c' · 2014-02-18 · DOCUONT RESUME. CS 006 242. Farr, 'Roger. Reading; .Trends and Cha llenges.',What Reseaich Says to he Teacher. National Education Association, Washington, D.C.

,ED 207 005

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTIONREPORT'NOPUB DATE'NOTE

DOCUONT RESUME

CS 006 242

Farr, 'RogerReading; .Trends and Cha llenges.',What Reseaich Says tohe Teacher.

National Education Association, Washington, D.C.1st:1'1-p-6106-1054-x

33p.AVAILABLE FROM

I

.1.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

ABSTRACTIntendedto h

teaciling practices an4 gbacurrent reading instruct

, research and trends.reading and literachow well 'clildretag past are rsection, onof readincomprehcrdticon

O.

National Education Association,, Order Department, The .-

Academic Building, Saw Hill Rd., West Haven, CT 06516-'(Stock Ho. 1054-X-00, $1.50).

1 el

IMF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from zpas.7*Edubational Trends; Elementary,Education; ReadingComprehension;.*Reading InstructioniArReadingResearch; Reading Teache Teacher Role; Teaching,Methods

;1

reading educators keep their,up to date, this booklet examinesand assesses the state of reading

owing a brief'ditcussion of the meaning ofsection on:the status of heading discusses

ad today and wh ther,,the teaching practices ofy the answer to .to art reading problems. The next

earch on teaching r ing, gives a historical overviewesearch trends, discus es the research focils on

on and its implicatig s for teaching, &Id examines ,therole of the teacher fi reading instruction. A bibliography

es the booklet. (HT; / 4

:

c'

4.

410,

f-

a

.2111*************************,************4*******************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best.that can be made

* ' from the original document,: ,, ***********************************************m************************

. -, L. . ., -

.. \

o

)/

. ,

7

Whet Reseaoh Says to the Teacher

.Reading: Trends 1

and Challengesby Poger Farr

..

U. otownwarir aEDUCATION

NA'TIO NAY. INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATkONAI, RESOURCES iNFORNIATIOS),/

CENTER Vic/he

cl..;tISotamersi has been rep, As

casai Rom to meson. a Insfashnon

.0914Teg '1'

-J Mow ~Zs NAM Won mask to onprove

ropmaucheet. (a me -----_,__oyeftsol ve.. or opnoons staled into& 6:0

merit 60 not ItototWiy repnaar4 efe.4INIE

POirtOe, or PDSKY .

k

- -

,.

4

"I?ERMISSION TO PEPRODUCeNHISMATERIAL. IN..-MiCROFICHE ONLY1-IXS BEEN GRANTED BY

-etititfnal. EducationAssOcition of dieUrtitd States

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CEFICR (ERIC)."

.---...

a

National Education AssociationWashington, D.C.

-64:

I

. --

,

.

a.

Il

I'

-;V

446

Copyright 't 198iNational Education Associ pon of the United States

Stuck No.'10547X-00

0

Note

.

I

r

The opnuons ex pressed ln t !us publican,onshoukl not be lvnstrurd as representing thepolicy or position of the National Education Assocution Materials published as partof the What Research Says to the Teaches series arc intended to be discussion documints for teachers who are con.Aspeid watt specialized interests of the profession.

44

Acknowledgment -

Front c9ver photography by Band Fart of students in the library of the UniversityMiddle School and back coverphotography by David Farr of swarms in the Ulmer-svy Elementary School, Monroe cpunty Community School Corporation. Blooming-ton.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

FrfAiOSCI CAReading trends and-challenges.

.(What researth says to the teacher) ,Bibliography pit Reading. 2 'Readi9g comprehension 3 Illiteracy

I Tuk. 11 Series .1.B1050 F328 428 4 81-38393158,10-8106-1034-X AACR2 . it

.. le 4 I 3

I

1 .,--.--,, ,'r

, INTENTS

I

INTRODUCTION 5

WHAT IS READING? 5At .

STATUS OF READING' .., .. - 7 ,

Literacy and Equality,.

. $- ..How Well Do Tycy Read? , c 11

Were the "Good Old Days" Really-Bettor'2--- 11

RESEARCH ON TEACHING READING 13

Historical Review of Research 'Trends* t4Comprelf4nsion,-the Continuipg,Focus, of

Research and Practice .,. , . 17

.., Implications for Teaching Reading . 20

The Teacher Is Still the Key , ,. .40. -. 23' .1',

BIBLIOGRAPHY . .. -1,. 26 --.

iw 0

a

V

ft.

1

a

Roger Farr is Professor of Education at Indiana University, Bloom-ington A former president .of the International Reading Association,classroom teacher, and reading consultant, Dr. Farris the author,co-author, and ed i to r,of numerous publications, as wellas a frequentcontnbutor to professional journals.

The Advisory Panel . ,Kenneth S Goodman, 'Professor of Education, University of Arizona.Tucson

Darlene R Johnson, Reading Specialist, Walker and DawesSchools, Evanston, Illinois

Elizabeth' Carros Keroack, English teacher, Shawsheen Valley RegionalVocatiorial-Technical High School, Billerica, Massachusetts

Gary L. Manning, Associate Professor of Education, University of Alabamain Birmingham

Maryann M Manning, Associate Professor of Education, University of Al-abama in Birmingham. /

Irvin K. Sasaki, fifth Rade teacher, Maemae School, HooluIu, Hawaii

V

4

'3

*)< INTRODUCTION '. -

As professionals who would develop readers-and thus thinkers.and doers -we must keep our roads to professional knowledge openThis is the very principle essential to guaranteeing htoracy Becausereading is the heart of education, the apportunifiesforSll persons tolearn must remain as open as %%have kept our professional quest.

Our search for more effective deans io teach reading must beginwith a continuous reexamination of both our literacy goals and ourdefinition of what a means to be literate. Thus this monograph begins,with a brief review of these topics It is not adequate to merely review

. our,goifs, however, if we expect to irn-p-rave. In additHm, we need toknow how successful our past efforts have been. Improvement isbased on an understanding of strengths and weaknesses Despite mgmficant a ccomplithme nts in promoting literacy for all citizens, much

Iremains to be done. For example, while ore children than evertbe-fore have reached basic literacy levels, th re seems to be a leveling offor even a slight decline in higher-level reading cotnprehension skills -

Instructional practices are based on agreed-upon goals as well ason an understanding of strengths and weaknesses But it is researchthat provides us With insights into the particular strategies to adoptand adapt in our classrooms. Research, however, includes not onlythose controlled experiments designed to study learning processes,Alt also the-traditions of good teaching growing from the years oftrial-and-error efforts of numerous teachers -a kind of continuingaction research.

WHAT IS READING?The study of reading usu ally evolves into the broader study °niter-

acy. And the study of literacy become* involved with such issues asfunctional literacy (88, 40),* tfie definitions of functional and basicliteracy (59, 56), and the natinje. of litellicy (75, 77).

.umben in parentheses Appearing in the text rein to the Bibliography beginning onpalm 26.

r.5

at

L

tr:For purposes of this monograph the definition of literacy is broad-

er than merely a person's ability to read and write This simple defini- _

tion omits a vital dimension the use of literacy skills to provide a \ci, on with one more opportunity for a richer and fuller life. Theadd dimension emphasizes omprehension and communication ofideas the goals of literacy. Both Roger's College Thesaurus (1976)and the Random House Lnabndged Dicrionary (1978) emphasizedisseminating knowledge and increasing understanding as the Reydimensions of literacy when they list ignorant as the prime synonymof illiterate Other synonyms for illiterate in the Thesaurus includeunread, uncultivated, if:learned, unlettered, and empty- headed ...

