Taffy RaphaelKey Idea
Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA

Transcript from Critical Balances: Early Instruction for Lifelong Reading

DR. RAPHAEL: Well, this is going to be a good challenge. Kathy, I have been accused by some people as being very compulsive, and I don't know where this comes from, but I do know my talk is 23 minutes and 33 seconds. And I also know I'm supposed to leave for the airport at 11:15, and while I'm not strong in math, I can do the numbers and somehow it seems like I'm supposed to end 10 minutes before I'm there, so-so my apologies to all of you, but I am going to go ahead and begin the talk because, otherwise, you'll miss all the suspenseful ending.

Well, I appreciate the invitation to speak at this conference about early literacy instruction. I believe in striking a balance in our approach to teaching students to read and assume that I was invited to represent a moderate position.

Further, because my research has been with upper elementary grade students for the most part, I see long-term effects of early literacy instruction. In today's presentation -- David, second overhead -- I share some of my concerns, my beliefs based on current research, about early literacy instruction. First, some concerns. And if you can move to the next overhead and just show the first bullet, as I read through written documents recommending and even mandating specific forms and content of early reading instruction, I became increasingly convinced that the actual issue is not -- does not seem to be about how to teach reading better. Research in the past few decades has demonstrated the range of literacy knowledge that successful readers must have.

Rather, I think that today's early reading instruction debate simply reflects the politicized nature of reading instruction. I'm going to elaborate four points of why I think this is the case. (More on FAQ7)

First, early reading instruction seems to be used to discredit public education. (More on FAQ7) One instance can be seen in the remarks made by Assemblyman Steve Baldwin, who is the immediate past present-president-past chairman of the California State Assembly Education Committee. In January, he described the importance of an agenda of phonics instruction that would solve his state's overall reading problems. Note the explicitly unfavorable contrast between public and private schools and the implication that lower funded private schooling may be one answer to the reading problems.

He dismisses potential reasons for students' poor performance on state reading tests, saying they couldn't be due to factors such as quality instruction or even student diversity. Thus, he dismisses possible needs for staff development or for attending to particular student's needs and instead he implies the problem lies with public education.

Here are two quotes. In the first he says, "While there may be teachers of questionable training currently teaching in our public schools, bear in mind that some of the best performing private schools are those in inner city areas that, as a rule, do not have higher credentialed teachers, yet outperform public schools, with less money year in and year out."

In another statement, he says, "Again, we have dozens of inner city private schools that have wide assortments of races speaking many languages, and yet many of these private schools are able to give these kids a tremendous education, while at the same time spend about half what the public schools spent for children."

While Assemblyman Baldwin then suggests that the reading problems can be solved simply "returning to," those were his words, "phonics," his arguments seem to be as much about moving away from public education as they are about methods of reading instruction. And, by the way, he offers no evidence to support any of the claims he makes.

Second, early reading instruction debates seem to be used to direct large pools of money into a specialized set of supplementary materials. (More on FAQ7) As states such as California, and I'm not sure about Texas, release funds to support early reading instruction, positioning a single method as the only way to teach basic skills has tremendous economic benefits for companies that narrowly dictate both the content of phonics and the form of instruction.

For example, notes from a Right to Read briefing from December of '96 specifically point to a single publishing house as being in compliance with newly passed laws requiring phonics instruction. The briefing states, "The reading textbooks approved by the board that, in our opinion, failed to meet the new state criteria regarding phonics instruction are published by," and then five major publishing houses are named. "These textbooks continue to emphasize whole language teaching, the kind of instruction that the new state laws expressly were designed to eliminate." This was in California.

"In our judgment, only one of the grades K-6 reading textbook series approved by the board meet the new legal criteria. It is published by," and then they name the publishers. My point is not to suggest that the Right to Read Foundation has any greater or lesser right to promote particular materials, but it is important for all of us to recognize that publishing is a billion dollar industry. We are not working among neutral participants in the debate.

Third, early reading instruction debates seem to be used to create a media event. (More on FAQ7) By emphasizing long-standing paradigm wars, as Stanovich described them in 1990, the media has more interesting stories than would be reflected in more common and more frequently stated moderate positions. While debates within sciences or medicine may be tolerated or even encouraged as as an important part of inquiry, they are characterized in reading as evidence of a field that cannot get its act together.

