Print Version - Balanced Reading Instruction

Transcription

e-Journal of
Balanced
Reading
Instruction
Volume 1 Issue 2
Official Publication of the Balanced Reading Instruction Special Interest Group
of the International Reading Association
www.balancedreadinginstruction.com
Fall 2013
e-Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction
Aims and Scope
The e-Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction is a professional, refereed journal
published by the Balanced Reading Instruction Special Interest Group of the International
Reading Association. The journal is published semi-annually as a service to those interested
in strengthening the teaching and learning of literacy for all learners, including learners for
whom English is not a native language. The journal's mission is to improve the quality of
literacy instruction, research, scholarship and to disseminate the results of this work to the
literacy education community.
Editors
Editorial Review Board
Estanislado S. Barrera IV, Ph.D.
222 Peabody Hall
School of Education
College of Human Sciences and Education
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
[email protected]
225-578-0480
Debora Wachtel Addison - Schriener University
Linda Bausch - Dowling College
Allen Berger - Armstrong Atlantic State University
William Bintz - Kent State University
Desiree Cho - Louisiana State University
Patsy Cooper - Queens College
Patricia Durham - Same Houston State University
Ann Ebe - Hunter College - City University
Michelle Erklenz-Watts - Louisiana State University
Rona Flippo - University of Massachusetts
Gail G. Griffith - Louisiana State University
Nicholas Daniel Hartlep - Illinois State University
Cleveland Hayes - University of LaVerne
Jeanne Henry - Hofstra University
Yvette R. Hyde - Louisiana State University
Tammy Jenkins - Louisiana State University
Therersa McGinnis - Hofstra University
Sue Parson - Oklahoma State University
Roberta Simnacher Pate - Tarleton State University
Deanna Rice - Louisiana State University
Joanne Robertson-Eletto - St. John's University
Aimee Rogers - University of Minnesota
Paual Saine - Miami University
Leah K. Saal – Arkansas State University
Stephan Sargent - Northeastern State University
Barbara Schrimer - University of Detroit
Melissa Schulz - Miami University
Louise Shaw - Dowling College
Kim Skinner - Louisiana State University
Kwangok Song – Arkansas State University
Sandra M. Stokes - University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Suzan Szabo - Texas A&M University-Commerce
Kenneth J. Fasching-Varner, Ph.D.
219A Peabody Hall
School of Education
College of Human Sciences and Education
Louisiana State University
Baton Rouge, LA 70803
[email protected]
225-578-2918
Contact Us
Email: [email protected]
Fax: 225-578-9135
© 2013. e-Journal of Balanced
Reading Instruction
is produced and distributed to its
members semi-annually
by the Balanced Reading Instruction
Special Interest Group
of the International Reading
Association.
ISSN: 2328-0816
Contents
General Issue
Editorials
A Message from the Chair ...................................................................................... 1
Esther Fusco
Letter from the Editors ........................................................................................... 2
Estanislado S. Barrera, IV & Kenneth J. Fasching-Varner
Invited Piece
Infusing Technology into the Balanced Literacy Classroom ........................................ 3
Jennifer W. Shettel & Kevin Bower
Featured Articles
The Evolution of What’s Hot in Literacy .................................................................. 12
Jack Cassidy & Evan Ortlieb
English Language Learners: Problems and Solutions Found in the ........................... 18
Research of General Practitioners in Early Childhood
Douglas D. Bell & Barry L. Bogan
Teacher’s Perceptions: Transitioning from Teacher Selected Reading ........................ 24
Materials to a Core Reading Program
Dana Reisboard & Annemarie B. Jay
Text Selection for Read-Alouds: The Influence of Topic in Children’s ........................ 40
Discussion of Literary Text
Kim Skinner
Text Reviews
Professional Text - The Road Out: A Teacher’s Odyssey in ....................................... 47
Poor America by D. Hicks
Stephanie Grote-Garcia
Adolescent Literature – Wonder by R.J. Palacio ....................................................... 48
Deborah Wachtel Addison
SIG NEWS
A Letter from the Chair of
Balanced Reading Instruction
Esther Fusco, Ph.D.
supports the use of both narrative and informational text.
Further, this approach advocates for contextualized instruction.
Thus, for example, word study is taught in the context of a topic
or integrated into the literature that is being explored. Balance
Reading Instruction is based on a whole-part- whole approach
that integrates the complimentary components to reinforce the
learning for all students. As an approach, it is more satisfying to
the students and the teacher because the materials are authentic
and engaging for students. It is also important to note that the
Common Core Standards can be incorporated in a balance
literacy program because they systematically lay out the skills
that are important for readers to know and use.
Enjoy this issue of the e-Journal of Balance Reading
Instruction and note how each article brings new light to the
complex process called literacy.
W
elcome to another edition of the e-Journal of
Balance Reading Instruction. The journal continues to advocate
for a framework of instruction that is rich in nature and
meaningful to students. The goal of our Balance Reading
Instruction Special Interest Group is the promotion of a
comprehensive literacy program designed to meet the needs of
all students. The underpinnings of this approach recognize that
no one aspect of literacy instruction is more important than
another. Balancing the instruction means that classroom
instruction should include all the different aspects of literacy,
including, read aloud, share and guided reading, shared and
guided writing, word study and literature study. This approach
Esther Fusco, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at Hofstra University,
Hempstead, NY. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com A Letter from the Editors
Estanislado S. Barrera, IV, Ph.D. & Kenneth Fasching-Varner, Ph.D.
It has been an excellent year as editors of the e-Journal of
Balanced Reading Instruction. We are still moving forward
with many of the changes we presented in the Spring 2013
issue. The most significant change has been moving to a
completely digital version of this publication.
Another
accomplishment has been providing our membership and
readers with a second issue in the fall. With these main shifts
well underway, our attention is now moving towards other
goals. All previous issues are in the process of being converted
to a digital format and an archive will be available online for all
readers. We also want to feature teachers in the field as well as
pre-service teachers who represent the mission of the Balanced
Reading Instruction SIG.
INVITED PIECE
The invited piece for the Fall issue focuses on technology in the
balanced literacy classroom. Authors, Shettel and Bower,
emphasize that technology has a place in the classroom and
demonstrate how it can assist with literacy learning.
Specifically, the piece discusses the different levels of infusing
the classroom with technology and provides examples of what it
looks like in a real-life setting.
Shettel & Bower provide excellent ideas and resources for
teachers to incorporate into their literacy lessons. They also
address management of these resources and activities. The
article concludes with assessing the effectiveness of technology
and provides a rubric to evaluate how students are engaged
during these enhanced literacy lessons.
REVIEWED PIECES
This issue of the journal includes four diverse articles that all
address significant issues in the field of literacy today. The first
article, written by Cassidy and Ortlieb, builds on Cassidy’s
insightful “What’s Hot, What’s Not” annual study. Their piece
seeks to find what has happened to those topics that are no
longer hot through the lens of the classroom teacher. Some
topics explored include, balanced reading, decodable text, and
volunteer tutoring.
Estanislado S. Barrera IV, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA. [email protected]
The second contribution by Bell and Bogan shifts to issues
addressing English Language Learners (ELLs). Their study
draws attention to the challenges being faced by teachers using
research-based practices to instruct ELL students. Bell and
Bogan not only bring to light specific problems, but also
provide solid solutions at the programmatic, teacher, and
classroom level.
Adoption and implementation of a new core reading
program is explored in the third piece by Reisboard and Jay.
Both researchers provide a thorough account of teachers’
perceptions regarding the new program, including using all
aspects suggested and meeting the needs of more advanced
readers.
Our final reviewed article concentrates on the significance
of text selection during read-alouds. Skinner’s ethnographic
study brings light to the fact that opportunities to discuss, think,
and comprehend are directly related to text being read. Her
findings also revealed that the students gained an awareness of
the difference in discussions based on the text selected by the
teacher.
TEXT REVIEWS
This issue also includes two text reviews. The professional text
reviewed by Grote-Garcia is The Road Out: A Teachers
Odyssey in Poor America by Hicks. This memoir demonstrates
the power of literacy and how it can impact the lives of children
growing up in poverty. Addison reviewed Wonder by Palacio.
This adolescent literature text deals with the reality of living
with a physical deformity and provides the reader with diverse
perspectives as told through the experiences of each character.
PREPARING FOR THE SPRING ISSUE
As we publish this edition of the journal we are already fast at
work organizing our Spring 2014 Special Edition centered on
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy in the context of balanced
literacy instruction. We are committed each spring to exploring
specialized topics relevant to literacy educators. At the end of
this edition you will find a detailed call for manuscripts, and we
encourage you to think about submitting an article, book
review, or educator profile related to Culturally Relevant
Pedagogy and Literacy Instruction. Also, please feel free to
send the editor’s ideas about potential topics for the Spring
2015 special issue.
Kenneth J. Fasching Varner is an assistant professor at Louisiana State
University, Baton Rouge, LA. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com INVITED PIECE: FOCUS ON TECHNOLOGY
Infusing Technology into the Balanced
Literacy Classroom
Jennifer W. Shettel, Ed.D. and Kevin Bower, M.Ed.
Abstract—This article focuses attention on how technology is
being utilized in classrooms, with an emphasis on literacy learning.
The authors explore the integration of technology within a
balanced literacy classroom and identify three levels of technology
integration commonly found within a typical K-12 classroom.
Specific examples are provided for each level and classroom
vignettes from the second author’s classroom are utilized. In
addition, the authors provide suggested resources throughout the
article for further exploration.
THE INFUSED CLASSROOM
K
evin Bower is a 6th grade teacher in a small school district in
rural southeastern PA. If you visited Kevin’s classroom, you
would find students scattered across the room in creative work
areas. Bower utilizes Thornburg’s (2004) metaphor of the
campfire, watering hole, and cave to describe different types of
working environments that take place within his classroom on a
daily basis. The interactive whiteboard serves as the classroom
“campfire,” where students gather to hear Mr. Bower or their peers
teach a large-group mini-lesson. “Watering holes” are collaborative
work stations around the room such as tables, desks, and carpet
squares placed around the room. Small groups of students meet at
the “watering holes” to complete an assignment or collaborative
activity. The students are also able to work in “caves,” which are
private areas around the room where they can think and reflect on
their own. Caves provide privacy and solitude and allow students
to work individually. Mr. Bower is most likely found bobbing and
weaving among his students’ personalized learning areas like a
prized fighter in the ring. Each encounter he has with students is
efficient, engaging, and enriching. An observer would notice the
relationships and respect he has established with his students.
Bower’s learning environment sustains a motivation to learn
within a constructivist approach to teaching and learning. Literacy
and technology are synonymous in his classroom. Mobile devices
and computers litter the room as students work on assignments, and
students turn pages of text as easily as they scroll the pages on their
devices. Technology is used as a springboard to propel his students
to a world between and beyond the lines of text as they read and
write.
Students utilize classroom computers in an effortless fashion.
They collaborate in Edmodo, a social networking site for teachers
to use that is similar to Facebook, to discuss their books and to post
their final products from assignments. Students read the posts of
one another as meticulously as they read the back of a book jacket
before making a selection from the classroom library, and are
constantly refreshing their browser to review comments and
questions from their peers. Web 2.0 tools are continuously being
explored to find the perfect medium to respond to books they have
read, demonstrate understanding of learning, and create projects
that integrate reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills.
Students share sites and integrate ideas as they work on
assignments in a cooperative and collaborative way. Hovered over
computers with their Google Docs open, students edit and shape
their writing. The revision history provides a timeline of the
writing process as well as the collaboration among the students to
finely tune their final draft. Final drafts and final products for
almost every assignment are posted on their virtual “Classroom
Fridge” on KidBlog. Bower’s students publish to the world, rather
than just turning assignments in to their teacher.
At the onset of the new century, the International Reading
Association released a position statement on “New Literacies and
21st Century Technologies” that was revised in 2009. This
document opens with a powerful statement that, “literacy educators
have a responsibility to effectively integrate new technologies into
the curriculum, preparing students for the literacy future they
deserve” (p. 2). Bower has certainly accepted that call and risen to
the challenge of creating a place of learning that infuses technology
across the curriculum that incorporates literacy skills in a seamless
integration. Bower’s use of technology cultivates a love for
reading and writing among his students as he implicitly challenges
them to reach their full potential. Technology is not viewed as tools
for the classroom, but rather as strategies that foster creativity.
Imaginations run wild as students read, write, and create, while
technology provides the platform to showcase their thinking and
ideas.
Jennifer W. Shettel, Ed.D. is an associate professor at Millersville
University, Millersville, PA. [email protected]
LOOKING BACK TO LOOK FORWARD
Kevin Bower, M.Ed. is a 6th grade teacher with Penn Manor School
District, an adjunct instructor at Millersville University and a contributor
for TeachersFirst, Millersville, PA. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction In many ways, the rapid development of new technological tools
and devices every year cloud the memory of what life was like
before each new development. For example, students in today’s
Kindergarten classes will have no memory of a life before cell
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 4
SHETTEL & BOWER
phones, although it is likely that the cell phone as we know it today
will be but a distant memory when these same children enter high
school.
In Education and Technology: Future Visions, a 1995 report
by the U.S. Congress Office of Technology Assessment, the
writers envisioned what the year 2005 would bring in terms of
technology and technology in schools. Reading this report nearly a
decade after the hypothesized year, it is remarkable how the
authors’ vision of technology in the year 2005 was accurate in
terms of the types of tools and devices that would be available, yet
off base in how advanced we would in terms of how technology
would be used in education. Indeed, the authors of this particular
report envisioned 2005 as a year when students and teachers would
be actively engaged in project-based learning and cooperative
learning utilizing computers and technology tools. They predicted
that learning through teamwork and interacting with people from
across the globe would be prominent features of schooling in 2005,
although they cautioned that such a vision could be thwarted by
political pressure to return to a “back to basics” approach (U.S.
Congress OTA, 1995, p. 22).
Clearly, a lot has happened since 1995 in the world of
education. The Report of the National Reading Panel in 2000
(NICHD, 2000) and the passage of the No Child Left Behind Law
(NCLB, 2002) changed the landscape of the literacy classroom and
increased pressure on school districts, which did indeed foster a
“back to basics” approach as schools focused attention on the
“building blocks” of reading instruction in order to improve scores
on state-developed standardized tests. The current adoption of the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010) in 45 states across
the United States marks a significant period in American education
history as this is the first time that multiple states have shared a set
of common standards for English-Language Arts and Mathematics.
Information dissemination and staff development on the CCSS is
currently underway in the adopting states as teachers, school
leaders, and state governing agencies work to determine how the
“new” standards will change the face of instruction in their
classrooms yet again. It is no wonder then that realizing a
visionary future in which technology plays an important role
alongside that of a highly qualified teacher has not yet been fully
realized.
handheld devices such as cell phones, tablet computers, or gaming
devices had been banned in classrooms, many schools are now
inviting students to bring and use these learning tools in the
educational setting.
It is imperative therefore that educators and literacy leaders in
21st century schools are able to effectively use technology as they
design, implement, and assess learning experiences for students
(ISTE, 2008). Recent articles in the field have highlighted the use
of iPads (McClanahan, Williams, Kennedy, and Tate, 2012),
assistive technology resources (Ruffin, 2012), podcasting (Vasinda
& McLeod, 2011), and electronic books, or eBooks (Larson, 2010)
as just a few of the innovative ways to connect evidence-based
reading research with 21st century tools.
ENVISIONING THE INFUSION OF
TECHNOLOGY INTO THE
LITERACY CLASSROOM
Infusing technology into a balanced literacy classroom is not an
overnight process. Instead, school leaders should be prepared to
assist teachers along a moving staircase of technology use and
acquisition. Commonly referenced models in the technology
education field include the SAMR model (Puentedura, 2006) and
the TPACK model (Mishra & Koehler, 2006). In the SAMR
model, Puentedura provides four levels of technology integration:
Substitution, Augmentation, Modification, and Redefinition. The
SAMR model focuses attention on what can be done with
technology within each level. In the TPACK model, a three-way
Venn Diagram is used to show how Technological, Pedagogical,
and Content Knowledge (Figure 1) are all interrelated with the
effectiveness of the classroom teacher.
NEW LITERACIES
Research on technology integration within the classroom is a
rapidly growing field in literacy education. Leu and colleagues
(2004) have shaped the theoretical perspective of “new literacies,”
a term which broadly encompasses the vast array of constantlychanging information and communication technologies (ICTs) that
guides much of the work in this area. The distinction of the term
literacies is important because it implies that literacy is no longer a
single phenomenon or event; instead literacy takes on multiple
forms as readers and writers interact with and create texts.
Many schools have shifted their stance on utilizing studentowned devices and are looking for new and innovative ways to
incorporate the rapidly changing technology choices in ways that
have minimal impact on their overall budget. The recent explosion
of “Bring Your Own Device” or BYOD (Raths, 2012) programs
being implemented in many K-12 school districts signifies a shift
in both thinking and practice. Where once personal computing and
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction FIGURE 1. TPACK Model. Reproduced with permission of the
publisher, © 2012 by www.tpack.org
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Infusing Technology into the Balanced Literacy Classroom
For the purpose of this article, the authors have re-envisioned
the presence of technology in the literacy classroom in conjunction
with the technological knowledge base of the teacher into a
continuum with three levels: technology as a novelty; technology
as a necessity, and technology as a natural component of the
classroom. We describe key characteristics of each level, provide
explicit examples, and connect with Webb’s Depth of Knowledge
levels (Webb, 2002).
Level One: Technology as a Novelty
This level is closely associated with the “Substitution” level of
Puentedura’s (2006) SAMR Model for technology integration and
is best described as the teacher swapping out traditional tools for
more technology-based tools. For example, in many classrooms,
interactive whiteboards, such as SMART or Promethean boards,
have taken the place of overhead projectors. In a classroom where
this tool is viewed as a novelty, teachers use this tool to do the
same types of things they did with the old technology-projecting
workbook pages, modeling reading practices through a shared
reading method, leading a writing exercise, etc. The technology is
there, but the teacher is unsure of how to use it for more
sophisticated measures.
In a classroom that views technology as a novelty, available
technology is commonly used as a motivator or “carrot-on-a-stick”
to entice students with something special to play with after their
“real work” is done. Classroom-based computers are mostly used
for educational games or pre-determined websites, and technology
is often viewed as a sponge activity to soak up time at the end of
the day. Occasionally, technology is utilized as a punishment with
the teacher taking away access to technology if students are not
following the teacher’s explicit directions.
Teachers at this level make comments such as, “I’ll never get
the hang of all this new technology” and “They gave us this stuff,
but I don’t really know what to do with it.” There is a reliance on
the school or district to provide professional development and
direct assistance with the new technology.
This level is marked by a high level of teacher control. The
teacher determines who is going to use what technology and how it
will be used. Little emphasis is placed on allowing students to
explore or suggest new ways to use the available technology.
Technology integration at the novelty level is often micromanaged
by the teacher who may feel overwhelmed.
This is not to say that viewing technology as a novelty is a
always a negative approach. Indeed, it is a first step, a starting
platform for learning a new tool or device. For instance, a
classroom implementing the BYOD initiative for the first time
would typically begin by approaching this idea as a novelty. Ereaders are substituted for traditional texts, but little instruction or
emphasis is placed on learning the tools that accompany such
electronic reading systems. Students may be permitted to use their
devices in “approved” ways after completing their regular work or
assignments.
Assignments that integrate technology at the novelty level are
commonly aligned with Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (2002) level
one activities. The main objective at this level is for the students to
recall and reproduce information. This level of integration fosters a
classroom culture of consumers, and creativity takes a backseat.
Answers do not need to be figured out or solved, and there is little
transformation of the targeted task, which is why movement
between levels is critical.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction 5
In Bower’s classroom, he spends the first two weeks of school
introducing students to a variety of tools that they can use to
replace traditional paper and pencil tasks as well as providing
students with exposure to technology integration within the literacy
framework. During writing, students type their writing assignments
using Microsoft Word or Google Docs. Students are able to edit the
document without the need to rewrite drafts, and Bower can insert
comments on the document. Typing, cutting, copying, and pasting
are key skills with this level of integration.
Students attempting to define words in text selections use
Dictionary.com or Visuwords. A thesaurus and dictionary are
replaced by the online version, but each still serves the same
purpose. Online thesauruses and dictionaries built-in to eReaders
allow the students to explore a word’s meaning within the text.
SpellingCity.com and online vocabulary games are resources
Bower has his students use at the novelty level to increase their
knowledge of words. Students often choose these activities after
their required work is completed, or as an independent activity at a
computer station while the teacher is meeting with guided reading
groups. Wordle and Tagxedo are popular word cloud sites that
allow students to create visual creations with vocabulary words,
spelling words, synonyms, and antonyms.
Bower’s students also identify high-interest topics to research.
They search for books and materials related to the essential
questions or objectives for the activity. Using technology from a
novelty standpoint, students might use visual presentation tools
such as Prezi, Powtoon, Smore, or PowerPoint to present
information recalled from passages of text or online research.
Students in Bower’s class read about Ancient Egypt. They
visited http://www.virtual-egypt.com/newhtml/glyph/glyph.html to
create their own cartouche online. Then, students created their own
cartouche on paper, and they were posted on Bower’s classroom
blog that he calls the Classroom Fridge. Viewing technology as a
novelty, the virtual posting site takes the place of the literal display
area such as the front of the refrigerator.
FIGURE 2. Student generated cartouche.
SHETTEL & BOWER
Daily Independent Reading Time (DIRT) or Sustained Silent
Reading (SSR) online discussion forums are a way to infuse
technology into the typical self-selected reading process as well as
to build relationships with and between students. In Bower’s
classroom, he posts a question in Edmodo, an online forum for the
students to respond to as an “ice-breaker” before they discuss the
