|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
Research summarySections 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 II (2005). This is a publication of the Education Alliance at Brown University funded by the Northeast and Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.
General Research on Component B: StrategiesThe promising practices associated with each of the five headings below are based on an extensive research base and must be used synergistically, in combination with one another, in order to be effective (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993; Langer, 1999, 2001; Schoenbach et al, 1999; Tharp, 1999).
Promising Practices Related to the Roles of the Teacher According to the research, literacy skills and strategies should be taught in context, as opposed to in isolation; this represents a direct contradiction to theskills and drillsworksheets often advocated for remediation (Langer, 2001; Schoenbach et al, 1999). There is ample evidence that a number of particular literacy strategies--when explicitly taught, modeled, and practiced--enhance the ability of secondary students to read and write to learn across the content areas (e.g. Alvermann & More, 1991; Rosenshine & Meister, 1994; Rosenshine et al, 1996; Rosenshine, 1997; Schoenbach, et al, 1999). These include pre-reading activities, such as the activation of prior knowledge (see, for example, http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/prior.htm), during reading and post-reading strategies (see, for example, Billmeyer & Barton, 1995 and http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/bibs/rdcompsc.html). Research confirms the effectiveness of modeling and the use of a literacy apprenticeship framework (Schoenbach et al 1999). It also supports using information from a variety of literacy assessment strategies (Langer, 1999, 2001) to inform instruction.
Promising Practices Related to Reading and Writing Research supports the common-sense notion that time spent reading and writing will help students to improve those skills (e.g. Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993). Research also shows a link between Sustained Silent Reading (when effectively implemented) and improved reading skills (Flaspeter, 1995). The research also supports the use of the writing process as an integral part of content-area literacy development (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Cotton, 1988; Langer, 2001; Schoenbach et al, 1999).
Promising Practices Related to Speaking and Listening The evidence is clear: When teachers purposefully integrate speaking and listening into the content-area classroom, students' reading comprehension and writing skills improve. Effective collaborative learning also contributes to adolescent literacy development. This is particularly true for second language learners (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Collins et al; Krogness, 1995; Palincsar, 1986; Tharp, 1999).
Promising Practices Related to an Emphasis on Thinking Here the research shows strong connections between adolescent literacy development and the deliberate introduction of, and regular use of, cognitive and metacognitive strategies (see, for example, Collins, 1994; Collins et al; Duke & Pearson, in press; Garner, 1992; Haller et al, 1988; Langer, 2001; Paris, et al, 1994; Rosenshine, 1997; Ruddell & Unrau, 1994; Schoenbach et al, 1999; Weinstein & Mayer, 1986).
Promising Practices Related to Creating a Student-Centered Classroom As discussed extensively in Core Principle A, a student-centered classroom is a key component of effective adolescent literacy development. This is a classroom where background information, interests, and experience are built upon --and where it is the norm to have experience-based activities that encourage student choice and involvement. Such characteristics will support reading comprehension, student engagement, motivation, and development of positive literacy identities. In such a classroom, interactive discussions regularly occur, and the teacher uses varied groupings to meet the needs of diverse learners and the goals of a variety of types of teaching and learning experiences (e.g. Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Collins, 1996; McCombs & Barton 1998; Tharp, 1999; Tierney & Pearson, 1981, 1992).Creating a Learner-Centered ClassroomA learner-centered classroom is deliberately designed to maximize all students' chances for academic development. The creation of a learner-centered classroom is an important aspect of effective adolescent literacy development, particularly for diverse learners. In such classrooms, teachers expect all students to actively use speaking, listening, and thinking skills across contexts. Interactive discussions and experiential learning regularly occur. A learner-centered classroom builds upon students' background, interests, and experiences. Research suggests that this emphasis supports reading comprehension, student engagement and motivation, and the development of positive literacy identities. Again and again, the research refers to literacy learning as being best supported by the role of the teacher as facilitator, not lecturer (e.g., Langer, 1999, 2001; Wilhelm et al., 2001). Williams (2003), in describing the benefits of a student-centered or workshop approach to literacy instruction, notes: One result of the workshop approach is that it provides students with the means to assume a more active role in learning. Members of work groups are always busy talking, writing, thinking, researching. Unlike the traditional classroom, in which students assume a passive role as they listen to teacher-talk, the workshop requires teachers to say very little. This approach is referred to as student-centered instruction, and it is a central component of process pedagogy. (p.104) A key component of a learner-centered classroom for adolescents that supports optimal literacy development is the effective use of collaborative learning experiences (Adams & Hamm, 1990; Alvermann, 2000; Alvermann & Phelps, 1998; Anderson & Roit, 1993; Biancarosa & Snow, 2004; Calhoon & Fuchs, 2003; Collins, 1994; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000; Guthrie & Humenick, 2004; Kucan & Beck, 1997; Langer, 1999; McCombs & Barton, 1998; Tharp, 1999; Tierney & Pearson, 1981, 1992). Two other aspects of an effective learner-centered classroom referenced throughout the literature are flexible grouping (e.g., Reutzel, 2003) and a focus on inquiry-based learning (e.g., Wilhelm et al., 2001), with or without computer support (Waxman & Tellez, 2002). Used together, these three structures for learning enable teachers to be maximally responsive to students' literacy and learning needs. Based on her review of the literature, Curtis (2002) summarizes:The types of classroom environments shown to promote literacy development include ones that use a variety of approaches to skills instruction, integrate test preparation into instruction, make overt connections among in-school and out-of-school applications, enable strategy use, engage students in uses of their knowledge and skills, and incorporate collaborative work. (p. 10)(For additional description of classroom learning environments that support student motivation and engagement with academic literacy tasks, see Meltzer and Hamann, [2004].) Research on Using this practice with English Language LearnersIn her review of effective instructional practices for language minority students, Anstrom (1997) notes the appropriateness of cooperative learning practices for ELLs within the context of teaching and learning social studies:In a recent study concerning attributes of effective instruction for English language learners, the authors highlight the importance of providing opportunities for and encouraging interaction between English language learners and native English speakers (August & Pease-Alvarez, 1996). Cooperative learning offers language minority students the opportunity to interact with their native-speaking peers in such a manner and to communicate their thoughts and ideas in a supportive and non-threatening environment. When students work cooperatively to complete a task, language minority students receive instruction from their peers that is individually tailored to their language ability and academic needs. Working in structured groups increases the variety of ways information can be presented and related to what is already known. Furthermore, active listening and speaking in cooperative settings, provides a rich language environment for both comprehensible input and practice in speaking that students cannot get in a more traditional classroom environment (Olsen, 1992). 