Appendix B: A Review of the Literature On Adolescent Literacy
Title
Adolescents and Literacy:
Reading for the 21st Century
Adolescent Literacy, A Position
Statement
Authors/ Editors
Michael Kamil
Date
2003
1999
Adolescent Literacy Resources:
Linking Research and Practice
David W. Moore, Thomas
W. Bean, Deanna
Birdyshaw, & James A.
Rucik
Julie Meltzer with Nancy
C. Smith and Holly Clark
Adolescent Literacy Fact Sheet
No author listed
2004
Beating the Odds: Teaching
Middle and High School
Students to Read and Write Well
Judith Langer
2000
Gaining Traction, Gaining
Ground
Key Points on Grouping: A
Synthesis of the Research
Guidelines for Teaching Middle
and High School Students to
Read and Write Well: Six
Features of Effective Instruction
Stephanie Robinson, Amy
Stempel, Isis McCree
Betty Shoemaker
2005
Judith Langer, Elizabeth
Close, Janet Angelis, and
Paula Preller
2001
Improving Literacy
Understanding Through
Classroom Conversation
Judith Langer and
Elizabeth Close
No
date
listed
Literacy Coaching: A Synthesis
of the Literature in Literacy
Coaches
Patterns of Reading Practice
Paul Weill and Diane Bova
2006
Terrance D. Paul
1996
Reading for Understanding:
Toward an R & D Program in
Reading Comprehension
Reading Next: a Vision for
Action and Research in Middle
and High School Literacy
Catherine E. Snow
2002
Gina Biancarosa and
Catherine Snow
2004
2/12/2016-Draft
2001
2006
Sponsor (if any)
Alliance for Excellent
Education, Washington D. C.
International Reading
Association
Northeast and Islands
Regional Educational
Laboratory at Brown
University (LAB)
Alliance for Excellent
Education, Washington D. C.
National Research Center on
English Leaning and
Achievement (CELA) at
University at Albany,
The Education Trust
Prepared for Springfield
Public Schools, Oregon
National Research Center on
English Learning and
Achievement (CELA) at
University at Albany, State
University of New York
National Research Center on
English Learning and
Achievement (CELA) at
University at Albany, State
University of New York
Prepared for Springfield
Public Schools, Oregon
Institute for Academic
Excellence
Rand Reading Study Group
for the Office of Education
Research and Improvement
The Alliance for Excellent
Education for the Carnegie
Corporation of New York
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
1
Title
Research to Practice Brief:
Never to Late: Approaches to
Reading Instruction for
Secondary Students with
Disabilities
Supporting Young Adolescents’
Literacy Learning: A Position
Paper jointly adopted by the
International Reading
Association and the National
Middle School Association
What Reading Does for the Mind
2/12/2016-Draft
Authors/ Editors
Ann T. Clapper, Christine
D. Breme and Mera M.
Kachgal
Date
2002
2002
Anne E. Cunningham and
Keith E. Stanovich
1998
Sponsor (if any)
National Center on Secondary
Education and Transition
(NCSET) the College of
Education, University of
Minnesota
International Reading
Association and the National
Middle School Association
For the American Federation
of Teachers in American
Educator
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
2
Appendix C: Key Points Documents
This appendix contains the following Key Points documents:
 Guidelines for Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well: Six Features of











Effective Instruction
Reading Next A Vision For Action And Research In Middle And High School Literacy, A Report To
The Carnegie Corporation Of New York
Key Points from Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools Accelerate Learning for
Struggling Students
The International Reading Association’s Position Statement on Adolescent Literacy
Key Points from Supporting Young Adolescents' Literacy Learning: A Position Paper jointly adopted
by the International Reading Association and National Middle School Association
Key Points From Summary Of Findings Across Grouping Structures
Key Points from Adolescent Literacy Resources: Linking Research and Practice
Key points from Patterns of Reading Practice
Key Points from Achieving State and National Literacy Goals, a Long Uphill Road A Report to
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Key Points from Literacy, Adolescents, and Reading for the 21st Century Alliance for Excellent
Education
Key Points on Motivation
Research On Tutoring
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
3
Key Points From Guidelines For Teaching Middle And High School Students
To Read And Write Well: Six Features Of Effective Instruction
The results of this research are reported in a set of research reports and case studies including, Beating the
Odds: Teaching Middle and High School Students to Read and Write Well. Excellence in English in
Middle and High School: How Teachers’ Professional Lives Support Student Achievement examines the
professional contexts that contribute to teachers’ success.1
1. STUDENTS LEARN SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGE IN MULTIPLE LESSON TYPES.
Effective teachers teach skills in “separated,” “simulated,” and “integrated” contexts. Instead of
primarily depending on one approach to teach an important skill such as using quotation marks,
teachers artfully weave the skill into a variety of lesson types. They might teach it directly at one
point—separated—as a lesson in itself. At other points they find ways to teach it in context—
simulated—perhaps by examining how quotation marks are used in a literary text they are reading.
Teachers find a variety of creative and purposeful ways for students to integrate the skill within the
context of broader activities. Colleagues teaching in typical schools often rely primarily on one lesson
type. They tend to teach primarily out of context (separated) or primarily within the context of larger
activities (simulated or integrated), but they fail to use all three lesson types.
2. TEACHERS INTEGRATE TEST PREPARATION INTO INSTRUCTION.
Effective English teachers integrate test preparation into their instruction, inundating their classrooms
with activities that target the skills, strategies, and knowledge students need in order to be successful
on high-stakes tests. Teachers and administrators in effective programs dissect the test to understand
the knowledge and skills needed to succeed not only on tests, but also in other academic and real-life
situations. Over time, through writing and reading activities and instruction, such test preparation
occurs in a framework of skills identified through reformulation of the curriculum in response to
assessment demands. In contrast, teachers in typical schools confine their test preparation – if any – to
a few weeks before the test. This instruction focuses more on how to take the test rather than on how,
over time, to actually gain and retain the knowledge and skills that underlie what is being tested.
3. TEACHERS MAKE CONNECTIONS ACROSS INSTRUCTION, CURRICULUM AND LIFE.
In effective programs, teachers interweave skills and knowledge across lessons as well as beyond
individual units so that what students learn transcends instructional boundaries and connects to what
they have learned and are learning and doing at other times in English class, in other classes, and in
life. For example, high school students engaged in an interdisciplinary unit on “Motion” study
frostbite and Mt. Everest at the same time that they read Jack London’s “To Build a Fire.” They are
constantly asked to think, discuss, and write about connections concerning the physical, emotional,
and intellectual aspects of motion. They write about the hero’s mental journey as well as his physical
journey. They discuss the relationship between movement and change and relate this relationship to
any work on movement and change they do in physics, math, social studies, or Project Adventure—as
well as in English class. In typical schools, connections within the discipline of language arts, with
other disciplines, or with students’ daily lives are often not made overt.
4. STUDENTS LEARN STRATEGIES FOR WAYS TO DO THE WORK.
Students in effective programs are taught intentional ways of thinking and doing. They learn
approaches to focus and structure their thinking as well as strategies for completing tasks. For
example, middle school students might be asked to reflect on their “completed” research papers and
1
A summary of this work can be found on the Center for English Language The Center on English Learning &
Achievement’s (CELA) web site (http:// cela.albany.edu).
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
4
evaluate how well they have researched and planned them. This reflection helps students see not just
whether they have done the assignment as instructed but whether they have actually done enough.
Did they spend enough time researching, thinking, and reviewing their projects? How might they
better approach their next assignments? In this and other ways, students learn procedural and metacognitive strategies that help them monitor their own progress and anticipate and cope successfully
with new situations and demands. In contrast, typical programs tend to limit their instruction to a
particular topic or skill and do not explicitly teach students how to plan, organize, and reflect on their
work.
5. STUDENTS ARE EXPECTED TO BE CREATIVE THINKERS.
Students in effective programs meet the learning goals of particular lessons and units and are then
encouraged to explore further—to find ways to gain deeper understanding of the topic by using their
new knowledge as a springboard from which to probe ideas and expand beyond them. Even after
meeting targeted achievement goals, students are encouraged to generate their own ideas and expand
their literary understandings and frameworks. They are expected to be generative thinkers – to know
names, definitions, and facts, and then to explore the additional roads that the new knowledge
suggests. In typical schools, teachers tend to move on to a new topic once material is “covered.”
