Rethinking Middle School Reading Instruction: A Basic Literacy Activity

This article was downloaded by: [University of New Hampshire]On: 07 October 2014, At: 02:29Publisher: 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

Rethinking Middle SchoolReading Instruction: A BasicLiteracy ActivityWilliam E. Blanton a , Karen D. Wood b & D. BruceTaylor ba University of Miami , Coral Gables, Florida, USAb University of North Carolina at Charlotte ,Charlotte, North Carolina, USAPublished online: 01 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: William E. Blanton , Karen D. Wood & D. Bruce Taylor (2007)Rethinking Middle School Reading Instruction: A Basic Literacy Activity, ReadingPsychology, 28:1, 75-95, DOI: 10.1080/02702710601115489

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710601115489

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=10.1080/02702710601115489

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02702710601115489

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 N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

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

Reading Psychology, 28:75–95, 2007Copyright C© 2007 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0270-2711 print / 1521-0685 onlineDOI: 10.1080/02702710601115489

RETHINKING MIDDLE SCHOOL READING INSTRUCTION:A BASIC LITERACY ACTIVITY

WILLIAM E. BLANTON

University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida, USA

KAREN D. WOOD and D. BRUCE TAYLOR

University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA

Research on subject matter instruction across the 20th century (e.g., Stevens,1912; Bellack, 1966; Hoetker & Ahlbrand; 1969; Gall, 1970; Langer, 1999;Mehan, 1979; Nystrand, 1997;) reveals a preponderance of teacher-directed lec-ture, recitation, and round-robin reading of text in place of instruction that fo-cuses on reading-to-learn, thinking, and transforming information into meaningand understanding (Durkin, 1978–79; Langer, 1999; Blanton & Moorman,1990; Wood & Muth, 1991). This kind of instruction persists despite the factthat observations of higher performing schools indicated the tendency to organizeinstruction around meaningful learning communities with extensive interactivediscussion of material read (Langer, 1999; Myers, 1996; Wenglinsky, 2000;2004).

The purpose of this essay is twofold: (a) to argue that a great deal of readinginstruction fails to meet the multiple and complex literacy needs of most middleschool students, and (b) to propose a new orientation for thinking about middleschool reading instruction. We begin with a discussion of research findings onclassroom reading instruction, followed by an exploration of issues central to theproblem. Then we propose what we have titled the basic literacy activity, a concep-tual tool for thinking about and arranging middle school reading instruction.We end with an overview of selected instructional strategies that exemplify thecharacteristics of basic literacy activity.

Introduction

In 1998, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)reported that fewer than 7% of students in grades 4, 8, and 12were able to comprehend, critically analyze, and apply informationobtained by reading text at a proficient level (Donahue, Voelkl,

Address correspondence to William E. Blanton, Department of Teaching and Learn-ing, University of Miami, 324 Merrick Hall, Coral Gables, FL 33124. E-mail: [email protected]

75

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

76 W. E. Blanton et al.

Campbell, & Mazzeo, 1999). Other assessments have exposeddeficiencies in the instruction of students on reading and thinkingstrategies (Campbell, Hombo, & Mazzeo, 2000) and revealed thatonly 24% of fourth-graders and 29% of eighth-graders were able tomeet the standard for proficiency in reading (National Assessmentof Educational Progress in Reading Report Card [NAEP], 2003).These results are disheartening. Students who fall behind in read-ing do not often catch up with their more successful peers, showlower self-esteem, and display less motivation for participating inreading and subject matter instruction.

By the end of the fourth grade, most readers have just accom-plished the task of learning to read when they embark on readingto learn, as they encounter more varied forms of expository text.Many students have not received sufficient instruction for readingexpository text to adequately prepare them for the tasks this typeof reading requires (Duke, 2000; Newkirk, 1989; Pappas, 1993).Even students who read at grade level exhibit difficulties whenasked to read expository text (Readence, Bean, & Baldwin, 1998).This period is often referred to as the “fourth-grade slump,” the be-ginning of a decline in many students’ performance and progressin reading (Chall, Jacobs, & Baldwin, 1990; Mullis, Campbell, &Farstrup, 1993). At this point, many struggling readers begin a pat-tern of academic failure that continues through middle and highschool.

As students move from elementary to middle school, mostreading remediation instruction is presented in pullout programs.Instruction of this kind removes students from subject matter in-struction (Irvin, 1990). Consequently, they miss the opportunity toparticipate in instruction that integrates comprehension, thinking,understanding, critical analysis, and meta-cognition with readingto learn from subject matter text.

The purpose of this essay is to argue that a great deal of read-ing instruction fails to meet the multiple and complex literacyneeds of most middle school students and to propose a new orien-tation for thinking about middle school reading instruction. Webegin with a discussion of research findings on classroom read-ing instruction, followed by an exploration of issues central to theproblem. Then we propose what we have titled the basic literacy ac-tivity, a conceptual tool for thinking about and arranging middleschool reading instruction. We end with an overview of selected

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Rethinking Middle School Reading Instruction 77

instructional strategies that exemplify the characteristics of basicliteracy activity.

