Changes in Reading Practices and Perceptions in Low-Literacy-Level Adult Learners

This article was downloaded by: [University of Illinois Chicago]On: 24 November 2014, At: 07:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Reading PsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

Changes in Reading Practicesand Perceptions in Low-Literacy-Level Adult LearnersJane R. Shore a , John P. Sabatini a , Jennifer Lentinia & Steven Holtzman aa Educational Testing Service , Princeton , NewJerseyPublished online: 26 Sep 2013.

To cite this article: Jane R. Shore , John P. Sabatini , Jennifer Lentini &Steven Holtzman (2013) Changes in Reading Practices and Perceptions inLow-Literacy-Level Adult Learners, Reading Psychology, 34:6, 550-568, DOI:10.1080/02702711.2012.660371

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.660371

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urpy20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/02702711.2012.660371

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2012.660371

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Reading Psychology, 34:550–568, 2013Copyright C© 2013 Educational Testing ServiceISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702711.2012.660371

CHANGES IN READING PRACTICES AND PERCEPTIONS INLOW-LITERACY-LEVEL ADULT LEARNERS

JANE R. SHORE, JOHN P. SABATINI, JENNIFER LENTINI, and STEVENHOLTZMAN

Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey

This article reports on pre to post changes found in learners who participated inthe Relative Effectiveness of Adult Literacy (REAL) reading interventions study(n = 81). Changes reported cover the types of texts learners read, the frequencyof self-reported reading, perceptions of how well they read the texts, and theirperceptions of how skilled they were at various reading-related tasks. Relation-ships among the changes in habits and perceptions and reading achievement areexplored. For 36 of the 81, a six-month follow up interview was conducted.

Introduction

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL), whichreports on the literacy habits of adults age 16 or older in theUnited States, found that a person’s reading practices are af-fected by his or her level of reading proficiency (Kutner, Green-berg, & Baer, 2005). Background and family characteristics suchas age, gender, socioeconomic status, learning disability status,and educational level also contribute to this relationship andhave been described in depth by various researchers (Alamprese,2003; Boudett & Friedlander, 1997; Guthrie, Seifert, & Kirsch,1986; Kirsch, Jungblut, Jenkins, & Kolstad, 1993; Kutner et al.,2005; Mellard, Patterson, & Prewett, 2007; Smith, 1996; Snow& Strucker, 2000). A person’s level of reading proficiency hasbeen found to be positively associated with the frequency ofreading print documents like newspapers, magazines, and books(Stanovich & Cunningham, 2004). Though much research has de-scribed this important connection, little has focused on changesin reading practices and abilities that individuals enrolled in liter-acy courses may self-report experiencing over time.

Address correspondence to Jane Shore, Educational Testing Service, 121 S. BroadSt., Suite 1710, Philadelphia, PA 19107 USA. E-mail: [email protected]

550

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Changes in Reading Practices and Perceptions 551

In the Relative Effectiveness of Adult Literacy (REAL) read-ing interventions study, we sought to investigate, among otheraims, changes in the reading practices and self-perceptions of par-ticipating adults.1 Reading practices in this study were defined as“literacy practices with different print concepts, such as books,newspapers, magazines, and documents of various kinds” (Smith,1996, p. 196), in addition to practices involving functional literacytext types, like nutritional labels and street signs. Self-perceptionrefers to individuals’ assessments of how well they think they canaccomplish a particular reading task.2 This article reports on preto post changes found in practices and perceptions for a sampleof 81 adult learners, divided fairly evenly among three readingprograms. For 36 of the 81, a 6-month follow-up interview wasconducted and will be reported upon.

Perspectives and Theoretical Framework

Research has shown that there is a direct relationship betweenreading achievement and reading practices in youth and adults.Hughes-Hassell and Rodge (2007) found that leisure reading inmiddle schoolers related to achievement in vocabulary, compre-hension, verbal fluency, and content knowledge, while McQuil-lan and Au (2001) found that voluntary free reading was associ-ated with higher levels of reading proficiency. Studies have alsoshown that reading frequency is related to reading achievementamong adults across all ability levels (Desjardins, 2003; Mellardet al., 2007; Scales & Rhee, 2001; Smith, 1996; Stanovich, West, &Harrison, 1995). This relationship may be bidirectional, too. Thatis, when one reads well, one might read more (Scales & Rhee,2001; Stanovich et al., 1995), and the more one reads, the betterreader one becomes (Stanovich et al., 1995).

However, not all reading frequency or reading practices canbe explained by reading ability. Perceived ability of a reader hasbeen found to be strongly related to reading practice (Baker &Wigfield, 1999; Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson, & Soler, 2002).Baker and Wigfield’s (1999) work, for instance, focused on chil-dren who were reading well below national grade level normson tests of reading achievement. They found that regardless oftheir achievement levels, children who perceived they were good

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

552 J. R. Shore et al.

readers reported that they read more frequently and read agreater variety of materials.