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, there was more frequent communication about the subject and students were more comfortable when it came to participating in large-group discussions than in classrooms that did not employ small group work. Speaking about math was related to thinking about and doing math better as measured by performance outcomes. In a study that also looked at math instruction and achievement, Gutiérrez (2002) found that having students work in groups seemed to improve their achievement. This improvement may occur because explaining to peers how they derived an answer or approached a problem requires students to practice clearly explaining themselves and solicit feedback on those explanations. In another example, Davison and Pearce (1992) found that having many opportunities to listen to English language mathematics terms in context was useful for the Crow-speaking Native American students in their study. In their summary of the literature on effective instruction for ELLs, Waxman and Tellez (2002) assert that collaborative learning emerges as both an important structure for supporting instructional conversations and as a delivery strategy for addressing principles of culturally responsive instruction, such as diversity. They claim that group tasks are crucial for language learning and conclude, "Other aspects of collaborative learning communities like debate and compromise can be developed through aspects of instructional conversation practice. Further, students' language development can be enhanced by having them collaborate while using technology& (p. 2). Sarroub et al. (under review) describe a high school teacher in a &Midwestern City& who uses the public library to select individually appropriate texts for guided reading with her ELLs (texts she knows will interest her students because she has learned about their lives, interests, and circumstances). A university-based researcher, graduate students, a paraprofessional, and high school student helpers all assist with the program, supporting its individuation. The described class is called ReferencesAlverman, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content Reading and Literacy: Succeeding in Today's Diverse Classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Alvermann, D., & Moore D. (1991). Secondary School Reading. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. Vol. II, 951-983). White Plains, NY: Longman. Billmeyer, R., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Teaching Reading in the Content Areas: If not Me, Then Who? Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory. Christen, W. L., & Murphy, T. J. (1991, March). Increasing Comprehension by Activating Prior Knowledge. ERIC Digest on Reading Comprehension, ED328885. Available: http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-9219/prior.htm. Collins, N. D. (1996, June). Motivating Low Performing Adolescent Readers. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication, 112. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~eric_rec/ieo/digests/d96.html. Collins, N. (1994, June). Metacognition and Reading to Learn. ERIC Digest #96, EDO-CS-94-09. Available:http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d96.html. Collins, V.L., Dickson, S.V., Simmons, D.C., & Kameenue, E.J. Metacognition and Its Relation to Reading Comprehension: A Synthesis of the Research. Available: http://idea.uoregon.edu/%7Encite/documents/techrep/tech23.html. Cotton, K. (1988, February). Teaching Composition: Research on Effective Practices. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/sirs/2/topsyn2.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. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, D. P. (In press). Effective Practices for Developing Reading Comprehension. Available:http://www.scholastic.com/dodea/Module_1/resources/dodea_m1_pa_duke.pdf. Flaspeter, R. (1995). Sustained Silent Reading: Implementation in the LEP Classroom Based on Research Results. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Sunshine State Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL). Jacksonsville, FL. Garner, R. (1992). Metacognition and Self-Monitoring Strategies. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 236-252). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Haller, E. P., Child, D. A., & Walberh, H. J. (1988). Can Comprehension be Taught: A Quantitative Synthesis of "Metacognitive" Studies. Educational Researcher, 17(9), 5-8. Krogness, M. M. (1995). Just Teach Me, Mrs. K.: Talking, Reading, and Writing With Resistant Adolescent Learners. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Langer, J. (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. Langer, J. (1999). Beating the Odds: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Available:http://cela.albany.edu/guidetext.pdf. McCombs, B., & Barton, M. (1998). Motivating Secondary School Students to Read Their Textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82 (600), 24-33. Palinscar, A. S. (1986). The Role of Dialogue in Providing Scaffolded Instruction. Educational Psychologist, 21, 78-98. Paris, S., Lipson, M., & Wixson, K. (1994). Becoming a Strategic Reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Rosenshine, B. (1997, March 24 - 28). The Case for Explicit, Teacher-led, Cognitive Strategy Instruction. Presented at the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL. Available: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/barak/barak1.html. 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. Rosenshine, B., & Meister, C. (1994, Winter). Reciprocal Teaching: A Review of the Research. Review of Educational Review, 64(4), 479-530. Ruddell, R. B., & Unrau, N. J. (1994). Reading as a Meaning-Construction Process: The Reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 996-1056). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. 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. Tharp, R. (1999, January). Proofs and Evidence: Effectiveness of the Five Standards for Effective Pedagogy. In Effective Teaching Series #2 [Online]. Available:http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/standards/effectiveness.shtml. 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. Valeri-Gold, M. (1995, Feb). Uninterrupted Sustained Silent Reading Is an Effective Authentic Method for College Developmental Learners. Journal of Reading, 38(5), 385-86. Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The Teaching of Learning Strategies. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 315-327). New York: MacMillan.
