Primary and elementary/middle grades reading

Note: This paper was later published. Please cite as:

Alvermann, D. E., & Mallozzi, C. A. (2010). Primary and

elementary/middle grades reading. In P. Peterson, E. Baker, & B.

McGaw, (Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Education (3rd ed., Vol. 1,

pp. 464-467). Oxford: Elsevier.

Donna E. Alvermann and Christine A. Mallozzi

University of Georgia

Entry on: Primary and Elementary/Middle Grades Reading

The reading curriculum for the primary school emergent

readers and older elementary/middle grade readers divides roughly

at grade three (approximately age nine) in many countries (e.g.,

Canada, Chile, China, Malaysia, Nigeria, United States), though

not all (e.g., Poland and Switzerland, where primary school ends

much later). The rationale in selecting grade three as the

dividing point between primary and elementary/middle grades

reading rests largely on Barr’s (2001) review of the research on

teaching reading, which distinctly divided developmental

Alvermann & Mallozzi - 2

beginning reader issues from other issues in comprehending more

complex texts in the upper grades. This divide, however, does not

signal support for the cliché that children first learn to read

and then they read to learn. Separating the act of reading from

one of its functions—reading to learn something—makes little

sense. Developmentally, emergent readers are different from

skilled readers, but the difference lies more with the subject-

matter materials than with the groups’ purposes for reading.

1. Primary Reading

Curricular divisions in primary reading, especially where

alphabetic languages dominate, tend to center on decoding and

comprehension. This rather arbitrary divide between deciphering

print and meaning-making masks two other aspects of reading. The

first is concepts of print, a set of fundamental but complicated

understandings about how print works in the world. An emergent

reader demonstrates concepts of print by holding a book

correctly, directionally tracking print, knowing how to turn the

page of a text, and other such behaviors that may seem obvious to

more experienced readers but are basic to more advanced

understandings of print. The second is fluency. A fluent reader


comprehends texts of various types with speed, accuracy, and

appropriate expression, similar to how a coherent speaker uses

phrasing, tonal, rhythmic, and pacing conventions to communicate

orally. When fluency is emphasized over meaning-making activities

in the curriculum, students often become “word callers” rather

than readers for comprehension.

1.1 Decoding typically points to two curricular areas of

beginning reading: phonemic awareness and phonics. Phonemic

awareness requires being mindful of “the smallest units of sound

that allow speakers of a language to differentiate among words”

(Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005, p. 68). The primary reading

curriculum includes activities involving alliteration, rhyming,

and listening for sounds that make up a word (e.g., /b/ and /a/

and /t/). For the most part, these activities do not include

matching sounds to letters or phonemes in print; they are usually

restricted to the level of auditory and oral awareness. Phonics

instruction, however, is the educational move from sound to

letter-sound correspondences. These correspondences can be at the

letter, phoneme, onset/rime, and word levels. Although phonics

emphasizes sound and letter patterns, it is necessary to


acknowledge the times when those patterns do not apply. For

example, in the English language, approximately 2/3 of the words

do not follow expected patterns.

1.2 Comprehending a text requires background knowledge and

vocabulary. Although theoretical differences exist as to the

source of meaning in a text, in the primary grades, reading

comprehension is typically defined as “the process of

simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through

interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Reading

Study Group, 2002, p. 11). One theory posits that the meaning of

a text lies in the print that is on the page, and the reader is

called to discover the meaning presented by the author. Another

holds that a personal meaning of the text is constructed by the

reader. Still another maintains that meaning is created as a

transaction among the author, the reader, and their surrounding

contexts. Underlying all of these theories is the assumption that

a reader brings relevant background knowledge to the task of

comprehending. When such knowledge is incomplete or when it

departs radically from an author’s intended purpose, a reader’s


comprehension will also be incomplete (Pearson, Hansen, & Gordon,

1979).

Curricular concerns related to vocabulary development at the

primary grade level are well founded. When common words that most

children know and use daily take on specialized or technical

meanings in subject-matter classes, they can cause confusion and

lead to problems in comprehending information. Consider for

example, the common word “table” and its specialized meanings (a

water table, a multiplication table, to table a motion, and so

on). Children learn words through independent reading, listening

to texts and oral language, direct instruction of specific words,

context clues, and morphemic cues. Estimates of the number of

words beginning readers need to know vary greatly. The range can

be large (e.g., between 2562 and 26,000 words for first graders)

and can also vary according to a family’s socioeconomic status

(White, Graves, & Slater, 1990).

