Published on

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

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide


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