Adams, D. M., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. Alvermann, D. E. (2000). Classroom talk about texts: Is it dear, cheap, or a bargain at any price? In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Brock (Eds.), Reading and meaning: Fostering reading comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 136-151). New York: Teachers College Press. p>Adams, D. M., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning: Critical thinking and collaboration across the curriculum. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Alvermann, D. E. (2000). Classroom talk about texts: Is it dear, cheap, or a bargain at any price? In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Brock (Eds.), Reading and meaning: Fostering reading comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 136-151). New York: Teachers College Press. Alvermann, D. E., & Phelps, S. F. (1998). Content reading and literacy: Succeeding in today's diverse classrooms. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Anderson, V., & Roit, M. (1993). Planning and implementing collaborative strategy instruction for delayed readers in grades 6-10. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 121-137. Anstrom, K. (1997). Academic achievement for secondary language minority students: Standards, measures, and promising practices. Washington DC: The National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Retrieved August 14, 2004, from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/reports/acadach.htm#Overview Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. (2004). Reading next: A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York and Alliance for Excellent Education. Brenner, M. E. (1998). Development of mathematical communication in problem solving groups by language minority students. Bilingual Research Journal, 22(2/3/4), 103-128. Calhoon, M. B., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). The effects of peer-assisted learning strategies and curriculum-based measurement on the mathematics performance of secondary students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 24(4), 235-245. Collins, N. (1994, June). Metacognition and reading to learn. ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English, and Communication Digest #112. (ED396265). Retrieved November 14, 2001, from http://www.ed.gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed396265.html Curtis, M. E. (2002, May). Adolescent reading: A synthesis of research. Paper presented at the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development conference on adolescent literacy, Baltimore, MD. Retrieved December 3, 2002, from http://216.26.160.105/conf/nichd/synthesis.asp Davison, D. M., & Pearce, D. L. (1992). The influence of writing activities on the mathematics learning of Native American students. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students 10, 147-157. Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2000). Building student capacity to work productively during peer-assisted reading activities. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Brock (Eds.), Reading and meaning: Fostering reading comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 95-115). New York: Teachers College Press. Guthrie, J. T., & Humenick, N. M. (2004). Motivating students to read: Evidence for classroom practices that increase reading motivation and achievement. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voices of evidence in reading research (pp. 213-234). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Beyond essentialism: The complexity of language in teaching mathematics to Latina/o students. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 1047-1088. Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry, instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299. Langer, J. A. (1999). Beating the odds: Teaching middle and high school students to read and write well. (Research Rep. No. 12014). Albany, NY: National Research Center on English Learning and Achievement, State University of New York at Albany. 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 and Achievement, State University of New York at Albany. McCombs, B. L., & Barton, M. L. (1998). Motivating secondary school students to read their textbooks. NASSP Bulletin, 82(600), 24-33. Meltzer, J., & Hamann, E. (2004). Meeting the needs of adolescent English language learners for literacy development and content area learning, Part 1: Focus on motivation and engagement. Providence, RI: The Education Alliance at Brown University. 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. Reutzel, R. (2003). The Importance of Reading Trade Books. Scholastic Web site. Retrieved September 28, 2003, from http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/paperbacks/pdfs/ImportofReadingTradeBks.pdf Sarroub, L., Pernicek, T., & Sweeney, T.S. (under review). Tharp, R. (1999, January). Proofs and evidence: Effectiveness of the five standards for effective pedagogy. Effective Teaching, 2. Retrieved November 14, 2001, from http://www.crede.ucsc.edu/Standards/Effectiveness/effectiveness.html Tierney, R. J., & Pearson, 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. 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. 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., Baker, T. N., & Dube, J. (2001). Strategic reading: Guiding students to lifelong literacy 6-12. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook Heinemann. Williams, J.D. (2003). Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory, and practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. [top]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