Another factor influencing individuals reading practices isone’s interest in reading, as well as perceived attainment or util-ity value in reading.3 Researchers have found the motivation toread and the enjoyment of reading itself is strongly related to self-reported frequency of reading (Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Schutte& Malouff, 2007). If an individual simply does not enjoy reading,that individual will, logically, not report reading as often. Similarly,individuals need to see reading as serving some valuable or usefulpurpose.

Factors such as access to interesting and relevant reading ma-terials have also been found to be related to reading practices.There is a body of research that has focused on the relationshipbetween the frequency with which one reads and one’s access tointeresting reading materials (e.g., McQuillan & Au, 2001; Wor-thy & McKool, 1996). This may be a significant factor in environ-ments that may lack adequate resources. For example, researchresults have reported that schools in low-income neighborhoodshave poorer classroom and school libraries than schools in higher-income neighborhoods (Duke, 2000; Neuman & Celano, 2001).Other research has reported that children in under-resourcedareas have less access to books at home (Feitelson & Goldstein,1986), and that they have less access to books in their commu-nities, because the public libraries that serve these communi-ties have lower-quality holdings and are open for limited hours(DiLoreto & Tse, 1999; Neuman & Celano, 2001).

With adult learners, age is another factor that might influ-ence reading frequency and practices. The research on how agemight influence the practices of adults has been somewhat con-tradictory, however. For example, some studies have shown thatadults read less with increasing age (Check & Toellner, 1984;Yankelovich, Skelly, & White, Inc., 1978), but others have shownreading increases in middle age to old age among certain popu-lations of individuals (Ribovich & Erickson, 1980). This discrep-ancy might be related to the different samples in these studies.Check and Toellner (1984) focused their work in nursing homes.Ribovich and Erickson (1980) and Yankelovich, Skelly, & White,Inc. (1978) surveyed a more heterogeneous mix of adults acrossages and communities. These studies, however, do not report on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


variation in levels of literacy proficiency in their samples. Exam-ining practices among individuals of various ages who may havefewer years of formal education, including those who have soughtto return to school as adult literacy learners, is a factor that hasyet to be explored in larger surveys and in experimental studies ofadult learners.

Among adult learners attending adult education programs,instructional approach may be a factor influencing reading fre-quency and reading practices. The only study we found in thisarea was conducted by Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobsen, andSoler (2001). They found that approaches in classrooms that in-tegrated authentic literacy materials tended to have the most in-fluence on change in reading practices. Their study of 173 learn-ers across 81 classes found that among native English-speakingstudents, the lower the literacy level of the participants at thestart, the more the self-reported literacy practices were foundto change. In addition, the longer learners were in class, themore change the researchers observed. This study does not reportspecifically on changes in adults’ reading skill levels, nor on therelationships these changes in practice might have had on adults’self-perceptions of their abilities.

Finally, there are dispositional variables, such as school be-liefs, that influence persistence in self-study, which is defined to in-clude reading frequency (Ziegler, Bain, Bell, McCallum, & Brian,2006). That is, the feeling one has about the value and fit of schoolmight influence one’s reading frequency and habits. Beliefs aboutschool influence how often and how well an individual may read.For adult literacy learners more specifically, research has foundthat negative experiences in one’s early schooling might influ-ence later reading practices. That is, an individual might not wantto read regardless of ability due to socioecological conditioning(Belzer, 2002). Research has found that beliefs formed in thejuvenile academic environment, in particular, can influence anadult’s reading habits, sometimes negatively. That is, negative im-ages of school literacy may discourage adults to read, especiallythose who may not have learned their foundational literacy skillsin traditional environments (Belzer, 2002; Sheehan-Holt & Smith,2000). There is good news in this regard, however. Researchersposit that one can overcome obstacles due to lack of print accessand may begin to see value in reading, with focused attention on

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


beliefs about school and self-efficacy (Gambrell & Marinak, 1997;Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).

It is important to note here that the previous research onreading practices and self-perceptions has been observational.The majority of the studies report on survey data collected to de-scribe a population at one point in time, not changes over time.In addition, previous research has not compared how differentapproaches to reading instruction may influence reading prac-tices and self-perceptions. The goal of this article is to contributeto our understanding of changes in reading-related practices andself-perceptions in adult literacy learners who are enrolled in in-structional programs designed to build their foundational read-ing skills, as well as the relationship of those changes to achieve-ment outcomes.

Research Questions

Given these issues, the questions we will answer are:

1. Do participating adults self-report that they read more types oftexts after reading interventions?

2. Do participating adults self-report changes in the frequencywith which they read various materials, or perceptions of theirabilities to read these materials?

