts, and science vocabulary. In addition, more students in the literature/science group reported positive attitudes toward science than students in the other groups. Researchers also examined the effectiveness of integrating reading and social studies using trade books. John Smith (1993) found that fourth-grade students scored as well as or better than the traditional textbook group on measures of reading and social studies content knowledge. Other researchers have also demonstrated that using trade books to teach social studies concepts has proved more effective than using traditional approaches. Little empirical research has been conducted to determine the effectiveness of using trade books for mathematics instruction. A number of studies have investigated students’ attitudes toward mathematics, however. It seems that students have negative attitudes toward mathematics because they do not understand its relevance. To remedy this, educators recommend the use of children’s trade books. Presenting concepts within the contexts of stories relevant to students’ lives makes mathematics more interesting, relevant, accessible, and usable. Anecdotal evidence reveals that using trade books to teach mathematics can also help students become more comfortable with mathematics. Toward the end of the 1990s, research comparing the effectiveness of textbooks and trade books all but disappeared. Juxtaposing textbook learning and learning with trade books seemed counterproductive. Much evidence revealed that textbooks should not be the sole resource used in classrooms nor should they be abandoned. Rather, both textbooks and trade books should be used, capitalizing on the strengths of each.
Research: Trade Books, Reading Instruction, and Content-Area Instruction As the use of trade books for reading instruction became popular, researchers investigated the effectiveness of trade books compared to traditional instruction. Research reviews reveal that literature-based instruction, in which trade books are the dominant materials, is effective for promoting reading achievement. Literaturebased approaches were also found to be beneficial for students with limited English experiences and for children who had been retained. The results of studies investigating reading attitudes are mixed, although anecdotal evidence reveals that students’ attitudes are positive when literaturebased instruction is used (see “Literature-Based Instruction” entry). For example, in the 1990s, researchers became interested in determining the effectiveness of using trade books for content-area instruction (see “Content-Area Literacy” entry). In 1992, Nancy Romance and Michael Vitale compared science and reading instruction using traditional basal approaches and instruction using trade books, the science textbook, hands-on activities, and emphasis on science process skills. They found 659
Trade Books Informational Books and Primary-Grade Reading Instruction As the information age was ushered in, it became apparent that to be literate, students needed to read at more than basic levels. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, groups such as the American Library Association declared that one of education’s goals must be to educate children so they read and use informational texts throughout their lives. The goals of informational literacy went beyond decoding and understanding to recognizing when information is necessary and locating, evaluating, and using that information. To reach these goals, informational texts must be an integral part of classroom instruction. Informational books are structured in a variety of ways. In the past, these books were associated with expository text structures and were referred to as expository texts. Today, however, authors use a variety of structures in their informational books. In addition to using expository structures, they write stories in which information is embedded. These books are often called informational storybooks. Regardless of the structure, the purposes of the books remain the same: to communicate information. Also concerned about informational literacy, Christine Pappas’s seminal work in 1993 called into question the assumption that narrative texts should dominate primary-grade reading instruction. In her study of kindergarten students’ understanding of trade books with expository and narrative structures, Pappas determined that kindergartners understood expository texts as easily as narrative texts. She concluded that when expository texts are not used in primary-grade classrooms, students are denied full access to literacy. Other researchers have investigated related issues and found similar results (see “Narrative and Expository Text” entry). To determine the impact of using informational texts in primary-grade classrooms, Michael Kamil and Diane Lane (1997) conducted a two-year observational, intervention study of two first-grade classrooms. They designed the study so that informational texts accounted for 50 percent of materials used in the classroom, and instruction for negotiating informational texts was an integral component of the curriculum. Results revealed that students successfully learned to read and write a variety of
genres and learned when to use different kinds of texts for a variety of purposes. Incorporating 50 percent informational texts and related instruction did not hinder students’ literacy learning. Interested in examining instruction in a classroom where a teacher routinely used informational texts for literacy and content instruction, I observed a second-grade teacher for an academic year. The findings, reported at the International Reading Association’s 2001 annual convention, revealed that the teacher used informational trade books in all facets of reading, science, and social studies instruction. She explicitly taught students how to use access features (such as table of contents, index, headings) for conducting research and writing research reports. The teacher deliberately scaffolded instruction to teach students to read trade books with nonnarrative text structures (see “Scaffolded Literacy Instruction” entry). Like students in previous studies, they not only learned to read but also learned science and social studies concepts through reading. This finding brings into question the assumption that students must learn to read before they can use reading to learn. In the mid-1990s, textbook publishers began to include whole strands of beginning reading materials, which were informational in nature. Publication of informational trade books for young children also grew. With more widespread availability of informational books for reading and content instruction, teachers began using more informational trade books. Nell Duke’s research in 2000 suggested, however, that balancing the use of informational and narrative texts has not occurred in many schools. She studied twenty first-grade classrooms to determine the kinds of texts available to students. She found that informational texts were used only 3.6 minutes a day. In low socioeconomic school (SES) classrooms, these texts were used an average of 1.9 minutes a day, and in some classrooms, no informational texts were used. These findings are alarming, considering how important it is that young children learn to read and explore informational texts to become literate in the twentyfirst century. Jeanne Swafford See also Basal Readers; Book Clubs; Children’s Literature; Content-Area Literacy; Literature Circles; Literature-Based Instruction; Narrative and
660
Transactional Theory blatt has drawn, her work is susceptible to misunderstanding. Rosenblatt, inspired by Dewey and Bentley’s Knowing and the Known (1949), described transaction as the holistic relationship of knowledge, knower, and known without reductive recourse to the elements comprising the entirety. Human beings, Rosenblatt has asserted, are part of a world that emerges from the transaction of their being with their social, cultural, and natural environments, a concept most clearly developed in ecology. This is distinguishable from interaction, developed by Sir Isaac Newton, René Descartes, and others, where the whole is merely the sum of parts acting upon and against each other, which are thought to be conceivable apart from the larger phenomena in which they participate. Rosenblatt applied this organic notion of transaction to the systemic relationship of readers to their texts. For Rosenblatt, there can be no reader as such without a text; no text as such without a reader. The reading involves, includes, and defines both reader and text, and the transaction of reader and text gives rise to each reading and its meaning as emergent phenomena. As such, every reading is unique, bounded yet unpredictable, even for a given reader across multiple readings. Rosenblatt enriched this foundational framework with the concept of the reader’s stance to a text. She described a reader’s stance as locatable along a continuum of assumption and expectation from efferent to aesthetic, with efferent involving the factual information a reader can take away from a text, and aesthetic involving the lived experience of the reading. All readings are a combination in some ratio of these two responses. As the reader approaches a text with a particular stance predicated upon past literacy and life experiences, that stance influences but ultimately gives way to the evoked reading. This reading is then emendable by further interpretation and analysis. Given that a text usually indicates an author’s intention as to how it should be read given a particular context, not all readings are equally pertinent. If the reader’s stance is inappropriate for the text and/or context, a less fruitful reading is likely to emerge. The writer, too, has a stance toward the text being crafted and is also in transactive relation to it. As with readers, writers come to a text with the summation of their personal life experience (including literacy experiences) to draw from. Also like readers, writers approach the text-to-be at a
Expository Text; Scaffolded Literacy Instruction; Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment References Duke, Nell. 2000. “3.6 Minutes per Day: The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:202–224. Ink, Gary, and Andrew Grabois. 2001. “Book Title Output and Average Price: 1999 Final and 2000 Preliminary Figures.” In Dale Bogard, ed., The Bowker Annual Library and Trade Book Almanac, 46th ed., pp. 485–489. New York: Bowker. Kamil, Michael, and Diane Lane. April 1997. “A Classroom Study of the Efficacy of Using Information Text for First Grade Reading Instruction.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. Morrow, Lesley M., Michael Pressley, Jeffrey K. Smith, and Michael Smith. 1997. “The Effect of a Literature-based Program Integrated into Literacy and Science Instruction with Children from Diverse Backgrounds.” Reading Research Quarterly 32:54–76. Pappas, Christine. 1993. “Is Narrative ‘Primary’? Some Insights from Kindergarteners’ Pretend Readings of Stories and Information Books.” Journal of Reading Behavior 25:97–129. Romance, Nancy R., and Michael R. Vitale. 1992. “A Curriculum Strategy that Expands Time for Indepth Elementary Science Instruction by Using Science-Based Reading Strategies: Effects of a Year-Long Study in Grade Four.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:545–554. Smith, John. 1993. “Content Learning: A Third Reason for Using Literature in Teaching Reading.” Reading Research and Instruction 32:64–71.
Transactional Theory In literacy scholarship, transactional theory is commonly associated with the work of Louise Rosenblatt (1994). Over decades, Rosenblatt has developed the transactional motif as a theory of literary engagement, and her insights have influenced scholarship in language education and reader response. The concept of transaction is rooted in theories from epistemology, ecology, complementarity, system dynamics, and human development, all of which have direct and metaphoric implications for literacy research. Thus, the concept of transaction both precedes and succeeds Rosenblatt’s particularized usage. It could be argued that, without a grasp of this broader sense of transaction from which Rosen661
Transactional Theory particular moment in time, at a particular juncture in their personal development, under particular social, personal, and cultural influences. Unlike readers, writers do not begin with a signifying text but with only an “organismic state,” vague notions or inchoate feelings upon which to cobble a meaning. Rosenblatt also acknowledged the pedagogic importance of the public and private aspects in a reading or a written text, although these should not be thought of as synonymous with the efferent-aesthetic continuum. There has been confusion on this point, and it is perhaps helpful to think of the efferent-aesthetic continuum as set orthogonally against a public-private continuum. Rosenblatt relied heavily on the triadic, sign-object-interpretant semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce. The most complete account of Rosenblatt’s transactional theory of reading is set forth in her book, The Reader, the Text, the Poem (1994). This edition included an added final chapter that addressed some of the more common misinterpretations of her ideas. In it, Rosenblatt took issue with educational advocates of deconstruction, post-structuralism, and the more extreme forms of reader response, some of whom have enlisted Rosenblatt’s theory on behalf of their arguments (see “Resistant Reading” entry). As mentioned earlier, Rosenblatt borrowed the concept of transaction from John Dewey and Arthur Bentley (1949). (The term transaction does not appear in Rosenblatt’s first edition of Literature as Exploration in 1938.) In Knowing and the Known, Dewey and Bentley argued for a more precise terminology in empirical and philosophical inquiry while eschewing what they perceived to be the ungrounded self-referentiality of both Anglo-analytic and continental semiotics. Borrowing from Peirce, they rejected a hard and fast distinction between scientific (cosmic) and commonsense (conditional) truth. In this, Dewey and Bentley anticipated the breakthrough critiques of both Willard Van Orman Quine and Ludwig Wittgenstein in response to the logical positivist project in linguistic philosophy. Dewey and Bentley devoted considerable attention and explanation to the term transaction, distinguishing it both conceptually and historically from interaction and self-action. They located self-action in the ancient and medieval belief that action is an inherent and essential
quality of a behaving agent or moving object. With the advent of Newtonian physics, bodies were reconceived as inherently inert unless acted upon by external forces, which become elements in their own right, according to Dewey and Bentley, and bodies and forces were thus said to interact in mechanical fashion with one another. Given the impressive utility of Newtonian physics, interaction became a metaphor for both the biological and social sciences. (Consider August Comte’s founding of the social sciences in the 1820s as Social Physics.) Dewey and Bentley asserted that this mechanistic notion of interaction had been superceded by twentieth-century advances in life science and physics, especially Niels Bohr’s complementarity theory in which the contextualized observer is integral to the ascertaining of data as such. Simultaneously, bioecological systems theory had come to describe complex, multileveled systems in which levels of organization are in transactive relation giving rise to emergent phenomena such as the qualia about and upon which knowledge is built. Knowledge is thus not reducible to the sum of its constituent parts. Similar organic motifs have guided gestalt, ecological, and developmental psychology away from earlier mechanistic metaphors. Dewey and Bentley claimed that such conceptual developments called for an acknowledgment in epistemology and positivist science of the transactive relationship between the knowing organism and the objects of its knowledge in the environment, an environment the knowing organism and the objects of its inquiry are neither above nor merely in, but of. Knowledge emerges from the integrative transaction of organism and environment, knower and world. Hence Dewey’s assertion that knower, knowledge, and the known world are functionally inextricable and ought therefore to be conceived of in an “unfractured” or transactive fashion. Although the terms transaction and interaction are often used interchangeably in the life sciences, both ethologically inspired theories of human development and developmental psychobiology rely on transactive models of behavior (in Dewey’s sense of the term). Living systems are described as structurally, functionally, developmentally, and evolutionarily transactive with their ecological surrounds (Michel and Moore, 1995). The environment gives rise to the organism’s biologically constrained capacity for perception and concep662
Transmission Instruction tion of pertinent aspects of the environment (its Umwelt), and the organism acts upon, selects from, and modifies the environment accordingly. This is presumed to be as true in regard to human beings’ psychosocial, semiotic, and cultural environments as it is for their physical and biological environments. As far afield as these ideas may seem, they stand as the ultimate inspiration for Rosenblatt’s theory of transaction in reading and have recently been applied to theories of literacy development (Bidell and Fischer, 1997). George G. Hruby
cepts and skills. It is a common form of instruction at all grade levels but particularly at the secondary and college levels. An example of an approach to teaching that exemplifies transmission instruction is direct instruction. Direct instruction is characterized by the teacher’s setting goals, establishing motivation, modeling or demonstrating, guiding practice, and lecturing and reviewing. Discussion in traditional classrooms is generally recitation discussion, as identified by Donna Alvermann, Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien (1987). In this form of discussion, the teacher asks a question, the students give short answers in words or phrases, and the discussion is dominated by the teacher’s talk. Transmission instruction as a model of learning has been contrasted with a constructivist view of learning (see “Constructivism” entry). A constructivist view of learning sees learners as active in their own learning, bringing their prior knowledge and past experiences with them to the classroom. In this view, students have their own ideas and interests that motivate and challenge them in learning new concepts and strategies. An example of a teaching approach consistent with a constructivist view is an inquiry approach (see “Inquiry-Based Instruction” entry). Characteristics of this approach are that the teacher assesses students’ prior knowledge, and students form their own questions and search for answers to their queries in multiple texts and resources, such as trade books, original documents, and textbooks. A literature-based approach is complementary to inquiry. Activities in inquiry-based classrooms include projects, group work, reflective writing, and tasks that promote critical thinking. Discussion in inquiry-based classrooms is dominated by students’ talk—talking with each other and with the teacher in complete sentences and paragraphs and exchanging multiple points of view (Alvermann, Dillon, and O’Brien, 1987). Barbara J. Guzzetti
See also Reader Response References Bidell, Thomas R., and Kurt W. Fischer. 1997. “Between Nature and Nurture: The Role of Human Agency in the Epigenesis of Intelligence.” In R. J. Sternbert and E. Grigorenko, eds., Intelligence, Heredity and Environment, pp. 193–242. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Dewey, John, and Arthur F. Bentley. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press. Michel, George F., and Celia L. Moore. 1995. Developmental Psychobiology: An Interdisciplinary Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Peirce, Charles S. 1997. Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press. Rosenblatt, Louise M. 1994. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. 2d ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ———. 1995. Literature as Exploration. 5th ed. New York: Modern Language Association. Wahlsten, Douglas, and Gilbert Gottlieb. 1997. “The Invalid Separation of Effects of Nature and Nurture: Lessons from Animal Experimentation.” In R. J. Sternberg and E. Grigorenko, eds., Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment, pp. 163–192. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
See also Constructivism; Inquiry-Based Instruction; Literature-Based Instruction; Multiple Texts References Alvermann, Donna E., Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien. 1987. “What Discussion Is and Is Not.” In Donna Alvermann, Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien, eds., Using Discussion to Promote Reading Comprehension, pp. 1–8. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Transmission Instruction Transmission instruction is a model of teaching and learning that views the learner as an empty vessel or sponge to be filled with knowledge by the teacher. The teacher’s job is to convey information and skills to the learner, who is seen as relatively passive in the learning process. The learner’s job is to acquire or absorb those con663
V Visual Literacy
eracy—offers the following definition, drawing from Debes’s work:
The concept of visual literacy has a lengthy history, although use of the specific term is relatively new. Plato and Dante wrote at length about visual aesthetics and intellectual skills needed to interpret and discriminate among images. For 400 years, from the early 1600s on, visual principles were taught and directions for appropriate visual composition followed in European art schools. The twentieth century gave rise to diverse movements that undergird contemporary visual literacy theories and practices. These include formal iconology, the study of icons or artistic symbolism practiced by art historians (Velders, 2000, 7); the study of signs and signification by semioticians; and writings of U.S. feminists and cultural critics who, by the 1970s, began to develop practical methods for analyzing visual images in order to scrutinize their deeper cultural messages and values. In addition, the rise of the deconstructionists and the Frankfurt School in Europe as well as the spread of academic disciplines such as film studies, media literacy, mass media and communications, cultural studies, and educational psychology— particularly cognitive and perceptual research—have contributed to contemporary understandings of visual literacy.
[A] group of vision competencies a human being can develop by seeing and at the same time having and integrating other sensory experiences. The development of these competencies is fundamental to normal human learning. When developed, they enable a visually literate person to discriminate and interpret the visual actions, objects, and/or symbols, natural or manmade, that are [encountered] in [the] environment. Through the creative use of these competencies, [we are] able to communicate with others. Through the appreciative use of these competencies, [we are] able to comprehend and enjoy the masterworks of visual communications. (Fransecky and Debes, 1972, 7) As evidenced by this encompassing passage, visual literacy, like whole language, is a complex, shifting concept open to multiple interpretations and applications, rather than a fixed, singular, or consensual definition. Visual literacy’s varied and broad definitions are, in part, a result of the diverse people who work within the field. Who Is Involved with Visual Literacy Visual literacy proponents are a loosely knit, highly eclectic, interdisciplinary group. At an annual IVLA conference, in its yearly book of proceedings, or in a single issue of the Journal of Visual Literacy, the organization’s official periodical, a reader might find provocative, varied scholarship by individuals from the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia. Diverse backgrounds are represented, including business and
Definition The first use of the actual term visual literacy is generally attributed to Jack Debes, a pioneer in the field who worked at Kodak. Debes presented and wrote extensively using this phrase at the First National Conference on Visual Literacy in 1969 in Rochester, New York. Today, the International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA)—the primary organization concerned with visual lit665
Visual Literacy the arts as well as community, government, medical, and social service concerns. Visual literacy scholarship draws from the humanities, such as English, textual studies, art history, history, and classics; studio and performing arts; communications; business; graphic design; media studies and media literacy; literacy educators; artists and authors; classroom teachers across all subjects and levels; psychologists; media production, computer and software designers; instructional design and development; health providers, government officials, and social workers who work with children, special populations, or adults. Depending on background and interest, individuals’ foci on elements within the visual literacy field differ.
11. researching perception, cognition, learning, spatial intelligence, and human development 12. examining critically visual representations to discern how they represent cultural norms, power relations, and so on 13. developing and sharing educational applications and practical classroom activities that involve visual information, materials, skills, and competencies
Visual Literacy Debates and Issues As in many educational fields (including contemporary literacy research and instruction), where competing viewpoints coexist, debates about definitions, applications, aims, and future directions of visual literacy abound. First, there is no clear consensus about definitions and relative importance of such overlapping terms as visual literacy, media literacy, digital literacy, and information literacy. Some scholars distinguish among visual literacy as a separate, preeminent discipline involving considerations of any visual text and its content; information literacy as the accessing, organizing, and use of data; digital literacy as facilitation with primarily computers and computer texts; and media literacy as specific analysis of mass media. Others argue that visual literacy is a component of critical thinking or appreciation about information, digital, or media literacies. Second, there is a great variety of visual literacy applications in the current field. These include (1) receptive applications: teaching and learning intellectual analysis or aesthetic appreciation of existing texts; (2) generative applications: seeking to identify elements of effective visual texts and using these elements to construct new visual materials for many purposes and in many media; (3) research: understanding responses to and impacts of visual information at the individual, classroom, or societal level; and (4) the work of critical theorists: examining visual texts for negative messages and promoting a generation of new visual texts as vehicles for social empowerment, appreciation, or enjoyment. Further, some individuals see visual literacy as a distinct skill to be taught as a separate subject and others as a foundational teaching concept to be infused across the curriculum.
Visual Literacy Elements Because of its multiplicity of viewpoints and interdisciplinary nature, visual literacy involves myriad elements, including: 1. promoting visual aesthetics and appreciation 2. developing, identifying, and researching taxonomies of visual thinking and visual information 3. establishing and teaching hierarchies and methods of visual decoding skills 4. fostering through visual competencies awareness of and immunity to manipulative images, particularly in mass media and popular culture 5. researching and addressing social impacts of visual images in mass media, particularly concerning health, politics, and consumerism 6. analysis and evaluation of all visual texts, including print, artistic, performative, electronic, and mass media 7. understanding and furthering creative processes to generate visual texts including print, artistic, performative, electronic, and media 8. principles of effective visual design for artistic, business, media, commercial graphics, computers, software, and instructional materials 9. historical and contemporary analysis of varied texts 10. exploring media production methods, ethics, and new technologies 666
Vocabulary Instruction Eisner, Elliot W. 1997. “Cognition and Representation: A Way to Pursue the American Dream?” Phi Delta Kappan 78 (5):349–353. Fransecky and Debes. 1972. Visual Literacy: A Way to Learn, A Way to Teach. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communication and Technology. Messaris, Paul. 1994. Visual Literacy: Image, Mind and Reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Moline, Steve. 1995. I See What You Mean: Children at Work with Visual Information. York, ME: Stenhouse. Sinatra, Richard. 1990. “Combining Visual Literacy, Text Understanding, and Writing for Culturally Diverse Students.” Journal of Reading 33 (8):612–617. Velders, Teun. 2000. “The Roots of Visual Literacy: Reflections on an Historical Perspective.” Journal of Visual Literacy 20 (1): 1–8. Watts Pailliotet, Ann. 1997. “Questing toward Cohesion: Connecting Advertisements and Classroom Reading through Visual Literacy.” In R. E. Griffin, J. M. Hunter, C. B. Schiffman, and W. J. Gibbs, eds., VisionQuest: Journeys toward Visual Literacy, pp. 33–41. State College, PA: International Visual Literacy Association.
Third, visual literacy scholars understand viewers in divergent ways. Some hold perspectives similar to media innoculationists—that viewers are relatively passive consumers of visual information. Through critical analysis, they seek to inoculate or protect viewers and consumers from media’s deleterious, manipulative effects and negative social consequences. Others see viewers and the viewing process as involving active, complex, intellectual, affective, and creative functions. Diversity in perspectives and participants is perhaps both visual literacy’s greatest strength and weakness. This multiplicity makes possible an ongoing infusion of many new ideas and innovations but also leads to separation within academic subdisciplines, a lack of communication among varied interest groups, and rifts among research and practical applications as well as a lack of cohesive philosophical, political, or organizational presence in larger academic or national venues. Importance to Contemporary Literacy Learning and Teaching: Examples of Visual Literacy Practices Visual literacy has many practical applications for literacy learning and teaching. Among these are an analysis and appreciation of print and visual elements in children’s literature (Considine, Haley, and Lacy, 1994); the promotion of content-area reading (Watts Pailliotet, 1997); and the furthering of textual understandings and writing skills for diverse students (Sinatra, 1990). Other applications include aesthetic appreciation and enjoyment of film, studio arts, and performing arts such as music, drama, and dance; use of visual aids, representations, and graphic organizers (Moline, 1995); media analysis and critical thinking (Considine and Haley, 1999); cognition and representation (Eisner, 1997); and applications of visual literacy across the curriculum (Messaris, 1994). Ann Watts Pailliotet
Vocabulary Instruction A well-developed vocabulary has typically been viewed as one hallmark of a literate, intelligent, and well-educated person. The ability to express our knowledge of concepts using the range of words that represent them allows us to organize, understand, and communicate what we know about the physical, mental, and spiritual worlds in which we live. The importance of naming things, or having power over something by knowing its name, is prevalent in myths, epics, and fairy tales. This is reflected in both the oral tradition and in the later literary tradition; vocabulary has always been considered an important component of wisdom. Historically, the use of Latin as the language of education in Western civilization placed an emphasis on learning vocabulary and its derivatives, but the origins of vocabulary instruction precede that and are lost in the mists of history. In the last century, the size and depth of a person’s vocabulary came to be seen as a quick indicator of intelligence; most measures of intelligence have primarily been measures of verbal intelligence. This relationship raised questions about the role of instruction in developing vocabulary, a reflection
References Considine, David M., and Gail E. Haley. 1999. Visual Messages: Integrating Imagery into Instruction. 2d ed. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Considine, David M., Gail E. Haley, and Lyn Ellen Lacy. 1994. Imagine That: Developing Critical Thinking and Critical Viewing through Children’s Literature. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press.
667
Vocabulary Instruction of the nature/nurture controversy in perspectives on vocabulary development. Nevertheless, the assumption that vocabulary primarily reflects some innate ability has been challenged by studies of at-risk students, which suggest that both experience and instruction are powerful determining factors in vocabulary growth. Wesley Becker (1977) found that by grade four, disadvantaged students’ reading comprehension fell relative to that of more advantaged students whereas their math performance remained high. Were vocabulary solely a correlate of hereditary intelligence, it is more likely that both sets of scores should show a decline. Betty Hart Risley and Todd Risley (1995) pointed out that little support is provided for vocabulary growth in the daily lives of many children, either at home or at school, whereas all that is necessary for typical math achievement is taught in school. These data support the notion that vocabulary knowledge is learnable, teachable, and an important province of the school. Vocabulary instruction— the teaching of new vocabulary, generative word parts, use of context, and other independent word learning strategies—has had a long-standing and firm place in the literacy curriculum. This optimistic view requires that educators seeking an evidence base for vocabulary instruction deal with six important principles posed by the extant research (Kamil et al. 2000) These principles relate to research on the variation in vocabulary level at school entry, the implications of vocabulary size for instructional expectations, the reasonableness of expectations for instructional effects on vocabulary, the ways in which complexity of word learning suggests variation in the types of instruction, the issue of multiple first languages students bring to school, and the need for metacognitively focused instruction (instruction that teaches students to be aware of and monitor their comprehension needs). Each of these issues also suggests possibilities and directions for effective instruction.
Vocabulary learning/study (Laura Dwight)
extensive vocabulary than the less educated parents of other preschoolers of the same age. Educationally advantaged children may be exposed to 50 percent more words than their disadvantaged peers by school entry. These initial vocabulary levels of less advantaged students, along with concomitant differences in syntax and conceptual awareness, often result in lower levels of initial literacy. This means that less advantaged students read books with simpler levels of vocabulary, thus being exposed to fewer new words, and the vicious cycle is established with the gap between the “haves” and the “have-nots” widening with each year. Levels of vocabulary measured at grade two are predictive of vocabulary levels and reading performance well beyond the primary years. Two lines of research suggest possibilities for instruction turning around this inequity. Anne Cunningham and Keith Stanovich’s (1998) analyses of trade books and other reading materials for preschool and primary graders revealed that these printed materials often have more sophisticated
The Importance of Reading to Students with Mediated Discussion Every primary teacher recognizes that students come to school with widely differing sets of background knowledge and experiences. In studies of family literacy, it has been suggested that the average three-year-old from a household with high parental education may have a more 668
Vocabulary Instruction vocabulary than the vocabulary that college-educated parents use in daily conversation with their children. Many studies suggest that students who are read to from books rich in vocabulary, with some explanation and encouragement to use vocabulary in the discussion of books, learn the words they are exposed to through this lap reading. So the school must not only nurture home reading through parenting education, it must also include oral reading to students as an important part of the literacy curriculum. Furthermore, studies of preschool learning suggest that high-literacy parents model vocabulary learning continually, both in reading and in oral discourse. These parents constantly draw attention to new words, tell their children meanings, and give examples. Making vocabulary a part of all instruction and immersing students in a word-rich, language-rich classroom can provide the type of talk and input that many students have not experienced before school. Teachers’ and peers’ modeling of vocabulary use also provides a shared language base in classrooms where differences in dialect or language predominate.
that wide reading can account for a variance in words read per year of enormous magnitude. In their estimation, fifth-grade students engage in just ten minutes a day of independent reading but read 622,000 more words per year than a student who does no independent reading. Increase that reading to twenty minutes a day, and the discrepancy is almost 2 million words more read per year. They argue for early and effective literacy instruction, as the rich continue to get richer as they grow. Vocabulary is certainly a part of this equation; research suggests that vocabulary differences present in second grade tend to persist throughout subsequent school years. Though it is clear that wide reading is a great stimulus to word learning, educational researchers question the conclusion that suggests wide reading as the central form of vocabulary instruction. Studies of adult second-language learners suggest that a corpus of 2,000 words must be established before second-language adults can begin to take advantage of the context in reading materials in their academic classes. Others argue that Nagy, Herman, and Anderson overestimated the number of words that are necessary to be successful in school. It can be argued that dictionary sampling methods of estimating vocabulary size grossly overestimate the words students have to learn, and current studies focusing on generative word parts, such as root words, suggest that the number of roots to be learned is much smaller. Furthermore, a number of studies have shown success in teaching a selected number of words when students are presented with multiple sources of information about the word (Stahl, 1999). Like learning vocabulary orally, wide reading would seem to be a necessary but not sufficient component of vocabulary growth. Students need access, time, and encouragement to read quantities of material on an easy, independence level, but they also should be exposed to books that offer new ideas, concepts, and vocabulary. Easy reading in content areas can provide inroads and avenues to students with reading problems, allowing them to develop concepts and vocabulary that would make more difficult materials accessible. Students should be provided with any new vocabulary highlighted, multiple sources of information, and motivation to use new vocabulary. Coupling wide reading with use of the words in writing and other activities, such as drama,
Wide Reading for Multiple Sources of Information No one disputes the importance of a well-developed vocabulary to school success. To the layperson, the connection of vocabulary knowledge to comprehension appears obvious. Some of the earliest reading research confirms the notions that vocabulary is one of the most fundamental factors in reading comprehension and reading success. Nevertheless, studies centered on teaching a large number of words have not been particularly effective in improving the general reading comprehension of school-age readers. William Nagy, Patricia Herman, and Richard Anderson (1985) speculated that vocabulary is a symptom of a richer experiential base and suggested wide reading and exposure to rich concepts as true vocabulary instruction. These researchers bolstered these arguments by suggesting that the number of words students learn is so great that vocabulary acquisition can only happen incidentally through wide reading and other authentic language experiences. Simply learning a list of vocabulary words will not suffice—students need to use the words in meaningful ways. Cunningham and Stanovich (1998) estimated 669
Vocabulary Instruction reader’s theater, and other active ways of using vocabulary, moves students beyond acquaintance with new words to control over them.
prehend. Presenting a simple synonym is often enough for students to grasp and use the word and understand it. Nostalgia is a much more complex term for fifth graders to grasp and would take more elaborate instruction examples, nonexamples, definitions, contexts, and situations. This suggests that no one method of instruction is appropriate for all words for all students at all times. Because teachers work with groups, complexity of word knowledge suggests that presenting students with multiple sources of information for important words is an essential strategy. Further, preassessing word knowledge by using rating strategies or other classroom methods can assist the teacher is choosing the correct level of instruction for a group or class.
Explicit Instruction of Useful and Generative Words Although it is clear that a significant part of a learner’s vocabulary grows too quickly to be a result of direct instruction, there have also been a small number of studies that suggest the efficacy of focused, high-quality teaching. These studies emphasize that students who receive instruction in word meaning are active in using and discussing vocabulary and have multiple opportunities to use new words in problem-solving situations. Instruction is of high quality in that it provides several sources of information for a word’s meaning: context, definition, and usage with resources to references when needed. Students investigate and manipulate new words through question answering and other forms of reasoning (Beck, Perfetti, and McKeown, 1982). Cost-benefit considerations of this type of intense instruction suggest that words should be chosen carefully (see Journal of Reading, number 20, 1989, for a series of articles devoted to this and related issues). Words that are useful for content learning (learning in subject areas) and that open the doors to more learning should be emphasized. Generative words (words that have parts that are found in many other words) and their combining parts also should receive attention. For example, medicine, medical, and medicate form a set with shared generative parts. Learning the shared morpheme leads to more word learning. The goal is to work toward independence by choosing words for instruction carefully, focusing on content. Generative words should be part of a shared knowledge base and building independent strategies for the use of context and references.
Special Attention for Second-Language Learners The foregoing issues are complicated by the fact that for many students, the language of instruction is not their first language. The difference between oral language and written language adds another layer of complexity. Many educators of bilingual students note what the research supports—students often have an ostensible oral control of language that masks difficulty in understanding written English, particularly academic language. Children of immigrant families can often master conversational English in two years. Nevertheless, it may take a longer period of time for them to master written English. Making sure to examine the meanings of key vocabulary and helping students build semantic networks for new or domain-specific or unfamiliar usages of words is essential for dual-language students. The use of English as a Second Language (ESL) techniques in literacy classrooms can help students link new vocabulary to existing concepts. Vocabulary Development as a Metacognitive Process Vocabulary development is only partly the learning of word meanings. These meanings make up the declarative level of vocabulary knowledge. Students also need to know when they need to learn new words and what the strategies are by which they can learn independently. These are the conditional and procedural levels of word knowledge. This suggests that, in addressing all the issues above, students should identify what
Instructional Strategies Based on Students’ Prior Knowledge and Curricular Goals Word knowledge is not like a light switch that is either on or off; it is more like a dimmer switch that gradually increases what we know about a word. Think about the words diadem and nostalgia that are both in the same chapter of a book. Both are infrequent and unfamiliar. Yet, a diadem is one category of crown, something that is familiar to most students and is easy to teach and com670
Vocabulary Instruction References Beck, Isabel, Charles A. Perfetti, and Margaret McKeown. 1982. “The Effects of Long-Term Vocabulary Instruction on Lexical Access and Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology 74:506–521. Becker, Wesley C. 1977. “Teaching Reading and Language to the Disadvantaged—What We Have Learned from Field Research.” Harvard Educational Review 47:518–543. Blachowicz, Camille L. Z., and Peter Fisher. 2000. “Vocabulary Instruction.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. III, pp. 503–523. White Plains, NY: Longman. Cunningham, Anne E., and Keith E. Stanovich. 1998. “What Reading Does for the Mind.” American Educator (Spring/Summer):8–17. Hart, Betty, and Todd R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore: P. H. Brookes. Kamil, Michael, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds. 2000. Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3. White Plains, NY: Longman Publishing. Nagy, William E., Patricia A. Herman, and Richard C. Anderson. 1985. “Learning Words from Context.” Reading Research Quarterly 20:233–253. Stahl, Steven A. 1999. Vocabulary Development. Vol. 2 of From Reading Research to Practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
needs to be learned, acquire and implement strategies for learning, evaluate the adequacy of their knowledge, and fix any problems with word knowledge or word-learning strategies. For example, in a content class, such as history, students need strategies to identify the important words to be learned, select from resources for learning, use these sources, and then evaluate whether they need to repeat the cycle or if they have adequate knowledge for the task. This suggests process-oriented vocabulary lessons where teachers model and students use think-alouds, process journals, demonstrations, or other means for investigating the meaning of new words. It also suggests that more and more of the control for word study be passed to students as they progress through the grades. The research on vocabulary instruction is rich, complex, and full of argumentation. Because of the complexity of the topic, with word learning so closely connected to all other forms of learning and concept development, teachers looking for an evidence base with explicit implications for instruction often throw up their hands in dismay. In presenting the six issues above, we have attempted to match the research with practice to suggest that teachers need not wait for a single model of vocabulary instruction to draw legitimate conclusions for evidenced-based practices. Camille L. Z. Blachowicz and Peter J. Fisher See also Metacognition
671
W Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment
They evolved their own positive, holistic learnercentered system, drawing on what they considered the best research and ideas from other nations and their own. They did not need any special term to describe what they did; it was just good New Zealand education. They knew of ideas developing in the rest of the Englishspeaking world and used what fit their own situation best. England had its own educational evolution over four decades from the 1950s to the 1990s. This involved teachers, teacher educators, governmental commissions, and the general public in a series of great debates and basic overhauling of curriculum and schooling. A series of national reports brought the best available knowledge to bear on the broadly changing democratic goals for education that their nation was seeking. These reports became a vehicle for change in England and a powerful force in Canada and Australia as well. This evolution involved teachers at all levels. Teachers all over Great Britain studied the role of language in education. The proof of how pervasively teachers have been involved and how pleased the British public has been with the change was the resistance to the attempt by Margaret Thatcher and her successors to change schools back to more traditional forms by establishing a national curriculum. Teachers and other professionals tried to shape a national curriculum rooted in an understanding of language, learning, and teaching, one that expands on the progress made over preceding decades. Australia moved away from its strong traditional educational roots beginning after World War II, drawing selectively on North American, British, and European developments but adapting innovatively to its own societal needs. The Australians developed and implemented a model
Whole language is a philosophy of education that is positive in its view of learners, integrative in its view of curriculum, informed in its view of language, transactional in its view of teaching and learning, democratic in its view of the relationship of people and their social institutions, and holistic as it brings it all together into practice. It is not simply a methodology for teaching reading and writing or even an approach to teaching language. It is a holistic view of education. Historical Roots Over the centuries, there have always been thinkers and teachers who took a positive holistic stance toward education. In her article in the November 1989 issue of The Elementary School Journal, Yetta Goodman traced this history from John Amos Comenius, through Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Friedrich Froeble in Europe; through the New Education and Progressive Education in the United States and elsewhere; through Open Education, language across the curriculum, and the British primary school from England. Whole language stands on the shoulders of the men and women who were advocating ideas and practices that seemed radical in their days and still sound surprisingly fresh and exciting. In New Zealand, continuity existed that carried the development of the concepts of John Dewey and the Progressives from the 1930s to the present. There a calm and quiet evolution in education took place. In this country of 3 million people with a single education system, they could comfortably and gradually change what they did as new knowledge became available. 673
Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment of professional development that centers around informed teachers educating other teachers. Australian educators have synthesized classroom application of whole-language philosophy. It was in Canada that the term whole language emerged and caught the imagination of teachers to identify an evolution of curriculum, methods, materials, and schooling. Canadian teachers, the best paid in the world, enjoyed a degree of professional respect uncommon in the United States. They could put to work the lessons of the Bullock report and of psycholinguistic research on literacy processes (see “Psycholinguistics” entry). They could negotiate with their publishers for literature-rich reading programs free of trivia testing. These teachers could expect support for innovation. Whole language, emerging among teachers, became policy in many Canadian school systems and provinces. Although teachers in the United States had been locked into materials, skill hierarchies, and testing programs based on behavioristic learning theories largely discredited among psychologists, teachers in Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and England were using insights from Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky in psychology, knowledge of language from scientific linguistics, and concepts of child development, literacy theory, and anthropology to build a strong base for their teaching. Practices such as the use of big books in beginning reading developed in New Zealand, migrated to Canada, and then filtered across the border to the United States. In the United States, whole language looked like a sudden revolution because the evolution that characterized the other English-speaking countries was thwarted. American teachers are required to spend the longest years preparing for certification of any teachers in the world. American teachers virtually all have B.A.’s, and many have graduate degrees. American education, like so much of American life, has been dominated by technology. In the first quarter of the twentieth century, the typical elementary teacher was hardly more than a paraprofessional with perhaps a year of normal school as preparation. Educational decisionmakers thought they could create a technology of textbooks and tests so carefully constructed that it would assure learning without professional teachers. By controlling what teachers taught, they could control what children learn.
Student undergoing a whole-language assessment (Elizabeth Crews)
Ironically, a fair part of the knowledge base for whole language—the research on reading, writing, the development of psycholinguistic theories of language processes, the study of language, learning, and teaching—is North American. This knowledge turned into practice had to come back to North America to really affect the experiences of learners in U.S. schools. When American teachers began to rebel and assert themselves as professionals, they could draw on what has been learned in New Zealand, Great Britain, Australia, and Canada. They could bring into their own classrooms what has evolved over the decades elsewhere. There was a boom in school publishing in New Zealand, Australia, and Canada, none of which had big enough school markets to support a major industry, when the teachers began to buy their holistic materials in the United States. The American teachers who led the wholelanguage revolution put aside the part-language curriculum, in which each aspect of language— reading, writing, spelling, grammar—was taught separately and moved to integrate whole language for whole learners in authentic whole-life situations. 674
Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment The Whole-Language Era in the United States The term whole language began to be used in the United States in about 1978. By 1990, it was the agenda in American education. By 1994, whole language came under attack by strong forces within and outside of education. Though the term whole language was not in use in Britain, the philosophy of whole language came under attack in England even earlier. Because education in England is directly controlled under the central government, the attack was faster and more pervasive. The Inner London Education Authority that supported a whole-language philosophy throughout London schools was abolished in a single act, and London schools were broken down into a series of smaller and independent authorities. Attacks on whole language parallel to those in the United States occurred in the other English-speaking countries, as well. The reasons for these powerful attacks on whole language as a philosophy are broadly political and beyond the scope of this entry. As the Australians put it, “it’s the tall poppies that get cut down,” and whole language had become a tall visible target. Ironically, by making whole language the focal point of “educational reform” and blaming it for failures of education, it still remains the agenda in education. This agenda— or its rejection—is the subject of the debate in education at every level including national election campaigns.
artificial constraints of texts, tests, and tradition. Never in the history of education have so many teachers been speaking and writing for other teachers. There is no seven-step whole language, no guru revealing whole-language truth, and no committee for whole-language purity. The attack on whole language largely focuses on controlling teachers. Teachers are to be controlled in how they teach, what materials they may use, how they are educated, how they are certified, and how they must evaluate their pupils. Common Features of Whole Language What are the common features of whole language that are emerging? Most lists would include the following, taken from Goodman (1986): Integration of Curriculum—If people learn language while they learn to use it, then the language curriculum includes reading and writing. These language processes must be integrated with the rest of the curriculum—science, social studies, mathematics, and the arts—all of it. That means inquiry studies, problem solving, and projects, all including authentic reading and writing as well as oral language activities. Use of Authentic Predictable Materials for Reading and for Writing—In England, adversaries have labeled whole language the “Real Book Approach because of its use of real literature and authentic texts of all kinds rather than didactic materials. Whole language was responsible for a boom in children’s book publishing as children encountered real books in school and learned to enjoy them outside of school. Furthermore, pupils have a lot of choice in what they read, what they write about, and how they go about solving problems and answering their questions. There will be a lot of reading, a lot of writing, a lot of activity, a lot of decisionmaking, and a fair amount of noise in any whole-language classroom. Students will be discussing what they are reading and keeping logs of their reactions to what they are reading. They will keep writing journals.
The Whole-Language Agenda Effective teachers are professionals. A key aspect of the whole-language agenda is its assumption that for teachers to be effective, they must be professionals who are treated as professionals. As such, they need to build a depth of knowledge that they use to make their ongoing professional decisions. In fact, what differentiates whole language from past movements such as Progressive Education is its wide grassroots base among teachers. As a grassroots movement, whole language involves teachers teaching other teachers. It involves each teacher building a philosophy and making a personal commitment. Whole-language teachers redefine themselves and their work. That is why no two whole-language classrooms ever look the same. The greatest strength of whole language is that it is dynamic, developing, ever changing, and creative. Energy in teachers and in learners is being released by lifting the 675
Whole Language and Whole-Language Assessment In a holistic view of reading, it is important that the books pupils use to learn to read be predictable. It must be possible for the readers, using their experiences and developing knowledge of the language, to predict the authentic patterns of the text. This insight led to new recognition of a genre in children’s literature of predictable books—books that have strong story lines and strong patterns within the development of the story that focus on experiences common to young learners. Democratic Classrooms—The furniture will not be restricted to desk-chairs, and the teacher may be hard to find when you enter the room. A lot of the ongoing business of the classroom will be handled by the pupils. They may be of any age, speak any number of languages, and represent many different ethnicities and cultures. The curriculum will still be authentic, relevant, and appropriate for them. Parents will be encouraged to come into the classroom and participate in its ongoing activities. (218)
are engaging in author studies and book groups in which they share their responses to the same book or to books on a common theme (Fisher, 1991). Middle-grade pupils are planning and carrying out ambitious thematic units that build language and thinking as they build knowledge (Atwell, 1987). Learners are not just reading about history and geography; they are locating themselves in time and space. They are not just memorizing facts in science and mathematics; they are discovering principles and creating schema as they build knowledge of the world around them (see “Schema Theory” entry). Art, music, dance, and sports are not extracurricular frills in whole-language schools; they are integral to the curriculum as all forms of expression are explored. In secondary schools, teachers are tearing down the barriers that separate subject from subject. They are planning for the short, medium, and long term to soften the limits of the fifty-minute class period. They are encouraging their pupils to bring the issues and concerns of the real world into their classrooms and to carry concepts and explorations from the classrooms into the real world. They are shifting focus from product to process in reading and writing. They are offering choice to pupils in what they read, what they write about, and how they present. Secondary pupils are acting as social and physical scientists and in the process learning both content and method. Their teachers are not afraid to say, “I don’t know. Let’s see what we can find out.” Adults in literacy programs in places as far apart as British Columbia, Boston, Detroit, and Little Rock are revaluing themselves in programs that invite them to participate in authentic literacy events. In British Columbia they publish their own magazine (Pharness and Weinstein, 1991). In Little Rock grandparents work with their grandchildren who are also in a whole-language program.
At the same time that whole language is being attacked in developed nations, there is wide interest in it as part of a program of democratizing education. There is interest in getting rid of old colonial models in Latin America, Asia, Oceania, and Eastern Europe. As teachers reach more professional levels in these countries, they see the need to make their classrooms democratic communities to prepare their pupils to be participating informed citizens of the developing democracies. Adaptability Because whole language is a philosophy, it fits many levels and circumstances. Preschoolers are freely exploring written language as whole-language teachers put to work the new knowledge of early print awareness. Learners build on their print awareness developed from observing print in their environment. They are listening to literature and reading wordless picture books and predictable books. School beginners are inventing spellings in journals, letters, stories, and reports. They are collaborating on answering their questions about the world around them. They
Whole-Language Assessment By its nature, whole language produces assessment that is holistic, contextual, authentic, and ongoing. It does not just happen on Friday afternoons; it is integral to the process of the classroom. In fact, whole language was a major force behind the authentic assessment movement. 676
Whole Language Umbrella
Whole Language Umbrella
Standardized tests designed to test all pupils everywhere with multiple-choice items are not consistent with whole language. Authentic assessment uses performance in real-world situations to evaluate learning (see “Authentic Assessment” entry). The information gained is used not to reward and punish the learners but to evaluate the instruction and materials. When the attacks were launched against whole language, assessment became a major focus. California and Arizona suspended their authentic evaluation programs after several years of development and joined a process of use of highstakes tests in many states (see “High-Stakes Assessment” entry). They are high stakes because single test scores are used to determine promotion from grade to grade, graduation from high school, and even hiring and firing teachers.
The Whole Language Umbrella (WLU) was founded in 1989 as a confederation of wholelanguage support groups and individual professionals interested in developing and implementing whole language in educational institutions. The WLU is based on a view of whole language as a dynamic philosophy of education. Although WLU accepts certain beliefs as being common to whole-language teachers, there will be no “test of beliefs” as a condition of membership The constitution of the Whole Language Umbrella indicates that the organization is predicated on a belief in holistic approaches to the acquisition and development of literacy in all its aspects, a positive view of all human learners, and a belief that language is central to human learning. Classroom practices supported by the WLU are based on a belief that learning is easiest when it is from whole to part, when it is in authentic contexts, and when it is functional for the learners. Further, the organization believes that learning is both personal and social and that classrooms and other educational settings must be learning communities in which both learners and teachers are empowered. Finally, the WLU accepts as a shared belief an acceptance of all learners and the languages, cultures, and experiences they bring to their education; a belief that learning is both joyful and fulfilling; and a belief in the developmental nature of learning. The Whole Language Umbrella supports its members in a variety of ways. It encourages the formation of whole-language support groups and facilitates networking among members. The WLU also sponsors national and international conferences; publishes and distributes books, articles, and other materials that support whole language through the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE); and supports and defends whole-language educators and practices. In recent years, the focus of the WLU has shifted somewhat to include opposition to mandated approaches to reading instruction and a focus on the politics of reading instruction in addition to its historic focus on whole-language philosophy and practice. Although the WLU began as an independent organization, it became a conference of the National Council of Teachers of English in 1998. The organization sponsors an annual conference in late July and a Day of Whole Language at
The Future of Whole Language As a term, whole language may not survive the attack against it. Nevertheless, many practices of whole language, particularly its stress on use of authentic literature in classrooms, have been institutionalized widely in classrooms. The philosophy that underlies it involves many concepts that have been widely accepted by teachers and teacher educators. Ironically, by setting whole language up as the agenda to be opposed, its enemies assure it a continual place in the debate over the future of education. Kenneth S. Goodman See also Authentic Assessment; High-Stakes Assessment; Kid Watching and Classroom Evaluation References Atwell, Nancy. 1987. In the Middle. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Fisher, Bobbie. 1991. Joyful Learning: A Whole Language Kindergarten. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goodman, Kenneth. 1986. What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Goodman, Yetta M. 1989. “Roots of the Whole Language Movement.” The Elementary School Journal 90:113–127. Pharness, Gary, and Larry Weinstein. 1991. “Writing Set Me Free.” In Kenneth S. Goodman, Yetta M. Goodman, and Lois Bridges Bird, eds., The Whole Language Catalog, p. 128. Santa Rosa, CA: McGraw-Hill.
677
Word Recognition NCTE’s annual convention in November. The WLU’s refereed journal, Talking Points, is published twice annually in the spring and fall. More information about the Whole Language Umbrella can be found at www.ncte.org/wlu. Stephen E. Hornstein
readers primarily use later-emerging strategies, skilled readers keep the earlier strategies in reserve to be called upon when needed. Initially readers may identify visually unfamiliar words by using only the story’s picture cues. Later, as readers begin to attend to the letters in words, they use a combination of letters and pictures to identify unfamiliar words. As readers become more skilled at recognizing unfamiliar words, they use parts of known words to read unfamiliar words or use all the alphabetic information in a word to pronounce that word. On a more advanced level, readers rely on their memory of frequently occurring multiletter chunks, such as tion and ous, to identify unfamiliar words. When these strategies are used in combination with contextual information, they not only support developing an automatic recognition vocabulary but also aid in contextual comprehension.
