Literacy Now

Literacy Research
ILA Membership
ILA Next
ILA Journals
ILA Membership
ILA Next
ILA Journals
  • The beginning of the school year is an exciting time, however, the first few days of school involve more than just fun icebreakers and syllabi creation.
    • Blog Posts
    • Ask a Researcher

    What is Your Advice for Getting the School Year Off to a Good Start?

    by Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler
     | Sep 18, 2014


    by Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler
    College of Saint Benedict-Saint John's University
    Sept. 18, 2014

     

    Question:

    What is your advice for getting the school year off to a good start?

    Response from Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler:

    The beginning of the school year is an exciting time filled with meeting students, reconnecting with colleagues and former students, and starting important academic work.  However, the first few days of school involve more than just fun icebreakers and syllabi creation. They are crucial for having a successful school year in terms of academic performance, developing thinking skills, establishing a positive social environment, and enacting a positive classroom management plan (Flaxman, 2000; Israel, 2001; Kronowitz, 2003; Novelli & Shafer, 1999; Wong & Wong, 2009).  Seasoned teachers know a lot of work goes into getting the year started off well!  

    In my research studying effective teaching practices, I followed the progress of many teachers and students throughout the school year, especially teachers who foster high academic engagement and motivation (e.g., Bohn, Roehrig, & Pressley, 2004).  From this work, I learned that the principles of effective teaching apply throughout the entire year, but are amplified at the beginning of the year. Below are several suggestions to help you start off the year on the right foot.

    Establish Meaningful Rules, Routines, and Procedures

    Effective and motivating teachers spend a significant amount of time at the beginning of the year explaining rules and routines. Teachers model and ask students to practice carrying out procedures so students know how to behave. More than that, it is important to elaborate on why such procedures are important for the learning, social, and physical environment of the classroom.  At mid-year, this translates to improved achievement, a more orderly classroom, and prevented discipline issues (Bohn et al., 2004; Emmer, Evertson, & Anderson, 1980; Evertson & Emmer, 1982; Leinhardt, Weidman, & Hammond, 1987; Pressley, Dolezal, et al., 2003).

    Promote a Positive Environment

    Excellent classrooms have a consistent and salient positive environment in which students feel safe to learn and do not receive threats (Morrow, Tracey, Woo, & Pressley, 1999; Pressley, Roehrig, et al., 2003).  To accomplish this, effective teachers use a variety of techniques at the beginning of the year. This includes emphasizing respect and community values, helping students feel important by learning their names, listening carefully to students’ thoughts and concerns, and responding compassionately to help students feel at ease (Bohn et al., 2004; Day, Woodside-Jiron, & Johnston, 1999).

    Enthusiastically Introduce Content and Offer Engaging Activities

    Highly effective teachers describe their classrooms, and the academic content, as exciting and meaningful for students’ lives (Day et al., 1999; Pressley, Roehrig, et al., 2003).  They offer engaging activities and vary instruction between individual, small group, and whole group tasks.  Starting the year with engaging activities, and modeling how you will be an active teacher, will help set the tone for the class (Bohn et al., 2004).

    Communicate High Expectations and Praise Specific Accomplishments

    Research consistently shows that students live up, or down, to the expectations teachers set for them (Hinnant, O'Brien, & Ghazarian, 2009; Jussim & Harber, 2005; Rubie-Davies, 2008). Start off the year by communicating high expectations, but go beyond generally telling them they can succeed. Instead, tell students why they can succeed, emphasizing their efforts when they face challenging tasks (Bohn et al., 2004; Dweck, 1999).  In addition, praise students by “catching students being good” (Brophy, 1981), and provide specific praise so students understand exactly what they are doing well.

    Encourage Self-Regulation

    Effective teachers emphasize that students be self-regulated in daily routines as well as in academics. They allocate time to explain and practice routines, emphasize students’ responsibilities in carrying out routines, encourage students to do things on their own and without reminders, and encourage students to use learning strategies independently. Such self-regulation pays strong dividends later in the school year (Bohn et al., 2004; Day et al., 1999). 

