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@/.