THE PRACTICE: Having Students Interact with Each Other and with Text
Content Presented By:
Center for Resource Management (CRM)
The Education Alliance at Brown University

Research summary

Sections II and III in the research summary below are direct excerpts from Julie Meltzer and Edmund Hamann's Meeting the Literacy Development Needs of Adolescent English Language Learners Through Content Area Learning, Part I (2004). This is a publication of the Education Alliance at Brown University funded by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.

1. General Research on Component A: Literacy and Motivation
2. Research on Having Students Interact With Each Other and With Text
3. Research on Using This Practice With English Language Learners
4. References

General Research on Component A: Literacy and Motivation

The research is clear that one key to motivating students to develop positive literacy identities involves creating a student-centered classroom. This is a classroom where students feel a sense of belonging, feel competent, feel respected, and feel trusted to make choices--and, therefore, to strengthen their literacy skills (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; McCombs & Barton, 1998). Such an environment allows for 1) formation of meaningful adult and peer relationships; 2) dialogue, collaboration, and the expression of personal and collective views; and, 3) acknowledgement and respect for unique abilities and talents (McCombs & Barton, 1998). Essential aspects of this environment that appear throughout the literature and have proven connections to enhancing literacy development include 1) the availability and use of a wide range of reading materials (e.g. Collins, 1996; Rycik & Irvin, 2001), 2) use of collaborative learning (Langer, 2001; Tinzmann, et. al. 1990), and 3) the importance of a responsive classroom environment where diverse life experiences and perspectives are welcomed (e.g. Oldfather, 1994; Schoenbach et al, 1999).

According to the literature, success depends on the effective use of 1) a critical literacy approach (e.g. Schoenbach et al 1999) and, 2) the teaching, practice and use of specific research-based strategies to structure literacy-related interactions. These include Reciprocal Teaching (Alfassi, 1998; Langer, 2001; Roshenshine & Meister, 1994), Question Generating (Rosenshine, et al. 1996) and Think Alouds ( Kucan & Beck, 1997). In combination, these help to create a classroom culture where the expectation is that all students and teachers will be regularly engaged in negotiating co-constructed meanings of texts.

Three best practices encapsulate the research in this critical area: 1) Making connections to students' lives (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993; Langer, 2001); 2) Having students interact with each other and with text (e.g. Langer, 2001; Schoenbach, et al, 1999; Wilhelm, 1995); and 3) Creating responsive classrooms (e.g. Oldfather, 1994; Schoenbach et al, 1999). To facilitate an environment which supports such connections, interactions and responsiveness requires 1) that teachers know their students, 2) know how to teach reading and writing, and 3) know how to optimize the social and motivational needs of adolescents in service of content area learning (e.g. Langer, 2001; McCombs & Barton, 1998; Moore, et al., 2000; Schoenbach et al, 1999; Tierney & Pearson, 1981, 1992).

[top]

Research on Having Students Interact With Each Other and With Text

Teachers expect that readers will actively interact with text to transact meaning; that students will interactively explore content and develop common understandings; and that both teachers and students will interact to understand point of view. Teachers consistently expect responses to text and experience as a part of teaching and learning. Teachers foster literacy development in the classroom by using collaborative learning techniques as well as creating a classroom environment where diverse perspectives are welcomed and supported. - Meltzer (2001)

Having students interact with text and with each other in ways that stimulate questioning, predicting, visualizing, summarizing, and clarifying leads to improved reading comprehension and skill at content area reading (e.g., Alvermann & Moore, 1991; Langer, 1999; NRP, 2000; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Ruddell & Unrau, 1996; Schoenbach, et al., 1999; Symons, Richards & Greene, 1995; Wilhelm, 1995). This instructional principle acknowledges the effectiveness of a reading as problem solving approach as well as the social nature of literacy development. Both perspectives have implications for motivation because they engage students with text through the use of cognitive and social strategies that align with the developmental needs of adolescents as understood in both cognitive and social learning theories.