    Emphasize a Democratic Environment

    Finally, effective teachers create a democratic environment in which students have choice and ownership in the classroom. For example, allowing students to play a role in setting up rules, giving students choices in their work, and allowing students to have a say in the classroom environment promotes self-regulation and a positive environment (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

    Of course, this list is not exhaustive: A number of other resources provide suggestions for how to start the year off well, including National Education Association, Scholastic, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and the New Jersey Education Association. The reference list below also contains a variety of resources.  Best wishes for a wonderful school year!

     


    References

    Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004). The First Days Of School In The Classrooms of Two More Effective and Four Less Effective Primary-Grades Teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 104(4), 271-287.

    Brophy, J. (1981). Teacher Praise: A Functional Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 51, 5-32.

    Day, J., Woodside-Jiron, H., & Johnston, P. (1999). Principles of Practice: The Common and Unique. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX.

    Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

    Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality and Development. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis/Psychology Press.

    Emmer, E. T., Evertson, C. M., & Anderson, L. M. (1980). Effective Classroom Management at the Beginning of the School Year. Elementary School Journal, 80, 219-231.

    Evertson, C. M., & Emmer, E. T. (1982). Effective Classroom Management at the Beginning of the School Year in Junior High Classes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 485-498.

    Flaxman, S. G. (2000). Opening Bell: Get Organized for the First Day of School With This Handy Checklist. Instructor, 110(1), 20-21.

    Hinnant, J., O'Brien, M., & Ghazarian, S. (2009). The Longitudinal Relations of Teacher Expectations to Achievement in the Early School Years. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 662-670.

    Israel, E. (2001). Best-Ever Back-to-School Activities: 50 Winning and Welcoming Activities, Strategies, and Tips That Save You Time and Get Your School Year Off to a Sensational Start. Jefferson City, MO: Scholastic.

    Jussim, L., & Harber, K. D. (2005). Teacher Expectations and Self-Fulfilling Prophecies: Knowns and Unknowns, Resolved and Unresolved Controversies. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 9, 131-155.

    Kronowitz, E. L. (2003). Your First Year of Teaching and Beyond. Menlo Park, CA: Pearson.

    Leinhardt, G., Weidman, C., & Hammond, K. M. (1987). Introduction and Integration of Classroom Routines by Expert Teachers. The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, 17, 135-176.

    Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H., Woo, D. G., & Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of Exemplary First-Grade Literacy Instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52, 462-476.

    Novelli, J., & Shafer, S. (1999). 101 Surefire Ways to Start the School Year. Jefferson City, MO: Scholastic.

    Pressley, M., Dolezal, S. E., Raphael, L. M., Mohan, L., Roehrig, A. D., & Bogner, K. (2003). Motivating Primary-Grade Students: Guildford Press.

    Pressley, M., Roehrig, A. D., Raphael, L., Dolezal, S. E., Bohn, C. M., Mohan, L., Wharton-McDonald, R., Bogner, K., & Hogan, K. (2003). Teaching Processes in Elementary and Secondary Education. In W. M. Reynolds, G. E. Miller & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology (Vol. 7: Educational Psychology, pp. 153-176). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Rubie-Davies, C. (2008). Teacher Expectations. In T. Good (Ed.), 21st Century Learning (Vol. 1, pp. 254-264). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2009). The First Days of School: How to be an Effective Teacher (4th ed.). Mountain View, CA: Harry K. Wong Publications, Inc.


    Catherine M. Bohn-Gettler, PhD, is an associate professor of Educational Psychology at the College of Saint Benedict-Saint John's University. Her research focuses on the cognitive and social/emotional processes that underlie comprehension and effective teaching strategies for improving comprehension.

    Reader response is welcomed. Email your comments to LRP@/

     
    Read More

  • by Peter Afflerbach, Annemarie Sullivan Palinscar, Virginia Goatley, and P. David Pearson
    June 25, 2014

    The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) issued its second review of teacher preparation programs June 17. We see little in the 2014 report to change our stance from last year regarding their efforts to assess the quality of teacher education for literacy instruction.