Since thp Thesaurus and the Random House Dictionary attempt toreflect common usage, it becomes obvious that illiteracy has a generalconnotation of lack of knowledge and understanding

lithe definition of literacy emphasizes -comprehension, -it followsthat reading, as one aspect of literacy, should also be concernedprimarily with comprehension When we examine reading as a com-prehension or information process, we come to understand that (t)the process involves gelling meaning from and bringing meaning rothe printed page, (2) reading depends on one's language developmentand background, (3) grammatical patterns and the redundancy oflanguage are dies to comprehension, (4) leading is communication,and (5).,,why qne reads determines what one takes away from the_reading. .

The goal of reading instruction is obviously- confused when ateacher rates that he or phe is attempting to teach children to lovereading We d not be trying to encourage children to love read-ing Rither, we should teaching reachniso that children learn thatreading is one more awe qe to help them do and enjoy those things,they want td do'and enj y.

To prove the point, thellowingexpenment aught help The next\time a teacher proclaims hetor his love for reading, offer that persona 500-page book on nonparainetric statistics Unless the teacher is astatistician, the response will usually be a polite "No, thank you:accompanied by an explanation of the person's general interests andparticular readang preferences. The point is obviouswe all yea nt toroil the things That Will help us learn abdut something, build or repairsomething, vicariously enjoy an author's expenences or life in anoth-

.. .

6

`04

41

7

er time or,setting, We do not readjust for the sheer joy of cast ng oureyes across printed symbols. We read for the personal means in theresult of reading and that should be our goal in teathing c dren toread: We can teach children to love making things,findi g out aboutnew ideas, and enjoying a vanety of expenences, but we cannot teachthem to love reading Reading is a means to anInd, not ad end initself.

STATUS OF'READINGCntics of education-have been very obvious throughout the history

of US. education The focus of much of their cnticism has been onreading and literacy. At times,,these critics have identified important

,--educationaLproblems-bulasineml-they hase_based their attacks'on personal biases and have not substantiatedtheir claims with data

Arthur E. Bestor's Educational Wastelands (4) ejeinplified thelong-running debate about the effectiveness "today's education "Bestor insisted that "educationists" had taken intellectual disciplinesout of the educatjniprocess, and as a result, children were not beingtaught how to think More frequently, however: attacks on the devel-opment of language skills in the schools were less intellectual thanBtor's, citing merely examples of poor spelling and grammatical us-age by children.'

In 1955 with the appearance of Rudolph Flesch's Why Johnny. Cap t Read (31)contending that phonics instruction in the schools

hat been replaced by a look-say" method. result of which thechildreh of the nation were unable to read nticism focused onreading instruction. This book had considerable impact and generatS substantial lay and professional response In reyiewingand writi4about it, most penodicals included cntical responses In Newsweek,William S. Gray stressed that there was more than one method toteach reading,' in Tune, Ruth Dunbar called the booka "hue and crydirected at a strawman."' Flesch was subjected to analyses pointingout numerous errors am his book, arguing that he was witting aboutpronouncing- npt understanding words, and insisting that phonics was being taught, in conjunction with othet methods. Several pub-

.4

O

lieattens initiated lengthy series about how readily; was being.taught 4 It was a flare-up in a debate that continues even today.5

With the advent of Sputnik in 1956, the concern. whipped up byFlistb boiled over Although initially focused on science training, itquickly exPinded to education in general and to reading inparticu;lar Comparisons of U S and Russian schools attempted topplain

- how our nation lost the first lap in the race into space. Flesch's con-tention that phonics was a key answer being ignored became the crit-ics',.battle cry, the Saturday -Rev.:eh attempt to suggest that readinginstruction was more complex than a phonics versus look-say" di-lemma earned a reader's Cart response. "There is a real war on inreading, and for the future well-being of American Education, it isimportant that the right side win."6

Exemplifying the impact of the space race o$ educational criticism,Arthur TraCe's What Ivan Knohs That JohnAy Doesn't (96) insistedthat, corittarytollopulaY'OpiriiOrf, Russian schools did not neglecttraining in the humanities in favor of math and science. Rather, thebook asserted, they did a much better job than U.S schools In theSaturday Evening Post (97), Trace compared the U.S reading texts'controlled rocabula'nes with what he claimed wore the Russian pu-pils much larger lexicons developed at the earliest ages.

Trace's book and rcollection edited by Charles C.Walcutt (100.although typical of criticism in the early 1960i, were not heavily sup-ported with dpta Oddly, there was no tendency in such abate toapply Achievement trend data, which in those years would haveshown marked gains in comparison with any previous penods.

A third great wave of concern and criticism has resulted front thereported decline, in test scores,particularly, on college entranceexams and it is, once again, highly attentive to reading and reading-related areas.

Literacy and EqualityBefore reviewing the data regarding reading trends, it is important

tqreview the trend in U & schoolslo equalize educational opportuni-ties Without a recognition of this movement, we will not be able to)fully appreciatc'the trends in reading achievement. .

8

V- - -

Any review of the data regarding school enrollments indicates trc-mendjus progress in extending educational opportunities to broadersegm.ents of our population While in 1950 less than half of the highschool graduates went on to_college,Fby 1977 that figure reached 80percent Obviously, our schocils arc now offering college preparatorycuMcula;o many more children of varying abilities and educationalbackgrounds while imparting basic literacy in general. Surely this hasmuch to do with desegregation which began in the 1950's

In acknowledging this situation, one need not be naive about thedepict of progress made ip equalizing educational opportunity, itvaries by state and locality, and in some areas has only recently hadanything like a full effect. The history of education for Blacks in aninland county in Florida makes thit point clear

After the Cirri War,_separate schools for black children were_GrstestaITaia iriFfoiicia in 1866. Before,that time, airy education ofblack children in that state was the concern of two private agencies. Insome areas, state-supported educational opportunity came much lat-er Although settlement of this particular central Florida county be-gan in 1911, the quality of education for Blacks has improved very?lowly All but a few of the county's Blacks still live in segregated"quarters" apart from the county's three major towns. Most of themhave always been migrant lap) hands, educated until 1938 in churchschools when there were no crops to hantst In that year, a state-supported school began in one of the black communities. Forced in-tegra 'tion of schools within the countyfrom the lower grades updid not begin until 1971 and was not completed until 1979-80Attendance of black children. is still quite irregular and unenforced

This brief history of the education of blac udcnts in one countyhelps explain the fact that in 1978,70 per nt of the minority studentsin Florida who took the state's co tency test, failed it In manyareas of, the United States, btaerchildren have moved slowly fromsegregated systems into...the mainstream school systems, bringingwith them the disadvantaged background of the separatist schoolsthey were forced to attend That the NAEP study (72) showed thegreatest gains between 1971 and 1975 for black nine-year-olds in theSoyheast United States is surely.no coincidence.