6. CLASSROOMS FOSTER COGNITIVE COLLABORATION.
Effective English teachers know that language learning is a social activity involving the exchange,
discussion and investigation of ideas. In their classes, understandings and capacities grow and deepen
through thoughtful interactions with others, both present and imagined. Students regularly engage in
collaborative and active group learning. Students share ideas with each other, respond to one
another’s thoughts, and respectfully challenge those ideas they feel need to be tested. This contributes
to the intellectual tenor of the class. In typical classrooms, students work in groups cooperatively, but
they are not asked to really think things through together or to intellectually challenge each other.
The English teachers in the effective programs draw from a broad scope of instructional approaches.
They are enthusiastic, knowledgeable, and dedicated, and their students—most of whom live in poorer,
urban neighborhoods— are active and engaged and “minds on” in class. These students are beating the
odds, as evidenced by their school work and their test scores on statewide exams. While the more typical
schools in the study want students to do better, and take action towards that goal, they lack the systematic,
organized, highly informed and participatory features that pervade the more successful schools.
Sometimes one or some of the features described above are in place, but not all. However, when all the
features permeate the educational environment, they add the comprehensiveness that English programs
require to make a difference in helping all students attain the language and literacy skills they need.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
5
Key Points From Reading Next A Vision For Action And Research
In Middle And High School Literacy
A Report To The Carnegie Corporation Of New York
The Alliance for Excellent Education
To help address the problem of struggling adolescent readers, a panel of five nationally known and
respected educational researchers met in spring 2004 with representatives of Carnegie Corporation of
New York and the Alliance for Excellent Education to draw up a set of recommendations for how to meet
the needs of our eight million struggling readers while simultaneously envisioning a way to propel the
field forward. The resulting paper was reviewed and augmented by the Adolescent Literacy Funders
Forum (ALFF) at its 2004 annual meeting. Although this report originally was targeted to the funding
community, it offers information that will also prove invaluable to others, including researchers,
policymakers, and educators.
This report delineates fifteen elements aimed at improving middle and high school literacy achievement
right now. These fifteen elements are:
1. Direct, explicit comprehension instruction, which is instruction in the strategies and processes that
proficient readers use to understand what they read, including summarizing, keeping track of one’s
own understanding, and a host of other practices;
2. Effective instructional principles embedded in content, including language arts teachers using
content-area texts and content-area teachers providing instruction and practice in reading and writing
skills specific to their subject area;
3. Motivation and self-directed learning, which includes building motivation to read and learn and
providing students with the instruction and supports needed for independent learning tasks they will
face after graduation;
4. Text-based collaborative learning, which involves students interacting with one another around a
variety of texts;
5. Strategic tutoring, which provides students with intense individualized reading, writing, and content
instruction as needed;
6. Diverse texts, which are texts at a variety of difficulty levels and on a variety of topics;
7. Intensive writing, including instruction connected to the kinds of writing tasks students will have to
perform well in high school and beyond;
8. A technology component, which includes technology as a tool for and a topic of literacy instruction;
9. Ongoing formative assessment of students, which is informal, often daily assessment of how students
are progressing under current instructional practices;
10. Extended time for literacy, which includes approximately two to four hours of literacy instruction and
practice that takes place in language arts and content-area classes;
11. Professional development that is both long term and ongoing;
12. Ongoing summative assessment of students and programs, which is more formal and provides data
that are reported for accountability and research purposes;
13. Teacher teams, which are interdisciplinary teams that meet regularly to discuss students and align
instruction;
14. Leadership, which can come from principals and teachers who have a solid understanding of how to
teach reading and writing to the full array of students present in schools; and
15. A comprehensive and coordinated literacy program, which is interdisciplinary and interdepartmental
and may even coordinate with out-of-school organizations and the local community.
Since implementation of only one or two of these elements is unlikely to improve the achievement of
many students, this report recommends that practitioners and program designers flexibly try out various
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
6
combinations in search of the most effective overall program. Furthermore, any combination should
include three specific elements: professional development, formative assessment, and summative
assessment. No literacy program targeted at older readers is likely to cause significant improvements
without these elements, because of their importance to ensuring instructional effectiveness and measuring
effects. However, they should not be seen as sufficient in themselves to address the wide range of
problems experienced by older struggling readers; rather, they act as a foundation for instructional
innovations.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
7
Key Points from Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground:
How Some High Schools Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students2
This study examined seven public high schools. Four were “high-impact” – that is, they produced
unusually large growth among students who entered significantly behind. We compared these highimpact schools with three average-impact schools with similar demographics. By looking at both sets of
schools, the Education Trust hoped to find out what the high-impact schools do differently than the
average-impact schools.
Following are the major findings from the study, organized in five “spheres” that the Education Trust
research tells us influence school practice.
Sphere 1: Culture
 Though both sets of schools serve many low-income students who arrive far behind other students,
high-impact high schools are clearly focused on preparing students for life beyond high school—
specifically, college and careers. By contrast, average- impact high schools are more focused on
preparing students for graduation.
 In official policy documents, the clear focus in high-impact schools is on academics. Average-impact
schools focus on rules.
 In high-impact high schools, teachers and administrators express consistent views about achievementrelated school goals. In average-impact schools, there are administrators and teachers with very high
expectations, but much less consistency in the school as a whole.
 In high-impact schools, teachers embrace external standards and assessments; in courses where such
standards and assessments are unavailable, they create them. In average-impact schools, teachers
simply tolerate these things.
Sphere 2: Academic Core
 High-impact schools have consistently higher expectations for all students, regardless of students’
prior academic performance; and principals, teachers, and counselors take responsibility for helping
students succeed.
 In high-impact schools, barriers to high-level course-taking are removed. Students are encouraged to
take on academic challenges. In average-impact schools, there are hurdles to gain access to the most
challenging courses.
 Assessment data is used by high-impact schools for future planning, such as improving curriculum or
making teacher assignments. Average-impact schools tend to use data primarily to measure past
student performance.
Sphere 3: Support
 In both high- and average-impact schools, students who arrive behind get extra instructional time in
English and math. But high- impact schools provide help in a way that keeps students on track with
college-preparatory requirements. Average-impact schools provide the extra help in a way that delays
entry into grade-level courses, making it harder for students to complete college-prep requirements.
 In high-impact schools, administrators and teachers take responsibility for ensuring that struggling
students get the additional help that they need. At high-impact schools, little is left to chance.
Average-impact schools generally offer extra help to students, but make it optional.
2
Robinson, S., Stempel, A., & McCree, I. (2005). Gaining Traction, Gaining Ground: How Some High Schools
Accelerate Learning for Struggling Students. Washington D. C.: The Education Trust
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
8
 High-impact schools have in place early warning systems to identify students who need help before
it’s too late. Average- impact schools are more likely to provide remedial help after students have
faltered.
 Counselors in all schools are involved in scheduling, but counselors in high-impact schools are
considered members of the academic teams and are responsible for actively monitoring student
performance and for arranging help when needed. Counselors in average-impact schools are more
likely to get involved with students through referrals.
 High-impact and average-impact schools both have partnerships with businesses and colleges, but
high-impact schools use those partnerships to aid in student preparation for postsecondary
opportunities, while average-impact schools tend to use their partnerships for dropout and drug-abuse
prevention.
Sphere 4: Teachers
 High-impact schools use more criteria than teacher preference to make teaching assignments, looking
at factors such as past student performance and the teacher’s area of study. Teacher assignments are
made to meet the needs of the students, rather than the desires of the teachers. In average-impact
schools, teaching assignments are more likely to be determined by staff seniority and teacher
preference.
 School-sponsored support for new teachers in high-impact schools is focused on instruction and
curriculum. Average-impact schools provide support for new teachers, but it is more personal and
social in nature.
 Administrators at high-impact high schools adjust class sizes to provide more attention for struggling
students and are not averse to larger student-teacher ratios for students who are able to work more
independently. Class sizes in average-impact schools are relatively uniform.
 Principals at high-impact high schools exert more control over who joins their staff than those at
average-impact schools.