    • Blog Posts
    • Research & Practice: Viewpoints

    Response to NCTQ's 2014 Teacher Education Report

     | Jun 25, 2014

    by Peter Afflerbach, Annemarie Sullivan Palinscar, Virginia Goatley, and P. David Pearson
    June 6, 2014

     

    The National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) issued its second review of teacher preparation programs June 17. We see little in the 2014 report to change our stance from last year regarding their efforts to assess the quality of teacher education for literacy instruction.

    Responses to the 2013 NCTQ Teacher Prep Review raised many questions about flaws in the methodology (AACTE, 2013; NCTE, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2013). Other than an increase in programs reviewed, including alternative certification programs, the 2014 report shows few, if any, changes of substance that could be viewed as responses to the concerns and critiques raised a year ago. Granted, NCTQ added criteria for behavior management and student teaching, but they did not expand their views of the essential literacy practices that students should possess or teachers should emphasize in their pedagogy.

    As an example of just such a missed opportunity, we point to research, much of it accumulated over the last two decades, documenting the importance of intrapersonal aspects of learning, including motivation and engagement (Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012) and self-efficacy (Schunk & Zimmerman, 2008), as they influence the course of literacy development. This research has found, among other factors, that students’ motivation and engagement influence how they use their existing reading strategies and skills, how well they acquire new strategies and skills, and how well they transfer strategies and skills to novel situations.

    We also know that students with high self-efficacy increase and sustain their effort to read when challenged, and believe that they will be successful. In contrast, students with low self-efficacy have lower aspirations when reading, and are less likely to begin and persevere with more challenging reading tasks.

    Clearly, teacher education programs must address the range of factors that contribute to students’ literacy development and success. Basing the evaluation of teacher preparation programs on only part of what we know about literacy development, as the NCTQ has done, renders any evaluation of teacher incomplete and inaccurate.

    As members of IRA’s Literacy Research Panel, we also remain concerned about the broader issues of criteria, standards, and previous research on effective teacher education, as outlined in our 2013 response. For example, the NCTQ Early Reading Standard remains focused on five pillars (phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) from the now dated National Reading Panel Report (NICHD, 2000) to the exclusion of many crucial elements of literacy (e.g., writing, speaking, listening) and teaching (e.g., engagement, discussion, instructional grouping, diversity) that are highlighted in a wide range of research-based documents, including well-established research handbooks (e.g., Kamil, Pearson, Moje, & Afflerbach, 2011), reports of exemplary practices from the What Works Clearinghouse (Graham, et al, 2012; Kamil, et al, 2008; Shanahan, et al), or foundation sponsored syntheses (e.g., Graham & Herbert, 2010). Further, the standards for English Language Learners and Struggling Readers remain at the elementary level only, when there is substantial research to suggest these are critical issues at the secondary level as well. More broadly, the research base on effective teacher education has contributions that could, and should, be recognized in any ongoing efforts for improvement in teacher preparation, including the work of NCTQ.  

    The International Reading Association has a long history of efforts to both explore and enhance teacher education efforts specific to the preparation of literacy educators (see 2013 LRP blog for examples), including the IRA Standards for Reading Professionals. Most recently, the IRA Task Force on Teacher Preparation for Literacy Instruction has launched another significant effort to better understand and improve teacher education for literacy.

    Among its activities, the Task Force—composed of teacher educators and state department literacy leaders—is identifying the means by which programs of teacher education determine the literacy-related standards to which programs are held responsible across the states. In addition, they plan to canvas literacy leaders for the purpose of identifying programs that are regarded as effective and the criteria used to make such a determination. Finally, the Task Force aspires to contribute to the knowledge base by profiling programs that graduate well-started beginners—novice teachers who know enough about literacy instruction in K–12 to do a credible job as teachers while they acquire even more knowledge and experience on the job. In this way, the Task Force hopes that literacy education programs across the country can benefit from the experiences and learning of other institutions.