Research on Classroom Reading Instruction

Research across the 20th century (e.g., Stevens, 1912; Bellack,1966; Hoetker & Ahlbrand; 1969; Gall, 1970; Mehan, 1979;Nystrand, 1997; Langer, 1999) underscores the overreliance ofsubject matter instruction on teacher-directed lecture, recita-tion, and round-robin reading of text that reduces students’engagement with a wide range texts and diminishes opportunitiesto participate in instruction that focuses on reading to learn,thinking, and transforming information into meaning andunderstanding (Durkin, 1978–79; Blanton & Moorman, 1990;Wood & Muth, 1991). In spite of changing demands, this kindof instruction persists (Myers, 1996). Recently, Nystrand (1997)reported that many teachers limit discussion of material read toan average of 50 seconds per lesson at the eighth-grade level andan even briefer 15 seconds at the ninth-grade level. These findingscoordinate with the results of a large-scale study of high- and low-performing middle and secondary schools. Langer (1999) foundthat typical classroom instruction in low-performing schoolsfailed to engage students in collaborative activities, providedfew opportunities for group discussion, and failed to focus ondeveloping understanding of material read. In contrast, higherperforming schools tended to organize instruction around learn-ing communities and promoted extended discussion of materialread.

Issues Central to Middle School Reading Instruction

Three issues surround the problem of middle school reading in-struction. First, teachers at this level often lack the time and re-sources to provide both reading interventions and instruction onreading to learn from subject matter text. This problem is fur-ther exacerbated by the climate of high-stakes testing. For exam-ple, teachers have been observed realigning curriculum and alter-ing instructional methods in response to high-stakes testing (e.g.,Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas, 2000; Haney, 2000; Hoffman, Assaf,Pennington, & Paris, 2001; Jones & Johnston, 2002; Yarbrough,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


1999). Moreover, high-stakes testing has motivated a reductionof time allocated to reading and subject matter instruction andan increase in time for teaching test-taking skills that utilize ma-terials formatted to resemble high-stakes tests (e.g., Ananda &Rabinowitz, 2000; International Reading Association, 1999; John-ston, 1998; Kohn, 2000; McColskey & McMunn, 2000). It is im-portant to note that the research on whether these changes havepositive (Borko & Elliot 1999; Bridge, Compton-Hall, & Cantrell,1997; Jones & Johnston, 2002) or negative (Calkins, Montgomery,& Santman, 1998; Gordon & Reese, 1997; Kohn, 2000; Passman,2001; Wideen, O’Shea, Pye, & Ivany, 1997) effects on the qualityof instruction is inconclusive.

Second, many teachers lack sufficient knowledge of readinginstruction to provide necessary reading instruction or to supportstudents’ reading, comprehending, and understanding of diversesubject matter text. States and local education agencies requirethat prospective teachers who will be certified to teach at the mid-dle school level receive minimum preparation in the areas of basicreading instruction and teaching reading in subject matter areas.University and college graduates taking alternative routes to cer-tification receive even less preparation. The solution has been tostep up professional development to assist practicing teachers inacquiring and applying the knowledge and skills needed to helpstruggling readers and to engage students in reading to learn fromsubject matter text. Unfortunately, the resources for professionaldevelopment programs are scarce and compete with other high-priority needs, such as teaching an increasingly diverse range ofstudents.

The reading ability of students can be substantially improved(Guastello, Beasley, & Sinatra, 2000; Montali & Lewandowski,1996), and most teachers can learn to integrate reading and sub-ject matter instruction successfully (Dupuis, Askov, & Lee, 1979;Wedman & Robinson, 1988). More than three decades of read-ing research documents a growing and diverse toolkit of research-based reading instruction strategies available for teachers to use(Alvermann, 2003; Kamil, 2003; Rand Reading Study Group, 2002;Snow & Biancarosa, 2003). However, faced with increasing pres-sure of high-stakes testing and local, state, and federal mandatesfor student achievement, school districts have increasingly turnedto pre-packaged instructional materials, scripted instruction, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


practice exercises to teach reading and its application to subjectmatter text.

Last, the decisions school districts are making about readingand subject matter instruction are being influenced by the antici-pation that the NAEP and other standardized tests of reading mayplace a greater emphasis on measuring sub-skills in future assess-ments and reduce the emphasis placed on thinking, understand-ing, and application (Wenglinsky, 2004). We believe that this willfurther degrade the quality of instruction for middle school stu-dents. The research evidence (Wenglinsky, 2000) demonstratingthat students in classrooms encouraging thinking and understand-ing perform significantly better than their counterparts who do notreceive such instruction should not be overlooked.

Pre-packaged, scripted instruction and practice exercises arenot an ideal approach for engaging middle students in reading anincreasing array of challenging texts, in or out of school. Most pre-packaged scripted instruction is implemented as de-contextualizeddrill and practice and teacher-directed questioning that probes forthe literal comprehension of text. While instruction of this kindmay align with the demands of high-stakes tests, it creates nothingmore than an appearance of learning. The development of students’ability to coordinate reading and thinking necessary for com-prehending, interpreting, analyzing, and transforming complexinformation presented in subject matter text into meaning andunderstanding is constrained. It has been well established in theprofessional literature that students learn more from participatorymodels of teaching and learning where multiple sources of subjectmatter, rich discussions, and meta-cognitive conversations are en-couraged (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Alvermann, 2002;International Reading Association, 1999; Schoenbach, Greenleaf,Cziko, & Hurwitz, 1999; Wade & Moje, 2000).

