Michigan Reading Journal Michigan Reading Journal

Volume 35 Issue 3 Article 9

April 2003

Strategies Addressing the English Language Arts Content Strategies Addressing the English Language Arts Content

Standards Standards

Susan L. Adkins

Nancy L. Douglas

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Adkins, Susan L. and Douglas, Nancy L. (2003) "Strategies Addressing the English Language Arts Content Standards," Michigan Reading Journal: Vol. 35 : Iss. 3 , Article 9. Available at: https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/mrj/vol35/iss3/9

From The Teachers & Writers Guide to Classic American Literature, edited by Christopher Edgar and Gary Lenhart, 2001, New York, NY: Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Copyright 2001 by Teachers & Writers Collaborative. Reprinted with permission.

This work is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@GVSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Reading Journal by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks@GVSU. For more information, please contact scholarworks@gvsu.edu.

Strategies Addressing the English Language Arts Content Standards Bv SusAN L. ADKINS & NANCY L. DouGLAS

Occasionally in schools, new teachers are given a set of teacher's manuals, pointed to their classrooms, and set loose with little or no exposure to what children are expected to learn in the area of the English language arts. According to the Michigan Department of Education (1996), "The English language arts

are the vehicles of communication by which we live, work, share, and build ideas and understandings of the present, reflect on the past, and imagine the future" (p. 15). They are also the link by which "we learn to appreciate, integrate, and apply what is learned for real purposes" (p. 15). Students cannot succeed in today's society by merely being able to read sentences on a page. Learning and using the English language arts is the key to success in today's society. With this thought in mind, the state of Michigan has established a set of 12 content standards in the area of the English language arts (see Figure 1 on page 31 ). These standards provide teachers with guidelines for classroom instruction. This paper details several strategies that address the 12 content standards necessary to achieve proficiency in the use of the English language arts.

The Michigan English Language Arts standards are written for learners at all grades levels, K-12. For each standard, there are several progress benchmarks for the early elementary, later elementary, middle school, and high school levels. The benchmarks are more specific and relatively easy to interpret; however, their sheer volume may at times intimidate teachers. This is espe­cially true for elementary teachers who are responsible for teaching mathematics, science, and social studies standards in addition to language arts. One approach with potential is to identify teaching strategies that address the standards.

Teaching Strategies Harris and Hodges (1995) define a strategy as a "systematic plan, consciously adapted and monitored, to improve one's performance in learning" (p. 244). Sometimes teaching strategies are also learning strate­gies. For example, the Story Map (Beck & McKeown, 1981) was designed to teach students about the generic structure of narrative text. When teachers use the technique to map stories, they often instruct students to apply it when reading independently, thus fostering improvement in reading comprehension. Other teach­ing strategies, such as Readers Theatre (Sloyer, 1982),

30

Susan L. Adkins has been teaching for 5 years and is currently teaching fourth-grade students at Jamieson Elementary School in the Detroit Public School System. Recently she earned her master of education degree from the University of Michigan with a specialization in reading. Susan is a member of both the International Reading Association and the Michigan Reading Association.

Nancy L. Douglas is an assistant professor of reading and language arts at the University of Michigan at Dearborn, where she coordinates the Reading Specialist Program. She has 15 years of experience teaching in the second through ninth grades. Her experience teaching in higher education includes 4 years at the community college level and 3 years at the university level teaching undergraduate and graduate students. She is an active member of the International Reading Association.

MICHIGAN READING JOURNAL

J

J

ADKINS & DOUGLAS

are designed to assist teachers in the use of discussion to actively involve students in the reading process. In this paper, we describe 10 well-researched teaching strategies that address one or more of the standards at the upper elementary and middle school levels (see Table 1 on page 32). Combined, these strategies go far in addressing the 12 content standards for English language arts.