There has not been widespread agreement that these efforts to en-sure.clival opportunities in education have been compatible with

9

1 0

.1,

4

a

S. A

prov iding quoin) education in fact, a growing chorus of criticism ha sattacked not only the methods, materials, and teachers developed inadattempt to improve education for all, but the entird comprehensiveeducational system as well denerally, such criticism focuses on thedeclining scores of students taking the college entrance exams, with-out acknowledging either the fact that this group is significantlylarger and broader than in theppt or other achievement data show-ing improvement 'for the total student population. Ironically, thislack of understanding regarding the progress accdbced in tfie U.Seducational sysem is not shared by nations such as Sweden andGrim Britain These countries sec the higfiest-achieving U S stu-dents performing at feast oh a pg with their own I05), and find theremaining U S citizens better prepared by Comprehensive schoolsthan their citizens are prepared by more elitist, separatist systems forthe educational age

As Daniel Tanner (90) notes in a recent article '

It is ironic that in the 1970s various American commissions andpanels advocated that we abandon the Atnerican invention ofcomprehensive schooling at a time when advanced nations, af-ter a long and continuing effort toward educational reform, arebegunung to make significant progress toward inttituting thismodel This movement reflected the need for a morehighly educated populace to meet,the industrial and technicaldemands of post-war development add "also as a means towardsocial and,political justice in terms of social mobility and eco-nomic equality!'"

The U S system has been committed to developing each citizen'tpotential Into as viable a commodity as possible in modern scwiety sothat both the society and the individual can achieve success This thego_ al to provide equality in pbblic education has at the same =Oatenbound to the objective which wouldprovide quality education

Ralph Tyler (98) emphasizes the dual achievement of U S schoolsin providing quality education while &ntinuing to expand equality ofeducational opportunities:

This review of cross-national data on educational achievement

110

1

It4

I

_ .indicates that the U.S. educational system has clearly been re-sponsive both to the rapid changes 'Society and to4fs.bastcdemocratic ideology. It has reached a larger proportion of itsyoung people than almost all other nations,. while its top 5%have attained the same high scores reached by nations that at-tempt to teach only a small fraction of their I 8-year-olds. Thereare still problems to be solved, but the progress isencouraging(p. 310) .

How Welt Do They Read?"Why can't kids read any more''" "Why are you wasting my kid's

time with projects and games when you ought to beteaching her howtoibd9" _ _

It is probablelhaernost teachers have been bombarded with suchquestions and comments from 1.orwerned parents and other residentsin tbeir community about the reading performance of children today.These loaded questions may come from parents who have not yettaken the time to sit down with their children to discover that they arereading to complete the games and projects.

It is not difficult to identify the sources that provoke these ques-tions Magazines and newspapers regularly carry articles contendingthat out students la.k adequate reading skills and concluding that thelevel of reading competency of children and adults declines everyyear. Television and radio commen.tanes offer similar messages, butrarely do such "analyses" attempt to cite relevant statistics or mean-ingful reselrh to support their claims. Frequently they rely on select-ed exa les or inappropriate data to do so.

Were The "Good Old Days" R ally Better?.

In his sy ndicate.d column, Andy Rooney recently aimed his arsenalof questions at society's inclination to go back to the "good old daysNoting improvements in several key aspects of life, Rooney won-dered if we really do want to return to the past No aspectrof life ismore subject to the nostalgic criticism that concerns Rooney than iseducation "134ck to the basics" and minimum competency seem to be

.L4

. . .

' ... . /. .

.'. '

ralionalized.on the premaso hat children of today do not read as wellR . as children of the same age in the.past and the explanaan for this

1.

, , difference may relate, in part, 4o instructional methodologies preva-lent in the "good old days" but now;upposedly abandoned. Yet a

. ., critical look atexisiing reading performame data seriously questions.the assumption that reading perforr;iance has declined, and even a

I . rapid survey of the thousands of reading studies of the past 60years_emphasizes the de vclopnient of reading niethodulogies andrpa.tert4

. of a complex strticture founded on nctopposed to those of-goodold days." . .

In general, the reporting of readitikpeiforina c data ovei time 16iiry spotty, .And when report's al c complete eno h to permit evalua: r"-

li;ion of The research design- s., they reveal dat3 ['rein a variety of tegs :r

- , given to samples often poorly matched and data, more often than not, - 'sui;jeCted to only limited and qu4ionable statistical treatment 4nd 1.,..

analysts (28,34) Dependable reading achieverhent trend daia are ex- I.

tremely difficult to effect because of dificiences in key educationalN... .

factors, such as age-grade relatiinships, chtnges in ciarricula, andchanges fn tests bothin content and in measurement tighniques.

Et ualfy important, no achievement trend data is fully meaningful-. withoulthe careful analysis Of a host of relevant snctocconemic, de-.

mograpIY, and other societal factors for the two periods from whichscores are being compared Very rarely have any trend data been ac-

,,, companted by,i thorough contextual analyits of the periods studied, ,.

but arly,study which includes such An analysis is hkely to point up soA .

many pronounced differences that influence schools, tests, and testperformance as to question the validity of Comparing scores across .

time at all (6). .' IV ''....,

The foregoing limitations restrict.the interpretations of any rcad-

ing trend studiss.! vertheless, there is no arch on reading trends ,'4p,eto. derrffyistEate am ar.linc in reading adlievement for. the lowerprima* grades, fat er, the a,vailabIe data depict continuous im,-,prOvernent at that ley I OD), Thus dreading instruction research and '

. "the consetoent recommended Methodologies and materials haveIn. '.. i c

.-- contributed to some decline in national reading ability, such studies,"e must not include data for beginning, and early reading. Both areas

I

have been the subject of a burgeoning mays of research with instruc-tional implications (24)

..1

- ......, .)1

. ,

.. Z , . , .

_'-i- .

1

4'

13it

There as conflicting evidence on reading trends 'f the upper */,gradesthat is, in the wake of score declines on some tests given atthese levels, tither reliable trend data demonstrate improvement (50,94, 20). Nor a there any reliable synthesis of the data for these gradesThus 416spite the media's seeming conviction that children today,a renot taught to read as well as children in the past the verdict oh the

.effiKt wenesa of reading Instruction is not yet in, per is it likely to bentuntil vie have Much more andsignificantly better data, carefully and 4,

cautiously synthesized.One of the important limitations of evidence cited to support read -

ing performance decline is that it is based primarily op data fromcollege entrance exams, a nd therefore reflects on only a percentage orourstudent population in grades 11 and I2." If we are to view these,students as the highest achievekof reading instruction, we must takeinto account how that test-taking population has changed with theincreasingly extended opportunity for higher education to morestudents.

RESEARCH ON TEACHINd.READINGAlmost all reading research has been conducted since 1000 By

now, this is quite an extensive body of research, and it has been relat-ed to the interests and expertise of many other areas, including lin-guistics, commumcationsv psychology, and medicine

In 1925, William S. Gray collected and summarized ovpr 400 read-mg research studies reported up to that =etEach year since, thisannual summary has attempted to abstract all published reading re-search By the 19 's, over 140 reports were identified each year. Bythe early 1970's th animal average number rose to 300. By the mid-1970's, the a ual summary included between 500 to 600 new re-

search re orts each year, and the ,1980 volume summarized over1.000, for a grand tqtal of nearly 12,000 studies since the time thiseducational research was first 43 ublb Thus, in about 15 years thetOrt number of.the collection had, d, and it seems probable

COL The hum ber wilt doublegai .P /While the thy irsity of this gins is fascinating, each year

a high Rercc ntagefif the summaries either have concerned studies of

et 0

13

reading instruction methodoltigies or have had potential implicationsfor instruction'A quick review of any of these stpdies suggests thatthe research - recommended methods of the "good old days" are thefoundation of today's instruction Fort(or more years ago, a corner-.stone was 1n place for each of the various approaches to teachingreading from which today's teachers select methods to meet diversestud ept needs.

.