Sphere 5: Time and Other Resources
 High-impact schools are more deliberate about the use of instructional time, arranging available time
to help “catch up” students who arrive behind. • Students who enter ninth grade behind in high-impact
schools spend more time in courses with substantial reading and/or reading instruction than do their
counterparts in average-impact schools.
 Overall, the amount of time that students spend in “academic” classes is about the same in both highand average-impact schools. But in high-impact schools, a larger fraction of that time is spent in
grade-level or “college-prep” courses, while students in average-impact schools spend more time in
“support” or “remedial” courses.
 All of the schools in the study say they protect academic time, but high-impact schools have more
strategies to efficiently use time and are stricter about enforcement.
 For students in both high- and average- impact schools, the senior year has fewer academic challenges
than any other year. The only exceptions to this finding are students in high-impact schools who enter
ninth grade behind and proficient students in average- impact schools. These students spend a slightly
higher percentage of time their senior year in academic courses than they do in their freshman year,
but less than in their sophomore and junior years.
One final note. Just as this report does not describe the characteristics of low-performing schools, it also
does not address the characteristics of high-performing schools – that is, schools at which students from
all demographic groups are testing at proficient or advanced levels; where graduation rates are high for all
students; and all students are challenged by a rigorous curriculum that prepares them for postsecondary
options. Rather, the findings about these high-impact schools point to the necessary – but not nearly
sufficient – steps schools can take toward higher performance.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
9
The International Reading Association’s Position Statement
on Adolescent Literacy
The Commission on Adolescent Literacy of the International Reading Association released a position
statement in l999 that outlined the following principles considered essential for supporting adolescent
literacy growth. These are:
 Adolescents deserve access to a wide variety of reading material that they can and want to read.
 Adolescents deserve instruction that builds both the skill and desire to read increasingly complex
materials.
 Adolescents deserve assessment that shows them their strengths as well as their needs and that guides
their teachers to design instruction that will best help them grow as readers.
 Adolescents deserve expert teachers who will model and provide explicit instruction in reading
comprehension and study strategies across the curriculum.
 Adolescents deserve reading specialists who assist individual students having difficulty learning how
to read. (Moore, D.W., Bean, T. W., Birdyshaw, D. & Rucik, J. A. (1999). Adolescent Literacy, A
position statement. Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.)
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
10
Key Points from
Supporting Young Adolescents' Literacy Learning: A Position Paper
Jointly Adopted By The International Reading Association And
National Middle School Association
Schools serving young adolescents should provide:
1. Continuous reading instruction for all young adolescents. This instruction requires that all middle
school teachers understand reading/learning processes, the complexity and diverse needs of young
adolescents, and know how to help students develop both the competence and desire to read
increasingly complex materials across the curriculum. Reading strategies and skills are central to the
success of the integrated, multidisciplinary middle school curriculum and every teacher must possess
the knowledge and skills to integrate reading instruction across the curriculum.
2. Reading Instruction that is individually appropriate. Young adolescents arrive at middle school
with a wide range of individual, cultural, ethnic, and linguistic differences that have a significant
impact on their reading performance. Providing instruction that is appropriate for each student,
therefore, requires well-prepared classroom teachers who integrate individualized reading instruction
within their content area. This also requires reading specialists who can help their colleagues acquire
skills and techniques for delivering developmentally appropriate reading instruction in their content
areas. Reading specialists are also necessary for providing intervention programs for struggling
readers.
3. Assessment that informs instruction. Assessment plans and measures must show learners their
strengths as well as their needs. The measures should help guide their teachers in designing
instruction that will best help them grow in reading proficiency. Large-scale assessment programs
that focus on comparisons of student groups across districts, states and provinces, and nations are not
sufficient. Adequate assessment measures must be supported by strong informal reading assessments
that take place in classrooms and involve both teachers and students in the process. These plans must
be used to shape and reshape instruction so that it meets the needs of all students.
4. Ample opportunities to read and discuss reading with others. To achieve this end, schools for
young adolescents must have ready access to a wide variety of print and non-print resources that will
foster in students independence, confidence, and a lifelong desire to read. Because middle school
students are a diverse group care must be taken to include material that will appeal to linguistically
and culturally diverse students. Librarians and media specialists are important partners who can
insure access for all adolescents. All school-based professionals must have sufficient knowledge of
reading materials to provide guidance for adolescents in selecting reading materials. Students must
have many opportunities to choose reading materials that are interesting and engaging. School-based
professionals should model reading in various forms, have a love of reading, and possess the skills
needed to help student progress toward mastery in all aspects of reading.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
11
Call to Action:
IRA and NMSA, because of the importance of reading and literacy, urge classroom teachers, schoolbased educators, educational policy makers, family and community members take the following actions to
improve the literacy performance of all middle level students.
Specifically, classroom teachers should:
 Engage in whole school planning to implement components of a successful school- or district-wide
literacy learning plan that is integrative and interdisciplinary.
 Collaborate with administrators, librarians, guidance counselors, intervention specialists and other
school-based educators to improve reading instruction and achievement.
 Interpret assessment data & make information available to teachers & school-based educators.
 Provide opportunities for students to read material they choose and for students to be read to each
school day.
State/District Leaders and Policymakers should:
 Provide needed funding for schools to implement high-quality literacy programs in their school.
 Provide needed funding to insure that all young adolescents are surrounded in their classroom and
school libraries by a plethora of new, interesting, and diverse reading materials.
 Provide funding for staff development of all school personnel so that they understand how to integrate
reading instruction across content areas and school setting.
 Work to enact legislation that will further school and district-wide efforts to improve student reading
achievement.
 Provide mentoring opportunities for new teachers so that they can learn ways of supporting young
adolescent literacy learning.
School-Based Educators should:
 Become knowledgeable about literacy learning.
 Provide professional development opportunities so that all teachers are able to facilitate literacy
learning in all curricular areas.
 Provide modeling and coaching to introduce new instructional strategies for integrating reading
instruction across all subjects.
 Provide opportunities for teachers to read to students during the school day.
 Guide students in selecting books to read and provide for multiple opportunities to respond to texts in
writing.
 Know what to look for in good literacy learning classrooms.
 Coordinate efforts in school and district for improved literacy learning.
 Integrate literacy throughout the curricula recognizing the multidisciplinary nature of reading
instruction.
Teacher educators should:
 Provide both pre-service and in-service teachers with an understanding of the literacy learning process,
a repertoire of strategies for enhancing learning in the content areas, and methods for improving
vocabulary development.
 In partnership with schools, provide professional development opportunities for all teachers to become
expert reading instructors in their content area.
 Model good reading instructional practices in their college and university classrooms.
Families and community members should:
 Be positive role models for reading and writing.
 Provide an abundance of reading materials and exhibit a positive attitude about reading and writing.
 Encourage young adolescents to read.
 Be engaged as partners with the school in the academic lives of adolescents.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
12
Key Points From Summary Of Findings Across Grouping Structures
These findings come from a larger report written by staff at the Midcontinental Regional Educational
Laboratory (McREL) titled Helping At-Risk Students Meet Standards: A Synthesis of Evidence-Based
Classroom Practices. . This synthesis addressed the following research problem: What are effective
instructional strategies that can be used in classrooms to assist low-achieving students? Chapters include
summaries of research on the effectiveness using direct instruction and constructivist approaches in the
classroom, the effectiveness of cognitively oriented instruction, tutoring practices, and grouping
structures. A copy of the report can be obtained from McREL at < http://www.mcrel.org/>.
This research synthesis on Grouping Structures examines two very different approaches to grouping
students — heterogeneous, or mixed-ability grouping, and homogenous, or ability-level grouping. Studies
of both of these grouping interventions report positive impacts on low-achieving students or at-risk
students. All but two studies included in this chapter produced mostly positive to positive results. The two
remaining studies found no influences of groups on student achievement. This indicates that as teachers
work in increasingly diverse classrooms, the application of small groups might be one way to modify
instruction to increase student achievement.
With regard to mixed-ability groupings, results of the high-quality studies were consistent. All of these
studies reported mostly positive to positive results on the effects of grouping on student performance. In
particular, cooperative learning, when rigorously implemented, can provide students with enriched
instruction through peer interaction resulting in improved student achievement. It is important to bear in
mind that the research also indicates the importance of training and professional development on the
successful implementation of this classroom practice (Webb, 1991; Repman, 1993).