Word Recognition Word recognition is the immediate, accurate, and effortless ability to read words in context or in isolation. Through repeated opportunities to read and spell words, readers eventually store in memory the complete orthographic sequence, pronunciation, and meaning of words. The ability to accurately recall the exact orthographic sequence of common and less common phonetically regular and irregular words is an ongoing process that contributes to building an extensive automatic recognition vocabulary. Word recognition is one of many subprocesses that occur simultaneously during reading. Associating background knowledge information with the text and reading comprehension are additional examples of reading subprocesses. Immediate word recognition is important because it frees readers to concentrate on some of the other subprocesses, primarily comprehension. A number of strategies contribute to the development of immediate, accurate, and effortless word recognition. These strategies are organized, attention-demanding, and planned approaches to identifying and learning unfamiliar words. Unlike the automatic recognition of familiar words in text, identifying visually unfamiliar words entails a process of mediation in which readers may combine contextual information with available picture, alphabetic, or orthographic information. For strategies to contribute to reading development, readers must apply them when they read and write. Although there are many ways in which the strategies might be described, five primary strategies explain how readers recognize and learn visually unfamiliar words over the course of learning to read (Ehri and Soffer, 1999). Whereas the precise onset of strategy use may differ from reader to reader, research suggests that certain strategies typically develop before others. Although the onset of strategy use is somewhat developmental and although skilled
Attention and Memory All information that is processed during reading enters working memory, which has a limited storage capacity. Working memory has multiple components and is the place where incoming information is processed by activating information from long-term memory, rehearsing information, and retaining information for immediate use (Palmer, 2000). Information in working memory may be moved into long-term memory, which holds readers’ accumulated knowledge and experience, including the printed words readers automatically recognize. As a result of the limited capacity of working memory, the multiple sources of information, and the manner in which readers process this information during reading, many subprocessses must take place simultaneously and without readers’ consciously paying attention to each and every one. Whereas some subprocesses are performed rapidly and automatically during reading, others require that readers allocate attentional resources to perform them. All readers have a limited capacity to pay attention to the multiple sources of information available to them during reading. In theory, limited attentional resources are used hierarchically, and their absolute capacity cannot be increased or decreased (Reynolds, 2000). Therefore, fluent reading accompanied by good comprehension depends, in part, on the efficient use of attentional resources when executing subprocesses, particularly lower-level subprocesses such as 678
Word Recognition word recognition. Should one subprocess require substantial attention from the reader, that subprocess consumes the attentional resources available for performing other subprocesses. For example, the reader who, upon seeing a visually unfamiliar word in text, must allocate attention to word identification has less attention available at that moment to allocate to comprehension. For young children, who are less skilled readers, recognizing words requires the allocation of substantial attention. Skilled readers, on the other hand, perform word recognition tasks efficiently, which, therefore, allows them to use their attentional resources for other subprocesses, such as comprehension. Skilled readers possess a large corpus of words that are automatically recognized. Less skilled readers, in contrast, recognize fewer words automatically and, therefore, rely on applying strategies to read visually unfamiliar words in text. One of the consequences of using strategies to identify unfamiliar words is that less skilled readers ultimately develop the larger body of automatically recognized words characteristic of skilled readers. Another consequence is that readers who use strategies to identify visually unfamiliar words are able to read independently. These readers can identify new words and learn new words without adult supervision or the support of their teachers. A third consequence is that in developing a substantial automatic recognition vocabulary, readers can focus their attention on comprehending the text rather than on identifying individual words.
from illustrations to make inferences about the identity of specific words in the text. Children are most likely to use the picture cue strategy when they have little alphabetic knowledge. Predictable text is frequently used to introduce children to textual reading. These texts typically consist of stories in which the same language patterns and the same words are repeated throughout. The illustrations in these texts are a dominant feature and are designed to provide children with specific information about the words. Children at this level may read some words through memory but do not attend to the alphabetic information in the words. These children rely on the picture to notify them when there is a change in the predictable text. In reading predictable text, children read repeated phrases from memory and look at the pictures to let them know how the story line changes from page to page. For example, a picture of a dog allows the child to predict that the page being read is about a dog, whereas an illustration of a different animal on another page cues the child to a shift in the story line. In using picture cues, children are able to insert contextually relevant words into familiar phrases without examining the alphabetic information in specific words. Limited Alphabetic Cue Strategy Children who use the limited alphabetic cue strategy combine picture cue information with some alphabetic information, typically the beginning or ending letters in unfamiliar words. For example, a child who encounters an unfamiliar word beginning with the letter d may combine the picture and the beginning letter to identify the word. In combining picture cues with limited alphabetic cues, children are able to read the unknown word dog by looking at the picture of a dog and then thinking of a word that both describes the picture and begins with the sound represented by the letter d, thereby eliminating words such as puppy or hound. The effect of using the limited alphabetic cue strategy is to confine the choices for word identification to only those words that are consistent with both the illustration and the partial alphabetic information that children extract from the visually unfamiliar words. The use of partial alphabetic information reveals only a portion of the sounds in unfamiliar words, and, therefore, this strategy is not efficient for word learning and results in a number of miscues.
Picture Cue Strategy Long before children begin to receive formal reading instruction they rely on the illustrations in storybooks to infer the meaning of written text. Young children who expect books to convey meaning understand that the illustrations reflect the story that the author has written. These children read storybooks by inventing stories that match what they see in the pictures. At this stage, children are reading merely through picture interpretation. An example of the use of this strategy occurs when young children pretend to read by carefully examining the pictures or the illustrations, interpreting picture meaning, and constructing a story consistent with their interpretations. Later, this strategy becomes slightly more sophisticated when children extract information 679
Word Recognition Analogy Strategy The analogy strategy consists of identifying familiar subsyllabic letter sequences in visually unfamiliar words that are constituents of visually familiar words. Making analogies is a cognitive strategy that may be applied to a variety of subsyllabic units within unfamiliar words (Goswami, 2001). For example, the reader who recognizes cat may use knowledge of the ending rime, the vowel and following consonant, to identify sat. Alternatively, the reader who recognizes the word cat may use the two beginning letter sounds to more rapidly identify the word cap. The use of the analogy strategy, particularly when applied to large orthographic units such as rimes, may make a more significant contribution to learning to read languages such as English, which has a deep orthography, than to learning to read languages with shallow orthographies, such as the Spanish language (Gonzalez et al., 2000). Readers who have a sight word vocabulary (see “Sight Words” entry) and who have some knowledge of letter and sound relationships may use analogies to identify unfamiliar words when they receive explicit instruction in the application of this strategy (Savage, 2001). Increased reading experience results in more experience in extracting multiletter subsyllabic units from words and in a greater number of words from which to draw the analogies (Goswami, 2001). Therefore, the more words readers have in their reading vocabularies, the more likely it is that they will use analogous information.
with crucial information on the effectiveness of the letter-by-letter strategy. Should an identified word be consistent with the reading context, readers then reallocate their attentional resources to comprehending the text. Conversely, should an identified word be inconsistent with the reading context, readers then continue to allocate attentional resources to the recognition of the visually unfamiliar word. The ability to use the letter-by-letter strategy is influenced by the number of phonemes and by the letter and sound patterns in visually unfamiliar words. It is more difficult for good readers in grades one and two to identify long words, in comparison to short words, with letter-by-letter strategy. But this trend shifts by grades five and six, when good readers can identify long words nearly as readily as short words (Wilson et al., 1999). An advantage of the letter-by-letter strategy is that with a relatively small amount of letter and sound information readers can identify a great many words, which, in turn, supports word learning and permits children to read independently. Analyzing words at the letter and sound level also fosters memory for the full orthographic sequence of words (Juel and MindenCupp, 2000). Storing in memory a combination of the complete orthographic sequence, pronunciation, and meaning of words increases the corpus of words readers automatically recognize. Multiletter-Chunk Strategy The multiletter-chunk strategy, also known as the structural analysis strategy, is a strategy in which readers identify visually unfamiliar words by recognizing familiar multiletter groups, or chunks. In contrast to the letter-by-letter strategy in which readers identify multiple letter and sound correspondences, analyzing multisyllabic words into multiletter chunks results in fewer letter and sound units readers must remember, sequence, and blend into contextually meaningful words. Analyzing multisyllabic words into several relatively large letter groups places fewer attentional demands on working memory than analyzing long words into individual letter and sound relationships. Therefore, the multiletterchunk strategy is a more efficient strategy than the previously described strategies to use when readers encounter multisyllabic words. Experienced readers are sensitive to prefixes and suffixes, base words, root words, and sylla-
Letter-by-Letter Strategy The letter-by-letter strategy is the strategy typically associated with traditional phonics instruction. Readers come to recognize visually unfamiliar words by using individual letter and sound units, associating a sound with each unit, and then blending, or combining, the sounds together to pronounce contextually meaningful words. For example, a reader who encounters the word stop would associate the phonemes /s/ and /t/ with the initial consonant blend, st; the short vowel, /o/, with the letter o; and the /p/ with the final consonant. Blending these four phonemes would then produce the spoken word stop. The good reader would then compare the spoken word, stop, with the reading context to determine if the identified word makes sense. This final process, called cross-checking, provides readers 680
Word Recognition bles. Prefixes and suffixes are added to the beginning and end of words, respectively. Prefixes change word meaning or make meaning more specific, whereas suffixes change grammatical function, clarify meaning, or add additional information. Base words are units that cannot be subdivided without changing their meaning and do not require additional letter units to convey meaning, such as the words play and table. Root words, in contrast, are meaningful units that cannot stand alone and, therefore, must be bound to other letter units, such as the anti- in antiseptic and the aqua- in aquarium. Syllables are the basic pronunciation units in English words. Each English syllable contains only one vowel sound, and hence the word play consists of one syllable, whereas the word compute consists of two syllables. Readers who are familiar with the multiletter chunks that form the building blocks of English words may also identify nonmeaningful, pronounceable units, such as tion. For example, on encountering the word invincible, the reader who employs the multiletterchunk strategy would analyze this word so as to identify familiar letter groups. The reader may identify the prefix in-, meaning not, as one familiar multiletter chunk. Similarly, the reader may recognize ble as a common syllable that often occurs at the end of words. In locating the prefix and the familiar final syllable unit, the reader is left to identify the two-syllable unit vinci. Although the reader might choose to use a combination of prefix and syllable analysis to pronounce invincible, there is another route to pronunciation that provides the reader with additional insight to word meaning. The reader who recognizes the Latin root vinc and who knows that this root means “to conquer” has the information necessary to develop an understanding of the meaning of invincible. Prefixes, suffixes, base words, and root words not only assist readers in identifying unfamiliar words but also support readers in developing an understanding of word meaning. Use of the multiletter-chunk strategy starts when children begin to recognize familiar rimes in single-syllable words. Later, as readers gain reading and writing experience, they develop a frame of reference that consists of the letter sequence, pronunciation, and, when appropriate, meaning of multiletter chunks. The ability to call on memory for multiletter chunks expedites
word identification, supports the learning of word meaning, and helps readers continue to add to their repertoire of automatically recognized words. Though the multiletter-chunk strategy emerges early in learning to read, it is not until readers are in the third or fourth grade that the use of multiletter chunks becomes the preferred and predominant strategy. Reading is a highly complex process that consists of many subprocesses, such as word recognition, comprehension, and associating background knowledge information with the text. The attentional resources available to readers are limited and, therefore, some of the subprocesses in reading must be automatized (see “Automaticity and Reading Fluency” entry). Comprehending and learning new information from text places considerable demands on attentional resources. Therefore, word recognition is one of the subprocesses that needs to be automatized. When word recognition is performed automatically, readers have the attentional capacity needed for reading comprehension. The appropriate use of strategies for recognizing visually unfamiliar words supports the development of the vocabulary base in memory requisite for immediate word recognition. Strategies develop in a relatively predictable, developmental sequence that progresses from the use of nontextual picture information to the careful analysis of letter and sound information and ultimately to identifying multiletter chunks. Readers may select, at any given time and in any given textual reading setting, from among their repertoire of strategies. The successful use of the analogy and letter-by-letter strategies may depend on whether or not the words readers identify are already in their speaking and listening vocabularies. When readers both pronounce and understand the meaning of a word, they can cross-check to successfully determine the appropriateness of the identified word for the reading context. Readers who recognize meaningful multiletter chunks, however, may use this knowledge to gain insight into word pronunciation as well as meaning. When this information is then combined with context, readers are in the favorable position of having a tool that assists them in adding words to their general knowledge vocabulary and that supports the comprehension of text. Word recognition, and the strategies that contribute to developing a large automatic read681
Workplace Literacy ing vocabulary, provide a mechanism for selfteaching that operates independently of assistance from others, a route to learning the meaning of words when familiar and meaningful multiletter chunks are identified, and a critical corpus of automatically recognized words that is essential for reading comprehension. Barbara J. Fox
quite different sorts of education as well as a term to describe the ways literacy is used in the workplace. In addition to describing literacy strategies, functions, tasks, and materials in workplace settings, it is used in association with several quite different sorts of programs. The first is literacy programs that use some or all materials and activities that are selected and custom designed to match specific workplace literacy requirements. A second type is literacy and basic skills programs that are delivered at a workplace but that do not necessarily use workplace examples (that is, preparing to pass the General Equivalency Diploma [GED] high school equivalency test). There are also generic programs designed to prepare learners for workplace literacy demands—even though exact demands and workplaces may not yet be known (that is, welfare-to-work programs and school-to-work transition programs). Precise definition of workplace literacy is also muddied by disagreement about what, exactly, constitutes “literacy” in relation to the workplace. Analysis of workplace literacy tasks usually reveals that tasks rarely lend themselves to isolated examples of just reading and writing. Tasks labeled as “workplace literacy” often involve a mixture of listening, speaking in a professional manner, making notes, reading from paper and computer screens using a variety of reading strategies, doing arithmetic to calculate needed information, and responding in both oral and written form. Take, for example, a typical high-school graduate customer service representative (CSR) task in a technology-rich workplace. The CSR might start by answering a telephone inquiry to request late payment of a bill. While using a headset to speak to the customer, the CSR would ask for the customer’s name and other relevant information, call up the customer record on a computer screen, and check the payment history. This requires rapid screen reading of print organized in blocks. The CSR needs to decide how reliable the customer is and if any extension of time can be given. Written policy guidelines are accessed via a help screen. These guidelines include job aids with rules concerning the length of an extension and whether some percentage of the bill must be paid immediately. After calculating the effect of the rules (in this case using another function of the computer), the CSR tells the customer the result and probably
See also Automaticity and Reading Fluency; ReadingComprehension Processes References Ehri, Linnea, and Alison Soffer. 1999. “Graphophonemic Awareness: Development in Elementary Students.” Scientific Studies of Reading 3:1–30. Fox, Barbara. 2000. Word Identification Strategies: Phonics from a New Perspective. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Gonzalez, Juan, Carlos Gonzalez, Adelina Monzo, and Isabel Hernadez-Valle. 2000. “Onset-rime in Visual Word Recognition in Spanish Normal Readers and Children with Reading Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 15:135–141. Goswami, Usha. 2001. “Rhymes Are Important: A Comment on Savage.” Journal of Research in Reading 24:19–29. Juel, Connie, and Cecilia Minden-Cupp. 2000. “Learning to Read Words: Linguistic Units and Instructional Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:458–492. Palmer, Sue. 2000. “Development of Phonological Recoding and Literacy Acquisition: A Four-Year Cross-Sequential Study.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 18:533–555. Reynolds, Ralph. 2000. “Attentional Resources Emancipation: Toward Understanding the Interaction of Word Identification and Comprehension Processes in Reading.” Scientific Studies in Reading 4:169–193. Savage, Robert. 2001. “A Re-evaluation of the Evidence for Orthographic Analogies: A Reply to Goswami (1999).” Journal of Research in Reading 24:1–18. Wilson, Victor, William Rupley, Maximo Rodriguez, and Sandra Mergen. 1999. “The Relationships among Orthographic Components of Word Identification and Spelling for Grades 1–6.” Reading Research and Instruction 39:89–102.
Workplace Literacy The term workplace literacy is an umbrella label that has been used in association with several 682
Workplace Literacy
An architect reviewing plans (Michael Siluk)
pare soldiers for the literacy demands of their new military jobs. By the Vietnam War era in the 1960s and 1970s, the increased literacy demands of a more technological army led to increased military efforts to tailor literacy education to specific military demands. Thomas Sticht (1975) documented some of these efforts in Reading for Working and was the first to introduce evidence that relatively brief instruction using literacy examples from the workplace improved performance with these workplace tasks while also improving general literacy abilities. The reverse (that is, relatively brief general literacy instruction improving workplace literacy performance) was not found to be as apparent. This finding was particularly important because most adult literacy programs are relatively brief (that is, fifty hours of instruction or less) compared to schooling for children. Setting priorities on how time is spent matters a great deal since there is relatively little time available.
generates a discussion on the possibility of the customer’s paying as required. If the CSR is unable to answer the questions during the brief time the customer is on the phone, a letter will need to be sent. A word-processing program with several dozen form letters will be called up on the screen. The CSR will be expected to select an appropriate form letter from menus, modify the address and body of the form letter, and print a letter and envelope to be mailed to the customer. A Brief History Concerns about workplace literacy abilities and programs to address these concerns have existed, to some degree, since the 1800s and probably before. In Adult Literacy Education in the United States, Wanda Cook (1977) documented labor union literacy programs from the 1800s and congressional testimony about literacy problems among miners in the early part of the twentieth century. During World Wars I and II, the U.S. military enacted special literacy programs to pre683
Workplace Literacy During the 1980s and early 1990s, dozens of research studies documented the nature of workplace literacy demands in the civilian workplace. Workers in most occupations were found to read and write more than most students do in schools. School reading materials (that is, mostly stories, worksheets, and expository textbooks) differed from the wider range of workplace materials (that is, memos, forms, reports, manuals, charts, training materials, computer printouts, computer screen displays, and so on). In addition, purposes for reading differed considerably. The majority of school reading involved reading to answer teacher questions or end of chapter questions, whereas the majority of workplace reading involved reading to accomplish tasks or to make evaluations in the process of solving problems. Several trends in government, business, and education influenced the nature and form of workplace literacy programs in the middle 1980s and early 1990s. National studies of adult and young adult literacy suggested that substantial fractions of the adult population were ill equipped to meet even moderately complex workplace literacy demands. In business, moves to compete in the global marketplace were introducing organizational and technological changes that increased workplace literacy demands for many lower- and middle-level employees. In response, federal and state governments as well as many businesses and unions funded workplace literacy programs to a considerably greater extent. In 1986, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (see “National Assessment of Educational Progress” entry) released the Young Adult Literacy survey results (Kirsch and Jungeblut, 1986). In this survey, interviewers spent ninety minutes each with approximately 3,600 young adults aged twenty-one through twentyfive. The young adults were asked to use realistic materials (that is, newspapers, announcements, forms, tables, medical directions, and so on) to accomplish a wide range of real-world tasks. Although the majority of young adults could do very basic tasks, much smaller percentages were independently successful with the literacy tasks of moderate difficulty such as literacy tasks documented in workplace settings. In 1993, a larger survey (Kirsch et al., 1993) of 26,000 adults aged sixteen years and older found very similar results for the wider adult population. Twenty-three per-
cent of adults were found to be at the lowest skill level, with about another 25 percent demonstrating only low-moderate literacy skill levels. This was of particular concern, since the same survey had indicated a high degree of reading and writing being reported in most occupations (see “National Assesment of Educational Progress” entry). During this same time frame, large corporations and their smaller suppliers were introducing increased quality control measures that involved lower-level workers’ doing increased reading and writing to monitor performance, actively joining quality control problem-solving groups, communicating with other workers (often through print), and participating in ongoing training programs. Companies dealing with many global markets needed to demonstrate that such programs were in place and that workers could meet higher performance standards in order to be certified as meeting International Standards Organization (ISO) guidelines. Companies participating in this standards-setting process found many workers unable to meet demands. This spawned a wide variety of workplace literacy programs attached to broader workplace training programs. Some workplace literacy programs directly addressed the new and more complex workplace literacy demands while others addressed more basic literacy skills among very low literate workers and a growing population of workers for whom English was a second language. From the late 1980s through the 1990s, the federal government set aside funds for the development of workplace literacy programs that made direct links to workplace needs. Funding ranged from one to three years and called for proposals with clearly delineated program and evaluation plans as well as evidence that employers would bear an increased proportion of costs each year. Most states initiated and funded similar “seed-money” efforts, and “basic skills” programs were increasingly offered by employers and labor unions. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, several government agencies as well as educational and business organizations published reports summarizing and documenting the skills needed for employment in “the new workplace.” The most prominent of these reports came from the Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), funded by the U.S. Departments of Labor and Education (U.S. Department of Labor, 1991). This report issued a series of 684
Workplace Literacy guidelines for schools and adult educators identifying competencies required of workers. These guidelines were noteworthy in that they went beyond simply listing basic literacy. The short description of the SCANS information competency mentioned acquiring and evaluating data, organizing and maintaining files, interpreting and communicating, and using computers to process information.
for the nature of instruction stems, in part, from the concept of Functional Context Education introduced by Thomas Sticht (1987). Functional Context Education is an approach to basic skills education that advocates constructing learning activities using materials and tasks that learners encounter daily—usually on the job. The National Center on Adult Literacy study of 121 programs from the early 1990s found that 45 percent of programs addressed both general and job-related literacy, 43 percent of programs addressed only job-related literacy, and 12 percent addressed only general literacy (Mikulecky et al., 1996). In a separate study of instructional impact across several different workplace literacy programs, Mikulecky and Lloyd (1997) found that impact upon workplace literacy performance did not appear until programs spent at least 30 percent of instructional time using workplace-related materials. During the late 1980s and 1990s, workplace literacy became entwined with the political rhetoric of national competitiveness. Several scholars responded with studies and analyses that addressed the oversimplification and dangers of this rhetoric. Analyses from a labor union perspective decried the seeming tendency of blaming worker literacy levels for labor-management problems that were much more complex than simple reading and writing abilities. Several extensive qualitative research studies documented the broader context of the workplace and workplace literacy programs, focusing upon the complexities of what actually occurred in the workplace and in workplace literacy programs. Researchers such as Sheryl Gowen and Glynda Hull identified a number of flaws and outright dangers in taking an overly simplified functional context approach. Gowen’s (1992) book-length case study of a workplace literacy program in a hospital described program attempts to construct workplace materials based on official job descriptions and official guidelines for how entry-level hospital workers were to do their jobs. In one case, guidelines for how janitors were to retrieve used needles from waste cans might have endangered the workers if the guidelines had actually been followed. In addition, Gowen’s observations and interviews revealed that many workers sought literacy support for goals outside the workplace and reacted negatively to being offered literacy training only for jobs they wished
Scholarly Issues and Concerns Several themes run through workplace literacy scholarship. Work in the 1970s and early 1980s documented the literacy demands and functions of literacy in a variety of workplaces as well as in community settings. Scholarship to document workplace literacy demands continues and has expanded in response to changes brought about by the restructuring of how work is performed and by the increased use of technology. Another line of scholarship focuses upon the gap between workplace literacy demands and the literacy skills of adults. This scholarship ranges from military reports of functional literacy problems during wartime through a series of national adult literacy surveys from the Adult Performance Level survey of the early 1970s through the Young Adult Literacy and National Adult Literacy surveys. These studies have consistently identified large percentages of adults who were unable to independently perform functional literacy tasks deemed necessary by many for competent performance as citizens and workers. In response, scholars have also regularly published analyses of the surveys and testing methods that point out limitations and the dangers of overinterpreting results. The largest proportion of writing associated with workplace literacy is composed of program descriptions and evaluations. The Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC) system descriptor “Workplace Literacy Program” is associated with over 700 entries. A study performed by the National Center on Adult Literacy identified 121 program descriptions and evaluations submitted to the ERIC system in the brief 1990–1993 time period. A major point of discussion in many of these writings was the degree to which programs should address general literacy and workplace-specific literacy. A parallel discussion related to emphasis on learner-centered goals and employer-centered goals. This concern 685
Writing across the Curriculum National Assessment of Educational Progress at Educational Testing Service. Kirsch, Irwin S., Ann Jungeblut, Lynn Jenkins, and Andrew Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Mikulecky, Larry, and Paul Lloyd. 1997. “Evaluation of Workplace Literacy Programs: A Profile of Effective Instructional Practices.” Journal of Literacy Research 29:555–585. Mikulecky, Larry, Paul Lloyd, Lisa Horowitz, Sharon Masker, and Patti Siemantel. 1996. A Review of Recent Workplace Literacy Programs and a Projection of Future Challenges. NCAL Technical Report TR96–04. Philadelphia: National Center for Adult Literacy, pp. 2–7. Smith, M. Cecil, Larry J. Mikulecky, Michael W. Kibby, Mariam J. Dreher, and Janice A. Dole. 2000. “What Will Be the Demands of Literacy in the Workplace in the Next Millennium?” Reading Research Quarterly 35:378–383. Sticht, Thomas G. 1975. Reading for Working: A Functional Literacy Anthology. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. ———. 1987. Functional Context Education. San Diego, CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences. U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor, p. 12.
to move beyond. Glynda Hull and her colleagues did a series of studies of workplaces and workplace literacy programs that tried to capture the complete work context. In a 1993 study of a community college program designed to prepare learners for banking occupations, Hull found that there was little match between the approaches used in classes and what was called for in actual jobs (Hull, 1993). Later, Hull and her colleagues (Hull et al., 1996) found a significant range of literacy tasks in electronics jobs. Some tasks workers needed to do individually, but others were collaborative and allowed workers to help and teach each other. In one worker case study, Hull found that most of the complex literacy activities involved workers’ monitoring themselves with little decisionmaking power and that literacy skills needed for performing jobs did not seem to transfer to the skills needed for promotion to more desirable supervisory positions. As the forms of work continue to change, so too will literacy demands and the means for preparing people to meet those demands. As we entered the new millennium, the editors of the Reading Research Quarterly asked several scholars to share their thoughts on what new workplace literacy demands will face us (Smith et al., 2000). If you are reading this entry a decade or two into the new millennium, you might enjoy going back to see how far off the predictions of these scholars were. Larry Mikulecky See also National Assessment of Educational Progress References Cook, Wanda D. 1977. Adult Literacy Education in the United States. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 19–34. Gowen, Sheryl G. 1992. The Politics of Workplace Literacy. New York: Teachers College Press. Hull, Glynda 1993. “Critical Literacy and Beyond: Lessons Learned from Students and Workers in a Vocational Program and on the Job.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 24:373–396. Hull, Glynda, Mark Jury, Oren Ziv, and Mira Katz. 1996. Changing Work, Changing Literacy? A Study of Skill Requirements and Development in a Traditional and Restructured Workplace: Final Report. Berkeley, CA: National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, ERIC no. ED 397 423. Kirsch, Irwin S., and Ann Jungeblut. 1986. Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults. Princeton, NJ:
Writing across the Curriculum Writing across the curriculum (WAC) means that students will produce substantial amounts of formal and informal writing in the sciences, mathematics, social studies, and other subject areas. Schools and individual teachers at all levels, from elementary through college, have implemented writing across the curriculum programs based on the idea that writing facilitates students’ learning in all disciplines. Proponents assert that students gain in content acquisition, reasoning, metacognition, and writing skill when writing is an integral part of their learning (Fulwiler, 1990). For these reasons, the term writing to learn is also used frequently to describe writing across disciplines. Writing is also an effective assesment tool, as it gives teachers valuable insights into students’ thinking and learning. Writing across the curriculum implies that content686
Writing across the Curriculum area teachers have some knowledge of writing processes and instruction and that they will be able to give students appropriate instruction and feedback on writing for their disciplines.
taking, summarizing, and standard expository tasks such as description, persuasion, comparison and contrast, and cause and effect. Discipline-specific writing includes writing word problems or explaining problem solutions in mathematics and reporting on experimentation in science (Connolly and Vilardi, 1989). Biography and research, although native to the social sciences, also have their place in other disciplines, as does writing in which students generate hypotheses to explain events, phenomena, problem solutions, or experimental outcomes. Also, as technology has become more pervasive in schools, students are increasingly using writing in multimedia presentations, e-mail, and Internet web sites associated with their contentarea studies.
History The writing across the curriculum movement began in the late 1970s and gathered momentum in the 1980s, in tandem with increased attention to the writing process. WAC was especially prominent in colleges and universities and in the disciplines of science and mathematics, where writing had traditionally not been so prevalent as in the humanities and social sciences. In the 1980s and early 1990s, proponents of the wholelanguage movement reinforced WAC with their emphasis on the uses of literacy, including writing, across all subject areas. Early WAC programs tended to feature formal expository writing, such as essays and reports, designed to demonstrate acquisition of content. Increasingly, however, literacy experts have recognized the benefits of other modes of writing, including expressive writing, creative writing, and informal or “unfinished” writing such as journals and learning logs. The contrast between formal/expository and informal/expressive modes has engendered some debate among educators. Some argue that too much emphasis on creative/expressive modes may disadvantage students who must master discipline-specific genres in order to succeed in secondary and higher education (Keys, 1999). On the other hand, proponents of informal and expressive writing assert that such writing can encourage experimentation and bolster students’ motivation.
Effects of Writing across the Curriculum More than twenty years of research on writing across the curriculum have illustrated how the fundamental cognitive and social processes of writing can facilitate and extend learning in all disciplines (Fulwiler, 1990). To write, a person must gather, organize, analyze, synthesize, and communicate information and ideas. Writers call on what they know, search out new information, test hypotheses, look for connections, and consider how their words will impact an audience. Writing about a topic not only increases one’s comprehension; it also promotes metacognition as the writer fills in gaps and solves problems. Writing across a range of disciplines and genres also helps students improve as writers. When subject-specific writing is carefully modeled and taught, all students, including those from diverse cultural and linguistic communities, have opportunities to learn the forms and conventions of standard academic English. Writing across the curriculum is especially effective for English language learners and students with learning disabilities, who are too often subjected to an exclusive regime of writing skill and drill. Students’ writing is useful in evaluating how and what students are learning. Grades on writing tasks can be a significant component of students’ summative evaluation. Equally important, students’ writing can give teachers information that can help to shape instruction. In their writing, students may reveal gaps in their background knowledge, problems with learning, misunderstandings, or special insights and interests,
Current Practice Current WAC practice consequently includes writing activities that vary widely in length and genre (Alvermann and Phelps, 2002; Sorcinelli and Elbow, 1997). The use of journals or learning logs has proliferated in all subject areas. Journal entries are generally short and frequent. Students may do free writing in their journals, or they may be prompted by the teacher. Students write in their journals about prior knowledge of a subject or concept, reflect on what they have learned, describe or analyze their thinking and learning processes, or attempt to define new words and concepts. Written assignments of a more formal nature may include organized note 687
Writing Assessment all of which can help inform teachers’ decisions about what might need reteaching or how to approach new topics. Although writing across the curriculum has been encouraged by literacy experts for more than twenty years, there is evidence that it may be recommended more often than it is actually implemented, especially in secondary schools. Content-area teachers may resist assigning writing in their subjects for a variety of reasons, including the lack of time in an already-crowded curriculum, students’ perceived lack of writing skill, and teachers’ own lack of knowledge of writing processes and pedagogy. For writing across the curriculum to be effective, teachers in disciplines other than English language arts will need sufficient training to incorporate writing activities into their instruction and to model and instruct students in the requisite writing abilities. As national assessments continue to illustrate secondary students’ difficulties with expository writing, and as many state standards and assessments tend to emphasize effective written communication of content-area concepts, writing across the curriculum should continue to be a significant issue in literacy instruction. Stephen Phelps
knowledge and skill, direct writing tasks, and portfolio approaches that gather examples of writing over time. Each has its advantages and disadvantages, but several common principles underlie any approach to the measurement of writing. All writing assessments should be rigorous and should provide valid and reliable indicators of what test takers know and are able to do (see “Reading Assessment” entry for a discussion of these concepts). Results from a writing assessment should be robust enough that they can be generalized to individuals’ writing behaviors in other, nontest situations. The ideal assessment of writing comes from demonstrations of the dynamic process of composing, yet gathering data on writing through such direct measures can be costly, time consuming, and susceptible to unreliable, subjective scoring. Objective Measures of Writing Multiple-choice and similar tests of writing are easy to administer and can be scored quickly. If these measures have been carefully constructed, they offer an objective, efficient means of assessing writing. Because test takers usually select, rather than provide, an answer, the tests can be machine scored. Objective writing tests provide several different kinds of tasks that assess test takers’ understanding of grammar, spelling, word choice, or language. The focus of the items may be the sentence level or larger pieces of text. Test takers might be asked to select the best way to rewrite a sentence and thereby demonstrate their understanding of language through an editing task. Items may focus on words that are commonly confused, frequent mistakes of punctuation or spelling, or other mechanical aspects of writing. Likewise, test takers might be asked to suggest ways to rearrange the paragraphs in a short passage as a test of their understanding of the logical relationship of the components of text. Thus, the content of objective items can range from grammar and mechanics to the nuances of logic necessary for good written communication. Whatever the task of an objective test of writing, discrete points of understanding are tested, not the test takers’ ability to orchestrate their knowledge and skills in active composing. The items provide only proxies for situations in which test takers could use language strategically to express their ideas and are by far the less well accepted approach to writing assessment. Propo-
See also National Assessment of Educational Progress References Alvermann, Donna, and Stephen Phelps. 2002. Content Reading and Literacy. 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Connolly, Paul, and Teresa Vilardi, eds. 1989. Writing to Learn Mathematics and Science. New York: Teachers College Press. Fulwiler, Toby. 1990. Programs that Work: Models and Methods of Writing across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/Boynton Cook. Keys, Carolyn. 1999. “Revitalizing Instruction in Scientific Genres: Connecting Knowledge Production with Writing to Learn in Science.” Science Education 83:115–130. Sorcinelli, Mary Deane, and Peter Elbow, eds. 1997. Writing to Learn: Strategies for Assigning and Responding to Writing across the Disciplines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Writing Assessment The three most common approaches to writing assessment are objective items such as multiplechoice questions that tap discrete points of 688
Writing Assessment
A teacher explains her comments on a student’s paper (Elizabeth Crews)
iting, revision, and final publication of a thoughtfully produced piece of writing. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP; see “National Assessment of Educational Progress” entry) has been a strong influence on writing assessment nationally; it consists entirely of direct measures of writing and is evaluated by human scorers. The test development framework undergirding the 1992 and 1998 NAEP writing assessment stated six objectives (Applebee et al., 1994). The objectives specified that students should (1) write for a variety of purposes, including informative, persuasive, and narrative; (2) write on a variety of tasks and for many different audiences; (3) write using a variety of stimulus materials as prompts and write within different time constraints; (4) generate, draft, evaluate, revise, and edit ideas and forms of expression in their writing; (5) display effective choices in the organization of their writing, such as including ample detail to illustrate and elaborate their ideas and using appropriate conventions of writing; and finally (6)
nents of this kind of assessment of writing point out, however, that there is a high correlation between the scores test takers achieve on multiplechoice tests and their scores on more direct measures of writing. This high correlation is usually used as the justification for using objective measures, rather than more costly direct measures such as essay tests. Direct Measures of Writing Direct measures of writing provide test takers opportunities to write in diverse situations, for different audiences, and for different purposes. Many writing tests include both objective items and one or more direct writing tasks. These tasks can be quite varied and elicit writing of different types and lengths. In most cases, however, the writing that is produced will be a draft completed during the testing situation. Many recent writing tests do provide an extended amount of time for writing; but rarely do tests extend over several days to allow for the full implementation of the writing process from drafting through ed689
Writing Assessment value writing as a communicative activity. The sixth objective is assessed through background questionnaires that seek information about how writing is taught and practiced in classrooms at grades four, eight, and twelve. The NAEP writing test presents informative, persuasive, and narrative writing tasks. Timing varies in that some students write two twenty-five-minute pieces, and some write on one task for fifty minutes.
enough so that test takers understand the intended audience. Thus, they can craft their writing to demonstrate how they would handle this aspect of composition. Writing prompts must also be free from bias and should not pose issues that test takers might find offensive. They should present situations with which all test takers are equally familiar, so that writing, not lack of background knowledge, is measured. These constraints on the development of writing prompts can lead to the creation of bland, uninteresting tasks that fail to engage writers in ways that allow them to show the full range of their skills. Allowing test takers to write “whatever they wish” is not an answer to this dilemma because such an assessment loses the standardization that makes scores comparable.
Writing Prompts NAEP writing prompts represent a good range of the kinds of tasks, audiences, and modes of writing; they can serve as models for tasks in other writing assessments. For example, grade four students were asked to write about their experiences raising a pet dinosaur or their adventures owning a magical balloon. Grade eight students had fifty minutes to write about their adventures owning a dream car. Grade twelve students could write for fifty minutes about a day spent with any historical person they selected. Persuasive tasks ask students to write letters or essays on topics such as laws that would prevent children from watching television (at grade four) or the appropriateness of random drug searches (grades eight and twelve). Informative writing tasks ask for descriptions of the lunchroom (grade four) or a favorite object (grade four and eight) or reviews of performances or discussions of a school problem (both grades eight and twelve). Strong writing prompts, such as those used in NAEP, provide students with diverse ways to express their ideas in writing. They are “authentic” to the extent that they make sense to test takers and reflect some of the ways they might actually have to use writing in their lives. Thus students should be asked to write about issues within their range of experience or capability to imagine (such as the “magic balloon or “dream car” prompts). Writing assessments used with out-ofschool test takers should have the same level of authenticity; for example, prompts on a professional certification or licensing test might pose to candidates a situation similar to one in which they would use writing as part of their jobs. Principles of writing instruction assert that students should write to a variety of audiences (Berthoff and Stephens, 1988). Test takers, of course, know that their audience will evaluate their work. It is, nevertheless, essential that prompts for a writing test be specified clearly
Scoring Direct Assessments of Writing Although considerable research is underway to determine the feasibility of computer scoring of writing, direct writing assessments are still largely evaluated by human scorers. Scorers must be carefully trained in a process that helps them to “internalize” the characteristics of test papers at various score points. Training must be extensive, especially if high-stakes decisions are to be made with test results. During scoring sessions, scorers’ work is continually monitored to ensure that they do not “drift” from agreed-upon standards. Test takers’ writing may receive one or two readings by scorers; but a percentage of all papers will receive a second “read behind” to ensure inter-rater reliability. Scorers whose scores seem not to be in line with expectation are retrained as needed. The thoroughness of the process makes human scoring costly in terms of time and money. Scorers are guided by detailed “rubrics” that elaborate the characteristics of written responses at various levels of competency. Rubrics allow for a systematic sorting or ranking as scorers match test papers against models or “anchors” for each score point (Cooper and Odell, 1977). There are most often four or six points on a rubric, each detailing the level of competence required for these scores. Each score point will then be illustrated with multiple examples of test-taker performance. The NAEP writing assessment rubric can be illustrative. Written work is scored with a rubric that differentiates among six levels, summarized 690
Writing Assessment as follows (Applebee et al., 1994): (1) some response to the topic; (2) undeveloped response to task; (3) minimally developed response; (4) developed, that is, containing necessary elements of a response; (5) elaborated response; and (6) extensively elaborated response. Good writing prompts result in written products that spread across the score points on the rubric. An appropriate spread indicates that the prompt has discriminated among writers at various levels of ability and that the prompt has measured writing, not background knowledge or other extraneous variables. Assessments are said to be technically strong if the majority of the scores fall within the mid-range, that is, within scores of 2.0 to 4.0 on a six-point rubric. It is not uncommon for there to be few scores at the highest end of a scale, and the two top scores are often collapsed into one.
the ways in which test takers would ordinarily use writing. For example, students in Maryland take the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), which presents them with complex activities that ask them to read, think, and write about content areas such as social studies and science (Kapinus, Collier, and Kruglanski, 1994). Test takers are evaluated on knowledge of content and also on their ability to express what they know in writing. Writing is also a strong component of what is measured on the Advanced Placement Examinations in various content areas. New Standards assessments also depend strongly on students’ abilities to write to express their knowledge in different subjects (see “Standards” entry). This approach can also be seen in tests that certify test takers’ abilities to do specific jobs; in these situations, test takers use writing to show how they would perform on the job, for example, by writing a memo for a specific purpose and specific audience. Teachers seeking National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification must use writing extensively as they complete the battery of tasks that assess their competency.
Holistic and Analytic Scoring The two main distinctions in scoring are between holistic and analytic approaches (Cooper and Odell, 1977). Holistic scoring involves reading written samples to get an overall impression of quality and assigning a score point value based on criteria detailed in the holistic rubric. Each point of the rubric shows a balance of the mechanical and stylistic aspects of writing in response to the prompt. Holistic scores provide a ranking of test takers and cannot be used for diagnostic purposes or to measure growth. Scoring with a holistic rubric is relatively efficient because readers are trained to develop a quick, impressionistic sense of what they read. Analytic scoring is criterion based, with criteria elaborated in accordance with the specific features to be evaluated. Relative point values are assigned for each feature, and the points are summed. Thus, use of an analytic rubric can yield information on content and ideas, support for ideas, organization, syntax, vocabulary, style and tone, grammar and usage, mechanics, or other features of writing deemed important. Analytic scoring can be used to develop profiles of test takers’ writing and to provide quantitative analysis of written products.
Portfolio Assessment Writing portfolios are a form of performance assessment that consist of multiple pieces of evidence of writers’ abilities assembled over a period of time (Belanoff and Dixona, 1993; Yancey, 1992). It can be argued that this approach provides the strongest, most valid assessment of writing ability because portfolios allow writers to showcase their ability to orchestrate writing for different purposes, to different audiences, and in different modes. Portfolio assessment is often used in English classes, but the approach has utility in other content areas that value writing as a means of learning. In content areas, portfolios can be used to evaluate subject-matter learning as well as writing. The two main types of portfolios are “process,” or “working,” portfolios and “mastery” portfolios. A process portfolio includes drafts and finished products, notes, outlines, and so forth and provides a view of the writer’s approaches to orchestrating writing tasks. A mastery portfolio shows achievement by featuring “best works” that have been carefully selected to make a case for achievement. Both forms of portfolio should show a wide range of writing,
Performance Assessments Writing skills are sometimes measured directly through interdisciplinary, performance assessment tasks. These tasks are supposed to mirror 691
Writing Assessment for different purposes and different audiences. Portfolios kept as part of a class may be evaluated in a relatively loose way, with teachers’ comments supplemented through discussion in writing conferences and comparison to checklists of writing characteristics. A more formal evaluation process employs a rubric that details the characteristics of the cumulative body of writing at different score points. Scoring may be holistic or analytic depending on the purpose for which the assessment is being done. For example, an endof-course evaluation of students’ written work might be evaluated holistically, wheras a portfolio kept for diagnostic purposes might better be scored analytically. Portfolios provide a rich picture of writers’ abilities, but they are not without difficulties. Scoring portfolios is time consuming, even if a holistic approach is used. Scoring done by teachers or others familiar with the writers may be subjective, and safeguards to objectivity must be put in place if portfolio scores are to be credible for decisionmaking and grading. Often portfolios are scored by trained scorers who do not know the writers, and in many cases, they are “double scored” or “blind scored” to ensure the same level of inter-rater reliability needed for essay scoring.
tained from a holistic score on a direct measure of writing or from an objective test of editing skills. Portfolio assessment is clearly the best approach if analysis of errors is to be part of an assessment system. NAEP Portfolio Study As part of the 1992 NAEP writing assessment, portfolios of written work were collected from grades four and eight students who had participated in the main assessment (Gentile, MartinRehrmann, and Kennedy, 1995). The portfolios were analyzed to determine the kinds of writing students were actually doing as part of their classroom work and also to evaluate its quality. The majority of the work was informative writing (43 percent at grade four and 47 percent at grade eight). Narrative writing was the second largest category (37 percent and 28 percent respectively), with little persuasive writing in evidence (4 percent and 9 percent). The remaining 15 percent of each group’s writing consisted of letters, poems, skill sheets, and illegible papers. A six-point scale was used to evaluate the portfolios. The majority of the work by grade four students was rated at the low end of the scales, but grade eight work was primarily evaluated at the mid-level, suggesting improvement as students progress through the grades. Most papers at both grades showed awareness of process strategies such as drafting and revision. The range of materials submitted revealed what students and supposedly teachers considered worthy for evaluation. Along with a wide variety of writing in different modes were practice drills for cursive writing from grade eight students and grammar work sheets from grade four learners. If one thinks of the “authenticity” of written samples as a key component of portfolio assessment, the inclusion of work sheets in a nationally representative portfolio study is an interesting comment on the state of writing instruction.
The Importance of Errors Although writing tests are most valid when they examine the entire set of skills and strategies individuals bring to the writing tasks, error analysis can also be an important component of assessment. Mina Shaughnessy (1977) made a cogent argument that errors provide evidence of writers’ skills as language users, not their specific lack of skills. Building on her investigations of “inexperienced” writers, she maintained that analysis of writing errors can reveal the idiosyncratic logic that writers are using as they attempt to make the writing task manageable. Analyzed closely, even papers that seemed overrun with mechanical and logical errors often disclosed only a few errors made over and over and showed how writers were inventing their own rules of language manipulation or misapplying standard rules. Assessment that uses error analysis to classify the ways writers attempt to orchestrate the writing process can provide valuable diagnostic information. It provides a more valid profile of weak writers’ abilities than can be ob-
The Future of Writing Assessment The tension among time, efficiency, and authenticity will continue to be discussed as decisions are made about how to assess writing skills. It is unlikely that objective measures of writing will ever be abandoned because of the ease and cost savings they offer, but it is heartening to note that more assessments of reading rely on students’ written responses to questions as an im692
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts portant measurement strategy (see “Reading Assessment” entry). Nationally, models such as NAEP can sensitize educators to the need for a wide range of options in assessing writing and to the value of portfolio approaches for classroom assessment and local accountability. Terry Salinger
dents’ achievement in all curriculum domains, but writing is an area where this strategy seems essential. Picking the right answer may yield evidence about a student’s receptive competence. Asking a student to select the best essay from a collection, however, will not convince most audiences that a student can construct a quality essay. The practical consequence is that, despite cost, most states employ direct writing tasks (students compose an essay) for large-scale testing programs, including federal programs such as the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). Large-scale writing tasks are typically on demand and standardized. On demand means that the writing conditions are externally mandated. Rather than allowing classroom teachers (or students) to select and submit work samples, the state lays out conditions for the task, which are standardized; time, place, task circumstances (for example, resources, assistance, and so on) are dictated in great detail. Students receive a prompt (for example, “Describe the most important day in your life”), writing paper, and an hour to finish the job. They cannot consult resources or ask questions and must infer purpose and audience. This entry sketches a framework for the design of writing assessments, along with adaptations for generating valid data for various audiences. Writing an essay is a creative act requiring skill and knowledge, motivation and persistence. The attainment of writing competence is a significant outcome of formal instruction, which undergirds all academic disciplines and shapes all forms of language usage (Indrisano and Squire, 2000). Monitoring writing achievement is a crucial policy goal; the challenge is to obtain trustworthy evidence at reasonable cost.
See also National Assessment of Educational Progress; Reading Assessment; Standards References Applebee, Arthur N., Judith A. Langer, Ina V. S. Mullis, A. S. Latham, and Claudia A. Gentile. 1994. NAEP 1992 Writing Report Card. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Belanoff, Pat, and Marcia Dixona. 1993. Portfolio Grading Process and Product. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann. Berthoff, Ann E., and James Stephens. 1988. Forming, Thinking, Writing. 2d ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann. Cooper, Charles R., and Lee Odell. 1977. Evaluating Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Gentile, Claudia A., James Martin-Rehrmann, and John H. Kennedy. 1995. Windows into the Classroom: NAEP’s 1992 Writing Portfolio Study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Kapinus, Barbara A., Gertrude V. Collier, and Hanah Kruglanski. 1994. “The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: A New View of Assessment.” In Sheila W. Valencia, Elfreida H. Hiebert, and Peter P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 255–276. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. National Assessment Governing Board. 1996. Writing Framework and Specifications for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. Shaughnessy, Mina 1977. Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford University Press. Yancey, Kathleen B., ed. 1992. Portfolios in the Writing Classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
The Classroom as the Foundation for Writing Achievement We know much about conditions that foster optimal writing performance and circumstances that help students master this achievement. Effective performance depends on a clear sense of purpose and audience to guide the task and provide the impetus for sustaining hard work. Learning to write requires guidance over years in developing formal language style, gaining familiarity with a range of genres and models, and finding opportunities for practice with feedback
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts Many educators advocate performance assessment (actually doing an assigned task) as the preferred strategy for valid observation of stu693
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts (Spandel and Stiggins, 1997). Ongoing classroom assessment is the foundation for acquisition of writing skill. Unfortunately, teachers are minimally prepared for this task, and curriculum materials provide limited guidance for either students or teachers. Writing in the elementary grades emphasizes informal “journaling,” where students write whatever comes to mind. Middleand high-school years shift to formal assignments—research papers and book reports—but the emphasis is on “assign” rather than “instruct.” Elementary teachers must juggle all academic disciplines, and writing takes a backseat to the basics of reading and mathematics. In the secondary grades, writing instruction falls largely to the language arts specialists, whose background emphasizes narrative/literary genre and grammatical conventions, neither of which help with expository assignments in history or science. The result is that the curriculum is disjointed, instruction focuses on absorption of content rather than the writing process, and assessment is limited. Students do little writing, and large classes curtail teachers’ capacity to appraise student work.
mented discouragingly low student achievement in writing, and state education agencies, assisted by testing companies, designed and instituted special forms of writing assignments for largescale accountability, the genre that is the focus of this entry. Large-scale writing is driven by several considerations. Standardization stands out for various reasons, including the notion of equity. Accommodation is provided for students with special needs. Efficiency is a major concern. Every student must be tested for individual accountability, and so costs are minimized, including testing time, scoring, and reporting of the results. The ideal writing process, in contrast, allows time to consult resources and prepare for the task, to sketch a draft, and to review and revise the final version. Efficiency collapses these stages. The result is then judged by scoring teams who take a few minutes to assign a number. Efficiency calls for simple indicators. Written work calls for qualitative evaluation, but large-scale accountability requires a single holistic score, which combines coherence with surface-level features such as length, spelling, grammar, and punctuation.
