Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.



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


  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 />