Placing students in an interactive stance with text positions them to be active readers of text and negotiators of meaning. This stance results in improved reading comprehension (Alvermann, 2001, Ruddell & Unrau, 1996). Many adolescent literacy researchers also advocate that students be taught and encouraged to take a critical approach to literacy; that is, to actively question authorial position, credibility, audience, language, and validity. Critical literacy, which involves the cultural and political analysis of text, clearly motivates the engagement of adolescents with text and, according to some researchers and literacy theorists, is an essential component of adolescent literacy growth and development (see, for example, Appleman, 2000; Alvermann, 2001; Reed et al., 2004; Schoenbach et al., 1999).

There also seems to be a connection between motivation and strategy use in that intrinsic motivation seems to predict strategy use, and strategy use seems to increase motivation (e.g., Curtis, 2002; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000; Roe, 2001). Most research-grounded literacy strategies are directly connected to increasing strategic or focused interaction with text. (See, for example, Duke & Pearson, 2002; Rosenshine, Meister, & Chapman, 1996.) This can subsequently create a cycle of motivation where interaction with text, increasingly autonomous use of literacy support strategies, and growing confidence and competence as a reader reinforce one another (e.g., Jetton & Alexander, 2004).

Using collaborative learning structures to discuss and negotiate text positively correlates with students' engagement, reading comprehension, and content area learning (e.g., Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Guthrie, 2001; Ruddell & Unrau 1996; Langer, 1999; Guthrie, 2001). In Langer's (1999) study of high performing secondary English language arts classrooms, one of the six distinguishing characteristics was the extent to which the classrooms were organized to provide students with a variety of opportunities to learn through substantive interaction with one another as well as with the teacher...English learning and high literacy (the content as well as the skills) were treated as social activity, with depth and complexity of understanding and proficiency with conventions growing out of the shared cognition that emerges from interaction with present and imagined others (Langer, 1999, p. 32). It is through participating in a social community of literacy learners that students are motivated to read and write and to develop positive literacy identities (Curtis, 2002; Guthrie, 2001; Oldfather, 1994; Ruddell & Unrau, 1996).

There is evidence of effectiveness for academic literacy development when these strategies are used strategically in conjunction with one another. For example, there are two strategies that combine structured interaction with text and collaborative learning which have been shown to improve both student engagement and reading comprehension: Reciprocal Teaching (Palincsar, 2003; Palincsar & Brown, 1984, 1989; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994) and Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996; Klingner, Vaughn, & Schumm, 1998). (There are a variety of cognitive strategies addressed in the research summaries for Components B and C that pertain to improved literacy and learning across the content areas, but that are not specifically associated with improved literacy motivation and engagement.) There is a further motivational outcome in classroom cultures where the social expectation is that students will read, discuss, and share books. Social motivation for reading is correlated with increased reading and higher achievement (Guthrie, 2001).

[top]

Research on Using This Practice With English Language Learners

Text-based discussion and collaborative learning also emerge in the ELL literature as two key instructional approaches for engaging ELLs with content area learning and literacy development. There is a lot of evidence that interactional learning encourages cooperation and discourse, which, in turn, drive language learning (Waxman & Tellez, 2002). This seems to be the case even where all the students in the group lack full English proficiency (e.g., Joyce, 1997). Discussion-based English language arts classrooms support greater academic achievement than those that do not use discussion as a primary instructional strategy; this is true for both ELLs and their monolingual English-speaking peers (Applebee, et al., 2003).

Such learning conditions are more common in higher track classes (Oakes, 1985) where, unfortunately, ELLs and former ELLs are less likely to be enrolled (Valdés, 2003). Still, when ELL high school students do manage to successfully advocate for their placement in more advanced tracks where these best practices are present, evidence suggests that they thrived (see, for example, Dwyer, 1998; Harklau, 1994a, 1994b; Lucas, 1993).

Text, itself, also emerges in the ELL literature as a key instructional aid to content area learning. The reviewability of text and the act of producing text (writing), supplemented by speaking and listening activities, seem to be more effective than lecture or discussion alone for enhancing content area learning and academic literacy development (Harklau, 2002).

Opportunities and expectations for interactions with text

Creating the expectations that students will make text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections with all reading they encounter must be scaffolded by opportunities to do so and assignments that require it. Too often the classrooms encountered by secondary-level ELLs lack these rigorous but appropriate expectations (Ochoa & Cadeiro-Kaplan, 2004; Valdés, 2001). Beyond just discussion of content, there is also need for teacher-led attention to, and exploration of, the languages used in texts for rhetorical and aesthetic effect (Fillmore & Snow, 2000).

