Example for Con Position<br />John T. Guthrie<br />
READING NEXT:<br />A VISION FOR ACTION AND RESEARCH IN MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LITERACY<br />Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.<br ...
Participants and Goals<br />Andres Henriquez, Convener<br />	Donald Deshler, David Francis, John Guthrie, Michael Kamil, J...
Messages ofReading Next<br />Problems in adolescent literacy<br />Reading is inadequate for schooling, workplace, higher e...
Messages of Reading Next<br />Problems in adolescent literacy<br />1000 students drop out of school PER DAY<br />Lowest 25...
Messages of Reading Next<br />Solutions<br />Elements of successful middle school literacy instruction<br />Not a program;...
Messages of Reading Next<br />Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education<br />Instructional impr...
Messages of Reading Next<br />Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education<br />6.  Diverse texts ...
Messages of Reading Next<br />Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education<br />Infrastructure imp...
Research Evidence in Reading Next<br />The evidence for these elements<br />consists of 117 publications such as:  <br />P...
Research Evidence THAT COULD HAVE BEEN in Reading Next<br />Alvermann, D. E., (2002).  Effective literacy instruction for ...
Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Presuppositions to our knowledge base<br />We emphasize the commonalities of the cultur...
Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Cultural-historical: Activity theory<br />Michael Cole, Sylvia Scribner, Alexei Leont&a...
Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Scientific perspective: Strategic, engaged reading<br />Literacy is best learned in ric...
Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Cultural-historical and Scientific perspectives are consistent with Reading Next: <br /...
Consequences of Reading Next<br />Eight (8) Striving Reader awards <br />totaling $142M from 2006-2007,<br />met criteria ...
Limitations of Reading Next<br />Did children’s proficiency improve?<br />Was teachers’ capacity enhanced?<br />Were schoo...
Conclusions from Reading Next<br />1.  Literacy researchers <br />	(including 2 NRC members)<br />2. Wrote explicit guidan...
Conclusion<br />READING NEXT <br />is <br />evidence in opposition <br />to the resolution <br />of this debate<br />
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Reading Next

770 views

Published on

Team 2 provides an example of how reading research informed policy related to the formulation of the Reading Next Act.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
770
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Reading Next

  1. 1. Example for Con Position<br />John T. Guthrie<br />
  2. 2. READING NEXT:<br />A VISION FOR ACTION AND RESEARCH IN MIDDLE AND HIGH SCHOOL LITERACY<br />Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C.<br />Alliance for Excellent Education<br />Carnegie Corporation <br />2004<br />
  3. 3. Participants and Goals<br />Andres Henriquez, Convener<br /> Donald Deshler, David Francis, John Guthrie, Michael Kamil, James McPartland, Panel<br />Goals<br />Speak to policy makers<br />Use legislators’ schema: <br /> problem—solution<br />Accessible language<br />Concrete recommendations for action<br />
  4. 4. Messages ofReading Next<br />Problems in adolescent literacy<br />Reading is inadequate for schooling, workplace, higher education<br />NAEP Grade 8 students; <br />1994; 30% above proficiency <br />2007; 31% above proficiency <br />
  5. 5. Messages of Reading Next<br />Problems in adolescent literacy<br />1000 students drop out of school PER DAY<br />Lowest 25% in reading achievement are 20 times more likely to drop out<br />
  6. 6. Messages of Reading Next<br />Solutions<br />Elements of successful middle school literacy instruction<br />Not a program; not a single bullet<br />
  7. 7. Messages of Reading Next<br />Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education<br />Instructional improvements<br />1. Direct, explicit comprehension instruction<br />2. Embedded in content<br />3. Motivation and self-directed learning<br />4. Text-based collaborative learning<br />5. Strategic tutoring<br />
  8. 8. Messages of Reading Next<br />Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education<br />6. Diverse texts (electronic, others)<br />7. Intensive writing<br />8. A technology component<br />9. Ongoing formative assessment of students<br />
  9. 9. Messages of Reading Next<br />Fifteen (15) elements of successful middle school literacy education<br />Infrastructure improvements<br />10. Extended time for literacy<br />11. Professional development<br />12. Ongoing, summative assessment of students and programs<br />13. Teacher teams<br />14. Leadership<br />15. Comprehensive and coordinated <br />
  10. 10. Research Evidence in Reading Next<br />The evidence for these elements<br />consists of 117 publications such as: <br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />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.<br />
  11. 11. Research Evidence THAT COULD HAVE BEEN in Reading Next<br />Alvermann, D. E., (2002). Effective literacy instruction for adolescents. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 189-208.<br />Duffy, G., (2002). Visioning and the development of outstanding teachers. Reading Research and Instruction,41,331-344. <br />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.<br />Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981).The psychology of literacy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. <br />
  12. 12. Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Presuppositions to our knowledge base<br />We emphasize the commonalities of the cultural-historical and the scientific perspectives.<br />Evidence is optimal when the inferences from ethnographies and experiments converge and complement.<br />
  13. 13. Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Cultural-historical: Activity theory<br />Michael Cole, Sylvia Scribner, Alexei Leont&apos;ev<br />Literacy is a form of culturally grounded cognition. <br />Effective literacy practices are in the cultural milieu. <br />Cognitive systems are adapted to environmental affordances. <br />Literacy is shaped by the beliefs, goals, and behaviors of individuals in interaction with others . <br />Tactics: Case Studies; Ethnographies; Semiotic studies; more<br />
  14. 14. Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Scientific perspective: Strategic, engaged reading<br />Literacy is best learned in rich content domains.<br />Teaching cognitive strategies benefits learners.<br />Students’ commitment to literacy expands their authentic practices.<br />Teachers who scaffold processes and practices foster learning<br />Tactics: Correlational; experiments; systematic classroom observations<br />
  15. 15. Research Basefor Reading Next<br />Cultural-historical and Scientific perspectives are consistent with Reading Next: <br /> (2) literacy instruction embedded in content, <br /> (3) self-directed learning, <br /> (4) text-based collaborative learning, <br /> (6) diverse texts (electronic), <br />(10) extended time for literacy. <br />
  16. 16. Consequences of Reading Next<br />Eight (8) Striving Reader awards <br />totaling $142M from 2006-2007,<br />met criteria for successful inst. <br />Reading Next had more than<br />1,000,000 downloads by May 2009<br />
  17. 17. Limitations of Reading Next<br />Did children’s proficiency improve?<br />Was teachers’ capacity enhanced?<br />Were schools more successful?<br />Did the field of adolescent literacy learn?<br />Unknown <br />Not the goals of Reading Next<br />Congressional Action<br />
  18. 18. Conclusions from Reading Next<br />1. Literacy researchers <br /> (including 2 NRC members)<br />2. Wrote explicit guidance for policy<br />3. Drawing on a base of knowledge<br />4. Delivered to policy makers<br />5. In a partnership with political activists<br />6. Positive result of $142 M for adolescent literacy<br />7. Positive result of congressional recognition<br />
  19. 19. Conclusion<br />READING NEXT <br />is <br />evidence in opposition <br />to the resolution <br />of this debate<br />

×