Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5




Team 2 argues that literacy researchers have produced research to provide explicit guidance for teachers and policy makers

Team 2 argues that literacy researchers have produced research to provide explicit guidance for teachers and policy makers



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Conopeningposition Conopeningposition Presentation Transcript

  • Con Team Position
    Rick Beach, John Guthrie, Freddy Hiebert, & Kris Gutierrez
  • Our position
    Charles Payne: “So why are you (NRC audience) here?”
    Our position: Literacy researchers HAVE produced a base of knowledge that provides practitioners and policy makers with explicit guidance for improving literacy instruction and policy.
  • Definitions: Potential versus actual uptake
    Researchers seek positive potential uptake
    NOT responsible for actual update
    Actual uptake shaped by status-quo political, economic, and cultural forces
    Need to curb carbon emissions
    Need to regulate high-fat food: obesity
    Need for public health-care programs
  • Reasons for lack of actual uptake
    Inadequate preservice education and inservice professional development
    Lack of public support for the value and need of schooling
    Need for simplistic solutions/perspectives
    Teachers not reading research reports
    Problematic application of labels and standardized test scores
    Opposition of organized groups
  • Guidance: Amount of literacy research
    JLR, RRQ, J. Ed. Psych., SSR, R&W Quarterly, Reading Psychology, Reading Research and Instruction, Research in the Teaching of English, Journal of Research in Reading, Journal of Educational Research
    Bibliographies/databases (ERIC, library databases, Bibliography: RTE); handbooks
  • Guidance galore
    Your NRC presentations: Drawing implications for teaching and policy
    Counter-examples to Team 1 claims that what you do makes no difference
  • Positive potential uptake: Teachers classroom qualitative research
    Descriptions of classroom learning
    Illustrate and model those practices for teachers
    Provide alternative theoretical perspectives on literacy learning
  • Positive potential uptake: policy makers draw on research
    Kris: Literacy framework --> Learn Act
    John: Reading Next project
    Based on research from a range of different perspectives and populations that are consistent with their own contexts
  • Influencing ELL/DLL Policy
    Influencing policy and practice at federal, state, and local levels
    Goal: to improve educational outcomes for English language learners (ELLs).
    --Individual experts
    --Working Group on ELL Policy
    Consortium of ELL researchers organized to influence
    American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
    ESEA Reauthorization
  • Build DLL Capacity at the Federal and State
    Provide ongoing expert advice on key issues
    1) Human Capital/Effective Instruction and Practices
    2) Federal Role
    3) Standards, Assessments, and Accountability
  • Spectrum of guidance: Quality of guidance: use of multiple perspectives and contexts
    limited multiple overly- perspectives perspectives prescriptive
  • Problematic Guidance: Too global/limited perspectives
    Too global: Little sense of particular contexts
    Specific classroom or school/community context
    Lack of alternative perspectives
    DIBBELS research
    Limited theoretical perspective on literacy
  • Problematic Guidance: Too specific/prescriptive
    “What works” prescriptions do not apply to different/diverse populations
    Little relevancy for low-income and/or ELL students
    Too prescriptive
    Do X in the classroom, and Y will occur
  • Ideal Guidance: Multiple perspectives/contexts
    Positive potential uptake occurs:
    Employ different perspectives
    Describe unique aspects of contexts and spaces
    Describe instructional practices for use by teachers
  • Example: Guidance: Value of media literacy instruction
    Problem: Marginalization of media literacy instruction as not contributing to “reading” or “writing” test scores
    Effects of critical media literacy instruction (Hobbs, 2007)
    Positive effects of instruction on increases in reading and writing tests
  • Example: Guidance: Use of active, constructivist literacy learning
    Instruction: Teacher-dominated instruction
    30 classes: 6th-8th grades (Hillocks, 2009)
    Active “declarative” versus didactic “procedural” instruction
    Correlations: mean gain/loss writing ability scores
    “declarative” - .48
    “procedural” + .53
  • Example: Guidance: Digital literacies
    Enhanced student engagement in schooling:
    Online interaction/production (Corio, Knobel,Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Leander, 2008)
    Digital storytelling (Hull & Katz, 2007)
    Gaming/simulation/avatar (Thomas, 2008)
    Fanfiction (Black, 2008)
    E-Zines (Guzzetti, 2004)
    Texting (Lewis & Fabos, 2005)
  • Example: Guidance: Challenge problematic practices
    Traditional grammar instruction: improving writing quality
    Final draft feedback only
    Teacher dominated discussions
    Phonics-only reading methods
    Excessive use of standardized tests to dictate instruction
  • Guidance: Literary Research: Literacy Learning
    Acquiring practices of person-text interaction in a social context for shared purposes.
    Occurring in socially and digitally mediated environments.
    Empowering the learner to acquire understanding about the external world, the self and the cultural milieu in which she participates.
    Modeling and guiding students in literacy practices with increasing adeptness, social generativity, and agency.
  • Summary: Literary researchers:
    Want to make a difference in improving literary instruction and in shaping policy
    Have generated extensive research providing potential positive uptake
    Employ multiple perspectives related to different contexts to achieve positive potential uptake
    Are NOT responsible for actual uptake shaped by political/cultural forces
    Have made a difference in improving literacy instruction