Contemporary Contexts of Large-scale Testing Programs State and federal monitoring of educational achievement began about half a century ago. NAEP appeared as the Nation’s Report Card, presenting samples of student performance on various performance tasks to demonstrate how schools were doing. NAEP was low stakes; the idea was to inform the public but without direct consequences for participants. Reports were descriptive rather than normative, presenting actual student responses. More recently, accountability has emerged as a major theme. The idea is that schools, students, and teachers have a job to do, and the public should know how well they are doing it. These high-stakes approaches entail rewards and punishments. Schools receive “distinguished” recognition; students are retained or denied diplomas. Small samples sufficed for NAEP, but every school and student must be tested for accountability, leading to an emphasis on efficiency and reliance on multiple-choice instruments. At first, writing was not assessed. Curriculum and instruction quickly mirrored the tests, and writing lost priority in the school day. NAEP docu-
Conceptual Framework for Linking Large-Scale Testing to Classroom Assessment The preceding sketch describes current practice. This section places those practices into a broader framework for reviewing alternative strategies. The question is not whether to monitor, but how to balance validity and efficiency. Many arenas of modern life require large-scale monitoring: certification of medical personnel, licenses for drivers and aviators, and so on. Validity is the major concern; the process needs to be closely linked to the target construct. Moreover, educational assessments should support activities that guide novices toward expertise. The challenge is to balance formats and contexts to obtain a trustworthy image of individual competence, a central requirement in testing standards (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, 1999). Several elements inform analysis of testing programs from the classroom to national level. The first is contexts—settings vary considerably from a fourth-grade classroom to the White House. Even when the president visits a classroom, perceptions differ about what to teach, 694
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts how to teach it, and how to decide what has been learned. The second is design and development of assessment systems for different purposes and audiences—a considerable challenge to professionals, who must consider the technical, policy, and commercial dimensions of the task. The third is scoring and analysis of information—prevailing technologies, springing from multiple-choice tests, may be inappropriate for performancebased tasks. What alternatives warrant consideration? The fourth is reporting the information— informing various audiences about achievement. Parents depend on report cards, but grades depend on teacher, school, and subject matter.
cal parents, but widespread distrust of “schools in general” by older citizens with grown children. The challenge for large-scale assessments is to provide the best possible evidence to inform these varied audiences. Designing Assessment Systems for Writing Other entries in this encyclopedia address the technical details of writing assessment. This section highlights selected design facets relevant to the contrast between classroom and large-scale evaluation. One issue is standardization, the requirement to write about a preselected topic within a fixed amount of time and with predetermined resources. Designers take this route because it simplifies the development task. Trust is also a factor. If students (and teachers and schools) receive advance notice of the topic, then most will surely “cheat.” But standardization means that virtually no student approximates optimal performance. Moreover, a strange version of test preparation permeates writing instruction; teachers assign writing tasks with the same decontextualized features as mandated tests, which means that students have few chances to write under ideal situations. Principles and procedures from dynamic assessment offer useful guidance for optimizing performance (Lidz and Elliott, 2000). The aim is to search for conditions where students do their best. One obvious requirement is access to background information. Writers seldom “start from scratch”; they identify the purpose of the composition and the intended audience, locate textual resources, develop a plan, consult with others about ideas and questions, and prepare a draft for refinement. The short-lived California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) demonstrated the feasibility of incorporating such ideas into large-scale assessment. Students first read a background text to which they responded with summaries, answers to specific questions, and critical reactions. They then met in small groups to discuss ideas and plan a composition linked to the initial text. One version used a selection from a popular story, ending at a critical episode. The task was to argue the pros and cons of two ways for resolving the crisis. The CLAS design allows numerous adaptations. For younger students or those with learning difficulties, for instance, the teacher conducting a minilesson can use a graphic or-
Contextual Contrasts Three dimensions influence assessment practices and interpretations: level of schooling, demographic variables, and client/audience variations. Expectations about writing performance clearly change from kindergarten through high-school graduation, as does students’ capacity to perform for decontextualized purposes and audiences. Third graders seldom do their best when writing under pressure on an unknown topic with little preparation and no scaffolding. Eleventh graders should handle this assignment, given appropriate accommodations. Large-scale assessments typically disregard developmental trends, using the same design at all grades. Demographic variables predict academic achievement, a truism as long as schools reflect neighborhood variations, and children from poor families attend schools with fewer resources, less well prepared teachers, and so on. This assertion applies in the U.S. context. In other countries, the impact of poverty and correlated factors is mitigated by policies that invest in children. The client/audience dimension refers to variations in targets for assessment information. Students, teachers, school administrators, parents, policymakers, and the “public” (including voters and taxpayers) encompass a broad spectrum of perceptions and interests. The local level emphasizes concrete evidence and direct action, close interactions among teachers and students. Should a student be retained in grade because of poor performance? Should the school review its writing program? Politicians and the press influence general perceptions. U.S. surveys reveal widespread satisfaction with local schools by lo695
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts ganizer to elicit and structure background knowledge. “Cold turkey” prompts (the writing question) are typical in larger-scale assessments. A well-designed prompt helps the student construct purpose and audience for the task, elicits background knowledge, identifies the genre, and highlights structural features of the composition. “Your middle school is crowded, and the principal decides students have to share lockers. You want to persuade the principal to try a different approach. Start with the problems from shared lockers, describe your approach, discuss advantages and disadvantages of the two approaches, and end with your ‘sales pitch.’ Be polite, and use effective language.” Supportive prompts can enhance performance in large-scale environments but are also models for regular instruction.
remains the touchstone. States such as Vermont and Kentucky have incorporated scores from classroom teachers into large-scale assessments (Baron and Wolf, 1996). Moreover, when teachers continuously guide students toward the improved written work, students learn self-evaluation that undergirds effective writing. Presenting the Information How well do students communicate through writing? Public answers to this question take shape both normatively and descriptively. Normative comparisons are relatively simple; newspapers rank states, districts, and schools from low to high. Students are described by rubric categories—Exceptional, Adequate, Basic, Below Basic. NAEP findings reveal that ratings of student performance vary across states. Such comparisons leave open the question of how well students are performing in high-scoring states and whether the “best” is good enough. The key issue is validity—the degree to which an audience can draw trustworthy interpretations from the evidence. Writing can inform multiple audiences—parents, educators, policymakers, and students—about performance standards. Thinking can become transparent in the act of composing. Most discussions of the reporting phase of large-scale assessment focus on statistical refinements; citizens now understand the “margin of error” concept from polls and surveys. Whether parents apply this idea to their students’ scores is another matter: “Sally scores at the 58th percentile in math, plus or minus 10 points” is less likely than “Sally scores at the 58th percentile in math, but Johnny is at the 62nd percentile.” Large-scale writing assessments offer the promise of opening public view on classroom practices and student performances. The challenge is to redesign the system, including the reporting of data, to inform various audiences about the quality of student learning and thinking. Despite the technical difficulty of creating assessment contexts that generate optimal student performance, and the predilection of policymakers and newspapers toward simple numerical indicators, displays of student work can bring a compelling presence and power to the understanding of educational achievements. The technical and political dimensions of educational assessment easily overshadow the social
Evaluating Compositions for Large-Scale Assessment The policy of scoring compositions for every student in a state, where the aim is to produce valid and reliable profiles, produces serious conflicts. Research consistently demonstrates the unreliability of scores based on a single composition; estimates call for three and six samples for a consistent estimate (Linn, 1989). Cost considerations mean that a single rater skims each composition and assigns a number on a holistic rubric (for example, Exceptional = 6, Below Basic = 1). Raters receive one or two days of training, “calibrate” on anchor compositions, and “recalibrate” during the rating task. The conditions are scarcely ideal, especially for high-stakes decisions such as retention or diploma denial. A second issue centers on holistic versus dimensional scoring (a single number versus separate ratings for coherence and mechanical details). Whether for student feedback or to inform a school or state, analysis of strengths and weaknesses is critical for improving writing instruction. Effective writing begins with coherent organization and reasoned development. Mechanical refinements—spelling, grammar, punctuation— polish the final product. Student mastery of these two components often proceeds in tandem; students who can organize an essay also know the conventions. The correlation is far from perfect, however, and grammar instruction does not help students construct an essay. Separate ratings emphasize both facets of the writing process. Classroom-based evaluation of written work 696
Writing Assessment in Large-Scale Contexts and educative facets. This judgment applies with special force in the writing domain. Direct writing assessments challenge large-scale requirements for standardization, efficiency, and simple indicators. They stand apart from developmental considerations of adaptability, individualization, and complex analysis and feedback. The challenge is to bridge this chasm. The ideal writing process—compelling purpose, significant audience, availability of resources and support— stands in sharp contradiction to the on-demand situation—an unknown or unwelcome purpose, a distant and bureaucratic audience, limited resources, and negligible support. Yet our society often places the individual in the latter situation, when applying for college admission, for a job interview, or even presenting a case to a traffic judge. The challenge, then, is to design a system that supports student growth throughout the years of schooling from casual stories to formal reports, with assessments that inform classroom teachers while providing valid information to other significant audiences—parents, school administrators, and policymakers. The increasing urgency of high-stakes accountability has shifted the equation toward indicators that are quick and cheap. In other domains—medicine and engineering—such a move would elicit alarm because of threats to validity. Given the seminal importance of effective communication as a
cornerstone for the well being of our society, the same concern seems warranted in the field of writing. Robert C. Calfee See also High-Stakes Assessment; National Assessment of Educational Progress; Writing Assessment References American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. 1999. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. Baron, Joan B., and Dennie P. Wolf, eds. 1996. Performance-Based Student Assessment: Challenges and Possibilities. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Indrisano, Roselmina, and James R. Squire, eds. 2000. Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Lidz, Carol S., and Julian G. Elliott, eds. 2000. Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. New York: JAI Press. Linn, Robert L., ed. 1989. Educational Measurement. 3d ed., New York: Macmillan. Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. 1997. Creating Writers: Linking Writing Assessment and Instruction. 2d ed. New York: Longman.
697
Z Zines Zines is a term that may refer to either commercially published or self-published magazines. It is a term that is commonly used among early and late adolescents, among whom zines are ubiquitous in their presence. Commercial zines are often seen as markers of social status and a means of shaping identity, particularly among young adolescent girls (Finders, 1998). Self-published zines often are considered a form of activism, and some represent rebellion against the norms of society that ascribe and assign social status. Those who create zines are referred to as zinsters. Feminists, skate boarders, and graffiti taggers are among those who produce their own zines. Although adolescent females dominate the zine culture, young men also produce their own zines, and some continue to do so well into adulthood. Zines are distributed through advertisements in other zines, the Internet, and some record stores and bookstores as well as by word of mouth at school, work, or technos and raves. They are usually available for the costs of printing and postage. Zines have been around since the early 1930s. They were first called fanzines and stemmed from science fiction pulp magazines. One of the first was a zine published by Jerome Siegel and Joe Shuster, who later created Superman. The
High school student with her zine (Barbara Guzzetti)
movement exploded in the early 1980s and continues in popularity today. Barbara J. Guzzetti See also Adolescent Literacy; Popular Culture References Finders, Margaret. 1996. “Queens and Teen Zines: Early Adolescent Females Reading Their Way toward Adulthood.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 27 (1):236–253.
699
Acronyms
APA ASCD ATOS AVID BNR CI CIBC CIJE CLAS CRA CRT CSR CSR CTBS DAR-TTS
DEAR DIF DIRT DRP DVD EdPress EIR ERIC
American Psychological Association Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Advantage TASA Open Standard Advancement via Individual Determination Becoming a Nation of Readers Construction-Integration (model) Council on Interracial Books for Children Current Index to Journals in Education California Learning Assessment System College Reading Association criterion-referenced test Center for the Study of Reading customer service representative Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills Diagnostic Assessment of Reading and Trial Teaching Sessions Drop Everything and Read differential item functioning Daily Independent Reading Time degrees of reading power digitized video discs Association of Educational Publishers Early Intervention in Reading Educational Resource Information Center
ERIC ESEA ESL ETPS ETR FVR GE GED GRI GSI HIP HOB IDEA IQ IRA IRE IRI IRI IRT ISO ITBS IVLA K–12 KWL
LAD Lix LRE MDL MIMS 701
Everyone Reads in Class Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 English as a Second Language English Teacher Preparation Study Experience-Text-Relationship Free Voluntary Reading grade equivalency General Equivalency Diploma group reading inventory group skills inventory High Intensity Practice Hooked on Books Individuals with Disabilities Education Act intelligence quotient International Reading Association Initiate-Respond-Evaluate Individual Reading Inventory informal reading inventory Institute for Research on Teaching International Standards Organization Iowa Test of Basic Skills International Visual Literacy Association kindergarten through 12th grade What do you Know? What do you Want to know? What did you Learn? language acquisition device lasbarhets index least restrictive environment Model of Domain Learning Motivation in Middle School
Acronyms MRI MSPAP
NAEP NAGB NCE NCES NCRE NCRLL
NCTE NICHD
NIFL NIM NRC NRCEMAIL NRP NRRF OERI PALS POSSE PRD PTO QAR REA ReQuest RIF RRI RRQ RRSG RT RT
magnetic resonance imaging Maryland School Performance Assessment Program National Assessment of Educational Progress National Assessment Governing Board normal curve equivalent National Center for Educational Statistics National Conference on Research in English National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy National Council of Teachers of English National Institute of Child Health and Human Development National Institute for Literacy Neurological Impress Method National Reading Conference National Reading Conference listserv National Reading Panel National Right to Read Foundation Office of Educational Research and Improvement Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies Predict-Organize-SearchSummarize-Evaluate Prevention of Reading Disabilities in Young Children Parent-Teacher Organization Question Answer Relationship Reading Excellency Act Reciprocal Questioning Procedure Reading Is Fundamental, Inc. Reading Research and Instruction Reading Research Quarterly RAND Reading Study Group The Reading Teacher Reciprocal Teaching
RTE RWQ
SAT SAT SCANS SES SFA SIT-R SNAP spm SQ3R SRC SSCI SSR SSSR STAR TASA TCU TEAMS TELLS TORC-III TPWSGWTAU
TSI TWL USSR VCCV VCe VCV VNT VV WAC
702
Research in the Teaching of English The Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties Scholastic Aptitude Test Stanford Achievement Test Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills socioeconomic status semantic feature analysis Slosson Intelligence Test–Revised Society of National Association Publications sentences per minute Survey, Question, Read, Recite, Review Southwest Reading Conference Social Sciences Citation Index Sustained Silent Reading Society for the Scientific Study of Reading Standardized Test for Achievement of Reading Touchstone Applied Science Associates Texas Christian University Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills Test of Essential Literacy Learning Skills Test of Reading Comprehension The Place Where Sentences Go When They Are Understood transactional strategies instruction Test of Written Language Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading vowel-consonant-consonantvowel vowel-consonant-silent e vowel-consonant-vowel Voluntary National Tests vowel-vowel writing across the curriculum
Acronyms WLU wpm WRAT
Whole Language Umbrella words per minute Wide Range Achievement Test
WRMT ZPD
703
Woodstock Reading Mastery Tests zone of proximal development
Bibliography
The Interplay of Cognitive, Motivational, and Strategic Forces.” Advances in Motivation and Achievement 10:213–250. Alexander, Patricia A., and Tamara L. Jetton. 2000. “Learning from Text: A Multidimensional and Developmental Perspective.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 285–311. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Alexander, Patricia A., Diane L. Schallert, and Victoria Chou Hare. 1991. “Coming to Terms: How Researchers in Learning and Literacy Talk about Knowledge.” Review of Educational Research 61:315–343. Allen, Janet. 1999. Words, Words, Words: Teaching Vocabulary in Grades 4–12. York, ME: Stenhouse. Allen, JoBeth. 1999. Class Actions: Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary and Middle School. New York: Teachers College Press. Allen, Roach V. 1976. Language Experiences in Communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Allgood, Whitney P., Victoria J. Risko, Marino C. Alvarez, and Marilyn M. Fairbanks. 2000. “Factors that Influence Study.” In Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, eds., Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, pp. 201–219. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Allington, Richard L. 1977. “If They Don’t Read Much, How They Ever Gonna Get Good?” Journal of Reading 21:57–61. ———. 1983. “Fluency: The Neglected Goal of the Reading Program.” Reading Teacher 36:556–561. ———. 1994. “Critical Issues: What’s Special about Special Programs for Children Who Find Learning to Read Difficult?” Journal of Reading Behavior 26:95–115. ———. 1998. Teaching Struggling Readers. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 2001. What Really Matters for Struggling Readers: Designing Research-Based Programs. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. ———. 2002. “Research on Reading/Learning Disability Interventions.” In Alan Farstrup and S.
“A Better Balance: Standards, Tests, and the Tools to Succeed: Quality Counts.” 2001. Education Week 20 (17). A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. 1983. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. “About Reading Online.” 2000. Reading Online (June). http://www.readingonline.org/about/ about_index.asp. Adams, Marilyn J. 1990. Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print. Cambridge: MIT Press. Adler, Martha A., and Charles W. Fisher. 2001. “Early Reading Programs in High Poverty Schools: A Case Study of Beating the Odds.” Reading Teacher 54 (6):616–619. Afflerbach, Peter, and Bruce VanSledright. 1998. “The Challenge of Understanding the Past: How Do Fifth Grade Readers Construct Meaning from Diverse History Texts?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX. Aguilar, Jill A. April, 2000. “Chicano Street Signs: Graffiti as Public Literacy Practice.” Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Conference, New Orleans, Louisiana. Ainsworth, Larry, and Jan Christinson. 1998. Student Generated Rubrics: An Assessment Model to Help All Students Succeed. Orangeburg, NY: Dale Seymour. Alarcón, Francisco. 1998. From the Bellybutton of the Moon and Other Summer Poems/Del ombligo de la luna y otros poemas de verano. San Francisco: Children’s Book Press. Alba, Joseph W., and Lynn Hasher. 1983. “Is Memory Schematic?” Psychological Bulletin 93 (2):203–231. Alessi, Stephen M., and Stanley R. Trollip. 1991. Computer-Based Instruction: Methods and Development. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Alexander, J. Estill, and Susan L. Strode. 1999. History of the College Reading Association, 1958–1998. Carrollton, GA: College Reading Association. Alexander, Patricia. 1997. “Mapping the Multidimensional Nature of Domain Learning:
705
Bibliography Alvermann, Donna E., and Cynthia R. Hynd. 1989. “The Influence of Discussion and Text on the Learning of Counterintuitive Science Concepts.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX, December. Alvermann, Donna E., and David Moore. 1991. “Secondary School Reading.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 951–983. New York: Longman. Alvermann, Donna E., and Margaret C. Hagood. 2000. “Critical Media Literacy: Research, Theory, and Practice in ‘New Times.’” Journal of Educational Research 3:193–205. Alvermann, Donna E., and Stephen Phelps. 2002. Content Reading and Literacy. 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Alvermann, Donna E., David G. O’Brien, and Deborah R. Dillon. 1990. “What Teachers Do When They Say They’re Having Discussions of Content Area Reading Assignments: A Qualitative Analysis.” Reading Research Quarterly 25:296–322. Alvermann, Donna E., Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien. 1987. “What Discussion Is and Is Not.” In Donna Alvermann, Deborah Dillon, and David O’Brien, eds., Using Discussion to Promote Reading Comprehension, pp. 1–8. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alvermann, Donna, J. S. Moon, and Margaret Hagood. 1999. Popular Culture in the Classroom: Teaching and Researching Critical Media Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alvermann, Donna E., Josephine P. Young, Colin Green, and Joseph M. Wisenbaker. 1999. “Adolescents’ Perceptions and Negotiations of Literacy Practices in After-School Read and Talk Clubs.” American Educational Research Journal 36 (2):221–264. Alvermann, Donna E., Josephine Peyton Young, Dera Weaver, Kathleen A. Hinchman, David W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, Esther C. Thrash, and Patricia Zalewski. 1996. “Middle and High School Students’ Perceptions of How They Experience Text-based Discussions: A Multicase Study.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:244–267. Alvermann, Donna E., Kathleen A. Hinchman, David W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, and Diane R. Waff, eds. 1998. Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Alvermann, Donna E., Michelle Commeyras, Josephine P. Young, Sally Randall, and David Hinson. 1997. “Interrupting Gendered Discursive Practices in Classroom Talk about Texts: Easy to Think About, Difficult to Do.” Journal of Literacy Research 29 (1):73–104.
Jay Samuels, eds., What Research Says about Reading Instruction, 3d ed., pp. 261–290. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Allington, Richard L., and Harold Woodside-Jiron. 1997. Adequacy of a Program of Research and of a “Research Synthesis” in Shaping Educational Policy. No. 115. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, University at Albany. Almasi, Janice F. 1995. “The Nature of Fourth Graders’ Sociocognitive Conflicts in Peer-Led and Teacher-Led Discussions of Literature.” Reading Research Quarterly 30, no. 3:314–351. Almasi, Janice F., John F. O’Flahavan, and Poonam Arya. 2001. “A Comparative Analysis of Student and Teacher Development in More and Less Proficient Discussions of Literature.” Reading Research Quarterly 36, no. 2. Alpert, Bracha, R. 1987. “Active, Silent, and Controlled Discussions: Explaining Variations in Classroom Conversation.” Teaching and Teacher Education 3, no. 1:29–40. Althusser, Louis. 1971. “Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes toward an Investigation).” In Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays, pp. 127–186. New York: Monthly Review Press. Alvarez, Marino C. 1983. “Using a Thematic Preorganizer and Guided Instruction as Aids to Concept Learning.” Reading Horizons 24, no. 1:51–58. ———. 2001. “Developing Critical and Imaginative Thinking within Electronic Literacy.” In James A. Rycik and Judith L. Irvin, eds., What Adolescents Deserve: A Commitment to Students’ Literacy Learning, pp. 191–197. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Alvarez, Marino C., and Victoria J. Risko. 1989. “Using a Thematic Organizer to Facilitate Transfer Learning with College Developmental Studies Students.” Reading Research and Instruction 28, no. 2:1–15. Alvermann, Donna E. 1990. “Reading Teacher Education.” In Robert W. Houston, Martin Haberman, and John P. Sikula, eds., The Handbook of Research on Teacher Education, pp. 687–704. New York: Macmillan. ———. 1991. “The Discussion Web: A Graphic Aid for Learning across the Curriculum.” Reading Teacher 45:92–98. ———. 1996. “Peer-Led Discussions: Whose Interests Are Served?” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 39:282–289. Alvermann, Donna E., and Cynthia R. Hynd. 1989. “Effects of Prior Knowledge Activation Modes and Text Structure on Nonscience Majors’ Comprehension of Physics.” Journal of Educational Research 82:97–102.
706
Bibliography on Reading. Urbana-Champaign: University of Illinois, Center for the Study of Reading. Anderson, Richard, Larry Shirey, Paul Wilson, and Linda Fielding. 1987. “Interestingness of Children’s Reading Material.” In R. E. Snow and M. J. Farr, eds., Aptitude, Learning, and Instruction: Cognitive and Affective Process Analysis, Vol. 2, pp. 287–299. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Anderson, Richard, Paul Wilson, and Linda Fielding. 1988. “Growth in Reading and How Children Spend Their Time outside of School.” Reading Research Quarterly 23 (3):285–303. Anderson-Inman, Lynne, and Mark A. Horney. 1998. “Transforming Text for At-Risk Readers.” In D. Reinking, Michael C. McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, and Ronald D. Kieffer, eds., Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a PostTypographic World, pp. 15–43. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ———. April 1998. “Profiles of Hypertext Readers: Case Studies from the ElectroText Project.” Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA. Anzaldua, Gloria. 1987. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books. Appel, René. 1984. Immigrant Children Learning Dutch. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. Applebee, Arthur N., and Judith A. Langer. 1983. “Instructional Scaffolding: Reading and Writing as Natural Language Activities.” Language Arts 60:168–175. Applebee, Arthur N., Judith A. Langer, Ina V. S. Mullis, A. S. Latham, and Claudia A. Gentile. 1994. NAEP 1992 Writing Report Card. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Appleman, Deborah. 2000. Critical Encounters in High School English: Teaching Literary Theory to Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press. Armbruster, Bonnie B. 1984. “The Problem of ‘Inconsiderate Text.’” In Gerald G. Duffy, Laura R. Roehler, and Jana Mason, eds., Comprehension Instruction: Perspectives and Suggestions, pp. 202–217. New York: Longman. Armbruster, Bonnie B., and Thomas H. Anderson. 1988. “On Selecting ‘Considerate’ Content Area Textbooks.” Remedial and Special Education 9:47–52. Armbruster, Bonnie B., F. Lehr, and J. Osborn. 2001. Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read. Washington, DC: National Institute for Litearcy. Armstrong, Nancy. 1987. Desire and Domestic Fiction: A Political History of the Novel. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aronson, Marc. 2001. “Slippery Slopes and
American Association of University Women. 1998. Gender Gaps: Where Schools Still Fail Our Children. Washington, DC: AAUW Educational Foundation. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. 1999. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. New York: AERA, APA, and NCME. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Education Association. 1997. Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Education Association. American Psychological Association. 1994. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Anders, Patricia L., James Hoffman, and Gerald Duffy. 2000. “Teaching Teachers to Teach Reading: Paradigm Shifts, Persistent Problems, and Challenges.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., The Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 719–742. Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Anderson, Gary, and Kathryn Herr. (1999). “The New Paradigm Wars: Is There Room for Rigorous Practitioner Knowledge in Schools and Universities?” Educational Researcher 28 (5): 12–21. Anderson, Richard C. 1977. “The Notion of Schemata and the Educational Enterprise.” In Richard C. Anderson, Rand J. Spiro, and William E. Montague, eds., Schooling and the Acquisition of Knowledge, pp. 415–431. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ———. 1984. “Role of the Reader’s Schema in Comprehension, Learning, and Memory.” In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, and H. Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 469–482. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1994. “Role of the Reader’s Schema in Comprehension, Learning, and Memory.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 469–482. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Anderson, Richard C., and P. David Pearson. 1984. “A Schema-Theoretic View of Basic Processes in Reading Comprehension.” In P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, and Peter Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 255–291. New York: Longman. Anderson, Richard C., Elfrieda H. Hiebert, Judith A. Scott, and Ian A. G. Wilkinson. 1985. Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission
707
Bibliography Anstey, eds., The Literacy Lexicon, pp. 145–162. Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Baker, Colin, and Sylvia P. Jones. 2000. Encyclopedia of Bilingualism and Bilingual Education. Buckingham, UK: Multilingual Matters. Baker, Elizabeth A., and Judith Wedman. 2001. “The Effects of Using Cases to Bring an Elementary Classroom into a Preservice Teacher Classroom: Learning about Literacy and Analyzing Literacy Processes.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA. Baker, Linda, and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Metacognitive Skills and Reading.” In P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 353–394. New York: Longman. Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination. Edited by Michael Holquist. Translated by Michael Holquist and Caryl Emerson. Austin: University of Texas Press. ———. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press. Baldwin, R. Scott, John E. Readence, Jeanne Shay Schumm, and John P. Konopak. 1990. “The NRC Yearbooks Database.” In Literacy Theory and Research: Analyses from Multiple Paradigms, Thirty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 73–78. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Bar, Varda. 1987. “The Effect of Testing Format on the Distribution of the Results.” Proceedings of the Second International Seminar on Misconceptions and Educational Strategies in Science and Mathematics 1: 26–31. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Barber, Charles. 1997. The English Language: A Historical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Baron, Joan B., and Dennie P. Wolf, eds. 1996. Performance-Based Student Assessment: Challenges and Possibilities. Chicago, IL: National Society for the Study of Education. Barone, Diane. 1992. “Whatever Happened to Spelling? The Role of Spelling Instruction in Process-Centered Classrooms.” Reading Psychology 2:1–18. Barr, Rebecca, and Robert Dreeben. 1991. “Grouping Students for Reading Instruction.” In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, and P. D. Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 885–910. New York: Longman. Barr, Rebecca, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds. 1991. Handbook of Reading Research, Volume II. New York: Longman. Reprinted in 1996, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Barr, Rebecca, Susan Watts-Taffe, Junko Yokota, Mariko Ventura, and Vince Caputi. 2000.
Proliferating Prizes.” The Horn Book Magazine 77, no. 3 (May/June):271–279. Asch, Frank, and Fred Levin. 1996. Sawgrass Poems: A View of the Everglades. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace. Askew, Billie J., Irene C. Fountas, Carol A. Lyons, Gay S. Pinnell, and Maribeth C. Schmitt. 1998. Reading Recovery Review: Understandings, Outcomes, and Implications. Columbus, OH: Reading Recovery Council of North America. Askov, Eunice N. 2000. Handbook of Adult and Continuing Education. Edited by Arthur L. Wilson and Elisabeth Hayes. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Atwell, Nancie. 1987. In the Middle: Writing and Reading and Learning with Adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Au, Kathryn Hu-Pei. 1979. “Using the ExperienceText-Relationship Method with Minority Children” The Reading Teacher 32 (7):677–679. ———. 1980. “Participation Structures in a Reading Lesson with Hawaiian Children: Analysis of a Culturally Appropriate Instructional Event.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 11:91–115. ———. 1994. “Portfolio Assessment: Experiences at the Kamehameha Elementary Education Program.” In S. W. Valencia, E. H. Hiebert, and P. P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 103–126. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Auerbach, Elsa R. 1989. “Toward a Social-Contextual Approach to Family Literacy.” Harvard Educational Review 59:165–181. August, Diane, and Hakuta Kenji, eds. 1997. Improving Schooling for Language-Minority Children: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ———. 1998. Educating Language-Minority Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Aukerman, Robert C. 1984. Approaches to Beginning Reading. 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Austin, Mary C., and Coleman Morrison. 1963. The First R: The Harvard Report on Reading in Elementary Schools. New York: Macmillan. Ausubel, David, P. 1960. “The Use of Advance Organizers in the Learning and Retention of Meaningful Material.” Journal of Educational Psychology 51:267–272. Baghban, Marcia M. 1984. Our Daughter Learns to Read and Write: A Case Study from Birth to Three. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Baker, Carolyn D., and Allan Luke. 1988. Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing. Baker, Carolyn D., and Peter Freebody. 1996. “Categories and Sense-Making in the Talk and Texts of Schooling.” In Geoff Bull and Michele
708
Bibliography Beach, Richard. 1993. A Teacher’s Introduction to Reader-Response Theories. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Beach, Richard, and Jamie Myers. 2001. Inquiry-Based Instruction: Encouraging Students in Life and Literacies. New York: Teachers College Press. Bean, Thomas W. 1994. “A Constructivist View of Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes toward Reading through Case Study Analysis of Autobiographies.” In Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, eds., Multidimensional Aspects of Literacy Research: Theory and Practice, pp. 370–379. Forty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. ———. 1997. “ReWrite: A Music Strategy for Exploring Content Area Concepts.” Reading Online (May). http://www.readingonline.org/articles/ art_index.asp?HREF=bats/index.html. ———. 1998. “Teacher Literacy Histories and Adolescent Voices: Changing Content-Area Classrooms.” In Donna E. Alvermann, Kathleen A. Hinchman, David W. Moore, Stephen F. Phelps, and Diane R. Waff, eds., Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives, pp. 149–170. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bean, Thomas W., and John E. Readence. 1995. “A Comparative Study of Content Area Literacy: Students’ Attitudes toward Reading through Autobiography Analysis.” In Kathleen A. Hinchman, Donald J. Leu, and Charles A. Kinzer, eds., Perspectives on Literacy Research and Practice, pp. 325–333. Forty-Fourth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Bean, Thomas W., Shannon K. Bean, and Kristen F. Bean. 1999. “Intergenerational Conversations and Two Adolescents’ Multiple Literacies: Implications for Redefining Content Area Literacy.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (March):438–448. Bear, Donald R., Marsha Invernizz, Shane Templeton, and Fran Johnson. 2000. Words Their Way: Word Study for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill. Becher, Rhoda M., and Charles H. Wolfgang. 1977. “An Exploration of the Relationship between Symbolic Representation in Dramatic Play and Art and the Cognitive and Reading Readiness Levels of Kindergarten Children.” Psychology in the Schools 14:377–381. Beck, Isabel L. 1984. “Developing Comprehension: The Impact of the Directed Reading Lesson.” In Richard C. Anderson, Jean Osborn, and Robert J. Tierney, eds., Learning to Read in American Schools, pp. 3–20. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ———. 1989. “Improving Practice through Understanding Reading.” In Lauren Resnick and Leopold Klopfer, eds., Toward the Thinking
“Preparing Teachers to Teach Literacy.” Journal of Literacy Research, 32, no. 4: 463–471. Barrera, Rosalinda. 1992. “The Cultural Gap in Literature-Based Literacy Instruction.” Education and Urban Society 24 (2):227–243. Barrera, Rosalinda., Ruth Quiroa, and Cassiette WestWilliams. 1999. “ Poco a Poco: The Continuing Development of Mexican American Children’s Literature in the 1990s.” The New Advocate 12 (4):315–329. Barrett, Judi. 1998. Things That Are Most in the World. New York: Atheneum. Barry, Arlene L. 1997. “High School Reading Programs Revisited.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40, no. 7:524–531. Bartlett, Frederic C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Barton, David. 1994. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written Language. Oxford: Blackwell. Barton, David, and Mary Hamilton. 1998. Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. New York: Routledge. ———. 2000. “Literacy Practices.” In David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds., Situated Literacies, pp. 7–11. London: Routledge. Barton, David, and Roz Ivanic. 1991. Writing in the Community, Written Communication Annual. Vol. 6. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Bauer, Laurie, and Peter Trudgill, eds. 1998. Language Myths. London: Penguin Books. Baugh, John. 1999. “Considerations in Preparing Teachers for Linguistic Diversity.” In Carolyn Adger, Donna Christian, and Orlando Taylor, eds., Making the Connections: Language and Academic Achievement among African American Students, pp. 97–114. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems. Baumann, James F. 1988. Reading Assessment: An Instructional Decision-Making Perspective, chap. 3. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Baumann, James F., and Jennifer A. Stevenson. 1982. “Understanding Standardized Reading Achievement Test Scores.” The Reading Teacher 35, no. 6:648–654. Baumann, James F., James F. Hoffman, Jennifer S. Moon, and Ann M. Duffy-Hester. 2000. “The First R Yesterday and Today: U.S. Elementary Reading Instruction Practices Reported by Teachers and Administrators.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:338–377. Baumann, James F., Nancy Seifert-Kessell, and Leah A. Jones. 1992. “Effect of Think-Aloud Instruction on Elementary Students’ Comprehension Monitoring Abilities.” Journal of Reading Behavior 24:143–172.
709
Bibliography Thinking, Writing. 2d ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann. Bertram, Jean DeSales. 1967. The Oral Experience of Literature: Sense, Structure, and Sound. Scranton, PA: Chandler. Besnier, Nikko. 1995. Literacy, Emotion, and Authority: Reading and Writing on a Polynesian Atoll. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Betts, Emmett Albert. 1946. Foundations of Reading Instruction with Emphasis on Differentiated Guidance. New York: American Book Co. Betts, Emmett Albert. 1957. Foundations of Reading Instruction. New York: American Book Company. Bialystok, Ellen, and Kenji Hakuta. 1994. In Other Words: The Science and Psychology of SecondLanguage Acquisition. New York: Basic Books. Biber, Douglas. 1992. Variations across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bidell, Thomas R., and Kurt W. Fischer. 1997. “Between Nature and Nurture: The Role of Human Agency in the Epigenesis of Intelligence.” In R. J. Sternbert and E. Grigorenko, eds., Intelligence, Heredity and Environment, pp. 193–242. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Biemans, Harm J. A., and P. Robert-Jan Simons. 1995. “How to Use Preconceptions? The Contact Strategy Dismantled.” European Journal of Psychology of Education 10:243–259. ———. 1996. “Contact 2: A Computer-Assisted Instructional Strategy for Promoting Conceptual Change.” Instructional Science 10:57–176. Blachowicz, Camille, and Peter Fisher. 1996. Teaching Vocabulary in All Classrooms. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill. ———. 2000. “Vocabulary Instruction.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. III, pp. 503–523. White Plains, NY: Longman. Black, John B., and Robert Wilensky. 1979. “An Evaluation of Story Grammars.” Cognitive Science 3:213–230. Blaire, Heather A. 2000. “Genderlects: Girl Talk and Boy Talk in a Middle-Years Classroom. Language Arts 77 (4):315–323. Bloome, David. 1983. “Reading as a Social Process.” In B. A. Hutson, ed., Advances in Reading/Language Research, Vol. 2, pp. 165–195. London: JAI Press. Bloome, David, and Ann Egan-Robertson. 1993. “The Social Construction of Intertextuality in Classroom Reading and Writing Lessons.” Reading Research Quarterly 28 (4):304–334. Bloomfield, Leonard. 1942. “Linguistics and Reading.” Elementary English Review 19:125–130, 183–186. Blue’s Clues, ABC, Time Activities, Humongous Entertainment, Bothell, WA. Bolter, Jay David. 1991. Writing Space: The Computer,
Curriculum: Current Cognitive Research. Yearbook of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, pp. 40–58. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision in Curriculum and Development; Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Beck, Isabel L., Charles A. Perfetti, and Margaret McKeown. 1982. “The Effects of Long-Term Vocabulary Instruction on Lexical Access and Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology 74:506–521. Beck, Isabel L., Margaret G. McKeown, and Jo Worthy. 1995. “Giving a Text Voice Can Improve Students’ Understanding.” Reading Research Quarterly 30 (2):220–238. Beck, Isabel L., Margaret G. McKeown, Cheryl Sandora, Linda Kucan, and Jo Worthy. 1996. “Questioning the Author: A Yearlong Classroom Implementation to Engage Students with Text.” Elementary School Journal 96 (4):385–414. Becker, Howard. 1993. “Decision Making about Computer Acquisition and Use in American Schools.” Computers and Education 20:341–352. Becker, Wesley C. 1977. “Teaching Reading and Language to the Disadvantaged—What We Have Learned from Field Research.” Harvard Educational Review 47:518–543. Beentjes, Jerome, and Theo Van der Voort. 1988. “Television’s Impact on Children’s Reading Skills: A Review of Research.” Reading Research Quarterly 23:389–413. Belanoff, Pat, and Marcia Dixona. 1993. Portfolio Grading Process and Product. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann. Belenky, Mary Field, Blythe McVicker Clinchy, Nancy Rule Goldberger, and Jill Mattuck Tarule. 1986. Women’s Ways of Knowing: The Development of Self, Voice, and Mind. New York: Basic Books. Berdan, Robert. 1978. “Dialect Fair Reading Instruction for Speakers of Black English.” Paper prepared for the Sociolinguistics of Reading Session, Sociolinguistics Research Program, Ninth World Congress of Sociology, Uppsala, Sweden, National Institute of Education, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The Social Construction of Reality: A Treatise in the Sociology of Knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Berliner, David, and Bruce Biddle. 1995. The Manufactured Crisis. Reading, MA: AddisonWesley. Berry, John. 1986. “Multiculturalism and Psychology in Plural Societies.” In Lars Ekstrand, ed., Ethnic Minorities and Immigrants in a Cross-Cultural Perspective, 35–51. Berwyn, NY: Swets North America. Berthoff, Ann E., and James Stephens. 1988. Forming,
710
Bibliography Education Preschool through Primary Grades. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Brewer, William F. 1980. “Literary Theory, Rhetoric, and Stylistics: Implication for Psychology.” In Rand J. Spiro, Bertram C. Bruce, and William F. Brewer, eds., Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, pp. 221–239. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bridge, Connie A., and Brenda Burton. 1982. “Teaching Sight Vocabulary through Patterned Language Materials.” In Jerry A. Niles and Larry A. Harris, eds., New Inquiries in Reading Research and Instruction: The Thirty-First Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 119–123. Washington, DC: National Reading Conference. Bridge, Connie A., Darliene Haley, and Peter Winograd. 1983. “Using Predictable Materials vs. Preprimers to Teach Beginning Sight Words.” The Reading Teacher (May):884–890. Bridge, Connie A., Peter N. Winograd, and Darliene Haley. 1983. “Using Predictable Materials to Teach Beginning Reading.” The Reading Teacher 36:884–891. Bridges, David. 1979. Education, Democracy, and Discussion. New York: University Press of America. Bridges, Lois. 1996. Assessment: Continuous Learning. York, ME: Stenhouse. Brisk, Marie E., and Margaret Harrington. 2000. Literacy and Bilingualism: A Handbook for All Teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Britt, M. Anne, Jean Francis Rouet, and Charles A. Perfetti. 1996. “Using Hypertext to Study and Reason about Historical Evidence.” In Jean Frances Rouet, John T. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand Spiro, eds., Hypertext and Cognition, pp. 43–72. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Britton, James, Tony Burgess, Nancy Martin, Alex McLeod, and Harold Rosen. 1975. The Development of Writing Abilities 11–18. London: Macmillan Education. Broaddus, Karen, and Janet W. Bloodgood. 1999. “We’re Supposed to Already Know How to Teach Reading: Teacher Change to Support Struggling Readers.” Reading Research Quarterly 34:426–451. Brock, Cynthia H. 1997. Second-Language Learners in Mainstream Classrooms. In Susan I. McMahon and Taffy E. Raphael, eds., The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk, pp. 141–158. New York: Teachers College Press; and Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Bromley, Karen D. 1993. Journaling: Engagements in Reading, Writing, and Thinking. New York: Scholastic. ———. 1996. Webbing with Literature: Creating Story Maps with Children’s Books. 2d ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ———. 1998. “Hypertext and the Question of Visual Literacy.” In D. Reinking, Michael C. McKenna, Linda D. Labbo, and Ronald D. Kieffer, eds., Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a Post-Typographic World, pp. 3–13. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bond, Guy L., and Robert Dykstra. 1967. “The Cooperative Research Program in First-Grade Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 2:7–142. Bonner, Randy. 1999. “Conferring with Struggling Readers: The Test of Our Craft Knowledge, Courage, and Hope.” New Advocate 12 (1):21–38. Booth, James R., Charles A. Perfetti, and Brian MacWhinney. 1999. “Automatic and General Activation of Orthographic and Phonological Representations in Young Readers.” Developmental Psychology 35, no. 1:3–19. Bos, Candace S., and Patricia Anders. 1992. “Using Interactive Teaching and Learning Strategies to Promote Text Comprehension and Content Learning for Students with Learning Disabilities.” International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 39 (3):225–228. Boyd, Fenice B., and Lee Galda. 1997. “Lessons Taught and Lessons Learned: How Cross-Aged Talk about Books Helped Struggling Adolescents Develop Their Own Literacy.” In Jeanne Paratore and Rachael L. McCormack, eds., Peer Talk in the Classroom: Learning from Research, pp. 66–87. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Brabant, Sarah, and Linda Mooney. 1986. “Sex Role Stereotyping in the Sunday Comics: Ten Years Later.” Sex Roles 14 (3):412–418. Bransford, John D. 1979. Human Cognition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. ———. 1984. “Schema Activation and Schema Acquisition: Comments on Richard C. Anderson’s Remarks.” In Richard C. Anderson, Jean Osborn, and Robert J. Tierney, eds., Learning to Read in American Schools: Basal Readers and Content Texts, pp. 259–272. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bransford, John D., Ann L. Brown, and Rodney R. Cocking, eds. 1999. How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience, and School. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Braun, Win, and Carl Braun. 1996. A Readers Theatre Treasury of Stories. Calgary, Alberta: Braun and Braun Associates. Brennan, Allison D. H., Connie A. Bridge, and Peter N. Winograd. 1986. “The Effects of Structural Variation on Children’s Recall of Basal Reader Stories.” Reading Research Quarterly 21:91–104. Brewer, Jo Ann. 2001. Introduction to Early Childhood
711
Bibliography James Squire, eds., Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, pp. 649–657. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Bruffee, Kenneth A. 1984. “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind. College English 46:635–662. Bruner, Jerome S. 1986. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bruner, John. 1975. “The Ontogenesis of Speech Acts.” Journal of Child Language 2:1–19. Bryk, Anthony S., Penny Bender Sebring, David Kerbow, Sharon Rollow, and John Q. Easton. 1998. Charting Chicago School Reform: Democratic Localism as a Lever for Change. Boulder: Westview. Buckingham, David, and Julian Sefton-Green. 1994. Cultural Studies Goes to School: Reading and Teaching Popular Media. London: Taylor and Francis. Burnham-Massey, Laurie, and Marilyn Pina. 1990. “Effects of Reading Instruction on English Academic Achievement of LEP Children.” Reading Improvement 27:129–132. Burns, Paul C., Betty D. Row, and Elinor P. Ross. 1988. Teaching Reading in Today’s Elementary Schools. 4th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Burr, Vivian. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. Burt, Miriam, and Fran Keenan. 1995. Adult ESL Learner Assessment: Purposes and Tools. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for ESL Literacy Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 386 962. Busching, Beverly. 1981. “Readers Theatre: An Education for Language and Life.” Language Arts 58, no. 3:330–338. Bush, Vannevar. 1945. “As We May Think.” Atlantic Monthly 176 (1):101–108. Bushman, John H., and Kay Parks Haas. 2001. Using Young Adult Literature in the English Classroom. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice-Hall. Business Council for Effective Literacy. 1990. “Standardized Tests: Their Use and Misuse.” BCEL Newsletter for the Business Community 22 (January):6–9. Buswell, Guy T. 1923. The Silent Reading Hour. Chicago: Wheeler. Butler, Deborah L., and Philip H. Winne. 1995. “Feedback and Self-Regulated Learning: A Theoretical Synthesis.” Review of Educational Research 65:245–281. Bynum, Janie. 1999. Altoona Baboona. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Cagney, Margaret. 1983. “Johnston Informal Reading Inventory.” Journal of Reading 26:530–532. Cai, Mingshui. 1998. “Multiple Definitions of Multicultural Literature: Is the Debate Really Just
Bromley, Karen, Linda Irwin-De Vitis, and Marcia Modlo. 1995. Graphic Organizers: Visual Strategies for Active Learning. New York: Scholastic. Brooks, J. G., and M. G. Brooks. 1993. In Search of Understanding: The Case for Constructivist Classrooms. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Brown, Ann. 1997. “Transforming Schools into Communities of Thinking and Learning about Serious Matters.” American Psychologist 52 (3):399–413. Brown, Ann L., and Annemarie S. Palincsar. 1987. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension Strategies: A Natural History of One Program for Enhancing Learning.” In John Borkowski and Jean Day, eds., Intelligence and Cognition in Special Children: Comparative Studies of Giftedness, Mental Retardation, and Learning Disabilities, pp. 75–98. New York: Ablex. ———. 1989. “Guided Cooperative Learning and Individual Knowledge Acquisition.” In Lauren B. Resnick, ed., Knowing, Learning, and Instruction: Essays in Honor of Robert Glaser, pp. 393–451. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brown, Ann L., Joseph C. Campione, and Jeanne D. Day. 1981. “Learning to Learn: On Training Students to Learn from Text.” Educational Researcher 10:14–21. Brown, Jean E., and Elaine C. Stephens. 1998. United in Diversity: Using Multicultural Young Adult Literature in the Classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Brown, Jeffrey. 1997. New Heroes: Gender, Race, Fans, and Comic Book Superheroes. Ph.D. dissertation: University of Toronto, Canada. Dissertation Abstracts International 59 (06) 1818. (AAT NQ27882). Brown, Joel, Kenneth S. Goodman, and Ann M. Marek. 1996. Studies in Miscue Analysis: An Annotated Bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Brown, Richard D. 1989. Knowledge Is Power: The Diffusion of Information in Early America, 1700–1865. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Brown, Roger. 1973. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Brozo, William, and Michelle Simpson. 1999. Readers, Teachers, Learners: Expanding Literacy across the Content Areas. 3d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Bruce, Bertram C. 1997. “Literacy Technologies: What Stance Should We Take?” Journal of Literacy Research 29:289–309. Bruce, Bertram, and James Levin. 2001. “Roles for New Technologies in Language Arts: Inquiry, Communication, Construction, and Expression.” In Julie Jensen, James Flood, Diane Lapp, and
712
Bibliography ———. 1990. Reading Rate: A Review of Research and Theory. New York: Academic Press. ———. 1994. “Percentage of Unknown Vocabulary Words in Text as a Function of the Relative Difficulty of the Text: Implications for Instruction.” Journal of Reading Behavior 26 (4):413–437. ———. 1997. “Reading for One Second, One Minute, or One Year from the Perspective of Rauding Theory.” Scientific Studies of Reading 1 (1):3–43. ———. 2000a. The Causes of High and Low Reading Achievement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ———. 2000b. “How Will Literacy Be Defined?” Reading Research Quarterly 35 (1):67–68. Carver, Ronald P., and Anne H. David. 2001. “Investigating Reading Achievement Using a Causal Model.” Scientific Studies of Reading 5 (2):107–139. Carver, Ronald P., and Robert E. Leibert. 1995. “The Effect of Reading Library Books at Different Levels of Difficulty upon Gain in Reading Ability.” Reading Research Quarterly 30 (1):26–48. Carver, Ronald P., and Susan W. Clark. 1998. “Investigating Reading Disabilities Using the Rauding Diagnostic System.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 31 (5):143–174. Cassidy, Jack, and Drew Cassidy. 2000–2001. “What’s Hot, What’s Not for 2001.” Reading Today 18 (3) (December/January):1, 18. Caulfield, Judy. 1996. “Students Telling Stories: Inquiry into the Process of Learning Stories.” In Zoe Donoahue, Mary Ann VanTassell, and Leslie Patterson, eds., Research in the Classroom: Talk, Texts, and Inquiry, pp. 51–64. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ceprano, Mary A. 1981. “A Review of Selected Research on Methods of Teaching Sight Words.” The Reading Teacher (December):314–321. Chaiken, Shelly. 1987. “The Heuristic Model of Persuasion.” In Mark P. Zanna, James M. Olson, and C. Peter Herman, eds., Social Influence: The Ontario Symposium, Vol. 5, pp. 3–39. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Chall, Jeanne. 1958. Readability: An Appraisal of Research and Application. Columbus: Bureau of Educational Research, The Ohio State University. ———. 1967. Learning to Read: The Great Debate. New York: McGraw-Hill. Chall, Jeanne S., and Edgar Dale. 1995. Manual for the New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Chambers, Jay, Joanne Lieberman, Tom Parrish, Daniel Kaleba, James Van Kampen, and Stephanie Stullich. 2000. Study of Education Resources and Federal Funding: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Chambers, Sharon K., and Thomas Andre. 1997.
‘Ivory Tower’ Bickering?” The New Advocate 11 (4):311–324. Calfee, Robert C., and Dale C. Piontkowski. 1981. “The Reading Diary: Acquisition of Decoding.” Reading Research Quarterly 16:346–373. Calfee, Robert, and Pam Perfumo, eds. 1996. Writing Portfolios in the Classroom: Policy and Practice, Promise and Peril. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. California English/Language Arts Committee. 1987. English–Language Arts Framework for California Public Schools (Kindergarten through Grade Twelve). Sacramento: California Department of Education. Cameron, Ann. 1981. The Stories Julian Tells. New York, NY: Pantheon Books. Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with Spoken Discourse. London: Sage. Camitta, Miriam. 1993. “Vernacular Writing: Varieties of Literacy among Philadelphia High School Students.” In B. V. Street, ed., Cross-Cultural Approaches to Literacy, pp. 228–246. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Campbell, J. R., P. L. Donahue, C. M. Reese, and G. Phillips. 1996. NAEP 1994 Reading Report for the Nation and the States: Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the Trial State Assessment. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Campbell, Jay, Catherine Hombo, and John Mazzeo. 2000. NAEP 1999 Trends in Academic Progress. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. Campbell, Richard W. 1977. Using Comic Books as an Alternative Supplement to the Basal Reading Program at Albert Sidney Johnston Elementary School. ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 141 797. Campbell, Russell. 1996. “New Learners and New Environments: Challenges and Opportunities.” In Robert C. Lafayette, ed., National Standards: A Catalyst for Reform, pp. 97–118. Lincolnwood, IL: National Textbook Company. Carlsen, David D., and Thomas Andre. 1992. “Use of a Microcomputer Simulation and Conceptual Change Text to Overcome Student Preconceptions about Electric Circuits.” Journal of Computer-Based Instruction 19:105–109. Carr, Eileen, and Donna Ogle. 1987. “K-W-L Plus: A Strategy for Comprehension and Summarization.” Journal of Reading 30:626–631. Carson, Ben. 1990. Gifted Hands. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Books. Carver, Ronald P. 1977. “Toward a Theory of Reading Comprehension and Rauding.” Reading Research Quarterly 13:8–63.