Author-Reader-Inquirer Cycle The Author-Reader-Inquirer Cycle uses the writing process to advance reading and learning. According to Harste, Short, and Burke (1988), "Authoring and literacy involve 'making' meanings through any of the available communication systems (language, art, drama, etc.) to achieve personal and social goals" (p. 5). Through this approach, students construct meaning through the use of the English language arts. One of the guiding principles of this approach is that the teacher "understands that children do not need to engage in the same activity to have an equivalent experience" (p. 188). Many of the content standards are addressed with this emphasis on literacy.

and compositions" (Standard 2) because students are involved in writing and revising, as well as working with their peers. Children also "use the characteristics of different types of texts" (Standard 8) in their writing as they write for various purposes. As students plan new inquiries and take thoughtful action, they "apply knowledge, ideas and issues drawn from texts to their lives" (Standard 10) and "investigate important issues and problems using a variety of resources ... to explore and create text" (Standard 11 ). When students share what was learned and gain new perspectives, they "develop and apply . . . criteria for the employment, appreciation, and evaluation of their own and others' oral, written, and visual texts" (Standard 12).

This strategy addresses a student's "ability to write clear and grammatically correct sentences, paragraphs,

Short, Harste, and Burke ( 1996) suggest the Author­Reader-Inquirer Cycle combines familiar strategies in such a way as to emphasize the use of literacy for learning. The Author-Reader-Inquirer Cycle "teaches strategies whereby students can solve problems and learn how to learn using reading and writing as tools for learning" (p. 209). This framework incorporates mul­tiple strategies thus implementation is most successful when scaffolded. This strategy relies on the process of inquiry over content. The use of technology (Standard 11) lends itself well to this strategy for instruction.

Figure 1. Michigan Department of Education English Language Arts Content Standards

Standard 1 - All students will read and comprehend general and technical material. Standard 2 - All students will demonstrate the ability to write clear and grammatically correct sentences, paragraphs, and compositions. Standard 3 -All students will focus on meaning and communication as they listen, speak, view, read, and write in personal, social, occupational, and civic contexts. Standard 4 -All students will use the English language effectively. Standard 5 - All students will read and analyze a wide variety of classic and contemporary literature and other texts to seek information, ideas, enjoyment, and understanding of their individuality, our common heritage and common humanity, and the rich diversity of our society. Standard 6 -All students will learn to communicate information accurately and effectively and demonstrate their expressive abilities by creating oral, written, and visual texts that enlighten and engage an audience. Standard 7 -All students will demonstrate, analyze, and reflect upon the skills and processes used to communicate through speaking, listening, viewing, reading, and writing. Standard 8 - All students will explore and use the characteristics of different types of texts, aesthetic elements, and mechanics - including text structure, figurative and descriptive language, spelling, punctuation, and grammar - to construct and convey meaning. Standard 9 - All students will demonstrate understanding of the complexity of enduring issues and recurring problems by making connections and generating themes within and across texts. Standard 10 -All students will apply knowledge, ideas, and issues drawn from texts to their lives and the lives of others. Standard 11 - All students will define and investigate important issues and problems using a variety of resources, including technology, to explore and create texts. Standard 12 -All students will develop and apply personal, shared, and academic criteria for the employment, appreciation, and evaluation of their own and others' oral, written, and visual texts.

SPRING 2003 31

STRATEGIES ADDRESSING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CONTENT STANDARDS

Allen s Language Experience Approach in Communication According to Tierney and Readence (2002), this approach to reading and communication provides students the opportunity to experience and study communication, as well as relate communication to themselves and others (p. 204). This language arts strategy focuses on 20 experiences with language that have made the greatest contributions to reading. Allen's Language Experience Approach has three strands. Together these strands address a fundamental content standard, the ability to "read and comprehend general and technical material" (Standard 1) because they entail several methods promoting reading ability.

The first strand involves experiencing communication. This consists of orally sharing ideas through discussion and conversation, visually portraying experiences, and exploring writing and authoring books or stories. The first strand helps children "focus on meaning and com­munication as they listen, speak, view, read, and write"

in a variety of contexts (Standard 3). This strand also allows children to see and use the "skills and processes used to communicate through listening, speaking, viewing, reading, and writing" (Standard 7).

The second strand (Studying Communication) involves studying style and words as well as language structure. These, in combination with extending vocabularies, make students "communicate information accurately and effectively and demonstrate their expressive abili­ties by creating oral, written, and visual texts" (Stan­dard 6). By combining the first and second strands, students revise and edit their works to "enlighten and engage an audience" (Standard 6).