Providing frequent opportunities for students to engage in interactive discussion supports reading comprehension, content understanding, and spoken academic language development. Such instructional conversation provides extended dialogue opportunities, supports student construction of meaning, and involves teachers in promoting connected language and expression, responding to and using students' contributions, and creating a challenging and non-threatening atmosphere (Waxman & Tellez, 2002 p.1). Not only does this support academic success, but it provides crucial opportunities for ELLs to use academic language in meaningful ways (Echevarria & Goldenberg, 1999). Indeed, according to Hall and Verplaetse (2000a) the need for an abundance of written and oral interaction opportunities may be even greater for ELLs in their acquisition of academic language. Through classroom interaction, the student simultaneously develops socially, communicatively, and academically, while sharing in the co-construction of classroom knowledge, establishing his/her identity and membership in the classroom community (Corson, 2001; Norton, 1997; Toohey, 2000; Zuengler, 1993), and engaging in the requisite practice that leads to higher levels of academic communicative competence (Hall, 1993; Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). Dörnyei (2001b) identifies all of these as prerequisites or co-requisites for motivated and engaged reading, writing, speaking, and listening in a second language.

Text-based discussion supports interactive exploration of themes, ideas, and opinions with required connections back to the text: Where in the text is the evidence for what you just described? Where in the text does the character say those things that give you that impression? Does the language used by the author support your contention? Effective strategies to support text-based discussion include: the use of essential questions to set purpose for reading; two-column note-taking, or coding, with subsequent discussion; extended wait time; think-pair-share; reciprocal teaching; small-group-to-large-group responses to questions and prompts (where the small group discusses the question first and then reports out to the larger group); group comparison and contrast of text with visual material or another text through collaborative completion of graphic organizers; and use of quick writes before opening up the discussion (e.g., Anstrom, 1997, Adger & Peyton, 1999).

Harklau (2002) notes that the bulk of secondary-level ELLs' acquisition of academic literacy skills and content knowledge comes through textual rather than oral means. Of the high school students she studied, she writes, The learners I was observing might only interact with the teacher once or twice during the entire school day...On the other hand, teachers routinely provided learners with explicit feedback on language form on their written language output (pp. 331-332). Harklau also observed that these students often preferred to work with written as opposed to oral sources of input because texts were reviewable, unlike the talk of teachers and peers. She (2002) further notes:

There are many potential incentives for literate learners to make use of writing and reading in their [English language] acquisition process. At a basic level, writing is handy. It serves as a mnemonic strategy; e.g., lists of vocabulary or common phrases. It can also serve analytic purposes; e.g., writing down examples of grammatical rules or diagramming sentences. On a broader level, a distinguishing characteristic of print is the possibility for language learners to interact without the pressures of face-to-face communication, allowing them to slow the pace, make exchanges reviewable and self-paced, and to put contributions in editable form. (p. 337)

Text, therefore, becomes an even more important vehicle for engaging adolescent ELLs than for other adolescents. For ELLs, thus, there is an additional imperative for creating challenging environments for learning that expect students to respond in meaningful ways to text and to create meaningful texts themselves. Lower expectations do not support ELLs' co-development of literacy skills and content area understanding; a rigorous, challenging environment does (Echevarria & Graves, 2003; Walquí, 2000a). What is needed is in direct contrast to the watered-down diet of isolated skills practice and low expectations for written output and higher order thinking that most high school ELLs currently experience as part of their schooling (Jimenez & Gersten, 1999; Ochoa & Cadeiro-Kaplan, 2004).

[top]

Collaborative learning

There is also evidence that the purposeful use of cooperative learning structures in content-area classrooms motivates ELLs' participation and supports their achievement (e.g., Montes, 2002). Well-designed cooperative learning is an important literacy development strategy for adolescent native and non-native speakers, because it allows the social construction of meaning through collaborative effort (Montes, 2002; Waxman & Tellez, 2002). Effective cooperative grouping strategies include purposeful assigning of students to groups (mixing native and non-native speakers; creating groups around interest/inquiry; choosing group membership based on strengths brought to bear on project completion); using inquiry-based authentic or project-based tasks; scaffolding tasks so that check-in is required at different points in the process; requiring group and individual assessment; and establishing working group routines around particular types of tasks, for example, reciprocal teaching and collaborative strategic reading (e.g., Anstrom, 1997). To maximize literacy development, assignments should require students to use reading, writing, and speaking to learn and should contain aspects that draw students' attention to both spoken and written language use (their own and others) and content (Fillmore & Snow, 2002).