713
Bibliography Research 3:109–131. Cintron, Ralph. 1997. Angels’ Town: Chero Ways, Gang Life, and Rhetorics of the Everyday. Boston: Beacon Press. Cixous, Hélène. 1991. Coming to Writing and Other Essays. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Clay, Marie M. 1972. Sand—The Concepts about Print Test. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. ———. 1979a. The Early Detection of Reading Difficulties. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. ———. 1979b. Reading: The Patterning of Complex Behaviour. Auckland, NZ: Heinemann. ———. 1991. Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1993a. An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1993b. Reading Recovery: A Guidebook for Teachers in Training. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Cleary, Beverly. 1983. Dear Mr. Henshaw. New York: Dell. Clifford, Geraldine. 1989. “A Sisyphean Task: Historical Perspectives on Writing and Reading Instruction.” In Anne Haas Dyson, ed., Collaboration through Reading and Writing, pp. 25–83. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Clyde, Jean, and Mark Condon. 1999. Get Real: Bringing Kids’ Learning Lives into Your Classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Cohen, Elizabeth G. 1994. Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. 2d ed. New York: Teachers College Press. ———. 1997. “Understanding Status Problems: Sources and Consequences.” In Elizabeth G. Cohen and Rachel A. Lotan, eds., Working for Equity in Heterogeneous Classrooms: Sociological Theory in Practice, pp. 61–76. New York: Teachers College Press. Cohen, Kera. 1999. “Reluctant Eighth Grade Readers Enjoy Sustained Silent Reading.” The California Reader 33, no. 1 (fall):22–24. College Entrance Examination Board. 2001. CollegeBound Seniors 2000. Princeton, NJ: College Entrance Examination Board. College Reading Association. 1993. Constitution and Bylaws. Carrollton, GA: College Reading Association. Collins, Martha D., and Earl H. Cheek Jr. 1989. Diagnostic-Prescriptive Reading Instruction: A Guide for Classroom Teachers. 3d ed. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown. ———. 2000. Assessing and Guiding Reading Instruction. New York: McGraw-Hill. Comings, John, Barbara Garner, and Cristine Smith, eds. 2000. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
“Gender, Prior Knowledge, Interest, and Experience in Electricity and Conceptual Change Text Manipulations in Learning about Direct Current.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:107–123. Cheek, Earl, Rona Flippo, and Jimmy Lindsey. 1997. Reading for Success in Elementary Schools. Madison, WI: Brown and Benchmark. Cherland, Meredith R. 1992. “Gendered Readings: Cultural Restraints upon Response to Literature.” New Advocate 5 (3):187–198. ———. 1994. Private Practices: Girls Reading Fiction and Constructing Identity. London: Taylor and Francis. ———. 2000. “Teaching Beyond Reader Response: Reading the Culture to Know the Self.” In Barrie R. C. Barrell and Roberta F. Hammett, eds., Advocating Change: Contemporary Issues in Subject English, pp. 104–116. Toronto: Irwin Publishing. Chinn, Clark A., and William F. Brewer. 1993. “The Role of Anomalous Data in Knowledge Acquisition: A Theoretical Framework and Implications for Science Instruction.” Review of Educational Research 63 (1):1–49. Chiswick, Barry. 1991. “Speaking, Reading, and Earnings among Low-Skilled Immigrants.” Journal of Labor Economics 9:149–170. Chomsky, Carol. 1978. “When You Still Can’t Read in Third Grade: After Decoding, What?” In S. Jay Samuels, ed., What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction, pp. 13–30. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic Structures. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton. ———. 1959. “Review of B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior.” Language 35:26–57. ———. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press. ———. 1986. Knowledge of Language: Its Nature, Origin, and Use. New York: Praeger. ———. 1995. The Minimalist Program. Cambridge: MIT Press. Christian-Smith, Linda. 1993. “Constituting and Reconstituting Desire: Fiction, Fantasy and Femininity.” In Linda Christian-Smith, ed., Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling, pp. 1–8. London: Falmer Press. Christian-Smith, Linda, ed. 1993. Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling. London: Falmer Press. Christie, Alice. 1995. “No Chips on Their Shoulders: Girls, Boys, and Telecommunications.” Ph.D. diss., Arizona State University West, Phoenix. Christie, James F., and Sandra J. Stone. 1999. “Collaborative Literacy Activity in Print-Enriched Play Centers: Exploring the “Zone” in Same-Age and Multi-Age Groupings.” Journal of Literacy
714
Bibliography Crossen, Helen J. 1948. “Effects of the Attitudes of the Reader upon Critical Reading Ability.” Journal of Educational Research 42:289–298. Crystal, David. 1987. “The Prescriptive Tradition.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language, pp. 2–5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. 1977. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Cummins, Jim. 1979. “Linguistic Interdependence and the Educational Development of Bilingual Children.” Review of Educational Research 49:221–251. ———. 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. 3–49. Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University–Los Angeles. ———. 1983. Heritage Language Education: A Literature Review. Ontario, CA: Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 233 588. ———. 1989. Empowering Minority Students. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. ———. 1994. “Heritage Language Learning and Teaching.” In John Berry and J. A. Laponce, eds., Ethnicity and Culture in Canada: The Research Landscape, pp. 435–456. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ———. 2000. Language, Power, and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Crossfire. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. ———, ed. 1991. “Heritage Languages” (special issue). The Canadian Modern Language Review 47 (4). Cunningham, Anne E., and Keith E. Stanovich. 1998. “What Reading Does for the Mind.” American Educator (Spring/Summer):8–17. Cunningham, Patricia. 1955. Phonics They Use: Words for Reading and Writing. 2d ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers. Curriculum-Based Network. 1999. “Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS).” Eugene: School Psychology Program, University of Oregon. Curtis, Christopher Paul. 1995. The Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963. New York: Delacorte. Cushman, Karen. 1994. Catherine, Called Birdy. New York: Harper Trophy Books, a division of HarperCollins. Daneman, Meredyth. 1991. “Individual Differences in Reading Skills.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, p. 517. New York: Longman.
———. 2001. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol. 2. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 2002. Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Vol. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Committee on Teaching Education and Certification. 1996. 3d ed. A Statement on the Preparation of Teachers of English. Champaign, IL: The National Council of Teachers of English. Confrey, Jere. 1990. “A Review of the Research on Student Conceptions in Mathematics, Science and Programming.” In Courtney Cazden, ed., Review of Research in Education, pp. 3–56. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Connolly, Paul, and Teresa Vilardi, eds. 1989. Writing to Learn Mathematics and Science. New York: Teachers College Press. Conquergood, Dwight. 1990. The Heart Broken in Half (video). Chicago: Siegel Productions. Considine, David M., and Gail E. Haley. 1999. Visual Messages: Integrating Imagery into Instruction. 2d ed. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Considine, David M., Gail E. Haley, and Lyn Ellen Lacy. 1994. Imagine That: Developing Critical Thinking and Critical Viewing through Children’s Literature. Englewood, CO: Teacher Ideas Press. Cook, Wanda D. 1977. Adult Literacy Education in the United States. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, pp. 19–34. Cooper, Charles R., and Lee Odell. 1977. Evaluating Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Cooper, Marilyn M., and Cynthia L. Selfe. 1990. “Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse.” College English 52:847–869. Cornett, Claudia E. 1999. The Arts as Meaning Makers: Integrating Literature and the Arts throughout the Curriculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Council of Chief State School Officers. 1992. 1992 NAEP Reading Objectives. Washington, DC. Council of Chief State School Officers. Craviotto, Eileen, and Ana Heras. 1999. “Cultures of the Fourth-Grade Bilingual Classroom.” Primary Voices 7 (3):25–35. Crawford, James. 1995. Bilingual Education: History, Politics, Theory, and Practice. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Bilingual Education Services. Crawford, Theresa, Maria Lucia Castanheira, Carol Dixon, and Judith Green. 2001. “What Counts as Literacy: An International Ethnographic Perspective.” In Joy Cunning and Claire Wyatt Smith, eds., Literacy and the Curriculum: Success in Senior Secondary Schooling, pp. 32–43. Camberwell, Victoria: The Australian Council for Educational Research.
715
Bibliography Deans, Thomas. 2000. Writing Partnerships: ServiceLearning in Composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Deci, Edward, Richard Koestner, and Richard Ryan. 2001. “Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again.” Review of Educational Research 71:1–27. Deely, John. 1982. Introducing Semiotics: Its History and Doctrine. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. DeFina, Allan. 1997. When a City Leans against the Sky. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills. Deleuze, Gilles, and Felix Guattari. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Translated by Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Delpit, Lisa. 1988. “The Silenced Dialogue: Power and Pedagogy in Educating Other People’s Children.” Harvard Educational Review 58:280–298. ———. 1995. Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom. New York: New Press. Derrida, Jacques. 1974. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1976. Of Grammatology. Translated by Gaytari Chakravorty Spivak. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ———. 1979. Spurs: Nietzsche’s Styles. Translated by Barbara Harlow. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Devine, Thomas G., and John S. Kania. In press. “Studying: Skills, Strategies, and Systems.” In James Flood, Dianne Lapp, James R. Squire, and Julie M. Jensen, eds., Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, 2d ed., pp. 942–954. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dewey, John. 1913. Interest and Effort in Education. Boston: Riverside. ———. 1938. Logic, the Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt. Dewey, John, and Arthur F. Bentley. 1949. Knowing and the Known. Boston: Beacon Press. Dickinson, David, and Miriam Smith. 1994. “LongTerm Effects of Preschool Teachers’ Book Readings on Low-Income Children’s Vocabulary and Story Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 29:104–122. Dillner, Martha. 1999. “Finding Quality Resources in Electronic Publications.” Reading Online (February). Http://www.readingonline.org/ editorial/edit_index.asp?HREF=/editorial/editorial 2.html. ———. 2000. “Where We Were, Where We Are: Looking Back at the Past Four Years.” Reading Online (June). Http://www.readingonline.org/
Daniels, Harvey. 1994. Literature Circles: Voice and Choice in the Student-Centered Classroom. York, ME: Stenhouse. Darling, Sharon, and Andrew Hayes. 1988–1989. Family Literacy Project: Final Project Report. Louisville, KY: National Center for Family Literacy. Darling-Hammond, Linda. 1994. “PerformanceBased Assessment and Educational Equity.” Harvard Educational Review 64:5–30. ———. 1997. Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Darnton, Robert. 1990. “What Is the History of Books?” In Robert Darnton, ed., The Kiss of Lamourette: Reflections in Cultural History, pp. 107–135. New York: W. W. Norton. Dauber, Susan L., Karl L. Alexander, and Doris R. Entwisle. 1996. “Tracking and Transitions through the Middle Grades: Channeling Educational Trajectories.” Sociology of Education 69 (4):290–307. Davey, Beth. 1983. “Think Aloud—Modeling the Cognitive Process of Reading Comprehension.” Journal of Reading 27:44–47. Davidson, Jane L. 1999. “A History of Language Experience: A U.S. Perspective.” In Olga Johnson and Wayne Linek, eds., Practical Classroom Applications of Language Experience, pp. 25–36. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Davidson, Jane L., and Bonnie C. Wilkerson. 1988. Directed Reading-Thinking Activities. Monroe, NY: Trillium Press. Davidson, Judith, and David Koppenhaver. 1993. Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why. 2d ed. New York: Garland. Davies, Anne, Caren Cameron, Colleen Politano, and Kathleen Gregory. 1992. Together Is Better: Collaborative Assessment, Evaluation, and Reporting. Winnipeg, MB, Canada: Peguis. Davies, Bronwyn. 1993a. “Beyond Dualism and Towards Multiple Subjectivities.” In Linda K. Christian-Smith, ed., Texts of Desire: Essays on Fiction, Femininity, and Schooling, pp. 145–173. London: Falmer Press. ———. 1993b. Shards of Glass. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Davis, Frederick. 1971. “Psychometric Research on Comprehension in Reading.” In Frederick Davis, ed., The Literature of Research in Reading with Emphasis on Models, pp. 3–61. East Brunswick, NJ: Iris Corporation. de Beauvoir, Simone. 1984. Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre. New York: Pantheon. De Castell, Suzanne, and Alan Luke. 1983. “Defining ‘Literacy’ in North American Schools: Social and Historical Conditions and Consequences.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 5 (4):373–389.
716
Bibliography Linda G. Vavurs, Roy Wesselman, Joyce Putnam, and Dina Bassiri. 1987. “Effects of Explaining the Reasoning Associated with Using Reading Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 22:347–368. Duke, Nell K. 2000a. “3.6 Minutes per Day: The Scarcity of Informational Texts in First Grade.” Reading Research Quarterly 35, no. 2:202–224. ———. 2000b. “For the Rich It’s Richer: Print Experiences and Environments Offered to Children in Very Low- and Very HighSocioeconomic Status First-Grade Classrooms.” American Educational Research Journal 37 (2):441–478. Dunn, Lloyd M., and Leota M. Dunn. 1998. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance. Duranti, Alessandro, and Charles Goodwin, eds. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. New York: Cambridge University Press. Durkin, Dolores. 1966. Children Who Read Early. New York: Teachers College Press. ———. 1972a. Phonics, Linguistics, and Reading. New York: College Press. ———. 1972b. Teaching Young Children to Read. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ———. 1978. Teaching Them to Read. 3d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Durkin, Dolores. 1978–1979. “What Classroom Observations Reveal about Reading Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 14:518–544. Durrell, Donald D., and Jane H. Catterson. 1980. Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Dutcher, Nadine. 2001. Expanding Educational Opportunities in Diverse Societies. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Duthie, James. 1986. “The Web: A Powerful Tool for the Teaching and Evaluation of the Expository Essay.” The History and Social Science Teacher 21:232–236. Dymock, Susan J. 1999. “Learning about Text Structure.” In Brian G. Thompson and Tom Nicholson, eds., Learning to Read: Beyond Phonics and Whole Language, pp. 174–192. New York: Teachers College Press; Newark, NJ: International Reading Association. Dyson, Anne Haas. 1993. Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School. New York: Teachers College Press. ———, ed. 1989. Collaboration through Reading and Writing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English, Dyson, Ann Haas, and Sarah W. Freedman. 1991 “Writing.” In James Flood, Julie M. Jensen, Diane
editorial/edit_index.asp?HREF=/editorial/ june2000_ed/index.html. Dillon, James T. 1984. “Research on Questioning and Discussion.” Educational Leadership 42:50–56. ———. 1988. Questioning and Teaching: A Manual of Practice. New York: Teachers College Press. DiPardo, Anne, and Sarah W. Freedman 1988. “Peer Response Groups in the Writing Classroom: Theoretic Foundations and New Directions.” Review of Educational Research 58 (2):119–149. Dole, Janice A. 1977. A validation of the Construct of Critical Reading and of Three Tests Designed to Measure Critical Reading Ability. Ph.D. diss., University of Colorado. Dissertation Abstracts International, AAT 7808892. Dole, Janice A., and Edward L. Smith. 1989. “Prior Knowledge and Learning from Science Text: An Instructional Study.” In Cognitive and Social Perspectives for Literacy Research and Instruction. Thirty-Eighth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 33–49. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Dole, Janice A., Gerald G. Duffy, Laura R. Roehler, and P. David Pearson. 1991. “Moving from the Old to the New: Research on Reading Comprehension Instruction.” Review of Educational Research 61 (2):239–264. Donahue, Patricia, Pat Voelkl, Jay Campbell, and Robert Mazzeo. 1999. Reading Report Card to the Nation. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Dosse, François. 1997a. History of Structuralism. Vol. 1: The Rising Sign, 1945–1966. Translated by Deborah Glassman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. ———. 1997b. History of Structuralism. Vol. 2: The Sign Sets, 1967–Present. Translated by Deborah Glassman. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Dowhower, Sarah L. 1987. “Effects of Repeated Reading on Second-Grade Transitional Readers’ Fluency and Comprehension.” Reading Research Quarterly 22:389–406. Downing, John, ed. 1973. Comparative Reading: Cross-National Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading and Writing. New York: Macmillan. Reissued 1979. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International. Dr. Seuss. Dr. Seuss’s ABCs. Novato, CA: Broderbund/The Learning Company. Dr. Seuss. Green Eggs and Ham. Novato, CA: Broderbund/The Learning Company. Duffy, Gerald G., and James V. Hoffman. 1999. “In Pursuit of an Illusion: The Flawed Search for a Perfect Method.” Reading Teacher 53:10–16. Duffy, Gerald G., Laura Roehler, Eva Sivan, Gary Rackliffe, Cassandra Book, Michael S. Meloth,
717
Bibliography Graders. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Englert, Carol Sue, Kathy L. Tarrant, Troy V. Mariage, and Tina Oxer. 1994. “Lesson Talk as the Work of Reading Groups: The Effectiveness of Two Interventions.” Journal of Learning Disabilities 27 (3):165–185. “English Teacher Preparation Study (ETPS): Guidelines for the Preparation of Teachers of English.” 1968. English Journal 57: 529–536. Ennis, Robert H. 1987. “A Taxonomy of Critical Thinking Dispositions and Abilities.” In Joan B. Baron and Robert J. Sternberg, eds., Teaching Thinking Skills: Theory and Practice, pp. 9–26. New York: W. H. Freeman. Ensico, Patricia E. 1998. “Good/Bad Girls Read Together: Pre-adolescent Girls’ Co-authorship of Feminine Subject Positions during a Shared Reading Event.” English Education 30:44–62. Epstein, Samuel, Susan Flynn, and Gita Martohardjono. 1996. “Second-Language Acquisition: Theoretical and Experimental Issues in Contemporary Research.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 19:677–758. Erickson, Fredrick, and Jeffrey Shultz. 1981. “When Is a Context? Some Issues and Methods in the Analysis of Social Competence.” In Judith Green and Cynthia Wallat, eds., Ethnography and Language in Educational Settings, pp. 147–150. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Espenshade, Thomas, and Haishan Fu. 1997. “An Analysis of English-Language Proficiency among U.S. Immigrants.” American Sociological Review 62:288–305. Estes, Thomas. 1971. “A Scale to Measure Attitude toward Reading,” Journal of Reading 15:135–138. Evans, Karen S. 2001. Literature Discussion Groups in the Intermediate Grades: Dilemmas and Possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 2002. “Fifth-Grade Students’ Perceptions of How They Experience Literature Discussion Groups.” Reading Research Quarterly 37(1):46–69. Evans, Karen S., Donna Alvermann, and Patricia L. Anders. 1998. “Literature Discussion Groups: An Examination of Gender Roles.” Reading Research and Instruction 37 (2):107–122. Evensen, Dorothy H., and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds. 1999. Advances in Reading/Language Research. Vol. 6, Reconsidering the Role of the Reading Clinic in a New Age of Literacy. Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Evertson, Carolyn, and Judith Green. 1986. “Observation as Inquiry and Method.” In Meryl Wittrock, ed., The Handbook for Research on Teaching, 3rd ed., pp. 162–213. New York: Macmillan.
Lapp, and James R. Squire, eds., Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, pp. 754–774. New York: Macmillan. Eagleton, Terry. 1996. Literary Theory: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Earle, Richard A. 1969. “Use of the Structured Overview in Mathematics Classes.” In Harold L. Herber and Peter L. Sanders, eds., Research in Reading in the Content Areas: First Year Report, pp. 49–58. Syracuse, NY: Reading and Language Arts Center, Syracuse University. Eco, Umberto. 1976. A Theory of Semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Edelsky, Carole, ed. 1999. Making Justice Our Project: Teachers Working toward Critical Whole Language Practice. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Educational Testing Service. 1997. The NAEP Guide. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Eeds, MaryAnn, and Deborah Wells. 1989. “Grand Conversations: An Exploration of Meaning Construction in Literature Study Groups.” Research in the Teaching of English 23, no. 1:4–29. Ehri, Linnea Carlson. 1994. “Development of the Ability to Read Words: Update.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 323–358. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ehri, Linnea Carlson, and Alison Soffer. 1999. “Graphophonemic Awareness: Development in Elementary Students.” Scientific Studies of Reading 3:1–30. Ehri, Linnea Carlson, and Sandra McCormick. 1998. “Phases of Word Learning: Implications for Instruction with Delayed Readers and Disabled Readers.” Reading and Writing Quarterly 14 (2):135–164. Eisner, Elliot W. 1997. “Cognition and Representation: A Way to Pursue the American Dream?” Phi Delta Kappan 78 (5):349–353. Elbaum, Batya, Sharon Vaughn, Marie Hughes, and Sally W. Moody. 1999. “Grouping Practices and Reading Outcomes for Students with Disabilities.” Exceptional Children 63 (3):399–415. Elley, Warwick B. 1994. The IEA Study of Reading Literacy: Achievement and Instruction in ThirtyTwo School Systems. Cambridge, MA: Pergamon. Elley, Warwick B., and Francis Mangubhai. 1983. “The Impact of Reading on Second Language Learning.” Reading Research Quarterly 19:53–67. Elliott, John. 1985. The Study of, and through, Comic Books in the Language Classroom. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 263747. Emig, Janet. 1971. The Composing Process of Twelfth
718
Bibliography Finders, Margaret. 1996. “Queens and Teen Zines: Early Adolescent Females Reading Their Way toward Adulthood.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 27 (1):236–253. Finke, Laurie A. 1992. Feminist Theory, Women’s Writing. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Fisher, Bobbie. 1991. Joyful Learning: A Whole Language Kindergarten. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fisher, Charles W., and Elfrieda H. Hiebert. 1990. “Characteristics of Tasks in Two Approaches to Literacy Instruction.” Elementary School Journal 91 (1):3–18. Fishman, Joshua A. 1991. Revising Language Shift: Theoretical and Empirical Foundations of Assistance to Threatened Languages. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters. Fitzgerald, Jill. 1989. “Research on Stories: Implications for Teachers.” In Denise Muth Glynn, ed., Children’s Comprehension of Text: Research into Practice, pp. 2–36. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 2001. “Can Minimally Trained College Student Volunteers Help Young At-Risk Children to Read Better?” Reading Research Quarterly 36 (1):28–46. Fleischer, Cathy. 1995. Composing Teacher-Research: A Prosaic History. New York: State University of New York Press. Flesch, Rudolf F. 1948. “A New Readability Yardstick.” Journal of Applied Psychology 32:221–233. ———. 1955. Why Johnny Can’t Read. New York: HarperCollins. Flesch, Rudolf F. 1986. Why Johnny Can’t Read. Rev. ed. New York: Harper and Row. Flippo, Rona F., ed. 2001. Reading Researchers in Search of Common Ground. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Flippo, Rona F., and Jeanne S. Schumm. 2000. “Reading Tests.” In Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, eds., Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, pp. 365–472. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flippo, Rona F., Marilyn J. Becker, and David M. Wark. 2000. “Preparing for and Taking Tests.” In Rona F. Flippo and David C. Caverly, eds., Handbook of College Reading and Study Strategy Research, pp. 221–260. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Flood, James, Julie M. Jensen, Diane Lapp, and James R. Squire, eds. 1991. Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts. New York: Macmillan. Flood, James, Shirley B. Heath, and Diane Lapp, eds. 1997. Handbook of Research on Teaching through the Communicative and Visual Arts. New York: Simon and Schuster Macmillan.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. New York: Longman. ———. 1993. “Discourse and Text: Linguistic and Intertextual Analysis within Discourse Analysis.” Discourse and Society 3 (2):193–218. ———. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman. Faltis, Christian. 2001. Joinfostering: Teaching and Learning in Multilingual Classrooms. 3rd ed. Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice-Hall. Farr, Roger C., George Prescott, Irving H. Balow, and Thomas Hogan. 1986. Metropolitan Reading Instructional Tests. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation. Farstrup, Alan E. 2000. “What the Panel Really Said— and Didn’t Say.” Reading Today 18(1):8. Fasold, Ronald. 1990. The Sociolinguistics of Language. Vol. 2 of Introduction to Sociolinguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Faust, Mark A. 1992. “Ways of Reading and ‘the Use of Force.’” English Journal 92:44–49. Fecho, Bob. 1998. “Crossing Boundaries of Race in a Critical Literacy Classroom.” In D. Alvermann, K. Hinchman, D. Moore, S. Phelps, and D. Waff, eds., Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives, pp.75–101. Mahwah. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Feifer, Steven G. 1998. “Neurological Features of Dyslexia.” Paper presented at the Thirtieth Annual National Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL, April. ED 421 810. Ferdman, Bernardo M. 1990. “Literacy and Cultural Identity.” Harvard Educational Review 60 (2):181–204. Fernald, Grace M., and H. Keller. 1922. “The Effect of Kinaesthetic Factors in the Development of Word Recognition in the Case of Non-Readers.” Journal of Educational Research 4 (December):355–377. Fetterly, Judith. 1978. The Resistant Reader: A Feminist Approach to American Fiction. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Fey, Marion H. 1994. “Finding Voice through Computer Communication: A New Venue for Collaboration.” Journal of Advanced Composition 14 (1):221–237. ———. 1997. “Literate Behavior in a Cross-Age Computer-Mediated Discussion: A Question of Empowerment.” In Charles K. Kinzer, Kathleen A. Hinchman, and Donald J. Leu, eds., Inquiries in Literacy Theory and Practice: Forty-Sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 507–518. Chicago: National Reading Conference. ———. 1998. “Critical Literacy in School-College Collaboration through Computer Networking: A Feminist Research Project.” Journal of Literacy Research 30:85–117.
719
Bibliography Available at http://www.readingonline.org/ articles/art_index.asp?HREF=/articles/fresch/index .html. Fries, Charles C. 1963. Linguistics and Reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Fry, Edward B. 1977. “Fry’s Readability Graph: Clarifications, Validity, and Extensions to Level 17.” Journal of Reading 21:242–252. ———. 1988. “Writeability: The Principles of Writing for Increased Comprehension.” In Beverly Zakaluk and S. Jay Samuels, eds., Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future, pp. 77–97. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (ERIC ED 220 799). Fuhrman, Susan H. 1999. “The New Accountability: Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Brief.” Available: http://www.cpre.org. Fulwiler, Toby. 1990. Programs that Work: Models and Methods of Writing across the Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann/Boynton Cook. Gadamer, Hans-Georg. 1982. Truth and Method. New York: Crossroads. Gadsden, Vivian L. 1994. Understanding Family Literacy: Conceptual Issues Facing the Field. Philadephia: University of Pennsylvania National Center for Adult Literacy. Galda, Lee, and Bernice Cullinan. 2002. Literature and the Child. 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Gallas, Karen. 1995. Talking Their Way into Science: Hearing Children’s Questions and Theories, Responding with Curricula. New York: Teachers College Press. Gallaudet Research Institute. 2001. Available: http://gri.gallaudet.edu/literacyindex.html. Galley, Sharon Martens. 1996. “Talking Their Walk: Interviewing Fifth Graders about Their Literacy Journeys.” Language Arts 73:249–254. Gambrell, Linda B., and Janice F. Almasi, eds. 1996. Lively Discussions! Fostering Engaged Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Gambrell, Linda B., Barbara Martin Palmer, Rose Marie Codling, and Susan Anders Mazzoni. 1996. “Assessing Motivation to Read.” Reading Teacher 49:518–533. Gambrell, Linda B., Lesley Mandel Morrow, Susan B. Newman, and Michael Pressley. 1999. Best Practices in Literacy Instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. Gamoran, Adam, and Mark Berends. 1987. “The Effects of Stratification in Secondary Schools: Synthesis of Survey and Ethnographic Research.” Review of Educational Research 57 (4):415–435. García, Georgia E. 2000. “Bilingual Children’s Reading.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 813–834. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Florian, David. 1997. In the Swim. San Diego, CA: Harcourt. Flower, Linda. 1997. Problem-Solving Strategies for Writing in Classroom and Community. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Flower, Linda, Eleanor Long, and Lorraine Higgins. 2000. Learning to Rival: A Literate Practice for Intercultural Inquiry. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Fondrie, Suzanne. 2001. “Gentle Doses of Racism: Whiteness and Children’s Literature.” Journal of Children’s Literature 27 (2):9–13. Fordham, Signithia. 1993. “Those Loud Black Girls: (Black) Women, Silence, and Gender ‘Passing’ in the Academy.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 24:3–32. Forrestal, Peter. 1992. “Re-Reading Reading.” English Journal 81:25–29. Foucault, Michel. 1972. Archeology of Knowledge. New York: Random House. ———. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Translated by Alan Sheridan. New York: Pantheon. ———. 1981. History of Sexuality, Vol. 1. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin. ———. 1988. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Fountas, Irene, and Gay Su Pinnell. 1999. Matching Books to Readers: Using Leveled Books in Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fox, Barbara. 2000. Word Identification Strategies: Phonics from a New Perspective. 2d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Fox, Mem. 1993. Radical Reflections: Passionate Opinions on Teaching, Learning, and Living. San Diego: Harcourt Brace. Fraatz, Michelle. 1987. The Politics of Reading. New York: Teachers College Press. Frank, Carolyn R., Carol N. Dixon, and Lois R. Brandts. 2001. “Bears, Trolls, and Pagemasters: Learning about Learners in Book Clubs.” The Reading Teacher 54 (5):448–462. Fransecky and Debes. 1972. Visual Literacy: A Way to Learn, A Way to Teach. Washington, DC: Association for Educational Communication and Technology. Frazee, Marla. 1999. Hush, Little Baby. San Diego, CA: Browndeer/Harcourt. Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press. Freire, Paulo, and Donaldo Macedo. 1987. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. Fresch, Mary Jo. 2000/2001. “Using Think-Alouds to Analyze Decision Making during Spelling Word Sorts.” Reading Online 4(6) (December/January).
720
Bibliography Education, pp. 227–291. NY: Academic Press. Gentile, Claudia A., James Martin-Rehrmann, and John H. Kennedy. 1995. Windows into the Classroom: NAEP’s 1992 Writing Portfolio Study. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Gentry, L. A. 1974. “A Clinical Method in Classroom Success—Kinesthetic Teaching.” Reading Teacher 28 (3):298–300. Gerber, Stephanie B., Jeremy D. Finn, Charles M. Achilles, and Jane Boyd-Zaharias. 2001. “Teacher Aides and Students’ Academic Achievement.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23:123–143. Gibson, Eleanor J., and Harry Levin. 1975. The Psychology of Reading. Cambridge: MIT Press. Gilbert, Pam. 1994. “And They Lived Happily Ever After: Cultural Storylines and the Construction of Gender.” In A. H. Dyson and C. Genishi, eds., The Need for Story. Urbana, IL: NCTE. ———. 1996. “Gender Talk and Silence: Speaking and Listening as Social Practice.” In Geoff Bull and Michele Anstey, eds., The Literacy Lexicon, pp. 163–176. Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Gilbert, Sandra, and Susan Gubar. 1979. Madwoman in the Attic: The Woman Writer and the NineteenthCentury Literary Imagination. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gillard, Marni. 1996. Storyteller, Storyteacher. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Gillet, Pamela. 1982. “Models for Mainstreaming.” The Journal for Special Educators 19:1–12. Gilmore, William J. 1989. Reading Becomes a Necessity of Life: Material and Cultural Life in Rural New England, 1780–1835. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press. Godoy, Al, producer, and Cynthia B. Elliott, director. 1999. Literacy and Learning in Content-Area Reading: Electronic Jigsaw, Literacy, and Social Studies. Videotape. Available from Louisiana Public Broadcasting. Golden, Joanne. 1988. “The Construction of a Literary Text in a Story Reading Lesson.” In Judith Green and Judy Harker, eds., Multiple Perspective Analyses of Classroom Discourse, pp. 71–106. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Goldenberg, Claude. 1992–1993. “Instructional Conversations: Promoting Comprehension through Discussion.” Reading Teacher 46:316–326. Gonzalez, Juan, Carlos Gonzalez, Adelina Monzo, and Isabel Hernadez-Valle. 2000. “Onset-Rime in Visual Word Recognition in Spanish Normal Readers and Children with Reading Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities Research and Practice 15:135–141.
García, Georgia E., and Arlette Willis. 2001. “Frameworks for Understanding Multicultural Literacies.” In Peter Mosenthal and Patricia Schmidt, eds., Reconceptualizing Literacy in the Age of Pluralism and Multiculturalism. Vol. 9, Advances in Reading/Language Research, pp. 3–32. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. García, Georgia E., and P. David Pearson. 1994. “Assessment and Diversity.” Review of Research in Education 20:337–391. Garner, Ruth. 1987. Metacognition and Reading Comprehension. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ———. 1990. “When Children and Students Do Not Use Learning Strategies: Toward a Theory of Settings.” Review of Educational Research 60:517–529. Garner, Ruth, Patricia A. Alexander, Mark G. Gillingham, Jonna M. Kulikowich, and Rachel Brown. 1991. “Interest and Learning from Text.” American Educational Research Journal 28 (3):643–659. Gaskell, Jane, and John Willinsky. 1995. Gender In/Forms Curriculum: From Enrichment to Transformation. New York: Teachers College Press. Gaustad, Martha Gonter, and Trinka MessenheimerYoung. 1991. “Dialogue Journals for Students with Learning Disabilities.” Teaching Exceptional Children 23 (3):28–32. Gay, Geneva. 1994. A Synthesis of Scholarship in Multicultural Education. Urban Monograph Series. Oak Brook, IL: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Available: http://www. ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/educatrs/leadrshp/ le0gay.htm. Gee, James Paul. 1992. The Social Mind. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. ———. 1996. Social Linguistics and Literacies: Ideology in Discourses. 2d ed. London: Taylor and Francis. ———. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge. ———. 2000a. “The New Literacy Studies: From ‘Socially Situated’ to the Work of the Social.” In David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds., Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, pp. 180–196. London: Routledge. ———. 2000b. “Teenagers in New Times: A New Literacy Studies Perspective.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5):412–420. Gee, James Paul, G. Hull, and Colin Lankshear. 1996. The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the New Capitalism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Gee, James Paul, Sarah Michaels, and Cathy O’Conner. 1992. “Discourse Analysis.” In Margaret LeCompte, Wendy Millroy, and Judith Preissle, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research in
721
Bibliography Continuities and Contradictions in Western Culture and Society. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press. ———. 1995. The Labyrinths of Literacy: Reflections on Literacy Past and Present. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Gratz, Donald B. 2000. “High Standards for Whom?” Phi Delta Kappan 81:681–687. Graves, Donald H. 1975. “An Examination of the Writing Processes of Seven-Year-Old Children.” Research in the Teaching of English 9:227–241. Graves, Michael F., Connie Juel, and Bonnie B. Graves. 2001. Teaching Reading in the Twenty-First Century. 2d ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Graves, Michael F., Maureen C. Prenn, Jason Earle, Marty Thompson, Vivian Johnson, and Wayne H. Slater. 1991. “Commentary: Improving Instructional Text: Some Lessons Learned.” Reading Research Quarterly 26 (2):110–122. Gray, William S. 1925. Summary of Investigations Relating to Reading. Chicago: University of Chicago. ———. 1956. The Teaching of Reading and Writing. Paris: UNESCO. Greenberg, Elizabeth, Reynaldo F. Macías, David Rhodes, and Tsze Chan. 2001. English Literacy and Language Minorities in the United States. National Center for Education Statistics. NCES 2001–464. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Research and Improvement. Greeno, James. 1998. “The Situativity of Knowing, Learning, and Research.” American Psychologist 53 (1): 5–26. Greenwood, Charles R., Joseph C. Delquadri, and R. Vance Hall. 1989. “Longitudinal Effects of Classwide Peer Tutoring.” Journal of Educational Psychology 81:371–383. Greenwood, Charles R., Judith J. Carta, and R. Vance Hall. 1988. “The Use of Peer Tutoring Strategies in Classroom Management and Educational Instruction.” School Psychology Review 17:258–275. Grice, Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In P. Cole and J. Morgan, eds., Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts, vol. 3, pp. 41–58. New York: Academic Press. Gritsavage, Margaret. 1997. “Gendered Discourse in Classroom Conversations about Gender, Culture, and Literacy.” Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Phoenix, Arizona, December. Grommon, Alfred H. 1991. “Teachers as Language Learners: A History of English Language Arts Teacher Education.” In James Flood, Julie M. Jensen, Diane Lapp, and James R. Squire, eds., The Handbook of Research on Teaching the English Language Arts, pp. 380–392. New York: Macmillan. Guerra, Juan. 1998. Close to Home: Oral and Literate Practices in a Transnational Mexican Community. New York: Teachers College Press.
Gonzalez-Mena, Janet. 1997. Multicultural Issues in Childcare. 2d ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Goodman, Kenneth S. 1967. “Reading: A Psycholinguistic Guessing Game.” Journal of the Reading Specialist 4:126–135. ———. 1986. What’s Whole in Whole Language? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1994. “Reading, Writing, and Written Texts: A Transactional Sociopsycholinguistic View.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 1093–1130. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goodman, Yetta M. 1978. “Kidwatching: An Alternative to Testing.” National Elementary School Principal 57 (4):41–45. ———. 1985. “Kidwatching: Observing Children in the Classroom.” In Angela Jaggar and Margaret Smith-Burke, eds., Observing the Language Learner, pp. 9–18. Urbana, IL, and Newark, DE: National Council of Teachers of English and the International Reading Association. ———. 1989. “Roots of the Whole Language Movement.” The Elementary School Journal 90:113–127. Goodman, Yetta M., and Kenneth S. Goodman. 1994. “To Err Is Human: Learning about Language Processes by Analyzing Miscues.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, ed., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, pp. 104–123. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Goodman, Yetta M., Dorothy J. Watson, and Carolyn L. Burke. 1987. Reading Miscue Inventory: Alternative Procedures. New York: Richard C. Owen. ———. 1996. Reading Strategies: Focus on Comprehension. New York: Richard C. Owen. Goody, Jack, and Ian Watt. 1963. “The Consequences of Literacy.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:304–345. Goswami, Usha. 2001. “Rhymes Are Important: A Comment on Savage.” Journal of Research in Reading 24:19–29. Gough, Philip. B. 1972. “One Second of Reading.” In James F. Davanagh and Ignatius G. Mattingly, eds., Language by Ear and by Eye, pp. 331–358. Cambridge: MIT Press. Gourley, Judith W. 1984. “Discourse Structure: Expectations of Beginning Readers and Readability of Text.” Journal of Reading Behavior 14:169–188. Gowen, Sheryl G. 1992. The Politics of Workplace Literacy: A Case Study. New York: Teachers College Press. Graff, Harvey J. 1987. The Legacies of Literacy:
722
Bibliography Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tom McGowan, and Barbara J. Kowalinski. 1992. “Using a Literature-Based Approach to Teaching Social Studies.” Journal of Reading 38 (2):114–122. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Tonya E. Snyder, Gene V. Glass, and Warren S. Gamas. 1993. “Promoting Conceptual Change in Science: A Comparative Meta-analysis of Instructional Interventions from Reading Education and Science Education.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:116–161. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Wayne O. Williams, Stephanie A. Skeels, and Shwu Ming Wu. 1997. “Influence of Text Structure on Learning Counterintuitive Physics Concepts.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:701–719. Hagood, Margaret Carmody. 2000. “New Times, New Millennium, New Literacies.” Reading Research and Instruction 39:311–328. Hakim, Joy. 1999. A History of Us. 2d rev. ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Hakuta, Kenji. 1986. Mirror of Language: The Debate on Bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. ———. 2000. “Points on SAT-9 Performance and Proposition 227.” Available: http://www.stanford. edu/~hakuta/SAT9/SAT9_2000/bullets.htm. Hall, Mary Ann, and Christopher J. Ramig. 1978. Linguistic Foundations for Reading. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Hall, Nigel. 1997. “Young Children as Authors.” In Vic Edwards and David Corson, eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 2, Literacy, pp. 69–76. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. Hall, Stuart. 1997. “The Work of Representation.” In Stuart Hall, ed., Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, pp. 13–64. London: Sage. Halliday, Michael A. K., and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, Context, Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-Semiotic Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hamilton, Virginia. 2001. “Letters to the Editor.” The Horn Book Magazine 77, no. 5 (September/ October):504. Hammer, Rhonda, and Douglas Kellner. 2001. “Multimedia Pedagogy and Multicultural Education for the New Millennium.” Current Issues in Education 4 (2):1–10 (on-line at http://cie.ed. asu.edu/volume4/number 2). Hansen, Jane. 1994. “Literacy Portfolios: Windows on Potential.” In Shelia W. Valencia, Elfrieda Hiebert, and Peter P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 26–40. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Harp, Bill. 1996. The Handbook of Literacy Assessment and Evaluation. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon. Harper, Helen. 1998. “Dangerous Desires: Feminist
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Gunning, Thomas G. 1996. Creating Reading Instruction for All Children. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ———. 1998. Best Books for Beginning Readers. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. ———. 2000. Creating Literacy Instruction for All Students. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Guthrie, John. 1978. “Research Views: Comics.” The Reading Teacher 32, no. 3:376–378. Guthrie, John T., and Emily Anderson. 1999. “Engagement in Reading: Processes of Motivated, Strategic, Knowledgeable, Social Readers.” In John T. Guthrie and Donna E. Alvermann, eds., Engaged Reading: Processes, Practices, and Policy Implications, pp. 17–45. New York: Teachers College Press. Guthrie, John T., and Kathleen Cox. 2001. “Classroom Conditions for Motivation and Engagement in Reading.” Educational Psychology Review 13 (3):283–302. Guthrie, John T., and Solomon Alao. 1997. “Designing Contexts to Increase Motivations for Reading.” Educational Psychologist 32 (2):95–105. Guthrie, John T., Peggy Van Meter, Ann D. McCann, Allan Wigfield, Lois Bennett, Carol C. Poundstone, Mary E. Rice, Frances M. Faibisch, Brian Hunt, and Ann M. Mitchell. 1996. “Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivation and Strategies during Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:306–333. Guthrie, John T., Peggy Van Meter, Gregory R. Hancock, Solomon Alao, Emily Anderson, and Ann McCann. 1998. “Does Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction Increase Strategy Use and Conceptual Learning from Text?” Journal of Educational Psychology 90, no. 2:261–278. Guzzetti, Barbara, and Cynthia R. Hynd, eds. 1998. Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning in a Complex World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Guzzetti, Barbara J., and Wayne O. Williams. 1996. “Changing the Pattern of Gendered Discussion: Lessons from Science Classrooms.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40 (1):38–47. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Cynthia R. Hynd, Stephanie A. Skeels, and Wayne O. Williams. 1995. “Improving Physics Texts: Students Speak Out.” Journal of Reading 38 (3):656–665. Guzzetti, Barbara J., Josephine Young, Margaret Gritsavage, Laurie Fyfe, and Marie Hardenbrook. 2002. Reading, Writing, and Talking Gender in Literacy Learning. Literacy Studies Series. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and the National Reading Conference.
723
Bibliography http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ ed366673.html. Hauser, Gerard A. 1999. Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press. Head Start Bureau. 2001. 2001 Head Start Fact Sheet. Washington, DC: Head Start Bureau. Healy, Jane. 1997. “Current Brain Research.” Scholastic Early Childhood Today (August– September):42–43. Heath, Shirley Brice. 1983. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Heathington, Betty. 1979. “What to Do about Reading Motivation in the Middle School.” Journal of Reading 32:709–713. Heckelman, R. G. 1966. “Using the Neurological Impress Remedial Reading Technique.” Academic Therapy 1:235–239, 250. Heimlich, Joan E., and Susan D. Pittelman. 1986. Semantic Mapping: Classroom Applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hemphill, Lowry. 1999. “Narrative Style, Social Class, and Response to Poetry.” Research in the Teaching of English 33, no. 3:275–302. Henderson, Edmund H. 1990. Teaching Spelling. 2d ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Henk, William A., and Joan P. Helfeldt. 1985. “The Group Reading Inventory in the Social Studies Classroom.” Social Education 49:224–227. Henkin, David M. 1998 City Reading: Written Words and Public Spaces in Antebellum New York. New York: Columbia University Press. Henriques, Julian, Wendy Hollway, Cathy Urwin, Couze Venn, and Valerie Walkerdine. 1984. Changing the Subject. New York: Methuen. Herber, Harold L. 1970. Teaching Reading in the Content Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. ———. 1978. Teaching Reading in Content Areas. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Herber, Harold L., and Joan Nelson Herber. 1993. Teaching in Content Areas with Reading, Writing, and Reasoning. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Herrnstein, Richard, and Charles Murray. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press. Herron, Carolivia. 1997. Nappy Hair. New York: Knopf. Herz, Sarah K., and Donald R. Gallo. 1996. From Hinton to Hamlet: Building Bridges between Young Adult Literature and the Classics. Westport, CT: Greenwood. Hiebert, Efrieda H., and Barbara M. Taylor. 2000. “Beginning Reading Instruction: Research on Early Intervention.” In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D.
Literary Criticism in a High School Writing Class.” Theory Into Practice 37:220–228. Harris, Albert J., and Edward R. Sipay. 1990. How to Increase Reading Ability: A Guide to Developmental and Remedial Methods. 9th ed. New York: Longman. Harris, Margaret, and Giyoo Hatano, eds. 1999. Learning to Read and Write: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harris, Theodore L., and Richard E. Hodges, eds. 1981. A Dictionary of Reading and Related Terms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1995. The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1999. Dicionario de Alfabetizacao: Vocabulario de leitura e escrita. Porto Alegre, Brazil: Artes Medicas Sul. Harris, Violet Joyce, ed. 1996. Using Multiethnic Literature in Grades K–8. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Harste, Jerome C., Amy Breau, Christine Leland, Mitzi Lewison, Anne Ociepka, and Vivian Vasquez. 2000. “Supporting Critical Conversations in Classrooms.” In Kathryn Mitchell Pierce, ed., Adventuring with Books: A Booklist for PreK–Grade 6, 12th ed., pp. 506–554. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Hart, Betty, and Todd Risley. 1995. Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experience of Young American Children. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Hartmann, Douglas K. 1995. “Eight Readers Reading: The Intertextual Links of Proficient Readers Reading Multiple Passages.” Reading Research Quarterly 30:520–560. Hartup, Williard W. 1996. “Cooperation, Close Relationships, and Cognitive Development.” In William M. Bukowski, Andrew F. Newcomb, and Williard W. Hartup, eds., The Company They Keep, pp. 213–237. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Harvey, Stephanie, and Anne Goudvis. 2000. Strategies that Work. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Hasbrouck, Jan E., and Gerald Tindal. 1992. “Curriculum-Based Oral Reading Fluency Norms for Students in Grades 2 through 5.” Teaching Exceptional Children 24 (3):41–45. Haugland, Susan, and Daniel Shade. 1994. “Software Evaluation for Young Children.” In June Wright and Daniel Shade, eds., Young Children: Active Learners in a Technological Age. Washington, DC: NAEYC Press. Haung, Gary. 1993. “Beyond Culture: Communicating with Asian-American Children and Families.” ERIC Digest (on-line). Available:
724
Bibliography Abbott. 1998. “The Literature-Based Basals in First-Grade Classrooms: Savior, Satan or Sameold, Same-old.” Reading Research Quarterly 33:168–197. Hoffman, James. V., Sarah J. McCarthey, Judy Abbott, Cheryl Christian, Laura Corman, Mark Dressman, Bonnie Elliot, Debra Matherne, and Debra Stahle. 1994. “So What’s New in the New Basals?” Journal of Reading Behavior 26:47–73. Hoggart, Richard. 1958. The Uses of Literacy. London: Penguin. Holdaway, Don. 1979. The Foundations of Literacy. New York: Ashton Scholastic. Hooked on Phonics. 2000. San Francisco: Gateway Learning Corporation. Hoonan, Barry. 1995. Drawing on the Artist’s Perspective: Ventures into Meaning Making. In Bonnie Campbell Hill, Nancy J. Johnson, and Katherine L. Schlick Noe, eds., Literature Circles and Response, pp. 153–166. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Hoover, Wesley A., and Philip B. Gough. 1990. “The Simple View of Reading.” Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal 2:127–160. Hopkins, Lee B. 1996. School Supplies. New York: Scholastic. Horkheimer, Max, and Theodore Adorno. 1976. Dialectic of Enlightenment. Translated by J. Cumming. New York: Herder and Herder. Horning, Alice. 1991. “Readable Writing: The Role of Cohesion and Redundancy.” Journal of Advanced Composition 11, no. 1:135–145. Horsman, Jennifer. 2000. Too Scared to Learn: Women, Violence, and Education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Howell, Kenneth W., Sheila L. Fox, and Mada K. Morehead. 1993. Specific Level Assessment of Awareness of Print and Sound. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing. Hresko, Wayne, Donald Reid, Don Hammill, Herbert Ginsburg, and Arthur J. Baroody. 1988. Screening Children for Related Early Educational Needs. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Hubbell, Ruth. 1983. A Review of Head Start Research Since 1970. Washington, DC: CSR. Huck, Charlotte S. 1996. “Literature-Based Reading Programs: A Retrospective.” New Advocate 9:23–33. Huey, Edmund B. 1908. The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. New York: Macmillan. Reprint, Cambridge: MIT Press, 1968. Hull, Glynda. 1993. “Critical Literacy and Beyond: Lessons Learned from Students and Workers in a Vocational Program and on the Job.” Anthropology and Education Quarterly 24:373–396. ———, ed. 1999. Changing Work, Changing Workers:
Pearson, and R. Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, pp. 455–482. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Hiebert, Elfrieda H., P. David Pearson, Barbara M. Taylor, Virginia Richardson, and Scott G. Paris. 1998. Every Child a Reader: Applying Reading Research in the Classroom. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan School of Education, Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA). Hill, Bonnie Campbell, Nancy J. Johnson, and Katherine L. Schlick Noe. 1995. Literature Circles and Response. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Himmelweit, Hilda, Pamela Oppenheim, and Pamela Vince. 1958. Television and the Child. London: Oxford. Hinze, Kenneth. 1989. “PC Datagraphics and Mapping.” Social Science Computer Review 7(1):72–75. The History of Literacy web site. Available: http:// www.historyliteracy.org. Hladczuk, John, and William Eller. 1987. Comparative Reading: An International Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. ———. 1992. International Handbook of Reading Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hladczuk, John, William Eller, and Sharon Hladczuk. 1989. Literacy/Illiteracy in the World: A Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press. Hodges, Richard E., ed. 1999. What Is Literacy? Selected Definitions and Essays from The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Hoffman, James V. 1991. “Teacher and School Effects in Learning to Read.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 911–950. New York: Longman. ———. December 2001. “Words (on Words in Leveled Texts for Beginning Readers).” Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, San Antonio, TX. Hoffman, James V., and P. David Pearson. 2000. “Reading Teacher Education in the Next Millennium: What Your Grandmother’s Teacher Didn’t Know That Your Granddaughter’s Should.” Reading Research Quarterly 35, no. 1:28–44. Hoffman, James V., Kathryn Au, Colin Harrison, Scott Paris, P. David Pearson, Carol Minnick, George Madaus, and Thomas Kellaghan. 1993. “Testing as a Mechanism of Public Policy: A Brief History and Description.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 26(1):6–10. Hoffman, James V., Sarah McCarthey, Bonnie Elliott, Debra Bayles, Debra Price, Angela Ferree, and Judy
725
Bibliography Association.” Newark, NJ: The International Reading Association. (Single copies are free upon request by sending a self-addressed, stamped envelope to IRA or by going to www.reading.org/ advocacy/policies/specialist.) International Reading Association and National Association for the Education of Young Children. 1998. “Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children.” Reading Teacher 52:193–216. International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. 1994. Standards for the Assessment of Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. ———. 1996. Standards for the English Language Arts. Newark, DE: International Reading Association and National Council of Teachers of English. International Society for Technology Education. 2000. National Educational Technology Standards for Students—Connecting Curriculum and Technology. Eugene, OR: International Society for Technology Education. Irvin, Judith L. 1998. Reading and the Middle School Student. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Iser, Wolfgang. 1978. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Ivanic, Roz. 1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Ivey, Gay, James F. Baumann, and Dora Jarrard. 2000. “Exploring Literacy Balance: Iterations in a Second-Grade and a Sixth-Grade Classroom.” Reading Research and Instruction 39 (4):291–310. Jacobs, James S., Timothy G. Morrison, and William R. Swinyard. 2000. “Reading Aloud to Students: A National Probability Study of Classroom Reading Practices of Elementary School Teachers.” Reading Psychology 21:171–193. Janks, Hilary. 2000. “Domination, Access, Diversity, and Design: A Synthesis for Critical Literacy Education.” Educational Review 52 (2):175–186. Jaworski, A., and N. Coupland. 1999. The Discourse Reader. New York: Routledge. Jenkins, James J. 1979. “Four Points to Remember: A Tetrahedral Model of Memory Experiments.” In Fergus Craik and Laird Cermak, eds., Levels of Processing in Human Memory, pp. 429–446. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Jennings, Joyce Holt. 1991. “A Comparison of Summary and Journal Writing as Components of an Interactive Comprehension Model.” In Jerry Zutell et al., eds., Learner Factors/Teacher Factors: Issues in Literacy Research and Instruction, pp. 67–82. Chicago: The National Reading Conference. Jerrolds, Bob W. 1977. Reading Reflections: The
Critical Perspectives on Language, Literacy, and Skills. Albany: State University of New York Press. Hull, Glynda, Mark Jury, Oren Ziv, and Mira Katz. 1996. Changing Work, Changing Literacy? A Study of Skill Requirements and Development in a Traditional and Restructured Workplace: Final Report. Berkeley, CA: National Center for the Study of Writing and Literacy, ERIC no. ED 397 423. Hunt, Blanche Seale. 1940. Stories of Little Brown Koko. Chicago: American Colortype. Hunt, Matthew. 1996. “The Sociolinguistics of Tagging and Chicano Gang Graffiti.” Ph.D. diss., University of Southern California, Los Angeles. Husserl, Edmund. 1970. The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology: An Introduction to Phenomenological Philosophy. Translated by David Carr. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hynd, Cynthia R. 1999. “Teaching Students to Think Critically Using Multiple Texts in History.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (6):428–436. Hynd, Cynthia R., Donna Alvermann, and Gaoyin Qian. 1997. “Preservice Elementary School Teachers’ Conceptual Change about Projectile Motion: Refutation Text.” Science Education 81:1–27. Hynd, Cynthia R., Melinda McNish, Gaoyin Quian, Mark Keith, and Katherine Lay. 1994. Learning Counter-Intuitive Science Concepts: Effects of Text and Educational Environment. Research report no. 16. Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center. Indrisano, Roselmina, and James R. Squire, eds. 2000. Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ink, Gary, and Andrew Grabois. 2001. “Book Title Output and Average Price: 1999 Final and 2000 Preliminary Figures.” In Dale Bogard, ed., The Bowker Annual Library and Trade Book Almanac, 46th ed., pp. 485–489. New York: Bowker. Inman, Patricia, and Charles E. Trott. 1999. Pre-GED Assessment and Certification in Illinois: Final Report and Recommendations. De Kalb: Center for Governmental Studies, Northern Illinois University. International Reading Association. Instructions for Authors for Reading Research Quarterly. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 2000a. Reading Hall of Fame [electronic data tape]. Newark, DE. International Reading Association. ———. 2000b. “Teaching All Children to Read: The Roles of the Reading Specialist—A Position Statement of the International Reading
726
Bibliography through Fourth Grades.” Journal of Educational Psychology 80 (4):437–447. Juel, Connie, and Cecilia Minden-Cupp. 2000. “Learning to Read Words: Linguistic Units and Instructional Strategies.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:458–492. Jump Start Kindergarten. Torrance, CA: Knowledge Adventure. Just Grandma and Me. Novato, CA: Broderbund/The Learning Company. Just, Marcel, and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1987. The Psychology of Reading and Language Comprehension. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kalina, Christhoff, and John D. E. Gabrieli. 2000. “The Frontopolar Cortex and Human Cognition: Evidence for a Rostocaudal Hierarchical Organization within the Human Prefrontal Cortex.” Psychobiology 28 (2):168–186. Kamil, Michael, and Diane Lane. April 1997. “A Classroom Study of the Efficacy of Using Information Text for First Grade Reading Instruction.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, Illinois. ———. 1998. “Researching the Relation between Technology and Literacy: An Agenda for the 21st Century.” In D. Reinking, M. C. McKenna, L. D. Labbo, and R. D. Kieffer, eds., Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a PostTypographic World, pp. 323–341. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kamil, Michael L., Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds. 2000. Handbook of Reading Research, Volume III. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Kantor, Robbie N., Thomas H. Anderson, and Bonnie B. Armbruster. 1983. “How Are Children’s Textbooks Inconsiderate? Or, of Flyswatters and Alfa.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 15 (1):61–72. Kapinus, Barbara A., Gertrude V. Collier, and Hanah Kruglanski. 1994. “The Maryland School Performance Assessment Program: A New View of Assessment.” In Sheila W. Valencia, Elfreida H. Hiebert, and Peter P. Afflerbach, eds., Authentic Reading Assessment: Practices and Possibilities, pp. 255–276. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Karlsen, Bjorn, and Eric F. Gardner. 1984. Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace. Kasten, Wendy C., and Elizabeth Monce Lolli. 1998. Implementing Multiage Education: A Practical Guide. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Katz, Lillian. 1997. “A Developmental Approach to Assessment of Young Children.” ERIC Digest, April, ED 407 172.