Historical Review of Research TrendsBefore 1909, the McGuffey reader was in wide 'use as the fore-

runner of the basal reader, which has since dominated reading in-struction in this wuntry. By 1900, rote memorization of the alphabetas initial reading instruction had given way both to phonic methodsand to learning sight words In addition, the s s for today's empha-sis on comprehension were sown the st reading as saccadic eyemovements and pauses encompassing units of meaning was alreadyaffecting instructionarmethods. In addition, between 1910 and 1920there was .1 growing emphasis on research lo explain readingdisabilities sti11 a major interest of reading specialists today. And

, the kinds of contro versies about instructional tech niques.tha are fre-quent today, were prevalent then Even among those advocatingstrong emphasis on phonics theft was disagreement...about teaching..methods as to the feasibility of synthetic alphabets, foraexample,and how to teach initial and final blendsounds.

Other instructional cdhcerns were also surfacing in the,1920's An,emphasi; on silent reading.was closely tied to the development ofstandardized reading tests Although standard tied testidg is consid-erably improved today, it exercises an almost intimidating influenceon tho evalbatOpg loading instruction, anclettlis results in much

' instruction geared to effect test results In the 1930's the research andtheorizing about silent reading sought to distinguish it from oral

;..« reading Today researchers-8're continuing to better understand theinterrelationship of language activities. Unfortunately, however,there is no assurance that this perspedive on reading is evenclosely approximated by the asseisment of most standardizedcriterion-referenced, or minimum cwripetthcy tests As.the cure

14

. .t, , b

tlhenomenon of trummum ,competency teging-ttie nation,language research is suggestingthat the factored subskills it teas to

,measure do not.add up to the readi;Cant., . iWino ant new.emphases in the/930's wecreNtident In major stud

ies o eading interests and comprehension These studies are intrt-cat y related in develop current understanding of rea.cli,ngias.am ningful activity tabling the leader to acquire needed informatto and ideas of personal interest This vein of research coupled withla r linguistic influences directs mar*.,reftoday's researchers seeking.

' a description of raiding asra whole language activity. .

The 1930's also saw the development of several other researchperspectives that are prevalent in reading today -for example, areasrelaKd to rerfiedial readingand Co Viness foimitial instructionDurilig the same period, attention,tAndividual differences led tohomogeneous grouping, and publishers became concerned about the-readability oftexts. Today these empillsesAierate, much research,theonzulg, mjhodology, and instructfoAeared toward a child'sprereading experiences and toiard t1te indivigualization of readinginstruction and materials. -

The new concern for readability in the 1930's also led to vocabulary/ controfnd the kind of text that is,..satlreted even today for its "Dick

and Jane" insipidity. Interestingly, such texts still bear the brunt ofaccusations linking them to the ,charge that schools are failing toteach reading. Yet Dick and Jane readers were libsolete long beforethe 60's students with declining.-SAT scores entered first grade Infact, students who learned t6 read with Dick and Jane were progressing throUgh school4 un ng the 1940'k and 1950's, and no data showsanything byt increasing readingUlucvement scoro, for those yearsWithout sanctioning the lirhited interest of the Dick-and-Jiine-tYpematerials, At should be noted that a great many Americans Iearnedjoread by using them, and that (natenak student ability fit is still a solidinstructional concept.

However, even with the attention tai both ing problems and, material fit, educators in the 1930's had yet to leads the importance of

matching readability to tile individual abilities of.srow readers whowere likely to be faced with rnaterialrdesignikifor average pupils 'at_their gradelevels. Through the years we have learned the importanceof not frustrating students with materials they cannot read, but even

.

4

1 G15

.

today, in many schools the concept of a child's independent readinglevel as the appropriate instructional level does not have instructionalimpact._ -

One might ask why the failure in the I430's to effectively teach slowlearners did not show up on test results. Tlicanswer is that thesechildren were held back to be scored at lower grade levels until theycould be encouraged to drop out of school. It is important to notethat during this pen he keen interest in poorer performers was notyet accompanied b a national movement to keep children in school.Nor was there the i nse concern for equal-educational opportunit ,ties that we are expenencing-today. In 1930, a sizable percentage WI,children oflow ability either were not in school or dropped out soonafter entering Nonetheless, through the succeeding years mon tinu-ing emphasis on extending educational opportunities, to cbildrep ofall background's and abilities and on keeping children rig Atol wasaccompanied by merit:ales in reading achievement as measured bystandardized tests, Thislact says a great deal about the developmentof the teaching of reading in the schoolsat least as it is taught tosuch tests Eien in therd- to late 1960's, when fuller integration ofour schools was slowly materializing and we were moving childrenfrom educational bjickgrounds that had been limited into the main-stream of our educational "system, test scores at elementary levelsincreased.

fle The.development of several instructional methodologies m theI90's was a reaction to the low interest levels of the tight vocabulary ,control In texts Teachers ladgan seeking and using more zoutside"materials geared to student interests. ThVy developed the.languageexperience" applqach, in which children composed their own readingmaterials Toilay, availability of a broad range of reading materials tomatch student interests and needs is understood as a basic require-menrfor effective instruction, yet students in teachers' colleges whoencounter language -ex penencellre likely to assume it is some newtechnique to be condemned or defended as a bold departure from thebasic instructional practices of the -gopd old day,5."

The 193E also laid the foundationlor themost promising currentresearch emphasig with the teaching of word meaning using sytti

'tactic and semantic clues lius the use of word partsand the use ofcontext clues were coupled icith phonic analysis in word recognition.

..

16

7

The teaching of reading has ne; been exclusively phonetic or vis-ual recognition, or exclusively meaninlvonented Critics would oftenhave us belieee that the) use of phonics is extinct or that lowerachieverrient scores have resulted from innovations Yet early in thiscentury plopics instruction itself was an innovation over a strict let-

.. ter (A. B. C) apfroach. If phonics instruction ever prevailed to theexclusion of other methods, it would have happened sometime-in the1920's before the widespread use of syntax and context and othermethodologies.

anent teaching methbdologics do not stand as some newly pro-posed absolute unrelated tothe methodologies of the past` If today'sreading instruction could be genet-faked across individual teachersand their strengths'and weak nessess if it could be generalized acrossindividual students add thou abilities and needs then the one wordthat might legitimately dcsonbe it is eelart, "selecting what appearsto be the best kr true in various and diverse doctnries or methods,rejecting a single, unitary, and 'exclusive interpretation, doctrine, ormethod. . . . " (103) This is the ultimate merging of all the under-standing developed throuit reading research over the years Espe-cially significant was the early recognition of the importance of indi-vidualized InstructiOn. which is well served by the options operacontemporary teachers.

It is alsd important to note that over the past seven decades therehas been continuous improvement in the education of t achersWhile we need to recognize the-significant contribution of the

41. teachers of decades ago. today's typical teacher is better educated and. more *qualified than those of prior years In analyzing the causes for

the increased literacy levels of elementary students, the contributionof excellent teachers is certainly An important factor

Comprehension the Continuing, Focus 9f,Research and Practice

. kis not surprisingthat them ost promisingemphasis a research onlearning to read has focusable comprehensibn Comprehension israfter all, the essential conditIon of reading. for without an under-standing of what is reap, there is no reading Only the tnpst naive

C

1

17

,.....rrn.mwr 4.1

co

person would equate reading with the act of prodouncing words, as insuch statements at This child reads well, It's just that she doesn'tcomprehend what she reads " Obviously such a statement is absurd.Researchers of the reading process, from Thorndike (92) to those oftoday (82), have demonstrated that the central focus of all aspects ofreading-is comprehension As these res9rchers have learned moreand more about the readingprocess, they have demonstrated the fu-.

tility of attempting to separate reading into the Mechanics of pro-nouncing words and the comprehension of thole word!.