3. Do participating adults self-report changes in their perceptionsof their own abilities to complete certain reading tasks?

4. What changes are found in reading achievement outcomesamong the participants in this sample?

5. Do changes found remain stable 6 months after completinginterventions?

Methods

Data were collected starting in the winter of 2003 and ending inthe summer of 2008. Individual interviews were conducted at thetime of screening, and audio recorded with student consent, toensure details were all captured. Each of the instructional pro-grams in the study was individually delivered (through one-on-onetutoring). This section reviews the details regarding participants,instruments, and instructional intervention programs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Participants

The adults who participated in this study were enrolled in adulteducation classes in two major cities in the mid-Atlantic and south-ern regions of the United States. All were between the ages of 18and 72, with a mean age of 36; 67% of participants were female;83% were African American, 9% Latino(a), and 8% White. Thisdemographic breakdown is similar to that of the population ofadult education programs in the regions where the program washeld. The highest level of education attained by participants is asfollows: 23% had a high school diploma or GED; the last gradecompleted by 50% of participants was ninth, 10th, or 11th grade;the last grade completed by 23% of participants was eighth gradeor below. Participants who did not graduate from high school leftschool for a variety of reasons: 18% felt that they did not do wellor did not like school; 18% left due to pregnancy; 13% left due tofamily reasons; 8% wanted to work instead. Twenty-eight percentof participants were employed full or part time at the start of theprogram. The characteristics of the subsample examined in thisarticle are similar to those of the sample as a whole.

A total of 153 individuals completed tutorials in the study;however, the post interview was modified partway through thedata collection cycle to include the self-report items, also includedin the pre-interview, on how often and how well participants readvarious materials (see Background and Progress Interviews sec-tion for further details on these items). The 81 learners who com-pleted all questions in the pre- and revised post-interviews were in-cluded in the sample used in this article, so that we could comparetheir self-reported habits, practices, and perceptions of learning.

Eligibility criteria for the study were: (1) a score below theseventh grade equivalent in word recognition on the WRAT-3(Wilkinson, 1993); (2) if a non-native English speaker, a low ad-vanced level of language proficiency; (3) no uncorrected visionor hearing problems; (4) no reported history of services for men-tal retardation, brain injury, or severe mental health problems.

Instruments and Scores

SCREENING FOR ELIGIBILITYTo determine initial word recognition levels, the Reading

subtest of the Wide Range Achievement Test—3 (Wilkinson,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


1993) was used. Learners who scored at seventh grade equivalentor below were eligible for participation.

FULL READING ASSESSMENT BATTERYAll participants were administered a full battery of standard-

ized reading assessments before, during, and after instructionalprograms. The assessments relevant to this study comprise theBroad and Basic Reading Clusters from the Woodcock-JohnsonIII Tests of Achievement (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001).The Broad Reading Skills score provides a comprehensive mea-sure of reading achievement, including word recognition, read-ing fluency, and the ability to comprehend connected discoursewhile reading. (This cluster is a combination of Test 1: Letter-Word Identification, Test 2: Reading Fluency, and Test 9: PassageComprehension.) The Basic Reading Skills score is an aggregatemeasure of sight vocabulary, phonics, and structural analysis. (Thecluster is a combination of Test 1: Letter-Word Identification andTest 13: Word Attack.)

BACKGROUND AND PROGRESS INTERVIEWSReading-related practices and perceptions data reported in

this article were collected through in-person interviews usingquestionnaires based on templates (Labov, 1984; O’Brien, Black,Carley-Baxter, & Simon, 2003; Romani, 1973) and designed forthis study (Shore, Lentini, Hutcheson, & Sabatini, 2008a). Thesewere designed with sensitivity to issues related to adults and adultliteracy learners, and created to be part of a dialogue between theadult learners and the interviewers.

At the start of the study, before tutorials began, participantswere interviewed using a full background questionnaire that cov-ered questions related to their previous experiences with formaleducation, the reasons they were in their classes, and basic demo-graphics. The final section of this questionnaire, which focused onpractices, perceptions, and goals, was also repeated in the middleand end of the tutorials. Data from this section will be reported inthis article.

Questions in this section covered three areas. First, therewere reading skills questions that asked how well individuals feltthey could complete various reading tasks such as spelling, under-standing words, and reading long words. These were answered ona three-point Likert scale.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Next, there were two subsections in which individuals re-sponded on a five-point Likert scale regarding how often andhow well they read various types of texts. These texts were dividedinto two composite variables based on text type. First, there werecontinuous or prose texts, including magazine articles, newspapers,letters, notes, e-mails, religious readings, song lyrics, children’sbooks, children’s homework, school materials, and library books.Second, there were noncontinuous, or functional texts, includingstreet signs, merchandise labels, restaurant menus, nutritional la-bels, TV guides, bus/train schedules, forms for work, utility bills,and pay stubs. In the analyses, described later, we looked at each ofthese types individually and also divided the text types into thesetwo broad categories to create composite scores for each, and an-alyzed basic trends. We will report on both the specific and thesecomposite changes, as we found that together they provide therichest description.