History of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1990. “History of the American Reading Forum.” Yearbook of the American Reading Forum 10:193–198. Jett-Simpson, Mary, ed. 1990. Toward an Ecological Assessment of Reading Progress. Schofield: Wisconsin State Reading Association. Jiménez, Francisco. 1999. The Circuit: Stories from the Life of a Migrant Child. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Jiménez, Robert T., and Arturo Gámez. 1996. “Literature-Based Cognitive Strategy Instruction for Middle School Latina/o Students.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40:84–91. Jiménez, Robert T., Georgia E. García, and P. David Pearson. 1996. “The Reading Strategies of Bilingual Latina/o Students Who Are Successful English Readers: Opportunities and Obstacles.” Reading Research Quarterly 31 (l):90–112. Johns, Jerry L. 2001. “History of the Informal Reading Inventory.” In Basic Reading Inventory, 8th ed., pp. 99–108. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. ———, comp. 1993. Informal Reading Inventories: An Annotated Reference Guide. De Kalb: Northern Illinois University. Johns, Jerry L., and Susan Davis Lenski. 1997. Improving Reading: A Handbook of Strategies. Vol. 2. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Johns, Jerry L., Susan Lenski, and Laurie Elish-Piper. 1999. Early Literacy Assessments. Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt. Johnson, Dale D., and P. David Pearson. 1984. Teaching Reading Vocabulary. 2d ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Johnson, Marjorie Seddon, and Roy A. Kress. 1965. Informal Reading Inventories. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Johnson, Marjorie Seddon, Roy A. Kress, and John J. Pikulski. 1987. Informal Reading Inventories. 2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Johnston, Peter A. 1997. Knowing Literacy: Constructive Literacy Assessment. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Johnston, Peter A., and Richard L. Allington. 1991. “Remediation.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 984–1012. New York: Longman. Johnston, Peter, Haley Woodside-Jiron, and Jeni Day. 2001. “Teaching and Learning Literate Epistemologies.” Journal of Educational Psychology 93:223–233. Juel, Connie. 1989. “Learning to Read and Write: A Longitudinal Study of 54 Children from First
727
Bibliography Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 667–690. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Kletzien, Sharon B. 1996. “Reading Programs in Nationally Recognized Elementary Schools.” Reading Research and Instruction 35 (3): 260–274. Klotz, J. 1996. “Balanced Assesment for Balanced Instruction.” In Jerry L. Johns and Laurie ElishPiper, eds., Balanced Reading Instruction: Teachers’ Visions and Voices, pp. 134–144. Dubuque, IA: Kendell/Hunt Publishing. Knapp, Michael S. 1995. Teaching for Meaning in High-Poverty Classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press. Kondo, Kimi. 1998. “Social-Psychological Factors Affecting Language Maintenance: Interviews with Shin Nisei University Students.” Linguistics and Education 9:369–408. Kondo-Brown, K. 2000. “Acculturation and Identity among Bilingual Heritage Students of Japanese.” Japan Journal of Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 6:1–19. Koskinen, Patricia S., and Irene H. Blum. 1986. “Paired Repeated Reading: A Classroom Strategy for Developing Fluent Reading.” Reading Teacher 40:70–75. Kozol, Jonathon. 1991. Savage Inequalities: Children in America’s Schools. New York: Crown Publishers. Krashen, Stephen D. 1993. The Power of Reading: Insights from the Research. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. ———. 1996. Under Attack: The Case against Bilingual Education. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. ———. 1999. Condemned without a Trial: Bogus Arguments against Bilingual Education. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Krashen, Stephen, Lucy Tse, and Jeff McQuillan, eds. 1998. Heritage Language Development. Culver City, CA: Language Education Associates. Kripke, Saul. 1972. “Naming and Necessity.” In Donald Donaldson and Gilbert Harman, eds., Semantics of Natural Language, pp. 253–355. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel. Kuhl, Patricia. 1993. Life Language. Seattle: University of Washington. Kurkjian, Catherine, Kenneth J. Weiss, and Helen R. Abadiano. 1998. “Electronic Exchanges across Campuses: Facilitating Forums for Concerns and Issues Surrounding the Selection and Use of Culturally Conscious Literature within a Multicultural Curriculum.” In The 1997 Proceedings of the National Association of Multicultural Education, pp. 338–358. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Labbo, Linda D., and David Reinking. 1999. “Negotiating the Multiple Realities of Technology
Kauchak, D. P., and P. D. Eggen. 1989. Learning and Teaching. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Kaufer, David S., and Kathleen M. Carley. 1993. Communication at a Distance: The Influence of Print on Sociocultural Organization and Change. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Kaywell, Joan F. 1993. Young Adult Literature as a Complement to the Classics. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Kearney, A. T. 1999. “Economic Impact Analysis.” Syracuse, NY: Literacy Volunteers of America. Keene, Ellin O., and Susan Zimmerman. 1997. Mosaic of Thought: Teaching Comprehension in a Reader’s Workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Kelly, George A. 1955. The Psychology of Personal Constructs. New York: Norton. Kennedy, Teresa J., and George F. Canney. 2001. “Collaboration across Language, Age, and Geographic Borders.” In Victoria J. Risko and Karen Bromley, eds., Collaboration for Diverse Learners, pp. 310–329. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Keys, Carolyn. 1999. “Revitalizing Instruction in Scientific Genres: Connecting Knowledge Production with Writing to Learn in Science.” Science Education 83:115–130. KidpixStudio Deluxe. Novato, CA: Broderbund/ Mattel, The Learning Company. King, Allison. 1992. “Comparison of SelfQuestioning, Summarizing, and Note-Taking Review as Strategies for Learning from Lectures.” American Educational Research Journal 29:303–323. King, Martha L., Bernice D. Ellinger, and Willavene Wolf, eds. 1967. Critical Reading. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company. Kintsch, Walter. 1998. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kirsch, Irwin S., and Ann Jungeblut. 1986. Literacy: Profiles of America’s Young Adults. Princeton, NJ: National Assessment of Educational Progress at Educational Testing Service. Kirsch, Irwin S., Ann Jungeblut, Lynn Jenkins, and Andrew Kolstad. 1993. Adult Literacy in America: A First Look at the Results of the National Adult Literacy Survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Klare, George R. 1984. “Readability.” In P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 681–744. New York: Longman. Klenk, Laura, and Michael W. Kibby. 2000. “ReMediating Reading Difficulties: Appraising the Past, Reconciling the Present, Constructing the Future.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds.,
728
Bibliography Report No. 26. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Lee, Doris M., and Roach V. Allen. 1963. Learning to Read Through Experience. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts. Leggo, Carl. 1998. “Open(ing) Texts: Deconstructing and Responding to Poetry.” Theory Into Practice 37:186–192. Leipzig, Diane, and Peter Afflerbach. 2000. “Determining the Suitability of Assessments: Using the CURRV Framework.” In L. Baker, M. Dreher, and J. Guthrie, eds., Engaging Young Readers: Promoting Achievement and Independence, pp. 159–187. New York: Guilford Press. Lenski, Susan Davis, and Jerry L. Johns. 2000. Improving Writing. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Leont’ev, A. N. 1981. Problems of the Development of Mind. Moscow: Progress Publishers. Lerner, Janet W. 2000. Learning Disabilities: Theories, Diagnosis, and Teaching Strategies. 8th ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Leu, Donald J. Jr., and Deborah Diadiun Leu. 2000. Teaching with the Internet: Lessons from the Classroom. 3rd ed. Norwood, MA: ChristopherGordon Publishers. Leu, Donald J. Jr., Linda-Jo C. DeGroff, and Herbert D. Simons. 1986. “Predictable Texts and Interactive-Compensatory Hypotheses: Evaluating Individual Differences in Reading Ability, Context Use, and Comprehension.” Journal of Educational Psychology 78:347–352. Levin, Henry M. 1993. “Prologue.” In Wendy S. Hopfenberg et al., The Accelerated Schools Resource Guide, pp. xi–xvi. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Lewis, Clarence I. 1946. An Analysis of Knowledge and Valuation. LaSalle, IL: The Open Court Publishing. Lewis, Cynthia. 2001. Literary Practices as Social Acts: Power, Status, and Cultural Norms in the Classroom. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Lewis, Cynthia, and Bettina Fabos. 2000. “But Will It Work in the Heartland? A Response and Illustration.” Journal of Adolescent Literacy 43 (5):462–469. Lidz, Carol S. 1995. “Dynamic Assessment and the Legacy of L. S. Vygotsky.” School Psychology International 16:143–153. Lidz, Carol S., and Julian G. Elliott, eds. 2000. Dynamic Assessment: Prevailing Models and Applications. New York: JAI Press. Lindfors, Judith. 1999. Children’s Inquiry: Using Language to Make Sense of the World. New York: Teachers College Press. Linn, Robert L. 2000. “Assessments and Accountability.” Educational Researcher 29 (2):4–16. ———. 2001. The Design and Evaluation of Educational Assessment and Accountability Systems. CSE Technical Report 539. National Center for
in Literacy Research and Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 34, no. 4:478–492. Labbo, Linda D., and William H. Teale. 1990. “Crossage Reading: A Strategy for Helping Poor Readers.” The Reading Teacher 43:362–369. LaBerge, David, and S. Jay Samuels. 1974. “Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading.” Cognitive Psychology 6, no. 2:293–323. Labov, William. 1969. “The Logic of Non-Standard English.” Georgetown Monographs on Language and Linguistics 22:1–22, 26–31. Ladd, Gary W., Sandra H. Birch, and Eric S. Buhs. 1999. “Children’s Social and Scholastic Lives in Kindergarten: Related Spheres and Influences.” Child Development 70, no. 6:1373–1400. Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1994. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic Books. Lambert, Wallace E., and G. Richard Tucker. 1972. Bilingual Education of Children: The St. Lambert Experiment. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Lamport, Harold. 1935. A History of the Teaching of Beginning Reading. Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago. Lance, Keith Curry. 1994. “The Impact of School Library Media Centers on Academic Achievement.” In C. Kuhlthau, ed., School Library Media Annual, Vol. 12, pp. 188–197. Englewood, CO: Libraries Unlimited. Langer, J. A., J. R. Campbel, S. B. Neuman, I. V. S. Mullis, H. R. Persley, and P. L. Donahue. 1995. Reading Assessment Redesigned. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service. Langer, Judith A. 1995. Envisioning Literature: Literary Understanding and Literature Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Lanham, Richard A. 1993. The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology, and the Arts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lankshear, Colin, James P. Gee, Michele Knobel, and Chris Searle. 1997. Changing Literacies. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. LaPlantz, Shereen. 1995. Cover to Cover. Asheville, NC: Lark Books. Lapp, Diane, and James Flood. 1992. Teaching Reading to Every Child. 3rd ed. New York: Macmillan. Leal, Dorothy. 1992. “The Nature of Talk about Three Types of Text during Peer Group Discussions.” Journal of Reading Behavior 24, no. 3:313–338. Lee, Carol D. 1993. Signifying as a Scaffold for Literary Interpretation: The Pedagogical Implications of an African-American Discourse Genre. Research
729
Bibliography Lyman, Howard B. 1998. Test Scores and What They Mean. 6th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Lyon, Reid G. 1998. “The NICHD Research Program in Reading Development, Reading Disorders and Reading Instruction: A Summary of Research Findings. Keys to Successful Learning: A National Summit on Research in Learning Disabilities.” New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities. ED 430 366. Lyons, Carol A., Gay S. Pinnell, and Diane E. DeFord. 1993. Partners in Learning: Teachers and Children in Reading Recovery. New York: Teachers College Press. Lytle, Susan L., and M. Wolfe. 1989. Adult Literacy Education: Program Evaluation and Learner Assessment. Columbus, OH: Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 315 665. Macías, Reynaldo F. 1990. “Definitions of Literacy: A Response.” In Robert L. Venezky, David A. Wagner, and B. S. Ciliberti, eds., Toward Defining Literacy, pp. 17–23. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. MacSwan, Jeff. 1999. A Minimalist Approach to Intrasentential Codeswitching. New York: Garland. ———. 2000. “The Threshold Hypothesis, Semilingualism, and Other Contributions to a Deficit View of Linguistic Minorities.” Hispanic Journal of Behavior Sciences 20 (1):3–45. Madaus, George F. 1985. “Public Policy and the Testing Profession—You’ve Never Had It So Good?” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 4:5–11. Magnusson, Shirley J., and Mark Templin. 1997. “Dynamic Science Assessment: A New Approach for Investigating Conceptual Change.” The Journal of the Learning Sciences 6:91–142. Mahiri, Jabari, ed. 2002. What They Don’t Learn in School: Literacy in the Lives of Urban Youth. New York: Peter Lang. Mahon, Michael. 1992. Foucault’s Neitzschean Genealogy. Albany: State University of New York Press. Mailloux, Steven. 1984. Interpretive Conventions: The Reader in the Study of American Fiction. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Malmquist, Eve. 1982. Handbook on Comparative Reading: An Annotated Bibliography. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Mandler, Jean M., and Nancy S. Johnson. 1977. “Remembrance of Things Parsed: Story Structure and Recall.” Cognitive Psychology 9:111–151. Manzo, A. V. 1969. “Improving Reading Comprehension through Reciprocal Questioning.” Ph.D. diss., Syracuse University. Dissertation Abstracts International 30:5344A. Maria, Katherine. 1997. “A Case Study of Conceptual
Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. ———, ed. 1989. Educational Measurement. 3d ed. New York: Macmillan. Linn, Robert L., E. L. Baker, and S. B. Dunbar. 1991. “Complex, Performance-Based Assessment: Expectation and Validation Criteria.” Educational Researcher 20 (8):15–21. Lippi-Green, Rosina. 1997. English with an Accent: Language, Ideology, and Discrimination in the United States. London and New York: Routledge. Lipson, Marjorie. 1982. “Learning New Information from Text: The Role of Prior Knowledge and Reading Ability.” Journal of Reading Behavior 14:234–258. Lipson, Marjorie Y., Sheila W. Valencia, Karen K. Wixson, and Charles W. Peters. 1993. “Integration and Thematic Teaching: Integration to Improve Teaching and Learning.” Language Arts 70 (4):252–263. Lively, B. A., and Sidney L. Pressey. 1923. “A Method of Measuring Vocabulary Burden of Textbooks.” Educational Administration and Supervision 9:389–398. Locke, John. 1690. Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Edited by Alexander C. Fraser. New York: Dover, 1959. Long, Melinda. 2000. When Papa Snores. New York: Simon and Schuster. Lortie, David. 1975. Schoolteacher. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lowe, Jean H. 1994. “Assessment of Adult Learners: Purpose and Context.” Mosaic: Research Notes on Literacy 4:2. Luke, Allan. 1992. “The Body Literate: Discourse and Inscription in Early Literacy Training.” Linguistics and Education 4:107–129. ———. 2000. “Critical Literacy in Australia: A Matter of Context and Standpoint.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (5):448–459. Luke, Allan, and John Elkins. 1998. “Reinventing Literacy in ‘New Times.’” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42 (September):4–7. Luke, Allan, and Peter Freebody. 1997. “Shaping the Social Practices of Reading.” In Sandy Muspratt, Allan Luke, and Peter Freebody, eds., Constructing Critical Literacies, pp. 185–225. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Luke, Carmen. 1997. “Media Literacy and Cultural Studies.” In Sandy Muspratt, Allan Luke, and Peter Freebody, eds., Constructing Critical Literacies: Teaching and Learning Textual Practice, pp. 19–49. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Luke, Carmen, and Jennifer Gore. 1992. Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. New York: Routledge.
730
Bibliography and Douglas Fuchs. 1998. “Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies for First-Grade Readers: Making Early Reading Instruction More Responsive to the Needs of Diverse Learners.” Reading Research Quarterly 33:62–95. Matthews, Mitford M. 1966. Teaching to Read, Historically Considered. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Matthews, Mona W., and John E. Kesner. 2000. “The Silencing of Sammy: One Struggling Reader Learning with His Peers.” The Reading Teacher 53, no. 5:382–390. May, Jim. 1994. The Farm on Nippersink Creek: Stories from a Midwestern Childhood. Little Rock, AR: August House Publishers. Maylath, Bruce. 1997. “Assessors’ Language Awareness in the Evaluation of Academic Writing.” In Leo van Lier and David Corson, eds., Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Vol. 6, Knowledge about Language, pp. 195–204. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer. McCarthey, Sarah J. 1998. “Constructing Multiple Subjectivities in Classroom Literacy Contexts.” Research in the Teaching of English 32:126–160. McCarty, Heidi, and Lynn Chalmers. 1997. “Bibliotherapy Intervention and Prevention.” Teaching Exceptional Children 29 (6):12–13, 16–17. McCaslin, Nellie. 2000. Creative Drama in the Classroom and Beyond. 7th ed. New York: Addison Wesley Longman. McCormick, Christine, and Jana M. Mason. 1986. Use of Little Books at Home: A Minimal Intervention Strategy that Fosters Early Reading. Technical report no. 388. Champaign: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Center for the Study of Reading. McCormick, Sandra. 1999. Instructing Students Who Have Literacy Problems. Columbus, OH: PrenticeHall. McGee, Lea. 1992. “An Exploration of Meaning Construction in First Graders’ Grand Conversations.” In Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, Literacy Research, Theory, and Practice: Views from Many Perspectives, pp. 177–186. Chicago: National Reading Conference. McGill-Franzen, Anne, and Virginia Goatley. 2001. “Title 1 and Special Education: Support for Children Who Struggle to Learn to Read.” In S. Neuman and D. Dickinson, eds., Handbook of Early Literacy Research, pp. 471–483. New York: Guilford. McKeachie, Wilbert J. 1986. Teaching Tips: A Guidebook for the Beginning College Teacher. 8th ed. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. McKenna, Michael, and Dennis Kear. 1990. “Measuring Attitude toward Reading: A New Tool for Teachers.” The Reading Teacher (May):626–630.
Change in a Young Child.” Elementary School Journal 98:67–88. ———. 1998. “Self-confidence and the Process of Conceptual Change.” In Barbara J. Guzzetti and Cynthia Hynd, eds., Perspectives on Conceptual Change, pp. 7–16. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Maria, Katherine, and Joanne M. Johnson. 1990. “Correcting Misconceptions: Effect of Type of Text.” In Jerry Zutell and Sandra McCormick, eds., Thirty-Ninth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 329–337. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Maria, Katherine, and Walter R. MacGinitie. 1987. “Learning from Texts that Refute the Reader’s Prior Knowledge.” Reading Research and Instruction 26:222–238. Marshall, James D., Peter Smagorinsky, and Michael W. Smith. 1995. The Language of Interpretation: Patterns of Discourse in Discussions of Literature. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Marshall, Nancy. 1991. “The Effects of Social Pressure and Personal Belief on Overcoming Science Misconceptions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Reading Conference, Miami, FL, December. Martin, Bill. 1966. Sounds of Language Readers. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Martin, Bill, and Peggy Brogan. 1971. Instant Readers. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Martin, Larry G., and James C. Fisher, eds. 1999. The Welfare-to-Word Challenge for Adult Literacy Educators. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Martinez, Miriam, Nancy L. Roser, and Susan Strecker. 1998/1999. “‘I Never Thought I Could Be a Star’: A Readers Theatre Ticket to Fluency.” The Reading Teacher 52, no. 4:326–334. Martinez, Miriam, Nancy L. Roser, James V. Hoffman, and Jennifer Battle. 1992. “Fostering Better Book Discussions through Response Logs and a Response Framework: A Case of Description.” In Charles K. Kinzer and Donald J. Leu, eds., Literacy Research, Theory, and Practice: Views from Many Perspectives, pp. 303–311. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Marzano, Robert A. 1996. Cultivating Thinking in English and the Language Arts. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Mason, Beniko, and Stephen Krashen. 1997. “Extensive Reading in English as a Foreign Language.” System 25:91–102. Mason, Jana M. 1984. “Early Reading from a Developmental Perspective.” In P. David Pearson, ed., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 505–534. New York: Longman. Mathes, Patricia G., Jill K. Howard, Shelley H. Allen,
731
Bibliography Angela Lintz. 1996. Constructing School Success: The Consequences of Untracking Low-Achieving Students. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mehrens, William A., and Irvin J. Lehmann. 1987. Using Standardized Tests in Education. 4th ed. New York: Longman. ———. 1991. Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Meisel, Jürgen. 1990. “Grammatical Development in the Simultaneous Acquisition of Two First Languages.” In J. M. Meisel, ed., Two First Languages: Early Grammatical Development in Bilingual Children. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris. Mercer, Cecil D., and Anne R. Mercer. 1989. Teaching Children with Learning Problems. 3d ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Merino, Barbara J., Henry T. Trueba, and Fabián A. Samaniego, eds. 1993. Language and Culture in Learning: Teaching Spanish to Native Speakers of Spanish. Washington, DC: Falmer Press. Messaris, Paul. 1994. Visual Literacy: Image, Mind and Reality. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Messick, Sam. 1994. “The Interplay of Evidence and Consequences in the Validation of Performance Assessments.” Educational Researcher 23 (2):13–23. Meyer, Bonnie J. F., and Roy O. Freedle. 1984. “Effects of Discourse Type on Recall.” American Educational Research Journal 21:121–143. Michaels, Sarah. 1981. “‘Sharing Time’: Children’s Narrative Styles and Differential Access to Literacy.” Language in Society 10:423–442. Michalove, Barbara. 1999. “Examining Prejudice in History and in Ourselves.” In J. Allen, ed., Class Actions: Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary and Middle School. New York: Teachers College Press. Michel, George F., and Celia L. Moore. 1995. Developmental Psychobiology: An Interdisciplinary Science. Cambridge: MIT Press. Mikulecky, Larry, and Paul Lloyd. 1997. “Evaluation of Workplace Literacy Programs: A Profile of Effective Instructional Practices.” Journal of Literacy Research 29:555–585. Mikulecky, Larry, Paul Lloyd, Lisa Horowitz, Sharon Masker, and Patti Siemantel. 1996. A Review of Recent Workplace Literacy Programs and a Projection of Future Challenges. NCAL Technical Report TR96–04. Philadelphia: National Center for Adult Literacy, pp. 2–7. Miller, Larry, James Blackstock, and R. Miller. 1994. “An Exploratory Study into the Use of CD-ROM Storybooks.” Computers in Education 22:187–204. Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy. 1999. Authority in Language: Investigating Standard English. 3rd ed. London and New York: Routledge. Minnick, Norris. 1987. “Implications of Vygotsky’s
McKenna, Michael C., and Richard D. Robinson. 1999. “The Impact of the Journal of Reading Behavior on Reading Scholarship.” Journal of Literacy Research 31:93–104. McKenna, Michael C., Dennis J. Kear, and Richard A. Ellsworth. 1995. “Children’s Attitudes toward Reading: A National Survey.” Reading Research Quarterly 30:934–956. McKeown, Margaret G., and Isabel L. Beck. 1990. “The Assessment and Characterization of Young Learners’ Knowledge of a Topic in History.” American Educational Research Journal 27:688–726. McLaren, Peter L., and Colin Lankshear. 1993. “Critical Literacy and the Postmodern Turn.” In Colin Lankshear and Peter L. McLaren, eds., Critical Literacy: Politics, Praxis, and the Postmodern, pp. 379–419. Albany: State University of New York Press. McLaughlin, Daniel. 1992. When Literacy Empowers: Navajo Language in Print. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. McLean, Morag, Peter Bryant, and Lynette Bradley. 1987. “Rhymes, Nursery Rhymes, and Reading in Early Childhood.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 33(3):255–281. McLuhan, Marshall. 1962. The Gutenberg Galaxy: The Making of Typographic Man. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. ———. 1964. Understanding Media. New York: Signet Books. McMahon, Susan I., Taffey Raphael, and Virginia Goatley, eds. 1997. The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk. New York: Teachers College Press. McNamara, Timothy P., Diana L. Miller, and John D. Bransford. (1991). “Mental Models and Reading Comprehension.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 490–511. New York: Longman. McQuillan, Jeff. 1996. “How Should Heritage Languages Be Taught?: The Effects of a Free Voluntary Reading Program.” Foreign Language Annals 29:56–72. ———. 1998. The Literacy Crisis: False Claims and Real Solutions. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. McRobbie, Angela. 1994. Postmodernism and Popular Culture. New York: Routledge. McTighe, Jay, and Frank Lyman. 1988. “Cueing Thinking in the Classroom: The Promise of Theory-Embedded Tools.” Educational Leadership 45 (7):18–24. McWilliams, Lana, and Thomas A. Rakes. 1980. “Assessing Reading Skills in Science.” Science and Children 18:21–22. Mehan, Hugh, Irene Villanueva, Lea Hubbard, and
732
Bibliography Monaghan, E. Jennifer, and E. Wendy Saul. 1987. “The Reader, the Scribe, the Thinker: A Critical Look at the History of American Reading and Writing Instruction.” In T. S. Popkewitz, ed., The Formation of School Subjects: The Struggle for Creating an American Institution, pp. 85–122. Philadelphia: Falmer. Monseau, Virginia R. 1996. Responding to Young Adult Literature. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Monseau, Virginia R., and Gary M. Salvner, eds. 2000. Reading Their World: The Young Adult Novel in the Classroom. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Moody, Sally W., Sharon Vaughn, and Jeanne S. Schumm. 1997. “Instructional Grouping for Reading: Teachers’ Views.” Remedial and Special Education 18 (6):347–356. Moore, David W. 1997. “Some Complexities of Gendered Talk about Texts.” Journal of Literacy Research 29 (4):507–530. Moore, David W., Donna E. Alvermann, and Kathleen A. Hinchman. 2000. Struggling Adolescent Readers: A Collection of Teaching Strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Moore, David W., E. Jennifer Monaghan, and Douglas K. Hartman. 1997. “Values of Literacy History.” Reading Research Quarterly 32:90–102. Moore, David W., John Readence, and Robert Rickelman. 1983. “An Historical Exploration of Content Area Reading Instruction.” Reading Research Quarterly 18:419–438. Moore, David W., Thomas W. Bean, Deanna Birdyshaw, and James A. Rycik. 1999. “Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (September): 97–112. Moore, John Noell. 1997. Interpreting Young Adult Literature: Literary Theory in the Secondary Classroom. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1998. “Street Signs: Semiotics, Romeo and Juliet, and Young Adult Literature.” Theory Into Practice 37:211–219. Morawski, C. 1997. “A Role for Bibliotherapy in Teacher Education.” Reading Horizons 37 (3):243–259. Morgan, Wendy. 1997. Critical Literacy in the Classroom: The Art of the Possible. New York: Routledge. Morris, Darrell. 1999. “Early Reading Screening Instrument (ERSI).” Best Practices in SpeechLanguage Pathology 2: 43–51. Morrison, George S. 2000. Fundamentals of Early Childhood Education. 2nd ed. Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Morrow, Lesley M. 1990. “Preparing the Classroom Environment to Promote Literacy during Play.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 5:537–544.
Theories for Dynamic Assessment.” In C. S. Lidz, ed., Dynamic Assessment: An Interactional Approach for Evaluating Learning Potential, pp. 116–140. New York: Guilford. Miranda, Anne. 1996. Pignic. Honesdale, PA: Boyds Mills. Mishina, Satomi. 1998. “Language Separation in Early Bilingual Development: A Longitudinal Study of Japanese/English Bilingual Children.” Ph.D. diss., University of California at Los Angeles. Mitchell, Karen, David Robinson, Barbara Plake, and Kaeli Knowles. 2001. Testing Teacher Candidates: The Role of Licensure Tests in Improving Teacher Quality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Moje, Elizabeth Birr. 2000. “To Be Part of the Story: The Literacy Practices of Gangsta Adolescents.” Teachers College Record 102:652–690. Moje, Elizabeth Birr, Josephine Peyton Young, John E. Readence, and David W. Moore. 2000. “Reinventing Adolescent Literacy for New Times: Perennial and Millennial Issues.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (February):400–410. Moline, Steve. 1995. I See What You Mean: Children at Work with Visual Information. York, ME: Stenhouse. Moll, Louis C. 1990. Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press. ———. 2000. “Inspired by Vygotsky: Ethnographic Experiments in Education.” In Carol Lee and Peter Smagorinsky, eds., Vygotskian Perspective on Literary Research: Constructing Meaning through Collaborative Inquiry, pp. 256–268. New York: Cambridge University Press. Moll, Luis C., and James B. Greenberg. 1990. “Creating Zones of Possibilities: Combining Social Contexts for Instruction.” In L. C. Moll, ed., Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, pp. 319–348. New York: Cambridge University Press. Moll, Luis C., Cathy Amanti, Bedorah Neff, and Norma González. 1992. “Funds of Knowledge for Teaching: Using a Qualitative Approach to Connect Homes and Classrooms.” Theory into Practice 31:132–141. Monaghan, Charles. 1998. The Murrays of Murray Hill. Brooklyn, NY: Urban History Press. Monaghan, E. Jennifer. 1994. “Gender and Textbooks: Women Writers of Elementary Readers, 1880– 1950.” Publishing Research Quarterly 10:28–46. Monaghan, E. Jennifer, and Arlene L. Barry. 1999. Writing the Past: Teaching Reading in Colonial America and the United States, 1640–1940: The Catalog. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
733
Bibliography ———. 2001. Inquiry-Based English Instruction: Engaging Students in Life and Literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Myers, Walter Dean. 1991. Fallen Angels. New York: Scholastic Paperbacks. ———. 1993. Brown Angels. New York: HarperCollins. ———. 1994. The Glory Field. New York: HarperCollins. ———. 1999. Monster. New York: HarperCollins. NAEP 1994 Reading: A First Look—Findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 1995. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Nagy, William. 1988. Teaching Vocabulary to Improve Reading Comprehension. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Nagy, William E., Patricia A. Herman, and Richard C. Anderson. 1985. “Learning Words from Context.” Reading Research Quarterly 20:233–253. National Assessment Governing Board. 1996. Writing Framework and Specifications for the 1998 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: National Assessment Governing Board. National Center for Education Statistics. 2000. Digest of Educational Statistics: 1999. NCES 2000–031. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. ———. 2001. Available: http://www.nces.ed.gov. 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 of Teachers of English, Commission on Reading. 1989. “Basal Readers and the State of American Reading Instruction: A Call for Action.” Reprinted in 2000, in Richard D. Robinson, Michael C. McKenna, and Judy M. Wedman, eds., Issues and Trends in Literacy Education, pp. 157–159. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. 1989. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. National Council on Education Standards and Testing. 1992. Raising Standards for American Education: A Report to Congress, the Secretary of Education, the National Education Goals Panel, and the American People. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. National Institute for Literacy. 2000. From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda for Literacy. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (Reports of the
———. 2001. Literacy Development in the Early Years: Helping Children Read and Write. 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Morrow, Lesley M., and Linda Gambrell. 2000. “Literature-Based Reading Instruction.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 563–586. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Morrow, Lesley M., Michael Pressley, Jeffrey K. Smith, and Michael Smith. 1997. “The Effect of a Literature-Based Program Integrated into Literacy and Science Instruction with Children from Diverse Backgrounds.” Reading Research Quarterly 32:54–76. Mortensen, Eileen. 1984. “Reading Achievement of Native Spanish-Speaking Elementary Students in Bilingual vs. Monolingual Programs.” Bilingual Review 11 (3):31–36. Mosenthal, Peter B., and Michael L. Kamil. 1996. “Epilogue: Understanding Progress in Reading Research.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 1013–1046. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Mosenthal, Peter B., P. David Pearson, Michael Kamil, and Rebecca Barr, eds. 2002. Methods of Literacy Research: The Methodology Chapters from the Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 4. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Moss, Barbara. 1991. “Children’s Nonfiction Trade Books: A Complement to Content Area Texts.” Reading Teacher 45 (1):26–32. Moss, Gemma. 1995. “Rewriting Reading.” In Janet Holland and Maud Blair, eds., with Sue Sheldon. Debates and Issues in Feminist Research and Pedagogy, pp. 157–168. Buckingham, UK: Open University. Moss, Pamela. 1992. “Shifting Conceptions of Validity in Educational Measurement: Implications for Performance Assessment.” Review of Educational Research 62:229–258. Mouffee, Chantal. 1995. “Politics, Democratic Action, and Solidarity.” Inquiry 38:99–108. Munsch, Robert. 1997. Alligator Baby. New York: Scholastic. Muth, K. Denise, and Donna Alvermann. 1999. Teaching and Learning in the Middle Grades. 2d ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Muysken, Pieter. 2000. Bilingual Speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Myers, Greg. 1990. Writing Biology: Texts in the Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Myers, Jamie. 1998. “Bibliotherapy and DCT: CoConstructing the Therapeutic Metaphor.” Journal of Counseling and Development 76:243–250.
734
Bibliography Kalantzis, eds., Multiliteracies: Literacy Learning and the Design of Social Futures, pp. 9–37. New York: Routledge. New Standards. 1999. Reading and Writing Grade by Grade: Primary Literacy Standards for Kindergarten through Third Grade. Pittsburgh, PA: National Center for Education and the Economy, University of Pittsburgh. Newby, Robert F., Donna R. Recht, and JoAnne Caldwell. 1993. “Validation of a Clinical Method for the Diagnosis of Two Subtypes of Dyslexia.” Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 11 (1):72–83. Newmeyer, Frederick J. 1986. Linguistic Theory in America. 2nd ed. San Diego: Academic Press. Nicholls, John. 1989. The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Nicholson, Julie, Adrienne Gelpi, Shannon Young, and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1998. “Influences of Gender and Open-Ended Software on First Graders’ Collaborative Composing Activities on Computers.” Journal of Computing in Childhood Education 9 (1):3–42. Nieto, Sonia. 1996. Affirming Diversity: The Sociopolitical Context of Multicultural Education. New York: Longman. ———. 1999. The Light in Their Eyes: Creating Multicultural Learning Communities. New York: Teachers College Press. Nilsen, Alleen Pace, and Kenneth L. Donelson. 2001. Literature for Today’s Young Adults. 6th ed. New York: Longman. Norris, Janet. 1989. “Facilitating Developmental Changes in Spelling.” Academic Therapy 25:97–108. Norris, Janet, and Paul Hoffman. 1989. “On the Nature of Phonological Development: Evidence from Normal Children’s Spelling Errors.” Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 32:787–794. ———. 1993. Whole Language Intervention for SchoolAge Children. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group. Norris, Stephen P., and Linda M. Phillips. 1994. “The Relevance of a Reader’s Knowledge within a Perspectival View of Reading.” Journal of Reading Behavior 26 (4):391–412. Northcutt, Norvell. 1975. Adult Functional Competency: A Summary. Austin: University of Texas. Norwick, Lisa F. 1995. “Deepening Response through the Arts.” In Bonnie Campbell Hill, Nancy J. Johnson, and Katherine L. Schlick Noe, eds., Literature Circles and Response, pp. 131–152. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Nurss, Joanne R., and Ruth A. Hough. 1992. “Reading and the ESL Student.” In S. Jay Samuels and Alan
Subgroups). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services. National Reading Conference. 1999. 30th Anniversary Issue. Journal of Literacy Research 31, no. 1 (March). National Reading Panel. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read. Report of the Subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. National Storytelling Association. 1994. Tales as Tools: The Power of Story in the Classroom. Jonesborough, TN: The National Storytelling Press. Nelms, Ben, ed. 1993. “Teachers and Teaching in Novels, Biographies, Film and Song.” English Journal 82:96–98. Nelson, Nancy Spivey. 1997. The Constructivist Metaphor: Reading, Writing, and the Making of Meaning. San Diego: Academic Press. Nelson, Nancy Spivey, and Robert Calfee, eds. 1998. The Reading-Writing Connection. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education. Neuman, Susan B. 1988. “The Displacement Effect: Assessing the Relation Between Television Viewing and Reading Performance.” Reading Research Quarterly 23:414–440. ———. 1992. “Is Learning from Media Distinctive? Examining Children’s Inferencing Strategies.” American Educational Research Journal 29: 119–140. ———. 1995. Literacy in the Television Age: The Myth of the TV Effect. Norwood, NJ, Ablex. ———. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Neuman, Susan B., and Donna Celano. 2001. “Access to Print in Low-Income and Middle-Income Communities: An Ecological Study of Four Neighborhoods.” Reading Research Quarterly 36 (1):8–26. Neuman, Susan B., and Kathleen Roskos. 1990. “The Influence of Literacy-Enriched Play Settings on Preschoolers’ Engagement with Written Language.” In Sandra McCormick and Jerry Zutell, eds., Literacy Theory and Research: Analyses from Multiple Perspectives, pp. 179–187. Chicago: National Reading Conference. ———. 1997. “Literacy Knowledge in Practice: Contexts of Participation for Young Writers and Readers.” Reading Research Quarterly 32:10–32. ———, eds. 1998. Children Achieving: Best Practices in Early Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. New London Group. 1996. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” Harvard Educational Review 60 (1):60–92. ———. 2000. “A Pedagogy of Multiliteracies: Designing Social Futures.” In Bill Cope and Mary
735
Bibliography the Transition to a Postmodern World. Albany: State University of New York Press. Oshima, J., Marlene Scardamalia, and Carl Bereiter. 1996. “Collaborative Learning Processes Associated with High and Low Conceptual Progress.” Instructional Science 24:125–155. Owens, Robert. 1996. Language Development: An Introduction, 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Padak, Nancy, and Tim Rasinski. 1999. “The Language Experience Approach: A Framework for Learning.” In Olga G. Nelson and Wayne M. Linek, eds., Practical Classroom Applications of Language Experience, pp. 1–11. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Padget, S. Yancey. 1998. “Lessons from Research on Dyslexia: Implications for a Classification System for Learning Disabilities.” Learning Disabilities Quarterly 21 (2):167–178. Palincsar, Annmarie S., and Ann L. Brown. 1984. “Reciprocal Teaching of Comprehension-Fostering and Comprehension-Monitoring Activities.” Cognition and Instruction 1:117–175. ———. 1986. “Interactive Teaching to Promote Independent Learning from Text.” The Reading Teacher 39:771–777. ———. 1989. “Classroom Dialogues to Promote SelfRegulated Comprehension.” In Jere Brophy, ed., Advances in Research on Teaching, pp. 35–71. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Palmer, Sue. 2000. “Development of Phonological Recoding and Literacy Acquisition: A Four-Year Cross-Sequential Study.” British Journal of Developmental Psychology 18:533–555. Palumbo, Donald. October 1979. “The Use of Comics as an Approach to Introducing the Techniques and Terms of Narrative to Novice Readers.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Popular Culture Association in the South, Louisville, Kentucky. Pappas, Christine. 1991. “Young Children’s Strategies in Learning the ‘Book Language’ of Information Books.” Discourse Processes 14:203–225. ———. 1993. “Is Narrative ‘Primary’? Some Insights from Kindergarteners’ Pretend Readings of Stories and Information Books.” Journal of Reading Behavior 25:97–129. Paratore, Jeanne, and Rachel L. McCormack, eds. 1997. Peer Talk in the Classroom: Learning from Research. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Paris, Scott G., Barbara A. Wasik, and Julianne C. Turner. 1991. “The Development of Strategic Readers.” In Rebecca Barr, P. David Pearson, Michael Kamil, and Peter Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 2, pp. 609–640. New York: Longman. Paris, Scott, Robert Calfee, Nicola Filby, Elfrieda
E. Farstrup, eds., What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction. 2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Nussbaum, Joseph. 1985. “The Earth as Cosmic Body.” In R. Driver, E. Guesne, and A. Tiberghian, eds., Children’s Ideas in Science, pp. 170–192. Philadelphia: Open University Press. O’Brien, David G., Rebecca Springs, and David R. Stith. 2001. “Engaging ‘At-Risk’ High-School Students: Literacy Learning in a High-School Literacy Lab.” In Elizabeth B. Moje and David G. O’Brien, eds., Constructions of Literacy: Studies of Teaching and Learning in and out of Secondary Schools, pp. 105–123. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Oakes, Jeannie, Adam Gamoran, and Reba N. Page. 1992. “Curriculum Differentiation: Opportunities, Outcomes, and Meanings.” In P. W. Jackson, ed., Handbook of Research on Curriculum, pp. 570–608. New York: Macmillan. Ochs, Elinor. 1979. “Transcription as Theory.” In Elinor Ochs and Bambi Schefflin, eds., Developmental Pragmatics. New York: Academic. Ogbu, John. 1987. “Variability in Minority Responses to Schooling: Non-Immigrants vs. Immigrants.” In G. Spindler and L. Spindler, eds., Interpretive Ethnography of Education, pp. 225–280. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Ogle, Doma M. 1986. “K-W-L: A Teaching Model that Develops Active Reading of Expository Text.” The Reading Teacher 39 (6):564–570. ———. 1991. “The Know, Want to Know, Learned Strategy.” In K. D. Muth, ed., Children’s Comprehension of Text: Research into Practice, pp. 205–223. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Oldfather, Penny, Sally Thomas, Lizz Eckert, Florencia Garcia, Nicki Grannis, John Kilgore, Andy Newman-Gonchar, Brian Peterson, Paul Rodriguez, and Marcel Tjioe. 1999. “The Nature and Outcomes of Students’ Longitudinal Participatory Research on Literacy Motivations and Schooling.” Research in the Teaching of English 34:281–320. Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. New York: Methuen. Optiz, Michael F., and Timothy V. Rasinski. 1998. Good-Bye Round Robin: Twenty-Five Effective Oral Reading Strategies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Orange, Carolyn, and Rosalind Horowitz. 1999. “An Academic Standoff: Literacy Task Preferences of African American and Mexican American Male Adolescents versus Teacher-Expected Preferences.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (1):28–39. Orr, David. 1992. Ecological Literacy: Education and
736
Bibliography Prereading, Language, and Writing.” Psychology in the Schools 17:530–535. Pellegrini, Anthony D., and Lee Galda. 1998. The Development of School-Based Literacy: A Social Ecological Perspective. London: Routledge. Peltola, Bette J. 2000. “Newbery and Caldecott Awards: Authorization and Terms.” In Association for Library Service to Children, ed., The Newbery and Caldecott Awards: A Guide to the Medal and Honor Books, pp. 1–9. Chicago: American Library Association. Perlmutter, David D. 1997. “Manufacturing Visions of Society and History in Textbooks.” Journal of Communication 47 (3):68–81. Peterson, Bob. 1994. “Teaching for Social Justice: One Teacher’s Journey.” In B. Bigelow, L. Christensen, S. Karp, B. Miner, and B. Peterson, eds., Rethinking Our Classrooms: Teaching for Equity and Justice. A Special Edition of Rethinking Schools, pp. 30–33, 35–38). Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools. Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change. New York: Springer-Verlag. Peyton, Joy Kreeft, and Leslee Reed. 1990. Dialogue Journal Writing with Non-Native English Speakers: A Handbook for Teachers. Alexandria, VA: TESOL. Peyton, Joy Kreeft, Donald A. Ranard, and Scott McGinnis. 2001. Heritage Languages in America: Preserving a National Resource. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Pharness, Gary, and Larry Weinstein. 1991. “Writing Set Me Free.” In Kenneth S. Goodman, Yetta M. Goodman, and Lois Bridges Bird, eds., The Whole Language Catalog, p. 128. Santa Rosa, CA: McGraw-Hill. Phelan, James. 1996. “Toward a Rhetorical ReaderResponse Criticism: The Difficult, the Stubborn, and the Ending of Beloved.” In J. Phelan, ed., Narrative as Rhetoric: Technique, Audiences, Ethics, Ideology, pp. 173–190. Columbus: The Ohio University Press. Phelps, Louise Wetherbee. 1991. “Practical Wisdom and the Geography of Knowledge in Composition.” College English 53:863–885. Phillips, D. C., ed. 2000. Constructivism in Education: Opinions and Second Opinions on Controversial Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Phillips, G. 1991. “Benefits of State-by-State Comparisons.” Educational Research 20 (3):17–19. Piazza, Carolyn L. 1999. Multiple Forms of Literacy: Teaching Literacy and the Arts. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall. Pietila, Veikko. 1994. “Perspectives on Our Past: Charting the Histories of Mass Communication Studies.” Critical Studies in Mass Communications 11:346–361.
Hiebert, P. David Pearson, Sheila Valencia, and Kenneth Wolf. 1992. “A Framework for Authentic Literacy Assessment.” Reading Teacher, 46:88–98. Parker, Emelie Lowrey, Regla Armengol, Leigh Baxley Brooke, Kelly Redmond Carper, Sharon Cronin, Anne Cooper Denman, Patricia Irwin, Jennifer McGunnigle, Tess Pardini, and Nancy P. Kurtz. 1995. “Teachers’ Choices in Classroom Assessment.” Reading Teacher 48:622–624. Pate, P. Elizabeth, Elaine Homestead, and Karen McGinnis. 1997. Making Integrated Curriculum Work: Teachers, Students, and the Quest for Coherent Curriculum. New York: Teachers College Press. Paulston, Christina Bratt. 1983. Swedish Research and Debate about Bilingualism. Stockholm: National Swedish Board of Education. Pearson, P. David. 2001. “Learning to Teach Reading: The Status of the Knowledge Base.” In C. Roller, ed., Learning to Teach Reading: Setting the Research Agenda, pp. 4–19. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pearson, P. David, and Linda Fielding. 1991. “Comprehension Instruction.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2, pp. 815–860. New York: Longman. Pearson, P. David, and Diane Stephens. 1994. “Learning about Literacy: A 30-Year Journey.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 22–47. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Pearson, P. David, and Rand Spiro. 1982. “The New Buzz Word in Reading is Schema.” Instructor 91:46–48. Pearson, P. David, and Taffy E. Raphael. 1999. “Toward an Ecologically Balanced Literacy Curriculum.” In Linda B. Gambrell, Lesley Mandel Morrow, Susan B. Neuman, and Michael Pressley, eds., Best Practices in Literacy Instruction, pp. 22–33. New York: Guilford Press. Pearson, P. David, Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds. 1984. Handbook of Reading Research. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Peck, Wayne, Linda Flower, and Lorraine Higgins. 1995. “Community Literacy.” College Composition and Communication 46 (2):199–222. Peirce, Charles Sanders. 1960–1966. Collected Papers 1839–1914. Edited by Charles Hartshorne and Paul Weiss. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1997. Pragmatism as a Principle and Method of Right Thinking: The 1903 Harvard Lectures on Pragmatism. Albany: State University of New York Press. Pellegrini, Anthony D. 1980. “The Relationship between Kindergartners’ Play and Achievement in
737
Bibliography Jacqueline A. McGoldrick, and Janice A. Durita. 1989. “Strategies that Improve Children’s Memory and Comprehension of Text.” The Elementary School Journal 90 (1):3–32. Pressley, Michael, Fiona Goodchild, Joan Fleet, Richard Zajchowski, and Ellis D. Evans. 1989. “The Challenges of Classroom Strategy Instruction.” Elementary School Journal 89 (3):301–342. Pressley, Michael, Ruth Wharton-McDonald, Richard Allington, Cathy C. Block, Leslie Morrow, Diane Tracey, Kim Baker, Gregory Brooks, John Cronin, Eileen Nelson, and Debra Woo. 2001. “A Study of Effective First-Grade Literacy Instruction.” Scientific Studies of Reading 5 (10):35–58. Pryor, John. 1995. “Gender Issues in Group Work—A Case Study Involving Computers.” British Educational Research Journal 21 (30):277–288. Pucci, Sandra. 1994. “Supporting Spanish Language Literacy: Latino Children and Free Reading Resources in Schools.” Bilingual Research Journal 18 (1–2):67–82. Purcell-Gates, Victoria. 1995. Other People’s Words: The Cycle of Low Literacy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1996. “Stories, Coupons, and the TV Guide: Relationships between Home Literacy Experiences and Emergent Literacy Knowledge.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:406–428. Purcell-Gates, Victoria, and Robin A. Waterman. 2000. Now We Read, We See, We Speak: Portrait of Literacy Development in an Adult Freirean-Based Class. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Purcell-Gates, Victoria., Sophie Degener, Erik Jacobson, and Marta Soler. 2000. Affecting Change in Literacy Practices of Adult Learners: Impact of Two Dimensions of Instruction. Boston: The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Putnam, Hilary. 1975. Mind, Language, and Reality, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Rabinowitz, Peter J. 1987. Before Reading: Narrative Conventions and the Politics of Interpretation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Rabinowitz, Peter J., and Michael W. Smith. 1998. Authorizing Readers: Resistance and Respect in the Teaching of Literature. New York: Teachers College Press. Radencich, Marguerite C., and Lyn J. McKay, eds. 1995. Flexible Grouping for Literacy in the Elementary Grades. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Radway, Janice. 1984. Reading the Romance: Women, Patriarchy, and Popular Fiction. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina. Rafferty, Cathleen D., and Linda K. Fleschner. 1993. “Concept Mapping: A Viable Alternative to Objective and Essay Exams.” Reading Research and Instruction 32 (3):25–34.