Fourth, early literacy instruction seems to be used to focus instruction on low-level skills and avoid controversial areas such as interpretation and values. (More on FAQ7) There is little to threaten anyone's belief systems when we teach our language systems code. However, as classroom teachers and their students move into constructing knowledge, personal response, literary interpretations, we are more likely to encounter challenges to our ways of thinking. That gets into issues of whose values and whose beliefs may be privileged.

Because of my sense that the debates about reading instruction reflect more than simply issues related to learning how to read, I now turn to what I believe to be the roots of today's debates: how and by whom literacy is defined, research is judged, and instructional methods are determined. I then lay out what a review of research that Cindy Brock at Texas Women's University and I conducted for the National Reading Conference last fall, and I look at that review in terms of a more encompassing view of an instructional curriculum. I end by suggesting that we take a common sense approach to examining what is clearly more than a straightforward debate about how to teach reading.

The roots of the reading debate can be traced to fundamental differences and beliefs about knowledge and knowing, (More on FAQ7) described by Cunningham and Fitzgerald in a recent Reading Research Quarterly article, but also I think demonstrated for us this morning in Dick's talks and in Phil's talks. I believe that these differences and beliefs are at the heart of many of the debates in which we as researchers and practitioners engage. They include differences in beliefs about the relationship of the knower to the known, about truth, for example, if there such a thing; about what counts as evidence as witnessed in Dick's talks and then in Phil's talk; about the universality of knowledge and the generalizability; about whether we view knowledge as something to be discovered or something to be constructed or created. Because of such fundamental differences in beliefs, it's not likely that our debates will be resolved either by trying to reach consensus or by trying to prove one another false. But this should not be seen as a problem, since what counts as literacy is so complex, different views are necessary to understand what can and should make up the literacy curriculum, as well as how to effectively teach it. (More on FAQ7) And that's something Keith Stanovich began arguing in the '80s and then wrote the paper about in 1990.

Moreover, differences in instructional focus across grade levels should be expected as students move from initially engaging in literacy events to becoming proficient readers. And we can't lose sight of the broad range of students we teach entering abilities and the range of curriculum that we as educators are responsible for helping them learn.

Unfortunately, because of our debates among researchers, a crucial means by which we continue to learn and finetune our teaching and our curriculum, we are often portrayed in the popular media simply as a field in disarray, filled with personality cuts and mean-spirited personal attacks. (More on FAQ7) I think of Art Levin's article in the Atlantic Monthly in 1994 as an example of that. There was little to no recognition of what we have learned and instead we hear suggestions that if debates are present, we should, in Assemblyman Baldwin's terms, "return to sound, tried and true methodologies," in short, calling nostalgically for a return to a way of teaching based solely on phonics.

However, times change. We continually learn more. As citizens in an increasingly complex society, we face ever-changing and ever-increasing demands, ones that require higher levels of skills than ever before. This is as true for reading education as it is for medicine, space exploration, and building construction.

These higher commands and increased complexities underscore the importance of updating our practices in literacy instruction. Is literacy simply an ability to sound out words? Is it understanding the "correct meaning"? Who determines correctness is open to question as well. Is it interpreting and critically evaluating texts?

Successful reading involves being able to decode the printed words on the page. However, simply reading the words is not enough. (More on FAQ1) The following is a thought experiment. David, if you would put up the next overhead? By the way, thank you, David Pearson, who was my former advisor about 20 years ago is now my assistant. I congratulate him on this higher level that he's moved to. As you look at this word -- okay, put it --

DR. PEARSON: There's some symmetry about that.

DR. RAPHAEL: Right. I used to photocopy things for him, but what can we say. Times change, as I said before. "Deltamatic" As you look at this word, ask yourself what knowledge base you're going to draw on to construct meaning. Which aspects of the language system are particularly useful? Okay. How many of you feel you are able to sound out this word and can say it? How many of you feel comfortable that you could tell me what the word means or use it in a sentence?

I want to provide some clues. "When I called Delta, the agent said their new system was down. I was frustrated in not being able to make my reservation." What phonetic knowledge did you use? What structural knowledge? How many of you looked at the "delta" and the "matic" and separated that out? What context clues did you draw on? None up there. A single isolated word doesn't provide any, but in the sentence there were some, I would argue. And, further, what cultural knowledge did you draw on?

