Reading Next

EXAMPLE FOR CON POSITION

John T. Guthrie

READING NEXT:A VISION FOR ACTION AND RESEARCH IN

MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LITERACY

Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.Alliance for Excellent EducationCarnegie Corporation 2004

PARTICIPANTS AND GOALS

Andres Henriquez, ConvenerDonald Deshler, David Francis, John Guthrie, Michael Kamil, James McPartland, Panel

GoalsSpeak to policy makersUse legislators’ schema:

problem—solutionAccessible languageConcrete recommendations for

action

MESSAGES OF READING NEXT

Problems in adolescent literacy

Reading is inadequate for schooling, workplace, higher education

NAEP Grade 8 students; 1994; 30% above proficiency 2007; 31% above proficiency


Problems in adolescent literacy

1000 students drop out of school PER DAY

Lowest 25% in reading achievement are 20 times more likely to drop out


Solutions

Elements of successful middle school literacy instruction

Not a program; not a single bullet


Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education

Instructional improvements1. Direct, explicit comprehension

instruction2. Embedded in content3. Motivation and self-directed

learning4. Text-based collaborative learning5. Strategic tutoring



6. Diverse texts (electronic, others)

7. Intensive writing8. A technology component9. Ongoing formative assessment

of students



Infrastructure improvements10. Extended time for literacy11. Professional development12. Ongoing, summative assessment of

students and programs13. Teacher teams14. Leadership15. Comprehensive and coordinated

RESEARCH EVIDENCE IN READING NEXT

The evidence for these elementsconsists of 117 publications such as: Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension

instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 815–60).White Plains, NY: Longman.

Almasi, J. F. (1995).The nature of fourth graders’ sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 314–351.

Ivey, G., & Broaddus, K. (2001). “Just plain reading”: A survey of what makes students want to read in middle school classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 350–77.

Konopak, B. C., Martin, S. H., & Martin, M.A. (1990). Using a writing strategy to enhance sixth grade students’ comprehension of content material. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 19–37.

RESEARCH EVIDENCE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN IN READING NEXT

Alvermann, D. E., (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 189-208.

Duffy, G., (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research and Instruction, 41, 331-344.

Kamil, M., Borman, G., Dole, J., Kral, C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices. Institute of Education Sciences. USDE.

Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981).The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

RESEARCH BASEFOR READING NEXT

Presuppositions to our knowledge base

We emphasize the commonalities of the cultural-historical and the scientific perspectives.

Evidence is optimal when the inferences from ethnographies and experiments converge and complement.


Cultural-historical: Activity theory Michael Cole, Sylvia Scribner, Alexei Leont'ev Literacy is a form of culturally grounded

cognition. Effective literacy practices are in the cultural

milieu. Cognitive systems are adapted to

environmental affordances. Literacy is shaped by the beliefs, goals, and

behaviors of individuals in interaction with others .

Tactics: Case Studies; Ethnographies; Semiotic studies; more


Scientific perspective: Strategic, engaged reading

Literacy is best learned in rich content domains.

Teaching cognitive strategies benefits learners.

Students’ commitment to literacy expands their authentic practices.

Teachers who scaffold processes and practices foster learning

Tactics: Correlational; experiments; systematic classroom observations


Cultural-historical and Scientific perspectives are consistent with Reading Next:

(2) literacy instruction embedded in content,

(3) self-directed learning, (4) text-based collaborative

learning, (6) diverse texts (electronic), (10) extended time for literacy.

CONSEQUENCES OF READING NEXT

Eight (8) Striving Reader awards

totaling $142M from 2006-2007,

met criteria for successful inst.

Reading Next had more than1,000,000 downloads by May 2009

LIMITATIONS OF READING NEXT

Did children’s proficiency improve?

Was teachers’ capacity enhanced?Were schools more successful?Did the field of adolescent literacy

learn?

Unknown Not the goals of Reading NextCongressional Action

CONCLUSIONS FROM READING NEXT

1. Literacy researchers (including 2 NRC members)

2. Wrote explicit guidance for policy3. Drawing on a base of knowledge4. Delivered to policy makers5. In a partnership with political

activists6. Positive result of $142 M for

adolescent literacy7. Positive result of congressional

recognition

CONCLUSION

READING NEXT is

evidence in opposition to the resolution

of this debate