Reading ability and reading to learn from subject matter textare much more than the mastery of isolated skills. Reading to learnfrom text is a complex task that requires social interaction amongteachers and students in order to understand how reading works andto successfully construct meaning and understanding. Reading tolearn from text represents a unification of language to frame thelearning task and its purpose, language to regulate the monitor-ing of reading, application of strategies, and selection of appro-priate information. It also involves synthesizing interactions with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


others during discussion to construct a sense of meaning and un-derstanding for further self regulation and the generation of newknowledge.

Accomplished reading ability develops gradually through en-gagement in meaningful learning activity in which students receiveexplicit instruction, guided and independent practice, and assis-tance of teachers and more accomplished peers to support theirgradual transition to independence in the self-regulation of read-ing (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Many times there is an expec-tation that students do not need continued social support oncenew knowledge and skill has been introduced, practiced a fewtimes, and reviewed. This is especially true for students who havemoved beyond the elementary school level. Readers do need so-cial support until they have both mastered a skill and infused itwith personal meaning and understanding. When social supportis abruptly withdrawn or is not available, students’ level of skilltends to drop sharply when they move to a new level of instructionor confront more complex text (Fischer & Farrar, 1987; Fischer &Granott, 1995).

Never has the need for students to develop a more robust un-derstanding of discourse in all its forms been more essential thanit is in today’s society. Students need to develop skill to coordi-nate a complex set of literacy tasks, reading strategies, language,and thinking processes to negotiate a world that is becoming in-creasingly reliant on multiple sources of information, referred toas “multiliteracies” (Gee, 2003; New London Group, 2000; Rush,2002) and “new literacies” (Lankshear & Knobel, 2003; Leu, 2002;O’Brien & Bauer, 2005). In what Luke and Elkins (1998) tag as“New Times,” reading and reading to learn are viewed as multi-modal processes that include the reading of print-based and elec-tronic texts, use of visual, spatial, gestural, and aural representa-tions. Given the increasingly complex demands placed on readersin a multi-textual society, reading instruction should go beyondsurface level recitation, lecture, and simple drill on skills. Pre-packaged content, scripted instruction, information dumping, andrepeated practice do not develop accomplished readers (Alling-ton, 2002). Instruction of this kind leads students to develop whatPerkins (1992) refers to as incomplete or “fragile knowledge.”Fragile knowledge is inert, ritualistic, fraught with misconceptions,devoid of supportive thinking, and lacks understanding.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


To address the need for an alternative view of reading instruc-tion, we propose an instructional framework that we call thebasic lit-eracy activity as a heuristic for helping teachers address the complexliteracy demands their students face in middle school classrooms.Reading and reading-to-learn instruction should be arranged insuch a way that middle school students engage in a basic literacyactivity (e.g., Blanton, Moorman, & Hayes, 1998; Griffin & Cole,1987), which provides an alternative for integrating reading taskswith goal-oriented learning activity in which students have a per-sonal interest. The reading knowledge and skill required for per-forming the reading tasks are subservient to the accomplishmentof the goal of the activity and are used in its accomplishment. Anexample of a basic literacy activity is recruiting a student’s interestin playing a computer game to learn a reading skill. Learning tofollow written directions is subservient to the goal of playing thecomputer game.

We suggest the term “basic” to foreground the primacy of read-ing and literacy to learning in any subject area—that is, reading isa central or basic ingredient to learning. Also, we believe a peda-gogic approach (the “activity”) emphasizes teaching and learningspecific content within the context or culture of a specific subject-area classroom. We expand upon the role of culture and contextin the next section by grounding the basic literacy activity in fourtenets of cultural-historical theory.

Cultural-Historical Theory and Basic Literacy Activity

The idea of basic literacy activity is influenced by cultural-historicaltheory founded by Vygotsky and his colleagues (Leontiev, 1978;Luria, 1979, 1985; Vygotsky, 1978). Cultural-historical theory de-scribes the way in which human thinking is fundamentally theoutcome of participation in cultural activity. Four key tenets ofcultural-historical activity guide the development of basic literacyactivity.

The first tenet is that psychological functions appear twice:first, on the social plane, and later on the personal plane. Forexample, students’ ways of thinking, comprehending, and think-ing about text are, first, located in the collective thinking of thegroup engaged in a reading lesson and later internalized by par-ticipants. The process of internalization transforms their thinking

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


processes. The basic literacy activity seeks to provide students witha more active social environment, which helps create more activesocial and therefore cognitive learning. The 5th Dimension (Blan-ton, Greene, & Cole, 1999), an exemplar we will later describe, isan example of a basic literacy activity we believe scaffold learningfrom the social to the cognitive domain.

The second tenet is that the use of psychological tools, suchas language (discourse), concepts, and notational systems, andinstrumental tools, such as books, computers, pencils, and cellphones, are used by humans to mediate their activities. Language(discourse) is the primary tool (Vygotsky, 1978). Discourse is usedto mediate self-regulation, the regulation of others, the transfor-mation of experience and information into public meaning andpersonal understanding, and the formulation and communicationof one’s thinking to self and others. For example, as a particulardiscourse approach is used to coordinate the discussion of mate-rial read, students internalize the discourse and patterns and waysof thinking that it privileges. In future reading and discussion, stu-dents use the discourse to mediate their synthesis of interactionsamong the collective group and transform it into meaning andunderstanding. As an instructional framework, the basic readingactivity seeks to foreground the role of discourse and languageas tools for learning. As we will suggest, think-alouds are one in-structional vehicle for teachers and students to share and discussspecific subject-area discourses.