book they are reading. Moodle, Edmodo, and many other course
management tools offer discussion forum options to promote and
support social interaction in your classroom. Sample questions
include, “Which recess game do you think would make a great
Olympic sport?” Or, “Would you rather be a sports hero, rock star,
or the president?” After answering the question the students also
write a sentence or two about their self-selected literature book.
This provides Bower with an update on where the students are in
their books. The post is concluded with a few sentences about
what’s happening in the student’s life. To build classroom
community, students are also encouraged to comment on at least
one other classmate’s post.
Bower’s school uses a six-day cycle to organize their school
schedule. On cycle day 1 he poses a question to the students in
Edmodo for them to answer. However, as the year progresses he
moves the forum to KidBlog to allow parents, family, and friends
to respond to the questions as well. KidBlog allows Bower to
moderate all posts and comments before they appear live. The
students love writing the posts and reading comments. The
assignment is often the topic of communication before and after
school as well as lunch. This platform allows students to be
creative and integrate Web 2.0 tools if they wish. The directions for
the assignment are listed below:
1. Restate the question in your response and
provide a brief rationale.
2. Provide a brief summary of your self-selected
book. (2-3 sentences)
3. Write a few sentences about what is happening
in your life or provide a thought on a current
event. (Events that you have done or are about
to do. Or, Can you believe that this happened? I
think...)
4. Post a quality comment to at least one
classmate. (Ask a thought provoking question or
share a common connection.)
5. Use correct conventions.
Bower allows students to complete the posts during any time
period, and has found that these informal posts provide him with
information that makes face-to-face meetings more efficient.
Students who are often reluctant to speak or participant in class
have now found a voice in writing and are more easily engaged in
conversation. For example, a student may write about an activity
he or she participated in the previous evening. Bower might say,
“Hey, Suzie! I saw your team won the game last night. How was
the game?” Students and teachers can also learn about new books
from their classmates from the book summary sentences. The
discussion questions provide a fun, short creative writing activity
for students. As the school year progresses students can post their
own questions or simply write what’s on their mind. In this
example, online communication is used to foster deeper face-toface communication.
These literal, level one Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (2002)
activities provide a solid foundation for technology integration and
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction are an important precursor to developing creativity and critical
thinking and moving to higher levels of infusion.
Level Two: Technology as a Necessity
As teachers increase their comfort level with the tools and devices
in their classrooms, they will gradually phase out traditional
methods and rely more heavily on technology-based tools. When
this happens, technology becomes a necessary part of the
classroom’s day-to-day functioning. When unexpected things
happen, like Internet servers going down or a school-wide network
issue, teachers become frustrated and have to make on-the-spot
decisions about how to deliver the instruction without the use of
the technology they have come to rely on.
Teachers at this level often say things like, “I can’t imagine
teaching without it!” when referencing technology and the tools
they associate with it. The knowledge level of the teacher who
views technology as a necessity is much wider than at the novelty
level. At the necessity level, the teacher feels comfortable with a
range of tools and devices and may 𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛 be able to do basic
trouble-shooting when problems arise.
At the necessity level, technology is often approached from a
“tool-first” standpoint. This means that teachers will focus the
teaching on certain tools that they expect students to use, such as
PowerPoint or Prezi. The focus is on the tool itself and not as a
medium to deliver the content. The tools are often introduced with
the assignment and the students spend more time “playing” with
the tool instead of completing the assignment.
Activities associated with the necessity level of technology
infusion are generally associated with levels two and three on
Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (2002). The activities require two or
more steps and the students are engaged beyond recalling facts.
Students are often asked to process information before responding
and need to use information in a different manner from the context
in which it was learned.
At this level, teachers are willing to give up some control of
the technology to the students. They recognize that many of the
students are more technology-savvy than themselves and are
comfortable capitalizing on this. In Bower’s classroom, student
TechSperts are identified for different tools and devices. Students
take turns being technology experts, and the TechSpert is a regular
job on the classroom job chart. Allocating this responsibility to
students allows Bower to focus on the content, and the students
assist their classmates with the various mediums selected to present
their final work.
At the necessity level students are introduced to a limited
number of tools when completing assignments, and the tools are
taught explicitly. For example, to teach students how to use
GarageBand, Bower first had students read an informational
selection from their Harcourt Storytown Reading anthology on
smoke jumpers. The students then wrote an interview between a
reporter and a smoke jumper that had just fought a forest fire.
Within the dialogue the students integrated factual information
from the selection. Then, they recorded the interview as a podcast.
While there was certainly literacy learning going on, the majority
of the assignment is focused on learning GarageBand. In this case,
the content takes a backseat to the technology.
Another example of integrating technology at this level is to
introduce students to web-based tools that allow them to utilize
inferencing skills as they expand and elaborate on character traits,
emotions, and relationships. Students can create dialogue between
characters using a text-messaging simulation program called
ifaketext (Figure 3). Or have students create Facebook profiles for
characters or historical figures using Fakebook. The students can
edit the profile as the book progresses and they learn more about
the characters or historical figures they are reading about.
FIGURE 3. Student generated text message using
http://ifaketext.com
Word study activities at the necessity level move beyond
looking up words in an online dictionary or using teachergenerated lists on Spelling City to practice their weekly words. At
this level, students demonstrate understanding of their spelling or
vocabulary words in context using sites like GoAnimate or Pixton.
Using web-based presentation tools, students can create slides with
images accompanied by sentences with the words correctly used in
context. Stupeflix and Animoto are examples of sites that allow the
students to easily create a movie with music for this activity.
Powtoon, Prezi, and Google Presentation are presentation tools
which the students can use to create slideshows of images with the
words correctly used in context.
Technology also gives grammar instruction some gusto. While
learning how to punctuate dialogue, students can create cartoons
using ToonDoo or MakeBeliefsComix.com. At the novelty level
students would be identifying the concepts within the text. At the
necessity level the students can create their own text to
demonstrate understanding of the concepts.
Level Three: Technology as Natural
When technology becomes a natural part of the classroom literacy
environment, the highest level of infusion has been achieved. At
this level, there is a seamless integration of technology along with
traditional methods in the classroom. The classroom is a more
student-centered place with active learning happening throughout
the literacy framework. Students’ use of technology tools and
participation in technology-driven tasks occurs simultaneously with
traditional paper/pencil types of literacy tasks.
Instead of tool-first teaching, the teacher understands that it is
always the learning that must come first, and that the tools are just
one possible way to achieve the learning goals. With a pedagogyfirst approach, the students have a choice in deciding which tool
will work well to present the content after the main work for the
assignment has been completed. Teaching the tool and trying to fit
the content into the tool’s context often limits the literacy and the
creativity of the students. The technology should not drive the
instruction; instead, the instruction should drive the technology.
This type of teaching and learning supports the constructivist
philosophy. Hands-on, minds-on learning activities and
assignments are a main goal and focus in the classroom.
Teachers at this level make remarks such as, “It’s not the
technology, it’s what you do with it.” Classrooms that had
previously implemented BYOD initiatives now call it BYOT for
“Bring Your Own Tool/Technology,” acknowledging that
everyone can bring something to the creative table, whether it be a
new iPad or a pack of favorite colored pens. BYOT ensures that
more students have the capability of contributing to the assignment.
Devices and materials synonymous with “fun”, are now integrated
seamlessly into regular classroom instruction. In the novelty and
necessity level the teacher often makes the decision on the tool(s)
used in the assignment and how the students will learn. In the
natural infusion setting the students are making decisions for
themselves and the teacher is a facilitator to guide the students as
they meet their own needs for learning. The students are asking
questions instead of the teacher asking questions and they are
making discoveries on their own. BYOT also implicitly teaches
responsibility while the students are able to be creative and think
critically with devices that were once thought of as only
entertainment.
At this level, there is a symbiotic relationship when it comes
to using the technology.
Instead of either controlling or
relinquishing/sharing control with students, teachers at this level
are fully comfortable in the role as “lead learner,” confident that
the digital natives in their classrooms will be able to discover and
demonstrate ways to use the technology that the teacher had not
considered. The classroom could accurately be described as a true
digital melting pot filled with both digital natives and digital
immigrants.
Technology at the natural level aligns most closely with level
four of Webb’s Depth of Knowledge (2002). At these levels,
students are engaged in extended types of thinking and learning
that combine their own content knowledge, technology skills, and
creativity. Learning activities at this level call upon students to
design, connect, synthesize, analyze, and create in order to
demonstrate their learning well beyond the literal level.
Bower embraces a teaching philosophy in which students
understand that taking risks and making mistakes are a regular part
of learning and conquering new skills. He believes that fear of the
unknown stifles the creativity and critical thinking skills of his
students, and has created an environment where students know it is
alright to fail. Bower believes that when the focus is on the process
and not the final product the end results are amazing. In his
classroom, technology is a natural part of the classroom
SHETTEL & BOWER
environment and is one tool among many that allows students to
put the pieces of the puzzle together as they read or write a passage
of text and provides the foundation for students to read as writers
and write as readers.
One example of a literacy project Bower uses at this level is
having students create a soundtrack to accompany the book they
are reading. The students select music and create an album cover
that reflects the theme of the book. The students list three to five
additional song titles by artists whose work they believe matched
the theme or themes of the book. To culminate the activity the
students write short paragraphs about the theme of their book and
why they chose each song. For example, courage is a key theme of
the book The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins. To illustrate that
theme, the cover would reflect bravery in some fashion, and a song
like “Hero” by Mariah Carey might be selected for the soundtrack.
In the classroom where technology is a natural component,
writing extends beyond the world of word processing. Bower
encourages students to integrate the arts with writing. After
completing a final draft for a writing assignment, students record
their narrative or poem as a podcast. Then, they search for music at
freeplaymusic.com or other royalty free music sites to find
recordings that fit the tone and mood of the passage. This
assignment requires higher-level thinking, and it enhances the
content by providing non-linguistic context. Students also regularly
use Web 2.0 tools such as MyBrainshark, Blabberize, or
Fotobabble to showcase their writing through a different medium.
Digital storytelling is another way to increase natural
technology infusion accompanied by traditional methods of
teaching. An interaction of content and context provides the
foundation for digital storytelling. Students’ voices are
accompanied by images, video, and music that provides a product
designed to enthrall the audience. Using digital storytelling tools
and apps, such as iMovie, MovieMakerPro, Animoto, and Puppet
Pals, students can create a story that meets their needs. Students
create a storyboard for their ideas using individual note cards that
can be manipulated and rearranged to provide the best possible
sequence of events for the story they wish to create.
Digital storytelling is an assignment where both the content
and the tools need to be carefully considered simultaneously. In
the end product, the emphasis is on the story while the technology
provides the vehicle to deliver the message. More elaborate tools
can support the story or simple tools with just a photo and the
audio work well, too.
When technology becomes a natural part of the classroom
environment, the possibilities are limitless, and these are the type
of learning experiences that students will never forget. In Bower’s
classroom, students have created book trailers to promote books in
the classroom library or tell another side of a story through a
character’s point of view. They summarize nonfiction selections
and create newscasts with information from the passage. They
create stop-animation movies and host simulated talk shows with
the author and the characters of the book. In content-rich subjects,
students demonstrate understanding by creating stories from the
first person point of view of scientific concepts, historical
landmarks, and people they have studied.
A popular end-of-year event in Bower’s classroom is “Oscar
Night,” where students invite friends and family to view the films
they have created. The students love to “walk the red carpet” and
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction provide a brief explanation of their digital story before viewing it
on the “big screen” via the classroom projector. Students recall and
vividly discuss great books they have read and things they have
learned throughout the year. They are animated in their
explanations and clearly “own” the information and the tools that
they used to create their movie. Bower believes that when learning
makes memories with his students, they will develop the passion to
be a lifelong learner. In his classroom, the natural integration of
technology within every subject makes those memories HD
quality.
Recap
To summarize, classrooms may exhibit one, two, or all three of the
levels discussed: Technology as a Novelty, Technology as a
Necessity, and Technology as Natural. In fact, classrooms that
view technology as a natural part of the classroom environment
also embrace new and novel types of technology as well as
recognizing the necessity of access to technology; while
classrooms with teachers who are at the entry-level stage of
experimenting with technology may be more apt to view all types
of technology as a novelty. When a new device hits the market or
a new website is discovered, that technology will be a novelty. As
students and teachers gain control and understanding of the new
technology, the infusion of the tool will flow into the necessity or
natural level. At any given time, there can be elements of all three
levels occurring simultaneously within the classroom, as Bower
has demonstrated. What is critical for the 21st Century literacy
classroom is that classroom teachers understand that literacy as
formerly defined as primarily paper/pencil based has changed
forever and will continue to change as new tools and technologies
are invented.
MANAGEMENT WITHIN THE TECH-INFUSED
LITERACY CLASSROOM
Effective management within the balanced literacy classroom is a
critical component for achieving productive use of students’ time
combined with high levels of engage learning and technology
infusion. Modeling how to retrieve a laptop or mobile device from
the cart is one key to eliminate chaos, but there are also many other
factors for technology infusion success. Solid classroom
management strategies foster an environment where risks can be
taken with both teaching and learning. To illustrate how Bower
effectively manages his technology-infused classroom, several
examples are provided from his classroom: Tech GPS, a revised
approach to the RAFT strategy, visual signaling with Calling Cups,
and Student TechSperts.
Tech GPS: Before students integrate technology they need to
have some direction on where they are going. Bower uses an
analogy with his students comparing a graphic organizer to a
Global Positioning System (GPS) device. In his classroom,
graphic organizers are called a “Tech GPS” and are key to
successful technology integration. An electronic GPS provides
directions to travelers and has options for alternate routes if they
encounter traffic or construction. Bower teaches students that their
“Tech GPS” should provide direction for the assignment while also
a revision history to provide accountability as well as a timeline of
9
iRAFT
Rosa Parks
Role
Audience
Format
Topic
Grandparents telling their
grandchildren about Rosa
Parks and the Montgomery
Bus Boycott while sitting
on their porch drinking iced
tea.
Classmates, teacher,
parents, the world!
Digital story using iMovie.
This allows us to integrate
images and our voice with
music.
Rosa Parks and the
Montgomery Bus Boycotts
FIGURE 4. Example of student generated iRAFT chart from Mr. Bower’s class.
the creative process. He is able to informally assess students’
contributions in a collaborative learning environment. Assigning
each student a color to type their information also provides a visual
accountability option along with the revision history. Bower is able
to differentiate instruction “behind the scenes” without the need to
print multiple organizers. He can challenge or remediate
assignments to meet the needs of each learner in the Google Doc.
iRAFT: Using his own version of the RAFT strategy (Santa &
Havens, 1995), Bower utilizes this tool to provide direction and
help students organize technology-based literacy assignments. The
students identify the role and their audience. The topic can be
defined by the student or teacher. When describing the format, the
students identify the technology they will be using and justify their
choice.
For example, Bower’s students read an informational text on
the Civil Rights movement. In small groups the students were
given a famous event or Civil Rights hero to research. After
organizing their research on a graphic organizer the students
complete a RAFT to plan how to present their information. (See
Figure 4).
Calling Cups: Movement around the classroom is very
important to foster a positive learning environment and minimize
off-task behavior. In his classroom, Bower uses different colored
plastic drinking cups on the students’ desks as a visual signal to
meet student needs quickly and effectively. Each student or
collaborative group has a blue, yellow, and red cup in a stack. If
the blue cup is showing, the students are “cool” and working well.
When the yellow cup is showing, the student or students need help,
but they can continue working until Bower has a chance to meet
with them. A red cup signals that immediate help is needed and
work is unable to continue until assistance is provided. The cups
are a visual alternative to hand-raising that Bower uses as he moves
around the room to answer questions. The cups also provide other
information that Bower uses to plan instruction. If all blue cups are
showing, the students may need more of a challenge, or if all red
cups are showing, Bower will call the students back to the
“campfire” to review expectations.
Student TechSperts: TechSperts provide assistance in the
classroom with the technology so the teacher can focus on the
content. Bower provides students with “sandbox” time to play and
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Each student has a set of calling cups to use when working independently
or with a group.
explore technology at their own speed. This gives the students an
opportunity to explore options that for future projects. Students can
then become experts on various websites or technology devices.
Bower gives students lanyards to wear that say TechSpert or other
creative names like Prezi Pal, Google Doc Guru, or Edmodo
Einstein to assist their classmates. Integrating technology into the
classroom jobs chart allows more students to be involved in the
classroom. The TechSperts handle problems in the classroom not
related to the content to make the teacher’s time more effective and
efficient. The teacher is a resource in the classroom, but not the sole
resource.
ASSESSMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
Assessment is also a key component with technology infusion to
make sure the students are reaching their full potential. Bower
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 10 SHETTEL & BOWER
Categories
Advanced
4 points
Proficient
3 Points
Taking Risks
Actively seeks out and
follows through on an
untested and potentially risky
directions or approaches to
the assignment in the final
product.
Incorporates new
directions or
approaches to the
assignment in the final
product.
Considers new
directions or
approaches without
going beyond the
guidelines of the
assignment.
Stays strictly within the
guidelines of the
assignment.
Innovative &
Creative
Thinking
Extends a novel or unique
idea, question, format, or
product to create new
knowledge or knowledge that
crosses boundaries.
Creates a novel or
unique idea, question,
format, or product.
Experiments with
creating a novel or
unique idea, question,
format, or product.
Reformulates a
collection of available
ideas.
Accurately provides
information while connecting
concepts beyond definitions.
Accurately provides
information without
applying concepts
more broadly.
Provides basic
information.
Provides inaccurate
information.
Content
Accuracy &
Application
(Worth DoublePoints)
Developing
2 Points
Beginning
1 Point
FIGURE 5. Risk Taking and Creativity Rubric adapted from AACU Creative Thinking for assessing use of technology.
provides a rubric (Figure 5) that fosters creativity and risk taking to
ensure that the students are always problem solving and developing
their technology skills. Innovative and creative thinking are the
keystones of all projects involving technology. Both are necessary
to make the content come alive. It is also important to provide
benchmarks for the students throughout the assignment to keep
them focused on the task at hand. Establishing benchmarks allows
Bower to “chunk” activities to differentiate instruction for the
students and makes the tackling of large projects less intimidating
for students.
FINAL THOUGHTS
In conclusion, the fusion of literacy and technology is no longer a
“future-forward” idea. The future is now. The education field is at
the threshold of this exciting new frontier, and there will be many
lessons to learn about effective implementation along the way.
Teachers must be willing to explore new technologies and make a
commitment to further developing their own technology skills.
This commitment allows teachers be active participants in
discovering the many ways that technology can revolutionize and
transform learning within and beyond the balanced literacy
classroom in order to effectively teach 21st Century learners. It is
time for technology integration in the literacy classroom to move
beyond the “novel” idea. Indeed, it is high time that we viewed
technology as a “necessity” so that it becomes a “natural” part of
the literacy classroom environment. Technology integration equals
literacy without limits. The pedagogy of technology integration is
growing exponentially, providing a basis for further exploration
and the development of new best practices. When literacy learning
is leveraged with technology education, the goal of infusing
technology as a natural part of the classroom environment will
flourish, and we will be able to instill in our students the skills
needed to conquer and create technologies and devices that are yet
to come.
Mr. Bower’s students use print resources and technology to
collaborate on a create response assignment.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Infusing Technology into the Balanced Literacy Classroom 11
REFERENCES
Dobler, E. (December 2011/January 2012). Using iPads to
promote literacy in the primary grades. Reading Today 29(3),
18-19.
Felvegi, E., & Matthew, K. I. (2012). Ebooks and literacy in K-12
Schools. Computers in the Schools, 29(1-2), 40-52.
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012).
Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. Reading
Teacher, 66(1), 15-23.
International Reading Association (2009). New literacies and 21st
Century Technology: A position statement of the International
Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
ISTE (2008). The ISTE national educational technology standards
(NETS•T) and performanceindicators for teachers. Retrieved
January 10, 2013 from: http://www.iste.org/standards/nets-forteachers.
Jones, T., & Brown, C. (2011). Reading engagement: A
comparison between e-books and traditional print books in an
elementary classroom. International Journal of Instruction, 4(2),
5-22.
Larson, L. C. (2010). Digital readers: The next chapter in e-book
reading and response.Reading Teacher, 64(1), 15-22.
Leu, D. J, Kinzer, C.K., Coiro, J., & Cammack, D. (2004). Towards
a theory of new literaciesemerging from the Internet and other
ICT. In R.B. Ruddell & N. Unrau (Eds.). Theoretical models
and processes of reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
McClanahan, B., Williams, K., Kennedy, E., & Tate, S. (2012). A
breakthrough for Josh: How use of an iPad facilitated reading
improvement. Techtrends: Linking Research & Practice to
Improve Learning, 56(4), 20-28.