Intervention Programs

The participating adults were chosen based on eligibility to volun-tarily participate and were then randomly placed in one of threereading programs administered in individual tutorials. Approxi-mately 90% of those eligible from participating classes did chooseto take part in interventions. Of those, there was an approximately50% reading intervention completion rate. The attrition rate forthis study is typical of adult education programs: attrition ratesof 40% or higher are typical between the time of assignment toan educational program to post-intervention testing some 50 to100 hours later (Dirkx & Jha, 1994). Attrition is a longstandingand continuing challenge, but it is beyond the scope of this arti-cle to summarize the research on the barriers to persistence facedby adult students and the means used by programs to improveretention (see Comings, Parella, & Soricone, 1999).

The first experimental program was a fluency program (n =28), and it relied on Guided Repeated Reading (GRR) and re-lated activities to strengthen text fluency skills, with some phonicsinstruction embedded (Shore, McNeil, Sabatini, & Scarborough,2008b). GRR has been shown to be effective with children andadolescents (NICHD, 2000) but has not been formally examinedin adult literacy contexts. Typical lessons included (1) teacher

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


modeling of oral reading with a specific, short text; (2) a sharedreading of the text with both the student and teacher readingorally in unison; and (3) individual students orally reading eachtext up to three times during the same session. Text passages werebrief (under 350 words), contained predictable and rhythmic textto promote fluent reading, and were selected based on readinglevel, subject area, and potential interest to adult learners on top-ics such as family life, health, finance, and human interest (Shoreet al., 2008b).

The second, a decoding program (n = 26), was the Correc-tive Reading (CR) approach (Engelmann, 1999). It is widely usedwith adolescent students and grew out of the traditional phonicsinstruction for treating reading disabilities. The main focus is onstrengthening and expanding the reader’s mastery of grapheme-phoneme correspondences and word recognition. This instruc-tion is delivered in a highly systematic and sequenced way bytrained tutors. CR teaches the structure of words in the Englishlanguage with an explicit and systematic system. It provides a com-plete curriculum for teaching decoding and spelling, with phone-mic analyses taught in relation to syllable types. A placement testis given at the beginning of the program to determine at whatlesson level students should begin. Students move from a phono-logical focus to a more word-level practice, eventually learning toprocess words more quickly by recognizing patterns and readingin context. Although most (at least 90%) of the instructional timeis devoted to decoding and word recognition, opportunities togain fluency are also provided by having students read controlled(decodable) texts. Of our three programs, only the CR was previ-ously administered with low-literate adults (Greenberg, Fredrick,Hughes, & Bunting, 2002; Greenberg et al., 2011).

The third experimental program also supplemented phon-ics instruction with fluency training (n = 27), but with a particu-larly strong emphasis on the latter, and was a mix of decoding andfluency program. It is entitled “Retrieval Rate, Automaticity, Vo-cabulary Elaboration, Engagement with Language, and Orthogra-phy” (RAVE-O) (Wolf & Katzir-Cohen, 2001). This approach de-rives from the double deficit hypothesis for explaining readingdisabilities in children, which posits that either of two deficits—inphonological processing or in naming speed—can seriously im-pede reading acquisition, with the most severe reading disabilities

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


occurring when both deficits are present (Wolf, Miller, & Don-nelly 2000; Wolf et al., 2009). The RAVE-O curriculum is designedto meet the needs of individuals with a naming speed deficit (de-fined by performance on rapid automatized naming tasks) or adouble deficit. When combined with a systematic phonics pro-gram (in this study, an abbreviated version of CR), the needs ofall three subtypes are addressed.

Analyses

To answer our questions related to change over time in self-reported abilities in reading and practices, we ran t-tests to deter-mine whether there were significant differences between the pre-survey and post-survey answers for the complete sample as wellas by program. We looked at self-reported reading skill abilitieslike spelling and reading long words, and frequency and abilitiesregarding the reading of different types of texts. We also exam-ined changes pre to post regarding the types of texts individualsreported reading by sample and program. ANOVAs were also runto determine if there were significant differences in the changesof each of the variables among the three different interventions.For each of the reading types, we also explored the correlationsbetween the frequency (How Often) and ability (How Well) vari-ables to see how they were related.