The third tenet is that learning occurs in the zone of proximaldevelopment (ZPD), “the distance between the actual develop-mental level as determined by independent problem solving andthe level of potential development as determined through prob-lem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with morecapable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The ZPD is a socially or-ganized activity motivated and organized around the interest andgoals of students who receive guided assistance, as needed, but onlyas much as is needed, to gradually accomplish a task that they wereunable to perform independently. There is no required or desig-nated teacher; only one who is more expert in the task at hand isneeded. Students work together, assisting one another and learn-ing from the contributions of others. It is assumed that the taskis just beyond the ability of the students and requires social sup-port for its completion, providing an opportunity for the learner

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


to develop new knowledge and understanding and to master newskills. The greater the difficulty that students experience, the moredirect the assistance given from the more accomplished others.Reciprocal teaching (Palinscar & Brown 1984) is an instructionalstrategy that aligns with the basic literacy activity and can help stu-dents to work in collaboration with more capable others to developgreater competence and subject area expertise.

The fourth tenet is that the structure of activity affects think-ing. For example, the organization of reading a reading les-son, such as a directed reading-thinking activity (Stauffer, 1969a,1969b) or information text reading activity (Moorman & Blanton,1990) affects comprehending, thinking, and constructing mean-ing and understanding of material read. The tools used to me-diate the lesson—such as discourse, kind of text used, rules forparticipation, division of labor and participant roles, focus of thelesson, intended outcome—all coordinate a lesson. The discourseapproach used, directs student attention to how reading worksand the resources used to construct meaning and understanding.As pointed out earlier, the structure of the lesson is internalized.However, the process of internalization is not a carbon copy thelesson structure. Rather the process of internalization changes thethinking structures of students.

The fourth tenet is that tools, such as discourse and concepts,and skills are mastered. Mastery of a tool goes beyond 90 to 100%accuracy on practice sheets. Mastery of a tool involves learning toact with the tool, how it fits into particular activities, and how and inwhat context to use it. Mastery also embraces the idea of investinga tool with personal meaning (Wertsch, 1998). Literature circles(Daniels, 2002; Hill, Noe, & King, 2003) and book clubs (Raphael& McMahon, 1994) are forms of pedagogy we see as aligned withthe basic literacy activity that help students to work towards a higherlevel of mastery with the many facets of literacy including reading,writing, talking, listening, and thinking.

In summary, the cognitive structures necessary for reading,comprehending, thinking about, and constructing meaning andunderstanding of text are, first, located in the structures of so-cial interactions of reading lessons. As students participate in areading lesson, the structure of the lesson is internalized andtransforms students’ thinking processes and how they read, thinkabout, and understand what they have read. The zone of proximal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


development, further explains how learners participate in activityalong side of more accomplished others who provide guided assis-tance for accomplishing a task just beyond their reach but in reachwith assistance.

Basic Literacy Activity

In the basic literacy activity, the reading knowledge and strategiesstudents learn are embedded in and subservient to accomplish-ing reading tasks to attain a goal. As an illustration, students mayenter the activity of playing a computer game, such as Countingon Frank, with limited reading ability. In the beginning, they maybe unable to focus on comprehending written directions becausethey must direct their attention to decoding and word meaning.However, while engaging in game play with more a knowledgeableclassmate or volunteer, who provides help with decoding, wordmeaning, and following written directions, students learn wordrecognition strategies and how to follow written directions in or-der to eventually play the game with a high level of skill. In doingso, they come to develop an understanding of the importance offollowing written directions and how they work in real activity thatgoes beyond the level of understanding reached through the com-pletion of worksheet exercises.

Working cooperatively with others in basic reading activityassures that students will acquire the meta-language necessaryfor framing reading tasks, mediates the self-regulation necessaryfor monitoring reading and fixing problems when reading is dis-rupted, and synthesizing the contributions of others to a discus-sion. With guided assistance, students gradually learn to performreading tasks they were unable to perform independently. Thekinds of tools used to mediate basic literacy activity also transformhow students think about what they do and how they do it.

Instructional Exemplars of Basic Literacy Activity

A great deal of successful reading instruction available for middleand secondary school students possesses the characteristics of ba-sic literacy activity. In this section, we offer selected instructionalapproaches that express the characteristics of basic literacy activity.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


5TH DIMENSION

The 5th Dimension demonstrates how it is possible to arrangebasic literacy activity by making reading and the use of technologysubservient to accomplishing education goals (Blanton, Greene, &Cole, 1999). Participants mediate their activity with multi-media,including print and electronic text, digital technology, and boardgames to engage in activity. By embedding basic reading knowledgeand strategies in specific activities, desired mastery is reached dur-ing pursuit of a personally meaningful goal. Students get exposureto and practice reading in the context of meaningful activities, notseparated drill and practice activity.