Mishra & Koehler (2006). Technological pedagogical content
knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers
College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
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 on reading and its implications for reading
instruction: Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 004754). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub.L. No. 107-110, §
115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Puentedura, R. (2006). Transformation, Technology, and
Education. Retrieved July 10, 2013 from
http://hippasus.com/resources/tte/
Quillen, I. (2010). Framework crafted for student use of computing
devices. Education Week, 30(11), 9.
Raths, D. (2012). Are you ready for BYOD? THE Journal, 39(4),
28-32. Retrieved July 29, 2013 from
http://thejournal.com/articles/2012/05/10/are-you-ready-forbyod.aspx
Santa, C., & Havens, L. (1995). Creating independence through
student-owned strategies: Project CRISS. Dubuque, IA: Kendall
Hunt.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Thornburg, D. (2004). Campfires in cyberspace: Primordial
metaphors for learning in the 21st Century. The International
Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 1
(10), 3-10. Retrieved from http://itdl.org/journal/oct_04/Oct_04
Webb, N. L. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content
areas. Language Arts. Retrieved July 1, 2013 from
http://ossucurr.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/49691156/Norm%20we
b%20dok%20by%20subject%20area.pdf.
© 2013. e-Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction
is produced and distributed to its members semi-annually
by the Balanced Reading Instruction Special Interest Group
of the International Reading Association.
ISSN:2328-0816
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com The Evolution of What’s Hot in Literacy
Jack Cassidy, Ph.D. and Evan Ortlieb, Ph.D.
Abstract— The annual What’s Hot, What’s Not in Literacy survey
has served to highlight topics receiving attention in the field over
the last 15 years. What we know as literacy has drastically shifted
alongside advances in legislation, policy, and curriculum. As a
result, what was once hot may subsequently receive less attention
or even fall of the list entirely. So what happens to those topics
that were once hot? Are they still valued enough by classroom
teachers to warrant attention within their literacy programs? This
article examines the context around previously hot topics and
characterizes current teacher sentiments towards these topics to
characterize how the field of literacy has changed over the last 15
years.
F
or over 15 years the annual What’s Hot, What’s Not in
Literacy Survey has helped define the literacy agenda and highlight
the issues receiving attention in the field. The process for
conducting this survey is really quite simple. After being read a
brief paragraph of directions, 25 literacy leaders from around the
world are asked to rate a topic as “hot” or “not hot,” based upon
how much attention the topic is currently receiving in the field of
literacy. Each year, the International Reading Association
publication, Reading Today, contains an article discussing the
composite results of the survey identifying topics as “hot,” “very
hot,” and “extremely hot.” Those topics that are receiving less
attention are also identified (“not hot”; “cold”; “extremely cold”).
The results are widely cited (Ortlieb, 2012; Samuels, 2012;
Rasinski, 2012) and longer pieces discussing the issues (Cassidy &
Ortlieb, 2011; Cassidy & Ortlieb, 2012; Cassidy, Brozo, &
Cassidy, 2000; Cassidy & Wenrich, 1998; Cassidy & Valadez,
2012) have appeared in a variety of venues over the last 15 years.
The results have been translated into Spanish and replicated in
Denmark, the United Kingdom, Romania, and in Europe as a
whole (Cassidy & Cassidy, 2006; Cassidy & Persson, 2005/2006).
Of course, the caution is always to remember that “hot” is not
Jack Cassidy, Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus at Millersville University and
former President of IRA. [email protected]
Evan Ortlieb, Ph.D. is a senior lecturer at Monash University, Australia.
[email protected]
synonymous with “important” but merely a representation of the
attention a topic is receiving from literacy professionals. Had
participants been asked in any year if the specific topic was
“important,” their responses would probably have been quite
different.
The list for any given year is determined by asking
respondents from the previous year to add, delete, or modify the
topics from the previous year. Thus, for instance, the 27 topics
identified for 2013 (Cassidy & Grote-Garcia, 2012) were
determined by asking the 25 literacy leaders from 2012 to modify
the list. Over the years, the list has changed dramatically!
Therefore, we thought it would be interesting to revisit some of the
topics that were once “very hot” and are now “cold” or have
dropped off the list completely. In doing so we were keenly aware
of many of the old clichés – “here today, gone tomorrow”; new
wine in old bottles”; “what goes around, comes around.” Why were
these issues initially a focus of attention and why are they no
longer in the spotlight? Have those issues that were once receiving
so much notice disappeared completely or have some facets of the
topics become accepted as routine parts of literacy programs or
even still utilized today with the demands of the Common Core
State Standards?
BALANCED READING (1997-2004)*
In the latter half of the 1990s, balanced reading instruction
garnered attention in the field (Pressley, 1998; Reutzel, 1998/1999)
and developed into the hottest reading topic from 1997-2000
(Cassidy & Cassidy, 1999/2000; Cassidy & Wenrich, 1998/1999).
Although debate ensued about its exact definition, most reading
professionals agreed that balanced reading programs contain
elements of skills instruction alongside high quality literature
(Blair-Larsen & Williams, 1999; Rupley, Logan, & Nichols,
1998/1999). In other words, a blending of the two approaches to
teaching reading (skills and whole language) ensued by taking the
best of each, which was first proposed by Spiegel (1992).
Balanced reading emerged, in part, due to the discrediting of
the whole language approach supposedly for its lack of a strong
research underpinning (McKenna, Stahl, & Reinking, 1994;
Pressley, 2005; Texas Education Agency, 1997). Even Time
magazine reported that the fashionable word in the reading
controversy is “balance” (Collins, 1997, p. 81). Balanced literacy
programs aimed to achieve independent reading by mid-first grade
(Freppon & Dahl, 1998) through the utility of a skill-based
approach to reading and writing instruction based on individual
needs using high interest, leveled reading materials (Reutzel &
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com The Evolution of What’s Hot in Literacy 13
Cooter, 2000). A variety of balanced approaches to reading
instruction were shown to have positive effects in the elementary
grades (Baumann, Hoffman, Moon, & Duffy-Hester, 1998; Duffy,
1991; Wharton-MacDonald, Pressley, & Hampston, 1998).
Practices such as the ever-popular guided reading were extracted,
preserved, and tweaked from whole language programs as children
were then placed at their current reading levels alongside ongoing
strategic assessment (Zygouris-Coe, 2001).
Skill instruction (e.g., phonics, spelling, writing) more often
than not was embedded within basal readers and workbooks that
are still found in elementary schools today. The scope and
sequence of skills provides an outline for curricular planning and
instruction while authentic elements included quality literature for
teacher read alouds and leveled trade books for student reading
(Lonigan, Farver, Phillips, & Clancy-Menchetti, 2009). Aiming to
provide a systematic structure for using literature, balanced reading
programs generally include many elements based upon
fundamental evidence-based practices, as set forth by the National
Reading Panel (2000). Other programmatic elements include selfselected reading, quality literature, and writing instruction; these
aspects of balanced reading programs continue to be a focus of
many classroom teachers, though not necessarily under the
overarching term balanced reading (Neuman & Gambrell, 2013).
Evidence of balanced reading still exists in schools. Certainly,
most classroom reading programs try to focus on both skills and
literature (Morrow & Kramer, 2013). However, the current focus in
K-12 classrooms based in the U.S. is addressing the Common Core
State Standards. Effective literacy teachers must seamlessly utilize
a host of strategies and supportive literature to promote reading
achievement (Alvermann, 2002; Ortlieb, 2010; Rasinski,
Blachowicz, & Lems, 2012) regardless of the term assigned to their
basic reading programs (e.g. whole language, skills-based,
balanced, common core). Remaining centered on determining what
works for students is critical, alongside sensible approaches of
assessment, planning, instruction, and evaluation (Ortlieb & Cheek,
2008). Perhaps a transformation is needed; just as balanced reading
bridged the gap between whole language and skills based
instruction (Au, 2002), a new agenda for reading is needed to link
skills-based instruction with new literacies instruction. We propose
the term “prime literacies” – those literacies central to success in
print and digital textual environments throughout the common
core.
DECODABLE TEXT (2001-2005)*
As skills-based elements of reading began to regain a foothold in
schools in the late 1990s (Adams, 1999), decodable texts, or those
requiring students to decipher text using the phonics skills taught in
early grades (K-1) were staples within virtually every classroom
(Foorman, Fletcher, Francis, Schatshneider, & Mehta, 1998;
Hiebert, 1999). As legislative mandates such as those in California
renounced the Whole Language approach to reading (Cassidy,
Brozo, & Cassidy, 2000), renewed emphasis was given to skills
based materials such as decodable texts. Having the opportunity to
practice reading texts inclusive of phrases such as “Dan ran to the
man” was viewed as an extension of teacher-led phonics
instruction, as students demonstrated knowledge of variable onsets
and patterned rime. However, many literacy experts perceived
decodable texts as dull and nonsensical (Goodman, 2005; Graham
& Kelly, 2012). Critics maintained that reading decodable texts
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction could be likened to the reading of word lists; without context and
purpose, reading is not enjoyable or meaningful (Ford & Opitz,
2011). The very nature of reading is to understanding and gain
meaning, not just to practice pronouncing words and decoding
words.
Oft times, teachers debate as to the effectiveness of using
decodable texts in their classrooms. It is the connection of reading
skills to content acquisition that must be made apparent regardless
of the type of text used. In the common core era, interdisciplinary
foci rely upon the teacher’s craft to draw between textual and realworld connections to students’ prior knowledge and experiences
(Ortlieb, Verlaan, & Cheek, 2013). More than ever, teachers must
be ready to do more than provide decodable texts; they must share
unique insights with their particular students that cannot be
accomplished without high quality literature and a teacher who is
pedagogically adept (Gunning, 2012). We strongly believe they are
prepared to do just that!
LITERACY COACHES, READING COACHES, &
READING SPECIALISTS (2005-2013)*
Undoubtedly, the professional development focus of the No Child
Left Behind mandates had a tremendous influence on the
popularity of this topic. Although the topic was first publicized by
Wasik in 1999, it was not until 2005 that the topic first appeared on
the list and was immediately “very hot.” Key elements of literacy
coaching were outlined in “Standards for Middle and High School
Literacy Coaches” by IRA and other constituencies (2006);
numerous chapters and texts were specifically tailored to address
the evolving role of what it means to serve as a literacy/reading
coach or specialist (e.g., L’Allier, Elish-Piper, & Bean, 2010;
Saddler & Nigus, 2009; Toll, 2005). Dole and Donaldson (2006)
delineated three objectives for literacy coaches: setting goals,
maintaining an active presence in classrooms, and establishing
credibility as individuals who provide assistance to teachers with
their reading instruction. These notions, along with Dole’s (2004)
article entitled, The Changing Role of the Reading Specialist in
School Reform, set the stage for a growing body of literature and
best practices for reading/literacy coaches and specialists
(Allington, 2006; Hasbrouck & Denton, 2007; Marsh, 2008;
Walpole & McKenna, 2004). However, by 2013, with reduced
federal funding and other issues demanding attention, the topic was
considered “very cold.”
Despite funding concerns, it is generally agreed upon that
having a literacy leader in every school is pivotal towards all
students’ reading success, whether in elementary, middle, or high
school (Bean, 2008). In educational sites with or without
designated positions for reading/literacy coaches, it is incumbent
upon content area teachers to be mindful of literary tasks required
of their students (Vaughn et al., 2013) and in turn, minimize the
difficulties students may experience.
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE-BASED READING
RESEARCH & INSTRUCTION
IRA’s position statement adopted by the Board of Directors in
2002 set out to define what the term ‘evidence-based reading
instruction’ meant, provide a set of best practices, and suggest
resources for teachers to improve their instruction. Through
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 14 CASSIDY & ORTLIEB
evaluating meta-analyses stemming back to Bond and Dykstra’s
(1967/1997) First-Grade Studies and as recent as the National
Reading Panel (2000) findings, particular attention has been paid to
establishing a core group of best practices in literacy instruction as
a template from which teachers can draw. Although the literacy
practices were not heavily critiqued, the notion that there are such
things as best practices for all learners posed problematic to a field
that recognizes diversity and individual student needs (Xu, 2012).
The National Reading Panel’s analytical method of only
selecting research conducted in quasi/experimental conditions to
evaluate also raised the eyebrows of many reading professionals
who value qualitative data as well (Allington, 2000; Coles, 2001;
Cunningham, 2001; Garan, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c, 2002; Krashen,
2001; Yatvin, 2002). In schools nationwide, reading professionals
are tired of being confined to using selected practices suggested
over a decade ago for instruction with students who must be
prepared to meet the ever changing multi-literacy needs of today
(Leu et al., 2013). While an evidence base is important for reading
practices, it is equally significant those practices address current
needs of youth (August & Shanahan, 2010). It is through teacher
inquiry and continued research that advancements can be made in
this light.
VOLUNTEER TUTORING (1998-2000)*
The initiatives of U.S. Presidents are often key factors in
determining the “hot issues.” In his State of the Union speech in
1997, then President announced his intention of devoting
significant federal funding to hiring college work study students to
tutor at-risk elementary students (e.g., America Reads Program).
Suddenly, colleges and universities around the country began
receiving funds to hire untrained college students to tutor
(Edmundson, 2002). The initiative also resulted in a publishing
boom of texts for training and supporting novice reading tutors
(Morrow & Walker, 1997; Pinnell & Fountas, 1997; Roller, 1998).
Numerous professional articles (Topping, 1998; Wasik, 1998a) and
research (Fitzgerald, 2001; Wasik, 1998b) on the topic also began
to appear. Even before the topic was in the limelight, communityoriented schools often recruited volunteers to serve as “reading
buddies,” as they were paired with students experiencing difficulty
in reading (Ortlieb, 2012).
These programs, much like mandates, often use “more time”
to address lack of school-wide improvement in reading. The motto
“if they cannot get it in one hour, give them an extra 30 minutes”
served as one impetus for volunteer reading programs (Kim,
Samson, Fitzgerald, & Hartry, 2009). However, the quality of
instruction varied according to the skill set of the tutor (Invernizzi,
2003). The lack of consistency and complete dearth of research to
substantiate such programs (Ritter, Barnett, Denny, & Albin, 2009)
resulted in federal funding being withdrawn in large part, though
some schools trust whole-heartedly in the effectiveness of
volunteer reading with their students. Just as with any instruction in
small groups or one-on-one, it is necessary for students to transfer
those skills back into the classroom setting to sustain lasting
reading success (McAndrews & Msengi, 2013).
In districts that place considerable emphasis on standardized
test scores, after-school tutoring programs are often facilitated by
classroom teachers (Gordon, Morgan, Ponticell, & O’Malley,
2004; Hock, Pulvers, Deshler, & Schumaker, 2001; Rothman &
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Henderson, 2011). In those settings where study skills and reading
interventions are provided, students can benefit from the varied
exposure to prerequisite skill instruction needed for academic
growth (Laster, 2013). In contrast, those tutoring sessions that
merely consist of worksheet after worksheet of test preparation and
practice may very well lead students to become disenchanted with
the love of learning and school outright (Ortlieb & Doepker, 2011).
It is the cultivation or the repudiation of interest in reading that has
a lasting impact on independent literacy learning.
SOME CONCLUSIONS
So what can we conclude from the examining literacy topics
that were hot in the past? Literacy is in an ever-shifting field,
sometimes labeled as faddist (Reutzel & Cooter, 1990) or as a
swinging pendulum (Slavin, 1989), where foci can shift based upon
policy, popularity, and previous lack of attention. The adoption of
the Common Core State Standards in 45 states, has directed
attention to some of the very hot topics on the survey (e.g.,
comprehension, adolescent literacy, common core standards,
college and career readiness, informational texts). Whether a shift
to new literacies or a back-to-the-basics approach to literacy
instruction is on the forefront, it is difficult to predict what will
receive increased attention in the future. Staying current with
literacy publications and the annual What’s Hot survey serves to
inform literacy professionals about what a variety of experts think
are hot issues. But what is hot in one’s classroom is ultimately a
teacher’s prerogative. Of course, bringing new ideas and successful
practices to fruition in the classroom is a principal goal of
identifying what’s hot in literacy.
(Note * - The years in parentheses beside each topic denote the
time span that the term was on the list – not necessarily the years
that it was “hot” or “very hot.” In some instances, the exact
wording of the term changed slightly over the years the topic was
on the list.)
REFERENCES
Adams, M.J. (1999). The science and politics of beginning reading
practices. In J. Oakhill, R. Beard, & D. Vincent (Eds.), Reading
development and the teaching of reading: A psychological
perspective (pp. 40-52). London: Blackwell Publishers.
Allington, R. (2000). What really matters for struggling readers.
New York: Longman.
Allington, R. (2006). What really matters for struggling readers:
Designing research-based programs (2nd ed.). New York:
Longman.
Alvermann, D.E. (2002). Effective literacy instruction for
adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34(2), 189-208. doi:
10.1207/s15548430jlr3402_4
Au, K. (2002). Multicultural factors and the effective instruction of
students of diverse backgrounds. In A.E. Farstrup & S.J.
Samuels (Eds.), What research has to say about reading
instruction, 3rd ed (pp. 392-413). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.
August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2010). Response to a review and
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com The Evolution of What’s Hot in Literacy 15
update on developing literacy in second-language learners:
Report of the National Literacy Panel on language minority
children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 42(3), 341348. doi: 10.1080/1086296X.2010.503745
Baumann, J.F., Hoffman, J.V., Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A.M.
(1998). Where are teachers' voices in the phonics/whole
language debate? Results from a survey of U.S. elementary
classroom teachers. The Reading Teacher, 51(8), 636–650.
Bean, R. (2008). Literacy coaching at the middle school/high
school level. In S. Lenski-Davis & J. Lewis (Eds.), Reading
success for struggling adolescent learners (pp. 265-287). New
York: Guilford Press.
Blair-Larsen, S.M., & Williams, K.A. (1999). (Eds.). The balanced
reading program: Helping all students achieve success. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Bond, G., & Dykstra, R. (1967/1997). The cooperative research
program in first grade reading. Reading Research Quarterly,
2(4), 5-142.
Cassidy, J., Brozo, W.G., & Cassidy, D. (2000). Literacy at the
millennium. Reading Online. Available at:
http://www.readingonline.org/critical/cassidy
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (1999-2000). What's hot, what's not for
2000. Reading Today, 17(3), 1, 28.
Cassidy, J., & Cassidy, D. (Junio, 2006). Temas candentes: Cuales
son los temas en el 2006? Lectura y Vida, 66-71. Traduccion:
Paola Cipriano.
Cassidy, J., & Grote-Garcia, S. (2012) Defining the literacy
agenda: Results of the 2013 what’s hot, what’s not survey.
Reading Today, 30(1), 9-12.
Cassidy, J., & Ortlieb, E. (2011). Literacy – The first decade of the
new millennium. Reading Horizons, 51(2), 93-102.
Cassidy, J., & Ortlieb, E. (2012). Looking at literacy in the 21st
century. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational
Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 85(4), 141-145.
Cassidy, J., & Persson, U. (2005/2006). What's hot, what's not in
Europe for 2006. Reading Today, 23(1), 1, 10.
Cassidy, J., & Valadez, C. (2012) Literacy trends and issues: A
closer look. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading researchers in search of
common ground: The expert study revisited (pp. 257-273).
Routledge: NY.
Cassidy, J., & Wenrich, J. (1998). What’s hot and what’s not for
1998. Reading Today, 15(4), 1, 28.
Cassidy, J., & Wenrich, J. (1998/1999). Literacy research and
practice: What’s hot, what’s not, and why. The Reading Teacher,
52, 402-406.
Coles, G. (2001). Reading taught to the tune of the “scientific”
hickory stick. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 205-212.
Collins, J. (1997, October 27). How Johnny should read. Time, 7881.
Cunningham, J.W. (2001). The National Reading Panel Report.
Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 326-335.
Dole, J.A. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in
school reform. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 462-471.
Dole, J.A., & Donaldson, R. (2006). “What am I supposed to do all
day?”: Three big ideas for the reading coach. The Reading
Teacher, 59(5), 486-488.
Duffy, G.G. (1991). What counts in teacher education? Dilemmas
in educating empowering teachers. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick
(Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy
research and instruction, 40th Yearbook of the National Reading
Conference (pp. 1-18). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Edmundson, J. (2002). Asking different questions: Critical analyses
and reading research. Reading Research Quarterly, 37(1), 113119. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.37.1.5
Fitzgerald, J. (2001). Can minimally trained college student
volunteers help young at-risk children to read better? Reading
Research Quarterly, 36, 28-46.
Foorman, B., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Schatshneider, C., & Mehta,
P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing
reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90, 37-55.
Ford, M.P., & Opitz, M.F. (2011). Looking back to move forward
with guided reading. Reading Horizons, 50(4), 225-240.
Freppon, P.A., & Dahl, K.L. (1998). Balanced instruction: Insights
and considerations. Reading Research Quarterly, 33(2), 240251.
Garan, E. (2001a). Beyond smoke and mirrors: A critique of the
National Reading Panel Report on phonics. Phi Delta Kappan,
82, 500-506.
Garan, E. (2001b). More smoking guns: A response to Linnea Ehri
and Steven Stahl. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 21-27.
Garan, E. (2001c). What does the report of the National Reading
Panel really tells us about phonics? Language Arts, 79, 61-67.
Garan, E. (2002). Resisting reading mandates. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Goodman, K. (2005). What’s whole in whole language. Berkeley,
CA: RDR Books.
Gordon, E., Morgan, R., Ponticell, J., & O’Malley, C. (2004).
Tutoring solutions for No
Child Left Behind: Research, practice, and policy implications.
NASSP Bulletin, 88(638), 59.
Graham, J., & Kelly, A. (Eds.). (2012). Reading under control:
Teaching reading in the primary school. New York: Routledge.
Gunning, T.G. (2012). Creating literacy instruction for all
students, 8th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Hasbrouck, J., & Denton, C.A. (2007). Student-focused coaching:
A model for reading coaches. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 690693.
Hiebert, E. (1999). Text matters in learning to read. The Reading
Teacher, 52(7), 552-569.
Hock, M. F., Pulvers, K., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (2001). The
effects of an after-school tutoring program on the academic
performance of at-risk students and students with LD. Remedial
& Special Education, 22, 172–186.
International Reading Association. (2002). What is evidence-based
reading instruction? A position statement of the International
Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author.
International Reading Association. (2006). Standards for middle
and high school literacy coaches. Newark, DE: Author.
Invernizzi, M.A. (2003). The complex world of one-on-one
tutoring. In S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of
early literacy research (pp. 459-470). New York: Guilford.
Krashen, S. (2001). More smoke and mirrors: A critique of the
National Reading Panel Report on fluency. Phi Delta Kappan,
83, 118-121.
L'Allier, S., Elish-Piper, L., & Bean, R.M. (2010). What matters
for elementary literacy coaching? Guiding principles for
instructional improvement and student achievement. In R.M.
Bean, N. Heisey, & C.M. Roller (Eds.), Preparing reading
professionals (2nd ed., pp. 371-382). Newark, DE: International
Leu, D.J., Forzani, E., Burlingame, C., Kulikowich, J.M.,
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 16 CASSIDY & ORTLIEB
Sedransk, N., Coiro, J., & Kennedy, C. (2013). The new
literacies of online research and comprehension: Assessing and
preparing students for the 21st century with Common Core State
Standards. In S.B. Neuman & L.B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality
reading instruction in the age of common core standards (pp.