Moreover, the emphasis on comprehension has been more dim anarrow emphasis on the literal meaning of the-text In 1949, Gates(41) stated that reading was neither sigiply a mechanical skill normerely a lhought-ge;ting" process According to Gates, reading canand should embrace all types of thinking, evaluating, judging. im-aginingrea;oning, nod problem solving." He further emphasizedthat the reading act is completed.or nears completion when the childapplies his her understanding in some practicakl way.

?While reading researchers have historically focused on compre-hension. their efforts have usually been to ,dentify the components ofreadinrcornprehension (19) They ha veattempted to study readingcomprehension by asstre4tiagrword meanings with symbols, select-ing correct meanings of phrases, organizing the separate ideas thatare read. retaining concepts, anll evaluating and critiquing ideas.Some researchers (27) havE attempted to study reading comprehen-sion by examining a reader's ability to handle increasingly largersegments of matenal moving from separate facts and details to the 'Imeaning'of a larger, unitary idea, for example

A historical review of the studies.on reading comprehension cm-. phasizes that what is tieing learned about reading today is based on

they/ark of past researchers Early studies attempted to view readingas a set of separate and distinct skills. they tried to determine thecomponents of reading comprehension, add, they sought to under-stand how a reader comprehends a single meaning from printed

*.tmaterial Building on those studies, kesearchcrs and theoritts havebegun to truly understand reading comprehensipn as a much Or-odderconcept Studds being conducted today focus on the logical processwhen one reads building on the background of concepts, experi-ence?, and language that the reader brings to ltic printed page, In a

es.m..m

18.0.

r 4.

...............-...."*...... ... a .... ..........s...

I 4,

sense,tht autho r's Ideas are seeded in the'reader's background As thereader attempts to explore his or her own ideas, to modify them. to fit

-new ideas Into the orgailization of her or his thinking, and to con-struct still new ideas, shed he is involved in a constant process of con-

.apt development. '.7, In a recent piper, Adams and Bruce (l)descnbe the importance of

background knowledge and the role of language in learning Theyintroduce.this seemingly simple concept by stating.

t1I

So much of what we learn, we learn through language Certain-ly most ofjoUr formal learning is acquired through language.

These observations seem almost too common to set in printYet, they turn from banal to deeply paradoxical with thereali-capon that we can only learn through language that which we,

in some sense, already know That is, through language, novelconcepts can only be communicated in the form of novel com-binations of familiar concepts (p. I)

The Adams and Bruce analysis of reading comprehension de-

scribes how a readers understanding depends on his or her conceptu-

al knowledge. social knowledge, a ndstory knowledge After discuss-

ing the research that supports their position, the authors return totheir main thesis that new learning grows out of prior learning

To say that background kno,wledge is often used, or isuseful, in

compreHending a story is misleading.. In Tact, readingcomprehension involves the constructietfi sifideas out of preex-

isting concepts. A more correct statement of the Tole of !lack-ground knowledge would be that comprehension is th,e uese9f

prior knowledge to create new knowledge. -Without priorkpowledge, a copplex object, such as i text, is not just difficult

to terpret, stnctly speaking. it is meaningless (pp 3b-37)

plc analysis that Adams and Bruce present is one that has devel-

opd asontinuing study of thehadingprocess' And the futurewit, certainly bnng increased underitandin of that process with imyriad of implications and challenges for teaching reading That

19

ti

A.

challenge for educators was framed very cogently by Robed Thorn-dike in a 1974 review of research on reading comprehension (93).

11 reading is reasoning. we face at one and thesame time a barn-cr and a challenge The barrier is that set by the child's limitedcomprehension of what he reads, which we see now as notprimarily a deficit in one or more specific and readily teachablereading skillstruf as a reflection of generally meager intellectual-processes Anil this barrier promises to stand ip the way of awide range of future learnings.

, The challenge is to overcome this bamer by betterand.mateinventive teachingnot solely to rFad, but also to think. Be-cause as we improve the understanding with which a childreads, we may concurrently improve the effectiveness, withwhich he processes a wide range of inflormatiorrtmportant in hisdevelopment The challenge is also to learn to exploit for educa-tibnal advantage the individual's resources for reasoningthrough other media than words, so that the barrier of verballimitation may be bypassed whenever it is not relevant. (p. 147)

Implications for Teaching ReadingTo content that reading instruction in most classrooms in the

United States !lac been eilectic since the 1930's does not ignore theexistence of many issues and differences of opinion among readingspecialists and rikarchers. There are indeed p'roponents of instruc-tional approaches that are relatively exclusive of other approachesNqr does arguing that all methodologies in practice todaj+ have rootsin those of the earlier decades of this century mean that most of thequestions about reading have been atiswered. The ongoing attempt todefine Ind assess literacy is bnly OM example of an unresolved issuelOca,ding And, If ever we have, fill* definitive answers to sofnequestiOns whic is u those answer's will ony leaf to dewquestions That's what research is, a way of asking questions andsearching far answss.

What, then,Can We ,ay about the teaching of rearing after 80 yeirsand over 12,000 investigations" What do We know with certaintyabout effective and ineffective reading instruction Some statements

20

a 21. S

e

Nis

can be, made with the assurance that most 1-en-archers and teacherswifl agree with them. Learning depends amo?rg othEr factors ongood teaching practices, and teacDog should guarantee the publicthat they will use good practices. They cannot be expected to guaran-tee test score results, however, any more than doctors can guaranteepatients will live and prosper or lawyers can guarantee they will wincases As in medicine and lays, there is certathly a direct cprinecilonbetween practices and results in reading, but only the practices can beguaranteed.

e know today that good reading instruction practices are mem-./ pjified by the following.

Learning jo read should involve children in experiences thatthey enjoy and that demonstrate that reading is a way to gain_information, to sautroblems, to encounter ideas, and to beentertained This involves the teacher in identifying real reasonsfor children.to read. Reading is the comprehension and su.bse--quen4usc of ideas,

2 Now the various skills should be taught and whether or not, drilling on them really develops the whole act 9f reading are

unresolved questions, but it is safe to say that the more closelyskill -drill exerckse is associated with a student's personal rea-sons for reading, the more likely such exercks is to levolopreaders This means that the teacherito elects to exercise sub-skills drported to relate to reading should assure that thea,exer-bise involves.c'ontetat which is meaningful to the student.

3 An effective classroom and curriculum organization will pro-- vi& the child with many types °heading opportunities and will

be geared to the needs and interests of individual children asmuch as possible. Thus good practice involvemaking availabremany types of reading material on many topics at a variety ofappropriate readability levels It requires the teacher's learningas much as possible about each child's background, interests,needs, and abilities. This is an ongoing assessment of each ch ildthat should continuously determine classroom activities.

2 2"""`of

21

r)

. :

4 Matenals used fo instyuetton should be at a level of difficulty.

that allows the child 6 read fluently without assistance (his orher instructional rea, ing levelIRO No child should beforced to read matenal that is too diffiult and that frustratesthe 4 hild'i attempt to comprehend. ,

... -.

....

5 Good insttuction relies on diagnosis from a.,vanety of ongowassessments including criterion-referenced tests', informal',teacher-made instruments, and, above all, teacher observation.Such diagnosis is used in individualizedjnstruction to help planleaching that aims at helping each child reach her or hispotential. ....)

6 Good teaching practice yo no assume that the full responsibil-ity for developing literate citizens lies within the classroomwalls Instead, the classroom activities build on school, com- 1munity, and broader events, reaching out to the world to makethe lessons meaningful and to exploit matenajs and media '

,beyond the classrbom.av

, R .The following are examples of poor teaching practices.