According to Allen (1976), the third strand involves relating communication of others to one's self. One part of this strand is "searching out and researching multiple sources" (p. 13). This helps students "define and investigate important issues and problems using a variety of resources, including technology, to explore and create texts" (Standard 11). This strand has chil-

Table 1. Michigan Department of Education English Language Arts Content Standards Addressed by Each Instructional Framework or Strategy

Standard

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Author-Reader-Inquirer X X X X X

Cycle

Allen's Language Experience Approach X X X X X X X

>-. in Communication eJl ~ .... ~ Discussion Web X X X X X 1-1 ....

VJ - Point, Counterpoint X X X X X ~

= Q .... Readers Theater X X X X ....

CJ = Style Study X X X X X X X X X 1-1 .... ~ Literature Circles X X X X = ~

Question Answer X X X X

Relationships

Possible Sentences X X X X

Guided Writing X X X X X X X X

Procedure

32 MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL

dren "assimilating and integrating ideas" (p. 13), thus making students "apply knowledge, ideas, and issues drawn from texts to their lives and the lives of oth­ers" (Standard 10). Additionally, students "develop and apply personal, shared, and academic criteria for the employment, appreciation, and evaluation of their own and others' oral, written, and visual texts" (Standard 12) through the evaluation of others' com­munication.

Tierney and Readence (2002) point out that Allen's Language Experience Approach can be used in all grade levels and in multiple settings. They state that this approach enriches classrooms by placing value in diversity of experiences. They also suggest that tech­nology can be a valuable asset in Allen's Language Experience Approach classrooms.

Discussion Web The Discussion Web strategy employs cooperative discussion assisting students in both clarifying their thoughts and seeing multiple perspectives on an action or issue. Alvermann (1991) developed this strategy to facilitate discussion among students as opposed to teacher directed dialogue. This strategy lends itself well to stories containing moral dilemmas or expository text containing issues of controversy. Initially the teacher establishes necessary background to familiarize students with the reading selection. Students then read the selection. Following reading, students are given a web, a type of graphic organizer with the main question in the middle and space for listing reasons "yes" and "no" on either side of the central question (Standard 1 ). For example, in the story "The Girls in their Summer Dresses," a central question could be "Should Michael and Francis stay together?" Student pairs work together on the same web and generate reasons "yes" and reasons "no." They attempt to list the same number of "yes" and "no" responses (Standard 3). Next, pairs are combined creating groups of four to compare their responses, work for consensus, and reach a group conclusion. Students are told it is acceptable to disagree with their group, but every effort should be made to keep an open mind while considering others' points of view (Standards 8 and 12). Following this, each group is given a few minutes to decide which reason best sup­ports the group's conclusion. A spokesperson for each group is then directed to report to the entire class. Finally, students are asked to individually write their response to the central questions (Standard 4).

ADKINS & DOUGLAS

Point, Counterpoint The Point, Counterpoint strategy was developed to enhance students' critical thinking skills by encourag­ing them to create their own interpretation of a liter­ary piece as opposed to simply accepting traditional interpretations or the interpretation of their teacher. According to Rogers (1990), students need to practice reading complex narrative selections and drawing upon textual and extra-textual information to create their own meaning rather than simply providing the answer the teacher wants to hear. Therefore this strat­egy is best suited to middle and high school students and primarily promotes instruction in the later content standards. There are three stages in this strategy. These stages take students through the initial writing of a response, the discussion of the responses, and the development of a final response to a story.

The first stage involves students' initial writing of a response to literature. The students "will apply knowledge, ideas, and issues drawn from text to their lives" (Standard 10) through personally responding to the literature. As students critically evaluate a piece of literature, they apply personal criteria (Standard 12).

The second stage in the Point, Counterpoint strategy involves a discussion based on the written responses to the literature. Students compare and contrast their ideas with those of their peers. Teachers are encour­aged to incorporate additional professional critical pieces in order to present students with a wider vari­ety of interpretations while exploring texts (Standard 11). Also, by incorporating additional interpretations, students use a variety of other sources to seek infor­mation (Standard 5).

The third stage is the development of a final response to the literature. This stage forces students to analyze what they have learned and create individual interpre­tations based on their knowledge. Because students are going through all three stages, they will "develop and apply personal, shared, and academic criteria for the employment, appreciation, and evaluation of their own and others' oral, written, and visual texts" (Standard 12).