219-236). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Kim, J.S., Samson, J.F., Fitzgerald, R., & Hartry, A. (2009). A
randomized experiment of a mixed-methods literacy intervention
for struggling readers in grades 4-6: Effects on word reading
efficiency, reading comprehension and vocabulary, and oral
reading fluency. Reading and Writing, 23(9), 1109-1129.
Laster, B.P. (2013). A historical view of student learning and
teacher development in reading clinics. In E. Ortlieb & E.H.
Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Literacy Research, Practice, and Evaluation:
Vol. 2. Advanced literacy practices: From the clinic to the
classroom (pp. 3-21). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Lonigan, C.J., Farver, J.M., Phillips, B.M., & Clancy-Menchetti, J.
(2009). Promoting the development of preschool children’s
emergent literacy skills: A randomized evaluation of a literacyfocused curriculum and two professional development models.
Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 24(3), 305337. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9214-6
Marsh, J.A., McCombs, J.S., Lockwood, J.R., Martorell, F.,
Gershwin, D., Naftel, S., et al. (2008). Supporting literacy
across the sunshine state: A study of Florida middle school
reading coaches. Arlington, VA: RAND Corporation.
McAndrews, S., & Msengi, S. (2013). Transfer and transformation
of knowledge and practices from literacy clinic to community. In
E. Ortlieb & E.H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Literacy Research, Practice,
and Evaluation, Vol. II. Advanced literacy practices: From the
clinic to the classroom (pp. 197-220). Bingley, UK: Emerald
Publishing.
McKenna, M., Stahl, S., & Reinking, D. (1994). A critical
commentary on research, politics, and whole language. Journal
of Reading Behavior, 26, 211-233.
Morrow, L.M., & Kramer, E. (2013). Critical issues for the
implementation of the Common Core State Standards in early
literacy language development: Research and practice. In S.B.
Neuman & L.B. Gambrell (Eds.), Quality reading instruction in
the age of common core standards (pp. 26-43). Newark, DE:
Morrow, L.M., & Walker, B.J. (1997). The reading team: A
handbook for volunteer tutors, K-3. Newark DE: International
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 [on-line].
Available: http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/report.cfm
Neuman, S.B., & Gambrell, L.B. (Eds.) (2013). Quality reading
instruction in the age of common core standards. Newark, DE:
Ortlieb, E.T., & Cheek, E.H. (2008). How geographic location
plays a role within instruction: Venturing into both rural and
urban elementary schools. Educational Research Quarterly,
32(1), 48-64.
Ortlieb, E.T. (2010). Student-based instruction: More than a
method. Studies in Learning, Evaluation, Innovation, and
Development, 7(3), 65-76.
Ortlieb, E.T., & Doepker, G.M. (2011). Reaching resistant readers:
Explicit approaches to promote and retain reading motivation.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction The Oklahoma Reader, 46(2), 7-14, 37-38.
Ortlieb, E. (2012). The past, present, and future of reading
diagnosis and remediation. Journal of Language Teaching and
Research, 3(3), 395-400.
Ortlieb, E. (2012). Examining the utility of high stakes assessment.
In J. Cassidy & S. Grote-Garcia (Eds.), What's hot in literacy:
Trends and issues (pp. 29-33). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Ortlieb, E., Verlaan, W., & Cheek, Jr., E.H. (2013). Contentspecific literacy practices. In E. Ortlieb & E.H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.),
Literacy Research, Practice, and Evaluation: Vol. 3. Schoolbased interventions for struggling readers, K-8 (pp. 21-40).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Pinnell, G.S., & Fountas, L.C. (1997). Help America read: A
handbook for volunteers. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman.
Pressley, M. (2005). Reading instruction that works: The case for
balanced teaching, 3rd ed. New York: Guilford.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for
balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.
Rasinski, T.V. (2012). Why reading fluency should be hot! The
Reading Teacher, 65(8), 516-522.
Rasinski, T.V., Blachowicz, C.L.Z., & Lems, K. (Eds.). (2012).
Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices, 2nd ed. New
York: The Guildford Press.
Reutzel, R.D. (1998/1999). On balanced reading. The Reading
Teacher, 52(4), 322-324.
Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (1990). Whole language:
Comparative effects on first-grade reading achievement. The
Journal of Educational Research, 83(5), 252-257.
Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (2000). Teaching children to read:
Putting the pieces together. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Ritter, G.W., Barnett, J.H., Denny, G.S., & Albin, G.R. (2009). The
effectiveness of volunteer tutoring programs for elementary and
middle school students: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 79(1), 3-38.
Roller, C. (1998). So what’s a tutor to do? Newark DE:
Rothman, T., & Henderson, M. (2011). Do school-based tutoring
programs significantly improve student performance on
standardized tests? Research in Middle Level Education, 34(6),
1-10.
Rupley, W.H., Logan, J.W., & Nichols, W.D. (1998/1999).
Vocabulary instruction in a balanced reading program. The
Sadder, M., & Nidus, G. (2009). The literacy coach's game plan:
Making teachers collaboration, student learning, and school
improvement a reality. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Samuels, S.J. (2012). Reading fluency: Its past, present, and future.
In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency
instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 3-16).
New York: Guilford.
Slavin, R.E. (1989). PET and the pendulum: Faddism in education
and how to stop it. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 752-758.
Spiegel, D.L. (1992). Blending whole language and systematic
direct instruction.The Reading Teacher, 46(1), 38-44.
Texas Education Agency. (1997). Beginning reading instruction:
Components and features of a research-based reading program.
Austin, TX: Author.
Toll, C.A. (2005). The literacy coach’s survival guide: Essential
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com The Evolution of What’s Hot in Literacy 17
questions and practical answers. Newark, DE: International
Topping, K. (1998). Effective tutoring in America Reads: A reply
to Wasik. The Reading Teacher, 52, 42-50.
Walpole, S.W., & McKenna, M.C. (2004). The literacy coach’s
handbook: A guide to research-based practice. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Wasik, B.A. (1998a). Using volunteers as reading tutors:
Guidelines for successful practices. The Reading Teacher, 51,
562-570.
Wasik, B.A. (1998b). Volunteer tutoring programs in reading: A
review. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 266-291.
Wasik, B.A. (1999). Reading coaches: An alternative to reading
tutors. The Reading Teacher, 52(6), 653-656.
Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. (1998).
Outstanding literacy instruction in first grade: Teacher practices
and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99(2),
101-128.
Vaughn, S., Swanson, E.A., Roberts, G., Wanzek, J., StillmanSpisak, S.J., Solis, M., & Simmons, D. (2013). Improving
reading comprehension and social studies knowledge in middle
school. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(1), 77-93. doi:
10.1002/rrq.039
Xu, S. (2012). Strategies for differentiated instruction for English
Learners. In E. Ortlieb & E.H. Cheek, Jr. (Eds.), Literacy
Research, Practice, and Evaluation: Vol. 1. Using informative
assessments for effective literacy instruction (pp. 349-378).
Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
Yatvin, J. (2002). Babes in the woods: The wanderings of the
National Reading Panel. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 364-369.
Zygouris, V.C. (2001). Balanced reading instruction in K-3
classrooms. Florida Literacy and Reading Excellence. Orlando,
FL: University of Central Florida.
ISSN:2328-0816
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com English Language Learners: Problems and Solutions
Found in the Research of General Practitioners of
Early Childhood
Douglas D. Bell, Ph.D. and Barry L. Bogan, Ph.D.
Abstract— Increasing numbers of English Language Learners
(ELLs) in early childhood classrooms have created challenges for
in-service teachers in the general education setting. Traditional
teacher preparation programs tend to lack a curriculum that focuses
on second language teaching and learning. This paper reviews the
problems facing teachers with regard to teaching at the level of
research based best practices for ELLs. In addition, a critical
examination of the literature has yielded basic solutions for
practitioners. These solutions encompass programmatic
(classroom) aspects, teacher training, and classroom pedagogy. The
authors have concluded that based on the present literature, more
research is needed to identify specific strategies and practices for
educating non-native language learners in today’s classrooms.
T
he number of English Language Learners (ELLs) in
classrooms of young children is increasing dramatically (NCELA,
2011). According to the national census, it is estimated over the
next five years that almost 20% of the population of children from
ages 5-17 years will be from homes where a language other than
English will be spoken (U.S. Census, 2011). A large majority of
these children, about 40%, will be in our early childhood
classrooms (Russakoff, 2011).
While the numbers of ELLs is increasing, the teachers and
educational systems receiving them face a challenge. The teachers
lack preparation and training for working with students that are
second language learners (Bell, 2010; Futrell et al., 2003).
Agencies that accredit teacher preparation programs have been
requiring exposure to diverse populations of learners for more than
ten years (NAEYC, 2009). However, focused preparation
techniques specifically designed to ensure high quality teaching of
young ELLs are limited (Bell, 2010; Pica, 2000). Early childhood
Douglas D. Bell, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Kennesaw State
University, Kennesaw, GA. [email protected]
Barry L. Bogan, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Kennesaw State
University, Kennesaw, GA. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction teachers receive only an introductory level of exposure in relation
to working with diverse populations. In conclusion, the research
literature demonstrates limited information on effective
pedagogical practices with ELLs, especially young ELLs.
The purpose of this paper is to critically examine challenges
and basic solutions for teaching ELLs that are in early childhood
classrooms. The challenges are explored first in the order of
teacher, social, and school. The solutions presented are derived
from research based best practices to support the general education
early childhood teacher in the administration of second language
teaching strategies. The solutions will examine the areas of
program quality, teacher dispositions, and classroom practices.
Young ELLs are already developmentally in a position of
challenge. They have the typical issues that young children face
(Bell, 2010). These issues include being literal, not fully
understanding logic, being egocentric, and being concrete learners
(Piaget, 1962). Young ELLs have all of the same barriers as typical
young children along with all of the challenges related to learning a
new language. In addition, they do not understand the language of
instruction in their preschool, the language of their friends, and
their needs are misunderstood. Lastly, the ELL can get confused
when the first language sounds are similar to English sounds but
used in different contexts (Young, 1996). The wide range of
variability in language mastery can create challenges in teaching
the ELL.
There is more to learning English than vocabulary and
grammar (Cummins, 1979,1980,1981; Snow, 1992). The social
situation of language use can be even more challenging for the
ELL than the linguistic aspects. Children have to know when to use
certain terminology and how to use idioms and slang. These
aspects of language learning can be very confusing. Additionally,
children learning a second language have a communicative
competence barrier (Cummins, 1979). The children are unsure of
the functions of the new language and the appropriateness of
language usage within specific contexts (Xu & Drame, 2008). This
inability creates stress and frustration on the part of the child and
reduces the initiative to become part of the community; this is
known as the affective filter (Dulay & Burt, 1974). This inability to
communicate can be equally frustrating for the teachers as well
(Gillanders, 2007).
ELL CHALLENGES
The research suggests that the increase in ELLs will impact our
educational curriculum and teaching prescriptions (Han and
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com English Language Learners: Problems and Solutions 19
Bridglall, 2009).
The population shift and its educational
consequences present a new set of challenges for classroom
teachers. This section lists specific challenges noted by the
research, which will include academic, social, teacher preparation,
and school level difficulties.
When young children are learning a new language, being
placed in a program that speaks only one language can create a
challenge (Fernandez, 2000). Often, the children cannot receive the
individual attention and interactions they need in their primary
language (Rodriguez, Diaz, Duran, & Espinosa, 1995). Another
challenge is the cultural disconnect between the student and the
practices of the classroom or content of the curriculum (Meyer,
2000). The children not only have the linguistic barriers to face, but
also the sociolinguistic (Gillanders, 2007). Furthermore, research
has identified that ELLs are at risk for failing academically in
reading and math at the K-12 level (Halle, Hair, Wandner,
Ncnamara, & Chien, 2012), and the findings allude to the
understanding that the infrastructure to support ELLs is not
established for success.
Teachers are realizing that the academic and social aspects of
language and learning are interrelated (Genishi, 1981). Sometimes,
the children do not gain equal ground as playmates with the
children that speak English as a primary language (Fassler, 1998).
Unfortunately, the ELLs have to show their value as a playmate to
be accepted by English speaking peers. The teacher has to actively
scaffold both the ELLs and the English speaking children to build
relationships. The lack of peer relationships can impede
development and learning through play, as well as decrease the
potential for support in learning English (Hester, 1984). These
social issues the ELLs face can create difficulties in learning the
new language (Snow, 1992).
Other social issues the young ELLs have to face are related to
personal identity and cultural identity (Snow, 1992). There is
sometimes a lack of cultural identity and a negative ethnic pride. It
is easy for the English language learner to develop these negative
associations. This can happen as the ELL increases proficiency in
English. Often, the ELL will choose to adopt Anglo-American
language and culture in public and forego his/her native
characteristics (Nero, 2005). The child begins to feel disconnected
from the home language, culture, and family (Papatheodorou,
2007). These negative connections can sometimes be counteracted
when the children have peers and adults from the same background
to play and connect with (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994).
Connecting and affiliating with others of the same language and
background strengthens the native cultural identity and supports
more positive perceptions (Nero, 2005). When children of similar
backgrounds are not available, the deep and rich levels of play
needed for early learning for young children can take much longer
to achieve (Meyer, Klein, & Genishi, 1994). Teachers must work
to implement practices that will help them to deeply understand
and maintain their true identity beyond just language and academic
ability (Hunter, 1997). This issue creates problems on social and
linguistic levels because language is learned within culture (Garcia
& Flores, 1986).
In addition to the problems listed above, Futrell, Gomez, and
Bedden (2003) noted that in the self-appraisal study performed by
the National Center for Educational Statistics the teachers admitted
they were not well prepared for the challenges of the classroom and
integrating skills for ELL student learning. Teachers that lack the
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction necessary skills may also misdiagnose ELL students that can
function in social scenarios, which may lead them to believe that
the student is proficient in English (Cummins, 1980). The research
firmly supports the need for teachers to be able to acquire new
skills to teach ELLs, understand the student’s cognition related to
instructional skills, and apply effective skills for teaching that will
help the students achieve academically in multiple content areas
(Renner, 2011). This has great significance because the population
of ELL students has grown exponentially, especially in many of the
eastern states across America (NCELA, 2011; Renner, 2011).
Therefore a personnel shortage in teachers and administrators that
can effectively interact with the ELL population has arisen, as
reported by the President’s Advisory Commission on Educational
Excellence for Hispanic Americans (2003).
Han and Bridglall (2009) referenced the school itself as a
problem for ELLs. They noted that schools that have crowded
classroom space, lack sufficient educational resources and a
responsive school climate may inadvertently support the failure of
students that come from minority sub-groups. In retrospect there
are national standards that each state must follow to identify and
teach ELLs, but the states are given latitude in the interpretation
and procedures for identification and teaching second language
learners (Benavides, Midobuche, & Kostina-Ritchey, 2012). That
process has created a scenario in which services offered vary by
state and local education agencies.
The review of literature also demonstrated that the service
delivery models can cause a problem for ELLs. The three
prevailing ELL models used in the United States for service
delivery are: 1) English as a Second Language (ESL) pull-out, 2)
Transitional Bilingual, and 3) Dual Language.
The most widely used program is the ESL pull-out model.
This model will be examined because it is the least effective and
the most expensive (Benavides et al., 2012). The pull-out model
requires extra resource teachers that have ESL credentials to
remove students from their general education classrooms and meet
for 30 to 45 minutes a day or longer. The students will miss their
daily instructions in subject area content from the general
education class, and the ESL teacher has limited time to meet with
the general education teacher for planning and individualization.
The model also lacks a component in which content integration and
instruction is emphasized in learning for the ELLs.
The Transitional Bilingual model provides ELLs with
instruction in their native language in all subject areas as well as
instruction in English as a second language. The focus is to
mainstream ELL students and help them convert to English
instructions. The model is delivered based on a two-three year time
frame, which is insufficient for academic purposes (Benavides et
al., 2012). Due to the program’s framework, it is perceived as
being remedial and segregated.
The Dual Language model is designed to engage students with
their native language as well as the English language in an
inclusive environment. The students are given a curriculum in both
languages to enrich their application and use of the target language.
The classroom dynamics are changed to reflect collaborative
learning in which ELLs help native English speakers to grasp the
curriculum, and English speakers help ELLs to acquire the
curriculum through English. The Dual Language model is cost
efficient and has a reliable success rate.
The outcome of the service delivery models has an effect on
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 20 BELL & BOGAN
ELL academic learning because the delivery, time, language used,
and population served is still subject to an administrative decision
that if made improperly is problematic (Pica, 2000).
There are a number of challenges that ELLs face that may
impede learning in a general education classroom. The challenges
related to educating ELLs at the academic, social, teacher
preparation, and school level have a major impact on teaching
practices. Teachers have to manage a variety of leaner needs that
require specialized training and applications that have been found
to be effective. Unfortunately the untrained teacher can quickly
become overwhelmed and contribute to the disconnect between
learner needs and pedagogy. Research has identified basic
solutions to support teaching practices that are differentiated in
nature and move pedagogy from homogenous to heterogeneous
based on individual student needs.
2.
3.
BASIC SOLUTIONS
Researchers have been successful in identifying ways to improve
teaching the ELL population in general terms. The solutions listed
herein comprise programmatic, teacher, and research based
classroom strategies. The solutions that have been identified may
be used to scaffold the learning of the young ELL and influence the
way specific strategies are taught within activities.
First, to help promote school success for the ELL it is helpful
to start early by making use of a high quality early care and
education programs. (Halle et al, 2012). Often, the opinion is that
the children will improve in their English once they get to school
through immersion and participation. Relying on this process has
been found to be ineffective for learners (Kaplan & Leckie, 2009).
There has been evidence in the research that children enrolled in
high quality early learning programs foster school success for
young ELLs at significant levels (NCELA, 2011). Enrolling the
young ELL in a high quality early learning program will allow
them to experience the new language in context, and be exposed to
more English prior to enrolling in school (Yesil-Dagli, 2010).
While making use of a high quality early learning program is a
basic solution to promoting reading success in school for ELLs, it
is necessary for those early learning programs to use research
based best practices. The remaining solutions we discuss will
revolve around this focus on what programs and teachers can do.
4.
5.
6.
Programmatic Solutions
The programmatic environment refers to the atmosphere,
curriculum, daily schedule and classroom routines. There are ten
programmatic indicators of high quality that impact young ELLs
that should be in place to support school success (Castro et al as
cited in Halle et al, 2012). The factors are:
1.
Organized and supportive environment. High quality
environments are neat, organized, and supportive.
Teachers can provide an attitude of support by placing
labels in the child’s native language as well as English
around the classroom (Zehler, 1994). Additionally,
structuring the environment and the routines so they are
predictable gives the ELL an understanding of how tasks
are to proceed and how to navigate the room. When the
environment is supportive and predictable the learners
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction 7.
8.
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 feel safe and can use their cognitive energy to process
content and language rather than focusing on the
environment.
Positive teacher and child interactions. High quality
programs
promote
and
demonstrate
positive
conversations and learning opportunities. Teachers
maintain a pleasant demeanor while working with all
children. ELLs can feel emotionally safe and enjoy the
learning process because it is free from stress and
pressure. Additionally, the interactions that teachers have
with the children demonstrate care and respect, while
educationally focused. Teachers can send these messages
using smiles and soothing tones, when the language
barrier is high.
Increased opportunities for peer interactions. Peer
scaffolding can be very productive for supporting ELLs.
High quality programs offer time and learning
opportunities that support the use of peer interactions.
Strategies such as Think-Pair-Share, and cooperative
learning increase the opportunities for peer interactions in
a structured way.
Strategic use of the child’s first language. Support and
maintenance of the young ELLs home language
contributes to the learning of English (NAEYC, 1995).
High quality programs have teachers that find ways to use
the child’s home language to display respect and provide
scaffolding to increase first language proficiency. This
allows the native language to serve as a frame of
reference for the second language and the children
become more willing participants in the learning process.
Explicit vocabulary instruction. Teaching vocabulary
purposefully to young ELLs has a positive correlation
with academic outcomes (Yesil-Dagli, 2011). High
quality programs plan for purposeful and explicit
vocabulary instruction. Instruction in vocabulary
contributes to higher reading ability and school
functioning.
Frequent ongoing assessment of the child’s first language,
second language, and other domains of development. A
strong assessment program and appropriate assessment
practices benefit ELLs because the teacher is aware of the
effectiveness of instruction. High quality programs
support these practices to ensure effective instruction for
the ELL (NAEYC, 2005). Teachers use appropriate
assessment strategies to gain an understanding of the
child’s current proficiency in the native and second
language. Additionally, the teacher employs formal and
informal means of collecting data in all developmental
and academic areas.
Small group and one on one instruction. Small group and
individual instruction allows the teacher to focus in on the
needs and levels of each ELL. High quality programs
provide many opportunities for this style of instruction
through the use of group time activities and centers. This
individualized instruction creates an avenue for needed
differentiation to occur.
Program structure. The program structure refers to the
organization of program delivery. High quality programs
maintain a structure that is suitable to the learner as to
http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com English Language Learners: Problems and Solutions 21
how the language instruction is delivered. Examples
would be Dual Language or Bilingual, Pull-Out, or Push
In English language instruction. When teaching young
ELLs, high quality programs and best practices
recommend bilingual education as the most effective
model (Zehler, 1994).
9. Skilled teachers. High quality programs hire and utilize
teachers with specialized training and preparation in
working with ELLs. The teachers are prepared to support
the unique learning needs of ELLs. Additionally, teachers
receive ongoing training to build proficiency required for
working with this population (NAEYC, 1995).
10. Family engagement. High quality programs put forth
great effort to respect, involve, and educate the families
of young ELLs (NAEYC, 1995; Zehler, 1994). When the
family feels involved in the program, higher learning