I The drilling and testing of vocabulary and reading subskilis iso-lated from a meaningful context

2. Tk. .setting of arbitrary and mandatory goals enforced at grade

levels with no regard for individual differences and measured,with tests which determme if a child succeeds or falls &

3. The use of formal testing,in lieu of daily teacher observation tojudge the success or failure of students with the result of re-pining, discouraging, and eventually pushing out of schools

F 1those who fail the tests

4 The boring and wasteful prdtIce of having children read aloudin turn as their peers sit and attempt to predict the page or para-graph they will have to read

-'

& ,22

. 23

la

5. The use of grade q iva ents as determined by standardizedtests in lieu of instfuction 1 Reading Levels

..

It should be noted that these xamples of good and bad practicesdo not include any theories or ap roaches to teaching reading As has v'

been emphasized here, the appr ches and the resulting methodolo-gies the teacher uses should be d termined largely by, the needs and

-' interests of the individual ch dren he or the teaches

J/ .' P..i , .

Theleather Is Still the Y,

'There are, of course, cont umgco to;:ersies regaiding the teach-

ing of reading But the tea a can ake a differedie, regardless ofthe theoretical position take a issues Most studies have diffi-culty determining whether o method of another inade a difference,but few studies have any di iculty discerning that the teacher doesmake a difference. t.

if the teacher will take OA time to review his or her own beliefs andto develop practices based on-those beliefs, children will learn If so

many + experts can't agree," the teacher may ask, "why do I have towrestle with a definition of reading" A noted psycholingwit, FrankSmith (81), has answered the question eloquently.

Many teachers are trained to be ignorant, to rely on the °pm-\

ions of experts or superiors rather than on tlieir ovniudgmentThe questions I am asked after lEctures to teachers (on the topicof reading) are always eminently practicaILhow should'read-ing be taught, which method is best, and what should be doneabout a real'lzfe eightchild of Cght who has the devasiating misfor-tune to read like a statistically fictitious child of six'' Teaches

-do not ask the right kind of questionInstead of asking whatthey should do, which can never be answered with the generali-ty they exgect, they should ask what they need to know in order

to decide for themselves. It is a monument to the efficiency o(the brainwashing that teachers received during their trainingthat they are practically immune toconsult on the topic of theirown intellectual capacity.,The only time teachers express sur-priseriNksbeltef is when it is sugg'elted that their 4Iiivn ape-

.

'23.

4;

.

'24-t-

v

.7

rience and intaifion might be as good a guide for action as thedogma of some expert. (p: 46) k

The following comment written by a new teacher in a graduatecourse in reading demonstrates the application of Smith's admoru-tion to classroom practice:

N .When I started teaching this summer, I had every intention ofstaying away from the "skills" approach of teaching reading. Idid not believe that everything had to be labeled. I reallythought this would bore the kids. I thought language expo-'nence was the best approach. If the Children could relate towhat they were reading, I felt that naturally they would learn. Itwas my intention to find out their individual interests an3 g"6from there. I wanted their reading experiences to be as naturalas possible. Idealistically, I thought teaching in this mannerwould make me an instant success as a teacher. I asked the kidsto talk about themselves, gave them interest inventories, andbrought in books related to what they each liked. kin, nothing .seemed to be clicking. I had no idea- what I wanted them tolearn. The children seemed totally lost and so was I.

At thisspoint, I began working mainly with skills to give thekids some type of structure. I soon found out that worksheets;were boring and the kids were about as disinterested as I was.At this point I was becoming1isillusioned, having no idea whatI believed or what I was going to do. If I had no idea what Iwanted, how could I teach the kids anything? I really began to .

think.I wrote down what I believed vs. what I did not believe about

reading on a sheet of paper and then began to rationalize thesethoughts. Things were falling into a logical ordep. I began to seereading as a "relationship" between skills, which I felt were.im-portant how, and some language experience concepts. I felt thatit would be possible for a chip to naturally develop ,skilltthrough/language expen'enceNaeavities. The kids would.havesome structure relating to their skillsand, at the _same time,

1

have the fr rn that goes along with language experience. Ar-'ter teaching in this way, I really started to see .my them inaction. I felt the kids were !timing and progressing Tying to-gether language expenence with reading skips seems Co effec-tively implement My theory of reading.

J FOOTNOTES /.

E.g., an English maZber exemphlies language incompetence as spelling errors in theChicago Tribune, February 16, 1962,.p 8.=March 21,1955, . ,-

'June 20, 1955. .E.g. Chruisan Science Monitor, beginning.October 7.1955Vitness Reach's reemergence to revojoetus argument in Family Circle, November 1,1979

..

"But There Is No Peace," Saturday Review, April 21. 1942, p 54 A response tocomment in that periodical January 20,1962.'The internal quotation is cited from "The International Context " In Half Way ThereReport on the British Comprehensive School Reform, edited by Caroline Etennand/tSimon (London. MegravHill, 1970), p ,I I a

'See Wirtz ti al (1977) with particular attention to their 1.avertts about extending impligtions of SAT declines beyond grades 11 and 121p 5), Farr and Tone (1978); andFarr (1979).

.. ,.

1,4"'"

-

1.

26AA«

0

25

'$

BIBLIOGRAPHY- A*: ..I

I Adams, Man lyn, and Bruce, &entrant "Backgro=und Krica ledge andReading Comprehenstbn." In Reader Meets Author /Bridging the Gap.sisA Psychobitgaisra and Soctobnguistu Perspecv tive, edited by J Langerand M Smith-110e Heseark, Del CeInernational Reading Associa-

,Jion, forthcommi2. Adams. M.4.. Anderson, R C., and.Durkin, D. 'Beginning Reading,

Theory aisl Practice? lAnguage Arts 55, no I (1978) 19-25, 3 Athey, Jane. "Reaciang, Researchand the Affective Dornam."In Theo-

retical Models and Processes of Reading. edited by Harry Stnger andRobert B. Rudd.11, pp 352-80. Newark, Del International ReachrtgAssociation; 1976

4, 'Bettor, Arthur E Educational Wastelands Urbana University of Illi-nois Press. 1953.

5 Bettelheim. Bruno "Janet and Mark and the New Illiteracy ." Encoun-ter 43, no. 16 IDecember 1974).

6 Blomenbcrg. Paula. "A Comparative Study of Selected Socioeconomicand Editiational Vanablts Having Probable Influence on the ReadufgAchievement of Sixth and Tenth Grade Students in Indiana in 1944-45and 1976" Doctoral dissertation. School of Education, Indiana Uhl-

.varsity. 1980.

7. Bond. Guwi. , and Dykstra. Robert "The Coopetape ResearchTro-gram inrirst-arade Readmg Instruction." Reading Research Quarter-ly 2 (Summer 1967): 9-142.

8. Burmenter, Lou BCConten1 f a Phohics Program." In Reading Meth-ods and Teacher Improvemen ed by Nita Banton Smith Newark,bti.. International Reading Association, 1971.

9. Callaway, Rolland. "Social Perspectives on Reading. Politics." In So-ctaLPerspectives on Readingithied by James B. Macdonald. pp. 3-14.,Newark. Del . Internationala mg Association, 1973.Canny, George. and Schreiner, Robert. Study of thaffectivenessof Selected Syllabification Rules and Phonogram Patterns (or WordAttack." Reading Research Quarterly 12, no. 2.102-24.

I I Chalf. Jeanne. Learning to Read. The Great Debate. New York.1967.

12 Chomsky, Carol "Stages in Language Developmentand Reading Ex-posure " &Nord Educational Review 42 (February 1972). 1-33.

