THE PRACTICE: Supporting the math classroom through literacy development
Content Presented By:
Center for Resource Management (CRM)
The Education Alliance at Brown University

Research summary

Evidence clearly points to the connection between increased use of reading and writing in the content areas and better achievement for all students. The field of ESL has long supported content-based instruction, which integrates the teaching of content and language, as an effective strategy for supporting the academic achievement of English language learners (see, for example, Thomas & Collier, 1997).

The research champions the explicit support of contextual literacy learning in content-focused classrooms, especially for struggling adolescent readers, including English language learners (see for example, Mohan, 1992; Moore, et al, 2000; Reyhner & Davison, 1992; Schoenbach et al., 1999). Of course, this requires that teachers know the literacy demands of their particular content areas.

According to the research, three discipline-based literacy strategies are central: vocabulary development, understanding of text structures, and recognizing and analyzing discourse features. Teachers should combine these strategies with instructing students to take a problem-solving approach to reading comprehension. They should also have students use cognitive strategies in context. The combination of these strategies have been shown to effectively support the development of adolescent literacy in almost startling ways, including with English language learners (see, for example, Langer, 1999; Mohan, 1992; Schoenbach et al, 1999).

Good discipline-specific vocabulary instruction--as opposed to the more pervasive "assign, define, and test,"--has been shown to have a positive effective on reading comprehension. See, for example, Allen (1999); Baker et al. (1995) http://idea.uoregon.edu/%7Encite/documents/techrep/tech14.html; Graves, 2000; Smith (1997) http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d126.html; Stahl & Fairbanks (1986).

Understanding text structures is an important way to help learners increase reading comprehension of demanding content-area texts. Teachers should demystify expository and narrative text structures within the context of specific content areas. This will give secondary readers frames within which to interpret new information. Strategies for unpacking text structures include the use of signals for predicting and mapping, and the use of text queries (see, for example, Berkowitz, 1986; Garner & Reis, 1981; Pearson & Camperell, 1994; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Schoenbach et al, 1999; Taylor, 1992).

Being able to recognize and analyze discourse features aids tremendously in content-area understanding. It also enhances content-focused writing (e.g., Langer & Flihan, 2000; Schoenbach et al., 1999). The explicit teaching of the discourse features particular to specific content areas is important for all students. However, it is especially important for English language learners and students coming from limited literacy backgrounds (e.g., Mohan, 1990; Reyhner & Davison, 1992; Spanos, 1992).

References

Allen, J. (1999). Words, Words, Words. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Baker, S., Simmons, D., & Kameenui E.J. (1995). Vocabulary Acquisition: Curricular and Instructional Implications for Diverse Learners (Tech. Rep. No. 14). National Center to Improve the Tools of Educators. Available:http://idea.uoregon.edu/~ncite/documents/techrep/tech14.html

Berkowitz, S. (1986). Effects of Instruction in Text Organization on Sixth-Grade Students' Memory for Expository Reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 161-178.

Garner, R., & Reis, R. (1981). Monitoring and Resolving Comprehension Obstacles: An Investigation of Spontaneous Text Lookbacks Among Upper Grade Good and Poor Comprehenders. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 569-582.

Graves, M. F. (2000). A Vocabulary Program to Complement and Bloster a Middle-Grade Comprehension Program. In B. M. Taylor, M. F. Graves & P. Van Den Broek (Eds.), Reading for Meaning (pp. 116-135). Newark, DE: International Reading Association & Teachers College Press.

Langer, J. (1999). Beating the Odds: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Available: http://cela.albany.edu/guidetext.pdf.

Langer, J., & Flihan, S. (2000). Writing and Reading Relationships: Constructive Tasks. In R. Indrisano & J. R. Squire (Eds.), Writing: Research/Theory/Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Available:http://cela.albany.edu/publication/article/writeread.htm.

Mohan, B. (1990). LEP Students and the Integration of Language and Content: Knowledge Structures and Tasks First Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues, OBEMLA. National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. Available:http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/first/lep.htm.

Moore, D. W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent Literacy: A Position Statement for the Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pearson, D., & Camperell, K. (1994). Comprehension of Text Structures. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading (pp. 448-465). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pearson, P. D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension Instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Volume 2 (pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.

Reyhner, J., & Davison, D. (1992). Improving Mathematics and Science Instruction for LEP Middle and High School Students Through Language Activities. Presented at the Third National Research Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle and High School Issues. Available:http://www.ncbe.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/third/reyhner.htm.

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, C. (1997, June). Vocabulary Instruction and Reading Comprehension. ERIC Digest #96, EDO-CS-97-07. Available: http://www.indiana.edu/~reading/ieo/digests/d126.html

Spanos, G. (1992). ESL Math and Science for High School Students: Two Case Studies. Presented at the Third National Symposium on Limited English Proficient Student Issues: Focus on Middle and High School Issues. Available:http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/symposia/third/spanos.htm.

Stahl, S. A., & Fairbanks, M. M. (1986). The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction: A Model-Based Meta-Analysis. Review of Educational Research, 56(1), 72-110.

Taylor, B. M. (1992). Text Structure, Comprehension and Recall. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has To Say About Reading Instruction (pp. 220-235). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

[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