outcomes can be expected. Additionally, when children
feel their family is respected, they are more likely to
participate and be motivated to learn.
Teacher Solutions
Before exploration of what can happen in the classroom,
examination of the teacher in general terms is needed. One of the
challenges in working with ELLs is that teachers lack the
confidence they need to serve the children with linguistically
diverse needs (Renner, 2011). The basic solution for dealing with
this particular challenge is to offer staff development to the
teachers of young children. Training for teachers of young ELLs is
limited in accessibility (Bell, 2010). When teachers of young ELLs
receive training in working with linguistically diverse students,
they can increase their confidence as well as learn theory and
practice that will support them in their work (Renner, 2011). Most
ELLs are in the mainstream classrooms and unfortunately, the
majority of the teachers are not trained to successfully work with
this population (Cho, 2011). With this information in mind, the
basic solution that is common in the literature is for teachers to
receive professional development and training in working with
young ELLs. The teacher has to understand the developmental
process of acquiring a new language, the stages involved, the
socio-cultural aspects of learning a second language, and the
technical aspects of language and language development
(Cummins, 1979,1980, 1981; Hakuta, 1986).
The majority of the ELL research available suggests the need
for teacher training. However, there is little research about the
types of training the teacher needs. Cho (2011) suggests that
teachers need to be trained in content specific to working with
young ELLs.
Classroom Practices
Young ELLs spend the majority of their time in the mainstream
classroom. This means that general education teachers bear the
responsibility for making content comprehendible for the child.
Ability grouping within the classroom supports the ELL. It
provides the opportunity for appropriate materials to be used with
the students to better match their needs. Additionally, ability
grouping increases the likelihood of quality interactions and
increased participation (Cho, 2011).
Another aspect to consider in the classroom is to target
language skill development. The activities and strategies that are
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction used can be designed to highlight those skills. The most important
skills to emphasize with young ELLs are vocabulary, phonological
awareness, and letter naming (Yesil-Dagli, 2010). This
combination delineates the best predictors for oral reading fluency
among ELLs. In order for these skills to be scaffolded
appropriately, Cho (2011) indicated that the children need to have
time engaged in high quality instructional strategies, the
availability of an aide, and experienced teachers. The research
supports that higher oral language skills results in fluent reading
(Yesil-Dagli, 2010).
Finally, consideration of home language maintenance within
classroom practices should be addressed. Young ELLs often
experience native language extinction from being exposed to
English so early (Fillmore, 1991). This phenomenon not only has
devastating sociocultural results, but it also has a negative impact
on English literacy and academics. The research strongly supports
that when young ELLs receive instruction in the classroom in their
native language in concert with English the academics improve
(Burchinal et al., 2011). Though the highest outcome is shown
when taught in English only if the child enters with low literacy
skills in both languages, it is suggested that maintaining the home
language is helpful.
CONCLUSION
Teacher preparation programs benefit new and upcoming teachers
when they focus on specific understandings and strategies to
support the young ELL in the early childhood program and
classroom. A match is required between practices and children on
two levels, the program and the classroom (Bell, 2010). Early
childhood program administrators need to examine their ELL
population and determine the bilingual program approach that
would best serve their students (Baker, 2000). They can choose
from ESL pull-out, Transitional Bilingual, or Dual Language. If the
language of instruction is to remain strictly English, the
administrator and staff must determine what home language
supports will be put in place to maintain the young child’s identity
and linguistic diversity. Home language maintenance is important
for the sociolinguistic factors mentioned earlier. It also prevents
language extinction and disconnection between the children and
their families common to young ELLs as they develop and age
(Fillmore, 1991). The teachers within the individual classrooms
must use specific knowledge gained through training and teacher
preparation programs and match their practices to the needs of the
young ELLs (Samson & Collins, 2012). When these matches are
made, interaction and instruction can be maximized to both
scaffold English and the content being shared with the young ELL.
When teachers are adequately prepared with specific research
based methods for matching understandings of ELL theories and
strategies to the learning styles of their students, young ELLs can
be given more effective instruction (Daniel & Friedman, 2005;
Samson & Collins, 2012). More research is needed to: 1) determine
the specific techniques and strategies that are most effective with
young ELLs and 2) improve teacher preparation programs to
include a concentrated focus on training the general practitioner in
ELL practices.
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 22 BELL & BOGAN
REFERENCES
Baker, C. (2000). The Care and Education of Young Bilinguals: An
Introduction for Professionals. Tonawanda, NY: Multicultural
Matters Ltd.
Barnett, W. S., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Jung, K., & Blanco, D.
(2007). Two-way and monolingual English immersion in
preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 277-293.
Bell, D. (2010). Scaffolding phonemic awareness in preschool
aged English language learners. (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). Florida State University, Florida.
Benavides, A. H., Midobuche, E., & Kostina-Ritchey, E. (2012).
Challenges in educating immigrant language minority students in
the United States. Social and Behavioral Sciences, 46, 23022306.
Burchinal, M., Field, S., Lopez, M. L., Howes, C., & Pianta, R.
(2012). Instruction in Spanish in pre-kindergarten classrooms
and child outcomes for English language learners. Early
Castro, D., Espinosa, L., & Paez, M. (2011). Defining and
measuring quality early childhood practices that promote dual
language learners’ development and learning. In M. Zaslow, I.
Martinez-Beck, K. Tout, & T. Halle (Eds.), Next steps in the
measurement of quality in early childhood settings (pp. 257280). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Cho, R. M. (2012). Are there peer effects associated with having
English language learners (ELL) classmates? Evidence from the
early childhood longitudinal study kindergarten cohort (ecls-k).
Economics of Education Review, 31, 629-643.
Cummins, J. (1977). Cognitive factors associated with the
attainment of intermediate levels of bilingual skills. The Modern
Language Journal, 61(1/2), 3-12.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the
educational development of bilingual children. Review of
Educational Research, 49(2), 222-251.
Cummins, J. (1980). Psychological assessment of immigrant
children: Logic or institution? Journal of Multilingual and
Multicultural Development, 1(2), 97-111.
Cummins, J. (1981). Age on arrival and immigrant second
language learning in Canada: A reassessment. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 132-149.
Daniel, J., & Friedman, S. (2005). Taking the next step: Preparing
teachers to work with culturally and linguistically diverse
children. Young Children on the Web. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200511/DanielFriedmanBTJ1
105.pdf
Dulay, H., & Burt, M. (1974). Natural sequences in child second
language acquisition. Language Learning, 24, 37-53.
Fassler, R. (1998). Room for talk: Peer support for getting into
English in an ESL kindergarten. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, -13(3), 379-409.
Fernandez, R. (2000). No Hablo Ingles: Bilingualism and
multiculturalism in preschool settings. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 27(3), 159-163.
Fillmore, L.W. (1991) When learning a second language means
losing your first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 323346.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Futrell, M., Gomez, J., & Bedden, D. (2003). Teaching the children
of new America: The challenge of diversity. Phi Delta Kappan.,
84(5), 381–385.
García, E. & Flores, B. (1986) Language and Literacy Research in
Bilingual Education. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University
Genishi, C. (1981). Language across the contexts of early
childhood. Theory into Practice, 20(2), 109-115.
Gillanders, C. (2007). An English speaking prekindergarten teacher
for young Latino children: Implications of the teach child
relationship on second language learning. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 35(1), 47-54.
Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on
bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.
Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N.
(2011). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later English
language proficiency among English language learners. Early
Han, W. and Bridglall, B. (2009). Assessing school supports for ell
students using the ecls-k. Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
24, 445-462.
Hester, H. (1984). Peer interaction in learning English as a second
language. Theory Into Practice, 23(3), 208-217.
Hunter, J. (1997). Multiple perceptions: Social identity in a
multilingual elementary classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 31(3),
603-611.
Kaplan, S. and Leckie, A. (2009). The impact of English only
legislation on teacher professional development: Shifiting
perspectives in Arizona. Theory Into Practice, 48, 297-303.
Meyer, C., Klein, E., & Genishi, C. (1994). Peer relationships
among four preschool second language learners in small group
time. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 9, 61-85.
Meyer, C. (2000). Barriers to meaningful instruction for English
learners. Theory into Practice, 39(4), 228-236.
NAEYC (1995). Responding to linguistic and cultural diversity:
Recommendations for effective early childhood education.
Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDIV98.PDF
NAEYC (2005). Screening and Assessment of Young English
Language Learners: Supplement to the NAEYC and
NAECS/SDE Joint Position Statement on Early Childhood
Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation. Retrieved
from
https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/ELL_Supplement_
Shorter_Version.pdf
NAEYC (2009). NAEYC Standards for Early Childhood
Professional Preparation: A Position statement for the National
Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved
from http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/ppp
NECLA (2011). Key Demographics and Practice
Recommendations for Young English Learners. Retrieved
fromhttp://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/uploads/9/EarlyChildhoodS
hortReport.pdf
Nero, S. (2005). Language, identities, and esl pedagogy. Language
and Education, 19(3), 194-207.
Papatheodorou, T. (2007). Supporting the mother tongue:
pedagogical approaches. Early Child Development and Care,
177, 751-765.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood
(translation by C. Gattengo & F.M. Hodgson; original work
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com English Language Learners: Problems and Solutions 23
published in 1951). New York: Norton.
Pica, T. (2000). Tradition and transition in English language
teaching methodology. System, 28, 1-18.
Price, P. Tepperman, J., Iseli, M., Duong, T., Black, M., Wang, S.,
Boscardin, C. K., Heritage, M., Pearson, P. D., Narayanan, S., &
Alwan, A. (2009). Assessment of emerging reading skills in
young native speakers and language learners. Speech
Communication, 51, 968-984.
Renner, J. (2011). Perceptions of teacher’s use of English as a
second language strategies and research-based practices with
English language learners in northeast Tennessee. The
International Journal of Diversity in Organisations,
Communities and Nations, 11(1), 260-281.
Rodriguez, J., Diaz, R., Duran, D., & Espinosa, L. (1995). The
impact of bilingual preschool education on the language
development of Spanish speaking children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 10, 475-490.
Russakoff, D. (2011). “PreK-3rd: Raising the Educational
Performance of English Language Learners (ELLs),” (New
York, NY: Foundation for Child Development, 2011), http://fcdus.org/sites/default/files/FCD%20ELLsBrief6.pdf
Samson, J.F., & Collins, B.A. (2012). Preparing all teachers to
meet the needs of English language learners: Applying research
to policy and practice for teacher effectiveness. Center for
American Progress. Retrieved from
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2012/04/pdf/ell_report.
pdf
Snow, C. (1992). Perspectives on second language development:
Implications for bilingual education. Educational Researcher,
21(2), 16-19.
U.S. Census (2011). Characteristics of people by language spoken
at home. Retrieved from
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/produc
tview.xhtml?pid=AC11_5YR_S1603&prodType=table
Xu, Y. & Drame, E. (2008). Culturally appropriate context:
Unlicking the potential of response to intervention for English
language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 305311.
Yesil-Dagli, U. (2011). Predicting ell students’ beginning first
grade English oral reading fluency: From initial kindergarten
vocabulary, letter naming, and phonological awareness skills.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 15-29.
Young, M. (1996). English as a second language arts teachers: The
key to mainstreamed esl student success. The English Journal,
85(8), 17-24.
Zehler, A. (1994). Working with English language learners:
Strategies for elementary and middle school teachers. NCBE
Program Information Guide Series, 19. Retrieved from:
http://www.sube.com/uploads/b1/pD/b1pDb_pcH6gJI83AbQpn7
Q/Working_with_ELL_strategies.pdf
ISSN:2328-0816
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Teachers’ Perceptions: Transitioning from TeacherSelected Reading Materials to Implementing a
Core Reading Program
Dana Reisboard, Ph.D. and Annemarie B. Jay, Ph.D.
Abstract— This article presents the results of a study that
examined teachers’ implementation of a new basal reading program
in six schools in an affluent northeastern school district. The
purpose of this study was to determine teachers’ perceptions of the
helpfulness of a basal reading program manual, their attitudes
toward basal readers as a reading method, and to systematically
examine teachers’ actual use of these materials. This mixed method
descriptive study employed qualitative and quantitative data
collection methods. Findings reveal that teachers hold favorable
perceptions regarding the core reading program. Concomitantly
these teachers have concerns about completing all aspects of the
program as well as not having adequate instructional and reading
materials for advanced readers.
T
he effective teaching of reading in elementary schools requires
both an effective teacher and adequate and appropriate reading
materials and resources for students. Research on the teaching of
reading emphasizes the explicit teaching of essential strategies and
ensuring that quality instruction includes purposeful reading and
writing across disciplines (Cunningham & Allington, 2007;
Pressley, 2000). Today’s research on reading stresses balanced
literacy in classrooms that includes instructional/shared reading,
small-group guided reading, and independent self-selected reading.
Writing and language skills such as grammar and spelling are also
part of the “balance.” These pronouncements from researchers
have encouraged elementary schools to purchase leveled books for
small-group guided reading, and the authentic literature of trade
books for whole group and independent reading. However, the
basal reader, a canon from the previous century, continues to be
relied upon to support teacher pedagogy and student learning in
many schools throughout the country.
Dana Reisboard, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Widener University,
Chester, PA. [email protected]
Annemarie B. Jay, Ph.D. is an assistant professor at Widener University,
Chester, PA. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction To remain abreast of current school practice, this study
investigated elementary teachers’ implementation of a new basal
reading program in six schools in an affluent northeastern school
district. The purpose of this study was to determine teachers’
perceptions of the helpfulness of a basal reading program manual
(Bacharach & Alexander, 1986), their attitudes toward basal
readers as a reading method (Cloud-Silva & Sadoski, 1987), and to
systematically examine teachers’ actual use of these materials
(Bacharach & Alexander, 1986 and Cloud-Silva & Sadoski, 2001).
Overarching questions were developed based on those used by
Bacharach and Alexander’s (1986) investigation of what teachers
think of basal readers and how they use them.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE BASAL
IN THE UNITED STATES
Development
Since the 1830’s publication of the McGuffey readers, basal
reading programs have been a staple of reading instruction in the
United States (Dewitz, Jones & Leahy, 2009; Smith, 1986). The
term “basal” was originally used to describe commercially
published reading programs rather than specific reading approaches
(Hoffman, Sailors & Patterson, 2002).
Basals grew in popularity during the 1950s and 1960s; they
were characterized as being leveled for each specific grade and
having controlled vocabulary. They were the main instructional
materials used in American elementary classrooms during that
time. Basals changed somewhat during the 1970’s when publishers
focused less on controlling vocabulary and more on increasing
vocabulary exposure (Popp, 1975). In addition, practice books
containing skills-based worksheets were a key feature of core
reading programs at that time (Dewitz, Jones & Leahy, 2009). By
the mid 1980s, basals were losing popularity because they were
considered to have a diminished emphasis on meaning. The books
were found to be “trivial and boring” by both students and teachers
(Goodman & Shannon, 1988). A few decades ago, Tierney (1984)
provided a synthesis of research on published instructional reading
materials which found that basal series were often considered
inferior choices for instructional reading due to either mismatch
between readers’ abilities and the scripting of instruction for the
teacher, or poor quality of the stories contained in the basals.
Tierney argued that determining text quality “must be done in
context” (p. 289).
Expanded criteria for the development of core reading
programs were hallmarks of the 1990s. Some decisions based on
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Teachers’ Perceptions 25
the new criteria were: (1) replace diluted excerpts from quality
literature with excerpts that retain the integrity of the author’s word
choices and story line; (2) encourage additional instructional and
independent reading by recommending author study and themerelated books connected to the basal selection or theme; (3)
broaden the resources offered with the core materials to include a
range of leveled readers; and (4) expand instructional suggestions
for writing connected to the core program’s selection and provide
for several writing options in response to literature. Advocates for
literature-based approaches to reading instruction influenced both
the quality of literature and the quality of design for basal readers
(McGee, 1992; Wepner & Feeley, 1993).
At the start of the 21st century, Fawson and Reutzel (2000)
posited that the positive features of basal anthologies were that they
provide variety and quantity of both narrative and informational
pieces. In the early 2000s basal reading programs were rebranded
as ‘core reading programs” (Dewitz & Jones, 2013 p. 392). A 2007
survey by the Education Market Research found that the majority
of American schools are using these programs. In particular, 75%
of the schools and teachers sampled either follow the basal with
fidelity or sample, picking and choosing from its many
components. While the use of basal reader anthologies remains
controversial, it is interesting to note that the majority of
elementary schools continue to use them.
Current Trends
In 1993, Canney reported that only 20% of teachers were using
only trade books for instructional reading. Children’s literature
found itself in a prominent place in elementary schools throughout
the 90s; the assumption was that the use of literature would lead to
more thoughtful and engaged readers who would develop higher
level literacy skills (Johnston, Allington, Guice & Brooks, (1998).
At the turn of the century, when guided reading (small group
needs-based reading instruction) became a widely accepted practice
in elementary classrooms, researchers found that there were
“missing pieces” within basal anthologies to support guided
reading (Fawson & Reutzel, 2000, p. 84). According to these
researchers, two major omissions were how to adapt basals for
guided reading instruction and lack of leveling for each selection
with the anthologies. It seems that publishers heeded this
admonishment. Recent publications of basals have extended core
reading materials to include leveled guided reading books and other
visual and virtual materials (Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009;
Dewitz, Leahy, Jones, & Sullivan, 2010).
METHOD
The study began with a survey, and was followed by teacher
observations and interviews. This methodology provides
informative, complete, balanced and useful data (Onwuegubuzie &
Mallette, 2011) because data sources are triangulated and these
sources also contribute rich detail and the lived experience of the
teacher participants. Questions guiding the study are: (1) What are
teachers’ perceptions of the helpfulness of a basal reading program
manual? (2) What are teacher’s attitudes toward basal readers as a
reading method? and (3) How do teachers use the basal reader
materials? This study is beneficial because it explores teacher’s
implementation of a new program and provides valuable
information and insight to others in similar positions. Although
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction many schools utilize materials such as those investigated in this
study, limited research exists on this topic.
Publisher’s Research Perspective
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (HMH) publishers describe their 2011
Journeys program as a “core reading program designed to meet the
diverse needs of all students” (p. 2). In the 73 page document
detailing their research-based approach, HMH states that the design
of the basal’s activities and strategies are grounded in research on
best practices. The document identifies six specific instructional
strands: building vocabulary, supporting comprehension, using
effective instructional approaches, teaching with effective texts,
connecting writing and reading, and meeting all students’ needs
through differentiation and strategic intervention.
Vocabulary knowledge is built with explicit teaching,
reinforcement and multiple exposures. HMH states that vocabulary
instruction should “allow students to engage in activities that lead
them to consider the word’s meaning, relate that meaning to
information stored in memory, and work with the word in creative
ways” (p. 5). The HMH document emphasizes two features of
vocabulary instruction: making connections and morphological
instruction.
HMH acknowledges that most elementary students “benefit
from instruction in reading comprehension processes and
strategies” (p. 11). Texts of varied genres and increasing
complexity are included in the Journeys program. HMH supports
comprehension by guiding teachers to connect to students’
background knowledge, aid students to respond critically, and
provide students with decoding and fluency practice activities.
The third strand, using effective instructional approaches,
incorporates eight of the approaches identified by the RAND Study
Group (Snow, 2002): scaffolding, graphic organizers, predictable
routines, collaborative learning, whole-group and small-group
instruction, varied forms of communication, and engagement and
motivation. In order to support children as developing readers and
writers, HMH presents ideas “visually to support students’
connections” (p. 22).
Teaching with effective texts (fourth strand) provides narrative
and information texts about engaging topics and at “an appropriate
instructional level” (p. 35). The three features of this strand are
leveled texts, varied genres, and engaging topics and themes.
HMH’s fifth strand is connecting writing and reading.
Students respond to reading in relevant and meaningful ways. The
variety of genres experienced by reading effective texts is also
experienced with the range of writing genres.
Grammar
instruction, writing for a purpose, and writing in varied genres are
chief features of this strand.
The sixth HMH strand regards effective teachers who capably
provide differentiated instruction and strategic intervention in their
classrooms. The recipients who most need these types of
instruction, struggling readers and ELL students, are the focus of
this strand. Proficient readers are also considered.
Selection of Core Reading Materials
Prior to implementing the HMH program, participating teachers in
this study self- selected materials for reading instruction. While
teachers generally favored this approach, classroom observations
by school principals and district administrators identified
inconsistencies of what was being taught, not only across district
schools, but also between teachers in the same grade levels within
the same school. Therefore, administrators decided to implement a
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 26 REISBOARD & JAY
systemic approach to delivering skill and strategy instruction across
the grades.
The selection process for reading/language arts texts is both
complex and multidimensional. The research on the selection
process schools use when adopting these textbooks has been sparse.
Dole and Osborn (1997) identified four “inside influences” a
committee might encounter: strong/weak evaluation criteria;
sufficient time for evaluation; experience/inexperience of teachers
on the committee; the amount of training committee members
received on evaluating basal anthologies. The selection process for
the district’s elementary schools discussed in this article was
initiated by the district administrator in charge of elementary
curriculum. The selection process is most often conducted by a
committee of stakeholders from within the school or district
(Dewitz, Leahy, Jones & Sullivan, 2010). Membership on this
committee followed a similar protocol and consisted of
representative teachers from each of the district’s seven elementary
schools and across grades. There were 19 general education
teachers as well as 15 teachers from other positions within the