Cooperative learning can also be usefully extended to having peers review each others' written work. In their study of second language learners at the secondary level, Tsui and Ng (2000) found that while students preferred feedback on their writing from their teacher, most found peer comments to also be helpful. In particular, peer comments enhanced a sense of audience, raised learners' awareness of their own strengths and weaknesses, encouraged collaborative learning, and fostered the ownership of text. This was true for both less experienced and more experienced second language writers.

Student-directed activities, cooperative learning, peer coaching, and opportunities for practice were all associated with more effective classrooms for ELLs (August & Hakuta, 1997; de Felix, Waxman, & Paige, 1993; Gándara, 1997; Ortiz, 2001; and Walquí, 2000a). In a quasi-experimental study comparing two college-prep algebra classes with high ELL enrollments in Southern California, Brenner (1998) found that, in the classroom where students regularly engaged in small group discussions, students more frequently communicated about math (i.e., were more often engaged in the learning task) and were more comfortable participating in large-group communication about math. In a review of the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (CALLA), a dual language immersion math and science instruction model, Chamot (1995) found that the program regularly promoted active student participation-such as hands-on experiences, cooperative learning, and higher-level questioning-and that it consistently yielded above-average student achievement.

Again, the value and importance of the use of this promising practice for ELLs was affirmed through our review of the ELL literature. Teachers who focus on engaging their students in substantive interactions with text and with one another about text/content will be serving the learning and literacy development needs of their ELL students, as well as of their other students.

[top]

References

Alfassi, M. (1998, Summer). Reading for Meaning: The Efficacy of Reciprocal Teaching in Fostering Reading Comprehension in High School Remedial Reading Classes. American Educational Research Journal, 35(2), 309-332.

Alverman, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content Reading and Literacy: Succeeding in Today's Diverse Classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Collins, N. D. (1996, June). Motivating Low performing Adolescent Readers. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, 112. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d112.html .

Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent Literacy: What Works and Why. Second Edition. Garland Reference Library of Social Science (Volume 828). Garland Publishing Company: New York & London.

Kucan, L., & Beck I. (1997). Thinking Aloud and Reading Comprehension Research: Inquiry, Instruction, and Social Interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.

Langer, J. A. (2001). Guidelines for Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning & Achievement. Available: http://cela.albany.edu.

McCombs, B.L., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Motivating Secondary School Students to Read Their Textbooks. NASSP Bulletin 82 (600) 24-33.

Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E., & Hinchman, K. A. (2000). Struggling Adolescent Readers: A Collection of Teaching Strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Oldfather, P. (1994). When Students Do Not Feel Motivated for Literacy Learning: How a Responsive Classroom Culture Helps. Available: http://curry.edschool.virginia.edu/go/clic/nrrc/rspon_r8.html.

Rycik, J. A., & Irvin, J. L. (. (2001). What Adolescents Deserve. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Research, 64(4), 479-530.

Rosenshine, B., Meister, C., & Chapman S. (1996, Summer). Teaching Students to Generate Questions: A Review of the Intervention Studies. Review of Educational Research, 66(2), 181-221.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for Understanding: A Guide to Improving Reading in Middle and High School Classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, P. D. (1992). A Revisionist Perspective on Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 514-519). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Tierney, R. J., & Person, P. D. (1981). Learning to Learn from Text: A Framework for Improving Classroom Practice. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 496-513). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Tinzmann, M. B., Jones, B. F., Fennimore, T. F., Bakker, J., Fine, C., & Pierce, J. (1990). What Is the Collaborative Classroom? Available: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/rpl_esys/collab.htm.

Wilhelm, J. D. (1995). You Gotta BE The Book: Teaching Engaged and Reflective Reading with Adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.