Text types (described in Instruments section, above) werethen grouped into two categories, prose and functional. Compos-ite means were found for both the frequency and ability questionsfor the activities in each of these two groups. Then counts weredone to see how many of the text types in each group a respon-dent had reported that he or she read at a frequency of at leastonce a week. T-tests were done of each of these measures to seeif the averages differed pre and post, both for the sample and foreach intervention separately. Then ANOVAs were done to see ifthe pre- to post-change differed significantly for each variable andamong the three interventions.

Results and Discussion

In answering our research questions (RQ), we will report differ-ential effects that were found to be significant by reading inter-vention program.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


RQ #1. Do participating adults self-report reading more types of textsafter completing reading interventions?

Of the three programs, one, the fluency program, showedspecific gain in the types of prose materials learners reportedreading (p = 0.01). That is, in the Guided Repeated Readingprogram, learners who completed their tutorials reported readingmore prose text, specifically more books, magazines, and newspa-pers, after tutorials than they reported reading before the tuto-rials. Neither of the other two interventions showed a significantchange in the types of materials learners were reading.

The focal point of the GRR program was on repeated read-ings of authentic materials, such as newspaper articles, magazines,and excerpts from books. While the other two programs did in-clude authentic reading materials of high interest for adults, thisprogrammatic feature was not integral in the other programs. Itseems fitting, then, that the fluency program graduated learnerswho self-reported reading more authentic materials after inter-ventions. A similar finding was supported in research in adult edu-cation classroom settings conducted by Purcell-Gates et al. (2001).In this study, researchers found that adult literacy classes that in-tegrated authentic materials tended to have the most influenceon learner practices, and on the types of materials learners read,when compared to other instructional approaches in adult classesthat did not integrate such materials.

RQ#2. Do participating adults report changes in the frequency withwhich they read various types of texts, or perceptions of their ability to readthese materials?

The answer to this question was yes, to a differential degreedependent upon the program. Learners in the fluency program,the GRR, self-reported significant increases in how often they readpay stubs (p = 0.035), magazines (p = 0.027), work forms (p= 0.023), books to children (p = 0.004), and their own schoolwork (p = 0.020). We found that significant increases in frequencywere reported for more print materials in this program than anyother. In terms of overall trend by composite, this was further ex-plained. There was significant change regarding how often learn-ers reported the reading of prose materials (p = 0.02), but thechange was not as significant in the category we called functionalmaterials (p = 0.22). However, as stated above, there were somesignificant changes reported among specific types within the func-tional composite, including work forms and pay stubs. This might

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


indicate that learners in this program were working more after theintervention than before, but that overall, functional texts werenot read more frequently after the interventions than they werebefore.

The fluency program learners also reported significant in-creases in how well they felt they read newspapers (p = 0.049),magazines (p = 0.025), and letters and e-mails (p = 0.005). Over-all change in the composite score of the learners’ perceptionsdemonstrates this trend, as the self-report regarding how welllearners read prose materials was in fact quite significant (p =0.00). However, the change pre to post reported by learners re-garding how well they read functional materials was not signifi-cant for the fluency program.

Students in the decoding program, CR, self-reported signifi-cant increases in how often they read newspapers (p = 0.033) andlibrary books (p = 0.015). This was not found to be a significantoverall trend in the composite mean change for prose texts, how-ever, for the decoding program.

The decoding group also self-reported significant increasesin how well they read street signs (p = 0.017) and nutrition la-bels (p = 0.018) but showed a significant decrease in their self-reported ability to read library books (p = 0.022). Overall, look-ing at the prose vs. functional composite, this trend was supportedin that there were significant changes found in how well learn-ers self-reported they read functional texts when they completedthe decoding program (p = 0.05). This was not true for the prosetexts, however. Interestingly, while there was no significant changeself-reported by adults regarding how often they read functionaltexts, the decoding program was the only program in which therewas significant change in how well learners self-reported they readfunctional materials. That is, though learners did not report read-ing more functional materials, they did report they felt they readfunctional materials better. This was also the only program inwhich learners did not report change in how often or how welloverall they read prose materials.

Finally, students in the mixed fluency and decoding pro-gram, RAVE-O, were the only learners to not show any signifi-cant changes in their reading frequency, or how often they re-ported they read various materials. However, we did find signifi-cant increases in how well they self-reported that they read prose

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


materials (p = 0.00), specifically newspapers (p = 0.023) and, tosome degree, bank statements (p = 0.055). This was supported asa trend overall for prose texts (p = 0.00), but not for functionalmaterials.

RQ #3. How do learners who complete targeted reading programsperceive their own abilities to complete certain reading tasks?

Students in the GRR fluency program were the only ones toreport significant increases in their perceived ability to read andpronounce long words (p = 0.048) and their ability to understandwhat they read (p = 0.001). This program was the program thatspent the most time on the reading and rereading of connectedtexts, so this change might be expected.