elementary schools (4 special education teachers, 1 ELL teacher,
and 10 literacy specialists). There were also six parents invited to
participate on the committee. An elementary principal was the
only other administrator on the committee and was present for each
committee meeting. Each of the six elementary principles attended
the final meeting when the decision to adopt one program was
made.
According to the committee’s facilitator, the teachers on the
committee had a range of teaching experience from three to 20+
years. The facilitator provided professional development on
evaluating basal programs before the teachers actually evaluated
publishers’ programs. The basis for the professional development
was the text The Essential Guide to Selecting and Using Core
Reading Programs (Dewitz, Leahy, Jones, & Sullivan, 2010).
The committee opted not to have classroom teachers pilot any
of the reviewed core reading programs because of imminent budget
decisions and time constraints due to nearing the end of the school
year. Therefore, the majority of the districts’ teachers did not
preview the materials. Using the new core program as key
instructional materials was their introduction to the format of the
Teacher Edition and the many ancillary materials provided as
essential to the core program.
Participants
All first through fifth grade teachers in six schools in an affluent
northeastern suburban district (n=150) were surveyed. Teachers
have been in the field for varying amounts of time and sixty six
percent were teaching for fifteen years or less. Of the 101
participating teachers 20.5% have taught in the same school for
sixteen years or more, 36% of these teachers have taught their
current grade level between one and five years, 27% between six
and ten years, 21% between eleven and fifteen years, and 17% of
these teachers have taught for sixteen or more years at the same
grade level. Of the teachers who completed the survey, 92% have
earned a Master’s degree or higher.
From the large pool of elementary teachers who took the
survey, volunteers came forward after principals from two of the
elementary schools requested teachers to participate in observations
and interviews. Eleven teachers from the two schools agreed to
participate. One researcher observed and interviewed five teachers
in Elementary School A and the other observed and interviewed six
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction teachers in Elementary School B. Typically, interviews took place
on the same day the observations were held for the convenience of
both the classroom teachers and the researchers.
Instrumentation
Three basic instruments including a survey, classroom observations
and teacher interviews were used to corroborate information on
teachers’ use and perceptions of these materials. The survey
consisted of thirty-seven Likert scale typed forced choice items and
six demographic comment questions were developed and
administered electronically through Zoomerang (see Appendix B).
These questions were formulated to explore teachers’ perceptions
(TP), fidelity of implementation (IM), professional development
needs (PD), and other issues or teacher concerns in relation to the
core-reading program (I/C). Numerical scales from 1 (lowest) to 5
(highest) were used. This scale provided a useful and relatively
uncomplicated method of obtaining data on people’s attitudes
(Baumann & Bason, 2004). The survey took approximately fifteen
minutes to complete. An observation protocol form was developed
by the researchers (see Appendix C) to record notes in the field
(Cresswell, 1998).
This protocol includes space for both
descriptive and reflective notes.
Interview questions were developed based on Bacharach and
Alexander’s (1986) teacher survey.
These questions were
formulated to explore teachers’ perceptions (TP), fidelity of
implementation (IM), professional development needs (PD), and
other issues or teacher concerns in relation to the core-reading
program (I/C). Interview questions were reviewed and coded
according to the categories above. Questions outside of this scope
were removed, leaving a total of twelve questions (see Appendix
A).
Procedures
The survey was administered to all elementary teachers (n=150)
electronically using Zoomerang (see Appendix B). Participation in
the survey and subsequent interviews and observations was
solicited through e-mails and mention of the study at building
faculty meetings. District leaders, to avoid coercion in recruiting,
were careful to word their requests to reflect teachers’ desires to
take part in this investigation versus being required to participate.
No training was administered to district leaders or principals for
recruiting participants. 101 teachers completed the survey (n=101).
During a four-month period following the completion of the
teacher survey, teacher volunteers from two of the five elementary
schools were recruited by school principals for classroom
observations (n=16) and interviews (n=11). Building principals
were careful to acknowledge that participation was voluntary and
not participating would not reflect negatively on the teachers.
Teachers agreeing to participate in observations and interviews
were free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty.
All teachers, before participating in observations and interviews
signed the informed consent form. Informed consent forms were
explained to participating teachers and distributed by the researcher
once on-site.
Thirty-minute classroom observations (n=16) were conducted
while the teacher was using the Journey’s curriculum materials.
The observations were conducted by the researchers and with the
assistance of one undergraduate research assistant. Data from
observations was recorded on a prepared observation protocol form
(see Appendix C).
Classroom observations were followed by teacher interviews
(see Appendix A). Eleven teachers were interviewed by one of the
two researchers after each observation. Teachers were asked twelve
questions, loosely based on Bacharach and Alexander’s 1986 study,
focusing on teachers’ perceptions of the basal reading program.
Interviews were conducted either in the teacher’s classroom or in
the school library. Interviewees were provided with a copy of the
questions prior to the observations and interviews being conducted.
Interviews lased no longer than thirty minutes. Some interviewees
had jotted notes to use during their response, but most did not. The
researchers recorded teacher responses manually either with pen
and paper or on the laptop computer on the interview protocol
form.
Analysis of Data
When all data were collected, survey results were coded and sorted
along with teacher interview data by the primary researchers. To
provide corroborative information on teachers’ use of the basal
reading program classroom observation data were analyzed as well
to evaluate the consistency of responses. Specifically, teacher
interviews sought to identify teachers’ perceptions (TP), fidelity of
implementation (IM), professional development needs (PD), and
other issues or teacher concerns in relation to the core-reading
program (I/C) were the categories. Teacher interview data were
first sorted by school and then responses to each question were
consolidated. Interview questions 1-7 and 9 investigated teachers’
perceptions, question 8 explored program implementation,
questions 10 and 11 explored teachers’ concerns and issues with
the program, and question 12 focused on teachers’ view of
accompanying professional development. This data were then
further sorted (see Appendix D) to quantify teacher responses and
at the same time support with teacher comments. From this
analysis, teacher perceptions were revealed.
RESULTS
Teachers’ Perceptions (TP)
Analysis of the survey, interview, and observation data revealed
teachers’ perceptions of the core reading program as favorable. In
particular, 100% of the teachers reported being “happy” with the
program and 70% agreed that the selection process served the
needs of the elementary teachers.
Participating teachers
appreciated the purposeful integration of reading and writing in
each lesson, and found the ancillary materials helpful. Teachers
made very favorable comments about two specific ancillary
materials including the leveled guided reading books (90%) and
vocabulary cards (80%). The guided reading books were a chief
source of small group instruction; the two-sided vocabulary cards
provide clear text-picture match to introduce focused vocabulary
words for each lesson (see Figure 1). The reverse side of each card
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction FIGURE 1. HMH Vocabulary Cards
had activities based on the newly introduced words. Teachers used
these cards in a variety of ways for independent work, partnered
collaborative work, and guided review in small groups.
Most of the teachers (90%) expressed confidence in their
abilities to provide students with an appropriate developmental
curriculum as a result of using the newly adopted core reading
program. One teacher stated “every reader in my class has
improved this year.” Coincidentally, 90% also reported that most of
their instructional planning is based on the suggestions found in the
teacher’s edition. Although half of the interviewed teachers felt that
they had “very little” freedom to make decisions concerning the
reading instruction in their classrooms, 40% responded that they
have “a lot” of freedom.
Interview data revealed that participating teachers found that
the various components of HMH’s core reading program addressed
the needs and skill development of their students. Three
specifically mentioned skills were grammar, phonics, and writing.
However, while teachers reported that the students were learning
skills they expressed concern that the program “does not meet the
needs of kids in supporting their love for literature. Instead the
program is really about learning skills”. Teachers commented that
many of the skills were “easy” for high achieving students, that the
program lacked on level reading material for this population, and
that they overwhelmingly expressed concern for these above level
readers. Teachers reported that they located literature and chapter
books that matched the theme from the core reading program to
address this discrepancy and supplement materials for this high
achieving group.
Teachers shared their concerns about the program with the
most common response being there was not enough time to do
everything scripted in the program. When asked if they had
anything else they wished to discuss, six of the interviewees
offered further comments. Four of the comments were extremely
positive as they focused on the high amount of student interest in
the new program and the benefits of the program to their own
instructional practices. Two comments were based on teachers’
perceptions of a lack of instructional creativity due to following the
suggestions in the program.
Implementation: IM
Of the participating teachers surveyed, 93% of them reported
implementing the program faithfully and 80% of those interviewed
supported this statement. Initially a concern teachers had was that
the HMH program did not have the children reading novels.
However, during the first year of program implementation, teachers
had positive experiences using the guided reading books included
in the program because these texts were “short enough to read and
complete”. While implementing the program faithfully, teachers
also reported that they “do not read from the manual”. As the year
progressed, teachers began to incorporate their “own things”. In
FIGURE 2. HMH Focus Wall.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction particular, teachers identified the natural connection between social
studies and science curriculum topics and HMH materials and
expressed an inclination to support this holistic approach. Overall,
85% of the respondents found they were able to integrate their
individual style of lesson planning into the program. Teachers
reported emphasizing some aspects of the program at times more
than others, depending on the needs of the particular group. For
example teachers increased the complexity of center activities for
one group and provided support to accomplish multidimensional
steps to another, although these elements were not explicitly
included in the program. 83% of the teachers surveyed agreed that
the teacher edition is user friendly and 100% strongly agreed that
the “Focus Wall page for each lesson gives a clear overview of the
lesson components of each day’s lesson” (see Figure 2). However,
60% of the 101 teachers’ surveyed report that they struggle to
address the components of each day’s language arts lesson due to
time constraints. Teachers noted the need for more flexibility in
timing, including that “it is too rushed” and “it can feel like we are
on gerbil exercise wheel”. They also would prefer, “more than one
week for each unit.”
Professional Development: PD
Results showed that 89% of the participating teachers identified
that the district provided sufficient professional development
during the first year implementation. This included “chat and
chew” sessions where teachers received as needed support from the
districts’ Director of Literacy as well as more formal whole group
training. That being said, most teachers interviewed identified
Think Central, the online component of the HMH program, as an
area/topic requiring further exploration and attention. Teachers
shared that they did received training on the on-line component
before they were required to use HMH, but felt that they needed
additional training now that they have had some experience using
the program. Teachers’ benefited from the initial HMH training,
however after the first year of implementation they realized that
additional training was needed. Teachers expressed confusion
regarding how to implement the HMH program in its entirety when
other content area programs are used. For example, teachers
discussed difficulties that arose when they tried to juxtapose the
writing program used in this district with the HMH program and
integrate both concurrently. During interviews teachers consistently
expressed the need for the time and opportunity to collaborate and
share ideas with their grade level teams about existing HMH
components and experiences. Teachers are eager to learn from
their grade level partners and prefer this as the first step, followed
by professional development to address program components.
Concerns and Issues: CI
Participating teachers were generally pleased with student
performance and first year implementation, but they have several
concerns and issues with the HMH program. Specifically, 95% of
the teachers surveyed were concerned that the program left
insufficient time to plan lessons with their grade level partners. As
indicated above, teachers believed common planning time to
collaboratively work through the program would benefit their
overall program implementation. Participants also were concerned
that the program might not meet the needs of the gifted and
struggling readers. Specifically, 87% identified that the program
failed to meet the needs of the gifted students, noting in particular
that the number of guided reading books for this group was
insufficient. At the same time 48% of participants were concerned
about the meeting the needs of the struggling readers. Participants
were cognizant that success with this core reading program was
contingent upon students’ requisite literacy skills. Children from
this upper socio economic, suburban district were prepared to meet
program expectations. However, without these requisite literacy
skills and background knowledge, teachers identified that
implementing this program could be problematic.
DISCUSSION
The decision to have elementary teachers transition from selfselecting their materials for reading instruction to using the core
materials of a published program was initiated by the
administration of the participating school district described in this
study. District administrators found that inconsistency of what was
being taught, not only across district schools, but also between
teachers in the same grade levels within the same school.
Therefore, administrators decided to implement a systemic
approach to delivering skill and strategy instruction across the
grades. The district included representative elementary teachers in
the selection process as part of a committee and then provided
professional development to all elementary teachers who
eventually were responsible for using the materials once the
selection was made.
The perceptions of teachers after a full year of implementing
the HMH core reading program were worthy of investigation to
determine the advantages and short-comings of using the program
from the views of the practitioners. As noted earlier, the
generalized perception of the elementary teachers was that the
HMH core reading materials provided “benefits to our instructional
program.” Integration of reading and writing, guided reading
materials and suggestions, and developmental appropriateness of
the HMH program were the major benefits reported by teachers in
this study. Teachers across the elementary grades found that the
HMH program provided “developmentally appropriate curriculum”
and adequate skill development for the children whom they taught.
However, some teachers felt that the use of the basal materials
inhibited “instructional creativity.” Teachers who had previously
used picture books or chapter books exclusively for instruction
explained that they supplemented the HMH materials with
children’s literature. They reported choosing books that “matched
the theme” of the HMH lessons they taught. Teachers were
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction especially vocal about this issue when they felt the HMH lessons
were easy for their high achieving students. An examination of
HMH’s sixth strand of their program components advocates
challenging advanced learners with “multiple learning options” and
“engaging tasks.” It seems that the publisher would endorse the
teachers’ decision to use more complex texts for their gifted readers
in order to meet teaching and learning goals. An endorsement for
adjusting instruction can be found in the current research (Dewitz
& Jones, 2013; Dole & Osborn, 1997; Fawson & Reutzel, 2000)
which purports that only effective teachers can differentiate
instruction based on careful observation and other informal data
sources. Publishers’ suggestions are broad-based and not meant to
address specific needs of individual students.
Perceptions of losing their ability to include full pieces of
children’s literature or to develop their own themes may have been
due to teachers’ resistance to the initial change of materials and the
ensuing planning and implementation of new themes and lessons.
Also, because this study occurred during the first year of HMH
implementation, some teachers may have followed the HMH
scripted suggestions with more fidelity than they would if they had
had more time to gain familiarity with the program. With
additional time, teachers may have found it necessary to either
follow or eliminate some of the publisher’s suggestions based on
their assessment of both the quality and appropriateness of
particular suggestions for their students’ needs. Dewitz and Jones
(2013) urge teachers to modify and augment instructional
suggestions encountered in basal programs.
First year implementation of the HMH core reading materials
seemed to be an easy transition for most of the elementary teachers;
they reported the ease of integrating their “own style of lesson
planning” even though they had the HMH materials as a guide. A
difficult area of transition for the elementary teachers was the
constraint of time: teachers felt they were unable to “do all”
suggestions provided by the publisher. We propose that time
constraint is not a new issue for teachers, especially during the
reading/language arts instructional block. Having more time to
teach, and more time for students’ to practice their reading
strategies and skills, is on the wish list of all effective elementary
teachers.
Professional development provided by the participating
district’s language arts administrator during the first year was
deemed sufficient by approximately 90% of the elementary
teachers. They found this administrator to be knowledgeable,
resourceful, and accessible. However, all teachers expressed the
need for on-going professional development related to Think
Central, the on-line component of HMH. Teachers stated that
HMH consultants trained them on Think Central before they were
required to teach using the HMH core materials, and expressed
their frustration about wanting continued assistance with Think
Central during their transition year. Teachers and administrators
need to communicate about this issue and create an action plan so
that teachers get the support they need for this valuable component
of the HMH program.
Teachers in this study raised two viable concerns/issues about
their transition to using a core reading program. First, teachers
voiced concern about insufficient time to co-plan as grade level
teams. Collaboration and problem solving are tools for fostering
efficient and effective instruction.
Since all teachers were
unfamiliar with the new materials and were learning on the job, it
may have been helpful for the district to provide chunks of time for
teachers to meet in their grade level teams to engage in planning
discussions that enabled them to do more than surface planning
with their colleagues. Second, as they transitioned from choosing
their own materials to using a published program, teachers were
concerned about their gifted students who could have benefited
from challenges they felt were lacking in the HMH suggestions.
Collaboration within grade level teams, or even school-wide
discussions about meeting the needs of gifted students could have
helped alleviate or diminish this issue. Teachers who choose
quality children’s literature that challenged the gifted students
would have been affirmed in doing so.
Overall, the results of this study revealed that teachers
perceived a successful year of teaching and learning as they
transitioned to using HMH. As these teachers gain familiarity with
the new core reading materials, they depend on continued support
to affirm their decisions and aid their lesson planning, grouping
structures, and assessments of students. It would be helpful if the
selection committee which convened before the adoption of HMH,
or another representative committee, would meet to review the
survey administered in this study and assess any steps the district
might take to provide both the on-going and needs-based
professional development to support teachers during the initial
years of this instructional transition. Additionally, the committee
should consider how to best assist teachers with the concerns/issues
relayed within this study.
Teachers addressed these issues by “picking and choosing” which
activities to do and also providing supplemental reading that related
to the basal’s content for their more advanced readers. The high
SES of students in the participating schools was a strong factor in
the number of advanced/above grade level readers across grades.
Upper elementary grades supplanted both instructional and
independent reading.
See full size appendices on next page.
CONCLUSION
Teachers in this study hold favorable perceptions regarding the
core reading program adopted by their district. Effective
components identified by the teachers include HMH’s integration
of reading and writing in each lesson, and ancillary materials,
especially the leveled guided reading books and vocabulary cards.
Additionally the general perception of teachers articulated during
the interviews was that the program “provides teachers with a
backbone to go from so we have many options for our students.”
Teachers in this study expressed confidence in their ability to
provide students with an appropriate developmental curriculum as a
result of using the core reading program. The blend of whole class
and small group instruction seemed to contribute to teachers’
confidence levels.
Teachers’ main concerns were not having adequate time to
complete all aspects of the program, in addition to not having
adequate instructional and reading materials for advanced readers.
These were consistent concerns across schools and grade levels.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 32 REISBOARD & JAY
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Interview Questions
1. Do you think the textbook selection process in the district served the needs of elementary teachers? Why or why not?
2. Are you happy with the core reading program? Why?
3. How would you describe the instructional suggestions provided in the teacher’s edition?
(a) Consistently thorough and appropriate for the students in my grade level
(b) Generally thorough and appropriate for the students in my grade level
(c) Generally thorough but not always appropriate for the students in my grade level
(d) Thoroughness of suggestions varies from lesson to lesson
(e) Additional comment:
4. Which of the ancillary materials that accompany the core reading program have you found to be most helpful? (for example:
small books, software, vocabulary cards, etc.)
5. Do you feel confident that you are providing your students with an appropriate developmental reading program?
6. Do the components of the core reading program taught at your grade level address the needs and skill development of your
students?
(a) If so, which components?
(b) If not, how do you supplement instruction? What do you see as not being addressed?
7. Which of the following most influences your use of the core reading program?
(a) Directives and decisions made by district administration
(b) Directives and decisions made by the school campus (principal and fellow teachers)
(c) Personal decisions
8. To what extent do you base your planning on the suggestions/script provided in the teacher’s edition of the core reading
program?
(a) Complete planning is based on TE suggestions/script
(b) Most planning is based on TE suggestions/script
(c) Some but not all of the planning is based on TE suggestions/script
(d) None of the planning is based on TE suggestions/script
9. How much freedom do you have to make decisions concerning the reading instruction in your classroom?
10. What professional development needs do you feel you still have now that you’ve used the core reading materials for several
months?
11. What concerns do you have at this time about the use of the core reading materials?
12. Is there anything you’d like to share about your experiences with the core reading materials that we have not yet discussed?
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Teachers’ Perceptions 33
Appendix B
Core Materials Survey
Part 1: Core Materials Survey
Read each statement and rate your level of agreement with the statement from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The numbers represent the
following gradation of agreement:
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD); 2 = Disagree (D); 3 = Minimal Agreement (MA); 4 = Agree (A); 5 = Strongly Agree (SA).
Thank you for your participation!
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
SD
D
MA
A
SA
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
Coordinator were helpful during the first year implementation of
the basal.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1. I was pleased when I learned the school district was considering
using a basal as core instructional material.
2. I feel the curriculum committee chose a basal that meets the