1.3 Policies aimed at increasing reading achievement levels among

primary grade children have affected curriculum the national,

regional, and local levels. For example, the United Kingdom’s

National Literacy Strategy introduced in 1997-1998 promoted a


reading model that assumed a diverse range of instructional

approaches to be preferable over a developmentally sequenced

reading curriculum. Heavy critiques of this model (Rose, 2006)

have led to a more defined reading curriculum being incorporated

into the revised Primary Framework for literacy (House of Commons

Education and Skills Committee, 2005). Similar trends toward more

systemic reading instruction can be seen in countries such as the

United States, with its legislated No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 (Public Law 107-110) and Singapore with its definitive

national language syllabi (Curriculum Planning and Development

Division, Ministry of Education, 2001). Curricular imbalances in

favor of reading skills, such as decoding and comprehending, over

reading for pleasure have potentially important implications for

students’ lifelong literacy practices (House of Commons Education

and Skills Committee, 2005).

National policies in other countries have also created

tensions by mandating instructional reading materials. For

example in Brazil, the official textbook for poetry instruction

focuses young readers’ attention on the structure of the genre

over the deeper meaning that could be developed by making


connections from the poem to themselves and to their world

(Malloy & Botzakis, 2005). Although access to digital technology

in literacy curricula may be dependent on region and socio-

economic status (Mallozzi & Malloy, 2007), reading domains

require redescription for a “clickerati generation” who explore

digital technology “without fear” (Turbill, 2004, p. 356).

Concepts of print skills such as directionality of print and

sequential “page-turning” are not the most effective mode of

understanding how digital print works for emergent readers

exposed to more diverse sources of print; these young readers of

a digital age may be better served by a more elastic reading

curriculum. Devising and maintaining a reading curriculum is a

challenge when the definitions and practices of reading are

constantly changing in a politicized and globalized economy.

2. Elementary/Middle Grades Reading

Beyond grade three, the elementary/middle grades reading

curriculum increasingly focuses on the disciplinary or subject-

matter aspects of acquiring information from a variety of

academic materials (both print and nonprint). Typically, this

focus is intended to deepen students’ appreciation of reading for


purposes of organizing and sharing ideas, revising one’s

thinking, inquiring more fully into a subject area, and so on.

Key curricular questions at this level, which typically consists

of grades four through eight (or children approximately 9 to13

years of age), include the following: a) what role does self-

efficacy play in elementary/middle grade students’ willingness to

engage with reading in their subject-matter texts? b) are generic

reading strategies sufficient for learning across disciplinary

areas, and c) to what degree are the new information

communication technologies (ICTs) an influence on how the

elementary/middle grades reading curriculum is addressing the

issue of student engagement with reading?

2.1 Elementary and middle graders’ perceptions of how competent

they are as readers, generally speaking, will affect the degree

to which they are motivated to engage with learning in the core

curricula (e.g., science, social studies, mathematics, and

literature). In pre-adolescence as in earlier and later life, it

is the belief in the self (or lack of such belief) that makes a

difference in how competent an individual feels when faced with a

challenging task, such as reading primary source materials in


social studies class or comprehending a math word problem.

Although the terms self-concept and self-efficacy are sometimes used

interchangeably, they actually refer to different constructs. For

example, a student may have a generally good self-concept of

herself as a reader, but her answer “Not very” to the question

“How confident are you that you can comprehend a primary source

on the Battle of Gettysburg?” would indicate low self-efficacy

for that particular task.

In an extensive review of how curricular decisions affect

elementary and middles grade students’ reading engagement and

academic performance, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) concluded that

various reading strategies, while important, do not directly

impact student outcomes (e.g., the time they spend reading

independently, their performance on high-stakes assessments, and

their beliefs about reading). Instead, it was the students’ level

of engagement in subject-matter reading that was the mediating

factor in improved student outcomes. Guthrie and Wigfield’s

conception of the engagement model of reading calls for a

curriculum that fosters, among other things, students’ self-


efficacy and self-monitoring as they attempt to comprehend

subject-matter texts.