Pikulski, John J. 1990. “The Role of Tests in a Literacy Assessment Program.” The Reading Teacher 43 (9):686–688. Pilgreen, Janice L. 2000. How to Organize and Manage a Sustained Silent Reading Program. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Languages. New York: William Morrow and Company. Pinnell, Gay S., Carol A. Lyons, Diane E. DeFord, Anthony Bryk, and Michael Seltzer. 1993. “Comparing Instructional Models for the Literacy Education of High Risk First Graders.” Reading Research Quarterly 29:8–39. Pinnell, Gay S., John J. Pikulski, Karen K. Wixson, Jay R. Campbell, Phillip B. Gough, and Alexandra S. Beatty. 1995. Listening to Children Read Aloud. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. Pintrich, Paul R., Ronald W. Marx, and Robert A. Boyle. 1993. “Beyond Cold Conceptual Change: The Role of Motivational Belief and Classroom Contextual Factors in the Process of Conceptual Change.” Review of Educational Research 63:167–199. Pittelman, Susan D., Joan E. Heimlich, Roberta L. Berglund, and Michael P. French. 1991. Semantic Feature Analysis: Classroom Applications. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Porter, James E. 1986. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review 5:34–47. Posner, George J., Kenneth A. Strike, Peter W. Hewson, and William A. Gertzog. 1982. “Accommodation of a Scientific Conception: Toward a Theory of Conceptual Change.” Science Education 66:211–227. Posnick-Goodwin, Sherry. 2001. “Intervention and Retention: Schools Get Tough on Students Who Don’t Make the Grade.” California Educator 5 (7):6–11. Postman, Neil. 1985. Amusing Ourselves to Death. New York: Viking. Potter, James W. 1998. Media Literacy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Potter, Rosemary. 1976. New Season: The Positive Use of Commercial Television with Children. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Pressley, M., P. B. El-Dinary, I. Gaskins, T. Schuder, J. L. Bergman, J. Almasi, and R. Brown. 1992. “Beyond Direct Explanation: Transactional Instruction of Reading Comprehension Strategies.” Elementary School Journal 92:513–555. Pressley, Michael, and Vera Woloshyn. 1995. Cognitive Strategy Instruction That Really Improves Children’s Academic Performance. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Pressley, Michael, Carla J. Johnson, Sonya Symons,
738
Bibliography Young Adult Book and the School. New York: Merrill. Reinking, David. 1986. “Integrating Graphic Aids into Content Area Instruction: The Graphic Information Lesson.” Journal of Reading 30:146–151. ———. 1997. “Me and My Hypertext:) A Multiple Digression Analysis of Technology and Literacy (sic).” Reading Teacher 50:626–643. Reinking, David, Michael McKenna, Linda Labbo, and Ronald D. Kiefer, eds. Handbook of Literacy and Technology: Transformations in a PostTypographical World. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Reutzel, D. Ray, and Parker C. Fawson. 1991. “Literature Webbing Predictable Books: A Prediction Strategy that Helps Below-Average First Graders.” Reading Research and Instruction 30 (4):20–30. Reutzel, D. Ray, and Paul M. Hollingsworth. 1991. “Reading Comprehension Skills: Testing the Distinctiveness Hypothesis.” Reading Research and Instruction 30:32–46. Rex, Lesley, Judith Green, and Carol Dixon. 1998. “What Counts When Context Counts: The Uncommon ‘Common’ Language of Literacy Research.” Journal of Literacy Research 30 (3):405–433. Reynolds, Ralph. 2000. “Attentional Resources Emancipation: Toward Understanding the Interaction of Word Identification and Comprehension Processes in Reading.” Scientific Studies in Reading 4:169–193. Rhodes, Carole S. 1998. “Multiple Perceptions and Perspectives: Faculty/Students Responses to Distance Learning.” Proceedings from the Ninth International Conference of the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education. Norfolk, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education. Rhodes, Lynn K. 1979. “Comprehension and Predictability: An Analysis of Beginning Reading Materials.” In Jerry C. Harste and Robert F. Carey, eds., New Perspectives on Comprehension, pp. 100–131. Bloomington: Indiana University School of Education. Rich, Adrienne. 1979. “Claiming an Education.” In On Live Secrets and Silence: Selected Prose, 1966–1978. New York: W. W. Norton. Right to Read Office. 1976. Reading Interest/Attitude Scale. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education. Rinaldi, Ann. 1999. My Heart Is on the Ground. New York: Scholastic. Risko, Victoria J., and Charles K. Kinzer. 1999. Multimedia Cases in Reading Education. Boston: McGraw-Hill. Risko, Victoria J., and Marino C. Alvarez. 1986. “An Investigation of Poor Readers’ Use of a Thematic
Ramirez, J. David, Sandra D. Yuen, Dana R. Ramey, and David J. Pasta. 1991. Longitudinal Study of Structured English Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Programs for Language-Minority Children. Final Report to the U. S. Department of Education. Executive summary and vols. I and II. San Mateo, CA: Aguirre International. Ramos, Francisco, and Stephen Krashen. 1998. “The Impact of One Trip to the Public Library: Making Books Available May Be the Best Incentive for Reading.” The Reading Teacher 51 (7):614–615. RAND Reading Study Group. 2002. Reading for Understanding: Toward a Research and Development Program in Reading Comprehension. Washington, DC: RAND. Raphael, Taffy E. 1986. “Teaching Question Answer Relationships, Revisited.” The Reading Teacher 39 (6):516–522. Rasinski, Timothy V. 1989. “Fluency for Everyone: Incorporating Fluency Instruction in the Classroom.” The Reading Teacher 42:690–692. Rasinski, Timothy V., and JoBeth Allen. 1988. “Parent-Child Dialogue Journals: Family Learning.” Teaching and Learning: The Journal of Natural Learning 2:3–13. Rasinski, Timothy V., and Nancy D. Padak. 1998. “How Elementary Students Referred for Compensatory Reading Instruction Perform on School-Based Measures of Word Recognition, Fluency, and Comprehension.” Reading Psychology 19 (2):185–216. Read, Charles. 1971. “Pre-School Children’s Knowledge of English Phonology.” Harvard Educational Review 41:1–34. Read, Write, and Type. Novato, CA: The Learning Company. Readence, John E., Thomas W. Bean, and R. Scott Baldwin. 2001. Content Area Literacy: An Integrated Approach. 7th ed. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt. Reading Hall of Fame. 1985. “Reading Hall of Fame, Minutes of the Annual Meeting.” Unpublished document (9 May). ———. 1999. “By-laws of the Reading Hall of Fame.” Revised. Unpublished document. Reder, Stephen. 1998. Dimensionality and Construct Validity of the NALS Assessment. In M. C. Smith, ed., Literacy for the Twenty-First Century: Research, Policy, Practices, and the National Adult Literacy Survey, pp. 37–57. Westport, CT: Praeger. Reed, Alphonse, and Brainerd Kellogg. 1985. Graded Lessons in English: An Elementary English Grammar, Consisting of One Hundred Practical Lessons, Carefully Graded and Adapted to the Class Room. New York: Clark and Maynard, Publishers. Reed, Arthea J. S. 1994. Reading Adolescents: The
739
Bibliography Achievement. New York: Century Foundation Press. Rouet, Jean-François, and Jarmo J. Levonen. 1996. “Studying and Learning with Hypertext: Empirical Studies and Their Implications.” In Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand J. Spiro, eds., Hypertext and Cognition, pp. 9–23. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rouet, Jean-François, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand J. Spiro. 1996. “An Introduction to Hypertext and Cognition.” In Jean-François Rouet, Jarmo J. Levonen, Andrew Dillon, and Rand J. Spiro, eds., Hypertext and Cognition, pp. 3–8. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Rowe, Deborah W. 1998. “The Literate Potentials of Book-Related Dramatic Play.” Reading Research Quarterly 33:10–35. Rowe, Kenneth J. 1995. “Factors Affecting Students’ Progress in Reading: Key Findings from a Longitudinal Study.” Literacy, Teaching and Learning: An International Journal of Early Literacy 1:57–110. Rubin, Kenneth H., William Bukowski, and Jeffrey G. Parker. 1998. “Peer Interactions, Relationships, and Groups.” In Nancy Eisenberg, ed., Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th ed., pp. 619–700. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ruddell, Martha R. 2000. “Just a Closer Look: The Current Political Climate of Literacy Education in the USA.” WSRA Journal 43 (2):1–10. ———. 2001. Teaching Content Reading and Writing. 3rd ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Ruddell, Robert. 1969. “Psycholinguistic Implications for a System of Communication Model.” In Kenneth S. Goodman and James T. Fleming, eds., Psycholinguistics and the Teaching of Reading, pp. 61–78. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ruddell, Robert B., and Norman J. Unrau. 1994. “Reading as a Meaning-Construction Process: The Reader, the Text, and the Teacher.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 996–1056. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Ruddell, Robert B., Martha Rapp Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds. 1994. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rumelhart, David E. 1975. “Notes on a Schema for Stories.” In Daniel G. Bobrow and Allan Collins, eds., Representation and Understanding: Studies in Cognitive Science, pp. 211–236. New York: Academic Press. ———. 1977. “Toward an Interactive Model of
Strategy to Comprehend Text.” Reading Research Quarterly 21, no. 3:298–316. Robinson, H. Alan. 1977. “Reading Instruction and Research: In Historical Perspective.” In H. Alan Robinson, ed., Reading and Writing Instruction in the United States: Historical Trends, pp. 44–58. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Robinson, Helen. 1999. “The Reading Hall of Fame: A Summary of Its First Decade—1973–May 5, 1983.” Unpublished document. Robinson, Jay. 1990. Conversations on the Written Word: Essays on Language and Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Rockwell, Thomas. 1973. How to Eat Fried Worms. New York: Dell Publishing. Rogers, Sally. 1998. Earthsong. New York: Dutton. Rogers, Theresa. 1991. “Students as Literary Critics: The Interpretive Experiences, Beliefs, and Processes of Ninth-Grade Students.” Journal of Reading Behavior 23:391–423. Roller, C. M. 1996. Variability, Not Disability: Struggling Readers in a Workshop Classroom. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rollins, Charlemae. 1948. We Build Together: A Reader’s Guide to Negro Life and Literature for Elementary and High School Use. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Rolstad, Kellie. 1997. “Effects of Two-Way Immersion on the Ethnic Identification of Third-Language Students.” Bilingual Research Journal 21 (1):43–63. Romaine, Suzanne. 1995. Bilingualism. Oxford: Blackwell. Romance, Nancy R., and Michael R. Vitale. 1992. “A Curriculum Strategy that Expands Time for InDepth Elementary Science Instruction by Using Science-Based Reading Strategies: Effects of a YearLong Study in Grade Four.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 29:545–554. Rosenblatt, Louise M. 1969. “Toward a Transactional Theory of Reading.” Journal of Reading Behavior 1 (1):31–51. ———. 1978. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ———. 1994a. The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work. 2d ed. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. ———. 1994b. “The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 1057–1092. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1995. Literature as Exploration. 5th ed. New York: Modern Language Association. Rothstein, Richard. 1998. The Way We Were? The Myths and Realities of America’s Student
740
Bibliography Evidence for Orthographic Analogies: A Reply to Goswami (1999).” Journal of Research in Reading 24:1–18. Saville-Troika, Muriel. 1989. The Ethnography of Communication: An Introduction. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell. Scardamalia, Marlene, Carl Bereiter, and Mary Lamon. 1994. “The CSILE Project: Trying to Bridge the Classroom into World 3.” In Kate McGilly, ed., Classroom Lessons: Integrating Cognitive Theory and Classroom Practice, pp. 201–228. Cambridge: MIT Press. Schallert, Diane L. 1982. “The Significance of Knowledge: A Synthesis of Research Related to Schema Theory.” In Wayne Otto and Sandra White, eds., Reading Expository Material, pp. 13–48. New York: Academic Press. Schiefele, Ulrich. 1991. “Interest, Learning, and Motivation.” Educational Psychologist 26: 299–323. Schon, Donald. 1983. Reflective Practitioners: How Practitioners Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. ———. 1987. Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Schotter, Roni. 2000. Captain Bob Sets Sail. New York: Atheneum. Schrader, Carol T. 1989. “Written Language Use within the Context of Young Children’s Symbolic Play.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly 4:225–244. Schramm, Wilbur, Jack Lyle, and Edwin Parker. 1961. Television in the Lives of Our Children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Schreiber, Peter. 1980. “On the Acquisition of Reading Fluency.” Journal of Reading Behavior 12:177–186. Schrift, Alan. 1995. Nietzsche’s French Legacy: A Genealogy of Poststructuralism. London: Routledge. Schwab, Joseph J. 1983. “The Practical 4: Something for Curriculum Professors to Do.” Curriculum Inquiry 13, no. 3:239–265. Schwartz, Bonnie. 1998. “The Second-Language Instinct.” Lingua 106:133–160. Scollon, Ronald, and Suzzane W. Scollon. 1981. Narrative, Literacy, and Face in Interethnic Communication. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Scribner, Sylvia, and Michael Cole. 1981. The Psychology of Literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sebranek, Patrick, Verne Meyer, and Dave Kemper. 1996. Writers Inc: A Student Handbook for Writing and Learning. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath. Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills. 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A
Reading.” In S. Dornic, ed., Attention and Performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. ———. 1980. “Schemata: The Building Blocks of Cognition.” In R. J. Shapiro et al., eds., Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, pp. 33–58. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. ———. 1985. “Toward an Interactive Model of Reading.” In Harry Singer and Robert B. Ruddell, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 3d ed., pp. 722–750. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rush, Leslie. 2002. “Multiliteracies of Appalachian Trail Thru-Hikers.” Ph.D. diss., University of Georgia. Russell, Thomas. 1992. “Television’s Indelible Impact on Distance Education: What We Should Have Learned from Comparative Research.” Research in Distance Education (4) 4:2–4. Sadoski, Mark, Allan Paivio, and Ernest T. Goetz. 1991. “A Critique of Schema Theory in Reading and a Dual Coding Alternative.” Reading Research Quarterly 26 (4):463–484. Salinger, Terry. 1998. “How Do We Assess Young Children’s Literacy Learning?” In Susan B. Neuman and Kathleen A. Roskos, eds., Children Achieving: Best Practices in Early Literacy, pp. 223–249. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Salinger, Terry, and E. Chittenden. 1994. “Analysis of an Early Literacy Portfolio: Consequences for Instruction.” Language Arts 71:446–452. Salomon, Gabriel. 1979. Interaction of Media, Cognition, and Learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ———. 1984. “Television Is ‘Easy’ and Print Is ‘Tough’: The Differential Investment of Mental Effort as a Function of Perceptions and Attributions.” Journal of Educational Psychology 76: 647–658. Samuels, S. Jay. 1979. “The Method of Repeated Reading.” Reading Teacher 32:403–408. ———. 1994. “Toward a Theory of Automatic Information Processing in Reading, Revisited.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 816–837. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Santa, Minnick, Sarah H. Silver, and Sheila Valencia. 1999. “High-Stakes Assessments in Reading: Consequences, Concerns, and Common Sense.” In Shelby J. Barrentine, ed., Reading Assessment: Principles and Practices for Elementary Teachers, pp. 247–260. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Sarup, Madan. 1988. An Introductory Guide to PostStructuralism and Post-Modernism. London: Simon and Schuster. Savage, Robert. 2001. “A Re-Evaluation of the
741
Bibliography Silverblatt, Art. 1995. Media Literacy: Keys to Interpreting Media Messages. Westport, CT: Praeger. Silvern, Steven B., Janet B. Taylor, Peter A. Williamson, Elaine Surbeck, and Michael F. Kelley. 1986. “Young Children’s Story Recall as a Product of Play, Story Familiarity, and Adult Intervention.” Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 32:73–86. Simmons, Deborah C., Lynn S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs, Patricia G. Mathes, and Janie P. Hodge. 1995. “Effects of Explicit Teaching and Peer-Mediated Instruction on the Reading Achievement of Learning Disabled and Low Performing Students.” Elementary School Journal 95:387–408. Simons, Herbert D., and Paul R. Ammon. 1987. “The Language of Beginning Reading Texts.” Unpublished report. Berkeley: University of California. Sims Bishop, Rudine. 1998. “Following in Their Fathers’ Paths.” The Horn Book Magazine 74, no. 2 (March/April):249–257. Sinatra, Gale, and Janice Dole. 1998. “Case Studies in Conceptual Change: A Social Psychological Perspective.” In Barbara Guzzetti and Cynthia Hynd, eds., Perspectives on Conceptual Change: Multiple Ways to Understand Knowing and Learning in a Complex World, pp. 39–54. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Sinatra, Richard. 1990. “Combining Visual Literacy, Text Understanding, and Writing for Culturally Diverse Students.” Journal of Reading 33 (8):612–617. Sinatra, Richard C., David Berg, and Rita Dunn. 1985. “Semantic Mapping Improves Reading Comprehension of Learning Disabled Students.” Teaching Exceptional Children 17 (4):310–314. Sinclair, Beth, and Janet Carroll. 2000. State ESEA Title I Participation Information for 1997–98: Final Summary Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Singer, Harry, and Albert J. Kingston. 1984. “From the Southwest Reading Conference to the National Reading Conference: A Brief History from 1952–1984.” In Jerome A. Niles and Larry A. Harris, eds., Changing Perspectives on Research in Reading/Language Processing and Instruction, Thirty-Third Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 1–4. Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference. Singer, Jerome L., and Dorothy Singer. 1983. “Implications of Childhood Television Viewing for Cognition, Imagination and Emotion.” In Jerome Bryant and Daniel Anderson, eds., Children’s Understanding of Television: Research on Attention and Comprehension, pp. 265–296. New York, Academic Press. Singh, Michael Garbutcheon, and James Greenlaw. 1998. “Postcolonial Theory in the Literature
SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. Sefton-Green, Julian. 1998. “Introduction: Being Young in the Digital Age.” In Julian Sefton-Green, ed., Digital Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age of Multimedia, pp. 1–20. London: University College London Press. Selfe, Cynthia L. 1992. “Preparing English Teachers for the Virtual Age: The Case for Technology Critics.” In Gail E. Hawisher and Paul LeBlanc, eds., Re-Imagining Computers and Composition: Teaching and Research in the Virtual Age, pp. 24–42. Portsmouth: Boynton/Cook. Semali, Ladislaus, and Ann Watts Pailliotet, eds. 1999. Intermediality: The Teachers’ Handbook of Critical Media Literacy. Boulder: Westview Press. Sewall, Gilbert T., and Stapley W. Emberling. 1998. A New Generation of History Textbooks: A Report. New York: American Textbook Council. Shannon, Patrick. 1995. Text, Lies, and Videotape. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1998. Reading Poverty. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Shannon, Patrick, and Kenneth Goodman, eds. 1994. Basal Readers: A Second Look. Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen Publishers. Shaughnessy, Mina 1977. Errors and Expectations. New York: Oxford University Press. Shaywitz, Bennett A., Kenneth R. Pugh, Annette R. Jenner, Robert K. Fulbright, Jack M. Fletcher, John C. Gore, and Sally E. Shaywitz. 2000. “The Neurobiology of Reading and Reading Disability (Dyslexia).” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 229–249. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Shearer, Brenda A., Martha Rapp Ruddell, and MaryEllen Vogt. 2001. “Successful Middle School Reading Intervention: Negotiated Strategies and Individual Choice.” In Timothy Shanahan and Flora V. Rodriguez-Brown, eds., National Reading Conference Yearbook 50, pp. 558–571. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Shelly, Gary B., Thomas J. Cashman, Randolph E. Gunter, and Glenda A. Gunter. 1999. Teachers Discovering Computers: A Link to the Future. Cambridge, MA: Course Technology. Shiland, Thomas W. 1997. “Quantum Mechanics and Conceptual Change in High School Chemistry Textbooks.” Journal of Research in Science Teaching 34:535–545. Short, Kathy G., and Jerome C. Harste, with Carolyn Burke. 1996. Creating Classrooms for Authors and Inquirers. 2nd ed. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Showalter, Elaine. 1989. Speaking of Gender. New York: Routledge.
742
Bibliography Robinson. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Smitherman, Geneva. 1977. Talkin’ and Testifyin’: The Language of Black America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Snow, Catherine. 1983. “Literacy and Language: Relationships during the Preschool Years.” Harvard Educational Review 53 (2):165–189. Snow, Catherine E., M. Susan Burns, and Peg Griffin, eds. 1998. Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Solsken, Judith. 1993. Literacy, Gender, and Work in Families and in School. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Sonnenschein, Susan, Linda Baker, Robert Serpell, and Diane Schmidt. 2000. “Reading Is a Source of Entertainment: The Importance of the Home Perspective for Children’s Literacy Development.” In Kathleen A. Roskos and James F. Christie, eds., Play and Literacy in Early Childhood: Research from Multiple Perspectives, pp. 107–124. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Sorcinelli, Mary Deane, and Peter Elbow, eds. 1997. Writing to Learn: Strategies for Assigning and Responding to Writing across the Disciplines. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Soter, Anna O. 1999. Young Adult Literature and the New Literary Theories. New York: Teachers College Press. Spache, George D. 1953. “A New Readability Formula for Primary Grade Reading Material.” Elementary School Journal 53:410–413. ———. 1976. Investigating the Issues of Reading Disabilities. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Spady, William G. 1978. “The Concept and Implications of Competency-Based Education.” Educational Leadership 36:16–22. Spandel, Vicki, and Richard J. Stiggins. 1997. Creating Writers: Linking Writing Assessment and Instruction. 2nd ed. New York: Longman. Spence, Rob, and Amy Spence. 1999. Clickety Clack. New York: Viking. Spiegel, Dixie Lee. 1998. “Silver Bullets, Babies, and Bath Water: Literature Response Groups in a Balanced Literacy Program.” Reading Teacher 52 (2):114–124. Spinelli, Jerry. 1990. Maniac Magee. New York: Little, Brown. Spires, Hiller A., Josie B. Williams, Alecia Jackson, and Lois E. Huffman. 1999. “Leveling the Academic Playing Field through Autobiographical Reading and Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 42, no. 4: 296–304. Spiro, Rand J., Walter L. Vispoel, John Schmitz, Ala Samarapungavan, and Angela Boerger. 1989. “Knowledge Acquisition for Application: Cognitive
Classroom: Contrapuntal Readings.” Theory Into Practice 37:193–200. Sipe, Lawrence. 2000. “The Construction of Literary Understanding by First and Second Graders in Oral Response to Picture Storybook Read-Alouds.” Reading Research Quarterly 35:252–275. Sirotnik, Kenneth A., and Kathy Kimball. 1999. “Standards for Standards-Based Accountability Systems.” Phi Delta Kappan 81 (3):209–214. Siu-Runyan, Yvonne. 1990. “Forming Partnerships.” Journal of Reading 33:458–459. ———. 1992. “Supporting Teacher Growth.” In C. Weave and L. Henke, eds., Supporting Whole Language: Stories of Teacher and Institutional Change, pp. 67–86. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Skinner, B. F. 1957. Verbal Behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Slavin, Robert E. 1983. Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman. Smagorinsky, Peter. 1995. “Constructing Meaning in the Disciplines: Reconceptualizing Writing across the Curriculum as Composing across the Curriculum.” American Journal of Education 103:160–184. ———. 2001. “If Meaning Is Constructed, What Is It Made from: Toward a Cultural Theory of Reading.” Review of Educational Research 71(1):133–169. Smith, Frank. 1973. Psycholinguistics and Reading. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ———. 1983. “Reading Like a Writer.” Language Arts 60:558–567. ———. 1994. Understanding Reading. 5th ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Smith, John. 1993. “Content Learning: A Third Reason for Using Literature in Teaching Reading.” Reading Research and Instruction 32:64–71. Smith, M. Cecil. 1993. “The Reading Abilities and Practices of Older Adults.” Educational Gerontology 19:417–432. ———. 1995. “Differences in Adults’ Reading Practices and Literacy Proficiencies.” Reading Research Quarterly 31:196–219. Smith, M. Cecil, Larry J. Mikulecky, Michael W. Kibby, Mariam J. Dreher, and Janice A. Dole. 2000. “What Will Be the Demands of Literacy in the Workplace in the Next Millennium?” Reading Research Quarterly 35:378–383. Smith, Nila Banton. 1925. One Hundred Ways of Teaching Silent Reading for All Grades. Chicago: World Book. ———. 1934. American Reading Instruction. New York: Silver Burdett. ———. 1965. American Reading Instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1986. American Reading Instruction. Prologue by L. Courtney, FSC, and epilogue by H. A.
743
Bibliography ———. 1976. Action Research in L.E.A. Instructional Procedures. Newark: University of Delaware. Stein, Nancy L., and Christine G. Glenn. 1979. “An Analysis of Story Comprehension in Elementary School Children.” In Roy O. Freedle, ed., New Directions in Discourse Processing, pp. 53–120. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Stenhouse, Lawrence. 1985. “What Counts as Research.” In Jean Rudduck and David Hopkins, eds., Research as a Basis for Teaching: Readings from the Work of Lawrence Stenhouse, pp. 8–19. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Stevens, Robert, and Robert Slavin. 1995. “The Cooperative Elementary School Effects on Students’ Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations.” American Educational Research Journal 32 (2):321–351. Sticht, Thomas G. 1975. Reading for Working: A Functional Literacy Anthology. Alexandria, VA: Human Resources Research Organization. ———. 1987. Functional Context Education. San Diego, CA: Applied Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences. Sticht, Thomas G., and Barbara McDonald. 1989. Making the Nation Smarter: The Intergenerational Transfer of Literacy. San Diego: Institute for Adult Literacy. Stiggins, Richard J. 1995. “Assessment Literacy for the 21st Century.” Phi Delta Kappan 77, no. 3:238–245. Stock, Patricia L. 1995. The Dialogic Curriculum: Teaching and Learning in a Multicultural Society. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook. Storey, John. 1996. Cultural Studies and the Study of Popular Culture. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Storybook Weaver Deluxe (MECC). Novato, CA: The Learning Company. Stover, Lois Thomas. 1996. Young Adult Literature: The Heart of the Middle School Curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Strang, Ruth. 1969. Diagnostic Teaching of Reading. New York: McGraw-Hill. Strassman, Barbara K. 1997. “Metacognition and Reading in Children Who Are Deaf.” Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2:140–149. Street, Brian V. 1984. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ———. 1995. Social Literacies: Critical Approaches to Literacy in Development, Ethnography and Education. London: Longman. Strickland, Dorothy. 1994–1995. “Reinventing Our Literacy Programs: Books, Basics, Balance. Reading Teacher 48:294–302. ———. 1998a. “Principles of Instruction.” In Michael Opitz, ed., Literacy Instruction for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A Collection of
Flexibility and Transfer in Complex Content Domains.” In Bruce C. Britton and Shawn Glynn, eds., Executive Control Processes, pp. 177–199. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Spring, Joel. 1997. Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. St. Pierre, Robert, Beth Gamse, Judith Alamprese, Tracy Rimdzius, and Fumiyo Tao. 1998. The Even Start Family Literacy Program: Evidence from the Past and a Look to the Future. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. Available: http://www.ed.gov/ pubs/EvenStart. St. Pierre, Robert, Janet P. Swartz, Beth Gamse, Stephen Murray, Dennis Deck, and Phil Nickel. 1995. National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. Stahl, Norman A., Bonnie C. Higginson, and James R. King. 1993. “Appropriate Use of Comparative Literacy Research in the 1990s.” Journal of Reading 37 (2):104–113. Stahl, Steven A. 1999. Vocabulary Development. Vol. 2 of From Reading Research to Practice. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. Stahl, Steven A., Cynthia R. Hynd, Bruce K. Britton, Mary M. McNish, and Dennis Bosquet. 1996. “What Happens When Students Read Multiple Source Documents in History?” Reading Research Quarterly 31:430–456. Stanovich, Keith E. 1985. “Concepts in Developmental Theories of Reading Skill.” Developmental Review 10:72–100. ———. 1986. “Matthew Effects on Reading: Some Consequences of Individual Differences in the Acquisition of Literacy.” Reading Research Quarterly 26:360–407. Staton, Jana. 1984. “The Power of Responding in Dialogue Journals.” In Toby Fulwiler, ed., The Journal Book, pp. 47–63. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1985. “Using Dialogue Journals for Developing Thinking, Reading, and Writing with HearingImpaired Students.” Volta Review 87:127–153. Stauffer, Russell G. 1965. “A Language Experience Approach.” In James G. Kerfoot, ed., Perspectives in Reading: No. 5, First-Grade Reading Programs, pp. 86–117. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1969a. Directing Reading as a Cognitive Process. New York: Harper and Row. ———. 1969b. Reading Maturity as a Cognitive Process. New York: Harper and Row. ———. 1970. The Language-Experience Approach to the Teaching of Reading. New York: Harper and Row.
744
Bibliography Taylor, Denny. 1983. Family Literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ———. 1997. Many Families, Many Literacies. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, Denny, and Catherine Dorsey-Gaines. 1988. Growing Up Literate: Learning from Inner-City Families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Taylor, M. 1975. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry. New York: Dial Books. Teale, William. 1986. Home Background and Young Children’s Literacy Development. In W. H. Teale and E. Sulzby, eds., Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading, pp. 173–206. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Teale, William, and Elizabeth Sulzby. 1986. Emergent Literacy: Writing and Reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing. ———. 1989. “Emergent Literacy: New Perspectives on Young Children’s Reading and Writing Development.” In Dorothy Strickland and Lesley Morro, eds., Emerging Literacy: Young Children Learn to Read and Write, pp. 1–15. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Templeton, Shane, and Darrell Morris. 2000. “Spelling.” In Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol III, pp. 525–543. Mawah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Templeton, Shane, and Donald R. Bear, eds. 1992. Development of Orthographic Knowledge and the Foundations of Literacy: A Memorial Festschrift for Edmund H. Henderson. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Tharp, Roland, and Ronald Gallimore. 1998. Rousing Minds to Life: Teaching, Learning, and Schooling in Social Context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomas, John W., and William Rohwer. “Academic Studying: The Role of Learning Strategies.” Educational Researcher 21:19–41. Thompson, Scott. 2001. “The Authentic Standards Movement and Its Evil Twin.” Phi Delta Kappan 82:358–362. Thorndyke, Perry W. 1977. “Cognitive Structures in Comprehension and Memory of Narrative Discourse.” Cognitive Psychology 9:77–110. Thorndyke, Perry W., and Frank R.Yekovich. 1980. “A Critique of Schema-Based Theories of Human Story Memory.” Poetics 9:23–49. Tiedt, Pamela L., Iris M. Tiedt, and Sidney W. Tiedt. 200l. Language Arts Activities for the Classroom. 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Tierney, Robert J. 1994. “Dissension, Tensions, and Models of Literacy.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, 4th ed., pp. 1162–1184. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Articles and Commentaries, pp. 50–52. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. ———. 1998b. Teaching Phonics Today: A Primer for Educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Strickland, Dorothy S., and Leslie M. Morrow. 2000. Beginning Reading and Writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Studer, Jeannie R. 1993–1994. “Listen So That Parents Will Speak.” Childhood Education (Winter):74–76. Sturtevant, Elizabeth G. 1996. “Lifetime Influences on the Literacy-Related Instructional Beliefs of Experienced High-School History Teachers: Two Comparative Case Studies.” Journal of Literacy Research 28:227–257. Sudzina, Mary. 1993. “An Investigation of the Relationship between the Reading Styles of Second-Graders and Their Achievement in Three Basal Reader Treatments.” ERIC Digest ED 353 569. Sumara, Dennis J. 1996. Private Readings in Public: Schooling the Literary Imagination. New York: Peter Lang. Summers, Edward G. 1965. “Utilizing Visual Aids in Reading Materials for Effective Learning.” In H. L. Herber, ed., Developing Study Skills in Secondary Schools, pp. 97–155. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Talmadge, M., Anthony Davids, and M. Laufer. 1963. “A Study of Experimental Methods for Teaching Emotionally Disturbed, Brain Damaged Retarded Readers.” The Journal of Educational Research 56 (February):311–316. Tao, Fumiyo, Beth Gamse, and Hope Tarr. 1998. National Evaluation of the Even Start Family Literacy Program: 1994–97 Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Planning and Evaluation Service. Taylor, Barbara M., Barbara E. Hanson, Karen Justice-Swanson, and Susan M. Watts. 1997. “Helping Struggling Readers: Linking SmallGroup Intervention with Cross-Age Tutoring.” The Reading Teacher 51:196–208. Taylor, Barbara M., Michael Pressley, and P. David Pearson. 2002. Research-Supported Characteristics of Teachers and Schools That Promote Reading Achievement. In Barbara M. Taylor and P. David Pearson, eds., Teaching Reading: Effective Schools, Accomplished Teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Taylor, Barbara M., P. David Pearson, Kathleen Clark, and Sharon Walpole. 2000. “Effective Schools and Accomplished Teachers: Lessons about Primary Grade Reading Instruction in Low-Income Schools.” Elementary School Journal 101 (2):121–166. Taylor, Bob L. 1978. “Effects of Minimum Competencies on Promotion Standards.” Educational Leadership 36:23–26.
745
Bibliography Education.” Reading Research and Instruction 40:203–223. Travis, Molly Abel. 1998. Reading Cultures: The Construction of Readers in the Twentieth Century. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University. Treiman, R. 1993. Beginning to Spell. New York: Oxford University Press. Trelease, Jim. 1995. The Read-Aloud Handbook. 4th ed. New York: Penguin Books. Tufte, Edward. 1990. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press. Tullock-Rhody, Regina, and Alexander J. Eskel. 1980. “A Scale for Assessing Attitudes for Reading in Secondary Schools.” Journal of Reading 23, no 7: 609–614. U.S. Department of Education. 2001. High Standards for All Students: A Report from the National Assessment of Title I on Progress and Challenges since the 1994 Reauthorization. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. ———. 2002. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration on Children, Youth, and Families. 1996. “Head Start Program Performance Standards.” 45 CFR 1304, Federal Register 61, no. 215 (November 5):57186–57227. ———. 2000. FACES Findings: New Research on Head Start Program Quality and Outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. ———. 2001. A Profile of Older Americans: 2000. Washington, DC: Administration on Aging. U.S. Department of Labor. 1991. What Work Requires of Schools: A SCANS Report for America 2000. Washington, DC: The Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills, U.S. Department of Labor, p. 12. Ultimate Writing and Creativity Center. Novato, CA: The Learning Company. University of Iowa. 1998. Score Reports and Norms, 1997–98. Iowa City: Iowa Testing Program, University of Iowa. Vacca, Richard, and Nancy D. Padak. 1990. “Who’s at Risk in Reading?” Journal of Reading 33 (7):486–488. Valdés, Guadalupe. 1995. “The Teaching of Minority Languages as Academic Subjects: Pedagogical and Theoretical Challenges.” The Modern Language Journal 79:299–328. ———. 1996. Con respeto: Bridging the Distances between Culturally Diverse Families and Schools: An Ethnographic Portrait. New York: Teachers College Press. ———. 1997. “Dual-Language Immersion Programs:
———. 1998. “Literacy Assessment Reform: Shifting Beliefs, Principled Possibilities, and Emerging Practices.” Reading Teacher 51:374–390. Tierney, Robert, and Caroline Clark (with Linda Fenner, Roberta Herter, Carolyn Staunton Simpson, and Bert Wiser). 1998. “Portfolios: Assumptions, Tensions, and Possibilities.” Research Quarterly 33, no. 4:474–486. Tierney, Robert, and James Cunningham. 1984. “Teaching Reading Comprehension.” In P. Pearson, ed., Handbook of Research in Reading, pp. 609–656. New York: Longman. Tierney, Robert J., and John E. Readence. 2000. Reading Strategies and Practices: A Compendium. 5th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Tierney, Robert, and P. David Pearson. 1994. “A Revisionist Perspective on ‘Learning to Learn from Text’: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice.” In Robert B. Ruddell, Martha R. Ruddell, and Harry Singer, eds., Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, pp. 514–519. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Tierney, Robert, and Timothy Shanahan. 1990. “Research on the Reading-Writing Relationship: Interactions, Transactions, and Outcomes.” In Rebecca Barr, Michael Kamil, Peter Mosenthal, and P. David Pearson, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. II, pp. 246–280. New York: Longman. Tierney, Robert J., M. Carter, and L. Desai. 1991. Portfolio Assessment in the Reading-Writing Classroom: An Introduction. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Tinker, Miles A. 1969. “The Uses and Limitations of Eye-Movement Studies of Reading.” In Psychology of Reading Behavior, Eighteenth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 4–8. Chicago, IL: The National Reading Conference. Tobin, Joseph. 2000. Good Guys Don’t Wear Hats: Children Talk about the Media. New York: Teachers College Press. Tompkins, Gail E. 1990. Teaching Writing; Balancing Process and Product. Columbus, OH: Merrill. ———. 2001. Literacy for the 21st Century: A Balanced Approach. 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall. Torgesen, Jack. 1998. “Catch Them before They Fall: Identification and Assessment to Prevent Reading Failure in Young Children.” American Educator 22 (Spring/Summer):32–39. Torgesen, Joseph, and Brian Bryant. 1994. Test of Phonological Awareness. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Torgesen, Joseph, and Richard Wagner. 1998. Word Reading Efficiency and Nonword Efficiency. Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Trathen, Woodrow, and Gary Moorman. 2001. “Using Email to Create Pedagogical Dialogue in Teacher
746
Bibliography Educational Problems: Characteristics of Reading and Learning Disabilities Specialists, and Classroom Teachers.” Reading Research Quarterly 18:134–164. Vygotsky, Lev S. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge: MIT Press. ———. 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1987. Collected Works. Vol. 1. Edited by R. Rieber and A. Carton. Translated by N. Minick. New York: Plenum. Wade, Suzanne E., and Elizabeth B. Moje. 2000. “The Role of Text in Classroom Learning.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, vol. 3, pp. 609–627. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wade, Suzanne E., Gregory Schraw, William M. Buxton, and Michael T. Hayes. 1993. “Seduction of the Strategic Reader: Effects of Interest on Strategy and Recall.” Reading Research Quarterly 28 (2):92–115. Wahlsten, Douglas, and Gilbert Gottlieb. 1997. “The Invalid Separation of Effects of Nature and Nurture: Lessons from Animal Experimentation.” In R. J. Sternberg and E. Grigorenko, eds., Intelligence, Heredity, and Environment, pp. 163– 192. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Walkerdine, Valerie. 1990. Schoolgirl Fictions. London: Verso. ———. 1997. “Redefining the Subject in Situated Cognition Theory.” In David Kirshner and James A. Whitson, eds., Situated Cognition: Social, Semiotic, and Psychological Perspectives, pp. 57–70. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Wang, Margaret, and Maynard Reynolds. 1996. “Progressive Inclusion: Meeting New Challenges in Special Education.” Theory into Practice 35:20–25. Wardlaw, Lee. 1997. Punia and the King of the Sharks. New York: Dial. Warner, Mary. 2001. Winning Ways of Coaching Writing: A Practical Guide For Teaching Writing. Boston: Allyn and Bacon. Wasik, Barbara A., and Robert E. Slavin. 1993. “Preventing Early Reading Failure with One-toOne Tutoring: A Review of Five Programs.” Reading Research Quarterly 28:179–200. Watts Pailliotet, Ann. 1997. “Questing toward Cohesion: Connecting Advertisements and Classroom Reading through Visual Literacy.” In R. E. Griffin, J. M. Hunter, C. B. Schiffman, and W. J. Gibbs, eds., VisionQuest: Journeys toward Visual Literacy, pp. 33–41. State College, PA: International Visual Literacy Association. Weaver, Brenda M. 2000. Leveling Books K–8:
A Cautionary Note concerning the Education of Language Minority Students.” Harvard Educational Review 67 (3):391–429. Valencia, Sheila W., and Karen K. Wixon. 2000. “Policy-Oriented Research on Literacy Standards and Assessment.” In Michael L. Kamil, Peter B. Mosenthal, P. David Pearson, and Rebecca Barr, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 3, pp. 909–935. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Valencia, Sheila W., Anne C. Stallman, Michelle Commyras, P. David Pearson, and Douglas K. Hartman. 1991. “Four Measures of Topical Knowledge: A Study of Construct Validity.” Reading Research Quarterly 26:204–233. Valencia, Sheila, Elfrieda Hiebert, and Peter Afflerbach. 1994. Authentic Assessment: Practices and Possibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Van Gilder, Lester L. 1970. “A Study of the Changes within the National Reading Conference.” Ph.D. diss., Marquette University. VanSledright, Bruce, and Christine Kelly. 1998. “Reading American History: The Influence of Using Multiple Sources on Six Fifth-Graders.” Elementary School Journal 98:239–265. Veatch, Jeannette. 1978. Reading in the Elementary School. New York: Richard C. Owen. Velders, Teun. 2000. “The Roots of Visual Literacy: Reflections on an Historical Perspective.” Journal of Visual Literacy 20 (1): 1–8. Vellutino, Frank R., Edward R. Sipay, Sheila G. Small, Alice Pratt, Ru Chen, and Martha B. Denckla. 1996. “Cognitive Profiles of Difficult-to-Remediate and Readily Remediated Poor Readers: Early Intervention as a Vehicle for Distinguishing between Cognitive and Experiential Deficits as Basic Causes of Specific Reading Disability.” Journal of Educational Psychology 88:601–638. Venezky, Richard L. 1984. “The History of Reading Research.” In P. David Pearson, Rebecca Barr, Michael L. Kamil, and Peter B. Mosenthal, eds., Handbook of Reading Research, pp. 7–10. New York: Longman. ———. 1987. “A History of the American Reading Textbook.” Elementary School Journal 87:247–265. ———. 1999. The American Way of Spelling: The Structure and Origins of American English Orthography. New York: Guilford Press. Venezky, Richard L., Daniel A. Wagner, and Barrie S. Ciliberti, eds. 1990. Toward Defining Literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Vines, Saul, and Ron Rosenthal-Tanzer. 1988. “Causes of Speech Delay.” Language Development 65:606–618. Vinsonhaler, J. F., A. B. Weinshank, C. C. Wagner, and R. M. Polin. 1983. “Diagnosing Children with
747
Bibliography Whaley, Jill Fitzgerald. 1981. “Story Grammars and Reading Instruction.” The Reading Teacher 34:764. Wharton-MacDonald, Ruth, Michael Pressley, and Jennifer M. Hampston. 1998. “Literacy Instruction in Nine First-Grade Classrooms: Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement.” The Elementary School Journal 99, no. 2:101–128. White, Thomas, Joanne Sowell, and Alice Yanagihara. 1989. “Teaching Elementary Students to Use Word Part Clues.” The Reading Teacher 42:302–308. Whitmore, Kathryn F. 1997. “Inventing Conversations in Second-Language Classrooms: What Students Say and How They Say It.” In Jeanne Paratore and Rachel L. McCormack, eds., Peer Talk in the Classroom: Learning from Research, pp. 102–129. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Whitmore, Kathryn F., Yetta M. Goodman, and Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking. 1996. Whole Language Voices in Teacher Education. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Widomski, Cheryl L. 1983. “Building Foundations for Reading Comprehension.” Reading World 22:306–313. Wigfield, Allan, and John Guthrie. 1997. “Relations of Children’s Motivation for Reading to the Amount and Breadth of Their Reading.” Journal of Educational Psychology 89:420–432. Wiggins, Grant. 1998. Educative Assessment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Wilhelm, Jeffrey D. 1997. “You Gotta BE the Book”: Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press. Williams, Cheri L., and Mari M. McLean. 1997. “Young Deaf Children’s Response to Picture Book Reading in a Preschool Setting.” Research in the Teaching of English 31:337–366. Willis, Paul. 1977. Learning to Labour. New York: Columbia University Press. Wilson, Anita. 2000. “There Is No Escape from Third-Space Theory: Borderland Discourse and the ‘In-between’ Literacies of Prisons.” In David Barton, Mary Hamilton, and Roz Ivanic, eds., Situated Literacies: Reading and Writing in Context, pp. 54–69. London: Routledge. Wilson, Victor, William Rupley, Maximo Rodriguez, and Sandra Mergen. 1999. “The Relationships among Orthographic Components of Word Identification and Spelling for Grades 1–6.” Reading Research and Instruction 39:89–102. Wineburg, Samuel S. 1991. “On the Reading of Historical Texts: Notes on the Breach between School and Academy.” American Educational Research Journal 28:495–519. Winograd, Peter, Rebecca Blum Martinez, and Elizabeth Noll. 1999. “Alternative Assessments of Learning and Literacy: A U.S. Perspective.” In
Matching Readers to Text. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Webb, John B., and Barbara L. Miller. 2000. Teaching Heritage Language Learners: Voices from the Classroom. New York: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages. Weedon, Chris. 1987. Feminist Practice and PostStructuralist Theory. Cambridge and Oxford: Blackwell. ———. 1997. Feminist Practice and Poststructural Theory. 2d ed. London: Taylor and Francis. Wei, Li, Lesley Milroy, and Pong-Sin Ching. 1992. “A Two-Step Sociolinguistic Analysis of CodeSwitching and Language Choice.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics 2 (1):63–86. Weinstein, Claire F., and Richard F. Mayer. 1987. “The Teaching of Learning Strategies.” In Merlin C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 315–327. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Weinstein-Shr, Gail. 1995. Literacy and Older Adults in the United States. Philadelphia: National Center on Adult Literacy. Weiss, Charles, Henry Lillywhite, and Mary Gordon. 1980. Clinical Management of Articulation Disorders. St. Louis, MO: Mosby. Weiss, Kenneth J., and Catherine Kurkjian. 1999. “Students and Teachers Discovering the Power of Internet Projects.” New England Reading Association Journal 35 (2):20–23. Wells, Gordon. 1999. Dialogic Inquiry: Toward a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wertsch, James V. 1985. Vygotsky and the Social Formation of Mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ———. 1993. Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. West, Jane. 1996. “Getting Help When You Need It: The Relations between Social Status and Third Graders’ Helping Interactions during Literacy Events.” In Donald J. Leu Jr., Charles K. Kinzer, and Kathleen A. Hinchman, eds., Literacies for the 21st Century: Research and Practice, FortyFifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, pp. 59–75. Chicago: National Reading Conference. Westby, Carol. 1991. “Learning to Talk—Talking to Learn: Oral-Literate Language Differences.” In Charlann Simon, ed., Communication Skills and Classroom Success: Assessment and Therapy for Language and Learning Disabled Students, pp. 334–355. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications. Westerhoff, John H. 1978. McGuffey and His Readers: Piety, Morality, and Education in NineteenthCentury America. Nashville: Abingdon Press.
748
Bibliography Yancey, Kathleen B., ed. 1992. Portfolios in the Writing Classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Yokota, Junko, ed. 2001. Kaleidoscope: A Multicultural Booklist for Grades K–8. 3rd ed. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Yopp, Hallie Kay. 1995. Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Young, Sherrye Lynn Smith. 1973. The Relationship of Reading and Linguistics: A Critical Essay and Annotated Bibliography. Ph.D. diss., Ohio University, Athens. Zakaluk, Beverly, and S. Jay Samuels, eds. 1988. Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future. Newark, DE: International Reading Association (ERIC ED 292 058). Zboray, Ronald J. 1993. A Fictive People: Antebellum Economic Development and the American Reading Public. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zboray, Ronald J., and Mary Saracino Zboray. 2000. A Handbook for the Study of Book History in the United States. Washington: Center for the Book, Library of Congress. Zepeda, Ofelia. 1995. “The Continuum of Literacy in American Indian Communities.” Bilingual Research Journal 19 (1):5–15. Zutell, Jerry, and Timothy Rasinski. 1991. “Training Teachers to Attend to Their Students’ Oral Reading Fluency.” Theory Into Practice 30:211–217.
Daniel A. Wagner, Richard L. Venezky, and Brian V. Street, eds., Literacy: An International Handbook, pp. 203–209. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Wittrock, Merlin C. 1974. “Learning as a Generative Process.” Educational Psychologist 11:87–95. ———. 1987. “Students’ Thought Processes.” In M. C. Wittrock, ed., Handbook of Research on Teaching, pp. 297–314. New York: Macmillan. Wixson, K. K., and M. Y. Lipson. 1996. Reading Disability. New York: HarperCollins. Wolf, Shelby A. 1993. “What’s in a Name? Labels and Literacy in Readers Theatre.” The Reading Teacher 46, no. 7:540–545. Wolf, Shelby A., and Maryl Gearhart. 1994. “Writing What You Read: A Framework for Narrative Assessment.” Language Arts 71:425–445. Wolf, Shelby, Darcy Ballentine, and Lisa Hill. 1999. “The Right to Write: Preservice Teachers’ Evolving Understandings of Authenticity and Aesthetic Heat in Multicultural Literature.” Research in the Teaching of English 34 (1):130–184. Wong, Shelley, Lois Groth, John O’Flahaven, Sheila Gale, Gayle Kelley, Sheryl Leeds, Jeanette Regetz, and Janet Steiner-O’Malley. 1994. Characteristic Teacher Student Interaction in Reading Recovery Lessons. College Park, MD: National Reading Research Center. Woodcock, Richard W. 1987. Woodcock Reading Mastery Test. Itasca, IL: Riverside. Wright, Richard. 1966. Black Boy. New York: Harper and Row.