Students in the RAVE-O, the mixed fluency and decodingprogram, were the only ones to show a significant increase in theirperception of their spelling ability (p = 0.006). This is not surpris-ing, as this program was the one of the three that focused on let-ter combinations and sound groups. These two factors, students’perceptions of their spelling ability and their decoding efficiency,may be related.

Students in all three reading interventions, GRR, CR, andRAVE-O, showed significant increases in (1) their ability to un-derstand hard words, (2) their self-perceptions of their readingspeed, and (3) were significantly less likely to forget what theyread afterwards. In comparing the changes in the variables be-tween the three interventions, ANOVAs showed that the only vari-able where the interventions had marginally differing effects wason reading speed (p = 0.052).4 Here, it seems that although learn-ers from all of the programs self-reported that their reading speedincreased, changes self-reported among the learners in the GRRprogram were significantly larger than the significant changes re-ported in the other two programs.

As stated above, the crux of the GRR program was on read-ing and rereading high-interest authentic materials. The focus wasfluency, so students were encouraged to read more quickly, whilefocusing on accuracy, each time they read texts. The two otherprograms also contained elements of fluency and a focus on ac-curacy and speed, to some extent. However, it is fitting that theGRR would show the most significant change in the perceptionsof reading speed, as this program focused on and involved stu-dents in increasing their reading speed to build automaticity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


RQ#4. What changes are found in reading achievement outcomesamong the participants in this sample?

All programs showed gains in both Broad (p = 0.01) com-posite scores, a combination of the Letter-Word Identification,Reading Fluency, and Passage Comprehension subtests of theWoodcock-Johnson III, and Basic (p = 0.00) composite scores,a combination of the Letter-Word Identification and Word At-tack subtests. There were no significant differences among thethree programs on these scores. Analyses found in other reports(Sabatini, Sawaki, Shore, & Scarborough, 2010; Sabatini, Shore,Holtzman, & Scarborough, 2011) found that although there wereno significant intervention-type by subskill-type interactions, therewere trends toward larger gains aligned with the instructional fo-cus of each program. That said, as the gains were slight, morework is required before making any conclusions about instruc-tional match.

RQ #5. Do changes reported here remain stable 6 months after thecompletion of interventions?

We were able to address this question with a subsample of36 of the total sample of 81 reported here. The answer to thisquestion was yes, changes appeared stable over a 6-month pe-riod. None of the variables measured showed significant changeswithin this time period for any of the three intervention groups.Additionally, ANOVAs showed that there were no significantdifferences in the changes between the different interventiongroups. Findings reported here demonstrate that, while all learn-ers started at around the same place on the various scales, eachprogram appeared to have differential associations with variousfactors related to frequency and perceptions. In addition, studentsfrom the three programs reported significant changes in their per-ceptions of their own reading skills in key reading areas.

Conclusions and Implications

Findings reported here demonstrate that, while all learners whobegan working with tutors reported similar reading perceptionsand habits at the beginning of instruction, the instructional pro-grams appeared to have differential associations, with various fac-tors related to frequency and perceptions of reading at the endof the instructional period. In addition, students in the three

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


programs reported significant changes in their perceptions oftheir own reading skills in key reading areas, even if this did notcorrelate with reading proficiency scores utilized in this study. Theimplication here is that these individuals felt that they were read-ing better, which is associated with reading more.

There are some limitations to the present study. Amongthem, the frequency information was self-reported, and at certainintervals. Future studies might consider having learners keep jour-nals of daily reading and perceptions so as to have a better recordof their habits and perceptions over time. In addition, only fre-quency of reading certain materials and perceptions of skills weremeasured, and there was little in the way of open-ended inter-views. Such data might provide insight into what learners werethinking and doing while in interventions and might round outthe story of their literacy acquisition. Finally, as is often the casewith adult literacy research, the final study is limited in samplesize. Adults’ lives are inherently busy, and while we started withone-on-one tutoring with a larger sample, our final sample was81. Further studies might be able to expand the original samplesize so as to have a larger sample at the end.

The findings emerging from this project continue to provideinsights into the impact of instructional approaches to literacy inadult learners (Sabatini et al., 2010; Sabatini et al., 2011). Par-ticularly, these findings show changes in students’ self-reportedperceptions and reading practices as a result of instructional pro-grams implemented in this study. A consideration of the variety oftypes of texts learners are reading, their reading frequency, andstudents’ perceptions of their own reading abilities is importantin telling the full story of change that may transpire in any lit-eracy instructional experience. We continue to explore the dataand hope it will lead to lessons regarding kinds of literacy instruc-tion that are most effective not only for raising reading abilitiesof adults, but also for increasing their reading practices and self-perceptions as well.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by a grant (HD 043774) from the Na-tional Institute for Literacy, Office of Vocational Education, andNational Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


are grateful to the National Center for Education Statistics andto Kelly Bruce for assistance with assessment development, datacollection, and data management, and to Tenaha O’Reilly andJonathan Steinberg for their technical reviews. Any opinions ex-pressed in the publication are those of the authors and not neces-sarily of Educational Testing Service.