Through the use of the Point, Counterpoint strat­egy, students gain the ability to critically evaluate literature instead of looking for the "right" answer. Students also learn the procedures for critical evalu­ation. Possible extensions of this strategy include the

SPRING 2003 33

STRATEGIES ADDRESSING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS CONTENT STANDARDS

co-authorship of a final essay or television-like "talk shows" by opposing critics.

Readers Theatre Readers Theatre is a procedure designed to integrate language arts with a student's motivation to read. It improves oral reading and interpretation skills as well as composition and comprehension skills. Sloyer (1982) states, "Used in the classroom, Readers Theatre becomes an integrated language event centering upon oral interpretation ofliterature" (p. 3). Readers Theatre addresses a variety of the content standards.

Students creating and practicing a Readers Theatre script "focus on meaning and communication" as they work (Standard 3). They focus on trying to get the message of the piece across to an audience. In order to do this, they must "use the English language effectively" (Standard 4 ). As they create their Readers Theatre scripts, students "demonstrate their expressive abilities by creating oral, written, and visual texts that enlighten and engage an audience" (Standard 6). This

Additionally, students learn how to compose effective paragraphs through the use of Style Study activities. There are three categories of Style Study activities: showing and telling writing activities, parallel writing, and extended writing activities.

Showing and telling writing helps students provide specific details that help the reader picture the topic. Caplan ( 1987) encourages students to move away from topic sentences and toward generating a dramatic idea instead. In order to do this, students must "read and comprehend" material (Standard 1 ), "write clear and grammatically correct" selections (Standard 2), and "focus on meaning and communication" (Standard 3) as they try to convey an idea without giving the whole idea away. In this type of writing, students "use the English language effectively" (Standard 4). Students also share and critique these writings. This provides students with the opportunity to "develop and apply ... criteria for ... evaluation of their own and others"' writings (Standard 12).

incorporates the student's voice with the author's message. Students also begin mastering the genre and craft of language (Standard 8) as they explore and use different elements of a text to convey meaning.

Readers Theatre actively engages students in constructing meaning from a text; thus it is highly appealing. It can be used effectively with students at all levels.

Through parallel writing stu­dents concentrate on the skills and processes used to develop voice and style. Initially, stu­dents write parallel sentences using a specific author's style. From this point, they continue

Readers Theatre actively engages students in constructing meaning from a text; thus it is highly appealing. It can be used effectively with students at all levels. According to Tierney and Readence (2002), Readers Theatre provides students an "opportunity to learn about plot, characterization, and some of the less tangible features of stories such as theme, voice, and mood" (p. 254). They also note that technology can be useful for creating scripts while pointing out that there are several software programs designed to produce dramatic script.

Style Study The Style Study is an effective strategy to use with high school students to engage them in critically read­ing various texts and enhancing their appreciation of different writing styles. According to Caplan (1987), "Students learn new composing strategies from each other as they notice how different writers tackle the same idea with varying approaches" (pp. 10-11 ). As in the Point, Counterpoint strategy, students write their own selections, share them with others, and then compare them with those of professional authors.

until they are able to construct several paragraphs in a certain

author's style. By emulating a specific author, students "demonstrate their expressive abilities" (Standard 6). Students also "explore and use the characteristics of different types of text" (Standard 8) when they write using the characteristics of a particular author.

The extended writing activities provide students the opportunity to reflect on the "skills and processes used to communicate" (Standard 7) since they need to effectively write. Tierney and Readence (2002) show that having students pull together their own ideas helps them "understand the complexity of enduring issues and recurring problems by making connections and generating themes" (Standard 9).

The Style Study activities are perhaps some of the most difficult to implement in the classroom because, as Caplan (1987) points out, "For some students ... the practices related to Style Study might have been burdensome and the question remains whether or not some students might have felt deflated-even disempowered-by having to do the parallel writings

34 MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL

and mimickings" (p. 31 ). She suggests that students may feel overwhelmed by the styles of others and that students may lose their own voice as they try to mimic others. On the other hand, Style Study activities provide high school students (and others) a powerful opportunity to understand the genre and craft of lan­guage, voice, and style.

Literature Circles According to Tierney and Readence (2002), Literature Circles provide students with the opportunity to experience "richer, more dynamic, more real, and more collaborative" classroom interactions during reading instruction (p. 293). This method works well for students at any age or level and engages students in meaningful discussions of literature. Literature Circles are basically small, temporary discussion groups who have read the same selection.