Research studies stress the importance of the processes that occur in groups and of the teachers’ role as
critical to student learning in groups. The lack of high-quality research limits our ability to make
confident statements about the efficacy of ability grouping. As a whole, the research on ability grouping
shows that there may be positive outcomes associated with this intervention, although the one highquality study in this subcategory found neither positive nor negative effects on student achievement and
thus does not support the favorable findings reported by the lower quality research studies reviewed.
A Final Word to Practitioners
The studies reviewed in this chapter demonstrate the effectiveness of applying different grouping
structures in classrooms of low-achieving students. These studies, and in particular the high-quality
studies, showed that there are several critical components of successful group learning. When forming
groups across ability levels, such as cooperative learning groups, important factors include the clarity of
the directions given to students, the level of interaction that exists between and among the students, and
the helping behaviors of the students (Webb & Farivar, 1994). Other mediating factors, such as teacher
training in facilitating groups and the length of program implementation, also contribute to the
effectiveness of the intervention.
Grouping by ability level was the second type of grouping structure discussed in this chapter. The one
high-quality study of ability grouping was a secondary analysis of a large-scale dataset, but it did not
include program descriptions that could be of use to practitioners in implementation. The other studies of
ability grouping are not of sufficient rigor to make conclusive recommendations about effectiveness.
Teachers who are considering implementing a particular grouping strategy should consult additional
resources.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
13
Cooperative learning is an instructional approach supported by a large amount of general research and
with specific programs that support its use. One comprehensive source of information is Cooperative
Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (1995), by Slavin, a seminal researcher in this area. The author
shares theoretical information that helps explain why cooperative learning works. In addition, he
translates the research into practical guidelines for the most widely used cooperative learning strategies
with step-by-step instruction for implementation.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
14
Key Points from Adolescent Literacy Resources: Linking Research and Practice
This paper was written by Julie Meltzer with Nancy Cook Smith and Holly Clark for the LAB, a program
of The Education Alliance at Brown University. It is a resource for middle and high school educators
searching for ways to promote literacy. Adolescent Literacy Resources: Linking Research and Practice
bridges the divide between what the research says works and what is happening in most of today’s
content-area classrooms.
The first section of the paper provides an overview of the issues related to ongoing adolescent literacy
support and development, followed by an introduction to the Adolescent Literacy Support Framework.
Each of the next four sections is devoted to one of the Key Components of the Framework. Each section
contains a summary of the research for that Key Component, followed by annotated reviews of resources
that provide insights into the implications of the research and illustrate implementation of research-based
practices.
Overview of the Adolescent Literacy Support Framework
To assist teachers and administrators in developing a cohesive approach to the issue, the Center for
Resource Management (CRM), a partner organization of the LAB at Brown, developed the Adolescent
Literacy Support Framework. Drawing from a number of fields, including cognitive psychology,
linguistics, education, English language arts, second language acquisition, and reading, the author
distilled core concepts into the Adolescent Literacy Support Framework. The Framework provides a
comprehensive overview of what needs to be addressed to effectively support adolescent literacy
development and identifies four Key Components of a successful initiative. By putting into practice all
four Key Components, middle and high schools can meet the literacy needs of a wide variety of learners.
These Key Components are:
A.
B.
C.
D.
Address Student Motivation to Read and Write
Implement Research-Based Literacy Strategies for Teaching and Learning
Integrate Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum
Ensure Support, Sustainability, and Focus Through Organizational Structures and Leadership
Capacity
Below is a quick summary of each Key Component. A more detailed research synthesis introduces each
of the following four sections of this paper.
KEY COMPONENT A: ADDRESS STUDENT MOTIVATION TO READ AND WRITE
According to current research, school and classroom cultures play a strong role in either supporting or
undermining the development of positive literacy identities in adolescents (McCombs & Barton, 1998).
Students who have experienced repeated failure at reading are often unwilling to participate as readers or
writers. On the other hand, students become engaged readers when school and classroom cultures
successfully promote the development of adolescent literacy skills. These cultures are characterized by
connections, interaction, and responsiveness, which lead to student engagement and reflection (Collins,
1996; Davidson & Koppenhaver, 1993; Krogness, 1995; Moore, et al., 2000; Schunk & Zimmerman,
1997; Wilhelm, 1995). Key Component A of the Framework shows how to connect reading and writing
to the social and emotional needs of adolescents.
Best Practices
 Making connections to students’ lives
 Having students interact with each other and with text
 Creating responsive classrooms
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
15
KEY COMPONENT B: IMPLEMENT RESEARCH-BASED LITERACY STRATEGIES
FOR TEACHING AND LEARNING
A growing body of research about the differences in the metacognitive skills of good versus poor readers
is providing a foundation for identifying promising reading comprehension strategies for adolescent
learners (Duke & Pearson, in press). Students “must learn to think about the complexities of the reading
process and then actively apply appropriate strategies” (Allen, 2000). They must, therefore, learn the
literacy strategies, be given time to practice and apply them in a variety of contexts, and subsequently use
them for learning in the content areas. The research suggests a menu of best practices for teaching
adolescent literacy strategies. Component B of the Framework gives concrete examples of what these
instructional practices look like in middle and high school classrooms.
Best Practices
 Teacher modeling, strategy instruction, and uses of multiple forms of assessment
 Emphasis on reading, writing, speaking, listening, and thinking
 Creating a student-centered classroom
KEY COMPONENT C: INTEGRATE READING AND WRITING ACROSS THE CURRICULUM
Research clearly supports the use of a variety of comprehension strategies to enhance learning in the
content areas. However, the literacy demands of different content areas, while sharing some similarities,
vary substantially (Grossman & Stodolsky, 1995). Effective content-based vocabulary instruction,
understanding of text structures, and discourse analysis all play key roles in assisting students to
maximize content-area reading and writing to learn. Component C gives concrete examples of these
practices in different curricular areas.
Best Practices
 Vocabulary development
 Understanding text structures
 Recognizing and analyzing discourse features
 Supporting the English, math, science, or social studies classroom through literacy development
KEY COMPONENT D: ENSURE SUPPORT, SUSTAINABILITY, AND FOCUS
THROUGH ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND LEADERSHIP CAPACITY
Studies indicate that successful initiatives require a school-wide focus. Experience with educational
reform models (e.g., Coalition of Essential Schools, Breaking Ranks, Career Academies) suggests that
implementing and sustaining change in secondary schools requires a host of organizational and leadership
structures specific to the ongoing initiative. Component D describes what these important capacities are
and how they can shape the structure of the school.
Best Practices
 Meets the agreed-upon goals for adolescents in that particular community
 Articulates, communicates, and actualizes a vision of literacy as a priority
 Utilizes best practices in the area of systemic educational reform
 Is defined in a way that connects to the larger educational program
 Involves ongoing support for teacher professional development
 Has a clear process for program review and evaluation
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
16
Key Points from Patterns of Reading Practice
BY TERRANCE D. PAUL
Patterns of Reading Practice, a 1996 booklet by Terrance D. Paul at The Institute for Academic
Excellence, is a study that examined reading performance data on 659,214 students in grades K-12 for the
1994-95 school year, to determine the possible effect of literature-based reading practice on student
performance in schools of various kinds. Using a computer-based testing program to measure student
reading practice, the study compares the amount of practice students receive in small and large schools as
well as in private and public schools. It also observes the trends in reading practice across grades, and
compares amount of practice between high- and low-performing students based on standardized test
results.
The key findings of the report include the following:
 In-school reading practice time declines markedly after grade five. By the time they reach high




school, students on average spend about as much time in literature-based reading practice as
kindergarten students.
When ranked according to the amount of reading they do, students in the top 5 percent read 144 times
more than students in the bottom 5 percent.
Reading practice varies dramatically by the size of the school’s population. Students in schools with
populations of 200 or fewer engage in twice as much reading practice as those in schools with
populations of 1,000 or more.
Students in private schools practice reading 67 percent more than public school students.
Students in the highest-performing states in the NAEP Reading Study engaged in 59 percent more
reading practice than those in states in the bottom quartile.
Based on these findings, the report concludes that the amount of literature-based reading students receive
explains the varying reading performance of individual students, various categories of schools, and
regions. In the context of the Institute’s previous studies, it is argued these findings make a compelling
case for adopting substantial in-school reading practice.