    On one issue, we completely agree with NCTQ colleagues: when it comes to improving teacher education, for literacy and other disciplines, the stakes are high and the need is great. In the final analysis, our assessment is—as it was more than a year ago—that the NCTQ effort still needs to look at a broader range of scholarship in establishing its standards for evaluating the quality of teacher preparation for teaching literacy.

    Finally, we reiterate what we said a year ago—that IRA, with its long history of contributing to research and the improvement of teacher education, looks forward to expanding the conversation with any and all constituencies, including NCTQ, who will approach the task of improving teacher education with high standards for research based practices and a willingness to consider the entire research base on effective pedagogy for students as well as their future teachers.


    References

    American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education (2013). NCTQ review of nation’s education schools deceives, misinforms public [Press release]. Retrieved from http://aacte.org/news-room/press-releases/nctq-review-of-nations-education-schools-deceives-misinforms-public.html

    Darling-Hammond, L. (2013, June 18). Why the NCTQ teacher prep ratings are nonsense. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/06/18/why-the-nctq-teacher-prep-ratings-are-nonsense/

    Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. (2012). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide(NCEE 2012-4058). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch

    Graham, S., & Herbert, M. (2010). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. Carnegie Corporation. Retrieved from http://all4ed.org/reports-factsheets/writing-to-read-evidence-for-how-writing-can-improve-reading/

    Guthrie, J., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and
    achievement in reading. In S. L. Christenson, A. L. Reschly & C. Wylie (Eds.),
    Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 601-634). New York: Springer.

    Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., and Torgesen, J. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A Practice Guide (NCEE #2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc

    Kamil, M., Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., Afflerbach, P (Eds.). (2011), Handbook of reading research, Vol. IV. London: Routledge.
    National Council of Teachers of English (2013, June 18). CEE chair response to NCTQ report. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cee/reid_6-18-13

    National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/Pages/smallbook.aspx

    Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010-4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov/publications/practiceguides    

    Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (2007). Influencing children’s self-efficacy and self regulation of reading and writing through modeling. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(1), 7–25.


    Reader response is welcomed. Email your comments to LRP@/.

    Read More
  • Peter Johnston Nell Duke by Peter Johnston, University at Albany, SUNY
    and Nell Duke, University of Michigan
    May 28, 2014

    This article includes questions, answers, and additional resources from the IRA 2014 conference session with nine members of the International Reading Association Literacy Research Panel.

    • Blog Posts
    • Research & Practice: Viewpoints

    Priorities for Literacy Policy and Practice: Insights from the IRA Literacy Research Panel

    by Peter Johnston and Nell Duke
     | May 28, 2014

    Peter Johnston Nell Duke
    by Peter Johnston, University at Albany, SUNY
    and Nell Duke, University of Michigan
    May 28, 2014

     

     

    P. David Pearson and Peter Johnston
    P. David Pearson and Peter Johnston

    On May 11, nine members of the International Reading Association (IRA) Literacy Research Panel (LRP), along with a lively and knowledgeable IRA audience, discussed priorities for literacy policy and practice. Panelists were asked to submit tweets for discussion in advance of the session, and then the audience was invited to offer comments and questions within and across those tweets. The session was moderated by Peter Johnston.

     

    Below are the tweets, organized by core questions panelists were asked to consider, followed by a more detailed account of panelist comments and recommended resources.

    1. How does research help us think about ensuring all children get a strong start in literacy?

    Gutiérrez: Language plays an important role in the process of developing literacy for English Language Learners.

    Duke: We generally underestimate young children’s meaning making capability, and though we worry about expecting too much of them, perhaps we often expect, or offer, too little.

    Shanahan: Children need to be able to read by Grade 3, therefore it is important to have policies that require retention of struggling readers early on. [Please note: This tweet was meant to be provocative. Dr. Shanahan explained that the weight of the evidence does not support retention. For more on Dr. Shanahan and three other literacy research panelists’ views on this issue, please see references later in this blog post and in “Three IRA Literacy Research Panel Members Comment on Michigan House Bill 5111.”]