teaching and learning needs of all.
3. The teachers-edition (TE) is user-friendly.
4. The introduction and subsequent review of reading strategies
in the basal is a sufficient continuum.
5. The “chat and chew” sessions with the Reading/Language Arts
6. The assessment components provided in the HMH basal program
provide me with adequate and accurate information about
students’ reading skills, adjusting grouping, pacing and other
features necessary to meet the needs of all students in my class.
7. The HMH basal program promotes independent reading in the
classroom and makes good suggestions for doing so.
8. The basal program promotes the reading of full stories/books
that are excerpted in the program and makes good suggestions
for doing so.
9. My individual style of lesson planning is easily integrated
into the lesson format of the basal.
10. There is purposeful integration of reading/writing in each basal
lesson.
11. The district provided sufficient professional development during
the first year of basal implementation.
12. The basal provides a good balance of narrative and informational
reading and writing.
13. I believe that parents were well-informed about the decision to
implement the basal as part of core instruction.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 34 REISBOARD & JAY
14. I believe that the content of the stories/articles and the response
activities meet the needs of the students in the grade I teach.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
19. The suggested “weekly plan” is both comprehensive and doable. 1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
instructional reading is evident in my classroom.
1
2
3
4
5
31. I follow the Teacher’s Edition as closely as possible.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
15. I have sufficient supplemental materials to use if/when I
need them.
16. There is enough time in the language arts block to adequately
address the components of each day’s lesson (as suggested by
the publisher).
17. HMH provides/suggests adequate opportunities to instruct
students in both large and small group structures.
18. I needed time this year to plan lessons with my grade level
partners.
20. The HMH Teacher Read Aloud provides sufficient modeling
by the teacher and sufficient target skills for students’ listening
comprehension.
21. Target vocabulary is well-chosen and aids students’
comprehension.
22. The “essential question” feature helps to focus teaching
and learning.
23. I use the “language arts” features (phonics, grammar, writing)
just as provided by HMH.
24. I generally adapt the use of the “language arts” features
(phonics, grammar, writing) for particular students or
particular situations.
25. I have the students use the Practice Book regularly.
26. The “Connect and Extend” feature of each lesson provides
useful teaching tips.
27. The “Intervention” section of the TE provides useful
re-teaching activities for use with struggling readers.
28. The “Focus Wall” page for each lesson gives me a clear
overview of lesson components and especially the skills
and strategies for which I should focus.
29. I am concerned about meeting the needs of gifted students with
the HMH materials.
30. The opportunity to include the reading of trade books as part of
32. I am concerned about meeting the needs of struggling readers
with the HMH materials.
33. There are some HMH lessons that I find lack the goals I’d
like my students to achieve.
34. The writing instruction suggested by HMH generates a
sufficient amount and variety of writing for students at
my grade level.
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
35. I do as much small group instruction now with the basal
as I did before the HMH materials were implemented.
36. I believe that my teaching methods have improved since
I started using the HMH materials.
37. Students are receiving a balanced literacy program.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Part 2: Demographic information
Schools:
1= Cynwyd Elementary; 2= Gladwyne Elementary; 3= Merion Elementary; 4= Penn Valley Elementary; 5= Penn Wynne Elementary
1.
Where do you teach?
1
2
2
4
5
2.
Circle the number of the grade you teach.
(Kindergarten teachers do not respond)
1
2
3
4
5
Experience
1= 1-5 years; 2= 6-10 years; 3=11-15 years; 4= 16-20; 5=21+
1.
How many years have you been an educator?
1
2
3
4
5
2.
How many years have you taught in this school?
1
2
3
4
5
3.
How many years have you taught this grade level?
1
2
3
4
5
3
4
5
Degree
1= Bachelors; 2= Bachelors + 15; 3= Masters; 4= Masters + 15; 5= Post Graduate
1.
What is your level of education?
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 2
http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 36 REISBOARD & JAY
Appendix C
Classroom Observation Form
Classroom Observation of ___ in Grade __ Observer: __________________
Date: _______
Time: Start: _________ End: _______
TE related pages/section: _______________________
Other literacy materials used (if any): _____________________________________________________
This observed lesson was: (__) a new lesson; (___) an on-going part of a lesson
Strategy or skill taught: ________________________________________________________________
Instructional Event
Notes
What is an instructional event?
An instructional event is any literacy-related activity and/or interaction initiated by the teacher that is engaged in by the students
some time during the lesson. Demonstrating/explaining a strategy or skill (defining, modeling, posting a chart or graphic
organizer for Ss’ to visualize the explanation), posing questions, responding to questions, setting a task for students: jotting,
pair-share, word work, drawing/writing, independent reading, retelling, enactment, etc.
Appendix D
Analysis of Interview Responses
Question
1 Selection meet
needs of Ts?
2 Happy w/
program?
3. Instructional
suggestions in
TE?
4 ancillary
materials most
helpful?
Confident –
appropriate
developmental
reading
program?
6 Address needs
and skill devl of
Ss?
7 Influences
your use of
program?
8 Your planning
?
School A (PV)
4/5 (80%)
School B (M)
3/5 (60%)
100 % Yes
100% Yes
1/5
“consistently”
thorough &
appropriate
2 = generally
2 = thoroughness
of suggestions
varies from
lesson to lesson
5/5 “small”
books; vocab
cards;
PV-5 “Think
Central is a
nightmare
because it is
difficult to
navigate.”
4/5 yes
1/5 – no; haven’t
used full year yet
5/5 “generally”
thorough
5/5 yes
SPECIFICALLY
MENtion
Grammar,
phonics, and
writing
2/5 directives
from admins
1/5 directives
made by the
school campus
2/5 personal
deisions
NOT ON FORM
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Comments
70% agreed that selection process served
the needs of elem. Ts
---1 (A) I was not involved
1 (B) I was not included
2 (B) T was not response specific;
discussed needs of students rather than
teachers
Consider using M-2’s comments as a
quote in the article
Lots of variation of responses – concern
about “levels” suggested by HMH as
being appropriate for “above” level
readers as well as “below” level readers
60% = “generally thorough and
appropriate for students in my grade
level”
4/5 “small” books;
M-4 “Online
reading is helpful”
(Think Central)
9/10 mention guided reading books
8/10 vocab cards
5/5 yes
90% - yes – confident
5/5 – yes but 4 of
them say the skills
are “easy” for high
achieving Ss
M-1 “I supplement with novels.”
5/5 Directives &
decisions made by
district
administration
70% - “Directives and decisions made by
district administration.”
4/5 = MOST
planning is based
on TE
suggestions/script
1/5 = Complete
planning based on
TE
PV responses are NOT ON FORM
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 See specific comments – may want to use
a quote
http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 38 REISBOARD & JAY
9 Freedom to
make decisions?
4/5 = “a lot”
1/5 “none”
5/5 “very little”
10 What PD do
you feel you still
need?
2/5 on-line
(Think Central)
2/5 don’t want
1/5 spelling and
writing pieces
11 Concerns?
All 5 responses
are different
3/5 on “Think
Central”
1/5 How to use all
components
1/5 collaborate w/
partners
3/5 = not enough
time;
These responses are
different from those
of PV Ts)
2 = highly
structured
5 = spelling not
hard enough; need
to use data to
inform instruc
12 Anything
else?
1 = “moves too
fast”
2 = phonics
3 = 6 guided rdg
books are not
enough
4 = no concerns
5 = It’s so huge;
trying to weed
through it
3/5 = no
1 = “words to
know” are
supposed to be
high-frequency
words but really
vocab words;
missing
creativity;
worksheet driven
2 = examples
given in HMH
but teacher can’t
follow up – has
to follow script
(ex = baseball
example; would
like to discuss
baseball w/ ss as
“many are
baseball fans.”
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction 1/5 = no
4 other comments
are all POSITIVE:
1 = Love the guided
reading books
2 = a lot of student
interest
3 = This really
helps my rdg
instruction
4 = happy we have
a new program
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 60% little or no freedom to make their
own decisions concerning the reading
instruction in their classrooms
50% on “Think Central”
50% = not enough time – including 1 and
5 from PV.
20% - specific components (phonics;
spelling)
40% = nothing else to discuss
http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Teachers’ Perceptions 39
REFERENCES
Allington, R., (2007). Classrooms that work: They can all read and
Write (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bacharach, N. & Alexander, P. (1986). Basal reading manuals.
what do teachers think of them and how do they use them?
Reading Psychology, 7, 163-172.
Baumann, J. & Bason, J. (2004). Survey Research. In N. Duke &
M. Mallette (Eds), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 287307). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Canney, G. (1993). Teachers’ preferences for reading materials.
Reading Improvement,30, 238-245.
Cloud-Silva, C. & Sadoski, M. (1987). Reading teachers’ attitudes
towards basal reader use and state adoption policies. Journal of
Educational Research, 81(1), 5-16.
Cresswell, J. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design
choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Dewitz, P. & Jones, J. (2013). Using basal readings: from dutiful
fidelity to intelligent decision making. The Reading Teacher,
66(5), 391-400.
Dewitz, P., Leahy, S., Jones, J., & Sullivan, P. (2010). The
essential guide to selectingand using core reading programs.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy
instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research
Quarterly, 44(2), 102-126.
Dole, J. A., & Osborn, J. (1997). The selection and sue of language
arts textbooks. In Flood, J., Jensen, Lapp, D., & Squire, J. (Eds),
Handbook of research on the teaching of the English language
arts. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Education Market Research. (2007). Houghton Mifflin reading is
top ranked. Retrieved May 27, 2012 from www.edmarket.com/r_c_archives/display_article
Fawson, P. & Reutzel, D. (2000). But I only have a basal:
Implementing guided reading in the early grades. The Reading
Teachers, 54, 84-97.
Goodman, K. & Shannon, P. (1988). Report card on basals. New
York, NY: Richard C. Owen.
Hoffman, J., Sailors, M., & Patterson, E. (2002). Decodable texts
for beginning reading instruction: The year 2000 basals.
http://www.ciera.org/library/reports/inquiry-1/10016/1-016.html
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (2011). The Journeys program: A
research-based program. Orland, FL: Author.
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical
Education, 38, 1212-1218.
Johnston, P., Allington, R., Guice, S., & Brooks, G. (1998). Small
change: A multilevel study of the implementation of literaturebased instruction. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(3 & 4), 81103.
McGee, L. (1992). Exploring the literature-based reading
revolution (focus on reading). Language Arts 69(7), 529-537.
Onwuegbuzie, A. & Mallette, M. (2011). Mixed research
techniques in literacy research. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.),
Literacy research methodologies (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Popp, H. (1975). Current practices in the teaching of beginning
reading. In J. Carroll &J. Chall (Eds.), Toward a literate society.
NY: McGraw-Hill.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the
instruction of? In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Smith, N.B. (1986) American reading instruction: Its development
and its significance in gaining a perspective on current practices
in reading. Newark, DE: International.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D
program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Tierney, R. (1984). A synthesis of research on the use of
instructional text: Some implications for the educational
publishing industry in reading. In Anderson, R.,Osborne, J., &
Tierney, R., (Eds.), Learning to read in American schools: Basal
readers and content texts. Hillsdale, NJ: Laurence Erlbaum
Associates.
Wepner, S., & Feeley, J. (1993). Moving forward with literature:
Basals, books, and beyond. New York, NY: Macmillan.
ISSN:2328-0816
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Text Selection for Read-Alouds: The Influence of
Topic in Children’s Discussions of
Literary Texts
Kim Skinner, Ph.D.
Abstract— In today's classrooms, the teacher’s text selection for
read-alouds directly impacts students’ opportunities to
systematically participate in higher order thinking about texts. This
ethnographic study examined the discursive processes and practices
over time of elementary students (and their teacher) before, during,
and after teacher-led read-aloud discussions of literary texts in an
after-school philosophy club. The study investigated the student
opportunities for talking, thinking, and understanding provided by
discussing the controversial topics of the texts. The analyses
illustrate the consequences to student thinking and meaningmaking when controversial texts are used in read-alouds as a
springboard for discussion, as well as the implications of those
outcomes for elementary literacy teachers.
M
uch attention in current literature on elementary literacy
instruction is concentrated on which texts should be read to
students, with students, and by students. In the last decade, the
focus of text selection has primarily swirled around the genres of
texts read in the classroom, particularly the breadth and depth of
student access to, and instruction about, multiple text genres and
subgenres. In addition to the recent emphasis on genre choice and
instruction, the almost universal adoption of the Common Core
State Standards across the US (Common Core State Standards
Initiative, 2010), has thrust other text selection issues to the
forefront, particularly the issue of text complexity. Text complexity
is a characteristic of the language of the texts (Pearson, 2013),
language that, according to the Common Core State Standards for
English Language Arts and Literacy, students must analyze to
determine the theme of texts and use as a stimulus for collaborative
discussions of texts in which they clearly express their own ideas
and build on the ideas of others.
In today's increasingly time-strapped classrooms, the teacher’s
text
selection for
read-alouds
directly
impacts
the
Kim Skinner, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor at Louisiana State University,
Baton Rouge, LA. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction students’ opportunities to systematically participate in higher order
thinking about texts. Drawing from examinations of reading
instruction in contemporary classrooms, Keene (2012)
demonstrated the ways certain texts illicit deep emotional responses
in their readers, an evidence of a deep understanding of the text.
She posited the quality of texts children have read to them and are
reading themselves have a direct bearing on their subsequent
understanding of the text. Concurring with Keene's consideration
for the quality of the writing, Hahn (2002) pointed out that careful
choice in read-aloud selection needs to include relevance of the
textual content to the lives of the students. Warning teachers to
avoid the nonchalance often prevalent when choosing a book to be
read aloud, Hoyt (2000) provided a personal example, "I used to
grab my read-aloud selection off the bookshelf as I walked to the
read-aloud area. I was convinced that any read-aloud was good …
However, why would we settle for just 'good' when we can have
great?" (p. 2).
Since one of the primary purposes of a teacher read-aloud is to
model thinking deeply about text, teacher selection of a text that
stimulates student reasoning and comprehension is of utmost
importance. When deciding on books for inclusion in kindergarten
and first grade read-alouds, Beck and McKeown (2001) chose texts
that were intellectually challenging, contained some complexity of
events, presented unfamiliar topics, and included subtleties of
ideas. In Still Learning to Read, Sibberson and Szymusiak (2003)
addressed the importance of choosing a text for read-aloud time
that is a talkworthy text, a text about which the students will want
to talk. Talkworthy texts include books in which the topic of the
text encourages personal opinion or controversy. Texts that evoke
different points of view and deal with the grey areas of life can
spark controversy and debate among discussants. Whole group
discussions regarding controversial read-aloud topics potentially
result in dialogue rich in evidence of reasoning and personal
meaning.
READ-ALOUD AS A “BEST PRACTICE”
Since the 1970s, the term "best practice" has been used in
educational circles to denote an effective, research-based
instructional practice. One such best practice, the read-aloud, is
commonly used by teachers to model how the reader thinks about
and procures meaning from a text. Effective read-alouds, according
to Fisher, Flood, Lapp, and Frey (2004), contain seven
components: (1) Selected texts match students’ developmental,
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Text Selection for Read-Alouds 41
social, and emotional levels as well as their interests. (2) The
teacher had previewed and practiced reading the text. (3) The
purpose for the read-aloud was established by the teacher. (4) The
text was read by the teacher in an animated and expressive way. (5)
Fluent oral reading was modeled by the teacher. (6) The teacher
periodically stopped reading to question students, focusing them on
specifics of the text. (7) The teacher made connections to
independent reading and writing. Literacy research supports the use
of teacher read-alouds as an essential component of reading
instruction (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985; Beck &
McKeown, 2001).
During a read-aloud the teacher controls access to the text
content for the student listeners but both teacher and students talk
about, think about, and create meaning from the text (Fountas &
Pinnell, 2001) This instructional practice invites teacher and
student discussion before, during, and after reading of a selected
text. Routman (2000) explained the benefits of reading aloud to
students includes the thinking and co-constructed meaning-making
made evident through talk. Focusing on comprehension as well as
language development, Beck and McKeown (2001) demonstrated
that student discourse and understanding of challenging text can be
guided during the read-aloud by the teacher asking students initial
open-ended questions and subsequent follow-up questions. Thus,
teacher read-alouds provide an opportunity for students to develop
ways to critically think about and talk about texts.
AN INVESTIGATION OF STUDENTS’ DISCURSIVE
INTERACTIONS ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL TEXTS
The year-long ethnographic study reported here examined the
discursive processes and practices over time of elementary students
(and their teacher) before, during, and after teacher-led read-aloud
discussions of literary texts in an after-school philosophy club. The
study investigated the student opportunities for talking, thinking,
and understanding provided by discussing the controversial topics
of the texts. The analyses illustrate the consequences to student
thinking and meaning-making when controversial texts are used in
read-alouds as a springboard for discussion, as well as the
implications of those outcomes for elementary literacy teachers.
The overarching question guiding these analyses is: what is the
nature of student talking, thinking, and understanding during a
read-aloud discussion in which a controversial text is read?
Participants and Research Site
The participants were twenty children in grade four and their
teacher at an ethnically-diverse, small town Title I school in the
central region of the United States. Eleven girls and nine boys
participated in the study. Four of the students were identified as
"gifted and talented" and seven students were classified as "atrisk." The participants were members of a Children as
Philosophers after-school club that met for one hour, once a week,
from September-May. The author also participated in the study as a
researcher and participant observer.
Philosophy Club Program and Texts
In 14 of 20 sessions of the Children as Philosophers club, the
teacher read a literary text to the children, followed by conversation
that afforded the children the opportunity to explore philosophical
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction questions and address the topics and themes of the literature. The
discussion form used in the philosophy club, philosophical
conversation, has similarities to other types of discussion that
encourage students to justify their claims, including Lipman's
(2003) model of philosophical inquiry and accountable talk
(Michaels, O'Connor, & Resnick, 2007). The common feature of
these discourse formats is accountability to the learning
community. Michaels and colleagues provided the following
description of discourse that is accountable to the community:
"When talk is accountable to the community, participants listen to
others and build their contributions in response to those of others.
They make concessions and partial concessions … and provide
reasons when they disagree or agree with others" (p. 4). In contrast
to the usual discourse encountered in the classroom, the students in
the philosophy club discursively constructed the meaning of texts
with others, accomplished by listening to, respecting, considering
the arguments of, and questioning one other, and by supporting,
justifying, and positioning their personal meaning of texts.
The teacher selected children’s literature and poetry for the
philosophy club that had topics conducive for promoting lively
discussion. Chosen for inclusion due to the controversial nature of
the topics, these texts illustrated the possibilities of using children’s
literature to explore deep philosophical issues.
Research Approach and Data Sources
Interactional ethnography (Castanheira, Crawford, Green, & Dixon,
2001) was the research approach used for this study. Through the
lens of interactional ethnography, the classroom in this study was
viewed as a culture-in-the-making (Collins & Green, 1992; Putney
& Frank, 2008) and examinations were conducted of the ways
meaning was discursively constructed and negotiated by students
and their teacher over time. This approach allowed me to examine
the developing practices of the read-aloud event within the
philosophy club. Through the discursive actions and interactions of
the participants, patterns of interaction were located in student-tostudent and teacher-to-student discourse to identify the learning
opportunities constructed and appropriated by members of the
group.
Collected through participant observation, the corpus of data
analyzed included fieldnotes, audio- and video-tapes, and
participant interviews. Although transcriptions from the tapes were
central to the study, the other sources provided triangulation of the
data and additional insights. From the data, four levels of analysis
were conducted: transcription of the video records and interviews
(Green, Skukauskaite, Dixon, & Cordova, 2007); construction of
structuration (Green, Weade, & Graham, 2001) and event
(Spradley, 1980) maps; identification and analysis of a telling case
(Mitchell, 1984); and examination of a rich point (Agar, 2006)
within the telling case.
FINDINGS
The Role of the Texts
Through analysis of the teacher's expectations of the read aloud
event, a segment of the transcript of the first day of the philosophy
club was identified in which the teacher delineates the role of the
read-aloud texts for thinking and meaning construction. As shown
in Table 1, the teacher's account links the purpose for reading and
discussing texts to thinking, meaning-making, and reasoning.
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 42 SKINNER
TABLE 1. Framing the Role of the Texts during Read-Alouds
______________________________________________________________________
Line
Teacher
Work Accomplished
through Discourse
______________________________________________________________________
550
I'm going to
Labeling books as
551
read you
"interesting" and thought552
some interesting books
provoking
553
books that will really
554
make you think
555
and we're going to have
Linking purpose of
556
conversations
conversation
557
about the meaning
to meaning of texts
558
of those books
559
and you'll give reasons
Identifying reasoning as a key
560
for what you're thinking
feature of text conversations
_______________________________________________________________________
Curricular resources support or constrain student access to
opportunities to learn. Read-alouds of authentic children's literature
and poetry occurred in 14 of 20 sessions of the Children as
Philosophers club. The teacher chose the texts she would read each
week, intentionally and purposefully selecting literary texts that
contained topics potentially controversial for the students. This
content had the potential to stimulate discussion and require
students to articulate and defend their ideas and build on the ideas
of others. Information shared by the teacher during the planning
session for Session 7 indicated she spent about an hour each week
researching and previewing texts in preparation for each read-aloud
session. Table 2 depicts the literary texts read to the children in the
philosophy club and the teacher's rationale for the selection of each
text.
Analysis of the teacher's text choices revealed that the teacher
chose texts to correspond with topics she considered controversial
and the students could make a personal connection. The topics of
the text afforded the participants considerable opportunity for
debate as they were contentious in nature, like philosophy itself.
The texts were a component of the curriculum of the philosophy
club and each particular text framed what opportunities were
available for participation, thinking, and understanding by the
students.
Students Demonstrating Thinking about Text
From analysis of the video transcripts and my fieldnotes, this set of
analyses is organized through a telling case, described by Mitchell
(1984) as a method that allows the researcher to unveil things that
were not formerly available to be known. The telling case highlights
the ways the discussion of the text was enacted by teacher and
students in this cultural space and the results of that discussion. The
selection and analysis of the Session 7 read aloud event was
informed by my ethnographic knowledge of the event in context.
The layers of analysis that follow will locate and identify patterns