Notes

1. Note that participants in this study were enrolled in adult education coursesand, therefore, may be seen as a unique group as they have made a commit-ment to attend these educational programs.

2. Note that self-perception as defined here could also be considered one as-pect of metacognition, in that it is a reflective judgment about one’s read-ing. Metacognition concerns people’s knowledge and regulation of cognition(Cromley, 2005; Schraw, 1998) and is typically conceived of as a broad con-struct including aspects of self-monitoring, regulation, and evaluation of one’sreading (see also Sabatini, 2011).

3. Attainment value refers to the perceived importance of the task; utility valueis the perceived usefulness of the reading task.

4. Here, we are not separately reporting results in our decoding program, theCorrective Reading approach, only because students’ self-reports here alignedwith increases in all three programs.

References

Alamprese, J. (2003, July). Structuring and stimulating a quality adult education pro-gram. Paper presented at the Adult Education Summer Institute, Kansas StateUniversity, Manhattan, KS.

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of children’s motivation for read-ing and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 34, 452–477.

Belzer, A. (2002). “I don’t crave to read”: School reading and adulthood. Journalof Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 104–113.

Boudett, K. P., & Friedlander, D. (1997). Does mandatory basic education im-prove achievement test scores of AFDC recipients? Evaluation Review, 21,568–588.

Check, J. F., & Toellner, S. (1984). Reading patterns of adults. Reading Improve-ment, 21, 82–88.

Comings, J., Parella, A., & Soricone, L. (1999). Persistence among adult basic edu-cation students in pre-GED classes (NCSALL Report No. 12). Cambridge, MA:National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy, Harvard Grad-uate School of Education.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Cromley, J. G. (2005). Metacognition, cognitive strategy instruction, and readingin adult literacy. Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, 5, 187–204.

Desjardins, R. (2003). Determinants of economic and social outcomes from alife-wide learning perspective in Canada. Education Economics, 11, 11–38.

DiLoreto, C., & Tse, L. (1999). Seeing is believing: Disparity in books in two LosAngeles area public libraries. School Library Quarterly, 17, 31–36.

Dirkx, J. M., & Jha, L. R. (1994). Completion and attrition in adult basic educa-tion: A test of two pragmatic prediction models. Adult Education Quarterly, 45,269–285.

Duke, N. (2000). For the rich it’s richer: Print experiences and environmentsoffered to children in very low- and very high-socioeconomic status first-gradeclassrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 441–478.

Engelmann, S. (1999). Corrective Reading Program. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Feitelson, D., & Goldstein, Z. (1986). Patterns of book ownership and reading toyoung children in Israeli school-oriented and non-school-oriented families.The Reading Teacher, 39, 924–930.

Gambrell, L. B., & Marinak, B. (1997). Incentive and intrinsic motivation to read.In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readersthrough integrated instruction (pp. 205–217). Newark, DE: International Read-ing Association.

Greenberg, D., Fredrick, L. D., Hughes, T. A., & Bunting, C. J. (2002). Implemen-tation issues in a reading program for low reading adults. Journal of Adolescent& Adult Literacy, 45, 626–632.

Greenberg, D., Wise, J. C., Morris, R., Fredrick, L. D., Rodrigo, V., & Nanda, A.O., (2011). A randomized control study of instructional approaches for strug-gling adult readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 101–117.

Guthrie, J. T., Seifert, M., & Kirsch, I. S. (1986). Effects of education, occupa-tion, and setting on reading practices. American Educational Research Journal,23, 151–160.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. InM. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of read-ing research (vol. 3, pp. 403–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hughes-Hassell, S., & Rodge, P. (2007). The leisure reading habits of urban ado-lescents. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 51, 22–33.

Kirsch, I. S., Jungblut, A., Jenkins, L., & Kolstad, A. (1993). Adult literacy in Amer-ica: A first look at the results of the National Adult Literacy Survey (No. NCES93275). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute for Ed-ucation Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., & Baer, J. (2005). National Assessment of Adult Liter-acy (NAAL): A first look at the literacy of America’s adults in the 21st century (No.NCES 2006-470). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institutefor Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.

Labov, W. (1984). Field methods of the project on linguistic change and varia-tion. In J. Baugh & J. Sherzer (Eds.), Language in use: Reading in sociolinguistics(pp. 43–70). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

McQuillan, J., & Au, J. (2001). The effect of print access on reading frequency.Reading Psychology, 22, 225–248.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


Mellard, D., Patterson, M. B., & Prewett, S. (2007). Reading practices amongadult education participants. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 188–213.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD). (2000).Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-basedassessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for readinginstruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education.