    2. What does research suggest about classroom literacy instruction? 

    Moje: If we want people to become powerful readers and writers in many domains, then they need to have a good reason to read and write. Make school literacy meaningful.

    Goatley: The disciplines are an essential component of elementary education, with concentrated efforts for students to learn the unique content, vocabulary, audiences, purposes, and expectations of each discipline.  

    Afflerbach: We need to broaden the focus on cognitive strategy and skill to include consequential factors that include motivation, metacognition, and self-efficacy.

    3. How might we think about the relationship between research and practice?

    Pearson: Claims about commercial programs being “research-based” are seldom based on randomized field comparisons with alternative programs let alone examination of unintended consequences.

    Freebody: More R & D by partnerships between teachers policy-makers and researchers is needed on distinctive literacy demands each curriculum presents over the middle years.

    Below is additional detail related to these tweets.
    Although Kris D. Gutiérrez was unable to join the panel, through Elizabeth Moje, she presented her observations regarding the important role that language plays in the process of developing literacy for English language learners. She offered the following useful resources:

    Nell Duke observed that we generally underestimate young children’s meaning making capability, and though we worry about expecting too much of them, perhaps we often expect, or offer, too little.  She provided the following resources for changing this state of affairs. The resources include a small set of practices that enjoy strong support in research and/or professional wisdom:

    Ginny Goatley made an argument for disciplinary literacy, which she noted is an essential component of elementary education, requiring students to learn the unique content, vocabulary, and expectations of each discipline. Consistent with Nell Duke’s observations, she argued that students should have personally meaningful opportunities to engage with a wide range of genres and forms for different audiences and purposes. She offered the following resources for further exploration:

    Consistent with both Nell Duke’s and Ginny Goatley’s comments, Elizabeth Moje observed that, if we want people to become powerful readers and writers in many domains, they will need to have good personally meaningful reasons to read and write. Consequently, we need to make school literacy meaningful. She offered the following resources for those interested in pursuing this matter further:

    • Tang, K., Tighe, S., & Moje, E. B. (in press, 2014).  Literacy in the science classroom.  In P. Smagorinsky & J. M. Flanaghan, (Eds.), Literacy across the curriculum: Teaching dilemmas and effective solutions, Grades 6-12 .  Thousand Oaks, CA:  Corwin Press. 
    • Moje, E. B., & Speyer, J. (2014).  Reading challenging texts in high school:  How teachers can scaffold and build close reading for real purposes in the subject areas.   In K. Hinchman & H. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in adolescent literacy instruction (2nd ed.) (pp. 207-231).  New York: Guilford.
    • Moje, E. B. (2013).  Hybrid literacies in a post-hybrid world: Making a case for navigating.  In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber, & L. C. Moll,  (Eds.),  International Handbook of Research in Children's Literacy, Learning and Culture (pp. 359-372).  Oxford, UK:  Wiley-Blackwell.
    • Stockdill, D., & Moje, E. B. (2013).  Adolescents as readers of social studies:  Examining the relationship between students’ everyday and social studies literacies and learning.  Berkeley Review of Education, 4, 35-68.
    • Rainey, E., & Moje, E. B. (2012).  Building insider knowledge: Teaching students to read, write and think within ELA and across the disciplines.  English Education, 45(1),71-89. 
    • Bain, R. B., & Moje, E. B. (2012).  Mapping the teacher education terrain for novices.  Phi Delta Kappan, 93(5), 62-65.
    • Learned, J., Stockdill, D., & Moje, E.B. (2011).  Integrating reading strategies and knowledge building in adolescent literacy instruction.  In A.E. Farstrup & J. Samuels (Eds.), What Reading Research Has to Say to Reading Instruction (pp. 159-185).  Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
    • Pearson, P. D., Moje, E. B., & Greenleaf, C. (2011). Literacy and science—Each in the service of the other.  Science, 328, 459-463.