2.2 Research suggests that the teaching of generic reading

comprehension strategies does have merit, and that students can easily

learn a number of routines that can help them comprehend different

kinds of written documents required of them in the reading curriculum

(Biancarosa & Snow, 2004). These include pre-reading strategies such as

reviewing vocabulary integral to comprehending an assigned social

studies text and making predictions about the outcome of a story or a

science experiment. Strategies that students can make use of while

reading include visually representing a word problem in math, asking

questions about a cause-and-effect chain of events in a history

passage, or taking notes on a short story’s developing plot line.

Those that can be employed after reading, such as summarizing or comparing

notes with other students, serve as aids in reinforcing and reviewing

what was learned or in correcting misunderstandings before going on to

new material.

Less common have been efforts to help teachers and students

strategically address curricular and reading demands that are specific to

various subject matter texts (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007). The

structures of academic disciplines (e.g., history, science,


mathematics, literature) differ greatly, as do ways of representing

such structures in the content area textbooks a student reads. Ways of

talking about science and engaging in science experiments are quite

different from ways of reading a novel or responding to a poem.

Reading a science textbook, for example, requires strategies that

focus on hypothesizing and attending to procedures and outcomes,

whereas reading a novel or a poem would more likely entail strategic

knowledge of how literary conventions such as flashbacks, similes, and

metaphors contribute to one’s understanding. These differences, while

important, are rarely discussed in the literature dealing with the

reading curriculum at the elementary and middle grades. Similarly,

there is little discussion of the recent changes in textual form and

function that have accompanied a growing interest in multimodal

instruction (Lankshear & Knobel, 2006). Such omissions are

regrettable, especially given that neither general nor specific

reading comprehension strategies, by themselves, are sufficient for

learning across disciplinary areas. Taken together, however, and

situated within a multimodal approach to reading instruction, these

strategies might well inform a reading curriculum that is

transitioning, if ever so slowly, into a post-typographic world.


2.3 An emerging trend worldwide is a call for considering the

multiple realities of information communication technologies

(ICTs) on reading in the elementary/middle grades curriculum.

Based on the results of a survey sent to international literacy

research correspondents covering fairly broad regions in South

America, Europe, Africa, Pacific Asia, and North America,

Botzakis and Malloy (2005) reported that the majority of

respondents in all regions were positive in their descriptions of

how new ICTs are influencing students' engagement with reading

and hence the reading curriculum. At the same time, there were

regional differences reflected in some of the respondents’

reports. For example, in Argentina and Chile, most teachers who

completed the survey indicated that they recognized the

importance of electronic media and tried to use new technologies

in making reading assignments. On the other hand, they also

reported that “many computer labs in schools were scarcely used,

except in instances when transcribing or searching for general

information were the goals” (p. 113).

The degree to which ICTs are viewed as a positive influence

on the elementary/middle grades reading curriculum hinges in part


on perceptions of their usefulness and issues of access. For

example, some respondents from Estonia raised a question about

whether or not print literacy and the literary curriculum were

being diluted due to the influence of electronic media. A lack of

access to information communication technologies was reported as

a hardship in certain areas of South Africa, Malaysia, and

Brunei. By way of contrast, respondents from Singapore pointed

out the ministry of education’s role in investing and promoting

the use of new ICTs, while respondents in Hong Kong claimed that

it was difficult to add anything new, including ICTs, to an

already packed curriculum.

2.3 Not surprisingly, the key questions and issues that were

identified as pertaining to the elementary/middle grades reading

curriculum apply as well to the secondary level where reading

demands only increase in intensity and complexity. As Biancarosa

and Snow (2004) have noted, “secondary school literacy skills are

more complex, more embedded in subject matters, and more multiply

determined.” (p. 2). Adding to this complexity, particularly in

the United States as a result of No Child Left Behind, is a

culture of assessment that is essentially rewriting the face of


the reading curriculum at the secondary level with little or no

regard for input from local educators (Fecho, Mallozzi, &

Schultz, in press) or for learning through other than traditional

print-based texts. On a global level, too, the push for higher

standards and improved student achievement in reading is often

grounded in print and reflected in a narrowing of the curriculum

through overzealously adopting what Luke and Luke (2001) have

referred to as an “inoculation” approach to curriculum reform

(but see

http://education.qld.gov.au/curriculum/learning/literate-

futures/, the website of Literate Futures, for an exception to

this critique).