13 "Reading. Wilting, and Phonology " In Psycholingubtics and(leading, editedoby Frank Smith. pp. 91-104, New York.liolt. Rine-

-. hart an'd Winston. 1971. \.0

er 26. ,

# ' 41

111

a

14. 'After Decoding Whatr Language Arts 53, no. 3 (1976).28g-96, 114

15. Cohen, S. Alan. Teach Them All to Read Theory, Mai hods. and Mai-c-m:1s for Teaching the Disadvantaged, Neyl York. Random House,1969.

.1 16. Cole, John Y , and Gold, Carol S. Reading in America 1978 Washing-ton, D.0 : Library of Congress, 1979.

17. Cook, Wanda Panksza. Adult Literacy Education in the Un ited States,

Newark, Del.. International Reading Association, 1977.18. Copperman, Paul. The Literacy Hoax. New York. Morrow, 1978. .19. Davis, Frederick B. "Psychometnc Research on C&mprehtnsion in

Reading." Reading Research Quarterly 7 (Summer M2). 628-7820. Dechant, Emerald V. Improving the Teaching of Reading. Englewood

Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.21. Doake, David B. "Coinprthenskon and Teaching Strategies- ." In New

Horizons in Reading, edited by John E. Merritt, pp 126-40. Newark,. Del . International ReadirigAssociation, 1976.22. Durkin, Dolores. Children Who Read Early Two Longitudinal Stud-I tes New York: Teachers college Press, 196623. -. Teaching Young Children to.Read Boston Allyn and Bacon,

1972.24 - Six-,Y9r5r tudy of Children Who teamed to Read in

School at the Agettf Four? Reading Resedrch Quarterly 10, no. 1(1974). 9-61f/

25 Dykstra, Robert. "The Effectiveness of Code- and Meaning-EmphasisBeginning Reading Programs" Reading Teacher 22 (October 1968)17-23.

26. Ebel, Robert L. "Decliine Scores. A Conservative Explanation " PhiDelta Kappan 58, no 4 (December 1976) 306-10.

27. Edwards, Thomas J. "Oral Reading in the,Total Reading ' Process"Elementary School Journal 51I (1957): 36-4

28. Fan, Roger, Turn man, Jaap, and,Rowls, Michael Reading Achieve-ment in the United States. Then and Plow. Bloomington Reading Pro-gram Center and Institute for Child Study, Indiana University, August1974.

29. -, Fay, Leo, and Negley, Ha old H Then and Now ReadingAchievement in Indiana (1944-45 and 1976). Bloomington School ofEducation:Incliani University, 1978.

30. and Blomen berg. Paula "Contra-try to Popular Opiruon."` EarlyYears 9, no. 9 (1979): 52-55,68.

31. and Tone, Bruce. "What Does Research Show?" Today's Edu- 4

, cat' n 67, no. 4 (November-December 1978): 33-36.

low

28

27

,

341It_ "Let's Build on the Strengths of Our CeYhprehenswe PublicSchool System A Recommgdation to Educational Policy Makers." InVeeds of Ekrnendry and Secondary Education in the 1980's Washing-

ton, D C Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and VocationalEducation; U S House of Representatives, January 3980.

33 _ and Olshaysky. Jill .",ls Minirtium Competency. Testing theAppropriate Solution to the SAT Decline?" Phi Delta kappan 61 no8 (April 1980), 528-30. , ' el

34 _ and Fay, Leo "Reading Trend Data in the United States A'Mandate for Caveats and Caution " la The Rue and Fall of NationalTest Scores, edited by Gilbert R Austin New York Academic Press,forthcoming.

35 Fisher, Donald I Functional Literacy and the SchoolsWashington,DC US Dspartment of Health, Education, and Welfare and Na-tional Institute of Education, January 1978,

36 Fish, Loud J "Seventy-Five Years Ago and Today Comparison ofExam and Results, 1853-1928 Entrance Examination High School."Education 50 (February 1930) 325-32

3' Flanagan. John C "Changes in School Levels of Achievement ProjectTALENT Ten and Fifteen Years' Retests" Educational Researcher 5

. (September 1976) 9-1238 Flesch. Rudolph Whi Johnn Cad; 1(ead New York. Harper and

Row. 1955 139 _____ "Why Johnny Still Can't Read " Family Circle ertiovesnber

1974, 26,42-43.40 Gadway. Char s and Wilson, H A. Functional Literacy Basic Read-

ing Performan e Denver National Assessment pf Educational Prog-ress. 1975 , , 4 -

41 Gates, Arthur "General Considerations and Principles." In Reading inthe Elementary School, edited by Nelson B..Henry. Forty-eighth Year-book of the National Society for the Study of Education Chicago. Uni-versity of Chicago Press, 1949, '..--

42 Attainment in Elementary Schools 1957 and 1937 New York.Bureau of Publications, Columbia Teachers College, 1961, -

43 Goodman, Kenneth S "The Psyc_holinvistic Nature of the ReadingPxocess" In The Psychohnguistrc Nature of the Reading Process, edit-ed by Kenneth S Gdodman. pp 13-26 Detroit Wayne State Universi-ty Press. 1968 '

44 Goodman, Yetla M "Using Children's Reading Miscues for NewTeaching Strategies " Reading Teacher 23 (February 1970). 455-59,

45 Gray. William S On Their Own In Reading 2d ed Chicago. Scott..

Foresman. 1970 ' i

7- 2820

":ft94'

4I

46. Groff, P. "Fifteen Flaws in Phonics Elementary Elfglish 50 (1973).35-40.

47. Guszak, F. J. Dia:walk Reading_ Instruction in the Elementary -School. New York: Harfieraand Row, 1972. ,

.48. Halliday, M. A. K. Expforatioris in iht. Functions of Language. Lon-don: Edward Arnold, 1973. ^

49. Harluschfeger, Annegret, and.Wiley, David E. Achievement Test ScoreDecline. Do We Need to Worry? Chicago. CEMRElt, Inc., 1975.

50. _and_ "Achicirereent Tett Scores Drop.oSo What?"Edu-cational Researcher 19 (March.1976): 5-12.

51. Henry. George'H. Teaching Reading as Concept Development. Em-phasis on Affective Thinking. Newark, Del,. Iniknational Reading As-sociation, 1974. .

(52. Hodgkinson, Ilirojd. "What's Right with Education.' Phi Delta Kap-pan 4/, no. 3 (Novemb'et.1979): 159-62.

53. Holloway, Ruth Love. "ThsWorldwie Right io Rote In ReadingforAll, pp. 27,33. Proceedligs of the ourth IRA yorld Congress onReading. Newark, Del.. International Readini A.i.waation, 1973.

54. Howard, Eugene R "Positive Side of Test Score Debate Cited." Schooland University Review 9, no. 4 (Fall 1979). 1-2.

55. Hull, M. A Phonics for the Teacher of Reading. Columbus, Ohio' Charles E. Merrill,. 1969.56. Hunter, Carmen St. John, and Hannan, David. Adult Illiteracy in the

US.. Report to the Ford Foundation. New York. McGraw-Hill, 1979.57. Jenkinson, Marion D. "Informatiorl Gaps in Research in Reading

Comprehersion." Iu'Peading. Process and Pedagogy, pp. 179-92,. Nineteenth Yearbook aril= National Reading Conference. Mdwau-likee; The Conference, 197b.

58. Jennings, Frank G. This Is Reading. New York Teachers College, Co-lumbia Vniversity, 19654

59. Kirsch, Irwin, and Gilt hrie, John T "The Concept and Measurement ofFunctional Literacy." Reading Research Quarterly 13 (1977-1978).485-507.