Delta happens to be an international airlines, but if you're in a place that doesn't have Delta Airlines, that sentence probably wouldn't have helped very much, because I said I called Delta. I didn't say Delta Airlines. The point is not that phonics failed. In fact, I would argue that it was successful. It gave you entree into understanding and knowing what you both knew and didn't know. But we limit ourselves by pitting strategies against each other. That is not a goal of instruction.

If our goal is to create a literate society through our reading and writing instruction, we must make sure that we do not summarily define literacy in such a way that we cheat our students out of the full range of instruction to which they are entitled. (More on FAQ1)

In Cindy's and my recent review, I defined literacy as involving reading and writing activities that served multiple purposes, self-reflection to self-expression, learning through others, learning from others, and sharing one's knowledge and beliefs. (More on FAQ1)

I now turn to the research that informs our literacy instruction; that is, teaching our students to read and write effectively and successfully for multiple purposes. In the fall of 1996 when Cindy and I began the review, we explored two questions. We had these two questions as a guide. The two questions were: what should we teach and how should we teach it?

Based on the research studies from recognized, refereed journals, many of which Phil or Dick mentioned this morning in their talk, I think it was Dick, we identified four broad quick curricular areas that you see listed in the first box under "what should we teach." These form the basis of the content of the literacy curriculum and are the basis -- are derived from the range of research that's available in the field. [Figure 1]

Studies about how to teach pointed to the importance of classroom environments, instructional methods, and variations in teachers' and students' roles and responsibilities across and within the classroom context. What I am going to do now is walk us through sort of what are some general findings in each of those four areas.

You can put up the next overhead, I think. It will give you the full range. Oh, you'll see this again. You like the yellow transparencies, don't you? That's because when I was up at the office after hours, I realized I only had a key to one -- I'm on sabbatical, so I had to turn in a bunch of keys. I could only find one cabinet I could get into and it was only yellow or dark blue, and I didn't know about Phil's thing, that you could actually use yellow print. So the black didn't show up on the blue, so that's the yellow overheads. But I like them kind of.

Anyway, I turned to the four curricular areas. I defined them and underscore the range of knowledge about literacy that we expect our students to acquire. The figure in front of you provides an overview of the broad instructional content that research shows is important to becoming literate. I begin with language conventions.

Our written language is an ordered system. First, sounds map onto symbols. Second, grammar in sentence and text levels maintain consistency for how we present ideas. Third, particular settings require particular ways for participants to interact. Thus, instructional research within this area describes student's knowledge about decoding, linguistic and interaction conventions, their application of this knowledge in classrooms and in their reading, and ways to enhance their knowledge. These correspond to categories that I noticed within the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills document.

For example, on page 1, it notes that students listen attentively, actively, and purposefully. Students listen critically to analyze and evaluate the speaker's message. Those are all part of conventions of how we interact. In terms of concepts of print, it states on page 5, the student demonstrates knowledge of concepts of print. On page 6, the student demonstrates phonemic awareness. On page 13, the student composes meaningful text, applying knowledge of grammar and usage. In other words, within the Texas Essential Skills document, you see evidence within the state we recognize the importance of language conventions.

Three important findings emerged as we looked across research studies in this area. First, when we make the ordered nature of our language explicit, it helps students to cope. (More on FAQ2) (More on FAQ3) People like Pat Cunningham and Connie Juel have talked about that. It helps children spell. People like Morris and his colleagues, and Brown, Sinatra, and Wagstaff talked about that. It helps students to compose. Carol Sue Angler and Linda Anderson and myself, with some of our colleagues, looked at text structure and making that explicit, and it helped students write. When we make explicit our expectations about interacting using language, it helps students learn to interact around text, (More on FAQ3) as we see in the work of people like John O'Flahavan.

Second, while being explicit has advantages, there are complexities in doing so that require continued research and development, rather than simply abandoning what we have learned to return to the past. (Back to FAQ3) (More on FAQ6) (More on FAQ8)

Third, given both the value and the complexity in teaching language conventions, meaningful teaching in context helps students apply what they have learned in their broader interactions with text. (More on FAQ2) We see that in the work of people like Jana Mason, Robert Gaskins, Irene Gaskins and colleagues, Jennie Goatley and myself looking at children's interactions around literature.