Alvermann, D. E. (2001, October), Effective literacy instruction for adolescents (Executive summary and paper). Chicago: National Reading Conference. Retrieved August 5, 2004, from http://www.nrconline.org/publications/alverwhite2.pdf

Ballenger, C. (1997). Social identities, moral narratives, scientific argumentation: Science talk in a bilingual classroom. Language and Education, 11(1), 1-14.

Carrell, P. L. (1987). Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly, 21, 461-481.

Christie, F. (1997). Curriculum macrogenres as forms of initiation into a culture. In F. Christie & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school (pp. 134?160). London: Cassell.

Darling-Hammond, L., Ancess, J., & Falk, B. (1995). Authentic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students at work. New York: Teachers College Press.

Davidson, J., & Koppenhaver, D. (1993). Adolescent literacy: What works and why (2nd edition). Garland Reference Library of Social Science (Vol. 828). Garland Publishing Company: New York & London.

Delpit, L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.
(1987). Transformation and school success: The politics and culture of educational achievement. Anthropology and Educational Quarterly, 18, 335-56.

Fernandez, R. M., & Nielsen, F. (1986). Bilingualism and Hispanic scholastic achievement: Some baseline results. Social Science Research, 15(1), 43-70.

Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Languages and Linguistics.
(1995). English-as-a-second-language learners' cognitive reading processes. A review of research in the United States. Review of Educational Research, 65, 145-190.

Freeman, D., & Freeman, Y. (2001). Between worlds: Access to second language acquisition, 2nd edition. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
(1997). Review of research on the instruction of limited English proficient students: A report to the California legislature. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California, Linguistic Minority Research Institute. Retrieved August 11, 2004, from http://lmri.ucsb.edu/resdiss/2/pdf_files/gandara.pdf

Garcia, G. E. (1991). Factors influencing the English reading test performance of Spanish-speaking Hispanic children. Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 371-392.

Garcia, O. (1999). Educating Latino high school students with little formal schooling. In C. Faltis & P. Wolfe (Eds.), So much to say: Adolescents, bilingualism, and ESL in the Secondary School (pp. 61-82). New York: Teachers College Press.

Godina, H. (1998). Mexican-American high school students and the role of literacy across home-school-community settings. (Doctoral dissertation. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1990). Dissertations Abstracts International, 59(8), 2825.

González, N. (1999). What will we do when culture doesn't exist anymore? Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 30(4), 431-435.

Gonzalez, N., Moll, L., Tenery, M., Rivera, A., Rendon, P., Gonzales, R., & Amanti, C. (1995). Funds of knowledge for teaching in Latino households. Urban Education, 29(4), 443-470.

Guthrie, J. T., & Knowles, K. T. (2001). Promoting reading motivation. In L. Verhoeven & C. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation: Reading engagement in individuals and groups (pp. 159-176). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 403-422). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hamann, E. T. (2003). The educational welcome of Latinos in the new south. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Hamayan, E. (1994). Language development of low-literacy students. In F. Genessee, (Ed.), Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 278-300). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hawkins, M. (2004). Researching English language and literacy development in schools. Educational Researcher, 33(3), 14-25.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heath, S. B., & McLaughlin, M. (1993). Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender. New York: Teachers College Press.

Ivey, G. (1999). A multicase study in the middle school: Complexities among young adolescent readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 172-192.

Jetton, T. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2004). Domains, teaching and literacy. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 15-39). New York: Guilford Press.

Kamil, M. L. (2003). Adolescents and literacy: Reading for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Laliberty, E. A. (2001). Hooked on writing: Linking literacy to students' lived experiences. In M. de la Luz Reyes & J. Halceón (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 142-150). New York: Teachers College Press.

Langer, J. A. (1997). Literacy acquisition through literature. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 606-614.

Lee, C. (2004, Winter/Spring). Literacy in the academic disciplines. Voices in Urban Education, 3,14-25.

Lucas, T. (1993). What have we learned from research on successful secondary programs for LEP students? A synthesis of findings from three studies. In Proceedings of the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle and High School Issues, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs. Retrieved August 10, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/third/lucas.htm

Mahiri, J. (1998). Shooting for excellence: African American youth and culture in new Century Schools. Urbana, IL and New York: National Council of Teachers of English and Teachers College Press.