More Points
 In schools where they have adopted reading practice of 60 minutes per day, "normal" standardized test
scores have doubled.
 Scores in other curriculum areas improve in sync with reading scores.
 The 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found that High Performing states
read significantly more than those states that rated average or low performing. In this study they found
that there is a direct, positive correlation between the amount of reading practice and improvements in
standardized math scores. As reading scores rise, so do math scores. Positive effects were found in
other subjects as well.
 Children who read at least 1 million words in a year will add at least 1,000 words to their vocabulary.
Teen romances contain 40,000 to 50,000 words.
 456 company presidents interviewed with vocabulary scores significantly higher than the average
adult mentioned reading as a means of increasing their vocabulary.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
17
Key Points From What Reading Does for the Mind
BY ANNE CUNNINGHAM AND KEITH STANOVICH
In a paper written for the American Federation of Teachers, Cunningham and Stanovich make the case for
increasing the volume of reading of all students.3 They state: “READING HAS cognitive consequences
that extend beyond its immediate task of lifting meaning from a particular passage. Furthermore, these
consequences are reciprocal and exponential in nature. Accumulated over time—spiraling either upward
or downward—they carry profound implications for the development of a wide range of cognitive
capabilities.”
They report the variation in amount of independent reading of fifth graders.
Percentile
Ranking
98
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
2
Minutes per
day
65.0
21.1
14.2
9.6
6.5
4.6
3.2
1.3
0.7
0.1
0.0
Words per year
4,358,000
1,823,000
1,146,000
622,000
432,000
282,000
200,000
106,000
21,000
8,000
0
They go on to summarize the impact of increasing
reading volume.
1. Increasing reading volume increases vocabulary
knowledge. They found that even when performance
is statistically equated for reading comprehension and
general ability, reading volume is still a very
powerful predictor of vocabulary and knowledge
differences. That is, students who read more have
more vocabulary and are therefore able to handle the
comprehension of more complex texts, which then
leads to increased knowledge.
2. Findings demonstrate that reading volume, although clearly a consequence of developed reading
ability, is itself a significant contributor to the development of other aspects of verbal intelligence.
3. All of their studies have demonstrated that reading yields significant dividends for everyone—not just
for the “smart kids” or the more able readers. Even the child with limited reading and comprehension
skills will build vocabulary and cognitive structures through reading.
4. In the domain of verbal abilities—reading a lot can even help to compensate for the normally
deleterious effects of aging!
5. We must ensure that students’ decoding and word recognition abilities are progressing solidly. Those
who read well are likely to read more, thus setting an upward spiral into motion.
6. We should provide all children, regardless of their achievement levels, with as many reading
experiences as possible. Indeed, this becomes doubly imperative for precisely those children whose
verbal abilities are most in need of bolstering, for it is the very act of reading that can build those
capacities.
7. An encouraging message for teachers of low-achieving students is implicit here. We often despair of
changing our students’ abilities, but there is at least one partially malleable habit that will itself
develop abilities—reading!
3
What Reading Does for the Mind from The American Educator: The American Federation of
Teachers, Spring and Summer 1998.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
18
Key Points from
Achieving State and National Literacy Goals, a Long Uphill Road
A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York
Meeting State and National Literacy Goals: A Long Uphill Road
The Rand Corporation uses two different data sources to paint a broad-brush portrait of the condition of
adolescent literacy achievement in the nation. Despite the caveats about the comparability of the two
assessments, the data presented in this report lead to major concerns about the ability of states to meet the
ambitious goal set by NCLB—100-percent proficiency for all students.
First, if we simply take the state assessment scores at face value, which in many states were much higher
than scores on the NAEP, the majority of states are not even close to reaching 100-percent proficiency. In
fact, at the middle school level, 11 states and the District of Columbia had proficiency rates under 50
percent. Further, in no state did even half the students meet the NAEP national literacy standard of
proficiency.
Also, the wide disparity in the achievement of subgroups of students makes reaching the 100-percentproficiency goal even more difficult, particularly for states, districts, and schools with large proportions of
such subgroups. Both the NAEP and state assessments show large achievement gaps between subgroups
of students, disaggregated by race/ethnicity and poverty status. For example:



At the 4th-grade level, the two assessments show, on average, a difference of 27 percentage points
between the proficiency rates of white and African American students; 24–26 percentage points
between white and Hispanic students; and 23–25 percentage points between economically advantaged
and economically disadvantaged students.
These differences hold at the 8th-grade level as well, where we see a difference of 26–28 percentage
points between the proficiency rates of white and African American students; 22–26 percentage
points between white and Hispanic students; and 22–24 percentage points between economically
advantaged and economically disadvantaged students.
At both grade levels, students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities trailed
well behind their peers.
Second, it is clear that while states are operating under a common mandate for proficiency, there are large
differences in the rigor of assessments and in how states define proficiency and set cut-scores, leading to
quite disparate outcomes. Compare, for instance, South Carolina, Wyoming, North Carolina, and Texas.
At the 8th-grade level, 21 percent of students in South Carolina and 39 percent of students in Wyoming
passed the state assessment, compared with 86–88 percent of 8th-graders in North Carolina and Texas.
However, when one looks at the 8th-grade NAEP scores, 24 percent of students in South Carolina and 34
percent of students in Wyoming scored at the proficient level, compared with 26 percent of students in
Texas and 29 percent of students in North Carolina.
Clearly, even if each state were to meet its 100-percent proficiency goal for reading, students in those
states would likely have strikingly different abilities, knowledge, and skills.
Multiple Sources of Data Regarding Literacy Achievement Help Provide a More Complete Picture
Simply looking at proficiency rates on state assessments may not provide the public and parents all the
information they might want about student achievement. For example, when examining individual states,
we see both similarities and marked differences in some states in what the state assessments show about
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
19
the relative performance of subgroups and what the NAEP shows. If state assessments show small
performance gaps between these subgroups of students, while the NAEP (arguably using a more
challenging standard of literacy) shows large performance gaps (for example, as in Massachusetts and
Texas), it is important for state policymakers and parents to reflect on what this information might imply
for the likely future employment and education opportunities for these students. If we fail to give due
attention to multiple sources of information regarding literacy achievement, we may fail to miss important
problem areas and may end up shortchanging those most in need of assistance.
Overall, these are sobering statistics. It is clear that simply mandating standards and assessments is not
going to guarantee success. Unless we, as a nation, are prepared to focus attention and resources on the
issue of adolescent literacy, our schools are likely to continue producing students who lack skills and who
are ill-prepared to deal with the demands of post-secondary education and the workplace. Policymakers,
schools, and teachers need to step up and accept the “orphaned responsibility” of teaching students to read
to learn. The costs of inattention are very high, both in personal and economic terms.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
20
Key Points from
Literacy, Adolescents, and Reading for the 21st Century
Alliance for Excellent Education
The Alliance for Excellent Education is a national policy, advocacy, and research organization created to
help middle and high school students receive an excellent education. The Alliance focuses on America’s
six million most at-risk secondary school students and provides timely information to a wide audience via
our biweekly newsletter and regularly updated Web site, www.all4ed.org. The author of this report,
Michael L. Kamil, is Professor of Education at Stanford University.
This report examines the reliable, empirical research that exists on how to improve the literacy of children
in grades 4–12. In this report, four of the most distinguished of those studies (by Alvermann and Moore;
Snow, Burns, and Griffin; the National Reading Panel; and RAND) are examined, along with materials
from other published and unpublished investigations. Examining information related to teaching and
learning strategies, the prevention of reading difficulties, the components of effective reading instruction,
and reading comprehension, the report considers the importance and impact of factors including
motivation, alphabetic principle, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (including prior knowledge and
strategy instruction) on literacy instruction.
Conclusions
There is a crisis in American middle and high schools: one in four adolescents cannot read well enough to
identify the main idea in a passage or understand informational text. This keeps them from succeeding in
challenging high school coursework and from graduating from high school prepared for the option of
postsecondary education.
But there is a strong body of research-based knowledge that is available about adolescent literacy. This
research demonstrates that we do know enough about adolescent literacy to make positive changes today.
We know a great deal about the literacy needs of adolescents and the teaching practices that are effective
with them.