Activity in the 5th Dimension begins with trained adults andparticipants using an Adventure Guide that accompanies each ac-tivity to help participants get started, specify expected achieve-ments, and provide the necessary information for reaching one ofthree levels of proficiency (beginner, good, expert) in each game.In essence, participants engage in reading, interpreting, and us-ing text at two levels. At the macro level, they map out the possibledirections for moving through the various activities. And they par-ticipate in the joint reading, interpretation, and implementationof the Adventure Guide directions for coordinating game play.At the micro level, they interpret and follow written directions inmanuals accompanying the games and other activities. As studentsproceed from the beginning level of playing a game to the goodand excellent levels, they gradually lean subject matter, new skillsand extend their existing skills. The choice of which activity to en-gage in next is related to the level of mastery attained in playingthe game.

The Adventure Guide also provides an Adventure Task, anobligation that must be completed before moving to the next ac-tivity. All Adventure Tasks require writing to others, writing in apersonal journal, putting information in a hints book, making avideo, or creating art work representing the strategies used andknowledge gained in the activity. These tasks require that studentsconstantly formulate and reflect on what they are doing and tocommunicate it to others.

The results of research on the effects of participation inthe 5th Dimension demonstrate that participants spend a greateramount of time engaged in educational tasks and acquire pro-ficiency in using computers and other technology. When 5th

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Dimension participants are compared with their counterparts incontrol groups, significant effects are found on measures of neartransfer, such as reading, comprehending, and following writ-ten directions (Blanton, Menendez, Moorman, & Pacifici, 2003)and state-wide measures of reading (Blanton, Moorman, & Hayes,1998).

WEBQUESTS

WebQuests are student-inquiry activities in which most of thesources used to obtain information are drawn from the Internetin a structured fashion. WebQuests allow students to access, or-ganize, evaluate, and synthesize a large amount of informationabout a topic in a short amount of time. This shifts the focusof research from gathering information to analyzing and evalu-ating information. The WebQuest model was developed at SanDiego State University (Dodge, 1995) and provides students with atask for using Internet resources. WebQuesting differs from moreopen-ended Internet research in which students often use searchengines to “surf” for information about a topic. To direct studentsaway from sources of questionable quality, WebQuests are typicallydesigned with many of the Internet sources already embeddedin their instructions. From a cultural-historical perspective, this al-lows the teacher to assist students through the seemingly boundlessresources available on the Internet.

RECIPROCAL TEACHING

Reciprocal Teaching (Brown, Palinscar, & Purcell, 1986; Palin-scar & Brown, 1984; Palinscar & Klenk, 1992) aligns with theproperties of the basic literacy activity. The teacher models strate-gies and then asks students to reciprocate in small peer groups,exchanging roles, taking turns leading discussions about seg-ments, asking and answering questions, and sharing their thinkingwith one another. Four comprehension strategies are employedthroughout the interactive process: prediction, clarification, sum-marization, and questioning.

The strength of reciprocal teaching is its focus on reading tolearn. A meta-analysis of 16 studies reveal that reciprocal teachingis a highly effective approach that enables students to internalizea meta-language that can be used for reading, comprehending,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


and understanding text (Rosenshine & Meister, 1994). It shouldbe understood that students need opportunities to use this strategyregularly.

QUESTION–ANSWER RELATIONSHIPS

Questioning is the most pervasive comprehension instruc-tional activity. It provides students with a purpose for reading,a focus, a plan for selecting important information, and a refer-ence point for reflecting on how well the purpose was attained(Armbruster, Lehrer, & Osborn, 2001; Duke & Pearson, 2002).Raphael’s (1986) research revealed that students’ answers to ques-tions tend to fall in two groups: those that rely on their memoryand prior knowledge and those that are in the text. As a resultof these findings, she developed Question–Answer Relationships(QARs) as a means of helping students distinguish between an-swers to questions that are found “in the book,” “between thelines,” or “in my head.” Students acquire a language to use tomediate thinking and processing of information related to the lo-cations of answers. Students well trained in the QAR approachreadily use phrases such as “I found the answer in the book and inmy head,” or “I had to put information from this page and this pagetogether.”

THINK-ALOUD

The ability to determine when and where comprehension isbreaking down and to employ the necessary fix-up strategies, suchas re-reading, self-questioning, or retelling has long been asso-ciated with successful, proficient reading (Block & Israel, 2004;Pressley, 2002; Walker, 2005). Think-alouds have been recom-mended for decades as a means by which readers can learn to regu-late their own comprehension activities (Alvermann, 1984; Brown,Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Davey, 1983; Nist & Kirby,1986). The importance of thinking aloud is that it provides stu-dents with an opportunity to learn and understand the processesof thinking about and talking aloud with the language used to re-veal the mental processes taking place while engaged in readingtasks.

Think-aloud techniques help students internalize languageused to mediate essential comprehension strategies, such as pre-dicting, verifying, inferring, and retelling. Research (Baumann,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Seifert-Kessell, & Jones, 1992, 1993; Walker, 2005) reveals thatstudents engage in more discussion of their strategy use with moreproficient readers or a tutor. They also master a wider range ofcomprehension monitoring strategies. As a result, students are farbetter able to internalize the meta-language for directing theirthinking aloud processes when they interact with others.

LITERATURE CIRCLES AND BOOK CLUBS

Literature circles (Daniels, 2002; Hill, Noe, & King, 2003;Noll, 1994; Short & Kauffman, 1995) and book clubs (Raphael &McMahon, 1994) are ways of organizing the reading of books andother texts in which students play a significant role in text selectionand collective discussions. Typically, groups of four or five studentsread the same book or text and hold discussions about it. The textselected can be short or long, fiction or nonfiction, so long as it is ofinterest to the students and can stimulate meaningful discussion.Students may read in or out of class or meet periodically duringclass to discuss their reading. Students assume specific roles duringthe discussions (i.e., discussion leader, recorder, encourager, etc.)and may keep a journal or reader-response log.