International comparisons of reading achievement, such as

the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA),

administered by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and

Development, indicate even more broadly the interest in measuring

secondary students’ performance levels and their implications for

curriculum reform. A case in point is PISA’s first report issued

in the year 2000, which subsequently has had considerable

influence on curriculum development in reading for 15-year-olds


among the 32 participating nations, and particularly for those in

Central and Eastern Europe (Meredith, 2004). In 2009, the date

set for the next PISA survey of 15-year-olds’ ability to analyze,

reason, and communicate effectively about what they read, the

assessment will involve reading electronic texts (OECD, 2007) – a

stark contrast to the 2009 Reading Framework of the National

Assessment of Educational Progress, a U.S. assessment that will

involve reading only traditional print texts. Perhaps advances in

technology use may yet be perceived in some areas of the world as

undermining long-standing assumptions about a reading curriculum.

References

Barr, R. (2001). Research on the teaching of reading. In V.

Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching: Fourth edition (pp.

390-415). Washington, DC: American Educational Research

Association.

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action

and research in middle and high school literacy (A report to Carnegie

Corporation of New York). Washington, DC: Alliance for

Excellent Education.


Botzakis, S., & Malloy, J. A. (Compilers). (2005). International

reports on literacy research: South America, Europe, South

Africa, Pacific Asia, and North America. Reading Research

Quarterly, 40, 112-118.

Curriculum Planning and Development Division, Ministry of

Education. (2001). Subject syllabuses, language and literature.

Retrieved May 30, 2007, from

http://www.moe.gov.sg/cpdd/syllabuses.htm

Fecho, B. Mallozzi, C.A., & Schultz, K (in press). Policy and

adolescent literacy. In

B.G. Guzzetti (Ed.), Adolescent Literature in a Global Society.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Company.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation

in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson,

& R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403-

422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Heller, R., & Greenleaf, C. (2007). Literacy instruction in the content

areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement.

Washington, DC: The Alliance for Excellent Education.


House of Commons Education and Skills Committee, (2005). Education

and skills, eighth report. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/c

meduski/121/12102.htms

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2006). New literacies: Everyday practices &

classroom learning (2nd ed.). Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill/Open

University Press.

Luke, A. & Luke, C. (2001) Adolescence lost/childhood regained:

On early intervention

and the emergence of the techno-subject. Journal of Early

Childhood Literacy 1, 145-180.

Malloy, J. A., & Botzakis, S. (Compilers). (2005). International

reports on literacy research: France, United Kingdom,

Brazil. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 514-518.

Mallozzi, C. A., & Malloy, J. A. (Compilers). (2007).

International reports on literacy research:

Reading and writing connections. Reading Research Quarterly, 42,

161-166.

Meredith, K. (2004). International reports on literacy research.

Reading Research Quarterly, 39¸ 358-359.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/12102.htm

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmeduski/121/12102.htm


National Assessment Governing Board. (2004). Resolution on the NAEP

2009 Reading Framework. Washington, DC: NAGB. Retrieved May

29, 2007 from http://www.nagb.org/release/resolution_09.html

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat.

1425 (2002). Retrieved September 29, 2006, from

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD).

(2007). PISA: The OECD Programme for International Student Assessment

(p. 16). Retrieved May 29, 2007 from

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/27/37474503.pdf

Pearson, P. D., Hansen, J., & Gordon, C. (1979). The effect of

background knowledge on young children’s comprehension of

explicit and implicit information. Journal of Reading Behavior, 9,

201-210.

RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an

R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Science &

Technology Policy Institute, RAND Education.

Rose, J. (2006). Independent review of the teaching of early reading, final

report. Retrieved May 30, 2007, from

http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/phonics/report.pdf

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/27/37474503.pdf

http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html

http://www.nagb.org/release/resolution_09.html


Snow, C. E., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2005).