In the second area of comprehension, the number of reviews of comprehension research and articles and books indicates just how much we know about teaching students to make sense of text, monitor their progress, and make connections to existing knowledge bases. Current research continues with studies of vocabulary instruction, strategy instruction, and monitoring. These studies continue to demonstrate that teaching, modeling, and practicing strategies used by mature readers lead to improved comprehension. Enhanced comprehension can be attributed to students' increased sense of activity and agency, (More on FAQ2) since the process of reading to understand is demystified for them and they have the means to gather information, connect ideas, and identify important issues. Many of the studies of the 1990s, though, have raised our stakes from defining comprehension as simply recalling text, answering open-ended questions, or recalling information, to instead, defining comprehension in terms of critical analysis and meaningful engagement with a wide range of texts.

We see that in the work of people like Guthrie, as well Brown, and they demonstrate the benefits when students are taught to critically question the text and each other. A student in a study by Isabel Beck and her colleagues describes what she sees are the advantages from wanting to question and think critically.

    Me and Alvis, we're always getting into something. We always disagree with each other. Then we read on and start disagreeing with ourselves. Then we find out about our disagreement and why we were wrong. We disagree with ourselves if we're wrong. It's that kind of critical thinking that we don't want to lose sight of with these current debates that limit the content of what we're talking about.

Similarly, in composition, you might wonder why even talk about composition in a conference on early reading instruction, but the connections between developing reading and writing skills have been documented since the early '80s by people like Kathy Au and her colleagues, Anne Dyson, Donald Graves, Elizabeth Sulzby, and Freddie Hiebert. And the instructional research in composition is just as rich as the research in decoding and in comprehension. First, scholars have continued to examine and critique process writing instruction, helping us see the possibilities, which we have for a long time, but also documenting the challenges. Second, research demonstrates the value of using writing as a tool to promote critical and higher order thinking about texts, using writing to develop and reflect on one's thinking through dialogue, journals, and notebooks. Third, scholars have demonstrated the value of connecting writing, reading and/or talking for understanding, and composing both fiction and nonfiction.

Two important trends are worth noting when we look across this research in composition. The research itself has become more complex as we seek to understand changes in classroom environments and improve our understandings of teachers' and students' roles. Second, important links continue to be explored between reading and writing. (More on FAQ6) In the early 1980s, Rob Tierney and David Pearson suggested that we think of reading as a composing process. In the 1990s, we see the importance of thinking as a writer as we read, as demonstrated in the work of Beck and her colleagues, as well as the importance of reading as a foundation of writing. As students learn to compose, drawing on different information sources and as different models from the literature they read serve as model for them in their own writing.

For early literacy instruction, this reinforces that simply knowing the code will be insufficient for our young learners to use writing as a tool for thinking, understanding, and problem solving.

In terms of the last column (in Figure 1), Literary Aspects, what we found was it was hard to find studies that separated out simply a study of characterization or a study of setting or certain elements, although there were some interesting studies looking at early -- young children's development of theme, to suggest that it certainly is not the purview of graduate students alone to be able to do critical analysis or understand theme.

Studies of literature in teaching practices emphasize the importance of highly interactive literacy events. Students are expected to assume more input into and control over their learning, but not at the expense of teachers' continued act of teaching during explicit teaching and collaborative conversations. (More on FAQ5)

I want to emphasize that this is not a choice between teacher control and student control. Rather, it reflects the importance of opportunity for both to occur. Moreover, with few exceptions, for example, McKenna's work and some of the stuff we have heard this morning, studies consistently conveyed advantages to alternative approaches relative to traditional skills-based instruction, though specifics about instruction are rarely talked about, as was also mentioned earlier.

For example, students in literature-based classrooms or whole language classrooms have clearer understandings of what literacy involves than those in classrooms with decontextualized skills instruction. This is shown in the work by Dahl and Freppon, Leslie Morrow, and others. This is not to say that phonics instruction is not important. Merely, I point out that the idea that we have tried and true methods of instruction is a fallacy. Much research supports students actively engaged as readers, writers, and discussants with interesting and compelling reading materials.

Current literacy instruction -- current literacy instructional research provides information on how to effectively link reading instruction to learning about literature, teaching students' response to literature, and understanding the variation in teachers' roles. This research has underscored the value of integration within the language arts, as well as between reading, writing, and subject areas. Again, the importance of this research to early literacy instruction is to emphasize that the vast array of skills, knowledge, and dispositions that are important that we must introduce as students begin to learn to read, not after they have some particular isolated set of skills. (More on FAQ2) The research that I overviewed, albeit briefly, provides insights into where our field has moved in our knowledge and beliefs about literacy instruction, about the roles of teachers and students, the content that we teach, and the context in which teaching and learning occur.

In this section, I offer four observations. The first, quality literacy instruction occurs in meaningful contexts. (More on FAQ2) Approaches that emphasize active learning within meaningful contexts are superior to transmission approaches or component approaches. Approaches should help students see the functions of the skills, the strategies and dispositions highlighted during instruction. With an awareness of the functions, students are more inclined to engage in literacy, and their attitudes towards literacy learning are more likely to be positive. (More on FAQ2)

This observation is supported by research such as Freppon's studies of whole language and skills instruction classrooms and Fisher and Hiebert's instruction of tasks and their influence within whole language and skills classrooms. These studies suggest that it is critical for student to see connections between the skills taught and their application.

Further, studies like Terry Rogers's work introducing ninth graders to response-oriented literature discussions in contrast to the traditional text analysis that they had experienced throughout school suggests that there is a cumulative effect to the types of literacy environments within which instruction is embedded. Rogers found that though the students eventually were successful at being able to move beyond answering questions as after they had read, they had trouble shifting from the question answering mode to valuing their own personal responses.

The second area that I feel that we have learned is that quality literacy instruction involves active student engagement in constructing meaning. Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that engaging in literate behavior is a -- is a process in which readers and writers must be actively engaged to be successful. (More on FAQ2) While we may not all agree on what has primacy for being active, should they be active decoders, active comprehenders, active strategy users, we do tend to agree that the activity and individual agency on the part of the child is critical. However, activity is not simply action.

For example, repeating back what the teacher says is not what I would say constitutes activity. Students must play a critical role in creating, selecting, and enacting the activities. This conclusion is widely supported. For beginning readers, activity may revolve around word analysis, actively engaging in phonemic analysis, as we see in the studies by Juel and by Cunningham, or in Gaskins's work on decoding by analogy.

Activity also focuses on active comprehension, on writing based on what students have read, and on their own personal experiences, as well as activity around talk about text. We continue to debate the relative merits of different ways of being actively engaged with literacy acts and events, but we understand the importance of meaningful activity over school life, like teacher question/student response patterns of interaction.

The third area is that quality literacy instruction requires teachers' knowledge of a repertoire of literacy instructional strategies. (More on FAQ2) The third observation questions the viability of teacher-proof programs. Our students are increasingly diverse. Research by scholars such as Heath and Au underscores the improbability of finding predictable generic patterns for teacher talk and student response. Instead, in order to successfully meet the needs of a wide range of students who come from linguistically, culturally, and academically diverse backgrounds and have different levels of ability and knowledge and competencies, teachers must have a repertoire of strategies that they can use adaptively and flexibly in their own classrooms. (Return to PI)

Many current studies speak to this issue of flexible teacher knowledge. Gaskins and her colleagues described how their teachers spent five years selecting and developing and using a variety of strategies in dynamic and interactive ways with their children who had difficulty learning to read. Elliott illustrates how a Reading Recovery teacher known for her teaching excellence makes instructional decisions on the run during Reading Recovery lessons. (Return to PI)

Spurling's research on teacher-student interactions during writing conferences demonstrates how an exemplary teacher adapted his interactional style to meet individual student's needs. To meaningfully select from a repertoire of strategies for instruction, teachers must attend to the specific needs of different learners, which requires a wide knowledge base about literacy and about learners.

Finally, the fourth area is quality literacy instruction involves dynamic and shifting roles for teachers and students during instructional encounters. (Back to FAQ2 & Back to FAQ5) Teachers' and students' roles are dynamic and evolving, not static and routine. At times students need opportunities to initiate interactions with their teachers. Janice Almasi's work shows the value in shifting the balance of power in classroom conversation, showing that at times student-to-student conversations were more powerful learning contexts than to student to teacher. But note that I said "at times," not always. (Return to PI)

Beck and her colleagues' work demonstrates the importance of empowering students to raise questions, while providing important teacher support and guidance as they do so. The teacher remains a critical force but in balance with the students. While many of these studies were not conducted with the youngest of readers, they help us understand that as we recommend particular approaches to reading instruction, we do our students a disservice if we reduce our expectations to knowing the code.

Across these four observations we noted that the importance of both students' and teachers' participating in literacy events that both can identify as being meaningful. Students and teachers should not be simply getting through the literacy events or the activities.

David, if you'd put up that first -- the other overhead and just -- yeah, that's great.

Positions at either extremes, if you look at this one [Figure 2], this position represents one extreme. It says that somehow it would be either not appropriate to teach any of this or you could teach most of that, but by all means don't teach them the sound-symbol relationships. When you put that up there, that extreme position, I have to ask, why would we not want our children to understand the relationships between the sounds in our language and the symbols used to represent those sounds?

But at the same time, if we do it the other way, if we cover the rest [Figure 3], I would argue that it's also futile to build a reading program around one -- thank you -- and hope that the other will all follow. My point is: No one here is taking either of these extreme positions, but when I look at what's written in the popular media, when I listen to the debates, when I hear the characterization of the personal attacks, you would think that our field is in disarray because those are the two positions we're arguing. We're far more moderate than that.

So, to return to my initial point, there are many other reasons for assuming an extreme position: economics of program sales, a desire to keep teaching safe, focusing only on facts and low-level skills, and avoiding areas that delve into beliefs, interpretations, or values. It seems clear from my being involved in reading instruction for over 25 years as a classroom teacher, a teacher educator, and a researcher that the issues have grown far more complicated, as have the related demands placed on those of us in the field.

In the late 1970s and early '80s our questions focused on what strategies might lead to better comprehension. By the mid- to late '80s we were not satisfied with single strategies; we wanted to know how strategies worked together, how to be flexible in their application, and how we might integrate such instruction across reading and writing. In the 1990s we have focused on issues of authenticity and meaning, of voice and power, and on focusing our efforts so that all of our students, diverse in linguistic, economic, and cultural backgrounds and diverse in their academic proficiencies can be successful. (Back to FAQ6 & Back to FAQ7)

Knowing the language conventions, phonics, grammar, and spelling, and being able to comprehend are certainly key, but we want our students to be active members of a literate community, engaging in talk that promotes both understanding and personal appreciation, using literacy to support such activities and promoting such literate communities across the curriculum.

What Cindy Brock and I found to be so interesting as we've reviewed instructional research for the review of research we presented in December, while everything about literacy, instruction, and learning is much more complicated today than it has been in our past, our politicians, most of whom have little or no training as teachers, nor education about literacy instruction, are demanding that we identify the standards, the strategies, and knowledge bases for reading, and the single best way of teaching reading that all teachers and students can be held accountable to.

By politicizing the debate, we move away from the fundamental reasons why we want our children to learn to read and move away from the research base that informs such instruction. A democratic society demands that all its participants be literate. (More on FAQ1)

There is, as Dick Allington and Sean Walmsley have said and titled their book No Quick Fix, to the problems students experience in becoming literate and no single paradigm within which we can address the problems associated with literacy instruction and learning. There is no single test that can be used to demonstrate literacy competency and no single approach to creating a literate society.

We must all take responsibility for educating not only our students, but the general public, our legislative leaders, and those of us within the research community. (Back to FAQ1 & Back to FAQ8) Our students deserve no less.

Thank you.

References

Allington, R.L., & Walmsley, S.A. (Eds.). (1995). No quick fix. New York: Teachers College Press.

Almasi, J.F. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' sociocognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 314-351.

Alvermann, D.E., Young, J.P., Weaver, D., Hinchman, K.A., Moore, D.W., Phelps, S.F., Thrash, E.C., & Zalewski, P. (1996). Middle and high school students' percetpions of how they experience textbased discussions: A multicase study. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 244-267.

Anderson, R.C. (in press). Intellectually stimulating story discussions. In R.C. Anderson & J. Osborn (Eds.), Learning to read. New York: Guilford Press.

Anderson, R.C., & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A scema-theoretic view of basic process in reading comprehension. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research, (pp. 255-291). New York: Longman.

Au, K.H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian children. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 11, 91-115.

Au, K.H., Carroll, J., & Scheu, J. (1997). Balanced literacy instruction: A teacher resource book. Newton, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Au, K.H., & Mason, J.M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115-152.

Barone, D. (1990). The written responses of young children: Beyond comprehension to story understanding. The New Advocate, 2(1), 49-56.

Baumann, J.F., & Bergeron, B.S. (1993). Story map instruction using children's literature: Effects on first graders' comprehension of central narrative elements. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 25(4), 407-437.

Baumann, J.F., Seifert-Kessell, N., & Jones, L.A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud instruction on elementary students' comprehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 24(2), 143-172.

Beck, I.L., McKeown, M.G., Sandora, D., Kucan, L., & Worthy, J. (1996). Questioning the author: A yearlong classroom implementation to engage students with text. The Elementary School Journal, 96(4), 385-414.

Block, C.C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a literature-based reading program. The Elementary School Journal, 94(2), 139-151.

Bloome, D. (1986). Building literacy and the classroom community. Theory into Practice, 25(2), 1-6.

Brown, A.L. (1992). Design experiments: Theroetical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.

Brown, K.L., Sinatra, G.M., & Wagstaff, J.M. (1996). Exploring the potential of anaylogy instruction to support students spelling development. The Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 81-99.

Cunningham, J.W., & Fitzgerald, J. (1996). Epistemology and reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 36-60.

Cunningham, P.M. (1992). What kinds of phonics instruction will we have? In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory, and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 17-32). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Dahl, K.L., & Freppon, P.A. (1995). A comparison of inner city children's interpretations of reading and writing instruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 50-74.

Danoff, B., Harris, K.R., & Graham, S. (1993). Incorporating strategy instrucion within the writing process in the regular classroom: Effects on the writing of students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 25(3), 295-322.

Dekker, M.M. (1991). Books, reading and response: A teacher-researcher tells a story. The New Advocate, 4(1), 37-46.

Denyer, J., & Florio-Ruane, S. (1995). Mixed messages and missed oppportunities: Moments of transformation in writing conferences and teachers education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15(6), 539-551.

Dixson-Kraus, L.A. (1995). Partner reading and writing: Peer social dialogue and the zone of proximal development. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 45-63.

Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Pearson, P.D. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 239-264.

Dreher, M.J., & Sammons, R.B. (1994). Fifth graders searching for information in a textbook. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 26(3), 301-314.

Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Mason, J. (1984). Comprehension instruction: Perspectives and suggestions. New York: Longman.

Dyson, A. H. (1992). The case of the singing scientist: A performance perspetive on the "stages" of school literacy. Written Communication, 9(1), 3-47.

Eeds, M., & Wells, D. (1989). Grand conversations: An explanation of meaning construction in literature study groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(1), 4-29.

Elliot, C.B. (1996). A process of responsive teaching: A Vygotskian perspetive on fostering cognitive strategy use. In D. Leu, C. Kinzer, & K.A. Hinchman (Eds.), Literacies for the 21st century: Research and practices (pp. 512-521). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Englert, C.S., Raphael, T.E., Anderson, L.M., Stevens, D.D., & Anthony, H.M. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337-372.

Evans, K.S. (1996). Creating spaces for equity? The role of positioning in peer-led discussions. Language Arts, 73(3), 194-202.

Fisher, D., & Hiebert, E.H. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 91(1).

Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222-251.

Freppon, P.A. (1991). children's concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(2), 139-164.

Gaskins, R.W., Gaskins, I.W., Anderson, R.C., & Schommer, M. (1995). The reciprocal relationship between research and development: An example involving a decoding strand for poor readers. Journal of Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352-380.

Goatley, V.J., Brock, C.H., & Raphael, T.E. (1995). Diverse learners participating in regular education "Book Clubs". Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), 352-380.

Graves, D.H., & Hansen, J. (1983). The author's chair. Language Arts, 60, 176-183.

Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A..D., Wifield, A., Bennett, L, Poundstone, C.C., Rice, M. E., Faibisch, F. M., Hunt, G., & Mitchell, A.M. (1996). Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and strategies during conept-oriented readign instructon. Reading Research Quuarterly, 31(3), 306-335.

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

Hiebert, E.H. (1991). The development of word-level strategies in authentic literacy tasks. Language Arts, 68, 234-240.

Lensmire, T. (1994). When children write: Critical re-visions of the writing workshop. New York: Teachers College Press.

Levine, A. (December, 1994). Education: The great debate revisited. The Atlantic Monthly, p. 38-44.

Lysynchuk, L.M., Pressley, M., & Vye, M.J. (1990). Reciprocal teaching improves standardized reading-comprehension performance in poor comprehenders. The Elementary School Journal, 90(5), 469-485.

Many, J.E., & Wiseman, D.L. (1992). The effect of teaching approach on third grade students' response to literature. Journal of Reading Behavior, 24(3), 265-287.

Many, J.E., Ffe, R., Lewis, G.L., & Mitchell, E. (199). Traversing the topical landscape: Exploring students' self-directed reading -writing-research processes. Reading Research Quarterly, 31(1), 12-35.

McGee, L. (1992). Focus on research: Exploring the literature-based reading revolution. Language Arts, 69(7), 529-537.

McKenna, M.C., Stratton, B.D., Grindler, M. D., & Jenkins, S.J. (1994). Differential effects of whole language and traditional instruction on reading attitudes. Journal of Reading Behavior, 27(1), 19-43.

McMahon, S.I., & Raphael, T.E., with Goatley, V.J. & Pardo, L.S. (1997). The book club connection: Literacy learning and classroom talk. New York: Teachers College Press; Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Morris, D., Blanton, L., Blanton, W.E., & Perney, J. (1995). Spelling instruction and acheivement in six classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 145-162.

Morrow, L.M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(3), 251-275.

Newell, G.E. (1994). The effects of between-draft responses on stuudents' writing and reasoning about literature. Written Communication, 11(3), 311-347.

O'Flahavan, J.O. (1989). Second graders' social, intellectual, and affective development in varied group discussions about narrative texts: An explanation of participation structures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

Patthey-Chavez, G.G., & Clare, L. (1996). Task, talk, and text: The influence of instructional conversations on transitional bilingual writers. Written Communication, 13(4), 515-563.

Pearson, P.D. (1986). Twenty years of research in reading comprehension. In T.E. Raphael (Ed.), The contexts of school-based literacy (pp. 43-62). New York: Random House.

Pearson, P.D., & Fielding, L. (1991). Comprehension instruciton. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.

Power, B.M. (995). Bearingwalls and writing workshops. Language Arts, 72(7), 482-494.

Raphael, T. E., & Brock D.J. (in press). A review of research on literacy instruction. In C. Kinzer, D. Leu, & K. Hinchman (Eds.), National Reading Conference Yearbook, Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Raphael, T.E., & Goatley, V.J. (1994). The teacher as "more knowlegeable other." Changing roles for teaching in alternative reading instruction programs. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional aspects of literacy research theory and practice (pp. 527-536). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Rogers, T. (1991). Students as literary critics: The interpretive experiences, beliefs, and processes of ninth-grade students. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23(4), 391-423.

Rosenblatt, L.M. (1991). Literature S.O.S.! Language Arts, 68(6), 444-423.

Roser, N.L., & Martinez, M.G. (Eds.). (1995). Book talk and beyond: Children and teachers respond to literature. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Schultz, K. (1994). "I want to be good; I just don't get it": A fourth grader's entrance into a literacy community. Written Communication, 11(3), 381-413.

Short, K.G., & Pierce, K. M. (Eds.). (1990). Talking about books: Creating literature comunities. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Sperling, M. (1991). Dialogues of deliberation. Written Communication, 8(2), 131-162.

Stanovich, K. (1990). A call for an end of the paradigm wars in reading research. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 221-231.

Teale, W.H. (1987). Emergent literacy: Reading and writing development in early childhood. In Research in literacy: Emerging perspectives: Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 45-74). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Tierney, R.J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship: Interaction, transactions and outcomes. In R. Barr, M.L., Kamil, P., Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume II (pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.

Villaume, S.K., Worden, T., Williams, S., Hopkins, L., & Rosenblatt, C. (1994). Five teachers in search of a discussion. The Reading Teacher, 47(6), 480-487.

Walmsley, S.A., & Walp, T.P. (1990). Integrating literature and composing into the language arts curriculum: Philosophy and practice. The Elementary School Journal, 90(3), 251-274.

Watts, S. (1995). Vocabulary instruction during reading lessons in six classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 27(3), 399-424.

Williams, J.M., & Colomb, G.G. (1993). The case for explicit teaching: Why what you don't know won't help you. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 252-264.

Wood, E., Winnie, P.H., & Carney, P. A. (1995). Evaluating the effects of training high school students to use sumamrization when training includes analogically similar information. Journal of Reading Behavior: A Journal of Literacy, 27(4), 605-626.

Return to Main Speakers


Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted October 1997
© 1997-2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232