    Also consistent with the emphasis on meaningfulness in school literacy learning, Peter Afflerbach noted that the current heavy focus on skills and strategies does not serve children well.  He would like us to take more seriously important factors such as motivation, metacognition, and self-efficacy. The resources he directed attention to were:

    • Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., Kim, J., Crassas, M., & Doyle, B.  (2013). Reading: What else matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66, 6, 12-20.
    • Johnston, P. (2012).  Opening minds: Using language to change lives.  Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

    David Pearson and Peter Freebody addressed the relationships between research and practice.   David pointed out that claims about commercial programs being “research-based” are seldom based on randomized field comparisons with alternative programs let alone examination of unintended consequences (such as motivation and self-efficacy to which Peter Afflerbach drew our attention). As a counter to this problem he offered the following resource from his Seeds and Roots project as a model for how to think more carefully about “research-based” instruction:

    • Cervetti, G. N., Barber, J., Dorph, R., Pearson, P. D., & Goldschmidt, P. (2012).The impact of an integrated approach to science and literacy in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49(5), 631-658.

    Peter Freebody made the point that we should be working towards more research and development projects by partnerships between teachers, policy-makers and researchers regarding the distinctive literacy demands each curriculum presents over the middle years. He offered the following resources for those wishing to extend their thinking further:

    • Special issue of Linguistics and Education, vol 24, 2013, on teaching for curriculum-specific writing demands, edited by Karl Maton and James Martin.
    • Simpson, A., White, S. (2013, Eds.). Language, Literacy and Literature. Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
    • Freebody, P., Chan, E., & Barton, G. (2014). Curriculum as literate practice: Language and knowledge in the classroom. In K. Hall, T. Cremin, B. Comber & L. Moll (Eds.) International Handbook of research on children’s literacy, learning, and culture, (pp. 304-318).Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Tim Shanahan also took up the need for all of us, particularly policy-makers and administrators, to critically examine research before making significant changes. To illustrate, he critically examined the argument, popular in some policy circles, that some children be retained in third grade until their reading has reached “grade level.” He concluded that such a position is a poor interpretation of the evidence. Collectively, they provided the following resources for those needing to understand the retention matter further:

    The audience made many important comments and posed a number of questions in relation to these tweets. One of the comments was that research articles are often difficult or expensive to access. Some recommendations for addressing this problem include:

    • asking IRA to make access to journals part of basic membership
    • accessing articles available free through PubMed
    • making use of the (free) research summaries available through the U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences What Works Clearinghouse
    • requesting articles through one’s local public library
    • requesting guest access to the library system of one’s alma matter
    • writing directly to researchers who have published a paper of interest; often they can share a copy without violating copyright restrictions

    Please look for future LRP articles to pick up on some of the other important issues raised. 

     


    Peter Johnston and Nell Duke are members of the International Reading Association’s Literacy Research Panel. Reader response is welcomed. E-mail your comments to LRP@/

    Read More
    • ~11 years old (Grade 6)
    • ~10 years old (Grade 5)
    • ~9 years old (Grade 4)
    • ~8 years old (Grade 3)
    • ~7 years old (Grade 2)
    • ~6 years old (Grade 1)
    • ~5 years old (Grade K)
    • ~18 years old (Grade 12)
    • ~17 years old (Grade 12)
    • ~16 years old (Grade 11)
    • ~15 years old (Grade 10)
    • ~12 years old (Grade 7)
    • ~14 years old (Grade 9)
    • ~13 years old (Grade 8)
    • Ask a Researcher
    • Blog Posts
    • Vocabulary
    • Reading
    • Foundational Skills

    What's Really Wrong With Round Robin Reading?

    by Melanie R. Kuhn
     | May 07, 2014

    What's really wrong with Round Robin Reading?I’ve been asked this question about Round Robin Reading many times and in multiple forms. It is usually accompanied by statements such as: “But my students really like it” or “It helps me cover material that is just too hard for them to read” or “I don’t go in any particular order, so they never know when they are going to have their turn.” In fact, these comments come up so often, that Gwynne Ash, Sharon Walpole, and I asked teachers why they chose to use Round Robin Reading or its variants such as Popcorn, Popsicle, or Combat Reading (2009; Ash & Kuhn, 2006). Our goal was to better understand the perceived pluses of these approaches and identify alternatives that could better meet educators’ instructional goals.