Literature circles and similar instructional models allow stu-dents to read, collectively construct meaning, and develop an un-derstanding of a topic or text. Through their discussions, theyare able to interact with each other through sections of the text,through discussions of words, word meaning, concepts, and othercontent that they find challenging or unclear. Students can bringtheir questions to the group for discussion or recruit help fromthe teacher when necessary. However, the focus of the conversationtypically remains among the students, with the teacher monitoringfrom the background.

DISCUSSION APPROACHES

The main goal of discussion approaches is to assist stu-dents in comprehending text and constructing meaning andunderstanding. Discussion approaches and their discourse areimportant in mediating social interaction, direction of attention,tool use, self-regulation, and thinking. In order to comprehendand construct meaning and understanding of subject matter text,it is imperative that students master the academic discourse and thetechnical vocabulary of subject matter areas, such as earth science,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


biology, physics, law, literature, and literary criticism. Mastery ofsubject matter requires participation in learning activity arrangedso that technical language and meaning are made public throughtechnical vocabulary, symbols, graphs, text, and other toolsspecialized disciplines use. The meaning of technical vocabularyis more salient when it is learned in activity that leads studentsto “see” what the vocabulary means and how it is used to “fit” thesubject matter area together. Otherwise, students simply remem-ber de-contextualized definitions of vocabulary. The meaningof technical vocabulary, comprehension, and understanding ofsubject matter is attained as a student synthesizes the interactionsamong, students, and teachers.

Wilkinson and colleagues (Murphy & Edwards, 2005; Soter& Rudge, 2005; Wilkinson & Reninger, 2005) performed a meta-analysis of the research on discussion approaches. They deter-mined that the most often used approaches could be categorizedby three literary stances: an expressive stance that gives primacy to areader’s emotional response (e.g., literature circles, grand con-versations, book club); an efferent stance that gives prominenceto a reader acquiring information from text (e.g., questioningthe author, instructional conversation, junior great books); anda critical-analytic stance (e.g., philosophy for children, collaborativereasoning, Paideia seminars) that gives primacy to evidence-basedresponses through the reader’s questioning of text to determineunderlying assumptions, beliefs, and arguments.

The effects of discussion approaches begin to take hold in ap-proximately three weeks, effects begin to stabilize in a short time,and most approaches increase the level of student engagement andtalk. The major effects tend to favor lower ability students, followedby average ability students, and less for higher ability students.It was also noted that commercial measures of comprehensiontended not to be very sensitive to changes in student performance.Analysis of lesson transcripts further revealed that expressive ap-proaches encourage students to actively participate in discussions,that there is a relationship between levels of student thinkingand questions posed by teacher or students, students seem to rec-ognize that their responses are central to constructing meaningand understanding, and that critical-analytical approaches seemto encourage students to probe both the text and each other’sthinking.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Summary

In this essay, we have argued that reading instruction is not meet-ing the complex literacy needs of today’s adolescent readers andthat alternative ways of thinking about instruction are needed tomeet these needs. The basic literacy activity is a new orientation forthinking about middle school reading instruction. In basic literacyactivity, the language and cognitive structures needed by studentsfor mediating reading, comprehending, thinking, and construct-ing meaning and understanding of text are internalized throughthe social interactions promoted by the organization of readinglessons and, in particular, the discourse used. We provided famil-iar instructional approaches that characterize the learning inter-actions promoted by the basic literacy activity.

References

Allington, R. L. (2002, June). What I’ve learned about effective reading instruc-tion from a decade of studying exemplary elementary classroom teachers. PhiDelta Kappan, 83(10), 740–747.

Alvermann, D. E. (1984). Second graders’ strategic reading preferences whilereading basal stories. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 184–189.

Alvermann, D. E. (Ed.) (2002). Adolescents and literacies in a digital world. New York:Lang.

Alvermann, D. E. (2003, November). Seeing themselves as capable and engagedreaders: Adolescents and re/medial instruction. Learning Point,1–19. RetrievedFebruary 16, 2005, from http://www.ncrel.org/litweb/readers/readers.pdf

Ananda, S., & Rabinowitz, S. (2000). The high stakes of HIGH-STAKES testing.San Francisco, CA: WestEd. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED455254).

Armbruster, B. B., Lehrer, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The researchbuilding blocks for teaching children to read. Washington, DC: National Institutefor Literacy.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakestesting: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(5),384–397.

Bauman, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L. A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud in-struction on elementary students’ comprehension monitoring abilities. Journalof Reading Behavior, 24, 143–172.

Bauman, J. F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L. A. (1993). Monitoring reading compre-hension by thinking aloud (Instructional Resource No.1). Athens, GA: Universityof Georgia, National Reading Research Center.

Bellack, A. (1966). The language of the classroom. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Blanton, W. E., Greene, M. W., & Cole, M. (1999). Computer mediation forlearning and play. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43, 272–278.

Blanton, W., Menendez, R., Moorman, G., & Pacifici. L. C. (2003). Effects ofparticipation in technology rich environments on understanding written di-rections. Early Education & Development, 14(3), 313–333.