Neuman, S. B., & Celano, D. (2001). Access to print in low- and middle- incomecommunities: An ecological study of 4 neighborhoods. Reading Research Quar-terly, 36, 8–26.

O’Brien, E., Black, M., Carley-Baxter, L., & Simon, T. (2003). Sensitive topics, sur-vey nonresponse, and considerations for interviewer training. American Jour-nal of Preventative Medicine, 31, 419–426.

Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S. C., Jacobsen, E. & Soler, M. (2001). Taking liter-acy skills home. NCSALL Focus on Basics, 4. Retrieved from http://www.ncsall.net/?id=286.

Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S. C., Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2002). Impact ofauthentic adult literacy instruction on adult literacy practices. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 37, 70–92.

Ribovich, J. K., & Erickson, L. (1980). A study of lifelong reading with implica-tions for instructional programs. Journal of Reading, 24, 20–26.

Romani, N. (1973). Reading interests and needs of older people. Library Trends,21, 390–403.

Sabatini, J. P. (2011). Learning and assessment of adult reading literacy. In S.Graham, K. Harris, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook(vol. 3, pp. 63–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Sabatini, J. P., Sawaki, Y., Shore, J., & Scarborough, H. S. (2010). Relationshipsamong reading skills of low-literate adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43,122–138.

Sabatini, J. P., Shore, J., Holtzman, S., & Scarborough, H. S. (2011). Relativeeffectiveness of reading intervention programs for adults with low literacy.Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 118–133.

Scales, A. M., & Rhee, O. (2001). Adult reading habits and patterns. ReadingPsychology, 22, 175–203.

Schraw, G. (1998). Promoting general metacognitive awareness. Instructional Sci-ence, 26, 113–125.

Schutte, N. & Malouff, J. (2007). Dimensions of reading motivation: Develop-ment of an adult reading motivation scale. Reading Psychology: An InternationalQuarterly, 28, 469–489.

Sheehan-Holt, J. K., & Smith, M. C. (2000). Does basic skills education affectadults’ literacy proficiencies and reading practices? Reading Research Quarterly,35, 226–243.

Shore, J. R., Lentini, J., Hutcheson, S., & Sabatini, J. P. (2008a, March). Teachingadults to read: A demonstration of teaching methods and measurement and monitoringtools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the American EducationalResearch Association, New York, NY.

Shore, J. R., McNeil, A. N. K., Sabatini, J. P., & Scarborough, H. (2008b, March).Creating and implementing an effective evidence-based fluency program for adult

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14


literacy learners. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting for the American Ed-ucational Research Association, New York, NY.

Smith, M. C. (1996). Differences in adults’ reading practices and literacy profi-ciencies. Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 196–219.

Snow, C. E., & Strucker, J. (2000). Lessons from Preventing reading difficulties inyoung children for adult learning and literacy. In J. Comings, B. Garner, & C.Smith (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy (vol. 1, pp. 25–73).San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (2004). Inferences from correlationaldata: Exploring associations with reading experience. In N. Duke & M. Mal-lette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies (pp. 28–45). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Stanovich, K. E., West, R. F., & Harrison, M. R. (1995). Knowledge growth andmaintenance across the life span: The role of print exposure. DevelopmentalPsychology, 31, 811–826.

Wilkinson, G. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3). Wilmington, DE:Wide Range.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Testsof Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

Wolf, M., Barzillai, M., Gottwald, S., Miller, L., Spencer, K., Norton, E., . . . Mor-ris, R. (2009). The RAVE-O intervention: Connecting neuroscience to theclassroom. Mind, Brain, and Education, 3, 84–93.

Wolf, M., & Katzir-Cohen, T. (2001). Reading fluency and its intervention. Scien-tific Studies of Reading, 5, 211–239.

Wolf, M., Miller, L., & Donnelly, K. (2000). Retrieval, Automaticity, VocabularyElaboration, Orthography (RAVE-O): A comprehensive, fluency-based read-ing intervention program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 375–386.

Worthy, J., & McKool, S. (1996). Students who say they hate to read: The impor-tance of opportunity, choice, and access. In D. Leu, C. Kinzer, and K. Hinch-man (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practice (pp. 245–256).Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Yankelovich, Skelly, & White, Inc. (1978). Consumer research study of reading andbook purchasing. New York, NY: Book Industry Study Group.

Ziegler, M. F., Bain, S. K., Bell, S. M., McCallum, R. S., & Brian, D.J.G. (2006).Predicting women’s persistence in adult literacy classes with dispositional vari-ables. Reading Psychology, 27, 59–85.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f Il

linoi

s C

hica

go]

at 0

7:16

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Documents

Changes in Reading Practices and Perceptions in Low-Literacy-Level Adult Learners