    What we found was that the teachers we surveyed believed Round Robin Reading procedures help them accomplish a number of goals. Their reasons ranged from fostering their students’ decoding and fluency to ensuring vocabulary development, text comprehension, and learner engagement. Additionally, the respondents felt that the process contributed to better classroom management. Unfortunately, the problems with these procedures outweigh any perceived advantages (e.g., Allington, 1977, 1980; Ash & Kuhn, 2006; Opitz & Rasinski, 2008).

    Blog Post Update
    This blog post was included on our list of fluency resources. Minor changes were made to update or remove defunct links. Check our current list of ILA Resources by Topic.

    Key here is the fact that each student is responsible for reading only a very brief portion of the text—as little as a few sentences and, at a maximum, a few paragraphs. As a result, they have minimal opportunity to improve either their fluency or their word recognition. This difficulty is further compounded given the fact that other students often jump in when the reader encounters a difficult or unknown word; as a result, the reader never has the chance to figure it out for him or herself.

    It is also the case that breaking up a text into smaller passages actually works against developing fluency; instead of building up students’ reading stamina, it actually limits it. Further, these interruptions discourage comprehension of the material. Rather than looking at the connections that occur across the selection, readers end up focusing their attention on brief passages. And whether or not students know when their turn is coming up, they often read ahead so that they can sound more proficient when their turn comes up—or volunteer “just to get their turn over with”—and then shut down for the rest of the lesson. Clearly, none of these actions contributes to either engagement or improved comprehension.

    On the upside, there are alternative procedures that are far more likely to help you meet the above goals. For example, partner reading is a highly effective choice for learners at virtually every grade level (Meisinger, Schwanenflugel, Bradley & Stahl, 2004; Shanahan, 2012). And if you are concerned about engagement or comprehension, you can read aloud with one or two of your students on a rotating basis during your literacy block to make sure they are getting the most out of the experience. Echo and choral reading (Kuhn, 2009) also provide appropriate choices for younger readers, although it is important that the texts they are reading are substantive in terms of both length and challenge. Echo reading involves reading a few paragraphs to the students followed by their “echoing” the text back as a group while choral reading consists of you and the students reading the selection simultaneously.

    And well-known procedures such as Reciprocal Teaching (Oczkus, 2003; Palincsar & Brown, 1986), Directed Reading and Thinking Activity (DRTA; Smyers, 1993; Stauffer & Harrell, 1975) and Reciprocal Teaching Plus (Ash, 2002) can assist students in their comprehension of challenging content.

    Given the increasing demands on student reading as a result of the Common Core, I believe that these approaches can help you develop effective and easy-to-implement alternatives that truly engage your students while supporting their reading development. I hope you agree.

    Melanie R. Kuhn is an associate professor of Language and Literacy Education at Boston University. This article is from the International Reading Association’s Literacy Research Panel. Reader response is welcomed. E-mail your comments to the LRP.


    References

    Allington, R. L. (1977).  If they don’t read much, how are they ever going to get good?  Journal of Reading, 21, 57-61.

    Allington, R. L.  (1980).  Teacher interruption behaviors during primary grade oral reading.  Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 371-377.

    Ash, G. E., & Kuhn, M. R.  (2006).  Meaningful oral and silent reading in the elementary and middle school classroom: Breaking the Round Robin Reading addiction.  In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices.  (pp. 155-172).  New York:  The Guilford Press.

    Ash, G.E., Kuhn, M.R., & Walpole, S.  (2009). Analyzing “inconsistencies” in practice: Teachers’ continued use of Round Robin Reading.  Reading and Writing Quarterly, 25, 87-103.

    Kuhn, M.R. (2009). The hows and whys of fluency instruction.   Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Meisinger, E. B., Schwanenflugel, P. J., Bradley, B. A., & Stahl, S. A. (2004). Interaction quality during partner reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 36, 111-140.