within and across the unique structure of this event.
The students participating in Session 7 were discussing the
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction book by McKee (1978), Tusk, Tusk. This text has elephants as
characters, initially black and white in color and living in a forest.
They fight over perceived differences and in the end only peaceloving, now grey elephants have survived. Before the read aloud
event, the teacher detailed her intent to turn over control of the
discussion topic to the students. The teacher explained that she
would read the book and then, "I am going to/ turn it around on you/
after we're finished/ and you/ are going to think/ of the questions/
for the discussion" (lines 027-032, video transcript of Session 7).
These segments of video transcript in Table 3 document the
students' first attempt at generating discussion questions based on
topic of a book just read by the teacher.
My examination of these segments of transcript of student talk
during the text discussion revealed that various students
successfully enacted many of the literacy practices common after a
read-aloud, particularly, posing questions related to topic and theme
of the text (061-074), initiating questions and making connections
to prior knowledge (lines 156-160), and attempting to change the
topic of discussion (316-319). Higher order thinking about texts
varied among participants in this session, however, as some students
were able to determine the main ideas of the book, one student
determined a possible theme, one student made a connection to
learning in another content area, and one student unable to move
past the literal comprehension of the particular text.
Students' Awareness of Difference in Conversation
Through analysis of a rich point (Agar, 2006) within the telling case
I revealed, through backward and forward mapping, how and why
particular opportunities were accessed and accomplished by
participants and the participants' meanings of the interactions.
The students participating in the Session 7 read aloud event
were aware that this conversation was different than previous
conversations. The shift in power by the teacher to the students for
the direction of the conversation as well as the students' engagement
with the particular text topic in Tusk, Tusk, resulted in the students
Issue 1 Volume 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Text Selection for Read-Alouds 43
TABLE 2. Teacher's Choice of Literary Texts
____________________________________________________________________________
Session
Text
Reason Text was Chosen
____________________________________________________________________________
1
"Invitation"
Provides a welcome message
by Shel Silverstein
and reinforces community
2
Miss Nelson is Missing
by Harry Allard & James Marshall
Explores meaning of respect
and who warrants respect
3
Swimmy
by Leo Lionni
Promotes concept of self and
contextual changes to self
4
The Giving Tree
by Shel Silverstein
Provokes thinking on love
and can one love too much
5
The Gift of Nothing
by Patrick McDonnell
Considers who counts as a
friend and why
6
Silver Packages
by Cynthia Rylant
Evaluates wants versus needs
in relation to caring
7
Tusk, Tusk
by David McKee
Explores difference and concept
of prejudice
12
The Important Book
by Margaret Wise Brown
Probes what is really important
to you and if that changes
13
Elvira
by Margaret Shannon
Investigates what counts as
beauty and by whose standards
14
Emily's Art
by Peter Catalanotto
Investigates what counts as art
and who decides
15
The Wolves in the Wall
by Neil Gaiman
Explores boundaries between
real and imaginary
16
"Choose"
by Carl Sandburg
Explores the consequences
of our choices
17
What Can I Dream About?
by Arnold Shapiro
Considers what counts as
proof
18
Gleam and Glow
by Eve Bunting
Examines the value of hope
19
The Philosophers’ Club
Considers what is important
by Christopher Phillips
and to whom
__________________________________________________________________________
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 44 SKINNER
TABLE 3. Students' Text Talk
____________________________________________________________________
Line
Student Discourse
Work Accomplished
Through the Discourse
________________________________________________________________________
061
Monroe what is peace
Generating questions
062
Lonnie what is:::
for group discussion
063
um
of text
064
never mind
(…)
070
Eva what is hate
071
I guess
072
Maddie what causes war
073
Lonnie what does it mean
Exploring theme
074
when two disagree
(…)
156
Lonnie is this like the war
Initiating question,
157
between
asking students to
158
Martin Luther King:::
consider meaning in
159
you know::
relation to prior
160
the whites and the blacks
knowledge
(…)
316
Monroe okay
Attempting to
317
how did this
redirect discussion
318
turn into being
to literal meaning
319
about people
of text
________________________________________________________________________
TABLE 4. Noticing the Conversation has Changed
_______________________________________________________________________________
Line
Discussant
Discourse
Work Accomplished
Through the Discourse
_______________________________________________________________________________
260
Lonnie
I only have one question
Appealing to teacher to
261
to ask Dr. Newman
intervene and direct
263
when are we going
conversation
264
to get
265
to the point
266
because all these conversations
Acknowledging
267
are confusing me
discomfort with
268
I just want
conversational style
269
to get
270
to the point
271
Eva
yeah
Affirming request for
272
this is the longest conversation
teacher intervention
273
we've had
274
and it's kind of like
Noticing and comparing
275
we're fighting
features of current
276
some are agreeing
conversation
277
and some are disagreeing
278
Maddie
yeah
Making connection
279
it's kinda like
between current discussion
280
the book
and text topic
_______________________________________________________________________________
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Issue 1 Volume 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Text Selection for Read-Alouds 45
TABLE 5. Intertextual Link
_______________________________________________________________________________
Line
Actor
Discourse
Consequences
_______________________________________________________________________________
151
Maddie
it's just matters
Justifying her beliefs
152
if you like yourself
153
or not
154
it's like
Referencing prior
155
what makes you you
topic of text discussion
156
it's like blacks and whites
157
make gray
Linking current
158
they come together
thinking and
159
it doesn't matter
understanding intertextually
160
how you look
_______________________________________________________________________________
talking about text and their ideas using confrontational discourse
and speaking back and forth to each other for an extended period of
time. At the 30:42 time marker, 16 minutes and 32 seconds after
the second conversation about the text commenced, Lonnie
appealed to the teacher to intervene and direct the conversation, as
illustrated in Table 4.
In the midst of the back and forth student-to-student
interaction of Session 7, Lonnie looked directly at the teacher and
pleaded with her to resolve the students' debate of text-related
topics in order to procure a conclusion to the discussion. This
conversation was more argumentative than any conversations from
the previous sessions and the student control of much of the
discourse and the combative nature of the discourse felt different to
him.
This sudden shift from students addressing other students in
conversation to a student's pleading to the teacher to get involved
was surprising to the teacher (as evidenced by the her quizzical
look when Lonnie lobbied for her interference). By petitioning the
teacher, Lonnie indicated his level of discomfort with the
conversation and his desire for the teacher to reassert her power to
focus and resolve their conversation. Two other students supported
his request when both began their subsequent turns of talk with
"yeah" (lines 271, 278) and also noted the argumentative nature of
the discussion.
This appeal, and the discursive affirmations by two other
students for teacher intervention and resolution, was a rich point
(Agar, 2006) in the discourse. Following Agar, rich points are
conceptualized as "departures from expectations," that signal "a
difference between what you know and what you need to learn to
understand and explain what just happened" (p. 9).
The role of the text as an opportunity to learn was also made
visible by the discourse of the students in this session. In lines 278280 of the transcript segment from Session 7, Maddie links the
students' adoption of a controversial conversation style to the
provocation depicted by the characters in the text. This link makes
visible the role and relationship of the content of the text to the
interactions of the students and shows the ways in which the
teacher's choice of a controversial text provided the means for
student accomplishment of a new form of discussion.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Intertextual Relationships
Group member knowledge and ways of knowing reveal the
intertextual relationships of the group and how over time group
members build on this intertextual knowledge (Bloome & EganRobertson, 1993). From repeated readings of the fieldnotes and
video transcripts of the read aloud event in Session 7, I identified
an intertextual link to a text from a previous read-aloud event.
Theoretically viewed as webs of juxtaposed texts, this link to texts
is meaningful and serves as resource to group members (Bloome,
1991). Table 5 shows the intertextual link in the Session 7 read
aloud event that ties to previous text topic.
By linking the meaning of the current text to comprehension of
the text topic explored in Session 3, "it's like/what makes you you"
(lines 154-155), Maddie uses the previous text as a cultural
resource for thinking and understanding in this session. As this
example illustrates, intertextual relationships across texts, though
separated by time and space, became resources, and thus
opportunities for learning, for students in this social and historical
group.
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Learning is first and foremost the result of opportunities. In this
particular educational space, findings from analyses of the
discursive interactions of the students revealed the central role of
the text in student knowledge construction and opportunities to
learn. The opportunities to learn provided by the texts included
opportunities for students to make intertextual links between texts
to better understand the concepts and themes the texts addressed.
However, the teacher's pedagogical knowledge, such as awareness
of literary texts that promote lively discussion, knowledge of
sources of text, and familiarity with several discussion formats for
read-alouds, is consequential in order for the learning opportunities
afforded by the text topic to be realized.
The results of this study show the consequences for student
learning outcomes when provided opportunities to discuss thoughtprovoking texts with others over time. This is not to say that all
students learned from each opportunity, but rather that learning
outcomes changed for one or more participants. My findings lend
support to the results from research by Putney, Green, Dixon,
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 46 SKINNER
Durán, and Yeager, (2000) that showed how opportunities for
learning jointly constructed by the members of the class are often
adopted with differential take-up by students.
Higher order thinking and reasoning skills are challenging for
teachers to teach and for learners to learn. Acquisition of these
skills requires multiple and varied learning opportunities exploring
and discussing the meaning of challenging texts. As Eisner (2001)
argued, "We need to provide opportunities for youngsters and
adolescents to engage in challenging kinds of conversation, and
need to help them know how to do so. Such conversation is too rare
in schools" (p. 85). Additionally, implementation of the Common
Core State Standards in elementary ELA classrooms includes
having students write argument/opinion pieces, a skill that
necessitates students having excellent reasoning skills. Engaging in
discussions where students can learn to clearly express their ideas
and build on the ideas of others over time potentially leads to
acquisition of the ability to reason by students.
REFERENCES
Agar, M. (2006). Culture: Can you take it anywhere? International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(2), 110-125.
Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, I. A.
(1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC:
National Institute of Education.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2001). Text talk: Capturing the
benefits of read-aloud experiences for young children. The
Reading Teacher, 55, 10-20.
Bloome, D. (1991). Anthropology and research on teaching the
English language arts. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp & J. Squire
(Eds.), Handbook of research in teaching the English
language arts (pp. 46-56). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bloome, D., & Egan-Robertson, A. (1993). The social constriction
of intertextuality in classroom reading and writing lessons.
Reading Research Quarterly, 28(4), 304-334.
Castanheira, M. L., Crawford, T., Green, J. L., & Dixon, C. (2001).
Interactional ethnography: An approach to studying the social
construction of literate practices. Linguistics and Education,
11(4), 353-400.
Collins, E., & Green, J. (1992). Learning in a classroom setting:
Making or breaking a culture. In H. H. Marshall (Ed.),
Redefining student learning (pp. 59-86). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core
State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects.
Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_ELA%20Standards.
pdf
Eisner, E. W. (2001). What does it mean to say a school is doing
well? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(5), 85-95.
Fisher, D., Flood, J., Lapp, D., & Frey, N. (2004). Interactive readalouds: Is there a common set of implementation practices? The
Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Guiding readers and writers
grades 3-6: Teaching comprehension, genre, and content
literacy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Green, J. L., Skukauskaite, A., Dixon, C., & Cordova, R. (2007).
Epistemological issues in the analysis of video records:
Interactional ethnography as a logic of inquiry. In R. Goldman,
R. Pea, B. Barron & S. Derry (Eds.), Video research in the
learning sciences (pp. 115-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Green, J. L., Weade, R., & Graham, K. (2001). Lesson construction
and student participation: A sociolinguistic analysis. In J. L.
Green & J. O. Harker (Eds.), Multiple perspective analyses of
classroom discourse: Volume XXVIII (pp. 11-49). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Hahn, M. L. (2002). Reconsidering read-aloud. Portland, MA:
Stenhouse.
Hoyt, L. (2007). Interactive read-alouds, grades 4-5. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Keene, E. O. (2012). Talk about understanding: Rethinking
classroom talk to enhance comprehension. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in education (2nd ed.). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
McKee, D. (1978). Tusk, tusk. (1978). London, England: Andersen.
Mercer, N., & Hodgkinson, S. (Eds.). (2008). Exploring talk in
school: Inspired by the work of Douglas Barnes. London,
England: Sage.
Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. (2007). Reasoned
participation: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life.
Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(4), 283-297.
Mitchell, C. J. (1984). Typicality and the case study. In R. F. Ellens
(Ed.), Ethnographic research: A guide to general conduct (pp.
238-241). New York, NY: Academic.
Pearson, P. D. (2013). Common Core State Standards for Literacy
and ELA: A dazzling new opportunity or same old, same old?
Retrieved August 20, 2013, from
http://www.commoncore.pearsoned.com/index.cfm?locator=PS1
1Tb
Putney, L. G., & Frank, C. R. (2008). Looking through
ethnographic eyes at classrooms acting as cultures. Ethnography
and Education, 3(2), 211-228.
Putney, L., Green, J., Dixon, C., Durán, R. & Yeager, B. (2000).
Consequential progressions: Exploring collective-individual
development in a bilingual classroom. In P. Smagorinsky & C.
Lee (Eds.), Constructing meaning through collaborative inquiry:
Vygotskian perspectives on literacy research (pp. 86-126).
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Routman, R. (2000). Conversations: Strategies for teaching,
learning, and evaluating. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sibberson, F., & Szymusiak, K. (2003). Still learning to read:
Teaching students in grades 3-6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
ISSN:2328-0816
Issue 1 Volume 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com 47
Text Review
Professional Development Text
THE ROAD OUT: A TEACHER’S
ODYSSEY IN POOR AMERICA
in Appalachian North Carolina. The tone of the author’s note is
promptly established with the following statement,
My childhood was tainted not just by economic distress but
by the things that often go with such distress. My parents
could never escape the traumas of their dirt-poor
childhoods, and I left through the only escape hatch
available to a working-class girl: education (Hicks, 2013,
p. xi-xii).
Hick’s experience of growing up in the Appalachian area
provides the framework for her memoir ― a publication in
which she tells the story of seven adolescent girls and the times
they spent together in their classroom. The account of these
memories is organized into the following three parts:
DEBRA HICKS, 2013, BERKLEY, CA: UNIVERSITY OF
CALIFORNIA PRESS
Reviewed by Stephanie Grote-Garcia, Ph.D.
T
here were many events that received national attention this
summer. Among them were the tornados that devastated
Oklahoma and the unforeseen bombing at the Boston Marathon.
These events rightfully captured our attention and motivated
many Americans to join forces during these times of need.
I mention these events, and the much-needed and widespreadattention they received, to lead you to an important question,
one that I found myself asking frequently this summer ― What
relief or assistance is provided for our youngest victims? I am
specifically speaking of our children growing up in poor
America.
My summer of reflection was a direct result of Deborah
Hicks’ memoir, The Road Out: A Teacher’s Odyssey in Poor
America. In this publication, Hicks shares her journey as a
reading teacher in a white Appalachian ghetto in Cincinnati.
The story Hicks tells is a true testament to the power of literacy.
Hicks’ account of her journey begins with an author’s
note, one in which she explains scenes from her own childhood
Stephanie Grote-Garcia is an assistant professor at The University of the
Incarnate Word, San Antonio, TX. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Part One: Childhood Ghosts
Part one of The Road Out introduces readers to the seven
girls’ childhood memories. These memories are
metaphorically referred to as their childhood ghosts. This
part of the publication also explores the girls’ love of ghost
stories.
Part Two: My Live as a Girl
Part two reconstructs the conversations that the girls shared
during their reading groups. The conversations are highly
influenced by the girls’ experiences and by the lens for
which the girls view the world.
Part Three: Leavings
Part three brings a sense of closure in the girls’ stories. Do
they leave Cincinnati? Do they walk away from the
surrounding drug use, physical abuse, and emotional strain?
I won’t give away the ending, but I will share that part
three lead me to reflect upon the following question: Can
one teacher make a difference?
The Road Out: A Teacher’s Odyssey in Poor America is an
interesting and touching story. This memoir captures the power
of literacy and has the potential to direct much-needed attention
toward our children growing up in poor America.
For More Information: ISBN: 9780520266490, Pages: 278,
Price: $29.95 Hardback, http://www.ucpress.edu/
ISSN:2328-0816
Text Review
Adolescent Literature
who also go to the school and they give him a tour of the facilities.
Victories and setbacks plague this young, brave boy who wants
nothing more than to fit in and have friends that won’t run in fear
of his looks.
Auggie is not the only one who has a life altering experience.
Sister Via, new acquaintances Jack, Summer, and Justin, and his
sister’s former friend Miranda share their views of the experiences
with Auggie going into a public domain. The results of this one
year are amazing for all characters, building confidence, respect,
and excitement in ways no one ever imagined. This is a great read
for students and adults alike.
RJ Palacio masterfully writes this touching and impactful story
not only through the eyes of the main character, but also through all
of the characters, one section at a time. Anyone reading this will be
able to see effectively the point of view and different ideas each
character experiences in the same context of an event. On her
website, Palacio includes faqs, annotations, facts about herself as
well as teacher discussion questions to use in the classroom or book
talks.
WONDER
R.J. PALACIO, 2012, NEW YORK, NY: KNOPF BOOKS
FOR YOUNG READERS
ISSN:2328-0816 Reviewed by Deborah Wachtel Addison, Ph.D.
A
For More Information: ISBN: 9780375869020, Pages: 320,
Price: $9.00 Hardback, http://knopfdoubleday.com/
ugust (Auggie) Pullman is a ten-year-old boy wanting to
fit in with other ten-year-olds, yet he is not an ordinary boy. Auggie
has a facial deformity that causes many people, young and old
alike, to react noticeably disturbed by his appearance. For the first
four years of his school life, he was homeschooled. Then at his fifth
grade year, his parents felt there was a need for Auggie to begin
schooling outside his home so he could meet new friends and
adjust to his surroundings more readily. Wonder is a story of a
young boy adjusting to school life with a deformity he wishes he
never had so he could fit in unnoticed with the world. This book
captures in detail the first year Auggie spends at Beecher.
Preparatory School, a private school near his home. Before the
school year begins, his new principal introduces him to students
Deborah Wachtel Addison is an assistant professor at Schreiner University,
Kerrville, TX. [email protected]
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com Call for Manuscripts
e-Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction
SPECIAL ISSUE: CULTURALLY RELEVANT
PEDAGOGY AND BALANCED LITERACY
The editors of the E-Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction
invite the submission of manuscripts that center on literacy
practices and practitioners aligned with the framework of
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. First introduced to the field of
education in the early 1990’s by Gloria Ladson-Billings,
Culturally Relevant Pedagogy (CRP) focuses on (1) high
expectations for student achievement, (2) cultural competence
for teachers and students alike, and (3) socio-political
commitment. We are most interested in manuscripts that
contemplate the role of culturally relevant practices and
practitioners within the context of a balanced approach to
literacy instruction. What are the challenges and opportunities
of enacting CRP in the 21st century? To what extent might
literacy practices be shaped by a commitment to culturally
relevant practices? What promising literacy practices reflect
culturally engaged ways of teaching and learning? How can
the resources and traditions of students, families, and
communities contribute to literacy engagement? All these
questions and more are ideal for exploration in this special
issue.
Spring 2014
• Cover photos. We are accepting submissions to be
considered for the front cover of the journal. Photos
should reflect the theme of the special edition. If images of
people are included you must include signed permission
from the person and/or guardian (in the event faces depict
minors). Please visit the Guidelines Section of our website
for more information.
In submitting manuscripts, please attend to the following
guidelines. When sending in your manuscript please certify
that you have completed items 1-10:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Types of manuscripts we will consider:
8.
• Full length articles (3000-5000 words). These articles
should report on completed investigations or offer critical
theoretical/literature insights about the theme.
• Short article and notes (300-750 words). These might
describe work in progress, raise issues arising in one’s
work, discuss general issues related to methodologies,
ethics, engagement, etc.
• Book reviews (750-1000 words). There are two types of
book reviews we consider: (1) books which are designed
for use with PreK-12 students and (2) books which are
designed for the professional use of educators. Reviews
should take the perspective of a “critical friend” in terms
of the authors’ styles, approaches, and perspectives as they
connect to the theme of this special issue.
• Profile of In-service Teacher and/or Pre-service
Teacher. We would like to highlight educators, both inservice and pre-service, who are models and exemplars of
connecting balanced literacy instruction with culturally
relevant approaches. We will contact the person, should
they be selected, to include a color photograph, so please
include contact information.
e-‐Journal of Balanced Reading Instruction Volume 2 Issue 1
9.
10.
The submission has not been previously published,
nor is it under consideration for another journal.
The submission has a title page with institutional
affiliation, position, and contact information (physical
address and email address) as a separate document.
A running head is used to identify the paper, along
with page numbers, throughout the document.
An abstract of no more than 120 words is included.
The submission file is in Microsoft Word format.
All URL addressed are activated and ready to click.
The text is double-spaced; uses a 12-point Times New
Roman Font and employs italics rather than
underlining (except for URL addresses)
The text adheres to the stylistic and bibliographic
requirements of APA 6th Edition. For references, the
authors should use the special hanging indent option
found in the Paragraph sub-menu of the Format
dropdown box. (click on FORMAT, PARAGRAPH,
HANGING INDENT from dropdown menu)
Two copies of the manuscript are required with one
having the authors’ names removed for reviewing
purposes.
It is not required, but your manuscript can have
images/graphics that add to the overall cohesiveness
of your work.
All submissions and
[email protected].
queries
should
be
Volume 1 -‐ Issue 2 ©2013 ISSN: 2328-‐0816 http://www.balancedreadinginstruction.com sent
to

Print Version - Balanced Reading Instruction

Transcription

Similar documents

STOKE CITY FC Carlo Nash - National Literacy Trust

OneUnited Bank President Teri Williams to Appear on WCVB

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: October 15, 2013 CONTACT

Credo Reference Discovery Session WALDO, March 12, 2012

Newsletter No. 2 - gpche

Physical Literacy 101 What is PLAY Central?

Links to Literacy

Who We Are

Flyer - Toronto District School Board

Spring