Through the use of Literature Circles, students "read and analyze a wide variety of classic and contemporary literature" (Standard 5). During and after reading they discuss their selections with others in their group. Through this discussion, students work on "making connections and generating themes within and across texts" (Standard 9). They also "apply knowledge, ideas, and issues drawn from texts to their lives and the lives of others" (Standard 10). These goals are met through the use of roles. Each of the roles contributes in its own way to students' ability to "develop and apply personal, shared, and academic criteria for the employment, appreciation, and evaluation of their own and others' oral, written, and visual texts" (Standard 12).

Literature Circles are easy for teachers to imple­ment because they are simply adapted, changed, and extended as the teacher sees fit. Daniels ( 1994) states, "Every good session of Literature Circles I've attended departs from the basic definition in some way" (p. 31 ). Literature Circles also enhance student engagement. Tierney and Readence (2002) conclude, "Literature Circles will likely spur connections across books as well as a more in-depth or far-reaching consideration of themes and the big ideas in what one reads" (p.300). They also point out that Literature Circles fit easily with the use of technology (Standard 11) including chat rooms and discussion threads.

Question Answer Relationships According to Raphael (1982), the Question Answer Relationships strategy provides "the basis for three comprehension strategies: ( 1) locating information, (2) determining text structures and how these structures

ADKINS & DOUGLAS

may convey information, and (3) determining when an inference would be required" (p. 521 ). This strat­egy provides students with a systematic method for answering reading comprehension questions.

The use of the Question Answer Relationships strategy addresses several content standards. When students determine the type of question they are answering, they are "reflecting upon the skills and processes" (Standard 7) they are using. This strategy can be used to "read and analyze a wide variety of classic and contemporary literature and other texts to seek information" (Stan­dard 5). Through use of this strategy, students "focus on meaning and communication" (Standard 3) as they "read and comprehend general and technical material" (Standard 1 ).

The Question Answer Relationships strategy is a pow­erful tool that is easily utilized in the classroom once it is taught. Raphael states that the Question Answer Rela­tionships strategy can be adapted for lower elementary students as well as upper elementary and middle school students by narrowing or broadening the categories as needed. This flexibility makes it a welcome and useful tool for both teachers and schools.

Possible Sentences Possible Sentences is a method of independently deter­mining meanings and relationships of unknown words in text. The strategy uses prediction and verification of meanings of words to create interest and focus on the concepts being presented. Moore and Moore ( 1986) believe that Possible Sentences can be used in the con­tent areas whenever students learn unfamiliar words.

There are five steps in this strategy. The first step involves listing key vocabulary words. In the second step teachers record students' possible sentences for each word. Students are focused "on meaning and com­munication" (Standard 3) as they try to determine the meaning of each word. They "use the English language effectively" (Standard 4) and "demonstrate the ability to write clear and grammatically correct sentences" (Standard 2) while creating possible sentences. In the third and fourth steps, students read the selection and evaluate the sentences previously written. Finally, in the fifth step, students generate new sentences using knowl­edge acquired through reading (Standards 1 and 2).

Possible Sentences is a fun activity that students really seem to enjoy. They are motivated to write their sentences and like finding out if their predictions are correct. Care should be taken, however, to make

SPRING 2003 35

STRATEGIES ADDRESSING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AR.TS CONTENT STANDARDS

sure students have a foundational knowledge of at least some of the vocabulary words listed or they will struggle to create sentences.

Guided Writing Procedure The Guided Writing Procedure activates prior knowl­edge, evaluates and improves written expression, and promotes the synthesis and retention of material. This procedure, used primarily in the content areas, uses writing to facilitate learning from a text. Although ini­tially created for middle and high school levels, it can be used effectively with upper elementary students as well. The Guided Writing Procedure incorporates the "know" and "learned" sections of a KWL chart with a writing activity. As it is used mainly in the content areas, the Guided Writing Procedure helps students to "read and comprehend general and technical material" (Standard 1 ).