60 Klein, Howard, ed. The Qiert for Competency in Teaching.Reading.Newark, Del.. International Reading Association, 1072.

61. Kozo], Jonathan Prisoners of Silence. Breaking _the Bond; of AdultIlliteracy in the US: New York: Continuum, 1980.

62. LaBerge, David, and Samuels, Sty. 'Toward a Theory of Automaticfrikrimation Processing in Reading." In Theoretical Model's Pro-,CCM' $ of Reading, Wired by Harry Singlet and Robert B Ruddell, pp.544-79.2d ed Newark, eel.. International Reading Association, 1976.

63 Laffey, James L "Selected Language Research and Its Implications forg

29

Teaching Reading to the clisadvaritaged." In Reading Goals for theDisadvantaged. edited by J Allen Figure!. Newark. Del. InternationalReading ASsociation. 1970.

64": Linen, Jaliet J.. Tillman, Chester E., and Cranney, A. Garr. "Trends inCollege Freshman Reading Ability "Journal of Reading 19 (February1976): 367-69, ->

65. Littell.SandraG Kiser -Shackles of the Mind The Effects of Supple-mental Tutoring on the Achievement of Black; Migrant Children."Master's thesis, Indiana University. Bloomington. 1980.

66 Lockridge, Kenneth Literacy in Colorrial New England An Inquiryinto the Social Context of Literacy in the Early Modern West New

. York: Norton, 1974.67 Manning, Maryann Murphy. and Manning, Gary L. Reading Instruc-

tion in the Middle School Washington, D C. National Education As-sociation, 1979

68 McKee, Paul The Teaching of Reading in the Elementary School. Bos-ton. Houghton Mifflin. 1966 :,-

69. Monteith. Mary K :How Well Does the Average American Read?Some Facts. Figures and Opinions." Journal of Reading 23. no 5 (Feb-ruary 1980) 460-64

70 Munday, Leo A. "Changing Test Scores Basic S kills Development in1977 Compared with 1970" Phi Delta Kappan 60. no. 9 (May 1979)670-71:-

71 Murphy, Richard T Adult Functional Reading Study Princeton. N.J .Educitional Testing Service. 1975

72. National Assessment of Educational Progress Reading Summary Da-ta. Report 02-R-00 Denver. NAEP, Education Commission of theStates. July 1974 ,

73. Neville.'Mary H and Pugh. A Ki"Context in Reading and ListeningVariations in Appr'ach to Clow Tasks." Reading Restart h Quarterl12. no. 1 (1976) 134-31.

74 Northcutt. Norvell, et al Adult kunc :tonal Competenci A Summary.Austin University of TA(as,at Austin.. March 1975.

75. Resnick. Daniel P.. and Resnick. Lauren B "Tpe Nature of Literacy. AHistorical Exploration" Harvard Educational Revtev. 47 (August1977).

76 Roget's College Thesaurus in Dictionary Form New York New Amor-ican Library,. 197&

77. Sharon. Arnie! T "What Do Adults Read' Reading Research Quarter-ly 9 (1973-1974) 148-69

77a. Shuman. R Baird Strategies In Teaching Reading Secondary Wash-ington. D.C.. National Education Association. 1978

30

3.7.

N

77b. - Elements of Early 'Reading Instruction athington, D.C.National Education Association, 1979.

. 78. Singer, Harry, and Riddell, Robe I( B., ed t. 77tpCretical Models and

Processes of Reading Newark, Del. Internifionalp.eading Associa-don, 1970..

79. Smith, Nila Banton. American Reading Instruction Newark, DeL In-

tesnational Reading Association, I945.f 80 Smith, E. Brooks, Gooding Kennet and 14eredith, Robert Lan-

guage and Thinking in the Elementary School Nbw York HpIt. Rine-,

.hart and Winston, 1970.81. Smith, Crank. "The Politics of IgnAence ." In The Politics of Ignor-

ance. Point - Counterpoint, p. 45. Newark, Del.. ERICLRCSend Inter-( national Reading Association, 1973.

' Si Understanding Reading. A Psycholinguistie Analysis of.Read-

mg and Fearning to Read New Yprk. Holt, Rinehart and Winston,1971.,

83. - "'Twelve Easy Ways to Make Learning to Read Difficult" InPsychqhnguistics and Roadmg..edited by Frank Smith, pp 183-96New York. Holt, Rinejart and Wiiiston, 103:84. - Comprehension and Learning A Conceptual Framework for

Teachers. New York. Holt, Rinehart tna Winston, 1975.85. - Understanding Reading A Psychohnguistic Analysis of Read-

ing and awning to Read 2d ed New York Holt, Rinehart and Win-ston, 197886. _ Reading. Cambridge. Cambridge Univepity Press. 1978

87. Stewart. William A. "On the Use of Negro Dialect in the Teaching of

Reading." In Teaching Black Children to Read, edited by Joan C Ba-rata and Rbger W. Shuy. Arlington. Va.. Center for Applied Linguis-

tics, 1969.88. Snag, Thomas C., and Caylor. John S "Job-Related R eading Tasks

Teaching Marginally Literate Adults to Read " EitIC ED 161-189.1978.

89. Summers, E. G "Reading Research Literature Identification and Re-trieval." Reading Research Quarterly 4 (1968) I-48

90. Tanner, Daniel. 7SphttinkUp the School System. Are Comprehensive

High Scliodls Doomed?"' Phi Delta Kappan 61-no. 2 (October 1979)

94.'91. The Random House Dictionary. New York Random House, 1978,-92.. Thornlike. Edward L "Reading as Reasoning A Study of Mistakes in

Paragraph Reading?. Journal of Educational Psycholog 8*(June

' 1917): 323-32. at93. Thorndike. Roboh L. "Reading as Reasoning" Reading' Research

t 32

is\31/

r

I

I

+EA : 4 ikw- I

Quarterly 2 (Winter 1973-74): 135-41.94-. Tierney, Robert J., and Lapp, Dia ne, eds. NanonalAtessmens ofEdu-.

canonal Progress in Reading NewakDel .Internaenal Readffig As-. sociation, 1979. 695 Tough. Joan Listening to Children Talking A Guano the Appraisal

of Children's Use of Langitage.london. Ward Lock. 1976 .96 Trace, Arthur, What Ivan Knows That Johnny Doesn't New York.

Raadom House, 1961.97 "What Ivan Knows That Johnny Doesn't "Saturday Everitrig

Post (May 27,1961)* 30.98 ,Tyler. Ralph W. "The U S Vs. the World. A Comparison of Educa-

tional Progress "Phi Delta Kappan 62 no, 5 (January 1981) 307-1099 An Allen, Roach "How a Langilage-Experience Program Works " In

Elementary Reading lnstruPtion, edited by Althea Beery et a1 BostonAllyn and Bacon, 1969.

100 Veatch, Jeanette, indmduatizing Your Reading Programme. New9iork: Putnam's Sods, 1959 1.

101 Wakutt, Charles C ed Tomorrow's nitrates. The State of ReadingInstruction Today. Boston, Little Brown. 1961.

102 Walkn, Carl J Word Attack Skills in Reading Columbus, OhioCharles E Merrill, 1969

101 WebsterYThird New International Dictionary.404 Wirtz_ Willard. et al.0.0n Further Examination Reporiof the Advisory

Panel on the Scholastic Aptitude Test Sc ors Dec line New York Col-lege Entrance Examination 1977.

105. Wolf, Richard M Achteyeme In America. National Report of theUnited States for the International Educational Achievement ProfitNew York. Teachers College, Columbia University. 1977

1,

32

ti