1. We know that skills such as decoding and fluency lead to better reading comprehension.
2. We know that motivation and engagement are critical elements for adolescents.
3. We know that English-language learners face additional challenges when learning to read and
write well in English.
4. And we know that professional development for teachers has positive effects on student reading
achievement.
Yet the crisis persists. Reading test scores for high school students have not improved in thirty years, and
twelfth-grade students’ achievement scores have declined in the last ten years.
Policymakers should use the strong body of research about adolescent literacy as a foundation for change
in secondary schools.

Methods of maximizing motivation and engagement in adolescents should be a major focus when
designing adolescent literacy programs. One such focus should include the integration of computer
technologies into literacy instruction.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
21

While the focus of much concern in adolescent literacy is on comprehension, at least 10 percent of
adolescents still have difficulties with word analysis and related skills. Therefore, policies should
encourage the careful assessment of reading skills to be certain that individualized instruction is
provided to each student.

English-language learners face additional, unique challenges. Policies that guide instruction need to
reflect the research that examines the transfer from first language to second language and ESL
teaching strategies.

Research shows that a teacher’s professional development can positively affect student achievement,
which is sufficiently suggestive to warrant policies that encourage sustained, imbedded professional
development for teachers in secondary schools.
In today’s knowledge-based society, our students need to be expert readers, writers, and thinkers to
compete and succeed in the global economy. Furthermore, our high fourth-grade and low eleventh-grade
international rankings for reading achievement show that an investment in the education of fourth through
twelfth-grade students is not just important—it is a national imperative.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
22
Key Points on Motivation
From Champs4
To motivate is defined as, “to provide an incentive, to move to action, to drive forward.” Key concepts to
be understood are:
1. When a behavior is engaged in repeatedly, it demonstrates, a level of motivation to engage in that
behavior. If a behavior does not occur, it demonstrates a lack of motivation to engage in that
behavior.
2. Most people are motivated to engage in a particular behavior by a complex mix of intrinsic and
extrinsic factors.5 The line between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is not as distinct as some
people think.
3. Teachers need to enhance both a student’s intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to work.
4. There is a relationship between one’s intrinsic motivation to engage in a task and one’s proficiency at
that task. In the early stages of learning something new or when learning something difficult, some
students (particularly those who have experienced frequent past failure) are not likely to be
intrinsically motivated to engage in the behaviors necessary to learn the skill or knowledge.
Sprick uses the “Expectancy X Value” theory of motivation first used by N. T. Feather in 1982. In this
formula, “expectancy” is defined as “the degree to which an individual expects to be successful at the
task.” “Value” is defined as “the degree to which an individual values the rewards that accompany that
success.” The power of this theory is its recognition that a person’s level of motivation on any given task
is a function of both how much the person wants the rewards that accompany success and how much he
or she expects to be successful.
Sprick suggests that teachers should employ six tasks to increase motivation. They are:
1. Present the tasks/behaviors that you want students to engage in, in a manner that will generate
enthusiasm (and intrinsic motivation) on the part of students.
2. Implement effective instructional practices to keep students interested and academically engaged.
3. Use every opportunity possible to provide each student with non-contingent attention; that is,
attention that is not tied to a consequence.
4. Give students positive feedback in a variety of ways on their progress/success in meeting behavioral
and academic goals.
5. Periodically reward both individual students and the whole class with some kind of celebration that
acknowledges their progress/success in meeting behavioral and academic goals.
6. Plan to interact at least three times more often with each student when he or she is behaving
appropriately than when he or she is misbehaving.
4
From Champs: A Proactive and Positive Approach to Classroom Management written by Randall Sprick and
published by Pacific Northwest Publishing.
5
Sprick defines “Intrinsic motivation” as “pleasant consequences that occur during and/or after the behavior
that are related to the essential nature of that behavior. “Extrinsic motivation” is defined as pleasant
consequences that occur during and/or after the behavior that are not related to the essential nature of that
behavior.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
23
From Super Teaching6
Eric Jensen in his book, Super Teaching, states emphatically that providing students with rewards
(compensations or consequences which are both predictable and have market value) do a number of
disastrous things to the learner including:
1. Rewards impair creativity: Extrinsic motivation inhibits intrinsic motivation. Creativity is strongly
linked to intrinsic motivation, since it gives the brain “freedom of intellectual expression” which fuels
even more thinking and motivation.
2. Rewards perpetuate the underachievers: The less support there is in the learner’s environment for
intrinsic motivation, the more the learner seeks rewards. The use of rewards increases learner stress.
Learner anxiety and stress reduces the ability to solve complex problems and increases low-risk
stereotypical behavior, among others.
3. Rewarded actions disappear: Rewards simply change the behavior in the moment and not the person.
In studies where token reinforcement was removed, students returned to baseline or near-baseline
levels of performance.
Jensen suggests that there are many powerful alternatives to rewards. The brain is naturally motivated to
learn. The secret in schools is to remove de-motivating conditions and to do the little things that spark
intrinsic motivation. The most powerful ones are: a) make school meaningful; b) make school relevant;
and c) make school fun. The following chart lists a number of sources of intrinsic motivation that
teachers can build upon in their classrooms.
1. Give learners control and choice.
3. Engage strong emotions.
5. Engage curiosity.
7. Use the multiple intelligences.
9. Provide acknowledgments.
11. Model the joy of learning.
13. Provide for physical and emotional safety.
15. Use and address multiple learning styles.
17. Manage learner states by changing activities
often, by using strong questions, and by using
multimedia approaches.
2.
4.
6.
8.
10.
12.
14.
16.
Meet the learner’s needs and goals.
Provide group work.
Encourage good nutrition.
Share inspirational stories.
Provide frequent feedback.
Provide hope and success.
Include spontaneous, random celebrations.
Instill positive beliefs that show learners
that they can succeed and can do this
particular task.
From Motivating Students to Read7
In this chapter from the book The Voice of Evidence in Reading Research, Guthrie and Humenick review
the research literature on reading motivation. They use the word motivate in the sense of engagement in
an important task, the cognitive commitment toward reading to learn and to extending one’s aesthetic
experience. They state that there is little literature on motivation for word-level reading processes; that
instead, their focus here was to identify those factors that increase motivation to read, with reading
interpreted as understanding the content of a text.
6
From Super Teaching written by Eric Jensen published in 1995 by the Brain Store.
From “Motivating Students to Read” by John T. Guthrie and Nicole M. Humenick in The Voice of Evidence in Reading
Research edited by Peggy McCardle, Ph.D., M.P.H., & Vinita Chhabra, M.Ed. and published by Paul Brookes Publishing
Company.
7
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
24
The authors identify four classroom practices in reading that improve and expand children’s motivations
for reading. They are:
1. Using content goals for reading instruction: Enabling students to become deeply immersed in and
intrigued by the content of a passage or book is a central practice among teachers who are effective in
motivating students. Emphasizing content learning during reading instruction can be accomplished
with a wide range of approaches including: a) pursuing a conceptual theme for a longer period of
time; b) reading a variety of interesting texts/materials; c) assigning the responsibility to teach others;
d) assigning a purpose for reading beyond passing the test; e) providing effective and immediate
feedback during reading activities that enables students to perceive when they are reading
competently; and f) pursuing a mastery orientation to reading as opposed to a performance
orientation. The mean effect size of content knowledge goals on students’ reading motivation was
found to be 0.72. Furthermore, knowledge goals had an effect size of 0.87 on reading achievement
and comprehension.
2. Providing a range of choices in reading in reading activities: The authors share that a substantial
body of experimental evidence under-girds the power of choice to increase intrinsic motivations for
reading. A range of choices may include which book to read; where to do the reading within the
classroom; how to respond (in writing or drawing); whether to read alone or with a partner; and
especially which genre and authors to follow. The effect size in this meta-analysis on reading
motivation was 0.95 and the effect size on reading achievement and comprehension was 1.20, clearly
showing the providing academically significant choices during teaching is salient for students’
reading development.