749
Index
reform, 24–25 workplace, 24 See also Language experience approach Adult literacy testing, 20–21, 22, 24, 25–28 assessment, 27–28 competency-based, 25 standardized, 25–27 Adult Performance Level (APL), 311, 685 Adult Secondary Education (ASE) programs, 23, 24 Advanced Placement Examinations, 691 Advancement via Individual Determination (AVID), 592 Advantage Learning Systems, 484 Advantage TASA Open Standard (ATOS), 484 Aesthetic reading, 17, 44, 116, 118, 293, 334, 340, 361, 661 Afflerbach, Peter, 38 Africa (software), 604 African Americans, 10, 151, 152, 305, 316, 372, 407, 573, 591, 593 attitude toward, 114 authors, 17, 117, 332, 369 biliteracy, 59 community, 10 English, 229, 593, 602. See also Ebonics fiction, 12, 369, 370, 371, 372 music, 369 in Pittsburgh, 81 reading, 10, 611 speech genre of signifying, 12 storytelling tradition, 602 Afrikaans (language), 484 Aguilar, Jill, 210 Alabama, 230 Alarcón, Francisco, 371 Alaska, 8 Alexander, Karl L., 4 Alexander, Patricia, 381, 558 Ali, Karen Sheila, 95 Aliteracy, 312 Allen, JoBeth, 594 Allgood, Whitney, 631 Alligator Baby (Munsch), 416 Allington, Richard, 239, 520, 549
Aaron, Ira, 502 Abadiano, Helen, 301, 302 Ability grouping, 1–5 About Me, 522 Academic language, 49, 50, 56 Accelerated Reader program, 328, 604 Accelerated school movement, 36 Accelerated Schools Project, 592 Accommodation, 542 Accountability and testing, 5–8, 180. See also Highstakes assessment Achievement. See Ability grouping Achievement tests, 519 Active listening, 8–10 Activity theory, 10–13 Adams, Marilyn, 125, 230, 359–360, 430 Adolescent literacy, 13–15 generative view, 14, 15 See also Instant messaging; Middle-school literacy; Secondary-school reading programs Adolescent literature, 15–18, 63, 370 authors, 16, 17–18, 261 awards, 17 defined, 16 See also Junior Great Books Adorno, Theodore, 440–441 Adult Basic Education (ABC), 19, 23, 24, 25, 625 Adult Basic Education Program (Title IIB), 23 Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE), 24, 26 Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (1998) (WIA Title II), 21, 23, 182 Adult literacy, 19–22, 80–82, 182, 310–313, 330 defined, 19 and income, 19 and military personnel, 21, 23, 683 See also Elders and literacy; Software for older readers; Workplace literacy Adult Literacy Education in the United States (Cook), 683 Adult Literacy Initiative (ALI), 20 Adult literacy programs, 19–20, 22–25, 182 colonial, 23 corrections education, 24 funding, 24
751
Index Arbuthnot, May Hill, 521 Archaeology of Knowlege (Foucault), 447 Architectonic discipline. See Semiotics Arctic Benthic Biota curriculum, 255 Argument from the poverty of the stimulus (APS), 274 Arithmatic, 164. See Adult literacy; Adult literacy testing Arizona, 51 Armstrong, Nancy, 306–307 Arnold, Matthew, 303 Arnold, Sarah Louise, 227 Art, 112, 291 Artists’ books, 29–30 Asch, Frank, 416 Asians, 151, 152 biliteracy, 59 books, 371 heritage-language literacy, 60, 222 Assembly on Children’s Literature (NCTE), 398 Assembly on Literature for Adolescents (ALAN, NCTE), 18 Assessment interviews, 30–31 Assessment interviews for parents and teachers, 31–33 Assessment Test (Phonemic Awareness in Young Children curriculum), 162 Assimilation, 542 Association of Educational Publishers, 534 Association Trends, 534 Athabaskans, 141–142 At-risk students, 33–36 factors, 34 identification, 35 See also Remedial reading; Remediation Attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder, 34 Atwell, Nancie, 239, 245, 644 Au, Kathryn, 306 Auding. See Rauding theory Audio-based distance learning, 147, 148 Austen, Jane, 491 Austin, John, 136, 137 Austin, Mary, 43 Australia, 673–674 Ausubel, David, 654 Authentic assessment, 36–39, 230, 263, 435, 515–516, 676–677. See also Classroom writing assessment Autobiography, 65 Automaticity and reading fluency, 40–42, 358, 548 Autonomous literacy, 376
Alphabet, 157–158 Alphabet method, 45, 47, 162, 163, 165, 187, 224–225, 428 Althusser, Louis, 633 Altoona Baboona (Bynum), 433 Alvarez, Marino, 315, 653 Alvermann, Donna, 146, 195, 197, 198, 316, 421, 422, 543, 641, 663 America Reads, School-to-Work initiatives, 125, 439 “America 2000,” 617 American Antiquarian Society, 233 American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), 175, 176 American Book Company, 1, 226 American Council on Education, 26 American Dictionary of the English Language (Webster), 225 American Educational Research Association (AERA), 224, 500 American Girls series, 371 American Heritage High Frequency List, 583 American History Explorer (software), 604 The American Journal of Education, 226 American Library Association (ALA), 17, 18, 660 Best Picks list, 17 Booklist, 18, 332 Caldecott Award, 64, 171–172 Newbery Medal, 17, 64, 171, 172 Printz Award, 370 American Psychological Association, 495, 500, 531, 551 American Reading Conference. See American Reading Forum American Reading Forum (ARF), 29 American Reading Instruction (N. B. Smith), 46 American Sign Language, 90, 121, 235 An American Spelling Book (Webster), 46, 225 America’s Civil Rights Movement (Southern Poverty Law Center), 370–371, 594 Ancona, George, 372 Anders, Patricia, 573 Anderson, Gary, 646 Anderson, Richard, 395, 396, 509, 522, 539, 540, 556, 559, 669 Anderson-Inman, Lynn, 89 Animal Planet (software), 604 Annotation, 129 The Annual Bibliography of the History of the Printed Book and Libraries. See Book History Online Annual Summary of Investigations, 83 Anzaldúa, Gloria, 284 AOL Instant Messenger (AIM), 251, 253 APEX Awards for Publication Excellence, 534 Appalachian Trail, 170 Apple, Michael, 439 Appleby, Arthur, 551 Arabic (classical), 57
Baghban, Marcia, 320 Baker, Augusta, 372 Baker, Carolyn, 137, 596 Baker, Linda, 86, 322 Bakhtin, Mikhail, 105, 139, 143, 206, 251, 258, 511, 598
752
Index Bible, 224, 225, 366, 428, 439 Bibliotherapy, 17, 48–49 Biemans, Harm J. A., 96 Big Book format, 451 Bigelow, Bill, 594, 645 Bilingual education, 49–52, 56, 178, 179, 181, 284–285, 591 maintenance, 59, 60 transitional, 59 Bilingualism, 52–57, 355, 373, 670 limited, 56, 220–221 Biliteracy, 57–60 Bingham, Caleb, 226 Binkley, Janet Ramage, 259 Biography, 65–66, 291 Birch, Sandra, 426 Black Caucus (NCTE), 398 Black dialects. See Ebonics Black English, 281, 282, 283. See also Ebonics Black History Month (February), 370 Blackboard.com, 301–302 Blair, Heather, 195 Blair-Larsen, Susan, 43 Blanton, William, 530 Blindness, 123 Block, Francesca Lia, 18 Blocks learning center, 292 Bloodgood, Janet, 44 Bloom, Benjamin, 229 Bloome, David, 106, 139, 293, 598 Bloomfield, Leonard, 298 Bloor, David, 588 Blue Ribbon School Recognition programs, 4 Blue’s Clues ABC Time Activities, 165 Blum, Irene, 549, 550 Blume, Judy, 309, 570 Bohr, Niels, 662 Bolter, Jay David, 234 Bond, Eva, 562 Bond, Guy, 229, 562 Bond, James, novels, 491 Bonner, Randy, 44 Book banning, 489 The Book Club Connection: Literacy Learning and Classroom Talk (McMahon and Raphael), 61 Book Club Plus, 62 Book clubs, 50–62, 421, 469, 472, 492, 564 Book History (SHARP), 233 Book History Online, 233 Book It program, 328 Book Links (journal), 372 Books, access to, 51–52, 171, 242, 540–541, 590. See also Reading Is Fundamental Borrowing, 53, 54–55 Bos, Candace, 573 Boston Globe/Hornbook award, 332 Bourdieu, Pierre, 597
Balanced literacy instruction, 43–45, 230, 243, 307 Balanced reading instruction, 124–125 Baldwin, R. Scott, 530 Bandura, Albert, 587 Banks, Chas, 635 Barbe, Walter, 239, 243 Barnes, Charles, 226 Barr, Rebecca, 2 Barrera, Rosalinda, 152 Barrett, Judi, 433 Barthes, Roland, 258, 552, 620 Bartlett, Frank C., 388 Bartlett, Frederic, 100, 619 Barton, David, 139, 315, 378, 379, 598 Basal readers, 45–48, 78, 79–80, 85, 228, 230, 244, 336, 429, 452. See also Textbooks, Whole language and whole language assessment Basal-series manuals, 4 Basic English Skills Tests (BEST), 26 Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS), 56 Basic Readers series, 228 Basic Reading, 228 Basic skills, 5–6 Baudrillard, Jean, 447, 448 Baumann, James, 43, 429, 655 Bean, Kristen, 15 Bean, Shannon, 15 Bean, Thomas W., 15, 308, 309, 525 Beauvoir, Simone de, 553 Bebop Books, 371 Becher, Rhoda, 319 Beck, Isabel, 396, 454, 472 Becker, Wesley, 668 Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the National Commission on Reading (BNR) (Anderson), 395, 396–397, 487 Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print (Adams), 125, 402 Behavioral disorder (BD), 5 Behaviorism, 127, 135, 227, 229, 273, 328, 411, 463, 580, 673 Belenky, Mary, 206 The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (Herrnstein and Murray), 438 Belpre, Pura, 372 Belpre, Pura, Award, 372 Benchmark School technique, 505 Benezet, Anthony, 225 Bennett, William, 395, 438 Bennington (Vt.), 643 Bentley, Arthur F., 661, 662 Berends, Mark, 3 Berger, Peter, 588 Betts, Emmett, 113, 247, 248, 482, 521 Between the Lines (PBS), 242, 524 Between-class grouping, 1 Bialystok, Ellen, 276
753
Index California Learning Assessment System (CLAS), 695–696 Calques, 53, 55 Cambodian (language), 60 Cambourne, Brian, 239 Cameron, Ann, 373 Cameron, Deborah, 135 Camitta, Miriam, 210 Campbell, Richard, 76 Canada adult literacy, 21, 27 bilingual, 57 heritage-language development, 219, 284 whole-language teachers support groups, 63, 673, 674, 676 Canadian Library Awards, 332 Canney, George, 375 Carini, Patricia, 643 Carley, Kathleen, 449 Carnegie Mellon University, 81 Carolina Piedmont, 10–11, 365–366 Carpenter, Patricia A., 360 Carr, Eileen, 271 Carson, Ben, 539 Carter, Jimmy, 481 Carter, Mark, 443 Cartoons and comic strips. See Comics Carver, Ronald P., 599 Cassell, Russell N., 521 Castanheira, Maria Lucia, 139 Catell, James McKeen, 521 Catherine, Called Birdy (Cushman), 576 Caulfield, Judy, 625 Causey, Oscar S., 400 Causey, Oscar S., Award (NRC), 400 CD-ROMs, 13, 101, 235, 248, 277, 371, 374, 524, 604 Celano, Donna, 172, 541 Censorship, and adolescent literature, 17 Census, U.S., 19, 58, 151 Center for Applied Linguistics, 221 Center for Educational Improvement (Univ. of Mich.), 644 Center for Inquiry (Indianapolis), 592 Center for the Expansion of Language and Thinking (CELT), 63 Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement (CIERA), 14, 241, 402 Center for the Study of Reading (CSR) (Univ. of Ill.), 229, 391, 617 Report of the Commission on Reading, 241 Centers for the Book, 233 Central processing, 382–383 Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (Great Britain), 442 Cerebral dominance, lack of, 123 Cerebral specialization/location, 513
Braddock, Richard, 551 Brainstorming, 456, 574, 577 Brandts, Lois, 472 Bransford, John, 128, 374, 510 Braun, Carl, 416 Braun, Win, 416 Brazil, 21, 314 Breadloaf School of English (Middlebury College), 643 Bremond, Claude, 620 Brewer, William F., 297 Bridge, Connie, 452, 582 Bridges, David, 421 Brisk, Marie E., 573 Britton, James, 103 Broaddus, Karen, 44 Broca’s area, 413 Brogan, Peggy, 451 Bromley, Karen, 132 Bronfenbrenner, Urie, 321 Brophy, Jere, 396 Brown Angels (Myers), 370 Brown, Ann L., 86, 92, 128, 345, 347, 374, 505, 538 Brown, Jeffrey, 76 Brown, Richard D., 232 Brown, Roger, 409 Bruce, Bertram, 249, 448 Brujac, Joseph, 368 Bruner, Jerome, 274, 494, 587 Bryk, Anthony, 173 Buchanan, C. D., 461 Buckingham, David, 634 Buhs, Eric, 426 Bukowski, William, 425 The Bulletin. See The Reading Teacher Bullock report, 674 Burke, Carolyn, 249, 250, 472 Burns, M. Susan, 118 Busching, Beverly, 494 Bush, Barbara, Foundation for Family Literacy, 20 Bush, George W., 402, 617 Bush, Laura, 370, 438 Bush, Vannevar, 233 Buswell, Guy T., 183, 415 Butler, Judith, 205, 633 Bynum, Janie, 433 Cacioppo, John T., 382 Cajuns, 407 Caldecott Award (ALA), 64, 171–172, 658 Calfee, Robert, 41, 535 California bilingual education, 51 literacy, 26, 170 reading scores, 230 Spanish language books, 52 See also Athabaskans
754
Index Clinton, Bill, 438–439 Cloze procedure, 72–73, 164, 482, 518 Clustering, 572, 574(fig.) Coalition for Essential Schools, 592 Cobb, Lyman, 226 Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, 643 Cocking, Rodney, 374 Codeswitching, 53–54, 55 Codex book, 234 Codling, Rose Marie, 30 Cognition, 580, 597 Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP), 56 Cognitive active listening, 8, 10 Cognitive apprenticeship. See Mental modeling Cognitive development, 100, 114, 131, 182, 320, 322, 537. See also Social constructivism Cognitive evaluation theory (CET), 328 Cognitive processes, 129, 292, 345, 513 Cognitive Psychology, 620 Cognitive-processing models, 357, 358–361, 509 Cognitive/rational process, 342 Cognitive science, 229 Cognitive theory, 97 Cohen, Elizabeth, 425, 426 Cole, Michael, 304, 315 Collaborative learning opportunities, 535 Collaborative literacy events, 427–428 College English (NCTE journal), 399 College Literacy and Learning (CLL), 73–74 College Reading and Learning Association (CRLA), 74–75 College Reading Association (CRA), 75–76, 530 College Reading Association Newsletter. See Reading Research and Instruction College students, 125, 199 and reading, 127–131 Collegiate Dictionary (software), 604 Collins, Martha, 461 Colonialism, 188, 636 The Color Purple (Walker), 117 Colvin, Ruth, 330 Comenius, John Amos, 673 Comics, 76–77, 540 Commercial reading programs, 77–80 Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (SCANS), 684–685 Commission on Education and Public Policy (National Academy of Education), 396 Commission on Reading (Center for the Study of Reading) report, 241 Commission on Reading (National Academy of Education), 396 Committee of Ten (National Council of Education), 640 Committee to Review National Standards, 438
Chaiken, Shelly, 382 Chalkface anthology (NCTE), 492 Chall, Jeanne, 228, 229, 396, 397, 402, 429, 464, 483, 502, 640 Chalmers, Lynn, 48 Chamber of Commerce, 399 Character maps, 576, 579(fig.) Chase, Francis, 114–115 Chaucer, Geoffrey, 283 Checklists, 517 Cheek, Earl, 461 Cheney, Lynne, 438 Cherland, Meredith, 195, 203, 204 Cherokee (language), 59 Child language acquisition (CLA), 273–275 Child X Environment model, 426 Children’s Book Press, 371 Children’s literature, 47, 64–66. See also Junior Great Books, Trade books Children’s Software Review, 605 Child-study movement, 263 Chinese (language), 60, 484 Ching, Pong-Sin, 54 Chinn, Clark A., 297 Chodorow, Nancy, 206 Chomsky, Carol, 288, 549, 550 Chomsky, Noam, 229, 273, 274, 275, 411, 462–463, 619 Choral reading, 505, 550 Christian-Smith, Linda, 203, 634–635 Christensen, Linda, 594, 644 Christie, Alice, 200 Christie, Frances, 138 Christie, James, 321 Cicourel, Aaron, 137 Cintron, Ralph, 209, 210 The Circuit: Stories from the Life of a Migrant Child (Jiménez), 372 Citizens for Better Public Education, 523 City Reading (Henkin), 232 Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 23 Cixous, Hélène, 206 Clarifying, 536 Clark, Kathleen, 174, 555 Class Actions: Teaching for Social Justice in Elementary and Middle School (Allen), 594 Classics (in literature), 16, 17 Classroom ethnography, 263 Classroom ineffectiveness, 34 Classroom writing assessment, 66–72 Classroom-teacher model of reading diagnosis, 515–516 Clay, Marie, 35, 161, 163, 239, 241, 243, 288, 451, 484, 500, 528 Cleary, Beverly, 416 Cleland, John, 232 Clickety Clack (Spence and Spence), 433
755
Index Construction-integration (CI) model of reading, 360–361, 511 Constructivism, 89, 99–101, 105, 263 Constructivist theories of learning, 4, 154, 274, 663 Content standards, 6, 7 Content-area literacy, 101–104, 659 Content-area reading, 13, 14 Context in literacy, 104–107, 378, 379. See also Sociolinguistics and literacy Context of occurence, 135 Contextual embeddedness, 154 Contractions, 627 Contracts, 254 Conversation analysis (CA), 137 Conversational language, 49 Cook, Wanda, 683 “Cool School” programs, 35 Cooperative learning, 107–108 groups. See Electronic jigsaw Coordination skills, 266 Cooter, Robert B., 530 Cormier, Robert, 16 Correro, Gloria, 402 Correspondence courses, 147 Council on Interracial Books for Children (CIBC), 370 Coupland, Nikalos, 135 Cramer, Eugene, 239 Cramer, Ron, 288 Craviotto, Eileen, 153 Crawford, Theresa, 139 Creolists, 167 Criterion-referenced tests (CRTs), 496, 518, 615, 617–618 Critical discourse analysis (CDA), 137–138 Critical linguistics, 137, 138 Critical literacy, 108–111 Critical media literacy, 111–113 Critical pedagogy, 307 Critical reading, 113–115 Critical Reading (King, Ellinger and Wolf), 113–114 Critical theory, 343 Criticisms of reader response, 115–118 Critique of the National Reading Panel Report, 118–120 Crossen, Helen, 114, 115 Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly, 328 Cultural diversity, 118, 120 Cultural factors, 10 and cognition, 10–12 and gender. See Gender entries and interviews, 32 in reading, 10, 34, 481, 491 See also Diversity; Literacy and culture; Multicultural literacy Cultural psychology, 507 Cummins, Jim, 56, 219–220
Communication across discourses, 141. See also Language arts instruction Communications Concepts, 534 Community literacy, 80–82, 106, 596. See also Multicultural literacy; Service learning Community Literacy Center (CLC) (Pittsburgh), 81–82 Comparative education, 83 Comparative reading, 82–85 Comparative Reading: Cross-National Studies of Behavior and Processes in Reading and Writing (Downing), 83 Composing. See Process writing Composition process, 100 Compound words, 626 Comprehending and comprehension, 354 Comprehension, 13, 15. See also Reading comprehension Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition (Kintsch), 510 Comprehension strategies, 85–88, 555, 654 monitoring, 130–131 Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System (CASAS), 24, 26–27 Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS), 519 Computer Supported Intentional Learning Environments (CSILE), 92, 93 Computer-assisted instruction (CAI), 88–90, 92, 93, 148, 165, 254–255 Computer-based distance learning, 147, 148 Computer-managed instuction (CMI), 148 Computer-mediated communication (CMC), 148 Computers, 78, 79, 88, 95–96, 165, 236, 325, 404, 481 learning center, 292 See also Gender and post-typographical instant messaging; Software for older readers Concept instruction with text, 90–93, 101 Concept mapping, 130, 457, 576, 577(fig.) Concept maps, 457 Concept-oriented reading instruction (CORI), 91–92, 93, 336 Concepts about Print (CAP), 163 “Concepts about Print Test” (Clay), 500 Conceptual change learning (CCL), 93–94, 542–543 Conceptual change learning and texts, 93–97, 297 Conference on College Composition and Communication (NCTE), 398 Conference on English Education (NCTE), 398 Conference Proceedings (CRA), 75 Confrey, Jere, 455 Connectionist theories, 510 Conquergood, Dwight, 210 Consequences, usefulness, roles and responsibility, and validity of assessment (CURRV), 38 Conservatives, 438 Considerate text, 97–99
756
Index Democratizing education. See Whole language and whoe-language assessment Denver (Colo.) schools, 1 Derrida, Jacques, 258, 445, 446, 447, 448, 633 Desai, Laurie, 443 Descartes, René, 633, 661 Detracking, 592 Detroit (Mich.) schools, 1 Developing countries, 83 Developmental and college reading, 127–131 Developmental reading, 73, 562–563 Dewey, John, 77, 80, 82, 227, 249, 343, 345, 522, 526, 537, 588, 661, 662, 673 Diagnostic Assessment of Reading and Trial Teaching Sessions (DAR-TTS), 504 Diagnostic reading tests, 520 Dialogic responsiveness, 105, 131–132, 589 Dialogue journals, 132–133 “Dick and Jane” readers, 45, 228 Dickinson, David, 158 Dictionaries, 166 A Dictionary of Reading and Related Terms. See The Literacy Dictionary Differance, 447, 448 Differential item functioning (DIF), 497 Digital form, 448, 449 Digital literacy, 666 Diglossia, 55–56 Dillner, Martha, 525 Dillon, David, 276 Dillon, Deborah, 422, 663 Dillon, J. T., 422 Dilworth, Thomas, 225 Directed Reading Activity/Directed ReadingThinking Activity DR-TA), 133–135, 288, 289 Disciplinary discourse community, 101 Discourse analysis, 105, 135–139, 154, 634 Discovery learning, 219 Discursive theory, 105, 140–143 Discussion, 143–146 The Discussion Web, 146–147 Disher, Ernest K., 530 The Dismissal of Miss Ruth Brown: Civil Rights, Censorship, and the American Library (Robbins), 232 Disney, Walt, films, 636 Displacement theory, 647–648 Distance learning, 147–150, 524 Diversity, 150–154, 286, 313, 414, 636. See also Multicultural literacy Dixon, Carol, 104, 105, 139, 472 Document literacy, 27 Dodge, Kenneth, 425 Dodge, Raymond, 183, 521 Dolch Basic Sight Word List, 582 Dole, Janice, 114, 346, 382 Domain/disciplinary knowledge, 381, 382, 558, 649
Cunningham, Anne, 668, 669 Cunningham Blocks Program and Early Intervention in Reading, 125 Cunningham, James, 43 Cunningham, Patricia, 239, 243 Curriculum changes, 7 as gender biased, 204 individualized, 254 integration, 256–257 multidisciplinary, 255, 329 parallel, 255 subject-centered, 255 virtual-based, 254–255 Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics), 618 Curtis, Chistopher Paul, 369 Cushman, Karen, 576, 577 Customer service representative (CSR), 682–683 Cyr, Ellen, 226, 227 Daily Independent Reading Time (DIRT), 583 Dale Chall formula, 483, 484 New, 486 Dale, Edgar, 483 Dallas Morning News poll, 51 Dalton, Bridget, 525 Dalton (Ga.) schools, 1 Dance, 112 Daniels, Harvey, 331 Dansereau, Donald, 129 Dante, 665 Darling, Sharon, 185, 186 Darling-Hammond, Linda, 642 Darnton, Robert, 231, 232 Databased distance learning, 147, 148 Dauber, Susan L., 4 Davey, Beth, 656 Davidson, Jane L., 288, 289 Davies, Bronwyn, 197, 635 Day of Whole Language (NCTE), 677–678 Deaf students and literacy, 121–123, 287 Dear Mr. Henshaw (Cleary), 416 Dearborn, Walter F., 183, 521 Debes, Jack, 665 Deci, Edward, 328 Decoding, 13, 41, 89, 124, 162, 164, 346, 497, 502, 505, 626 Deconstruction, 118, 188, 446–447, 665 DeFina, Allan, 416 Degener, Sophie, 379 Degrees of reading power (DRP), 484 Delayed readers, 33, 123–127 Deleuze, Gilles, 633 Delpit, Lisa, 274, 367 Democracy and justice. See Critical literacy
757
Index Improvement; Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 124 Education for Handicapped Act (1975), 339 Educational reform, 6, 226–227, 464, 465. See also Social justice and literacies Educational research, 2–5, 481. See also Reading research Educational Resource Information Center (ERIC), 481, 486, 685 Educational Testing Service (ETS), 27–28, 176, 311 Eeds, MaryAnn, 421 Effective schools and teachers, 173–174 Efferent reading, 17, 44, 293, 334, 340, 361, 661 Egan-Robertson, Ann, 106, 293 Ehri, Linnea C., 402, 599 El Salvador, 312 Elaborating information, 130 Elaboration-Likelihood Model, 382 Elbaum, Batya, 5 Elders and literacy, 175–177 Electronic jigsaw, (ejigsaw), 177–178. See also Jigsaw approach Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965), 5, 182, 229, 438, 545 Title II amendment, 520 2002, 402 See also Title I Elementary English. See Language Arts Elementary Reading Attitude Survey, 501 Elementary school and academic tasks, 3 grouping, 1, 3, 4 language arts, 278 literacy assessment, 160–165 reading, 241, 261, 385–388, 676 See also Learning centers; Reading recovery; Trade books The Elementary School Journal, 124, 229, 673 The Elementary Spelling Book (Webster and Ely), 226 Eliot, Charles W., 227, 640 Elish-Piper, Laurie, 43 Elkins, John, 13, 259 Eller, Willam, 83, 84 Elliott, John, 76, 643 Elson Basic Readers, 228 Elson-Gray Basic Readers, 228 Ely, Aaron, 226 E-mail, 148, 199, 300 Emergent literacy, 320 Encyclopedias, 166 Engelsing, Rolf, 232 English as a Second Language (ESL), 19, 182, 355, 639 and adult literacy, 20, 25, 26, 176 and cloze procedure, 72
Dorsey-Gaines, Catherine, 186 Dougherty, Mary, 502 Dowhower, Sarah, 494, 549, 550 Downing, John, 82, 83, 84, 288 The Dragon’s Lode (journal), 372 Drama, 112, 492. See also Multimedia Dramatic-play learning center, 292 Dreeben, Robert, 2 Drop Everything and Read (DEAR), 242, 246, 583 Dropouts, 7, 24, 35 Dudley-Marling, Curt, 276 Duff, Patricia, 138 Duffy, Ann, 43 Duffy, Gerald, 44, 87, 174 Duke, Nell, 385, 386, 541, 660 Duranti, Alessandro, 104 Durkin, Dolores, 85, 185, 239, 461 Durrell Analysis of Reading Difficulty, 498, 504, 520 Durrell, Donald D., 521 Duthie, James, 146 DVD (digitized video discs), 374 Dykstra, Robert, 229 Dymock, Susan, 386 Dynamic assessment, 154–155 Dynamic Indications of Basic Literacy Skills (DIBELS), 162 Dyslexia, 123, 155–156, 479, 513 Dyson, Ann Haas, 535, 598 “Each One Teach One,” 21, 290 Eagleton, Terry, 116 Earle, Richard, 213 Early Career Award (NRC), 400 Early intervention, 35 Early Intervention in Reading (EIR), 420 Early literacy, 157–160 Early literacy assessment, 160–165 Early literacy software, 89, 165–167, 605 Early Reading Screening Instrument (ERSI), 163 Earthsong (Rogers), 433 Easton, John, 173 Ebonics, 167–168, 283–284 eBooks, 603 Ecological literacy, 168–170 Economic Opportunity Act (1964), 23 Title IIB, 23 Economics of literacy development, 170–173 Edelsky, Carole, 368, 594 Edison schools, 439 Education, Department of, 4, 23, 182, 395, 399, 475, 523, 684 and college reading tutors, 125 Division of Adult Education and Literacy (DAEL), 25 First Grade Studies, 288 See also Office of Educational Research and
758
Index for reading, 229, 523 See also Title I; Workplace literacy Feminism, 117, 118, 552 Feminist post-structuralism, 139, 187–191 Ferguson, Gwenette, 402 Fernald, Grace, 124, 228, 266, 502, 505 Fetterly, Judith, 552 A Fictive People: Antebellum Economic Development and the American Reading Public (Zboray), 231 Fielding, Linda, 522, 539 Figurative speech, 12 Films, 13, 16, 112, 277, 342, 371, 374, 636, 665 Finke, Laurie, 208 Fisher, Bobbi, 644 Fisher, Charles, 336 Fishman, Joshua, 55 Fitzgerald, Jill, 43 Fitzpatrick, Alfred, 21 5-Rs strategy, 460 Flavell, John, 345, 507 Fleischer, Cathy, 644, 646 Fleischman, Paul, 18 Flesch Kincaid formula, 483 Flesch, Rudolph, 47, 228, 429 Fleshner, Linda, 214, 576 Flexibility, 191 Flippo Interest Inventory, 522–523 Florian, David, 416 Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, 6, 223 Flower, Linda, 80 Fluency, 191–193. See also Reading fluency Fogelman, Phyllis, 370 Folk culture, 442 Folklore, 64 Follow Me, Moon, 163 Ford, Burnette, 370 Fordham, Signithia, 204 Foreign language readability formulas, 484 Forrestal, Peter, 553 Foshay, Arthur, 83 Foster, Michele, 139 Fostering Communities of Learners (FCL), 92–93 Foucault, Michel, 141, 142, 187, 188, 189, 205, 258, 445, 446, 447–448, 633 Fountas, Irene, 239, 241, 484 Fox, Mem, 624 Fraatz, Michelle, 437–438 France, 445 Frank, Carolyn, 472 Frankfurt School, 343, 440, 441, 665 Frazee, Marla, 433 Freckle Juice (Blume), 570 Free Reading Every Day (FRED), 242 Freire, Paulo, 21, 80, 109, 110, 114, 312, 439, 589 French (language), 283, 606 French bilinguals, 52–53 French Canadians, 284
Oral Assessment (ESLOA), 26 English as a Second Language (ESL) literacy evaluation and assessment, 178–181 English for Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL), 23, 24, 330 English, globalization of, 170 English Grammar (Murray), 226 English immersion programs, 50 The English Journal (NCTE), 18, 181–182, 399 English language proficiency, 34, 50, 133, 178, 494 The English Reader (Murray), 226 English Teacher Preparation Study (ETPS), 640 English-language development, 49–50 English-language learners (ELL), 19, 20, 120, 178 English-only instruction, 440 Entwisle, Doris R., 4 Environment. See Ecological literacy E-pal connections, 149, 300 Equal education opportunities, 2, 3, 12 Equipped for the Future (NIFL), 399 Erickson, Frederick, 105 Eskel, Alexander, 501 Estes, Thomas, 501 Ethnography of communication, 138 Ethnomethodology, 137 Evans, Karen, 196, 198 Even Start Family Literacy Program, 20, 182–183 Everyone Reads in Class (ERIC), 583 Experience-Text-Relationship (ETR), 470 Expert readers, 346, 347, 479 Explorers of the Universe program, 375 Expository genre, 67. See also Narrative and expository text; Textbooks Expository text. See Narrative and expository text; Textbooks Eye movements, 123, 183, 227, 355, 606 research, 608 Fabos, Bettina, 200, 317 Fairclough, Norman, 138, 140, 141, 142 Fallen Angels (Myers), 370 Faltis, Christian, 276 Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), 219 Family literacy, 20, 24, 185–187, 378–379, 434, 523, 524, 593, 624 Fantasy, 64–65 Farnham, George L., 226, 227 Farstrup, Alan, 119 Faust, Mark, 552–553 Fawson, Parker C., 530 Fecho, Bob, 590, 644 Federal funds for adult literacy, 22, 23, 25, 26 and bilingual education, 59 for early reading, 14 for education of children in poverty, 5, 402
759
Index Germany, 27, 46 Get Caught Reading Campaign, 242 Giambattista, Vico, 99, 588 Gibson, Eleanor, 183 Gilbert, Pam, 203, 635 Gilbert, Sandra, 207 Gilligan, Carol, 206 Gilmore, William J., 231–232 Ginn, Edwin, 227 Giroux, Henry, 439 Glaser, Robert, 396 Glenn, Christine G., 388, 621 Glenn, Mel, 18 Global coherence, 97–98 Globe project, 375–376 The Glory Field (Myers), 370 Go Read a Book (GRAB), 242 Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), 617 Golden, Joanne, 106 Goldenberg, Claude, 144 Goodman, Kenneth S., 63, 239, 243, 245, 288, 352, 451, 462, 464, 675 Goodman Taxonomy of Reading Miscues, 354 Goodman, Yetta, 288, 451, 673 Goodrich Readers, 226 Goodrich, Samuel, 226 Goodson, Todd, 259 Goodwin, Candy, 138 Goodwin, Charles, 104 Goody, Jack, 303, 304 Gordon, Emma, 227 Goswami, Dixie, 643 Gottman, John, 425 Goudvis, Anne, 472 Gough, Philip, 358 Gowen, Sheryl G., 312, 685–686 Grade equivalent (GE) units, 476, 478, 614 Graded readers, 46 Graff, Harvey, 304, 312 Graffiti, 208–212, 366 Grammar, 273, 274, 275, 299, 353, 389, 391, 462. See also Story grammar; Syntax A Grammatical Institute of the English Language (Webster), 225 Grapheme, 155, 156, 299, 408 Graphic aids, 148, 166, 212–213, 374 Graphic organizers, 92, 213–214, 234, 566. See also Semantic mapping Graphics information lesson (GIL), 212 Graphophonic system, 353, 355 Gratification theory, 649 Graves, Donald, 288 Gray, Clarence T., 124 Gray Oral Reading Test, 504 Gray, William S., 43, 77, 82, 83, 102, 228, 247, 248, 502, 521, 563 Great Britain, 27, 54, 442, 491, 673, 674, 675
Fresch, Mary Jo, 525 Friedman, Susan, 207 Fries, Charles, 298 Froebel, Friedrich, 526, 673 From the Bellybutton of the Moon and Other Summer Poems/ Del ombligio de la luna y ohros poemas de verano (Alarcón), 371 From the Margins to the Mainstream: An Action Agenda for Literacy (National Institute for Literacy), 24 Frontier College, 21 Fry, Edward, 582 Fry, Edward, Book Award (NRC), 400 Fry Readability Graph, 483–484, 485 Fry’s List of “Instant Words,” 582 Functional Context Education (Sticht), 685 Fyfe, Laurie, 309 Gadsden, Vivian, 187 Gagne, Robert Mills, 229 Galda, Lee, 427 Gallas, Karen, 195, 198 Galley, Sharon Martens, 31 Gallo, Donald R., 18 Gambrell, Linda, 30, 239 Gámez, Arturo, 656 Gamoran, Adam, 3 Garbrieli, John, 513 Garcia, Georgia, 151 Garfinkel, Harold, 137 Gary (Ind.) schools, 1 Garza, Norma, 402 Gaskell, Jane, 204 Gates, Arthur I., 77, 227–228, 521 Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test, 504, 520 Gay, Geneva, 152 Gay Straight Educators Alliance, 398 Gearhart, Maryl, 70 Gee, James Paul, 141, 142, 437, 512, 513, 596, 598 Gelpi, Adrienne, 200 Gender and culture, 152. See also Feminist poststructuralism Gender and discussion, 195–199 Gender and language development, 413, 635 Gender and post-typograhical text, 199–201 Gender and reading, 76, 201–205, 309 Gender and writing, 205–208 General Equivalency Diploma (GED), 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 182 Generative grammar, 273, 274, 462 Generative processing theory, 128–129, 274 Generative words, 670 Genres, 67, 71, 122 Gergen, Kenneth, 588 Germans attitude toward, 114, 115 bilinguals, 52–53
760
Index Harvey, Stephanie, 472 Hasbrouck, Jan, 193 Hatano, Giyoo, 84 Haug, Grigga, 208 Haugen, Einar, 55 Hawaii, 306, 308, 309 Hayes, Andrew, 185, 186 Hayles, Katherine, 208 Head Start Program, 21–219, 437 Health and Human Services, Department of, 175, 399 Health and Welfare, Department of, 481. See also Health and Human Services, Department of Heap, James, 137 Hearing-impaired students, 89–90 Heatchcote, Dorothy, 507 Heath, Shirley Brice, 10, 20, 139, 186, 305–306, 315, 365–366, 367, 414, 597 Heathington, Betty, 501 Hebrew (language), 57 Heckelman, R. G., 549, 550 Hegel, Friedrich, 99 Hemingway, Ernest, 552 Hemphill, Lowry, 490 Henderson, Edmund, 288, 610 Henk, William A., 530 Henkin, David M., 232 Heras, Ana, 153 Herber, Harold, 563 Herbert, John, 526 Heritage, John, 137 Heritage Language Initiative, 221 Heritage-language development, 49, 50–51, 60, 219–223 Herman, Patricia, 494, 669 Herr, Kathryn, 646 Herrnstein, Richard, 438 Heterogeneous groups, 1, 4 Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model, 382 Hiebert, Elfrieda, 336, 396 Higgins, Lorraine, 80 Higginson, Bonnie, 84 High achievers and ability grouping, 1, 4 and task characteristics, 3 High school and academic tasks, 3 graduates (1910), 50 graduation reqirements, 5, 6, 352 grouping, 1, 5 language arts, 278 literacy, 13, 15, 324–325, 676 teenagers, 81, 82 See also Secondary school reading programs High-stakes assessment, 5, 7, 35, 223–224, 352, 434, 516, 616, 677, 697 Hill, Jane, 55
Greece (ancient), 303 Green, Judith, 104, 105, 139 Greenberg, James, 11, 186 Greene, Frank, 314 Greenfield, Eloise, 368 Greeno, James, 511 Greenwood, Charles, 419 Grice, H. Paul, 136, 410 Griffin, Peg, 118 Griffin, Susan, 206 Grisham, Dana, 525 Gritsavage, Margaret, 196, 309 Grommon, Alfred, 640 Grosz, Elizabeth, 633 Group learning, 291, 335 Group reading inventories (GRI), 215–216, 518 Group skills inventory (GSI), 518 Grundin, Hans, 84 GTE Foundation. See Verizon Guattari, Felix, 633 Gubar, Susan, 207 Guerra, Juan, 366 Guevara, Ché, 439 Gumperz, John, 53, 138 Gunning, Thomas, 31, 484 Guthrie, John, 76, 91, 92, 336, 387 Guzzetti, Barbara J., 94, 95, 195, 196, 198, 309, 336, 455, 543, 544, 652 Hagood, Margaret, 635 Hahn, Harry, 288 Hakuta, Kenji, 51, 276 “Half-classes,” 35 Hall, Dorothy, 243 Hall, G. Stanley, 227 Hall, MaryAnn, 288 Halliday, Michael, 138, 288 Hamilton, Mary, 139, 378, 379, 598 Hamilton, Virginia, 369, 372 Hammer, Rhonda, 375 Hammond, Dorsey, 288 Hampston, Jennifer, 555 The Handbook of Reading Research (HRR), 217–218 Hanf, Marilyn, 577 Hans Christian Anderson Medal, 332 Hardenbrok, Marie, 309 Harper Brothers (publisher), 226 Harrington, Margaret, 573 Harris, Albert J., 483 Harris, Margaret, 84 Harris, Theodore, 313, 515, 553 Harste, Jerome, 249, 250, 472 Harte, Betty. See Risley, Betty Hart Hartmann, Douglas, 382 Hartup, Williard, 425 Harvard University reading clinic, 502
761
Index Hunt, Lyman, 583 Hunt, Matthew, 209, 210 Hush, Little Baby (Frazee), 433 Hybrid rhetorical texts, 81 Hymes, Dell, 138 Hynd, Cynthia, 107, 381, 543 Hyperion Publishing Company, 370 Hypermedia, 234–235 Hyperstudio, 177 Hypertext, 166, 233–237, 404, 489, 492,
Hill, Kenneth, 55 Hilliard, G. S., 226 Himmelweit, Hilda, 647 Hinton, S. E., 16, 573 Hinze, Kenneth, 148 Hippocampus, 413 Hirsch, E. D., Jr., 439 Hirschman, Susan, 370 Hispanics, 152, 573, 592 biliteracy, 59 heritage language, 284, 484 novel, 371 population, 58 reading, 611 Spanish heritage language instruction, 222, 248 Spanish language literacy, 257, 366, 606 Spanish language reading tests, 498 students, 11, 692 See also Bilingual education; Latinos Historical fiction, 65, 371 History, 188, 491, 492 History of reading instruction, 224–231 History of the book, 231–233 History of the Book in American Culture seminars, 233 A History of the National Conference on Research in English (W. Petty), 397 Hladczuk, Ellen, 83 Hladczuk, John, 83, 84 Hodges, Richard E., 313, 515, 553 Hoffman, James, 44, 173, 452, 640, 642 Holdaway, Don, 239, 243, 450–451, 452 Hollingsworth, Paul, 40 Hollingsworth, Sandra, 439 Holmes Group, 639 Holocaust, 375 Hooked on Books (HOB), 583 Hooked on Phonics program, 464 hooks, bell, 439 Hopkins, Lee B., 417 Horkheimer, Max, 440–441 The Horn Book Magazine, 371–372 Horn, Ernest, 521 Hornbooks, 46, 225 Horney, Mark, 89, 235 Horsman, Jennifer, 312 Horton, Myles, 439 House Committee on Education and Labor Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education, 20 Huck, Charlotte, 245 Huey, Edmund Burke, 77, 183, 289, 521 Hughes, Marie, 5, 239 Hull, Glynda, 685, 686 Human development, 10 Humanism, 127, 288, 633, 635 Hunt, Blanche Steale, 369
Ickelsaomer, Valentin, 45 Illiteracy. See Literacy definitions Immigration, 4, 152, 611 and adult literacy programs, 22 Asian biliteracy, 59 and English proficiency, 50 heritage language development, 219–223 Mexican, 59. See also Hispanics and school expansion, 1 See also Language attitudes Improving America’s Schools Act (1990s), 439 In the Swim (Florian), 416 Inclusion, 4, 339–340 563 Independent reading, 239–244 India, 57 Indianapolis (Ind.), 592 Individual education plan IEP), 245 Individual Reading Inventory (IRI), 350 Individualism, 11 Individualized instructon, 254–257, 657 Individually prescribed instruction (IPI), 244, 245 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (1975), 339, 340 Informal reading (IRI), 244–247, 500, 518 Information literacy, 666 Informational books, 660. See also Narrative and expository text Initial Sound Bingo, 430 Initiate-Respond-Evaluate (IRE) sequence, 137, 143, 421, 469 Inner London Education Authority, 675 Innovative Learning Strategies (ILS), 74 Inquiry-based instruction, 107, 249–251 Instant messaging (IM), 251–254 Instant Readers (Martin and Brogan), 451 Institute for Reaearch on Teaching (IRT) (Mich. State Univ.), 396 Institute of Education (UNESCO), 83 Integrated instruction, 158–159 Intelligence. See Ability grouping Intelligence quotient (IQ) scores, 614 Intelligence tests, 519 Interaction, 661, 662 Interactive model of reading, 358, 359 Intercultural act. See Community literacy Interdisciplinary approaches to literacy, 254–257
762
Index Johns, Jerry, 43, 239, 522, 530 Johnson, Angela, 18 Johnson, Lyndon, 23, 228, 440 Johnson, Mark, 308 Johnson, Nancy S., 388, 389, 620 Johnston Informal Reading Inventory (JIRI), 216 Joplin (Mo.), schools, 1 Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy (IRA), 18, 257, 259–260 Journal of Children’s Literature, 372 Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 74 Journal of College Reading and Learning (JCRL) (CRLA), 75 Journal of Developmental Reading. See Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy Journal of Literacy Research (JLR), 104, 260, 400, 639 Journal of Reading. See Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy Journal of Reading Behavior. See Journal of Literacy Researcxh Journal of the Reading Specialist. See Reading Research and Instruction Journal of Visual Literacy (IVLA), 665 Judd, Charles Hubbard, 521 Juel, Connie, 428 Jump at the Sun imprint, 370 Junior Great Books, 260–261, 470, 471 Just, Marcel, 360 Just Us Books, 371
Interdisciplinary project-based teaching strategies, 15, 255 Interest stimulation theory, 649 Interlanguage grammars, 275 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), 83, 84 International Bureau of Education survey, 83 International Council for the Improvement of Reading Instruction. See International Reading Association International Mentoring Certification Program (CRLA), 75 International Reading Association (IRA), 18, 63, 83, 119, 160, 170, 224, 228, 257, 277, 286, 300, 302, 370, 398, 402, 500, 520, 521, 522, 614, 617, 639, 640 Commission on Adolescent Literacy, 13, 14, 74, 562 conference (2001), 660 See also College Literacy and Learning; Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy; The Literacy Dictionary; Reading Hall of Fame; Reading Online; Reading Research Quarterly, The Reading Teacher; Reading Today International Society for Technology Education, 177 International Visual Literacy Association (IVLA), 665 Internet, 13, 79, 101, 102, 148, 166, 177, 221, 251, 317, 374, 399, 525, 654, 699 Intertextuality, 105–106, 258, 381–382 Interviews. See Assessment interviews; Assessment interviews for parents and teachers; Oral clinical interviews Iowa, 618 Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), 498, 519, 610, 612 Irigaray, Luce, 206, 633 Irvin, Judith, 348 Iser, Wolfgang, 116 Item response theory (IRT), 27–28 Ivanic, Roz, 138, 315 Ivey, Gay, 43
Kalina, Christoff, 513 Kalman, Judith, 139 Kamberelis, George, 635 Kamehameha Early Education Project (KEEP), 306 Kamil, Michael L., 402, 660 Kant, Immanuel, 99, 114, 588, 633 Kaser, Sandy, 276 Kaufer, David, 449 Kauffman, Gloria, 276 Kearney, A. T., consulting firm, 330 Keller, Douglas, 375 Keller, H., 266 Kelley, Robin D. G., 439 Kelly, Christine, 91 Kelly, George, 100 Kelly, Greg, 139 Kemper, Dave, 460 Kennedy, Teresa, 375 Kent State University, 333 Kentucky, 21, 696 Kerbow, David, 173 Kerr, M. E., 18 Kesner, John, 427 Kidsphere, 302–303 Kidwatching and classroom evaluation, 263–266, 517 Kimball, Kathy, 8 Kinesthetic methods, 266–267
Jackson, Jesse, 439 Jacobson, Erik, 379 Jacobson, James B., 404 James, William, 82 Janeczko, Paul, 18 Japanese (language), 60, 220, 221, 222 Japanese-English bilinguals, 53 Javal, Emile, 183 Jaworski, Adam, 135 Jefferson High Literacy Lab, 324–326 Jenkins, James, 128 Jennings, Joyce, 271 Jensen, Julie, 276 Jett-Simpson, Mary, 31 Jigsaw approach, 93 Jiménez, Robert, 656 Johns Hopkins University reading clinic, 502
763
Index Language arts instruction, 277–281, 287, 348 learning center, 291 Language arts standards, 617 Language attitudes, 281–286 Language delay or impairment, 34. See also Deaf students and literacy Language development. See Language learning Language disorders, 414 Language experience approach (LEA), 287–290 Language Experience Special Interest Group (IRA), 288 Language learning, 63, 220, 412–414, 463 Language maintenance, 221 Language minorities, 57, 58–59, 60 Language miscommunication, 138 Language socialization processes, 138 Language use (pragmatics), 136–137, 600 Language variety (register), 600 Languages, endangered, 59 Lankshear, Colin, 635 Latin (language), 667 Latino Caucus (NCTE), 398 Latinos, 151, 152, 313, 316, 371, 372, 656 Laubach, Frank, 21, 290 Laubach literacy, 290–291 International Programs Division, 290 Laubach Literacy Action (LLA), 21, 25, 290 Laubach Way to Reading series, 21 Learned “helplessness,” 34, 505 Learning. See Social constructivism Learning centers, 254, 291–293 Learning disability (LD), 5, 22, 124, 126, 419. See also Mainstreaming Learning Research and Development Center (Univ. of Pittsburgh), 618 Learning to Read: The Great Debate (Chall), 229, 429, 464, 640 Learning with texts, 128, 293–298 Learning-style (LS) theorists, 266 Leary, Bernice E., 521 Least restricive environment (LRE), 339, 340 Lectura y vida (IRA), 257 Lee and Low Publishing Company, 371 Lee, Carol, 12 Lee, Doris, 287 Legibility, 483 Lehmann, Irvin J., 613 Leipzig, Diane, 38 Leont’ev, Aleksei, 10 Lemke, Jay, 138 Lenske, Susan Davis, 522 Lerner, Gene, 137 Lessons on Objects (Sheldon, 227 Letter names. See Alphabet method Leu, Deborah, 302 Leu, Don Jr., 302 Leveled books, 241
King, Allison, 129 King, Coretta Scott, Award, 17, 332, 372 King, James, 84 Kingston, Albert J., Award (NRC), 400 Kintsch, Walter, 360–361, 510, 513 Klare, George, 481, 483, 484 Kletzien, Sharon, 4 Knapp, Michael, 174 Knobel, Michele, 635 Know, Want to Know, and Learned. See KWL and KWL+ Knowing and the Known (Dewey and Bentley), 661, 662 Knowledge, 188–189, 267, 361, 381, 649, 662, 668 acquisition, 475 assessment. See Kidwatching and classroom evaluation; Reading diagnosis constructed by the learner. See Social construction of text, 509–510 See also Oral language; Prior knowledge and misconceptions; Schema theory Knowledge Is Power: The Diffusion of Information in Early America, 1700–1865 (Brown), 232 Knowledge systems, 250 Kondo-Brown, Kimi, 221 Koran, 57, 315 Koskinen, Patricia, 549, 550 Kowalinski, Barbara J., 336 Kozol, Jonathon, 439, 590 Krashen, Stephen, 171, 275, 539 Kress, Ginter, 138 Kripke, Saul, 559 Kristeva, Julia, 258, 446, 448 Kurkjian, Cathy, 301, 302 KWL and KWL+ (Know, Want to Know, and Learned), 87, 267–274, 470, 572 LaBerge, David, 40, 358 Labor, Department of, 21, 27, 399, 684 Labor union literacy programs, 683 Labov, William, 283 Lacan, Jacques, 258, 445, 446, 448, 633 Ladd, Gary, 425, 426 Ladson-Billings, Gloria, 439, 593 Lakoff, George, 308 Lakoff, Robin, 206 Lane, Diane, 660 Langenberg, Donald N., 402 Langer, Judith, 551 Language, 189–190, 445–446, 587 Language acquisition, 229, 230, 273–276, 407, 412 Language acquisition device (LAD), 275, 411 Language and Woman’s Place (Lakoff), 256 Language Arts, 276–277, 372 Language Arts and Social Studies Integration Project (LASSI), 61
764
Index Literacy Law (1819) (Mo.), 439–440 Literacy mentors, 80, 81, 82 Literacy motivation, 91, 326–329, 387 Literacy pedagogy, 83. See also Public opinion and literacy Literacy practices, 596 Literacy portfolios, 37 Literacy programs, 14, 312. See also Book clubs; Community literacy Literacy research, 170, 556 and activity theory, 12 adolescent, 13 on balanced instruction, 43 and constructuvism, 100 and context, 104–107 and dialogue, 131, 132 and distance learning, 148 and speech genres, 12 Literacy resources, 171–172 Literacy specialists, 84 Literacy theory, 115–116 Literacy transfers across languages, 49–50 Literacy Volunteers of America, Inc. (LVA), 25, 291, 330 National Student Advisory Board, 330 selections, 332 Verizon Family literacy and technology initiative, 330 Literature. See Adolescent literature; African Americans, fiction; Children’s literature Literature as Exploration (Rosenblatt), 363 Literature circles, 4, 246, 289, 330–334, 421, 472 “The Literature-based Basals in First-Grade Classrooms, Savior, Satan, or Same-old, Sameold” 640 Literature-based instruction, 119, 334–337 Literature-based reading, 245–246 Little, Brown and Company (publisher), 371 Lively, B. A., 483 Lix (readability formula), 484 Lloyd, Paul, 685 Loan translations. See Calques Locke, John, 559 Locus of instruction, 102 Logocentrism, 447 Long, Melinda, 416 Lord, Audre, 206 Los Angeles Times poll, 51 Low achievers, 419 and ability grouping, 1 concerns, 4 and oral reading, 3 task characteristics, 3 and traditional instruction, 3 See also At-risk students Low socioeconomic schools (SES), 386 Lowry, Lois, 16