Knowledge to support the teaching of reading. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass.

Turbill, J. (2004). International reports on literacy research.

Reading Research Quarterly, 39¸ 356-358.

White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of

reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 82, 281-290.

Further Reading Section

Alvermann, D. E., & Wilson, A. A. (in press). Redefining

adolescent literacy instruction. In B. J. Guzzetti (Ed.),

Literacy for a new century. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing

Group.

Buehl, D. (2007). A professional development framework for

embedding comprehension instruction into content classrooms.

In J. Lewis & G. B. Moorman (Eds.), Adolescent literacy instruction:


Policies and promising practices. Newark, DE: International Reading

Association.

Deshler, D. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M.

(2007). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based

guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE:

International Reading Association.

Eakle, A. J., & Garber, A. (Compilers). (2004). International

reports on literacy research: Australia, Central and Eastern

Europe. Reading Research Quarterly, 39, 356-359.

Hull, G. A., & Nelson, M. E. (2005). Locating the semiotic power

of multimodality. Written Communication, 22, 224-261.

Kress, G. (2003). Literacy in the new media age. London: Routledge.

Leu, D. J., Kinzer, C. K., Coiro, J. L., & Cammack, D. W. (2004).

Toward a theory of new literacies emerging from the internet

and other invormation and communication technologies. In R.

B. Ruddell & N. J. Unrau (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of

reading (5th ed., pp. 1570-1613). Newark, DE: International

Reading Association.

Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings.

Review of Educational Research, 66, 543-578.


Reinking, D., McKenna, M. C, & Labbo, L. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook

of literacy and technology: Transformation in a post-typographic world.

Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.


List of Websites

Alvermann, D. E. (2001). Effective literacy instruction for

adolescents. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from

http://nrconline.org

Luke, A. (n.d.) Evidence-based state literacy policy: A critical

alternative. Retrieved June 3, 2007 from

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/projects/impactonpolicy/pdfs/Luk

e_chapter_may_10_04.pdf

Pressley, M. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction.

Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://nrconline.org

http://nrconline.org/

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/projects/impactonpolicy/pdfs/Luke_chapter_may_10_04.pdf

http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/projects/impactonpolicy/pdfs/Luke_chapter_may_10_04.pdf

http://nrconline.org/


Biography of First Author:

Donna E. Alvermann is University of Georgia-appointed Distinguished Research Professor of Language and Literacy Education. Formerly a classroom teacher in Texas and New York, her research focuses on content area literacy instruction and youth-initiated forms of engagement with digital media. Her co-authored/edited books include Content Reading and Literacy: Succeeding in Today’s Diverse Classrooms (5th ed.); Reconceptualizing the Literacies in Adolescents’ Lives (2nd ed.); Bridging the Literacy Achievement Gap, Grades 4-12;and Adolescents and Literacies in a Digital World. Past President of the National Reading Conference (NRC) and former editor of Reading Research Quarterly, she serves on the Adolescent Literacy Advisory Group of the Alliance for Excellent Education. Currently she is the evaluator of an adolescent literacy research project involving 10 European nations, funded by the European Commission.She was elected to the Reading Hall of Fame in 1999, and is the recipient of NRC’s Oscar Causey Award for Outstanding Contributions to Reading Research, NRC’s Kingston Award for Distinguished Service, College Reading Association’s Laureate Award, and the Herr Award for Contributions to Research in Reading Education. In 2006, she was awarded the International Reading Association’s William S. Gray Citation of Merit and the American Reading Forum’s Brenda S. Townsend Service Award.

Biography of Second Author: (to follow separately)


Manuscript InformationArticle Title: Primary and Elementary/Middle Grades ReadingManuscript Number:Number of words: 2129Number of figures: 0Number of tables: 0Number of multimedia annexes: 0


Manuscript InformationArticle Title: Primary and Elementary/Middle Grades ReadingManuscript Number:Number of words: 2520 (not counting references)Number of figures: 0Number of tables: 0Number of multimedia annexes: 0


Key Words

Reading CurriculumPrimary GradesElementary GradesSecondary Grades

Documents

Primary and elementary/middle grades reading