Blanton, W., & Moorman, G. (1990) The presentation of reading lessons. ReadingResearch and Instruction, 29, 35–55.

Blanton, W., Moorman, G., & Hayes, B. (1998). Effects of participation in thefifth dimension on far transfer. Journal of Computing Research, 16, 371–396.

Block, C., & Israel, S. (2004) The ABCs of performing highly effective think-alouds. The Reading Teacher, 58, 154–167.

Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountabil-ity: Tensions between competing commitments for exemplary math teachersin Kentucky.Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394–400.

Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain,mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Bridge, C. A., Compton-Hall, M., & Cantrell, S. C. (1997). Classroom writingpractices revisited: The effects of statewide reform on writing instruction. TheElementary School Journal, 98(2), 151–170.

Brown, A. L., Palincsar, A. S., & Purcell, L. (l986). Poor readers: Teach, don’t label.In U. Neisser (Ed.) The school achievement of minority children: New perspectives (pp.105–143). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimentalvalidation of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving secondgrade readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 18–37.

Calkins, L., Montgomery, K., & Santman, D. (1998). A teacher’s guide to standardizedreading tests: Knowledge is power. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Campbell, J. R., Hombo, C. M., & Masseo, M. (2000, August). NAEP 1999trends in academic progress: Three decades of student performance. Retrieved fromhttp://nces.ed.gov/naep/pdf/main1999/200049pdf

Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis: Why poor childrenfall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Daniels, H. (2002). Expository text in literature circles. Voices from the Middle, 9(4),7–14.

Davey, B. (1983). Think aloud—Modeling the cognitive processes of readingcomprehension. Journal of Reading, 27, 44–47.

Dodge, B. (1995). WebQuests: A technique for Internet-based earning. DistanceEducator, 1(2), 10–13.

Donahue, P. L., Voelkl, K. E., Campbell, J. R., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). NAEP 1998Reading report card for the nation and the states (NCES 1999-500). Retrieved May,2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/naep

Duke, N. K. (2000) 3.6 Minutes per day: The scarcity of informational texts infirst grade. Reading Research Quarterly, 35(2), 202–225.

Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2002). Effective practices for developing readingcomprehension. In A. E. Farstrup & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), What research has tosay about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Dupuis, M. M., Askov, E. N., & Lee, J. W. (1979). Changing attitudes towardcontent area reading: The content area reading project. Journal of EducationalResearch, 73(2), 65–74.

Durkin, D. (1978–79). What classroom observations reveal about reading com-prehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14, 481–533.

Fischer, K., & Farrar, M. J. (1987). Generalizations about generalization: How atheory of skill development explains both generality and specificity. Interna-tional Journal of Psychology, 22, 643–677.

Fischer, K. W., & Granott, N. (1995). Beyond one-dimensional change: Paral-lel, concurrent, socially distributed processes in learning and development.Human Development, 38, 302–314.

Gall, M. (1970). The use of questions in teaching. Review of Educational Research,40, 707–720.

Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about literacy and learning. NewYork: Palgrave MacMillan.

Gordon, S. P., & Reese, M. (1997). High stakes testing: Worth the price? Journalof School Leadership, 7, 345–368.

Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1987). New technologies, basic skills, and the underside ofeducation: What’s to be done? In J. Langer (Ed.),Language literacy and culture:Issues of society and schooling (pp. 199–231). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Guastello, E. F., Beasley, T. M., & Sinatra, R. C. (2000). Concept mapping effects onscience content comprehension of low-achieving inner-city seventh graders.Remedial & Special Education, 21(6), 356–364.

Haney, W. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Edu-cation Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved March 14, 2003, fromhttp://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/

Hill, B. C., Noe, K. L. S., & King, J. A. (2003). Literature circles in the middle school:One teacher’s journey. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers.

Hoetker, J., & Ahlbrand, W. P., Jr. (1969). The persistence of the recitation. Amer-ican Education Research Journal, 6, 145–167.

Hoffman, J. V., Assaf, L., Pennington, J., & Paris, S. G. (2001). High stakes test-ing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow? The Reading Teacher, 54(5), 482–492.

International Reading Association. (1999). High-stakes assessment in reading: A po-sition statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: Author.

Irvin, J. (1990). Reading in the middle grades. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Johnston, P. (1998). The consequences of the use of standardized tests. In Murphy,

S. Shannon, P., Johnston, P., & Hansen, J. (Ed.) Fragile evidence: A critique ofreading assessment (pp. 89–101). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Jones, B. D., & Johnston, A. F. (2002, April). The effects of high-stakes testingon instructional practices. Paper presented at the 2002 annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st century. New York:Alliance for Excellent Education.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining theschools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Langer, J. A. (1999). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students toread and write well. (Research Rep. No. 12014). Albany, NY: National ResearchCenter on English Learning & Achievement.

Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2003). New literacies: Changing knowledge and classroomteaching. Philadelphia: Open University Press.

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Leu, D. J., Jr. (2002). The new literacies: Research on reading instruction withthe Internet and other digital technologies. In J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup(Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 310–336). Newark,DE: International Reading Association.

Luke, A., & Elkins, J. (1998). Reinventing literacy in “new times.” Journal of Ado-lescent & Adult Literacy, 42(1), 4–7.