    Oczkus, L.D. (2010). Reciprocal teaching at work: Powerful strategies and lessons for improving reading comprehension 2nd ed. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Opitz, M.F., & Rasinski, T.V. (2008). Good-bye round robin: 25 effective oral reading strategies. Portsmouth, NH:  Heinemann.

    Palinscar, A.S., & Brown, A.L. (1986). Interactive teaching to promote independent learning from text. Reading Teacher, 39, 771-777.

    Shanahan, T. (2012). Developing fluency in the context of effective literacy instruction. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices. (2nd, ed., pp. 17-34). New York: Guilford Press.

    Smyers, T. (1993). Add SQ to the DRTA and write. In M.W. Olson & S. P. Homan (Eds.), Teacher to teacher: Strategies for the elementary classroom. Newark, DE: IRA.

    Stauffer, RG. & Harrell, M.M. (1975).  Individualizing reading-thinking activities. The Reading Teacher, 28, 8, 765-769.

     

    Read More
  • Nell DukeP. David Pearsonby Nell Duke, University of Michigan
    and P. David Pearson, University of California, Berkeley
    May 6, 2014

    Each day of the Conference includes sessions specifically focused on literacy research, and a review of the Conference program reveals many additional sessions with a strong research base.

    • Blog Posts
    • Research & Practice: Viewpoints

    Literacy Research at the IRA 59th Annual Conference

    by Nell Duke and David Pearson
     | May 06, 2014

    Nell Duke P. David Pearson
    by Nell Duke, University of Michigan
    and P. David Pearson, University of California, Berkeley
    May 6, 2014

     

    A little over one year ago, in our first post for the IRA Literacy Research Panel blog, we (i.e., the IRA Literacy Research Panel) stated, “We believe that research can offer some insights that it is not practical for an individual literacy educator to glean on his or her own (Duke & Martin, 2011).

    • Research can allow us to learn about what happens to students over much longer periods of time under a broader range of conditions than we can typically observe.
    • Research enables us to see inside students’ home and community settings in ways that are not typically possible to gain insights that help us connect with students.
    • Research can allow us to look at larger numbers of students to see patterns that may not be otherwise evident, as well as to look more deeply at the experiences of any one student.
    • Research can help us see things—such as particular instructional moves that are particularly effective or specific gaps in instruction—that we may not have seen ourselves.”

    Over the past year, we have attempted to make these affordances of research more evident to IRA members and the larger literacy education community through blog posts as well as a number of activities.

    Literacy Research Panel
    Panel members at the 2013 session

    Toward that end, in this post we want to take the opportunity to draw your attention to the research strand of the forthcoming IRA Annual Conference to be held May 9-12 in New Orleans. As you will see, each day of the Conference includes sessions specifically focused on literacy research, and a review of the Conference program reveals many additional sessions with a strong research base. All of these sessions are worthy of your time and attention, but we want to particularly draw your attention to the many Research Poster Sessions being offered. These sessions provide an opportunity to examine literacy research of your choosing at your own pace and to interact directly with the researchers involved. We find the IRA Outstanding Dissertation posters to be especially rewarding. They often provide preview of where the field may be going and who may end up leading it there. And we would be remiss if we did not mention the sessions being given by the Literacy Research Panel, at which the audience will be invited to offer questions and comments related to literacy policy and practice:

    The IRA Literacy Research Panel: Priorities for Literacy Policy and Practice
    Sunday, May 11, 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.
    Co-Chairs: P. David Pearson, Peter Johnston

    We also invite you to spend time with us at these sessions:

    Literacy Research Panel Poster Session: Evidence-Based Practices for Literacy Education
    Saturday, May 10, 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
    Co-Chairs: Virginia Goatley, John Guthrie

    IRA Literacy Research Panel: Teacher Education Policy Issues
    Saturday, May 10, 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Co-Chairs: Peter Afflerbach

    We look forward to seeing you at the Conference!



    Nell Duke and P. David Pearson are members of the International Reading Association’s Literacy Research Panel. Reader response is welcomed. E-mail your comments to LRP@/.

    Read More
Back to Top

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives