ILA's New Digital Experience Is Here! Learn More

Literacy Now

Ask a Researcher
ILA Membership
ILA Next
ILA Journals
ILA Membership
ILA Next
ILA Journals
  • Alfred W. Tatum
    • Blog Posts
    • Ask a Researcher

    What Does Research Say About African American and Latino Boys and Reading?

    by Alfred W. Tatum
     | Jan 29, 2014

    Alfred W. Tatum
    by Alfred W. Tatum
    University of Illinois at Chicago
    January 29, 2014

     

    Question:

    How could research guide us to advance the literacy development of African American and Latino boys in K8 classrooms?

    Response:

    African American and Latino Boys and ReadingFor more than 20 years, I have focused on advancing the literacy development of low-academically performing and high-academically performing boys and youth in the elementary, intermediate, and middle grades. Critical to this work was ongoing reflection and bringing together research findings across multiple domains (e.g., cognitive, sociological, and historical) that would allow me to sharpen my teaching, identify and select texts, and shape classrooms contexts to nurture boys’ confidence that reading and writing are tools of human development. As a result of my analysis of several frames of research, I have settled on the premise that each literacy lesson for boys should have twin aims. The first is teaching a lesson to ensure they are becoming better readers and writers. The second, and equally important, is selecting and discussing texts in ways to ensure young boys become “smarter” about something during each lesson. In short, literacy lessons should concurrently focus on building students’ reading and writing skills and nurturing their intellectual development. One without the other is insufficient. This understanding emerged from a research journey that has led to at minimum four lessons that I share below:

    Lesson #1: Relying on current reading and writing research alone will yield insufficient guidance for advancing the literacy development of boys, particularly African American and Latino males,  because much of the research ignores approaches to literacy and intellectual development that have been effective for more than 300 years in the United States (Tatum, 2008, Tatum & Muhammad, 2012). Expanding the research lens is important for honoring the historical precedence that will challenge some current assumptions that it is difficult to engage boys with reading and writing. Outside of my first year of teaching, I have never had difficulty engaging boys with reading and writing texts and subsequently helping them become better readers, writers, and thinkers as result of this expanded lens.

    Lesson #2: Honor the multiple identities boys bring into the classroom and avoid “imprisoning reading lessons by smallness” by only focusing on the boys’ racial and linguistic identities. Young boys also have developmental, gender, personal, community, national/international, and economic identities. Selecting and discussing texts through multiple identities are important for shaping meaningful literacy exchanges that will impact boys beyond a given lesson (Tatum, 2009, Tatum, in press a). I have observed too many teachers fall short because reliance on the text default that exists for African American and Latino boys. The text default is defined as selecting certain texts for certain students based on a limited view of their humanity and limited recognition of their need to read and learn from a wide range of texts across disciplines. Soft texts that often focus on emotional and aspiration needs (e.g., beating the odds) are selected over hard texts that can potentially connect boys to disciplines (e.g. discovering the need to read more science). There needs to be greater balance early on and often (Tatum, in press b).

    Lesson #3: Move beyond a slow-growth model of literacy development that is anchored by the goal to have students meet minimum standards as the metric for success. While this has been a focus in the U.S. for more than three decades, the minimalist approach is counterproductive for high-performing boys who are often ignored by this approach and for low-performing boys who experience fewer and easier texts that usually focus on minimum standards (Tatum, 2013). Moving boys to reading at advanced levels requires a different orientation. How we conceptualize literacy for boys will affect their literacy experiences in classrooms (Tatum, 2005). This point holds true without regard to students’ ethnicities or their parents’ economic status.

    Lesson #4: Becoming paralyzed by a common refrain that suggests a natural divide between African American and Latino boys and reading is problematic. Instead, there is a need to focus on cementing a marriage between boys and reading and writing to tackle the challenges we often encounter as educators when teaching boys who struggle with both.

    I share lessons from a research journey to indicate that our questions will continue to change, our demands to do good by the young boys in the U.S. and other nations will continue to grow, and the need to share ongoing lessons emerging from ethically responsible research will be our pathway to ensure boys receive the literacy instruction they deserve.

    For more on this topic see
    www.studentsatthecenter.org/topics/literacy-practices-african-american-male-adolescents.

     


    References

    Dillenbourg, P. (Ed.,Tatum, A.W. (2005). Teaching reading to black adolescent males: Closing the achievement gap. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.

    Tatum, A. W. (2008). Toward a more anatomically complete model of literacy instruction: A focus on African American male adolescents and texts. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 155-80.

    Tatum, A. W. (2009). Reading for Their Life: (Re) building the textual lineages of African American adolescent males. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

    Tatum, A.W. & Muhammad, G. (2012). African American males and literacy development in contexts that are characteristically urban. Urban Education, 47(2), 434-463.

    Tatum, A.W. (2013). Identity and literacy instruction for African American males. In R. Wolfe, A. Steinberg, & N. Hoffman (Eds.), Anytime Anywhere: Student-centered learning for schools and teachers, (pp. 103-121). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

    Tatum, A. W. (in press a). Orienting African American male adolescents toward meaningful literacy exchanges with texts. Journal of Education.

    Tatum, A.W. (in press b). Texts and adolescents: Embracing connections and connectedness. In. K. Hinchman & H. K. Sheridan-Thomas (Eds.), Best Practice in Adolescent Literacy Instruction, (2nd ed.).New York: Guilford.


    This article is from the International Reading Association’s Literacy Research Panel. Read more about the LRP Blog here. Reader response is welcomed. E-mail your comments to LRP@reading.org

    by Alfred W. Tatum University of Illinois at Chicago January 29, 2014   Question: How could research guide us to advance the literacy development of African American and Latino boys in K–8 classrooms? Response: For more than 20 years, I have...Read More
    • Blog Posts
    • Ask a Researcher

    Research on Vocabulary Instruction and the Common Core

    by Tanya S. Wright
     | Jan 22, 2014

    Tanya S. Wright
    by Tanya S. Wright
    Michigan State University
    January 22, 2014

     

    Question:

    What does new research tell us about vocabulary instruction, especially at the K–2 level? Are there ways we should be re-envisioning vocabulary in light of the CCSS?

    Response:

    Vocabulary Instruction for Grades K-2The Common Core State Standards ratchet up vocabulary demands for K–2 by calling for children to read and be read to from informational texts from the start of school. While academic vocabulary knowledge is critical for comprehension more broadly (Biemiller, 2006; Nagy & Townsend, 2012), the vocabulary found in informational texts may create different challenges for young readers compared to vocabulary found in fiction (Hiebert & Cervetti, 2012).New vocabulary words in informational texts often represent new concepts for young children. Think about the challenge of explaining the word ecosystem to first graders who are listening to a book about forests compared to explaining a sophisticated word for a known concept such as injured means “hurt.” Further, informational text vocabulary may have specialized meanings in particular subject areas. "Front" has a different meaning in a book about weather compared to everyday situations such as being in front when you are lining up for recess. This can be especially confusing if children try to understand an informational text with the everyday meaning in mind. The same vocabulary word may be repeated more frequently within an informational text compared to challenging words that occur in fiction. So, a confusing word meaning can cause comprehension problems again and again in the same book. While it is clear that supporting children’s vocabulary development is more important than ever, in our recent study in 55 kindergarten classrooms we found very limited attention to vocabulary development (Wright & Neuman, in press). Also, we found minimal time spent on activities that support children’s engagement with the type of vocabulary needed for informational text comprehension: on average less than 2 minutes per day spent reading aloud from informational text, 2 minutes per day of science and only 1 minute per day of social studies.

    What can teachers do to support vocabulary learning in K–2 classrooms? Most importantly, teachers should engage in activities that promote vocabulary development such as reading aloud from informational text as well as fiction, building word and world knowledge through content area learning, and facilitating discussions using challenging vocabulary (Neuman & Wright, 2013). In addition, here are some of the important steps in teaching vocabulary explicitly:

    1. Select vocabulary to teach each week from read alouds and also from content you are teaching. Examine your science, social studies, and mathematics curricula for vocabulary to support informational text comprehension.
    2. Explain word meanings to children during reading using child-friendly definitions.
    3. Help children to make connections by discussing the ways that new vocabulary relate to one another and to children’s existing knowledge (e.g., in an informational book about plants, discuss that embryo and cotyledon are both parts of a seed or that evergreen and deciduous are two categories of plants). (Neuman, Newman, & Dwyer, 2011; Silverman, Proctor, Harring, Dowle, Mitchell, & Meyer, 2014).
    4. Create opportunities for children to practice using new vocabulary in meaningful contexts (e.g., during a science exploration or during discussion of a read aloud).
    5. Review, review, review. Children learn word meanings over time, strengthening their knowledge each time a word is encountered (Biemiller & Boote, 2006). Read the same book multiple times or read a set of books on the same topic to provide repeated opportunities for children to encounter new vocabulary.
    6. Monitor children’s progress. Watch and listen to see if children are able to use new words that have been taught.

    For more on this topic, see:

    Wright, T. S. (in press). From potential to reality: Content-rich vocabulary and informational text. The Reading Teacher.



    References

    Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In D. K. Dickinson & S. B. Neuman (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 2) (pp. 41-51). New York: Guilford Press.

    Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 44-62.

    Hiebert, E.H., & Cervetti, G.N. (2012). What differences in narrative and informational texts mean for learning and instruction of vocabulary. In E. J. Kame’enui & J. F. Baumann (eds). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice (2nd Ed) (p. 322-344). New York: Guilford.

    Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91-108.

    Neuman, S. B., Newman, E. H., & Dwyer, J. (2011). Educational effects of a vocabulary intervention on preschoolers' word knowledge and conceptual development: A cluster‐randomized trial. Reading Research Quarterly, 46, 249-272.

    Neuman, S. B. & Wright, T. S. (2013). All about words: Increasing vocabulary in the Common Core classroom, PreK-2. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

    Silverman, R. D., Proctor, C. P., Harring, J. R., Doyle, B., Mitchell, M. A., & Meyer, A. G. (2014). Teachers' instruction and students' vocabulary and comprehension: An exploratory study with English monolingual and Spanish–English bilingual students in Grades 3–5. Reading Research Quarterly, 49, 31-60.

    Wright, T. S., & Neuman, S. B. (in press). Paucity and disparity in kindergarten oral vocabulary instruction. Journal of Literacy Research.


    This article is from the International Reading Association’s Literacy Research Panel. Read more about the LRP Blog here. Reader response is welcomed. E-mail your comments to LRP@reading.org

    by Tanya S. Wright Michigan State University January 22, 2014   Question: What does new research tell us about vocabulary instruction, especially at the K–2 level? Are there ways we should be re-envisioning vocabulary in light of the CCSS?...Read More
  • Robert Slavin
    • Blog Posts
    • Ask a Researcher

    What are the Pros and Cons of Grouping Kids for Reading Instruction Based on Test Results?

     | Sep 13, 2013

    Robert Slavin
    by Robert Slavin
    Johns Hopkins School of Education
    September 12, 2013

     

    Question:

    What is the research related to the practice of grouping kids for reading based on test results of some sort and then sending them to classrooms for reading instruction based on this grouping? What are the pros and cons of this practice? I believe it is a current practice similar to the Joplin plan. I can find the research about the Joplin plan but is there any more recent research?

    Response from Robert Slavin:

    There is remarkably little research on grouping children for reading instruction, but I'll tell you what I know about.

    As you note, there is a good bit of evidence supporting use of the Joplin Plan, and for this reason we use Joplin Plan in our Success for All program. In Joplin Plan, students are grouped based on their reading levels regardless of their age, so you might have a 3-1 (third grade, first semester) reading class composed of second, third, and fourth graders. In Joplin Plan, there has to be a common reading time across the school, so kids all go from their homerooms to their reading classes at the same time.

    A key aspect of the Joplin Plan is that children are assessed in reading (on curriculum-specific assessments, ideally) every 6-8 weeks, so that as children make exceptional progress, their groupings can change. If children are not keeping up with their group we recommend tutoring or small-group assistance, not moving children to a lower group.

    As you note, the research on the Joplin Plan (Gutierrez & Slavin, 1992) is supportive but quite old. I wrote a review with Roberto Gutierrez that included Joplin Plan, but I’m not aware of any additional studies in the 20 years after that.

    There are several attributes of Joplin Plan that would make me cautious about using “very similar” grouping schemes. First, many teachers test and assign children to reading groups within the same grade (producing high, middle, and low fourth grade reading classes, for example). This can create several problems. First, it sets up reading classes for which teachers may have low expectations (e.g., low fourth grades). Second, it may not reduce heterogeneity enough to allow teachers to avoid ability grouping within classes. The major gain from Joplin Plan is the opportunity to teach all children together, without having to assign a lot of seatwork while the teacher is teaching one reading group. This greatly expands time for teaching. Grouping within grades but maintaining reading groups within each class would not provide this benefit.

    Another key factor in Joplin Plan is the use of regular reassessments and regrouping. This ensures that students are at just the right level and enables teachers to correct any errors in initial grouping, which can be considerable. If grouping is done only within grades, it may be hard to find another appropriate group if children are doing very well.

    In addition to grouping by reading level, it is commonplace for educators to recommend to teachers that they group by skill need (all the students who need work on drawing inferences) or by interest (all the students interested in butterflies).  Sadly, there is even less research available to guide us on the effectiveness of these plans for grouping than there is for the Joplin Plan.  About the best we can say is that in a good implementation of the Joplin Plan, individual differences can be accommodated by supplementary tutoring or small group work.

    I wish I had more evidence or wisdom to share on this important question. You’d think there would be a lot more research on such a question that every elementary teacher has to face!


    Robert Slavin is currently Director of the Center for Research and Reform in Education at Johns Hopkins University.


    References

    Gutiérrez, R., & Slavin, R.E. (1992). Achievement effects of the nongraded elementary school. A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 62, 333-376.


    Reader response is welcomed. Email your comments to LRP@reading.org

    by Robert Slavin Johns Hopkins School of Education September 12, 2013   Question: What is the research related to the practice of grouping kids for reading based on test results of some sort and then sending them to classrooms for reading...Read More
  • ILA Membership
    ILA Next
    ILA Journals
    ILA Membership
    ILA Next
    ILA Journals
  • Sharon Vaughn
    • Blog Posts
    • Ask a Researcher

    What Type of Literature Circle Grouping Works Best—Same Ability or Mixed Ability?

     | Jul 29, 2013

    Sharon Vaughn
    by Sharon Vaughn
    The University of Texas
    July 29, 2013

     

    Question:

    I teach a 4th grade self-contained class. I am a huge proponent of reading of all types—from magazines to wordless picture books. I have always supported the use of literature circles within the classroom. I have typically always used a same-ability grouping for students in literature circles. My question is: What type of grouping works best—same ability or mixed ability?

    Response from Sharon Vaughn:

    It is important to consider what grouping practice is most effective for engaging readers and promoting successful outcomes. Fortunately, the answer is not limited to choosing between mixed- and same-ability grouping. The most successful grouping procedures in classrooms involve a range of grouping structures that are selected based on the learning needs of the students and the instructional goals of the teacher. One of the important decisions you have made that is associated with improved outcomes in reading is to provide small group instruction for your students (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 1999).

    Ask a ResearcherLet’s specifically consider the question asked about same- and mixed-ability grouping for literature circles. You may know that until the 1990s, students were grouped for reading instruction into relatively homogeneous groups based on teachers’ judgment of ability, placement tests, and/or previous grouping arrangements (Barr & Dreeben, 1991; Kulik & Kulik, 1982).  Most teachers divided students into three or four reading groups within their class. Occasionally, teachers grouped students with students from other classes who had the same perceived reading ability and needs. 

    Why has this practice changed? First, research revealed that students who were the poorest readers received instruction of poor quality focusing on isolated skills, with minimal time for reading connected text (Hiebert, 1983). Even students appearing to read at the same level may have very different instructional needs (Buly & Valencia, 2002). Also, there was inadequate opportunity for students to move between groups, influencing students’ self-perceptions and friendship choices (Hallinan & Sorensen, 1985; Oakes, Gamoran, & Page, 1992). However, effective teachers can overcome many of these problems associated with same-ability groups by assuring high-quality, responsive instruction to all same-ability groups and using other grouping practices to support student success such as mixed-ability groups, one-on-one instruction, and student pairing. In these contexts, students are grouped not by ability but by other factors such as their interests or consideration of group dynamics.

    So, consider providing opportunities for students to work in both same- and mixed-ability grouping structures.   Also consider using other grouping formats such as peer-pairing, which can be particularly effective for rereading and promoting fluency, and one-on-one instruction addressing the specific learning needs of students. Our research suggests that these alternative grouping formats are especially important to consider for students with learning disabilities (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes, & Moody, 1999). And thank you for your question!

    Sharon Vaughn is the H.E.Hartfelder/Southland Corp Regents Chair of Human Development and executive director of the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk at The University of Texas at Austin.



    References

    Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1991). Grouping students for reading instruction. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 885-910). New York, NY: Longman.

    Buly, M.R., & Valencia, S.W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3), 219–239.

    Elbaum, B., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Moody, S. W. (1999). Grouping practices and reading outcomes for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 65, 399-415.

    Hallinan, M. T., & Sorensen, A. B. (1985). Ability grouping and student friendships. American Educational Research Journal, 22, 485-499.

    Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 231-255.

    Kulik, C. C., & Kulik, J. A. (1982). Research synthesis on ability grouping. Educational Leadership, 39, 619-621.

    Oakes, J., Gamoran, A., & Page, R. N. (1992). Curriculum differentiation: Opportunities, outcomes, and meanings. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 570-608). New York, NY: Macmillan.

    Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Walpole, S. (1999). Effective schools/accomplished teachers. The Reading Teacher, 53, 156-159.


    Reader response is welcomed. Email your comments to LRP@reading.org

    by Sharon Vaughn The University of Texas July 29, 2013   Question: I teach a 4th grade self-contained class. I am a huge proponent of reading of all types—from magazines to wordless picture books. I have always supported the use of...Read More
  • Nonie Lesaux
    • Blog Posts
    • Ask a Researcher

    Should Families of English Language Learners Have an English-Only Rule at Home?

     | Jun 10, 2013

    Nonie Lesaux

    by Nonie Lesaux
    Harvard Graduate School of Education
    June 10, 2013

     

    The short answer to this question is: no. An English-only rule at home is unlikely to support English language learners’ (ELLs) academic development in the way that one might think. In fact, it’s likely to do more harm than good.

    Encouraging all families to talk (and talk, and talk!) in the languages with which they are most comfortable (most often their native languages) is a key way to provide children with the learning experiences they need for reading success (Snow, Porche, Tabors, & Harris, 2007). In other words, from the earliest years, families can help build knowledge about the world and therefore children’s literacy skills by having rich conversations at home in familiar languages. 

    lesaux diagram

    How is it that rich conversations at home in a language other than English can probably better support a child’s English language and reading development than conversations in English?

    When caregivers speak using the language that best facilitates sharing ideas, telling stories, and having rich dialogue, they are boosting children’s world knowledge, which almost always boosts their ability to read in any language (August & Shanahan, 2006). We need to help families realize that the accumulation of knowledge, over time, is what enables children to read and understand the texts they will encounter in later school years (Lesaux, 2012). It is also what enables critical thinking as adults. In the end, it is depth of knowledge about the world that is a difference maker in reading achievement.

    Because it is natural to use more words and spin more creative narratives in the language that is most comfortable, an English-only rule at home doesn’t make sense. When children develop deep understanding of concepts in their home languages, they then just need to map a new label, in English, to a concept they already grasp. This is much like we do, as adults, when we are in a foreign country--we learn the names of familiar concepts in the foreign language in order to navigate the new territory.

    To support our ELLs’ vocabulary knowledge and literacy development, we need to partner with all families to support and encourage the use of questioning, dialogue, and storytelling in everyday moments to build up children’s knowledge of language—in whatever style and language comes most naturally.


    References

    August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds., 2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.

    Lesaux, N.K. (2012). Reading and Reading Instruction for Children from Low-Income and Non-English-Speaking Households. Future of Children, 22(2), 73-88.

    Snow, C. E., Porsche, M. V., Tabors, P. O., & Harris, S. R. (2007). Is literacy enough? Pathways to academic success for adolescents. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.


    Reader response is welcomed. Email your comments to LRP@reading.org

    by Nonie Lesaux Harvard Graduate School of Education June 10, 2013   The short answer to this question is: no. An English-only rule at home is unlikely to support English language learners’ (ELLs) academic development in the way that one...Read More
Back to Top

Categories

Recent Posts

Archives