3. Affording students interesting texts for reading instruction: When students are reading texts that
they rate as interesting to them, they report that reading such texts is enjoyable and they often
continue to read these texts in their free time. Comprehension of the text increases when children
report that the text is interesting to them. What makes a text interesting? Students are more motivated
to read a text when they possess background knowledge about it. Having a text on a reasonably
familiar topic, with its visual layout having an appropriate number of illustrations, graphics, and
display features, is important to students’ perceptions of how interesting the material is. And central
to the interest value of a text is its relevance to the learner. When students have a purpose for reading
(including the relationship of the text to an activity the student is involved in), and the text matches
that purpose, students are more motivated to read it. The effect size in Guthrie and Humenick’s metaanalysis found that high text interest had a mean effect size of 1.15 indicating that high text interest
increased motivation for reading substantially.
4. Ensuring collaboration for reading in the classroom: Providing the opportunity and expectation
for collaboration during reading and writing activities increases intrinsic motivation. When students’
social motivation and goals for collaboration are high their achievement is relatively high as well.
The process of collaborating is more motivating then pursuing activities individually. Social
collaboration influenced students’ reading motivation by an effect size of 0.52 showing that when
students worked together they were more motivated than when they worked alone. The impact of
these social interactions for reading on achievement and comprehension has an effect size of 0.48,
providing evidence that working together increases students’ comprehension of the text.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
25
From ARCS8
In the late 1970s, Dr. John Keller, professor at Florida State University, began work on motivation in
instruction. He was frustrated that so much of the interest in psychology - especially research and theory
that accounted for learner differences in achievement - was concentrated on differences in learner ability.
To account for performance differences, Keller felt that it was necessary to understand and model the
influence of effort and the contributors to effort. He determined that among the various constructs that
might be applied to the problem of variation in effort, that of motivation was the most appropriate and
useful (Keller, 1983).
Keller proposed four conditions that must be met for a learner to be motivated to learn. Hence, the ARCS
Model of Motivation:
Attention. Increase perceptual arousal with the use of novel, surprising, incongruous and uncertain
events. Increase inquiry arousal by stimulating information seeking behavior; pose or have the learner
generate questions or a problem to solve. Maintain interest by varying the elements of instruction.
Relevance. Emphasize relevance within the instruction to increase motivation. Use concrete language and
examples with which students are familiar. Provide examples and concepts that are related to learners'
previous experiences and values. Present goal-orienting statements and objectives. Explain the utility of
instruction for both present and future uses.
Confidence. Allow students to develop confidence by enabling them to succeed. Present a degree of
challenge that allows for meaningful success under both learning and performance conditions. Show the
student that his or her expended effort directly influences the consequences. Generate positive
expectations. Provide feedback and support internal attributions for success. Help students estimate the
probability of success by presenting performance requirements and evaluation criteria.
Satisfaction. Provide opportunities to use newly acquired knowledge or skill in a real or simulated
setting. Provide feedback and reinforcements that will sustain the desired behavior. Maintain consistent
standards and consequences for task accomplishments. Manage reinforcement: keep outcomes of learner's
efforts consistent with expectations.
8
Keller, J.M., Kelly, E., & Dodge, B. (1978). A practitioners guide to concepts and measures of motivation. Syracuse, New
York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources. (104 pages); Keller, J.M., & Kopp, T.W. (1987). Application of the ARCS
model to motivational design. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional Theories in Action: Lessons Illustrating Selected Theories.
New York: Lawrence Erlbaum, Publishers, 289 – 320; Keller, J. M., & Litchfield, B. (2001). Motivation and performance. In R.
A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.). Trends and Issues in Instructional Design and Technology. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merrill/Prentice Hall.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
26
Key Points from Research On Tutoring 9
Professional Tutoring Findings
Despite the small number of studies in this subcategory, there are several emerging conclusions from this
group that are worth mentioning. McCarthy et al. (1995), for example, reported lasting effects of a firstgrade reading program. These researchers found significant differences between a tutored group of
students and a control group two years after the completion of the program. These results are consistent
with those from a large-scale program synthesis conducted by Wasik and Slavin (1993). However,
McCarthy et al. note that sustained gains were accomplished without the added expense commonly
associated with large-scale efforts. These two observations of lasting effects provide evidence that early
tutoring intervention, whether in the form of large- or small-scale programs, can be effective with at-risk
readers.
As noted earlier, strong theoretical backing was used in the design of the tutoring programs analyzed by
Mantzicopoulos, Morrison, Stone, and Setrakian (1992). Each treatment was a series of methods driven
by differing reading theories, and the authors reported that the purposive aim of the tutoring program gave
the effort needed support. Similarly, Matz (1989) describes stages of intervention influenced by a variety
of common methodologies, and Johnson (1987) describes tutoring sessions influenced by Direct
Instruction. In each of these studies, a strong purposive implementation in the program being studied led
to increased achievement.
One study also tied program success to thorough, specific tutor training and continued program
monitoring. Morris, Tyner, and Perney (2000) describe Early Steps, an early intervention reading program
similar to Reading Recovery (a large-scale methodology) in terms of its careful tutor training and the
formative evaluation of the tutoring sessions throughout program implementation.
Most prevalent in this group of studies is the conclusion that tutoring is characterized by thorough and
frequent diagnostic and prescriptive interchanges between tutor and tutee. McCarthy et al. (1995)
conducted a thorough study of a program adapted from an approach used in Reading Recovery. Four
credentialed tutors were trained by the lead researcher to promote reading fluency and phonological
awareness prior to program implementation. At the heart of the tutoring program, however, were the
weekly meetings throughout the intervention between the researchers and the tutors in which the
pedagogical training continued. In these sessions, the students’ performances were used to guide the
tutors in their approaches to instruction. Matz (1989) described smaller and more frequent diagnoses in
his successful experience in tutoring a young reader by means of a series of informal evaluations that
prompted individualized approaches in his teaching. Whether formal or informal, it is apparent in these
studies, as well as others (in fact, each of the studies listed describes active diagnostic/prescriptive
interaction), that the diagnostic-prescriptive function of the tutor is essential to taking full advantage of
one-on-one instruction. The existence of this complex interaction in tutoring programs encouraged
Johnson (1987) to suggest more careful consideration of the diagnostic-prescriptive process in program
design.
The importance of this interaction, therefore, suggests that trained tutors are best suited for the role. As
McCarthy et al. (1995) note, “instruction was individually shaped by the teacher in the role of the expert
evaluator” (p. 288). This expertise, the authors suggest, was instrumental in producing the strong effects
they reported on a long list of reading and writing measures (effect sizes ranging from 0.50 to 0.79 for
experimental variables). Within this group of studies, the tutors’ expertise was called upon repeatedly to
9
From Barley, Z. et al. (2002). Helping At-Risk Students Meet Standards: A Synthesis of Evidence-based
Classroom Practices. Aurora, Colorado: Midcontinental Regional Educational Laboratory.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
27
evaluate skills and to adapt instruction. The Early Steps program studied by Morris et al. (2000) expected
professional teachers to rely on their understanding of instruction in word families, vowel patterns, and
complex contrasts while tutoring first-grade readers. Mantzicopoulos et al. (1992) described a more
complex program in which the tutors delivered instruction through visual, motor, auditory, body image,
and intermodal means. Specifically, “the visual cluster consists of visual discrimination and recall, visual
sequencing, and visual figure-ground tasks, all considered essential to reading” (p. 578). These authors
imply that tutor expertise is nearly essential to the task of tutoring.
It is clear that the implementers rely upon tutor expertise, but is such expertise necessary? In his study of
professional tutors, Mantzicopoulos et al. (1992) reported significant gains in only one of the five
instructional modes listed above. Although the other studies in this subcategory reveal more positive
results, we cannot conclude that the level of training exhibited by the tutors in the other studies is
necessary for the achievement of the tutees. This issue is explored further in the sections to follow as the
adult volunteer and cross-age student studies are analyzed and results are compared.
VOLUNTEER TUTORING
The Baker et al. (2000) study of SMART, a volunteer tutoring program implemented in Oregon, was one
with a larger number of students studied. Among the results of this work is a set of reported effect sizes
that are comparable to those reported in Elbaum et al. (2000) and Wasik and Slavin (1993). The SMART
volunteer tutors found effect sizes ranging from .32 to .53 on a series of five different reading measures.
Can volunteers be as effective as professional teachers when serving as tutors? The results of the SMART
study, supported by other studies in this set, indicate that positive achievement results from tutoring
programs do not rely on professional tutors.
The group of studies in this section reinforces some programmatic characteristics that were noted in the
previous section. The importance of a purposive treatment is one such example. We consider a strong
“purposive treatment” to be any instructional framework that is used by tutors to guide instruction. We
found no studies that compared purposive treatments to a more casual approach, but there are several
examples of studies in this subcategory in which a well-defined purpose seemed to be central to the
tutoring effort.
Cobb (2001) describes a simple yet clear programmatic aim in experiences that strove to make curricular
connections using puppets and games. The absence of results from this study was attributed to the small
number of subjects, a problem seen throughout the research on tutoring. Richardson, Abrams, Byer, and
DeVaney (2000) report the use of an interest inventory taken by the tutees therefore customizing the
upcoming tutoring sessions as well as providing a guiding purpose for the interactions. The challenge of
providing a clear aim was eased in the successful SMART Program mentioned above (Baker et al.,
2000). The authors describe a successful tutoring program in which the tutoring curriculum was
intentionally independent of the students’ classroom work. By not struggling to directly support the
classroom teachers’ lessons, the tutors were apparently freed to concentrate on a simpler set of guidelines.
As noted under Professional Tutoring, constant supervision and regulation of the tutoring sessions was
again a reoccurring issue in this literature. Knapp and Windsor (1998) report that program supervisors
worked with tutors to adjust the reading level of books on a regular basis. Vadasay, Jenkins, Antil,
Wayne, and O’Connor (1997) and Rimm-Kaufman, Kagan, and Byers (1999) also describe programs with
thorough formative assessment of their tutoring sessions, while Meier and Invernizzi (1999) conclude
their work with a call for “intensive, ongoing training and supervision of tutoring under the guidance of a
knowledgeable reading specialist” (p. 332).
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
28
Additional issues come to light as a result of comparing these studies. The logistical quality of volunteer
tutoring programs is one strong concern. The studies in this section describe logistics of impressive
quality, like a program that provided its tutors with tote bags filled with classroom supplies: dry erase
boards, tablets, pencils, markers, and manipulatives (Cobb, 2001). But poor logistical quality also was
reported. For example, O'Sullivan, Puryear, and Oliver (1994), in their study of a program utilizing
college-aged tutors, explain that the tutors were not made to feel welcome in the host high schools.
The strongest issues, however, seem to center around the volunteer tutors themselves. One important
question is where these tutors are to be found. Ranks of retirees and college students seem to be the most
frequent sources. One of the described programs managed to recruit a number of retirees who were at one
time professional teachers (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 1999), while another used college-age student athletes
who had experienced trouble in school themselves (Juel, 1991). Retirees and college students are not the
only tutors described in these studies however. The programs described several creative approaches to
finding willing and patient volunteers: parents and grandparents (Vadasay et al., 1997), preservice
teachers (Cobb, 1998), and working adults (Baker et al., 2000; Meier & Invernizzi, 1999).
In programs where competent volunteers could be found, trained, and retained, the reported effects were
in several cases as large as those programs employing professional teachers as tutors. Returning again to
the report of the SMART Program (Baker et al., 2000), the authors report a 50 percent annual retention
rate in the program tutors. This retention rate, the authors claim, is one good reason for the success of the
program and the reason that the program is cost-effective. Accepting this claim suggests that finding and
retaining good tutors may be the most important issue faced by volunteer tutoring programs. In any case,
it is clear that providing training that is appropriate for the wide variety of tutors in these studies is a
creative challenge.
Compared to the cost of implementing a tutoring program using professional teachers, the cost of using
volunteer tutors is quite low. This is not to say that the effort is cost free. In an investigation of volunteer
tutoring programs, Wasik (1998) reviews program characteristics, including information about specific
program implementation costs.
STUDENT TUTORING
Five studies fall into this grouping of the use of student tutors. These studies describe programs in which
the students’ tutors were significantly older or otherwise advanced beyond the skill levels of the tutees.
Unlike the peer tutors described in Chapter 6, these tutors are not expected to gain academically from the
tutoring interactions. Although small in number, this group of studies does help to inform the issues
already presented.
Student tutors are certainly a readily available group. Taylor, Hanson, Justice-Swanson, and Watts (1997)
studied a program that drew fourth-grade tutors from within the school to work with second graders.
Their availability was somewhat tempered, however, by the work needed to coordinate schedules between
the two classes. It is not clear what the tutors in this program were expected to gain from the experience,
and it is important to consider the instructional time these older students were missing during their school
day. For this reason, it is likely that programs of this type tend to be scheduled outside the school day, and
this observation may well explain the lack of available school-day research on at-risk tutoring
interventions.
Regardless of the logistics, there does seem to be potential in this type of program. Zukowski (1997)
relates a qualitative account of a fifth-grade tutor’s pairing with a third-grade tutee. Raymond, the tutor,
was pleased to take the lead in his work with Ian, the struggling student. As described, Ian was motivated
through his work with Raymond. The author describes this as a reciprocal effort in a powerful pairing.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
29
Unfortunately, it is not clear from the study just how exceptional such a pairing is. In more general terms,
Harris, Marchand-Martella, and Martella (2000) report a successful program that relied on minimal tutor
training. An analysis of specific pairing within this study may have revealed a fair number of pairings
similar to Raymond and Ian.
In the previous section, we described the importance of appropriate and substantial tutor training with the
volunteers. Here, too, we see this need as it applies to even younger tutors. Taylor et al. (1997) describe
tutor training that includes specific approaches to teaching. When the reader is stuck on a word, for
example, the tutor should not automatically say the word. In an effort to determine the lack of results
seen in their study, Jenkins, Jewell, Leicester, Jenkins, and Troutner (1991) suggest that it may have been
inappropriate instruction that was the cause. Again, we see that there is no strong need for complexity in
the training and resulting instruction, but it does appear that the training needs to be well suited to the
tutor, and that the instruction does need to be purposive. And, although having purpose does appear to be
important, this purpose does not necessarily need to be driven by theory or even curriculum for that
matter. Tomlin (1995) describes a tutoring program that is just as much a program of mentoring. The high
school-age tutors were clearly guided by the program, and the program yielded positive academic results.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ACROSS TUTORING SUBCATEGORIES
A review of the tutoring literature makes it clear that success is achieved through tutoring. Elbaum et al.
(2000) reports meta-analytic effect sizes of 0.5 standard deviations, Wasik (1998) reviews 17 programs
illustrating varying degrees of success, and Fager (1996) lists a number of positive effects of tutoring
programs. The Wasik and Slavin (1993) review of studies examined five large-scale tutoring models of
reading students identified as at-risk for failure in reading skills. The authors report significant academic
effects of tutoring programs using professional tutors and provide evidence that these effects show signs
of permanence.
We have attempted to move beyond these results toward a better understanding of the common
characteristics of successful tutoring programs. Unfortunately, the insufficient sample sizes and research
quality found in the tutoring studies leave some important questions unanswered. For example, we would
like to report whether or not the amount of tutor training correlates with the achievement of their tutees.
But no research comparison between professional and volunteer tutors was available. We would also like
to report whether the duration and frequency of the sessions resulted in significant gains. Again, research
that isolates these variables for comparative purposes was not among the available studies. Further
research is needed in these areas.
In the absence of specific supporting research, however, we are able to compile a list of characteristics
common to the successful tutoring programs described in this chapter. These results are presented as a
guide to tutoring practitioners in the following section.
A FINAL WORD TO PRACTITIONERS
The recent studies on tutoring research in this chapter suggest that tutoring can be an effective approach
in serving at-risk students. The studies presented here are largely studies of early literacy, and it is from
this body of work that we draw the following preliminary conclusions:
 Tutors with virtually every level of education have been used, provided the intervention was preceded
by appropriate tutor training.
 Effective tutoring sessions are characteristically monitored and adapted with appropriate frequency by
program implementers.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
30
 A strong guiding purpose (one that directs tutors in their decision making) seems to integral in an
effective tutoring program.
 The diagnostic and prescriptive interaction is encouraged in effective tutoring practice.
The research also suggests the importance of these programmatic considerations:
 Program logistics such as availability of materials, instructional space, and scheduling may have a
significant effect on program results.
 Finding and retaining quality tutors should be a primary concern.
2/12/2016-Draft
Secondary Literacy Curriculum Leadership Council - Bend-La Pine Schools
31