The Guided Writing Procedure allows students to transform a list of known items into coherent para­graphs. Therefore, students "demonstrate the ability to write clear and grammatically correct" paragraphs (Standard 3) and "use the English language effec­tively" (Standard 4). After creating an initial draft, students read a selection and then revise their writing. Here they "apply knowledge, ideas, and issues drawn from texts" to their own writing (Standard 10). They also "investigate important issues and problems" (Standard 11) before revising. During the revision process, students explore the characteristics of text (Standard 8), analyze the "skills and processes used to communicate" (Standard 7), and "learn to com­municate information accurately and effectively" (Standard 6).

Although Smith and Bean (1980) describe a more narrow approach to the Guided Writing Procedure, adapting it to work with a KWL strategy provides stu­dents with multiple opportunities to meet several of the content standards. Also, working with peers to revise and edit makes monitoring the classroom learning easier for the teacher because he or she is not checking every paper. Once again, technology (Standard 11) can be used to find information or to complete the writing process itself.

Conclusion This paper has described several teaching strategies that can be implemented to address the English lan­guage arts content standards. We do not suggest that teachers stop trying to develop new ways to teach the

standards. Moreover, certain teaching strategies may not suit one's style of teaching or students' styles of learning. The good news is that strategies are not written in stone; they can be adapted or implemented in steps over time, allowing both the teachers and students to become familiar with them.

We also encourage teachers to seek out other teaching strategies that have not only been proven effective through research, but withstood the test of time. Many distinguished educators have developed powerful strategies to help teachers become more effective in the classroom. Rather than reinvent the wheel, teachers should consider the strategies that have potential to meet the challenge of teaching the English Language Arts Standards.

References Allen, R. V. (1976). Language experiences in

communication. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Alvermann, D. E. (1991). The discussion web: A graphic aid for learning across the curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 45, 2, 92-99.

Beck, I., & McKeown, M. G. (1981). Developing questions that promote comprehension: The story map. Language Arts, 58, 913-918.

Caplan, R. (1987). Style study. The Quarterly, 9, 10-14, 29, 31.

Daniels, H. (1994). Literature circles: Voice and choice in the student centered classroom. New York: Stenhouse.

Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (eds.) (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Harste, J., Short, K., & Burke, C. (1988). Creating classrooms for authors: The reading-writing connection. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Michigan Department of Education ( 1996). Michigan curriculum framework. Retrieved June 16, 2002, from http://www.michigan.gov/ documents/MichiganCurriculumFramework _ 8172_7.pdf

Moore, D. W. & Moore, S. A. (1986). Possible sentences. In E. K. Dishner, T. W. Bean, J. E. Readence, & D. W. Moore (eds.), Reading in the content areas: Improving classroom instruction (2nd ed.) (pp.174-179). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

36 MICHIGAN READING JoURNAL

Raphael, T. E. (1986). Teaching question answer relationships, revisited. The Reading Teacher, 39, 516-522.

Rogers, T. (1990). A point, counterpoint response strategy for complex short stories. The Journal of Reading, 34, 278-282.

Short, K., Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

ADKINS & DOUGLAS

Sloyer, S. (1982). Readers Theatre: Story dramatization in the classroom. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Smith, C. & Bean, T. W. (1980). The guided writing procedure: Integrating content reading and writing improvement. Reading World, 19, 290-298.

Tierney, R. J., & Readence, J. E. (2000). Reading strategies and practices: A compendium (5 th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Michigan Reading Association Membership Application

Check all that apply:

D Teacher

D Administrator

0 Title I

D Paraprofessional

D Adult Education

D Elementary

0 Middle

D Secondary

D University

D Other ___ _

Payment:

D Regular Member ................................ $30.00

D Full Time Undergraduate Student .... $ 10.00

D Parent/Non-Educator ........................ $10.00

Method of Payment:

0 Check D MasterCard 0 VISA

Card Account Number:

1111111111111111 I I I I Expiration Date: [D [D

Signature (Required on all credit card applications)

Sorry NO PURCHASE ORDERS - prepaid orders only. Thank you.

Your home address determines your voting region:

Name: ______________ _

Home Address: ___________ _

City, State: ____________ _

County: ________ __.,.Zip: ___ _

Phone: _____________ _

I am a member of (please circle):

International Reading Association

Local Reading Council

Local Council Name

Yes

Yes

No

No

Please remit form with payment to: MRA, 668 Three Mile Road NW, Grand Rapids, MI 49544

SPRING 2003 37