Maldonado, R. (2001). Reading adolescents/Adolescents reading. In M. de la Luz Reyes & J. Halcón (Eds.), The best for our children: Critical perspectives on literacy for Latino students (pp. 184-197). New York: Teachers College Press.

Martin, P. (2003). Supporting English language learners with low literacy skills in the high school classroom (pp. 14-26). Washington, DC: Council of Chief States School Officers. Retrieved September 27, 2004, from www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/HSReformELLStudentsPerspectives.pdf

McCombs, B. L., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Motivating secondary school students to read their textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82(600), 24-33.

Moje, E. (2000). To be part of the story: The literacy practices of gangsta adolescents. Teachers College Record, 102, 651-690.

Moje, E. B., & Hinchman, K. (2004). Culturally responsive practices for youth literacy learning. In Jetton, T. L. & Dole, J. A. (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 321-350). New York: Guilford Press.

Moll, L., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(1),132-141.

Moore, D. W., Alvermann, D. E. & Hinchman, K. A. (2000). Struggling adolescent readers: A collection of teaching strategies. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, Center for School and District Improvement. (2004). English language learner (ELL) programs at the secondary level in relation to student performance. Portland, OR: Author.

Olsen, L., & Jaramillo, A. (2000). When time is on our side: Redesigning schools to meet the needs of immigrant students. In P. Gándara (Ed.), The dimensions of time and the challenge of school reform (pp. 225-250). Albany: State University of New York Press.

Peregoy, S. F., & Boyle, O. F. (2000). English learners reading English: What we know, what we need to know. Theory Into Practice, 39(4).

Royer, J. M., & Carlo, M. S. (1991). Transfer of comprehension skills from native to second language. Journal of Reading, 34(6), 450-55.

Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1996). The role of responsive teaching in focusing reader intention and developing reader motivation. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 102-125). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Sarroub, L. (2001). The sojourner experience of Yemeni American high school students: An ethnographic portrait. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 390-415.

Schoenbach, R., Greenleaf, C., Cziko, C., & Hurwitz, L. (1999). Reading for understanding: A guide to improving reading in middle and high school classrooms. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smith, M., & Wilhelm, J. (2002). Reading don't fix no Chevys: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Steffensen, M., Joag-Dev, C., & Anderson, R. (1979). A cross-cultural perspective on reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 15, 10-29.

Sturtevant, E. G. (1998). What middle and high school educators need to know about language minority students. NASSP Bulletin, 82(600), 73-77.

Swan, E. A. (2004). Motivating adolescent readers through concept-oriented reading instruction. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent literacy research and practice (pp. 283-303). New York: Guilford Press.

Tse, L. (2001). Resisting and reversing language shift: Heritage-language resilience among U.S. native biliterates. Harvard Educational Review, 71, 677-709.

Valdés, G. (2003). Expanding definitions of giftedness: The case of young interpreters from immigrant communities. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Valenzuela, A. (1999). Subtractive schooling: U.S.-Mexican youth and the politics of caring. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Van den Broek, P., & Kremer, K. (2000). The mind in action: What it means to comprehend during reading. In B. M. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. Van den Broek (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 1-31). New York: Teachers College Press.

Villenas, S. (2001). Reinventing educación in new Latino communities: Pedagogies of change and continuity in North Carolina. In S. Wortham, E. G. Murillo, & E. T. Hamann, (Eds.), Education in the new Latino diaspora: Policy and the politics of identity (pp. 17-36). Westport, CT: Ablex Press.

Walsh, C. (1999). Enabling academic success for secondary students with limited formal schooling: A study of the Haitian literacy program at Hyde Park school in Boston. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.alliance.brown.edu/pubs/HaitianLit.pdf

Waxman, H. C., & Tellez, K. (2002). Effective teaching practices for English language learners. The Laboratory for Student Success, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory. Retrieved December 10, 2004, from http://www.temple.edu/LSS/pdf/spotlights/700/spot705.pdf

Wilhelm, J. D. (1995). You gotta BE the book: Teaching engaged and reflective reading with adolescents. New York: Teachers College Press.

[top]

This resource is developed and maintained by The Education Alliance at Brown University. Seed funding was provided by the U.S. Department of Education. Send comments to: loom@alliance.brown.edu