Leveling, 484, 486 Levin, Fred, 416 Levin, Harry, 183 Levin, Henry, 36 Levin, James, 249 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 446, 447 Lewin, Kurt, 643 Lewis, C. I., 559 Lewis, Cynthia, 200, 317 Lexiles, 484 Liberals, 439 Liberation pedagogy, 589 Liberation theology, 589 Libraries. See Books, access to; Public libraries Library historians, 232–233 Library of Congress, 370 Likert-type scale, 426 Limited alphabetic cue strategy, 679 Lindfors, Judith, 249, 251 Linguistic approaches to reading instruction, 298–288 Linguistic diversity. See Diversity Linguistic innateness, 274 Linguistic Society of America, 283–284 Links across different texts, 382 Lipson, Marjorie, 129, 455 List Group Label, 572 Listening, 349, 479, 487, 642. See also Active listening Listening level, 247 Listservs in literacy, 148, 199, 299–303 Literacy autonomous, 316 development, 121, 133, 157–159, 161, 170–173. See also Peer status and literacy development economics of, 170–173 and language, 128 multiple, 15 school-based, 142 sociocognitive, 131 as sociocultural phenomenon, 364–365 sociotechnical, 15 of women, 232 See also Adolescent literacy; Adult literacy; Adult literacy programs; Community literacy; Social constructivism Literacy and culture, 303–308 Literacy and income, 322 Literacy as social endeavor. See Ecologic literacy Literacy autobiography, 308–310 Literacy critical approaches, 492 Literacy definitions, 310–313, 437 The Literacy Dictionary: The Vocabulary of Reading and Writing, 313–314 Literacy goals, 350–351 Literacy in informal settings, 315–318 Literacy in play, 318–323 Literacy labs, 323–326
765
Index McCarty, Heidi, 48 McClaren, Peter, 439 McCracken, Marlene, 239, 243, 451 McCracken, Robert, 239, 243, 451 McElderry, Margaret, 370 McGowan, Tom, 336 McGuffey, William Holmes, 226, 483 McGuffy’s Eclectic Readers, 46, 77, 226, 429, 483 McHoul, Alex, 137 McIntyre, Ellen, 43 McKeachie, Wilbert, 143, 145 McKenna, Michael, 501 McKeown, Margaret, 454 McLaughlin, Daniel, 366 McLuhan, Marshall, 448, 648 McMahon, Susan, 61, 421 McNamara, Margaret, 523 McNamara, Timothy, 510 McQuillan, Jeff, 222 McRobbie, Angela, 633 Mead, George Herbert, 588 Meaning, 580, 600 Meaning-centered language perspective, 462 Measurement movement, 227 Media literacy, 340–344, 580, 665, 666 Mehan, Hugh, 137, 592 Mehrens, William A., 614 Meisel, Jürgen, 52 Memoir, 66 Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure (Cleland), 232 Memory. See Schema theory; Schema theory criticism; Story grammar; Word recognition Mental modeling, 344–345, 510 Mercer, Anne, 461 Mercer, Cecil, 461 Meta Metrics (company), 484 Meta-analysis, 5 Metacognition, 86, 101, 129, 130, 181, 293, 345–348, 361, 396, 507, 537, 558, 668, 670 Metropolitan Readiness Test, 319 Metropolitan Reading Instructional Tests, 163 Meyer, Verne, 460 Michalove, Barbara, 590 Michigan School of Teacher Researchers, 645 Michigan State University, 396 Micro Power and Light Co., 484 Microsoft MSN Messenger Service, 251–252, 253 Microsoft PowerPoint, 177 Middle class, 10, 12, 413, 474 and literacy, 305, 307, 591 Middlebury College, 643 Middle-school classes, 3, 5, 422 Middle-school literacy, 13, 15, 261, 348–351, 562, 676 Mikulecky, Larry, 239, 685 Military literacy programs, 21, 23, 683 Miller, Diana, 510 Miller, Samuel, 530
Luckman, Thomas, 588 Luke, Allan, 13, 259, 596, 597, 635 Lyle, Jack, 647 Lyman, Frank, 146 Lyotard, Jean-Francois, 446–447 Lytle, Susan, 643 Macedo, Donaldo, 316, 439 MacGinitie, Walter, 543 Macias, Reynaldo, 58 MacLean, Marion, 643 MacLean, Norag, 158 Macmillan (publisher), 228 MacSwan, Jeff, 54, 56 Magazines, 13, 101, 202. See also Zines Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), 513 Magnusson, Shirely, 457 Mahiri, Jabari, 316–317 Mailer, Norman, 552 Mainstreaming, 4, 22, 339–340 Making Justice Our Project: Teachers Working toward Critical Whole Language Practice (Edelsky), 594 The Making of Middlebrow Culture (Rubin), 232 Malmquist, Eve, 83–84 Mandarin (language), 60 Mandler, Jean M., 388, 389, 620 Maniac Magee (Spinelli), 416 Manis, Frank, 599 Manitoba (Canada), 170 Mann, Horace, 1, 45, 226, 429 Margolis, Howard, 495 Maria, Katherine, 457, 543 Marrett, Cora Bagley, 402 Marshall, Nancy, 107 Martin, Bill, 450, 451 Martin, Jim, 138 Martinez, Rebecca Blum, 435 Martin-Jones, Marilyn, 138 Marxist literacy theory, 116, 118, 188, 586 Maryland School Pwrformance Assessment Program (MSPAP), 499, 691 Mason, Jana, 452 Massachusetts, 439 Massachusetts schooling law (1647), 224 Mathematics, 351, 617 learning center, 291 tests, 395 Mattel Corporation, 371 Matthew effects hypothesis, 123–124 Matthews, Mona, 427 May, Jim, 622 Mayer, Richard, 86, 129, 130 Maze procedure, 72 Mazurkiewicz, Albert, 530 Mazzoni, Susan Anders, 30 McBeth, Doug, 137 McCarthey, Sarah, 635–636
766
Index My Heart Is on the Ground (Rinaldi), 369 Myers, Walter Dean, 16, 17, 370
Milray, Lesley, 54 Minimum-competency testing (MCT), 5–6, 351–352 Miranda, Anne, 433 Miscue analysis, 124, 239, 247, 265, 352–356, 504 Mishina, Satomi, 53 Missouri, 439, 599 Mobility, 7 Model of Domain Learning (MDL), 381 Models of the reading process, 356–364 Modernism, 188 Mohr, Marian, 643 Moje, Elizabeth Birr, 209, 210, 21115 Möll, Luis, 11, 186, 367, 368, 593 Monroe, Marion, 124 Monroe, Mrs. Lewis, 227 Monson, Dianne, 314 Monster (Myers), 370 Moody, Sally Watson, 4, 5 “Moonlight schools,” 21, 228 Moore, David, 197 Moorman, Gary, 301 Morgan, Wendy, 113 Morpheme, free and bound, 54, 298 Morphological nativization, 55 Morphology, 52, 53, 407, 408, 409, 606 map, 575 Morris, Effie Lee, 372 Morrison, Coleman, 43 Morrison, Timothy, 487, 530 Morrison, Toni, 552 Morrow, Leslie Mandel, 34, 239, 659 Mosely, Walter, 371 Moses v. Washington Parish School Board (1971), 2 Moss, Barbara, 336 Moss, Gemma, 203, 204 Motivation, 297, 326–327, 537 Motivation to Read Profile (MRP), 30–31 Mouffee, Chantal, 440 Multicultural literacy, 152, 364–368, 645 Multicultural literature, 155, 367, 368–374, 491 Multiculturalism, 508 Multiethnic literature. See Multicultual literature Multilingual society, 313 Multimedia, 89, 110, 112, 177, 374–376, 492, 603 Multimedia Encyclopedia (software), 604 Multiple intelligence (MI), 266 Multiple literacies, 323, 376–380 Multiple texts, 91, 92, 93, 110, 380–383 Multiple-choice tests, 37, 38, 68, 230, 457, 458, 498, 688 Munsch, Robert, 416 Murphy, Sharon, 276 Murray, Charles, 438 Murray, Lindley, 226 Music, 291, 374 Muslims, 57 Muysken, Pieter, 54
Nagy, William, 539, 669 Nahuatl (language), 55 Nappy Hair (Herron), 372–373 Narrative and expository text, 92, 385–388. See also Story grammar; Story telling, Textbooks Narrative and expository writing, 625, 692 Narrative genre, 67, 70, 388. See also Narrative and expository text Narrative text, 388–392, 576 A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education), 33, 393, 434, 464, 617 National Academy of Education Commission on Education and Public Policy, 396 Commission on Reading, 396 National Adult Literacy Project (NALP), 20 National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS), 19, 20–21, 22, 24, 28, 58, 59, 176, 311 National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 375 National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), 392 National Assessment of Adult Literacy, 28 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 40, 185, 230, 392–395, 430, 434, 465, 498, 610, 618, 647, 684, 689–691, 696 portfolio study, 692 Reading Test, 611 National Association of Remedial Teachers. See International Reading Association National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, 691 National Book Award, 332 National Book Festival, 370 National Book Program (RIF), 524 National Book Scholarship Fund (NBSF), 290 National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 28, 151, 392 National Center for Family Literacy, 20, 25, 185 National Center for the Study of Adult Leaning and Literacy, 25 National Center on Adult Literacy, 685 National Children’s Book Week, 242 National Coalition for Literacy, 20, 25 National Commission on Adult Literacy, 23 National Commission on Excellence in Education, 33, 395 National Commission on Reading, 395–397, 487 National Conference on Research in English. See National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy National Conference on Research in Language and Literacy (NCRLL), 397–398
767
Index Neoconservatives, 438 Neoliberals, 438–439 Neurobiological approach to comprehension, 513–514 Neurological Impress Method (NIM), 549 Nevada, 309 The New Advocate (journal), 372 New Basic Readers, 228 New Criticism, 488 New Dale Chall Readability Formula, 486 New Education, 673 New England (19th century), 231–232 New England Primer, 77, 225 A New Guide to the English Tongue (Dilworth), 225 New Literacy Studies, 595, 596, 598 New London Group, 170 New National First Reader (Barnes), 226 New Readers Press, 290 New Standards Project, 439, 499, 618, 691 New Zealand, 451, 528, 673, 674 Newberry Medal (ALA), 17, 64, 171, 172, 658 Newman, Susan B.,172, 321–322, 541, 649 News about Me, 522 News for You (New Readers Press), 290 NewsNotes (CLL), 74 Newspapers, 101, 342 native-language, 57, 58 Newton, Isaac, 661, 662 Nichols, John, 328 Nicholson, Julie, 200 Nieto, Sonia, 152, 367 Nietzsche, Friedrich, 447 Nist, Sherrie, 129 No Shoes, 163 Noll, Elizabeth, 435 Nonfiction, 66 Nonliteracy, 59 Nonsense Word Fluency task, 162 Nonvisual information, 463–464 Noonan, Ken, 51 Normal curve equivalents (NCEs), 614 Normal school teacher preparation, 46, 227 Norm-referenced tests, 5, 496, 515, 612, 615 North Dakota Study Group on Evaluation, 643 “Notes on a Schema for Stories” (Rumelhart), 620 NRC Newsletter, 400 NRCEMAIL web site, 300, 302 Nussbaum, Joseph, 455
National Council of Education (National Education Association), 640 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE), 17, 18, 63, 79, 170, 224, 277, 286, 300, 370, 397, 398–399, 492, 500, 617, 643, 677–678 Double Speak award, 66, 399 journals, 18, 181–182, 398–399, 551 standards, 617, 639, 400 Standing Committee on Teaching Education and Certification, 640 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 617 National Council on Educational Standards and Testing, 436 National Council on Measurement in Education, 500 National Education Association, 640 National Educational Technology Standards for Students, 177 National Foreign Language Center, 221 National Institute for Literacy (NIFL), 25, 310, 399, 402 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 125, 240, 399, 402 National Institute of Education, 404 National Library Week, 242 National Literacy Act (1991), 19, 21 National Literacy Day, 242 National Network for Educational Renewal, 639 National Reading Conference (NRC), 127, 224, 300, 302, 400. See also Journal of Literacy Research National Reading Conference/International Reading Association Literacy Studies Series, 400 National Reading Conference Yearbook, 300, 302, 400–401, 490 National Reading Panel (NRP), 86, 120, 191, 192, 240, 401–404, 405, 430, 475, 520 Report, 158, 369, 394, 402 Report critique, 118–119, 404 National Reporting System (NRS, WIA), 25 National Research Council, 125, 241 National Right to Read Foundation (NRRF), 20, 230, 404–405, 438, 501 National Writing Project, 643 Nationalism, 46 The Nation’s Report Card (NAEP), 393, 694 Native Americans, 151, 152, 573 languages, 59, 282, 366, 593 literature, 369, 371 Nativists, 411 Nature. See Ecological literacy Navajo literacy, 366 Nazi culture, 11 Nearsightedness, 123 Neef, Joseph, 226 Nell, Victor, 239 Nelson, Nancy Spivey, 99, 535 Nelson, Ted, 233
Oakland Center Friends, 256 O’Brien, David, 422, 663 Observation Survey, 504 An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay), 528 Oceanside (Calif.), 51 Ochs, Elinor, 138
768
Index Parents, 32–33, 153, 182, 593. See also Family literacy Parent-Teacher Organization (PTO), 593 Paris, Scott, 38, 85 Parker, Edmund, 647 Parker, Emelie Lowrey, 30 Parker, Francis Wayland, 227 Parker, Jeffrey, 425 Parks, Rosa, 372 Passage Comprehension Test, 478 Paterson, Katherine, 18 Patriarchy, 188, 552, 636 Paulsen, Gary, 17 Paulston, Christina Bratt, 56 Pawley, Christine, 232 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (PPVT-III), 163 Pearson, P. David, 43, 173, 174, 239, 293, 462, 555, 559, 642 Pearson, Susan, 370 Peck, Richard, 18 Peck, Wayne, 80 Pedagogy of the Oppressed (Freire), 21 Peer and cross-age tutoring, 419–420 Peer discussion, 420–424 Peer groups and literacy, 316–317 Peer status and literacy development, 425–428 Peer-Assisted learning strategies (PALS), 419–420 Peirce, Charles Sanders, 580, 662 Pellegrini, Anthony, 319, 427 Pennsylvania, 351 Pennsylvania State College reading clinic, 248 Percentile score, 615 Perfetti, Charles, 599 Performance, 1, 6–7 assessment, 37, 121 Peripheral processing, 382–383 Perrault, Charles, 66 Personal construct theory, 100 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) (1966), 21 Personalized reading instruction (PRI), 244 Person-environment dynamic, 321 Pestalozzi, Johann, 46, 226, 227, 526, 673 Peterson, Bob, 593, 594 Peterson, Ralph, 421 Petty, Richard E., 382 Petty, Walter T., 397 Phelan, James, 552 Phelps, Louise Wetherbee, 645, 646 Phenomenology critiques, 116 Philadelphia (Pa.), 618 Philosophical critiques, 116 Phonemes, 155–156, 162, 164, 299, 408, 432 Phonemic awareness. See Phonolgical and phonemic awareness Phonemic Awareness in Young Children curriculum, 162 Phonetically based writing system, 303
O’Dell, Scott, Historical Fiction Award, 17 O’Donnell, Ray, 551 Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) (Dept. of Education), 475, 618–619 Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Dept. of Education), 520 Ogbu, John, 151–152 Ogle, Donna, 271 Ohio, 230, 529 Old Deluder Satan Act (1647) (Mass.), 439 Oldfather, Penny, 329 Olson, Richard, 599 On Their Own in Reading, 228 One Hundred Ways of Teaching Silent Reading for All Grades (Smith), 415 Ong, Walter, 448 OnLine Communities listserv, 300, 301, 302 On-line texts, 235 On-screen learning, 90 Onset Recognition task, 162 Open Education, 673 Opin procedure, 73 Opitz, Michael, 554 Oppenheim, Pamela, 647 Oral clinical interviews, 457–458 Oral communities, 407 Oral language, 140, 407–411. See also Early literacy Oral language development, 411–415 Oral reading, 37, 41, 125, 191, 228, 242, 248, 403, 415–418, 505, 548. See also Independent reading; Read-alouds; Reading assessment; Round-robin oral reading miscues, 63, 247, 282. See also Miscue analysis Oralcy/orality, 407 Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 83, 84 Organizing idea, 629 Organizing information, 129–130 Orr, David, 169 Orthography, 408. See also Spelling Orton-Gillinham technique, 505 Orton, Samuel Torrey, 228, 502, 505 Oswego State Normal and Training School, 227 Otis-Lennon School Abilities Test, 519 Our School Cares about Reading (OSCAR), 242 Outstanding Student Research Award (NRC), 400 Oyate (publisher), 371 Pacific Islanders, 59, 151, 152 Padak, Nancy, 34, 288, 289 Page, Roderick, 402 Paired reading, 505 Pairs. See Students working in pairs Palincsar, Annmarie S., 347, 505, 538 Palmer, Barbara Martin, 30 Pappas, Christine, 158, 385, 660 Paralinguistics, 410
769
Index 445–448, 596, 633, 635 Post-typographic, 448–450 Potter, Harry, books, 369, 489–490 Potter, James, 342 Potter, Rosemary, 647 Poverty, 5, 50, 119, 173, 186, 592 The Power of Reading (Krashen), 171 Power relations, 108, 109–110, 117, 118, 189, 205, 309, 377, 378, 421, 634. See also Gender and discussion Practitioner research, 644 Pragmatics, 407, 410 “Pre-classes,” 35 Predictable books, 450–453 Predicting, 536 “Pre-kindergarden” classes, 35, 696. See also Head Start Program “Preliminary Survey on Methods of Teaching Reading and Writing” (Gray), 83 “Preparing Teachers to Teach Literacy” (Barr), 639 Prereading, 133–134, 573, 653 Prescriptivism, 283, 285 Pressey, Sidney, 483, 486 Pressley, Michael, 43, 128, 129, 173, 174, 346, 505, 555 Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns and Griffin), 118, 120, 396, 402–403, 475 Prewriting/planning, 155, 459–460 Primer of the English Language (Worcester), 226 Print features, 157, 160, 163, 187 Print materials, 231–232 Printz Award (ALA), 370 Prior knowledge and misconceptions, 91, 93, 94, 95, 453–456 Prior-knowledge assessment, 456–459, 490 Prison adult literacy programs, 24 Problem posing, 109 Problem solving. See Community literacy Process writing, 459–461, 462 Programme for International Student Achievement (PISA, OECD), 83, 84 Programmed instruction, 229, 461–462 Programmed Reading (Buchanan), 461 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS), 83, 84 Progressive education, 227, 249, 250, 673, 675 Project Innovation. See Reading Hall of Fame Proposition 227 (1958) (Calif.), 440 Propositional analysis, 510 Propp, Vladimir, 388, 620 Prose document, and quantitative (PDQ) literacy, 27, 311, 312 Prose essay, 303 Prose literacy, 27 Prosody, 550 Prospect Center and School (Bennington, Vt.), 643 Prussia, 83
Phonics, 45, 47, 119, 123, 125, 158, 162, 167, 226, 228, 230, 290, 353, 396, 403, 504, 680 Phonics instruction, 230, 428–431 Phonics-kinesthetic method, 124 Phonological and phonemic awareness, 119, 123, 124, 125, 158, 163, 302, 403, 428, 431–434, 479 Phonological nativization, 55 Phonology, 407, 408, 513 Piaget, Jean, 100, 131, 318, 319, 320, 457, 537, 542, 587, 674 Pictorial “trees,” 389–391 Picture books, 64, 66, 332, 679 Pictus, Orbis, Award (NCTE), 66, 658 Pignic (Miranda), 433 Pikulski, John, 615 Pinker, Steven, 274 Pinkney, Andrea Davis, 370, 371, 372 Pinkney, Myles C., 371 Pinkney, Sandra L., 371 Pinnell, Gay Su, 192, 193, 239, 241, 484 Piontkowski, Dale C., 41 Pittsburgh (Pa.), 81 A Place at the Table (Southern Poverty Law Center), 371, 595 The Place Where Sentences Go When They Are Understood (TPWSGWTAU), 358 Plain Language laws, 481 Plato, 665 Play, 159. See also Literacy in play Pleasant Company, 371 Pleasure reading. See Recreational reading Plot structure, 620 Poetic genre, 67 Poetry, 64, 66, 371, 416, 433 Policy issues in testing, 434–437 Political Agendas for Education: From the Christian Coalition to the Green Party (Spring), 438 Political nature of literacy, 21, 437–440, 465–467, 685 Political theory, 116–117 Pollard, Rebecca, 226, 227 Polychrome Press, 371 Polysemantic maps, 575 Poplack, Shana, 54 Popular culture, 110, 112, 253, 326–326, 440–443, 580 Popular music, 13 Popularity index, 426 Portfolios, 443–445, 499, 518–519, 688 assessment, 70–71, 155, 691–692 study (NAEP), 692 See also Literacy porfolios Positron emission tomography (PET), 155 Posner, George, 94 POSSE (Predict, Organize, Search, Summarize, Evaluate), 470 Postcolonial political theory, 116, 118 Postmodern thought, 343–344, 440, 448 Post-structuralism and structuralism, 139, 188, 207,
770
Index Reading across the curriculum, 563 Reading against the text. See Resistant reading Reading and auding. See Rauding theory Reading and gender, 201–205 Reading and selecting information, 129 The Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties (RWQ), 495 Reading assessment, 215–216, 247–248, 393, 417, 495–501 informal, 500 tests, 497–499 See also Authentic assessment; Book Clubs; Comparative reading Reading Becomes a Necessity of Life: Material and Cultural Life in Rural New England, 1780–1835 (Gilmore), 231 Reading clinics, 124, 248, 502–506, 515 Reading comprehension, 40, 41, 43, 46, 85, 99, 123, 125, 134, 162, 166, 192, 215, 229, 236, 239, 346, 354, 356, 396, 404, 415, 475. 477, 478, 499, 535, 605. See also Cloze procedure Reading, cross-national studies. See Comparative reading Reading, ethnography of, 204 Reading: The Great Debate (Chall), 402 Reading diagnosis, 515–520 Reading difficulty, 34, 155–156, 183, 479, 498–499 levels, 476, 478 See also Reading clinics; Think-alouds Reading disabilities, 124, 502 Reading Evaluation Adult Diagnosis (READ), 26 Reading evaluation programs, 63, See also Reading assessment; Remediation Reading Excellence Act (REA) (1998), 14, 120, 402, 520–521 Reading First (ESEA), 402, 520 Reading fluency, 40, 42, 119, 191–193, 355, 483, 505, 548 Reading for Understanding (RRSG), 475 Reading for Working: A Functional Literacy Anthology (Sticht), 683 Reading groups, 1. See also Literature circles Reading Hall of Fame, 521–522 Reading Improvement (journal), 521 Reading in content areas (RICA), 102 Reading instruction, 46–47, 86–87, 125, 174, 226–228, 244, 246, 479, 480, 502 colonial, 224–225 history, 224–231 Reading Is Fundamental (RIF), 523–524 Reading Is Our Thing (RIOT), 242 Reading Miscue Inventory, 124 Reading motivation, 242, 481, 505 Reading on the Middle Border: The Culture of Print in Late Nineteenth Century Osage, Iowa (Pawley), 232–233
Pryor, John, 200 Psycholinguistics, 47, 299, 388, 451, 462–464, 674 Psychological tools, 11–12 Psychology of Literacy (Scribner and Cole), 315 Psychometric standards, 37, 38 Public Broadcasting System (PBS) series, 242 Public libraries, 171, 172, 173 Public opinion and literacy, 464–467 Public schools, 464–465 Pucci, Sandra, 52 Purcell-Gates, Victoria, 312, 378, 379 Pure decoding knowledge, 478 Purves, Alan C., 83, 551 Purves, Alan C., Award (RTE), 551 Put Reading First: The Research Building Blocks for Teaching Children to Read (Armbuster et al.), 402 Putnam, Hilary, 559 Quality Counts, 436 Quantitative literacy, 27 Question Answer Relationships (QARs), 471 Questioning, 91, 109, 123, 268, 335, 346, 422 469–473, 536 written, 457 See also Inquiry-based instruction Quine, Willard Van Orman, 662 Rabinowitz, Peter, 552 Racism, 636 Radical democrats, 439 Radway, Janice, 203, 232 Rafferty, Cathleen, 214, 576 Rainbow Coalition, 439 RAND Reading Study Group (RRSG), 120, 475–476 Raphael, Taffy, 43, 44, 62, 421, 471 Rasinsky, Timothy, 193, 289, 550, 554 Rational Method in Reading series (Ward), 226 Rauding theory, 476–480 Raygor, Alton, 127 Read a Book Because It’s There (RABBIT), 242 Read Across America Day, 242 Read, Charles, 158 Readability, 99, 480–486 Readability formula, 482, 483, 486 Read-Alouds, 487–488, 598 Read-and-test studies, 539 Readence, John, 309, 530 The Reader, the Text, the Poem: The Transactional Theory of the Literary Work (Rosenblatt), 662 READER model, 358–359 Reader response, 16, 69, 115, 231, 232, 393, 488–493, 507 criticism, 115–118 theory, 334 Readers Theatre, 416, 493–495 A Readers Theatre Treasury of Stories (Braun and Braun), 416
771
Index Reder, Stephen, 28 Redundancy, 541–542 Reflective Practitioners: How Practitioners Think in Action (Schon), 644 Refutational texts, 94, 95, 96, 542–545 Register (variety of language), 600 Rehabilitation Act (1973), 340 Reinking, David, 449 Relationship maps, 573, 576, 579(fig.) Remedial reading, 14, 34–35, 73, 123, 124, 125, 229, 562 Remediation, 323, 545–548 Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology (Bartlett), 100, 619 Repeated readings, 548–551 Report of the National Reading Panel, 86, 158 critique, 118–120 Research Foundation (NCTE), 398 Research in the Teaching of English (RTE) (NCTE), 104, 379, 551 Resistant reading, 552–553 Retelling tasks, 499, 504 Rethinking Schools: An Urban Educational Journal, 594 Reutzel, D. Ray, 40, 43, 530 Rex, Lesley, 104, 105 Reynolds, Ralph, 599 Rhetoric, 67. See also Social-cognitive rhetoric Rhodes, Lynn, 452 Rhymes, 162, 452 Rhythm, 266, 452 Rich, Adrienne, 153, 206 Rickelman, Robert J., 530 RIFNet, 524 Right to Read Campaign (1970s), 20, 230, 501 Rinaldi, Ann, 369 Ringler, Lenore, 396 Risley, Betty Hart, 414, 668 Risley, Todd, 414, 668 Rix (readability formula), 484 Robbins, Louise S., 232 Robinson, Francis P., 470 Robinson, Helen M., 521 Robinson, Jay, 367, 368, 644 Robinson, Richard, 43 Rockwell, Elsie, 139 Roehler, Laura, 174 Rogers, Sally, 433 Rohmer, Harriet, 371 Rohwer, William, 128 Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry (Taylor), 369, 372 Rollins, Charlemae, 372 Rollow, Sharon, 173 Romance, Nancy, 336, 659 Romance novels, 232, 595 Rosenblatt, Louise, 117, 288, 293, 321, 334, 361, 363, 494, 507, 511, 513, 658. See also Transactional theory
Reading Online (IRA), 257, 300, 525–526 Reading partnerships, 564 Reading performance, 185, 204, 464–465, 499 Reading Poverty (Shannon), 438 Reading process models. See Models of the reading process Reading proficiency, 171, 461, 475, 478, 494 Reading programs, 34–35, 77, 293, 520 and Blue Ribbon School Recognition programs, 4 “pullout,” 34, 35 See also Junior Great Books; Language experience approach; Reading recovery; Secondary-school reading programs Reading Psychology: An International Quarterly, 526 Reading Rainbow (PBS), 242 Reading rate, 193, 248, 476, 478–479 Reading readiness, 319–320, 526–527 Reading recovery, 35, 125, 126, 482, 527–530, 555 Program, 451 Reading repetition, 158, 228, 536 Reading research, 29, 41, 85–86, 94, 125, 126, 127, 128, 227, 229, 230, 246, 345, 357. See also Handbook of Reading Research Reading Research and Instruction (RRT) (CRA), 75, 530 Reading Research Quarterly (RRQ), 104, 257, 530–531, 686 Reading software, 245, 605 Reading specialists, 35, 124, 531–533 Reading speed, 41, 42 Reading stages, 42 Reading strategically, 236 Reading summarizing, 129, 536, 537 The Reading Teacher (RT) (IRA), 257, 300, 372, 533–534 Reading Tent Association (now Frontier College), 21 Reading the Romance (Radway), 232 Reading time, daily, 241, 648 Reading Today (IRA newspaper), 257, 534 Reading workshops, 4, 243, 246 Reading World. See Reading Research and Instruction Reading-attitude measures, 501–502, 517, 583 Reading-comprehension instruction, 506–508 Reading-comprehension processes, 98, 508–515, 678–679 Reading-interest inventories, 522–523 Reading-writing relationships, 90, 101, 103, 277, 349, 534–535, 609, 678 Ready to Read series, 163 Reception theory, 116 Reciprocal Questioning (ReQuest), 344, 345 Reciprocal teaching (RT), 86, 347, 535–538, 555 Reconceptualization of reading, 536–537 Recontextualization, 512 Recreational reading, 46, 51, 72, 76, 246, 349, 539–541, 564
772
Index Schreiber, Peter, 192 Schroeder, Jean, 276 Schumm, Jeanne Shay, 4 Schwab, Joseph, 641 Schwartz, Bonnie, 275 Schweickart, Patrocinio, 552 Science, 92–93, 94, 95, 157, 177, 255, 455, 651, 652, 656, 660, 662–663 discussions, 195 learning center, 291 See also Refutational texts Science fiction, 64, 65 Scientific Studies of Reading (SSSR), 599 Scollon, Ron, 141, 142 Scollon, Suzzane, 141, 142 Scott, Foresman (publisher), 228 Scott, Judith, 396 Scott, Karla, 635 Screening Children for Related Early Educational Needs (SCREEN), 163–164 Scribner, Sylvia, 304, 315 Searle, John, 136, 410 Sebranek, Patrick, 460 Sebring, Penny, 173 Second language acquisition (SLA), 52, 273, 275–276 Secondary school. See High school Secondary school reading programs, 13–<14, 562–566 Secretary’s Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills (1991) (Dept, of Labor), 27 Sefton-Green, Julian, 634 Self-assessment, 58, 71, 333 Self-development. See Bibliotherapy Self-testing, 131 Semantic feature analysis (SFA), 566–572 Semantic mapping, 572–580 Semantics, 164, 409–410, 481. See also Vocabulary Semilingualism, 56 Semiosis, 580 Semiotic mediation, 213 Semiotics, 377, 580–581 Senate Appropriations Committee, 402 Sentence completion, 522 The Sentence Method of Reading (Farnham), 226, 2 27 Serpell, Robert, 332 Service learning, 255–>256 Seuss, Dr., children’s books, 308, 433 software, 166 The Shadow of Hate: A History of Intolerance in America (Teaching Tolerance), 594 Shanahan, Timothy, 402 Shannon, Patrick, 109, 438 Shared Book Reading, 451, 452 Shared Inquiry Discussion format, 470 Shaughnessy, Mina, 692 Shaywitz, Bennet, 363, 513
Roskos, Kathleen, 321–322 Root words, 626 Rouet, Jean-François, 236 Round-robin oral reading, 228, 553–554 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 526, 633, 673 Routman, Regie, 239 Rowe, Deborah, 321 Rowland, Pleasant, 371 RTeacher listserv (IRA), 300, 302 Rubin, Joan Shelley, 232 Rubin, Kenneth, 425 Rubrics, 69, 70, 500, 507, 690–691, 696 Ruddell, Margaret, 357 Ruddell, Robert, 357, 361, 362 Rumelhart, David E., 128, 358, 388, 396, 620 Russell, David H., 521 Russell, William, 226 St. Louis (Mo.) schools, 1 St. Pierre, Elizabeth, 635 Salinger, Terry, 30 Salomon, Gavriel, 449 Samuels, S. Jay, 40, 192, 358, 402, 494, 548, 549 San Diego (Calif.), 592, 618 San Diego Union Tribune, 51 Sand and water learning center, 292 Sanders, Charles, 226 Santa Barbara Classroom Dscourse Group, 645 Sartre, Jean Paul, 553 SAT9 reading test, 51 Saturday school, 15 Saussure, Ferdinand, 445–446, 447 Saville-Troike, Muriel, 138 Sawgrass Poems (Asch and Levin), 416 Scaffolded literacy instruction, 89, 102, 154, 214, 274, 320, 347, 375, 412, 423, 469, 537, 555–556, 585, 629, 660 Scardamalia, Marlene, 92 Schaafsma, David, 644 Schegloff, Emmanuel, 137 Schema activation, 653–654 Schema theory, 357, 396, 410, 453, 509–510, 555–556. See also Semantic feature analysis; Semantic mapping Schema theory criticisms, 558–561 Schiefele, Ulrich, 522 Schieffelin, Bambi, 138 Schmidt, Diane, 322 Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), 610 Schon, Donald, 641, 644 School Development Program, 592 School Library Journal, 18 School literacy, 379, 589 School Supplies (Hopkins), 417 Schrader, Carol, 320 Schramm, Wilbur, 647
773
Index Society for the History of Authorship, Reading, and Publishing (SHARP), 233 Society for the Scientific Study of Reading (SSSR), 599 Society of National Association Publications (SNAP), 534 Sociocognitive learning theories, 89, 131 Sociocognitive-processing model, 357, 361, 362(fig.) Sociocultural factors comprehensive models, 511–513 context, 106, 132, 138, 140, 329 and perspectives on learning, 425, 440, 509 and psychology, 10 Socioeconomic level, 386, 413–414. See also Social background Socioeconomic school (SES), 660 Sociolinguistics and literacy, 105, 131, 137, 258, 509, 599–603 and discourse analysis, 136 Sociometric ratings, 427 Sociosemiotics, 583 Software for older readers, 603–605 Soler, Marta, 379 Solsken, Judith, 203 Sonnenschein, Susan, 322 Soto, Gary, 18, 368 Sounds of Language Readers (Marlin), 451 Southern Poverty Law Center, 370–371, 594 Southwest Reading Conference for Colleges and Universities (SRC), 127, 400, 401 Spache formula, 483 Spache, George, 124, 605 Spady, William, 352 Spandel, Vicki, 70 Spanish (language). See Hispanics Special-education students, 4, 5. See also Specialneeds students Special interest group (SIG), 73, 288 Special Interest Group on Adolescent Literature (SIGNAL, IRA), 18 Special-needs students, 89, 287, 340 Specific Level Assessment of Awareness of Print and Sound, 164 Speech acts, 137 Speech communities, 138 Speech genres, 11–12 Speech patterns, 195 Speed reading, 605–606 Spelling, 47, 89, 125, 158, 163, 165, 220, 430, 433, 504, 606–610 instruction, 608–610 knowledge development, 607–608 level, 478, 610 research, 607–608 Spence, Amy, 433 Spence, Rob, 433 Spiegel, Dixie Lee, 43, 44, 239
Shaywitz, Sally E., 402 Sheldon, Edward Austin, 227 Shiland, Thomas, 95–96 Shin, Fay, 50 Shirey, Larry, 522 Short, Kathy, 249, 250, 276, 472 Showalter, Elaine, 206 Shultz, Jeffrey, 105 Shuman, Amy, 210 Shuster, Joe, 699 Siegel, Jerome, 699 Sight words, 228, 581–583, 680 Sign language, 121 Signal words and phrases, 98 Signs, 580, 642 Silent and Oral Reading (Stone), 227 Silent reading, 37, 227, 242–243, 248, 287, 487, 583–584 The Silent Reading Hour (Buswell), 415 Simons, Herbert, 452 Simons, P. Robert-Jan, 96 Simpson, Michele, 129, 130 Sinatra, Gale, 382 Singer, Dorothy, 649 Singer, Harry, 357 Singer, Jerome, 649 Singer readability procedure, 482 Sipay, Edward, 483 Sirotnik, Kenneth, 8 Situated cognition, 511 Situated literacies. See New Literacy Studies Skinner, B. F., 229, 273, 274(photo), 326 Slavin, Robert, 107, 177 Slosson Intelligence Test-Revised (SIT-R), 519 Smagorinsky, Peter, 12, 513, 551 Small communities, 10–11, 365–366 Smith, Cecil, 312 Smith, Debbie, 210 Smith, Frank, 44, 239, 288, 451, 462, 463 Smith, Henrietta, 372 Smith, John, 659 Smith, Michael W., 551 Smith, Miriam, 158 Smith, Nila Banton, 46, 415, 521, 526 Snow, Catherine E., 118, 120, 475 Social background, 2, 4, 7, 79, 105, 112, 204, 264, 305, 481, 491 Social change. See Community literacy Social cognition, 580 Social constructionism, 586 Social constructivism, 100–101, 105, 132, 584–588 Social interactionist perspective, 411–412 Social justice and literacies, 110, 377, 589–595 Social nature of literacy, 595–599 Social studies, 61, 177, 651, 660 Social-cognitive rhetoric, 81
774
Index Strategic knowledge, 649 Street, Brian, 139, 315, 376, 377, 378, 595 Strickland, Dorothy, 34, 153, 239, 245, 396 Structural analysis, 626–627, 680–681 Structuralism. See Post-structuralism and structuralim Structured overview, 213–214 Students with disabilities, 339. See also Special-needs students Students working in pairs, 5 Study guides, 628–631, 630(fig.) Study skills and strategies, 15, 631–632 Study strategy, 577–578 Subjectivity, 632–637 Subsyllabic letter sequences, 680 Subvocalization, 482 Success for All, 125 Sullivan, M. D., 461 Sullivan Reading Program, 461 Sulzby, Elizabeth, 200 Sumara, Dennis, 552 Summer-school programs, 35 Supported text, 235 Survey reading tests, 519–520 Sustained Quiet Uninterrupted Independent Reading Time (SQUIRT), 242, 243, 246 Sustained Silent Reading (SSR), 239, 242, 243, 583–584 Sweden, 56, 484 Sweet, Anne P., 475 Sweet, Robert W., 404, 438 Swenson, Janet, 646, 647 Swinyard, William, 487 Switzerland, 83 Syllables, 46, 162, 227, 481, 626, 680–681 Synergy, 649–650 Synonym maps, 575 Syntax, 52, 53, 54, 137, 168, 192, 353, 407, 481. See also Grammar Syracuse (N.Y.), 330
Spinelli, Jerry, 416 Spiro, Rand, 510 Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty, 633 Sprague, Sarah, 227 Spring, Joel, 438 Sputnik satellite, 464 SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite, and Review), 470 Stahl, Norman A., 84 Stahl, Steven, 336, 549 Standard English, 81, 168, 281, 282, 285 Standardized test score decline, 610–613 Standardized test score interpretation, 613–614 Standardized testing, 6,178, 179, 180, 480, 482, 496, 498, 515, 562, 615–617, 677 Standards, 6, 280, 281, 617–619, 639–640, 646, 691 state and local, 618 Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA et al.), 500 Standards for the English Language Arts (IRA and NCTE), 618 Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), 519 Stanford 9 Achievement Test, 484, 498 Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test, 498, 520 Stanine scores, 613 Stanovich, Keith, 41, 123, 231, 668, 669 Starting a Learning Center Monograph (CRLA), 75 Starting Small: Teaching Tolerance in Preschool and the Early Grades (Southern Poverty Law Center), 371, 594 State exams, 6–7 A Statement on the Preparation of Teachers of English (NCTE), 640 Staton, Jana, 132 Stauffer, Russell, 287–289 Stein, Nancy L., 388, 621 Stenhouse, Lawrence, 643, 645 Stephens, Diane, 462 Stewart, Cora, 21 Sticht, Thomas G., 185, 683, 685 Stickney, Jenny, 227 Stickney Readers, 227 Stiggins, Richard, 70 Stock, Patricia Lambert, 367–368, 644 Stone, Clarence, 227 Stone, Sandra, 321 The Stories Julian Tells (Vameron), 373 Stories of Little Brown Koko (Hunt), 369 Story grammar, 391, 619–622 Story Hour Readers Manual (American Book Company), 1 Story maps, 576, 578(fig.) Story structure, 389–391 Storytelling, 622–626 Stotsky, Sandra, 551 Strang, Ruth, 521, 562, 606
Tagging. See Graffiti Talk-in-interaction, 137 Talks on Teaching (Parker), 227 Talot, Sue, 396 Tasks, 293–295 Taylor and Francis (publisher), 495 Taylor, Barbara M., 173, 174, 555 Taylor, Denny, 20, 186 Taylor, Earl, 183 Taylor, Frances Lilian, 227 Taylor, Mildred, 369, 372 Taylor, Sandra, 635 Taylor, Wilson, 518 Teacher education in literacy, 639–643 Teacher research in literacy, 643–647 Teacher shortage, 642
775
Index Test scores, 7, 51, 289, 351. See also High-stakes assessment Test stability, 496–497 Test validity, 497 Texas Christian University (TCU), 400 Texas Educational Assessment of Minimum Skills (TEAMS), 351 Text readability assessment. See Cloze procedure Text recall, 620 Textbooks, 89, 251, 651–653 colonial, 224–225 of 18th–19th centures, 225–226 electronic, 235–236 evaluation, 296, 297, 652 racist and sexist content, 229 reading, 226–227, 247, 248, 504 See also Considerate text; Refutational texts Theatrical genre, 67 Thematic instruction, 158–159 Thematic organizers, 653–655 Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (Ruddell et al.), 357 Things That Are Most in the World (Barrett), 433 Think-alouds, 123, 471, 491, 504, 525, 655–656 Thinking and concept development, 61, 63, 143, 336. See also Mental modeling Think-pair-share techniques, 146 Thomas, John, 128 Thompson, Scott, 223 Thorndike, Edward Lee, 227, 345, 521 Thorndike, Robert, 83 Thorndyke, Perry, 388, 620 Threshold Hypothesis, 56 Tierney, Robert, 155, 293, 363, 443 Tindal, Gerald, 193 Tinker, Miles, 183, 606 Tinker, Stanford, 183 Title I (ESEA), 5, 6, 34–35, 120, 124, 125, 179, 438, 533, 656–657 Title II (ESEA). See Reading Excellence Act Title II (WIA), 21, 23, 25 Title IIB (Adult Basic Education program), 23 To Kill a Mocking Bird (Lee), 118 Tobin, Joseph, 203, 635, 636 Tompkins, Gail E., 517 Topping, Keith, 549 Torah, 57 Total-class instruction, 4, 5 Touchstone Applied Science Associates (TASA), 484 Towards a Critical Sociology of Reading Pedagogy (Baker and Luke), 596 Tower, David, 226 Town, Salem, 226 Trabasso, Thomas, 402 Tracking, 1, 5, 591 Trade books, 64, 66, 101, 149, 336, 657–661 Transactional model, 357, 361, 363
Teachers attitude toward reading, 308–309 cultural map, 152 and dialogue, 131, 132–133, 422 education and integrated learning, 158–159 interdisciplinary teams of, 350 interviews with, 33 monetary rewards, 6 paraprofessional, 657, 674 professional association. See National Council of Teachers of English professional development opportunities, 7–8 of reading, 14, 43, 44, 126, 174. See also Reading specialists and student assessment interview, 30–31 women, 227 Teachers’ Learning Cooperative (Philadelphia, Pa.), 644 Teaching adult literacy, 24 and diversity, 153 effectiveness, 396 individual versus traditional, 3 reading, 77, 83, 87, 91–92, 133, 246, 469. See also Remedial reading standards, 691 strategies, 15, 87, 133 writing, 83 young adult literature, 16 See also Computer-assisted instruction; High-stakes assessment Teaching Children to Read (NRP), 475 The Teaching of Reading (UNESCO), 83 The Teaching of Reading and Writing (Gray), 83 Teaching Reading in the Content Areas (Herber), 563 Teaching Tolerance (magazine) (Southern Poverty Law Center), 370–371, 594 Teale, William, 186, 276 Technological determinism, 450 Technology, 13, 448–449 Television, 13, 16, 112, 147, 277, 342, 371 Television and reading, 647–650 Templin, Mark, 457 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), 21 Terra Nova. See Iowa Test of Basic Skills Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), 24, 26, 27 Test of Early Language Development (TELD), 163–164 Test of Early Mathematics Ability (TEMA), 164 Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA), 161 Test of Early Written Language (TEWL), 164 Test of Essential Literacy Learning Skills (TELLS), 351 Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA), 164 Test of Reading Comprehension (TORC), 504 Test of Written Language (TWL), 350 Test preparation, 650–651
776
Index Vietnam War, 380 Vietnamese (language), 484, 606 Vince, Pamela, 647 Virginia Standards of Learning Tests, 223 Visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile (VAKT) modes, 266 Visual information, 463–464 Visual literacy, 634, 665–667 Visual representations, 277, 278, 574 Vitale, Michael, 336, 659 Vocabulary, 52, 89, 133, 135, 158, 163, 181, 227, 240, 403–404, 407, 409, 539, 566, 567, 573, 574, 667–671 Vocabulary instruction, 122 Voice of Youth Advocates (VOYA), 18 Voluntary National Tests (VNT), 395 Vowel-consonant-consonant-vowel (VCCV), 607 Vowel-consonant-silent e (VCe), 607 Vowel-consonant-vowel (VCV), 607 Vowel-vowel (VV), 607 Vygotsky, Lev, 10, 94, 100, 132, 139, 143, 154, 213, 274, 288, 315, 318, 321, 412, 511, 512, 537, 555, 588, 674. See also Zone of proximal development
Transactional strategies instruction (TSI), 505, 555, 658 Transactional theory, 494, 511, 661–663 Transactional writing, 103 Transformational-generative grammar, 299, 462, 619 Transmission instruction, 652, 663 Trathen, Woodrow, 301 Trelease, Jim, 540, 626 Tse, Lucy, 221 Tufte, Edward, 148 Tullock-Rhody, Regina, 501 The Tutor Training Handbook (CRLA), 75 Tutoring. See Peer and cross-age tutoring; Secondaryschool reading programs The Twayne United States Young Adult Authors series, 18 2000 Standards for the English-Language Arts (NCTE), 170 Two-Year College Association (NCTE), 398 Understanding Media (McLuhan), 648 Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading (USSR), 242, 246. See also Sustained Silent Reading United Kingdom. See Great Britain United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), 19, 82, 83 Universal Grammar, 274, 275 University of California (UCLA) reading clinic, 502 University of Chicago reading clinic, 502 University of Georgia reading clinic, 502 University of Illinois, 229, 396 University of Iowa reading clinic, 502 University of Michigan, 644 University of Minnesota, 548 University of Pittsburgh, 618 Unrau, Norman, 259, 361 “Using Think-Alouds to Analyze Decision Making during Spelling Word Sorts” (Fresch), 525 Utah, 7
Waldo, Karl, 247, 248 Walker, Alice, 117 Walkerdine, Valerie, 596–597, 635 Walpole, Sharon, 174, 555 Waples, Douglas, 521 War on Poverty, 440. See also Head Start Program Ward, Edward, 226 Warner, Mary, 460 Washington Post, 51 Waterman, Robin, 312 Watson, John Broadus, 227 The Watsons Go to Birmingham (Curtis), 369 Watt, Ian, 303, 304 Ways with Words (Heath), 20 We All Like the Extra Reading (WALTER), 243 We Build Together, 372 Weaver, Constance, 44 Webs. See Story maps Webster, Noah, 46, 225–226 Weedon, Chris, 207, 633 Wei, Li, 54 Weinstein, Claire Ellen, 86, 129, 130 Weinstein-Shr, Gail, 176 Weiss, Ken, 301, 302 Welfare reform, 21, 185 Welfare-to-Work Program (1997), 21 Wells, Deborah, 421 Wells, Gordon, 139, 249, 250 Wellstone, Paul, 439 Welsh bilingualism, 57 Wernicke’s area, 413 Wertsch, James, 513 West, Cornel, 82
Vacca, Richard, 34 Vail, Henry, 226 Valdés, Guadalupe, 592 Valencia, Sheila, 457, 458, 615 Van Allan, Roach, 287, 288, 451 Van Dijk, Teun, 138, 620 Van Leeuwen, Theo, 138 VanSledright, Bruce, 91 Vaughn, Sharon, 4, 5 Veatch, Jeanette, 239, 243, 244 Vee diagrams, 375 Vellutino, Frank, 547 Verbal Behavior (Skinner), 273 Verizon, 399 Vermont, 696 Video games, 342 Video-based distance learning, 147–148
777
Index Word lists, 517–518 Word processors, 236 Word Reading Efficiency and Nonword Efficiency test, 164 Word recognition, 41–42, 89, 123, 166, 230, 239, 247, 298, 430, 478, 504, 505, 678–682. See also Sight words Word-Play Books (Gates et al.), 228 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) (1998), 21 Title II, 21, 23, 25 Workplace literacy, 312, 682–686 Works Progress Administration (WPA), 23 World Congress on Reading (IRA), 83 World Wide Web, 233, 236 Worldview, 11 Wright, Richard, 539 Write for Your Life Project, 646 Writing across the curriculum (WAC), 102, 103, 535, 686–688 Writing activities, 43, 61, 125, 288, 349, 433, 688. See also Process writing Writing and complexity, 208 Writing and gender, 205–208 Writing assessment, 66–72, 392, 394, 611, 688–693 Writing assessment in large-scale contexts, 693–697 Writing development, 67, 577 conferences, 71 Writing evaluation programs, 63 Writing instruction, 67–68, 100 Writing software, 605 Writing to learn. See Writing across the curriculum Written language, 140, 277, 285–286, 407, 408, 447, 601. See also Sociolinguistics and literacy
West, Jane, 427 Westby, Carol, 410 Wharton-McDonald, Ruth, 43, 555 What Is Literacy? . . . , 314 “What Is the History of Books?” (Darnton), 231 When a City Leans against the Sky (DeFina), 416 When Papa Snores (Long), 416 White Christian fundamentalist community, 10 White literature, 369–370, 371–372 Whole language and whole-language assessment, 4, 124, 229, 230, 243, 263, 289, 290, 307, 535, 550, 657, 673–677, 684 Whole Language Umbrella (WLU) (NCTE), 63, 398, 677–678 Why Johnny Can’t Read—and What You Can Do about It (Flesch), 47, 228, 429, 464 Wide reading, 669 Wide-Range Achievement Test (WRAT), 26, 478 Wilkerson, Bonnie, 288, 289 Wilkinson, Ian, 396 Williams, Joanna, 402, 599 Williams, Kathryn, 43 Williams, Wayne, 195, 196, 198 Willinsky, John, 204 Willis, Arlette Ingram, 151 Willows, Dale, 402 Willson Readers, 226 Wilson, Anita, 598 Wilson, Paul, 522, 539 Wineburg, Samuel, 381, 382 Winnetka (Ill.) schools, 1 Winograd, Peter, 435 Within-class grouping, 1 Wittgenstein, Ludwig, 510, 662 Wittrock, Merlin, 128, 129 Wixon, Karen, 615 Wolf, Shelby, 70, 494 Wolfgang, Charles, 319 Women and literacy, 290, 312 Wong, Shelley, 555 Wood, Karen, 530 Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests (WRMT), 478, 498, 504 Woodworth, Robert S., 521 Wooten, Crystal Marie, 30(photo) Worcester, Samuel, 226 Word bank, 287 Word blindness. See Dyslexia Word fill in. See Cloze procedure Word formation. See Morphology Word Identification test (WRMT), 478. See also Benchmark School technique Word learning, 45, 46, 124, 125, 226, 227, 669, 670 Word length, 162
Yahoo!’s Messenger, 253 Yatvin, Joanne, 402, 404 Yearbook (CRA), 75 Yep, Lawrence, 368, 372 Young Adult Literary Survey (NAEP), 28, 684, 685 Young adult literature. See Adolescent literature Yopp-Singer Test of Phonemic Segmentation, 164 Young, Ella Flagg, 227 Young, Josephine, 309 Young, Shannon, 200 Zboray, Ronald J., 231 Zeman, Samuel, 530 Zimmerman, Don, 137 Zines, 699 Zone of proximal development (ZPD), 131, 320, 482, 505, 511, 555, 588 Zutell, Jerry, 193, 288 Zydeco, 407
778
About the Editor Barbara J. Guzzetti is a professor at the College of Education at Arizona State University, Tempe.
779
![Class in America [Three Volumes]: An Encyclopedia](https://epdf.tips/img/300x300/class-in-america-three-volumes-an-encyclopedia_5a752bc5b7d7bc5c318531bf.jpg)