Luria, A. R. (1979). The making of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Luria, A. R. (1985). Cognitive development: Its cultural and historical foundations.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.McColskey, W., & McMunn, N. (2000). Strategies for dealing with high-stakes

state tests. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(2), 115–120.Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Montali, J., & Lewandowski, L. (1996). Bimodal reading: Benefits of a talking

computer for average and less skilled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,29(3), 271–279.

Moorman, G., & Blanton, W. (1990). The Information Text Reading Activity(ITRA): Engaging students in meaningful learning. Journal of Reading, 34,174–193.

Mullis, I. V., Campbell, J. R., & Farstrup, A. E. (1993). Reading report card forthe nation and the states (NCES 93269). Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Murphy, P. K., & Edwards, M. E. (2005, April). What the studies tell us:A meta-analysis of discussion approaches. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal,Canada.

Myers, M. (1996). Changing our minds: Negotiating English and literacy. Urbana, IL:National Council of Teachers of English.

National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading Report Card. (2003).http://nces.ed.gov/nationalreportcard/naepdata/search.asp

Newkirk, T. (1989). Critical thinking and writing: Reclaiming the essay (MonographNo. 3). Bloomington, ID: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communica-tion Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 457).

New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social fu-tures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and thedesign of social futures (pp. 9–38). New York: Routledge.

Nist, S. L., & Kirby, K. (1986). Teaching comprehension and study strategiesthrough modeling and thinking aloud. Reading Research and Instruction, 25,256–264.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Noll, E. (1994). Social issues and literature circles with adolescents. Journal ofReading, 38(2), 88–93.

Nystrand, M. (with Gamoran, A., Kachur, R., & Prendergast, C.) (1997). Open-ing dialogue: Understanding the dynamics of language and learning in the Englishclassroom. New York: Teachers College Press.

O’Brien, D. G., & Bauer, E. (2005). New literacies and the institution of oldlearning. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 120–131.

Palinscar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,2, 117–175.

Palinscar, A. S., & Klenk, L. (1992). Fostering literacy learning in supportivecontexts. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25(4), 211–225, 229.

Pappas, C. C. (1993). Is narrative primary? Some insights from kindergarteners’pretend readings of stories and information books. Journal of Reading Behavior,25(1), 97–129.

Passman, R. (2001). Experiences with student-centered teaching and learn-ing in high-stakes assessment environments. Education, 122(1), 189–211.

Pearson, P., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.

Perkins, D. (1992). Smart schools. New York: The Free Press.Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (2nd

ed.) New York: Guilford.Rand Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D

program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Raphael, T. (1986). Teaching question–answer relationships. Reading Teacher, 39,

516–520.Raphael, T. E., & McMahon, S. I. (1994). Book club: An alternative framework

for reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 48, 102–117.Readence, J. E., Bean, T. W., & Baldwin, R. S. (1998). Content area literacy: An

integrated approach (6th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal teaching: A review of the re-

search. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479–530.Rush, L. S. (2002) Taking a broad view of literacy: Lessons from the Ap-

palachian Trail thru-hiking community. Retrieved April 22, 2004, fromhttp://www.readingonline.org/newliteracies/lit

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for under-standing. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Short, K., & Kauffman, G. (1995). So what do I do? The role of the teacher inliterature circles. In N. Roser & M. Martinez (Eds.), Book talk and beyond: Chil-dren and teachers respond to literature (pp. 140–149). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.

Snow, C. E., & Biancarosa, G. (2003).Adolescent literacy and the achievement gap: Whatdo we know and where do we go from here? New York: Carnegie Corporation.

Soter, A. O., & Rudge, L. (2005, April). What the discussions tell us: Talk and indi-cators of high-level comprehension. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


Stauffer, R. G. (1969a). Teaching reading as a thinking process. New York: Harper &Row.

Stauffer, R. G. (1969b). Directing reading maturity as a cognitive process. New York:Harper & Row.

Stevens, R. (1912). The question as a measure of efficiency in instruction: A critical studyof classroom practice. New York: Columbia University.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Wade, S. E., & Moje, E. B. (2000). The role of text in classroom learning. In M. L.Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of readingresearch, Vol. 3 (pp. 609–627). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Walker, B. (2005). Think aloud: Struggling readers often require more than amodel. The Reading Teacher, 58, 688–692.

Wedman, J. M., & Robinson, R. (1988). Effects of an extended in-service programon secondary teachers’ use of content reading instructional strategies. Journalof Research and Development in Education, 21(3), 65–70.

Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discus-sions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Wenglinsky, H. (2004). Facts or thinking skills? What NAEP results say. EducationalLeadership, 62(1), 32–35.

Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind in action. New York: Oxford University Press.Wideen, M. F., O’Shea, T., Pye, I., & Ivany, G. (1997). High-stakes testing and the

teaching of science. Canadian Journal of Education, 22(4), 428–444.Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Reninger, K. B. (2005, April). What the approaches look like: A

conceptual framework for discussions. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Wood, K., & Muth, D. (1991). The case for improved instruction in the middlegrades. Journal of Reading, 35(2), 84–90.

Yarbrough, T. L. (1999). Teacher perceptions of the North Carolina ABC Program and therelationship to classroom practice. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

ew H

amps

hire

] at

02:

29 0

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Rethinking Middle School Reading Instruction: A Basic Literacy Activity